Funny this story about passports :lol:
I will now clarify some points concerning
Finland and Baltic states:
independent Wrote:If You know our history - then You also know that when we were at war
with USSR e.g. UK declare war with us. So we really got a lesson to avoid
getting between big countries. And that is what I'm trying to tell to Georgians.
You can't turn to other big country to avoid another. And that is what You have done.
But this was exactly what we also did – took of course the German side when they started the war against USSR in 1941. The Germans were our “brothers in arms” and it was a very natural choice in that situation. The war declaration of UK is true but was of minor significance.
independent Wrote:And my opinion is that You (Georgia) should first try to be member of EU.
It is much easier than joining to NATO - and Russia has no need to resist that.
Easier to join EU than to join NATO??? You should ask the Turks about that… :roll:
independent Wrote:EDITED: And If You can maintain good relationship against Russia ( it really is not that hard )
so You can always profit by beeing edge between EU and Russia.
Finland indeed has profited in this position, and it has not been too difficult. But there were periods when we did it even too carefully, having all kind of self-censure to which former president Kekkonen encouraged us to. The issue was not to criticise USSR too much. This phenomenon had also a name (given my Germans): “finlandisation”. I bet Georgia is very far from considering this solution
By the way, Georgians, what kind of relations did your former presidents have with Russia? I expect Shevardnadze to have had better ones than Gamsakhurdia, as having being USSR minister of foreign affairs, but perhaps not too close however, or…?
Yalta1945 Wrote:It was not so far ago when V.Putin claimed the Baltic States used to voluntarily join the Soviet Union. What can we expect from the president who talks such nonsense that even children in our kindergartens would laugh at? It sounds funny to our kids, but it is an insult to the elderly who suffered from the Soviet occupants, and it is also a sign to be worried of, if we look at the broader picture.
I fully agree. ?!? What INTEREST has Putin to promote this kind of view? Can the answer be something else than promoting the laughable view that “Russia has never invaded any other country” :haha :lol: :haha
independent Wrote:Whatever You think about Putin, You pretty sure admit that he is clever and calculating - and with that kind of leader it is much easier to deal with than with an stupid or too emotional leader.
I do not agree at all. Putin is too HARD, he is “everything for Russia and nothing for anybody else”. In case Russia more unanimously (in the world’s opinion) would have “started” the war, I am sure he would somehow explain it to having been necessary… :roll:
This said, I am also sure Saakashvili is not easy to deal with either. But Yeltsin, and Gorbachev, I think, were easier to deal with. Just have this feeling…
independent Wrote:I must say that what really happened remains ambiguous for me also. I believe that big majority of people in those countries didn't want to join USSR. But I think that e.g. in Estonia there might have happened some kind of political treason of their own - and because of that, it kind of looked like everything was legal.
I will tell you what happened. In May or June 1940, first USSR troops invaded Estonia, after an Sovietic ultimatum, they needed military bases etc. Then there should be new parliamentary elections in Estonia. A new “coalition party” was created, a kind of “Union of workers and peasants”, supporting the USSR. And in the elections, supervised by the USSR troops, other parties than this one mentioned were DENIED the right to having candidates!! So this Union of course “won” the elections (probably also the population were forced to vote), formed a new government, lead by the poet Johannes Varis, which soon applied for entrance to the USSR, which the USSR approved. Then opponents started to be carried to Siberia, and the rest of history we know… Soviet rule until 1991, with the exception of the German invasion 1941-44, which many Estonians naturally saw as a chance to regain liberty, in vain unfortunately.
I found this story (presented in the USSR style though) in the library of the Finno-Soviet friendship association (Suomi-Neuvostoliitto-Seura) in the 1980’s. Very similar kind of stories in Latvia and Lithuania. So, no wonder there is fear for Russia.
Plus, the occupation was not only Soviet communist imperialism, it was also Russian imperialism. Note that Russian became the (only?) official language. Thousands of Estonian people were brought to Siberia and were replaced by Russian-speaking people from other parts of USSR, maybe some other people also, but all spoke Russian. There had been Russians in Estonia before, of course, but not as big percentage than nowadays (26 %, plus 3 % Ukrainians and Belorussians). No wonder Estonians are not glad to see such a big minority of indeed innocent people, but from another culture, who often can not even speak Estonian.
Yalta1945 Wrote:E.g. everyone in Lithuanian schools is taught that poet Donelaitis lived in Tolminkiemis (or Tollmingkehmen in German) but there is no such name on the contemporary map as Russians changed it drastically to Chistiye Prudi (has nothing to do with its original name). I still wait for our western friends to tell the full truth on the deal of Eastern Prussia and I would like it to be explained on terms of international law. Otherwise, it seems that Russia gets away with genocide and annexation if it manages to keep the conquered territory for a longer time.
In lost Karelia close to Vyborg, the part belonging to Leningradskaya Oblast, it is the same. Town and village names (all except Vyborg/Viipuri) have been transformed completely, they are now Priozersk, Primorsk, Sovetsk, Pervomajskoye etc. But in the part belonging now to Karelian Autonomous Republic, the names are the same than before: Sortavala, Lahdenpohja, Pitkäranta, Suojärvi… just written with Russian alphabet with minor adjustments.
Yalta1945 Wrote:But the most important is that you seem to forget about the rights of those new members of NATO and those seeking for the membership. So I return your question: haveYou ever thought that they are as concerned about their own security as Russians?
In my opinion, it should be more understandable to the whole world, that this security issue should be more important to small countries than to big ones. Big countries do not really have threats on their existence (if not by nuclear war of course…), but small countries could easily be invaded and puppet regimes could be put on… Look what happened to Tibet in 1950’s. And Russian troops were close to Tbilisi! I can understand the fear of Georgians, Balts certainly do it too.
If Russia would not have such an imperialistic background, people would not hate it so much. The same of course applies also to USA and China.
Giovane Wrote:Their army it's just american and soros project.
Soros! Came to think, what view on him do Russians have in general?
independent Wrote:So I would like to see a system where EU itself is a member of NATO rather than every
country itself. It might be easier for russians to accept - and they can't blame any country
individually.
Now I agree totally!!
This would be a very good solution. Especially because of your last sentence.
No country would need a separate opinion about NATO and be by Russians accused of anti-Russianism in case of joining, or by own nationalists accused of pro-Russianism in case of not joining. Certainly, in Georgia, if you by then are not in NATO yet, your next president suddenly would abandon NATO plans, you would accuse him/her of bending in front of the Russians… :roll: