SVP Wrote:

Salomo Wrote:I have read all your texts with great interest. They are well written and I have tried to understand the Russian point of view through them. I would like to ask you some questions, which I however still have not understood (some of them may have been initiated by other Russians, but I feel you are the best person to explain them):

1) Why demonise only Saakashvili in this crisis? If someone, who has ordered to bomb civilian towns or to kill civilians with other methods, is called a mad person and a kind of Hitler, then fine… but he is not alone here! Also Russians bombed the civilians in Gori, don’t forget that. And your beloved Putin let bomb Groznyi I do not remembered how many times… but it really was in ruins, you must admit it. So… why not call also Putin a fool who is dangerous for humanity?

First, I'm not saying that Putin is an angel at all (though I voted for him previously and for Medvedev during recent elections). And I'll tell you more: no angels are possible in politics. Yes, Grozny was in ruins, but it's a different story, which is very long and deserves a separate topic. There are things which I like and hate. But let's talk about Gori: there were military objects, they had to be destroyed. I fully approve the Russian bombing the mainland Georgia for one and only reason - to suppress the enemy and stop the war as soon as possible. This is NATO tactics used in Yugoslavia (where they even bombed Beograde), and I fully approve of it. Of course, it's better not to be in a war, but once you are in - do this way. The goal was reached. Let's imagine, that the Russians don't move to Georgia and stay in the South Ossetia, and don't bomb Georgian military in Georgia. I tell you - the war would still be there, but there would be tens of thousands dead by now, on both sides, and Tshinvali would really look like Stalingrad by now. I don't think the Russians bombed civilian targets intentionally. Again example - the US are believed to have the most precise weaponry, they have satellites, etc. The bombing process for American pilots is like a game - you see a target on a screen, you gun is guided by a satellite, just press a button. And bada-boom, wow! So, even their hi-precision weapons hit civilian targets and take thousands of civilian lives. I remember a passenger train in Serbia hit by a rocket from air. I don't understand, how can you take a passenger train for a military target. Anyway, I don't believe they did and still doing it intentionally. Otherwise, what is the difference between the brutal Russians and civilized westerners? We have not heard from really independent media that the regular Russian troops in Georgia were chasing civilian cars and killing everybody inside (like Georgians did), or they were intentionally destroing civilian living quarters (like Georgians did), or the snipers were hunting Georgian refugees (like Georgians did). Saying "like Georgians did" I'm not citing you "misinformation" by Russian media about "Tshinvali looks like Stalingrad", or "Tshinvali" does not exist, "Or there are millions of dead Ossetians". I mean only confirmed evidence of the Ossetians (with names), who lost their relatives in Georgian sniper traps on the road to North Ossetia and witnessed other Georgian atrocities directly. You'll see the documentary very soon, I hope. So, what we can talk about in Georgia - intentional bombings of the military, and, unintentional - of some civilian targets. If there were war crimes from the Russian side, I'm against the criminals, they must be sentenced to death. The death sentence is also my choice for looting, because it humiliates my country. About demonizing. Putin - you can call him the devil, but he's not a fool anyway. But Saakashvili is. Trust me, I say this not because Saakashvili is on the other side, while Putin is our guy. It's simply the truth. Only the fool could start this war. Or a provocateur. He's mentally not quite balanced. If you know the Caucasian men, just make a comparison. Most Caucasian men are calm and (at least look) wise, most are. Because what he did - REALLY crossed all hopes for a peaceful solution of this problem. Ever. A asked our Georgian opponents directly - what was his task, what did he hope for? Nobody replied. Ok, let's imagine again, that Russia did't respond at all and forgive him for our peacekeepers. He "wins". He would kill half of the Ossetians (because they would fight), he brings back Georgian refugees, referendum says YES to Georgia (of course, because Ossetians, just like Abkhazians are minorities on their own land). But what next? He'd still have a conflict zone there - everyday terrorist attacks on Georgians and their authorities. But if he loses (like now), again - no benefits for Georgia. Because after this assault no talks are possible ever. The conflict with no end. And, I emphasize - the problem is not in Russia or Russian passports, or Russian support. The problem is in the Ossetians themselves (even without ant Russian support) - this is true. And Saakashvili knew this for sure, that's why such order was given. By the way, he forgets what he was lying yesterday: in an recent interview he said that Georgias' actions were a response to a Russian aggression (please note the Russian troops were in Russia on 8 august, when this all started and only came almost in a day). The interviewer asked - but previuosly you said the decision was taken to use troops to put law and order back to South Ossetia. You know what he replied? "I never said so, some officer did". Some officer, from the crowd :-) They say, Saakashvili was provoked, etc. B*llsh*t. Hitler was also provoked, will we justify him? Politicians know what to do when you're provoked. The only thing they MUST NEVER DO - TO SUCCUMB TO PROVOCATION. Otherwise, you're not a a politician, but a fool, and not only fool, but a criminal. Because by this action, he made more damage to Georgia itself, just like Yeltsin to Russia in the first Chechen war.

Salomo Wrote:2) Why don’t you blame at all the South Ossetians who shooted on the close Georgian villages or the Abkhazians who drove away hundreds of thousands of Georgians from Abkhazia? (Morally, a referendum would need to be done about Abkhazian independency, with also these away-driven people voting, don’t you think?)

I blame. And everybody blames. But you can never prove who was the first to start fire. Just never. Every side says it was the opposite side.

Salomo Wrote:3) Why was Russian invasion necessary in Abkhazia at all? And in close cities like Poti? I have not heard of any Georgians' heavy attack on Sukhumi like their heavy attack on Tskhinvali?

Was there a Russian invasion in Abkhazia? Never heard. Ah, yes. Russian peacekeeping force was strengthened after Georgia's inadequate behaviour in the region (and because Abkhazians asked Russians for help). But that's not an invasion. I think, they came to prevent the planned Georgian assault on Abkhazia. I don't doubt this one was also planned (otherwise, what Georgian troops were doing in Kodori?). What are we talking about, if Georgia promised to use ANY means (that was said by the DEFENSE MINISTER) to get the breakaway Republics back. And the US knew about the plans, and tried to stop Saakashvili , as they say now. So, this is not a big secret. To prevent a disease is less painful and cheaper than treating it.

Salomo Wrote:4) Why was it necessary to drop bombs on CIVILIAN targets in pure Georgian towns like Gori? (I can not think Russian pilots are so bad that they drop bombs on civilian residence areas just by mistake!) Russians could have had a much better image worldwide and sympathy on their side without these bombings, why did they destroy this possibility?

Already explained about Gori above. Just agree here, that Russians could have had much better image without it. And I repeat, I don't believe we destroyed this possibility intentionally, this is just war, which is not nice by definition. There are human factor mistakes, machine and electronic malfunctions, etc. I really grieve about any civilian loss, trust me or not. I know any of us can become one in case of war. Also, trust me, if the Russians really had any intentions to capture Tbilisi or bomb the civilians intentionally - Georgia would not exist now, not only Tbilisi. There was no such a goal, I'm sure and I see. Yuu cannot even call Russian occupants. Because they do not actually overthrow the government, force own rules and regulations, and control the whole life of Georgia :-) When I see those video clips about a Russian looter, with one gilded spoon in his pocket, almost attacked and heavily questioned by the Georgian reporters: "What is it? Ah? What is it? Where did you take it? Ah!!! I thought they would kill him with a camera :-) As I said earlier, I hate looters, Russian or not. And I'd sentence him to death. But 10 or 20 looters does not mean the whole Russian Army is like this. What I wanna say in this episode - the "occupied" do not talk to "occupants" in this way :-)

Salomo Wrote:5) Why was it necessary to destroy the railway bridge in Kaspi on whole Georgia’s main railway?? Army forces would not even use railway, they would use roads! I regard the destroying of the bridge as pure terrorism. (I am btw surprised almost nobody has mentioned this bridge here.) And why burn down forests in the national park? Pure revenge and terrorism, I would say.

Do not know much about the bridge and the forest. The bridge - we don't know what this bridge could be used for by the Georgians. Maybe there were reasons to destroy it like a strategic object. Better ask the military who did this - if they did this, of course. Especially about the park. Maybe there was Georgian army hiding in the park? As one Saakashvili fan said here, their Army did not run away, but made a secret maneuver and hid itself somewhere (and it could not be their bases, because bases were bombed) to jump out suddenly and destroy the Russian army. I allow possibility, that this could be done by the Russians - but we must see proofs of this, then ask the military why was it done. Of course, Georgia has the right to go to Hague with this issue and present the proofs. But, on the other hand, please don't say it is ridiculous - the Georgians (one man is enough) could set this forest on fire, to put another Russia's crime on the list. Shortly, both versions possible. And I'm judging just theoretically, without knowing nothing about this. Please note it. I mean, maybe there's 300% evidence against Russians, then I would rethink it.

Salomo Wrote:6) Why were Gorbachev and Yeltsin shitheads, according to you? In my opinion, Gorbachev was the only pleasant leader of Russia since Czar Alexander II (whom we of course can know only through history books). Gorbachev’s politics led to the fall of an imperialistic empire, which was the best thing that could happen in the end of last century! A lot of small nations, including our small Baltic neighbours whom we have followed a lot, re-gained independence. Ok, this was not Gorby’s intention maybe, but he was finally a liberalisator after decades of dictatorship. Spasiba, Gorby! And during Yeltsin, Russia started to liberalise even more. (Though I admit many things: Russia’s economical liberalisation went too fast and out of control, it however started a war in Chechnya, Yeltsin was drunkard etc.)

Well. I have already described this difference of approach to one and the same fact. We both agree, that Gorbies policy led to disintegration of the USSR. I wanted it. Like many. But for the West Gorbie is hero number 1, ruined the USSR and f*uck the consequences. Yes? Ask in Russia - does somebody like Gorbachev? You'll hardly find anybody. Why? Because we all want USSR back? With all our "colonies" to enslave them again and suppress them? Nope. The truth is simple: such disintegrations should be well prepared, the "divorce" should be civilized, not so fast, but carefully thought over, all problems solved. Instead - each republic was given independence WITHOUT solving territorial, national, and other problems. It was a wild disintegration, reckless. All today's "bombs that explode" come from Gorbie time, including South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Pridnestrovje, Karabah - they actually started when he was at power. Yeltsin is as reckless and stupid as Saakashvili, he started the first Chechen war, very stupid and bloody affair (here I don't say that nothing had to be done). All the "crimes" of the century happened under Yeltsin, like "privatisation". Again, I'm for free market economy and all possible freedoms, but Russian privatisation was really a crime of the century not possible anywhere in the West. But it's a big separate topic. As to freedom - there was less freedom than today, I would say. Because, on the one hand, everything was allowed (which I'd call permissiveness), but on the other hand all opponents were not forbidden, but just killed (I mean numerous journalists, election candidates, businessmen). We'll remember the Yeltsin era as an era of gang rule and complete lawlessness. By the way, it's under Yeltsin, that Russia led "strange" policy in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So we have "presents" in these issues from Yeltsin time too!

Salomo Wrote:7) And why do you like Putin? During his regime, freedom of speech has gone only backwards compared to 1990’s, NGO’s have difficulties to be allowed to exist, opposition’s politicians are forbidden to take part in elections, imprisoned or given very little speech in medias (Garry Kasparov and the whole Other Russia party… plus the Yabloko party, plus many others)… What is the purpose of all this? Why is Putin so afraid of opposition? Russia will soon be a dictatorship?!

I like Putin for several reasons only. The main one - this is the FIRST government that really cares about national security. For those who are ready to start a long and winding song about "Russia's fears that are stupid, that nobody threatens Russia, better make love not war etc - please relax and go buy yourself an ice-cream. Of course, every country has interests, and threats (non necesserily of military origin). All countries have, why not Russia? My opinion is that the last defenders of the national interests of our country before Putin were the leaders of the USSR before Gorbachev. But that was USSR. The first defender of the national interests of the Russian Federation is Putin. Gorbachev as not the defender of the USSR interests. Yeltsin is in no way was a defender of Russia's interests. Plus, under Putin's regime the country lives much better than under "liberal" Yeltsyn. In terms of the incomes, salaries, pensions. With crime situation is not ideal, but it's definitely much better that in the "wild 90's" - we have such term, meaning there was complete gang rule. About problems with freedom of speech - there are no problems, I think. Yes, it's not like in the 90's - but that was permissiveness, remember? But the opponents have their newspapers, internet sites, radio-stations, and there are TV talk shows which do really take place with participation of these opponents. They ARE on TV. I never heard anything about Yabloko problems, except that people do not vote for them :-). Who of the opponent leaders was forbidden to take part in elections and why? Who may be restricted by law here? I know, there are some anti-Russian forces here, in Russia. Like in Georgia there were dissidents against Russia, but here we have "russian" dissidents agains Russia too :-) There even professional opposition, like Novodvorskaya. She's is against everybody. I think, only the president of the US will suit her as the Russian governor. Really, look. If I oppose Obama, then I'm for McCain, right? If I oppose Yeltsin (whom you like), then I support Putin (whom I like), and vice versa. But she opposes both and any other, except those she wants. But the Russian people don't give a f*ck what she wants, or anybody else wants, as far as our national interests are concerned (of course, I mean the internal politics). I Don't think, that Putin is afraid of opposition. In fact, there's no real constructive opposition here. The are implementers of the national interests of other countries here. And, of course, they meet resistance. These peeple can never win elections and gain support of the Russians. And not because the Russians are so stupid that cannot understand what their real happiness is. I consider myself an independent "thinker", nobody influences me and washes my brains. My English is fluent, can read in French - and I actually read foreign media of all the "camps", pro et contra. So, I can tell you - I know what these "dissidents" do or say, and I do not like it. But, I'm not making an icon out of Putin, and don't say he cannot be wrong in some cases.

Salomo Wrote:8) I understand the worrying of Russia about the enlargement of NATO, but the big difference between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact was: if you asked the people of the nations concerned, they would not have joined the Warsaw Pact, but are much more willing to enter into NATO. Because they do not want to be “alone” any more when some foreign invader threats them… For example the Baltic countries were occupied by USSR during 45 years, Russian became the official language, the only until 1988 (I think, am not sure, but remember some news from Estonia in 1987 or 1988 when Estonian was re-introduced as official language of Estonia!). Do we need to wonder why Baltics and others are EXTREMELY suspicious against Russia? And as we also have Chechnya, a war without Soviet-communistic imperialism, only Russian imperialism again…

Fully agree there was occupation of Baltic states by the Stalin's USSR. The Big Guys agreed to divide the spheres of influence. A casual thing for Big Guys of that time. By the way, even small Poland had its piece of pie - under Germany's protection it got a disputed Teshen Region from Chechoslovakia. Everybody had his strategic interests, and nobody cared about whether the population of the "voluntarily joined" territories will love you or not, nobody cared about any populations at all. And what they would think about it in 70 years, and that they'd call this one more "Russian" aggression. As, I told you Cнechnya is not for this topic, very complex and long. But it has nothing to do with Russian impearialism. "Russian Threat" as an excuse for spreading of NATO. But you cannot compare that occupation of the Baltics to anything today. There were ideological differences, that is why there was Iron Curtain, Warsaw Pact, NATO, etc. But they age gone forever. Don't you agree? Then what Russian threat you are talking about? Do you really believe that Russia could attack Estonia or Litva, if they were not NATO members? There was a period, when they were not NATO members, why Russia did not attack them to prevent them from joining? Though they had purely anti-Russian government and we had disputable issues with them, including territorial diffrences! Simple - there was no Saakashvili in Estonia or Litva. If somebody really thinks that Russia can attack a sovereign state first - I think, he's mistaken. Because the Russians clearly understand that EVEN IF THEY REALLY WANTED IT - they CANNOT start such a war, because they cannot win a war against the whole world. Guys in the West definitely know Saakashvili is to blame for this conflict, and he started it. Otherwise we'd be at war with the whole world now. I mean "hot war", not informational. So, as I said, NATO is an outdated organisation, because the country it was created against does not exist any longer. The only really effective European security system INCLUDING RUSSIA, but not confronting it, must be created instead of NATO. If a country is a member of the security system, what threats can be talked about? But, for example, Georgians in this forum are strongly against it, because (I think) they prefer opposing us, they need an enemy, to protect all Europe and the whole civilized world from the Russian threat :-) And get more funding :-) NATO itself (as a shield) is not dangerous even if it surrounds Russia completely (not scary at all). The problem is the so-called Anti-Missile Defense system, which is being pushed by the US in their satellites directly, without NATO medaition even. This is also a big topic, and a separate one. But I can explain, why it is a danger to Russia. At first sight, how a defence can be a danger? It's just a shield. This is the main argument of those, who say it's not against Russia, it's just a shield from somebody else, etc. Most people trust this and additionally accuse Russia in all sins, that Russians do not want Europe to have defence because they're just going to attack Europe. The matter is missiles and nuclear heads still exist, they are many and they increase in number. Of course, nobody wants to use them, but nobody wants to disarm and destroy them either, for the peace's sake! Finally peace for all! However, this is called balance. We are afraid, they are afraid. We know, they cant start first, because we'll reply et vise versa. But the strategic guys in both camps obliged to predict and analyze all possible developments. Just for example. Let's assume, that the US suspected that Russia plans a serious war against somebody, it's a suspicion, or mistake, or misinformation. The US know, that they cannot use their nuclear missiles, because Russia will strike back, and good bye, cruel world! Because when the missiles approach America, it's too late to do something. But this European shield, which we are talking about is an ideal thing. Matter is this radar in Chechoslovakia is not far from Russian borders, and it can detect the launch of Russian strike within seconds, and make all necessary calculations - trajectory etc also within seconds (unlike the NAVY radars at sea or satellites - it takes minutes in their case). Plus, the missiles are much easier hit by anti-missile defence on the initial stage of flight. Thus, let's continue our example. The US decided to destroy the Russian military potential (for this or that reason, it's not important now). They bring their nuclear submarines to the sea near Russia, launch their missiles, and when Russia strikes back, the European Defense immediately detects it and destroys. What I'm driving at - with this system, there's no balance any more. One side knows it has advantage. This means danger only grows - there can be a temptation to destroy Russia - maybe it'll never attack anybody, but just for seciruty reasons, "to be on the safe side", so that the world doesn't have a Russian threat anymore, and live peacefully under the US domination. I would like to remind, that Russia offered various alternative options of JOINT RUSSIAN-EUROPEAN ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM, but all offers were rejected. How can they build an anti-Russia system in cooperation with Russia? :-) Who knows about other reasons - I'm ready to hear that. An adequate Russian reply would be to install a Russian shield in Cuba :-) And Mexico :-) No, not offensive weapons, not missiles. Just a radar and anti-missiles, like in Europe :-) By the way, Vatikan is against this European AMD, but who cares.

Salomo Wrote:I supported Kosovo's independence (because I think it is the will of the majority of people living there) and have nothing against independence of South Ossetia or Abkhazia either, if only referendums are held there with also chased people voting.

This is not so easy. And I think I understand why Medvedev recognized them, though he said it was a hard decision to make. Because he understands, and I undertsnd, we all understand we can lose a lot. But I'm afraid this is a special case, like all cases of such nature. Here all the parties to the conflict and from outside world have to make a choice between two HOLY things - state integrity and the right of people to choose their fate. I'm talking about people of Ossetia and Abkhazia, not about their leaders, whom you call Moscow marionettes. But let's face reality. The reality is that after what happened (not only in 2008, but in 1990's and earlier), the Ossetians-Georgians and Abkhazians-Georgians cannot live together in one state. If you get them back by force - there still be hatred, and terrorist attacks, the fight will continue within Georgia. If you arrange a referendum - the Georgians will easily win, because both Ossetians and Abkhazians are minorities on their lands. As a result - you'll still have hatred, violence, terrorist attacks. Because you cannot just order people - hey, he've won the elections (yes, by law it's OK, you have protocols, figures, proofs). Now be friends with us and love us immediately! Is it possible? No. Because all evil that happened is in memory of THESE people, who did not read in books about what happened, they witnessed it, they buried their daughters, wives, etc. I'm talking about all the victims, from all sides. They just cannot and will not forget it. Long time must pass, 30-50 years minimum, before these nations can discuss this question again (if they'll still need it :-) Example - everybody knows what Germans were doing in Russia in WW2, and afterwords, the Russian revenge in Germany. But after time, I have my best friends in Germany (ethnic Germans). This could not be possible in 1945 :-) We were also at war with Napoleon. I have a lot of friends among ethnic French.

SVP Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:And one very simple question, from the very beginning XII century B.C. Georgia managed to live and come to nowadays......What do you think based on what?......Struggle, wars and our strenght of sole.......So just stop talking what soldiers we georgians are.......

Again you're provoking me to reply :-) Wasn't it you who was always saying that Georgians never had wars with anybody, were friendly with everybody and settled all problems by peace? It's just Russians came and made Caucasus people kill each other. Rapid changes.

lashachochua Wrote:As I know in Soviet Times Georgian boys were very strong in all soviet armies, and many russians were servicing them....Are you one of them? You have some very bad experience with georgian soldiers......

This is why i made a decision to ignore you - just look through your posts. Whenever you do not like anything, you are immediately trying to personally insult your opponent ("you know nothing", "you are a liar", "go read Dostoyevsky", "were you servicing Georgians?" etc, etc.). This looks childish, how old are you, I wonder?

No, you have wrong information about Soviet Army. The thing was called 'dedovshina', and it does not matter who are you ethnically, the main thing is when you were drafted. And again, your Georgian friends were boasting when they told you strories (they want so much to look like real warriors, like Chechens :-) Such heroes :-) Funny. I didn't want to insult you (instead, on the contrary, I made compliments to Georgians in what they are strong), but you asked for it: the Georgian army is the army of cowards, it just ran away, losing their guns and ammo, from the Russians (who were 'servicing' them in the Soviet Army), leaving their civilians behind. Learn to admit the defeat. So, my friend, eat it, shut up and don't bother to reply - I'm permanently ignoring you from this moment, since you're a real loss of time.

P.S. I'm a boxing and judo master, so come and try make me servicing you :-)

SVP Wrote:I'm calling the attention of the forum - please take notice of "lashachochua" behaviour - how aggressive he is, and insulting :-) And how calm I am. I'm a Russian, he's a Georgian. Do you see now, who starts the fights first?

Evidently, lashachochua is a virtual reality soldier: he is ready to fight in a war with Russia, he wants to fight me (and die a hero), but by internet, in virtual reality :-) Come on, Kid. Calm down. Go play with your toy guns :-)

It looks like Georgians accept absolutely NO critisism, either they are right or wrong - no difference. And, of course, they have zero self-criticism. Russians - do have. And I'm the first one to critisize my people. This is the difference.

I can have conversation, a dispute with a Finnish guy and a Romanian guy without any problems in this forum thread. Stalin's USSR attacked Finland, Romania was on Hitler's side during WW2. But we talk. Though we disagree in many points, we are able to communicate. It is not possible with any Georgian in this forum, I unofficially state this :-)

SVP Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:And one very simple question, from the very beginning XII century B.C. Georgia managed to live and come to nowadays......What do you think based on what?......Struggle, wars and our strenght of sole.......So just stop talking what soldiers we georgians are.......

Quote:Again you're provoking me to reply :-) Wasn't it you who was always saying that Georgians never had wars with anybody, were friendly with everybody and settled all problems by peace? It's just Russians came and made Caucasus people kill each other. Rapid changes.

lashachochua Wrote:As I know in Soviet Times Georgian boys were very strong in all soviet armies, and many russians were servicing them....Are you one of them? You have some very bad experience with georgian soldiers......

This is why i made a decision to ignore you - just look through your posts. Whenever you do not like anything, you are immediately trying to personally insult your opponent ("you know nothing", "you are a liar", "go read Dostoyevsky", "were you servicing Georgians?" etc, etc.). This looks childish, how old are you, I wonder?

No, you have wrong information about Soviet Army. The thing was called 'dedovshina', and it does not matter who are you ethnically, the main thing is when you were drafted. And again, your Georgian friends were boasting when they told you strories (they want so much to look like real warriors, like Chechens :-) Such heroes :-) Funny. I didn't want to insult you (instead, on the contrary, I made compliments to Georgians in what they are strong), but you asked for it: the Georgian army is the army of cowards, it just ran away, losing their guns and ammo, from the Russians (who were 'servicing' them in the Soviet Army), leaving their civilians behind. Learn to admit the defeat. So, my friend, eat it, shut up and don't bother to reply - I'm permanently ignoring you from this moment, since you're a real loss of time.

P.S. I'm a boxing and judo master, so come and try make me servicing you :-)

Quote:

Salomo Wrote:SVP, thank you for your long reply! I will reply to you maybe tomorrow, it seems I have time for only one long reply per day...

lashachochua Wrote:

Quote:

Salomo Wrote:SVP, thank you for your long reply! I will reply to you maybe tomorrow, it seems I have time for only one long reply per day...

Salomo be aware, if you do not accept at least his one idea, you will be called georgian or pro-georgian sticked with the idea just to show that Russia is the problem of whole danger in the world ;-)

Salomo Wrote:I think he writes very well and explains thoroughly his views. I would not join his side but he helps me understand the Russian way of thinking. I think this is how this forum can be useful for everybody.

Still have some tight questions

But meanwhile, you Georgians could tell me about the relation between former presidents and Russia. Or about the "Rose revolution" where Shevardnadze "lost" to Saakashvili. At that time, Saakashvili was much more popular than Shevardnadze. Why, because of ability and will to fight against corruption etc.?

Quote:By the way give me comment where I said this. the hostory of Georgia is mostly the self-defence, there were very short period in our history when we invaded border countries. In most cases we were self-defending...There are no much blood on georgian soldiers caused our invasion....In this sense georgian nation is free from any obligations to world historylashachochua

Posts: 98
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 17:01
Private message

Quote:But meanwhile, you Georgians could tell me about the relation between former presidents and Russia. Or about the "Rose revolution" where Shevardnadze "lost" to Saakashvili. At that time, Saakashvili was much more popular than Shevardnadze. Why, because of ability and will to fight against corruption etc.?

Quote:My friend, maybe its sounds rude, but in the conflict you can very ease to find out - what side is right and what side is wrong. You can watch and see - whose motivation to fight is stronger. Not whose power is bigger, but whose desire and stimul stronger/
For example - ossetians was figting for Zchinvaly like crazy. They was ready to die for there home. But georgians was running from russians troops like crazy - they was living Gori in hurry and very haotically. So, the truth is - russians and ossetians figting for very good cause. There consience telling them - you better die, than give up fighting. But georgians do not motivated really to fight, because there consience telling them - guys, you are wrong - you have to give to ossetians there land.

Platon Wrote:So pity man, they don't send female solders only dirty boys.
If russians really wanted piece in the region they would send girls.

Benn Wrote:

Platon Wrote:So pity man, they don't send female solders only dirty boys.
If russians really wanted piece in the region they would send girls.

sorry, don't get your idea Platon. What does the gender has to do with peace?

Benn Wrote:

Platon Wrote:So pity man, they don't send female solders only dirty boys.
If russians really wanted piece in the region they would send girls.

sorry, don't get your idea Platon. What does the gender has to do with peace?

Benn Wrote:shame on you. You are comparing Russian girls to whores. That's lack of respect, even if you support Georgia.