Average Rating

5 Star
4 Star
3 Star
2 Star
1 Star

34 thoughts on “Re-starting the coldwar??

  1. It’s noteworthy that Russia feels threatened by purely defensive measures…!!!

    This really shouldn’t be the case unless they’re actually still preparing for a possible nuclear war and see the potential of their striking capabilities weakened… Considering this scenario, it’s the west that should fell threatened, and not the other way around!!!

    Sigh, it just goes to show that old habits are hard to break – democracy is a looooooong way off in Russia. 🙁

  2. When we had our revolution back in 1776 they say it took a good ten years for the dust to actually settle after the British surrendered. They say the country went through something similar after our Civil War in the 1860’s. When the South’s General Lee signed the surrender it took, again, ten years for everyone to get back in their corner. Hopefully Putin’s playing to the die-hards that long for the days of the Soviet Union. Yea, they were the good old days. I forget where I read it but I had to laugh that Russia is having a similar problem on their southern border that we have here in the US with our southern border. Who’d have ever thought that there would be a day when people would want to get into Russia to get a job? The wall came down in 1989. Give it a little more time. It won’t be long before the future will look better than the past. I hope.

  3. well, who starts this crisis scenario ?

    “This business of anti-missile missiles is a new thing, kind of a bureaucratic and militarist diplomacy forced by only the dynamic warmonger and of bureaucratic expansionism of the Pentagon. No thought controls it, no prospective vision does not animate it; it is a kind of artifact left a freezer the Cold war. The operational arguments are hardly acceptable on the level of the experts ossified in logics of the Cold war. This bureaucratic diplomacy is a true horror, where the americanists will lose many of their advantages in the subjected regions of Europe. The simple evocation of a rupture of treaty TNF and a revival of the nuclear systems of theatre seems to terrorize the Germans. The Poles, in particular the twins prĂ©sident/premier minister, are blind like their US mentors. Their only concern is of nationalist type exacerbated, with antagonism with Russia, supported on bonds of vassalage with the Pentagon more than with the USA. On top fleet the dialectical one on the strategic goal of the anti-missile missiles, enough secondary actually. The Russian arguments are worth largely those of the Americans, with Europeans of the East in faithful echo. It acts typically of a situation nihilist, where the stacking of hardware possibly anti-Russian is the only true argument in the West, argument completely under the cut of the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. It is the abrupt political dimension of the business, which threatens to transform it into major political crisis, which interests us. The Germans are in first line. They find all their fears of the years 1977-1983, but with the reversed responsibilities: this time, they are the USA, with their Eastern-European relays, which start the crisis.”

  4. we don’t want Penthagon missile defense : just let have our EU army for self defense

    “BILD: Wohin fĂŒhrt uns diese Zukunft, Frau Bundeskanzlerin? Wie sieht Europa in 50 Jahren aus? Sind Russland und Israel in der EU? Und wie lange ist die TĂŒrkei dann schon EU-Mitglied?

    Merkel: Die Frage nach Vollmitgliedschaft wird sich in 50 Jahren nicht mehr so drĂ€ngend stellen, weil auch das KnĂŒpfen besonders enger Beziehungen der EU zu einem Nachbarstaat attraktiv sein wird. Das hilft uns, eine grĂ¶ĂŸere Zone der StabilitĂ€t und freundschaftlicher Verflechtungen aufzubauen. In der EU selbst mĂŒssen wir einer gemeinsamen europĂ€ischen Armee nĂ€her kommen. Die EU-Kommission wird handlungsfĂ€higer werden, und zwar mit klar geregelten ZustĂ€ndigkeiten. Einen europĂ€ischen Bundesstaat wird es auch in 50 Jahren nicht geben, wir werden die Vielfalt der Nationalstaaten behalten.

    BILD: Welchen EuropÀer der letzten 50 Jahre bewundern Sie am meisten?

    Merkel: Es gibt nicht nur einen, viele haben Großartiges geleistet. Ich bewundere Konrad Adenauer dafĂŒr, dass er es geschafft hat, Deutschland nach dem Krieg mit den Völkern Europas zu versöhnen. Und ich war zum Beispiel vor wenigen Tagen sehr beeindruckt, als ich einen Text von Helmuth James Graf von Moltke im Widerstand gegen die Nazis gelesen habe. Moltke hat mitten im Krieg, 1941, auf den Punkt vorhergesagt, wie sich Europa entwickeln werde: keine Zölle mehr, gemeinsame WĂ€hrung, europĂ€ische Armee, europĂ€ische AuSSenpolitik, europĂ€ische Wirtschaftspolitik. Sagenhaft, diese Weitsicht.

    BILD: Was glauben Sie, mĂŒssen Sie tun, um wie Helmut Kohl EhrenbĂŒrger Europas zu werden?

    Merkel: Damit vergleiche ich mich nicht. Helmut Kohl ist einzigartiger BĂŒrger und Politiker Europas.”


  5. The anti-missile missiles are just a love note to Putin to help out with the Iranian problem.

    If the Iranian problem is solved…then there is no justification for an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe.

    Japan signed up for anti-missile missiles after the North Koreans lastest missile test. The Chinese suddenly became more helpful in the Korean problem.

  6. the “Iranian problem”, that’s what your told, but seems that Iranians have no such powers, I think it is ment to annoy Russians in the mean time prevent EU from getting more consentual on foreign policy, the discussion is actually on, while the main EU states want the missiles under Nato and try to change Poland and Tcheckie volition ; so far US penthagon did not want to change their plan

  7. Nomad, might have known the evil Americans were behind it all. Too bad I don’t read German, I would have had to endure some more psycho-conspiratorial babble. Good-bye, farewell, auf weidersein, aloha. Move the bed away from the wall, you won’t keep banging your head on it when you get up.

  8. “just let have our EU army for self defense”

    Bwaaaahahaha! You go guy… Let the security of your nation rely on the “EU army”.

    You just crack me up, Nomad!

  9. The EU is the number one trading partner with Iran… Money, baby! Jobs, votes and taxes, it’s truly is a sweet thing… As for Russia, the EU needs to stay warm in the winter! Don’t upset the bear, you might all freeze to death!

    “just let have our EU army for self defense”


    Yeah, I’m all for it! Seriously, kind of like staving off a flood. How long does the U.S. want to do it? I actually think that the U.S. should have no further involvement in the defense of the EU. Pull all U.S. military out of the western portion of the EU (never mind that the citizens squeel like pigs when we close a base because “it hurts their local economy”) Hate the soldiers, love the dollars…

    You want your EU army to defend you? Then you better cut back on your social programs so you have the Euros to fund a real army, not some stupid thing that can’t fight in the snow…

  10. Johnny, too bad you can’t discern wether there is a conspiraty or not, you could have tried google , but you won’t, persuaded that we are all psycho–lefties, ninight cheri !

  11. I actually think that the U.S. should have no further involvement in the defense of the EU. Pull all U.S. military out of the western portion of the EU

    ach Ja, sofort , gehe, loss !

    (never mind that the citizens squeel like pigs when we close a base because “it hurts their local economy”) Hate the soldiers, love the dollars

    keep your bloody dollars, you’ll need them soon if not yet, how many percent of your population is starving ? or have to quit their home , so far 2 billions this year !

    socials programs are not a problem for us, only in your little babsy mind twiiiit twiiit twiiit, ehehe, if they were so bad, why US investment in our enterprises would be so high ? 32 %

    not some stupid thing that can’t fight in the snow

    and how do you do now, with your mighty army , ” we’re so tough and we can’t even handle a few uppity Iraqi villages.”

    ps)sorry Soldier’Dad , don’t take that for you

  12. hey, Goofie, if I google conspiracy I’m going to get conspiracies. Why would I do that?

    “Si les cons volaient, le ciel serait kaki”

    are you sure your not “lofty Goofie” ?

  13. Nomad, you got me there. You’re going to have to come down to my level if you’re going to share. Je n’sprecken da fwency fwench.

  14. Once again Nomad, you have to descend to the scatalogical to debate. I feel sorry for you.
    Still, you are good for a laugh.
    Yeah, let the EU Army defend your country!

  15. “My fellow Americans:

    It is our pleasure, our honor, our duty as citizens to present to you Duck for President. Here is a duck who began in a humble pond. Who worked his way to farmer. To governor. And now, perhaps, to the highest office in the land.

    Some say, if he walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is a duck.

    We say, if he walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he will be the next president of the United States of America.

    Thank you for your vote.”


    I don’t want to be defended by an army of duckies

  16. you have to descend to the scatalogical to debate. I feel sorry for you.

    don’t, I am OK with that, till I can avoid to get into your throwings

  17. Hmm, this topic sure wnet to mud-slinging quickly… 🙁

    Nomad: Sorry, but an EU army is a dream – the EU is such a diverse place politically and culturally that it’s a wonder it’s still functioning. My preference is to keep it a purely mercantile union; that’s what it’s good at. Personally, I’m very happy that we have an eager ally in the US posting it’s troops around the region – gives us more money to spend on wellfare! 🙂 The sad fact is that the world is not as stable a place as it might seem from within the EU, and the Russian reaction to a defencive-only system shows this with crystal clarity! Too bad, cause money spent on military is sorely needed elsewhere (this means the US too; I’ve just spent a week in Florida and some of the localities really gives you that sinking feeling!), but it seems that there’s no shortage of psychos around the world with willing throngs to do their bidding, so for now, a strong military is a must – thank god the US is and always has been willing to be at the forefront in this endeavour! Europe owes them a huge debt of gratitude! There can be no doubt of that, despite the many things we dislike about our friends from across the pond… 🙂


  18. Adam B, sure EU army is still a dream at the moment, but the idea is on, and I shall follow it, I know that some countries don’t want to be part to keep their neutrality, as scandinavian countries, but Germany, France, may be England, Italy, Spain, Belgia… already think about it, cause, we need union to afford modern arms, ships… and we are mature enough to know where are our ennemies, even if it is Russia, we must unify to defend our energy needs and don’t let a their policy of pressuring above our heads, that we must do without american unbrella ; as far as the debt that we owe to US, I don’t put it in cause, (they owed us their freedom from english empire too) but we are grown-ups, and we can handle our affairs

  19. Nomad,

    I see you once again claim the American victory in the American Revolution for France. Once again, I will say this is not so.

    1) Militarily, the French contribution was not exactly decisive.

    2) Strategically, the Brits ultimately gave up not because of military defeats, but because (as we all know) fighting an asymmetric war far from your base of supplies and reinforcements is difficult and costly.

    3) Ultimately, the Indian subcontinent offered more reward with less resistance.

    4) And, of course the madness of King George (sufferring with porphyrria) and divisions within Parliament made continuing to fight in America politically inexpedient.


    The contribution by the French king was not out of kinship or principle, but rather so he could stick it to the British king. The French people had no love for their king (obviously, based on the history soon to follow), and no special love for the Americans (yes, yes, other than Benjamin Franklin, but who didn’t love him?).

    By the way, how are ya, Nomie?

  20. ah, funny, why did your militarys commemorate Yorktown with the Frenchs last year ?


    By Gary Brecher

    The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like “I Hate France,” with supposed datelines of French military history, supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:
    Well, I’m going to tell you guys something you probably don’t want to hear: these sites are total bullshit, the notion that the French are cowards is total bullshit, and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world.
    Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry ‘do and the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And when an American mouths off about French military history, he’s not just being ignorant, he’s being ungrateful. I was raised to think ungrateful people were trash.
    When I say ungrateful, I’m talking about the American Revolution. If you’re a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of you probably couldn’t name three major battles from it, but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis’s army, forced the Brits’ surrender and pretty much won the war.
    Well, news flash: “we” didn’t win that battle, any more than the Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for us. Americans didn’t have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege.
    Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We’d never have got near Yorktown if it wasn’t for massive French aid.
    So how come you bastards don’t mention Yorktown in your cheap webpages? I’ll tell you why: because you’re too ignorant to know about it and too dishonest to mention it if you did.
    The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They’re the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?
    Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the French aren’t. But being a war buff means knowing your history and respecting it.
    Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let’s talk about ignorant. And that’s what you are if you think the French can’t fight: just plain ignorant. Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the most basic way you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little teachers’pets….”


    Nomie is tired , j’en ai marre de rĂ©pĂ©ter toujours les mĂȘmes choses Ă  des aveugles

  21. Adam B.: It’s noteworthy that Russia feels threatened by purely defensive measures

    That’s total BS and you know it.

    If the threat of a Russian nuclear retaliation is gone because of “purely defensive measures”, then there is every possibility that the Americans will threaten and eventually attack Russia with nuclear weapons. Without the fear of self-destruction, there is every incentive for the Americans to strike first in case of a confrontation with Russia or China. Missile Defense is a sure way to nuclear WW III.

  22. Daniel:

    You’re making my point… I live in a world at peace, with notable exceptions like NK, Iran and Iraq along with a string of african states and a few soon-to-be south american one’s as well. The USA is not an enemy in my book, even though their soldiers have stood on my soil (and I’m gratefull for it, no doubt!) and no matter how much I may disagree with their political stance. Russia was turning from the position of ultimate enemy to possible future ally, but their actions in this case has shown their true focus – not much has changed since the cold war except for the way the war is fought! Russia still feel threatened even though the US has never shown a true thirst for empire. Why is that? Why is it that they still see the US as an enemy? That, after all, is the only explanation to their reaction…

    Sorry, but the west still sees Russia as a risk and with good reason, as can be seen… The best way to put us at ease would be to show that they expect no hostility whatsoever from our side, as well they should not!!!

    Personally I feel that anything that protects us from harm without detracting from our freedom is a collective bonus and I welcome any defence that will defend against missiles regardless of who fires them! If the russians were smart they’d do the same!

  23. Nomad,

    Yes, yes. I’m quite familiar with Yorktown. However, the Brit’s war plan had gone down the toilet long before Yorktown, and they were getting more interested in their prospects in India by then and looking for a way out. The war was costing them far more than the colonies were ever worth to them.

    The British plan all along had been to organize the loyalists into an army, and let the Americans fight the Americans. Unfortunately, New York burned in August 1776, and the incoming loyalists were forced to live in tents and shanties in one of the coldest winters ever. The dispirited loyalists lost any inclination to fight for the king, and the lethargic Brits mostly stayed in New York and attended society funtions while the Patriots kept watch from the suburbs. Yorktown was mainly the punctuation at the end of a run-on sentence that had long since lost its steam.

    And for this, again, we have the King of France to thank. The same King who was an enemy of the French people.

    What we DO have to thank the people of France for is that cool statue sitting in New York Harbor and staring at the statue of Minerva atop Battle Hill in Green-Wood Cemetary in Brooklyn. Thanks, Frenchies!


  24. Daniel, Adam B,

    If I may, I think the notion that the US will take out a few thousand incoming missiles with a missle defense system is ridiculous, and Russia clearly knows this.

    Of course, a missile defense system is easily defeated by shipping the warhead to the states in a cargo container, or via FedEx, for that matter. Especially if the warhead absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.

  25. Yes, yes. I’m quite familiar with Yorktown. However, the Brit’s war plan had gone down the toilet long before Yorktown, and they were getting more interested in their prospects in India by then and looking for a way out. The war was costing them far more than the colonies were ever worth to them.

    you want make me think that the Brits intended to resign one of their biggest Colony incomes, if so wanna wonder why they still wanted to keep a rock island alike Fawcklands ; no, that’s not in their soul and conscience to abandon the party

    The same King who was an enemy of the French people.

    no, he wasn’t that bad, he unfortunately had to live in bad times, climate deseases, state cash reserves just bankerouted from the lazy previous King,

    what makes revolts, it’s economical poor situations, and the average Frenchs still had deference for his/her king, only the “Bobos” (burgers) hated him, for they wanted their part of the power, that the noble class did not want to share

  26. The Brits had very little income coming from their American colonies in the late 1700s. The Americans, then as now, bristled at anyone telling them what to do, and refused to pay taxes. The Brits tried to put down the tax revolt on the “cheap” with around 6000 soldiers occupying Boston (which, at the time, had a population of around 5000).

    When that didn’t work (Battles of Lexington and Concord, and Bunker Hill, followed by the seige of the Brits at Charlestown), they sent in a larger force and their navy with the idea that if they controlled the Hudson River and New York, that they could isolate those rowdy Bostonians (keeping them from sowing revolution in the southern colonies), recruit an army of American loyalists, and let the American loyalists fight the American rebels. It was a discount war plan, but the only one that made sense since the American colonies were very much a losing proposition for England, which Parliament was very much aware of.

    New York burning combined with some very cold winters resulted in disaffectation of the loyalists, who were generally unwilling to fight for the crown. So that plan failed also.

    So the Brits were stuck with a whole bunch of troops camped out in a land that was generating no revenue. At the same time, the opportunity to occupy India presented itself. Now there was a more populous, yet more docile, country. The country had already been explored and had some form of infrastructure. Most importantly, its population wasn’t about to toss a boatload of tea into the harbor everytime a token tax was imposed.

    Giving up on America and focusing on India made great economic sense.

    Plus, they got to move all the loyalists to Canada, which made Canada much easier to govern. I believe the national characters of America and Canada, respectively, were pretty much forged then and there. Rowdy? America. Loyal and more easily governed? Canada. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

    Meanwhile, France, bristling at having been booted from Quebec and Montreal during the Seven Years’ War, and concerned about England’s rising economic star, was glad to have an opportunity to knock England down a peg, effectively putting them on more even footing. Additionally, by allying with the nascent new country, they were able to secure a guarantee of their colony in “Louisiana”, which was massive. This is why France joined (laconically) into the fighting (fully three years after it started). Not for any deep philosophical conviction about freedom from monarchy which, after all, was what France was at the time.

    This is not to downplay the importance of the French contribution. Particularly since along with France came Spain, and ultimately the Dutch, all of whom had scores to settle with England with regard to American colonies, and all of which still had colonies in the Americas that A) could profit nicely from trade with the emerging country and B) could potentially get invaded by a newly free America if they pissed America off.

    As for who, exactly, supported the king, I can’t really comment as I have no particular expertise in French history of that time. All I know is that, based on reading Tale of Two Cities, he didn’t seem real popular.

    BTW, here’s a nice website covering American Revolutionay history:


  27. another “Ă©clairage” :


    Englishs didn’t choose the option of abandonning their american colonies and Spain came later on with the the volition to obtain their part of the cake




    “On ne s’occupe pas des Ă©curies en feu lorsque la maison s’écroule” said our king, that’s a good raison why the Frenchs could not give all their strenghs for the defense of your war of “independance”

    well as far as speaking of “revolution”, I would say american revolution was economical in that way they did not want to owe anything anymore to the king of England, and our revolution, about the same time was more ideological

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *