It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

russia back to U.S.S.R.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Did you know the Neo-Nazi party of Russia scores higher in the polls then the communist party in russia? Scary prospect imo.



Ya big time! Mainly because alot of the Mob bosses and those in power are jewish. I think they are seconf only to Italy which I belive has a 13% Neo-facist voting base. I repeat i am not shure!




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The communist party of Russia gets 2nd most votes after the United Russia party.

The neo nazi party's votes are so low, they aren't even displayed anywhere.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak


That's right they do. They have piles and piles of gold.

And have you seen inside the Kremlin? The whole friggin thing is made of gold
Saying Russia is poor is ridiculous. They have tonnes of money, so much infact they signed the Kyoto Protocol, unlike America




They really dont the Largest gold repository in the world is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

I dont all belong to the US it belongs to many countries but it all located in the US.

Then theres Fort Knox and the Denver mint

Russia ranks 12 in GDP behind brazil


BTW the US (wealthiest country on earth) didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol because of money it was because it was flawed and unfair allowing countries like China a free ride the second largest Polluter of these gases in the world.

All the experts agree the even if all countries followed Kyoto Protocol to the T it could only best case shave only 0.1º- .5 of a single degree off that amount of warming by 2050

What a big difference that would make



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
The current state of Russia is quite shocking, they have a declining 'first world' reproduction rate with an accelerating '3rd world' mortality rate.

Their AIDS problem is horrific and it has been pretty much ignored there to date and been written off as something happening to only a few (thanks to contact with 'Africans' or decadent westerners).

Marcel Theroux (son of Paul and brother of Louis......quite a family of talented broadcasters) has been there and the UK's 'More 4' channel is running a series of documentaries on Russia, Theroux's excellent 'Death of a Nation' is the first.


Facts about Russia:

- In the first six months of 2005, the Russian population fell by half a million;

- By the middle of this century Russia could lose up to half of its people, according to Russian government stats;

- Life expectancy for men is 56 years, the same as Bangladesh;

- Ten years ago, the life expectancy for men in Russia was 63;

- The World Health Organisation says that at a conservative estimate more than a million people will have died because of AIDS in Russia by 2020;

- Every other newborn baby is diagnosed with a disease at birth;

- There are more abortions every year in Russia than babies are born;

- Thanks to ill-health, 10 million Russians are infertile;

- A quarter of the population lives below the poverty line;

- Paradoxically, Moscow has more billionaires than any other city in the world;

- Although Russia's population is in freefall, they're still throwing people out.
Thirty thousand Meshket Turks have recently had to seek asylum in America, having been forced from their homes in the south of the country by discriminatory laws and racist attacks.

www.channel4.com...

- Russia has her (huge) problems and therefore some kind of (as Putin puts it) 'managed democracy' is probably inevitable if not actually desirable; however, if anyone wished to portray this as a return to the scary USSR days is, IMO, to fly utterly in the face of the reality out there.

Russia's problems are all about sustaining Russia and her own security and stability (something we all have an interest in), not a threatening 'outward' looking totalitarian state.

(the first program is available on bittorrent at this site which requires (free) membership and has a limited register but if you join and can get in it is worth it, the shows are of a very high quality and the rest of the series will turn up there later.
The site is UKNova - www.uknova.com...

If you can get in to the site the torrent is -
www.uknova.com...)



[edit on 22-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackSt33L

I believe russia will have enough influence to gain these states back because many of them having nothing going for them being soverieng.

Sure the baltic states are gaining a chance to joing the EU but this wont make them much of and influence than when they were apart of the U.S.S.R(remember that by the late 19th and the start of the 20th century much of the U.S.S.R`s political control were by politicians that came from the Baltic states.)



[edit on 2-10-2005 by blackSt33L]


Question: Have you ever been to the Baltic?

"Many of them having nothing going form them being soverieng"

You have got to be kidding me. They are finally free, they economy is better than it ever was under communism. The baltics never wanted communsim once they got their freedom in 1917. The only ones who wanted it were the jews and the Baltics "eradicated " those who wanted communism once the Nazi's came. The balitcs have more going for them than they ever had. Look at Estonia its the heart of computer techonolgy and manufacturing in Europe. Trust me the Balticcs never want to go back to the russians.

Russia might have influence in these countries but they shure as hell will never give up their freedom. These people have faught 500 years to keep their identy. They smuggled books to keep their language and traditions alive and faught partisan wars. The baltic was one major the soviet union fell. They faught against the soviets without weapons to gain freedom by forming chains and baracading themselves in television towers and parlamentry buidlings. They stood up agianst tanks and sang ethnic songs that everyone knew even after 50 years of soviet occupation. Aslo the baltics are joing the EU in 2007.

Lastly what important USSRfigures came from the Baltic? If anything they were Russian nationals in these countries or Communist Jews.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by thesnafued1]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Are the Russians going back to communism?

No. They are not stupid. They do not make the same mistake twice.

Are the Russians a clear and present danger to European peace and security?

Absolutely yes, they always have been, and it is about time that Europe woke up to this fact, stop chasing little Georgie Bush's willo-the-wisp terrorists, stop arguing amongst ourselves over petty squabbles and wake up to the real threat to Europe.

OK the above sounds like a paranoid rant, but before you dismiss it as such, check your history, look at the relationship between Europe and Russia.

The problem is the paranoia at the heart of the Russian mindset.

If the Russian does not dominate you. The Russian fears you.

This has been the same throughout history, in the 19th century the fear was not the "communist threat," but the "Russian Tyrant"

Beware the Russian Bear, regardless of his clothing.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi
check your history, look at the relationship between Europe and Russia.


- Yes check the history, several attacks and serious attempts at invasion and occupation, always from western Europe to Russia in the east.
No wonder they have been so paranoid about it and 'us'.

.....and what "arguing amongst ourselves" are we supposed to be doing right now anyway?
We have NATO and the EU as obvious examples of a Europe in all serious and meaningful respects united as never before.

It's also worth pointing out that we also have, on the whole, excellent relations between Russia and the EU as well as almost all of the European countries individually right now (perhaps Poland or the Baltic countries might not be so 'warm' towards them but that is certainly not typical of the whole 25 EU nations).

Russia might be many things but a "clear and present danger" to Europe she is not......and no mere claim to the contrary can refute that.

The data I provided above shows just how damaged Russia is these days, their economy might be better of late and they may be redressing some of the enormous dilapidation they have allowed their armed forces to get into but that is hardly particularly 'threatening' either.

The facts are that they want our money and trade not our territory (and considering that only a relatively short while ago they couldn't hold on to eastern Europe the idea that they want to attack, invade and occupy all of Europe, west, central and eastern, is more than just a tad implausible, IMO).

It is true that Russia is absolutely determined to protect herself and deny any attempts at weakening her further but that is a world away from the 'just-on-the-verge-of-being' threatening, aggressive and expansionist entity as you are suggesting.

There's an interesting take on Russia's position here and why Cheney & Co. are now keen to talk up the supposed 'threat' from Putin's repressive Russia - whilst at the same time being utterly hypocritical with the (much worse) ex-soviet states they want to transit or produce oil from -
www.alternet.org...

I also found this one of interest, it's clear that Russia isn't going to be a US lap-dog but that hardly makes her a threat to Europe or anyone else, despite what some might wish to claim.

Vladimir Putin spoke in measured tones Friday night about the relationship between Russia and the United States, saying there were more pluses than minuses. But he warned Washington about NATO expansion and signaled that Russia won't blindly follow the Americans into sanctions against Iran.

source


[edit on 3-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 3-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

- Yes check the history, several attacks and serious attempts at invasion and occupation, always from western Europe to Russia in the east.


Always from Western Europe? That statement is plain wrong. Just what historical texts have you been checking, did they mention for instance:

1980 The Soviets mass their troopls on the Polish border prior to General Jaruselskis military coup.

1979-1987 The Soviets invade Afghanistan

1968 The Soviets invade Czeckoslovakia

1956 The Soviets invade Hungary and crush the Hungarian uprising.

1945-1990 The Soviets occupy the whole of Eastern Europe.

1940 The Soviets invade Poland, in the winter of the same year they invade Finland.

1920 The Soviets have only been around three years and they are invading Poland. Hardly surorising that the Poles are not exactly "warm" to the Russians is it?

1914 The Russians invade Germany

1850-1860 The Russians embark on a campaign of conquest in central Asia during the course of which they will slaughter millions of Tajiks Uzbeks and Azarbaijanis.

1809 The Russians invade Sweden

The invasions of Turkey by the Russians in order to extend their sphere of influence to the Medditeranean are far to numerous to mention.


.....and what "arguing amongst ourselves" are we supposed to be doing right now anyway?


Difficult to know where to start with this one, but here goes:

constitutions that we do not need

farm subsidies that we do not need and price third world countries out of our markets.

rebates we do not need

An overburdensome agricultural and fisheries policy that everybody agrees (except the French) doesn't work, and needs to be reformed, but nobody has the slightest idea how to reform it, and even if they did nobody would agree to it anyway.

Accounts that haven't balanced in ten years TEN years!!

Need I mention bendy bananas and belgian chocolates.




Russia might be many things but a "clear and present danger" to Europe she is not......and no mere claim to the contrary can refute that.


Have you not heard about the Russian inteferance in Ukrainian elections?

Their threats to cut off oil and gas supplies to that country and the Baltic states?

Do you know that the Russian government regularly makes donations to pro-Russian/anti-EU political parties in the former Soviet Republics, something that is illegal here in the UK.

As for their military, I never mentioned that.

The new threat from Russia is not military it is economic. I mentioned in my last post that Russians are not stupid, and they seldom make the same mistake twice.

For instance their are well aware that the defeat of the Soviet Union in the cold war was an economic and not a military defeat.

They now know that in order to dominate us, they do not have to invade us, they merely have to make us dependant on them.

To this end in the 90s Yeltsin sold off the old state industries of the Soviet Union to the oligarchs. The oligarchs transformed these aging relics of communist state industry into leaner fitter business machines.

When Putin took power he re-nationalised these industries, and imprisoned or exiled the oligarchs.

Since taking posession of Russias oil and gas industry he has since used that to strong arm the former soviet republics into dancing to the Russian tune. We in the west would be unaware of this had not the Ukrainians risen up against the pro-Russian government that was imposed on them. Putin will see this as a temporary setback.

Once the Russians have brought the former soviet republics back into the fold they will apply the same tactics to Eastern Europe.

Then they will turn their attention West.

This may happen sooner than you think.

One third of Europes electricity is provided by Russia.

The Russian state owned oil and gas industry is expected to make a take-over bid for British Gas next year.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi
Always from Western Europe? That statement is plain wrong.


- OK, if you want to go back a few of centuries, resort to pedantry and cite a handful of border disputes then you can say that a few times it has been east to west.

I was expecting us to debate recent history and not the ancient kind.

I wouldn't call those old border disputes a threat to European peace today in the manner you seem determined to.


1980 troops on the Polish border .
1979 Afghanistan
1968 Czeckoslovakia
1956 crush the Hungarian uprising.
1945-1990 The Soviets occupy the whole of Eastern Europe.


- ....and so what?
Their Afghanistan disaster is nothing to do with Europe, or scary now.

The rest was all totally in accordance with the various agreements that the USSR made with Britain and USA during WW2 (they'd probably claim Afghanistan was too).
They had an agreed 'sphere of influence' following the victory at the end of WW2 and the (very costly) Russian liberation of those central and eastern European territories.

This could hardly be less relevant to your claims that Russia is much of a threat to Europe today.


1940 The Soviets invade Poland, in the winter of the same year they invade Finland.


- A border dispute and an example of the long-running historic 'bad blood' between Russia and Poland.

Stalin's actions aren't to be approved of but neither the old USSR, Stalin nor the centuries old story of the bad relations between Russia and Poland are really something I lose sleep about today, nor I suspect do many Europeans.


1920 The Soviets have only been around three years and they are invading Poland. Hardly surorising that the Poles are not exactly "warm" to the Russians is it?


- From 1795 until nov 1918 Poland didn't even exist.

No wonder there was big trouble just after her (re)creation.

Again, that's a very peculiar and unique set of circumstances and not exactly the kind of precedent to have the rest of Europe frightened about Russia today.


1914 The Russians invade Germany


- No, the correct phrase would be 'the great powers attack Germany'.
Russia acted completely under treaty obligations and only as ally and partner to France and Great Britain.

Again nothing like the scary precedent of an unprovoked unilateral attack that you seem to want to show.


1850-1860 The Russians embark on a campaign of conquest in central Asia during the course of which they will slaughter millions of Tajiks Uzbeks and Azarbaijanis.


- Again, nothing to do with today's Europe I thought we were been discussing.


1809 The Russians invade Sweden


- I suggest you look into the long-running wars between Sweden and Russia; Sweden was no innocent and started them too you know.

Sorry but once again this set of circumstances does not show Russia in the light you seem determined to paint her in.


The invasions of Turkey by the Russians in order to extend their sphere of influence to the Medditeranean are far to numerous to mention.


- ....and so what?
I had thought we were talking about the modern world.

I also could cite various European wars from the 19th century and much further back as reason why 'we' should find almost *any* other European country particularly scary but it would be utterly pointless and totally irrelevant to the situation 'we' face and are in today.


Difficult to know where to start with this one, but here goes:
constitutions ....
farm subsidies.....
rebates we do not need...........


- Sorry but to debate and modify agreed policy as 'we' go along isn't the kind of time wasting dispute you seem to think it is.

It is a perfectly normal aspect of a dynamic, democratic and cooperative union.

Perhaps you think some sort of dictated central message all must abide by would be better and then allow the EU to get on with, what?

( - wet dreaming over big militaries and 'looking outward'?!
)


Accounts that haven't balanced in ten years TEN years!


- I think you mean accounts that haven't been signed off by the auditors for over 10yrs.
(which is actually all about the nation states refusing to adopt practises that would reduce their own national sovereignty, not corruption and not a 'row')


Need I mention bendy bananas and belgian chocolates.


- That just sounds like a tabloid rant against the EU.
They're not the sort of thing that causes much argument or takes up much debate in the EU or the individual governments right now, actually.


Have you not heard about the Russian inteferance in Ukrainian elections?


- Have you not heard of the western interference in the Ukraine and elsewhere?
Do you imagine the USA would take kindly to that sort of 'outside interference' in, say, Mexico?


Their threats to cut off oil and gas supplies to that country and the Baltic states?


- When states make a free choice to leave 'the Russian club' then they can hardly expect the favourable terms those members of the 'club' received.
Last winter those that had left the 'club' were told pay western prices.
So what?
That was not a 'threat'.


the Russian government regularly makes donations to pro-Russian/anti-EU political parties in the former Soviet Republics, something that is illegal here in the UK.


- I hear all sorts goes on all over the place.
I do not expect Russia to welcome western interference in the former republics, why should they?


Russians are not stupid, and they seldom make the same mistake twice.
their are well aware that the defeat of the Soviet Union in the cold war was an economic and not a military defeat.


- Well stop pretending they are this 'threat' then.


They now know that in order to dominate us, they merely have to make us dependant on them.


- Russia economically "dominate" the EU?!
"Make us dependent on them!?"

Check the sizes of each economy.

Your potted history is basically all opinion.
If you read the links about Russia and the goings on in central republics now you would see how Russia actually is now and how she is working hard to hold herself together and free from outside manipulation.

The Ukraine is thinking twice about their 'Orange revolution' as life outside 'the club' isn't quite the ease and 'breeze' they imagined it would be.
www.cfr.org...

Russia wants trade, she will do more trade with us, so what?
We all benefit. Such is the nature of free trade in open markets.

Please decide, one minute we're all supposed to be scared of the historical military aggression (you think is all theirs), the next it is Russia at some point going to trade us to death.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I did not include a timeline with my last post in order to be either pedantic or irelevant.

It was included partly in response to your distorted, and patently false implication in your previous post that Russia had only ever been attacked from the West. In fact in the last 100 years Russia has been attacked once by the West in 1941. Partly it was included to illustrate the very relevant fact that Russian foreign policy towards her neighbours has remained unchanged since the days of the Tsars, the rest of my post explained that it has not changed since the fall of communism.

I was astounded that you chose to dismiss these tragic events from history as "border incidents." Stalin's invasion and bloody supression of the Hugarian uprising was not a "border incident." Likewise Tsarist Russias conquest of the Central Asian states amounted to genocide, again hardly a "border incident."

I mentioned Afghanistan as that is a very good, and fairly recent example of Russias desire, and the lengths she will go to to control those countries with which she shares a border.

In your post you seem to suggest that Russia has a right to do this. This is not the case no country has the right to directly or indirectly control another.

I take tremedous issue with the way that you describe Russias brutal dominance of the former Soviet Republics as a "club." These were slave states, they never chose to join any "club"

What I do not understand is the way that you and other lefties constantly try to justify Russias bullying attitude to their neighbours. When the United States takes similar actions against countries lefties like you are (and quite rightly so) up in arms against them. Yet when it comes to Russia, not only do you choose to turn a blind eye, you actively make excuses for them.

The entire tone of your last post reminds me of the writings of left-leaning "intellectuals" of the 40s and 50s who were constantly atempting to justify Stalin's exceses.

I will pass over the issues of the failings of EU internal management as these are peripheral to the main discussion.

By the way if the people of the Ukraine and the Baltic States chose to elect pro-EU governements that is not "Western interferance" as you put it, it is called democracy.

Likewise if those governments chose to enter into trading agreements with the EU, that is not called "Western interferance" it is called the exercise of sovreign rights.

I stand by the comments that I made in my original post on this topic.

That the Russian government actively seeks to secure it's borders by controlling those states with which it shares borders.

This is evidenced by;

Their increasing interferance within the internal affairs of those nations.

It's aggresive use of it's resources in order to bully those nations into toeing the line.

It's continuing on and off war of aggresion against Chechnya.

As Russia continues with this policy it is inevitable that she will come into conflict with the EU sooner or later. This is because;

As Russias economic grip on these nations tightens her economy will grow at the expense of theirs, and;

Since enlargement the EU now shares a border with Russia.

My personnal opinion is that this conflict will take the form of economic aggresion by Russia against the EU.

If you cannot see this then I respectfully urgen you to remove your head from the sand.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi
In fact in the last 100 years Russia has been attacked once by the West in 1941.


- OK, so we just forget about the western attacks in 1919?


I was astounded


- You want to try and watch that melodramatic tendancy.


that you chose to dismiss these tragic events from history as "border incidents." Stalin's invasion and bloody supression of the Hugarian uprising was not a "border incident."


- Much of what you choose to point to were just that and those that were not I never said were, I clearly said other events related to the 'sphere of influence' agreements made with the other allies that I referred to later.


I take tremedous issue with the way that you describe Russias brutal dominance of the former Soviet Republics as a "club." These were slave states, they never chose to join any "club"


- I think you'll find many countries were 'put together' in the dim and distant past through conquest.
That doesn't mean they are today 'slave states'.


What I do not understand is the way that you and other lefties


- Reduced to lame name calling?
Please.


constantly try to justify Russias bullying attitude to their neighbours.


- What "justifying"?
When a country freely exercises it's right to leave the Russian 'club' (for want of a better handy expression) and Russia then says OK but you will lose the benefits (such as very cheap energy) and pay the same price as the western countries you find that "bullying"?
(and in any event they even agreed to a staged gas price increase with the Ukraine when it was all over)


The entire tone of your last post reminds me of the writings of left-leaning "intellectuals" of the 40s and 50s who were constantly atempting to justify Stalin's exceses.


- Er, I "justified" nothing, actually.
As far as Stalin was concerned I merely mentioned the fact of the agreements he made with the western powers and that his actions were not to be applauded.


By the way if the people of the Ukraine and the Baltic States chose to elect pro-EU governements that is not "Western interferance" as you put it, it is called democracy.


- Well you can choose to believe it was a 'black and white' episode if you choose but from what I've read about it there was plenty of 'interference' going on on all sides.

.....and like I said (and as my link showed) they really are thinking twice about it all right now.


Likewise if those governments chose to enter into trading agreements with the EU, that is not called "Western interferance" it is called the exercise of sovreign rights.


- Of course, and we'll try get make sure they have as many elections as necessary until they come up with the right answer!


Tell me about the western backed "democracy" in Uzbekistan.

www.newamerica.net...

Open your eyes, if the old USSR had been making 'trading agreements' with, say, Wales over the heads of the rest of the UK and the UK government there would have been uproar. Same kind of thing.


It's continuing on and off war of aggresion against Chechnya.


- Horrendous as Chechnya is it is symptomatic of Russia trying to hold herself together, not expansionism.


My personnal opinion is that this conflict will take the form of economic aggresion by Russia against the EU.


- Again I invite you to compare the sizes of each economy.
Russia compared to the total EU is no threat economically.

"Economic aggression" is really just a blinkered understanding of trade.
It is not so one sided.
They need our money just as much as we need their raw materials.
The "economic aggression" you dream of would take time to take effect which would allow us to find short-term alternatives until we put in place a long-term solutions.......all of which would ultimately hurt the Russians, enormously and for the long term.


If you cannot see this then I respectfully urgen you to remove your head from the sand.


- I suggest you stop frightening yourself with silly anecdotes about of hungry bears and wake up to the modern reality which has a grievously damaged Russia interested mainly in her territorial integrity and with tackling her own enormous problems.

Even when she eventually manages to tackle that lot she still is of no economic size or power to threaten the EU......as if anyone seriously could in that way anyway in a world of relatively open markets and where Europe is one of the worlds leading technological centres.

But if you insist in frightening yourself with ridiculous, tall, ancient and very slanted tales who am I to stop you?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

that you chose to dismiss these tragic events from history as "border incidents." Stalin's invasion and bloody supression of the Hugarian uprising was not a "border incident."



- Much of what you choose to point to were just that and those that were not I never said were,


Where in your previous posts did you describe Russia' wars of aggresion as anything other than border incidents?

Oh you did describe the Soviet Union's 60 year campaign of supression and intimidation of Poland as "bad blood"


- Reduced to lame name calling?
Please.


Well if you are going to be an apologist for an aggresive expansionist regime expect to take some flack.


- What "justifying"?
When a country freely exercises it's right to leave the Russian 'club' (for want of a better handy expression) and Russia then says OK but you will lose the benefits (such as very cheap energy) and pay the same price as the western countries you find that "bullying"?


Except this is not about economics ist it?

It is about control. You know that even if you won't admit it.


(and in any event they even agreed to a staged gas price increase with the Ukraine when it was all over)


Following pressure from the international community the Russian bear backed down.


- Well you can choose to believe it was a 'black and white' episode if you choose but from what I've read about it there was plenty of 'interference' going on on all sides.


Evidence?


.....and like I said (and as my link showed) they really are thinking twice about it all right now.


Hardly surprisin following Russias bullying and intimidation.


Likewise if those governments chose to enter into trading agreements with the EU, that is not called "Western interferance" it is called the exercise of sovreign rights.



- Of course, and we'll try get make sure they have as many elections as necessary until they come up with the right answer! :lol


Evidence?


Open your eyes, if the old USSR had been making 'trading agreements' with, say, Wales over the heads of the rest of the UK and the UK government there would have been uproar. Same kind of thing.


Same kind of thing? Like hell. The same kind of thing would be Russia making trading agreements with France, and no there would not be uproar, they already do make such agreements. This country respects the sovreignty of other nations. Russia does not. Russia has no business dictating to independant nations who they can and cannot trade with. My original point stands. When the USA does this sort of thing people like you go apes##t.


- Horrendous as Chechnya is it is symptomatic of Russia trying to hold herself together, not expansionism.


Oh that's alright then!!! Just the Russians slaughtering thousands of innocent lives, in order to hold their stinking oppresive country together.

When the Red Army is watering it's horses in the Thames at Hendon, that'll be those nice cuddly Russians holding their country together.


- Again I invite you to compare the sizes of each economy.
Russia compared to the total EU is no threat economically.


So the Russian economy is smaller than ours. Is that your point?

Has it occured to you that throughout the cold war the Soviet economy was nowhere near the size of that of the United States?

Did that mean they were no threat?

Mind you, you probably think they were'nt



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi
Where in your previous posts did you describe Russia' wars of aggresion as anything other than border incidents?


- Er, the part(s) where I said -

I wouldn't call those old border disputes a threat to European peace today in the manner you seem determined to.

The rest was all totally in accordance with the various agreements that the USSR made with Britain and USA during WW2 (they'd probably claim Afghanistan was too).
They had an agreed 'sphere of influence' following the victory at the end of WW2 and the (very costly) Russian liberation of those central and eastern European territories.

This could hardly be less relevant to your claims that Russia is much of a threat to Europe today


But if you aren't even going to read what is said or the links provided then what is the point?


Well if you are going to be an apologist for an aggresive expansionist regime expect to take some flack.


- Naaa pal, too boring.

If you're going to be labelling anyone with a different POV to you an "apologist" and any other idiotic names then you can talk to yourself.
Enjoy. (or try again under another new name, socky)

You can indulge in your thinly veiled and rather obvious personal attacks as much as you like, but you'll be doing it alone.

Ta da.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

If you're going to be labelling anyone with a different POV to you an "apologist" and any other idiotic names then you can talk to yourself.
Enjoy. (or try again under another new name, socky)


Well can you think of a better term than "apologist" for somebody who insisits on justifying and excusing unjustifiable and inexcusable actions.

Besides, I don't know what you are getting your knickers in such a twist over.

"Apologist" is a mild term. If i felt like using intemperate langauge I could call you an "appeaser" or a "collabarator"



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi
Well can you think of a better term than "apologist" for somebody who insisits on justifying and excusing unjustifiable and inexcusable actions.

"Apologist" is a mild term. If i felt like using intemperate langauge I could call you an "appeaser" or a "collabarator"


- Jeez, is that the best you can do?
Some very lame attempts at justification (despite the name calling being against the rules here) for the name-calling and a few more laughably idiotic new ones added?


Besides, I don't know what you are getting your knickers in such a twist over.


- You wish.....which has been patently obvious right from the start, rather sadly.

Maybe you should go and have a good look at the T&C, hmmm?
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Better luck next time.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I doubt if russia is ready for anything other than containment and whatever possible restructuring it could muster.

That bear, IMO, has been baited into complacency.

It might surprise me with new economic vigour someday...but it's on the ropes now.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
the last thing Russia and Putin want is to go back to communism. Russia has now conviniently adapted to capatilizm, and are focusing on economic buildup and alliances rather than military ones.

After nationalizing most of the country's energy and natural resources, Putin has a new weapon to make Russia rich. The old nukes, submarines and tanks are the new oil and natural gas pipelines. They used to belong to a few oligarchs who profited from them- at least now the money goes to the national treasury being used to fuel economic growth and foreign investments.

The Russians see that making money is a better business than making tanks and nukes. One should not be too optimistic about growth of Russian economy yet, because most of it stems from natural resources- like in Third World countries. however economic ministers are quickly looking for ways to invest in technological industries so that the economy growth is more stable. The low birth rate someone mentioned is troubling, but is already turning around. The middle class is growing very quickly and people have funds and time to raise a family. How do I know this? I spend most of my life in Russia, and have countless friends and relatives there.


Whats more troubling is what US is doing. Funding color-codes revolutions around Russia in old Soviet states in order to isolate Russia. For what reason? A new Cold War? Maybe America should finish the war on terrorism before finding new boogeymen to fight.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

After nationalizing most of the country's energy and natural resources, Putin has a new weapon to make Russia rich.


States do not own industries to make money, that's what private individuals and companies do.

When states take over industries it is about one thing and one thing only, control.

The old nukes, submarines and tanks are the new oil and natural gas pipelines. They used to belong to a few oligarchs who profited from them- at least now the money goes to the national treasury being used to fuel economic growth and foreign investments.


The Russians see that making money is a better business than making tanks and nukes.


The Russians see economic domination of Europe as a more achievable goal than military domination.


Whats more troubling is what US is doing. Funding color-codes revolutions around Russia in old Soviet states in order to isolate Russia. For what reason?


It is about a nations right to self-determination. Those are not "old soviet states" they are independant states.

As such they have the right to determine their own internal affairs, their future, and to enter into trade alliances and treaties with other nations as their choice.

These are rights possessed by all free nations throughout the world

The Russians do not seem to see it that way, and are constantly interfering in the affairs of and intimidating the governements of their former vassals and satelites, but then this is hardly surprising.

I stand by my original point.

The Russian fears what he does not dominate



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi

After nationalizing most of the country's energy and natural resources, Putin has a new weapon to make Russia rich.


States do not own industries to make money, that's what private individuals and companies do.


Actually, the Capitalist Dictatorship is a very accept Political Theory. Nazi Germany was a Government who as good as controlled Private Industry, yet it was still ran at a profit. In fact, any Democracy which has people involved who own businesses or have business interests do shoot a hole in this theory.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vox Populi

States do not own industries to make money, that's what private individuals and companies do.

When states take over industries it is about one thing and one thing only, control.



That is true about industries like manufacturing, technology, software, etc. But we are talking about a national resource here - oil / natural gas. it does not belong to a few rich individuals, it belongs to the people. Abramovich, Khadarkovski, and a few other oligarchs used to own it all. 10 people sat on bags filled with billions of dollars, while 80% of the country had a hard time making money to pay rent and for food. The oligarchs paid practically no taxes, and formed partnerships with foreign companies like Shell and BP to exploit Russian national resources, leaving no slice for the Russians themselves.

But wait-you Americans are used to exploiting countries around the world for their oil. CNN and FOX have brainwashed much of your population. No sense in wasting my time here.




It is about a nations right to self-determination. Those are not "old soviet states" they are independant states.

As such they have the right to determine their own internal affairs, their future, and to enter into trade alliances and treaties with other nations as their choice.

These are rights possessed by all free nations throughout the world


Yes self-determination. If Ukraine or Lithuania want to have close ties with EU or US more power to them. They have the right to choose their destiny.

However what the US is doing is exploiting their nationalistic attitudes for its own cause. US wants to create a buffer zone around Russia, and isolate it from Europe. It is placing all the puzzle pieces in place for the next Cold War. What Americans don't understand is that the color-coded revolution did not arise within those countries. They arose in the US, and America spend billions on propaganda and buracracy to carry them out. They are not meant to help the host country, but to help America in its imperialistic crusade against the evil boogeymen around the world. Remember Bin Laden and his cave dwelling friends are not hiding in Russia. Finish your War on Terror before eyeing Russian allies.

Read this link to understand what's really going on. I know because I spend most of my life in those countries including Ukraine.

www.diacritica.com...



The Russians do not seem to see it that way, and are constantly interfering in the affairs of and intimidating the governements of their former vassals and satelites, but then this is hardly surprising.

I stand by my original point.


Wow. Replace "Russians" with "Americans" and "former vassals and satelites" with "everyone who doesn't agree with US"- and you have my reply. All powerful nations take concern in the affairs of their neighboors. America is currenly supporting some of the worlds worst dictators and mass murderers in history- Pakistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan are just among a few in Asia. US puts down democratic governments that do not agree with it, around the world. US is trying to secure as many oil rich nations in the Middle East as possible, without giving a least concern for local population with their own agaenda. All US cares about is its own interests. It didn't, doesn't, and likely never will care about people outside US. I am talking about US government here. US people are much different luckily- those who look outside the FOX/CNN box.

Watch the movie Syriana a couple of time (one might not be enough to fully comprehend it). It gives a good idea whats going on behind the Iron Curtain of the 21 century- The American Iron Curtain.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by maloy]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join