general media Russia's Military Playground for all the Family!

[Sky Knight 1,172]

I don't know if everyone knew but ever since tensions had been rising between America and Russia again they have been participating in many mini cold war esk activities. Russia has shown evidence of this recently by opening up its "Military Park" to show the good people of the Russian Federation they can defend their people from whatever threats come in an uncertain future. While Russia flexes its muscle with this new Moscow attraction the US has been beefing up its presence in East Europe carrying out huge "training operations" with these countries in those regions who're EU/Nato official members.

 

Source: Russian Military Playground, for Youth of Russia.

 

In this theme park children can learn how to use delicate pieces of military equipment. Is this all some twisted reality that Russia is now using her children to possibly fight in her wars? The Nazi Germans sure did it out of desperation near the collapse of their order. Is Russia afraid of the future? If they're doing such things as using all there local news networks to brainwash their civilians and any of those outside they can affect. It's one thing they've kept close to them since the Soviet era is there propaganda hold on how things are portrayed to its brainwashed public.

 

Was this intent on purely patriotic purposes?

Does Russia have a deep fear inside of the West but refuses to show it?

Will this attraction prove worthwhile in the long term for Russia?

Do you think it's safe to reveal to children such tools of death and how they operate?

[backpon 321]

It doesn't worry me much because the Idea of preparing children for future war is nothing new. In the early 1900s Britain opened a series of boys-only private academies. Their object was not only to educate the kids, but also to train them with rifles and squadron teamwork in fear of the coming WW1. The U.S. Boy scouts of america were also created in 1908 w/ the charter to help with citizenship and "Patriotism"(sound familiar) in the nation's immigrating youth. Marksmanship was also offer in the many course in the program, The boys scouts even have a ranking system ("cub to "eagle" scouts). Russia's "patriot park" is just a more blatantly militaristic way of getting to the nation's youth. The U.S.'s Ideals of freedom are a HUGE rallying point for patriotism there. Russia's belief in military prowess is their rallying point for patriotism.

 

As for the last question on the safety of children's exposure to this stuff: well what do you see in the gaming world? Lots and lots of war sims (make no mistake I have nothing against gaming, in fact I love it) children, teens, and young adults probably already know or are familiar with the basics of how war machines work. Maybe not mechanically or exactly how it works but they know the basic principles.

 

In short I don't believe its much to worry about. Putin may be just flexing Russia's muscles for her people. He's not the first to do this. As for the nukes well

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,120]

In this theme park children can learn how to use delicate pieces of military equipment. Is this all some twisted reality that Russia is now using her children to possibly fight in her wars? The Nazi Germans sure did it out of desperation near the collapse of their order. Is Russia afraid of the future? If they're doing such things as using all there local news networks to brainwash their civilians and any of those outside they can affect. It's one thing they've kept close to them since the Soviet era is there propaganda hold on how things are portrayed to its brainwashed public.

I consider everything to be propaganda; news sources trying to influence what people think also applies to Western media instead of just Russia. I don't agree with everything stated by Russian media (or any media really), but certain things I will consistently agree with is if what is said falls under the following points:

-USA is too powerful.

-It's necessary for Russia to expand its sphere of influence.

 

Also Russia has uncensored internet so checking validity of media statements is still very much possible.

 

Does Russia have a deep fear inside of the West but refuses to show it?

If looking from a geopolitical standpoint, Russia has reasons to fear the West... certainly more than the other way around. Prior to collapse of USSR, its bufferzone extended to central Germany. However, now it barely has Western bufferzone which previously largely contributed to survival of whatever Russian country existed at the time. Russia managed to survive past Western invasions but I highly doubt Russia would survive if NATO hypothetically decided to declare war on Russia; though I see that to be more likely than Russia declaring war on NATO.

 

Will this attraction prove worthwhile in the long term for Russia?

Only relatively recently has Russia's population decline ended; it's now increasing slightly (or at least last time I checked). More people means more soldiers. If such attractions interest young children to eventually dedicate their life to military service, it would serve Russia well to defend itself and to expand its sphere of influence militarily when necessary. Fewer soldiers would only make it more difficult for Russia to defend its massive country and other interests.

 

Do you think it's safe to reveal to children such tools of death and how they operate?

It's not exactly uncommon for American parents to educate their child on weapon use. I don't see how this is really any different.

[Mr F 1,522]

You sent a link to Time magazine... Those people are not really trustworthy at all. They even had Anita Sarkeesian in their list of influencial people...

 

On topic: Russia has always been like this. They constantly send bombers across the norwegian border and have done so almost every day since the fall of soviet. They generally get pushed out in a matter of minutes though. So they opening military playgrounds should not come as a surprise. It is just Russia beind a nice neighbour.

[Sky Knight 1,172]

It's not exactly uncommon for American parents to educate their child on weapon use. I don't see how this is really any different.

These weapons that the American parents use are no more than small arms (handgun, shotgun or rifle) nothing on the scale the Russian Government has decided on. The Park teaches children to use complex Grenade Launching Systems and High-Tec State of tech Art Radar/Missile Ballistics Systems. I do not see American children being taught to use M1 Abrams and all its complex widgets and tools of destruction. The difference is quite marginal as Russia is teaching these minors to use state of the art military gizmos while the US is not. The US Government is also not behind or supporting of such actions that would put its children in the mean to fight to the death for patriotism sake. 

 

 

If looking from a geopolitical standpoint, Russia has reasons to fear the West... certainly more than the other way around. Prior to collapse of USSR, its bufferzone extended to central Germany. However, now it barely has Western bufferzone which previously largely contributed to survival of whatever Russian country existed at the time. Russia managed to survive past Western invasions but I highly doubt Russia would survive if NATO hypothetically decided to declare war on Russia; though I see that to be more likely than Russia declaring war on NATO.

I think we can safely say that if anything were to occur it would be from the side of Russia. Russia has many times fought the countries close to it. There is also saying of "Whatever problems Russia has neighboring countries share" this is evident with Russia's attacks in the Ukraine and Georgia. Nato would only attack Russia if Russia attack Nato, and as Putin doesn't like to fight back down from a fight since he's the loving and choice leader of the Russian Federation of whom the Russian public support all so dearly in all the News Reports and Staged Events we see. 

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,120]

These weapons that the American parents use are no more than small arms (handgun, shotgun or rifle) nothing on the scale the Russian Government has decided on. The Park teaches children to use complex Grenade Launching Systems and High-Tec State of tech Art Radar/Missile Ballistics Systems. I do not see American children being taught to use M1 Abrams and all its complex widgets and tools of destruction. The difference is quite marginal as Russia is teaching these minors to use state of the art military gizmos while the US is not. The US Government is also not behind or supporting of such actions that would put its children in the mean to fight to the death for patriotism sake.

*Shrugs* If it ultimately results in Russia to have a larger influx of soldiers, it's beneficial for the ultimate survival of Russia.

 

I think we can safely say that if anything were to occur it would be from the side of Russia. Russia has many times fought the countries close to it. There is also saying of "Whatever problems Russia has neighboring countries share" this is evident with Russia's attacks in the Ukraine and Georgia. Nato would only attack Russia if Russia attack Nato, and as Putin doesn't like to fight back down from a fight since he's the loving and choice leader of the Russian Federation of whom the Russian public support all so dearly in all the News Reports and Staged Events we see.

I wouldn't say so. USA alone is notably more powerful than Russia and NATO is certainly more powerful than CSTO. Saying that Russia's military involvement in its neighbouring countries were simply because of USSR nostalgia or to satisfy hunger for power is huge simplification of the matter. It's about geopolitics. Russia may appear to be aggressive but in reality is ultimately playing defensively. Here is why Russia is behaving as it is.

 

In past twenty years, NATO expanded to the point where much more of its border directly reaches Russia. Countries voluntarily joining NATO is irrelevant, to Russia this is seen as an extremely aggressive expansion and now Russia is in a vulnerable position. Possibility of Ukraine joining NATO would be a nightmare to Russia. So it makes sense that Russia would be involved in Ukraine including annexation of Crimea (strategically important region in Black Sea) and supporting rebels.

 

As for Georgia, country is situated in strategically important region.

Caucasus mountains provides Russia natural defensive terrain against countries that are Western aligned. If Russia lost control of Caucasus mountains, West-South Russia would be very vulnerable to attack. By expanding influence into Georgia, Russia is extending its buffer zone.

 

Russia may continue to expand its influence one way or another to countries that border it, but from defensive standpoint it makes sense.

 

So what if NATO expanded? It doesn't mean that they have any interest in attack Russia or anything. Well... there are several reasons why defeating/controlling Russia would be beneficial:

-USA would lose its biggest rival and would be able to pursue its own interests more easily without Russian objection.

-It would allow extraction of Russia's rich supply of natural resources.

 

Being rich in resources and militarily weak is a terrible position to be in; such a position puts you in a situation where you can easily be exploited. It is why it's important for Russian military to be as powerful as it can be. It's not exactly comforting to have your rival's military presence to be spread so much throughout the world; I doubt it would be comforting to USA if Russia hypothetically had large military presence globally.

[Sky Knight 1,172]

*Shrugs* If it ultimately results in Russia to have a larger influx of soldiers, it's beneficial for the ultimate survival of Russia.

 

I wouldn't say so. USA alone is notably more powerful than Russia and NATO is certainly more powerful than CSTO. Saying that Russia's military involvement in its neighbouring countries were simply because of USSR nostalgia or to satisfy hunger for power is huge simplification of the matter. It's about geopolitics. Russia may appear to be aggressive but in reality is ultimately playing defensively. Here is why Russia is behaving as it is.

 

In past twenty years, NATO expanded to the point where much more of its border directly reaches Russia. Countries voluntarily joining NATO is irrelevant, to Russia this is seen as an extremely aggressive expansion and now Russia is in a vulnerable position. Possibility of Ukraine joining NATO would be a nightmare to Russia. So it makes sense that Russia would be involved in Ukraine including annexation of Crimea (strategically important region in Black Sea) and supporting rebels.

 

As for Georgia, country is situated in strategically important region.

Caucasus mountains provides Russia natural defensive terrain against countries that are Western aligned. If Russia lost control of Caucasus mountains, West-South Russia would be very vulnerable to attack. By expanding influence into Georgia, Russia is extending its buffer zone.

 

Russia may continue to expand its influence one way or another to countries that border it, but from defensive standpoint it makes sense.

 

So what if NATO expanded? It doesn't mean that they have any interest in attack Russia or anything. Well... there are several reasons why defeating/controlling Russia would be beneficial:

-USA would lose its biggest rival and would be able to pursue its own interests more easily without Russian objection.

-It would allow extraction of Russia's rich supply of natural resources.

 

Being rich in resources and militarily weak is a terrible position to be in; such a position puts you in a situation where you can easily be exploited. It is why it's important for Russian military to be as powerful as it can be. It's not exactly comforting to have your rival's military presence to be spread so much throughout the world; I doubt it would be comforting to USA if Russia hypothetically had large military presence globally.

Very well said, you make good clear points.