Lithuania says Russia reopens Soviet conscript cases

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Rocker2013

There is no reason for NATO to even exist. NATO was relevant in cold war. It is no longer relevant.

You are recreating history (violent as you say) by enlarging NATO. The better approach was to reduce militarization of East Europe which would have forced Russia to reduce its arms too.

You people think that peace can be achieved by violence. Fact is it is impossible. Look at Iraq.

You keep on quoting history. If you want peace, you have to look forwards not backwards.

NATO might very well have gone away if Russia could have just stopped starting conflicts in the states around it. Russia actions and threat has brough NATO back to life and with more nations wanting to join than ever. Maybe if Russia had something to offer other than threats other countries would want something to do with them.

You continue to blame the victim. For 10 full years Russia was in turmoil all through this the West moved for the kill. Can you show me any concrete evidence when NATO's war against Russia stopped?

I think it is too late now.

The States around Russia have a deep sense of prejudice against Russia. The biggest problem is that most of these post-Soviet States are too small to stand on their own feet. They need bigger powers to protect them. States like Georgia and Estonia have become USA's proxy in its war against Russia.

I understand that deep Western propaganda continues to dominate mind-share of posters on this board.

This is the reason I keep reminding people to learn something from Jesus Christ.

The Godly nature is renouncing earthly pleasures, not in embracing.

The deception and lies being produced on a minute-by-minute basis is a recipe for disaster.

originally posted by: GargIndia

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Rocker2013

There is no reason for NATO to even exist. NATO was relevant in cold war. It is no longer relevant.

You are recreating history (violent as you say) by enlarging NATO. The better approach was to reduce militarization of East Europe which would have forced Russia to reduce its arms too.

You people think that peace can be achieved by violence. Fact is it is impossible. Look at Iraq.

You keep on quoting history. If you want peace, you have to look forwards not backwards.

NATO might very well have gone away if Russia could have just stopped starting conflicts in the states around it. Russia actions and threat has brough NATO back to life and with more nations wanting to join than ever. Maybe if Russia had something to offer other than threats other countries would want something to do with them.

You continue to blame the victim. For 10 full years Russia was in turmoil all through this the West moved for the kill. Can you show me any concrete evidence when NATO's war against Russia stopped?

I think it is too late now.

The States around Russia have a deep sense of prejudice against Russia. The biggest problem is that most of these post-Soviet States are too small to stand on their own feet. They need bigger powers to protect them. States like Georgia and Estonia have become USA's proxy in its war against Russia.

If NATO had some war against Russia Ukraine, Georgia and the others all would have been in NATO in the 1990s and the Chechens would have had massive supply of arms. Instead NATO was courting Russia who was invited to and joined NATOs PFP, the NATO Russian Council, the Council or Europe, the new Paris treaty of the CSCE, the European Union-Russia Common Spaces, joint NATO Russian exercises etc. So the idea of NATOs war against Russia is either an attempt to ignore history or rewrite it. NATO considered Russia a partner and did nothing while it messed about it in several former Soviet Republics. Not to mention NATO shrunk its military to very low levels and most US force left Europe.

And small states exist all over the world. The only time they have trouble is when they have an agressive neighbor and that is a rare thing in the modern world.

originally posted by: GargIndia

You continue to blame the victim. For 10 full years Russia was in turmoil all through this the West moved for the kill. Can you show me any concrete evidence when NATO's war against Russia stopped?

What war against Russia?

Russia's turmoil was entirely self inflicted from within, as those Russians who could sacked the country - none of the Oligarchs were foreigners!!!! The 1991 coup attempt wasn't by westerners!!

The States around Russia have a deep sense of prejudice against Russia. The biggest problem is that most of these post-Soviet States are too small to stand on their own feet. They need bigger powers to protect them.

Only from Russia - there are plenty of states in eth world smaller than Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, etc that are able to stand on their own feet without having to bother about being swallowed up by Russia.

States like Georgia and Estonia have become USA's proxy in its war against Russia.

On the contrary - states like Georgia and Estonia have had to look to the West to help them against the aggression of Russia, which started the instant the USSR fell apart - in every case of independence of former SSR's the Russian SSR fought hard to stop it happening, sometimes launching coup attempts such as that in Lithuania, or sending tanks to attempt to stop the Estonian Supreme Soviet from declaring independence.

the people of Russia have never enjoyed civil society or rule of law - for their entire history they have always been at he mercy of one set of autocrats or another - the Rurikids, the Romanovs, the communists, the Oligarchs or Tsar Putin - it is little wonder that those who can look elsewhere for a type of society that allows them moer freedom and liberty!

a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

Yes i am quite sure Lithuania is truthful to there words. For a Nation thats enjoying the EU Crisis and acts like a pawn to EU and NATO.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Your views are prejudiced and one-sided. It is not appropriate to reply to such prejudiced post.

You fail to see the errors of the Western "democracies". For me, it is more important to be right than to be democratic. A thief is a thief even if democratically elected.

You live in a society where taxation is very high, means you are enslaved through economic means if not put outright in jail. You have survived due to scientific advancement but degraded the home planet in the process. Your greed and arrogance has no bounds.

a reply to: GargIndia

Pot.. meet Kettle..

Are you trying to state your views are not prejudiced and one sided?

LOLOLOLOL

What does any of that have to do with his post or the topic?

Do you have anything to add to the topic or are we to the point where you cant refute facts and opt instead to just attack people? what good does Russia do by reopening an investigation into which they have no jurisdiction to investigate?

a reply to: GargIndia

Sounds to me like you can't dismiss the substance of his post so you are changing topics. Won't work.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

acts like a pawn to EU and NATO

Except that it's probably the only nation in the EU and NATO that is being so vocal against Russia. And not because that was the EUs or NATOs position, quite the opposite. Lithuania was screaming about Russia for years. At first, the West thought we were just paranoid and only now they're waking up. So "a pawn of EU and NATO"?.. Nah.. just a country that remembers the hundreds of years of back and fort occupation and terror by different Russian regimes. But how could you understand that, when you believe that all the Russian atrocities didn't even happen.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: Wirral Bagpuss

Yes i am quite sure Lithuania is truthful to there words. For a Nation thats enjoying the EU Crisis and acts like a pawn to EU and NATO.

I am sure it has nothing to with a long history of Russian invasions and occupations... Your not even trying anymore. Granted the Russians are not giving you much to work with.

originally posted by: GargIndia

Your views are prejudiced and one-sided. It is not appropriate to reply to such prejudiced post.

And yet you did.....

lol - talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

my views are indeed prejudiced - everyone's are - it is not possible to be unprejudiced and also a human being.

However I have been a keen amateur student of Russian and Soviet history since I was 12 years old - which is over 40 years ago now. I have many works on my shelves about the Kievan Rus and the Varangians, the Golden Horde, I have Zhukov's memoirs, Gorshakov's "Red Star Rising at Sea", A biography of Peter the Great, works on many military campaigns and social history, the communist revolution (of course), and more modern history.

I have long thought the Russian people deserve a lot better than the #ty political leadership they have had to endure for their entire recorded history.

I have corresponded privately with many "ordinary" Russians and Ukrainians in the last 15-20 years thanks to the opening of their societies, and I think they have told me quiet honestly what they think.

so no, I do not think my views are not particularly one-sided.

Yours, OTOH, aseem to fit the description quite well!

You fail to see the errors of the Western "democracies".

bullshirt.

For me, it is more important to be right than to be democratic.

IMO it is better to be right AND democratic. And it is always better not to be an aggressive a-hole to your neighbours whether democratic or not.

A thief is a thief even if democratically elected.

where did I say otherwise?

A thief is also a thief if a dictator - and also a dictator to boot.

You live in a society where taxation is very high,

No, actually I do not.

means you are enslaved through economic means if not put outright in jail. You have survived due to scientific advancement but degraded the home planet in the process. Your greed and arrogance has no bounds.

I'm sure it does have bounds - I am not infinite in extent

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Hi Aloysius the G,
I know we have debated on topics in the past, but I've been following along with the threads about the situation in the former ssr's, and you have had level headed and concise commentary, and should be commended for it.

Lithuania is the only, other than Russia, historical empire in Eastern Europe.

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a European state from the 12th century[1] until 1795.[2] It was founded by the Lithuanians, one of the polytheistic Baltic tribes from Aukštaitija.[3][4][5] The duchy later expanded to include large portions of the former Kievan Rus' and other Slavic lands, covering the territory of present-day Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania, and parts of Estonia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. At its greatest extent in the 15th century, it was the largest state in Europe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Lithuania might be up to something.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

not so. there's also Sweden, the Mongol empire/Golden Horde, and Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty until 1572

and the Lithuanian "empire" is more accurately known as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth - it was a form of elective monarchy that took about 100 years to form after various attempts through the 1500's, and Poland was the dominant partner.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Semicollegiate

not so. there's also Sweden, the Mongol empire/Golden Horde, and Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty until 1572

and the Lithuanian "empire" is more accurately known as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth - it was a form of elective monarchy that took about 100 years to form after various attempts through the 1500's, and Poland was the dominant partner.

Sweden and Poland are central European Catholic in origin, the Mongols are Eastern intruders, only the Russians and the Lithuanians could be considered as indigenous eastern Europeans, like the Ukrainians and Belarus.

Lithuanians could have more affinity with the non-Russian eastern Europeans than the West in general has.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm sure Swedes and Poles would be surprised to find themselves considered central Europeans!!

originally posted by: GargIndia
The States around Russia have a deep sense of prejudice against Russia.

Ever wonder why that might be?
Maybe it was all those decades being under their iron thumb eh?

The biggest problem is that most of these post-Soviet States are too small to stand on their own feet. They need bigger powers to protect them.

Why would this even be something to worry about for them?
Maybe it has something to do with Russia being a neighborhood bully?

a reply to: MrSpad

No, and this is why. Russia recognizes Lithuania as an independent counry (along with the rest of the world) and has done so for for 3 decades once it attack on Lithuania failed as the entire Soviet Union collapsed. Even Russia itself declalred its sovereignty from the USSR in 1990. So trying to compare the two has zero merit

Sorry, all your history is wrong. I can't even start discussing this when you have such distorted views.
I was in Latvia at this time, and we had similar situation to Lithuania. Please, go first read at least Lithuanian redaction of history. After I can give some personal insights if you like.

This would be more like the Confedrate States of America trying to go after deserters from its forces 3 decades after the CSA ceased to exist.

This I can agree, I don't think Russia have legal rights to send those deserters to jail after 24 years. Btw, i checked primary source, and it is "no news" in Lithuania and i couldn't even find this article in Lithuanian.

Russia doesn't have long history of crimes against Baltic states. Be more specific please.

Based on how many stars you received it will be hard task to explain how really Latvia and Estonia and Lithuania gained independence.
I don't have time to write here full historical analysis, those interested can find materials even in english version wikipedia, although it
will be not 100% accurate, but still much closer to truth that what you said

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: MrSpad

Russia doesn't have long history of crimes against Baltic states.

??? Really?

for Lithuania it dates back in modern times to the dismemberment of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth in 1792? then there's the nationalist uprisings in 1831 & 1863, subsequent "Russification" of the country, banning the language, closing "native" educational and cultural institutions?

and of course the Russo-Lithuanian war of 1918-20, and the 1940 invasion and occupation until 1991

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
1792

After the Second Partition, the liquidation of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was only a matter of time. The uprising of 1794 was the last attempt and the only possible way left to preserve the state heading for destruction. An enormous military effort was made, but szlachta's resistance to full implementation of Kościuszko's social reform left some human resources beyond the reach of the insurgency. Kościuszko Uprising was dominated by the May 3 Constitution era reformers; for most szlachta the Constitution's reforms were the maximum they would tolerate.[37]

The uprising fell because of the overwhelming military advantage of Russia and Prussia, the greatest land powers in Europe. Possible external support, from the Ottoman Empire or revolutionary France, had failed to materialize. Russia ended up arbitrating partition disagreements between Prussia and Austria, which almost resulted in warfare. As Prussia left the anti-French coalition, Austria received the Russian support. The Third Partition border arrangements were arrived at on October 24, 1795.[37]

Prussia took over most of Mazovia and Lithuanian lands up to the Neman River (48,000 km2 and about 1 million people). Austria gained Lesser Poland up to the Bug River and parts of Podlasie and Mazovia (47,000 km2 and 1.5 million). The rest, the remaining eastern and northern portions of the Commonwealth, was acquired by Russia (120,000 km2 and 1.2 million).

It is more of Polish history, but in essence Prussia and Russia gained in this partition.

Russo-Lithuanian war - sorry first time I here such definition. I'm not expert in Lithuanian history, more like Latvian.
For example Latvian Red Regiment was considered to be Pretorian guard of Lenin. Some info there is even in english language, most in Russian. en.wikipedia.org...

1940 - Yes, USSR occupied Baltic states according with secret protocols Molotov/Ribbentropp. Somewhat similar situation to Polish Commonwealth partition.

and the 1940 invasion and occupation until 1991

You forget German occupation from 1941-1944 in between.

What we can see that those countries always suffered from Russia and Germany.
In some cases more from Germany, concerning Latvian history.
Latvia was occupied by Germany far longer and first time Latvian independent state appeared was in 1919-1920. Lithuania had longer history of independence in union with Poland. As for language persecution, let me say that Prussian originally was language very similar to Lithuanian/Latvian. Where is now Prussian ? Most people think it is authentic Germany instead lol