The fact that some of them were born in Ukraine, and Stalin was Georgian, has nothing to do with it. So now when they are all infamous (not in Russia, of course), you are going to insist they weren't Russians, because they were born in Ukraine. And when it comes to annexation of Crimea, that was needed because Crimea is Russian, because majority of people there are Russian. Andropov was born in Caucasus. Is he a Chechen now? A Dagestani or Ingush? Those leaders were Russified to the bone. Stalin even changed his name. Going even further back, Dzierżyński was a Pole, so what? He was a Russified Soviet man, to hell with the butcher.
Now Russia has a government which is dominated by the Russians (with the only exception I know, and that is Shoigu - sorry if I misspelled the name), but all they want is to bring back former glory of the USSR and the Russian Empire both mixed in some crazy political-cultural mishmash no one even understands any more.
The fact that some of them were born in Ukraine, and Stalin was Georgian, has nothing to do with it. So now when they are all infamous (not in Russia, of course), you are going to insist they weren't Russians, because they were born in Ukraine. And when it comes to annexation of Crimea, that was needed because Crimea is Russian, because majority of people there are Russian. Andropov was born in Caucasus. Is he a Chechen now? A Dagestani or Ingush? Those leaders were Russified to the bone. Stalin even changed his name. Going even further back, Dzierżyński was a Pole, so what? He was a Russified Soviet man, to hell with the butcher.
Now Russia has a government which is dominated by the Russians (with the only exception I know, and that is Shoigu - sorry if I misspelled the name), but all they want is to bring back former glory of the USSR and the Russian Empire both mixed in some crazy political-cultural mishmash no one even understands any more.
Because none of them were Russians, except for Gorbachev. Lenin was Chuvash, Trotsky was Jewish, Stalin was Georgian.
Khruschev and Brezhnev were Ukrainians (which explains why Crimea was annexed to Ukrainian SSR under former's rule), Andropov had Jewish background (afaik).
Russians put up a hell of a fight against them, through both First (1917-1925) and Second (1941-45) civil wars in Russia.
Current Russian political elite is not dominated by ethnic Russians either - most of oligarchs have a rather different ethnic background. No wonder they want to "revive" USSR ideologically, but its just populism for baby-boomers who feel nostalgic. In reality they just want to keep sitting on the gas pipe. But hopefuly, situation will get destabilized and Russians will get their country back soon.
The fact that some of them were born in Ukraine, and Stalin was Georgian, has nothing to do with it. So now when they are all infamous (not in Russia, of course), you are going to insist they weren't Russians, because they were born in Ukraine. And when it comes to annexation of Crimea, that was needed because Crimea is Russian, because majority of people there are Russian. Andropov was born in Caucasus. Is he a Chechen now? A Dagestani or Ingush? Those leaders were Russified to the bone. Stalin even changed his name. Going even further back, Dzierżyński was a Pole, so what? He was a Russified Soviet man, to hell with the butcher.
Now Russia has a government which is dominated by the Russians (with the only exception I know, and that is Shoigu - sorry if I misspelled the name), but all they want is to bring back former glory of the USSR and the Russian Empire both mixed in some crazy political-cultural mishmash no one even understands any more.
So you are defending that ridiculous notion that Russia was controlling the USSR by claiming all the bad guys were "Russified"? Oh yeah sorry I forgot Russia=Mordor, now I get it!
According to latest research 81% of Polish people have *unfavourable* opinion about *Russia*.
The former may mean anything from dislike to hatred.
The latter means the Russian people as well as the Russian government, and I guess it's more about the Russian government than the people.
So am I still wrong in your eyes?
Jokes aside, I think this score would be around the same (+-10) for the other countries I quoted, so I would say the name dropping was at least slightly accurate.
"After the speech, the participants of the rally shouted long and chanted "Russia! Russia! Putin! Putin ". Many picked up with sincerity: "reindeer ole - ole! Crimea - is ours! Give Poland and Finland!"
If you watch map of NATO countries (which russia doesnt dare to invade) you can see 3 directions that aren't NATO, Ukraine, Caucasus area and Finland, 2 out of those 3 already under indirect invasion. And i leave out of count russian puppet states such as Belarussia for obvious reasons. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Europe.svg.png
And crazy politicians like Zhirinovksi of course who has been publicly declaring for decades already how he Russia wants to invade Finland, Poland, baltics etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky
And russians still wonder why even their neutral neighbours, are suddenly starting to have big raise in public support for joining NATO?
Last edited by Ziltoid; March 19, 2015 at 12:50 PM.
HH wanted me to provide proof of Russian Ultra-nationalism and Neo-imperialism. Well this Crimea speach and the people there provided both. Enjoy!
Every Russian soldier, under whatever reason that enters Finnish soil will be resisted to the end, even if we were not part of NATO. Nothing brings us Finns closer than someone invading us. We will never be part of Russia or a Russian puppet state.
How suitable of them to provide another incentive, just before our most important elections, to vote for NATO friendly politicians. If they get enough support we might even get to keep a referendum about if we would want to join NATO.
I could care less what Russians think about us joining NATO, because who the cares what they think. They keep making it more and more clear that their opinions should be ignored.
Because none of them were Russians, except for Gorbachev. Lenin was Chuvash, Trotsky was Jewish, Stalin was Georgian.
Khruschev and Brezhnev were Ukrainians (which explains why Crimea was annexed to Ukrainian SSR under former's rule), Andropov had Jewish background (afaik).
Russians put up a hell of a fight against them, through both First (1917-1925) and Second (1941-45) civil wars in Russia.
Current Russian political elite is not dominated by ethnic Russians either - most of oligarchs have a rather different ethnic background. No wonder they want to "revive" USSR ideologically, but its just populism for baby-boomers who feel nostalgic. In reality they just want to keep sitting on the gas pipe. But hopefuly, situation will get destabilized and Russians will get their country back soon.
Originally Posted by Nikitn
So you are defending that ridiculous notion that Russia was controlling the USSR by claiming all the bad guys were "Russified"? Oh yeah sorry I forgot Russia=Mordor, now I get it!
Ok, guys, could you tell me please what in particular wasn't Russian, I mean culturally and politically, in the existence of the Soviet Union? How exactly did it break with Russian political traditions and customs?
Originally Posted by Butan
So am I still wrong in your eyes?
Jokes aside, I think this score would be around the same (+-10) for the other countries I quoted, so I would say the name dropping was at least slightly accurate.
Yes, you are, as long as you suggest there is wild hate towards Russia in Poland. 81% unfavourable opinions doesn't mean 81% of Polish people hate Russians. It just means what it says - that people here negatively assess Russia (which mainly means policies of the Russian government and its recent actions in Georgia and Ukraine). Polish government isn't even anti-Russian.
Speaking about hatred, maybe we should talk about Polonophobia in Russia - given what the crowd was shouting at Crimea Anniversary, eh? No one organizes such demonstrations in Poland.
Last edited by wudang_clown; March 19, 2015 at 02:04 PM.
Just Russia taking advantage of the frozen conflicts it has helped create. Now the region isn't officially part of Russia but treaty integrates much of its economy, police, military, custom services and border guard.
I don't see relations between the West or Russia getting better anytime soon if these are the actions Russia continues to take.
called it in 2008.
called all the coverstories for the war would be used again in the future, in 2008.
called the ukraine in 2008.
had same arguments that im having today with the putin possy, in 2008.
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
I like how you forgot about the whole part about Georgian troops attacking internationally-mandated peacekeepers there.
But overall, it is good news. At least now Georgia won't try what it did in 2008, or what Kiev is doing right now.
i like how you 'forgot' about the whole part where georgia were subjected to a long period of aggression at the hands of the 'rebels' in south ossetia prior to finally responding in kind and thus being invaded by russia, using ur statement as cassus belli. Do we need to go back to 2008 to get those sources again, because it seems to me you're forgetting a lot.
The georgians fell for it. Ukraine didnt when russia pulled similar in the Crimea. Unfortunately however Russia invaded the east of the country anyway.
Last edited by Carach; March 19, 2015 at 02:01 PM.
@lol at the insinuations Russia is going to invade Finland, poland whatever.
No, it's not about insinuations that Russia is going to invade. It's about attitude of the crowd composed of people who are fed on a day to day basis with Kremlin's propaganda about how so called fascists from the Majdan were trained in fascist Poland, how whole Europe is deeply fascist and at the same time completely gay and how Europeans intend to destroy Russia and her values by flooding her with their homo-fascist culture. This is state induced attitude, and that's worrying no matter what exactly is planned in Kremlin.
Originally Posted by Nikitn
Wugang,
nah dude it doesn't work that way. Those are your fantasy-claims, not ours. Hence the burden of proof is on you.
Mickey, I don't need to prove anything to you. The fact is that since the conquest of the Novgorod Republic by Ivan III, Russia has not contributed to the development of civic society at all. Basically, Russia has been ruled by clones of either Ivan III or sometimes Ivan IV (I mean Stalin here). It's either totalitarism, despotism or autocracy, you name it. Dude.
Wake me up when half the population is singing, not just a few thousands weirdo.
Originally Posted by wudang_clown
Yes, you are, as long as you suggest there is wild hate towards Russia in Poland. 81% unfavourable opinions doesn't mean 81% of Polish people hate Russians. It just means what it says - that people here negatively assess Russia (which mainly means policies of the Russian government and its recent actions in Georgia and Ukraine).
81% unfavourable mathematically equals to at least a good chunk of them toward hateful. Ofc never a whole nation hated another, but this is as bad as it gets, so yeah, your nitpicking is taking you nowhere.
Ok, guys, could you tell me please what in particular wasn't Russian, I mean culturally and politically, in the existence of the Soviet Union? How exactly did it break with Russian political traditions and customs?
- It was run by non-Russians. The only ethnic Russian who had power there was the one who let Eastern European states go and be democratically free (to work as plumbers and janitors in Western Europe, but hey, they got what they wanted, lol).
- It openly disregarded national interests of ethnic Russians in favor of non-Russians (especially those in Soviet government). Also communists took a lot of ethnic Russian lands and pretty much annexed them to non-Russian "republics" without any consent of the population. The territories went through "derusification", a lot of ethnic Russians were forcefully deported. So yeah, as Terry Martin perfectly phrased it, USSR was an "Affirmative-Action Empire".
If you want to learn more about ethnic policies in USSR, check out his book on USSR.
Last edited by Heathen Hammer; March 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM.
i like how you 'forgot' about the whole part where georgia were subjected to a long period of aggression at the hands of the 'rebels' in south ossetia prior to finally responding in kind
because attacking internationallymandated peacekeeprs was a great start to responding to his "aggression"? Riiight.
and thus being invaded by russia, using ur statement as cassus belli. Do we need to go back to 2008 to get those sources again, because it seems to me you're forgetting a lot.
The georgians fell for it. Ukraine didnt when russia pulled similar in the Crimea. Unfortunately however Russia invaded the east of the country anyway.
Again, nice job ignoring that Georgia was the first to attack international-mandated peacekeepers, which caused Russia to intervene.
Anyways, going back to normal discussion:
The reason for most post-Soviet conflicts lies in the fact that most of the post-Soviet borders are entirely artificial, and were not even designed to be borders of independent states. They were drawn with little consideration for ethnic and cultural division, which is the reason why there were so many conflicts all over Eastern Europe.
Blaming every conflict on Russia is rather silly, given how we are witnessing same thing going on in Middle East, where former European colonies experience constant in-fighting due to retarded borders drawn by a bunch of rich white dudes in the first half of past century.
Last edited by Heathen Hammer; March 19, 2015 at 10:36 PM.
These "Internationally mandated peacekeepers"- they were Russian, right?
See, I'm finding it very easy to find sources for the Russian-ness of the "Peacekeepers" that Georgia attacked, but I'm finding it a little harder to find sources for their "international" mandate.
I don't suppose you'd fancy providing a proper source for that? Like, something from an actual "International" organisation. Like, the UN or something?
These "Internationally mandated peacekeepers"- they were Russian, right?
See, I'm finding it very easy to find sources for the Russian-ness of the "Peacekeepers" that Georgia attacked, but I'm finding it a little harder to find sources for their "international" mandate.
I don't suppose you'd fancy providing a proper source for that? Like, something from an actual "International" organisation. Like, the UN or something?
Well whatever they were, they most certainly weren't UN-peacekeepers. That much became very clear during the conflict. The same people lying about them being UN-peacekeepers are on this forum now saying that the "rebels" in Ukraine most certainly aren't Russian soldiers. I think at most maybe OSCE had something to do with it. What else is certain was that they were doing very little peacekeeping, that would mean they would be neutral, which they weren't.
President Dalia Grybauskaite said restoring conscription was a “necessity” and Lithuania, with a population of almost 3 million, has “no other way to strengthen its army.” If parliament passes the bill, roughly 3,000 men between age 19 and 26 could be drafted into the army as early as this September.
When Madam President Grybauskaite of Lithuania starts calling for the draft backed by the force of law from parliament, that's when you know Russian relations with the Baltic states have reached a historic low.
I think Georgia behave like this today because they are lost in the idea of the "grandeur" of old Georgia and want to gain territory by all means.
And that makes them different from Russia how?
(The only difference being that Russia is already the largest country in the world, so it's really hard for them to sell their territorial expansion as justified)
Well whatever they were, they most certainly weren't UN-peacekeepers. That much became very clear during the conflict. The same people lying about them being UN-peacekeepers are on this forum now saying that the "rebels" in Ukraine most certainly aren't Russian soldiers. I think at most maybe OSCE had something to do with it. What else is certain was that they were doing very little peacekeeping, that would mean they would be neutral, which they weren't.
Peacekeeping isn't only done by the UN, and from what I can tell, this is what is being referred to:
A multilateral peacekeeping mission which broke down when Georgia started the South Ossetia War in 2008, so you could say it was a peacekeeping mission until then. Now it would more likely be considered a military occupation by Russia.
HH, you might find the below interesting reading. An academic source arguing that the USSR was a Russian Empire, even addressing your point about ethnicity. In any case, the actual factual basis is irrelevant when you're discussing the perception of external parties.
So far as most Eastern European states are concerned, the USSR grew from Russia, served Russian imperial ambitions and embodied Russian culture. Most people aren't going to be convinced by you trying to put a fig leaf on that by saying "well, Stalin wasn't actually Russian". I presume the Nazi party was Austrian, too?
A good example below. I would strongly recommend reading the whole thing and not just homing in on that particular quote though. It really is all quite fascinating.
Soviet identity at the
Union level was wedded to the Russification of the elite and the provision of a backdrop whichdrastically favoured the expansion of Russian language, culture and history as a common narrativefor all those within the Soviet structure. While ordinary Russians may not have stood to gain in the
imperial structure, ‘Russianness’ permeated state ideology a
bsorbing elements of Russian ethnicconsciousness (Kappeler 2001:157).
Last edited by General Retreat; March 20, 2015 at 06:12 AM.
Swords of the Sea: 1066 has come and gone, the Danelaw torn down and a new kingdom built in the image of its Norman rulers. But with time, wounds heal and what is broken can be reforged. The Danes have returned with steel, and seek to reclaim what is theirs. The Great Expedition: Pax Anglia, one of Earth's great empires, sprawling across the stars. On their newly colonised planet of Nova Sydney, adventure awaits on the savage frontier - Henry Boyce steps forward to lead an expedition to pierce the Bushlands' wild heart. Winter War: Finland, 1939. The Soviet war machine has begun its indomitable advance from the east. Of all its neighbours, only Finland stands alone in defiance. Conscript Anton Bezrukov prepares for a quick victory, but the reality is far bloodier...
Re: Russian & Eastern Europe Geopolitics thread
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
Reply With Quote
cares what they think. They keep making it more and more clear that their opinions should be ignored.
