LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-14-2016, 04:20 PM   #31
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,169

Rep: Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373
Red face poke poke poke , what could go wrong?


So, who's fault is it anyways, since I come from a country that practically neighbored Russia (no guesses yet?), who poked at the bear and woke it up in the first place? Seriously, countries up to the Baltics should think carefully about their next move. So what if NATO has their back, does NATO and co really want to have a race of mobilization? Would all the other countries that border Russia (Baltics, Poland) would really want to risk it? Because I venture by the time help arrives, they are overrun.

As a general rule you don't piss off your neighbors. The Russians notified the Poles many times about the planned missile defense under Bush. The US backed off eventually, why? Did someone forget that those countries are still considered a buffer zone?

But again, hey the hell do I know, I'm just a fanboy. Tampitilor!

Last edited by Jeebizz; 04-14-2016 at 10:44 PM.
 
Old 04-14-2016, 04:57 PM   #32
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,169

Rep: Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373
"The US military would have been within its rights to shoot down Russian aircraft that flew close to one of its warships in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry says."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36050689

Ok..
Click image for larger version

Name:	10waqh.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	103.5 KB
ID:	21479
 
Old 04-14-2016, 05:25 PM   #33
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 11,198

Rep: Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307Reputation: 5307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
I come from a country that practically neighbored Russia (no guesses yet?)
China?
 
Old 04-14-2016, 05:35 PM   #34
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,169

Rep: Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
China?
I said I was from Eastern Europe earlier , so go from there
 
Old 04-14-2016, 05:37 PM   #35
ardvark71
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Distribution: Lubuntu 14.04, 22.04, Windows 8.1 and 10
Posts: 6,282
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 842Reputation: 842Reputation: 842Reputation: 842Reputation: 842Reputation: 842Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
"U.S., Baltic States: Military Exercises in Russia's Buffer Zone"
Hi all...

I would have to disagree with the term and premise of "Russia's Buffer Zone." Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are independent and sovereign nations who have every right to decide how they handle their own defense matters. It is these states that are requesting additional NATO forces within their territories. Please see here and here. At different times in history, these nations (I'm thinking of Poland mostly,) were invaded and/or occupied by the USSR (Russia) unwillingly for decades and I can understand why they have concerns about Russia's intentions.

Regards...

Last edited by ardvark71; 04-14-2016 at 05:42 PM. Reason: Added comment/Corrections.
 
Old 04-14-2016, 07:39 PM   #36
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,937

Rep: Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619Reputation: 3619
This is not an unusual instance. I have some photos of Russian fighter and bomber cockpits that I took from a ship. We do it to them. It's just playing with the big boys.
 
Old 04-14-2016, 08:29 PM   #37
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,169

Rep: Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373
Exclamation Reality check

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardvark71 View Post
Hi all...

I would have to disagree with the term and premise of "Russia's Buffer Zone." Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are independent and sovereign nations who have every right to decide how they handle their own defense matters. It is these states that are requesting additional NATO forces within their territories. Please see here and here. At different times in history, these nations (I'm thinking of Poland mostly,) were invaded and/or occupied by the USSR (Russia) unwillingly for decades and I can understand why they have concerns about Russia's intentions.

Regards...
Their defense matters do not include NATO rocketry so close to Russia. Again, just because the USSR has collapsed, there is still a treaty but....

Quote:
Obama Urged to Break Russia-NATO Treaty, Put Troops in Eastern Europe
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oba.../15/id/702251/
Fanboy or not I again am just pointing out the obvious, and Russia is well within her rights to act accordingly.

As I also stated before, the Baltic nations, and others should think carefully. Russia is closer than other western nations, and have they given to a single thought that they pretty much have to live next to those crazy bastards in the first place? Probably not, because NATO to the rescue....Sure, whatever, if that helps their delusions.

Inb4 'b-b-b-ut Russia and Ukraine and Crimea.'

Again, Ukraine was also a buffer, and as far as Crimea it was voted in a referrendum to RE-join Russia. Inb4 'b-b-b-ut, it was all a sham/staged vote'...

Really? Prove it, besides the WEST is just as guilty of veiled 'democratic' shenanigans too. Topple governments and install a loyal lackie under the guise of democracy. This time Russia pretty much is throwing down and saying no more to that, i.e. Syria - sorry that I again return to Syria. Damascus and Moscow have a signed treaty, technically as much as the WEST (mostly the US) would have LOVED to just get their paws into Syria as well, Russia dared to say nope. The US backed off, but still barking like a dumb dog thinking it will still get it's way. Assad is not going anywhere, neither are the Russians from Syria, permanent bases. So...What are you going to do, ask the Russians to just leave, or....What, seriously, what?

Also:

NATO is NOT going to have Turkey's back if there is a war with Russia, is the U.S going to have Turkey's back then? Again, are the Turks willing to risk a race between being overrun by the Russians by the time the U.S is in any position to assist?


But yea, again what do I know, just a fanboy, nevermind at one point we considered ourselves to practically also be a neighbor to them.

Last edited by Jeebizz; 04-14-2016 at 08:48 PM.
 
Old 04-14-2016, 09:23 PM   #38
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,169

Rep: Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373Reputation: 1373
Further reading...

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...rope#Reactions

Suspension and complete withdrawal by Russia

After Russia was not willing to support the US missile defense plans in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for "moratorium" on the treaty in his April 26, 2007 address. Then he raised most of his points for rewriting the treaty during the Extraordinary Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, held in Vienna on June 11–15 at Russia’s initiative.[16] As his requests were not met during this conference, Putin issued a decree intended to suspend the observance of its treaty obligations on July 14, 2007, effective 150 days later, stating that it was the result of "extraordinary circumstances (...) which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures," and notified NATO and its members.[17][18] The suspension applies to the original CFE treaty, as well as to the follow-up agreements.[16]
Motives

An explanatory document from Russia's presidential administration mentioned several reasons for its original suspension of compliance in 2007.[16] First of all, Russia considered the linkage between the adapted treaty ratification and the withdrawal of troops from Georgia and Moldova as "illegitimate" and "invented". Russia also considered the troop-withdrawal issue a bilateral Russia–Georgia and Russia–Moldova issue, not a NATO–Russia issue. Secondly, the three Baltic states, which border Russia unlike the rest of NATO (excluding Poland and Norway), were not covered under the original CFE treaty as they were still part of the Soviet Union when the treaty was signed.[16] Also, the Baltic states like all NATO members did not ratify the adapted CFE treaty. Russia's wish for a speedy ratification and accession of the Baltic states to a ratified treaty, hoping to restrict emergency deployments of NATO forces there, was not fulfilled.[citation needed]

Thirdly, Russia emphasized that NATO's 1999 and 2004 enlargements increased the alliance's equipment above the treaty limits.[16] Consequently, Russia demanded a "compensatory lowering" of overall NATO numerical ceilings on such equipment. Fourthly, Russia mentioned that the then planned basing of U.S. military units in Romania and Bulgaria "negatively affects" those countries' compliance with the CFE Treaty’s force ceilings.[16] Fifthly, the document demanded a "removal" of the flank (i.e., North Caucasian) ceilings on Russian forces by a "political decision" between NATO and Russia, ostensibly to "compensate" Russia for the alliance's enlargement.[16] Sixthly, Russia wanted to re-negotiate and "modernize" the 1999-adapted CFE treaty as soon as it was brought into force.[16] Russia's position was that it would proceed unilaterally to suspend the treaty’s validity unless NATO countries brought the updated version into force by July 1, 2008, or at least complied with its terms on a temporary basis, pending a re-negotiation of the treaty.

Most likely, but not mentioned in Russia's explanatory document, the above-mentioned "extraordinary circumstances" referred to the US plans for a missile defense complex in Poland, with a radar component in the Czech Republic.[19][20] Another likely reason is that NATO members refused to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty due to the continuing presence of several hundred Russian troops in Moldova—something they considered as a violation of the obligations Russia assumed during the 1999 Istanbul summit.[19] However, there was no legal connection between the Adapted CFE treaty and the Russian withdrawal from Georgia and Moldova. The linkage between these two security issues was a decision made by NATO member states to protest against the Second Chechen War and was used as a reason not to ratify the treaty.[21] Russia never accepted this decision—a decision also made six months after the Istanbul summit.[21] Russia also considered the original CFE treaty to be outdated and strategically flawed as it did not take into account the dissolutions of the Warsaw Treaty or the Soviet Union.[22][23]

In Russia, even Vladimir Ryzhkov, an opposition leader and an independent member of the Duma, agreed that Russia had been forced to respond. However, he also speculated that Putin's suspension by decree was "primarily an election-year message to the country: "Your leader won't budge, no matter who formally becomes next President"."[18]
Reactions

NATO immediately expressed regret over Russia's decision to suspend the treaty, describing it as "a step in the wrong direction", but hoped to engage Moscow in what was described as constructive talks on this issue.[24] The United States along with European states such as Germany, Poland and Romania also expressed their disappointment.[25] Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev expressed support for Putin's decree.[26] On 25 November 2011 the UK stopped sharing military data with Russia.[27]

The Russian Foreign Ministry also said that the consequences of the suspension would be the halting of inspections and verifications of its military sites by NATO countries and that it would no longer have the obligation to limit the number of its conventional weapons.[18] In practice, Russia had already halted such verification visits in June 2007 after an extraordinary CFE treaty conference held in Vienna turned a deaf ear to Russia's complaints.[28] Consequently, military delegations from Bulgaria and Hungary had been denied entry to Russian military units.

Yuri Zarakhovich speculated in Time that the above-mentioned "immediate measures" would be a build-up of its forces in areas bordering NATO eastern members, in particular Poland and the Baltic states.[18] Time further speculated at the time that other measures could include troop buildups along southern borders in the Caucasus, new pressures on Ukraine to maintain the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea beyond the (then planned) 2017 withdrawal deadline, and a refusal to leave Moldova.

In March 2015, the Russian Federation announced that it had taken the decision to completely halt its participation in the Treaty.[29]
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Doom3 Voices 'buzzing' peeples Linux - Games 0 02-14-2005 07:35 PM
xmms buzzing after playing cd once rahmed Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 05:51 PM
Flash-plugin buzzing mickeyboa Fedora 11 08-02-2004 04:25 PM
ANNOYING buzzing sound 2uantuM Linux - Hardware 3 04-24-2004 03:19 PM
PC fighter 6 gamepad SeoushiSan Linux - Hardware 0 11-25-2002 02:06 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration