@BabaBooey anyways, how would supposed Russophobia in the West be a good case for supporting Russia?

let us not forget that it was a soviet submariner who literally saved the earth from nuclear holocaust.... yet we are here beliving they are the bad guys in history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)

"we"

dude

none of us do

@BabaBooey yet you have documentation of thay guy on an American website

In Chernobyl as I mentioned earlier, the Russians are portrayed pretty fairly, with even Party members

@Andrew Popa 2.0 theres a difference between believing imperial propaganda about a country and support for its government

they were still HUmans

You also have plenty of videos and documentaries on him

>Imperial

Wasn't even like that

Oh nice he figured out a computer was malfunctioning and prevented his higher officers from destroyong the world, the USSR is such a heroic nation

Russia had a smaller army then Germany till like 1943

Or something like tht

Can't remember the exact number

@UnfilteredGarbage there were quite a few falsehoods in that show

The Soviets kinda always mantained the numerical superiority iirc

@BabaBooey sure, but it was still an overall measured take on the subject

there was no arms race

only an arms chase

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjvmIFrX1xQ

the soviets were constantly 7+ years behind

Only in the first month of the Battle of Moscow were they outnumbered

The purpose of chernobyl was moreso to highlight the dangers of early nuclear reactors more than demonize the soviets

there was 100% an arms race

they had more nukes than we did

And they still do

Soviets where ahead in department of signals intelligence at least

even if one's behind a bit, it's still considered a race

it was to demonstrate the dangers of complacency and political backbiting in the face of a humanitarian crisis

There certainly was an arms race, that's why we had the Space Race in the first place

the soviets were constantly saying "dont build X missle or x Bomb or x tech, because then WE will have to build it

Losing an arms race doesn't mean there isn't one imo

There was a competition for military, economic , scientific and political supremacy

Geopolitical esp

a race like the tortoise and the hare sense

Hence eastern bloc

more like a chase

So bababooey is pretty much a confirmed Vatnik at this point right

African communist takeover

if im 7 years plus behind you in tech constantly you consider that a race?

yes

I think he should go live in the unrecognized republic of transnistria

that's still a race

You're trying okay

i call that more of a chase

The Soviets were far from being 7 years behind tho

If you show up to a race, say "i'm gonna compete in this race" , and then lose like a bitch...

that's a race

not a chase

I'd call it a desperate arms struggle.

>they had the Tsar Bomba

the soviet escalations were always reactive

If you race a 1965 farm tractor against a bugatti chiron, it's still a race

to the us

not really lmao

Depends

the soviets built their entire fleet just around being able to track the us fleet

the US going into space was the direct opposite

Would you consider the Tsar Bomba as a reaction?

I don't think starting the space race was reactive

Russians got that composite armour first

@Andrew Popa 2.0 a nasty weapon indeed but when youve got a hostile nation with missles that can hit you before you even know it

Yes the soviets were on the backfoot the entire time. Doesn't mean they weren't attempting to get ahead of US arms development. They just failed.

the soviets were constantly trying to make concessions

I would consider it more as a provocation, given how Khrushchev wanted to "show" it to the West

the US was not hearing tit

Examples of concessions?

Russians came up with the idea for explosive armour first

the US wouldnt take yes for an answer

Give me an example

Before the 1980s of when the USSR was willing to make peace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

Russians came up with heaps of tech

yes but it was reactive

theres a difference

I said pre-1980s

Russia put 32 nuclear reactor satellites into orbit with the intention of using them to watch naval movements

The us mantained a first stike cappability

@BabaBooey also the Soviets were for example the first to build an ICBM

star wars was to defend a retalitory stike

Why are we still even trying to argie with baba at this point

He's so goddamn hell-bent on trying to prove that the soviets were innocent

innocent?

of course not

That scared the shit out of the amerifats imao @Andrew Popa 2.0

just not the demons they are made out to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A source on what I said earlier

the soviets werent angels by any stretch

but the say it was a "race" and that they were the agressors

is laughable

As I said

I'm just arguing they where in an arms race and giving examples of the cool shit they built

In said race

If you race a tractor against a bugatti, it's still a race

@Samaritan i dont really see weapons that could end all mankind as "cool"

Yes they are

Both nations were competing to have an upper-hand over the other