Appleyard:
REV. 21 vs 8, ''...all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire..'' So, Missy, stop telling lies. Russia didnt entered ww1 based on emotions. You simply overlooked the dynamics and the prevailing atmosphere that led to the war. In 1914 the Russian government considered Germany to be the main threat to its territory. This was reinforced by Germany's decision to form the Triple Alliance. Under the terms of this military alliance, Germany, Austria- Hungary and Italy agreed to support each other if attacked by either France or Russia. In 1907 Russia joined Britain and France to form the Triple Entente. The conditions for war was already in motion right from when alliance formations started taking shape. Just as it is today, with NATO on one hand and Russia on the other, it would be the height of gross ignorance to say that Moscow's drive in Ukraine was purely out of emotions, when even a foetus in the belly knows what an alliance like NATO posed to Russia's security. So, sweep that babel under the carpet, because, if Russia like you said, entered ww1 based on emotions, then France and Britain equally got involved on emotional bases. Is that so?
Moscow's foreign policy drive, particularly within the periphery of the formal Soviet space, is one based on the notion of ''real politiks'', which is overwhelmingly pragmatic.

Why is Russia worried of an invasion? Tell me you are kiddin, my lady! Why do we still have NATO running around? Who wants to destroy western Europe, Canada, and Australia? Why is the US operating a military budget that reaches up to heaven? Who wants to invade them? Why is the US wary of Russia and even labelled it as the greatest threat to the US? Why? I will tell you: Real politiks! Thats what is shaping today's event among the bigger boys. It has always been, and will continue unto the end of days. Thus, Russia is not the only one wary, neither are they all wary for nothing. The evidence of real politiks!

Don't lie! Medvedev didnt failed to veto the Libyan resolution, and just like China, they got betrayed. Russia simply could have evacuated Qadafi had they known things wouldn't go according to plan. So, they watched on to their dismay. It was from there they learnt their lessons. The west can never be trusted.

Lie number 3 Russia wasnt delighted in 9/11. Even a rookie knew it was a false flag ab initio, not to mention the Kremlin secret service. They supported because it served their interests on many fronts. And you want to make it look like Russia's ops against domestic terrorism and secessionist in the caucausus, was predicated on 9/11. Russia has been dealing with terrorism and secessionist movements way before 9/11. I just dont have the space to cite examples.

On Iran, you keep living the lie. The doctrine of ''common foe'' is what is driving these nations together. As more and more States continue to loathe the hegemon, the more their interests alignes. Iran knows what awaits them in the hands of the US and Isreal, and from what they have witnessed happened to others, you can kiss any Iranian trust for the west goodbye. Yes, bilateral and diplomatic business will flow as usual, but strategically, Iran is lost to the US/Isreali led west forever. And thats a fact!

Back to base: how are the released pirates?

You're genius.

That lady you keep mentioning is a big fool, you're wasting your time replying her mentions.

Zoharariel:


For this excellent piece, give @Appleyard a slice of Ukraine, Tel Aviv & New York!

And so shall it be..as long as Missy89 and her Mosanto company have no tickets to board the train.

Tkester:



You're genius.

That lady you keep mentioning is a big fool, you're wasting your time replying her mentions.

Thanks alot, man! We give God all the glory.

Well, Missy89 is not bad as you think. I know what is wrong with her: why she so much loathe the Mother land. It was because she applied to President Olusegun Putin to give an executive order that would enable her to hook up intimately with the Kremlin's number one West Africa based secret service command leader, Sir Shymm3x. But SVR intel on her identity shows that she is a double agent, and so, she got kicked back to London where she has been coordinating wave after waves of attack against Moscow.

Only a ''yes, darling'' from Shymm3x can save us from her Zeus like anger.


make i run like cheetah o...

Appleyard:


On Iran, you keep living the lie. The doctrine of ''common foe'' is what is driving these nations together. As more and more States continue to loathe the hegemon, the more their interests alignes. Iran knows what awaits them in the hands of the US and Isreal, and from what they have witnessed happened to others, you can kiss any Iranian trust for the west goodbye. Yes, bilateral and diplomatic business will flow as usual, but strategically, Iran is lost to the US/Isreali led west forever. And thats a fact!

Back to base: how are the released pirates?

This is either ignorance or deliberate revisionism .

Britain entered the war defending Belgian sovereignty. That is based on obligation not emotion. Germany declared war on France so France enter the war in other to defend herself, That is not emotional. Russia on the other hand entered the war because it wanted to reassert herself as a major power and the defender of the Slavs after the humiliating defeat in the hands of the Japanese empire in 1904 and their inability to stop Austria from annexing Bosnia in 1908. Russia's perpetual weakness and deafest lead to her mobilization in the first place.

"If Russia failed to fulfill her historic mission, she would be considered a decadent state and would henceforth have to take second place among the powers."
"If at this critical juncture the Serbs were abandoned to their fate, Russian prestige the the Balkans will collapse utterly."

- Sergei Sazonov 24th July 1914

Knowing that If Russia went to war it might end in a revolution, the ministers convinced themselves that if it didn't, the country might rise against them in patriotic disgust

- George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I

Cant remember the last time Russia engage in realpolitik. It is largely based on Ideology, emotions and lies. Russia policy makers knew their emotional involvement in the first war will lead to a revolution but the continuously lived in denial. The same thing happened in 1986. Same thing in 1917. I am only bringing this up because you said Russian are master geopolitical strategists (off topic). Putin's Russia is not immune to this as well. the only difference is that modern Russia is not as ideological to her predecessor. Time will tell


If you fail to veto a bill that u disagree on, that is tacit approval because you had the power to change the outcome and refuse to act.
I am asking you the question and i was hoping to get an answer. why is Russia worried about NATO expanding? She is a nuclear state after all.

I am not really interested or talking about the conspiracy of 911 and dont really give too much thought to how fake or real the attack was. I was talking about the event and how it has shaped fighting religious terrorism around the world. especially in Russia.

Iran and Russia dont have common foes. Iran is more concerned about KSA and not the US. Only Russia is obsessed with the US. Iran is well aware of centuries of Russia and Europe's Machiavellian maneuvers to control central Asia. Remember the great game?. There is a huge difference between common foes and aligning interests

The pirates are probably fine. Same cannot be said for Russian pilots crossing into another territory.

Missy89:



This is either ignorance or deliberate revisionism .

Britain entered the war defending Belgian sovereignty. That is based on obligation not emotion. Germany declared war on France so France enter the war in other to defend herself, That is not emotional. Russia on the other hand entered the war because it wanted to reassert herself as a major power and the defender of the Slavs after the humiliating

Missy, your 2nd name is bias. You have so much negated the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the great war of 1914, instead, chosing to highjack the Perspective of the Russian mobilization.

The explosive that was World War One had been long in the stockpiling; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914.
Ferdinand's death at the hands of the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society, set in train a mindlessly mechanical series of events that culminated in the world's first global war. 3weeks later, Austria-Hungary's Reacted to the death of their heir, by arguing that the Serbian government was implicated in the machinations of the Black Hand, the Austro-Hungarians opted to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary's influence in the Balkans.
It did so by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice, effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, was moved to comment that he had "never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character."
Austria-Hungary's expectation was that Serbia would reject the remarkably severe terms of the ultimatum, thereby giving her a pretext for launching a limited war against Serbia.
However, Serbia had long had Slavic ties with Russia, an altogether different proposition for Austria-Hungary. Whilst not really expecting that Russia would be drawn into the dispute to any great extent other than through words of diplomatic protest, the Austro-Hungarian government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary.
Germany readily agreed, even encouraged Austria-Hungary's warlike stance.
One Thing Led to Another, and
the following remarkable sequence of events that led inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before the coming of the conflict.

*.Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbiaon 28 July 1914.

*.Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.

*.Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russiaon 1 August.

*.France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route. Contrary to what you want to believe, France did not just enter the war to defend herself only; she was obligated to fight by Russia as well.

*.Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty. With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

From the above, you can see that everyone entered the war based on a certain obligation, and not by some black lie emotional claims. Take time o, Missy.

i dont even need to argue on realpolitiks here even a blind man knows it to be true. That is why states like Ukraine, Georgia or Belarus can never be able to make certain decisions of their own in the absence of Russia. Thats why states like Canada, Mexico, Cuba, can not also make certain moves without Uncle Satan. You may wana ask Fidel Castro. Thats real politiks embedded in geopolitics. Some states will 4ever be unlucky to share the borders with some others.

Thats why the US will always see Russia as the greatest threat to its security, even though she doesnt have half of her conventional military. Thats why u still have NATO around. Stop living in denial.

Appleyard:
Missy, your 2nd name is bias.

Thats why the US will always see Russia as the greatest threat to its security, even though she doesnt have half of her conventional military.. Thats why u still have NATO around. Stop living in denial.

Her second name is: BI.TCH!

Apple yard, I strongly disagree with the bolded. Forget what is written on paper, when war starts you will know better. If you're in doubt ask Hitler.

.

Missy89:


Iran is more concerned about KSA and not the US. Only Russia is obsessed with the US. Iran is well aware of centuries of Russia and Europe's Machiavellian maneuvers to control central Asia. Remember the great game?. There is a huge difference between common foes and aligning interests

The pirates are probably fine. Same cannot be said for Russian pilots crossing into another territory.

Mumu, how about US encirclement of Russia? Oh I see, they are only interested in taking selfies along Russia's border.

Mumu, how about the CIA command cernter that was hit in Syria by the ruskies? Oh, I forgot the Russians are not even in Syria.

Monkey, your propaganda ain't flying any longer, it keeps been busted. Face front Bi.tch?

Appleyard:



*.Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbiaon 28 July 1914.

*.Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.

*.Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russiaon 1 August.

*.France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route. Contrary to what you want to believe, France did not just enter the war to defend herself only; she was obligated to fight by Russia as well.

*.Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty. With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

From the above, you can see that everyone entered the war based on a certain obligation, and not by some black lie emotional claims. Take time o, Missy.

Are you even reading what you are posting here

1. Name the treaty that bounded Russia to Serbia in case of a war. Where was it signed ? what year?

2. Austria declared war on the 28th, Russia mobilized on the 25th before Serbia responded to Austria's Ultimatum ( mind you Austrian soldiers were on break)

Missy89:


Are you even reading what you are posting here

1. Name the treaty that bounded Russia to Serbia in case of a war. Where was it signed ? what year?

2. Austria declared war on the 28th, Russia mobilized on the 25th before Serbia responded to Austria's Ultimatum ( mind you Austrian soldiers were on break)

Hmm. Russia, like every other nation, had its ups and downs, but there is no denying the fact that, it has always been guided by the sole objective of defending the pan-Slavic race, even though she had her own problems with them. The seeds of this sentimental objectives were sown by Catherine the Great in the eighteenth century. In 1774 Catherine's military success brought about the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji, (of which Serbia is chief,) which gave Russia the right to defend all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Russia thus became the dominant power in the Black Sea, the supreme champion of Eastern Christians, and the main opponent of the Ottoman Empire. Concerns about the welfare of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire would continue to be a driving force in Russian foreign relations, providing the justification for Russian declarations of war in 1788, 1806, 1828, 1853, and 1877.
Even the Austria-Hungarian axis knew that once they attack Serbia, Russia would definitly enter the frail. Why? Cause they knew that Russia is duty bound to defend Serbia, and that was why they sought Germany's commitment to also come to their aid, in line with the Austria-Hungarian-German treaty signed in 1879 and renewable every 5years, should the unthinkable happens. There are also many treaties or obligations ranges over 70 signed with Serbia that binds Russia on many fronts. Saying that Russia engaged in all of those wars out of emotions, instead of objectives, is purely unfair, derogatory, and i must say, an epitome of western Russian hating propaganda.

Again, you are trying to make it look like Russia was the cause or the one that escalated the war by mobilization, without taken certain circumstances into perspective. Like i said before, alliance formations and prevailing imperialism have already created the recipes for a large scale war. The German war planners in 1879 drew a a plan that envisages a two-front war that seek first attacking France and then Russia. This was later replaced in 1905 by the Schlieffen plan which seek to attack Belgium then France, while Austria-Hungary takes care of the Russian front. You can bet by this time, the others are watching. So, when the Sarajevo murder took place, the long nursed hatred and antipathy has found a way to come to the surface. The Austria-Hungarian directives to Serbia, supported by Germany, was clouded with alot of unacceptable demands and conditions, which was only a deliberate attempt made to pave the way for a ''limited'' war with Serbia.
Serbia, sensing the tensions began partial mobilization, after it's plea to settle the dispute by arbitration, and even seconded by Britain, agreed to by France and Russia, was rejected by A-H and Germany. Russia never mobilized ahead of Serbia. The Russian early mobilization was only as a precausionary measure, knowing that late deployment would be catastrophic - lessons learnt from the Crimea, Japs wars. Even France had to mobilize in time, after the army convinced the government that each delay in earlier partial mobilization would result in 21 kilometers loss of territory to Germany, after the later declared war on Russia and Serbia. Russia and Serbia neither attacked first. Russia only began full mobilization after Serbia was attacked by Austrian warships.

So, Russian was always bound to defend Serbia, and it never wanted or escalated the war. Germany did.

Appleyard:
Hmm. Russia, like every other nation, had its ups and downs, but there is no denying the fact that, it has always been guided by the sole objective of defending the pan-Slavic race, even though she had her own problems with them. The seeds of this sentimental objectives were sown by Catherine the Great in the eighteenth century. In 1774 Catherine's military success brought about the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji, (of which Serbia is chief,) which gave Russia the right to defend all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Russia thus became the dominant power in the Black Sea, the supreme champion of Eastern Christians, and the main opponent of the Ottoman Empire. Concerns about the welfare of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire would continue to be a driving force in Russian foreign relations, providing the justification for Russian declarations of war in 1788, 1806, 1828, 1853, and 1877.
Even the Austria-Hungarian axis knew that once they attack Serbia, Russia would definitly enter the frail. Why? Cause they knew that Russia is duty bound to defend Serbia, and that was why they sought Germany's commitment to also come to their aid, in line with the Austria-Hungarian-German treaty signed in 1879 and renewable every 5years, should the unthinkable happens. There are also many treaties or obligations ranges over 70 signed with Serbia that binds Russia on many fronts. Saying that Russia engaged in all of those wars out of emotions, instead of objectives, is purely unfair, derogatory, and i must say, an epitome of western Russian hating propaganda.

Again, you are trying to make it look like Russia was the cause or the one that escalated the war by mobilization, without taken certain circumstances into perspective. Like i said before, alliance formations and prevailing imperialism have already created the recipes for a large scale war. The German war planners in 1879 drew a a plan that envisages a two-front war that seek first attacking France and then Russia. This was later replaced in 1905 by the Schlieffen plan which seek to attack Belgium then France, while Austria-Hungary takes care of the Russian front. You can bet by this time, the others are watching. So, when the Sarajevo murder took place, the long nursed hatred and antipathy has found a way to come to the surface. The Austria-Hungarian directives to Serbia, supported by Germany, was clouded with alot of unacceptable demands and conditions, which was only a deliberate attempt made to pave the way for a ''limited'' war with Serbia.
Serbia, sensing the tensions began partial mobilization, after it's plea to settle the dispute by arbitration, and even seconded by Britain, agreed to by France and Russia, was rejected by A-H and Germany. Russia never mobilized ahead of Serbia. The Russian early mobilization was only as a precausionary measure, knowing that late deployment would be catastrophic - lessons learnt from the Crimea, Japs wars. Even France had to mobilize in time, after the army convinced the government that each delay in earlier partial mobilization would result in 21 kilometers loss of territory to Germany, after the later declared war on Russia and Serbia. Russia and Serbia neither attacked first. Russia only began full mobilization after Serbia was attacked by Austrian warships.

So, Russian was always bound to defend Serbia, and it never wanted or escalated the war. Germany did.

Lol

Just tell me when Serbia and Russia signed a treaty.

You said Russia was bound by treaty to defend Serbia. When was the treaty signed?

History tells us the Russia mobilized first. That itself is an act of war and it doesn't matter who attacked first. If Russia was not ready to escalate, why mobilize before Serbia responds to Austria's ultimatum. You are talking like a real Russia apologist. What do you mean by Russia mobilization is "a precausionary measure" really?

How does the The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca between the Ottomans and the Russian empire got to the with Russia's intervention in the great war?

Missy89:


Lol

Just tell me when Serbia and Russia signed a treaty.

You said Russia was bound by treaty to defend Serbia. When was the treaty signed?

History tells us the Russia mobilized first. That itself is an act of war and it doesn't matter who attacked first. If Russia was not ready to escalate, why mobilize before Serbia responds to Austria's ultimatum. You are talking like a real Russia apologist. What do you mean by Russia mobilization is "a precausionary measure" really?

How does the The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca between the Ottomans and the Russian empire got to the with Russia's intervention in the great war?

That your history book must be wonderful,.,.
Honestly, am still struggling to lay my hands on a primary documents signed by the two prior to world war 1, and i will do that as soon as i get one. (i hope you never remove am? Cause i don't trust that your uncle, Erdogan and that your Langley collaborators, ) ;-)
Not withstanding, there are express and implied terms under the law of contracts and treaties, and as such, Russia was always bound to defend Serbia, and the Kuchuk Kunaiji's treaty has everything to do with it. Apart from the fact that Russia was the only independent slavic nation as at that time, and sees itself as the sole protector of the Slavic world, the Kuchuk treaty was the legal sanctity and framework that embodies the Russian resolve, based on mutual, cultural, moral and strategic objectives (with warm water ports in mind), to undertake and to defend the Orthodox christianity, which is the hallmark of the slavic world that makes up a majority of the Balkans, the centre piece of Russia's sphere of interest and influence base on its foreign policy.
The Adrianoble treaty, following the 1828-1829 successful campaign, further binds Russia to the task of defending Serbia and co, as it forced the sultan to grant Serbia autonomy under Russian protection, affirm Greek independence, and acquiesce to Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the core entities of the future independent Romania.
This was later reenforced by the treaty of Berlin which recognized the de jure independence of Serbia that Russia previously fought for inter alia with the Ottoman empire. As can be seen from the implied or expressed terms of such treaties, Russian was always duty bound to defend Serbia.

Again, you continue to make much ado about Russian mobilization, even as thou continue to overlook the long chain of causal relativism that was in motion prior to the war, just as you tacitly continue to dogde the facts that A-H, nudged on by Germany, was always poised for war with Serbia for glaring reasons. They never meant peace, even when two months passed before august, in which they deliberately rejected all offers for peace presented. It was never Russia's fault. Russia did not mobilized ahead of Serbia which, after making its position known on the ultimatum issued by A-H, began partial readiness before Russia did the same, and this happened after Austria-Hungary severe all ties with Serbia. Full mobilization followed only after war was declared on Serbia, and Belgrade was shelled. It was exactly what the Germans and A-H wanted. It is only a revisionist and a russophobe that would put the blame on Russia. I trust you are none.

These should help.

http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect10.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index-1914.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Serbia_relations?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C6699106441

http://www.portalus.ru/modules/english_russia/print.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188906900&archive=&start_from=&ucat=9&

@ Appleyard and Missy89

Will you two just stop already,always arguing on history when both of you keep refuting and rebuffing supposed facts from each parties,your arguements are quite tiring,neither of you will rewrite what has happened.Can we move on please

ValerianSteel:
@ Appleyard and Missy89

Will you two just stop already,always arguing on history when both of you keep refuting and rebuffing supposed facts from each parties,your arguements are quite tiring,neither of you will rewrite what has happened.Can we move on please

I taya o my broda. Very tiring!

ValerianSteel:
@ Appleyard and Missy89

Will you two just stop already,always arguing on history when both of you keep refuting and rebuffing supposed facts from each parties,your arguements are quite tiring,neither of you will rewrite what has happened.Can we move on please

I think you are right. I will stop doing that. Thanks

Appleyard:
That your history book must be wonderful,.,.
Honestly, am still struggling to lay my hands on a primary documents signed by the two prior to world war 1, and i will do that as soon as i get one. (i hope you never remove am? Cause i don't trust that your uncle, Erdogan and that your Langley collaborators, ) ;-)
Not withstanding, there are express and implied terms under the law of contracts and treaties, and as such, Russia was always bound to defend Serbia, and the Kuchuk Kunaiji's treaty has everything to do with it. Apart from the fact that Russia was the only independent slavic nation as at that time, and sees itself as the sole protector of the Slavic world, the Kuchuk treaty was the legal sanctity and framework that embodies the Russian resolve, based on mutual, cultural, moral and strategic objectives (with warm water ports in mind), to undertake and to defend the Orthodox christianity, which is the hallmark of the slavic world that makes up a majority of the Balkans, the centre piece of Russia's sphere of interest and influence base on its foreign policy.
The Adrianoble treaty, following the 1828-1829 successful campaign, further binds Russia to the task of defending Serbia and co, as it forced the sultan to grant Serbia autonomy under Russian protection, affirm Greek independence, and acquiesce to Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the core entities of the future independent Romania.
This was later reenforced by the treaty of Berlin which recognized the de jure independence of Serbia that Russia previously fought for inter alia with the Ottoman empire. As can be seen from the implied or expressed terms of such treaties, Russian was always duty bound to defend Serbia.

Again, you continue to make much ado about Russian mobilization, even as thou continue to overlook the long chain of causal relativism that was in motion prior to the war, just as you tacitly continue to dogde the facts that A-H, nudged on by Germany, was always poised for war with Serbia for glaring reasons. They never meant peace, even when two months passed before august, in which they deliberately rejected all offers for peace presented. It was never Russia's fault. Russia did not mobilized ahead of Serbia which, after making its position known on the ultimatum issued by A-H, began partial readiness before Russia did the same, and this happened after Austria-Hungary severe all ties with Serbia. Full mobilization followed only after war was declared on Serbia, and Belgrade was shelled. It was exactly what the Germans and A-H wanted. It is only a revisionist and a russophobe that would put the blame on Russia. I trust you are none.

These should help.

http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect10.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index-1914.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Serbia_relations?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C6699106441

http://www.portalus.ru/modules/english_russia/print.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188906900&archive=&start_from=&ucat=9&

Trust me that document doesn't exist

By the way, How can Russia be the defenders of the Slavic world while holding other Slavs in bondage? Poland was under Russia's subjugation until the Lenin's revolution.

Russia's Obvious Interest in the Balkans is to have unrestricted access to Dardanelles in case the Ottoman empire joins the central powers. That is why her major prize during the war was Constantinople. Leave that " defender of slavs" bs in the dustbin.

Ok I will stop arguing now

See video here https://www.nairaland.com/2866038/video-how-u.s-armed-forces


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTA-WkLbvQ

So not only did these "sailors" demonstrate their poor navigational skills, get humiliated kneeling down & treated like common Somali pirates, cry like babies for their mamas and sh*t their pants, they also gave out classified information.

I'm gonna call Langley. Heads must roll for this fvck up!

NairaMinted:
So not only did these "sailors" demonstrate their poor navigational skills, get humiliated kneeling down & treated like common Somali pirates, cry like babies for their mamas and sh*t their pants, they also gave out classified information.

I'm gonna call Langley. Heads must roll for this fvck up!

The way u guys expend so much energy arguing about Russia, Iran and America when none of you are citizens of these nations, don't you guys think this is stupidity? i think so.

Obama is definitely gonna get serious heat for that Iran nuclear deal. That I can tell ya.

Iran to build a statue of captured US sailors

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is planning to build a statue of the US sailors who were captured in Iranian waters earlier this year, a senior officer said.

The provocative proposal is likely to cause outrage in the US and be seized on by Republicans opposed to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

Commander Ali Fadavi, the head of the Guard’s naval forces, said the monument of the surrendering Americans would be a “tourist attraction”.

“There are very many photographs of the major incident of arresting US Marines in the Persian Gulf in the media and we intend to build a symbol out of them inside one of our naval monuments,” he told Iran’s Defense Press news agency.

The type of riverine command boat apprehended by IranThe type of riverine command boat apprehended by Iran US Navy/AP


The capture of the 10 US sailors in January was hailed by hardliners in Tehran as a victory over the US and presented as proof that Iran was still resisting America despite the nuclear deal.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said the arrest of the sailors was “God’s deed” and presented medals to the Iranians involved.

The sailors were held at gunpoint and paraded before the cameras but released after a day following phone calls between John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign ministry.

While the Obama administration expressed outrage over the incident, officials said later that the sailors swift release was evidence that communication between the US and Iran was improving after years of estrangement.



But Republicans, including Donald Trump, lambasted the White House and accused President Barack Obama of weakness in the face of Iranian aggression.

"Those young people were on their hands and knees in a begging position with their hands up and thugs behind them with guns, and then we talk like it's OK. It's not OK. It's lack of respect,” Mr Trump said.

Iran’s hardliners are under pressure after the successful negotiation of the nuclear agreement and the victory of the relatively moderate allies of President Hassan Rouhani in last month’s elections.

The construction of the statue would fit with a pattern of provocative behavior intended to show the Guard are still a major player inside Iran.

Earlier this month the Guard test fired two ballistic missiles with the words “Israel must be wiped out” written on their sides in Hebrew. Joe Biden, the US vice president, was visiting Israel at the time of the launch.

The statue is likely to be built on Kharg, a small Iranian island in the Persian Gulf not far from where the sailors were captured.

The monument could feature as a stop for travelers on the Rahian-e-Nour, a semi-mandatory pro-regime pilgrimage that takes visitors to historical spots from the Iran-Iraq war and extols the virtues of the Iranian military.

Commander Fadavi is head of the Revolutionary Guard’s own naval force, which is separate from the main Iranian navy. As well as a military force, the Guard owns a vast economic empire inside Iran.

The Guard report directly to the Supreme Leader and not to the elected president.

NairaMinted:
So not only did these "sailors" demonstrate their poor navigational skills, get humiliated kneeling down & treated like common Somali pirates, cry like babies for their mamas and sh*t their pants, they also gave out classified information.

I'm gonna call Langley. Heads must roll for this fvck up!

What a pity! Papa Ajasco must hear this.

Commander Eric Rasch and his team misnavigated, got arrested, got himself and his men down on their knees, gave up classified information, cried on national TV like a baby and then issued a groveling apology.

I don't see what other direction his career could have gone afterwards. Kudos to the Amerikan military for giving this co.ward the boot! How are we gonna take on Russia with such puss.ies in our ranks?

Zoharariel, please entertain me with your views on this matter.

NairaMinted:
Commander Eric Rasch and his team misnavigated, got arrested, got himself and his men down on their knees, gave up classified information, cried on national TV like a baby and then issued a groveling apology.

I don't see what other direction his career could have gone afterwards. Kudos to the Amerikan military for giving this co.ward the boot! How are we gonna take on Russia with such puss.ies in our ranks?

Zoharariel, please entertain me with your views on this matter.

@Minted - Have I not been saying that everything about Amerika is grossly overrated? The Amerikan Navy & Marine Corps are only invincible in Hollywood & on CNN.

Even our local vigilante groups in Ijebu can take on this particular Amerikan naval squad & disarm them with their dane guns & machetes.

You know, here in Ijebu - We're all warriors - not like the Amerikan cowards.