 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Saras
|
 |
Vilnius, Lithuania
Apr 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Ukraine president spurned pressure over protesters
By Stefan Wagstyl, Chrystia Freeland and Tom Warner
Published: December 13 2004 20:45 | Last updated: December 13 2004 20:45
The Ukrainian authorities came close to resorting to violence in trying to solve the country's political crisis.
The Financial Times has learned that the administration of Leonid Kuchma, the authoritarian president, considered deploying troops against the crowds of protesters gathered in central Kiev in support of Viktor Yushchenko, the opposition leader.
Those lobbying for the use of force included senior officials, among them Viktor Medvedchuk, the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration and Viktor Yanukovich, the prime minister.
According to people inside and outside Mr Kuchma's administration, the president resisted the pressure and the danger passed.
"The key moment came on Sunday, November 28 (a week after crowds took to Kiev streets), when soldiers were given bullets. Then they were going around not with empty machine guns, but already fully armed. I think that was the peak of the whole conflict," Mr Yushchenko said.
Vasyl Baziv, the deputy head of the presidential administration, told the FT: "I know that many representatives of the [state] apparatus lobbied the president to impose a state of emergency. They said it is time to use state power. The president, from the first moment, was consistently against the use of force."
Western diplomats confirm that Interior Ministry paramilitary troops were prepared to strike. They say Mr Kuchma came under intense pressure to act from Mr Medvedchuk and Mr Yanukovich, Mr Yushchenko's rival to succeed Mr Kuchma as president. They say Mr Kuchma apparently called off the Interior Ministry troops because he did not want to leave office with blood on his hands.
One diplomat said that an attempt by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, to telephone Mr Kuchma - who refused to take the call - may have influenced his decision. There were also signs that some security forces opposed to violent intervention might try to block the Interior Ministry troops who would have been sent against demonstrators.
The crisis began with the disputed presidential election on Sunday, November 21 in which Mr Yanukovich, Mr Kuchma's candidate, was declared the winner. Mr Yushchenko cried fraud and immediately called his supporters on to the streets.
Tensions rose sharply on Wednesday, November 24, when the Central Election Commission officially confirmed Mr Yanukovich's victory. Mr Yushchenko responded by urging protesters to blockade public buildings, including the cabinet office and the presidential administration.
With Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, and other mediators due in Kiev for conciliation talks on Friday November 26, the authorities considered using force to clear the blockade surrounding the presidential buildings. About 2,000 anti-riot police were deployed in the area. But, with the mediators urging restraint, the Ukrainian authorities backed off.
The talks on November 26 failed to break the deadlock. The following day, the pro-Yushchenko crowds in Kiev swelled to an estimated 500,000, with smaller demonstrations in some other cities.
The critical moments came on Sunday November 28. Mr Yanukovich's supporters in eastern Ukraine raised thestakes by making separatist threats.
Mr Kuchma chaired a meeting of the key National Security Council which discussed plans for armed action. Western diplomats say intelligence reports showed interior ministry troop movements around Kiev. One senior western diplomat says: "There were credible reports that troops were moving on Kiev."
Mr Yushchenko says the protesters responded by increasing their presence outside the cabinet and presidential administration buildings and deciding blockade Mr Kuchma's suburban villa. These actions worked, he says. "We understood that the authorities were afraid to take a decision to use arms."
Mr Baziv argues Mr Kuchma's personal refusal to use force was crucial. "This is Kuchma's one big positive contribution."
By the time Mr Solana and other mediators arrived for more talks late on Tuesday November 30, the threat was over. On Friday December 3, the Supreme Court cancelled the disputed election and ordered new polls on December 26.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Wow, an authoritarian president considered using violence against protesters? Who would have thought?
I think the overall restraint showed by the Ukrainian authorities in this whole affair is the newsworthy item. There is a country that is utterly divided, where the capital is subject to a constant protest that strongly disturbs public order, and where several localities basically opposed the national leader.
If Ukraine was the evil political regime many westerners try to depict, tanks would long have rolled in the streets. Heck, in a western democracy, such protests yould have been crushed by the police, and such localities would have been disciplined already. |
uh, spif, I dont think the govt trusted the security forces to fire on the demonstrators. there was talk I saw that the police, at least, sympathized with the protestors. Given that, the govts restraint was simply prudence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Serb already mentioned this. But it seems that no-one here really paid attention to the fact that the decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court was illegal. The courts can only interprete the law, they cannot create a new law! According to the Ukrainian law, there should be a completely new election, from scratch. The West gleefully welcomed this illegal verdict. So much for the western "rule of law".  |
actually serb started by saying that we should let ukrainian courts settle this. They ruled in a way that displeases him, and now he finds fault. Somehow its up to citizens of Russia, living hundreds of miles away, to determine what the proper role for Ukrainian courts is in the Ukraine.
Look different democracies give courts different degrees of authority. Just as they take different approaches to the selection of regional governors. The court had a case before them, and they decided, using whatever legal reasoning they thought appropriate. It was welcomed as being in line with a general sense of fairness. I would suggest that we not debate Ukrainian constitutional law, until we get an actual Ukrainian posting here, preferably one from each side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
uh, spif, I dont think the govt trusted the security forces to fire on the demonstrators. there was talk I saw that the police, at least, sympathized with the protestors. Given that, the govts restraint was simply prudence. |
I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.
Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.
Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).
But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.
I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.
This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.
The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.
Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.
Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).
But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.
I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.
This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.
The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check. |
spiff, first of all, youre taking a charicture of the Western view. While I did see some glib charecterizations like that, for the most part it was better than Yusch as knight in shining armor. Ive certainly seen otherwise. The admiration was not so much for Yusch, as for the Ukrainian people in the streets.
and from all ive read theyre not a mob trying to impose their will, but people outraged at a stolen election, and with good reason. They didnt want to impose a result, they did want a fair election.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Spiff - you ARE aware, that this was NOT a priority of the govt side when THEY held the presidency, or when they thought their man would win? |
DUH. Of course. In a winner-takes-all system, the winner doesn't like to lose his power. It's the same basic politicking everywhere.
For instance, Bush had less votes than Gore and yet won the presidency... For some odd reson, a modification of the electoral system was not on the Republican agenda for the past 4 years  (I could provide an example of the consensus between the two main French parties to keep the power for themselves as well... such politicking is not limited to "evil" countries  )
I am not concerned about what it will mean for the current candidates, because frankly, I don't think they'll make as much of a difference as the media tells. One will have a pro-western bias, while the other will have a po-Russian bias, but yet, both candidates (who have an experience of holding very high office) will keep a continuity in all political matters, and both condidates will continue to consider Russia and the West as partenrs (albeit to a different degree). Despite the revolutionary means Yushchenko uses to get power, his rise to power wouldn't mean a revolution in Ukraine's policies.
I am concerned about the democracy in Ukraine in general. And I see these modifications as a fantastic outcome of the crisis. Much moe than Kuchma's overthrow would have been 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
DUH. Of course. In a winner-takes-all system, the winner doesn't like to lose his power. It's the same basic politicking everywhere.
For instance, Bush had less votes than Gore and yet won the presidency... For some odd reson, a modification of the electoral system was not on the Republican agenda for the past 4 years (I could provide an example of the consensus between the two main French parties to keep the power for themselves as well... such politicking is not limited to "evil" countries )
I am not concerned about what it will mean for the current candidates, because frankly, I don't think they'll make as much of a difference as the media tells. One will have a pro-western bias, while the other will have a po-Russian bias, but yet, both candidates (who have an experience of holding very high office) will keep a continuity in all political matters, and both condidates will continue to consider Russia and the West as partenrs (albeit to a different degree). Despite the revolutionary means Yushchenko uses to get power, his rise to power wouldn't mean a revolution in Ukraine's policies.
I am concerned about the democracy in Ukraine in general. And I see these modifications as a fantastic outcome of the crisis. Much moe than Kuchma's overthrow would have been |
Are you aware that Yunkoyich continues to oppose the compromise? apparently with Kremlin backing?
That the Kremlin denounces the euros who helped mediate for meddling?
I agree that there was probably not that big a difference between the two candidates policies, though im not sure. But what changed was what the kremlin tried to do to the election, and the way many Ukrainians responded to that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I am not sure. The restraint from violence is not the first encouraging thing I see from Kuchma. For example, the independence constitution prevented a president froö having more than 2 terms. The supreme court changed this, for Kuchma to be legally able to run again. Yet, he chose not to, which is encouraging.
Last time I checked the news about Ukraine (I didn't have the net for weeks, so I may be out of touch), the constitutional court was to deal with the problem, and they came up with ordering a new election.
Sure, I don't consider Ukraine to be a model democracy. There seems to be a strong belief in the need of a strongman, and a terrible division of society that makes me pessimistic for the possibility of a Ukrainian democracy as a whole (at least in short term).
But the image I saw of Ukraine as an authoritarian dump, where the progressive forces of the bright future (read Yushchenko) have obviously won againt the dictatorial obscurantists (read Yanukovich), and where the evil guys resort to sneaky attacks against the good guys in shining armor... Well, all of this strikes me as western propaganda.
I believe the polls were subject to massive cheating. I hope it is because the pollsters cheated that some localities vote 92% for one candidate, while other localities vote 93% for the other candidate '(if these results are genuine, or nearly-genuine, the division of the country is catastrophic).
I believe nobody can be sure about who won the election. The Yushchenko supporters, and their westerns backers, who claim they are sure to have won, are either lying or deluding themselves.
This is why I'm not too thrilled by the "Orange Revolution" held in Kiev and elsewhere. These people use illegal means, not to challenge a result, but to impose a result of their own. Such behavious is antidemocratic, yet if Yushchenko became crowned thanks to the Kievan mob, all western countries would immediately acknowledge him as the democratic ruler of democratic Ukraine.
|
I'd say to this. 92% for one candidate in one region and the same for the other candidate in another region is a very realistic number. The cheating was mainly accomplished by means of the absentee vote.
quote:
The decision to hold new elections is the good one. The previous elections were a fraud, and the result cannot be known. It deserves to disappear in the trashbin of history, and to be replaced by actual elections where cheats are held in check. |
Yes. But it should be a completely new election, not just a revote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
DUH. Of course. In a winner-takes-all system, the winner doesn't like to lose his power. It's the same basic politicking everywhere.
For instance, Bush had less votes than Gore and yet won the presidency... For some odd reson, a modification of the electoral system was not on the Republican agenda for the past 4 years (I could provide an example of the consensus between the two main French parties to keep the power for themselves as well... such politicking is not limited to "evil" countries ) |
but spiff, the GOP hadnt spent the previous 10 years asking for electoral system change. Kuchma was a firm proponent of presidential power UNTIL he realized a second direct election meant that the new prez would be someone who wanted to prosecute him and his cronies. The cynisism is breathtaking, even by the standards of our two countries. ( I will note i have read that in Israel there have been politicians who opposed Prop Rep when members of large parties, who HELD to that position when they joined small parties, because it was considered impossible to flip so completely) Look at how Putin elminates single member reps from Russias parliament, knowing the only independents are in those seats, and changes the means of selecting governors, knowing them to be one of the few sources of independence left. And persecutes ONLY those magnates who fund his opposition, and opposition media. And how in Ukraine the only magnate who is villified is the one who opposes the Kremlins candidate, while the other magnates get a free pass. Its a fairly consistent pattern. Europeans should think about this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
spiff, first of all, youre taking a charicture of the Western view. |
True  But the western media, whenever it took a stance, has been consistently positive about Yushchenko while being consistently negative to Yanukovich.
quote:
and from all ive read theyre not a mob trying to impose their will, but people outraged at a stolen election, and with good reason. They didnt want to impose a result, they did want a fair election. |
From the BBC (last updated 8 December):
quote:
Mr Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal, is still the firm favourite to win the re-run of the disputed second round of the presidential election. Huge crowds of his supporters are still on the streets of the capital Kiev, vowing to stay there until he takes office. |
Maybe they'll stop if Yanukovych wins the re-run, and if they feel he does so fair and square. But so far, this behaviour doesn't look democratic to me. Especially since these lines were drawn after the decision of holding new elections was known.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Look at how Putin elminates single member reps from Russias parliament, knowing the only independents are in those seats, and changes the means of selecting governors, knowing them to be one of the few sources of independence left. And persecutes ONLY those magnates who fund his opposition, and opposition media. And how in Ukraine the only magnate who is villified is the one who opposes the Kremlins candidate, while the other magnates get a free pass. Its a fairly consistent pattern. Europeans should think about this. |
I am aware of Putin's doings (I didn't know that Kuchma selectively villified his own magnates as well), and I am horrified by what he is doing. For some time, I thought Putin was creating a strongman plebiscitarian democracy, but he seems keen of creating a softcore dictatorship :vomit:
The EU is very concerned about the evolutions in Russia. Some of it can be attributed to us losing our *****es, but most of this concern can be attributed to us seeing Russia drifting away from democracy again.
I am glad that the election fraud in Ukraine was challenged. Because it shows the civil society in Ukraine (at least in western Ukraine) is much less prone to accept authoritarianism as the Russians. However, I am far less glad that Yushchenko has tried to crown himself the winner through (nonviolent) pressure.
This is why I welcome this constitutional change (adopted by the overwhelming majority of the parliament IIUC, Kuchma and Yushchenko supporters alike) so much. More than the election of any candidate, this reform is what really gives me hopes in the possibility for Ukraine to avoid a Russia-like scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
BBC:
"In Ukraine, Mr Yushchenko's orange army of supporters lifted blockades around government buildings, allowing public sector workers through after 17 days of protest.
A member of staff with the cabinet of ministers appeared relieved. "I am glad it's over," said Ivan Volkov. "It was incredibly irritating."
A few days are left to us for final victory. I call on you to be especially active in these days
Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko
But, although the protest is scaling down, many say they will stay on the street until Mr Yushchenko wins.
Mr Yushchenko himself said the mini tent city that has sprung up would be reorganised but not removed.
"A few days are left to us for final victory. I call on you to be especially active in these days," he told thousands of supporters in Kiev's Independence Square. "
If i read, them right, they are 100% confident of victory in a fair election, and are staying so that if the new election is fraudulent, they cant be blocked. (since this time the govt might be more prepared) Given the scale of fraud in the last election, their confidence is probably reasonable. Given that Kremlin apologists are still decrying the compromise, id say their concerns about further mischief are also reasonable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Just remember that Russia is a poor country desperately struggling for survival. Certain things inevitably get ugly in the process. |
True, but there is Ugly and UGLY. I would have seen it as perfectly normal if Putin had been a strongman supported by plebiscitarian politics (akin to what Napoleon III was at the beginning of his reign). After the general degenerescence of Russia during the Eltsin's years, a strong central authority was needed, and still is.
However, when local layers of government get silenced, it is extremely worrisome: for local layers of government do not oppose stability (if they are doing too much crap, one can easily lower their competences), and they are a great tool to make democracy progress at little cost.
quote:
If you in the West were truly concerned about democracy in Russia, you would not expand your Evil Union and other evil alliaces without taking Russia's concerns into account. |
I think you can understand we think more of our interests than of Russia's. It's not evil or anything. Any country thinks about itself first.
quote:
Russia has been consistently isolated behind a new iron curtain during the last decade. |
I don't know where you Russians (I think this opinion is held by 100% of the Russians of this board, and I'd imagine an immense majority of Russians in general) got this idea.
Initiated by Germany, the EU has increasingly considered you as a trade partner. We now import so much oil from Russia that your country now considers labeling its prices in Euros instead of dollars.
Politically speaking, France and Germany have operated a real rapprochement with Russia over the Iraqi war. Besides, the Russian cooperation in Bush's war on terror means that the relations between Russia and the US are considerably less strained than they could be (The US might have actively supported the Chechen separatists, for example).
Internationally speaking, Russia has been accepted as a member of the G8 (formerly G7) right after the fall of the USSR. At one point, Putin even considered joining NATO.
Now, it is true that Russia has interests that collide against the EU's or the US's. And in these matters, Russia's influence has considerably weakened in Europe, as central Europe has adhered to NATO and the EU. But guess what: These countries wanted in. Very much. One of the reasons why these countries' leaders followed Bush in Iraq is because they want to get as close of the US as possible, or rather: as far as Russia as possible.
The EU in general sees Russia as one of our great trade partners. Like China, like Japan, like Brazil. We don't want to isolate you (even though the anti-Russianb sentiment is now represented since the EU's enlargement). You go your merry way, we go ours, and we trade together. Of course there is some power play involved (like currently in Ukraine), but it doesn't mean that we hate you. Heck, there was a terrible power play between France-Germany and the US over Iraq, and yet we belong to NATO all the same.
quote:
What you don't get here is that it was not the fraud that was challenged, but rather the outcome. |
True. I don't know how the eastern civil society would have reacted had Yushchenko won after massive frauds. If the eastern civil society had strongly reacted, however, it would have meant that the Ukrainian civil society at large is eager to defend its political rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
I don't know where you Russians (I think this opinion is held by 100% of the Russians of this board, and I'd imagine an immense majority of Russians in general) got this idea.
Initiated by Germany, the EU has increasingly considered you as a trade partner. We now import so much oil from Russia that your country now considers labeling its prices in Euros instead of dollars.
Politically speaking, France and Germany have operated a real rapprochement with Russia over the Iraqi war. Besides, the Russian cooperation in Bush's war on terror means that the relations between Russia and the US are considerably less strained than they could be (The US might have actively supported the Chechen separatists, for example).
Internationally speaking, Russia has been accepted as a member of the G8 (formerly G7) right after the fall of the USSR. At one point, Putin even considered joining NATO.
Now, it is true that Russia has interests that collide against the EU's or the US's. And in these matters, Russia's influence has considerably weakened in Europe, as central Europe has adhered to NATO and the EU. But guess what: These countries wanted in. Very much. One of the reasons why these countries' leaders followed Bush in Iraq is because they want to get as close of the US as possible, or rather: as far as Russia as possible.
The EU in general sees Russia as one of our great trade partners. Like China, like Japan, like Brazil. We don't want to isolate you (even though the anti-Russianb sentiment is now represented since the EU's enlargement). You go your merry way, we go ours, and we trade together. Of course there is some power play involved (like currently in Ukraine), but it doesn't mean that we hate you. Heck, there was a terrible power play between France-Germany and the US over Iraq, and yet we belong to NATO all the same. |
Well put!
Though it's quite logical that Putin wants to make it look like everyone is against Russia. That will unite the country behind him.
Foreign relations have always been used to cover the inner situation and AFAIK countries have always been criticised therefore. So this is not really unique to russia.
The troubeling thing about this strategy is that the outcome can likely be a war.
If anyone has seen the movie "Wag the dog". I can only recommend it!
Last edited by Atahualpa on 15-12-2004 at 13:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know where you Russians (I think this opinion is held by 100% of the Russians of this board, and I'd imagine an immense majority of Russians in general) got this idea. |
I must be kidding. After the fall of the great and the mighty Evil Empire, the west pissed off Russia over every issue. You have double standards for national minorities. You are ready to bomb Serbia to the ground to give Albanian minority in Kosovo wide authonomy (de-facto their own independent state), but don't care a thing about Russian speaking minorities (that represent great % of population there) in Baltic states. You have a double standard for terrorist- those who fight against you are terroirsts, those who fight against Russia are freedom fighters. You surround Russia with NATO bases. Your media is carrying out anti-Russian and anti-Putin campaign, etc, etc...
And don't play an angel about trade between our countries. So far you do not have a real alternative for cheap Russian gas and oil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2004 20:56
|