|
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 19 2014 09:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 09:51 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
After reading press-release i have only one question. Okay, two.
Yatsenyuk srsly won't go on elections or he has 0 popularity?
And if those numbers are close to real world (i assume that they are), i imagine, what will happen in second tour of elections.
No, I think he wants to be the interim PM, but my guess is that whoever wins will then either just name him his own PM or will call for parliament elections since the constitutional reforms have reverted Ukraine from a strong presidential system to a parliamentary system and he will hope to win the PM from there. Its not really clear, obviously the Russian invasion complicated things but also the Party of the Region is now in disarray. The leaders Azarenkov and Yanukovich have been shown to be corrupt so you dont know who to vote for. Thats why so many are saying 'vote against all' or 'I dont know enough'. Its also difficult for party of the regions because it was a much more top down party, so if your entire leadership is either in Russia/hated by most Ukrainians or unsure what happens next (What if Russia does invade, do you really want to be the candidate for Ukrainian presidential elections and risk being kept out of power in new 'russian territory'? So the biggest Party of Regions guy I know who is considering running is the mayor of kharkiv?)
Azarov* :D
I just assume that Yatsenyuk will be PM again if Timoshenko wins. Can't see him just fading away.
Party of Regions, i guess, will be in same position as was Yushchenko, so they will miss this chance. And i pretty much wonder if it's good for them or no, because Ukraine anyway is going to revert to 2004 Consitution so president will be irrelevant and they can be in good shape for next elections.
http://www.interfax.ru/364185
But i can't see Party of Regions here lol. Seems like everyone want to distance from this name before elections just to come back after it.
I just wonder what will happen if Klitschko wins :D Can't think about it without smile tbh.
|
I just wonder what will happen if Klitschko wins :D Can't think about it without smile tbh.
Opposition gets roflstomped in the ring, obviously. Every decision will be made in a cagematch.
To be fair, i don't see him win. And that might be for the better, he's a brilliant boxer, i doubt he would be as good as a politician.
|
If you think its impossible to maintain your self-respect, ambition and sense of mission (whatever that means) without indoctrinating your entire population into believe that the west is a bunch of neo nazi fascists who arnt worth the air they breath then I can only shake my head at your ignorance.
Since when has Russian media been indoctrinating their people into believing that "the West" is a bunch of neo nazi fascists? Let us not deal in hyperboles here. By the way, the political pejorative "fascist" as a label for all non-parliamentary, and non-communist regimes in the world has been gleefully plagiarised by Western propagandists from Soviet propagandists as a rhetorical tool, meaning something that vaguely translates to “I hate this guy.”
Nomen est Omen. Repeat it enough, and a fascist will simply mean whatever you're pointing it at. The Russians are as appreciative of this concept as much as Western opinion.
I don't know why the perception that Russia is not as powerful as it was during the Cold War would be 'weird'. Economically speaking the gap between Russia and the West has grown immensely.
I do not know what you understand a “Great Power” to be historically speaking. If I had to put some vague sense to it, it amounts to the ability of a state to defend its interests and people against the encroachment of foreign peers.
Voltaire's witticism that Prussia was an Army with a Country was a prime example of a well-organised country, which when united behind wilful actions can exert power beyond her physical stature. Today, Israel is the best example of a similar concept.
None of this is applicable to Russia, but my point was that you are not actually resenting the thing you say you are. No one has ever resented another man's inability to roll over and admit defeat, unless it was the person trying to defeat him.
Orthodox Christianity has already spread through Kievan Rus lands by 944 -- the Primary Chronicle is clear on this -- not only in the oaths Rus' nobles invoked when signing treaties with Byzantium but by references to churches built in Kyiv. Olga of Kyiv -- regent -- converted to Christianity and ruled as a Christian almost 40 years -- and two Kievan Princes -- prior to the rise of Vlodimir. Nor did Vladimir's conversion end periodic Rus raids on Byzantium, at least two major incursions occurred afterwards.
Once again, thank you for your factoids. I think anyone who has read the same account of the Nestor's Chronicles can come into their own information about the general outline of its contents. However, you are outpacing your point when you say that “Orthodox Christianity has already spread through Kievan Rus lands by 944” or “Olga of Kyiv ruled as a Christian almost 40 years.” It was not widespread through the Kievan Rus, and that is why Olga's attempts to steer the Kievan Rus towards Christianity were met with failure. “The Conversion of the Rus” is in historical parlance synonymous with the sack of Kherson, and not with Olga's pilgrimage to Constantinople.
Kherson is not comparable to St. Stephen and no Russian historian -- whether Western or in Russia -- would ever make the comparison. Stephen is the founding father of the Hungarian nation and is venerated as such, alongside a separate religious cult. There is no equivalent veneration in Russian culture for Vladimir until the mid 19th century when there was a failed attempt to promote his significance as part of the broader imposition of Orthodoxy/Autocracy/Nationality ideology the Tsarist state sought to develop as an alternative to Western ideas. The position St. Stephen occupies in Hungarian historical imagination is held by multiple Russian historical rulers because there are multiple Russias.
I have no idea what is even meant by “founding father of the Hungarian nation,” for a distinct sense of Magyar tribal identity existed before Stephen. What Stephen founded was the Kingdom of Hungary, and his country being Christianised, dropped out of the status of barbarian heathendom, and became recognised as a member of the Christian community. Stephen's place is shared with, among others, the legendary Arpad, who led the Magyars as a united migratory wave into the Carpathian basin. I have no idea how you managed to invoke the reputation of Vladimir in the 19th century without realising the parallels with Stephen's own status as a figurehead in the Hungarian nationalist movement of the same era.
As for Clovis, it seems pretty obvious that either Rurik -- the actual founder of the dynasty -- or Oleg -- the first prince of Kyiv -- occupied the comparable space. Vladimir is important as a historical figure, but attempting to bolt onto Crimea some sort of mythical homeland or origin of Russian culture is just wrong. The warmth it evokes in the Russians of today is almost wholly based on its importance as a Soviet era resort. Less Plymouth Rock, more Daytona Beach or Boca Ratton.
Perhaps you have been weighed down by your own violent partisanship too long to see any question in anything but Manichean terms. I did not claim that the Crimea was some sort of “mythical homeland or origin of Russian culture.” Here is what I said:
I do not see the relevance of the US-Japan analogy; Russian history in the Crimea was not tangential. Crimea was the crib of Russia's emergence from barbarism. It was where Vladimir the Great converted to Orthodox Christianity. It was the site of Russia's first contact with Eastern Roman Civilisation long before the Mongol incursions turned the peninsula into an Mongolian satrapy, and later an Ottoman dependency.
This in response to semantics' implication, that there was such a thing as an organic Crimean people, culturally and politically distinct from the various races which have occupied that peninsula since ancient times. Of the remaining ethnicities which are still identifiable upon the Crimean peninsula, the East Slavs distance all by the antiquity of their settlement, with the exception of the Greeks.
is 'national ambition and sense of mission' an euphemism for imperialism?
Since we have semantically inflated the meaning of “imperialism” to mean any kind of influence by one people on another, I think you can take this to be my meaning.
And what American empire are you talking about? I don't feel like I'm living under American hegemonic rule at the moment.
West Germany was probably the most Americanised country in Europe in the post-war era, and Germans who survived the war quickly raced to embrace a class of “middle-class” values which diluted the older emphasis on self-cultivation and duty. If you want to look at a critical view of this Americanisation of Germany portrayed, take a look at the film Die Ehe von Maria Braun.
Call me naive, but I think people like freedom. There is not a single fully developed autocratic country on this planet. If you think being an autocratic empire is a core value of the Russian culture then sadly there is no way how the West and East can come together, and that's not the fault of Europe or the US.
I have no idea what you mean by freedom. It's true that for the last 200 years, people have liked the idea of freedom. Whether they particularly enjoy the exercise of freedom is another matter.
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben Der täglich sie erobern muß
As for the inability for different nations to come together, I do not see why that is necessarily true, unless one were to posit a world where political ideology has become everything in life. If you mean that they cannot come together in some kind of Rooseveltian ideal of world government, then that would be so.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the more likely description of the russian situation is not some single national entity's rise to respect or lack of it. it's a tragic story of a people's rise hijacked by various group of mobsters/ex-kgb dudes. they then in turn shaped this perception that russia is not respected, when in fact what 'the west' finds most problematic with russia is the hijackers not teh people.
|
On March 19 2014 10:38 oneofthem wrote:
the more likely description of the russian situation is not some single national entity's rise to respect or lack of it. it's a tragic story of a people's rise hijacked by various group of mobsters/ex-kgb dudes. they then in turn shaped this perception that russia is not respected, when in fact what 'the west' finds most problematic with russia is the hijackers not teh people.
More like a historically backward and violent people succumbing to rulers who have successively discovered that this people cannot be modernised without resorting to backward and violent means.
|
On March 19 2014 10:38 oneofthem wrote:
the more likely description of the russian situation is not some single national entity's rise to respect or lack of it. it's a tragic story of a people's rise hijacked by various group of mobsters/ex-kgb dudes. they then in turn shaped this perception that russia is not respected, when in fact what 'the west' finds most problematic with russia is the hijackers not teh people.
These hijackers are so popular because they've made things significantly better than in the 90s, and they know this is true. This is why they seem to be getting a bit worried due to last year's economic stagnation.
On March 19 2014 10:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 10:38 oneofthem wrote:
the more likely description of the russian situation is not some single national entity's rise to respect or lack of it. it's a tragic story of a people's rise hijacked by various group of mobsters/ex-kgb dudes. they then in turn shaped this perception that russia is not respected, when in fact what 'the west' finds most problematic with russia is the hijackers not teh people. More like a historically backward and violent people succumbing to rulers who have successively discovered that this people cannot be modernised without resorting to backward and violent means.
Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today in Russia anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth.
|
On March 19 2014 10:27 MoltkeWarding wrote:
West Germany was probably the most Americanised country in Europe in the post-war era, and Germans who survived the war quickly raced to embrace a class of “middle-class” values which diluted the older emphasis on self-cultivation and duty. If you want to look at a critical view of this Americanisation of Germany portrayed, take a look at the film Die Ehe von Maria Braun.
Yes, we are pretty Americanized here and given the state of West Germany only a few decades after the war it was probably for the better. I actually think Germany is still profiting from the 'republican structure' that we have due to the US influence.
From your posts I get the feeling that you're putting the US on one level with the Soviet Union, as if it's just the same thing but from a different side. But Germany is a pretty good example as only one side needed to build a wall to keep their citizens in.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 19 2014 10:43 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 10:38 oneofthem wrote:
the more likely description of the russian situation is not some single national entity's rise to respect or lack of it. it's a tragic story of a people's rise hijacked by various group of mobsters/ex-kgb dudes. they then in turn shaped this perception that russia is not respected, when in fact what 'the west' finds most problematic with russia is the hijackers not teh people. More like a historically backward and violent people succumbing to rulers who have successively discovered that this people cannot be modernised without resorting to backward and violent means.
thats a story that those rulers fabricate pls dont even use that bullshit
|
Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth.
I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history.
From your posts I get the feeling that you're putting the US on one level with the Soviet Union, as if it's just the same thing but from a different side. But Germany is a pretty good example as only one side needed to build a wall to keep their citizens in.
Historically, I believe the Americans did the right thing with the Truman doctrine and the Marshall Plan after the war. However, I also agree with Kennan's notion that the American postwar presence in Europe should have been an emergency short-term measure, rather than a permanent presence. In the long-term, the Russians washed out of Eastern Europe without so much as a stain on the continuity of the subject nations' national and historical characters, but the Americans are forever. Its universal, infantile appeal is precisely the reason it is dangerous to older and more mature concepts of civilised life.
Personally, there is no sense of equivalency in the cultural and moral sense between the two nations. I simply hold the nations to different expectations and different standards. Although I enjoy visiting Russia, she is a foreign, bizarre and alien country to me. America is much closer and more familiar, but therefore also the gravity of my disappointments.
|
On March 19 2014 10:05 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 09:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 19 2014 09:51 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
After reading press-release i have only one question. Okay, two.
Yatsenyuk srsly won't go on elections or he has 0 popularity?
And if those numbers are close to real world (i assume that they are), i imagine, what will happen in second tour of elections.
No, I think he wants to be the interim PM, but my guess is that whoever wins will then either just name him his own PM or will call for parliament elections since the constitutional reforms have reverted Ukraine from a strong presidential system to a parliamentary system and he will hope to win the PM from there. Its not really clear, obviously the Russian invasion complicated things but also the Party of the Region is now in disarray. The leaders Azarenkov and Yanukovich have been shown to be corrupt so you dont know who to vote for. Thats why so many are saying 'vote against all' or 'I dont know enough'. Its also difficult for party of the regions because it was a much more top down party, so if your entire leadership is either in Russia/hated by most Ukrainians or unsure what happens next (What if Russia does invade, do you really want to be the candidate for Ukrainian presidential elections and risk being kept out of power in new 'russian territory'? So the biggest Party of Regions guy I know who is considering running is the mayor of kharkiv?) Azarov* :D
In my mind he blends in with Lazarenko, the only scumbag from Ukraine who actually got his because he was dumb enough to move to America
I just assume that Yatsenyuk will be PM again if Timoshenko wins.
She wont win. If shes stupid enough to run she wont make it into second round. People are tired of her bullshit too.
And i pretty much wonder if it's good for them or no, because Ukraine anyway is going to revert to 2004 Consitution so president will be irrelevant and they can be in good shape for next elections. http://www.interfax.ru/364185But i can't see Party of Regions here lol. Seems like everyone want to distance from this name before elections just to come back after it. I just wonder what will happen if Klitschko wins :D Can't think about it without smile tbh.
But having said that, if Yatsenyuk isnt a total retard he will campaign 80% in the East, speak almost all Russian and position himself as technocratic healer of the country, while tapping into the new Ukrainian nationalism Putin helped create.
I actually like Kistchko in the sense that he has nothing to gain from going back to Ukraine, he could just live happily in Germany and be a rich famous guy there. Imo running as a reformist there takes guts.
|
On March 19 2014 10:27 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Once again, thank you for your factoids. I think anyone who has read the same account of the Nestor's Chronicles can come into their own information about the general outline of its contents. However, you are outpacing your point when you say that “Orthodox Christianity has already spread through Kievan Rus lands by 944” or “Olga of Kyiv ruled as a Christian almost 40 years.” It was not widespread through the Kievan Rus, and that is why Olga's attempts to steer the Kievan Rus towards Christianity were met with failure. “The Conversion of the Rus” is in historical parlance synonymous with the sack of Kherson, and not with Olga's pilgrimage to Constantinople.
Your formulation that Conversion of Vladimir --> Byzantine-Slavic synthesis is just factually incorrect. The synthesis began much earlier. The conversion neither introduced Christianity into Kievan Rus nor preclude future conflict with Byzantium. I have no idea how you managed to invoke the reputation of Vladimir in the 19th century without realising the parallels with Stephen's own status as a figurehead in the Hungarian nationalist movement of the same era.
Because Vladimir was not the figure head of the Russian or Rus or whatever nationalistic movement, that was my whole point. The attempt to revive Vladimir as a first among equals was part of a broader promotion of Orthodoxy as one of the fountainheads of the Tsarist state. It failed because by that point the canon of the Russian state was so established that the idea of superimposing him was simply ludicrous to either the educated nobility the Tsar was trying to sway from Westernization or to the common serf. The first looked back on Rurik, Ivan, Michael and Peter as the founders -- unless of course they were Germans and then their conception was wholly different of what it meant to be a Russian -- and the later had no conception of history at all
I do not see the relevance of the US-Japan analogy; Russian history in the Crimea was not tangential. Crimea was the crib of Russia's emergence from barbarism. It was where Vladimir the Great converted to Orthodox Christianity. It was the site of Russia's first contact with Eastern Roman Civilisation long before the Mongol incursions turned the peninsula into an Mongolian satrapy, and later an Ottoman dependency.
And I reject your claims and terminology and their implication for the Russian's perception of Crimea.
|
On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history.
Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Quite honestly I expected it.
|
On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today.
Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-)
And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit.
The NATO expansion is a litle bit more complicated, but essentially the West was already holding back, because that's what they said they would do after the German unification while especially the Baltic states basically begged to get into the NATO.
|
On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit.
We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact.
|
Which slander? Citations please.
|
On March 19 2014 12:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit. We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact.
What exactly did we do that justifies what Russia just did over the last several weeks?
|
On March 19 2014 12:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 12:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit. We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact. What exactly did we do that justifies what Russia just did over the last several weeks?
Nothing at all. I never said we did anything that justifies anything Russia did. I don't see where you're pulling this from. I'm just addressing your implication that relations with Russia have only been poor in the past several weeks (esp. in the case of US relations with Russia).
|
On March 19 2014 12:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 12:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit. We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact. What exactly did we do that justifies what Russia just did over the last several weeks?
Bet he means the critical voices on the pussy riot trial etc. Which obviously is bullshit, being critical of stuff doesn't mean slandering.
We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact.
Americans, that is. German-russian relationship weren't that bad, they were decent. They were actually good with Medvedev.
|
On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit. The NATO expansion is a litle bit more complicated, but essentially the West was already holding back, because that's what they said they would do after the German unification while especially the Baltic states basically begged to get into the NATO.
Is it more like an annexation or more like a secession-accession?
|
On March 19 2014 12:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 12:05 Nyxisto wrote:On March 19 2014 12:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 19 2014 11:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 19 2014 11:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Are you referring to something like Stalin? I don't see what's happening today anything close to Stalin's administration, and I am confused how "backward means" lead to modernization and growth. I didn't mean anything in particular, actually. It was the kind of sweeping and useless explanation of a diverse and complex history designed to impress people who are only thinking about how to interpret the past. I think of Putin's era as a period of consolidation of different tangents of his nation's history. There has never been a period in Russia's history since Marquis de Custine where the Russian government has not been attacked by Western liberals. So recriminations against Putin are not so strange. What is strange is the disproportionate vehemence of these attacks against what Russia "is" today, in consideration of what Russia has always been throughout her history. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. But, don't you think the explanation for this strangeness comes from the fact that not too long ago, Russia was down and out (to the delight of the US and other nations) and is now recovering (to their disgust)? Apparently Russia was lauded in so many ways during the 1990s when it was in a completely terrible state of existence and when the US was expanding into Eastern Europe, and now the reverse seems to be happening: the praises have turned into attacks and the Russians aren't taking kicks while they're down any longer. This is why personally, I'm not surprised by what you say is a disproportionate vehemence of the attacks that exists today. Sorry but Russia being 'down and out' was not to the delight of many other nations. You make it sound like everyone in the West was laughing at Russia while the people were suffering after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also big parts of the European expansion into Eastern Europe happened during a time in which Russia was already discovering.(2000-) And please let's keep in mind that the European Union was proposing a trade agreement, Russia just annexed part of another country 48 hours ago, so please rethink your 'why is the west attacking Russia so hardcore'-logic a little bit. We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact. What exactly did we do that justifies what Russia just did over the last several weeks? Bet he means the critical voices on the pussy riot trial etc. Which obviously is bullshit, being critical of stuff doesn't mean slandering. Show nested quote +We have been slandering them long before the events of the past several weeks. Just saying. While things have intensified in the "past 48 hours" and the past several weeks, it wasn't like we had rosy relations with Russia before. Quite far way from that, in fact. Americans, that is. German-russian relationship weren't that bad, they were decent. They were actually good with Medvedev.
Admittedly, my word choice is less than optimal. That is my mistake. My point is, relations with Russia from the US and some other countries didn't all of a sudden become bad a month ago. They were never good to start with. Germany-Russia is different, and my apologies for missing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
