originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
. . . He doesn't want anti government sentiment when he's working so hard to benefit the Russia people, . . . .
Today, The president of America destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . He doesn't want anti government sentiment when he's working so hard to benefit
the American people.
Sound about right?
Respectfully I will reply to you first.
Unlike Russia the United States of America is not a native territory belonging to the majority of its inhabitants, therefore its government requires
extra massive defence budgets and domineering foreign policy in order to feel secure... Actually because of the US, Russia is the same...
A reply to SlAYER69
Putin is a smart man. He's working hard for to benefit the Russian people, and he's protecting them from destabilisation. He has seen the consequences
and power of American foreign intervention above and below the surface in Cold war and post cold war pro western political maneuvers in his native
country, as the countries president, and as a KGB officer... He has witnessed the fall of Libya into anarchy at the hands of USA foreign policy
agendas / stupidity, the fall of Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine, and he knows its consequences. So he doesnt want to allow the same thing to happen in
Russia, and if you think they won't try you're very mistaken.
He's no idiot, and for the time being he is bolstering state securities because he knows there are operatives in his state sponsored by foreign powers
to spread lies rumours alegations gossip and defamations against the russian government to create hostility and distrust in the will of his people
toward the governemt, in order to destabilise the country leading to a possible overthrowing of the government down the road if their anti Putin
propaganda works... The reason is because politically geographically the Russian federation poses a major obatacle in the formation of the
NWO......... You dont know what I mean by NWO, because you probably are the NWO
Let's talk a little bit about history.
"Remoteness ensured that Russia’s government was not tempered by a European-style renaissance or a religious reformation in the early modern period.
Russia was close enough to the industrial revolution to appreciate massive European developments, but sufficiently distant to question whether such
change would be suitable for, or welcome in, Russia. Alexander III (1881-1894) and Nicholas II (1894-1917) allowed some limited industrial
modernisation in Russia, but they attempted to create a permeable barrier along Russia’s European frontiers which could filter out the damaging
westernising side-effects of these changes. Failure to achieve this contributed to the decline of the tsars’ power and the spread of revolutionary
Russia’s geography and climate hindered her development through the nineteenth century, at a time when the rest of Europe was modernising. The
country was unlikely to experience a European-style agrarian revolution, and thus it would have been almost impossible for Russia to undergo a
spontaneous industrial revolution. Agriculture was too precarious.
Perversely, the regions worst suited to agriculture receive the highest levels of rainfall. Whereas precipitation in Western Europe is distributed
evenly through the year, July and August tend to deliver around 25 per cent of annual rain in European Russia. In the 1800s, in the south and west,
Russia’s most productive soil regions, rainfall patterns (droughts in early summer and/or downpours around harvest time) conspired to ruin one
harvest in three.
Even when the harvest was good, yields were poor compared with the rest of Europe. By the nineteenth century, Russian yields (the number of grains
harvested for every one sown) had barely increased since the Middle Ages, while average Western European yields had increased by four and a half
times. A major reason for this was that farmers simply did not attempt to improve production. Communications were so poor that any potential market in
a city was too far away for individual farmers to supply. Farming was so difficult that many Russians viewed it as something to escape from.
Even after the 1861 Emancipation, Russia’s peasant farmers felt no inclination to seek better results. The peasant’s commune or mir (the word also
means ‘universe’) taught him all he needed to work his land. His only other source of knowledge (peasants were usually illiterate) was the Church,
which, stultified with superstitious beliefs about the natural world, ensured that any wisdom about improving agricultural practices would have been
rejected or ignored. Added to this, the unpredictability of weather patterns and the lack of a financial incentive meant that Russia’s farmers did
not spend time, money or effort trying to increase production.
Russia’s short growing season (six months on the steppe, compared with around nine months in Western Europe) means that agricultural activity must
be an extremely intensive burst of work in the warmer months which might, or might not, pay off at harvest time.
Fertilising the soil could have improved peasants’ yields significantly. However, long snowy winters and frequent food shortages made it difficult
to keep livestock healthy. A lack of manure, and slow decomposition in Russia’s cold climate, meant that land recovered very slowly. The simplest
way to find fertile soil was to look for virgin land. The total area being farmed increased from 197 to 317 million acres between 1809 and 1887, with
new farms developing in the north and east. Here the land was less fertile and larger farms were needed to produce the same unreliable results. The
population was increasing significantly (from 45.6 million in 1800 to 125 million by 1901, for example), and this, combined with ‘land hunger’,
created mass dissatisfaction. Later tsarist policies tended to make it harder for peasants to leave their mir and, as families grew in size, many
peasants found themselves farming plots which were simply too small to feed them adequately.
Without an agricultural surplus first, Russia could never have supported a ‘natural’ industrial revolution, as Britain did.
In 1891-2, a famine occurred in an area of around 900,000 square miles in the fertile areas around the River Volga. It affected between 14 and 20
million people, and killed an estimated 400,000. Though many of these casualties occurred as a result of disease, a study of this famine (and of many
others in Russian history) leads the historian to an inescapable conclusion. Any study of the geography and climate of Russia through its recent
incarnations reminds Western students of a kind of distress which they will probably never experience. It is important to realise and to remember
that, because of natural geography and climate, Russia’s people have struggled to feed themselves adequately. This kind of perpetual, fundamental
concern for such a large proportion of the country’s population is perhaps one explanation why Russia’s rulers have found it relatively easy to
exert such strict control over their people."
edit on 3-8-2014 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason
edit on 3-8-2014 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-8-2014 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no