carefreewannabe:

How were people made to believe their side of stories?

Who are their agents?

Ahahaaa,u 1 hear


CNN
BBC
UN
USAID



Countless!

amiskurie:
Ahahaaa,u 1 hear


CNN
BBC
UN
USAID



Countless!

And what do you think is Putting doing in his country now? Enforcing freedom of the press?

Come on!

Compared to Putin's control of the media in Russia, CNN seems to be neutral.

carefreewannabe:


And what do you think is Putting doing in his country now? Enforcing freedom of the press?

Come on!

Compared to Putin's control of the media in Russia, CNN seems to be neutral.

CNN made u believe he controls the Russian media.

Even if he does that,he's being proactive against the false accusations of the Western world.

carefreewannabe:


And what do you think is Putting doing in his country now? Enforcing freedom of the press?

Come on!

Compared to Putin's control of the media in Russia, CNN seems to be neutral.

What makes you think CNN is not controlled? You're still partly brainwashed by the western media claim to 'freedoms'.

ROSSIKE:

What makes you think CNN is not controlled? You're still partly brainwashed by the western media claim to 'freedoms'.

You didn't get the sarcasm. Anyway!

I didn't say CNN wasn't controlled but we are here on a forum that is about America AND Russia. So if you complain about jourmnalism in America, take a look at Russia too.

amiskurie:
CNN made u believe he controls the Russian media.

Even if he does that,he's being proactive against the false accusations of the Western world.

What makes you think I watch CNN?

Proactive? So a president violates the freedom of press and you justify it?
Do you know what happens with journalists in Russia who dare to be critical of Putin?
Ignorance at its peak.

If Russia invades Eastern Europe or a NATO country, it will immediately find itself fighting 28 different war fronts. I doubt that Emperor Putin is that reckless.

bookface:

If Russia invades Eastern Europe or a NATO country, it will immediately find itself fighting 28 different war fronts. I doubt that Emperor Putin is that reckless.

how would it be a 28 war front? the NATO allies are saturated in the western flank of Russia so that's a single front. NATO's encroachment to the southern part of Russia have been checked when Medvedev Invaded Georgia and keep in mind that NATO's expansion to the Baltic and Eastern Europe is only political so far as there is no Major NATO base or infrastructure on those places. It would be a very rapid advance thou reckless and might not be worth it.

Missy89:
how would it be a 28 war front? the NATO allies are saturated in the western flank of Russia so that's a single front. NATO's encroachment to the southern part of Russia have been checked when Medvedev Invaded Georgia and keep in mind that NATO's expansion to the Baltic and Eastern Europe is only political so far as there is no Major NATO base or infrastructure on those places. It would be a very rapid advance thou reckless and might not be worth it.

War fronts does not only imply borders! It implies waging a war against Russian interests. In the absence of nuclear weapons, there's absolutely no way Russia stands a chance. In addition, it is unlikely that Russia will be tempted to use nuclear weapons against a country in Europe, given the proximity to its own borders, and the chances that nuclear fallouts could reach Russia itself.

Russia is a big expanse of Land and will be hard pressed to defend itself in multiple places within its own territories while at the same time using its troops to hold down conquered territories in Europe.

In such a scenario, Georgia will either work with NATO or it will quickly become invaded! Troops can easily move from Turkey and the US central command in the middle east. It will also be forced to withdraw its troops from the Black sea or the Baltic sea or post high contingents to defend those vital positions. The US and Canada can open a bloody huge front in Siberia via Alaska and begin a march on Moscow! Russia will probably need more than half of its current troops + reserve to defend those areas. It will also need a require a large contingent to defend its oil and gas fields. German ships, French ships, UK ships can all open up a bloody front anywhere from the North Sea, Mediterranean sea or even the black sea itself. Thousands of paratroopers can be deployed from almost anywhere in Western Europe and ordered to march on Moscow!

Its just similar to German invasion of the Soviet Union. The Germans were only few kilometres from Moscow before the tides of war begin to turn. The Germans lost because the Allies opened up several fronts against their military.

bookface:


War fronts does not only imply borders! It implies waging a war against Russian interests. In the absence of nuclear weapons, there's absolutely no way Russia stands a chance. In addition, it is unlikely that Russia will be tempted to use nuclear weapons against a country in Europe, given the proximity to its own borders, and the chances that nuclear fallouts could reach Russia itself.

Russia is a big expanse of Land and will be hard pressed to defend itself in multiple places within its own territories while at the same time using its troops to hold down conquered territories in Europe.

In such a scenario, Georgia will either work with NATO or it will quickly become invaded! Troops can easily move from Turkey and the US central command in the middle east. It will also be forced to withdraw its troops from the Black sea or the Baltic sea or post high contingents to defend those vital positions. The US and Canada can open a bloody huge front in Siberia via Alaska and begin a march on Moscow! Russia will probably need more than half of its current troops + reserve to defend those areas. It will also need a require a large contingent to defend its oil and gas fields. German ships, French ships, UK ships can all open up a bloody front anywhere from the North Sea, Mediterranean sea or even the black sea itself. Thousands of paratroopers can be deployed from almost anywhere in Western Europe and ordered to march on Moscow!

Its just similar to German invasion of the Soviet Union. The Germans were only few kilometres from Moscow before the tides of war begin to turn. The Germans lost because the Allies opened up several fronts against their military.

I disagree with this analogy completely. War is always about borders. that's what gave birth to Geopolitics and Sphere of Influences. That is why Ukraine is what it is today between the major powers. that is Why Crimea was taken. The 28 countries is just a symbol. NATO is america/Britain. What do you think Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, etc can bring to the table when hostilities starts? most of them don't even have up to 20k standing/Battle ready troops.

Russia doesn't have huge interests outside its borders and since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only place where there are huge interest is out of NATO's reach (Central Asia)

The country do have the capability to force a cease fire/military victory in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. NATO cant invade Russia either because of the manpower and logistics that would be involved. so lets say hypothetically, A Russian conventional invasion is checked in Eastern Europe and they are retreating, NATO would not risk a full scale invasion instead that would prefer to cut their loses and regain their own territory and agree on a Status quo ante bellum. There there different types of nukes. ICBMs AND SLBMs are usually reserved for a thermonuclear war or first/second strikes. there are other nukes like tactical nukes or battle field nukes that can be used in a conventional war that would not have huge fallout even if it is close to your territory. Russia have been deploying these for a long time and the have more of it as compare to NATO (5 times as much) they are not as long range but are mobile.

Your second paragraph.

There is only one way to invade Russia and that's from the West. there is no NATO in the east and let just say for argument sake that Russia is invaded from the East, what would be the objective? The east is a dense forest with a very harsh weather and less than 10% of Russia's Industry and population. The invading force would probably stretch itself thin and starve before they reach Russia's industrial core in the west and there is only one road than leads the east to west so that makes it easy to predict (Trans Siberian railway). so it is basically suicide. because it would be a guerrilla war

Third paragraph

How would Georgia be invaded exactly when there are over 20k Russian troops inside the place? where would NATO land their troops? they would have to cross the black sea to the other side and there is a huge Russian naval presence there. and apart from Sochi, all the strategic towns on the black sea are military towns, (Rostov von don, Sevastopol, novorossiysk etc!)

The North sea would Already have their hands full fighting the Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad Oblast (a small Russian enclave between Poland and Germany) Remember, Russia isn't a naval power at all but their naval doctrine is to deter, no to attack (that's why they have the best anti ship missiles)
Taking Moscow doesn't guarantee anything. that's what Napoleon thought too but the Russians burnt Moscow down and retreated to the Urals and kept on fighting. besides, for it to get to that point, the ICBMs would already be flying.

Last Paragraph

The Germans did not loose because of the New front opened by the Allies. Germany was in retreat in 1942 and the allies landed on the beach in 1944. In fact, Stalin was angry with the allies because they promised him that they would open a new front in 1941 instead it was delayed for 3 years. Most soviet generals believed that the front was hastily opened in 1944 so that the soviet union wouldn't take every major city in Europe(which they nearly did).

The Germans lost because of
1. Hitler's interference and the invasion of Belgrade and the Caucasus for economic which slowed down other fronts.

2. German high command under estimated Russia's industrial might and around 1942, they were producing more arms and materials than the Germans have expected in the East.

3. German military planners want to take all of European Russia first and use it as a launching pad against the east. That doctrine was the reason why they did not produce many bombers so there was very little strategic bombing of the eastern factories which kept the Russia war machine alive (plus american deliveries).

The Germans wouldn't even have been that successful if

1. Stalin did not purge most of the Generals from the Soviet military in the early 30s. ( When they even got desperate, they had to release some of their best generals in the Gulags and give them back their posts.

2. Stalin listened to his spies in Europe that warned him of the invasion on time

3. The Russians didn't move to the baltics during the early years of the war. in the late 30s, The Russian main line of defense was abandoned and unmanned they were still constructing new defense on the new border after Stalin grabbed the Baltic states, part of Poland, and Moldova when Hitler invaded.

4. The allies Opened a new front they promised Stalin in 1941

The war was Fought in the Eastern Front and that is where Germany was defeated (over 85% of her army). The German Army group center (Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army)was basically wiped out in Operation Bagration alone and the proud Germany luftwaffe was non existent at that point. many Divisions were even removed from France to fight in the Sellow heights when the red army was close to Berlin. The only real war the allies fought was in the deserts of North Africa against Rommel's Afika corps and in the Bulge in Belguim. by the time they were doing all those landings the Elite German SS troops where fighting in the east. even Rommel who was to be in charge of the defense in Normandy was on holiday.

Missy89:

I disagree with this analogy completely. War is always about borders. that's what gave birth to Geopolitics and Sphere of Influences. That is why Ukraine is what it is today between the major powers. that is Why Crimea was taken

Russia doesn't have huge interests outside its borders and since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only place where there are huge interest is out of NATO's reach (Central Asia)

The country do have the capability to force a cease fire/military victory in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. NATO cant invade Russia either because of the manpower and logistics that would be involved. so lets say hypothetically, A Russian conventional invasion is checked in Eastern Europe and they are retreating, NATO would not risk a full scale invasion instead that would prefer to cut their loses and regain their own territory and agree on a Status quo ante bellum. There there different types of nukes. ICBMs AND SLBMs are usually reserved for a thermonuclear war or first/second strikes. there are other nukes like tactical nukes or battle field nukes that can be used in a conventional war that would not have huge fallout even if it is close to your territory. Russia have been deploying these for a long time and the have more of it as compare to NATO (5 times as much) they are not as long range but are mobile.

Your second paragraph.

There is only one way to invade Russia and that's from the West. there is no NATO in the east and let just say for argument sake that Russia is invaded from the East, what would be the objective? The east is a dense forest with a very harsh weather and less than 10% of Russia's Industry and population. The invading force would probably stretch itself thin and starve before they reach Russia's industrial core in the west and there is only one road than leads the east to west so that makes it easy to predict (Trans Siberian railway). so it is basically suicide. because it would be a guerrilla war

Third paragraph

How would Georgia be invaded exactly when there are over 20k Russian troops inside the place? where would NATO land their troops? they would have to cross the black sea to the other side and there is a huge Russian naval presence there. and apart from Sochi, all the strategic towns on the black sea a military towns, (Rostov von don, Sevastopol, novorossiysk etc!)

The North sea would Already have their hands full fighting the Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad Oblast (a small Russian enclave between Poland and Germany) Remember, Russia isn't a naval power at all but their naval doctrine is to deter, no to attack (that's why they have the best anti ship missiles)
Taking Moscow doesn't guarantee anything. that's what Napoleon thought too but the Russians burnt Moscow down and retreated to the Urals and kept on fighting. besides, for it to get to that point, the ICBMs would already be flying.

Last Paragraph

The Germans did not loose because of the New front opened by the Allies. Germany was in retreat in 1942 and the allies landed on the beach in 1944. In fact, Stalin was angry with the allies because they promised him that they would open a new front in 1941 instead it was delayed for 3 years. Most soviet generals believed that the front was hastily opened in 1944 so that the soviet union would take every major city in Europe(which they nearly did).

The Germans lost because of
1. Hitler's interference and the invasion of Belgrade and the Caucasus for economic which slowed down other fronts. T

2. German high command under estimated Russia's industrial might and around 1942, they were producing more arms and materials than the Germans have expected in the East.

3. German military planners want to take all of European Russia first and use it as a launching pad against the east. That doctrine was the reason why they did not produce many bombers so there was very little strategic bombing of the eastern factories which kept the Russia war machine alive (plus american deliveries).

The Germans wouldn't even have been that successful if

1. Stalin did not purge most of the Generals from the Soviet military in the early 30s. ( When they even got desperate, they had to release some of their best generals in the Gulags and give them back their posts.

2. Stalin listened to his spies in Europe that warned him of the invasion on time

3. The Russians didn't move to the baltics during the early years of the war. in the late 30s, The Russian main line of defense was abandoned and unmanned they were still constructing new defense on the new border after Stalin grabbed the Baltic states, part of Poland, and Moldova when Hitler invaded.

4. The allies Opened a new front they promised Stalin in 1941

The war was Fought in the Eastern Front and that is where Germany was defeated (over 85% of her army). The German Army group center (Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army)was basically wiped out in Operation Bagration alone and the proud Germany luftwaffe was non existent at that point. many Divisions were even removed from France to fight in the Sellow heights when the red army was close to Berlin. The only real war the allies fought was in the deserts of North Africa against Rommel's Afika corps and in the Bulge in Belguim. by the time they were doing all those landings the Elite German SS troops where fighting in the east. even Rommel who was to be in charge of the defense in Normandy was on holiday.

walahi this girl must produce my kids.

Missy89:
I disagree with this analogy completely. War is always about borders. that's what gave birth to Geopolitics and Sphere of Influences. That is why Ukraine is what it is today between the major powers. that is Why Crimea was taken. The 28 countries is just a symbol. NATO is america/Britain. What do you think Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, etc can bring to the table when hostilities starts? most of them don't even have up to 20k standing/Battle ready troops.

Russia doesn't have huge interests outside its borders and since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only place where there are huge interest is out of NATO's reach (Central Asia)

The country do have the capability to force a cease fire/military victory in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. NATO cant invade Russia either because of the manpower and logistics that would be involved. so lets say hypothetically, A Russian conventional invasion is checked in Eastern Europe and they are retreating, NATO would not risk a full scale invasion instead that would prefer to cut their loses and regain their own territory and agree on a Status quo ante bellum. There there different types of nukes. ICBMs AND SLBMs are usually reserved for a thermonuclear war or first/second strikes. there are other nukes like tactical nukes or battle field nukes that can be used in a conventional war that would not have huge fallout even if it is close to your territory. Russia have been deploying these for a long time and the have more of it as compare to NATO (5 times as much) they are not as long range but are mobile.

Your second paragraph.

There is only one way to invade Russia and that's from the West. there is no NATO in the east and let just say for argument sake that Russia is invaded from the East, what would be the objective? The east is a dense forest with a very harsh weather and less than 10% of Russia's Industry and population. The invading force would probably stretch itself thin and starve before they reach Russia's industrial core in the west and there is only one road than leads the east to west so that makes it easy to predict (Trans Siberian railway). so it is basically suicide. because it would be a guerrilla war

Third paragraph

How would Georgia be invaded exactly when there are over 20k Russian troops inside the place? where would NATO land their troops? they would have to cross the black sea to the other side and there is a huge Russian naval presence there. and apart from Sochi, all the strategic towns on the black sea are military towns, (Rostov von don, Sevastopol, novorossiysk etc!)

The North sea would Already have their hands full fighting the Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad Oblast (a small Russian enclave between Poland and Germany) Remember, Russia isn't a naval power at all but their naval doctrine is to deter, no to attack (that's why they have the best anti ship missiles)
Taking Moscow doesn't guarantee anything. that's what Napoleon thought too but the Russians burnt Moscow down and retreated to the Urals and kept on fighting. besides, for it to get to that point, the ICBMs would already be flying.

Last Paragraph

The Germans did not loose because of the New front opened by the Allies. Germany was in retreat in 1942 and the allies landed on the beach in 1944. In fact, Stalin was angry with the allies because they promised him that they would open a new front in 1941 instead it was delayed for 3 years. Most soviet generals believed that the front was hastily opened in 1944 so that the soviet union wouldn't take every major city in Europe(which they nearly did).

The Germans lost because of
1. Hitler's interference and the invasion of Belgrade and the Caucasus for economic which slowed down other fronts.

2. German high command under estimated Russia's industrial might and around 1942, they were producing more arms and materials than the Germans have expected in the East.

3. German military planners want to take all of European Russia first and use it as a launching pad against the east. That doctrine was the reason why they did not produce many bombers so there was very little strategic bombing of the eastern factories which kept the Russia war machine alive (plus american deliveries).

The Germans wouldn't even have been that successful if

1. Stalin did not purge most of the Generals from the Soviet military in the early 30s. ( When they even got desperate, they had to release some of their best generals in the Gulags and give them back their posts.

2. Stalin listened to his spies in Europe that warned him of the invasion on time

3. The Russians didn't move to the baltics during the early years of the war. in the late 30s, The Russian main line of defense was abandoned and unmanned they were still constructing new defense on the new border after Stalin grabbed the Baltic states, part of Poland, and Moldova when Hitler invaded.

4. The allies Opened a new front they promised Stalin in 1941

The war was Fought in the Eastern Front and that is where Germany was defeated (over 85% of her army). The German Army group center (Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army)was basically wiped out in Operation Bagration alone and the proud Germany luftwaffe was non existent at that point. many Divisions were even removed from France to fight in the Sellow heights when the red army was close to Berlin. The only real war the allies fought was in the deserts of North Africa against Rommel's Afika corps and in the Bulge in Belguim. by the time they were doing all those landings the Elite German SS troops where fighting in the east. even Rommel who was to be in charge of the defense in Normandy was on holiday.

This girl, who do you work for? Are you sure you're a naija woman, or a martian?

I'm scared of you!

You just schooled "bookface" and slammed the book on his face lol!

Out!

In the words of Mussolini writing to Hitler after the defeat at Stalingrad " In my opinion Russia can never be annihilated, she is defended by her very size,her territory is so vast that it can never be conquered or held" he continued "the Russian chapter is over we should make peace with Stalin"

Napoleon's grande army could testify to what happened to them in 1812 Berezhina.

Missy89:

I disagree with this analogy completely. War is always about borders. that's what gave birth to Geopolitics and Sphere of Influences. That is why Ukraine is what it is today between the major powers. that is Why Crimea was taken. The 28 countries is just a symbol. NATO is america/Britain. What do you think Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, etc can bring to the table when hostilities starts? most of them don't even have up to 20k standing/Battle ready troops.

Russia doesn't have huge interests outside its borders and since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only place where there are huge interest is out of NATO's reach (Central Asia)

The country do have the capability to force a cease fire/military victory in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. NATO cant invade Russia either because of the manpower and logistics that would be involved. so lets say hypothetically, A Russian conventional invasion is checked in Eastern Europe and they are retreating, NATO would not risk a full scale invasion instead that would prefer to cut their loses and regain their own territory and agree on a Status quo ante bellum. There there different types of nukes. ICBMs AND SLBMs are usually reserved for a thermonuclear war or first/second strikes. there are other nukes like tactical nukes or battle field nukes that can be used in a conventional war that would not have huge fallout even if it is close to your territory. Russia have been deploying these for a long time and the have more of it as compare to NATO (5 times as much) they are not as long range but are mobile.

Your second paragraph.

There is only one way to invade Russia and that's from the West. there is no NATO in the east and let just say for argument sake that Russia is invaded from the East, what would be the objective? The east is a dense forest with a very harsh weather and less than 10% of Russia's Industry and population. The invading force would probably stretch itself thin and starve before they reach Russia's industrial core in the west and there is only one road than leads the east to west so that makes it easy to predict (Trans Siberian railway). so it is basically suicide. because it would be a guerrilla war

Third paragraph

How would Georgia be invaded exactly when there are over 20k Russian troops inside the place? where would NATO land their troops? they would have to cross the black sea to the other side and there is a huge Russian naval presence there. and apart from Sochi, all the strategic towns on the black sea are military towns, (Rostov von don, Sevastopol, novorossiysk etc!)

The North sea would Already have their hands full fighting the Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad Oblast (a small Russian enclave between Poland and Germany) Remember, Russia isn't a naval power at all but their naval doctrine is to deter, no to attack (that's why they have the best anti ship missiles)
Taking Moscow doesn't guarantee anything. that's what Napoleon thought too but the Russians burnt Moscow down and retreated to the Urals and kept on fighting. besides, for it to get to that point, the ICBMs would already be flying.

Last Paragraph

The Germans did not loose because of the New front opened by the Allies. Germany was in retreat in 1942 and the allies landed on the beach in 1944. In fact, Stalin was angry with the allies because they promised him that they would open a new front in 1941 instead it was delayed for 3 years. Most soviet generals believed that the front was hastily opened in 1944 so that the soviet union wouldn't take every major city in Europe(which they nearly did).

The Germans lost because of
1. Hitler's interference and the invasion of Belgrade and the Caucasus for economic which slowed down other fronts.

2. German high command under estimated Russia's industrial might and around 1942, they were producing more arms and materials than the Germans have expected in the East.

3. German military planners want to take all of European Russia first and use it as a launching pad against the east. That doctrine was the reason why they did not produce many bombers so there was very little strategic bombing of the eastern factories which kept the Russia war machine alive (plus american deliveries).

The Germans wouldn't even have been that successful if

1. Stalin did not purge most of the Generals from the Soviet military in the early 30s. ( When they even got desperate, they had to release some of their best generals in the Gulags and give them back their posts.

2. Stalin listened to his spies in Europe that warned him of the invasion on time

3. The Russians didn't move to the baltics during the early years of the war. in the late 30s, The Russian main line of defense was abandoned and unmanned they were still constructing new defense on the new border after Stalin grabbed the Baltic states, part of Poland, and Moldova when Hitler invaded.

4. The allies Opened a new front they promised Stalin in 1941

The war was Fought in the Eastern Front and that is where Germany was defeated (over 85% of her army). The German Army group center (Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army)was basically wiped out in Operation Bagration alone and the proud Germany luftwaffe was non existent at that point. many Divisions were even removed from France to fight in the Sellow heights when the red army was close to Berlin. The only real war the allies fought was in the deserts of North Africa against Rommel's Afika corps and in the Bulge in Belguim. by the time they were doing all those landings the Elite German SS troops where fighting in the east. even Rommel who was to be in charge of the defense in Normandy was on holiday.

Honestly, Missy you are too much!!

Ameriac has media power which Russia lacks. It has successfully utilised this power to create a smoke screen that covers it's evils while brandishing other unfortunate players as demons that must be feared and isolated. I'm happy Russia is there to balance the power equation. I only wish Putin will play more of politics and make Russia appear as what it is- the guy that checkmates the bully