Clinton calls for Russian military transparency

#1
http://www.arrse.co.uk/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=22

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is urging Russia to be "completely transparent" about its military forces as Washington and NATO allies strive for closer cooperation with Moscow.

Clinton spoke as NATO foreign ministers were joined Friday by their Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

Clinton highlighted the value of launching new negotiations to strengthen conventional arms control but said "to get there, Russia must be willing to talk to its neighbors about its equipment and forces in disputed territories."
...to help Georgia, for example to plan a new war.

Such a stupid babe.
 
#2
She should wind her neck in, the lying whore...maybe she should also call for complete transparency about US forces and its nuclear weaponry. She does live on a different planet...like most yanks I suppose.
 
#3
I was reading an article the other day about Russia's improved armed farces Vlad has promised.

Seems the huge new air farce Vlad has promised can never be. It would require 4 times the manufacturing capacity that Russia currently has.

Russia, talking loudly and carry a small twig.
 
#6
I was reading an article the other day about Russia's improved armed farces Vlad has promised.

Seems the huge new air farce Vlad has promised can never be. It would require 4 times the manufacturing capacity that Russia currently has.

Russia, talking loudly and carry a small twig.[/QUOTE]

So, exactly like the UK then?
 
#7
#8
I was reading an article the other day about Russia's improved armed farces Vlad has promised.

Seems the huge new air farce Vlad has promised can never be. It would require 4 times the manufacturing capacity that Russia currently has.

Russia, talking loudly and carry a small twig.[/QUOTE]

So, exactly like the UK then?


Pfft!

Lets see, RAF busily flying umpteen thousand miles to bomb the latest bunch of sand dwellers with rather gucchi kit.

Russia? Planes can't fly, pilots drank all the anti freeze. And if they do get in the air, they often fall out of it because Bogdan in the hanger forget to tighten the nuts up when he was pissed.

It may make people like you feel clever saying the UK armed forces are terminally shit, but we're currently doing ops in Libya that are completely beyond Ivans ability or means to perform.
 
#9
Pfft!

Lets see, RAF busily flying umpteen thousand miles to bomb the latest bunch of sand dwellers with rather gucchi kit.

Russia? Planes can't fly, pilots drank all the anti freeze. And if they do get in the air, they often fall out of it because Bogdan in the hanger forget to tighten the nuts up when he was pissed.

It may make people like you feel clever saying the UK armed forces are terminally shit, but we're currently doing ops in Libya that are completely beyond Ivans ability or means to perform.
Well Ivan may not be the best at them, but I dare say his ability in space based, long range bomber and carrier operations is somewhat better than the UKs!

Inicdentally, the RAF is currently flying about 10-15% of Libya sorties and is completely dependent on Italian bases and US force enablers to do even that. Don't see Ivan relying on anyone but himself...
 
#10
Well Ivan may not be the best at them, but I dare say his ability in space based, long range bomber and carrier operations is somewhat better than the UKs!

Inicdentally, the RAF is currently flying about 10-15% of Libya sorties and is completely dependent on Italian bases and US force enablers to do even that. Don't see Ivan relying on anyone but himself...

The Russians are a complete and utter joke.

And as for their carrier you seem impressed by…

Russia
 
#13
Dear god Sergey, that Wodka finally blinded you. Hillary can be called many things

Bitch
****
Butt Ugly
Kankles
Fugly (no Offence Fugly)

but Babe?
Dear Goldbricker,

I'm very disappointed that you and other our friends don't feel an irony.

It is well known that mrs.Clinton is not a super-splendid beauty. So from my point of view the irony is quite apparent. Also I hinted that she is really a babe in the geopolitical woods.

She as a child don't understand some basic things and demonstrates her lack of experience too frequently.
 
#14
Dear Goldbricker,

I'm very disappointed that you and other our friends don't feel an irony.

It is well known that mrs.Clinton is not a super-splendid beauty. So from my point of view the irony is quite apparent. Also I hinted that she is really a babe in the geopolitical woods.

She as a child don't understand some basic things and demonstrates her lack of experience too frequently.
Why here I thought that Mrs Clinton would be considered quite the hotty with regards to russian standards on beauty.

So what's wrong with asking Russia for transparency? Does she show the same lack of understanding as when Putinedvedev (See what I did there?) made the same exact request to the US or is Russia strickly a do as I demand, not as I do, type country?

Personally I think that russia is a lot like an aging movie star that still thinks has the same clout now as during their heyday. I also think it's a bit naive to think that she's armed with less information than you.
 
#15
Why here I thought that Mrs Clinton would be considered quite the hotty with regards to russian standards on beauty.

So what's wrong with asking Russia for transparency? Does she show the same lack of understanding as when Putinedvedev (See what I did there?) made the same exact request to the US or is Russia strickly a do as I demand, not as I do, type country?

Personally I think that russia is a lot like an aging movie star that still thinks has the same clout now as during their heyday. I also think it's a bit naive to think that she's armed with less information than you.
Of course Ghost, Russia is not a superpower and from my point of view voided an abilty to be it in the (at least near) future. Moreover, it is impractical to try to restore superpower status - too expensive and unprofitable.

But in fact the USA (of course slowly) is losing its superpower status. Its share in the World economy goes lower. There is a Chinese factor. More and more countries (including BRICS ones), become rater independent from Washington's influence.

It is not a tragedy. It's a real life. However, there is an inertia. Some American politicians still live in the previou age, in 90's then the USA reached the historical maximum of influence.

No doubt that mrs.Clinton is 'informed' but there is another problem - to make right decisions based on the information. I don't think that mrs.Clinton is skilled enough in the international affairs, in geopolitics and military matters.
 
#16
Of course Ghost, Russia is not a superpower and from my point of view voided an abilty to be it in the (at least near) future. Moreover, it is impractical to try to restore superpower status - too expensive and unprofitable.

But in fact the USA (of course slowly) is losing its superpower status. Its share in the World economy goes lower. There is a Chinese factor. More and more countries (including BRICS ones), become rater independent from Washington's influence.

It is not a tragedy. It's a real life. However, there is an inertia. Some American politicians still live in the previou age, in 90's then the USA reached the historical maximum of influence.

No doubt that mrs.Clinton is 'informed' but there is another problem - to make right decisions based on the information. I don't think that mrs.Clinton is skilled enough in the international affairs, in geopolitics and military matters.
OK, but what does any of this have to do with asking Russia for more military transparency? Is that not a proper request? I assume quid pro quo translates into russian as well? No?
 
#17
But in fact the USA (of course slowly) is losing its superpower status..
The US National Guard has more combat power than most nation states, Russia included.






The 'Russian Navy' snort!
 
#18
OK, but what does any of this have to do with asking Russia for more military transparency? Is that not a proper request? I assume quid pro quo translates into russian as well? No?
If mrs.Clinton says that Russia and the USA should have the same level of transparency and proposes its higher level then it would sound quite logical.

But her call is one-sided. It is a typical approach of a superpower that establish double standards for itself, close allies and for other countries.

Such an approach doesn't work especially taking into account that the USA is slowly losing its superpower status.
 
#19
If mrs.Clinton says that Russia and the USA should have the same level of transparency and proposes its higher level then it would sound quite logical.

But her call is one-sided. It is a typical approach of a superpower that establish double standards for itself, close allies and for other countries.

Such an approach doesn't work especially taking into account that the USA is slowly losing its superpower status.


That is because the USA is a de factor superpower, whereas as Russia isn't.

Nothing wrong with letting the small dogs know their place.
 
#20
If mrs.Clinton says that Russia and the USA should have the same level of transparency and proposes its higher level then it would sound quite logical.

But her call is one-sided. It is a typical approach of a superpower that establish double standards for itself, close allies and for other countries.

Such an approach doesn't work especially taking into account that the USA is slowly losing its superpower status.
Here is an interesting article written by a rather worldly academic type of Russian descent.. Oddly enough it was written in 2007 well before the current "babe" was in the position she is now.

Robert Skidelsky - Russia needs more transparency and less bluster


When a country gets a worse press than it deserves, there’s usually something wrong with its public relations. Of course, if a state behaves atrociously, no amount of perfume can remove the stench. The best advertising in the world cannot sell a dreadful product –at least for long. But most state behaviour is not atrocious or dreadful most of the time –just averagely bad. And here good publicity can make a difference to how it is perceived and interpreted.

For much of the 20th century, Germany had the worst publicity of any country. Under Hitler this was richly deserved. But Germany also got very bad publicity under Kaiser Wilhelm II, which was not deserved. It was nearly all the result of bad diplomacy. The Kaiser himself was full of wind and bombast. He sent a gunboat to Agadir in 1905 which antagonised England. It was all for show –but it made Germany seem threatening. In fact one could say that the first world war was caused by Germany’s bad diplomacy, not by any serious desire to dominate Europe.

I have no doubt that today Russia gets a worse press abroad than it deserves; equally, that most of it is due to bad diplomacy. Not all of it. There are Cold War warriors left in western foreign offices and universities who will interpret anything the Russian government does as a return to the time of Ivan the Terrible. And there are some things it does which deserve to be criticised – I have often done so myself. But by and large the Russian state itself generates the undeservingly bad publicity Russia gets.

There are two systematic flaws in Russian public relations. The first is secretiveness, lack of transparency. The second is giving reasons for actions which offend against common sense. These two attributes together encourage continuous, usually far-fetched, but quite damaging speculation about the real motives for behaviour, about where power is really located, and son. Russia is almost the only place in the world where conspiracy theory is not entirely implausible. If an otherwise well-informed journalist tells you that the Queen of England ordered the death of Princess Diana you would think he had taken leave of his senses. But in Britain many quite serious journalists, not obviously mad, believe that the Kremlin had a hand in the murders of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko and say so in their columns. I remember Alexander Livshits, then a member of the government, coming to London in 1999 and having to defend the Kremlin at a press conference against the charge that it planted the bombs which blew up a Moscow apartment building in which his wife was living.

As for implausible explanations, let me give three examples: the Kremlin’s insistence that the prosecution of Khodorkovsy was entirely due to tax evasion, and had no political significance; its insistence that Gazprom’s interruption of Ukraine’s gas supply was due entirely to a dispute about price and had nothing to do with punishing Ukraine for its political choices; its claim that the sale of assets forced on Shell was due to Shell’s environmental violations and had nothing to do with getting control over the natural resources of Sakhalin. The common thread in each case is the use of a legal pretext to gain a political goal. It would be far better to be more open about the political objective.Public relations sometimes has to be ‘economical’ with the truth. But good public relations should have a more solid relationship with the truth than the excuses trotted out by the government.

Russians could take a leaf out of the Arabs’ book. The Emir of Quatar set up the TV news programme Al Jazeeraz to give an Arab perspective on world affairs. It has become widely watched. By contrast the Russian government’s station, Russia Today, is hardly watched by anyone. What would be interesting for western viewers is not controlled information about Russia, but a Russian slant on world affairs presented with enough independence to be credible.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top