Message to USA

[RyanXWing]

See, what I don't like is the fact that you're assuming that every god damned American believes the same god damned thing, as a human being I don't think the same thing as everyone else thank you very much.

Also, you really only responded to the last part of my post.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

See, what I don't like is the fact that you're assuming that every god damned American believes the same god damned thing, as a human being I don't think the same thing as everyone else thank you very much.

Also, you really only responded to the last part of my post.

Its not about what you believe, its about what "intellectual" elite believes, you know the guys who actually get paid for being lazy bums with no real job sharing their dramatically skewed opinion about things they have questionable knowledge about with other people. And to answer the first part of your question, Russia is willing to go to every length to protect itself, and if there is no way to protect ourselves then we'll be going out with a bang, one that will be remembered for thousands of years to come. It would only be a natural conclusion to our 1000 years of struggle, eh?

I'll tell you something I've discovered while studying my people's history and culture, we can't stand peace, our songs and our literature praise peace of course but more as an unreachable goal than anything else. Our history is one bloody war after another, one repression after another, then we did have peace we grew fat and lazy and things went to hell soon after. But in our culture there is also this general theme of national destiny of greatness, but no one knows exactly what it is. That said, the general belief is that greater glory is our destiny, it is like a splash of light, it happens quickly but it stays in memory for a long time and that can't be achieved through peace. We love the struggle, we are miserable without it.

Russia is a country of extremes, it never settles for the middle ground its capacity for greatest good and purest evil collide on a daily basis, my country's potential for both can either shatter the world or protect it. Its irrational, but its Russia, like the poem goes: "With one's mind Russia can not be understood, you can only believe in it."

In short we don't know what the hell we want, one question that defines our history from the Mongols to the Bolshevicks to the Federation is: "What do we do?"

YouTube - DDT- Borodino | ??? - ????? (????????)

 

[Tipsy]

Its irrational, but its Russia, like the poem goes: "With one's mind Russia can not be understood, you can only believe in it."

Looks like you've finally found your religion.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Looks like you've finally found your religion.

Rather cultural tradition, I am not idolizing any supernatural entity.

 

[Barney Stinson]

Not all religions idolize ya know.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Not all religions idolize ya know.

Well generally religion is a belief in some supernatural being or beings that created life as we know it and manage the afterlife, etc. Then we refer to Motherland and we say that we believe in her we simply mean it as a metaphor for us, Russians, as a nation and our way of life. There is even a relevant division that was made, there is the малая родина, lesser motherland, which usually means the city you came from, your family and other people you interact with and have an attachment to, and then there is the bigger motherland, Родина (Rodina), which to each one of us means different things but in general its something that we as a nation are willing to protect, such as our history, our culture, our general way of life. To make this simple, then Im in Russia Im Петербуржетц (Peterburjets) from St.Petersburg and I'll fuck up any Moskal (people from Moscow) piece of shit if they even say a word about Spartak being better than Zenit (our two european football clubs hate each others guts which results in a lot of great mass fistfights whenever our two teams play, right after the game), or just look at me the wrong way. But then of course I did live in Moscow too and I have friends there....but regardless you get the general idea. But outside of Russia or than dealing with non Russians I am just a Russian and that means I am obligated to help any other Russian with whatever, since we share the same Rodina. We believe in our unity as a people, and ability to achieve greatness through that unity, thats what believing in Rodina means in the greater sense.

 

[concrete_sox]

 

[Barney Stinson]

Well generally religion is a belief in some supernatural being or beings that created life as we know it and manage the afterlife, etc. Then we refer to Motherland and we say that we believe in her we simply mean it as a metaphor for us, Russians, as a nation and our way of life. There is even a relevant division that was made, there is the малая родина, lesser motherland, which usually means the city you came from, your family and other people you interact with and have an attachment to, and then there is the bigger motherland, Родина (Rodina), which to each one of us means different things but in general its something that we as a nation are willing to protect, such as our history, our culture, our general way of life. To make this simple, then Im in Russia Im Петербуржетц (Peterburjets) from St.Petersburg and I'll fuck up any Moskal (people from Moscow) piece of shit if they even say a word about Spartak being better than Zenit (our two european football clubs hate each others guts which results in a lot of great mass fistfights whenever our two teams play, right after the game), or just look at me the wrong way. But then of course I did live in Moscow too and I have friends there....but regardless you get the general idea. But outside of Russia or than dealing with non Russians I am just a Russian and that means I am obligated to help any other Russian with whatever, since we share the same Rodina. We believe in our unity as a people, and ability to achieve greatness through that unity, thats what believing in Rodina means in the greater sense.

Holy shit learn how to paragraph.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Holy shit learn how to paragraph.

Learn how to not spam? This is ze internetz, its not like you could qualify for a grammar nazi, how many 10 page papers on abstract topics have you written lately?

 

[B~E]

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press

IMBALANCE OF TERROR

Even as the United States' nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range bombers, 58 percent fewer ICBMs, and 80 percent fewer SSBNs than the Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the Russian arsenal's decay, however, is much greater than these cuts suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use. Russia's strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises, and their warheads are stored off-base. Over 80 percent of Russia's silo-based ICBMs have exceeded their original service lives, and plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by failed tests and low rates of production. Russia's mobile ICBMs rarely patrol, and although they could fire their missiles from inside their bases if given sufficient warning of an attack, it appears unlikely that they would have the time to do so.

The third leg of Russia's nuclear triad has weakened the most. Since 2000, Russia's SSBNs have conducted approximately two patrols per year, down from 60 in 1990. (By contrast, the U.S. SSBN patrol rate today is about 40 per year.) Most of the time, all nine of Russia's ballistic missile submarines are sitting in port, where they make easy targets. Moreover, submarines require well-trained crews to be effective. Operating a ballistic missile submarine -- and silently coordinating its operations with surface ships and attack submarines to evade an enemy's forces -- is not simple. Without frequent patrols, the skills of Russian submariners, like the submarines themselves, are decaying. Revealingly, a 2004 test (attended by President Vladimir Putin) of several submarine-launched ballistic missiles was a total fiasco: all either failed to launch or veered off course. The fact that there were similar failures in the summer and fall of 2005 completes this unflattering picture of Russia's nuclear forces.

Compounding these problems, Russia's early warning system is a mess. Neither Soviet nor Russian satellites have ever been capable of reliably detecting missiles launched from U.S. submarines. (In a recent public statement, a top Russian general described his country's early warning satellite constellation as "hopelessly outdated.") Russian commanders instead rely on ground-based radar systems to detect incoming warheads from submarine-launched missiles. But the radar network has a gaping hole in its coverage that lies to the east of the country, toward the Pacific Ocean. If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated. Russia's radar coverage of some areas in the North Atlantic is also spotty, providing only a few minutes of warning before the impact of submarine-launched warheads.

Moscow could try to reduce its vulnerability by finding the money to keep its submarines and mobile missiles dispersed. But that would be only a short-term fix. Russia has already extended the service life of its aging mobile ICBMs, something that it cannot do indefinitely, and its efforts to deploy new strategic weapons continue to flounder. The Russian navy's plan to launch a new class of ballistic missile submarines has fallen far behind schedule. It is now highly likely that not a single new submarine will be operational before 2008, and it is likely that none will be deployed until later.

Even as Russia's nuclear forces deteriorate, the United States is improving its ability to track submarines and mobile missiles, further eroding Russian military leaders' confidence in Russia's nuclear deterrent. (As early as 1998, these leaders publicly expressed doubts about the ability of Russia's ballistic missile submarines to evade U.S. detection.) Moreover, Moscow has announced plans to reduce its land-based ICBM force by another 35 percent by 2010; outside experts predict that the actual cuts will slice 50 to 75 percent off the current force, possibly leaving Russia with as few as 150 ICBMs by the end of the decade, down from its 1990 level of almost 1,300 missiles. The more Russia's nuclear arsenal shrinks, the easier it will become for the United States to carry out a first strike.

To determine how much the nuclear balance has changed since the Cold War, we ran a computer model of a hypothetical U.S. attack on Russia's nuclear arsenal using the standard unclassified formulas that defense analysts have used for decades. We assigned U.S. nuclear warheads to Russian targets on the basis of two criteria: the most accurate weapons were aimed at the hardest targets, and the fastest-arriving weapons at the Russian forces that can react most quickly. Because Russia is essentially blind to a submarine attack from the Pacific and would have great difficulty detecting the approach of low-flying stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles, we targeted each Russian weapon system with at least one submarine-based warhead or cruise missile. An attack organized in this manner would give Russian leaders virtually no warning.

This simple plan is presumably less effective than Washington's actual strategy, which the U.S. government has spent decades perfecting. The real U.S. war plan may call for first targeting Russia's command and control, sabotaging Russia's radar stations, or taking other preemptive measures -- all of which would make the actual U.S. force far more lethal than our model assumes.

According to our model, such a simplified surprise attack would have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM. [See Footnote #1] This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail. Rather, we used standard assumptions to estimate the likely inaccuracy and unreliability of U.S. weapons systems. Moreover, our model indicates that all of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal would still be destroyed even if U.S. weapons were 20 percent less accurate than we assumed, or if U.S. weapons were only 70 percent reliable, or if Russian ICBM silos were 50 percent "harder" (more reinforced, and hence more resistant to attack) than we expected. (Of course, the unclassified estimates we used may understate the capabilities of U.S. forces, making an attack even more likely to succeed.)

To be clear, this does not mean that a first strike by the United States would be guaranteed to work in reality; such an attack would entail many uncertainties. Nor, of course, does it mean that such a first strike is likely. But what our analysis suggests is profound: Russia's leaders can no longer count on a survivable nuclear deterrent. And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time.

The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States' declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." To this end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.

Russia is not capable of maintaining a nuclear arsenal that could effectively deter a first strike by the USA. This is despite the fact that Russia's nuclear capabilities have been at the center of every defence policy since the end of the cold war, as some sort of ultimate guarantee for security.

Knowing this, how are we supposed to believe that Russia has been able to modernize its rusting military forces to match those of western armies, when western militaries have only continued to improve in quality since the end of the cold war? We have no choice but to sceptical, especially since your's is a nation suffering from a textbook case of inferiority complex and cultural cringe, which motivate you to produce huge wall texts of screaming call for attention and respect.

Also, learn to make paragraphs to f.uck's sake.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press



Russia is not capable of maintaining a nuclear arsenal that could effectively deter a first strike by the USA. This is despite the fact that Russia's nuclear capabilities have been at the center of every defence policy since the end of the cold war, as some sort of ultimate guarantee for security.

Knowing this, how are we supposed to believe that Russia has been able to modernize its rusting military forces to match those of western armies, when western militaries have only continued to improve in quality since the end of the cold war? We have no choice but to sceptical, especially since your's is a nation suffering from a textbook case of inferiority complex and cultural cringe, which motivate you to produce huge wall texts of screaming call for attention and respect.

Also, learn to make paragraphs to f.uck's sake.

Russia has the capability to deter a first strike by US, aside from bombers we also have mobile ICBMs and ICBMs in classified locations, our submarines only need to make it under the polar ice cup to launch their missiles, detecting them if they are moving at their tactical speed is not a simple task. In addition we have over horizon radar that can detect pretty much any ICBM heading in our general direction. We have just rolled out a new class of submarines that are more silent than anything we've ever had. Things can be improved and they will be improved but MAD still works. In either case even the slightest possibility that a US surprise attack will not go unpunished is already deterrence enough, US doesn't want to risk getting even partially nuked. And give us a few more years, we'll start building new nuclear warheads again not just carriers.

I'd think that the only way US can track our mobile launchers is through satellite surveillance, we have the technology to jam US satellites, in addition Russia just like any state has its secrets and it would be foolish to assume that US Intelligence, as incompetent an agency as it is managed to figure out the location of every silo and every mobile launcher base, lots of space out there in Mother Russia.

How are you supposed to believe that Russia has been able to modernize its military? The growth of our defense budget? The massive amount of orders Russian MoD placed to manufacturers? Russia has a great technological base, and we've been a nation at war thought the 90s and still are even now, wars are a best way to improve doctrine. The process of improving is not yet complete but its ongoing, and its going fast.

Look at the US military equipment, most of it was designed in concept in the 80s, same with us, most of the stuff we're rolling out right now was designed in concept in the 80s and early 90s, we're not that far behind.

Inferiority complex? Attention? You are completely wrong on both accounts. We are one of the Great Nations of this world, thats a reality and has been a reality for the past 300 years at least. Neither am I screaming, I write in a calm tone but you can take it which ever way you want. It is a simplte fact that we are capable of being a clear threat to the West and it is the West's choice on how they want to proceed, what else is there to say? The only military in the world that can truly oppose us within our power projection capability is US, all the other Western countries (the puppets) present no threat to Russia if Russia gets on full war footing. Aside from a direct military conflict we also have a near-monopoly on energy supplies to Europe as well as a capability to give highly advanced weaponry to the West's enemies and we are doing so, we are supplying Syria, Iran and Venezuela with modern weaponry to update the old Soviet stock from the 70s they've been fighting you so far with. And how are we suffering from the cultural cringe? Where are we dismissing our culture as inferior? We're not, infact we cherish its superiority. Same as with the "inferiority complex", we don't feel the least bit inferior to any westerner, infact a lot of the time we feel superior, Russia as a nation doesn't care what the West thinks of it, we are on our own, we only interact with western leaders then it benefits us, we don't do anything that benefits the west at expense of our own goals, we don't pay tribute and we're perfectly fine with that, we're one of the last truly sovereign nations in the world.

I already asked the question, what AREN'T we doing to challenge US supremacy? We're increasing our military budget, we're giving weapons to America's enemies, we fight American influence in near abroad as can be seen in Georgia and Ukraine. And all of this is America's fault, America was the one who attempted to exploit us in the 90s and now it deals with consequences, and so far this is nothing, our budget keeps growing and the more it grows the more we will challenge America, because we will not allow any nation or nations to infringe upon our sovereignty. We're big boys, we're not doing this for attention, we're doing this cause its the only way to achieve our goals and protect our sovereignty. Russia is not some overemotional 12 year old kid that throws tantrums, neither do we want to be friends with everyone, there is a very clear line of thought behind everything we do, the only thing that concerns us as a nation is our goals and the means we need to achieve them.

You seem a bit detached from reality, exactly the kind of person that writes all those ignorant, self-righteous bullshit about Russia which was what actually moved me to create this thread. Glad you showed up. And what do you have to be skeptical about exactly? Russia is a powerful nation that also happens to be the second largest exporter of very advanced weaponry in the world, our technological base is mostly on par with yours, in a few fields it is superior. We have the money, we just need a little more time to reestablish ourselves as a global power. Or are you one of those that thinks that Russia will simply go away? In that case I would suggest you not hold your breath. I told you what I want, I want US and the west to act responsibly, now I have a question to you, what the hell do you want?

Nice source btw, CFR IS THE neo-con propaganda engine, and Political Science professor isn't exactly the credentials you want to look for, then looking for information on a nation's technical capabilities. I am as qualified to create a nuclear attack model as they are. They don't have the classified data on Russian early warning capabilities, make no mention of the over horizon radars, make no mention of the number of Russian launcher locations that US doesn't know about (which is also classified). Topol-M which is a brand new system, which we have ordered in large quantities and that have already started arriving to the military are not even mentioned in that article. They also claim that Russian bomber force doesn't get enough training, which might have been true in 2006 but not for the past 2 years. Simply put that article is a bunch of rubbish and wishful thinking, which is typical of CFR, they have an agenda you know. Like you know there is Kremlin propaganda right? Well CFR is Washington propaganda and should be viewed with same skepticism.

So what are you B~E? You're a neo-con now? I remember you used to be smarter than this.


Unless I forget you also had a problem with Pan-Slavism for some reason? Let me address that as well, Pan-Slavism has always existed, and even if it is not apparent on political level it will always exist on human level because we are a part of the same ethnicity and there is nothing anyone can do about that. Regular Russian people from all walks of life volunteered to help Serbia fight against Albanian scum not because the government ordered them to, they did it of their own free will. US and the West are trying to break up Pan-Slavism, to make us weaker and easier to swallow, unfortunately in case of Poland they almost succeeded, but there is a lot more of us left and we've never been ones to give up easily.

Here you go, since you're all ADD I made paragraphs.

Medvedev about improving Russia's nuclear deterrent:
RIA Novosti - Russia - Medvedev orders upgrade of Russia's nuclear deterrent by 2020


Jane's Weekly, a real, globally respected military think tank called into question CFE's article you posted. I'll try to find the actual article, which might be hard since Jane's doesn't usually give those out for free.
Russian nuclear deterrent decline called into question - Jane's Intelligence Review

Here is a bit on how we managed to not fall behind in the 90s, it also argues that we can severely limit the nuclear response from US if we were to strike first:
Why Russia Believes It Can Win a Nuclear War

A bit more on our deterrence, infact this one nullifies most of what CFR has said:
Inside Russia's magic mountain

Altogether, the CIA now estimates that these sites can house some 150,000 Soviet civilian and military leaders and are impervious to direct nuclear strikes.

There goes your ability to eliminate our leadership. And there is a lot more interesting stuff in that article like secret nuclear weapons caches that by themselves already provide a deterrent because US simply doesn't know there they are and can't target them.

In addition to everything we have 24 SS-24 missiles that are installed in the launchers hidden on trains that go back and forth around the country 24/7, 365 and are impossible to target, 24 missiles is 240 nuclear warheads that will be heading for US regardless of the state of the rest of our nuclear forces after a surprise attack from US, each warhead with enough yield to cripple almost any city in US beyond repair. They alone are deterrent enough. There are also plans to increase our nuclear rail force with SS-27s in the near future.

Here is an article that was written directly against the CFR article you provided:

“Nuclear Primacy" is a Fallacy

^Hmm Im reading this and apparently by US's own law it can't launch a surprise attack and must inform its own public about such a decision, which of course in our day and age would mean informing the whole world.

Very interesting article which basically diminishes your source, some highlights:

First, to implement SAPTA the National Command Authority (NCA) must have in place a set of legislatively approved special conditions authorizing this action. No such set now exists.

Secondly, the NCA is obliged to inform the nation about this critical decision before a first strike is launched. This must be done if only to provide a time-buffer in which its citizens could implement some measures of protection against the possible negative consequences of the attack.

Third, in order to conduct a first strike it is necessary to implement a number of organizational and technical procedures within the strategic nuclear forces. This is because in peacetime there are numerous procedural and technological blocks in place which are designed to protect nuclear weapons against human error, accidents and sabotage. In order to remove such barriers as a preliminary step towards launching a nuclear first strike, it would require the participation of a significant number of crews on duty working at different operational levels.

The implementation of all the above mentioned circumstances as preparations for a “surprise” first strike would be technically impossible to hide. Therefore, the opposite side would have a certain amount of time to raise the combat readiness of its strategic nuclear forces. If Russia did that, then, as Lieber and Press recognize themselves, nuclear retaliation is inevitable.

The authors have used an analytical type of model, in which a studied process is imitated with the help of formulas. However, it is well known among experts that creating a more or less correct description of a nuclear war through an analytical model is a hopeless task.

Admittedly, the Russian EWS is now weakened. However, if it is able to detect even a small part of the American attack, then it is impossible to rule out the possibility that Russia will react by utilizing the policy of Launch on Warning (LoW), i.e., launching its missiles before the attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. The number of nuclear warheads in a Russian LoW strike will be far more than in case of a pure LuA (Launch under Attack) variant.

Lieber and Press (the guys that wrote your article) state that, “Our model does not prove that a U.S. disarming attack against Russia would necessarily succeed. Nor does the model assume that the United States is likely to launch a nuclear first strike. Even if U.S. leaders were highly confident of success, a counterforce strike would entail enormous risks and costs.” We must ask: if this is so, then how can they predict that “a surprise attack at peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success”?

You sir have been pwned.

 

[ChrisH36]

Play STALKER.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Play STALKER.

Fallout 3 is better than STALKER.

 

[Tipsy]

Rather cultural tradition, I am not idolizing any supernatural entity.

Well generally religion is a belief in some supernatural being or beings that created life as we know it and manage the afterlife, etc. Then we refer to Motherland and we say that we believe in her we simply mean it as a metaphor for us, Russians, as a nation and our way of life. There is even a relevant division that was made, there is the малая родина, lesser motherland, which usually means the city you came from, your family and other people you interact with and have an attachment to, and then there is the bigger motherland, Родина (Rodina), which to each one of us means different things but in general its something that we as a nation are willing to protect, such as our history, our culture, our general way of life. To make this simple, then Im in Russia Im Петербуржетц (Peterburjets) from St.Petersburg and I'll fuck up any Moskal (people from Moscow) piece of shit if they even say a word about Spartak being better than Zenit (our two european football clubs hate each others guts which results in a lot of great mass fistfights whenever our two teams play, right after the game), or just look at me the wrong way. But then of course I did live in Moscow too and I have friends there....but regardless you get the general idea. But outside of Russia or than dealing with non Russians I am just a Russian and that means I am obligated to help any other Russian with whatever, since we share the same Rodina. We believe in our unity as a people, and ability to achieve greatness through that unity, thats what believing in Rodina means in the greater sense.

Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
* a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
* a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Fits the definition of a religion.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
* a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
* a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Fits the definition of a religion.

Meh, its a bit of a stretch, cherishing one's way of life and one's country just doesn't seem like a religion. Is Patriotism a religion? Is Russian or American or German or whichever culture a religion?

 

[ChrisH36]

Fallout 3 is better than STALKER.

That is up to the gamer himself to decide that.

 

[please help me :(]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/world/europe/17russia.html?_r=1&ref=world

A shame ! Russians want to buy spy drones from the west !

 

[Tipsy]

Meh, its a bit of a stretch, cherishing one's way of life and one's country just doesn't seem like a religion. Is Patriotism a religion? Is Russian or American or German or whichever culture a religion?

Depends on at what level you do it. If you support your government because it directly and physically makes you better off then I wouldn't call that a religion. However, if you embraced your government as some sort of cause, or something 'irrational' or inherently metaphysical (such as your description), I'd call that religious worship.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Depends on at what level you do it. If you support your government because it directly and physically makes you better off then I wouldn't call that a religion. However, if you embraced your government as some sort of cause, or something 'irrational' or inherently metaphysical (such as your description), I'd call that religious worship.

You missed the point, this isn't about the government. Im not saying lets build Putin and Medvedev statues and pray to them. This is about Russia as a group of people, and its history, regardless of its current government. The Orthodox priests who fought against the red army in the Revolution of 1917, a million of whom were hanged, you really think that in 1940s then a lot of them after spending decades practicing their religion underground, you think they in some cases volunteered to join the red army to fight for Stalin? No, they fought for the motherland, Rodina doesn't mean government, Rodina means everything in this world that is dear to you. Same with most others, in WW2 and in all the wars that we fought before WW2, we weren't fighting for our government, we were fighting for our motherland, for our Rodina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/world/europe/17russia.html?_r=1&ref=world

A shame ! Russians want to buy spy drones from the west !

Why not? Its not like the Israelies haven't been ripping our technologies off for the past 20 years. We're considering it, most likely the Russian MoD is just saying this to get the domestic produce to hurry up and get the serial assembly together for our own advanced UAVs, we have them in concept in prototype but there simply aren't any factories to produce them, that needs to change.

That is up to the gamer himself to decide that.

I speak both Russian an English, plus I understand the culture the game is set in so nothing in STALKER is lost on me. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN a great game was it not for 1000003 bugs, and the patches that so far haven't fixed even the half of them. I waited a long time for Shadow of Chernobyl and i was excited then I bought Clear Sky...Clear Sky turned out to be even more half-baked then the original. Fallout 3 is a quality product, gives me a different kind of feel than STALKER but as far as apocalyptic simulators go its just better, because it was made by people who are better at making games. STALKER is full of potential, there is so much more they could have done and didn't do, but the bugs really kill it for me.

 

[ChrisH36]

The biggest flaw behind Stalker is it's severe memory leaks. The moment you close the game, you are better off restarting your PC. That is how bad and slow it is.

But that's what you get when you get a game made by a small company.

And I said, it is up to the gamer to decide what is good or not. I find it ok personally, but I tend to oversee the flaws of most of the things. I only detest games I can't actually play. Like you take 2 steps, and you are dead.