Boris Yeltsin Dead

[TimG]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/23/russia.yeltsin.ap/index.html



Former Russian leader Yeltsin dead
POSTED: 1416 GMT (2216 HKT), April 23, 2007

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Former President Boris Yeltsin, who engineered the final collapse of the Soviet Union and pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy, has died, a Kremlin official said Monday. He was 76.

Kremlin spokesman Alexander Smirnov confirmed Yeltsin's death, but gave no cause or further information. The Interfax news agency cited an unidentified medical source as saying he had died of heart failure.

Although Yeltsin pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy, many of its citizens will remember him mostly for presiding over the country's steep decline.

He was a contradictory figure, rocketing to popularity in the Communist era on pledges to fight corruption -- but proving unable, or unwilling, to prevent the looting of state industry as it moved into private hands during his nine years as Russia's first freely elected president.

He steadfastly defended freedom of the press, but was a master at manipulating the media.

He amassed as much power as possible in his office -- then gave it all up in a dramatic New Year's address at the end of 1999.

Yeltsin's greatest moments came in bursts. He stood atop a tank to resist an attempted coup in August 1991, and spearheaded the peaceful end of the Soviet state on Dec. 25 of that year.

Ill with heart problems, and facing possible defeat by a Communist challenger in his 1996 re-election bid, he marshaled his energy and sprinted through the final weeks of the campaign. The challenge transformed the shaky convalescent into the spry, dancing candidate.

But Yeltsin was an inconsistent reformer who never took much interest in the mundane tasks of day-to-day government, and nearly always blamed Russia's myriad problems on his subordinates.

Yeltsin greatly damaged his democratic credentials by using force to solve political disputes, though he claimed his actions were necessary to keep the country together.

He sent tanks and troops in October 1993 to flush armed, hard-line supporters out of a hostile Russian parliament after they had sparked violence in the streets of Moscow. And in December 1994, Yeltsin launched a war against separatists in the southern republic of Chechnya.

Tens of thousands of people were killed in the Chechnya conflict, and a defeated and humiliated Russian army withdrew at the end of 1996. The war solved nothing -- and Russian troops resumed fighting in the breakaway region in fall 1999.

In the final years of his presidency, Yeltsin was dogged by health problems and often seemed out of touch. He retreated regularly to his country residence outside Moscow and stayed away from the Kremlin for days, even weeks at a time. As the country lurched from crisis to crisis, its leader appeared increasingly absent.

Yet Yeltsin had made a stunning debut as Russian president. He introduced many basics of democracy, guaranteeing the rights to free speech, private property and multiparty elections, and opening the borders to trade and travel. Though full of bluster, he revealed more of his personal life and private doubts than any previous Russian leader had.

"The debilitating bouts of depression, the grave second thoughts, the insomnia and headaches in the middle of the night, the tears and despair ... the hurt from people close to me who did not support me at the last minute, who didn't hold up, who deceived me -- I have had to bear all of this," he wrote in his 1994 memoir, "The Struggle for Russia."

[DepTrotter]

:whocares:

[Toms-SC]

:rofl:

[Toma]

Glad to see that corrupt fuck go. A disgrace what he let happen to Russia.

Thank god for Putin.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Toma
Glad to see that corrupt fuck go. A disgrace what he let happen to Russia.

Thank god for Putin.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2041493,00.html

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Hakkola


http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2041493,00.html

Russia wouldnt have it any other way ;)

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Toma
Glad to see that corrupt fuck go. A disgrace what he let happen to Russia.

Thank god for Putin.

What "he let happen to Russia"?

Because the Soviet Union was such a paradise. :rolleyes:

[Toma]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


Russia wouldnt have it any other way ;)
Well they can't. The majority (democratically) is behind Putin. The unrest is funded by ex-patriot billionaires who fled with billions of illegaly and shadily obtained wealth, stolen from the Russian people.

15 years ago, there were no MILLIONAIRES in Russia. Today, 64 men (billionaires) have managed to weasle and steal 30% of the russian economy.

There was a phenomenal special on this on the Passionate eye, and how some of these billionaires goal in life is to overthrow Putin. The one dude they Interviewed who is hiding in Israel right now came right out and said it in the interview.

If I was Putin, I would not just arrest those involved in these paid for and funded "opposition" rallies.... I would put a hit on their two most wanted toruble makers.... the dude in London, and that one in Israel. Putin has asked for their extradition, but neither country is co-operating..... maybe an air strike american style will convince them to give em up. ;) ;)

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Toma

maybe an air strike american style will convince them to give em up. ;) ;)

"Qvick!
Fill Lada-Jet vith tventy five litres Karosene!!
Go prove superior power of great Mothar Russia!!!"

[Toma]

Originally posted by TKRIS


"Qvick!
Fill Lada-Jet vith tventy five litres Karosene!!
Go prove superior power of great Mothar Russia!!!"
You do realize, that in simulated large scale combat exercises in India in 2004, with America's best fighters and pilots, engaging Indias best pilots in Russian fighters, the Americans lost 90% of the time?

Russia has the best millitary hardware in the world.

[finboy]

s-20CtRdmL4

[01RedDX]

.

[Toms-SC]

Gotta keep those rouge states in line some how!

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Toma

You do realize, that in simulated large scale combat exercises in India in 2004, with America's best fighters and pilots, engaging Indias best pilots in Russian fighters, the Americans lost 90% of the time?

Russia has the best millitary hardware in the world.

and if you read the parameters of the engagement the Americans hamstrung themselves to give them the worst case senario with most of their systems disabled and India with a massive advantage.

[Toma]

Originally posted by DayGlow


and if you read the parameters of the engagement the Americans hamstrung themselves to give them the worst case senario with most of their systems disabled and India with a massive advantage.
Uhm, no. It was set-up to be as realistic as possible, simulating actual air to air combat against a capable adversary, and not someone like Iraq.

On a level playing field, the American's could not and cannot win. Today, on a large scale CONVENTIONAL war, Russia, India, or China would flatten the US.

[Toma]

Back on topic...
Some comments from around the world:

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 19:54 GMT 20:54 UK

A political opportunist who betrayed the party to which he owed his life and career, a selfish, power-hungry petty dictator who turned against the leader of his country and condemned his nation to decades of misery and poverty just to ensure his own place in history. The USA should praise his legacy, it gave them world power with no rivals; everyone else should condemn his memory.

Tony Simpson, Loughborough

---------------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 18:39 GMT 19:39 UK

Yeltsin was the architect of the new pro-imperialist Russia,characterized by gross inequality,mass poverty, appalling human misery and the greedy appropriation of collective wealth by a few mean capitalists. Surely, he will go down in history as one of the greatest enemies of the Russian people!

Gandhi, Warri, Delta state, Nigeria

-----------------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:30 GMT 21:30 UK

I guess Yeltsin was not what a President of a great country like Russia should be. Besides his political mistakes (privatization, corruption, the rule of KGB etc.) he is strongly associated with vodka and bribery. I guess any sober presidential candidate would seem perfect compared to him. But there is actually no difference who the president is. No difference for our country - elections and democracy are a fake and what really counts is oil oil oil and who has control over the resources.

Vika, Moscow

------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:30 GMT 21:30 UK

Never has one man helped so few become so rich at the expense of so many.

harlequinmod, reading


---------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:29 GMT 21:29 UK

Too bad this didn't happen in say 1991.
Thank God for Yeltsin's one mistake: Putin.

Kirill Lebedev, New York


----------------------------------------


Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:28 GMT 21:28 UK

He was a corrupt old drunk who sold out his country to gangsters and oligarchs. We'll all be better off when we in the West learn much better how to choose our friends.

jo walker, Toronto, Canada

----------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:28 GMT 21:28 UK

I remember one scene. I was 13 years old. I was watching TV. Live broadcast. Berlin. Our Army was leaving Germany. And drunk Yeltsin was trying to lead an orchestra. I perfectly remember my feelings: shame, awkwardness and hatred... God bless Putin!

Stepan, Moscow


-----------------------------------------

Just one more comment: out of all USSR/Russian Federation leaders, Yeltsin's time was the second bloodiest after Stalin.

Alexander Drobchenko, Lappeenranta, Finland


-------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:22 GMT 21:22 UK

Yeltsin will be remembered for single handedly saving the Vodka industry in Russia.

Dominique Marcelli, Sunninghill


---------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:22 GMT 21:22 UK

If not for Mr.Yeltsin's and Pres.Reagan's interference,Gorbachev's plan for a slow but smooth transition from Communist to Capitalist society would have spared millions of Russians hardship and despair.Instead,they created an era of a corrupt and organized crime controlled society which harms 90% of their society to this day.Nothing good to say about the man.

Jacob Kasperowicz, Montreal, Canada

---------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:21 GMT 21:21 UK

His death brings no love lost for me. He was a traitor to his nation who brought Russia to its knees. He continued the same manner of corruption, repression, and mismanagment that has plagued the USSR/Russia since the Khrushchev era. His legacy will not be one of "democracy" or "peace", but of buffoonery and untold misery rained upon the common Russian citizen and especially the Chechen people...

Andrei Mazenov, Atlanta, USA

--------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 20:11 GMT 21:11 UK

A drunkard thug who sold his country in the name of democracy and free market.

Radha Krishna T, Boston


--------------------------------------------

Added: Monday, 23 April, 2007, 19:55 GMT 20:55 UK

Yeltsin was a bad leader - he betrayed Gorbachev who had put him into power by breaking up the USSR far too quickly and then allowed the country to be pillaged and criminalised - no doubt he got his cut even if it was only in vodka. As for his so-called "dignified" exit - he handed over to the ex-head of the KGB. Do you think he really had much choice about his resignation? "Leave now or be tried for corruption - here's the evidence" would be my guess.

Merlin, Cardiff, UK

[DayGlow]

again, if you read the parameters of the engagement you'd know that isn't true, but hey, keep living in your fantasy world.

Hint of the first handicap, the american planes did not fly with any medium range weapon systems.

[forkdork]

Originally posted by DayGlow
again, if you read the parameters of the engagement you'd know that isn't true, but hey, keep living in your fantasy world.

Hint of the first handicap, the american planes did not fly with any medium range weapon systems.

Source?

I have read otherwise.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


What "he let happen to Russia"?

Because the Soviet Union was such a paradise. :rolleyes:

Gorbechev was changing the country slowly, like China is doing right now. Yeltsin stepped in and changed it over night and make the economic situation way worst until Putin straight things out.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by forkdork


Source?

I have read otherwise.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.php

small rundown of the exercise.

[forkdork]

Originally posted by DayGlow


http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.php

small rundown of the exercise.

That is a blog.

Any idea on what sort of background the author has about the subject at hand?

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Gorbechev was changing the country slowly, like China is doing right now. Yeltsin stepped in and changed it over night and make the economic situation way worst until Putin straight things out.

The Soviet economy was self-inflated and was nowhere near as powerful as the West feared, ever. The lies of beauocracy was amazing.

As for their "amazing military".

Even their dreaded nuclear arsenel had something like a 70% failure rate because of their lack of maintenance to the missiles and silos. ICBMs don't fly too well when there's water at the bottom of the silos. Their SSBNs also spent over 80% of their time in port, not on deterrant patrol. Then they would patrol for two weeks and return to port. The USSR couldn't even build a quiet submarine compared to the US or UK. The 688s had no problem tracking Soviet SSBNs whereas an American ballistic missile submaring has NEVER been tracked on patrol, anywhere, ever.

Their Air Force is subpar due to training and funding issues. As for the Americans, you guys do know that Canadians regularly dust off Americans at Top Gun in Fallon, right? When Germany was reunited, Germany sent some of it's ex-East German MiG-29s to Top Gun and Red Flag for adversary training. The equipment was nowhere near as competent as the US was led to believe. F-16s had no problems with the MiG-29s, and that was with well-trained Luftwaffe pilots at the stick. The Su-27 is a hell of a jet, though.

But both of the modern Russian fighters are handicapped by their cockpit layout; if you've ever been inside a MiG-29 or Su-27, the HUD is prehistoric and it's all dials. No CRTs and MFDs to speed up selections and enhance situational awareness. That was the big thing the Americans bitched about when they were flying in the MiGs, was that they don't have a HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick) system; they have to take their hands off the stick to move switches, whereas on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 etc, you can do everything combat related without taking your hands off the controls.

The Russian Army depends on mass, as usual. The T-72 was a mediocre tank design, with massive flaws including thin armour and a very exposed fuel tank. The BMP armoured personnel carrier had the fuel tanks on the doors, for Christ's sake. How the fuck are you supposed to bail out when your door is on fire? Even the more modern T-81 isn't a match for an M1A2 Abrams or a Canadian/German Leopard tank. Plus, both tanks used an "auto-loader" which was slower than a man, maintenance intensive and eliminated a crewmember; someone who could help fix the tank or shoot back with small arms.

Russian equipment doesn't hold a candle to anything developed in the west, whether it's the US, UK or France. Even SAAB makes amazing fighters with the Gripen.

[01RedDX]

.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
It's no secret their military is in disarray, has been for a while but it is still a very powerful institution.


Regarding the Sukhoi Su27, I should mention that the design was (unsuccessfully) copied by the U.S., and it's still in many ways the most advanced tactical fighter 30 years after it was commissioned. The Americans are STILL behind in aviation technology, while the Russians had backwards-flying jets and superior air power decades ago. Their MiGs are legendary, their transport aircraft are second to none and they still have secrets to rocket technology that the Americans are trying to get their hands on.

Everyone always brings up faulty missile silos. This is simply not a good way to gauge military "weakness." For one, they simply have too many of them, twice that of the U.S. according to some, and if a few of them were flooded, does that mean the rest don't work and their military is weak?

I've noticed how a lot of these arguments are fuelled partially by people's distaste for Russia, partially by propaganda, and partially by misinformation. Try to argue a bit more objectively.

I admire the Su-27, it's an amazing aircraft. But copied by the US? The Su-27 was a response to the F-15.

The F-22A will eat an Su-27 alive. Russia has no stealth or low obersvable aircraft. Aircraft that fly backwards? Surely, you're referring to the Cobra maneuver, which the Su-27, Su-33 and Su-35 can perform. Hardly a combat maneouver, since it can't be performed with a weapons load onboard, but it does look cool at airshows. F/A-18s can do it too. Russia also has no modern heavy bomber force. Most of their Blackjack's ended up in the Ukraine. The Tu-95s are slow and outdated as are the Backfires (not slow, but outdated). Whereas the US has B-52s for heavy bombing and standoff attack. If war broke out, treaty's would be abandoned, so the B-1Bs could be equipped with Sidewinders and AMRAAMs for self-defense on wing-root pods. B-2As could slip in anywhere and bomb the shit out of anything with the GPS guided bombs.

Transport aircraft? Their airlift is not nearly as capable as the US. The USA has massive heavy airlift with C-17s, C-141s and C-5s. The Russians do not. They have Il-76s, a few An-124s and ONE An-225, which is leased to a civilian company.

They have no naval aviation to speak of. The US has 15+ carriers, Russia has one, and it's in mothballs. Russia cannot project power on the sea. They can deny it with submarines, but I would wager that the US Navy, with it's immensly capable submarine force, could take a big bite out of the Russian's fleet.

Argue objectively? Everything I've said in regards to capabilities is true.

[Toma]

Russia does not need Stealth in American form. They can track any stealth aircraft anywhere. The Russians INVENTED Americas stealth "technology" 10 years before the American's....and had perfected anti-stealth technology WAY before the Americans built their first stealth aircraft. that is fact.... their new plasma stealth Technology is light years ahead of the Americans. And IS in use. but rumour has it that it is not just on their aircraft.

In fact, popular conspiracy lore has it that when the Serbs shot down those several Stealth fighters, they did so with Chinese Stealth tracking technology that was operating from the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and THAT is why it was "accidentaly" hit by the Americans (both missiles just happend to hit the same room).

And the Russians give away missile and torpedo technology that the US spent billions trying and steel lol... what does that tell you about their new stuff? There was a great special on this on CBC, and how Putin then turned around and gave the design to Canada hahahaha priceless :thumbsup:

[JordanAndrew]

Originally posted by finboy
s-20CtRdmL4


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by forkdork


That is a blog.

Any idea on what sort of background the author has about the subject at hand?

Don't take this the wrong way, but I do not feel like doing a research paper here.

When this meet happenned I've seen many a discussion across the net as I have an interest in flight sims and at the time this was a very hot debate across many boards. In those discussions the actual parameters of the engagements were discussed, etc and the outcome from it showed that the USAF was purposely put at a disadvantage by their own accord to push the envelope of their pilots and response to a 'worse case senario' type deal.

I don't really care if you believe me or not, but it is not worth my time to go back and dig up threads and references from those threads.

Either you believe that India spanked the newest and best of the USAF, or you don't. And now that the F-22 is operational and deployed, the intergration and technological advantage the USAF has has widened the gap even further.

My opinion from my research in the past is that there is a much different slant to the story than what was blasted about in the mainstream media.

[95EagleAWD]

From what I know of the F-117A incident, it was hit with an SA-9 missile, which is a heat-seeking SAM.

Lucky shot.

Those "several" stealth fighters? It was one.

As for topedo technology, unless the rumors about supercavitation are true and the Shkval is a real torpedo, then you'd have to talk to the British, since their Spearfish is arguably the best torpedo in the world right now.

[Schwa]

Do you guys have sources for your info? Pretty interesting information.

Altho even if a US Sub has IN FACT been tracked, I doubt they'd let anyone know about it. Or would you guys disagree?

I mean, the US could be inflating their own capabilities as well to maintain an image of superiority, no?

My knowledge is mainly from Tom Clancy books so forgive me!

[Hakkola]

The U.S. vs. Russia arguments are interesting, but hypothetical and likely to remain that way for as long and Russia and the United States are their current size.

If war between the two countries broke out, neither would have the man power to occupy the other country, and fight off insurgency which would no doubt emerge from any hostile take over in either country.

If the two countries did ever go to war, it probably would be on soil outside of the two countries, in Europe or Asia, (and middle east by extension). In which case Nato would likely be involved and that would have to be taken into account in any argument.

We should start a new thread for this discussion, it is pretty interesting.