Russian Warships Ready To Sail Into Mediterranean - On Topic - this is a No Spam free zone (tm) : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Russian Warships Ready To Sail Into Mediterranean

By Dr David Whitehouse

BBC News Online Science Editor 4-14-99

MOSCOW (Itar-Tass) - A task force of Black Sea Fleet warships is ready to sail out to the Mediterranean. The date of the start is not revealed, Itar-Tass learnt at the press service of the Russian navy here on Wednesday.

According to the press service, there was no order yet from the supreme commander-in-chief to leave the base and to come to the set area.

The ships are supposed to make a voyage to the area of the Yugoslav conflict where they will be engaged in planned combat training and fulfilling tasks set by the command. According to preliminary data, the task force includes the Admiral Golovko cruiser, the Kerch and Sderzhanny anti-submarine ships, as well as the Pytlivy and Ladny escort ships, a landing ship and an auxiliary vessel.

According to an Itar-Tass dispatch from Ankara with reference to the Turkish General Staff, Russia notified Turkey through diplomatic channels of a passage of the straits zone by a Russian task force between April 15 and 22.

The Liman reconnaissance ship which is now in the Adriatic, passed the zone on April 4. He "enjoyed" special attention at first from the Turkish and then from Greek navies during the passage.

For instance the Liman covered a considerable route "under the escort" of the Conturiotis destroyer and the Elephteria corvette of the Greek navy. The job of shadowing has now been assumed by warships of other NATO countries, participating in the war against Yugoslavia.

The chief staff of the Russian navy does not specify tasks, set before the Liman crew and its commander Anatoly Bartyshev. However, judging by a statement of Russian Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev, the ship should glean specific details of the situation in the region, "to examine it and draw appropriate conclusions to ensure Russia's security".

-- Andy (, April 16, 1999



If the Y2k Problem did not exist, not a single word of what you've posted in this thread would have to change.

It's not Y2k-related.

-- No Spam Please (, April 16, 1999.

No Spam,

You have entered a No Spam free zone (tm).

You have stepped on a mine.


You are an ex-No Spam.

-- Andy (, April 16, 1999.

ex-No Spam,

in your morphed-LOOP state, you made the following statements:-

"If the Y2k Problem did not exist, not a single word of what you've just posted in this thread would have to change.

That shows that it's not Y2k-related."

WRONG ex-No Spam.

The reason?

Why, because the USA and Clinton's backers/handlers are very careful planners and strategists. Everything has a reason - an agenda is being played out. The endless game, if you will. Y2K is a MAJOR factor in the planning process. Had Y2K not been an issue it is quite possible that this Yugoslav diversion would not be happening at all.

-- Andy (, April 16, 1999.

No-Spam: What`s more OT than triggers for nuclear war? Andy`s perspective is right on target.

-- bud (bud@computers, April 16, 1999.

Russia wants, no NEEDS money, they are beyound broke. They are not going to loose the *aid* they are begging for by irritating NATO just because some radical groups miss the communist ways.

The different Navies have played the game of "shadowing" one another for many decades. The subs are especially fond of the game.

-- Cherri (, April 16, 1999.

Not quite true Cherri, there was a piece posted in the last day or so (I'll see if I can find it), where a Russian minister was literally flying en route to the USA for the IMF loan when all hell broke loose - he turned the plane around a flew home to much acclaim from political observers in the domestic Russian press. The Russians are a proud people, are suffering terribly, and deeply resent Clinton and his antics at the moment. Never provoke an angry bear - you will not be able to outrun him either.

-- Andy (, April 16, 1999.

Andy: As you probably know, I do not follow more than a handful of threads usually. I mention this because there are an increasing number of threads about the ongoing turmoil in Europe and the subject of how this relates or not to Y2K. I have read none of these until this one. I am trying to now determine the pro's and con's of the related-or-not-to-Y2K issue, since it looks like we are in this mess for the long haul and I better start making some effort to understand it, in relation to Y2K.

The only relation so far that to me is obvious is watching and learning what the governments did when confronted with the initial emergency (like taking over communications), which with Y2K we have already discussed in terms of the EO's. The other possible Y2K connect point is the 'use it or lose it' concept for non-compliant weaponry.

So my question to you is how is it Y2K related. You mention a carefully planned agenda I think, and the war as a diversion, for example. Could you elaborate? If there are any threads where this has already been gone over well, just point me to the link. Thanks, Rob.

-- Rob Michaels (, April 16, 1999.

The truth - who knows. Check out Zog's, a's, no no's, Nikoli's, Segers posts to name a few. All have nuggets. the truth will out Rob.

-- Andy (, April 16, 1999.

Russia, the US and any other country with a navy often participate in sea "exercises" near a trouble zone, just to rattle a saber and give solace to their allies. Ground troops often participate in maneuvers near a trouble site too. It's been the approved "showing the flag" method throughout recorded history. Opposing sides shadow each other all the time; it's nothing new and nothing to do with Y2K.

-- Old Git (, April 16, 1999.

The leaders waging spin, war and policy are also going to be the same leaders taking us through any disruptions and situations Y2K brings.

Watching and analyzing what they're doing now and why, helps us guage how they're going to deal with disruptions that affect you and I.

The current global situation needs to be discussed and reported and speculated on this forum because the domestic/global scene playing out now is going to be the canvas that Y2K will be painted on.

Make it any clearer for you?

I doubt it for many. Oh well.

The Fat Lady is getting her makeup on anyway.

-- INVAR (, April 16, 1999.

Based on what leaders have done throughout the ages, and particularly what this lot has done in the recent past, I don't need to know any more. How many different ways can you contune to come up with ostensibly to illustrate that we've been led by raving idiots for quite some time now? It's been run into the ground. We've received and understood the message. Please stop trying to tie in every little thing that sets your antennae trembling.

-- Old Git (, April 16, 1999.

With all due respect Git,

Using your logic in the above post,

Based on what everyone has said and speculated about Y2K throughout the past few years and particularly what has been discussed and presented in the recent past, we don't need to know any more. How many different ways can we continue to come up with to ostensibly illustrate that Y2K may or may not be a problem? It's been run into the ground. We've received and understood the message. Please stop trying to tie in every little thing that sets your antennae trembling about Y2K.

With that logic, we should shut the forum down. We've heard it all. There's nothing more to discuss ---RIGHT?

As I stated earlier; The current global (and Y2K) situation needs to be discussed and reported and speculated on this forum because the domestic/global scene playing out now is going to be the canvas that Y2K will be painted on.

-- INVAR (, April 16, 1999.

INVAR, there's not a damn thing I can do about anyone sending troops to a foreign country, but I can learn how to protect my family here in North Carolina. I can learn how to plant the food that will help us survive, preserve the excess for later use, stop bugs from eating my crops, heat and light my home, conserve and store water, stash various items that may be urgently needed, stock a first-aid box--all manner of practical things. Engaging in endless talk about who did what to whom and why won't help me cook a meal without power or do laundry or reconstitute dry food when the water's off.

I think this is a traditional male-female thing. You men all sit around and bullshit endlessly whilst we women have to take care of all the basic practical stuff for the family. Just like the Kosovar refugees--all the men are hanging about shooting the breeze, but it's the women who are feeding the family and doing the laundry. Typical!

-- Old Git (, April 16, 1999.


Now don't start the female/male thingy here. We got a war going already.

You may not have anything PRACTICAL to do or say that will prevent troops being sent overseas, but don't you want to know WHAT to protect your family there in N.Carolina FROM?

Gangs, Militia, Army, Plague, Fallout, Looters or Foreign Nationals may put a crimp in your plans to live little house on the prarie.

Looking at the freight train bearing down and assessing actions to take is better than turning your back and hoping the train switches tracks at the last second.

-- INVAR (, April 16, 1999.

You've made my point, INVAR. What you repeat as threats have already been discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum and ad absurdum on this forum. And you also illustrate one of your basic flaws--erroneous assumptions or preconceived notions, take your pick. I live in an urban area, not any little house on the prairie. I have to be near medical assistance--and I wouldn't have known about 80% of pharmaceutical ingredients coming from overseas if it hadn't been for this forum. Now THAT's practical information and I've already started stocking up on meds. Given my background--of which you know nothing but assume, again erronesouly, that it's useless for Y2K--I can handle just about anything thrown at me--and have. You assume, yet again erroneously, that none of us know anything about these issues you endlessly regurgitate. We HEARD you the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, tenth, twentieth, thirtieth times. Give it a rest.

-- Old Git (, April 16, 1999.


>What`s more OT than triggers for nuclear war?

Answer: Y2k, in this forum.

"On topic" is not a synonym for "important". I never said triggers for nuclear war weren't important. But importance does not render Andy's posting, above, on-topic.

-- No Spam Please (, April 16, 1999.

The relevance of the Kosovo situation to Y2k should be obvious. If it isn't, feel free to click to another thread. The presence of posts on a topic you don't like will not diminish the number of posts on a topic you do like. Nor should it significantly impede your ability to pick out those posts you like from among those you deem "off-topic" for whatever reason. Please stop whining.


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ