U.S. rejects 'sphere of influence' for Russia

[jetsetter]

U.S. rejects 'sphere of influence' for Russia

By Helene Cooper and Nicholas Kulish
Published: February 7, 2009
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/07/europe/07munich-424836.php

Vice President Joseph Biden of the United States rejected the notion of a Russian sphere of influence Saturday, promising that the new government under President Barack Obama would continue to press NATO to seek "deeper cooperation" with like-minded countries.

Biden, in a much-anticipated speech at an international security conference, also said the Obama administration would continue to pursue a planned missile defense system that has angered the Kremlin, provided the technology works and is not too expensive. The missile defense shield, Biden said, is needed to "counter a growing Iranian capability."

In the Obama administration's first outline before an international audience of how it will conduct U.S. relations with the rest of the world, the vice president signaled a tough line on Iran. "We will be willing to talk to Iran," Biden said, in a departure from the Bush administration.

But Biden quickly tacked back to a refrain common during the last years of the Bush presidency, and spoke of offering Iran's leader a choice: "Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

On Friday, the opening day of the conference, Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, had told the audience that Obama's decision to send George Mitchell, his new envoy, to the Middle East to listen and not to dictate was "a positive signal" but also said that, in terms of Iran, "the old carrot and stick cliché" - the very strategy that Biden outlined - "must be discarded."

Biden's speech was the highlight of a high-powered annual security conference that attracted a host of global leaders and diplomats, most of whom seemed primed to hear how the United States and its new leadership viewed the world. They erupted into spontaneous applause when Biden walked onto the stage.

But for all the talk of a new era in relations between the United States and the world, old sores remained, and with no sign of healing soon. For instance, while Biden's wording virtually echoed the stance on missile defense that Obama took during the presidential campaign, it was notable because Biden did not announce a strategic review of the issue, which administration officials had considered as a way to reduce tensions between Washington and Moscow.

Instead, Biden hewed to a line long expressed by the Bush administration and said the Obama administration would pursue it "in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia."

"We will not agree with Russia on everything," Biden said. "For example, the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

Biden said that the United States and Russia can disagree but should still look for ways to "work together where our interests coincide."

Biden's speech came a day after Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov of Russia told the same group that Moscow would not deploy its own missiles on the Polish border if the United States reviewed its missile defense plan, which Russia says is meant to counter Russian ballistic missiles.

But any chance for a rapprochement between Washington and Russia at this conference all but evaporated, foreign policy experts said, after officials of the Obama administration concluded that Russia had pressed Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet Republic, to close the U.S. military base in that country. The base is crucial to the U.S.-led fight in Afghanistan that Obama has identified as his central national security objective. Obama plans to deploy as many as 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan over the next two years; shaky overland supply routes through Pakistan would make it difficult for the United States to adjust to the loss of the base, in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

It was at this same Security Conference two years ago when the new tension between the United States and Russia leaped to the fore when Vladimir Putin, then Russia's president and now its prime minister, lashed out against the United States over its use of force.

On Saturday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel struck a conciliatory note. "It is in our interest to incorporate Russia in this new security architecture," Merkel said.

But President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said, "Let's be frank about it, there's more and more distrust between the European Union and Russia."

Nice to know that Obama and Biden haven't gone soft on us.

[AmaStrat]

Nice to know that Obama and Biden haven't gone soft on us.

I dont know if talk alone is enough.

[Switek]

Too early to draw any conclusions. After year by now we will be able to judge Obama's attitude toward Russia.

[Supe]

Vice President Joseph Biden of the United States rejected the notion of a Russian sphere of influence Saturday


Rubbish. Biden can say what he likes, the reality is that Russia does have a sphere of influence. Biden might as well say that US does not have a sphere of influence and that its foreign policy (past, present and future) within the Americas has just been a figment of the imagination.

[shoora]

What exactly does he mean, when he connected recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia and recognizing a "sphere of influence"?

[AlexMartin2]

Not a good first (or not first?) move for new administration. Now we knew that all words about "partnership", "better relations" are just another BS from US.

Its always good to know who your enemy is :)

[1curious]

Let’s take a look at how the rejection of Russia’s essential concerns had worked so far in real terms:

- Uzbekistan expels American air base in 2005

- Germany, the largest NATO member after the US, becomes de facto political and economic block for the US policies aiming at containing Russia (too many examples to list)

- US-inspired Orange revolution leaders take Ukraine into worst political and economic chaos to-date thereby setting a split between the leaders themselves and the resurgence of Russia’s influence.

- In 2008 almost half of NATO members reject America-inspired membership for Ukraine and Georgia .

- Georgia, an important Caucasus ally, gets kick in the ass and 3 new Russian military bases in the region are coming up.

- During the Caucuses war, an American ally Turkey rejected rights of passage for few American ships when the Russians objected

- Kirgizstan expels American air base in 2009

- Russia and 6 other Central Asian nations cementing their military alliance and a rapid reaction force in an apparent signal to NATO.

- Russia in strong position to challenge almost any economic project inspired by the US if it competes with theirs (Nabucco etc)
………..
The trend is rather telling even without the numerous other setbacks that never became public

[1curious]

deleted inadvertent repeat. sorry.

[Kilgor]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states.

[shoora]

May it is time to be a friend rather than making such provocative statements?

[1curious]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states.
If by "free to chose" you mean ideological aggression that Bush was waging everywhere around Russia and that the US was not even hiding I think you need to read my post above...to appreciate the right to chose by appreciating facts, not your own conceptions that have little to do with reality.

[TheArmenian]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states.

I wish the USA lets these nations free to decide what to choose (without bribing, armtwisting, seducing, placing puppets, creating and financing color revolutions etc. etc.)

But all that is called "politics" isn't it?

[shoora]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states.

They are not "free", as you say. As a matter of fact, they are client states. i.e. governments are very "pro-american". Despite huge pressing of public propaganda, people in these countries have own opinions. If you repeat BS about democracy I tell you - if you look at public opinion of Poland and Czech Republic you'll see that majority is against any anti missile installations in these countries. Moreover, they against ANY foreign military presence. P.S. Should I mention that regimes in so called "sovereign" ukraine and georgia was in fact installed there by USSD? No BS about democracy here! Ukraine in now divided and, frankly, not so far from civil war. And during conflict in august in Georgia, many Georgians helped Russian pilots of shooted down planes to leave hostile territory in Georgia. So, Georgians are still like Russians.

[shoora]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states. They only thing have changed is their "master". Please, don't be foolish to believe anything you've been told. People want to live without any "big brother". Basically, now they have "made in america" boot on their neck. Do you think USSR lost Cold War. You fundamentally wrong! Pursuing this idea will lead you to nowhere. Actually, majority of Russians does not like USSR does not like almost as much as you do. And they, not you, demolished it! Be must be very careful here!

[zxc]

They are not "free", as you say. As a matter of fact, they are client states. i.e. governments are very "pro-american". Despite huge pressing of public propaganda, people in these countries have own opinions. If you repeat BS about democracy I tell you - if you look at public opinion of Poland and Czech Republic you'll see that majority is against any anti missile installations in these countries. Moreover, they against ANY foreign military presence. P.S. Should I mention that regimes in so called "sovereign" ukraine and georgia was in fact installed there by USSD? No BS about democracy here! Ukraine in now divided and, frankly, not so far from civil war. And during conflict in august in Georgia, many Georgians helped Russian pilots of shooted down planes to leave hostile territory in Georgia. So, Georgians are still like Russians.

And frankly, you are thinking far away from reality.

[ilmakas]

Basically, now they have "made in america" boot on their neck.

could you be so kind and describe what exactly does this "american boot" look like? How life would be better for commion folk like me if "american boot" was to be replaced by "russian boot"?

[widi243]

They are not "free", as you say. As a matter of fact, they are client states. i.e. governments are very "pro-american". Despite huge pressing of public propaganda, people in these countries have own opinions. If you repeat BS about democracy I tell you - if you look at public opinion of Poland and Czech Republic you'll see that majority is against any anti missile installations in these countries. Moreover, they against ANY foreign military presence. P.S. Should I mention that regimes in so called "sovereign" ukraine and georgia was in fact installed there by USSD? No BS about democracy here! Ukraine in now divided and, frankly, not so far from civil war. And during conflict in august in Georgia, many Georgians helped Russian pilots of shooted down planes to leave hostile territory in Georgia. So, Georgians are still like Russians.

It's not so obvious as you writting. Yes marjotity of Poles was against Missle shield but when Russia start to threaten us that Russia nuke all misslesite, or put Iskanders near our broder, a lot of people start thinbkig that we really shoud have this instalation on our soil and there was moment that numbers of supporters of Missle Shield was grown. But now opinion are divided. But I think and very people in Poland should agree that some U.S military instaltions could be useful to kick out off the Russia heads any stupid ideas nabout "sphere of influence".

[AlexMartin2]

It's not so obvious as you writting. Yes marjotity of Poles was against Missle shield but when Russia start to threaten us that Russia nuke all misslesite, or put Iskanders near our broder, a lot of people start thinbkig that we really shoud have this instalation on our soil and there was moment that numbers of supporters of Missle Shield was grown. But now opinion are divided.


Problems with logic? Well, if Polish people want to live with nukes pointed to their heads, so be it. Or they were such unbelievable naive and thought that allowing US to install strategic installations near our borders have nothing to do with Russian security? Ahhh, I'm sorry, it agains Iran and N.Korea... And Iraq has WMD, you know :)

Well, anyway this issue was discussed a hundred times, lets not to do it again.



But I think and very people in Poland should agree that some U.S military instaltions could be useful to kick out off the Russia heads any stupid ideas nabout "sphere of influence".

OK, you dont want to be in Russian "sphere of influence", instead you became under American. Serving to new master instead of old one. Whats the difference?

[intelligenzija]

OK, you dont want to be in Russian "sphere of influence", instead you became under American. Serving to new master instead of old one. Whats the difference?

the new one has iphones?

Russia doesn't want to invade or control Poland, they just want the Americans out. It's a psychological issue.

[themacedonian]

Problems with logic? Well, if Polish people want to live with nukes pointed to their heads, so be it. Or they were such unbelievable naive and thought that allowing US to install strategic installations near our borders have nothing to do with Russian security? Ahhh, I'm sorry, it agains Iran and N.Korea... And Iraq has WMD, you know :)

Well, anyway this issue was discussed a hundred times, lets not to do it again.



OK, you dont want to be in Russian "sphere of influence", instead you became under American. Serving to new master instead of old one. Whats the difference?

Mr Biden did not say or offer anything different from Bush.
1. Missile shield goes on.
2. Kosovo issue goes on as created by Democrats.
3. Iran issue same.
4. Russian encirclement moves on.
5. Iraq has not changed.
6. Georgia will continue to get support.

New administration wants to consolidate the gains made by Bush using sweet talk while US recovers from economic problems. Nothing changed.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Biden has to establish that the US isn't going to be a pushover under Obama. It's just as much for internal consumption as international...

As for sphere of influence, Russia does have one through language, culture, economy etc. They do not however have an inherent "right" to determine the choices of policy their neighbors choose to excercise.

[perdurabo]

Problems with logic? Well, if Polish people want to live with nukes pointed to their heads, so be it. Or they were such unbelievable naive and thought that allowing US to install strategic installations near our borders have nothing to do with Russian security? Ahhh, I'm sorry, it agains Iran and N.Korea... And Iraq has WMD, you know :)

oh boy you threateed us with nukes since 1989, erlier we lived with US French and UK nukes pointed at us, there is no diffrence. But As we are in no psition to tell Russia where to point their nukes so are Russians in no position to tell us to host shield or not.


Well, anyway this issue was discussed a hundred times, lets not to do it again.
agreed


OK, you dont want to be in Russian "sphere of influence", instead you became under American. Serving to new master instead of old one. Whats the difference?
you see, main diffrence is we can say no to yanks we can basicly do what we want while when we where your "allies" we could only listen and serve, also if we say no yanks won't come and kill us we will just loose their protection and a bit cash on trade whie if we would say no to you it would end up with our gas and oil supply cut with your tanks on our streets.

[MZKT]

Considering that US regards the whole world as it's sphere of influence, pretty obvious there's no room for a rusisan one.

But the main conflict will follow when the chinese will start to claim influence appropriate to their economical might. So far they do it very silent but the conflict is inevitable. In one point Putin is right: the times of a unipolar world, were most geostrategic decisions were made in Washington are over.

[Switek]

Problems with logic? Well, if Polish people want to live with nukes pointed to their heads, so be it. Or they were such unbelievable naive and thought that allowing US to install strategic installations near our borders have nothing to do with Russian security? Ahhh, I'm sorry, it agains Iran and N.Korea... And Iraq has WMD, you know :)

Well, no one took your paper threats seriously. p-)

[Sumadinac]

"We will not agree with Russia on everything," Biden said. "For example, the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

Very funny.

[Notlim]

Mr Biden did not say or offer anything different from Bush.
1. Missile shield goes on.
2. Kosovo issue goes on as created by Democrats.
3. Iran issue same.
4. Russian encirclement moves on.
5. Iraq has not changed.
6. Georgia will continue to get support.

New administration wants to consolidate the gains made by Bush using sweet talk while US recovers from economic problems. Nothing changed.


In the Obama administration's first outline before an international audience of how it will conduct U.S. relations with the rest of the world, the vice president signaled a tough line on Iran. "We will be willing to talk to Iran," Biden said, in a departure from the Bush administration.

agreed with your observations, nothing has changed in US foreign policy

[Flamming_Python]

As for sphere of influence, Russia does have one through language, culture, economy etc. They do not however have an inherent "right" to determine the choices of policy their neighbors choose to excercise.

But the US does?

The problem with the argument with 'these countries have the right to choose their alliances', is that it misses out the fact that many of these regimes (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan) were installed through US-engineered revolutions. To an extent this was also the same case with many countries in Eastern Europe, with wide US support for overthrowing the old Soviet regimes. That was of course a different time and I can blame the US no more for being involved than I can blame the genuine desire of the people to get rid of the Soviet-sponsored governments and giving legitimacy to the new leaders; but some of these countries are pursuing nationalist and racist politics that contradicts 'European values' with the support of the West (Latvia and Estonia mainly).

I think Russia can see right through this BS, and no ridiculous speeches will calm it at this point.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

But the US does?
No, they don't.

The problem with the argument with 'these countries have the right to choose their alliances', is that it misses out the fact that many of these regimes (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan) were installed through US-engineered revolutions.

I think Russia can see right through this BS, and no ridiculous speeches will calm it at this point.Then let the people of Ukraine, Georgia and Kirgistan elect the leader of their choice and let him/her and the government choose whom they do "business" with.

US-encouraged/supported or not, those nations chose to break from Russia politically or at least behave in a manner the Kremlin did not approve of.

I am curious if Ukraine, Georgia or Kirgistan would enjoy being "under Russia's sphere of influence" as much as Russia seems to assume. Russia is peering in from next door and for smaller nations, seemingly omnipowerful.

[Passing]

but some of these countries are pursuing nationalist and racist politics that contradicts 'European values' with the support of the West (Latvia and Estonia mainly).

Could you please elaborate?

[perdurabo]

Could you please elaborate?
he is speaking about removing statue of soviet soldier and placing one for their fallen Wafen SS troopers...

[Flamming_Python]

No, they don't.
Then let the people of Ukraine, Georgia and Kirgistan elect the leader of their choice and let him/her and the government choose whom they do "business" with.

US-encouraged/supported or not, those nations chose to break from Russia politically or at least behave in a manner the Kremlin did not approve of.

Ummm... No they did not, their new US-installed regimes did. And I don't use the words 'encouraged' or 'supported', I use the word 'installed' because that's exactly what it was. In both cases revolutions were brought to power due to the widespread discontent of the people against the corruption and incompetence of the old regime. But the politicians installed had huge ties with America; Saakashvilli studied there and Yushchenko has a wife with American citizenship; both of these leaders represent a very small minority of Georgians and Ukrainians that have any ties with the Western world at all. And of course both of these leaders have huge ties with American politicians in Washington. Their propaganda appealed to the people who were going through a difficult time, but their real agendas were to weaken Russia's position by any means possible, even at the expense of their own countries interests. Does this sound like responsible and balanced politics to you?

What if there was a revolution in Mexico with the people rising up against their government because of its extensive corruption, ties with druglords and inability to enforce law and order on the streets? And then suddenly you get a new Mexican president who studied in the USSR in his youth, speaks perfect Russian, gives constant interviews to Russian TV, removes English language classes in schools replacing them with Russian classes, and then goes on to try and cut as many ties and treaties with America as possible, advocating instead a military, political and economic alliance with Russia. What would you think?


I am curious if Ukraine, Georgia or Kirgistan would enjoy being "under Russia's sphere of influence" as much as Russia seems to assume. Russia is peering in from next door and for smaller nations, seemingly omnipowerful.If you're so curious then perhaps you should speak to some of the people from the area. Unless I'm mistaken you live in Russia, so it shouldn't be so hard. And don't just listen to the nationalist minority (who also happen to be the loudest, the most likely to vote and the only ones the West listens to), but the silent majority whose priorities are better living standards, job security and a future for their children above all else.

Are you speaking of the politicians or the people? I think the majority of Ukrainians and Kyrgyz, many of which I have spoken to, would be very much for tighter relations with Russia, even for some sort of economic and military union with it. If I remember correctly, there was even a proposal by the Kyrgyz oppostion (which despite the beliefs of some, has mostly pro-Russian elements as well), which advocated a nation-wide referendum for Kyrgyzstan to join the Russian Federation as either a subject or the Russia-Belarus union state. The petition got quite a lot of signatures but then died down after refutals from higher-ups most likely. Georgians of course wouldn't be, with the recent war there is wide-scale dissaproval and dislike of Russia and even Russians. However I have heard opinions from quite a few that said they don't care about these US-Russia games, they want to be friends and have closer ties to Russia, but want their territory back before that can happen.

[Red_Rage]

No, they don't.
Then let the people of Ukraine, Georgia and Kirgistan elect the leader of their choice and let him/her and the government choose whom they do "business" with.

US-encouraged/supported or not, those nations chose to break from Russia politically or at least behave in a manner the Kremlin did not approve of.

I am curious if Ukraine, Georgia or Kirgistan would enjoy being "under Russia's sphere of influence" as much as Russia seems to assume. Russia is peering in from next door and for smaller nations, seemingly omnipowerful.


As we see with Ukraine, noone will allow people to have a "leader of their choice". Ushenko the SuperMutant is openly digging a 6ft hole and building a casket for Ukraine and noone can do a damned thing about it. Other alternatives are Yulia the Gas Queen, and Yanikovich the Criminal (although he did have success as prime minister and raised Ukraine from her belly to her knees). Revolution in Ukraine actually resulted in several, very corrupt, power verticals - there is not one voice to speak for Ukraine (Gas war only made it obvious).

I see Russia being better for Kirgistan as well. During "Russian boot", Kigistan experienced the highest standard of life during its history, with modern infrastructure it could only dream of achiving by itself. I don't see Americans investing a cent into building up of Kirgiz economy; yet millions are being pumped into good-for-nothing revolutions, while immense economical resources are being left to rot. Theire is also a matter of language and intergated cultures between Russia ans most of CIS - a link that no amount of pretty powerpoint presentaions on "NATO is our friend" can erase (for example, despite of all the "information hatred " between Georgia and Russia over 8/8/8, there are more Georgians living in Russia than there are in Georgia).

[Flamming_Python]

he is speaking about removing statue of soviet soldier and placing one for their fallen Wafen SS troopers...

Not just that, in fact that's a minor part of it.

I was talking about refusing automatic citizenship for residents of Russian descent who were born in Latvia and Estonia. I was also talking about the systematic campaign to root out the Russian language from all public spheres and failing to guarantee rights to Russian speakers to have at least some opportunity to be educated or work in their native language. My second point has less ground to stand on I admit, but my first point irrefutably contradicts the standard practice of European governments that don't discriminate against their people based on their ethnicity.

[rchad]

Let’s take a look at how the rejection of Russia’s essential concerns had worked so far in real terms:

- Uzbekistan expels American air base in 2005

- Germany, the largest NATO member after the US, becomes de facto political and economic block for the US policies aiming at containing Russia (too many examples to list)

- US-inspired Orange revolution leaders take Ukraine into worst political and economic chaos to-date thereby setting a split between the leaders themselves and the resurgence of Russia’s influence.

- In 2008 almost half of NATO members reject America-inspired membership for Ukraine and Georgia .

- Georgia, an important Caucasus ally, gets kick in the ass and 3 new Russian military bases in the region are coming up.

- During the Caucuses war, an American ally Turkey rejected rights of passage for few American ships when the Russians objected

- Kirgizstan expels American air base in 2009

- Russia and 6 other Central Asian nations cementing their military alliance and a rapid reaction force in an apparent signal to NATO.

- Russia in strong position to challenge almost any economic project inspired by the US if it competes with theirs (Nabucco etc)
………..
The trend is rather telling even without the numerous other setbacks that never became public

The points you make are absolutely nothing compared to the total and utter rejection of Russia by it's former allies/neighbors in the Warsaw Pact. Just Wikipedia "Warsaw Pact" and "NATO" to see whos winning. They didn't just disagree among friends like America's good ally Germany has done, the former Warsaw Pact countries joined a military alliance directly in opposition to Russia.

The U.S. is fortunate to have such delusional adversaries. I had high hopes for the Russian people who I really like, but Russia is becoming nothing more than another petty dictatorship.

[Papenheims]

Not just that, in fact that's a minor part of it.

I was talking about refusing automatic citizenship for residents of Russian descent who were born in Latvia and Estonia.

Citizenship of Latvia and Estonia was given to those whose ancestors had citizenship before Soviet occupation regardless of their ethnicity, descent or level of state language.

[Flamming_Python]

The points you make are absolutely nothing compared to the total and utter rejection of Russia by it's former allies in the Warsaw Pact. Just Wikipedia "Warsaw Pact" and "NATO" to see whos winning. They didn't just disagree among friends like America's good ally Germany has done, the former Warsaw Pact countries joined a military alliance directly in opposition to Russia.

The word 'winning', implies an ongoing process; i.e. the present rather than the past. The rejection of Russia by the former Warsaw Pact countries happened in the 90's. The list that you have quoted describes events that have happened in this decade, almost all in the later half, way after the color revolutions of yesteryear. No-one has won this yet, and its too early to tell if the tide is genuinely turning, but American efforts to weaken Russia's influence in the ex-USSR have entered stalemate during the past few years, that's indisputable, while more quietly Russia has been rebuilding its influence in the rest of the world.


The U.S. is fortunate to have such delusional adversaries. I had high hopes for the Russian people who I really like, but Russia is becoming nothing more than another petty dictatorship.I still have high hopes for the American people, but their government has made the mistake of considering us Russians as 'juniors' or lessers who need to be taught ideological lessons whether we like it or not and have our cultural, civilizational, linguistic, economic and political influence on the world suppressed, rather than considering us as partners and equals which we should have become from the start.

[1curious]

Just Wikipedia "Warsaw Pact" and "NATO" to see whos winning.I don't care who's winning because there are NO winners here. And Wikipedia is never my source of information. I was only illustrating facts of the latest trends once the US engaged into containing Russia and Russia decided to push back after being pliant for years...

Russia is becoming nothing more than another petty dictatorship.If you want to engage in hyperbola, that's your prerogative. I disagree. They do look like an authoritarian-parliamentary system with free market economy.

You may find that many in the US are not very happy with the direction our social system is taking and the civil society loss of the last few yeras. But again, I avoid hyperbola.

[Flamming_Python]

Citizenship of Latvia and Estonia was given to those whose ancestors had citizenship before Soviet occupation regardless of their ethnicity, descent or level of state language.

Unacceptable. The people of Russian descent that moved to the Estonian and Latvian SSRs after WW2 did not do so to 'occupy' your country, but to secure a better standard of living for themselves, because the Baltic countries were considered a cool and 'Western' place to be, etc... They have done nothing wrong, and many participated in the demonstrations that brought down Soviet rule there. As such they should be respected, and the current governments of these countries should represent their interests as much as they represent the ethnic Estonians and Latvians.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Are you speaking of the politicians or the people? I think the majority of Ukrainians and Kyrgyz, many of which I have spoken to, would be very much for tighter relations with Russia, even for some sort of economic and military union with it.I already understood your points and have no delusions about Yushchenko for example being a champion of the Ukrainian people. I was however in Kiev at the time and he had unanimous support, nobody I spoke to supported Yanukovich. His supporters had to be bussed in from Donetsk and Lugansk and stayed out of the center for fear of getting their asses handed to them. At the time, my Ukrainian friends scoffed at me in anger when I told them that Yushchenko was just as self-serving as any other politician. That is beside the point though.

My point, and only point, is that Russia (nor the US nor any nation) does not have an inherent right to dictate policy of it's neighboring sovereign states.

Russia's "sphere of influence" is nothing more than a statement to that political end and in my opinion without legitimacy.

They can (and do) excercise their influence in other ways and if they wish stronger ties with their neighbors on friendly terms, then they should behave as such. Russia's neighbors do face a tricky political road, as they are a political plaything in many ways... a degree of "balance" through US ties, not to mention other economic channels for development, yet at the same time they have to live amicably with their overbearing neighbor... and their presumable largest trading partner and in some cases, close historical and cultural cousin.

[kalkun]

Not just that, in fact that's a minor part of it.

I was talking about refusing automatic citizenship for residents of Russian descent who were born in Latvia and Estonia. I was also talking about the systematic campaign to root out the Russian language from all public spheres and failing to guarantee rights to Russian speakers to have at least some opportunity to be educated or work in their native language. My second point has less ground to stand on I admit, but my first point irrefutably contradicts the standard practice of European governments that don't discriminate against their people based on their ethnicity.

It wasn't long time ago when I needed my electrical heating system to be repaired. 2 Russian speaking technicians came over to repair the system both of the blokes were bad in talking Estonian and I preferred to talk with them in Russian just in case to make sure they understand what needs to be done. Somehow they managed to get the job didn't they?

And about W-SS monuments and veterans, Estonian government hasn't established any monuments, nor does it give any special support to W-SS veterans.

I would also add that this all has been discussed over and over again.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Unacceptable. The people of Russian descent that moved to the Estonian and Latvian SSRs after WW2 did not do so to 'occupy' your country, but to secure a better standard of living for themselves, because the Baltic countries were considered a cool and 'Western' place to be, etc... They have done nothing wrong, and many participated in the demonstrations that brought down Soviet rule there. As such they should be respected, and the current governments of these countries should represent their interests as much as they represent the ethnic Estonians and Latvians.There is a mass exodus of Russians from Kazakhstan and Kirgisistan as well.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

If you're so curious then perhaps you should speak to some of the people from the area. Unless I'm mistaken you live in Russia, so it shouldn't be so hard. I'm American living in Germany but spend considerable time in Russia and Ukraine for work.

There are many Russians and Ukrainians whom I call friend. Politics is often a hot topic and one to be "enjoyed" only under certain circumstances. :)

[DS73]

Ummm... No they did not, their new US-installed regimes did. And I don't use the words 'encouraged' or 'supported', I use the word 'installed' because that's exactly what it was. In both cases revolutions were brought to power due to the widespread discontent of the people against the corruption and incompetence of the old regime. But the politicians installed had huge ties with America; Saakashvilli studied there and Yushchenko has a wife with American citizenship; both of these leaders represent a very small minority of Georgians and Ukrainians that have any ties with the Western world at all.

**Imaging how zombified georgians and ukranians followed flute of ival americans**failing**


And of course both of these leaders have huge ties with American politicians in Washington. Their propaganda appealed to the people who were going through a difficult time, but their real agendas were to weaken Russia's position by any means possible, even at the expense of their own countries interests. Does this sound like responsible and balanced politics to you?
You can find sufficient information in russian about changes in Georgia. Local changes are significant and positive. "Surprisingly" in big part due to direct influence of EU advisers.
Ukraine has more internal conflict between "Dnepropetrovsk"vs"Donetsk' mafias than anything else.
It's not a trivial question who started to look abroad first: blue to east or Uschenko got support from Kuchma and his buddies in Ukranian security.


What if there was a revolution in Mexico with the people rising up against their government because of its extensive corruption, ties with druglords and inability to enforce law and order on the streets? And then suddenly you get a new Mexican president who studied in the USSR in his youth, speaks perfect Russian, gives constant interviews to Russian TV, and goes on to try and cut as many ties and treaties with America as possible, advocating instead a military, political and economic alliance with Russia. What would you think?
Substitute Mexico with Venesuela. You don't have to use subjectives here.
I remind that Venesuela used to be the biggest oil supplier to US.


If you're so curious then perhaps you should speak to some of the people from the area. Unless I'm mistaken you live in Russia, so it shouldn't be so hard. And don't just listen to the nationalist minority (who also happen to be the loudest), but the silent majority whose priorities are better living standards, job security and a future for their children above all else.
Are you speaking of the politicians or the people? I think the majority of Ukrainians and Kyrgyz, many of which I have spoken to, would be very much for tighter relations with Russia, even for some sort of economic and military union with it.
Ukraine from early start had permanent and multiple economical conflicts with Russia.

Military related examples: Topol M (Topol M=Topol-parts made in Ukraine), economical sabotage of AN-70 (there is sufficient information even in russian sources) etc. etc. etc.
There is no wonder that "americans" had success. The right question would be "what took them so long"? Amateurs.
The 90s situation in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan was even worse.


If I remember correctly, there was even a proposal by the Kyrgyz oppostion (which despite the beliefs of some, has mostly pro-Russian elements as well), which advocated a nation-wide referendum for Kyrgyzstan to join the Russian Federation as either a subject or the Russia-Belarus union state. The petition got quite a lot of signatures but then died down after refutals from higher-ups most likely.
Ha-ha,ha. How many signatures? Kyrgyzians suddenly stopped being nationalists?



Georgians of course wouldn't be, with the recent war there is wide-scale dissaproval and dislike of Russia and even Russians.
What about 90s? Love&flowers? This 2008 war was sudden change of otherwise fruitful and cheerful relations? No 1992-1994? No 2004? No 2006?



However I have heard opinions from quite a few that said they don't care about these US-Russia games, they want to be friends and have closer ties to Russia, but want their territory back before that can happen.Exactly. when will russians do that?


I was talking about refusing automatic citizenship for residents of Russian descent who were born in Latvia and Estonia. I was also talking about the systematic campaign to root out the Russian language from all public spheres and failing to guarantee rights to Russian speakers to have at least some opportunity to be educated or work in their native language. My second point has less ground to stand on I admit, but my first point irrefutably contradicts the standard practice of European governments that don't discriminate against their people based on their ethnicity.Why should they do that?
Their actions obviously don't contradict the standard practice, and there are no signs of official pressure on baltic states. Because there is no reason to apply any. Before repeating BS from russian media educate yourself with european laws.

Unacceptable. The people of Russian descent that moved to the Estonian and Latvian SSRs after WW2 did not do so to 'occupy' your country, but to secure a better standard of living for themselves, because the Baltic countries were considered a cool and 'Western' place to be, etc... They have done nothing wrong, and many participated in the demonstrations that brought down Soviet rule there. As such they should be respected, and the current governments of these countries should represent their interests as much as they represent the ethnic Estonians and Latvians.

Russians moved to baltic states because they were provided work and living place there, without inherent queues and mess existing in Russia. Migrants=/immigrants.

[Flamming_Python]

It wasn't long time ago when I needed my electrical heating system to be repaired. 2 Russian speaking technicians came over to repair the system both of the blokes were bad in talking Estonian and I preferred to talk with them in Russian just in case to make sure they understand what needs to be done. Somehow they managed to get the job didn't they?

And about W-SS monuments and veterans, Estonian government hasn't established any monuments, nor does it give any special support to W-SS veterans.

I would also add that this all has been discussed over and over again.

I know this has been discussed over and over again, and I'm no more enthusiastic than you in restarting such a conversation. But sometimes these threads take on a life of their own :D

I don't mean any disrespect to Estonians and I wish your country the best, because really it's time for bygones to be bygones, turn down the nationalism on both sides down a few notches and work constructively together.

As for the W-SS monuments and support to W-SS veterans, I have heard many reports to the contrary. But perhaps I misinterpreted them or else they were false; I certainly hope so.

[Flamming_Python]

I already understood your points and have no delusions about Yushchenko for example being a champion of the Ukrainian people. I was however in Kiev at the time and he had unanimous support, nobody I spoke to supported Yanukovich. His supporters had to be bussed in from Donetsk and Lugansk and stayed out of the center for fear of getting their asses handed to them. At the time, my Ukrainian friends scoffed at me in anger when I told them that Yushchenko was just as self-serving as any other politician. That is beside the point though.

Yanukovich is a self-serving crook and people in Ukraine were quite aware of this. This was only heightened by the accusations of his falsification of the election with Russian support, as well as the poisoning of his rival through 'KGB agents'. But with Ukrainian politics the way they are and they were, you can't take anything for granted or assume anything to be true.

Yushchenko on the other hand, represented a fresh face, with a fresh approach, and had more effective and better financed propaganda to boot. A large part of his support was from the Ukrainian nationalists, but I have heard of a lot of Russians in the Ukraine and Ukrainians who have pro-Russian views, even Russians in Russia who supported him, precisely because they thought that he couldn't be any worse than Yanukovich. Of course when he started cutting as many ties with Russia as possible, becoming embroilled in endless political conflicts with his former partners, restricting the use of the Russian language, moving towards NATO, and finally helping Georgia in the war, his support plummetted as people started perceiving him as a Nationalist who has no idea of how to run the country, and is determined to put Western interest above the interests of the Ukrainian people.


My point, and only point, is that Russia (nor the US nor any nation) does not have an inherent right to dictate policy of it's neighboring sovereign states.

Russia's "sphere of influence" is nothing more than a statement to that political end and in my opinion without legitimacy.In theory of course you are right, but when the US starts engineering revolutions on your doorstep, some of which end up in wars, some that attempt to destroy your cultural influence, others that damage your economic interests severely, I think Russia has the right to fight back and say 'cut the **** or else'.


They can (and do) excercise their influence in other ways and if they wish stronger ties with their neighbors on friendly terms, then they should behave as such. Russia's neighbors do face a tricky political road, as they are a political plaything in many ways... a degree of "balance" through US ties, not to mention other economic channels for development, yet at the same time they have to live amicably with their overbearing neighbor... and their presumable largest trading partner and in some cases, close historical and cultural cousin.Unfortunetly what you have described is a tactic used by all countries that have the power to do so. America has done this to pressure countries to accept arms sales from its producers, economic links to its corporations, political help to its operations, threatining cutting economic links, sanctions, etc... and other things. And i'm not talking just about questionable governments like those Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, but many countries that are its allies, putting diplomatic pressure on them to support its initiatives and industries.

I would be the first to admit that Russia practises the same policy often in regards to ex-Soviet neighbours, and sometimes it backfires. Russia favoured Uzbekistan over Tajikistan, and in the case of the latter stopped support for the construction of a huge hydro-electric power plant despite promises to continue with it. Russia puts pressure often on Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc... giving them little other choice. So its always usefull for each country to have several partners. It's a shame but such is the world. However, in both cases, Russia and America give a lot back to these countries and reward them for their co-operation, and despite all concerns, it doesn't give the excuse for America to set up revolutions in countries right in Russia's backyard and then put the same pressure on these new governments that Russia has done previously.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

I would be the first to admit that Russia practises the same policy often in regards to ex-Soviet neighbours, and sometimes it backfires. Russia favoured Uzbekistan over Tajikistan, and in the case of the latter stopped support for the construction of a huge hydro-electric power plant despite promises to continue with it. Russia puts pressure often on Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc... giving them little other choice. So its always usefull for each country to have several partners. It's a shame but such is the world. However, in both cases, Russia and America give a lot back to these countries and reward them for their co-operation, and despite all concerns, it doesn't give the excuse for America to set up revolutions in countries right in Russia's backyard and then put the same pressure on these new governments that Russia has done previously.There isn't much for me to add, except that it is indeed the way things work. Nor is it a foreign concept that governments try to protect their nations' interest. Sadly however, it is often a case of government trying to protect the interests of themselves and their lobbies with the actual interests of the nation taking a secondary role.

In any case, just as you, I am interested to see how the Obama-Medvedev axis works out. Despite the opening salvos of Davos, I think a more pragmatic approach to world politics will take the forefront.

[Flamming_Python]

**Imaging how zombified georgians and ukranians followed flute of ival americans**failing**

They were fooled. You don't have to zombify or brainwash people to fool them.


You can find sufficient information in russian about changes in Georgia. Local changes are significant and positive. "Surprisingly" in big part due to direct influence of EU advisers.
Ukraine has more internal conflict between "Dnepropetrovsk"vs"Donetsk' mafias than anything else.
It's not a trivial question who started to look abroad first: blue to east or Uschenko got support from Kuchma and his buddies in Ukranian security.There were quite a lot of positive changes, until of course Saakashvilli threw it all away by attacking Ossetia breaking agreements, and where he knew Russian peacekeepers were based that would come under direct fire in the event of Georgia initiating hostilities. He thus sacrificed his own country's national interests on a stupid gamble and threw away the only chance he had to return those territories to Georgia, which would of course been by peaceful means involving extensive negotiations, concessions, greater political autonomy to the areas in question, and yes of course would have meant greater Russian influence in Georgia at the expense of less Western influence and no NATO membership, which for some reason was so completely, utterly unacceptable to him that he would rather risk war with a nuclear-armed nation 200 times the size of his own, in the hopes that his sponsor America would come to his rescue.

As for Ukraine; no argument there, they are both crooks along with just about every other politician in the country.


Substitute Mexico with Venesuela. You don't have to use subjectives here.
I remind that Venesuela used to be the biggest oil supplier to US.
Ukraine from early start had permanent and multiple economical conflicts with Russia.I think it's quite clear that Chavez didn't come to power from a Russian GRU sponsored revolution. Your comparison is thus invalid, and in any case Chavez has not done even half of what I hypothesized a future Russian installed Mexican president would; which itself is of course equivalent to what Yushchenko and Saakashvilli have done :D

Besides that, Venezuela is quite a distance away from America. It is better to compare Central America to the ex-USSR, and South America to Eastern Europe.


Military related examples: Topol M (Topol M=Topol-parts made in Ukraine), economical sabotage of AN-70 (there is sufficient information even in russian sources) etc. etc. etc.
There is no wonder that "americans" had success. The right question would be "what took them so long"? Amateurs.Ukraine had conflicts with Russia of course, both sides had issues and claims not just the Ukraine, and I should remind you that even close allies have such conflicts. What the West did (America initiated it but Europe offered its quiet sympathy) is exploit temporary disillusion with the existing government in Ukraine, to drive as much of a wedge as possible between Russia and Ukraine, 2 countries with so many ties that it is almost unthinkable to seperate them as much as the West attempted to do.


The 90s situation in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan was even worse.
Ha-ha,ha. How many signatures? Kyrgyzians suddenly stopped being nationalists?Since when were the Kyrgyz nationalists? In contrast to most of the rest of the USSR, Central Asia had one of the lowest levels of nationalism and political consciousness, it only really became visible during the late 80's and early 90's, but even then it was far less than in many other republics and regions. The majority of the population of all Central Asian Soviet republics voted to remain part of the USSR in a 1990 referendum. Once they were independent, out of those who did support that, many started to regret it when their economy, industry, social support, education and health care went into complete free-fall.

As for how many signatures, well it was maybe back in 2006 or so, therefore I don't remember exactly, but I believe at least 5000-6000 within a few days, which is a pretty large number considering the petition wasn't well publicized even in Kyrgyzstan, and was only started to be carried out in the capital city before suddenly all news of it disappeared.


What about 90s? Love&flowers? This 2008 war was sudden change of otherwise fruitful and cheerful relations? No 1992-1994? No 2004? No 2006?All of those were low points as well, but relations nevertheless began improving again after each event despite the ongoing territorial conflict and issue of mass Georgian refugees.

I believe I heard that in 1990 no Georgian would speak Russian to a Russian customer at a Georgian market. By 2000 everyone was speaking Russian with no problems.


Exactly. when will russians do that?They won't. Georgia lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Russia lost Georgia. No-one won but NATO and the EU.


Why should they do that?
Their actions obviously don't contradict the standard practice, and there are no signs of official pressure on baltic states. Because there is no reason to apply any. Before repeating BS from russian media educate yourself with european laws.

Russians moved to baltic states because they were provided work and living place there, without inherent queues and mess existing in Russia. Migrants=/immigrants.As mentioned I don't really want to get into all of this. All i'm going to say, is like it or not, but the Soviet period was also a part of Estonian and Latvian history that it is neither possible to ignore, nor is it possible to pretend it didn't happen, as that period changed the country and its demographics. The only way forward is to make peace and come to terms with it.

[Flamming_Python]

There isn't much for me to add, except that it is indeed the way things work. Nor is it a foreign concept that governments try to protect their nations' interest. Sadly however, it is often a case of government trying to protect the interests of themselves and their lobbies with the actual interests of the nation taking a secondary role.

In any case, just as you, I am interested to see how the Obama-Medvedev axis works out. Despite the opening salvos of Davos, I think a more pragmatic approach to world politics will take the forefront.

I hope for the same, peace p-)

[spider1]

Why south ossetia and the other region dont want to be part of georgia? how it started?

[Flamming_Python]

Why south ossetia and the other region dont want to be part of georgia? how it started?

A lot of nationalism, corruption, stupidity and greedy self-interest, not just in Georgia but everywhere in the ex-USSR. Followed by a few wars.

[spider1]

A lot of nationalism, corruption, stupidity and greedy self-interest, not just in Georgia but everywhere in the ex-USSR. Followed by a few wars.
There is a chance that if georgia will be ok with russia and will leave the west they will get back those regions?

[Dercius]

Oh, come on give me a break.

Russia has an sphere of influence, same way America has one.

Save me all this BS about democracy and elected goverments in some republics no one cares about(most people is not even able to place them in a map). (that didnt stop us (western democracies) when dealing with Allende in Chile, and supporting dictatorships in south america. Monroe doctrine comes to my mind).

If we are going to express our opinion here, lets do it, but dont try to claim any moral high ground because both sides, us and them went to deep**** and backstabbing for decades. So please no more hypocresy or BS.

World is not fair. We dont have to be good or behave better than the enemy, we only need to look or appear less evil than them no matter what our real actions are.

lets keep it civil.
just my opinion (tired after going through a few pages of Gondor vs Mordor)rofl

[1curious]

Oh, come on give me a break.

Russia has an sphere of influence, same way America has one.

Save me all this BS about democracy and elected goverments in some republics no one cares about(most people is not even able to place them in a map). (that didnt stop us (western democracies) when dealing with Allende in Chile, and supporting dictatorships in south america. Monroe doctrine comes to my mind).

If we are going to express our opinion here, lets do it, but dont try to claim any moral high ground because both sides, us and them went to deep**** and backstabbing for decades. So please no more hypocresy or BS.

World is not fair. We dont have to be good or behave better than the enemy, we only need to look or appear less evil than them no matter what our real actions are.

lets keep it civil.
just my opinion (tired after going through a few pages of Gondor vs Mordor)roflGood post, Dercius.

Let me just add: some (for various reasons) have to speak up about their vital interests (“sphere of influence“), while others can remain silent about the very same concerns (because everyone “knows“).

The difference is usually in perception (rather than real) power of the speaker /non-speaker.

Hence, while the US is justified thinking everyone should *know*, the Russians are extra vocal because many seem to miss the new reality and the US isn’t willing to help the Russians (and everyone else) with the perception of its declining power. Such is the psychology of humans.

[DS73]

They were fooled. You don't have to zombify or brainwash people to fool them.

The main point's that people were and still are very frustrated with l33t in Ukraine. You can observe pretty much complete separation between population and government. Names and international alliances are irrelevant. It's internal structural problem.
In W. Europe only french can be compared with their cynicism toward state institutions and elections.

Any fresh person with sufficient finances was and is guarantied to win.
Good example would be this complete lunatic who is ruling Kiev now.
....
Both politicians were good as general l33t in respective countries.
Saka had to be hardcore nationalist to stay in power, Ush had no choice as to relay on support of una. It's the only available force accessible for him.



I think it's quite clear that Chavez didn't come to power from a Russian GRU sponsored revolution. Your comparison is thus invalid, and in any case Chavez has not done even half of what I hypothesized a future Russian installed Mexican president would; which itself is of course equivalent to what Yushchenko and Saakashvilli have done :D
It's not so trivial. There is some very specific correlation between financial and political recovery of new Russia and the reinsurgence of all these numerous Latino communist movements. Quick and clear political military and probably financial support from Russia is also impossible to hide.
Anyway you also are going very hard time to prove that Uschenko had CIA ground. Actually there all reasons to believe that his actions weren't any state sponsored or planned. Corporations=/states


Besides that, Venezuela is quite a distance away from America. It is better to compare Central America to the ex-USSR, and South America to Eastern Europe.
You are missing point here. US had serious and immediate damage from Venezuela affair.
Communist Mexico wouldn't be much worse than current messy state.
In fact returning industrial business back to US is nothing but beneficial for American economy.


Ukraine had conflicts with Russia of course, both sides had issues and claims not just the Ukraine, and I should remind you that even close allies have such conflicts. What the West did (America initiated it but Europe offered its quiet sympathy) is exploit temporary disillusion with the existing government in Ukraine, to drive as much of a wedge as possible between Russia and Ukraine, 2 countries with so many ties that it is almost unthinkable to separate them as much as the West attempted to do.
What is temporary here? jealousy between Ukraine and Russia?
ha-ha-ha. Tell this to hardcore ukranians from central or western Ukraine or those russians who seriously believe that ukranian is invented language.
History is no good example anyway:
The Dutch had good history with Germans for more than 2 centuries.(who remember Munster wars??a?a?).
One f**kup, 5 years of mess and the grudge is still there. After 60 years or 3 generations!


Since when were the Kyrgyz nationalists? In contrast to most of the rest of the USSR, Central Asia had one of the lowest levels of nationalism and political consciousness, it only really became visible during the late 80's and early 90's, but even then it was far less than in many other republics and regions.
:cantbeli:Series of conflicts with Meshketian turks and uzbeks, later with tadzhiks apparently don't count, just like occasional but pretty persistent harassment of russian language population. After all the high persentage of russian population left country. Unlike Kazahstan (the only relatively healthy country there) for example.
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of casualties during 1989-1991 was much higher than in current Georgian-Ossetian conflict.
Anyway all central asian cultures are inherently tribal nationalistic.


As for how many signatures, well it was maybe back in 2006 or so, therefore I don't remember exactly, but I believe at least 5000-6000 within a few days, which is a pretty large number considering the petition wasn't well publicized even in Kyrgyzstan, and was only started to be carried out in the capital city before suddenly all news of it disappeared.
ha-ha. and I say this 5000 is pretty much all they would collect, since "the democracy" there is pretty much equivalent with what local leader says. Nothing different from soviet times btw. Just different faces and no soviet army with soviet money.



As mentioned I don't really want to get into all of this. All i'm going to say, is like it or not, but the Soviet period was also a part of Estonian and Latvian history that it is neither possible to ignore, nor is it possible to pretend it didn't happen, as that period changed the country and its demographics. The only way forward is to make peace and come to terms with it.There should be common language for state wide communication (otherwise there is no state to talk about). So it should be or local baltic language or russian. Why locals should learn russian now?
As far as I know russians can become citizens if they pass language-history exam. Seems sufficiently fair to me. I have to pass similar exam (though very silly one) very soon.
You don't see that exactly the russians who put themselves into isolation due to chauvinism and refusal to pass these "illegal exams"?

[shoora]

oh boy you threateed us with nukes since 1989, erlier we lived with US French and UK nukes pointed at us, there is no diffrence.
Since 1989...Who told you that? Until now Poland did not impose any life treat to Russia. Why should anyone point _very_ expensive weapon at such country. To much "honor". Frankly, Russia forgot a country named Poland.
If it's not enough then, technically, Russia does not have appropriate weapon to hit Poland. Missiles with 500km range is prohibited and aiming ICBM at Poland - what a joke!
After WW2, western and eastern Europe was hostage of geopolitics. Now, I guess, they had too many years in safety and now want some adrenaline.


you see, main diffrence is we can say no to yanks we can basicly do what we want while when we where your "allies" we could only listen and serve, also if we say no yanks won't come and kill us we will just loose their protection and a bit cash on trade whie if we would say no to you it would end up with our gas and oil supply cut with your tanks on our streets.
You are dreaming! Nonschience fiction! I tell you what - when Reagan wanted to deploy Pershings in Europe, permission was despite HUGE protests. When Bush want to deploy "Shield" in Poland - permission granted! Tell me about "democracy" and "freedom"! A now Russia people are joking about countries of "Big Six" (six in jargon - henchman).
And once you noted gas - Europe has soviet gas during Cold War. And now, when Poland dreaming on role of worst enemy of "russian imperialism", you have gas in you kitchen. And this is Russian gas.
My advise, if you want to give some BS, put a little bit more sense in it.

[rusak]

The collapse of the soviet union, lifted the boot off the neck of many of these states and they are free to chose alliances with who they please. This obviously upsets moscow, who somehow think its a right they can decide the policies of once captive states.
You want to talk about captive states? Hawaii is a captive state. Formerly recognized as a sovereign state by world powers, invaded and taken captive by Mercan imperialists. Feel free to recognize that. People like you like to talk about some "captive nations" that you know nothing about, but don't want to recognize what your own country is.

Why can't Abkhazia and South Ossetia choose alliances with whom they please? Why does the US want to recognize the independence of Georgia from the Soviet Union, but not the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia?

[rusak]

It wasn't long time ago when I needed my electrical heating system to be repaired. 2 Russian speaking technicians came over to repair the system both of the blokes were bad in talking Estonian and I preferred to talk with them in Russian just in case to make sure they understand what needs to be done. Somehow they managed to get the job didn't they?
Are the language inspectorates still around? That sh!t is straight out of the Gestapo playbook and done for blatantly racist reasons. Are you seriously going to claim the level of "social security" of ethnic Russians in Estonia in general is anywhere near that of ethnic Ests? In the entire post-Soviet period, there hasn't been a single ethnic Russian minister in government, though Russian speakers make up about 30% of the population. So who supports the interests of the ethnic Russian minority? Should we expect the Est nationalists to do it?

[shoora]

You want to talk about captive states? Hawaii is a captive state. Formerly recognized as a sovereign state by world powers, invaded and taken captive by Mercan imperialists. Feel free to recognize that. People like you like to talk about some "captive nations" that you know nothing about, but don't want to recognize what your own country is.
It's too late for Hawaii. BTW, it's a good example - Russia was invited in Hawaii for protection, and Russian Fort was abandoned as soon as it becomes unnecessary.
http://www.hawaiiweb.com/kauai/sites_to_see/RussianFortElizabeth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Fort_Elizabeth
AFAIK the only captive nation released by US is Phillippines.

[Flamming_Python]

There is a chance that if georgia will be ok with russia and will leave the west they will get back those regions?

Yes there is such a chance, but it's not going to happen. Russia will loose too much trust, if it backs down from its position and drops its new allies. And its new allies of course, after this war will never agree to enter Georgia without a fight, no matter who tells them to.


The main point's that people were and still are very frustrated with l33t in Ukraine. You can observe pretty much complete separation between population and government. Names and international alliances are irrelevant. It's internal structural problem.
In W. Europe only french can be compared with their cynicism toward state institutions and elections.

Any fresh person with sufficient finances was and is guarantied to win.
Good example would be this complete lunatic who is ruling Kiev now.
....
Both politicians were good as general l33t in respective countries.
Saka had to be hardcore nationalist to stay in power, Ush had no choice as to relay on support of una. It's the only available force accessible for him.

There you are wrong. They had a choice. Actually they had a great oppurtunity with their popularity, and the amount of faith that their people placed in them following the revolutions that until that time hadn't been equalled since the chaotic days of the Soviet collapse. They had a chance, to really set their countries moving in the right direction, pursue a multi-polar course and secure their countries best interests through neutrality, manuevring and diplomacy. Instead they chose an ideologically motivated course of cutting Russia and its people off as much as possible from them despite the negative consenquences it would have for their own people, and of course the only way to achieve that was through nationalist demagogary.

As for the French with their cynisism towards their government. Well i'd definately add the British in there as well; they are unrivalled in terms of their distrust of their government. Perhaps the Italians as well.


It's not so trivial. There is some very specific correlation between financial and political recovery of new Russia and the reinsurgence of all these numerous Latino communist movements. Quick and clear political military and probably financial support from Russia is also impossible to hide.
Anyway you also are going very hard time to prove that Uschenko had CIA ground. Actually there all reasons to believe that his actions weren't any state sponsored or planned. Corporations=/statesSpare me please rofl
These Latino 'communist' (in fact just anti-American) movements rose up at the same time as Russia. Both of them also rose up at the same time as the price of oil started shooting up, which in Russia's case provided it the finance needed to kick-start its economy and financial system. I'm sure for Venezuela, etc... countries which had long had anti-Western tendencies much as Eastern Europe had anti-Russian tendencies, the rising price of oil had a similar effect.

I absolutely believe the revolutions in the Ukraine and Georgia were planned in advance, and were far from spontaneous. Everything about it indicated Western involvement, from the American flags, to the sophisticated propaganda campaign, to the mass-organisation, to the allegations of vote rigging, to the huge amounts of finance, to the sharp anti-Russian politics, to the politicians brought in power themselves. Open your eyes. You will have a very hard time convincing me, other Russians, or even other Ukrainians and Georgians (regardless of whether they support their current governments or not), that the main help and initiative didn't come from the outside.


You are missing point here. US had serious and immediate damage from Venezuela affair.:roll:

Russia had serious and immediate damage from the Chechen seperatists, but we can hardly blame the West for that.


Communist Mexico wouldn't be much worse than current messy state.
In fact returning industrial business back to US is nothing but beneficial for American economy.Why all this obsession with communists? Russia hasn't been communist since 1991. And no, a Russian-orientated Mexico will have far, far, far worse repurcusions for America than the current chaos there.


What is temporary here? jealousy between Ukraine and Russia?
ha-ha-ha. Tell this to hardcore ukranians from central or western Ukraine or those russians who seriously believe that ukranian is invented language.
History is no good example anyway:
The Dutch had good history with Germans for more than 2 centuries.(who remember Munster wars??a?a?).
One f**kup, 5 years of mess and the grudge is still there. After 60 years or 3 generations!Jealousy between Ukraine and Russia is present, but it's more like a friendly rivalry, few Ukrainians apart from the most nationalist will advocate a real split between the countries, mutual defence industries and industrial ventures being broken and families being torn apart by a new 'Berlin Wall' between Ukraine and Russia as the result of NATO membership for one country and the other country's exclusion from it.

In regards to the central and Western Ukrainians, far from all of them are nationalist and anti-Russian. And as for the ones that are genuinely serious about it and support Bandera & co... well just who the hell cares about them? They should of course have all means and oppurtunities available to preserve and develop their culture, traditions and language, I would never advocate denying a distinct ethnic group its identity. But you should hear what some of these idiots have to say. They are a small minority compared to the majority of normal people, and they should simply shut the hell up and take it. And before you say anything, there is in Russia also a sizeable minority of racists, hardcore nationalists and cultural chauvinists, who in case you haven't noticed are shouted down and denounced immediately by most of the other Russians here when they show up on mp.net. And just as with the Ukrainians, I would never accept a Russia ruled by such people.


:cantbeli:Series of conflicts with Meshketian turks and uzbeks, later with tadzhiks apparently don't count, just like occasional but pretty persistent harassment of russian language population. After all the high persentage of russian population left country. Unlike Kazahstan (the only relatively healthy country there) for example.Of course there were problems. You also had problems inside Russia as well, including the riots against ethnic Russians in the republic of Yakutia sometime in the early 90's, the harrassment of Russians in the republic of Tuva around the same time, etc... But in both these republics and the Central Asian states, these problems pretty soon died down. There are very few in Yakutia who have problems with Russians now, and even fewer who want independence for Tuva; actually in that particular republic they are generally pro-Russian nowadays. The same in Central Asia, you still have some nationalists in the countryside, but in the big cities which were almost all developed in the Soviet times, the people usually have pro-Russian political views, very similar mentality to Russians, speak Russian all the time, were educated in Russian schools, watch Russian movies, follow Russian pop-culture, etc...

This is because in the case of these areas in the 90's, the ethnic troubles developed not so much due to some major problems but because of the rapid fall in living standards and nationalist propaganda which swept the USSR in the dying days of Glasnost. In the end everyone realised, that they won't get far without economical support from Moscow.

Contrast that to the Baltics, Caucasus and other places where there was real discontent and problems then, that failed to die down, but developed either into wars or into real ethnic tension that persists to this day, and has since developed into anti-Russian politics.

BTW I don't understand why you threw in the Meshkhetian Turks in here. They were originally from Georgia but deported by Stalin to Central Asia; they weren't natives there and I don't think their primary problems were with the Russians in any case, but rather with the same Uzbeks, etc... that you are talking about now. That's why started leaving Central Asia en masse and moved to southern Russian and Krasnodar instead (where they also faced discrimination). You might as well throw the Chechens into your list as well, because they were also deported by Stalin and lived in Central Asia :roll:

I don't know how the Tajik and Uzbek situation differed so much from for example, the Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Turkmen. Although I have heard from someone who lived in Uzbekistan while the nationalist troubles were happening. He was born in Uzbekistan, and though he was not an Uzbek, he was not a Russian either (he was Tatar). He described to me how during these times, Islamist radicals started running around the streets with knives and razor blades, sometimes he would hear stories of these guys cutting and slashing the legs of girls found dressed in miniskirts. Fun eh? He also related to me how he once went to a friend's house during those times. Immediately he got the feeling, that his friend couldn't be described as one anymore, as the conversation progressed he was subjected to something like the following 'For years I had to endure being called a babai, baramchai, churka from you Russians, and now you will all pay'. This despite the fact that he wasn't technically a Russian, but rather a Soviet; i.e. a cosmopolitan Russian-speaker with pro-Russian political views (for all you pan-turkists reading this post, take note, even fellow Turkic peoples can get upset with each other :))

And yes Russians are leaving these republics. These nationalist outrages happened earlier, but they weren't so long-lived. The main reason the Russians left then and now, is because of the poverty and condition of these countries compared to Moscow, St.Petersburg, Europe, etc...


I wouldn't be surprised if the number of casualties during 1989-1991 was much higher than in current Georgian-Ossetian conflict.Quite possible, the casualties of the recent conflict weren't so high, and the fall of the USSR was a very chaotic period which no international media covered in any detail. Difference is, this war happened over 5 days, whereas the troubles of 1989-1991 lasted... well from 1989 to 1991.


Anyway all central asian cultures are inherently tribal nationalisticIn the countryside yes, but certainly not in the big cities, where tribes quickly become irrelevant, and people don't only intermarry between tribes but between different ethnic groups and nominal faiths. There are plenty of mixed Russian-Kyrgyz families for example, absolutely plenty.


ha-ha. and I say this 5000 is pretty much all they would collect, since "the democracy" there is pretty much equivalent with what local leader says. Nothing different from soviet times btw. Just different faces and no soviet army with soviet money.Well it wasn't an initative of the parliament, it was an initiative of the political oppostion and was carried out amongst the opposition participants of the mass rallies in Bishkek which were going on at the time. Under such conditions, 5000 is a pretty high figure over just a few days and with little publicity or exposure. Of course I can't vouch for the validity of the signatures, they could have all been forged and BS for all I know, like so much else in ex-Soviet politics.


There should be common language for state wide communication (otherwise there is no state to talk about). So it should be or local baltic language or russian. Why locals should learn russian now?
As far as I know russians can become citizens if they pass language-history exam. Seems sufficiently fair to me. I have to pass similar exam (though very silly one) very soon.
You don't see that exactly the russians who put themselves into isolation due to chauvinism and refusal to pass these "illegal exams"?You know for some reason I get the feeling that you yourself are origionally from the ex-USSR, you seem to know a lot about it. Yet other times you say such stupid things that I can only think of you as some ignorant who has never been to the region. How can this be? And how can you really blame the Russians in this situation, when the situation was neither of their doing nor of any other ethnic groups, but rather a by-product of the system they all lived under?

Gosh, chauvinism? Did it not perhaps occur to you that every nationalist of every ethnic group at the time was also a chauvinist, not just the Russians (among whom nationalist tendencies were actually lower than average compared to many other ethic groups)? The nationalist may try to prove how different they are from the Russian population. If you are from the ex-USSR yourself, you may also have been dying to prove how different you are from the 'poor, backward Russians'. No yablochko ot yablone, daleko ne upadivaet :roll:

No matter how much they wanted to prove whatever, everyone was actually very similar to each other and had a lot more in common with each other than with the rest of the world. Everyone grew up under the same Soviet system; same postboxes, same toilets, same schools, same holiday spots, same achievements in space, same big furry hats, same society. If you speak to some of the Ukrainian nationalists, you might get the feeling that actually they wouldn't have minded staying in the USSR so much, if only Ukrainian language replaced Russian as the primary inter-ethnic language, and the capital was moved from Moscow to Kiev.

In the Baltics, everyone was obssessed with language, actually in contrast to the other parts of the USSR, in the Baltics the main nationalism revolved exactly around language. Both sides failed to see past their own asses, the Baltics rightly felt that it was their country and that these new 'immigrants' should learn their language. The Russians there rightly felt that these were also their countries in which they were born and raised, and as the system was such that they never learnt the language properly (it was still taught but many didn't pay attention in the lessons because there wasn't too much employment-related or official use for it), why should they have to learn it now; surely it wasn't their fault that they were never required to know it when growing up, going to school and working there? The result was that this nationalism developed to such a degree that the Russians felt that when a Baltic didn't speak Russian to them, he was trying to insult them and disrespect their culture, and the Baltics felt that when a Russian didn't speak their language to them, that he was trying to insult them and disrespect their culture. This circle of BS persists to this day, although I noticed with Lithuanians for example that they are a lot happier speaking Russian to me than they might have been 10 years ago. Neither side had the brains to realise that it was no-ones fault, that it was simply that such was the situation, and that both sides should work together to build up their country and find solutions, rather than assigning blame for each other when in fact neither group controlled the USSR or its language policies any more than the other, in case you haven't noticed, it wasn't a democratic society; it was a dictatorship. And all the while in the 90's, everyone was screaming, 'punish the Russians', 'get rid of the evil imperialist Russian language!' That's what I remember from the BBC. The West joined into this chorus, and poked its nose into somewhere where it had no business being.

And this is the heart of the matter. The USSR was not a 'Russian' state, which attempted to promote Russian culture, protect Russian national interests or place Russians above other ethnic groups. It was an Ideological state, which attempted to promote world socialism, protect the interests of its whole territiory and treat each USSR citizen no better and no worse than any other USSR citizen no matter what ethnic origin he or she was. At this it succeeded pretty well and that's what i'm grateful to it for, and incidently, it's also the reason why nationalism and chauvinism developed evenly across every ethnic group, because no self-respecting nationalist recognized any superiority of 'Russians', 'Russia' or the 'Russian language', everyone thought that they could go their own way without any problems. Contrast this with the heritage of the Western empires after they left Asia and Africa. The peoples they gave independence to were subjected to an inferiority complex during the whole time of colonisation, and despite their desire to rule themselves none of them had any problems with looking up to Western culture, or adopting Western languages such as English, French and Spanish as their own in their new states.

The reason the USSR had Russian as its main language, was simply that at the beggining of its creation most of its territory was occupied by people that already spoke Russian as their primary and secoundary language. Therefore it was easiest for the Soviets to build their new identity of a 'Soviet Man' by using it. Had Lenin's or Stalin's efforts extended the USSR further in its first decade of existance, we could have ended up with its main language becoming English, German or French. And because the Baltics were in the USSR, the language 'to know' was Russian, much as the language 'to know' in the EU is English which everyone in their schools learns nowadays. So answer me again, why do the Russians have to take any stupid exams at all, that the Estonians or Latvians don't have to, if none of these groups controlled their own destiny for the better part of the last century?

[rusak]

In regards to the central and Western Ukrainians, far from all of them are nationalist and anti-Russian. And as for the ones that are genuinely serious about it and support Bandera & co... well just who the hell cares about them? They should of course have all means and oppurtunities available to preserve and develop their culture, traditions and language, I would never advocate denying a distinct ethnic group its identity. But you should hear what some of these idiots have to say. They are a small minority compared to the majority of normal people, and they should simply shut the hell up and take it.
Sorry man, but you're out of touch with reality here, saying that the anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists are just a "small minority". That's false. There may be different definitions of "nationalism" and different levels of nationalism, but the reality is that the "ethnic Ukrainian" identity (the mainstream ethnic Ukrainian identity) in general is essentially anti-Russian at its core. This identity was basically constructed around an inferiority complex and is manifested in hysterical opposition to everything Russian. It's not a healthy identity but that's what it is. I think that the % of Ukraine's population that subscribes to some variant of this identity roughly corresponds to the % who voted for the Oranges - if only because no Ukrainian nationalists whatsoever would ever vote for the likes of Yanukovich. That's about 55% of the population, not a small minority. I don't care if someone hates/resents the moskali a lot or a little - it's all the same in essence, it's all disgusting. I don't want the ethnic Russian population to be "captive" in an anti-Russian state, not even a "mildy" anti-Russian state - this is a violation of human rights.

[shoora]

There should be common language for state wide communication (otherwise there is no state to talk about). So it should be or local baltic language or russian. Why locals should learn russian now?
As far as I know russians can become citizens if they pass language-history exam. Seems sufficiently fair to me. I have to pass similar exam (though very silly one) very soon.
Funny thing, in one baltic country (don't remember in which one) the head of state does not speak local well enough to pass that language exam. From this I can tell - you can not pass those exams as "piece of cake".
So, I see this clearly as discrimination. Can someone disprove me?

[shoora]

Sorry man, but you're out of touch with reality here, saying that the anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists are just a "small minority". That's false.
Since 1991 (actually even before that) mass media in Ukraine are pushing nationalistic agenda. After so called "pomaranch" revolution, pressing strengthen many times and accented on making heroes from "fighters" against Moskaley.
So, number of "nation conscious" (svidomie) are dramatically growing. Surprisingly, percentage of Ukrainians who like Russia, much higher than Russians who like Ukrainian state. Such a good illustration of divided state!

[shoora]

They won't. Georgia lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Russia lost Georgia. No-one won but NATO and the EU.

What EU has to do with all this situation. All estern european contries is nothing more than american protégé. European had to accept these new members in exchange for continuation of trade preferences in USA. Plus. of course, Europe gain access to new markets and control over bank system etc. I think now they mainly regrets. Because these protégé is nothing more than Trojan Horse. You dont have to clairvoyant to see resistance of EU as to accepting new members such as ukraine or gerogia.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

European had to accept these new members in exchange for continuation of trade preferences in USA. Plus. of course, Europe gain access to new markets and control over bank system etc. I think now they mainly regrets. Because these protégé is nothing more than Trojan Horse. You dont have to clairvoyant to see resistance of EU as to accepting new members such as ukraine or gerogia.:roll:

Europe happily welcomed new members at a record pace without much goading from the US. New markets was the primary motivation.

The fact that these new members turned out to be very expensive is the reason they slammed on the expansion brakes a couple years back. Recent political issues with Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey for that matter have confirmed that the decision to stop expanding was the correct one, at least for the time being.

[Papenheims]

] So answer me again, why do the Russians have to take any stupid exams at all, that the Estonians or Latvians don't have to, if none of these groups controlled their own destiny for the better part of the last century?
Do you even read what I wrote ---

"Citizenship of Latvia and Estonia was given to those whose ancestors had citizenship before Soviet occupation regardless of their ethnicity, descent or level of state language."

Soviet Union was not states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Our independence was re-established not established in 1991 after 50 years of occupation and
The law is connected with notion about giving back properties - land, houses - to people whose ancestors owned them during the first independence.

By now the English language has become the communication language between young generation of Baltics. The Russian language is still taught in schools, but it is not longer required. Basically you can choose between Russian and German as your second foreign language.

[intelligenzija]

"Citizenship of Latvia and Estonia was given to those whose ancestors had citizenship before Soviet occupation regardless of their ethnicity, descent or level of state language."


I am not an expert on law but why are the Baltic states the only ones where this problem is an issue with the Russian minority. I have never heard complaints about such things in other European countries or America.. are the languages there so much easier or the Russians there smarter? rofl

[Adax]

Since 1989...Who told you that? Until now Poland did not impose any life treat to Russia. Why should anyone point _very_ expensive weapon at such country. To much "honor". Frankly, Russia forgot a country named Poland.
If it's not enough then, technically, Russia does not have appropriate weapon to hit Poland. Missiles with 500km range is prohibited and aiming ICBM at Poland - what a joke!
After WW2, western and eastern Europe was hostage of geopolitics. Now, I guess, they had too many years in safety and now want some adrenaline.

First of all, when we decided to enter NATO, Russians threated Poland(because of this decision). Secondly, just look at the map of Europe.
Poland lies in strategic location, in the heart of Europe. Every "invasion" on Russia(and vice versa) is through Poland. And the fact, that Russian conventional forces would not stand against NATO makes us belive that Russians would use nukes. Guess where would they hit them?
The same thing was during Cold War. There were plans to nuke Poland in the first days of war along Vistula River(IIRC 48 nukes would fall on Polish soil). There was even a map of it.


You are dreaming! Nonschience fiction! I tell you what - when Reagan wanted to deploy Pershings in Europe, permission was despite HUGE protests. When Bush want to deploy "Shield" in Poland - permission granted! Tell me about "democracy" and "freedom"! A now Russia people are joking about countries of "Big Six" (six in jargon - henchman).
And once you noted gas - Europe has soviet gas during Cold War. And now, when Poland dreaming on role of worst enemy of "russian imperialism", you have gas in you kitchen. And this is Russian gas.
My advise, if you want to give some BS, put a little bit more sense in it.
You suggest that there is something wrong with "freedom" and "democracy" in Poland?
Secondly, the national defence decisions cannot be taken by "democracy" or any kind of voting. If it were, most of the countries wouldn't have an Army. Oh, and we are not pretending to be enemy of anyone.
Next thing: gas? Hmm... you sound like we should thank Russians for gas. But hell, we pay for it.

About the so-called Russian "sphere of infuence" - it's funny to see members from western countries agreeing and confirming its existence. But can some of them tell us, which countries are in this sphere? :cantbeli:

[1curious]

it's funny to see members from western countries agreeing and confirming its existence.What’s so funny? Are you saying Poland does not have a sphere of influence? You want to call it something else? Are you denying that Poland has essential foreign policy objectives in other countries?

But can some of them tell us, which countries are in this sphere?Then why are you dragging the US into your problems with Russia?Quite a few reasonable Polish members on this forum honestly admitted: the American AMD deployment in Poland, at least in part, is Poland’s insurances against the Russians. Do you want to have a cake and eat it too? Sorry it does not work that way. If you want us in your country at least have a decency not insulting us - didn’t you (or some other Polish member) say in one of the threads - “Poland can kick Americans out any time it wishes".

You need to be reminded Polish history. It was not pretty when it tried to sit on two chairs without accepting responsibility for its own choices. Besides, I personally, while quite friendly toward Poland and the Polish nation - check my posts - don't feel Poland is more important for the US than Russia.

[~~~~]

Problems with logic? Well, if Polish people want to live with nukes pointed to their heads, so be it.

OK, you dont want to be in Russian "sphere of influence", instead you became under American. Serving to new master instead of old one. Whats the difference?

we are not serving them. we have some common interests to deal with. by exaggeration we could even say US is serving Poland by giving it additional security guarantees.
it cannot be said about former Poland and CCCP.

[DS73]

I am not an expert on law but why are the Baltic states the only ones where this problem is an issue with the Russian minority. I have never heard complaints about such things in other European countries or America.. are the languages there so much easier or the Russians there smarter? rofl
You live in Germany, are you saying germans don't complain? Are they that happy with russian immigrants? Russians are not recognized as a risk group among other big immigrant communities?
Every country that's got significant russian immigrant groups has problems with them. Be it some american cities (NY comes to mind), be it a number of german cities, be it any exUSSR republic.
Since 2006 germans practically closed immigration from Russia. Why is that?
Language law is the normal european rule, applied pretty much in all European countries (Germany and Netherlands included language rule as an immigration law since 2006, that is you have to know basic local language just to live in the country).

Russian immigrants settled in Baltic states after 1940 qualified as immigrants. There is nothing to discuss about.

The reason the USSR had Russian as its main language, was simply that at the beggining of its creation most of its territory was occupied by people that already spoke Russian as their primary and secoundary language.
This is not exactly true about baltic states.


Therefore it was easiest for the Soviets to build their new identity of a 'Soviet Man' by using it. Had Lenin's or Stalin's efforts extended the USSR further in its first decade of existance, we could have ended up with its main language becoming English, German or French.
Ha-ha,ha.


And because the Baltics were in the USSR, the language 'to know' was Russian, much as the language 'to know' in the EU is English which everyone in their schools learns nowadays. So answer me again, why do the Russians have to take any stupid exams at all, that the Estonians or Latvians don't have to, if none of these groups controlled their own destiny for the better part of the last century?So because these countries were occupied by russians, now they should keep learning russian?:cantbeli:
Obviously local people know their local language and enough of history, they study it in schools after all (and do pass enough of exams). It is hard to expect anything else, don't you think?
And don't compare russian with english.
English became the language of international communication not because it is enforced by guns. Both UK and US had enough to offer, starting with technology, science and ending with pop culture.

I have no desire to continue about any other subjects starting with Ukrainian elections etc. You have no basic knowledge about any subject you're talking about....

[JCR]

Actually according to a recent study, our "Russians" are the best educated, best integrated foreign group in Germany.
The study was extremely controversial because it showed that most of the problems with migrants are caused by turks and other muslims.

Surely there were the usual Khazak potato farmers in the early 1990s, but the second generation is on the average higher educated than the average "old" german.
De jure our russians are not russians at all, but germans.
There was no formal legislation to stop "late resettlement" in 2006, only a new system of aid for the Wolga germans still in Russia and Khazakstan.
Something which was intended from the end of the cold war.
But principally, any german who wants can still come to germany. Maybe with the economic downturn in the US, half of Pennsylvania will migrate back :D

To be short, I've never heard of any nationalism problems with russian germans. There are problems with lack of work and poverty, but generally russians are more willing to work and integrate than any other recent migrant group.
Clash of culture" problems like with Turks are unheard of, except for maybe introducing samovars into our appliance stores, Vodka consumption and watching movies about identical flats on new year's eve.
I think the russian german problems were a bit overstated in the 1990s media because in contrary to turks, you could ridicule them because they were germans (hence no racism) and anything russian a free for all anyway at that time.
Surely most of them are a bit on the "Russia stong!!11!" side, but that is mostly limited to their opinions about Poles and Ukrainians...

The second russian group, the jews, are even less visible.
Often these two groups actually merge, since they both groups are not really praciticing their respective religions (judaism and protestantism) so the only difference is politics (jews are less "stong!!11!!")

[Breakfast in Vegas]

To be short, I've never heard of any nationalism problems with russian germans. There are problems with lack of work and poverty, but generally russians are more willing to work and integrate than any other recent migrant group.

The second russian group, the jews, are even less visible.

Often these two groups actually merge, since they both groups are not really praciticing their respective religions (judaism and protestantism) so the only difference is politics (jews are less "stong!!11!!")Russian youth cause some problems in Germany just as any immigrant group will, but not extraordinarily so. For an immigrant group of their size, they're fairly well-behaved and their full integration is only a matter of 1-2 generations... not the never-ending story of the Turks or Muslim immigrants. Ultimately Germany will benefit from the Russian immigrants IMO, even if they of course did accept many in that won't assist the society at all, particularly older generation Volga Germans.

In any case it's my impression that they are largely welcome, particularly since they have a reputation (like the Poles as well) of wanting to work and being willing to work rather than other groups who reputedly only come for the welfare benefits.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "sphere of influence" though. Sorry Vlad. )

[JCR]

Actually many of them are quite educated, but had problems adjusting here.
At work I met a guy who now works as head of russia business for a cement manufacturer.
He used to be missile officer of an Oscar class SSGN... People at his new work place asked him if he got "leadership experience" :D

Father of a friend was prop designer for turboprop engines, test pilot and later khazakstan's first executive (one man) airline manager. He now works parttime as a radio host.
Re the jews, I know a soviet economist and later day ukrainian MP who now gets Hartz IV.
Somehow we failed to make use of any of these people
This jewish family know a whole lot more about german culture (BEFORE they moved here) than the average german...

But of course I also know a whole lot of stories which could be straight out of "Russendisko", often from these same highly educated people...

[DS73]

...
Guys you are missing whole point of the discussion.
It's not about personal impressions, or what you see personally. The argument is about state policies and it's reasons. Baltic states are neither unique nor exceptionally racist in their actions. Your country has now pretty identical if not stricter nationality laws. The reasons for these changes are identical with the reason for baltic laws. Lack of integration into local society.
It's not about comparison of russians with turks etc.
Can you stay focus?

[AlexMartin2]

But of course I also know a whole lot of stories which could be straight out of "Russendisko", often from these same highly educated people...

What is "Russendisko"? :)

BTW, your story is very interesting, tell us more.
One of the professors from my days at the university was ethnic German, and he emigrated to Germany two years ago. I heard he had problems with language, and cant have decent work because of that. Its very unfortunate, he was very good lecturer, explaining complex algorithms with a lot of jokes :)

[JCR]

To be short, we didn't change any laws, where did you get that?
There are stricter laws for attaining citizenship, which apply to all foreigners EXCEPT ethnic germans.
So if an actual "real" russian (or turk or whoever) would like to immigrate to germany, his chances are limited, but this does not apply to the two major "russian" groups.
Ethnic germans have the right to come back, similar to the "Aliah" of Jews to Israel. Only thing that changed was that in 2001 the main focus was shifted on language. So people who do not speak german can't immigrate that easy anymore. But that was 2001, not 2006.
But this only limits the "right of return", not abolishes it.

So the tougher citizenship tests do expressively NOT apply to russian germans. If they come and get accepted as such, they automatically gain german citizenship.
Not sure how it is handled with jews, but I suppose there's a "victim of national socialism" clause that makes german citizenship easier for them.

"Russendisko" is a book by Vladimir Kaminer, a russian jew living in Berlin.
Basically it is a collection of stories about the "clash of cultures", one of the funniest books I've ever read.
This mutated into some kind of actual disco, where Kaminer is DJ...

[Breakfast in Vegas]

What is "Russendisko"? :)

BTW, your story is very interesting, tell us more.
One of the professors from my days at the university was ethnic German, and he emigrated to Germany two years ago. I heard he had problems with language, and cant have decent work because of that. Its very unfortunate, he was very good lecturer, explaining complex algorithms with a lot of jokes :)Speaking of Russendiscko...

Friend of mine from St.Petersburg visited me and we went to a Russendisko in Dortmund. He said it was like travelling in time, to an age when gold chains and tracksuits was tres chic!

[intelligenzija]

You live in Germany, are you saying germans don't complain? Are they that happy with russian immigrants? Russians are not recognized as a risk group among other big immigrant communities?
Every country that's got significant russian immigrant groups has problems with them. Be it some american cities (NY comes to mind), be it a number of german cities, be it any exUSSR republic.
Since 2006 germans practically closed immigration from Russia. Why is that?
Language law is the normal european rule, applied pretty much in all European countries (Germany and Netherlands included language rule as an immigration law since 2006, that is you have to know basic local language just to live in the country).


I live in Germany and you have no idea about what you re talking about.
There are sometimes problems with Russian youth in western Germany but compared to turkish or arab immigrants you rarely hear something about them on the news.
And Germany didn't close anything for Russian immigrants. Most Russians in Germany are ethnic Germans from Kazakhstan.

But that's not the point. I was talking about complains from the Russian side, since complains about how the Baltic state handle them is marked as Russian state propaganda.

No immigrant in Germany or other countries would complain they are treated unfairly because of their ethnic background. If a Russian would like to apply for a German passport nobody in the immigration office would treat them somehow differently because applicant's generation occupied eastern Germany for 45 years. I haven't been to Brighton Beach or Israel yet but I haven't heard about big complains from there.(Except in the GTA computer game maybe)

[DS73]

To be short, we didn't change any laws, where did you get that?
There are stricter laws for attaining citizenship, which apply to all foreigners EXCEPT ethnic germans.
So if an actual "real" russian (or turk or whoever) would like to immigrate to germany, his chances are limited, but this does not apply to the two major "russian" groups.
Ethnic germans have the right to come back, similar to the "Aliah" of Jews to Israel. Only thing that changed was that in 2001 the main focus was shifted on language. So people who do not speak german can't immigrate that easy anymore. But that was 2001, not 2006.
But this only limits the "right of return", not abolishes it.

These laws are applied since 2004-2006 (depending on a target group).
I have no desire to struggle with my lousy German and make a proper search. Look yourself.
Just like you can look yourself why 2004 and not 2001.
Just like you can find in open sources why these changes, combined with "improving current conditions of german ethnic groups abroad", are considered to be the closure of mass immigration into Germany. As well you can find parliamentary discussions on this topic and legal battles connected with it.


So the tougher citizenship tests do expressively NOT apply to russian germans. If they come and get accepted as such, they automatically gain german citizenship.
Not sure how it is handled with jews, but I suppose there's a "victim of national socialism" clause that makes german citizenship easier for them.
How it's contradicts with what I've wrote?
I've wrote that language&culture requirement became essential in German naturalization system as well, just like in baltic states. Where is the contradiction?
btw. from what I remembered the israeli community was considered as "vulnerable" as well. They also had high unemployment rates connected with the isolation from main society. I'm sure they have language requirement as well.

[DS73]

I live in Germany and you have no idea about what you re talking about.
There are sometimes problems with Russian youth in western Germany but compared to turkish or arab immigrants you rarely hear something about them on the news.

What turks or arabs have with the subject of discussion?
German politicians, scientists and police made enough comments about russian immigration in Germany. Read.



But that's not the point. I was talking about complains from the Russian side, since complains about how the Baltic state handle them is marked as Russian state propaganda.
These complains are erroneous.
Read my initial post. Baltic states don't break any european laws.
Naturalization laws requiring knowing local language are neither special (See german example) nor discriminatory.
You can see numerous discussions in european law commissions, scientific circles etc. It's actually goes in an agreement and basic principles of so called "non-discriminatory society"
(please before jumping in traditional russian way into argument and make stupid ideas, learn first what it is all about).
There is no state sponsored discrimination against Russians (unlike central asian states btw. where local ethic groups have priorities in receiving jobs etc.). Period.


No immigrant in Germany or other countries would complain they are treated unfairly because of their ethnic background. If a Russian would like to apply for a German passport nobody in the immigration office would treat them somehow differently because applicant's generation occupied eastern Germany for 45 years. I haven't been to Brighton Beach or Israel yet but I haven't heard about big complains from there.What gave you idea that russian speakers have troubles in baltic states because they are "russian"?

[DS73]

Speaking of Russendiscko...

Friend of mine from St.Petersburg visited me and we went to a Russendisko in Dortmund. He said it was like travelling in time, to an age when gold chains and tracksuits was tres chic!
I used to visit russendiscos and preferred them to normal night clubs. Crazy places filled by crazy people.
AAAA youth.

[1curious]

DS73, apparently you are having hard time selling your version of Estonian immigration/naturalization laws towards the Russians as anything equal to Germany’s laws on the same subject. I am no expert, but if I read some of your writing correctly, the same laws would be declared racists in the United States.

Anyone born here, regardless of their knowledge of English, their parents history or the events surrounding their lives are automatically given a citizenship. A person can live in Greenland all his life, speak no word of English but he’ll automatically receive citizenship if he was born here.

Regarding naturalization.. the language requirements are there, of course, but in many circumstances an elderly person not speaking English can take citizenship interviews using an interpreter.

Regarding criminal affinities of the “Russians” in NYC…yes, I mentioned Brighton Beach as not having a good reputation, but you missed the point entirely - they are some of the most educated and adapted immigrants here, including those who arrived in the nineties. I have no information regarding their criminal records but suspect it's far lower than among other minorities because most work in professional positions...

[Kangars]

Lack of integration into local society.
Can you stay focus?

You hit the spot! Think of it... how can russian or american or brithish or german community to integrate in Latvian,Estonian or Lithuanian society in mass?
To integrate you need to become a consumer of local cultural products (TV,theater, opera, books, cinema, internet, games). Seriously which Latvian cultural masterpiece you enjoyed today? :)
Actually opposite trend happens where ethnic latvians become russianaised (without tovarishch with gun behind them). Aloso 1/3 of latvian workforce actively integrating in Irish culture right now:). Another 1/3 thinking to join them.

[intelligenzija]

What turks or arabs have with the subject of discussion?

You said Russian immigrants cause trouble everywhere they go - my answer was here in comparsson to Turkish and Arab immigrants the trouble is rather low.


These complains are erroneous.
Read my initial post. Baltic states don't break any european laws.
European law is very complex and there is also always the question of interpretation of law, thus I doubt they break any laws.


Naturalization laws requiring knowing local language are neither special (See german example) nor discriminatory.
You can see numerous discussions in european law commissions, scientific circles etc. It's actually goes in an agreement and basic principles of so called "non-discriminatory society"

I agree that naturalization laws are useful especially in countries with a high immigration rate.. I fully understand Baltic concerns and their fear that their languages and culture can die out due to such a high minority.
But just out of fairness, how can you expect an old industry worker who moved to a Baltic repblic in soviet times to work there and not to occupy the territory to learn a language that was never required before to get a citizenship. And what about people who were born there and lived there their whole life?
Another thing is that European commissions indeed saw discriminating laws and pushed the govs to change them.



(please before jumping in traditional russian way into argument and make stupid ideas, learn first what it is all about).

oh yes, it's a traditional Russian barbaric way and has probably something to do with genes


There is no state sponsored discrimination against Russians Period.
What gave you idea that russian speakers have troubles in baltic states because they are "russian"?
Russian speakers who were Russian and had troubles.


I have a relative in Tallin, she is too old, she cannot learn the new language anymore - her daughter grew up in the new Estonia and learned the language from the beginning and had no problems to integrate, find work or Estonian friends..

[Papenheims]

Actually opposite trend happens where ethnic latvians become russianaised (without tovarishch with gun behind them).

Care to give some examples?


Aloso 1/3 of latvian workforce actively integrating in Irish culture right now:). Another 1/3 thinking to join them.
Since when around 18000 Latvian citizens in Ireland is 1/3 of entire workforce?
And as for the rest of "1/3" who wants to join them in Ireland, good luck finding job there in current worldwide economic situation.

[JCR]

I think DS73 knows another Germany than those who actually live there...
Russian-german immigration has been an issue regarding social status (lack of jobs, poverty) but never anything beyond that.
"Cultural" differences were always more a subject of satire than of real conflict, like Russendisko or the famous urban legend with khazak farmers planting potatoes in their third floor flat.

No "honour" killings, no parallel societies, no "internal marriage only" morals, no mass assaults on police or any of the other trouble our other immigrant groups have given german society.

IMHO, even other slavic immigrant groups like Poles (or "Silesians" or "Polish Germans" if they want something :D) tend to stick together more.


Btw, regarding "ius sanguinum". My father's best friend is the son of a latvian SS man who fled to germany after WW2 (he named his son Adolf in 1950!).
Could this man claim latvian citizenship without speaking a single word of latvian? I mean his father was as latvian as you can be....

[lightfire]

this thread went to....where exactly? Oh, as usual..

[Papenheims]

Btw, regarding "ius sanguinum". My father's best friend is the son of a latvian SS man who fled to germany after WW2 (he named his son Adolf in 1950!).
Could this man claim latvian citizenship without speaking a single word of latvian? I mean his father was as latvian as you can be....
If his father was citizen of Latvia, then yes, he can claim Latvian citizenship.

[Red_Rage]

DS73, apparently you are having hard time selling your version of Estonian immigration/naturalization laws towards the Russians as anything equal to Germany’s laws on the same subject. I am no expert, but if I read some of your writing correctly, the same laws would be declared racists in the United States.

Anyone born here, regardless of their knowledge of English, their parents history or the events surrounding their lives are automatically given a citizenship. A person can live in Greenland all his life, speak no word of English but he’ll automatically receive citizenship if he was born here.

Regarding naturalization.. the language requirements are there, of course, but in many circumstances an elderly person not speaking English can take citizenship interviews using an interpreter.

Regarding criminal affinities of the “Russians” in NYC…yes, I mentioned Brighton Beach as not having a good reputation, but you missed the point entirely - they are some of the most educated and adapted immigrants here, including those who arrived in the nineties. I have no information regarding their criminal records but suspect it's far lower than among other minorities because most work in professional positions...


Agree completely. Same story in Toronto - Russian immigrant community is one of of the most law abiding, educated and assimilated. Post-secondary education and white collar jobs, which involve the greatest degree of intergration, are simply expected in most families. Speaking for my family, having arrived in late '90s we already maintain the standard of life better than most people born here, never took a cent of welfare. It is sad that in compiling their crime statistics police are lumping Russian speakers and "Russians" into the same category. Chechens, Moldovans, Georgians, Ukranians, Caucasus Jews (Gorskie), LOTS of "Russian Jews" re-immigrating from Israel all speak Russian and statistically only 1/10 of Russian speakers in immigration are actually Russian. Immigration quota for Ukraine to US is about x10 times higer than Russia for example. We "verified" it ourselves when we enetered mom's Ukranian passport into annual online Green Card draw just for ****s and giggles - guess what happened ? - Me and dad have x2.5 citizenships now, mom has 3.5. p-) Russians generally have easier time naturalizing because we are 1) white Europeans (ie., same values and beliefs essentially) 2) educated 3) ecomomic immigrants (whoever tells you he's political or a refugee - they are lying).


I'm surprised people are putting Geman and Estonian/Latvian laws in the same sentence. LOL. Estonia/Latvia, as much as they want to be German wannabes, have miles upon miles to go until they can reach the level of civility and tolerantness of modern German society.

[Switek]

What exactly does "Russian Influence sphere" means? In geographical and in real performance sense?

[AlexMartin2]

What exactly does "Russian Influence sphere" means? In geographical and in real performance sense?

I don't know really :)

But after some thinking, I personally will be satisfied with such explanation: Country is in "Russian Influence sphere" if it don't openly hostile to us.

[Switek]

so far, I've found only one pic which could be an attempt to sharp definition of Russian Influence Sphere (RIS).

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1710/russiaperiphery800qf2.jpg

But it's a joke of course... ;)

[DS73]

You hit the spot! Think of it... how can russian or american or brithish or german community to integrate in Latvian,Estonian or Lithuanian society in mass?
To integrate you need to become a consumer of local cultural products (TV,theater, opera, books, cinema, internet, games). Seriously which Latvian cultural masterpiece you enjoyed today? :)

Never, and I am not going to, even I had possibility.
I have seriously doubts that ~2mln population can procude competitive media managers or entertainers in mass.
I agree with you completely, all baltic states fail in media competition with russian media (I would add inevitably just due to obvious difference in size of media markets). How are they going to win this cultural competition(?) and gain respect at least from some reasonable part of russian speaking population, I have no idea an it's not a point here.
Whole this .... started with this my answer to FP:



As mentioned I don't really want to get into all of this. All i'm going to say, is like it or not, but the Soviet period was also a part of Estonian and Latvian history that it is neither possible to ignore, nor is it possible to pretend it didn't happen, as that period changed the country and its demographics. The only way forward is to make peace and come to terms with it.
There should be common language for state wide communication (otherwise there is no state to talk about). So it should be or local baltic language or russian. Why locals should learn russian now?
As far as I know russians can become citizens if they pass language-history exam. Seems sufficiently fair to me. I have to pass similar exam (though very silly one) very soon.
You don't see that exactly the russians who put themselves into isolation due to chauvinism and refusal to pass these "illegal exams"?As a russian living in Latvia(?) do you have any objections?
If any please specify.


Actually opposite trend happens where ethnic latvians become russianaised (without tovarishch with gun behind them). Aloso 1/3 of latvian workforce actively integrating in Irish culture right now:). Another 1/3 thinking to join them.Emmigration, financial problems or even educational standout of baltic states are irrelevant in this discussion (even they are very serious problems). This thread is not about world problems.
It's about "Russian influence" and it's consequences.

[JCR]

Well the Latvians can at least buy up the companies of the other two states.
I remember the "Legend of Tallinn" cookies, which had smaller sign saying "made in Latvia"
roflrofl

[DS73]

DS73, apparently you are having hard time selling your version of Estonian immigration/naturalization laws towards the Russians as anything equal to Germany’s laws on the same subject.

I remind that these laws have very similar language, cause and interpretation. What russians get from it, it is their problem.


I am no expert, but if I read some of your writing correctly, the same laws would be declared racists in the United States.
Even if it was true it's irrelevant. Europe is not an US slave and isn't obliged to follow or repeat American laws. Especially stupid ones. (Like all this PC affirmative action crap).


Anyone born here, regardless of their knowledge of English, their parents history or the events surrounding their lives are automatically given a citizenship. A person can live in Greenland all his life, speak no word of English but he’ll automatically receive citizenship if he was born here.
Irrelevant.
This law doesn't exist in the majority of european countries. US is immigrant country. European countires aren't.


Regarding naturalization.. the language requirements are there, of course, but in many circumstances an elderly person not speaking English can take citizenship interviews using an interpreter.
And?


Regarding criminal affinities of the “Russians” in NYC…yes, I mentioned Brighton Beach as not having a good reputation, but you missed the point entirely - they are some of the most educated and adapted immigrants here, including those who arrived in the nineties. I have no information regarding their criminal records but suspect it's far lower than among other minorities because most work in professional positions...Very strange logic. What "most educated" immigrants have to do with the fact of failed integration of some part?
Does NYPD have russian speaking group or doesn't? Why?

And again the comparison with other immigrants. Who cares? Want to compare? compare with locals, because that what all authorities do.
(this is also for JCR).

2intelligenzija. Sorry just quick answer.
The problems can be of different type:
High unemployment is sufficient one. Very much sufficient.

There are groups doing illegal gun traffic, black commercial activities etc. but I wouldn't link them specifically with russian immigrants as a group.

As I remember reading latvian documents, aliens in Latvia have right to participate in local elections, they obviously aren't stripped from any financial benefits etc. To participate fully in a state life (for example in state elections) you have to know what happens there and not only in your community. Knowledge of state language is necessary, so existing exceptions (you don't need to know language if you're older than 65) is more reverence to EU than common sense action.

I think there was more pressure from OSCE than from EU. But EU successfully pressured Latvia to lax laws for elderly persons (>65) and remove idiotic windows (priorities in age and place of birth) that had no effect anyway. I am sure the same thing is true for Estonia.

By itself it is a funny story, especially in context state vs. international body relations.

[1curious]

DS73, you have a mental (b)lock on the word "irrelevant". Let me turn it on you. As you can clearly see from most responses to your profuse writings, you failed to convince your respondents regarding equivalency of Estonian immigration laws to the other European countries similar laws. More, they are racist by the US standards and you'd be laughed out of any court here if you opened your mouth. You also provided demeaning and false allegations against the Russian immigrants in other countries. You were refuted by various members with the specific experience you don't have.

Hint: because you writings are irrelevant to the point being discussed...and because you ignore facts patiently presented to you by numerous well-meaning members. Best to you, Mr. Irrelevant :roll:

[DS73]

DS73, you have a mental (b)lock on the word "irrelevant". Let me turn it on you. As you can clearly seen from most responses to your profuse writings, you failed to convince your respondents regarding equivalency of Estonian immigration laws to the other European countries equivalent laws. More, they are racist by the US standards and you'd be laughed out of any court here if you opened your mouth. You also provided demeaning and false allegations against the Russian immigrants in other countries. You were refuted by various members with the specific experience you don't have.

Ha-ha,ha.
Refuted with what?

Latvia:


The citizenship of Latvia through naturalization can be granted to persons who have been registered in the Residents' Register Office and:


who have reached the age of 15;
whose place of permanent residence, on the submission date of their application for naturalization, has been in Latvia for no less than five years counting from May 4, 1990 (for persons who entered Latvia after July 1, 1992, the five-year term shall be counted from the date of the issuance of their permanent residence permit);
who know the Latvian language and the history of Latvia, the basic principles of the Republic of Latvia Satversme (the Constitution) and the text of the national anthem;
who have a legal source of income;
who have submitted a statement of renunciation of their former citizenship and have received an expatriation permit from the country of their former citizenship, if such a permit is provided for by the laws of that country, or have received a document certifying the loss of citizenship.

Children permanently residing in Latvia and up to the age of 15 can naturalize together with their parents.
http://www.np.gov.lv/index.php?id=468&top=468

Germany:
What are the requirements for becoming a naturalized German citizen?


Section 10, para. 1 of the Nationality Act

To be eligible for naturalization, a person has to have lived legally in Germany for at least eight years and possess the appropriate residence permit. Foreigners who have successfully completed an integration course are eligible for naturalization after seven years. Persons wishing to become naturalized citizens must also declare their allegiance to our constitution and have a sufficient command of the German language. Knowledge of German is an essential prerequisite for integration into our society. Candidates for naturalization must be able to support themselves without recourse to social assistance or unemployment benefits (Arbeitslosengeld II), unless this is due to circumstances beyond their control; nor can they have committed any serious criminal offences. In addition, they must give up their previous citizenship. In certain cases or for certain groups of persons, however, multiple nationality may be considered.

Special rules apply to persons with special status (displaced foreigners and stateless persons), making it easier for them to become naturalized citizens.

Your local naturalization authority will be able to tell you whether you are eligible for naturalization and how to apply. They will also determine whether you are eligible for discretionary naturalization.

http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_012/nn_148264/Internet/Content/Themen/Staatsangehoerigkeit/Einzelseiten/Erwerb__der__deutschen__Staatsbuergerschaft__durch__Eingbuergerung__en.html

Latvia has softer laws actually.
If you're so concerned with international procedures in case of separating states (for example if citizenship should be automatically applied in current residence) learn about existing legal practices, don't make ASSumptions.
Also learn about supposed "racism" if applied in american law system. For example what laws are used when americans consider foreign cases.



Hint: because you your wrings are irrelevant to the point being discussed...and because you ignore facts patiently presented to you by numerous well-meaning members. Best to you, Mr. Irrelevant :roll:Bye.

[rusak]

Read my initial post. Baltic states don't break any european laws.
Naturalization laws requiring knowing local language are neither special (See german example) nor discriminatory.
The Baltics states don't have to break any European laws, per se, in order for their policies to be essentially racist in spirit and intent.


There is no state sponsored discrimination against Russians (unlike central asian states btw. where local ethic groups have priorities in receiving jobs etc.). Period.That's BS. There is systemic institutional discrimination against Russians in the Baltic states. Like I said earlier, there hasn't been a single ethnic Russian minister in the Estonian government in the entire post-Soviet period, though Russians speakers make up about 30% of the population. You're saying this is not the result of discrimination? Then what would discrimination look like? Are you going to claim that there was not a single ethnic Russian that was qualified during all this time? That's not a viable claim. So why did the Ests in government choose not to do anything to promote any sort of diversity (which existed in Estonia long before the Soviet annexation)? Could anti-Russian racism possibly have anything to do with it? Is it even theoretically possible in your mind?

You talk about Central Asian states, but all of them, every single one of them, has had ethnic Russian ministers in the government. All of them have had more than Estonia.


What gave you idea that russian speakers have troubles in baltic states because they are "russian"?Um, talking to many of them. One can get an idea of what they think from their many internet forums. Practically all of them, an absolutely overwhelming majority, would agree that there is serious discrimination against ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia. So many people don't say something like that unless there is a real problem, a real basis.

[Afro-European]

Joe Biden's new foreign policy did not create grounds for optimism




MOSCOW (Nikita Petrov exclusively for RIA Novosti) - The 45th Security Conference session in Munich is over. A speech by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, in which he set forth a new foreign policy, did not cause any sensations, although he said that relations with Russia would have to be "reset." Some members of the Russian delegation expressed cautious optimism, saying that bilateral relations will now start from scratch in order to allow the two sides to resolve many poignant issues. However, domestic military experts cannot fully share this hope, and here's why.
First, Biden declared that the United States plans to complete the construction of a global missile defense system in Europe. He noted that in so doing, Washington will consult NATO and Russia, which is nothing new. The previous administration also regularly consulted with Moscow on this system, but this did not change its intention to deploy (for starters) 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a high-frequency radar in the Czech Republic.
Judging by media reports, Biden did not say a word about the prospect of signing a new treaty on cuts in strategic offensive arms and the nuclear potentials of the two countries, and on verifying compliance with them to replace START-I, which expires next December. Apparently, the new administration has not yet cemented a clear position on this issue. The inspiring leak in The Times about Washington's readiness to cut its nuclear potential on a par with Moscow by 80%, to 1000 warheads, has not yet received any official confirmation.
Speaking at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), British Foreign Secretary David Miliband presented new directives for U.K. foreign policy; in effect, he developed the ideas set forth by The Times.
Essentially, these boil down to three main points: first, it is necessary to take measures against nuclear weapons proliferation, a clear hint at Tehran. Miliband suggested very tough measures against all those who violate the non-proliferation regime.
Miliband said that maximal cuts in all national nuclear arsenals and the elaboration of laws providing for tough and verifiable nuclear arms limitations is the second condition for moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. The British Foreign Office believes that the United States and Russia should conduct talks to reach agreement on considerable reductions in their nuclear arsenals, since they have the biggest stocks of nuclear weapons. At the same time, these talks should be supported by other nuclear states, which should also reduce their nuclear arsenals to a minimum. In addition, Miliband suggested a ban on all nuclear tests in order to restrict the development of nuclear weapons.
The third point is conducting a search for solutions to overcome the challenges to security that will emerge during the reduction of the nuclear arsenals, and up to their complete liquidation. Miliband believes that this should be done at the talks that could be started at an international conference in London this year.
Russian military experts believe that these ideas have the right to exist if they represent Washington's unofficial proposal on cuts in nuclear arsenals. They are very similar to the proposals once made by the Soviet Union's first and last President, Mikhail Gorbachev. The leading Western countries, however, did not support these ideas at that time. Unlike Russia, the United States has not yet ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and thus it may be premature to talk about cuts in nuclear weapons, still less so by 80%.
What will be subject to these cuts? Only nuclear warheads, as the United States proposed earlier, or carriers as well? How will they be counted - only those carried by missiles, or including those stationed in depots? Aren't London and Washington trying to disarm Russia unilaterally? It is common knowledge that the Russian conventional forces do not compare with those of the United States, and Russia can only guarantee its security with nuclear arms.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090209/120060673.html

[Kangars]

As I remember reading latvian documents, aliens in Latvia have right to participate in local elections, they obviously aren't stripped from any financial benefits etc. To participate fully in a state life (for example in state elections) you have to know what happens there and not only in your community. Knowledge of state language is necessary, so existing exceptions (you don't need to know language if you're older than 65) is more reverence to EU than common sense action.

So called "alien passport" holders do not have rights to participate in local elections (we are talking about 1\3 population of Latvia) .
It is not enough just to have latvian passport to have a job in government apparatus. You need a highest level of knowledge of latvian language. Yes we are talking about another exam :). Image you succesfully pass citezenship (naturalization exam - silly one), then you pass your language exam to highest degree (difficult one). Still this not guarantee you a job in governmental institution simply because:
a) your surname is not latvian enough
b) you are not from the same village (kinder garden, school) as your hiring institution director.
Don't you worry, you will be given official - legal explanation for your rejection.
I am sure similar situation happening in Estonia. All this mess give Russia an opportunity to extend its "sphere of influence" in Baltics.

[lauris71]

Well, at least Estonia cannot complain, that over third of it's immigrant population has applied and granted Russian citizenship...
IMHO we lost historic opportunity of integrating immigrants into local (multicultural) society in 90s, when Russia was deep in ... and Estonia was positive role model of fast developing Europaean country. But due to nationalistic policy, those people were pushed away and ignored - and integrating them now, when Russian identity has become more attractive than Estonian is impossible. So for the foreseeable future about 1/4 of Estonian population is firmly in Russian "sphere of influence" and we have to learn to live with it.

[1curious]

Well, at least Estonia cannot complain, that over third of it's immigrant population has applied and granted Russian citizenship...IMHO we lost historic opportunity of integrating immigrants
Thanks Lauris!. You seem the first native Estonian voice who is genuinely reasonable and concerned.

I never thought I will be googling “Estonia racism discrimination” . But look what 10 minutes of curiosity can results in -----140,000 hits!

Owing to thickheads like DS73, I invested 10 minutes attempting to verify his claims of “European” legitimacy for modern-day racism and discrimination rampant in the middle of civilized Europe. I could not believe it possible that (figures form the UN documents):

- 52% of (stateless) persons born in Estonia of permanent residents (who themselves mostly born in Estonia) are officially stateless (or “unaffiliated“ foreigners) according to the country’s laws.

- it is possible (legally!) to deny employment and voting rights to 34.1% of the European country’s population because their parents happened to be trapped in a country when SU collapsed.
……………
Sorry, an American-born can not comprehend this!

To my astonishment (and, TBH, some satisfaction) I found that Estonia was roundly criticized and reprimanded by the numerous European and international bodies (see the list below).

Estonia was repeatedly urged (by the same bodies) to align its legislation with the EU and international human rights norms - Estonia repeatedly refused to either sign or ratify those paramount guiding legal documents (incidentally, signed by the majority of civilized European nations, see list below)

EU and international bodies that harshly criticized Estonia for its racist and discrimination practice:

- UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
- European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
- Amnesty International
- THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION
- UN human right council
…….

Relevant International instruments on human rights urged by the EU but refused, not signed, not ratified by Estonia

1. 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

2. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

3. Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
4. European Convention on Nationality (not signed),

5. Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Local Public Life

6. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
--------
Sources: multiple EU and UN reports including the latest (17 March 2008) UN Human Rights Council (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher/UNHRC.html) report.

[ilmakas]

wow, what BS post 1curious.


it is possible (legally!) to deny employment and voting rights to 34.1% of the European country’s population because their parents happened to be trapped in a country when SU collapsed.

care to show the law that allows this? of course, I can save you the trouble and say there is no such law.

[1curious]

wow, what BS post 1curious.
care to show the law that allows this? of course, I can save you the trouble and say there is no such law.
Care to review the sources provided? If the racist truth (legitimized by refusing signing numerous appropriate listed treaties) hurts, you need not swallow. Refusing to sign and ratify the appropriate Europian laws is legitimatizing discrimination. Repeat for you:

Relevant International instruments on human rights urged by the EU but refused, not signed, not ratified by Estonia

1. 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

2. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

3. Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
4. European Convention on Nationality (not signed),

5. Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Local Public Life

6. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

Real BS in rampant nationalism that makes a nation with proud heritage reduced to petty historic grievances.

Read, the post by your compatriot, Lauris, who very eloquently admits Estonia lost the golden opportunity through reverse nationalism, shortsightedness and ignorance.

[Bolt]

Can any Latvian member please tell what is the % of Russians in the Latvian Parliament? I've heard that it is quite low but i can't find the statistics..

[Jobu]

Russia should have a torus of influence.

They can impose their will on Georgian people, Ukrainians, etc. but not on Russian people themselves.

[ilmakas]

so, 1curious, say how is stating a fact that there is no such law making me a rampant nationalist :D. I agree with Lauris about the lost chance in 90's, although it was not only governments fault.

and btw do you blindly believe what AI and other bleeding hearts have to report about Russia? and where were the western lefties 25 years ago when we were becoming a minority in our own land? Oh right, back then they had a ***** for USSR.

[1curious]

so, 1curious, say how is stating a fact that there is no such law making me a rampant nationalist
I answered your question directly - lacking a law demanded by the EU is legitimizing discrimination. Having the proper civil rights protection in place would prevent discrimination. I did not refer to you personally because I don't know you. So you can use deflections, flaming or whatever other means to deny facts. OTOH, if you agree with Lauris, you need to get together with him and work on changing the discrimination laws and or practice.

I am not under any illusion what the small nation is trying to preserve - the cultural and linguistic heritage is precious - but it need NOT be covert nationalism that contradicts the principles of Europe.

Regarding where the liberals were, I have no idea. I am NOT one of them. I do know my country has many problems, including the human rights issues, I do not, however, deny them and do what I can. Including admitting them on this forum.

[kalkun]

it is possible (legally!) to deny employmenthttps://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12846827


Refusing to sign and ratify the appropriate Europian laws is legitimatizing discriminationWhat the fook?


1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons http://www.valitsus.ee/brf/index.php?id=293885


Btw, I never tell people from country far from me what they should do or how they should do something.Also I don't care if I would be laughed out of any of your court, this is not US of A.

[MZKT]

What exactly does "Russian Influence sphere" means? In geographical and in real performance sense?

Probably the region around Russia which Russia don't want to became US influence sphere.

[JCR]

Eesti has enough unlauts in it to quälify för a heävy metäl söng...

[Kangars]

Can any Latvian member please tell what is the % of Russians in the Latvian Parliament? I've heard that it is quite low but i can't find the statistics..

http://www.cvk.lv/cgi-bin/wdbcgiw/base/saeima9.GalRezS9.vis

"Saskaņas Centrs" (http://www.cvk.lv/cgi-bin/wdbcgiw/base/saeima9.GalRez9.kand?NR1=2) and Politisko organizāciju apvienība "Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā" (http://www.cvk.lv/cgi-bin/wdbcgiw/base/saeima9.GalRez9.kand?NR1=5) are "russian" parties. So called "hand of Moscow":) They are never been in ruling coalition in last 18 years.

[perdurabo]

i just wish one thing to not be under "sphere of influence" of nor Russians, nor Germans nor Americans nor any of bigger power cause it usually ends with large bloodbath for us, so please take your toys and go play somwhere else preferably on moon or mars p-)

[1curious]

I never tell people from country far from me what they should do or how they should do something.Also I don't care if I would be laughed out of any of your court, this is not US of A.
Bullshyt..you have had a compatriot hanging spaghetti on every one's ears - denying discrimination and pretending Estonia's laws were/are according to Western and European laws.

And if you are going to provide links in Estonian, then use the elementary decency of translating them for those you are trying to convince, or it's another example of linguistic arrogance you seem to take for granted, and that in the first place stands at the core of the much criticized Estonian policies .

[ilmakas]

And if you are going to provide links in Estonian, then use the elementary decency of translating them for those you are trying to convince, or it's another example of linguistic arrogance you seem to take for granted, and that in the first place stands at the core of the much criticized Estonian policies .

Basically the link says that according to The UN Refugee Agency report released in 2006, Estonia exceeds the requirments made by 1954. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

If I am not mistaken then these conventions are not ratified by USA nor Russia.

[kalkun]

Bullshyt..you have had a compatriot hanging spaghetti on every one's ears - denying discrimination and pretending Estonia's laws were/are according to Western and European laws.

And if you are going to provide links in Estonian, then use the elementary decency of translating them for those you are trying to convince, or it's another example of linguistic arrogance you seem to take for granted, and that in the first place stands at the core of the much criticized Estonian policies .

Decency? You have been so cocky that I don't find a reason to translate anything for you.
But ok, google translator gave a pretty good one on this: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.valitsus.ee%2Fbrf%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D293885&sl=et&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Use it on other things also: http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en

Btw, that spaghetti hanger, you mean DS73? I don't know him neither hes nationality.

(I'm out of this thread and recommend that to all Estonians.)

[1curious]

Decency?
Yes. Decency. A link in Estonian in the discussion about linguistic and human rights abuses of 35% of a nation, knowing in advance that this is not an Estonian forum, is disrespectful if not arrogant. I don't speak Estonian and neither do the 99.9% of this forum members. Your attempt at presenting a well-referenced argument, was therefore deliberately false. particularly because you did not warn, as good taste requires, it was not in English.

[ilmakas]

A link in Estonian in the discussion about linguistic and human rights abuses of 35% of a nation, knowing in advance that this is not an Estonian forum, is disrespectful if not arrogant. I don't speak Estonian and neither do the 99.9% of this forum members. Your attempt at presenting a well-referenced argument, was therefore deliberately false.



Many ethnic Russians arrived in Estonia during the Soviet era and are now regarded as immigrants who must apply for citizenship through a process that requires knowledge of the Estonian language. The use of Estonian is mandatory in certain work environments, including among public sector employees, medical professionals, and service personnel. Recent reports by Amnesty International and the Council of Europe have criticized Estonia's language and citizenship laws for discriminating against the Russian-speaking population, though both praised the government's decision to reimburse the costs of Estonian language courses. Between 1992 and 2007, the proportion of de facto stateless residents in the population declined from 32 percent to just over 8 percent, with some 147,000 people acquiring Estonian citizenship during the same period. Only citizens may participate in national elections, though resident noncitizens may vote (but not serve as candidates) in local elections. The granting of asylum or refugee status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol is legally protected.

Read full 2008 report on UNHCR home page
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,EST,4562d8b62,487ca209c,0.html

[tommy00]

This thread beeing-"U.S. rejects sphere of influence for Russia".......so who should i quote......hey, why not our /"i know everything best, cos i did a Google search"/ 1curious....so here it goes...


Can you take you history crap offtopic to some other threads, please? I am serious

I agree with him,...so goodnight....

[widi243]

I wish the USA lets these nations free to decide what to choose (without bribing, armtwisting, seducing, placing puppets, creating and financing color revolutions etc. etc.)

But all that is called "politics" isn't it?

It's not USA problem here. It's a problem if Russia let these nations free to decide what to choose.

[1curious]

Your deflection is false, Tommy.

Perhaps because the discrimination blamed by your compatriots on "Russia's sphere of influence" (as one of them tried to present) happens to be exposed naked here. And, in fact, shown to be Estonia's legalized discrimination policy against 35% of the nation - persons born in Estonia of Estonian-born parents are legally stateless! Can anyone in the right state of mind blame it on "Russia's sphere of influence'?

Blaming all sins on "Russian sphere of influence", in stead of critically looking upon themselves, is the typical mistake many post-Soviet nations made and continue to make. It is therefore not offtopic, when false information of a member like DS73, is refuted with a legal-minded argument.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Your deflection is false, my friend.

Perhaps because the discrimination blamed by your compatriots on "Russia's sphere of influence" (as one of them tried to present) happens to be exposed naked here. And, in fact, shown to be Estonia's legalized discrimination policy against 35% of the nation - persons born in Estonia of Estonian-born parents are legally stateless! Can anyone in the right state of mind blame it on "Russia's sphere of influence'?

Blaming all sins on "Russian sphere of influence", in stead of critically looking upon themselves, is the typical mistake many post-Soviet nations made and continue to make. It is therefore not offtopic, when false information of a member like DS73, is refuted with a legal-minded argument.And what does Russia's "sphere of influence" have to do with decisions Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania choose to make on their own accord, whether right or wrong? It's the EU's issue now and Russia can watch from the outside looking in. Or do you suggest they maintain a right to determine Baltic policy through their "sphere of influence"?

[1curious]

And what does Russia's "sphere of influence" have to do with decisions Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania choose to make on their own accord, whether right or wrong? It's the EU's issue now and Russia can watch from the outside looking in. Or do you suggest they maintain a right to determine Baltic policy through their "sphere of influence"?
I have no problem answering your questions.


And what does Russia's "sphere of influence" have to do with decisions Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania choose to make on their own accordnot much except those cases as explained above, when Estonia's internal problems and wrong decisions are blamed on Russia and the "Russian sphere of influence".


It's the EU's issue now and Russia can watch from the outside looking in.I agree. Unless Russia is drawn by the unsubstantiated accusations or, on its own volition, interferes into the issue of Estonian citizenship. As one of the members noted above, forced denial of the Estonian citizenship to the Russians born in Estonia, causes them seek it, the Citizenship elsewhere, including in Russia, for various human functions like travel etc. Otherwise I totally agree with you.


Or do you suggest they maintain a right to determine Baltic policy through their "sphere of influence"?This was repeated gazillion times. Every nation has a sphere of influence, regardless of the silent or vocal approach they take. This is called vital interests with foreign countries and neighbors. Denying it is silly, going ballistic over the reality that Russia has it, is foolish too. Baltic states have it too and if they deny it it's unfortunate. It's everyone's right to pursue own foreign policy. Being less antagonistic towards Russia is wise without the emotions.

[DS73]

So called "alien passport" holders do not have rights to participate in local elections (we are talking about 1\3 population of Latvia) .

I wonder than what of three does :oops:. Definitely I read it.
While it's not exactly illegal or very "new" (the most appropriate example of Russia vs. Baltics relations is Greece vs. Turkey). I wonder what latvians are afraid about...Baltic russians aren't antalian turks.


It is not enough just to have latvian passport to have a job in government apparatus. You need a highest level of knowledge of latvian language. Yes we are talking about another exam :). Image you succesfully pass citezenship (naturalization exam - silly one), then you pass your language exam to highest degree (difficult one). Still this not guarantee you a job in governmental institution simply because:
a) your surname is not latvian enough
b) you are not from the same village (kinder garden, school) as your hiring institution director.
Don't you worry, you will be given official - legal explanation for your rejection.
If anything language exams will be harder. It is a tendency all over the Europe.
Discrimination based on groups interests is the problem of a weak state, if happens, you have to document and complain. There is no other way to fix such systems.
I've heard silly sayings "we are not juice", "it's useless" etc. Well it's not. Accumulating complains's hard to hide. Even if it didn't work in your case eventually it will.
Do aliens participate in EU parliamentary elections?


I am sure similar situation happening in Estonia. All this mess give Russia an opportunity to extend its "sphere of influence" in Baltics.After talking with a couple of russians living in baltic states and reading stuff, I've got impression that ultra parties from both groups work almost in an agreement. I wonder how much of it is true.

These riots show, that while baltic countries've rose (pretty much the first ones) a very important question of cultural cohesion and direct influence of foreign country through resident ethnic group, they fail in making stable trustworthy legal systems. I think it gave much more problems than all antirussian rhetoric combined.
Helas.


1curious.
I am too lazy to report you, but you do deserve to be banned for disturbing and faking "documents".
1. 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
Latvia, Lithuania signed-- USA didn't.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty3stat.htm
2. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Not surprisingly the same.

3. Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=177&CM=8&CL=ENG
all baltic states signed or applied practical ellements. (it is obvious why).
Rest later

[ilmakas]

And, in fact, shown to be Estonia's legalized discrimination policy against 35% of the nation

this is the second time you throw around this 35% number. Care to elaborate where you got it from? 84% of the populace has estonian citizenship, same rules apply to all citizens. ca 7% of populace have russian citizenship. If one parent is estonian citizen then child gets (if parents so choose) automatically estonian citizenship. Isnt this how it is everywhere? If a non-citizen has lived here for 5 years it is possible to acquire citizenship by completing an exam which is in estonian language and requires knowledge of estonian constitution. So wheres this discrimination?

[Flamming_Python]

Sorry man, but you're out of touch with reality here, saying that the anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists are just a "small minority". That's false. There may be different definitions of "nationalism" and different levels of nationalism, but the reality is that the "ethnic Ukrainian" identity (the mainstream ethnic Ukrainian identity) in general is essentially anti-Russian at its core. This identity was basically constructed around an inferiority complex and is manifested in hysterical opposition to everything Russian. It's not a healthy identity but that's what it is. I think that the % of Ukraine's population that subscribes to some variant of this identity roughly corresponds to the % who voted for the Oranges - if only because no Ukrainian nationalists whatsoever would ever vote for the likes of Yanukovich. That's about 55% of the population, not a small minority. I don't care if someone hates/resents the moskali a lot or a little - it's all the same in essence, it's all disgusting. I don't want the ethnic Russian population to be "captive" in an anti-Russian state, not even a "mildy" anti-Russian state - this is a violation of human rights.

I met a great deal many Ukrainians, and the vast majority of them had no problems talking to Russian to me, or identifying with my country. I severely doubt that the amount of Russophobes in the Ukraine is anywhere near what you imply it is, for the reasons that I gave in my previous post about why people voted for Yushchenko, etc...

That said, of course you will find many Ukrainians who for example, resent Muscovites and 'new Russians' and don't appreciate them too much. You can't blame them for this, there are plenty of Russians who think the same way about some of the arrogant and rich Russians that you can find. Even support for joining the EU, is not neccesserily any indicator of Russophobia. It stems largely for a pragmatic desire to see one's own city and country to drag itself out of the chaos and corruption its in. When people see the EU they see such countries as France, Germany, Britain, etc... that they aspire to become like. Of course in recent years as Russia has begun to pick itself up from the dirt, the support for turning to Russia has also increased step in with its growing economical and political power in the region.

If you want to see what proportions of Ukrainians are pro-Russian against what percentage are anti-Russian, look not to the results of the elections 5 years ago, but to the support for Georgia in their war last year with Russia, and the subsequent scandal that developed in the Ukraine as a result of its arms sales to Georgia. I think you'll find that it's a great, great deal less than 55%, mainly restricted to a smaller minority; the hardcore Ukrainian nationalists.


Russian immigrants settled in Baltic states after 1940 qualified as immigrants. There is nothing to discuss about.

Why Russians since 1940? Why not 1920? Why not 1900?

And don't tell me that 'Baltics were occupied'. That still doesn't refute the fact that the new governments which ruled those countries controlled their territory, and they were the ones who allowed people in. Like it or not but the Estonian and Latvian SSR's were as much a part of those states history as their governments from 1918-1940 were. That would be the equivelent of Cuba's pre-revolution government coming to power and refusing to automatically grant citizenship to the descendants of anyone who arrived to Cuba since the Cuban revolution; despite how many generations they were living there by now.

I can't really be bothered to go on about this any more.


This is not exactly true about baltic states.Baltic states were part of the USSR. Majority of the USSR was Russian speaking. Of course it was wrong to pressure them to have to learn a foreign language so that they could get anywhere on the career ladder, but the Soviet Union was as I said, an ideologically-motivated state whose goal was to construct a new identity on top of all the old ones.


Ha-ha,ha..So I guess Lenin was a staunch Russian nationalist then that aimed to absorb Europe into a new Russian empire? :cantbeli:


So because these countries were occupied by russians, now they should keep learning russian?:cantbeli:
Obviously local people know their local language and enough of history, they study it in schools after all (and do pass enough of exams). It is hard to expect anything else, don't you think?There you go with 'those Russians' again rofl
Of course you are right, all my arguements in my previous post were simply there to decieve you. Everyone knows that us Russians were the undisputed masters and overlords of the USSR, we had all the freedoms and riches in the world compared to those we kept 'underneath our boot'.

Why just in my own manor, I had no less that 3 Estonian slaves, 2 Moldovans, several Buryats, a Jew, 2 Tajiks and a Bashkir. That's not counting the 2 Armenians I had spit and shinin' my shoes everyday ("ya talkin' to me boayyy?"), or the Chukchi I forced to clean my Chimney every morning (used to give that whiny bastard a good kick to the balls when he complained too much).

Now in all seriousness though, the West, really did treat their minorities like absolute sh!t until fairly recently. I'm talking about the blacks in the USA until the 60's, the blacks in South Africa up until the 90's (!), and the countless victims of European colonialism that butchered and repressed their way across Africa and Asia all the way up until the 1960's.


And don't compare russian with english.
English became the language of international communication not because it is enforced by guns. Both UK and US had enough to offer, starting with technology, science and ending with pop culture.English became the language of international communication not because of all that crap, but because it was enforced by guns; those of the British Navy and Army, when they came into countries completely foreign to their own and started taking their resources for themselves. The British Empire lasted for the better part of 3 centuries, and once it was over the English language was already well established in the world. America took over the mantle only in the late 40's, and carried on the spread of the English language around the world. However the Americans were no angels either in the Cold War, both sides invaded sovereign states, instigated revolutions, coups, bullied their neighbours, etc... They were the big kids on the block and their languages expanded in step with their influence on the world, but of course the English language had a better starting position, and when the USSR fell, so too did the popularity of its language.


I have no desire to continue about any other subjects starting with Ukrainian elections etc. You have no basic knowledge about any subject you're talking about....Oh dear, not another 'expert' :roll:
So I suppose if I don't have any basic knowledge, you do then?
Why don't you go ahead and enlighten us, instead of dismissing all my arguements I spent a long time writing with a couple of sentances?

[DS73]

Why Russians since 1940? Why not 1920? Why not 1900?
Because baltic states were occupied by soviet Russia then.
It's all about law in the end.


That would be the equivelent of Cuba's pre-revolution government coming to power and refusing to automatically grant citizenship to the descendants of anyone who arrived to Cuba since the Cuban revolution; despite how many generations they were living there by now.
Americans did have to run from Cuba. Your argument is faulty.


Baltic states were part of the USSR.
occupied part taken by a threat of force.


English became the language of international communication not because of all that crap, but because it was enforced by guns; those of the British Navy and Army, when they came into countries completely foreign to their own and started taking their resources for themselves. The British Empire lasted for the better part of 3 centuries, and once it was over the English language was already well established in the world. America took over the mantle only in the late 40's, and carried on the spread of the English language around the world. However the Americans were no angels either in the Cold War, both sides invaded sovereign states, instigated revolutions, coups, bullied their neighbours, etc... They were the big kids on the block and their languages expanded in step with their influence on the world, but of course the English language had a better starting position, and when the USSR fell, so too did the popularity of its language.
Tell this crap to french or germans who are learning english now. The general desire to describe everything by the argument of force (master vs. slave) is very informative. Thank you for illustrating this.



Oh dear, not another 'expert' :roll:
So I suppose if I don't have any basic knowledge, you do then?
Why don't you go ahead and enlighten us, instead of dismissing all my arguements I spent a long time writing with a couple of sentances?What specific part's interesting you. Point one.

[Papenheims]

Why Russians since 1940? Why not 1920? Why not 1900?

Those Russians and their descendants who had citizenship before occupation received citizenship regardless of their level of state language.


And don't tell me that 'Baltics were occupied'.

Yeah right! Maybe you also believe that Finns started Winter War by attacking Soviet Union?



That still doesn't refute the fact that the new governments which ruled those countries controlled their territory, and they were the ones who allowed people in.

Those governments were largely puppets made at the beginning from national communists. In the 1959 Eduards Berklavs (deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of Latvian SSR) was sentenced to prison in Vladimir after being "labelled" as "nationalist" for opposing immigration from other parts of SU to Latvia and supporting greater role of Latvian language. It was part greater purge of national communists - about 2,000 of the party leadership and activists were stripped of their posts and privileges.

In the Lithuania this attempt failed since the local communist leader Antanas Snieckus was too strong and opposed any massive immigration. Thats why today Lithuania has no problem with Russian minority since it is small compared with Latvia.



Like it or not but the Estonian and Latvian SSR's were as much a part of those states history as their governments from 1918-1940 were.

According to law - no they weren't.

[TakeIt]

Because baltic states were occupied by soviet Russia then.You mean they were treated as "occupied" by western countries?


occupied part taken by a threat of force.Threat of force? Voiced by who?

[CPL Trevoga]

Those Russians and their descendants who had citizenship before occupation received citizenship regardless of their level of state language.

Yeah right! Maybe you also believe that Finns started Winter War by attacking Soviet Union?


Those governments were largely puppets made at the beginning from national communists. In the 1959 Eduards Berklavs (deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of Latvian SSR) was sentenced to prison in Vladimir after being "labelled" as "nationalist" for opposing immigration from other parts of SU to Latvia and supporting greater role of Latvian language. It was part greater purge of national communists - about 2,000 of the party leadership and activists were stripped of their posts and privileges.

In the Lithuania this attempt failed since the local communist leader Antanas Snieckus was too strong and opposed any massive immigration. Thats why today Lithuania has no problem with Russian minority since it is small compared with Latvia.

According to law - no they weren't.

Recently Russian government media started showing positive news about Latvia, what gives? You're not bad people after all.

Anyway how come you guys have a Canadian as your president? As far as I know Baltic states joined USSR by will of people, where is this occupation comes from?
That's all for my questions.

P.S. Let's not bring Finland into this. If in 1939 Finns could be victims of some sort, in 1941 they attacked USSR together with Hitler.

[ilmakas]

As far as I know Baltic states joined USSR by will of people, where is this occupation comes from?


In mid-summer 1940, as the whole world was watching the collapse of France before the German war machine, the Soviet Union occupied the three Baltic republics. On 16 June, Soviet foreign minister Molotov issued an ultimatum to Estonia (as it did to Latvia and Lithuania) accusing the Baltic States of violating the pact of mutual assistance and of forming a military alliance that the Soviets claimed was threatening its security. The Baltics were called on to form new, Soviet-minded governments and to permit the unimpeded entry of the Red Army into the country. With no hope of outside assistance, the Estonian government acceded to the ultimatum and on 17 June the Red Army units—nearly 100,000 men—entered Estonia and, together with the troops stationed on the bases, occupied the entire country. “People’s governments” were formed in the occupied Baltic States from 17-21 June 1940. On 3 August, Lithuania was annexed by the Soviet Union, followed by Latvia on 5 August and Estonia on 6 August. Of course, it was these leaders of "people's governments" who asked for permission to join USSR, so now commie-apologists can claim it was will of the people. Yeah right.

[CPL Trevoga]

In mid-summer 1940, as the whole world was watching the collapse of France before the German war machine, the Soviet Union occupied the three Baltic republics. On 16 June, Soviet foreign minister Molotov issued an ultimatum to Estonia (as it did to Latvia and Lithuania) accusing the Baltic States of violating the pact of mutual assistance and of forming a military alliance that the Soviets claimed was threatening its security. The Baltics were called on to form new, Soviet-minded governments and to permit the unimpeded entry of the Red Army into the country. With no hope of outside assistance, the Estonian government acceded to the ultimatum and on 17 June the Red Army units—nearly 100,000 men—entered Estonia and, together with the troops stationed on the bases, occupied the entire country. “People’s governments” were formed in the occupied Baltic States from 17-21 June 1940. On 3 August, Lithuania was annexed by the Soviet Union, followed by Latvia on 5 August and Estonia on 6 August. Of course, it was these leaders of "people's governments" who asked for permission to join USSR, so now commie-apologists can claim it was will of the people. Yeah right.

So technically it wasn't an "occupation" in the traditional terms. It's sounds more like Democracy to me. Will of the people or Orange revolution type of things.

[ilmakas]

So technically it wasn't an "occupation" in the traditional terms. It's sounds more like Democracy to me. Will of the people or Orange revolution type of things.

are you for real man? there was less than 1000 commies in estonia in 1939. Red army marched in and suddenly these handful of people manage to topple legal Estonian government? You should look the pictures of this "revolution" - red army armored cars and soldiers everywhere. Estonian government and population didnt oppose this openly(apart some shootings) because whats the point, there was no way of winning. There were already more red army soldiers inside Estonia than Estonia could itself mobilize.

[TakeIt]

The Baltics were called on to form new, Soviet-minded governments and to permit the unimpeded entry of the Red Army into the country. With no hope of outside assistance, the Estonian government acceded to the ultimatumSo what's the problem, haven't you read the text of meetings between Rey and Molotov, or Laydoner and Meretskov?

[Kilgor]

Even Putin wont admit the Baltic's were occupied. With a arrogant attitude to history like this, why are some people surprised at the level of animosity towards so called Russian historians here ?

Putting a gun to someone's head isn't choice. And they would have suffered the Finn's fate if they tried to resist.

[Papenheims]

Recently Russian government media started showing positive news about Latvia, what gives? You're not bad people after all.
Thank you. Hope relations will improve. Latvia and Estonia always give 12 points to Russia in Eurovision. Wonder why :roll: .


Anyway how come you guys have a Canadian as your president?

I hope you know that she is Canadian Latvian (she was born in Latvia but escaped with parents to west in 1944 when red army approached). We have a different president now (since 2007). As for how we got her - well she had great education and knew 5 languages - therefore good choice, because the president has only a representative role in Baltic states (diplomatic meetings, foreign visits etc). The head of government is prime minister (like in UK or Germany), who "leads" the state.


As far as I know Baltic states joined USSR by will of people, where is this occupation comes from?

Ilmakas already answered.

[1curious]

DS73 misrepresented several legal documents and provided multiple false statement while accusing others. It is easy to prove. I hope the mods and other interested members will carefully review the 3 specific items below. It is important for establishing any further credibility of this poster.

False statement #1:

1. 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
Latvia, Lithuania signed-- USA didn't.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty3stat.htm
It is a 100% false statement and a deflection for two reasons. Firstly, every single statement and all references in my post #103 that DS73 responded to (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3912405&postcount=103) referred specifically to Estonia‘s deficient laws . Not Latvia, not Lithuania, not the US. Anyone can easily verify it by clicking on the link above. Yet DS73 listed three countries I never referred to and Estonia is NOT in the 1st link provided by him. Secondly, Estonia is not a signatory to 1954 Convention (see link below). Therefore the faking, deliberate or not, is exposed conclusively and it is not mine.

False statement #2:
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Not surprisingly the same.
It is a 100% false statement. Either DS73 doesn’t know how to read legal documents or he misrepresented them. There is not a single mentioning of the 1961 Convention in either of the DS73-provided links . Anyone can easily verify it. Additionally, Estonia did NOT sign 1961 convention. (source: UN document A/HRC/7/19/Add.2, page 7, item15 dated 17 March, 2008, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,MISSION,,EST,47e240a82,0.html)

15. Estonia is not a party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.False statement # 3:
Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Co...77&CM=8&CL=ENG all baltic states signed or applied practical ellements. (it is obvious why).
It is a false and deceptive statement for the following reasons. Firstly, again, only Estonia was the subject of my post #103. Secondly, Estonia did not ratify the Protocol #12. It is a fact easily verified from the DS73-provided link above and from my link in Item 2.. Therefore the protocol never entered into force despite Estonia being urged by the EU to ratify it. My statement about the protocol was fully truthful because I specifically mention 6 documents (reproduced below), including the protocol #12, the documents that never entered into force, including those not ratified or signed. (see below):

Relevant International instruments on human rights urged by the EU but refused, not signed, not ratified by Estonia:

1. 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
2. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
3. Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
4. European Convention on Nationality (not signed),
5. Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Local Public Life
6. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

So, DS73 provided false, confusing, and inaccurate statements about the first 3 documents.

[Bolt]

And they would have suffered the Finn's fate if they tried to resist.
Didn't Finland after the 1939 war and even after WW2 - like, stay free? Sounds like a good fate to me. Also, I don't know how, but even after what happened between those two states, they have normal relationships.

[kalkun]

Can you imagine what would happen with people in Baltic states if their decided to follow Finland's example and fight against SU?

Don't want to go against you, but I disagree. We didn't benefit nothing and ended up in war anyway. Comparing the per cent of people living in Estonia that time, less Finns fell(who engaged in 2 wars) than Estonians.

@1curious (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=58814)
Start getting over from posting your conventions over here. EU can urge, Estonia doesn't have to ratify. AFAIK we were urged to sign Ban on cluster munitions too, Estonia didn't join and keeps possessing them. Does that makes us now war criminals or something?

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Hm, in this case one can actually count how many years such countries as "Latvia" or "Estonia" existed. Not much longer than those 25 years you mention (from '18 to '40 and after the collapse of Soviet Union until now), I may tell you. So where does this lead? I dunno, you tell me. :)Karelia is Finnish and Silesia is German?

[JCR]

Karelia is Finnish and Silesia is German?

Why not? We allready have Klose and Podolski...
:P

[TakeIt]

Karelia is Finnish and Silesia is German?Are you saying the time has come for a new Munich or MR pact?

[Bolt]

Karelia is Finnish and Silesia is German?
See, that's exactly what I meant. Either we don't count how many years that and that countries possesed that and that land or we suddenly appear in a world-wide cluster f*ck, where everyone have claims to other nations' lands.

[JCR]

Are you saying the time has come for a new Munich or MR pact?

Don't **** bricks :P

[Flamming_Python]

Those governments were largely puppets made at the beginning from national communists. In the 1959 Eduards Berklavs (deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of Latvian SSR) was sentenced to prison in Vladimir after being "labelled" as "nationalist" for opposing immigration from other parts of SU to Latvia and supporting greater role of Latvian language. It was part greater purge of national communists - about 2,000 of the party leadership and activists were stripped of their posts and privileges.

A great shame the Moscow high-ups were so shortsighted and stupid. I think if the Latvians and Estonians had greater autonomy to run their own affairs, we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.


Even Putin wont admit the Baltic's were occupied. With a arrogant attitude to history like this, why are some people surprised at the level of animosity towards so called Russian historians here ?

Putting a gun to someone's head isn't choice. And they would have suffered the Finn's fate if they tried to resist.

Actually when this subject was brought up by an Estonian journalist, Putin pointed to the denunciation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and all of its consequences by the people's deputies of the USSR late in the 80's as a personal deal between Stalin and Hitler. Of course they don't teach this little fact in Baltic schools, or Polish schools for that matter :roll:

Putin also described what happened to the Baltic states as a fact of history, giving as another example; the European colonization of Africa. He then proceeded to completely ridicule the journalist.

I have a link to the video but its only in Russian:

http://www.youtube.com/v/DFYfOfowEHk&hl=en&fs=1


As for how we got her - well she had great education and knew 5 languages

Apart from of course the native language of 30% of the people she is supposed to represent, Russian.

Out of all the Latvians, how many of them are from Canada? A tiny minority I would imagine. Far be it from me to tell you who to elect as your head of state, but if the next Russian president lived in America all his life I would be more than a little suspicious and skeptical. If not for the possibility of foreign allegiances, then certainly for the fact that someone that actually lived in the country they were leading would have a better idea of life there, the needs of the people, the local situations and their sensitivities, etc...


Start getting over from posting your conventions over here. EU can urge, Estonia doesn't have to ratify. AFAIK we were urged to sign Ban on cluster munitions too, Estonia didn't join and keeps possessing them. Does that makes us now war criminals or something?

Well it's one thing to possess, it's another thing to use them, which so far Estonia hasn't done so it can't be accused of anything in that regard.

On the other hand, the conventions relating to human rights, have direct negative consequences on Estonia's population for as long as they are not implemented.

[TakeIt]

Don't **** bricks :P
Why should i? I guess it is known how ended that last attempt by Germany(and Finland along) to try something like that. Do you really want to repeat it?

[1curious]

& kalkun
Start getting over from posting your conventions over here. I think you utterly failed to see three important things when you wrote this.

First. A poster is not required to receive a permission from another poster in order to express his free opinion. So, you’ll have to excuse me if I won’t heed your request. Plus you don’t have to read my posts.
Second. These are not “my” Conventions . They are International Conventions. When a country disregards them, it can’t claim any legitimacy regarding certain policies.
Third. By posting verbatim these international documents and the harsh criticism Estonia received over disregarding them, I refuted with hard evidence the profuse misinformation, lies and misdirection posted by a certain member. Specifically, I repeat, I exposed falsity of Estonian claims re. lack of discrimination against the minorities. The good news is, I found more hard evidence against Estonia and I intend to post more.

EU can urge, Estonia doesn't have to ratify.Very true. Then, Estonia is justifiably criticized (as Estonia indeed was) over violation of certain human rights of the minorities and the so-called stateless subjects (40% of them happened to be born in Estonia)

AFAIK we were urged to sign Ban on cluster munitions too, Estonia didn't join and keeps possessing them. Does that makes us now war criminals or something?Irrelevant off topic and a bait. I support Estonia’s right for self-defense but could care less about Estonia’s weapons.

[Papenheims]

Apart from of course the native language of 30% of the people she is supposed to represent, Russian.

Well she is no longer the president, but I can console you that current president knows only two languages - Latvian and Russian, not sure about his level of English.


Far be it from me to tell you who to elect as your head of state,

We don't elect our head of state. It is done by parliament.


but if the next Russian president lived in America all his life I would be more than a little suspicious and skeptical. If not for the possibility of foreign allegiances, then certainly for the fact that someone that actually lived in the country they were leading would have a better idea of life there, the needs of the people, the local situations and their sensitivities, etc...

Well if one day Russia decides to bring back monarchy and tsar, then all the legal claimants to Russian throne live abroad. :)