 |
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Whatever. Lands taken by USSR in 1939 were populted by Ukranians and Byelorussians (I'm talking about 90+ percents figures here) and these were the lands captured by Poland in 1921.
In case of Poland, you justify such actions, in case of USSR you condemn them, despite Poland was the first who started it.
|
I'll divide it into several points:
When it comes to who started it, the Czechs started it in case of Cieszyn, and both sides started it when it comes to eastern Poland/western Ukraine/whatever.
When it comes to 90% figures, You're wrong.
Poles were less than 20% minority only in three wojewodztwa: Stanislawow, Polesie (Brzesc) and Wolyn (Luck). In none they were less than 10%, though they were close to it in these three.
When it comes to Podole, Lwow, Wilno, Nowogrodek and Bialystok, Lublin wojewodztwa, they were a majority, in some of them a definite one (You could argue when it comes to Podole, it was about even there). In fact, USSR has taken grounds on which there were absolutely NO Ukrainians, Lithuanians or Byelorussians, up to Warsaw.
And when it comes to the differences...
1) Zaolzie and a couple of mountain villages Poland's taken is insignificant territorially, consisting perhaps 1% of Czechoslovak state, or less. In comparison, USSR has taken over half of Poland.
2) Zaolzie was hardly any center of Czech culture, while the importance of Vilnius and Lwow for Polish cuture can only be compared to the one of Krakow and Warsaw
3) Poland has taken only some territories inhabited majorly by Poles. In comparison, USSR has taken (as I've already mentioned) not only all the territories with any, even insignificant, minorities, but also grounds clearly Polish, up to Vistula and Warsaw.
4) Poland didn't intend to destroy Czechoslovakia, while USSR did intend to destroy Poland
5) Poland just pressured Czechoslovakia, so that it gave the lands without fight (and that's why the claims were moderate, I guess), while USSR just invaded.
6) Poland operated alone, though profitting from German pressure on Czechoslovakia. USSR and nazi Germany cooperated closely.
While Poland did a bad deed, USSR did something much much worse.
quote:
Sure, Gorbachev is the traitor and he has no idea about histrory. His "histroric mission" was to destroy the USSR. And this ****** fullfiled his mission. Why should I (or anyone else) trust to incompetent traitor in matters where his goal was to lie as much as he could to make USSR look worse as possible?
I trust Gorbachev no more than I trust Dr. Goebels, because they are speaking the same. |
Uh? If He succeeded, He was VERY competent, wasn't He? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Serb, do you ever notice how just abut everyone but you agrees the Russian government is selectively enforcing certain laws on Putin's political opposition? |
Oh boy, when you and everyone else here will understand that Khodorkovsky is just a thief? That he is not the opposition for the Putin, becase the party he protected and sponsored DID NOT gain any sugnificant support of population, they got less than 5% on last elections, becase most of the population of Russia REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hate this so-called party of reformers who robbed this popultaion and brought poverty for Russia.
Your media claims he is the leader of the opposition, but this is BS, because he wasn't and isn't the one of the leaders, and SUCH opposition is hilarious anyway and Putin have not a single to reason to be afraid of SUCH bunch of morons who call themselves the opposition.
Last edited by Serb on 21-02-2005 at 06:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I'll divide it into several points:
When it comes to who started it, the Czechs started it in case of Cieszyn, and both sides started it when it comes to eastern Poland/western Ukraine/whatever.
When it comes to 90% figures, You're wrong.
Poles were less than 20% minority only in three wojewodztwa: Stanislawow, Polesie (Brzesc) and Wolyn (Luck). In none they were less than 10%, though they were close to it in these three.
When it comes to Podole, Lwow, Wilno, Nowogrodek and Bialystok, Lublin wojewodztwa, they were a majority, in some of them a definite one (You could argue when it comes to Podole, it was about even there). In fact, USSR has taken grounds on which there were absolutely NO Ukrainians, Lithuanians or Byelorussians, up to Warsaw.
|
What a bullsh!t. No comments. Those lands were populated by 12 millions of non-Polish population (Ukranians and byelorussians mostly).
quote:
And when it comes to the differences...
1) Zaolzie and a couple of mountain villages Poland's taken is insignificant territorially, consisting perhaps 1% of Czechoslovak state, or less. In comparison, USSR has taken over half of Poland. |
a) Look at map it was far from 1% of Czech territory and this land increased your industrial capacity by 150%. You did advance so fast to grab more of Czechoslovakia that Hitler commited his ELITE SS FREAKS to stop Poles from grabbing more.
b) USSR has taken half of Poland? News to me. From what I know, USSR took the lands Poland captured in 1921 and NOTHING MORE.
What make you think these Ukranian and Beylorussian lands were "half of Poland"? The fact that Poland attacked USSR in 1920 and conquered these lands in 1921? You think after 18 years these lands became yours permanently and USSR had no right to return these lands stolen by Poland earlier during its backstabing attack?
In 1939 USSR did the same as Poland did in 1920- back ****ing stab, but aside Poland in 1920, he did so to return its own stolen territories.
quote:
2) Zaolzie was hardly any center of Czech culture, while the importance of Vilnius and Lwow for Polish cuture can only be compared to the one of Krakow and Warsaw |
Blah...blah...blah...
What a bullsh!t.
And importance of Vilnius for Lithuanian culture is nothing of course? Sure, who cares about Lithuanian capital, it belongs to Poland, right? Do you have any idea that USSR gave Vilnius to Lithuania (which was back then an absolutely soverign state) and furthermore, USSR BOUGHT via league of nations some former "Polish" lands from Germany and gave them to Lithuania fo free. F*cking Imperial USSR. 
quote:
3) Poland has taken only some territories inhabited majorly by Poles. In comparison, USSR has taken (as I've already mentioned) not only all the territories with any, even insignificant, minorities, but also grounds clearly Polish, up to Vistula and Warsaw. |
PURE SH!T. NO COMMENTS, except the fact that in 1939, USSR took territory which was stolen by Poland in 1921 due its attack against USSR, due to its undeniable aggression vs. USSR. Have you didn't attack Soviets in 1920, this attack of 1939 would never happen. You did your best to ruin all relations with USSR. YOU WERE GODDAMN HOSTILE FREAKS.
quote:
4) Poland didn't intend to destroy Czechoslovakia, while USSR did intend to destroy Poland |
a) Poland had no balls, to destroy Czechoslovakia alone. Poland acted as greedy hyena (remeber Churchill). Hyenas never attack and never hunt themselves, they eat sh!t what lions left them. They are sh!t-eaters. Seeing that Czechs are too strong for glorious Polish Crusadres, they waited (and actually encouraged him) till lion (Germany) kill its victim (Czechoslovakia) and then go eat (grab parts of Czechoslovakia).
b) As for "USSR did intend to destroy Poland",
your problem is your knowledge of WW2 (as many of other westerners here) is so limited, so basic, so wrong. I did believe the same bullsh!t ten years ago, till I dig deeper.
Take my advise and read some memouirs of German generals, like Halder for example. Even Hitler himself had no intention to destroy Poland. He simply wasn't in aware that such thing is possible. Nobody knew that German blitzkreige will be a revolution in a warfare, that allow complete destruction of such state as Poland. Halder wrote in his diary after two weeks of combat - "the success of our forces is indescribable". Now you tries to convince me that Stalin knew more about the revolutionary German strategy more than Hitler himself? Bullsh!t. He had no idea that Germans can destroy Poland so fast, that Poles will be such cowards, YES, COWARDS. Stalin wanted a continued war of Poland+GB+France vs. Germany to weaken all of them and to win more time for re-armament. But your glorious goverment escaped Poland at Sept.3 after three days of war. At sept. 18 when Red Army enterd Poland there wasn't any organized resistance to Germans, because your own government betrayed your people. And it was absolutely clear that Poland is doomed and if USSR wouldn't take lands that rightfully belong to it, Germans will do it (notwithstanding the pact USSR and Germany signed). BTW, you still didn't show to me where in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact uis the part about division of Poland, where is the part about joint military operations. There are no such parts.
quote:
5) Poland just pressured Czechoslovakia, so that it gave the lands without fight (and that's why the claims were moderate, I guess), while USSR just invaded. |
Bullsh!t. See above. Poland acted as greeedy hyena (Sir Winston Churchill). Hyenas do not hunt (invade) they wait till lion do the killing and then eat remaining sh!t.
quote:
6) Poland operated alone, though profitting from German pressure on Czechoslovakia. USSR and nazi Germany cooperated closely. |
Bullsh!t.
Poland DID cooperated with Germany.
If Germany and USSR cooperated so closely, then why USSR entered Poland only at Sept. 18 when Poland was doomed already, because Polish government run from Poland with tail between thier legs after two days since Germans enterd its territory at Sept. 1, becase Germans already f*cked-up any more or less capable Polish forces, due to their revolutionary strategy, because there was no organized resistanence anymore. WHY Soviets and Nazis DIDN'T attack simultaneously if they cooperated closely as you claim?
quote:
While Poland did a bad deed, USSR did something much much worse. |
Not at all. USSR returned the territory Poland took from Soviets 18 years ago. Poland did the same one year earlier with Czechoslovakia and thus (and by do not providing right of passage for the Soviets to protect its Ally- Czechoslovakia, YES, GODDAMNIT USSR, FRANCE and CZHECHOSLOVAKIA WERE ALLIES, untill France thanks to Britain betrayed Czechs and they surrendered without a fight) provoked WW2, and became another (not the first, because the first victim was Czechoslovakia) victim of WW2, due its own Polish greed and stupidity.
quote:
Uh? If He succeeded, He was VERY competent, wasn't He? |
:
Grobachev was competent only in one feild- destruction (any idiot is an expert in this feild). In any other fields, he is an absolute moron.
p.s. don't bother to reply. You are in my ignore list now. I had to make it long time ago.
Last edited by Serb on 21-02-2005 at 06:30
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
What a bullsh!t. No comments. Those lands were populated by 12 millions of non-Polish population (Ukranians and byelorussians mostly).
|
Serb, there were I think about or slighty less than 12 mln ethnic minorities in ENTIRE Poland (36% of 35mln)
Do You really think that villages 10 kms from Warsaw are "Ukrainian or Byelorussian"?
quote:
a) Look at map it was far from 1% of Czech territory and this land increased your industrial capacity by 150%. You did advance so fast to grab more of Czechoslovakia that Hitler commited his ELITE SS FREAKS to stop Poles from grabbing more.
|
Propaganda story, Serb.
quote:
b) USSR has taken half of Poland? News to me. From what I know, USSR took the lands Poland captured in 1921 and NOTHING MORE.
|
First of all, Poland actually regained independance in that time, also regained independance in lands that beonged to it before 1795, when it's lost it.
Secondly, Lublin and Bialystok were liberated by Poland before that. And Lwow, Stanislawow and Tarnopol Poles won in fight against independant Ukrainians, not USSR.
quote:
What make you think these Ukranian and Beylorussian lands were "half of Poland"? The fact that Poland attacked USSR in 1920 and conquered these lands in 1921? You think after 18 years these lands became yours permanently and USSR had no right to return these lands stolen by Poland earlier during its backstabing attack?
In 1939 USSR did the same as Poland did in 1920- back ****ing stab, but aside Poland in 1920, he did so to return its own stolen territories.
|
These lands belonged to Poland before 1795, Lwow, Tarnopol and Stanislawow before 1772. We've already discussed Serb. It's silly to call these territories somekind of rightful Soviet holdings. Both it and Poland were in statu nascendi. Also, Lwow, Tarnopol and Stanislawow regions never belonged to USSR, nor to Russia, before 1939.
quote:
And importance of Vilnius for Lithuanian culture is nothing of course? Sure, who cares about Lithuanian capital, it belongs to Poland, right? Do you have any idea that USSR gave Vilnius to Lithuania (which was back then an absolutely soverign state) and furthermore, USSR BOUGHT via league of nations some former "Polish" lands from Germany and gave them to Lithuania fo free. F*cking Imperial USSR.
|
1) Vilnius has great patriotic meaning for Lithuania, but at that time, there were hardly any Lithuanians in it. That's why it's hard to call it "Lithuanian center of culture" more than Wroclaw was for Poland.
Grodno was one of old parliament capitals of Poland, and it doesn't belong to Poland now.
Yes, USSR has given Vilnius to Lithuania - just to annex Lithuania some time later.
quote:
PURE SH!T. NO COMMENTS, except the fact that in 1939, USSR took territory which was stolen by Poland in 1921 due its attack against USSR, due to its undeniable aggression vs. USSR. Have you didn't attack Soviets in 1920, this attack of 1939 would never happen. You did your best to ruin all relations with USSR. YOU WERE GODDAMN HOSTILE FREAKS.
|
Hostile? Poland got what it wanted and didn't have to be hostile. Invading a country, that I call hostility.
Don't You agree that USSR has taken lands up to Warsaw? Should I post a proper map?
Poland "attacked" USSR in 1920 because it wanted to crush Poland to move its way to German revolution.
"A way to world revolution goes through dead body of bourgeois Poland" etc
quote:
a) Poland had no balls, to destroy Czechoslovakia alone. Poland acted as greedy hyena (remeber Churchill). Hyenas never attack and never hunt themselves, they eat sh!t what lions left them. They are sh!t-eaters. Seeing that Czechs are too strong for glorious Polish Crusadres, they waited (and actually encouraged him) till lion (Germany) kill its victim (Czechoslovakia) and then go eat (grab parts of Czechoslovakia).
|
Serb, Poland got Zaolzie BEFORE Muenchen.
quote:
b) As for "USSR did intend to destroy Poland",
your problem is your knowledge of WW2 (as many of other westerners here) is so limited, so basic, so wrong. I did believe the same bullsh!t ten years ago, till I dig deeper.
Take my advise and read some memouirs of German generals, like Halder for example. Even Hitler himself had no intention to destroy Poland. He simply wasn't in aware that such thing is possible. Nobody knew that German blitzkreige will be a revolution in a warfare, that allow complete destruction of such state as Poland. Halder wrote in his diary after two weeks of combat - "the success of our forces is indescribable". Now you tries to convince me that Stalin knew more about the revolutionary German strategy more than Hitler himself?
|
Perhaps because Germans and USSR planned division of Poland before invasion?
Are these memoirs published during USSR regime?
quote:
And it was absolutely clear that Poland is doomed and if USSR wouldn't take lands that rightfully belong to it,
Germans will do it (notwithstanding the pact USSR and Germany signed). BTW, you still didn't show to me where in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact uis the part about division of Poland, where is the part about joint military operations. There are no such parts.
|
There are.
And Polish gouverment still existed, it just decided to continue the fight from behind the boarder (in fact, Polish gouverment in exile in London lasted up to the end of communism).
Who did You the "right" to these lands? And are Lublin and Bialystok "rightful Soviet posession" as well?
Soon USSR has taken Eastonia, latvia, Lithuania, and part of Romania - these are "rightful Soviet posessions" as well, I presume?
quote:
Bullsh!t.
Poland DID cooperated with Germany.
If Germany and USSR cooperated so closely, then why USSR entered Poland only at Sept. 18 when Poland was doomed already
|
Because He was coward
quote:
Not at all. USSR returned the territory Poland took from Soviets 18 years ago.
|
Did Lwow belong to Soviets before Poland regained it?
Did anything belong to USSR at all? It just came into existance.
quote:
Poland did the same one year earlier with Czechoslovakia
|
If it was the same, why didn't USSR return it to Poland after ww2? And why do You say it was wrong, if it was the same?
quote:
, YES, GODDAMNIT USSR, FRANCE and CZHECHOSLOVAKIA WERE ALLIES,
|
quote:
Grobachev was competent only in one feild- destruction (any idiot is an expert in this feild). In any other fields, he is an absolute moron.
|
Interesting. One moron and USSR was doomed.
How did that moron became the leader of it in the first place?
Last edited by Heresson on 21-02-2005 at 12:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Serb, can you at least admite that spending 40% of GDP on the military in order to match the US wasn't sustainable? The Soviets should have accepted second place militarially and cut back military spending. |
Just because they've spend so much they were "the number one in military science'(c.)Civ2. We still (after nearly 20 years) posses technologies you are light years behind. We've lost the Cold war not because your military was better, but because our elite has degrodated, )(basically they were just bunch of suckers, f*cking imbiciles), because they had no balls to stand-up your bluff about SDI and the same crap (they had all tools to fight this mythical threat), because you've convinced (fooled actually) that your way of life is better than the Soviet one. You've won an ideologiacal victory, not the military victory.
As for spending 0f 40% of GDP, it wasn't to match the US. The whole goal was to be better than US. Because US threaten to destroy the USSR. That's why SU couldn't be like modern China. You don't threaten to destroy them now, as you've threathen to destroy SU. They are capitalists now and one of your main trade partners. The USSR was the absolutely different case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Mean_Rabbit
|
|
quote:
accepted that the US will have a more advanced military
Thanks, that was the good one. I'm nearly died. |
Serb, are you REALLY arguing that America does NOT have the most advanced military? I know you still seem angry for going from a 2nd rate country to a middle-tiered country, but really. Being angry and envious is no excuse for putting blinders on such basic facts...
And let me just state that on many aspects, it amazes me on how we do treat Russia...And I say this as a proud American. Why do we slap Russia's hand on their actions on Chechnyan's? Isn't that just idiotic?! We should stand up and applaud their voracity on dealing with terrorist elements in their land.
Last edited by One_Mean_Rabbit on 06-03-2005 at 21:52
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Rather curious article from the Arab press:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/732/in3.htm
quote:
Getting cold?
Despite the latest summit meeting between presidents Bush and Putin, relations between America and Russia are shaky, writes Mona Khalil from Moscow
Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War post-Soviet Russia and the United States are still far from being allies.
The euphoria of the 1990s -- the mutual love between "Boris and Bill" -- faded as Vladimir Putin replaced Boris Yeltsin and George W Bush replaced Bill Clinton. Russian-US relations were moved to a pragmatic basis.
It might have been rosy, if not for one thing: Russia remains the only country in the world, with its huge and usable nuclear arsenal, capable of posing a mortal threat to the United States. This simple fact is at the heart of unstable and neurotic relations between Moscow and Washington.
Recent months have seen a deterioration of these relations. Influential bodies on both sides are peddling the idea that there is no need to preserve a friendly bilateralism. In the US, some believe the process of the USSR's disintegration is not yet complete. A CIA report predicts that by 2015 some six to eight sovereign states will appear in present Russian territory. It is not clear what relation this prediction has to US strategic policy, but Bush is coming under significant pressure to harden his stance towards Russia.
Then on the eve of the recent summit both Moscow and Washington announced plans to invest further in modern, sophisticated arms. Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that in the near future the Russian army would be furnished with a new type of nuclear weaponry, underwriting the security and sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Almost simultaneously, US media reported that American scientists had started working on a new generation of nuclear weaponry, supposedly more reliable and durable than the existing one.
Mutual irritation has its grounds. Instead of obediently dealing with its internal problems, Washington sees in Russia a weak country that dares to speak out in disaccord with US policy. Moscow, for its part, cannot rid itself of superpower psychology and as such is especially allergic to US messianic hegemony. It seems, however, that these general divisions are deepening.
Recently US media together with US officials launched a wide-ranging anti-Russian campaign, concentrated on criticising President Putin for his "authoritarian" and "non- democratic" style of rule. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- notably a specialist on the former Soviet Union -- stated that the Russian government, while constructive in many areas, was too centralised; that "the concentration of power in the Kremlin to the detriment of other institutions is a real problem." In Russia, Rice continued, "we see that the path to democracy is uneven and that its success is not yet assured," further underlining that "the protection of democracy in Russia is vital to the future of US-Russian relations."
The American press, meanwhile, continues to raise the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Yukos oil empire, in 2003, though it is well known that Khodorkovsky not only skillfully avoided paying taxes but was planning on selling Yukos to the Americans. Any such deal would have enslaved the Russian economy. Chechnya has also been a familiar stalking horse in the US media, despite relative improvements in the republic. Freedom of speech issues and the spectre of anti-Semitism in Russia are said to be further points of US concern, despite the plain reality that in comparison to America, Russian media is a model of pluralism and that many of Russia's leading businessmen, and current Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, are Jews.
|
Just can't help but interrupt the quotation here in order to rejoice what is written in bold. 
quote:
Moscow has responded by accusing Washington of interfering in the affairs of sovereign, post-Soviet states under the guise of democratisation, pointing to the questionable democratic credentials of the US itself. At a press conference a couple of months ago President Putin was stark in his choice of words: "We're also not too happy about what's going on in the United States. Do you think that the electoral system in the United States is without problems? Is it necessary to recall how the elections went this time and the previous time?"
Putin, who refused to join the military coalition against Iraq in 2003, recently started using the term "occupation forces" when referring to US troops in Iraq. Tensions have risen to such heights that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to ward off suggestions of "a new cold war".
Even on points of accord, tensions have appeared. The so- called strategic partnership is grounded in two shared concerns; the fight against terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Though Bush and Putin both won second terms in part through anti-terrorism rhetoric, they are using that fight in different ways. Putin has used anti-terrorist sentiment to strengthen his own power base. Bush, on the other hand, is using anti-terrorist pathos to consolidate a unipolar world order. Though the language is shared, the ends are conflictual.
On the non-proliferation issue the hottest case in point is that of Iran. Washington's criticism of Iraq's neighbour is escalating every day. CIA Chief Porter Goss recently accused Iran of continuing efforts to build long-range ballistic missiles while Secretary of State Rice left nothing ambiguous in stating that Tehran "desires to exterminate Israel and supports terrorism". Israeli officials say Iran will have nuclear weaponry within six months. Russian-US relations cannot have been improved by the deal signed at the weekend between Russia and Iran on the supply of fuel for Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr, despite the clause that Russia insisted upon for the return of spent fuel -- which could otherwise be used for arms production -- to Russia.
A US-instigated war against Iran would test Russia to the limit. Iran is located near Russian Federation territory. US military action would mean war approaching Russian borders. Further, a US war on Iran could potentially destabilise the entire Central Asia and Caucuses region, with no one able to predict where this would lead. Finally, Moscow sees Tehran as a stable and trustworthy partner, developing requisite economic, political and even strategic relations between the two countries. Trade turnover alone has reached $2 billion a year with 90 per cent of it Russian export of airplanes, cars and lead technologies. While Russia took no part in the war on Iraq, a war on Iran may force Moscow to be involved, and not on the side of the US.
"Latest actions on Iran's part convince us that Iran is not intending to produce nuclear weapons and this means that we will continue cooperation in all spheres including the sphere of nuclear power," Putin stated after meeting Hassan Rouhani, secretary of the High Council of National Security. The two discussed current and future plans for Russian-Iranian cooperation. Whether Russian Federation Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov's statement that Moscow intended to stick by all existing international norms and obligations -- implicitly referring to non-proliferation -- made Washington feel any better is open to question.
Another painful subject in Russian-US relations is the future of post-Soviet, CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries. The first attempt to put a pro-US man into a CIS presidential chair was successfully realised in Georgia in November 2003. American spin-doctors skillfully staged a media spectacle under the inspirational name "a revolution of roses", the result being that former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevartnadze was replaced by 36-year-old pro-American Mikhail Saakashvilli. A fanfare followed under the banner of democratisation.
The same power-changing scenario was carried out last autumn during presidential elections in Ukraine. This time the event was even better organised and more sublimely decorated. Following the advice of Western election technicians the Ukrainian opposition adopted the colour orange as its symbol: henceforth everyone spoke of the "orange revolution" as the pro-American Viktor Yuschenko came to power.
The fact that the CIS region has traditionally been Russia's local sphere of influence makes for Moscow American efforts to place puppet regimes in oil wealthy and geographically strategic CIS countries all the more maddening. Until now there existed an unspoken agreement between Moscow and Washington that Russia not attempt to influence countries of the Western hemisphere while the US refrain from the same in territories that were part of the USSR. Losing influence in CIS countries compromises Russia's ability to remain a regional, never mind global, power.
The Bush-Putin meeting in Bratislava, in which the leaders traded definitions of democracy and freedom, was a signal that much remains to be worked out between these two powers in world politics.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
I wouldn't be that sure that that statement is that ridiculous. You just lack info.
Last edited by The Vagabond on 07-03-2005 at 17:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saras
|
 |
Vilnius, Lithuania
Apr 1999
time: 06:29
|
|
I'll bold a different part. Tells much more about the source.
quote:
The American press, meanwhile, continues to raise the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Yukos oil empire, in 2003, though it is well known that Khodorkovsky not only skillfully avoided paying taxes but was planning on selling Yukos to the Americans. Any such deal would have enslaved the Russian economy. Chechnya has also been a familiar stalking horse in the US media, despite relative improvements in the republic. Freedom of speech issues and the spectre of anti-Semitism in Russia are said to be further points of US concern, despite the plain reality that in comparison to America, Russian media is a model of pluralism and that many of Russia's leading businessmen, and current Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, are Jews. |
OMFG TEH JOOOS AGHAIN!!1!!11!! STBBEAD IN TEH BACK!!!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saras
I'll bold a different part. Tells much more about the source.
quote:
The American press, meanwhile, continues to raise the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Yukos oil empire, in 2003, though it is well known that Khodorkovsky not only skillfully avoided paying taxes but was planning on selling Yukos to the Americans. Any such deal would have enslaved the Russian economy. Chechnya has also been a familiar stalking horse in the US media, despite relative improvements in the republic. Freedom of speech issues and the spectre of anti-Semitism in Russia are said to be further points of US concern, despite the plain reality that in comparison to America, Russian media is a model of pluralism and that many of Russia's leading businessmen, and current Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, are Jews.
|
OMFG TEH JOOOS AGHAIN!!1!!11!! STBBEAD IN TEH BACK!!! |
Well, the Jewish issue is raised just in passing, in a correct manner and in reference to the US perception of the issue. So I don't see how it can tell much about the source.
On the other hand, many in the West, instigated in part by their media, still seem to believe that Russia is a citadel of anti-Semitism. So what you boldified is also useful for our Western friends to pay attention to. By the way, there is a recent article in the LA Times about Jews returning in thousands from Israel to Russia. The thread I made about it already died, but I put a ref here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ack=2&cset=true
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-02-2005 04:38
Attachment: 
) and the Soviets had more then enough nukes to deter a war with or without SDI. I'm confident that if the USSR cut its military spending and increased production of consumer goods for its people then there would still be a USSR today. Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending upon your point of view) the Soviet political leadership was to ideologically commited to the arms race so they didn't give up until it was to late to save the USSR.
|
