The more things change, the more they stay the same

[Assur]

While I don't usually agree with Pat, he makes a lot of good points here. Putin has everything to lose by being behind this and someone that wants the old Soviet Union back has everything to gain by pointing the finger at Putin and his government. It's just like I pointed out concerning the reactor complex that Russia is building for Iran, why give the Iranians the bomb for a little bit of money now when they're sitting on a vast fortune. While Putin may be petty, the man is definitely not stupid.

Just what has he got to loose? I don't think that he personally ordered the liquidation of L., but he certainly created a climate in which such an operation is acceptable. What are we Euros gonna do? Say "Bleh, you evil murderer, please keep supplying us with natural gas!"

BTW, the US is in no better position. The Russians sold Iran a highly advanced anti-aircraft missile system, M-Tor, and the US did sweet FA about it.

We certainly live in interesting times;)

[kandrathe]

Umm, you're kidding, right?

-A

Have you read Ivan The Terrible by Isabel de Madariaga?

With all other socio-economic and moral factors held equal why would people change?

[Ashock]

Soviets acquired the downed B-29s in 1944, when the USSR wast still a neutral. Superforts were flying through the CBI theater long before the Navy captured Pacific islands close enough for overwater attacks.

The Portuguese and the Swiss didn't give birds back, either (because they repainted and used the machines themselves).

The USSR, GB and the US were allies for a long time before '44. The USSR could not care less in '44 if Japan were to declare war on them. They cared in '41, but not in '44.

I don't know the circumstances under which the Portugese and the Swiss got a hold of the US planes. Can you elaborate on that? However, when your ally asks you to please hand over the plane that was forced to land on your soil, you might examine it first sure, but not to give it back at all shows an utter contempt for your supposed ally. I find it hard to believe that 2 countries like Portugal and Switzerland(???) would do the same thing without the consent of the US.

-A

[Occhidiangela]

Just what has he got to loose? I don't think that he personally ordered the liquidation of L., but he certainly created a climate in which such an operation is acceptable. What are we Euros gonna do? Say "Bleh, you evil murderer, please keep supplying us with natural gas!"

BTW, the US is in no better position. The Russians sold Iran a highly advanced anti-aircraft missile system, M-Tor, and the US did sweet FA about it.

We certainly live in interesting times;)

Point defense missile system, mobile. Range of 1-12 km, ceiling roughly 20,000 feet AGL. The big deal is the "track 48 targets" feature.

*yawn*

Iran has the dough to upgrade their IAD, with an eye toward avoiding the IAF attacking their nuclear sites. (Osirik, part deux.) I'd say that deterrence is a stabilizing, not destabilizing, feature in the Persian Gulf.

Occhi

[Ashock]

Have you read Ivan The Terrible by Isabel de Madariaga?

With all other socio-economic and moral factors held equal why would people change?

Indeed, why? Every Russian or Soviet leader since Ivan, has been in the same category as him, a tyrant. Oh, some a bit better. The commies, a bit worse. Same thing, basically.

Due to the basically slave-like nature of most of the Russian people, I do not expect this to change any time soon. Maybe ever. Russians are not meant to be governed. They are meant to be ruled. They are also meant to be a thorn in other countries sides, possibly due to their severely jingoistic and paranoid nature.

-A

[Assur]

I don't know the circumstances under which the Portugese and the Swiss got a hold of the US planes. Can you elaborate on that? However, when your ally asks you to please hand over the plane that was forced to land on your soil, you might examine it first sure, but not to give it back at all shows an utter contempt for your supposed ally. I find it hard to believe that 2 countries like Portugal and Switzerland(???) would do the same thing without the consent of the US.

-A

I don't know about Portugal but in the case of Switzerland Allied planes that were damaged during raids over Germany tried to land on Swiss territory if they couldn't make it back to their home bases. Since Switzerland pursued a policy of absolute neutrality soldiers of combatant nations were interned and their equipment turned of to the appropriate authorities.

[Ashock]

I don't know about Portugal but in the case of Switzerland Allied planes that were damaged during raids over Germany tried to land on Swiss territory if they couldn't make it back to their home bases. Since Switzerland pursued a policy of absolute neutrality soldiers of combatant nations were interned and their equipment turned of to the appropriate authorities.

That is completely different. The Swiss basically spread themselves and bent over backwards to stay neutral in WW2, so it's not a surprise that they were afraid to openly take sides.

The Russians, while were technically not at war with Japan at the time, were NOT neutral in any sense of the word, and they were definately NOT afraid of Japan in 1944. In '44, they were not afraid of anybody.

-A

[Rhydderch Hael]

...The Russians, while were technically not at war with Japan at the time, were NOT neutral in any sense of the word, and they were definately NOT afraid of Japan in 1944. In '44, they were not afraid of anybody.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. I suspect that the dangling fate of China factored heavily into the strategy. If the Russians threw their hat into the ring early on, it could have played the Japanese squarely against the Chinese Communist movement instead of the Nationalist Chinese.

Another cute thing about the matter is that the United States would want the USSR to remain neutral in regards to Japan. The last the United States needed was a Soviet takeover of the Far East.

So, in the twisted logic of political diplomacy, the return of the B-29s would have been a bad thing for the U.S., because it would have violated Soviet-Japanese neutrality, which in turn would have given the Soviet Union the impetus to take China, Korea, and likely northern Japan itself.

In a roundabout way, I concede that this validates your point that the bully nature of the USSR allowed it to get away with things. I reinterate my point on the actions and justifications of a neutral nation in regards to the belligerents of a war. Internment by neutrals is nothing new nor the exclusive course of tyrants bent on espionage and thievery.