Re: Russia joins France and Germany

[captain!]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=18346&lang=en
>
> TASHKENT - Russia added its skeptical voice Friday to those of France
> and Germany by saying that a UN resolution proposed by Washington to
> set up a multinational force in Iraq needed a lot more work.
>
> "The US draft is moving toward principles (supported by Russia) but
> for them to be outlined (in the resolution) in full, the document
> needs very serious work," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told
> reporters.
>
> "This initiative deserves attention because the draft resolution in
> part reflects principles that Russia had been repeatedly fighting
> for," Russia's top diplomat added while attending a meeting of
> regional foreign ministers in the Uzbek capital.
>
> France and Germany -- nations that along with Russia bitterly opposed
> the US-led war -- have already expressed opposition to the new
> resolution and the Kremlin said French President Jacques Chirac called
> his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Friday to discuss the latest
> standoff with Washington.
>
> The first consultations on the draft were due to begin Friday in New
> York.
> The draft US resolution does not explicitly place the United States in
> charge of the force. But it says the United States would report to the
> Security Council on efforts undertaken by the international
> contingent.
>
> The resolution also gives the United Nations a role in deciding a
> timetable for a democratic government to be established. Russia --
> which has sought a central role for the United Nations in Iraq -- has
> veto power on the world-governing body as a permanent UN Security
> Council member. So does China, whose Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing was
> more cautious in his criticism of the US plan at the Tashkent talks
> Friday. "Iraq needs a government which will have the support of all
> the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors. The situation in Iraq needs to
> be returned to the framework of the United Nations." China has for the
> large part tried to keep out of the Iraqi dispute and preserve its
> relations with both the peace and war camps. The Chinese foreign
> ministry released a separate statement saying Beijing was
> "conscientiously studying" the new draft and was taking a
> "constructive attitude ... and hopes that all sides can reach a
> consensus as soon as possible."
>
> Moscow is also taking steps to repair any damage done by Iraq to its
> US relations ahead of this month's Camp David summit between US
> President George W. Bush and Putin. Putin had said earlier that Moscow
> saw nothing negative in an international force in Iraq under US
> command.

russian forces under US command? you must hate the very thought eh michael?

>
> And Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov hinted for the first time Thursday
> that Russia may send peacekeepers to Iraq in response to Washington's
> pleas for additional international help. But the Russian foreign
> minister on Friday appeared to quash such suggestions by saying that
> Russia's participation was "not realistically being examined."

he likes to keep everyone guessing.

>
> And he unleashed unexpected criticism of Washington's handling of the
> daily violence raging in occupied Iraq. "I'm surprised that several of
> Washington's representatives say that in Iraq the situation is getting
> better and better -- but day by day the situation gets worse and worse
> and requires the help of the international community," the foreign
> minister said.

why is he surprised? it is similar to what the russian govt. did for years
in chechnya.

[Aida Lott]

Once again Michael proves himself a complete idiot.

Putin is a pragmatist. He will side with Germany and France when he thinks
he can score a few points and he will side with America when he thinks he
can score a few points. Ultimately, befriending America's economy is far
more important to Putin and Russia than the economies of France and Germany.
Shroeder are Chirac are sufferring under delusions of grandeur if they think
Putin is squarely on their side.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Aida Lott" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Once again Michael proves himself a complete idiot.
>
> Putin is a pragmatist. He will side with Germany and France when he thinks
> he can score a few points and he will side with America when he thinks he
> can score a few points. Ultimately, befriending America's economy is far
> more important to Putin and Russia than the economies of France and
Germany.
> Shroeder are Chirac are sufferring under delusions of grandeur if they
think
> Putin is squarely on their side.

Putin wants his $8 billion.

[Michael Petukhov]

"captain!" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=18346&lang=en
> >
> >
> > Moscow is also taking steps to repair any damage done by Iraq to its
> > US relations ahead of this month's Camp David summit between US
> > President George W. Bush and Putin. Putin had said earlier that Moscow
> > saw nothing negative in an international force in Iraq under US
> > command.
>
> russian forces under US command?

Why not? Russian forces were under operative US command in Bosnia and Kosovo.
It does not matter in fact. Everybody understand that those forces if
needed will be out of US command in a one second.

>you must hate the very thought eh michael?

Not at all. I do not base my opnions on hate etc. Although I remember
about true interests of my country. I lived for three years near
US 4-th corp HQ in Germany and knew some of its officers. generally
good guys. In my personal view US military is best part of US society.
It is absolutely no problem to be under their command, providing
of course it does goes well with our own interests, which is
a very different question.


>
> >
> > And Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov hinted for the first time Thursday
> > that Russia may send peacekeepers to Iraq in response to Washington's
> > pleas for additional international help. But the Russian foreign
> > minister on Friday appeared to quash such suggestions by saying that
> > Russia's participation was "not realistically being examined."
>
> he likes to keep everyone guessing.

His job is to use words carefully.

>
> >
> > And he unleashed unexpected criticism of Washington's handling of the
> > daily violence raging in occupied Iraq. "I'm surprised that several of
> > Washington's representatives say that in Iraq the situation is getting
> > better and better -- but day by day the situation gets worse and worse
> > and requires the help of the international community," the foreign
> > minister said.
>
> why is he surprised?

Because it is obvious lie I guess.

> it is similar to what the russian govt. did for years
> in chechnya.

it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.

Michael

[captain!]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "captain!" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=18346&lang=en
> > >
> > >
> > > Moscow is also taking steps to repair any damage done by Iraq to its
> > > US relations ahead of this month's Camp David summit between US
> > > President George W. Bush and Putin. Putin had said earlier that Moscow
> > > saw nothing negative in an international force in Iraq under US
> > > command.
> >
> > russian forces under US command?
>
> Why not? Russian forces were under operative US command in Bosnia and
Kosovo.
> It does not matter in fact. Everybody understand that those forces if
> needed will be out of US command in a one second.
>
> >you must hate the very thought eh michael?
>
> Not at all. I do not base my opnions on hate etc. Although I remember
> about true interests of my country. I lived for three years near
> US 4-th corp HQ in Germany and knew some of its officers. generally
> good guys. In my personal view US military is best part of US society.
> It is absolutely no problem to be under their command, providing
> of course it does goes well with our own interests, which is
> a very different question.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > And Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov hinted for the first time Thursday
> > > that Russia may send peacekeepers to Iraq in response to Washington's
> > > pleas for additional international help. But the Russian foreign
> > > minister on Friday appeared to quash such suggestions by saying that
> > > Russia's participation was "not realistically being examined."
> >
> > he likes to keep everyone guessing.
>
> His job is to use words carefully.
>
> >
> > >
> > > And he unleashed unexpected criticism of Washington's handling of the
> > > daily violence raging in occupied Iraq. "I'm surprised that several of
> > > Washington's representatives say that in Iraq the situation is getting
> > > better and better -- but day by day the situation gets worse and worse
> > > and requires the help of the international community," the foreign
> > > minister said.
> >
> > why is he surprised?
>
> Because it is obvious lie I guess.
>
> > it is similar to what the russian govt. did for years
> > in chechnya.
>
> it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
> in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
> solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
> final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
> US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.
>
> Michael

i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was still
young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem better
than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every country
does.

[Mikhail Medved]

"Aida Lott" > wrote in message >...
> Once again Michael proves himself a complete idiot.

Not really. Michael is right.

>
> Putin is a pragmatist. He will side with Germany and France when he thinks
> he can score a few points and he will side with America when he thinks he
> can score a few points. Ultimately, befriending America's economy is far
> more important to Putin and Russia than the economies of France and Germany.

Not at all. Trade between Russia and US is negligible while with
Europe, especially Germany, it is substantial. The US don't
participate in any economic development plans while Germany and France
do. It is funny to read this because in reality as far as Russia is
concerned, the US may not exist at all. There is no real leverage
whatsoever. All external dependencies are in the EU, with Germany
being the biggest partner.

> Shroeder are Chirac are sufferring under delusions of grandeur if they think
> Putin is squarely on their side.

Putin is squarely on his own side.

[Michael Petukhov]

"captain!" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> >
> > it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
> > in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
> > solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
> > final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
> > US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.
> >
> > Michael
>
> i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was still
> young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem better
> than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every country
> does.

Oh in that sense... Well not only russians and americans.
human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
official military reports before, during and after
that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
while according to german reports all these disasters after
disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
papers published in that time on that matters. German
materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
****ty propaganda.

Michael

[Michael Petukhov]

"captain!" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> >
> > it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
> > in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
> > solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
> > final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
> > US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.
> >
> > Michael
>
> i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was still
> young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem better
> than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every country
> does.

Oh in that sense... Well not only russians and americans.
human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
official military reports before, during and after
that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
while according to german reports all these disasters after
disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
papers published in that time on that matters. German
materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
****ty propaganda.

Michael

[captain!]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "captain!" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
> > > in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
> > > solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
> > > final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
> > > US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was
still
> > young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem
better
> > than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every
country
> > does.
>
> Oh in that sense... Well not only russians and americans.

the iraqis did it too. it was also funny to see the iraqi defense minister
claiming that the americans were nowhere near bagdad while bombs were
falling in the background.


> human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
> on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
> official military reports before, during and after
> that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
> Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
> while according to german reports all these disasters after
> disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
> output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
> papers published in that time on that matters. German
> materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
> soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
> numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
> the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
> So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
> ****ty propaganda.

are you saying that there was ****ty propaganda about stalin or that stalin
had problems with (writing) ****ty propaganda?

>
> Michael

[Michael Petukhov]

"captain!" > wrote in message >...
>
> > human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
> > on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
> > official military reports before, during and after
> > that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
> > Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
> > while according to german reports all these disasters after
> > disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
> > output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
> > papers published in that time on that matters. German
> > materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
> > soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
> > numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
> > the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
> > So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
> > ****ty propaganda.
>
> are you saying that there was ****ty propaganda about stalin or that stalin
> had problems with (writing) ****ty propaganda?
>

Difficult to say... Although there is little doubt that in
Stalin times soviet press often lied and generaly was used
for propaganda. Where it was (and is) not? But clearly the
picture was more complex than that simplistic views. Stalin
is known to severely purnish those who lied to him. As result of
that intentional lie in a official reports in his times
was very rare. particularly war time reports of Red Army
general stuff are considered to be the most complete and
reliable source of data for WWII in east front by many
serious reserachers including also western historians.
David Glantz for instance noted that very clearly. As for press
it lied if there was a good purpose and a direct order but
simulteniously if there were no good reason and durect
order to lie it could also be quite trueful. So as usual
one have to look in details and from different prespectives
and sources to find out what was the true. For insance
I would like that modern russian press provide the same
quality of materials about Chechenya war as it was done
by "Red Star" newspaper in 1943 about battle of Kursk.
So it is simple lie to say that soviet press lied all the
time on all matters.

Michael


> >
> > Michael

[captain!]

"Boris Goodenough" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "captain!" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> >
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "captain!" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > it is not true. 90% of chechens voted to be normal part of russia
> > > > > in a recent referendum. Although difficult there is a political
> > > > > solution for chechenya as a part of russia. What we see now is
> > > > > final stages of war actions in that area. Can you say the same for
> > > > > US in Iraq? Money does not solve all problems, Captain. Never did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > i was not refering to the present time. what about when the war was
> > still
> > > > young?the russian govt. routinely tried to make the situation seem
> > better
> > > > than it was, just like the americans are now, and just like every
> > country
> > > > does.
> > >
> > > Oh in that sense... Well not only russians and americans.
> >
> > the iraqis did it too. it was also funny to see the iraqi defense
minister
> > claiming that the americans were nowhere near bagdad while bombs were
> > falling in the background.
> >
>
> I think you meant while US tanks were within view.


same thing


>
> >
> > > human nature I guess... I just finished reading very fresh book
> > > on battle of Kursk with first published german and soviet
> > > official military reports before, during and after
> > > that final german disaster in east front. Very funny reading.
> > > Imagine soviet reports were much much more closer to the reality.
> > > while according to german reports all these disasters after
> > > disaters were just fine well planed operations with excellent
> > > output. The book includes also Soviet and German newspaper
> > > papers published in that time on that matters. German
> > > materials were just nothing more than **** propaganda. Although
> > > soviet press publications also included highly overestimated
> > > numbers for German losses but generally the picture of
> > > the events was pretty close to real one as we know it now.
> > > So it seems there are problems with Stalin standard legend of
> > > ****ty propaganda.
> >
> > are you saying that there was ****ty propaganda about stalin or that
> stalin
> > had problems with (writing) ****ty propaganda?
> >
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
>
>

[PirateJohn]

>russian forces under US command? you must hate the very thought eh michael?

How about reversing the situation, and putting US forces under Russian or,
heavens forbid, French command.

You have to admit that would get some of our old Cold War red baiters rolling
over in their graves.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html

"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.

[Michael Petukhov]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> > If there is a policy between the current actions of the US
> > administration of Iraq, it must be a well-kept secret. It
> > seems to change course every week, but this zig-zagging
> > does not prevent the situation going from bad to worse.
> > The real question is not "who is going to be the commander?"
> > but "what will his orders be?".
>
> Quite right, and the devil resides among the details that go with it.
> Every UN mission is handed a mandate by the Security Council, and the
> Rules of Engagement stem from that mandate. If the UN does resolve to
> establish a mission to establish a functioning democratic state in
> Iraq, the US will have to watch carefully that the RoE fit with their
> understanding of the need for force protection consistent with the
> maintenance of order. Poorly written or ill-fitting RoE have dogged UN
> missions (the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda come to mind) in the past.

More likely Vietnam that comes to my mind:

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=18586&lang=en

Sending extra British troops 'pushes Army to break point'

07 September 2003

The British Army will be at breaking point when it sends thousands of
extra troops to Iraq, military experts have warned.

Already at "considerable overstretch", the decision to bolster the
British presence in the Gulf will mean almost half of the trained
strength of the Army will be in use. An announcement is expected as
early as tomorrow that around 1,200 soldiers will be deployed with a
further 1,800 put on standby.

"The British Army cannot do any more than that," Charles Heyman,
editor of Jane's World Armies, said yesterday. And he predicted that a
long-term commitment in Iraq, against the background of an
over-extended Army, would adversely affect morale.

The pressure on Britain to back its American allies continues to
increase as the French and German leaders have yet to give a clear
indication that they will join an international force in Iraq.

Ahead of expected wrangling at the UN this week, France was keen not
to again be seen as blocking international progress following the
enormous damage to Franco-American relations caused by its decision to
withhold its backing for military action against Saddam Hussein.

But President Jacques Chiraq is equally determined to sign nothing
which seems to justify the American-led invasion of Iraq after the
event. He insists the UN should not be just a rubber-stamp for
American strategy.

France wants the US draft resolution amended to give the UN the
primary, legal and political responsibility for the transition to
Iraqi rule. France would accept the continuing presence of American
military commanders and civilian administrators, so long as they
report regularly and directly to the UN.

France is also demanding a clear and brief timetable for the
restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and assurances that access to Iraqi
oil and rebuilding contracts will be shared fairly among the
international community.

But any failure to secure international agreement will leave the
British armed forces exposed. Latest figures show that Britain is
relying on attracting overseas recruits - from far-flung countries,
including Fiji - as numbers decline and the trainee drop-out rate
rises. The figures for July show overall armed forces numbers have
dropped to 206,150, marking an overall fall of more than 10,000 since
1997.

Experts have repeatedly warned that the armed forces are
overstretched. But the demands on British troops - 45,000 of whom are
currently deployed - continue to increase.

As ever more soldiers serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and
Croatia, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Gibraltar and the
Falklands, a recruitment crisis is looming.

The Army is already operating at 5 per cent below strength. But
between April and July this year, only 5,290 new recruits were taken
on to replace 6,010 people leaving the services. There is a high
drop-out rate among trainees.

In 2002-03, 37 per cent of Army recruits dropped out before completing
their training. In the armed forces as a whole, the overall drop-out
rate was 32 per cent. As a response to the growing crisis in
recruitment and retention of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence
has turned to other countries to find recruits.

In the past three years, the Royal Navy and the Army have sent
selection teams to Commonwealth countries including Fiji, St Lucia, St
Vincent and the Grenadines. It is also understood that recruits have
been drawn from Australia and New Zealand.

The MoD has also been forced to call up more reserves. At 2 May, the
number of reserves called up to take part in Operation Telic in Iraq
had reached 8,706 with just over 5,000 being accepted into service.
There are currently some 2,600 reservists in the Gulf, amounting to
more than a quarter of the total British force.

Bernard Jenkin, shadow defence secretary, said last night: "The armed
forces are desperately overstretched. The trouble is that while the
armed forces are being used more and more, they have been getting
smaller.

"We are expecting further manpower cuts in the autumn defence review.
We can't afford to go on losing experienced personnel."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=440955

Source: Jo Dillon, John Lichfield, and David Usborne The Independent