| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Russia resumes military training for school kids |
| 2003-10-10 |
| Russia took a step back toward its Soviet past Friday by giving preliminary approval to a law making military training mandatory in all elementary schools. Cue the "Evil Empire" theme music. The state Duma lower house of parliament passed the legislation in the first of three required readings by a 338-42 vote. Russian schools abandoned mandatory military training after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the subject has only been taught on a voluntary basis and with parents’ permission since then. Guess they didn’t get to many takers. But the new rule would stipulate that training becomes mandatory for both boys and girls in the last two years of elementary school. The draft system still functions in Russia and all elementary school students who fail to make it into university are expected to enlist when they leave school. Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported the legislationas a way of reintroducing morale to a Russian military that remains bogged down in its second war in the separatist republic of Chechnya over the past decade. Vlad expects to need a lot more cannon fodder, I’d wager. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #18 Aris, Do you have any idea of how pathetic a European army without the US would be? Eastern Europe knows full well that a military alliance such as that proposed by anti-American axis in Europe would offer about as much protection against a future expansionist Russia as a tea towel. Even if Britain joined a European defense force, a solely European army would be wholly inadequate for the task. There's no sign at all of most of the big EU countries taking defence seriously. It's easy for western European nations to talk of European defence forces, knowing full well that there's no direct threat to themselves. The countries you claim to be speaking for are those which would form the buffer zone, which know that only a US-backed defence would be able to offer them satisfactory protection. Eastern Europe is not interested in what would be a symbolic/shambolic EU army and a wholly counter-productive division of the military alliance binding most of the civilised world. They want NATO. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-11 6:30:04 AM |
| #17 Aris - Yes Poland is between Germany and the frogs. But look at what is happening with American diplomacy and military movements. We are moving our forces and security agreements to Poland and other friends. Russia can and will be able to indimidate Germany and France without ever going through Europe. Your mentality is 1939, warfare today is a much differnt beast. Without American support you will be at their mercy. Except of course if there is radical change and fun loving euro liberals take over the Kremlin and kicks out the generals. Poland is safe because of American security gurantees. She deserves the time to develop, as Germany and the frogs did under American largess. The Poles made a strategic move. They see a divided, weak Europe to their west and understand the Russian threat. Really can not blame them, I wouldn't want to depend on the major (except Britain) European powers for my security. Look at the shaft America was given after 9-11. Mutual defense means just that mutual. Ignorance, nice comment, but you have the right to express yourself. In all due respect any major distruption in Germany and even France will cause major economic distruptions world wide, especially in the United States. The answer is not letting western democracies be destroyed but supporting each other. Europe needs to understand that American intersts are world wide. There are enemies of the United States that can no longer be ignored. We are at war and if Europe cannot fullfill her part of our mutual defense treaties then what good are these treaties? We have stood side by side with Europe, provided billions of dollar's, markets for her goods, protection ( a protection that put American cities at great peril from Soviet nukes) and we are repaid with contempt and outright hostility. If that is what a friend and ally is then who needs them. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-10 10:39:54 PM |
| #16 Aris - Yes Poland is between Germany and the frogs. But look at what is happening with American diplomacy and military movements. We are moving our forces and security agreements to Poland and other friends. Russia can and will be able to indimidate Germany and France without ever going through Europe. Your mentality is 1939, warfare today is a much differnt beast. Without American support you will be at their mercy. Except of course if there is radical change and fun loving euro liberals take over the Kremlin and kicks out the generals. Poland is safe because of American security gurantees. She deserves the time to develop, as Germany and the frogs did under American largess. The Poles made a strategic move. They see a divided, weak Europe to their west and understand the Russian threat. Really can not blame them, I wouldn't want to depend on the major (except Britain) European powers for my security. Look at the shaft America was given after 9-11. Mutual defense means just that mutual. Ignorance, nice comment, but you have the right to express yourself. In all due respect any major distruption in Germany and even France will cause major economic distruptions world wide, especially in the United States. The answer is not letting western democracies be destroyed but supporting each other. Europe needs to understand that American intersts are world wide. There are enemies of the United States that can no longer be ignored. We are at war and if Europe cannot fullfill her part of our mutual defense treaties then what good are these treaties? We have stood side by side with Europe, provided billions of dollar's, markets for her goods, protection ( a protection that put American cities at great peril from Soviet nukes) and we are repaid with contempt and outright hostility. If that is what a friend and ally is then who needs them. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-10 10:31:49 PM |
| #15 Dan> If America does remember, then let her remember this bit of geography also: that between Russia and Germany there are several countries which stood on America's side during the war on Iraq, and they'll be threatened by a rising Russia much before France and Germany do -- your glee about said rise still smacks of ignorance to me, therefore. Or why else would you be happy about the threat to your eastern european allies? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-10 8:37:14 PM |
| #14 Bulldog> The European defense force is being vetoed by the brits regardless of incarnation, regardless of whether it's a "rude gesture" or not. Britain oppose any defense pact being a part of the EU, even if it only affects countries that wish to take part in it. Britain demands that it all must happen through NATO, rudely ignoring all countries that are part of the EU but may have no desire to join NATO. Britain in essence tells those countries to go to hell and fend for themselves if they don't want to be part of NATO. You are talking about one specific move by France-Germany-Belgium-Luxembourg but I'm talking about the whole issue of European defense which preexisted the Iraq situation and the US-Europe split. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-10 8:32:56 PM |
| #13 Disolving NATO may make sense. European nations have collected in the EU, are at peace among themselves and may have a collectiveinterest in backing up the EU governement with military power. NATO has provided a convenient structure for the US to coordinate and staff joint operations with European nations in cases where there were collective interests at stake. Some of these interests continue. We seem to have quite a bit in common with the UK with respect to global issues. Some of the facilites that we use in Germany have proved essential, but others are less so. Americas presence in NATO may be simular to our presence in Japan and Korea - like training wheels on a thirteen-year old's bicycle. I'm pretty sure that Luxembourg can reamin peacefully free through the next millenium without GI's getting wasted in it's discos. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-10 7:46:57 PM |
| #12 European" in spirit as the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 Thanks dawg. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-10-10 7:07:32 PM |
| #11 The supposed European defence force was a political gesture - and a rude one - towards NATO and the US. It was brought down when those nations not interested or not invited to participate (including Britain, Italy and Spain) told the "Chocolate Four" to can it. It was about as "European" in spirit as the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. Don't confuse French ambition with your precious EUtopianism, Aris. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-10 6:53:27 PM |
| #10 Europe is weak because of there own policies - bread and butter over weapons. Hey, no need to maintain an adequate armed forces capability when NATO (read: U.S. and the U.K.) is there to do the heavy lifting, no? ;) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-10 6:42:16 PM |
| #9 : think it's rather hypocritical for America's pal Britain to sabotage all European defense plans and then having you cry out that Europe is weak and defenseless. Britain *demands* that all European defense passes through NATO Now that IS spacey. When has NATO ever said "dont build those planes you need"? All we want is militaries that can actually work together, instead of a bunch of dilberting in the field. |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-10-10 6:32:38 PM |
| #8 If America had such a short lived memory then the Germans would be speaking Russian. Your reference to American ingratitude is a reaction to European appeasement (French and German). For over 50 years America stood side by with Europe and when we need them what do we get, so excuse us if we seem a little ungracious. The Europeans have built up a huge social welfare system at the expense of your defense. And this is because America would always jump to their defense. The United States does not want to have to save Europe for a third time and the Europeans know this. That is why the French could always tweak America with no concern. I find it incredible that the Europeans think the world around them is one big happy place where everyone gets along. As far as Germany helping out in Afganistan - you are helping yourselves as well as the rest of the free world. People who cherish liberty and freedom are the ones who where attacked on 9-11. If you ever have read early writings by Al-Qeda you would understand this. They despise what we believe in,our liberties, individualism, capitalism ect.... When I referred to Euros (my mistake) I was referring to France and Germany (the countries that want to dominate the Euro zone). The rest of Europe actually supported us(except for Luxemburg and Belgium) and it is wrong to put them in the same category as the Frogs of france and Germany. It is unfortunate that Schoeder (excuse me if I misspelled his name) sided with France. France's goal was purely a power grab while Germany wanted to deflect attention away from their economy during their elections last year. If it wasn't then Germany would still be singing the same tune. But still it is unfortunute that they sided with tryanny. Not much of memory there. America does not forget support of friends (remember we were the ones who pushed for German reunification when France was trying to stop it - 50 years after WWII. Just how many years classifies as a short lived memory?) Poland is free today because America stuck to its policies in regards to the Soviet Union - once again for over 50 years. I am not against an independent European defense. I am sure the Brits are just a little skeptical though - recent history can tell you that. Look at the Balkans- what did the French and Germans manage there. The French were actively supporting the Serbs while the Germans supported the Croats -WWI all over again. Not much for European common defense policy there. It's kinda of funny that the frog chirac was pushing the United States to get involved there (and attack a soverign country) when their interests are at stake but for America to defend her interests is wrong. The Brits are the backbone of European military forces and they know who there true friends are and who are consistently there in defense of western democracy (pretty good for a bunch of cowboy's with no memory). Europe is weak because of there own policies - bread and butter over weapons. The world is a nasty place and it is only going to get worse. I do not hate Europeans - just the french. They have American blood on their hands with their treachery in regards to Iraq. They actively courted countries on the security council with promises of low interest loans if they would vote against the Americans. They do not deserve a seat - it should be given to India or Japan. Russia will reassert herself regardless of what anyone wishes. They got the raw deal from the West in the 90's and there will be serious issues for Europe in 10 or 20 years. AND AMERICA DOES REMEMBER. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-10-10 6:23:20 PM |
| #7 I think it's rather hypocritical for America's pal Britain to sabotage all European defense plans and then having you cry out that Europe is weak and defenseless. Britain *demands* that all European defense passes through NATO. So how can it be different than that we'll need NATO (which means America) to defend us? If you really wanted European nations to no longer need the assistance of American troops, if USA was really annoyed about those European "crybabies" then it would also be all in favour of an independent European defense policy. It would be all in favour of diminishing NATO's role and increasing EU's role in this task. In reality it of course wants European nations to be dependent on the US and NATO instead. How else would it make "New Europe", as Rumsfeld idiotically put it, support the war on Iraq? Yes, Dan there's indeed a price for the Germans that helped you out in Afghanistan. That price is American ingratitude, as it has always been given America's legendary short-lived memory. And as you wish Russia's reassertion I see that your ingratitude extends to the Eastern Europeans that actively supported you in Iraq. Which makes my point again - that if all *those* euros (and yes, kiddo, Poles and Bulgarians are as much "euros" as French and Germans are) expected any kind of thanks for their assistance or support, they were fools to so expect it. Your hatred of Europeans extends to the half of the nations that supported you as much as to the half which opposed you. Said "crybaby europe", Poland, Bulgaria, Baltic states, Hungary, all those states, they will regret any support they provided when they notice the American ingratitude for said support. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-10-10 4:21:23 PM |
| #6 my thoughts exactly. crybaby europe can eat my ass when Russia is back up and making noise next door. |
| Posted by: eyeyeye 2003-10-10 3:43:34 PM |
| #5 let the russians reassert themselves - then when the euros come asking for help - let the germans know there will be a price and tell the frogs to go fuck themselves! |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-10-10 2:35:38 PM |
| #4 Hose, I think we should have some sort of military training in the U.S. as well and not that pansy-like xJROTC (Junior ROTC) either. And mandatory. But then that would teach them such radical and dangerous concepts like civic duty, loyalty, persevernce, responsibility, and honor. The Donks and ACLU would never allow that. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-10 1:01:54 PM |
| #3 I wouldn't mind seeing this in the US. Now that dodgeball is illegal, bayonet charges will keep the kids in shape. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-10 12:32:51 PM |
| #2 Good. It's time we smash Russia again. We just need to create a small currency crisis like 1998. They will rue the day they f*cked with us on the free market. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-10-10 11:08:20 AM |
| #1 Okay by me. Conscription armies suck. |
| Posted by: BH 2003-10-10 10:42:50 AM |