This forum address has been redirected temporarily, for now it includes [slarti] this may be due to the forum upgrading to phbb3 or the forum being moved to our newer server. You do not need to take any action, your forum address will revert back to normal in a day or two. In the mean time please do not bookmark or publish the temporary link.
Americans Troops to March in Red Square Parade
US, British, French troops to march in Red Square parade May 9
what the ____?
Obama Orders Americans Troops to March in Red Square Parade Complete With Posters of Stalin
This is Not a Joke
The British Embassy says British, French and U.S. troops will march May 9
with Russian soldiers on Red Square to mark the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.
It said in a statement Thursday that the May 9 parade will include a Royal Air Force band and a detachment of Welsh Guards.
The statement said the parade may mark the first time British troops have marched in Red Square.
The U.S. Embassy confirmed that U.S. soldiers will take part in the parade.
Victory Day is Russia's most important secular holiday. The Kremlin plans a larger parade than usual this year.
Last week the British Embassy announced that British, French and American troops would march with Russian soldiers on Red Square to mark the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.
The Brits said in a statement that the parade may mark the first time British troops have marched in Red Square;
I believe the same observation applies to the American troops that will join the parade.
The AP helpfully explains that Victory Day is Russia's most important secular holiday.
It adds that the Kremlin plans a larger parade than usual this year, with good reason.
The Kremlin will be celebrating the addition of the British, French and American troops.
The timing is particularly bad in that, for the first time in many years, the City of Moscow is planning on putting up posters of Stalin as part of its Victory Day celebration.
So Obama will be able to honor not only the would-be dictator Putin, but the real thing.
PRAY TELL WHAT IS THIS (?) THINKING?
I put a question mark as words fail me as to how to describe this (?) leading the United DEMOCRAT States of America. Actually I can think of MANY but will use none of those in a public place.
I'm sickened at the thought of this. As a child we feared the Russians bombing us in the middle of the night.
Little did we know there would come a day when a PRESIDENT of our OWN COUNTRY would simply hand this country over. Not only to the Russians BUT the Chinese as well.
'This' .. try ...
Muslim Marxist Communist Nazi Devil himself Obama
THANKS, CJ - you took the words right out of my mouth!
Wouldn't it be WONDERFUL if (not going to happen but what IF) the troops "it" orders to march there would just REFUSE the command? Now THAT would be a hoot; in my opinion.
One would think somewhere in our "law" or something it would be unlawful or unconstitutional or SOMETHING about a president ORDERING our own troops onto foreign soil simply for that foreign country to flaunt a national holiday? Just doesn't seem right somehow.
US and Brit troops join Russia's Victory Day parade . . . . . . . US and Brit troops join Russia's Victory Day parade
This is the FIRST followup news I have seen on this.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Troops from 4 NATO countries have marched for the first time in Russia's annual parade to mark victory in WWII.
Soldiers from Britain, France, Poland and the USA marched alongside Russian troops through Moscow's Red Square.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was among some two dozen world leaders attending the 65th anniversary.
Along with 10,000 Russian troops, the parade also included tanks, ballistic missiles and a fly-past of 127 aircraft.
It was the largest display of Russia's military hardware since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow reports.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a speech that the lessons of World War II "urge us to show solidarity".
"Peace is still fragile and it is our duty to remember that wars do not start in an instant,
it is only together that we shall be able to counter modern threats."
The presence of foreign troops in Red Square - once the heart of the Soviet Union - was a highly symbolic gesture, our correspondent says,
demonstrating how far the rivalry of the Cold War has been pushed aside. (NO IT HASNT!)
France was represented at the parade by the Normandie-Niemen squadron;
the US by a detachment from the 2nd Battalion, 18th Regiment; and
Poland by 75 service personnel representing the Polish army, air force and navy, the AFP reports.
British soldiers parade through Moscow's Red Square on 9/5/2010
Britain was represented by 76 soldiers from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, wearing bright red tunics and tall bearskin caps.
One member told the BBC they were excited to be taking part as it was important that former allied forces that defeated the Nazis during WWII should be together on the 65th anniversary of the ending of the war.
However, there was no senior British figure among the world leaders that gathered to watch the parade.
A reliable source confirmed to the BBC that the Russian government rejected an offer for Prince Charles to attend, although it is not clear why, our correspondent reports.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian President Silvio Berlusconi cancelled their visits in order to attend to the crisis surrounding the euro currency.
Western allies mark Victory in Europe Day every year on 8 May,
but Russia celebrates the event a day later as it was 9 May in Moscow when the Nazi surrender came into force.
Marching through Red SquareRussia, NATO and Europe Marching through Red Square
May 20th 2010 - A pragmatic new foreign policy may be a plus, but it does not mean that Russia is ready to make any changes at home[/b]
ON MAY 9th soldiers from NATO countries, including America, Britain and Poland, marched across Red Square in Russia’s Victory Day parade.
Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”, the anthem of the European Union, was played along with the Soviet-era national anthem.
Military parades are symbolic and the Kremlin has long put Russia’s wartime victory at the centre of its post-Soviet identity.
But this parade was meant to project the image of a self-confident, powerful country seeking better relations with the West.
A year ago it symbolised Russia’s victory over Georgia and its American backers. These days Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, talks of common values and the trustworthiness of America.
And Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, praises the openness of the Kremlin in investigating the Smolensk air crash and says Poland is an ally.
Russia’s foreign policy has changed—and the change goes beyond rhetoric. After 40 years of tedious talks, Russia has signed a maritime border agreement with Norway. It is using soft power in Ukraine. Perhaps most significant is the improvement in relations with Poland, a centuries-old irritant. After years of exploiting differences between old and new members of the European Union, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, has realised that EU solidarity is more than mere rhetoric.
Germany’s Angela Merkel made clear two years ago that, if Russia wanted better relations with the EU, it had to mend fences with Poland. That required a shift in the Kremlin’s historical discourse and its taste for Stalin. Mr Putin has been remarkably flexible. Last year he went to Gdansk to mark the start of the war; this year he knelt to commemorate victims of the Katyn massacre ordered by Stalin in 1940. The importance of Poland in the Kremlin’s eyes has grown along with the prospects of shale gas in the country. Gazprom is now said to be sweet-talking the Poles into a long-term gas contract. In the contest between gas interests and Stalin, Stalin loses.
There is no point sulking or being belligerent with the West, the Kremlin seems to have decided. As Mr Putin has said, Russia should present a smiling face to the world.
A smile, however, does not alter nature; the Russian shift has occurred without significant change inside the country. Russia has not become less corrupt or more democratic.
Russian troops remain in part of Georgia; Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Yukos boss, is still in jail.
Russia has not abandoned its claim to a privileged interest in the neighbourhood.
Dmitry Trenin, head of the Moscow Carnegie Centre, argues that Russian foreign policy under Mr Putin has always been more defensive than offensive.
It is shaped more by vested financial and political interests than by ideology or geopolitics.
Russia’s return to business as usual was made easier by Barack Obama’s reset policy (seen in Moscow as an admission of past mistakes) and the shelving of NATO expansion.
The financial crisis has also shown up Russia’s vulnerability.
After a decade of rising oil prices and budget surpluses, Russia is running a deficit and looking to borrow money.
The crisis has exploded a model of economic growth that relied on rising oil and gas prices.
To keep its grip on power, the Kremlin has now come up with a different idea: modernisation to renew the Russian economy without changing its political system.
Russia’s new pragmatism is set out in a leaked foreign-ministry paper.
The document is not an example of liberalism and openness, but it argues that Russia must form modernisation alliances with leading countries and attract Western technologies while advancing the interests of Russian companies abroad.
In a sign of desperation, even Armenia is seen as a channel for the transfer of technology to Russia.
Russia’s wish list includes visa-free travel, the adoption of EU standards and membership of the World Trade Organisation and the OECD rich-country club.
The EU’s attitude has been cautious and more realistic than many suppose. Progress in EU-Russia relations has been painfully slow.
Barring a few appeasers, most governments in Europe, including Germany’s, have no illusions left about Mr Putin’s Russia:
its weak property rights, high corruption and the symbiosis of state power with private financial interests.
Yet most EU governments also embrace the idea of modernisation.
A large emerging market with a huge demand for technological catch-up serves the interests of European companies.
Adopting EU standards would also curb Russia’s ability to impose arbitrary trade sanctions.
And many see Russia’s slogan of modernisation as a chance, however feeble, to push for its political transformation.
Talk of modernisation has not removed basic disagreements.
Mr Medvedev’s November proposal for a new European security treaty focuses on hard power and implies a veto on NATO expansion which is unpalatable to the West.
It is being discussed as part of the so-called Corfu process, but one European politician likens it to a perpetuum mobile that will go on forever without reaching a conclusion.
From Russia’s viewpoint, Mr Medvedev’s scheme has helped to divert attention from Georgia.
“[They] stopped discussing Georgia and started discussing this proposal,” Mr Rogozin says. Russia has kept its military presence not just in Georgia but in other former Soviet republics.
It has just agreed an extension of the Black Sea fleet’s lease in Sebastopol, in Ukraine.
As the foreign-ministry document asserts, Russia needs to consolidate the former Soviet space by, for example, pushing the customs union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Brussels has warned Ukraine that, were it to join this customs union, it would jeopardise its partnership with the EU.
Russia itself sees the EU as a source of innovation, but not a model for democracy.
Talk of common values and the rule of law causes heartburn among such Russian officials as Vladimir Chizhov, a smiling and impenetrable ambassador to the EU.
Asked what Russia wants from the EU, he starts with what it does not want: to have it as a bossy patron come to modernise Russia.
“We see it as a purely utilitarian initiative,” he says.
The main problem is not that Russia defends its own values (it has few) but that its leaders think the values gap does not exist and the West is hypocritical to talk of it.
Unlike Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of openness, which was inseparable from domestic liberalisation, Russia’s new détente implies no political change at home.
The foreign-ministry document talks of the need to project the image of Russia as a democratic state with a socially oriented market economy—but says nothing about the need actually to become one.
Russia’s rapprochement is fragile since it hinges on an idea of modernisation that is unlikely to succeed without liberalisation.
The risk is that when modernisation fails, Russia will blame the West for sabotaging it.
GREAT PHOTO here!
MAKE NO MISTAKE -
The RUSSIAN BEAR HAS AWAKENED from HIBERNATION - HUNGRY!