Discussion:
An interesting article...
(too old to reply)
Henry Alminas
2008-06-26 13:02:22 UTC
Permalink
.... in Der Spiegel (in English):

Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............

At:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html

Best - - Henry
Andrius
2008-06-26 13:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".

Regards,
AB
vello
2008-06-26 16:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 17:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".

VM.
vello
2008-06-26 17:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 17:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
It was on Discovery - the appearance similar and probably general layout
was inspired by the German by Kalashnikov. As he wasn't a professional
he just took what he liked. The devil however is in detail - the
internal mechanics of Kalashnikov is the gem.
What leaves me puzzled - how come so many years later and still nobody
to my knowledge copied the mechanics but for a different layout.

VM.
Andrius
2008-06-26 20:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
That is interesting!
Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
Andrius
2008-06-26 21:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-26 21:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Andrius
2008-06-26 21:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-26 22:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)

Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.

Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.








y
Andrius
2008-06-26 23:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
Post by vello
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
Kalashnikov was only 27 years old. Schmeiser came 27/10/1946. How so
young man could be a head for old professionals like Schmeisser?

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
Andrius
2008-06-27 08:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-27 10:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44  (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Andrius
2008-06-27 11:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com

P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!
vello
2008-06-27 13:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44  (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Andrius
2008-06-27 17:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Radio experiments were conducted by a lot of persons. Marconi, Popov
etc. As licenced radio experimenter can say you that. My friend Tonny
from Martello tower in Howth where Marconi conducted radio
experiments said me.
Could be that Kalashnikov were inspired by drawings with get Soviets.
Could be only, not sure. But they were not together. Actually,
wecanwrite to Kalshnikov and ask him. His still alive.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-27 21:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44  (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Radio experiments were conducted by a lot of persons. Marconi, Popov
etc. As licenced radio experimenter can say you that. My friend Tonny
from  Martello tower in Howth where Marconi conducted radio
experiments said me.
Could be that Kalashnikov were inspired by drawings with get Soviets.
Could be only, not sure. But they were not together. Actually,
wecanwrite to Kalshnikov and ask him. His still alive.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well Scmeisser is dead but by his memories he gives ideas to
Kalashnikov, ideas he had no time no resources to create in metal in
Third Reich. He never said that Kalashnikov just makes his design
ready for production run. Let's say this way: as leader of Soviet
rifle program, Kalashnikov had in hand all designs in the world
available for the moment. His choice was Schmeisser's idea but he puts
that gun on paper by himself (with some help of Schmeisser).
btw, I just catch myself with idea what would put Kalashnikov again in
his place as real creator of that fantastic rifle: strongest point of
AK is in lousy tolerances used in fabrication - it means minimal loss
in accuracy, but high win in reliability (dust and low-grade
maintenance). And that brilliant idea don't sounds too German :-)
And one more conspiracy theory, excluding both Schmeisser and
Kalashnikov: both guys don't think about lousy tolerances, it was just
inability of production line to keep tight tolerances, what makes gun
so good :-)
Andrius
2008-06-27 22:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Radio experiments were conducted by a lot of persons. Marconi, Popov
etc. As licenced radio experimenter can say you that. My friend Tonny
from Martello tower in Howth where Marconi conducted radio
experiments said me.
Could be that Kalashnikov were inspired by drawings with get Soviets.
Could be only, not sure. But they were not together. Actually,
wecanwrite to Kalshnikov and ask him. His still alive.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well Scmeisser is dead but by his memories he gives ideas to
Kalashnikov, ideas he had no time no resources to create in metal in
Third Reich. He never said that Kalashnikov just makes his design
ready for production run. Let's say this way: as leader of Soviet
rifle program, Kalashnikov had in hand all designs in the world
available for the moment.
<deletions>

Look, no idea was he leader or not, but Kalashnikov become to work in
Glavnoe Konstruktorskoe Otdelenie Izmasha only at 1949.

Regards,

http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-28 08:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44  (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Radio experiments were conducted by a lot of persons. Marconi, Popov
etc. As licenced radio experimenter can say you that. My friend Tonny
from  Martello tower in Howth where Marconi conducted radio
experiments said me.
Could be that Kalashnikov were inspired by drawings with get Soviets.
Could be only, not sure. But they were not together. Actually,
wecanwrite to Kalshnikov and ask him. His still alive.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well Scmeisser is dead but by his memories he gives ideas to
Kalashnikov, ideas he had no time no resources to create in metal in
Third Reich. He never said that Kalashnikov just makes his design
ready for production run. Let's say this way: as leader of Soviet
rifle program, Kalashnikov had in hand all designs in the world
available for the moment.
<deletions>
Look, no idea was he leader or not, but Kalashnikov become to work in
Glavnoe Konstruktorskoe Otdelenie Izmasha only at 1949.
Regards,
I know it - so what? Izhmash bureau works for him no matter where his
working table was.
Andrius
2008-06-27 17:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44 (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Kala come back to Izevsk at 1949. http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/mk.html/

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-27 21:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived. That is a
pity.
Pity that it is alie. Schmeisser arrived Izhevsk in 1946 with most of
the team creating StG44  (after working a year un further development
of his weapon for SU in Germany)
Wiki: At the end of June 1945, American troops evacuated Suhl and all
of Thuringia. One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the
area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the
Soviet Union. By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from
existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785
sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of
their research. In October 1945 Schmeisser was forced to work for the
Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.
Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he,
along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated
to the USSR. On October 24, 1946, the German specialists rode a train
to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian
firearms development was located. Schmeisser's work while in the Red
Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known
of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German
specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in
the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon
specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on June 9, 1952
So we have world best gunscmidt full with ideas and he was unable to
fulfill in Germany due collapse of Third Reich. with him are almost
all staff who works with Schmeiser when StG44 was created. And
competition? A boy with single glory in form of carabine what lost
army competition to Simonov's gun. But in Stalin's SU people not SU
citizens are doomed not to create anything - ANYTHING was invented in
Russia - airplane, steam engine, steamship, radio etc. No rifle for
soviet Army created by an german engineer was out of question.
They spent at least three years together in Izhevsk, but Schmeisser
team works for Kalashnikov from October 1945.
y
You put a part from Wikipedia where is written that Schmeisser arrived
to Izevsk at Oct 1946, but added yourself that Schmsisser teaam works
for Kalashnikov from Oct 1954. Why?.
He starts his work for soviets in oct 1945. Kalashnikov was in charge
of soviet assault rifle program.
Soviets kept interest to him in Oct 1945, that is better to say.
Regards,http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
P.S. Vello bring us a new truth: AK-47. Made in Germany!-
I have more news for you. Radio is from Marconi!?! Steam engine from
Watt !?!
but if to be serious AK-47 is logical step further in 10 years work of
Hugo Schmeisser in creating an reliable assault rifle. Kalashnikov had
nothing to show before AK-47. AK-47 is quite similar to STG-44,
creation of Schmeisser. surely Schmeisser had no opportunitues to run
all process like von Braun had. But he gives his ideas and works in
process to make those ideas fit soviet gun making technologies.
Kala come back to Izevsk at 1949.http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/mk.html/
He moves from Moscow to Izhevsk in 1949. But all works in SU in field
of creating a army rifle was in his hands from the end of war. Izhevsk
was (is) the main place where russian small arms are developed so
Kalashnikov spent for sure lot of time in Izhevsk plant. I do belive
Schmeisser's memory, such guys don't want to steal a glory from
someone twice younger.
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-27 07:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)
Andrius
2008-06-27 08:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)
Imenno.

http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
vello
2008-06-27 10:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, Karla, my russian is poor sometimes - what "motylia" is
supposed to mean?
Andrius
2008-06-27 17:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, Karla, my russian is poor sometimes - what "motylia" is
supposed to mean?
Don't pretend idiot, Vello. Motyl is butterfly who lives one day only.

Regards,
Andrius
Dmitry
2008-06-27 20:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, Karla, my russian is poor sometimes - what "motylia" is
supposed to mean?
Don't pretend idiot, Vello. Motyl is butterfly who lives one day only.
Here is another version http://rybakam.ru/?Motylmz
vello
2008-06-27 21:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, Karla, my russian is poor sometimes - what "motylia" is
supposed to mean?
Don't pretend idiot, Vello. Motyl is butterfly who lives one day only.
Regards,
Andrius-
I think there are folks who don't know that fly even in theor own
language :-)
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-28 21:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Well there is some reason all world, no matter civil or military is
flying jets fo last 40-50 years. Hardly it is about being sexy or not.
And speed IS important - not the main factor any more but will enemy
have half an hour more or less to prepare AA systems can make
difference. Also Russia's next strategic bomber, Tu- 160 was indeed a
jet plane.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
There are two clips about top 10 in discovery - one with T-34 on top,
other with Leopard 2. T-34 was very good tank indeed but such
selectings are mostly emotional. Think about possibilities of some
Swedish or Korean design to appear in top even if it would objectively
the best weapon - too boring to sell to the customers. Only "our" and
"enemy" weapons will qualify.
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
about Kalashnikov, do you have data about role of Hugo Schmeisser in
creating AK?
Kalashnikov and Schmeisser did not get in touch in Izevsk.
and Santa Claus is real. Surely russians keep Schmeisser in Izhevsk to
teach them how to make a bavarian beer.
Kalashnikov left Izevsk one moth before Schmeisser arrived.
Inache govoria, Kalash poymal Schmeissera na motylia? :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, Karla, my russian is poor sometimes - what "motylia" is
supposed to mean?
Fishing moth.
Andrius
2008-06-26 20:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Andrius
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.
"Jet era"? In what aspect they lose to jets? Speed - it's not important
anymore. Not sexy?
Russians are known for "good looks later" approach. It's not for
boutique anyway. Local (Discovery Military) "Top ten" ratings of best
weapons of the world by category based on peer reviews of experts in the
area gave rank: "The Best Tank in the World History" to T-34, with some
commenting that the machine is really ugly.
The same was said about Mi-24 attack helicopter, with a nuance that it
is "so ugly, mean and dangerous that fear it causes is paralyzing".
Well, for their pilots it is "My tender and caring beast".
Close sentiments were expressed about Kalashnikov and MiG 15. The only
one which avoided such flattery was BMP-1 included in the "7 Weapons
which Changed the World".
VM.
You can add Katiusha as well. These reactive rockets made a good
surprise for Germans.
(Perhaps for Henry shoul be enough to see Katiusha's action in real to
change his mind. Remember, how France left NATO in 60s (or 50s)?)

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
captain.
2008-06-27 10:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrius
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
These strategic bombers are not bad, aren't Henry? That is good
"risovka".
They must be good indeed if they are able to fly even novadays. Last
big prop planes in jet era.

- they may be outdated, but turbo-props with a high aspect ratio are
actually great patrol planes. they have a very respectable maximum
endurance/range. i'm sure that the russian airforce would expect to lose
them fast in a combat situation however.
J. Anderson
2008-06-26 14:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.

Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.

An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 15:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
It is you who are barking. Russians speak eloquently:
Fuck off!

VM.

Just like they did 70 years ago.
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
J. Anderson
2008-06-26 15:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid
perception of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their
tail in the wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was
Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
Fuck off!
If you say so. It's all only temporary hubris however. We all know that
Russia's only conceivable future is in closer association with the West.
This has been clear ever since the Mongols left. But again and again some
hard-headed fool in the Kremlin starts looking for friends in all the wrong
places.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 17:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid
perception of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their
tail in the wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was
Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
Fuck off!
If you say so. It's all only temporary hubris however. We all know that
Russia's only conceivable future is in closer association with the West.
This has been clear ever since the Mongols left. But again and again some
hard-headed fool in the Kremlin starts looking for friends in all the wrong
places.
If West sends 6th fleet to bath in Mediterranean so may Russians. If the
West nuclear bombers are present every minute right off Russian coasts
so will Russians do. Russians are not initiating anything, just reacting
in very well measured manner.

Russians do not have friends, they have interests. Last time Russians
were friends to the West during 90-ties they couldn't found later their
wallet, some jewelry, electronics and grandma's antic coffee table.

VM.
vello
2008-06-26 17:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid
perception of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their
tail in the wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was
Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
Fuck off!
If you say so. It's all only temporary hubris however. We all know that
Russia's only conceivable future is in closer association with the West.
This has been clear ever since the Mongols left. But again and again some
hard-headed fool in the Kremlin starts looking for friends in all the wrong
places.
If West sends 6th fleet to bath in Mediterranean so may Russians. If the
West nuclear bombers are present every minute right off Russian coasts
so will Russians do. Russians are not initiating anything, just reacting
in very well measured manner.
Russians do not have friends, they have interests. Last time Russians
were friends to the West  during 90-ties they couldn't found later their
wallet, some jewelry, electronics and grandma's antic coffee table.
VM.-
Vladimir, Russia is a country, not Eastern hemisphere. So Russia is
free to act in accordance of some Western nation but by no means with
the "West". Surely they may try it again, but results would be even
more miserable coz for now "West" is a big part bigger and there is no
"East" any more, just Russia himself. By me, there is a point for
russia to be the part of West for future - in West there really are
nations friendly to each other, in East there have been just masters
ans vassals. You are free to bit who will wear the trousers in China-
russia marriage.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 18:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid
perception of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their
tail in the wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was
Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
Fuck off!
If you say so. It's all only temporary hubris however. We all know that
Russia's only conceivable future is in closer association with the West.
This has been clear ever since the Mongols left. But again and again some
hard-headed fool in the Kremlin starts looking for friends in all the wrong
places.
If West sends 6th fleet to bath in Mediterranean so may Russians. If the
West nuclear bombers are present every minute right off Russian coasts
so will Russians do. Russians are not initiating anything, just reacting
in very well measured manner.
Russians do not have friends, they have interests. Last time Russians
were friends to the West during 90-ties they couldn't found later their
wallet, some jewelry, electronics and grandma's antic coffee table.
VM.-
Vladimir, Russia is a country, not Eastern hemisphere. So Russia is
free to act in accordance of some Western nation but by no means with
the "West". Surely they may try it again, but results would be even
more miserable coz for now "West" is a big part bigger and there is no
"East" any more, just Russia himself. By me, there is a point for
russia to be the part of West for future - in West there really are
nations friendly to each other, in East there have been just masters
ans vassals. You are free to bit who will wear the trousers in China-
russia marriage.
Russia is not a country or hemisphere - it is a Universe.

Rumors about Russia-China too intimate relationship is spread by
tabloids (Daily Mail?) and is not true. Besides China is already married
to the US. You don't want Russia to break the God blessed Union. Besides
the Wife Mrs. China USA has all the savings money while the US - in case
of divorce - would go broke and down: drugs, alcohol, some easy going
senoritas , sleeping under the bridges in Gotham city. No, divorce is
out of question.

Substituting "West" for the US was not my idea - all the credit goes
to Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
curiosity about the US coast line:
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."

VM.
vello
2008-06-26 19:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid
perception of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their
tail in the wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was
Berlin.
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West.
Fuck off!
If you say so. It's all only temporary hubris however. We all know that
Russia's only conceivable future is in closer association with the West.
This has been clear ever since the Mongols left. But again and again some
hard-headed fool in the Kremlin starts looking for friends in all the wrong
places.
If West sends 6th fleet to bath in Mediterranean so may Russians. If the
West nuclear bombers are present every minute right off Russian coasts
so will Russians do. Russians are not initiating anything, just reacting
in very well measured manner.
Russians do not have friends, they have interests. Last time Russians
were friends to the West  during 90-ties they couldn't found later their
wallet, some jewelry, electronics and grandma's antic coffee table.
VM.-
Vladimir, Russia is a country, not Eastern hemisphere. So Russia is
free to act in accordance of some Western nation but by no means with
the "West". Surely they may try it again, but results would be even
more miserable coz for now "West" is a big part bigger and there is no
"East" any more, just Russia himself. By me, there is a point for
russia to be the part of West for future - in West there really are
nations friendly to each other, in East there have been just masters
ans vassals. You are free to bit who will wear the trousers in China-
russia marriage.
Russia is not a country or hemisphere - it is a Universe.
Rumors about Russia-China too intimate relationship is spread by
tabloids (Daily Mail?) and is not true. Besides China is already married
to the US. You don't want Russia to break the God blessed Union. Besides
the Wife Mrs. China USA has all the savings money while the US - in case
of divorce - would go broke and down: drugs, alcohol, some easy going
senoritas , sleeping under the bridges in Gotham city. No, divorce is
out of question.
Substituting  "West"  for the US was not my idea - all the credit goes
to Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
VM.-
If available, watch russian TV. Credits are there, not in john's
pocket.
J. Anderson
2008-06-26 19:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 20:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Peculiar? I missed something again? I thought it was your comment to
"Russkies sent a couple of rusty bombers to have a look at Hawaii
paradise".

VM.
J. Anderson
2008-06-26 22:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Peculiar? I missed something again? I thought it was your comment to
"Russkies sent a couple of rusty bombers to have a look at Hawaii
paradise".
Well, it wasn't. I've been watching soccer all evening. Spain beat Russia 3
to 0.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-27 00:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Peculiar? I missed something again? I thought it was your comment to
"Russkies sent a couple of rusty bombers to have a look at Hawaii
paradise".
Well, it wasn't. I've been watching soccer all evening. Spain beat Russia 3
to 0.
Celebrate, traitor.

Russia will rise from ashes!

Well, - in a few years.

VM.
J. Anderson
2008-06-27 06:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Peculiar? I missed something again? I thought it was your comment to
"Russkies sent a couple of rusty bombers to have a look at Hawaii
paradise".
Well, it wasn't. I've been watching soccer all evening. Spain beat Russia
3 to 0.
Celebrate, traitor.
Russia will rise from ashes!
Well, - in a few years.
No, actually it already has. Russia (together with Turkey) was the big
surprise of the European championship tournament. Dutch coach Hiddink has
created a great team for Russia (like he did a few years ago for South
Korea), a team that even beat Holland to get to the semifinals. But Germany
and Spain are in their own class and will meet in the final on Sunday.
vello
2008-06-27 10:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Mr. Anderson who wrote about Russian bombers expressing reciprocal
"Meanwhile, they are barking at the West."
A peculiar interpretation. I didn't have Russian 'bombers' in mind but
verbal barking. Which has been going on ever since the 'remarkable
statesman' Putin resorted to good old military viagra again.
Peculiar? I missed something again? I thought it was your comment to
"Russkies sent a couple of rusty bombers to have a look at Hawaii
paradise".
Well, it wasn't. I've been watching soccer all evening. Spain beat Russia 3
to 0.
Celebrate, traitor.
Russia will rise from ashes!
Well, - in a few years.
VM.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well Vladimir, it was not bad. After initial 1:4 from Spain hardly
someone thinks Russia will go so far.
Eugene Holman
2008-06-26 16:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.

Regards,
Eugene Holman
vello
2008-06-26 18:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Do achieving some target will justice use of any methods? Hitler's KDF
was also successful in fighting of darker face of dicensian economy. I
don't think there is any developed country thinking that totalitarism
is a way to go for mankind. But less educated ones may step in the
same trap germans did 70 years ago.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled  economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.
Maybe. what worries me is Putin's wish to make from ww2 some kind of
religion. It would be much better if figures like Pushkin or
Dostoyevsky would be source of national pride - better for Russia
himself at first. Till making better tanks seems more important then
making better cars, society remains a bit scizophrenic.
Post by Eugene Holman
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 18:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Eugene Holman
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Do achieving some target will justice use of any methods? Hitler's KDF
was also successful in fighting of darker face of dicensian economy. I
don't think there is any developed country thinking that totalitarism
is a way to go for mankind. But less educated ones may step in the
same trap germans did 70 years ago.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.
Maybe. what worries me is Putin's wish to make from ww2 some kind of
religion.
It is. And Putin has very little to do with it. 27 mln dead do.
Post by vello
It would be much better if figures like Pushkin or
Dostoyevsky would be source of national pride
They are.
Post by vello
- better for Russia
himself at first. Till making better tanks seems more important then
making better cars, society remains a bit scizophrenic.
As of today it is all about better cars from Pskov to Vladivostok and
where to get money. Tanks are estimated mostly by amount of steel which
could be ripped off to sell for recycling. IIRC for all Putin years
Russian militaries bought 4 new attack helicopters. Enough to scare
Baltics though.

VM.
Post by vello
Post by Eugene Holman
Regards,
Eugene Holman
vello
2008-06-26 19:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by vello
Post by Eugene Holman
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Do achieving some target will justice use of any methods? Hitler's KDF
was also successful in fighting of darker face of dicensian economy. I
don't think there is any developed country thinking that totalitarism
is a way to go for mankind. But less educated ones may step in the
same trap germans did 70 years ago.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled  economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.
Maybe. what worries me is Putin's wish to make from ww2 some kind of
religion.
It is. And Putin has very little to do with it. 27 mln dead do.
Post by vello
It would be much better if figures like Pushkin or
Dostoyevsky would be source of national pride
They are.
Post by vello
- better for Russia
himself at first. Till making better tanks seems more important then
making better cars, society remains a bit scizophrenic.
As of today it is all about better cars from Pskov to Vladivostok and
where to get money. Tanks are estimated mostly by amount of steel which
could be ripped off to sell for recycling. IIRC for all Putin years
Russian militaries bought 4 new attack helicopters. Enough to scare
Baltics though.
And if you look for best tanks Made in USA, you must look in Saudi
Arabia. US military don't afford them.
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-27 07:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Eugene Holman
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Do achieving some target will justice use of any methods? Hitler's KDF
was also successful in fighting of darker face of dicensian economy. I
don't think there is any developed country thinking that totalitarism
is a way to go for mankind. But less educated ones may step in the
same trap germans did 70 years ago.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled  economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.

Second, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
rule:

He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
The economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
When Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Russian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
Russia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
Post by vello
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.
Maybe. what worries me is Putin's wish to make from ww2 some kind of
religion. It would be much better if figures like Pushkin or
Dostoyevsky would be source of national pride - better for Russia
himself at first. Till making better tanks seems more important then
making better cars, society remains a bit scizophrenic.
captain.
2008-06-27 09:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.

so you *could* say that putin was the roughage in russia's colon.
vello
2008-06-27 10:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by vello
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.
We read different sources probably. By data available to me Putin was
"elected" by Boris Yelcin, Medvedev by Putin. do you have different
data?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Second, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
Colonial war, you want to say?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
The economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
You talk about fuel prices - there is little to do with person who
keeps russian presidency.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
When Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Was it this way? Exept chechens there was no show of independence any
more.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
What russians actually wii get from that?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
You are extremely naive, Karla, if you think one man can do something
serious with economy. economy is like living creature he walks by his
own laws. Of course, one can kill it like commies did in 1917 but you
can't force it.
Eugene Holman
2008-06-27 11:11:14 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by vello
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.
We read different sources probably. By data available to me Putin was
"elected" by Boris Yelcin, Medvedev by Putin. do you have different
data?
Different countries do it in different ways. In the US the primary system
does the initial selecting, the parties approve the victor in the
primaries by nominating him/her for the presidency, and then on election
day the electorate votes for electors, who are supposed to vote for the
candidate approved by the electorate, but are bot bound to do so. The
Russians use a different system, Estonia uses a yet a different system.
The disadvantage of the American system is that it costs hundreds of
millions of dollars, takes more than a year, and, as we saw in 2000, does
not always reflect the views of the majority of the electorate. The
Russian system thusfar has involved a selection by an incumbant president
and then approval of the choice by an election. The disadvantage of the
Russian system is that it has not allowed a strong system of competing
parties to develop, but rather is aimed towards maintaining the status
quo. This is good if the candidate is competent, but can saddle Russia
with incmpetents or gangsters if he isn't, something we know all too well.

But I doubt that any political scientist would call the Russian system
dictatorial or the Russian president a dictator. That title goes to people
like Mugabe and Lykashenko.
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Second, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
Colonial war, you want to say?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
The economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
You talk about fuel prices - there is little to do with person who
keeps russian presidency.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
When Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Was it this way? Exept chechens there was no show of independence any
more.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
What russians actually wii get from that?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
You are extremely naive, Karla, if you think one man can do something
serious with economy. economy is like living creature he walks by his
own laws. Of course, one can kill it like commies did in 1917 but you
can't force it.
The economy works by its own rules, but the head of state can certainly
influence it. Russia, which consulted with Norway concerning management of
its oil wealth, has made wise decsions that are visible in the strength of
the ruble, the recent prosperity of its urban centers, and the consequent
growth of a middle class that has a stake in managing and improving the
system using what is hoped will evolve into a normal political process
with checks, balances, and compromises between the different interest
groups in Russian society.

Nigeria and Venezuela, theoretically oil-rich countries able to have made
equally wise political decisions, have not done so. There the benefits of
high oil prices have been sucked off by foreign companies, corrupt local
élites, or social experiments. Their currencies are weak, and there has
been little of the kind of social change in those countries of the type
that can take place if unexpected money is invested wisely. Thus, I
disagree with you robustly that wise leadership lacks the ability to do
anything serious with the economy. Russia had oil and an oil industry
between 1991 and 1999, and oil empires were built that made Yeltsin's
inner circle, Khorordovsky, and a few oligarchs obscenely rich, with much
of those benefits flowing out of Russia as soon and in any way possible,
and being invested abroad because nobody trusted the political system or
the ruble, which did indeed collapse. After the collapse, quite different
policies were followed, the money is staying within Russia or being
invested more wisely abroad, and the ruble has become a serious currency.
I was in Washington D.C. last week and saw that Lukoil is running gas
stations there. Rubles are bought and sold in banks there just like Euros,
pounds, and yen. It is quite an amazing transformation.

Regards,
Eugene Holman
vello
2008-06-27 13:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
In article
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by vello
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.
We read different sources probably. By data available to me Putin was
"elected" by Boris Yelcin, Medvedev by Putin. do you have different
data?
Different countries do it in different ways. In the US the primary system
does the initial selecting, the parties approve the victor in the
primaries by nominating him/her for the presidency, and then on election
day the electorate votes for electors, who are supposed to vote for the
candidate approved by the electorate, but are bot bound to do so. The
Russians use a different system, Estonia uses a yet a different system.
Yes, and also somali have their national way to select leaders :-)
Post by Eugene Holman
The disadvantage of the American system is that it costs hundreds of
millions of dollars, takes more than a year, and, as we saw in 2000, does
not always reflect the views of the majority of the electorate. The
Russian system thusfar has involved a selection by an incumbant president
and then approval of the choice by an election. The disadvantage of the
Russian system is that it has not allowed a strong system of competing
parties to develop, but rather is aimed towards maintaining the status
quo. This is good if the candidate is competent, but can saddle Russia
with incmpetents or gangsters if he isn't, something we know all too well.
But I doubt that any political scientist would call the Russian system
dictatorial or the Russian president a dictator. That title goes to people
like Mugabe and Lykashenko.
There are no "russian" or "estonian" way: basically there are just
three options: to born as a son of a king (in monarchies), to try to
make people select you (if power is in hands of people), to make old
dictator to select you (if power is in hand of dictator). "Dictator"
is just definition, in real life it may be called pater patriae, negus
nagasta, general secretary, president or whatsoever.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Second, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
Colonial war, you want to say?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
The economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
You talk about fuel prices - there is little to do with person who
keeps russian presidency.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
When Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Was it this way? Exept chechens there was no show of independence any
more.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
What russians actually wii get from that?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
You are extremely naive, Karla, if you think one man can do something
serious with economy. economy is like living creature he walks by his
own laws. Of course, one can kill it like commies did in 1917 but you
can't force it.
The economy works by its own rules, but the head of state can certainly
influence it. Russia, which consulted with Norway concerning management of
its oil wealth, has made wise decsions that are visible in the strength of
the ruble, the recent prosperity of its urban centers, and the consequent
growth of a middle class that has a stake in managing and improving the
system using what is hoped will evolve into a normal political process
with checks, balances, and compromises between the different interest
groups in Russian society.
Nigeria and Venezuela, theoretically oil-rich countries able to have made
equally wise political decisions, have not done so. There the benefits of
high oil prices have been sucked off by foreign companies, corrupt local
élites, or social experiments. Their currencies are weak, and there has
been little of the kind of social change in those countries of the type
that can take place if unexpected money is invested wisely. Thus, I
disagree with you robustly that wise leadership lacks the ability to do
anything serious with the economy. Russia had oil and an oil industry
between 1991 and 1999, and oil empires were built that made Yeltsin's
inner circle, Khorordovsky, and a few oligarchs obscenely rich, with much
of those benefits flowing out of Russia as soon and in any way possible,
and being invested abroad because nobody trusted the political system or
the ruble, which did indeed collapse. After the collapse, quite different
policies were followed, the money is staying within Russia or being
invested more wisely abroad, and the ruble has become a serious currency.
I was in Washington D.C. last week and saw that Lukoil is running gas
stations there. Rubles are bought and sold in banks there just like Euros,
pounds, and yen. It is quite an amazing transformation.
Regards,
Eugene Holman-
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 19:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
the sum of all realities. Hopefully the dynamics is positive.

VM.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
For all of its faults, China has done an amazing job of lifting people out
of poverty and into the middle class during the past generation. America,
on the other hand, seems to be fading, nor does it serve as an
international role model as it once did. Many countries, not only Russia,
are comparing the trajectories of the two countries and drawing their own
conclusions.
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
There are some significant differences. Russia's recent and undeniable
prosperity has been largely gained at the expense of the West. Russia has
to bark to show that it is "back", but it will be its own first victim if
it actually bites, and it knows this. As I wrote here more than fifteen
years ago, the easiest way to keep Russia peaceful and on the trajectory
to becoming a responsible and "normal" country is to entangle it and its
economy in so many international agreements that its peace and prosperity
are functions of its relationships with its neighbors and trading
partners. Some work still remains to be done, but that is what has
happened, particularly during the Putin presidency, and President Medvedev
has demonstrated that he understands what is at stake. Putin was not a
nice guy and he made some notable mistakes, particularly during the first
years of his presidency. Even if the Russian media is not completely free
in the Westrn sense, Putin's more than 70% approval rating when he left
office and his legacy of a strong economy, serious ruble, and gestures of
muscle flexing stand in stark contrast to President Bush's 29% approval
rating, stalled economy, weakening dollar, and outrageous foreign
military adventures.
Post by J. Anderson
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Those turboprop bombers are 1950s vintage, they should be in a museum. As
long as Russia does not follow the example set by you-know-who and go off
invading and regime changing countries half way around the world, there is
nothing really wrong with a little flexing of muscles and reminding people
who the biggest boy on the block is or what kinds of antiquated "toys" it
has. Within the next two decades Russia will be facing serious problems,
the largest one being defending all that territory and all those resources
with a decreasing population, mostly imported technology, and a society
that is still not used to the ideas of democracy (often called
*dermokratiya* 'shitocracy' in Russian) or the rule of law. Demonstrating
that it is as serious about defense as it is currently able to be is not a
bad thing.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
vello
2008-06-26 21:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
the sum of all realities. Hopefully the dynamics is positive.
VM.
Let's hope. But reality is this way: two big guys with big bomb =
peace. Thousand small boys with guns and grenades = endless trouble.
captain.
2008-06-27 09:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
the sum of all realities. Hopefully the dynamics is positive.
VM.
Let's hope. But reality is this way: two big guys with big bomb =
peace. Thousand small boys with guns and grenades = endless trouble.

- until the next hitler comes along. then we'll see some real fireworks.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-27 22:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
the sum of all realities. Hopefully the dynamics is positive.
VM.
Let's hope. But reality is this way: two big guys with big bomb =
peace. Thousand small boys with guns and grenades = endless trouble.
- until the next hitler comes along. then we'll see some real fireworks.
There will be no more hitlers. Even Mugabe today has difficulty to stay
in the saddle.

VM.
Eugene Holman
2008-06-28 05:13:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <TMGdnTcmEdYU-***@giganews.com>, Vladimir
Makarenko <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<deletions>
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
There will be no more hitlers. Even Mugabe today has difficulty to stay
in the saddle.
Difficulty, yes, but remember what happened to Hitler on July 20, 1944. As
of the end of yesterday, at least, Mugabe was still in power, with no July
20, 1944 plot against him from his inner circle as far as we know. Mugabe
runs a pretty tame show compared to Hitler. All he wants to do is stay in
power, reward his cronies, and punish his real or perceived enemies. The
primary trouble that he is causing his neighbors is producing a stream of
refugees, increasingly fouling his nest of local political and economic
stability, and reducing once promising trading opportunities. For all the
harm this means for Rhodesians and their neighbors, it is still kiddy
stuff compared to the agenda and accomplishments of the Grand Exterminator
and would-be Landlord of Europe, Adolf Hitler, between 1933 and 1945.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

"Give me ten years time and you will not recognize Germany!"
- Adolf Hitler's campaign slogan, 1933
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-28 05:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
<deletions>
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
There will be no more hitlers. Even Mugabe today has difficulty to stay
in the saddle.
Difficulty, yes, but remember what happened to Hitler on July 20, 1944. As
of the end of yesterday, at least, Mugabe was still in power, with no July
20, 1944 plot against him from his inner circle as far as we know. Mugabe
runs a pretty tame show compared to Hitler. All he wants to do is stay in
power, reward his cronies, and punish his real or perceived enemies. The
primary trouble that he is causing his neighbors is producing a stream of
refugees, increasingly fouling his nest of local political and economic
stability, and reducing once promising trading opportunities. For all the
harm this means for Rhodesians and their neighbors, it is still kiddy
stuff compared to the agenda and accomplishments of the Grand Exterminator
and would-be Landlord of Europe, Adolf Hitler, between 1933 and 1945.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
"Give me ten years time and you will not recognize Germany!"
- Adolf Hitler's campaign slogan, 1933
Amusing insight into Mugabe chances to stay in power I heard recently on
NPR in interview with some South Africa expert: the real force which can
push Mugabe from power is South Africa trade unions which has power
mostly not publicized in the West. They control all trade of Zimbabwe
and if they decide to shut it down Mugabe is doomed. They just
demonstrated their power refusing to accept that ship carrying weapons
cargo for Mugabe. I was surprised to learn it was not South Africa
government that prohibit the ship from SA ports.

VM.
J. Anderson
2008-06-28 08:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
"Give me ten years time and you will not recognize Germany!"
- Adolf Hitler's campaign slogan, 1933
Not ten years but four. What Hitler actually shouted in 1933 was 'Gib uns
vier Jahre Zeit, dann richte und urteile über uns!' (Give us four years and
deem and judge us then). I have a recording of that speech.
Dmitry
2008-06-29 00:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
"Give me ten years time and you will not recognize Germany!"
- Adolf Hitler's campaign slogan, 1933
-)))) He was right.

At least in Germany nobody want's any more "hitlers". In Russia seems
to be plenty....... just one of examples I've recently came across
http://www.1917.com/History/After-II/1036241021.html

Andrius
2008-06-26 20:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around.
Actually, Russia's worst enemies are internal: an immature
"training-wheels" democracy, stagnating demographics, a brain drain,
third-world male life expectancy, little respect for the rule of law and a
flawed judiciary, a disastrous national public health care system,
corruption, a large uncompetitive industrial infrastructure, more
seperatists than Moscow would like, rural poverty, and overdependence on
imported technology, goods, and services, many of them produced using the
raw materials and energy that constitute so large a proportion of Russia's
exports. The political élite, including President Medvedev, are well aware
of these problems.
That is true. And true is that all these problems came after
Perestroika. Just not sure that Medvedev is aware about that problems.
And if sure - he is pissing onto them.

Regards,
http://andriusblo.blogspot.com
Dmitry
2008-06-26 17:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Anderson
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today
Basically all around. As always when regarded with the paranoid perception
of the Kremlin masters. Right now they are busy wagging their tail in the
wrong direction again. Now it's Beijing, in 1939-41 it was Berlin.
There is a hope that Medvedev might put Russia on first or may be even
second gear, instead of reverse. You never know.
Post by J. Anderson
Meanwhile, they are barking at the West. Just like they did 70 years ago.
An infinitely patient West is shaking its head in disbelief, waiting for
Russia to finally grow up.
Most teenagers grow up sooner or later.
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 16:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast,
American bombers off Russian border never interrupted even for a lunch
break 24/7/52+ patrolling.
Post by Henry Alminas
battleships in the
Mediterranean
Mediterranean sun is not a privilege of the US fleet only.
Post by Henry Alminas
-- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons.
That is a dangerous planet. Even Aliens send their peace envoys armed to
their teeth. Mankind has very bad reputation.
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
Hello! It's started a while ago with the US quitting or already quit
Nuclear Arms treaties and announcing intention to build nuclear assault
base across the border from Russia.

Strange that the guy is writing for Der Spiegel - isn't it "Mirror"?

VM.
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
Henry Alminas
2008-06-26 16:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast,
American bombers off Russian border never interrupted even for a lunch
break 24/7/52+ patrolling.
Post by Henry Alminas
battleships in the Mediterranean
Mediterranean sun is not a privilege of the US fleet only.
Post by Henry Alminas
-- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons.
That is a dangerous planet. Even Aliens send their peace envoys armed to
their teeth. Mankind has very bad reputation.
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it risking
another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
Hello! It's started a while ago with the US quitting or already quit
Nuclear Arms treaties and announcing intention to build nuclear assault
base across the border from Russia.
Strange that the guy is writing for Der Spiegel - isn't it "Mirror"?
VM.
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
"build nuclear assault base across the
border from Russia. "

Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful. If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.

No problem at all. But, then, why the
hell would it want to?

The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.

I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.


Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
2008-06-26 17:07:58 UTC
Permalink
<deletions>
Post by Henry Alminas
"build nuclear assault base across the
border from Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful. If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all. But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
While it is not their territory, the examples of almost a half century of
boycotting Cuba for once having made the serious geopolitical mistake of
trying to defend itself from another invasion by acquiring Soviet
missiles, and of forced regime change in Chile and Grenada, not to mention
Iraq, show that large countries tend to be interested to the point of
paranoia in the weaponry acquired by small and invadable countries in what
they regard as their neighborhood.

In other words, emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Regards,
Eugene Holman
Anton
2008-06-26 18:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by Henry Alminas
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
While it is not their territory, the examples of almost a half century of
boycotting Cuba for once having made the serious geopolitical mistake of
trying to defend itself from another invasion by acquiring Soviet
missiles, and of forced regime change in Chile and Grenada, not to mention
Iraq, show that large countries tend to be interested to the point of
paranoia in the weaponry acquired by small and invadable countries in what
they regard as their neighborhood.
In other words, emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Sometimes you can't help but to think that the only difference between
the US and USSR/Russia is that the americans treat at least their own
people/residents in their own country well. We Europeans and nordics, at
least the labor/moderate left, regard the Democratic party as "the
United States with a human face", but that will be a cold day in hell
before a US leader- democrat or republican - will think of the suffering
of common people of Cuba or any other country that is strangled because
of some political principle and showcase of influence and "power".
Barack Obama, if he is elected, despite his caring,"sympathetic" image
will be as ruthless towards Cuba as all his predecessors since Kennedy.
That is "realpolitik".
--
Anton
Henry Alminas
2008-06-26 19:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
<deletions>
Post by Henry Alminas
"build nuclear assault base across the
border from Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful. If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all. But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
While it is not their territory, the examples of almost a half century of
boycotting Cuba for once having made the serious geopolitical mistake of
trying to defend itself from another invasion by acquiring Soviet
missiles, and of forced regime change in Chile and Grenada, not to mention
Iraq, show that large countries tend to be interested to the point of
paranoia in the weaponry acquired by small and invadable countries in what
they regard as their neighborhood.
In other words, emulation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Standard Holmanian bullshit - that boy's brain
(if any) is frozen in "repetitive" mode.


So Holman:

Which part of ABM is it that you
don't understand?

Which part of "stalinist system" is
it that you don't understand?

Which part of 50 years of occupation
random executions and deportation
to a slow death - of mainly women and
children - is it that you don't understand?

Do you believe that Cuba controlled
those nuke missiles (**not ABM** but
missiles designed to kill whole cities)?

Get a new line from your Kremlin
controllers. Yours grew old and stale
a couple of decades ago.

Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
2008-06-27 01:26:44 UTC
Permalink
<deletions>
Post by Henry Alminas
Standard Holmanian bullshit - that boy's brain
(if any) is frozen in "repetitive" mode.
Which part of ABM is it that you
don't understand?
The part about Cuba, like Lithuania or any other independent country,
having the right to decide how to best defend itself.
Post by Henry Alminas
Which part of "stalinist system" is
it that you don't understand?
The part about Cuba, like Lithuania or any other independent country,
having the right to decide how to best organize its economy and society.
Post by Henry Alminas
Which part of 50 years of occupation
Occupation by whom? The Castro borthers?
Post by Henry Alminas
random executions and deportation
to a slow death - of mainly women and
children - is it that you don't understand?
The part about large and powerful neighbors claiming the right to
demonstrate their displeasure at the societal and economic decisions made
by their smaller and weaker neighbors, and acting accordingly.
Post by Henry Alminas
Do you believe that Cuba controlled
those nuke missiles (**not ABM** but
missiles designed to kill whole cities)?
That's not the issue. Do you believe that the Czechs and Poles will
control those glorified Roman candles on their territory that are intended
to shoot down currently non-existent Iranian, North Korean, or al-Qaidaian
nuclear-tipped ICBM's?
Post by Henry Alminas
Get a new line from your Kremlin
controllers. Yours grew old and stale
a couple of decades ago.
My comments had nothing whatsoever to do with the Kremlin.

Large powerful countries have reserved for themselves the right to comment
on and robustly react to the weapons systems installed in small, weaker
neighboring countries. In case you haven't heard, it's called geopolitics.
As recent events show, oh hypocritical one, "neighboring" can be stretched
to mean half a globe away, and "robustly" can mean regime change,
invasion, occupation, show trials, executions, torture, public
humiliation, virtually permanent imprisonment without charges or trial in
gulag-type conditions, civilian deaths in the 100,000 range, and social
engineering ­ even if the weapons systems ultimately turn out to be fig
newtons of the imagination.

Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
2008-06-26 19:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Holman
<deletions>
Post by Henry Alminas
"build nuclear assault base across the
border from Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful. If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
Remember "48 hours" movie? - they are waiting overnight in the car
waiting for the guy to pick up Porsche with money from parking - "Jack,
tell me a story..." about Iran's nukes flying to hit Romania.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by Henry Alminas
No problem at all. But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
I told this to Vello, I repeat it to you - the system will not be built,
it is Cheney's gang trick to steal my and other *working* people money.
Russians do what they are expected and supposed to do - firing the talk.
What the f**k you think they are going to do? Nuke Poland? Are you out
of your mind?
Any more questions?
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by Henry Alminas
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
Aha, at last we got to the point of no return: now YOU started that -
"how dare Russkies planes fly where they are legally allowed to fly?"
Now you scream that Russkies dare to ask how the US base to be build
where it is legally allowed to be built?

Phonie, phonie, phonie.
Post by Eugene Holman
Post by Henry Alminas
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
That's true.

Phonie, phonie, phonie.

VM.
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-27 07:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast,
American bombers off Russian border never interrupted even for a lunch
break 24/7/52+ patrolling.
Post by Henry Alminas
battleships in the Mediterranean
Mediterranean sun is not a privilege of the US fleet only.
Post by Henry Alminas
-- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons.
That is a dangerous planet. Even Aliens send their peace envoys armed to
their teeth. Mankind has very bad reputation.
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it risking
another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
Hello! It's started a while ago with the US quitting or already quit
Nuclear Arms treaties and announcing intention to build nuclear assault
base across the border from Russia.
Strange that the guy is writing for Der Spiegel - isn't it "Mirror"?
VM.
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
"build nuclear assault  base across the
border from  Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful.   If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all.  But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory.  The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
How did USA react when Khruschev tried to put nukes in Cuba?
Anton
2008-06-27 08:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by Henry Alminas
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
"build nuclear assault base across the
border from Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful. If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all. But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory. The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
How did USA react when Khruschev tried to put nukes in Cuba?
Is the USA actually planning to put new nukes somewhere closer to
Russia, or is that only guessing?
--
Anton
vello
2008-06-27 10:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast,
American bombers off Russian border never interrupted even for a lunch
break 24/7/52+ patrolling.
Post by Henry Alminas
battleships in the Mediterranean
Mediterranean sun is not a privilege of the US fleet only.
Post by Henry Alminas
-- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons.
That is a dangerous planet. Even Aliens send their peace envoys armed to
their teeth. Mankind has very bad reputation.
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it risking
another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
Hello! It's started a while ago with the US quitting or already quit
Nuclear Arms treaties and announcing intention to build nuclear assault
base across the border from Russia.
Strange that the guy is writing for Der Spiegel - isn't it "Mirror"?
VM.
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
"build nuclear assault  base across the
border from  Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful.   If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all.  But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory.  The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
How did USA react when Khruschev tried to put nukes in Cuba?-
Cuba was an dictatorship getting missiles from another dictatorship -
US reacts just normally.
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-28 21:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by Vladimir Makarenko
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast,
American bombers off Russian border never interrupted even for a lunch
break 24/7/52+ patrolling.
Post by Henry Alminas
battleships in the Mediterranean
Mediterranean sun is not a privilege of the US fleet only.
Post by Henry Alminas
-- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons.
That is a dangerous planet. Even Aliens send their peace envoys armed to
their teeth. Mankind has very bad reputation.
Post by Henry Alminas
But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it risking
another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
Hello! It's started a while ago with the US quitting or already quit
Nuclear Arms treaties and announcing intention to build nuclear assault
base across the border from Russia.
Strange that the guy is writing for Der Spiegel - isn't it "Mirror"?
VM.
Post by Henry Alminas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Best - - Henry
"build nuclear assault  base across the
border from  Russia. "
Ya know ye would be funny if ya
weren't so pitiful.   If the US wants
to hit your matushka with a nuke
it can do so from the comfort of home.
No problem at all.  But, then, why the
hell would it want to?
The important point, here, is that the
territory "across the border from Russia"
is *not* russkie territory.  The locals
choose what to do and what not - without
Kremlin dictates.
I understand that this is a very difficult
concept for russkies to comprehend.
How did USA react when Khruschev tried to put nukes in Cuba?-
Cuba was an dictatorship getting missiles from another dictatorship -
US reacts just normally.
Internal anti-american dictatorships have exactly the same
international rights as do pro-american dictatorships and democracies,
including the right to place nukes and radars on their territory. USA
got mad about the nukes in Cuba not because Castro doesn't hold
elections but because these nukes were laced next to USA and
threatened US. Just as the AMDs placed in Poland and Czech R threaten
Russia and the MAD balance.
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-27 07:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Mediterranean is close to Russia and is the only way Russian Black Sea
Fleet can travel. But what are 100 times more US ships doing in the
Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and in virtually all seas around the Wold?
Why did USA send 2 subs in the Russian seas to meddle with the Kursk
submarine's maneuvers and then sank Kursk, risking a nuclear
holocaust.

Who is is busily provoking not only the new Cold War but WWIII with
its non-stop aggressions across the globe?
vello
2008-06-27 10:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Mediterranean is close to Russia and is the only way Russian Black Sea
Fleet can travel. But what are 100 times more US ships doing in the
Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and in virtually all seas around the Wold?
Why did USA send 2 subs in the Russian seas to meddle with the Kursk
submarine's maneuvers and then sank Kursk, risking a nuclear
holocaust.
You think US ship sent Kursk to death? What about green men from Mars?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Who is is busily provoking not only the new Cold War but WWIII with
its non-stop aggressions across the globe?-
o***@hotmail.com
2008-06-28 22:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by Henry Alminas
Why Is Moscow Risking a New Cold War?
By Christian Neef
Strategic bombers off the American coast, battleships in the
Mediterranean -- the Russian
military is displaying its might once again with Moscow pumping billions
into new
weapons. But where does the Kremlin see its enemies today, and why is it
risking another
nuclear arms race with Washington?...............
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html
Mediterranean is close to Russia and is the only way Russian Black Sea
Fleet can travel. But what are 100 times more US ships doing in the
Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and in virtually all seas around the Wold?
Why did USA send 2 subs in the Russian seas to meddle with the Kursk
submarine's maneuvers and then sank Kursk, risking a nuclear
holocaust.
You think US ship sent Kursk to death? What about green men from Mars?
Haven't you seen the famous French documentary "Kursk: A Submarine in
Troubled Waters"?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3601018731467852276&q=Kursk%3A+A+Submarine+in+Troubled+Waters&ei=y7RmSJSVEYuGrgP7qoGoAw&hl=en

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485755/
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Who is is busily provoking not only the new Cold War but WWIII with
its non-stop aggressions across the globe?-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Eugene Holman
2008-06-27 12:58:26 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Post by vello
Well any dictator is popular till he have money/power enough to run
national media.
First of all, Putin was not a dictator. He was a democratically
elected president, and when his terms ended, he stepped down.
We read different sources probably. By data available to me Putin was
"elected" by Boris Yelcin, Medvedev by Putin. do you have different
data?
Different countries do it in different ways. In the US the primary system
does the initial selecting, the parties approve the victor in the
primaries by nominating him/her for the presidency, and then on election
day the electorate votes for electors, who are supposed to vote for the
candidate approved by the electorate, but are not bound to do so. The
Russians use a different system, Estonia uses a yet a different system.
The disadvantage of the American system is that it costs hundreds of
millions of dollars, takes more than a year, and, as we saw in 2000, does
not always reflect the views of the majority of the electorate. The
Russian system thusfar has involved a selection by an incumbent president
and then approval of the choice by an election. The disadvantage of the
Russian system is that it has not allowed a strong system of competing
parties to develop, but rather is aimed towards maintaining the status
quo. This is good if the candidate is competent, but can saddle Russia
with incmpetents or gangsters if he isn't, something we know all too well.

But I doubt that any political scientist would call the Russian system
dictatorial or the Russian president a dictator. That title goes to people
like Mugabe and Lykashenko.
Post by vello
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Second, what is there for an average Russian not to like about Putin's
He ended the terrible Chechen civil war, startewd by Yeltsin.
Colonial war, you want to say?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
The economy, totally ruined by Yeltsin, has not only recovered but is
skyrocketing.
You talk about fuel prices - there is little to do with person who
keeps russian presidency.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
When Putin took over Presidency, the total breakdown of Russia into
tiny pieces seemed inevitable. Putin made Russia whole and solid
again.
Was it this way? Exept chechens there was no show of independence any
more.
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russian defences are slowly recovering after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
destroyed them.
What russians actually wii get from that?
Post by o***@hotmail.com
Russia continues to be a peace-loving country, with no war conflicts.
In other words, peace and prosperity.
In other words, Putin is the opposite of Bush, whose preesidency has
been devoted to destroying the American economy and involving USA in
aggressive disasters. And Bush has succeeded in both ventures.
You are extremely naive, Karla, if you think one man can do something
serious with economy. economy is like living creature he walks by his
own laws. Of course, one can kill it like commies did in 1917 but you
can't force it.
The economy works by its own rules, but the head of state can certainly
influence it. Russia, which consulted with Norway concerning management of
its oil wealth, has made wise decsions that are visible in the strength of
the ruble, the recent prosperity of its urban centers, and the consequent
growth of a middle class that has a stake in managing and improving the
system using what is hoped will evolve into a normal political process
with checks, balances, and compromises between the different interest
groups in Russian society.

Nigeria and Venezuela, theoretically oil-rich countries able to have made
equally wise political decisions, have not done so. There the benefits of
high oil prices have been sucked off by foreign companies, corrupt local
élites, or social experiments. Their currencies are weak, and there has
been little of the kind of social change in those countries of the type
that can take place if unexpected money is invested wisely. Thus, I
disagree with you robustly that wise leadership lacks the ability to do
anything serious with the economy. Russia had oil and an oil industry
between 1991 and 1999, and oil empires were built that made Yeltsin's
inner circle, Khorordovsky, and a few oligarchs obscenely rich, with much
of those benefits flowing out of Russia as soon and in any way possible,
and being invested abroad because nobody trusted the political system or
the ruble, which did indeed collapse. After the collapse, quite different
policies were followed, the money is staying within Russia or being
invested more wisely abroad, and the ruble has become a serious currency.
I was in Washington D.C. last week and saw that Lukoil is running gas
stations there. Rubles are bought and sold in banks there just like Euros,
pounds, and yen. It is quite an amazing transformation.

Regards,
Eugene Holman
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...