Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342124

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    No… We need a powerful Russia, even if ukranians or others not like this idea… A Big and Strong Russia is one of the 3 concrete of the Slavic Union, like it or not… Deal with it…

    And why exactly do we need a "big and strong Russia"? ::)
    We do not want to live under Russian hegemony once more and if a Slavic Union under Russian rule is established we won't be part of it.

    image

    @topic: I voted for independence.

    #362429

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Quote:
    No… We need a powerful Russia, even if ukranians or others not like this idea… A Big and Strong Russia is one of the 3 concrete of the Slavic Union, like it or not… Deal with it…

    And why exactly do we need a "big and strong Russia"? ::)
    We do not want to live under Russian hegemony once more and if a Slavic Union under Russian rule is established we won't be part of it.

    image

    @topic: I voted for independence.

    Hm, somehow I feel you not like me at all… I NEVER stated that this Slavic Union is should be under Russian hegemony… I thinked they have the most supreme power, to defend this Union from anyone else… Maybe I can tell how I can imagine this Union, if ye interested in it :)

    #362430

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    No… We need a powerful Russia, even if ukranians or others not like this idea… A Big and Strong Russia is one of the 3 concrete of the Slavic Union, like it or not… Deal with it…

    And why exactly do we need a "big and strong Russia"? ::)
    We do not want to live under Russian hegemony once more and if a Slavic Union under Russian rule is established we won't be part of it.

    image

    @topic: I voted for independence.

    Hm, somehow I feel you not like me at all… I NEVER stated that this Slavic Union is should be under Russian hegemony… I thinked they have the most supreme power, to defend this Union from anyone else… Maybe I can tell how I can imagine this Union, if ye interested in it :)

    I do not dislike you personally, I dislike certain ideas and statements of you. A union including Russia will inevitably be lead by Russia and this is the last thing I want for obvious reasons.

    #362431

    Anonymous

    Well it is certainly obvious Russians as, well, quite powerful Slavic nation would want to be on the top of this so called Slavic Union…and i'm sure for example Ukrainians, Poles, Croats and Slovenes would be against such order of things.

    I think that Unions never do good, i believe Slavic federation would be a much better idea.

    #362432

    Anonymous

    Split topic from "Solution for Chechnya" thread as last points were off-topic, but I do think this is relevent discussion for own thread.

    IMO Slavic Union/Federation would inevitably have more Russian influence (not necessarily hegemony) over union, because of following:

    1) Russia's economy is largest of Slavs. Even Poland's economy (second biggest of all Slav ones) is 1/3 of Russia's.
    2) Russia practically feeds oil and gas and other natural resources to Slavic lands (of course Russia needs money in return).
    3) Russia's military capacity (especially strategic) far exeeds any other Slavic army.

    But rest of Slavs put together would never permit any sort of Russian hegemony and I doubt myself they would want it as opposed to just being equal partners. Sure, it would be like Germany or France in EU, but I think they learned from Cold War that other Slavs do not like living in someone's else's hegemony and would try behave more like equal partner than big tyrant.

    #362433

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    1) Russia's economy is largest of Slavs. Even Poland's economy (second biggest of all Slav ones) is 1/3 of Russia's.
    2) Russia practically feeds oil and gas and other natural resources to Slavic lands (of course Russia needs money in return).
    3) Russia's military capacity (especially strategic) far exeeds any other Slavic army.

    1) And that is maybe all, but look at how people in Russia live. Even in 1968 soldiers who came from USSR to Czechoslovakia were so astonished by level of living here that they began to think about why should they occupy this country. Things did not change much since then.
    2) That is the reason why Russian economy is big.
    3) Strategic capacity is poor, just look at Afghanistan and Chechnya.

    #362434

    Anonymous

    I would divide Slavic union in 2 sub-unions and one member besides them.

    1)  Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bulgaria.
    2)  Slovakia, Czech R. ,  Poland, Ukraine and Belarus
    3)  Russia

    All areas where high domination of one state ( Russia) could happen would go on sub-union level and not on partial state level.

    but…that is if we ( other Slavs) or Russians even want Slavic union. Why would Russians want such a thing? What would they gain if they are so in front of others? Slavic union would be good for smaller countries like our south Slavic ones + Czech R. and Slovakia.
    I understand perfectly that this union was imagined primarily because of our ethnic bonds but always the economic factor was involved and was very important.

    #362435

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    1) And that is maybe all, but look at how people in Russia live. Even in 1968 soldiers who came from USSR to Czechoslovakia were so astonished by level of living here that they began to think about why should they occupy this country. Things did not change much since then.

    Depends where. ;) Sure, there are parts of Russia where there is not even water and electricity in houses, but on other hand, St Petersburg and Moscow has richer people than anywhere in Western Europe. There is no greater polarisation between rich and poor than in Russia.

    3) Strategic capacity is poor, just look at Afghanistan and Chechnya.

    Different kind of warfare. ;) Russians couldn't handle fighting guerilla fighters in their own harsh terrains.
    Fighting on Russia's terms (army vs army), they would be crushed like Georgia was.

    #362436

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I would divide Slavic union in 2 sub-unions and one member besides them.

    1)  Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bulgaria.
    2)  Slovakia, Czech R. ,  Poland, Ukraine and Belarus
    3)  Russia

    All areas where high domination of one state ( Russia) could happen would go on sub-union level and not on partial state level.

    but…that is if we ( other Slavs) or Russians even want Slavic union. Why would Russians want such a thing? What would they gain if they are so in front of others? Slavic union would be good for smaller countries like our south Slavic ones + Czech R. and Slovakia.
    I understand perfectly that this union was imagined primarily because of our ethnic bonds but always the economic factor was involved and was very important.

    This one is not a bad idea

    #362437

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    1)  Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

    Yugoslavia? ;D Not sure of this one.

    2)  Slovakia, Czech R. ,  Poland, Ukraine and Belarus
    3)  Russia

    Definitely agree with this two.

    #362438

    Anonymous

    We already have the EU, but it must be steered in a bit different way.

    Wilkolak: every fight is army vs. army  ;) Sending tanks into a city (Groznyj) without some effective back up is suicide. And exactly this happened. There the Russians suffered heaviest losses and Chechens enjoyed gains (captured ammo, weapons). It was also a huge moral boost for Chechens.
    Guerilla fighters always must develop a clever logistic system to distribute enough food, water, ammunition and weapons in the right location and right time. Cutting their distribution and communication = draining their power until partisans devote much of their time to get food and water instead of fighting.

    #362439

    Anonymous

    Yugoslavia? Grin Not sure of this one.

    Maybe some sub-sub-groups :D like:

    1. Croatia and Slovenia
    2. Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia
    3. Serbia and  Bulgaria

    ;P

    Definitely agree with this two.

    thanks ;)

    This one is not a bad idea

    to you too… ;)

    #362440

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Wilkolak: every fight is army vs. army  ;) Sending tanks into a city (Groznyj) without some effective back up is suicide. And exactly this happened. There the Russians suffered heaviest losses and Chechens enjoyed gains (captured ammo, weapons). It was also a huge moral boost for Chechens.
    Guerilla fighters always must develop a clever logistic system to distribute enough food, water, ammunition and weapons in the right location and right time. Cutting their distribution and communication = draining their power until partisans devote much of their time to get food and water instead of fighting.

    OK, first Chechen War was complete disaster for Russians, but this came from sending untested battle equipment (T-80s had for example never seen combat and proved to be failure) and also conscripts up against battle-hardened guerillas who had experience before from Karabakh War.

    Second Chechen War was totally different. Russia sent professional soliders and used totally different tactics, smashing Chechen guerillas to point where they could not do anything more than harassment and hit-and-run attacks. Also, they wiped out Chechen leadership by assassinations and corruption. Also, by army vs army I had more in mind like WWII (Germany vs USSR for example).

    #362441

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Second Chechen War was totally different. Russia sent professional soliders and used totally different tactics, smashing Chechen guerillas to point where they could not do anything more than harassment and hit-and-run attacks. Also, they wiped out Chechen leadership by assassinations and corruption. Also, by army vs army I had more in mind like WWII (Germany vs USSR for example).

    Yes, the second one was better. But notice it took heavy casualties and international embarasment for Russia to think about some strategy  ;)

    WW2 tactics are outdated now  :)

    #362442

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    WW2 tactics are outdated now  :)

    Yeah, today you just press buttons and shoot rockets on eachother :D

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

9 User(s) Online Join Server
  • slovborg
  • Fia
  • Jyxia
  • TypowaPolskaKobieta
  • kony97
  • Oliver (TW BLOCK)