On April 08 2014 21:46 Cheerio wrote: Klichko would be running for the mayor of Kyiv. He admitted himself he doesn't have the political experience to run for the Presidency at the moment. And Poroshenko was a huge part of Euromaidan, he just wasnt the frontrunner, mainly working behind the scene.
Destroying your own country from behind the scene is better than openly destroying it... confirmed.
On April 08 2014 05:37 Geisterkarle wrote: Economy? Looks grim I think! Actually for this their best hope could be to join Russia! Sounds crazy, but if we learned anything from Spain, Greece, ... then the "help" from the EU is something that not many people will like ...
On the contrary, the only way forward is to join societies that have rule of law, freeish press and follow rational economic decisions
there are no such societies, its only an image created in your head by powerful media
Not every country is stuck in the 19th century, you should travel more.
well i think France in 19th century was much more comfortable place than in 21th i kinda don't want to test "rule of law" when some french-arab or french-afro will rob me in the center of Paris
If this really represents the general mind of Russians, they have become closer to the Germans 75 years ago than anyone in between. Seems in line with their recent actions too.
Actually I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone from western countries would have thought like that 75 years ago, casual racism was the norm back then.
I don't get the meaning of "casual racism", it can be either racism or not, casual racism sounds the same as jokes around places u born, a friend of mine is from Vietnam, and we have a few of "racism based jokes", but we know all of them are friendish. U just don't have to cross borders at some point.
Casual racism means racism without an agenda or strong feelings involved, imagine 2 guys talking at work in america 75 years ago, both don't hate blacks or anything but just kinda accept that they are second class citizens: guy #1:"Seen the new guy already?" guy #2:"Oh, so upper management finally found a replacement for Jones?" guy #1:"What? Oh, nah, he's a nigger and cleans here now."
See, guy #1 doesn't hate black people, but still uses the race of the new employee as a reason why he can't be much more than a cleaner in their company, simply because both are not used to seeing other people than whites in those positions. And that's what I would call casual racism.
bullshit about germany. we were viewed best in the world when we didn't join the "west" in it's war on iraq and remained "neutral". also germany has pretty good relations to russia since the end of the USSR (and even before with gorbatchev). there is no need to end them.
dunno if posted already, but sergei lavrov wrote an article for the guardian: link
On April 08 2014 16:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: And now they're Uncle Sam's toy poodles. I'm okay with this . Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
Can you just stop, please. USA and Russia never split Europe. I know that you have this belief that USA is this ruthless super power who does everything to get ahead, but reality is not like that at all, especially not if we're talking about their european politics. USA have historically treated us in western europe very well, and as the cold war ended, we (especially Sweden) actually moved more in the US direction, not the other way around, which just proves that USA never had any direct influence on us. In the 70's, there was a lot of support for the USSR and communism in Sweden, possibly because of russian-funded communistic propaganda. There was a lot of communism propaganda here in the 60's and 70's, but it's not possible to prove if it was the result of russian influence, or just stupidity. Well, it doesn't really matter. Socialism dominated our political climate all the way until the 90's, and pretty much everything was state-owned. When the USSR collapsed, and all their lies throughout history got exposed, the swedish communist party stopped calling themselves communists, and our lefties adopted feminism instead, another marxist-derived ideology, and Sweden started moving towards the right, towards USA, and we're still moving in this direction.
You make it sound like we in Sweden and all the other western countries were forced to join sides with USA, the same way that Eastern Europe was forced to join with the Soviets. This is just not true, but you want to make it seem that way because it fits your world view. Someone who has studied these things as much as you should know better. Europe was split in 2, but USA had no part in this split. It was entirely the result of actions by the USSR. They grabbed as many countries as they could, and this resulted in a split between the free west, and the USSR occupied east.
It was first at this point that USA started to adopt more aggressive foreign policies, they were merely mirroring what the USSR was doing. But at this point, Eastern Europe was already taken, and Western Europe had proven to be stable enough to resist pro-USSR propaganda, so Europe had already picked sides when the cold war started, and so Europe was never targeted in USA's aggressive cold war policies. You could make a somewhat valid point that USA had significant influence in West Germany, and that they to a certain extent had the power to dictate the future of this newly established country, but apart from West Germany, USA had no direct influence in European politics.
Anyway, you saying that the USSR brought a lot of these places (Eastern Europe) out of the medieval era is simply not true, and it shows either that you don't know much about pre 1900's history, or that you're trying to mislead deliberately. Both the polish and the czech although they share the ancient slavic heritage with russia were historically a lot closer to the west. This is why both countries are catholic, rather than orthodox. The czech and polish societies have always been greater and more advanced than the russian society, and communism only stagnated them. For the baltic states it was similar. Countries like Romania, that was never in the western european sphere of influence was also a lot better off before it fell to communism. If you look at Europe today, and the overall state of all the countries, the overall picture is not that much different from what it was before the iron curtain. The czech, the polish, the estonians and latvians and the croatians, they have bounced back pretty fast and are much better off than the rest, and this can be explained simply by their historical cultural heritage, which connects them to west, which made it easier for them to move on and drop all the ties to Russia.
You could make a somewhat valid point that USA had significant influence in West Germany, and that they to a certain extent had the power to dictate the future of this newly established country, but apart from West Germany, USA had no direct influence in European politics.
Don't forget that there was quite a bit of tension in the first 20 years of the Cold War between West Germany and the US because both West Germany and the US were afraid that the other would go off on their own and make a deal with the Soviets that the other side didn't want. West Germany was afraid the US would go over their heads on issues like Berlin and the USA was afraid of West Germany doing the very same thing on many of the same issues. But yes to a certain extent the US had the power to dictate West German policy. Luckily what the US wanted and West Germany wanted was the same thing, West Germany to be rich and powerful as the first bulwark against any Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, so this influence didn't cause anywhere near as much tension as it might have.
Lugansk separatists, who had captured the SBU headquarters and are now in possesion of a large quantity of firearms, claimed they are creating Lugansk Republic with its own Parliament, into which they elected themselves.
On April 09 2014 00:55 Cheerio wrote: Lugansk separatists, who had captured the SBU headquarters and are now in possesion of a large quantity of firearms, claimed they are creating a Lugansk Republic with its own Parliament, into which they elected themselves.
They supposedly booby-trapped the building to prevent any assaults, at least this is what Polish media report.
Russia warned Ukraine not to re-take these buildings or it would cause "civil war." The clear implication is that this would be an excuse for Russia to send "peacekeepers" into eastern Ukraine. Ukraine has re-taken one so far, took 18 minutes, no Russian response. They're probably shocked that Kiev isn't in the fetal position crying to Vladimir that they've finally seen the light.
On April 08 2014 04:31 Cheerio wrote: By the latest social polls the Party of Regions sits at 6% vote rate, while Euromaidan forces enjoy full support (except Svoboda who dropped quite a bit). "Destroying one's own country" looks like a smart political move. Isn't it, zeo?
Funny how the man leading your polls (if they are to be believed) Poroshenko, had practically nothing to do with Euromaidan. And your glorious Klitchko pulled out. Seems like destroying your own country doesn't pay off.
Klitschko btw didn't pull out, he stands behind Poroshenko for numerous reasons. The biggest being to reduce Timoshenkos chances. Especially considering that Klitschko is a VIP Boxer, with no big experience in politics. Even he agrees there.
He still runs for mayor in kiev parallel to the election.
So are we basically going to see a repeat of WW2 now? Putin continuing to invade everything that surrounds him, until it starts a World War? Because as history shows this is the only way to get a dictator that starts invading his neighbours to stop doing that. Sadly this time around it won't end as "mildly" as WW2, since both sides got nuclear weapons.
Western countries should just be firm and say "The next time you send any "peacekeepers" or whatever to a neighbouring country, this stops any trade with russia from any western nation, instantly. And then just do that when putin inevitably does not stop, because that would maybe actually get him to believe that there is a consequence to invading sovereign countries, which hopefully stops him before this shit escalates too far. Also, freezing all of Putins personal accounts outside of russia would probably be a good idea. I doubt that a guy like that doesn't have some billions lying around everywhere all around the globe.
If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
Yeah, I'm sure NATO was created because of Catherine the Great back in the 18th century. NATO is totally the result of Russia "raping" E. Europe back then. Actually, NATO had nothing to do with Eastern Europe or how it was "treated" in the past LOL (This is the first time I heard this reason for NATO's creation). No one gave a flying care about any of that. I realize it's personal for you and you wish it did matter (as would I), but it didn't. NATO was created to counter fears of Communist influence and spread after WW2, and simply the fact that the Soviet Union was really powerful, not something you want if you're Uncle Sam. The Warsaw Pact was created in response. It wasn't because Russia was "pillaging" part of Eastern Europe centuries ago or at any time. I doubt few people cared or knew about that when NATO was created.
This is a flat misunderstanding of what he meant.
He said: 1) NATO wouldn't need to be in E. Europe if Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy 2) Russia fucked E. Europe hard for centuries.
Both of these statements are incontrovertible. NATO isn't in E. Europe because of the Warsaw Pact... it only expanded there after the whole thing fell apart. This expansion would have been unnecessary if Russia hadn't been rumbling. And if the countries in question hadn't gotten run roughshod over by Russia for centuries, which no-one seriously denies.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
Yes, I know you weren't using the term seriously.
You are being extremely selective, so you're trying to sound "technically" right, but you're not. You're only looking at the past couple of years of extremely dramatic changes in US foreign policy, and trying to make it sound like everything since the Soviet collapse, which is entirely false, and an era where the US was very aggressive in taking over the former Soviet sphere (even despite negotiations and promises).
Russia opposes US foreign policy on things like bombing more countries or slapping on more sanctions on countries? Well, I'd be against that too, I'm sorry. If Russia wanted to bomb Poland, I'm sure you would be against that. I would be too.
Everyone knows Obama's administration are practically radicals due to what they're doing. This "scaling down" is entirely heretical to American ideology and politics. However, they have to. It's not only because we're coming to a point where most of the world hates us, but because we simply cannot sustain it. We can't even get a working budget, we nearly defaulted just a couple months ago, etc. etc., and if that preceding trend were to continue, we'd seriously be on borrowed time. This wasn't a matter of "being nice", because we certainly are not lol. Fuck with our interests and we will fuck you up more than a group of Bloods down in South-Central LA (and I've been there. Those gangsters are nasty). Specifically to the Mideast which you are discussing, the US govt. is also realizing that for the past 60 years, whenever it's touched anything in the Mideast, it's usually made things worse. Practically its only accomplishment was upholding a tyrant in Egypt (who is now gone) that they could pay off not to go to war with Israel. Speaking of Egypt, the loss of Egypt, one of our most valuable assets in the N. Africa/Mideast and probably the most influential nation in the Arab world, was a big hit. But regardless, I think the govt. is starting to wise up finally.
Russia was in the G8 since 1998. This isn't anything recent like you say.
"there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization" The same fear goes for any regime that isn't sucking Uncle Sam's cock, and he's got one mighty penis. So, I don't see what your point is. We can even argue that Russia is a lot less destructive and aggressive. After Saakashivili decided that killing South Ossetians and Russian soldiers as part of his plan to take over South Ossetia, I'm surprised Russia didn't level Tbilisi and replace Saakashvili with a puppet regime. We would have, without a doubt. Also, Ukraine was already destabilized before Russia did anything lol. Coups followed by more unrest tend to do that. Well, there goes your two things.
"Can we not be concerned about that?" Poland isn't attacking Russian military and doesn't have Russian bases at risk due to a chaotic situation, so Russia has absolutely no justification to go marching through Warsaw even if they wanted to (which they wouldn't. Poland wouldn't have much value to them). So no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Unless Russia makes up shit that the Polish government had WMDs and they're supporting Islamic terrorists, then there's nothing to be concerned about imho.
----- And to the guy who said earlier Serbia is the only country doing worse than Ukraine in Europe (despite a decade of war), actually, Serbia is doing better as far as I'm aware. I think the only countries doing worse than Ukraine are Moldova and maybe Macedonia and Albania. All 3 of these places combined have like 8.5 million people. Very small countries, and unfortunately for them, they don't have infinite oil like Qatar and Oman.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)? Yeah, joining the G8 isn't very recent, but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them. Did we also allow Eastern bloc countries to join NATO? Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia. Did this piss off Russia? Yes, this is the main reason Russia feels threatened (NATO encirclement), but it's Russia's own darn fault. If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. This isn't a chicken or egg situation. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
In response to some of the things you implied/said I said. I didn't say Ukraine was stable before the coup. I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
"Lol. You seriously believe that lol? Even if the US wasn't around, I don't see that happening. With the US around, without a doubt it became impossible. But you must excuse me. On second thought, I concur. Yes, you are exactly correct. As we speak, Putin and Merkel are making plans to partition Poland. [/sarcasm]"
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)?
Wising up in regards to the Mideast. I specified that. We've fucked it up pretty hard heh, so, yeah, doesn't take a genius to see that not trying to control everything over there is a good approach. With Russia, we haven't let up much. Pulling back a ridiculous missile shield is nothing, if you're meaning that to be something on the degree of the US pulling out of NATO or something. The US is not going to give up its assets in Europe. They are very important to us, especially with our losses (if you want to call it that) in the Mideast. In the face of a growing China that proves a very real threat to our East Asian assets, and a Russia that is actually functional, our European and East Asian assets are far more at risk than even the volatile ones anywhere else. (What's hilarious is when it was claimed to defend against Iranian missiles. I wonder how many idiots that fooled.)
but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them
What's even crazier is attempting to imply Russia isn't an essential part of global politics ever since they decided to be a functioning nation again. Of course they would be included.
Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia.
And now they're Uncle Sam's toy poodles. I'm okay with this . Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
Yeah, I'm sure NATO was created because of Catherine the Great back in the 18th century. NATO is totally the result of Russia "raping" E. Europe back then. Actually, NATO had nothing to do with Eastern Europe or how it was "treated" in the past LOL (This is the first time I heard this reason for NATO's creation). No one gave a flying care about any of that. I realize it's personal for you and you wish it did matter (as would I), but it didn't. NATO was created to counter fears of Communist influence and spread after WW2, and simply the fact that the Soviet Union was really powerful, not something you want if you're Uncle Sam. The Warsaw Pact was created in response. It wasn't because Russia was "pillaging" part of Eastern Europe centuries ago or at any time. I doubt few people cared or knew about that when NATO was created.
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
Yes, I know you specifically used that term. Poland is considered to be in Eastern Europe, in case you weren't aware. I guess Russia was supposed to high-five Saakashvili after he killed South Ossetian civilians and Russian soldiers in his plan to take over SO. Even EU says Saakashvili was responsible for the war. They'd be among the last organizations to say that, but that's just how overwhelming the case against Saakashvili was. Let's just be thankful the Russians didn't do things Uncle Sam's way, because we don't fuck around. There'd be a lot of death, a lot of destruction, and a regime change. Somehow, iirc, Georgia came out of the war less scathed than Tskhinvali (excluding Georgian military infrastructure obviously).
I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
And I said that most countries aren't in NATO and almost none of them fear Russian assault. If anything, these countries fear us (USA), or if they're in the Far East, then China. lol
First off, please stop with the straw man arguments or read more carefully what I write. Exactly as you quoted, if "Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. ". Did I say the *existence* of NATO in response to Russia historically pillaging E. Europe? No. I said it's *presence* in E. Europe is a response to Russian aggression. NATO existed originally to stop Soviet (i.e. aggression). Once the Soviet controlled E. European countries were freed from Russian control, many wanted to join NATO in order to feel protected from Russian aggression in the future. Thus the reason for NATO in E. Europe is Russian aggression. We seem to basically agree on this... I think.
What we seem to disagree on is this:
You believe "The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing". I believe the US opposes the existence of the Russian BEAR, but not necessarily opposed to Russia. What I mean is that the Russian bear is an aggressive animal, that threatens it's neighbours militarily if they don't do what Russia wants (troops massing on Ukrainian border, occasional military interventions). The Russian bear also threatens it's neighbors economically by imposing politically motivated sanctions (side with Europe, and we'll say your pigs don't meat our health standards, or your wine, or your gas will suddenly double in price).
If Russia pursued normal relations with it's European neighbours (not invading, not manipulating, not passing clearly politically motivated sanctions), then tension between the US and Russia would definitely decrease. I feel as if Russia is the one responsible for these issues, because the US is not actively manipulating while Russia is. The USA allows E. European countries to do what they want, without fear of retribution. Countries with heavy-Russian influence, that decide *on their own* to turn towards the 'West' (hoping to reproduce it's economic success), are actively manipulated with and punished by Russia.
Finally, there is evidence from the US side that some sort of rapprochement with Russia has been intended, suggesting that the US is not inherently anti-Russian. Rapprochement has failed because of Russia's inherent aggressive nature to US allies in Europe (and US foreign policy in general). Examples could be the US attempt to create links between Russia and USA in departments such as : reducing nuclear weapons (START), sharing information on terrorists (mutual threat to both countries), cooperating in NASA, etc.
You could make a somewhat valid point that USA had significant influence in West Germany, and that they to a certain extent had the power to dictate the future of this newly established country, but apart from West Germany, USA had no direct influence in European politics.
Don't forget that there was quite a bit of tension in the first 20 years of the Cold War between West Germany and the US because both West Germany and the US were afraid that the other would go off on their own and make a deal with the Soviets that the other side didn't want. West Germany was afraid the US would go over their heads on issues like Berlin and the USA was afraid of West Germany doing the very same thing on many of the same issues. But yes to a certain extent the US had the power to dictate West German policy. Luckily what the US wanted and West Germany wanted was the same thing, West Germany to be rich and powerful as the first bulwark against any Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, so this influence didn't cause anywhere near as much tension as it might have.
Yeah, I'm not entirely convinced either that USA had major political influence in West Germany. My point was that USA had no influence in Europe other than possibly in West Germany, but West Germany was a special case, and if USA had the power to influence this country, it was because the special circumstances granted them power, rather than them claiming power.
Funny how the man leading your polls (if they are to be believed) Poroshenko, had practically nothing to do with Euromaidan. And your glorious Klitchko pulled out. Seems like destroying your own country doesn't pay off.
Come on buddy, you dont want to get downgraded in pay scale, you really are slipping. Fascist mastermind neocon and oligarchic thief and destroyer of nations the arch-genius Poroshenko has destroyed everyone and unleashed a wave of anti-Russian genocide to steal the country and make it safe for his chocolate empire of hate. All hail Putin, the only savior the world deserves!
DNIPROPETROVSK, Ukraine — From his office atop the world’s biggest Jewish community center, Shmuel Kaminezki, the rabbi of this eastern Ukrainian city, has followed with dismay Russian claims that Ukraine is now in the hands of neo-Nazi extremists — and struggled to calm his panicked 85-year-old mother in New York.
Raised in Russia and a regular viewer of Russian television, she “calls every day to ask, Have the pogroms happened yet?” Rabbi Kaminezki said. He tells his mother that they have not, and that she should stop watching Russian TV. “It is a total lie,” he said. “Jews are not in danger in Ukraine.”
Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, added his own voice to the scaremongering in a speech at the Kremlin on March 18, when he described the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych of Ukraine as an armed coup executed by “nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites” who “continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.”
But instead of reeling in panic at any fascist resurgence, the Jewish community of Dnipropetrovsk, one of the largest in Ukraine, is celebrating the recent appointment of one of its own, a billionaire tycoon named Ihor Kolomoysky, as the region’s most powerful official.
“They made a Jew the governor. What kind of anti-Semitism is this?” asked Solomon Flaks, the 87-year-old chairman of the region’s Council of Jewish Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, an association of a rapidly shrinking number of World War II veterans. Since being formed in 1994, when it had 970 members, the council’s membership has fallen to 103, the result of old age and emigration to Israel.
On April 08 2014 05:21 Mc wrote: I don't really think that Putin will invade Eastern Ukraine. Manipulate, destabilize? Yes, and he has already. Invading is simply economic/political suicide. Europe and the US will have to impose really serious sanctions and that would really damage Russia's economy (and to a lesser extent Europe's). If I'm wrong, it's either that I'm too blind to the Europeans resolve to stand up to soviet aggresion, or Putin is too high on his power trip to realize that he's taking a step too far.
Soviet union is around? I think you're 23 years too late
But seriously, I cannot understand why people are looking at the smaller European countries as this independent bloc independent in its dealings with the current situation. This isn't a strictly "European affair", and nowhere close. The US has more say and leverage in this matter than all of non-Russian Europe combined. The US is the leader. It probably has the only functional military between the US and Europe (excluding Russia). It has enormous influence in your affairs and it's been noted in this thread multiple times (as anyone with any knowledge of the past 70 years knows). We run the show. But despite the fantasies of some people, it is the US that carries more leverage than anyone else with Russia, and in addition, on the flip side, the US will never allow Russia to have cozy relations with the rest of the European countries even if Russia wanted to. One of the Germans adamantly stated earlier in this thread that the US would oppose this more than anything else, and he is absolutely right. The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing. We have no interest in joining hands with Russia and we never did. Our only interest is in seeing them fall.
I don't see any power trip going on. There's no reason for Putin to go any further. Crimea was an extremely special case. Even for purely strategic reasons, huge instability, coup, and other political occurrences in Ukraine that could throw Ukraine under the US would compromise Russia's Black Sea fleet and bases in Crimea. That reasoning is infinitely more logical than the conspiracy theories being thrown around here going along the lines of "Oh no Putin is going to conquer all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea not justified as I've said repeatedly in this thread, but just that reason alone is a far more reasonable explanation than the Europe-conquest conspiracies. In any case, from what it appears Russia has no interest in conquering eastern Ukraine, or Poland, or Germany, or Britain, or whatever you guys want to throw out there.
I used the term 'Soviet' metaphorically- the Soviet Union broke up, but Russia still exhibits many of it's traits - paranoia of the West, imperialism, etc. The US isn't the one that is so "devoted to opposing" Russia, but the other way around. Barack Obama, cancelled/delayed plans for the missile shield. The US has been moving troops out of Europe (until the whole Crimea situation). Obama's whole philosophy was to move on from Europe and focus more on other allies, and in general had somewhat of an isolationist approach to power (withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, don't get involved in the Arab Spring, Syria, rapprochement with Russia, etc.). The USA is the one inviting Russia into the G8, inviting Russia into mulit-national organizations, trying to make Russia a partner rather than enemy (at the cost of getting vetoed on anything the US does via thethe security council). Russia insists on opposing almost all US foreign policy, and is making better relations impossible. I'm surprised someone from Germany not named Schroder sees this the other way around.
Few people in this thread think Russia will actually invade more countries. Even fewer believe Russia will invade NATO countries. However for non NATO countries, there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization as HAS HAPPENED in Georgia, Ukraine. This isn't paranoia, it's fact. Can we not be concerned about that? Also can you mention one person who was suggesting incursions beyond the former Soviet Union?
Yes, I know you weren't using the term seriously.
You are being extremely selective, so you're trying to sound "technically" right, but you're not. You're only looking at the past couple of years of extremely dramatic changes in US foreign policy, and trying to make it sound like everything since the Soviet collapse, which is entirely false, and an era where the US was very aggressive in taking over the former Soviet sphere (even despite negotiations and promises).
Russia opposes US foreign policy on things like bombing more countries or slapping on more sanctions on countries? Well, I'd be against that too, I'm sorry. If Russia wanted to bomb Poland, I'm sure you would be against that. I would be too.
Everyone knows Obama's administration are practically radicals due to what they're doing. This "scaling down" is entirely heretical to American ideology and politics. However, they have to. It's not only because we're coming to a point where most of the world hates us, but because we simply cannot sustain it. We can't even get a working budget, we nearly defaulted just a couple months ago, etc. etc., and if that preceding trend were to continue, we'd seriously be on borrowed time. This wasn't a matter of "being nice", because we certainly are not lol. Fuck with our interests and we will fuck you up more than a group of Bloods down in South-Central LA (and I've been there. Those gangsters are nasty). Specifically to the Mideast which you are discussing, the US govt. is also realizing that for the past 60 years, whenever it's touched anything in the Mideast, it's usually made things worse. Practically its only accomplishment was upholding a tyrant in Egypt (who is now gone) that they could pay off not to go to war with Israel. Speaking of Egypt, the loss of Egypt, one of our most valuable assets in the N. Africa/Mideast and probably the most influential nation in the Arab world, was a big hit. But regardless, I think the govt. is starting to wise up finally.
Russia was in the G8 since 1998. This isn't anything recent like you say.
"there is a constant fear of land grabs and destabilization" The same fear goes for any regime that isn't sucking Uncle Sam's cock, and he's got one mighty penis. So, I don't see what your point is. We can even argue that Russia is a lot less destructive and aggressive. After Saakashivili decided that killing South Ossetians and Russian soldiers as part of his plan to take over South Ossetia, I'm surprised Russia didn't level Tbilisi and replace Saakashvili with a puppet regime. We would have, without a doubt. Also, Ukraine was already destabilized before Russia did anything lol. Coups followed by more unrest tend to do that. Well, there goes your two things.
"Can we not be concerned about that?" Poland isn't attacking Russian military and doesn't have Russian bases at risk due to a chaotic situation, so Russia has absolutely no justification to go marching through Warsaw even if they wanted to (which they wouldn't. Poland wouldn't have much value to them). So no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Unless Russia makes up shit that the Polish government had WMDs and they're supporting Islamic terrorists, then there's nothing to be concerned about imho.
----- And to the guy who said earlier Serbia is the only country doing worse than Ukraine in Europe (despite a decade of war), actually, Serbia is doing better as far as I'm aware. I think the only countries doing worse than Ukraine are Moldova and maybe Macedonia and Albania. All 3 of these places combined have like 8.5 million people. Very small countries, and unfortunately for them, they don't have infinite oil like Qatar and Oman.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)? Yeah, joining the G8 isn't very recent, but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them. Did we also allow Eastern bloc countries to join NATO? Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia. Did this piss off Russia? Yes, this is the main reason Russia feels threatened (NATO encirclement), but it's Russia's own darn fault. If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. This isn't a chicken or egg situation. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
In response to some of the things you implied/said I said. I didn't say Ukraine was stable before the coup. I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
"Lol. You seriously believe that lol? Even if the US wasn't around, I don't see that happening. With the US around, without a doubt it became impossible. But you must excuse me. On second thought, I concur. Yes, you are exactly correct. As we speak, Putin and Merkel are making plans to partition Poland. [/sarcasm]"
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
So you are saying that the US "government is starting to wise up already", but when it comes to Russia that we are hell bent on making them our adversary (from your previous post)?
Wising up in regards to the Mideast. I specified that. We've fucked it up pretty hard heh, so, yeah, doesn't take a genius to see that not trying to control everything over there is a good approach. With Russia, we haven't let up much. Pulling back a ridiculous missile shield is nothing, if you're meaning that to be something on the degree of the US pulling out of NATO or something. The US is not going to give up its assets in Europe. They are very important to us, especially with our losses (if you want to call it that) in the Mideast. In the face of a growing China that proves a very real threat to our East Asian assets, and a Russia that is actually functional, our European and East Asian assets are far more at risk than even the volatile ones anywhere else. (What's hilarious is when it was claimed to defend against Iranian missiles. I wonder how many idiots that fooled.)
but in general we have approached the dissolution of Soviet Russia with trying to include Russia in global politics, rather than isolate them
What's even crazier is attempting to imply Russia isn't an essential part of global politics ever since they decided to be a functioning nation again. Of course they would be included.
Yes, and those countries were begging us to let them join. It was the right thing to do, because it guaranteed these countries that had been subjugated by Russia for decades, independence from Russia.
And now they're Uncle Sam's toy poodles. I'm okay with this . Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
If Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. Russia has raped/pillaged/controlled E. Europe for centuries, and has never once in it's history stopped doing that.
Yeah, I'm sure NATO was created because of Catherine the Great back in the 18th century. NATO is totally the result of Russia "raping" E. Europe back then. Actually, NATO had nothing to do with Eastern Europe or how it was "treated" in the past LOL (This is the first time I heard this reason for NATO's creation). No one gave a flying care about any of that. I realize it's personal for you and you wish it did matter (as would I), but it didn't. NATO was created to counter fears of Communist influence and spread after WW2, and simply the fact that the Soviet Union was really powerful, not something you want if you're Uncle Sam. The Warsaw Pact was created in response. It wasn't because Russia was "pillaging" part of Eastern Europe centuries ago or at any time. I doubt few people cared or knew about that when NATO was created.
I'm not referring to an invasion of Poland. I specifically used the term "E European countries". Russia won't invade Poland. And how is what I'm saying unreasonable. I said that Russia might invade some E. European country 5 years from now. In the past 5 years, he has invaded 2.
Yes, I know you specifically used that term. Poland is considered to be in Eastern Europe, in case you weren't aware. I guess Russia was supposed to high-five Saakashvili after he killed South Ossetian civilians and Russian soldiers in his plan to take over SO. Even EU says Saakashvili was responsible for the war. They'd be among the last organizations to say that, but that's just how overwhelming the case against Saakashvili was. Let's just be thankful the Russians didn't do things Uncle Sam's way, because we don't fuck around. There'd be a lot of death, a lot of destruction, and a regime change. Somehow, iirc, Georgia came out of the war less scathed than Tskhinvali (excluding Georgian military infrastructure obviously).
I specifically stated that Russia is not going to invade NATO countries like Poland.
And I said that most countries aren't in NATO and almost none of them fear Russian assault. If anything, these countries fear us (USA), or if they're in the Far East, then China. lol
First off, please stop with the straw man arguments or read more carefully what I write. Exactly as you quoted, if "Russia didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy to E. Europe, then NATO wouldn't need to be there. ". Did I say the *existence* of NATO in response to Russia historically pillaging E. Europe? No. I said it's *presence* in E. Europe is a response to Russian aggression. NATO existed originally to stop Soviet (i.e. aggression). Once the Soviet controlled E. European countries were freed from Russian control, many wanted to join NATO in order to feel protected from Russian aggression in the future. Thus the reason for NATO in E. Europe is Russian aggression. We seem to basically agree on this... I think.
What we seem to disagree on is this:
You believe "The US is a wolf leading a pack of toy poodles (NATO/EU countries) against a bear its existence is devoted to opposing". I believe the US opposes the existence of the Russian BEAR, but not necessarily opposed to Russia. What I mean is that the Russian bear is an aggressive animal, that threatens it's neighbours militarily if they don't do what Russia wants (troops massing on Ukrainian border, occasional military interventions). The Russian bear also threatens it's neighbors economically by imposing politically motivated sanctions (side with Europe, and we'll say your pigs don't meat our health standards, or your wine, or your gas will suddenly double in price).
If Russia pursued normal relations with it's European neighbours (not invading, not manipulating, not passing clearly politically motivated sanctions), then tension between the US and Russia would definitely decrease. I feel as if Russia is the one responsible for these issues, because the US is not actively manipulating while Russia is. The USA allows E. European countries to do what they want, without fear of retribution. Countries with heavy-Russian influence, that decide *on their own* to turn towards the 'West' (hoping to reproduce it's economic success), are actively manipulated with and punished by Russia.
Finally, there is evidence from the US side that some sort of rapprochement with Russia has been intended, suggesting that the US is not inherently anti-Russian. Rapprochement has failed because of Russia's inherent aggressive nature to US allies in Europe (and US foreign policy in general). Examples could be the US attempt to create links between Russia and USA in departments such as : reducing nuclear weapons (START), sharing information on terrorists (mutual threat to both countries), cooperating in NASA, etc.
NATO was created as defense against USSR and its expansionist attitude. It's an extension of the treaty of Brussels from 1948 only concerning France, the UK, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brussels
West European countries then pushed to get the help of the States and that's normal they wouldn't have been able to stop Stalin if he had tried to annex another country or part of a country in Europe at that time.
What some people fail to understand with NATO, is that it's a mutual alliance that guarantee the sovereignty and the defense of its members even the smallest ones against any exterior threat. And it's easy to see why Putin and his supporters are unhappy about that: it just means that he can't use force with these countries and that's the only thing going for Russia right now. Some people can talk about the NATO encircling Russia but the reality is that all its neighboring countries fear it and the possibility that they might get invaded or "integrated" in the Federation, a paradoxical just like the USSR.
Hopefully this situation teaches the West not to be so naive towards (ex-)communists like Putin. Never trust them, including business deals.
Edit: And I'm so glad Bulgaria is part of NATO, assuming we'll really be protected if Russia tries to attack. The best case is always for this scenario not to happen at all. I just wonder what will happen if Russia tries to attack a NATO country just to see if they will be severely threatened as a response.
On April 09 2014 07:57 darkness wrote: Hopefully this situation teaches the West not to be so naive towards (ex-)communists like Putin. Never trust them, including business deals.
Edit: And I'm so glad Bulgaria is part of NATO, assuming we'll really be protected if Russia tries to attack. The best case is always for this scenario not to happen at all. I just wonder what will happen if Russia tries to attack a NATO country just to see if they will be severely threatened as a response.
Russia would not be severely threatened if it attacked a NATO country, it would be at war with all NATO countries if it did that. Not even the most caricature-y caricature of a pussy Democrat (which Barack Obama isn't, he's shown plenty of willingness to turn people into bloody chunks or put 100+ bullets in their body like we did with Osama... that's the real reason we haven't released any pictures of his body, apparently the SEALs took turns emptying their magazines into Osama's ratty old corpse) would allow a NATO member to be attacked without the US and the rest of NATO coming down hard on whoever did it. Never say never, but being in NATO is as close as you can get to a guarantee that if someone comes after you, your big tough friends will whip his ass - they will never fail to get your back. Despite what some people may think about the strength of the NATO alliance. USA reneging on the NATO treaty would be the USA telling the rest of the world "hey, we're going on full-on isolationist like so many of you say you want..." and being totally serious about it and that is not gonna happen any time soon.
JudicatorHammurabi might want to take notice... darkness the USA didn't lean on you to be glad Bulgaria is in NATO, right?
On April 08 2014 16:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: And now they're Uncle Sam's toy poodles. I'm okay with this . Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
Can you just stop, please. USA and Russia never split Europe. I know that you have this belief that USA is this ruthless super power who does everything to get ahead, but reality is not like that at all, especially not if we're talking about their european politics. USA have historically treated us in western europe very well, and as the cold war ended, we (especially Sweden) actually moved more in the US direction, not the other way around, which just proves that USA never had any direct influence on us. In the 70's, there was a lot of support for the USSR and communism in Sweden, possibly because of russian-funded communistic propaganda. There was a lot of communism propaganda here in the 60's and 70's, but it's not possible to prove if it was the result of russian influence, or just stupidity. Well, it doesn't really matter. Socialism dominated our political climate all the way until the 90's, and pretty much everything was state-owned. When the USSR collapsed, and all their lies throughout history got exposed, the swedish communist party stopped calling themselves communists, and our lefties adopted feminism instead, another marxist-derived ideology, and Sweden started moving towards the right, towards USA, and we're still moving in this direction.
You make it sound like we in Sweden and all the other western countries were forced to join sides with USA, the same way that Eastern Europe was forced to join with the Soviets. This is just not true, but you want to make it seem that way because it fits your world view. Someone who has studied these things as much as you should know better. Europe was split in 2, but USA had no part in this split. It was entirely the result of actions by the USSR. They grabbed as many countries as they could, and this resulted in a split between the free west, and the USSR occupied east.
It was first at this point that USA started to adopt more aggressive foreign policies, they were merely mirroring what the USSR was doing. But at this point, Eastern Europe was already taken, and Western Europe had proven to be stable enough to resist pro-USSR propaganda, so Europe had already picked sides when the cold war started, and so Europe was never targeted in USA's aggressive cold war policies. You could make a somewhat valid point that USA had significant influence in West Germany, and that they to a certain extent had the power to dictate the future of this newly established country, but apart from West Germany, USA had no direct influence in European politics.
Anyway, you saying that the USSR brought a lot of these places (Eastern Europe) out of the medieval era is simply not true, and it shows either that you don't know much about pre 1900's history, or that you're trying to mislead deliberately. Both the polish and the czech although they share the ancient slavic heritage with russia were historically a lot closer to the west. This is why both countries are catholic, rather than orthodox. The czech and polish societies have always been greater and more advanced than the russian society, and communism only stagnated them. For the baltic states it was similar. Countries like Romania, that was never in the western european sphere of influence was also a lot better off before it fell to communism. If you look at Europe today, and the overall state of all the countries, the overall picture is not that much different from what it was before the iron curtain. The czech, the polish, the estonians and latvians and the croatians, they have bounced back pretty fast and are much better off than the rest, and this can be explained simply by their historical cultural heritage, which connects them to west, which made it easier for them to move on and drop all the ties to Russia.
Can you just stop, please.
I'd tell you the same but I apparently am more polite. After reading your post, I'm compelled to do so, but I'll refrain.
USA and Russia never split Europe.
Not explicitly, but when you look at the Western and Eastern blocs of the Cold War and who was the overwhelming heavyweight in each carrying the most influence, then that's USA and USSR. I hope that isn't too difficult for you to understand. Then again, we had a guy saying Poland isn't in Eastern Europe. This thread is full of funny things.
I know that you have this belief that USA is this ruthless super power who does everything to get ahead
Umm no? You make us sound like Genghis Khan. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. Thank you (for the stupid assumption) I guess?
However, what you ignore is a critical part of pretty much any organization or any nation of any kind. I realize Sweden isn't very relevant but many countries act within their interests or to increase themselves in some way. You can see this at every level of society, politics, business, economics, down to the very individual. There's a million famous examples, but simply being human suffices to explain this. Although it's not too important a nation in the scheme of even European affairs, even Sweden today is built upon doing what it can to "get ahead", in advancing its various industries and its large investment in various areas of research. When Sweden was relevant, like in the Viking Age or during Adolphus' reign, they were doing the same thing in terms of trade and war. And more powerful entities are able to do more to "get ahead" as you put it, and so they do so. The US is no exception. When Venice ruled the merchant world of Europe and the Mediterranean, they continued that trend. Unless you live under a rock or you're a hardcore adherent of some of the implications of Jantelagen, you should know that competitiveness is one of the most essential characteristics of humanity.
USA have historically treated us in western europe very well, and as the cold war ended, we (especially Sweden) actually moved more in the US direction, not the other way around, which just proves that USA never had any direct influence on us.
Well, no one else was going to save you from Communism's spread, so of course we were wanted around. No one in Europe went against our interests (except DeGaulle who absolutely outraged the US by trying to be independent, and to a degree that the CIA apparently co-conspired in at least one assassination attempt against him).
I don't know what you mean by Sweden moving towards the US after the Soviet collapse. Are you implying Sweden was on great terms with USSR at some point? I don't know about that. But, the Soviet Union collapsed. What you're saying is very obvious. There was no Soviet Union to even have relations with at the end of the Cold War. All that remained were some countries that weren't even functional for most or the entirety of that decade. So there's no other direction to move to in a world where the options are US and USSR. But are you implying Sweden didn't have good relations with USA already? Seems pretty absurd.
Nothing was proved. This quote just doesn't make any sense, especially it ignores the various realities of the situation. I never heard when Sweden had bad relations with the US, or what the Soviet collapse had anything to do with it. This also points out a fundamental grievance in your post, that you're looking at everything from the perspective of Sweden, and then worse off, trying to extrapolate it to everyone else.
Ummmm, one thing you're completely ignoring is Sweden is still (despite any of your claims) a lot more socialistic than most countries today. You are seriously confusing me. I mean, every former SSR is infinitely more right than they were 25 years ago. Obviously, they're not Communist anymore. Many of them are fairly Left though. But when you're so far left, the only way to go is... right. Who would have guessed?
There was a lot of communism propaganda here in the 60's and 70's, but it's not possible to prove if it was the result of russian influence, or just stupidity. Well, it doesn't really matter. Socialism dominated our political climate all the way until the 90's, and pretty much everything was state-owned. When the USSR collapsed, and all their lies throughout history got exposed, the swedish communist party stopped calling themselves communists, and our lefties adopted feminism instead, another marxist-derived ideology, and Sweden started moving towards the right, towards USA, and we're still moving in this direction.
Have you ever heard of the Domino Theory and the US's containment policy? If there was at all any sort of threat of communist takeover in Sweden, because if they're was, the US would have taken some drastic action, like when they invaded various countries or heavily funded anti-communist groups in Turkey, Greece, etc.. Last I checked, Sweden was never communist. The Swedish Community Party never held any power worth mentioning (if any). There's no reason for you to bring it up as if to imply Sweden was some Communist state, because now you're just sounding silly. I'm almost compelled to say to you your opening sentence of your post, at this point...
The overall trend in non-ex-Communist Europe over the past some odd decades has been moving left, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to bring up. Bringing up Sweden is pretty irrelevant. Yet another flaw in your post.
You make it sound like we in Sweden and all the other western countries were forced to join sides with USA, the same way that Eastern Europe was forced to join with the Soviets. This is just not true, but you want to make it seem that way because it fits your world view. Someone who has studied these things as much as you should know better. Europe was split in 2, but USA had no part in this split. It was entirely the result of actions by the USSR. They grabbed as many countries as they could, and this resulted in a split between the free west, and the USSR occupied east.
Hmm, can you tell me where I said USSR didn't use force? Of course they did. There are many many differences between the two scenarios (which if you can't see, then I don't know what to tell you).
This was already addressed earlier in the post, but no one in US forced anyone. I'm not making it sound like anything. You are just interpreting things in the most confrontational manner possible. The non-Communist European countries were weak, and they needed the US to protect them against Communist influence and expansion. So the US set up shop and led NATO.
A lot of people need me for various things, from technical (CS/EE-related) work to yard work to household stuff. I'm not forcing them in any way. They NEEDED me so they came to me . In terms of Europe, the US never needed to force its way anywhere. It just happened to be the world's most powerful nation and was not Communist. Of course this analogy is not the best because while I'm one of many people these people could have asked, the USA was THE only one to ask. You are wrong if you assume otherwise.
Brief aside on Soviet/European politics and history: + Show Spoiler +
Soviet action was power politics, which I think you can agree with, and for Soviet geopolitical interests in the scheme of centuries of typical European politics (where every nation was doing just this) and the heavy opposition that some of these countries had against the USSR since its founding, especially the Russian Civil War, was necessary for them politically. In addition, much of the Soviet bloc were Fascist states in collaboration with Hitler during and preceding WW2. They were also, obviously (and not just because they were Fascist), not happy with Communism (it's obvious today, but back then socialism was pretty popular compared to today, despite the fact Europe is learning more socialistically). Although it's not easy to specify and to what degrees USSR forced everyone into their alliance. You're making it sound like everyone hated USSR and the USSR made some huge war to subdue everyone. You're also making it sound like the USSR ruled over these nations. There was no territorial imperialism at hand. However, the USSR certainly had hegemony and influence over these nations. If you know anything about history, this is something that has been extremely common since the Assyrian empire. The Neo-Assyrian Empire prior to Tiglath-Pileser III did not rule anyone. They had an extremely powerful military and economy and could just kind of get their way in many cases. Same applies with various countries during the Cold War and today in various spheres, and an innumerable number of cases across history. Of course, you can have influence and leverage without direct rule. I hope you are not denying this very simple tenet of politics since the dawn of civilization (or before).
But, if you look at things in terms of geopolitics and the establishment of superpowers, I don't like what they did for very obvious and personal reasons mind you, but it makes sense on a political level. Because at a time when Europe was some republic/democratic governments, a shitton of Fascist regimes, and the Soviet Union, even despite the fact that socialism was becoming popular at the time, the former fascist states would have been like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and went to the US, which is obviously something the USSR would not have liked. Obviously, this is power politics at play, especially for the USSR which is an integral part of Europe while the US is on the other side of the world among a countries that are in an extremely absurd state of existence except Canada and maybe Chile. Soviet actions were also an extension of typical European politics for centuries. If you know anything about European history (sadly, not much mention of Sweden comparatively), you would know Germany and Austro-Hungary are the biggest losers and no nation had any "gains" of any permanence. The end of British territorial imperialism was also a stunning blow for Britain, but meh.
Spoiler alert: I'm not saying any of this stuff is good, before you start jizzing yourself and go crazy. I'm just saying that this is what has happened and reasonings for it.
Anyway, you saying that the USSR brought a lot of these places (Eastern Europe) out of the medieval era is simply not true, and it shows either that you don't know much about pre 1900's history, or that you're trying to mislead deliberately.
I raised and eyebrow, and then bust out laughing when I read the following paragraph. XD Okay...
Both the polish and the czech although they share the ancient slavic heritage with russia were historically a lot closer to the west. This is why both countries are catholic, rather than orthodox.
There's three primary points to be made here. I'll be very polite with you, because this assertion is just silly.
1. West Slavs are not as similar to East Slavs as you make it out to be. I don't see how religion has any role to play in this either. You're implying a general ethnic group should all have the same religion, which is... absurd to say the least. And pre-unification some German kingdoms adopted Lutheranism while others kept with Catholicism. The German kingdoms were significantly closer culturally and linguistically (almost identical) than Czechs and Poles were to Russians way out in the east somewhere on the Volga. Culturally, and linguistically, there's significant differences.
2. These places were already Catholic!!
Greek missionaries brought Orthodox Christianity to Russia! Orthodoxy was the first form of Christianity in Russia!! Guess what form of Christianity was brought to Poland and Czech lands.? Catholicism :D !!!
3. Romania is not Slavic at all! Their culture and language is overwhelmingly Romantic/Latin-based, and completely non-Slavic. And guess what? They're Orthodox! You know why? Orthodox missionaries and establishment and spread of Orthodoxy in Romania!! :D Despite the fact that every Romantic-language country pre-Protestant Reformation was Catholic. But not Romania lol. So as you can see, it has nothing to do with "cultural relations". Even more surprising, Albania is majority MUSLIM! Oh my, they aren't even Christian! They're neither Orthodox nor Catholic nor Protestant (which a decent chunk of Europe has been since the Protestant Reformation mind you)!
Hmm, according to your logic, they should be Catholic though... and yet they're Muslim XD
So basically, your assertion is completely bogus and you don't know this history dude. It's not good to speak about others when you mean to speak about yourself.
But moving forward...
The czech and polish societies have always been greater and more advanced than the russian society,
HAHAHAHA!!! When? How? Since Kievan Rus' or earlier, I have yet to see a time or place where either of these two lands in their various forms in history were "greater or more advanced" than Russia's various iterations.
You say that these two societies have ALWAYS been greater and more advanced? That is a very strong qualifier, my friend! This is among the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
In other news, Argentina is and has ALWAYS been greater and more advanced than the United States of America. :D haha.
Countries like Romania, that was never in the western european sphere of influence was also a lot better off before it fell to communism.
Seriously heh?! Countries like Romania were ruled by the Turks for centuries and were stripped bare of anything of value and kept somewhere in a hopelessly undeveloped state (like they did with many of their Mideastern assets, which prior to Mongol or Turkish conquest had been powerful and advanced states), then was ruled by a useless monarchy for 70 years that did nothing of value, then was briefly Fascist fighting with Hitler, and then USSR came and suddenly despite having completely retarded Communism, countries like Romania made strides to join the Modern era thanks to the heavy emphasis of communist ideology on science, development, and industralization.
If you look at Europe today, and the overall state of all the countries, the overall picture is not that much different from what it was before the iron curtain.
You're right. You have a bunch of countries built by imperialistic/mercantile histories on one side (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.) and then countries that were assfucked by imperialistic/mercantile powers on the other side.
However, the 90s were a disastrous decade that assfucked these stated countries a lot too.
and this can be explained simply by their historical cultural heritage, which connects them to west, which made it easier for them to move on and drop all the ties to Russia.
Yeah, the Balkans, parts of which are connected to the West, are doing pretty shittily since the end of the Cold War as is Moldova and other places not Slavic.
Your assertion of this "historical cultural heritage" has no basis. I have no idea what world you live in where this has any relevance to economic development, and it certainly didn't apply to other places, either. It has significantly more to due with the fact that some countries had worse policymakers than others during the transition period. I don't see how "cultural heritage" plays into this at all. This is one of the most mind-numbing explanations I've read for this. I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with how economies work and you stated nothing that "proves" that in the slightest. I mean, Albania certainly isn't even Slavic at all, and they're doing extremely poorly.
Some were decently intelligent. Some were like Yeltsin who literally created and economic situation and collapse that makes the Great Depression seem like Disneyland.
On April 09 2014 07:57 darkness wrote: Hopefully this situation teaches the West not to be so naive towards (ex-)communists like Putin. Never trust them, including business deals.
Edit: And I'm so glad Bulgaria is part of NATO, assuming we'll really be protected if Russia tries to attack. The best case is always for this scenario not to happen at all. I just wonder what will happen if Russia tries to attack a NATO country just to see if they will be severely threatened as a response.
Russia would not be severely threatened if it attacked a NATO country, it would be at war with all NATO countries if it did that. Not even the most caricature-y caricature of a pussy Democrat (which Barack Obama isn't, he's shown plenty of willingness to turn people into bloody chunks or put 100+ bullets in their body like we did with Osama... that's the real reason we haven't released any pictures of his body, apparently the SEALs took turns emptying their magazines into Osama's ratty old corpse) would allow a NATO member to be attacked without the US and the rest of NATO coming down hard on whoever did it. Never say never, but being in NATO is as close as you can get to a guarantee that if someone comes after you, your big tough friends will whip his ass - they will never fail to get your back. Despite what some people may think about the strength of the NATO alliance. USA reneging on the NATO treaty would be the USA telling the rest of the world "hey, we're going on full-on isolationist like so many of you say you want..." and being totally serious about it and that is not gonna happen any time soon.
JudicatorHammurabi might want to take notice... darkness the USA didn't lean on you to be glad Bulgaria is in NATO, right?
I've stated this in preceding posts as in the one just above: After WW2, the governments in Europe that weren't Communist and didn't want to become Communist and much called in the US. They needed US because we were the only nation in the world with any ability or competence to deal with Communism. Do you see any alternative? No? Okay then. Thanks for the call-out though. Not sure what relevance it has. You're agreeing with me, and then calling me out like you disagree.
EPT
. Whatever increases our global dominance, it isn't a problem with me. Because obviously, this is Stalin era or Catherine the Great era, that Russia in the 21st century is super mean to these countries and "rapes and pillages" them. As we speak, Russian marauders are raping street-corner hookers in Minsk and burning witches in Vilnius. I don't know if you know about the Cold War, but the basis of it was splitting Europe between USA and USSR. Some could argue that the USSR brought a lot of these places out of the medieval era, because that's pretty much where some of them were beforehand. Communism was retarded without a doubt but giving these countries some modernization and industry was a huge bonus. Also, the part where lots of them sided with the Nazis :S. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not too fond of mass genocide and Hitler.
. In terms of Europe, the US never needed to force its way anywhere. It just happened to be the world's most powerful nation and was not Communist. Of course this analogy is not the best because while I'm one of many people these people could have asked, the USA was THE only one to ask. You are wrong if you assume otherwise.
