Posts: 61
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Eugene,
You REALLY can not say Russia was never agressor!! USSR attacked Finland in 1939, trying to occupy it entirely. Fortunately we managed to fight them back. But USSR occupied the Baltic countries in 1940 and started deporting anti-socialist people to Siberia. After very unfair elections, they installed socialist puppet governments which "applied" for membership in USSR, which they got. For the Balt peoples, USSR occupied their countries and held them in their imperialistic control until 1990-91.
Meanwhile, there had of course been a short German occupation 1941-44, during which many Balts thought that it is better to join the German army for fighting against imperialistic USSR.
Other examples when USSR was agressor: Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979...
Thanks for your information about the history Grodno and Brest regions. You may be right, but I am also sure Polish history books explain this another way. I do not then know who is right. Perhaps it was also a matter of different social classes? But yes, I have in fact heard that GDL's language was mainly belorussian...
Yes, Lenin "gave" independence to Finland in december 1917, but soon later a civil war began in Finland between "whites" and "reds", the "reds" trying to make a soviet socialistic state of Finland. Same kind of civil war started also in Baltic countries. In all of them, the "white" side won.
Posts: 1,590
Threads: 117
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Russia indeed used to be an aggressor, but it's all in the past. Today, Russia is a friendly country that tries to cooperate with the rest of the world. But the world still perceive it as an aggressor.
Posts: 94
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Salomo Wrote:You REALLY can not say Russia was never agressor!! [/b]USSR attacked Finland in 1939, trying to occupy it entirely. Fortunately we managed to fight them back. But USSR occupied the Baltic countries in 1940 and started deporting anti-socialist people to Siberia. After very unfair elections, they installed socialist puppet governments which "applied" for membership in USSR, which they got. For the Balt peoples, USSR occupied their countries and held them in their imperialistic control until 1990-91.
The situation with Finland reminds a bit the situation with Georgia nowadays. There was an anti-russian disposition of its goverment, as said your president (1931-1937): "Any enemy of Russia must always be a friend of Finland ". There was a difficult time, Russia tried to secure its north-western territories including Leningrad. Besides Russia was ruled by Stalin, georgian guy and he ruled in oriental way.
Salomo Wrote:Other examples when USSR was agressor: Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979....
It was just a propagation of communist ideology which finally destroyed USSR. Nowadays the USA makes the same thing explaining all by struggling for democratic values, the list of US aggression is much longer than Soviet one.
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
russian999 Wrote:Quote:Why would democracy be bad for Chinese?? It has never been tried. Never. So how can you pretend that?
In most of examples, in which totalitarian regime has brought some "law and order" which was needed and the nation after that has became prosperous - could democracy not have done the same??
Look at Spain, for example. Why the dictatorship of Franco did have to last so long? Meant just to fight against communism, there was no need to keep it for many decades!
It is often said that democracy need a middle-class for functioning. In China, there starts to be a significant middle-class. So why not democracy... soon?
I think my georgians opponents does not know wery well about the roots of democracy. Were das democracy came from? Its came from protestants way of serving god. Max Weber writings clearly shows this fact. That is why for nation, wich do not have christian-protestant background democracy is not usefull too much. Russians and Georgians are ortodox christians and china - confucionists country. See - we are not protestants, for our mentality democracy is allien.
My dear Russian opponent, please do not tech us what democracy is and what is the democracy history. Weber has never stated that some countries can not build democracy, what Weber was talking was about capitalizm and religion... So as Kofi Anan said, people are not born democratic, democarcy are values that do not contradict any reliogion direction... So do not blame Weber for that he has never told....
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
I would like to comment the joined interview of Sarkozi and Medvedev... How Medvedev behaved was really funny... This small person with ambition to rule the whole world behaved like a child... As french sources tell Sarkozi wanted to leave negotiations due to Russian misbehavour... Finally European made russians to agree to take the troops from Georgia... It seems Russians made several steps back, but on interview they behaved like they got what they wanted... Funny... To my mind, Medvedev is too far from being real politician... Sarkozi was talking about the issues which where the topic of negotiations, but Medvedev as well as Saakashvili pushed him to say something they wanted to hear but Without any result... Childish politicians will make serious truble to the world..........
Posts: 647
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:I would like to comment the joined interview of Sarkozi and Medvedev... How Medvedev behaved was really funny... This small person with ambition to rule the whole world behaved like a child... As french sources tell Sarkozi wanted to leave negotiations due to Russian misbehavour... Finally European made russians to agree to take the troops from Georgia... It seems Russians made several steps back, but on interview they behaved like they got what they wanted... Funny... To my mind, Medvedev is too far from being real politician... Sarkozi was talking about the issues which where the topic of negotiations, but Medvedev as well as Saakashvili pushed him to say something they wanted to hear but Without any result... Childish politicians will make serious truble to the world..........
Didnt Medvedev got what he wanted? He wanted to keep russian troops on georgian territory you think? It is interesting. I think he will now build all kind of relations with S Osetia and Abkchazia while EU garantees thier independance in fact. But we will see.
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
SiD Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:I would like to comment the joined interview of Sarkozi and Medvedev... How Medvedev behaved was really funny... This small person with ambition to rule the whole world behaved like a child... As french sources tell Sarkozi wanted to leave negotiations due to Russian misbehavour... Finally European made russians to agree to take the troops from Georgia... It seems Russians made several steps back, but on interview they behaved like they got what they wanted... Funny... To my mind, Medvedev is too far from being real politician... Sarkozi was talking about the issues which where the topic of negotiations, but Medvedev as well as Saakashvili pushed him to say something they wanted to hear but Without any result... Childish politicians will make serious truble to the world..........
Didnt Medvedev got what he wanted? He wanted to keep russian troops on georgian territory you think? It is interesting. I think he will now build all kind of relations with S Osetia and Abkchazia while EU garantees thier independance in fact. But we will see.
Yes, I think he wanted... Because if you have seen how Russian troops were preparing in Poti, where I live, you would have changed your mind... They really were preparing for long stay... Do you remember the first meeting of Putin and Saakashvili, where saakashvili made several serious comments even without any foundation, it was like saakashvili defeated Putin, but it was illusion, the same feeling I had about Medvedev meeting with sarkozi... He showed like he got what he wanted, it was also diplomatically incorrect to talk about issues out of negotiations scope... I think Medvedev was very weak as a politician and sarkozi looked more serious and adaquate.....
Posts: 647
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:Yes, I think he wanted... Because if you have seen how Russian troops were preparing in Poti, where I live, you would have changed your mind... They really were preparing for long stay... Do you remember the first meeting of Putin and Saakashvili, where saakashvili made several serious comments even without any foundation, it was like saakashvili defeated Putin, but it was illusion, the same feeling I had about Medvedev meeting with sarkozi... He showed like he got what he wanted, it was also diplomatically incorrect to talk about issues out of negotiations scope... I think Medvedev was very weak as a politician and sarkozi looked more serious and adaquate.....
Dont you think it could be a trick? For example to trade it for something more usefull (what for to keep some troops near Poti?), or it could be done to make EU diplomacy look stronger, what they realy accomplished? But russian troops out (even if they werent intendent to stay wery long in first place) could be seen as diplomatic victory, and make EU look better.
It could be even prepared long before as means to save face for west or for d trade. To make Medvedev look willing for compromise.
Posts: 53
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:IThis small person with ambition to rule the whole world Who told you that?
lashachochua Wrote:My dear Russian opponent, please do not tech us what democracy is and what is the democracy history Of cource only you cat teach the whole world what is democracy. So tell me please what is it?
Posts: 19
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Faw_Peter Wrote:Russia indeed used to be an aggressor, but it's all in the past. Today, Russia is a friendly country that tries to cooperate with the rest of the world. But the world still perceive it as an aggressor. Yes, WITH THE REST OF WORLD, but not with caucasian countries. It is too evident!!!!
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Eugene from Belarus Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:IThis small person with ambition to rule the whole world Who told you that?
lashachochua Wrote:My dear Russian opponent, please do not tech us what democracy is and what is the democracy history Of cource only you cat teach the whole world what is democracy. So tell me please what is it?
Just you have to read what about it was told. It was about Weber, like he said that it is difficult to build democracy in countries like China for example... So it was reply on this, you have just to read carefully....
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
SiD Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:Yes, I think he wanted... Because if you have seen how Russian troops were preparing in Poti, where I live, you would have changed your mind... They really were preparing for long stay... Do you remember the first meeting of Putin and Saakashvili, where saakashvili made several serious comments even without any foundation, it was like saakashvili defeated Putin, but it was illusion, the same feeling I had about Medvedev meeting with sarkozi... He showed like he got what he wanted, it was also diplomatically incorrect to talk about issues out of negotiations scope... I think Medvedev was very weak as a politician and sarkozi looked more serious and adaquate.....
Dont you think it could be a trick? For example to trade it for something more usefull (what for to keep some troops near Poti?), or it could be done to make EU diplomacy look stronger, what they realy accomplished? But russian troops out (even if they werent intendent to stay wery long in first place) could be seen as diplomatic victory, and make EU look better.
It could be even prepared long before as means to save face for west or for d trade. To make Medvedev look willing for compromise.
Yes SiD the whole life is a huge trick?!... Sorry I do not think in this way....
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Eugene from Belarus Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:IThis small person with ambition to rule the whole world Who told you that?
lashachochua Wrote:My dear Russian opponent, please do not tech us what democracy is and what is the democracy history Of cource only you cat teach the whole world what is democracy. So tell me please what is it?
What do you think what is the multi-polar world for Putin or Medvedev?...
I really want to know answer on this question....
Also, if you have listened to Medvedev, you would have to make some conlusions... may be from russian side it is difficult to see what we see outside of russia...
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Edward Lucas’s book The New Cold War caused a stir when it was released a little while back. Now Lucas must be feverishly scribbling a new forward to the second edition, perhaps entitled ’see, I told you this would happen’.
We at SOS have always admired Lucas, but before August many of us considered him a bit hard line. Not anymore. It does now seem clear that Russia’s actions in Georgia have finally roused the west out of it’s negligent slumber, and the like it or not, we are all retreating into a ‘Cold-War Lite’ situation.
It’s all too easy for such labels to be thrown around, but often they can obscure as much as they reveal. So why Cold War Lite? In terms of an emerging high stakes diplomatic stand off, yes this is a bit like the Cold War. But there is a crucial element missing.
The Cold War was not just about arms races and spheres of influence, it was also war of competing ideologies. Say what you like about communism (even its Soviet incarnation), at least it’s something people can believe in. The USSR may have enslaved nations and killed millions, but there was goal in sight. People around the world who had never been to the Soviet Union could still be inspired by visions of the just and fair society that was supposedly being built there. The crimes and excesses of the regime could be rationalised by intellectuals as necessary evils in the construction of the communist Jerusalem—hell, even their national anthem was uplifting.
Other than the tune to that national anthem, oil and weapons, what can today’s Russia—as successor to the USSR—offer? If Marxism was soft power on steroids, what weaponised ideology does the Kremlin have at it’s disposal today?
None. Russia has nothing to offer. If during the real Cold War you could sign up and build a better, fairer future, today you are offered a bastardised western life style as your reward for loyal service to the cause. If you don’t make trouble, don’t ask any awkward question and do what we say most of the time—then maybe you can go to San Moritz this winter.
The west is still offering what it always has—freedom, democracy and a market economy. These are the things that Georgia has been struggling so hard to achieve, and the fact that it was doing a good job is one of the reasons Russia invaded.
But Russia, in the long run, is bound to lose the Cold War Lite, just as it did the last time. The idea that you can live in an independent, prosperous and free country is always going to trump Russia’s ‘if you keep quiet we won’t beat you up’ diplomatic strategy. It’s just a matter of time.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm and is filed under Analysis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Posts: 29
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
What is FREEDOM? 14 republics of ex-USSR got the freedom. Who won here? The citizens of those states? Russia lost nothing. They lost support of Russia. Russia is no longer need to feeed their poor economies. What is freedom for Chechnya? Is it to be under Muslim Fundamentalists in abject poverty with every day violence, or is it to live in peace with Russian pensions, sick payments, health care etc, ?
Average salary in the Russian city where I live is about 1000 USD and it is growing, average salary in the Dushanbe (Capital of Tajikistan) is 5-10 USD. Well, they got their independence. Good luck!)))
Posts: 469
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
You should've mentioned other poor cities of Russia too.
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Verb Wrote:What is FREEDOM? 14 republics of ex-USSR got the freedom. Who won here? The citizens of those states? Russia lost nothing. They lost support of Russia. Russia is no longer need to feeed their poor economies. What is freedom for Chechnya? Is it to be under Muslim Fundamentalists in abject poverty with every day violence, or is it to live in peace with Russian pensions, sick payments, health care etc, ?
Average salary in the Russian city where I live is about 1000 USD and it is growing, average salary in the Dushanbe (Capital of Tajikistan) is 5-10 USD. Well, they got their independence. Good luck!)))
Freedom is something that you will never understand? Yes, sometimes it is better to be free than be feeded by governor country... Freedom for Chechnya should have been living without russian rule, withoul killed chechens, without russian bombs,... What did Russia do?...
Posts: 322
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Quote:The larger dilemma facing the (USA) administration is how to show Russia that it made a serious mistake in invading Georgia, without making Moscow feel even more isolated and aggressive. In the view of administration officials, the new Russia has one foot in the 21st century and a growing stake in the global marketplace. But Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has been driving Georgia policy, is seen by Washington as having his other foot in the 19th century -- with an outmoded "great power" mystique about Russia's interests in which he sees control of physical space as the key to security and stability.
Russia has paid a big economic cost over the past month for Putin's atavistic strategy. The Russian ruble has fallen sharply, forcing the central bank to intervene to bolster the currency. The Russian stock market has also tumbled, with the benchmark RTS index losing about $290 billion in value since Aug. 7. Frightened by Putin's adventurism, investors have pulled as much as $21 billion out of the country over the past few weeks, according to a Goldman Sachs report cited Friday by the Financial Times.
The administration wants to keep Putin from driving Russia off a cliff. They view his successor, President Dmitry Medvedev, as a man who understands that Russia's future is as a 21st-century power. They want to avoid a strategy that unintentionally undermines Medvedev and bolsters the Putin camp.
So this is what it has come to for the Bush administration in what may be its last foreign policy crisis: No saber-rattling; no calls to expel Russia from the Group of 8, à la McCain. Instead, a patient effort to work with Europe, in partnership with French diplomats, for heaven's sake! And a policy premised on the idea that global capital markets are a better constraint than U.S. bluff and bluster.
Posts: 53
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:Eugene from Belarus Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:IThis small person with ambition to rule the whole world Who told you that?
What do you think what is the multi-polar world for Putin or Medvedev?...
I really want to know answer on this question....
Also, if you have listened to Medvedev, you would have to make some conlusions... may be from russian side it is difficult to see what we see outside of russia... Multi-polar is antonym to unipolar. It's the situation when vital decisions are taken not in favour of one country (that would lead to arbitrariness and abuse of power) but when decisions are taken on the bases of equity, fairness. The system of checks and balances should be not only inside the state, but also in international relations. That's the key point of UN charter. And this is idea that is supported by Russia. Medvedev does not want to rule the world as you said. He wants to live in fair and secure world.
Posts: 53
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:My dear Russian opponent, please do not tech us what democracy is and what is the democracy history
Of cource only you cat teach the whole world what is democracy. So tell me please what is it?
Just you have to read what about it was told. It was about Weber, like he said that it is difficult to build democracy in countries like China for example... So it was reply on this, you have just to read carefully.... So what is it? imagine i'm belarussian living to your point of view in totalitarian country. And you exporting your democracy to my country. And you will install democracy in my country even if you should kill half of belorussian (the same is going on in Iraq today). Sure you know that democracy is much better for me even then life becouse you much cleverer then me. So, what is democracy?
Posts: 647
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:SiD Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:Yes, I think he wanted... Because if you have seen how Russian troops were preparing in Poti, where I live, you would have changed your mind... They really were preparing for long stay... Do you remember the first meeting of Putin and Saakashvili, where saakashvili made several serious comments even without any foundation, it was like saakashvili defeated Putin, but it was illusion, the same feeling I had about Medvedev meeting with sarkozi... He showed like he got what he wanted, it was also diplomatically incorrect to talk about issues out of negotiations scope... I think Medvedev was very weak as a politician and sarkozi looked more serious and adaquate.....
Dont you think it could be a trick? For example to trade it for something more usefull (what for to keep some troops near Poti?), or it could be done to make EU diplomacy look stronger, what they realy accomplished? But russian troops out (even if they werent intendent to stay wery long in first place) could be seen as diplomatic victory, and make EU look better.
It could be even prepared long before as means to save face for west or for d trade. To make Medvedev look willing for compromise.
Yes SiD the whole life is a huge trick?!... Sorry I do not think in this way....
Havent said about whole life. Why to keep anyone in Georgia? Give me at least one reasonable point. To just worsen relations with west?
Posts: 647
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
lashachochua Wrote:Freedom is something that you will never understand? Yes, sometimes it is better to be free than be feeded by governor country... Freedom for Chechnya should have been living without russian rule, withoul killed chechens, without russian bombs,... What did Russia do?... Almost exactly what you have done with s Osetia, but unlike Georgia Russia can solve internal problems without foreign interferance.
In your many posts i see you are speaking about ideology and such. And there is always: you cant offer, they wont belive. I say we dont care. You must understand simple thing we are INDEPENDENT. Our ideals are ours if someone belives them its good if he dont it is his problem. Thats all. no need to make whole world belive your ideology to defend countrys interests.
Posts: 61
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
SiD Wrote:lashachochua Wrote:Freedom for Chechnya should have been living without russian rule, withoul killed chechens, without russian bombs,... What did Russia do?... Almost exactly what you have done with s Osetia....
Ok, you admit that Russia behaved as "barbaristically" in Chechnya than Saakashvili in South Ossetia. And in Chechnya this dured for many many years, the time for Groznyi to be totally bombed down. I see a lot of "double standards" in Russia's behaviour. Fighting Islamic terrorism is not an acceptable reason for me, because also Saakashvili could say he is fighting smugglers' mafia (South Ossetia seems to be famous for this activity). None of them give the right to bomb down civilian towns. Don't you admit this?
And, about Chechnya again... not all of Chechen leaders were radical Islamists!! Look at Aslan Maskhadov, he was moderate. Russia should have supported him against the more radical ones. But Russia chose to kill him first and leave Shamil Basayev and other radicals alive for a while, to pretend that "all Chechen leaders are terrorists".
Posts: 94
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
I see no link between the situation in Chechenya and S. Ossetia. Did Ossetians attacked georgian territories, wanted to occupy georgian lands, killed civilians, captured people for selling on slaves markets? They did not. Ossetians only wanted to live in peace.
Posts: 647
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Salomo Wrote:Ok, you admit that Russia behaved as "barbaristically" in Chechnya than Saakashvili in South Ossetia. And in Chechnya this dured for many many years, the time for Groznyi to be totally bombed down. I see a lot of "double standards" in Russia's behaviour. Fighting Islamic terrorism is not an acceptable reason for me, because also Saakashvili could say he is fighting smugglers' mafia (South Ossetia seems to be famous for this activity). None of them give the right to bomb down civilian towns. Don't you admit this?
And, about Chechnya again... not all of Chechen leaders were radical Islamists!! Look at Aslan Maskhadov, he was moderate. Russia should have supported him against the more radical ones. But Russia chose to kill him first and leave Shamil Basayev and other radicals alive for a while, to pretend that "all Chechen leaders are terrorists".
I have already posted differences between Chechen wars and S Osetia. I dont want to repeat myself.
You fight smugglers with heavy weapons? Parhaps you need tank to catch criminal? Is your police works such way?
|
