A friendless Russia is held hostage to Putin’s vanity

[Pareto]

The conventional story about Russia has been one of power reclaimed after the fall to chaos during the 1990s. Oil, gas and autocracy have restored it to the ranks of world powers. Some of the more hyperbolic commentary has gone so far to say that, along with China, Moscow has created an entirely new model to challenge western liberalism.
Yet what most strikes me about Russia is its isolation. For all its resurgent hydrocarbon revenues and its considerable, albeit residual, military power, Moscow is essentially friendless. As for a superior system of capitalism, when was the last time you heard an international politician of any consequence hold up Russia as their chosen paradigm?
Moscow can claim the odd loyal acolyte, sure. Many of the former Soviet republics among its neighbours judge it wise to stay on side with the present regime. Last year’s Russian invasion of Georgia served, in Voltaire’s famous phrase, “pour encourager les autres”. Beyond the post-Soviet space, mavericks such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez see some advantage in travelling in Moscow’s slipstream.
But look for eager and willing allies – governments and peoples that feel an instinctive affinity with today’s Russia or who see in its society something to borrow for themselves – and, well, Moscow is out there on its own. To put it another way, what country in the world wants to be more like Russia? I cannot think of a shorter list.
I was reminded of this isolation the other day when Vladimir Putin stepped out for what has become a familiar August ritual. The Russian prime minister, stripped to the waist and bestride a horse, posed for the camera in a studied show of summer machismo. Russians were reassured that they have a strong man at the helm; the world was reminded it had better not mess with Mr Putin.
That was the theory anyway. To my mind, these vainglorious photo-shoots are more a measure of weakness. Sad really – a middle-aged man desperate to show the world he still has his physique. The Russian prime minister would do better to buy himself a sports car. More seriously, Mr Putin’s apparent compulsion to flaunt his torso offers an unfortunate metaphor for Russia itself: a great, but waning power deluding itself that a show of muscle is the way to cling on to past glory.
Why a delusion? After all, US power, you could say, is based on its unparalleled economic and military might. For a time George W. Bush thought that nothing else mattered. In the wake of September 11 2001, the US decided that friends and foes alike could be bullied into line.
Yet even the world’s sole superpower learned pretty quickly the limitations of a foreign policy based on instilling fear. Supreme military might was not enough. Mr Bush realised too late that power needs legitimacy. Anti-Americanism emerged as a rival superpower.
Barack Obama’s administration seems to have understood the importance of what the political scientists call “normative” power. States are strong when others want to imitate them. For some that means an admiration for US democratic values, for others enthusiasm for America’s cultural and economic vibrancy.
Travel to Beijing and you will hear high-ranking Chinese policymakers speak in awe of the US higher education system and of its economy’s capacity for technological innovation. Much as Mr Putin would like to pretend otherwise, Russia scarcely merits even a passing mention in such conversations. Beijing considers it has little, if anything, to learn from Moscow.
China sees its neighbour as a declining power. Temporarily re-energised, of course, by a surge in oil and gas revenues and by Mr Putin’s nationalism; but for all that a state that is squandering its petro-bounty and one in which almost every medium-to-long term indicator points in the direction of decay.
Joe Biden hit the mark a few weeks ago with a candid assessment of Russia’s prospects: a falling population, a withering economy and severe psychological hangover from the loss of empire. The US vice-president got into some trouble for his undiplomatic choice of words, but his assessment is pretty much the consensus outside Russia. For all that Mr Putin, with the help of oil revenues, has revived the country’s spirit, Russia is indeed shrinking fast. By some estimates its present population of 140m or so will be closer to 100m by the middle of the present century.
It is not just the ravages of low birth and high mortality rates. The Kremlin’s crony capitalism has done precious little to modernise the nation’s economy or to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure.
Faced with the progressive hollowing out of Russian power, Mr Putin’s response is a foreign policy in which the organising emotions are grievance and belligerence. The west is held responsible for the chaos of the 1990s. Moscow will now deploy coercion – cutting off the gas or more direct intervention in former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine – to restore hegemony over its own neighbourhood.
Coercion can work for a while. A hopelessly divided Europe needs the gas. The US administration wants Russia’s help in dealing with a range of global issues. Moscow has cards to play on nuclear arms reduction, Iran and international terrorism, as well as its huge reserves of hydrocarbons.
In spite of the long-term prognosis, this embrace of victimhood makes Russia hard to deal with now. So far Mr Obama seems to have got it about right: engage respectfully with Moscow where there are mutual interests or useful trade-offs, humour Mr Putin’s vanity, but forget grandiose ideas about “strategic partnerships”.
Moscow will discover eventually the limitations of its capacity to obstruct. It is starving itself of foreign technology and investment. Making life difficult for the west is not the same as shaping a different international landscape. Even those who now pay notional fealty to Moscow are hedging their bets with China or the west.
Mr Putin may not care. Perhaps the braggadocio that drives him to pull on military fatigues and take off his shirt for the camera tells him also that all is well as long as the world shows Russia respect. In that case, Russian power will wither as surely as will Mr Putin’s physique. To quote the plain-speaking Mr Biden, it is hard when you lose an empire, but you cannot cling on to the past indefinitely.
http://media.ft.com/cms/67ddc136-8db4-11de-93df-00144feabdc0.jpg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef405120-8db4-11de-93df-00144feabdc0.html

Ouch...
FT and Economist know how to Knock today's Russia regime by describing it's exact nature and it's grave failures..:bash:

[nsp]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1638/1250159051250.jpg

[muttbutt]

Oh the Russia strong crew are going to be all over this one.



Joe Biden hit the mark a few weeks ago with a candid assessment of Russia’s prospects: a falling population, a withering economy and severe psychological hangover from the loss of empire
I think thats the first time anyone has said that about Joe Biden.

[dragonunion]

Ouch...
FT and Economist know how to Knock today's Russia regime by describing it's exact nature and it's grave failures..:bash:
Yes, yes, genius. Who care?

[Estopped]

It's an opinion piece that is devoid of any content. There's not really much to address there other than "Russia is weak, Russia must stand down and accept a lower profile"

[Atlantic Friend]

It's an opinion piece that is devoid of any content. There's not really much to address there other than "Russia is weak, Russia must stand down and accept a lower profile"

Actually, this is not what the article suggests. It's more about Russia currently going into a political impasse, where the choices may seem tempting now but will soon be much more limited.

[Estopped]

Actually, this is not what the article suggests. It's more about Russia currently going into a political impasse, where the choices may seem tempting now but will soon be much more limited.

I disagree

This is what sums up the article imo

Moscow will discover eventually the limitations of its capacity to obstruct.

It's an opinion piece that is not inciteful or particularly clever. It's just a vanilla Russia weak article.

[CPL Trevoga]

Putin is in good shape for a 55 year old. He is a positive role model for men around the world. Be strong, be in shape, be a leader.

[GazB]

Hahahaha... it sounds funny to suggest the isolation of Russia has anything to do with Putin or any other person in Russia.

When Russia threw off the shackles of communism it was going to be welcomed back into the international community with open arms... yeah right.

Communism didn't stop the US getting into bed with communist China. The real problem with Russia is despite the state of its conventional military, it nuclear arsenal makes it the only threat to the west. I am sure if the Russians gave up all their nuclear weapons and allowed rich western countries to own everything of value in Russia that the west would like them much better.
Russia is actually forming relationships around the world all the time and in lots of areas. I think they have accepted that the west will never welcome them into the international community, but economically and politically they are creating ties and before you know it hurting Russian interests will only end up hurting western interests too.

[Kak]

Russia has plenty of friends, and is pretty typical in its relationship with the vast majority of countries. It doesn't have a BFF relationship, like the US and UK, or France and Germany, but very few countries do. The only difference is its often poor relationship with a small number of nations formerly a part of the USSR or Warsaw Pact, but this is often due to far more complex reasons than just Putin's behavior. Tension is especially great now because Russia is really starting to "come back", and unlike many pessimists in the Western press I think it's unrealistic to assume they are incapable of sucess. I'm not sure it's going to get better any time soon, not until the issue of what the final relationship between Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan will be is finally clear and settled. And I think recent demographic trends show that 100 million population projection to be completely ridiculous and an indicator of bias.

[Pareto]

Russia has plenty of friends, and is pretty typical in its relationship with the vast majority of countries. It doesn't have a BFF relationship, like the US and UK, or France and Germany, but very few countries do. The only difference is its often poor relationship with a small number of nations formerly a part of the USSR or Warsaw Pact, but this is often due to far more complex reasons than just Putin's behavior. Tension is especially great now because Russia is really starting to "come back", and unlike many pessimists in the Western press I think it's unrealistic to assume they are incapable of sucess. I'm not sure it's going to get better any time soon, not until the issue of what the final relationship between Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan will be is finally clear and settled. And I think recent demographic trends show that 100 million population projection to be completely ridiculous and an indicator of bias.

Russia comlex relation with it's nebourghs is due to Russia's special interest policy in post soviet area,they never tried to hide their intention of graiter rights in it's neighboring states!
Just leave the history to the past and look at the future!
stop terrorizing your neiboghrs,be more atractive to them!

Russia "comming back" theory is a myth, their have a middle income economy, deeply depdending on oil and other natural recourcies,while shrinking by anual 10%. They have grave health care problems,giving the fact that men life expendency in Russia is about 59 years compering to 77-80 years in western countries.They have internal problems with islamist terrorists,human rigth situatuion is detorating,jurnalist and human right activists get killed very often,the soviet ifrastucrture is in very bad shape as we have witnessed in Saino hydro-electric station trategy..
so please explane me how Russia is coming back??

[Atlantic Friend]

I disagree

It's an opinion piece that is not inciteful or particularly clever. It's just a vanilla Russia weak article.

Saying that Russia's capacity to obstruct has limitations is simple fact. Every country has only a limited capacity to obstruct.

The whole issue is Russia's stance, not Russia's strength or weakness.

[asch]

hey Pareto.

as i see around, situation greatly changed to the positive side in the last 5 years, so no cookie for you, sorry.

[Kak]

Russia "comming back" theory is a myth, their have a middle income economy, deeply depdending on oil and other natural recourcies,while shrinking by anual 10%. They have grave health care problems,giving the fact that men life expendency in Russia is about 59 years compering to 77-80 years in western countries.They have internal problems with islamist terrorists,human rigth situatuion is detorating,jurnalist and human right activists get killed very often,the soviet ifrastucrture is in very bad shape as we have witnessed in Saino hydro-electric station trategy..
so please explane me how Russia is coming back??

I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about in the future. It's a long process, but the process is starting. And I'm not necessarily talking about a return to being a superpower either. Economically, most credible economic institutions project Russia's per capita GDP to rise significantly in the next few decades to among some of the highest in Europe. It's ascension to the largest overall GDP in Europe is inevitable (maybe in 15-20 years or so) due to its comparatively large population, natural resources, and faster growing economy due to its developing nature. The 10% GDP decline is due to the global recession, and there are signs that will end soon. In a few years they will resume having a higher rate of growth than the already developed West and will eventually catch up. Their growth will probably not be as fast as it was before initially, so it might take longer. Oil is at a good price for Russia now, and will likely stay high long term.

The other things you mentioned will be improved with more years of stability and an increase in prosperity. The future for Russia isn't going to be easy, some things (like the situation in the Muslim Caucasus region) might get worse before they get better, and it will be a slow lengthy process for things to improve. But looking at the trends there is little reason to assume it won't happen, barring some unforeseen catastrophe.

[Frutzel]

Yeah as they welcomed the free world what did they get?!Every moron knows what happened back in the 90's but sure its only the fault of Putin. Ridiculous article btw

[zg18]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1638/1250159051250.jpg

rofl Nice!

[Estopped]

Saying that Russia's capacity to obstruct has limitations is simple fact. Every country has only a limited capacity to obstruct.

The whole issue is Russia's stance, not Russia's strength or weakness.

The author is basically saying Russia should pipe down and accept a minor role in the world. And that directly relates to Russia strength or weakness in the world.

[Karaahmetoglu]

If oil did not hit $100 a barrel because of the Iraq invasion, Russia would not stand as tall as it does now.

[Mousepad]

I'm kinda confused, it's Russia Weak!!! or Amerika still better then Russia!!! article?

[zg18]

If oil did not hit $100 a barrel because of the Iraq invasion, Russia would not stand as tall as it does now.

Oil prices mostly risen because dollar as a currency weakened, weak dollar => oil prices up. It would have happened even without Iraq war.

[Breerman]

Hahahaha... it sounds funny to suggest the isolation of Russia has anything to do with Putin or any other person in Russia.
Suggesting anything else is ridiculous and paranoid. Had Yeltsin opted for a less anti-western successor things would obviously have been very different.

[Switek]

It's rather about how Russia is getting weaker, isolated and marginalized on its own wish. IMHO, this article shares my basic thoughts abut Russia what made me No. 1 mp.net's Russophobe ;) for some time.

[zg18]

It's rather about how Russia is getting weaker, isolated and marginalized on its own wish. IMHO, this article shares my basic thoughts abut Russia what made me No. 1 mp.net's Russophobe ;) for some time.

Why ,because not friendly with West ,poor Russia.... :-(

[Flamming_Python]

If oil did not hit $100 a barrel because of the Iraq invasion, Russia would not stand as tall as it does now.

No it would still have turned out the same. Oil prices have now tumbled but Russia is not loosing power like in '91 or '98.


It's rather about how Russia is getting weaker, isolated and marginalized on its own wish. IMHO, this article shares my basic thoughts abut Russia what made me No. 1 mp.net's Russophobe ;) for some time.

Isolated? You wish - Russia is building bilateral relationships with countries around the world and is increasing its influence, and it doesn't particularly matter that minor countries such as Poland don't like that.

[The Dane]

That's a great article.

[The Dane]

No it would still have turned out the same. Oil prices have now tumbled but Russia is not loosing power like in '91 or '98.



Isolated? You wish - Russia is building bilateral relationships with countries around the world and is increasing its influence, and it doesn't particularly matter that minor countries such as Poland don't like that.

Which countries ?

[Flamming_Python]

Really though I don't understand why it's a bad thing that Russia is 'friendless'. That's just the way politics work, as a prominent Briton once said (forgot who :(), there are no permanent friends, rather interests.

And as a prominent Russian Tsar once said; Russia's only friends are her army and her navy (and air force, strategic missile forces, etc... :))

[hsh2]

Really gotta love those pointless feel good anti China-Russia-India articles.


Joe Biden hit the mark a few weeks ago with a candid assessment of Russia’s prospects: a falling population, a withering economy and severe psychological hangover Aha I see, thanks for the assessment Joe "I have a much higher IQ than you" Biden.
Which of these attributes doesn't apply to the US or Western Europe aswell?

What's the aim of this article? Is it for us to sleep well at night? I honestly don't get it.

[zg18]

Suggesting anything else is ridiculous and paranoid. Had Yeltsin opted for a less anti-western successor things would obviously have been very different.

Putin isn't exactly so much anti-western, if western media isn't so propagandistic on Russia like it is , it would brought Americans like Steve Cohen who actually know something, to explain things. Putin was actually criticized because of softness towards West , in the first mandate , the military was opposing to help US build bases in Central Asia, but Putin helped, what made Putin angry at the US is military infrastructure in Eastern Europe and abandoning the ABM treaty, the bases in Central Asia had a time-limit under Bush-Putin deal , but the bases are still there , somehow i find ackword to blame Russia for what's actually foreign policy failiure of the Bush administration.

[Atlantic Friend]

The author is basically saying Russia should pipe down and accept a minor role in the world. And that directly relates to Russia strength or weakness in the world.

Nope. He states that the current "obstructionnist" stance of Russia will soon show its limits, just as, as the author points it, the USA's "our way or the highway" stance has shown its limits.

[Frutzel]

That's a great article.

Whats so great about it Fairbrass?

[JBH22]

if history has taught us something is never write off the Russian Bear...
btw reading the Economist and FT they'll always paint a bleak picture for Russia,India and China,these countries according to them are always in danger and always bully their small neighbours.

[Flamming_Python]

Which countries ?

Ok here we go:

Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Iceland, Slovakia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian Autonomy, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Angola, Nigeria, Uganda, Namibia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua & Cuba.

Meanwhile; Russia is aggressively opposed by:

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Georgia, UK, Sweden & America

[Derbedeu]

Ok here we go:

Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, Iceland, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian Autonomy, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Angola, Nigeria, Uganda, Namibia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua & Cuba.

Technically speaking, it can be said that Russia has bilateral relations with any country that it swaps ambassadors with. I think that Danskeren was asking which countries does Russia share a truly close relationship with, on par with let's say US-Japanese relations, Franco-German relations (or any other variation of EU member states for that matter), UK-Canadian, etc.

[Karaahmetoglu]

Meanwhile; Russia is aggressively opposed by:

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Georgia, UK, Sweden & America



Seriously?

I thought Sweden had a neturality policy.

[Russianlynxy]

Russophobe article to attract trolls like fruitflies.

Not a drop of fact in it only wishful thinking on the part of it's author.
Not even worth three pages of discussion.

[zg18]

Technically speaking, it can be said that Russia has bilateral relations with any country that it swaps ambassadors with. I think that Danskeren was asking which countries does Russia share a truly close relationship with, on par with let's say US-Japanese relations, Franco-German relations (or any other variation of EU member states for that matter), UK-Canadian, etc.

Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia etc.

[Derbedeu]

Russophobe article to attract trolls like fruitflies.

Not a drop of fact in it only wishful thinking on the part of it's author.
Not even worth three pages of discussion.

Come on Russianlynxy, you know you enjoy it (the arguing)! ;) Besides, if we all agreed here, or had the same political viewpoints, mp.net would be one boring-ass place. No thread would go past one page. :)

[Flamming_Python]

Technically speaking, it can be said that Russia has bilateral relations with any country that it swaps ambassadors with. I think that Danskeren was asking which countries does Russia share a truly close relationship with, on par with let's say US-Japanese relations, Franco-German relations (or any other variation of EU member states for that matter), UK-Canadian, etc.

Our allies would be Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan & Armenia.

In terms of friendly countries, we have Tajikistan, Moldova, Vietnam, Mongolia, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bangladesh, Palestinian Autonomy, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Angola, Yemen & Syria.

Finally for semi-friendly countries we can put Turkey, China, India, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Uganda, Namibia, Egypt, Norway, France & Germany.

All the rest we have simple working relationships with...

[Derbedeu]

^^^ What rubric did you use to come to that breakdown? Or is it a more arbitrary process?

[Breerman]

Our allies would be Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan & Armenia.
How many of those ex-Soviet republics went along with Russia's plead and recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Wikipedia has only Nicaragua listed but I think Iran and Venezuela might have answered the call too.

[tommy00]

Our allies would be Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan & Armenia...

Old saying,...."you know your friend in need".....
So, last time, Russia was very "needy" of support in recognition of Abkhasia and South-Ossetia.....
Result,.....Nicaragua and Venezuela,....oh, and a Hamas,-a terrororganisation...
Another old saying,..."you know someone by his friends".....


Even "Batka" didn't come to help, despite all of the promesed billions......my god....:roll:


Damn,...this time was it Beerman, who was faster....

[Mango Madness]

How many of those ex-Soviet republics went along with Russia's plead and recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Wikipedia has only Nicaragua listed but I think Iran and Venezuela might have answered the call too.

It wouldn't really change anything if they did recognise it because none of them are powerful countries and because none of the powerful countries (UK, Japan, France, Germany) were going to recognise it anyway. Although if many little countries recognise them it might pursuade the powerful countries in the future to recognise them. Recognition by Russia's friends would only create problems for them as the US and other western states are opposed to recognition, so it is understandable why they don't want to recognise them. If Russia was by far the most powerful country in the world, a la the US, then more countries would probably follow its lead and recognise them.

[Estopped]

Nope. He states that the current "obstructionnist" stance of Russia will soon show its limits, just as, as the author points it, the USA's "our way or the highway" stance has shown its limits.

The two are quite different. One comes from a position of power and doing what you want. The other is simply not bending over and taking it in the ass. I wouldn't call Russia's stance obstructionist. They are looking after their interests without riding roughshod over others.

[Switek]

It wouldn't really change anything if they did recognise it because none of them are powerful countries and because none of the powerful countries (UK, Japan, France, Germany) were going to recognise it anyway. Although if many little countries recognise them it might pursuade the powerful countries in the future to recognise them. Recognition by Russia's friends would only create problems for them as the US and other western states are opposed to recognition, so it is understandable why they don't want to recognise them. If Russia was by far the most powerful country in the world, a la the US, then more countries would probably follow its lead and recognise them.

So... it's better to have good relations with US and other western countries than backing its "friend" - Russia?. So maybe we "like" Russia but we prefer to act according to other standards?

In other words you has proven the self marginalization of Russia and decreasing of its political meaning and real influence.

[Digimon]

As had been pointed out, the article is neither insightful nor terribly new—it’s a carbon copy from any Russia related Economist article in the last 3-4 years. Yet, if one wished, one could derive an insight which is not simply another platitude. The insight is that there are limits to traditional notions of political sovereignty in globalized world. China gets it; US failed to get it; and Russia is just not getting it.

[intelligenzija]

So... it's better to have good relations with US and other western countries than backing its "friend" - Russia?. So maybe we "like" Russia but we prefer to act according to other standards?

In other words you has proven the self marginalization of Russia and decreasing of its political meaning and real influence.

How ignorant are you?
why choosing between Russia and an aggregate of many countries with a mainly US oriented policy owning the largest part of the world's capital?
I don't know how you do it in Poland but usually if you are a "friend" of someone it doesn't mean you have to piss off others.

[Switek]

How ignorant are you?
why choosing between Russia and an aggregate of many countries with a mainly US oriented policy owning the largest part of the world's capital

It's not only about money but few many other aspects but simple answer is that US posses what Russia doesn't.


I don't know how you do it in Poland but usually if you are a "friend" of someone it doesn't mean you have to piss off others.


It should work in both ways... sorry but most Russians don't see when they piss off others...

[Bugaboo]

How ignorant are you?
why choosing between Russia and an aggregate of many countries with a mainly US oriented policy owning the largest part of the world's capital?
I don't know how you do it in Poland but usually if you are a "friend" of someone it doesn't mean you have to piss off others.

As to choosing friends... everyone can choose friends as they like. If friends decide to undertake a project together and some other entity starts to complain about it, even though the project has nothing to do with the said entity...

Someone stated here Czech Republic is unfriendly to Russia. I wouldn't say we are unfriendly, we just want something else than Russia wants and Russia doesn't like the fact.But its not Russia's business.

[Bugaboo]

How ignorant are you?
why choosing between Russia and an aggregate of many countries with a mainly US oriented policy owning the largest part of the world's capital?
I don't know how you do it in Poland but usually if you are a "friend" of someone it doesn't mean you have to piss off others.

This is like kids in a sandbox: Why are you playing with him, play with me or I'll show you!

Well, why not play all together?

[Russianlynxy]

This is like kids in a sandbox: Why are you playing with him, play with me or I'll show you!

Well, why not play all together?

Because ultimately someone wants to be the big boy on the block and tell other boys and girls who gets to play in the sandbox and who doesn't.

politics is just like life, so good comparison in that sense.

Your question is kind of like "can't we all just get along"... well we wouldn't have wars if the answer was yes.

[Bugaboo]

Because ultimately someone wants to be the big boy on the block and tell other boys and girls who gets to play in the sandbox and who doesn't.

politics is just like life, so good comparison in that sense.

Well, the trick is that someone said we are unfriendly towards Russia, but we aren't. Russia doesn't like us playing with others.


Your question is kind of like "can't we all just get along"... well we wouldn't have wars if the answer was yes.

Yeah, but who wants to be the superpower here? Superpower aspirants shouldn't complain...

[Russianlynxy]

Well, the trick is that someone said we are unfriendly towards Russia, but we aren't. Russia doesn't like us playing with others.

Not true. Russia is open to any relations which are constructive, business-like, and mutually beneficial. I see you are from Czech Republic, you don't border Russia so it doesn't really matter if you are NATO member or not. I bet our countries would get along fine if your government had not shown open and unconditional support to a nation which arrogantly declared war on us and shot at our peacekeepers and another nation who's political legitimacy is questionable at best. Especially because neither Georgia or Ukraine have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Czech Republic, so the unconditional support for them is nothing more than cynical contempt toward Russia.

so who doesn't want to be friends with whom is a big question here. On the Czech and Russia question anyway.

[Bugaboo]

Not true. Russia is open to any relations which are constructive, business-like, and mutually beneficial.

I am talking about our relations with other countries than Russia.


I see you are from Czech Republic, you don't border Russia so it doesn't really matter if you are NATO member or not. I bet our countries would get along fine if your government had not shown open and unconditional support to a nation which arrogantly declared war on us and shot at our peacekeepers and another nation who's political legitimacy is questionable at best.

Who declared war on you? Unconditional support? Our government hardly advocated acts of open hostility. That is a strange formulation. Our peacekeeping forces were shot on by forces directly supported by Russia and we don't blame Russia. We blame the shooters, or rather don't, it's part of "peacekeeping", you know? If there wasn't shooting there wouldn't be any need for peacekeeping.



Especially because neither Georgia or Ukraine have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Czech Republic, so the unconditional support for them is nothing more than cynical contempt toward Russia.

It is not a contempt toward Russia. It is sympathy to others...



so who doesn't want to be friends with whom is a big question here. On the Czech and Russia question anyway.

You misunderstood my statement. If we decide to have a common project with Poles and US, it is no business of Russia. We can still be friendly towards Russia. If only Russia didn't see NATO as a potential enemy.

[Flamming_Python]

^^^ What rubric did you use to come to that breakdown? Or is it a more arbitrary process?

When I mean allies; I mean countries that 'have our back' so to speak. They of course follow their own interests first and foremost, and we may disagree about certain issues; but in the event of a serious political-military challenge to Russia they can be relied upon as allies and will guard our flanks.

When I say friendly countries, I refer to those that judge it in their interests to see Russia rise as an independent political power in the world, and in fact those who count on it. Their interests coincide close enough with our own that they are likely to support Russia in many areas of its foreign policy; and in the event of a confrontation; some may take our side to varying degrees, while others will remain neutral.

Finally in terms of semi-friendly countries, I am actually referring to quite a varied mixed bag of countries, consisting of historical adversaries that in recent years we have built good relations with but with still a little mutual mistrust such as Turkey, Iran and Israel, to neutral countries that we have increasingly have greater economic and other ties with such as Norway, to powerful countries who we currently have certain commonality in foreign policy issues and mutual co-operation with such as China, France and Germany.


How many of those ex-Soviet republics went along with Russia's plead and recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Wikipedia has only Nicaragua listed but I think Iran and Venezuela might have answered the call too.


Old saying,...."you know your friend in need".....
So, last time, Russia was very "needy" of support in recognition of Abkhasia and South-Ossetia.....
Result,.....Nicaragua and Venezuela,....oh, and a Hamas,-a terrororganisation...
Another old saying,..."you know someone by his friends".....


Even "Batka" didn't come to help, despite all of the promesed billions......my god....:roll:


Damn,...this time was it Beerman, who was faster....

Well actually it was never particularly Russia's priority to pressure other countries; even their CIS allies, to recognize these states as independent; which is in contrast with the West's approach of trying to secure legitimacy for Kosovo, a hastily declared state with little historical legacy, through a massive campaign of pulling strings and calling in favours worldwide :)

As for S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are already independent after all and have been for the past 15 years, and could secure their own borders and build their own states even without Russian troops (provided the Georgians don't attack again); they have survived then as they will now regardless of who recognizes them.

Russia did lead an equivalent campaign of gathering international support; but not for this issue; rather 6 months back when it campaigned against Kosovo's independence. But even then it didn't use pressure as such (admittedly limited), but rather only played a leadership role for a large collection of countries that for various reasons didn't judge it in their interests to recognize Kosovo. Thinking about it, it would also have looked pretty silly for Russia to have led an international campaign against the division of internationally-recognized borders, only to half a year later conduct a complete u-turn and start campaigning for other countries to recognize certain break-away states.

AFAIK the only country that Russia put any significant pressure on to recognize these countries is Belarus. This I believe was partially because of the possibility of S.Ossetia joining the Russia-Belarus union state, partially because of the large sums of money that Belarus asked for and that Russia wanted to get something a little extra out of, and partially because Russia wanted to prevent a situation where the EU can make better relations with Belarus conditional on the latter not getting too close to Russia in terms of foreign policy; the solution for which is of course to pressure Belarus to recognize the republics before it goes off to do its own thing and tries to mend relations with the West.

For all the other CIS (and other) allies of Russia, it didn't make sense to recognize the republics for 3 reasons and Russia realised this; it gave them loans and financial assistance without any sort of pre-conditions regarding the recognition of S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. These reasons were first and foremost, that many of these countries didn't want to create any precendent for separatism for their own territory, especially after they followed Russia's lead in fighting against the Kosovo independence issue; following Russia's lead in both issues would have made them look like complete hypocrites, as they had nothing to do with the fighting in the August war between Russia and Georgia. Secoundly, Georgia is a fellow USSR country and until very recently was also a member of the CIS; in exactly such matters as territorial integrity it's very much in the interests of CIS members to support each other (provided that is they're not fighting a war against each other) as all their political, social and economic situations are quite similar. Even Russia's closest allies have reasonable relations with Georgia and many political and trade agreements, and from their perspective there was no need to ruin these relations for the sake of a couple of micro-states. Finally and significantly, recognition of these break-away states would entail worse relations and more pressure from the West (as Belarus was warned); once again something that no state was willing to experience in return for the little political benefits that recognition of these territories would bring.

[Bugaboo]

When I mean allies; I mean countries that 'have our back' so to speak. They of course follow their own interests first and foremost, and we may disagree about certain issues; but in the event of a serious political-military challenge to Russia they can be relied upon as allies and will guard our flanks.

When I say friendly countries, I refer to those that judge it in their interests to see Russia rise as an independent political power in the world, and in fact those who count on it. Their interests coincide close enough with our own that they are likely to support Russia in many areas of its foreign policy; and in the event of a confrontation; some may take our side to varying degrees, while others will remain neutral.

Finally in terms of semi-friendly countries, I am actually referring to quite a varied mixed bag of countries, consisting of historical adversaries that in recent years we have built good relations with but with still a little mutual mistrust such as Turkey, Iran and Israel, to neutral countries that we have increasingly have greater economic and other ties with such as Norway, to powerful countries who we currently have certain commonality in foreign policy issues and mutual co-operation with such as China, France and Germany.

Well, it was you, Flaming Python, who wrote Czech Republic is hostile, or unfriendly to Russia, right? I disagree, but otherwise I see the logic of your division.



Well actually it was never particularly Russia's priority to pressure other countries; even their CIS allies, to recognize these states as independent; which is in contrast with the West's approach of trying to secure legitimacy for Kosovo, a hastily declared state with little historical legacy, through a massive campaign of pulling strings and calling in favours worldwide :)

As for S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are already independent after all and have been for the past 15 years, and could secure their own borders and build their own states even without Russian troops (provided the Georgians don't attack again); they have survived then as they will now regardless of who recognizes them.

Russia did lead an equivalent campaign of gathering international support; but not for this issue; rather 6 months back when it campaigned against Kosovo's independence. But even then it didn't use pressure as such (admittedly limited), but rather only played a leadership role for a large collection of countries that for various reasons didn't judge it in their interests to recognize Kosovo. Thinking about it, it would also have looked pretty silly for Russia to have led an international campaign against the division of internationally-recognized borders, only to half a year later conduct a complete u-turn and start campaigning for other countries to recognize certain break-away states.

AFAIK the only country that Russia put any significant pressure on to recognize these countries is Belarus. This I believe was partially because of the possibility of S.Ossetia joining the Russia-Belarus union state, partially because of the large sums of money that Belarus asked for and that Russia wanted to get something a little extra out of, and partially because Russia wanted to prevent a situation where the EU can make better relations with Belarus conditional on the latter not getting too close to Russia in terms of foreign policy; the solution for which is of course to pressure Belarus to recognize the republics before it goes off to do its own thing and tries to mend relations with the West.

For all the other CIS (and other) allies of Russia, it didn't make sense to recognize the republics for 3 reasons and Russia realised this; it gave them loans and financial assistance without any sort of pre-conditions regarding the recognition of S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. These reasons were first and foremost, that many of these countries didn't want to create any precendent for separatism for their own territory, especially after they followed Russia's lead in fighting against the Kosovo independence issue; following Russia's lead in both issues would have made them look like complete hypocrites, as they had nothing to do with the fighting in the August war between Russia and Georgia. Secoundly, Georgia is a fellow USSR country and until very recently was also a member of the CIS; in exactly such matters as territorial integrity it's very much in the interests of CIS members to support each other (provided that is they're not fighting a war against each other) as all their political, social and economic situations are quite similar. Even Russia's closest allies have reasonable relations with Georgia and many political and trade agreements, and from their perspective there was no need to ruin these relations for the sake of a couple of micro-states. Finally and significantly, recognition of these break-away states would entail worse relations and more pressure from the West (as Belarus was warned); once again something that no state was willing to experience in return for the little political benefits that recognition of these territories would bring.

Nice elaboration, I like it. BTW, I know a lot of people here, who don't like the Kosovo business, me included. And you should realistically admit Russia used Kosovo rather smartly as an example (good move, I'll give you that).

[Flamming_Python]

Who declared war on you? Unconditional support? Our government hardly advocated acts of open hostility. That is a strange formulation. Our peacekeeping forces were shot on by forces directly supported by Russia and we don't blame Russia. We blame the shooters, or rather don't, it's part of "peacekeeping", you know? If there wasn't shooting there wouldn't be any need for peacekeeping.

What/When was this?


It is not a contempt toward Russia. It is sympathy to others...And of course, those 'others' always happen to be enemies of Russia. And it's not even about sticking up for the little guy as the August war has shown; where is the sympathy for the Ossetians? It's just about supporting anyone who's against Russia.


You misunderstood my statement. If we decide to have a common project with Poles and US, it is no business of Russia. We can still be friendly towards Russia. If only Russia didn't see NATO as a potential enemy.It's NATO that sees us as an enemy, and something that needs to be encircled, contained, taught how to behave, civilised, or whatever... or what did you think, that NATO still exists because it needs to fight against a phantom enemy that none of us knows about?

However you're right, a nation can be a member of NATO and co-operate fully with it, while at the same time maintaining very good relations with Russia. And actually that's what a lot of nations have succeeded in. The problems with NATO that we have, are at its latest frontier, and is just as much about the sort of nationalist forces that it's supporting and backing against us, as about the alliance itself.

[Flamming_Python]

Well, it was you, Flaming Python, who wrote Czech Republic is hostile, or unfriendly to Russia, right? I disagree, but otherwise I see the logic of your division.

Well there were 2 or 3 countries that I was unsure about in terms of categorizing, and one of those was exactly the Czech Republic. This is because out of all the countries on that list, the Czech Republic is the one that has the most pragmatic and business orientated relations with Russia; with the effect that it manages to neatly separate economic ties with Russia which are growing and which the Czech government fosters, from political ties with Russia which are far from ideal.

I remember a few years back, I think it was the prime minister or the president of the Czech republic who went on a state visit to Russia, took a huge entourage of businessmen and entrepreneurs with him, and forbid them to speak anything other than Russian while they were there :) The end result is that they came back with a lot of business connections, deals and agreements.

However, the Czech Republic co-ordinates its foreign policy with Poland (meaning an anti-Russian foreign policy aimed at reducing Russian influence in Eastern Europe), and participates in the missile shield. For this reason I would be inclined to put down the Czech Republic among the countries unfriendly to Russia; although whether this policy will continue or ultimately the business/pragmatic side of Czech policy towards Russia will win out in the end is still an open question.


And you should realistically admit Russia used Kosovo rather smartly as an example (good move, I'll give you that).

Hmmm I don't understand?

[Bugaboo]

What/When was this?

Serbian paramilitary groups fired repeatedly at Czech peacekeeping forces. But it wasn't a complaint and I am not holding it against Russia. Our forces were "peacekeeping" in a region torn by a civil war and that means shooting hapens. And Russia is historically friendly towards Serbia, isn't it?


And of course, those 'others' always happen to be enemies of Russia. And it's not even about sticking up for the little guy as the August war has shown; where is the sympathy for the Ossetians? It's just about supporting anyone who's against Russia.

No, we strongly support Israel too and you included Israel among countries that are friendly to you.


It's NATO that sees us as an enemy, and something that needs to be encircled, contained, taught how to behave, civilised, or whatever... or what did you think, that NATO still exists because it needs to fight against a phantom enemy that none of us knows about?

Well, let's be realistic, Russia gives reasons for certain countries to be at least watchfull. My country has strong memories when we were allies and Russian forces led an invasion of my country. I don't want to get into discussion od previous encounters.

I have seen on this forum and heard in real life Russians speaking about how bad it is Russia "is not feared anymore. How great it was when the World trembled with the sound of troops marching on the Red Square etc."



However you're right, a nation can be a member of NATO and co-operate fully with it, while at the same time maintaining very good relations with Russia. And actually that's what a lot of nations have succeeded in. The problems with NATO that we have, are at its latest frontier, and is just as much about the sort of nationalist forces that it's supporting and backing against us, as about the alliance itself.

One thing is support of certain forces, NATO and Russia both do it. Another thing completelly is NATO performing hostile actions against Russia. That is a very wild dream, induced by illegal substances.

[Mango Madness]

It wouldn't really change anything if they did recognise it because none of them are powerful countries and because none of the powerful countries (UK, Japan, France, Germany) were going to recognise it anyway. Although if many little countries recognise them it might pursuade the powerful countries in the future to recognise them. Recognition by Russia's friends would only create problems for them as the US and other western states are opposed to recognition, so it is understandable why they don't want to recognise them. If Russia was by far the most powerful country in the world, a la the US, then more countries would probably follow its lead and recognise them.


So... it's better to have good relations with US and other western countries than backing its "friend" - Russia?. So maybe we "like" Russia but we prefer to act according to other standards?

In other words you has proven the self marginalization of Russia and decreasing of its political meaning and real influence.

You will often hear Russians lamenting that all of these eastern european countries are running to the US because little countries usually side with the strongest countries, and that if Russia was still a superpower like the Soviet Union, she would have more friends around the world and these eastern european countries would think twice before being hostile towards it. Yes, Russia's power is greatly diminished from the Soviet Union but it's power isn't still decreasing. It was at its lowest point in the 90s and in recent years it has been increasing.

[Flamming_Python]

Serbian paramilitary groups fired repeatedly at Czech peacekeeping forces. But it wasn't a complaint and I am not holding it against Russia. Our forces were "peacekeeping" in a region torn by a civil war and that means shooting hapens. And Russia is historically friendly towards Serbia, isn't it?

Well yes we're historically friendly towards Serbia. But no, we didn't arm, train or encourage Serbian paramilitary groups to fire repeatedly against any peacekeepers at all. We also had peacekeepers there, let's not forget :)


No, we strongly support Israel too and you included Israel among countries that are friendly to you.

Now now that's simply faulty logic. Czech-Israeli relations have nothing to do with Russia. Czech-Ukrainian and Czech-Georgian relations, on the other hand, do...


Well, let's be realistic, Russia gives reasons for certain countries to be at least watchfull. My country has strong memories when we were allies and Russian forces led an invasion of my country. I don't want to get into discussion od previous encounters.

What you have to understand, with all respect, is that the West gives us just as many reasons to be at least watchful of them.


I have seen on this forum and heard in real life Russians speaking about how bad it is Russia "is not feared anymore. How great it was when the World trembled with the sound of troops marching on the Red Square etc."

Well, fear of Russia is a good thing for us. It keeps our enemies at bay, so no-one has any funny ideas. It also prevents everyone from trampling all over our allies or countries that we have sympathy for such as Serbia. It doesn't neccesserily mean, that we want to invade the Czech Republic again :D


One thing is support of certain forces, NATO and Russia both do it. Another thing completelly is NATO performing hostile actions against Russia. That is a very wild dream, induced by illegal substances.

A dream like for example American soldiers and Israeli mercenaries training a certain countries armed forces, followed by sales of weapons to it from countries such as the Ukraine and Poland, which subsequently opens fire on our peacekeepers and breaks all the agreements that we had? :)

No, never...

[Bugaboo]

Well there were 2 or 3 countries that I was unsure about in terms of categorizing, and one of those was exactly the Czech Republic. This is because out of all the countries on that list, the Czech Republic is the one that has the most pragmatic and business orientated relations with Russia; with the effect that it manages to neatly separate economic ties with Russia which are growing and which the Czech government fosters, from political ties with Russia which are far from ideal.

I remember a few years back, I think it was the prime minister or the president of the Czech republic who went on a state visit to Russia, took a huge entourage of businessmen and entrepreneurs with him, and forbid them to speak anything other than Russian while they were there :) The end result is that they came back with a lot of business connections, deals and agreements.

However, the Czech Republic co-ordinates its foreign policy with Poland (meaning an anti-Russian foreign policy aimed at reducing Russian influence in Eastern Europe), and participates in the missile shield. For this reason I would be inclined to put down the Czech Republic among the countries unfriendly to Russia; although whether this policy will continue or ultimately the business/pragmatic side of Czech policy towards Russia will win out in the end is still an open question.

I guess this is the problem taht puzzles us. We cooperate with Poland, of course, they are our neighbor and the relations are very good, between Countries and between people too. i was in Poland not so long ago and Poles flatly told me they regard Czechs as their cousins (the same happened to me more than 20 years ago). I would say these feelings are mutual.

As for the missile shield, I think this is used by Russia as an excuse. In the event the World came to Russia launching nukes, 10 little missiles and one radar wouldn't save NATO at all. So why worry? This small number of missiles can work only against countries that have one or two nuclear missles, not against Russia with thousands of them. Be real!

The business relations with Russia are just normal way we deal with anybody. We have a quarell with Austria about our nuclear power plant but still do business with them and actually I think they are very important partner for us.



Hmmm I don't understand?

I mant the Kosovo business was used by Russia as an example for the Ossetian and Abkhazian thing. Sort of: "Shut up, you did the same!" It was true, NATO did and Russia used it smartly. No arguments. BTW I don't think many people here, me included, have a very good idea of what the hell was going on there.

[Russianlynxy]

As for the missile shield, I think this is used by Russia as an excuse. In the event the World came to Russia launching nukes, 10 little missiles and one radar wouldn't save NATO at all. So why worry?

What you say is true in the practical sense. Russia is simply being uncompromising in this instance. The missiles shield has everything to do with Russia, even if it theoretically isn't effective against Russia's nuclear defense capability. The US never compromises on anything, even issues of mundane strategic importance, so why should we concede something which actually has some strategic weight? All I know is that the US wouldn't be pleased if we sent missiles of ANY nature to nearby countries like Cuba or Venezuela, even though they are not the business of the US, as you pointed out.

We had conceded enough already, too many times. Diplomatically Russia has been diplomatically cornered since the fall of the Soviet Union, and slowly giving in to the demands of "western" interests. The least we can do is hold our ground or find a mutual situation where we can all compromise, not compromise at the expense of Russia, as always.

They understand this situation in the political elites, which is why we get articles of hysteria by people like Biden who demand that "Russia bend to US demands" -after Obama came to Moscow to see nothing but pragmatism and conservative self-interest.

[Flamming_Python]

As for the missile shield, I think this is used by Russia as an excuse. In the event the World came to Russia launching nukes, 10 little missiles and one radar wouldn't save NATO at all. So why worry? This small number of missiles can work only against countries that have one or two nuclear missles, not against Russia with thousands of them. Be real!

Well one could say the same thing about the Cuban missile crisis; in the event of a real nuclear war, those few extra first-strike missiles in Cuba won't have that much of an impact; especially if the USA was to strike first. But that's hardly the point; there is firstly the calculation of MAD which dictates the optimum balance of nuclear forces to prevent either side from getting insecure or starting an arms race, and secondly there is the political influence that a missile shield establishes semi-permanently. And in terms of the political influence; I would agree with you that it is used in certain ways as an excuse; although the military threat is real as well.


I mant the Kosovo business was used by Russia as an example for the Ossetian and Abkhazian thing. Sort of: "Shut up, you did the same!" It was true, NATO did and Russia used it smartly. No arguments. BTW I don't think many people here, me included, have a very good idea of what the hell was going on there.

That's one way of looking at it, and one that I considered too. Another way of looking at it is that Russia genuinely wanted Kosovo to stay part of Serbia, and was forced into its current position because it didn't really expect the Georgians to attack several months after it lifted the sanctions on the break-away republics as retaliation to the West recognizing Kosovo, and to be left with little choice but to recognize the republics after it beat off the Georgian attack. Perhaps what Russia was looking for was a pro-Russian Georgia that becomes such by building a Russian-sponsored union with its break-away republics. Who knows; there are many ways of interpreting these events, some of which are more kind to Russia than others. Really, this whole topic warrants a separate discussion.

[Bugaboo]

What you say is true in the practical sense. Russia is simply being uncompromising in this instance. The missiles shield has everything to do with Russia, even if it theoretically isn't effective against Russia's nuclear defense capability. The US never compromises on anything, even issues of mundane strategic importance, so why should we concede something which actually has some strategic weight? All I know is that the US wouldn't be pleased if we sent missiles of ANY nature to nearby countries like Cuba or Venezuela, even though they are not the business of the US, as you pointed out.

Sure and uncle Hugo buys a lot of weaponry in Russia. Iran is interested too, isn't it?

My point was, that Russia objects to us and Poles closing a deal with US, which is our internal matter. You can react to it any way you want, of course. What I am more concerned about is, that ordinary Russians see it as a threat. Rants of government are one thing, but we, at least Czechs, take our government with a huge amount of salt.


We had conceded enough already, too many times. Diplomatically Russia has been diplomatically cornered since the fall of the Soviet Union, and slowly giving in to the demands of "western" interests. The least we can do is hold our ground or find a mutual situation where we can all compromise, not compromise at the expense of Russia, as always.

They understand this situation in the political elites, which is why we get articles of hysteria by people like Biden who demand that "Russia bend to US demands"

Well, you are not telling me that Czech Republic cornered Russia, do you? We wrk on relations with Countries we have historically strong ties with (mutual interests), that's all.

[Derbedeu]

You will often hear Russians lamenting that all of these eastern european countries are running to the US because little countries usually side with the strongest countries, and that if Russia was still a superpower like the Soviet Union, she would have more friends around the world and these eastern european countries would think twice before being hostile towards it. Yes, Russia's power is greatly diminished from the Soviet Union but it's power isn't still decreasing. It was at its lowest point in the 90s and in recent years it has been increasing.

When the Soviet Union was still in power, it's Eastern European "allies" were still coerced into those alliances. Why didn't they willingly side with the SU like they supposedly do with the US, if what you say is true?

[Bugaboo]

Well one could say the same thing about the Cuban missile crisis; in the event of a real nuclear war, those few extra first-strike missiles in Cuba won't have that much of an impact; especially if the USA was to strike first. But that's hardly the point; there is firstly the calculation of MAD which dictates the optimum balance of nuclear forces to prevent either side from getting insecure or starting an arms race, and secondly there is the political influence that a missile shield establishes semi-permanently. And in terms of the political influence; I would agree with you that it is used in certain ways as an excuse; although the military threat is real as well.

As for the Cuban Crisis, first strike missiles are a different thing than defensive counter-missile battery. And YES, I know these counter-missiles could be taken into calculation in planning offensive actions. I am not trying to pick up a fight, I just don't see the threat from NATO, sorry.




That's one way of looking at it, and one that I considered too. Another way of looking at it is that Russia genuinely wanted Kosovo to stay part of Serbia, and was forced into its current position because it didn't really expect the Georgians to attack several months after it lifted the sanctions on the break-away republics as retaliation to the West recognizing Kosovo, and to be left with little choice but to recognize the republics after it beat off the Georgian attack. Perhaps what Russia was looking for was a pro-Russian Georgia that becomes such by building a Russian-sponsored union with its break-away republics. Who knows; there are many ways of interpreting these events, some of which are more kind to Russia than others. Really, this whole topic warrants a separate discussion.

In my eyes this Ossetian and Abkhazian situation was abused by both sides. I don't really know what Russia gained from it, really. I know basically nothing what happened there and I am sceptical of both sides.


But on a human note... I actually enjoy this discussion. I think it is good to see how guys in Russia see the think. And we avoided a flame war so far :)

[Flamming_Python]

As for the Cuban Crisis, first strike missiles are a different thing than defensive counter-missile battery. And YES, I know these counter-missiles could be taken into calculation in planning offensive actions. I am not trying to pick up a fight, I just don't see the threat from NATO, sorry.

One encourages a first strike through increased capabilities to carry one out sucessfully. The other encourages a first strike by hindering the enemy's ability to respond to one.

So actually both sets of hardware encourage exactly the same tactics; in any situation other than a Russian retaliation against a first strike with maybe 10-20% of its original missile capabilities operational, the defensive counter-missile battery is absolutely useless.

Of course one could make the argument that it is for use against Iran and North Korea. Be that as it may; at the same time, in a very specific situation it also has a use against Russia's nuclear arsenal of thousands of warheads; and it's the existence of that specific situation that makes it so dangerous.

Ultimately though, if Russia really wanted to, it could restart the arms race and counter it. And if it really needed to, it would counter it. America realises this I suspect. For this reason; there is also the political aspect of Russia's opposition to consider, something that the former Russian chief of staff, Baluyevsky admitted to in an interview I believe.


In my eyes this Ossetian and Abkhazian situation was abused by both sides. I don't really know what Russia gained from it, really. I know basically nothing what happened there and I am sceptical of both sides.This is basically a really long discussion, that we would be wise not to get into right now. To an extent I agree with you though.


But on a human note... I actually enjoy this discussion. I think it is good to see how guys in Russia see the think. And we avoided a flame war so far :)We oppress freedom, that's our motto :)

[Bugaboo]

One encourages a first strike through increased capabilities to carry one out sucessfully. The other encourages a first strike by hindering the enemy's ability to respond to one.

So actually both sets of hardware encourage exactly the same tactics; in any situation other than a Russian retaliation against a first strike with maybe 10-20% of its original missile capabilities operational, the defensive counter-missile battery is absolutely useless.

Of course one could make the argument that it is for use against Iran and North Korea. Be that as it may; at the same time, in a very specific situation it also has a use against Russia's nuclear arsenal of thousands of warheads; and it's the existence of that specific situation that makes it so dangerous.

I agree. But it would still be useless against Russia, because Russia would count with it in its strategy.

I also agree with you earlier statement on MAD. These things give me creeps, anyway.


This is basically a really long discussion, that we would be wise not to get into right now. To an extent I agree with you though.


I would be interested, even on a private platform, I think the western "news" are not very in-depth.

P.S.: What is "Gorzhuch"?

[Flamming_Python]

I agree. But it would still be useless against Russia, because Russia would count with it in its strategy.

I also agree with you earlier statement on MAD. These things give me creeps, anyway.

Only problem is, Russia is in no state for another arms race. And America isn't planning to stop at 10 interceptors, it will most likely continuously upgrade its capabilities, no. of missiles, stations, etc... to match that of it's adversaries; while they in turn will build more missiles. In effect, Russia could be in danger of being dragged into an arms race whether it likes it or not.


I would be interested, even on a private platform, I think the western "news" are not very in-depth.

I suggest you take a good look through this thread; just about everything that could be analysed has been analysed there :D

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=162465


P.S.: What is "Gorzhuch"?

Proud, as in Proud of Russia

[Russianlynxy]

Sure and uncle Hugo buys a lot of weaponry in Russia. Iran is interested too, isn't it?

My point was, that Russia objects to us and Poles closing a deal with US, which is our internal matter. You can react to it any way you want, of course. What I am more concerned about is, that ordinary Russians see it as a threat. Rants of government are one thing, but we, at least Czechs, take our government with a huge amount of salt.

Selling Jets to a country which doesn't border the US and is simply a minor political annoyance and putting strategic assets near one's border are entirely different issues.

What I don't understand is what the Czechs have to gain from this? Become a target for Iskander missiles near Kaliningrad? All for the sake of showing how loyal the Eastern European states are to the personal interests of the US? It's quite strange, actually. I've heard there is a considerable amount of opposition to this whole idea in both Poland and CZ on this issue, among the civilian populace. Ranging from health concerns (radiation) from a powerful radar, as well as geopolitical safety ones (becoming a target).

Sure Czech Republic is a sovereign country and can decide to do what it wants, but so are we and the Czech government must be prepared for adequate measures from Russia, without complaining.

Lastly, who told you I was an "ordinary Russian"? ;)



Well, you are not telling me that Czech Republic cornered Russia, do you? We wrk on relations with Countries we have historically strong ties with (mutual interests), that's all.

No, the Czech Republic is the same "victim of the situation" as Russia is in this case.

[Bugaboo]

Selling Jets to a country which doesn't border the US and is simply a minor political annoyance and putting strategic assets near one's border are entirely different issues.

No argument.


What I don't understand is what the Czechs have to gain from this? Become a target for Iskander missiles near Kaliningrad?

I would call it cooperation, we are allies.



All for the sake of showing how loyal the Eastern European states are to the personal interests of the US? It's quite strange, actually. I've heard there is a considerable amount of opposition to this whole idea in both Poland and CZ on this issue, among the civilian populace. Ranging from health concerns (radiation) from a powerful radar, as well as geopolitical safety ones (becoming a target).

As I said, mutual cooperation. The west is our natural friend. The oposition exists, mostly uninformed, as ussual, and it is being fed...


Sure Czech Republic is a sovereign country and can decide to do what it wants, but so are we and the Czech government must be prepared for adequate measures from Russia, without complaining.

We are not complaining. It is a good argument to have the radar here. It only strenghtens the image of Russia as a threat.




Lastly, who told you I was an "ordinary Russian"? ;)

None, I took it from your nick. Are you a special Russian? And I was having a discussion with Flaming Python, too.




No, the Czech Republic is the same "victim of the situation" as Russia is in this case.

No, we are not a victim. We were wictim within the Eastern Block.

[Russianlynxy]

No argument.
As I said, mutual cooperation. The west is our natural friend. The oposition exists, mostly uninformed, as ussual, and it is being fed...

Really? Since when is it so natural. Also there is no "West". There is the US with it's own interests, and France and Germany with their own for example. You don't see them opening their arms to whatever is thrown at them. They do what is in their best interests. Unless the objective of the Czech government is to create the image that they are the best NATO allies, willing to do anything, even if it puts the country in danger. Other than that I don't see any other expedience from this project.



We are not complaining. It is a good argument to have the radar here. It only strenghtens the image of Russia as a threat.

Why do you want Russia to have this image? It is not politically expedient to escalate the tension unless of course NATO is planning to start a war with Russia (or provoke) some time in the future.

Roughly it's the equivalent of you pushing me, me pushing you back - then you telling all your friends that I'm a threat.



None, I took it from your nick. Are you a special Russian? And I was having a discussion with Flaming Python, too.

It was a joke. I don't speak for the ordinary Russian. Only for myself.



No, we are not a victim. We were wictim within the Eastern Block.

Being an anticommunist myself, I fail to understand what you're trying to say. To be fair, the USSR fed and supported your (Eastern Blok) dwindling economies and toy armies while it could... You didn't get forced into slavery or sent to Siberia, in fact you developed quite well as countries, so when the USSR fell apart you had the economies and more importantly infrastructure (provided a-la USSR) to support yourselves.

How were you a victim? The USSR didn't let you be friends with the US and let you have democracy? I'm sure that was on the mind of every Czech back then :cantbeli:

[Derbedeu]

Being an anticommunist myself, I fail to understand what you're trying to say. To be fair, the USSR fed and supported your (Eastern Blok) dwindling economies and toy armies while it could... You didn't get forced into slavery or sent to Siberia, in fact you developed quite well as countries, so when the USSR fell apart you had the economies and more importantly infrastructure (provided a-la USSR) to support yourselves.

How were you a victim? The USSR didn't let you be friends with the US and let you have democracy? I'm sure that was on the mind of every Czech back then :cantbeli:

Does 1968 ring a bell? Also, your assessment that the USSR helped the infrastructure of the Eastern Bloc countries is correct. However, I'm of the firm belief that the Eastern Bloc countries would have been better off economically if they had never fallen under the Russian sphere.

[Mango Madness]

When the Soviet Union was still in power, it's Eastern European "allies" were still coerced into those alliances. Why didn't they willingly side with the SU like they supposedly do with the US, if what you say is true?

This is confusing, are you saying that the SU's EE allies were allies because they were coerced into it?

[Switek]

This is confusing, are you saying that the SU's EE allies were allies because they were coerced into it?


In fact, the only Soviet allies in EE were governments and communist parties, installed by Soviet Union after WW2. In Poland commies never gained a legal mandate given by the nation. Most of societies were indifferent or hostile toward Soviets.

[Derbedeu]

This is confusing, are you saying that the SU's EE allies were allies because they were coerced into it?

Yes, for the most part they were. As Switek said, many of the governments of these nations were instilled illegally by the Soviets. Look what happened to Hungary in '56 or Czechoslovakia in '68 to see what happened when the Soviets saw the populace rise against these governments, or when the governments themselves started being more in tune with their people. They were all supposedly "fraternal" countries, yet they were invaded and dictated to by the Soviet Union.

[Pareto]

You will often hear Russians lamenting that all of these eastern european countries are running to the US because little countries usually side with the strongest countries, and that if Russia was still a superpower like the Soviet Union, she would have more friends around the world and these eastern european countries would think twice before being hostile towards it. Yes, Russia's power is greatly diminished from the Soviet Union but it's power isn't still decreasing. It was at its lowest point in the 90s and in recent years it has been increasing.

The thing is that little countries in 21-th century are atracted more by big countires civil achievements neiter than it's strong military..
So instead of showing others how strong and bully you are, you should to work more on been more prosperous..

[Mango Madness]

Yes, for the most part they were. As Switek said, many of the governments of these nations were instilled illegally by the Soviets. Look what happened to Hungary in '56 or Czechoslovakia in '68 to see what happened when the Soviets saw the populace rise against these governments, or when the governments themselves started being more in tune with their people. They were all supposedly "fraternal" countries, yet they were invaded and dictated to by the Soviet Union.

Ok, I was getting clarification of your point. It doesn't matter whether this occurs through soft power or hard power, they were still allied to the Soviet Union.

"or when the governments themselves started being more in tune with their people" - are you suggesting only capitalist EE governments were "in tune with their people"? Don't forget, some EE countries democratically elected communists to power after WWII.


The thing is that little countries in 21-th century are atracted more by big countires civil achievements neiter than it's strong military..
So instead of showing others how strong and bully you are, you should to work more on been more prosperous..

Russia is no longer the enemy of the west nor an equal rival to the US. It no longer has the communist ideology to attract countries nor is it willing to subjugate other countries militarily. It is in competition against the other democratic, western countries, who have a huge headstart advantage. The communist experiment has failed and the future is about achieving prosperity for its citizens while defending its national interests.

[Mousepad]

The thing is that little countries in 21-th century are atracted more by big countires civil achievements neiter than it's strong military..
So instead of showing others how strong and bully you are, you should to work more on been more prosperous..

Uh huh. So why not to stick closer to Germany and France for example, and not halth the Globe away US. Last time I cheked, USA did't lift a finger for those "little countries", and used them for US interests only.

[Derbedeu]

Don't forget, some EE countries democratically elected communists to power after WWII.

Most of those "democratic" elections were fraudulent and done through intimidation.


Uh huh. So why not to stick closer to Germany and France for example, and not halth the Globe away US. Last time I cheked, USA did't lift a finger for those "little countries", and used them for US interests only.

They do. It's called the EU.

[Mousepad]

They do. It's called the EU.

E - maybe, U - hardly. More fitting would be CEC (Conglomerate of European Countries)

[Switek]

E - maybe, U - hardly. More fitting would be CEC (Conglomerate of European Countries)


Anyway Europe is slowly going to a kind of federalism...

[Holycrusader]

Most of those "democratic" elections were fraudulent and done through intimidation.
.

Example pls...

[Derbedeu]

Example pls...

The very fact that you had Soviet troops stationed throughout EE and exerting de facto control meant that elections were fraudulent. As for a specific example, well look at the Communists in Romania who claimed 90% of the vote, when historically the National Peasant and National Liberal Parties had always drawn the most votes. Before the election Communists also intimidated the opposition and monopolized the media. Stalin backed the communists and Gheorghiu-Dej, and they were placed in power through the rigged elections. What's the first thing that they did? Ban all other opposition parties or absorb them into the Communist party. Elections in the Eastern Bloc were a joke. You were told who to vote for. Even then they still rigged elections just to make it look as if they had popular support. In no democratic country do you have over 90% of the electorate support a government, but you had those types of figures consistently throughout the Communist Bloc.

[widi243]

What/When was this?

And of course, those 'others' always happen to be enemies of Russia. And it's not even about sticking up for the little guy as the August war has shown; where is the sympathy for the Ossetians? It's just about supporting anyone who's against Russia.

It's NATO that sees us as an enemy, and something that needs to be encircled, contained, taught how to behave, civilised, or whatever... or what did you think, that NATO still exists because it needs to fight against a phantom enemy that none of us knows about?

However you're right, a nation can be a member of NATO and co-operate fully with it, while at the same time maintaining very good relations with Russia. And actually that's what a lot of nations have succeeded in. The problems with NATO that we have, are at its latest frontier, and is just as much about the sort of nationalist forces that it's supporting and backing against us, as about the alliance itself.

NATO see Russia as enemy ??? Tell me what documents but in official NATO strategy you didn't find any tatment about Russia as enemy.
It's rather your imagination, or rather russian authorithies sees in NATO enemy and use it as ecscuse for lack of theirs competnecy.

[widi243]

This is confusing, are you saying that the SU's EE allies were allies because they were coerced into it?

They was SU Allies because they had to.
They had a gun put to their heads- strong Soviet's army contingents on theirs soils. And what would happen when they would try to choose another site was shown in Hungary in 1956 and Chechoslovakia in 1968.

[Holycrusader]

The very fact that you had Soviet troops stationed throughout EE and exerting de facto control meant that elections were fraudulent. As for a specific example, well look at the Communists in Romania who claimed 90% of the vote, when historically the National Peasant and National Liberal Parties had always drawn the most votes. Before the election Communists also intimidated the opposition and monopolized the media. Stalin backed the communists and Gheorghiu-Dej, and they were placed in power through the rigged elections. What's the first thing that they did? Ban all other opposition parties or absorb them into the Communist party. Elections in the Eastern Bloc were a joke. You were told who to vote for. Even then they still rigged elections just to make it look as if they had popular support. In no democratic country do you have over 90% of the electorate support a government, but you had those types of figures consistently throughout the Communist Bloc.

Ok, ok I actually misread you. Fully agree...

[Mango Madness]

This is confusing, are you saying that the SU's EE allies were allies because they were coerced into it?


They was SU Allies because they had to.
They had a gun put to their heads- strong Soviet's army contingents on theirs soils. And what would happen when they would try to choose another site was shown in Hungary in 1956 and Chechoslovakia in 1968.

I was asking for clarification about his point, not questioning it. Not all of them were forced anyway but this is not the point I was making.

[Bugaboo]

Really? Since when is it so natural. Also there is no "West". There is the US with it's own interests, and France and Germany with their own for example. You don't see them opening their arms to whatever is thrown at them. They do what is in their best interests. Unless the objective of the Czech government is to create the image that they are the best NATO allies, willing to do anything, even if it puts the country in danger. Other than that I don't see any other expedience from this project.

Germany, Austria, Poland are are immediate neighbors. We have cultural and historical ties with the western Europe for a long time, for about thousand years of common history.

Of course they do what is in their best interest. Just like Russia. Just like us. And our best interest is not to be in Russian sphere of influence. Fourty years were enough.




Why do you want Russia to have this image? It is not politically expedient to escalate the tension unless of course NATO is planning to start a war with Russia (or provoke) some time in the future.

Roughly it's the equivalent of you pushing me, me pushing you back - then you telling all your friends that I'm a threat.

I don't want Russia to have this image. I seriously doubt NATO is planning any offensive against Russia, NO WAY. I was explaining the image Russia presents.




It was a joke. I don't speak for the ordinary Russian. Only for myself.

I know, me too. Fine, that's what I am interested in, to have a chat.




Being an anticommunist myself, I fail to understand what you're trying to say. To be fair, the USSR fed and supported your (Eastern Blok) dwindling economies and toy armies while it could... You didn't get forced into slavery or sent to Siberia, in fact you developed quite well as countries, so when the USSR fell apart you had the economies and more importantly infrastructure (provided a-la USSR) to support yourselves.

USSR fed and supported our economy? Now, until now I took you as a decent partner for discussion but this is just funny. Czechoslovakia was industrial country when you had Tzars and basically no Industry.

We didn't need USSR to build infrastructure (much less á-la USSR). We had our own before and managed without USSR. To accept USSR standards of everything was a huge step back for us. Before the WW2 our industry measured in quality with Germany, not rural backward USSR.

The only infrastructure we didn't have before the WW2 were labor camps and secret police á-la USSR. The prisoners in labor camps were mining Uranium for for your nuclear weapons.

People from here were sent to Siberia when the so called "liberating" Red Army entered our territory. USSR also took part of our territory in the East. USSR, our ally, later invaded us. This is friendship á-la USSR.

As for victims of Eastern Bloc: We didn't want to be part of the Eastern Bloc, it was a deal made in Jalta. Your country wanted to be a superpower and later lost. For your Country the Communist era ment development, for our it was huge loss and many steps back.


How were you a victim? The USSR didn't let you be friends with the US and let you have democracy? I'm sure that was on the mind of every Czech back then :cantbeli:
Actually it was. We had nothing in common with Russia and USSR. Now we do, 40 years of bitter memories. Cultural and personl ties with western countries are a fact.

[Bugaboo]

Uh huh. So why not to stick closer to Germany and France for example, and not halth the Globe away US. Last time I cheked, USA did't lift a finger for those "little countries", and used them for US interests only.

We have strong contacts with Germany and France. And the rest of Europe. And the rest of the World.

As for US using other countries for its interests... It is better to serve US interests than to serve Russian interests, historical experience, life is better that way.

Well, that is simplyfication, I know, but it is partly true. US are members of NATO, just like Germany and France and many others. US are also an important economical partner. What is so hard to understand.

The fact is that when East and Central Eurpean countries had a chance to choose who they want to be allied with, they chose the West, not Russia. Draw your conclusions why.

[Lokos]

Czechoslovakia was industrial country when you had Tzars and basically no Industry.

To clear up a misconception; the Russian Empire of 1913 was recording extraordinary industrial growth rates. Neil Ferguson's 'The Pity of War' has plenty of raw data suggesting that the Empire was well on its way to catching up to the other European powers industrially when the war began.

The constant warfare of 1914 to 1924 was a terrible setback to Russian industry. Recovery would only really begin in the late 1920s.

But to suggest that the Russian Empire had 'basically no industry' is incorrect.

L.

[Bugaboo]

To clear up a misconception; the Russian Empire of 1913 was recording extraordinary industrial growth rates. Neil Ferguson's 'The Pity of War' has plenty of raw data suggesting that the Empire was well on its way to catching up to the other European powers industrially when the war began.

The constant warfare of 1914 to 1924 was a terrible setback to Russian industry. Recovery would only really begin in the late 1920s.

But to suggest that the Russian Empire had 'basically no industry' is incorrect.

L.

That's why Mosins were manufactured in Belgium and US?

Than there is the question of scale? The amounts and quality of industry in Czechoslovakia nd Russia was not the same.

I am talking about 19th century or even before. We didn't build our first factory 1914.

[Mango Madness]

We have strong contacts with Germany and France. And the rest of Europe. And the rest of the World.

As for US using other countries for its interests... It is better to serve US interests than to serve Russian interests, historical experience, life is better that way.

Well, that is simplyfication, I know, but it is partly true. US are members of NATO, just like Germany and France and many others. US are also an important economical partner. What is so hard to understand.

The fact is that when East and Central Eurpean countries had a chance to choose who they want to be allied with, they chose the West, not Russia. Draw your conclusions why.

The Americans have to be given huge credit for their historically smart diplomacy, smarter than the diplomacy of the SU/Russia. Their "soft power" approach has resulted in most of the world is lining up to be their friend, while Russia's "hard power" has resulted in historical baggage and many countries turning their backs on it.

[IDF_TANKER]

That's why Mosins were manufactured in Belgium and US?

Than there is the question of scale? The amounts and quality of industry in Czechoslovakia nd Russia was not the same.

I am talking about 19th century or even before. We didn't build our first factory 1914.

Dude, by no means I'm an expert, but the Russian industrialization really begun as early as in early 18th century, when Peter The Great started rebuilding Russia into the modern European country. That's not like they defeated the Swedes, the Turks and later the French throwing at them stones - they did it with the artillery, modern fleet etc.

[Bugaboo]

Dude, by no means I'm an expert, but the Russian industrialization really begun as early as in early 18th century, when Peter The Great started rebuilding Russia into the modern European country. That's not like they defeated the Swedes, the Turks and later the French throwing at them stones - they did it with the artillery, modern fleet etc.

I am not saying it either. The fact, however is, that their industry wasn't at par with European, not even in 1930, much less in 1918. Peter the Great invited craftsmen and farmers from Europe to help him to build the infrastructure in Russia. Some of them came from my country. IIRC, Peter the Great had his ships build abroad, too. Mosins for Russia were manufactured in Belgium and later in US (by Winchester or Remington), that is a fact. Russia selected Mosin-Nagant partly because the design and the ammo wasn't as demanding in terms of manufacture as other designs.

[Lokos]

The ignorance of that post is hard to fault (EDIT: This is in reference to your previous post, not the latest one).

My rebuttal will be tart:

Between 1898 and 1913 Russia's economy grew by 96.8% - the greatest growth recorded by a European power. Industrial output between 1890 and 1913 was rising by 4-5% annually. Needless to say, the argument that Russia was a purely agrarian economy in the early 20th century is nonsense. Foreign investment in Russian industry reached 10% of the national income between 1885 and 1913. French investment alone during that period was estimated at three billion roubles.

Unbelievably enough, Russian industrial output also increased by 17% between 1914 and 1916... (for comparison's sake, Germany's fell significantly)

Please take care with the facts in the future.

L.

[Bugaboo]

The ignorance of that post is hard to fault (EDIT: This is in reference to your previous post, not the latest one).

My rebuttal will be tart:

Between 1898 and 1913 Russia's economy grew by 96.8% - the greatest growth recorded by a European power. Industrial output between 1890 and 1913 was rising by 4-5% annually. Needless to say, the argument that Russia was a purely agrarian economy in the early 20th century is nonsense. Foreign investment in Russian industry reached 10% of the national income between 1885 and 1913. French investment alone during that period was estimated at three billion roubles.

Unbelievably enough, Russian industrial output also increased by 17% between 1914 and 1916... (for comparison's sake, Germany's fell significantly)

Please take care with the facts in the future.

L.

I am not doubting the above stated. I am talking about the overall level of industrialization. Russianlynxy tried to convince me that we needed Russian help to build industry after the WW2 and that is a bad joke. Even during the entire Cold War Soviet products were not known for its quality here. Weapons are not a backbone of life, not here, anyway.

Industrial growth by 96.8 % is fine. But what is the starting line? You are not telling me that Russia was an industrial country, are you? I remember you personally telling me about the beginning of WW2, how industrialization was a problem in USSR and how the people were uneducated and unfamiliar with industry and technology (IIRC, you mentioned how some soldiers never saw a car in their life before they were drafted and therefore were unfamiliar with maintenance of machines, tanks in particular).

If Czechoslovakian industry grew by 96.8 % between 1898 and 1914, we would be one huge factory with subsidies somewhere abroad, this growth was possible in Russia, because Russia more or less starting from scratch.

[Lokos]

I am talking about the overall level of industrialization.

Then take care to avoid statements like: 'We didn't build our first factory 1914'


But what is the starting line? You are not telling me that Russia was an industrial country, are you?

It was no more an industrialized country than it was an agrarian one. The Russian Empire was in transition in the three decades prior to WWI.


I remember you personally telling me about the beginning of WW2, how industrialization was a problem in USSR and how the people were uneducated and unfamiliar with industry and technology (IIRC, you mentioned how some soldiers never saw a car in their life before they were drafted and therefore were unfamiliar with maintenance of machines, tanks in particular).

I would have personally told you that this was all true to an extent. But, if you would be so kind as to quote me directly, I can respond more effectively. In any case, Russia, whether it be called an empire or a SSR, was a land of many facets during the first half of the 20th century. There were large, modern, industrial landscapes in evidence - as well as undeveloped settlements over hundreds of thousands of sq. kilometers.


If Czechoslovakian industry grew by 96.8 % between 1898 and 1914, we would be one huge factory with subsidies somewhere abroad, this growth was possible in Russia, because Russia more or less starting from scratch.

Like I said, Russia was rapidly catching up to the other powers in terms of industrial output. But... I might add that the A-H Empire (of which Czechoslovakia was a part) grew by 90.5% during that same time period... and you were still not one huge factory with subsidies somewhere abroad.

L.

[Bugaboo]

Then take care to avoid statements like: 'We didn't build our first factory 1914'

It was a reaction to statement taht we needed USSR to support our economy.



I would have personally told you that this was all true to an extent. But, if you would be so kind as to quote me directly, I can respond more effectively. In any case, Russia, whether it be called an empire or a SSR, was a land of many facets during the first half of the 20th century. There were large, modern, industrial landscapes in evidence - as well as undeveloped settlements over hundreds of thousands of sq. kilometers.

I am not going to search loads of threads and pages and pages of posts to find it, if you want to deny it, go ahead, I don't care. I just hapen to remember it was you because of your avatar.




Like I said, Russia was rapidly catching up to the other powers in terms of industrial output. But... I might add that the A-H Empire (of which Czechoslovakia was a part) grew by 90.5% during that same time period... and you were still not one huge factory with subsidies somewhere abroad.

L.

A-H Empire was much more than Austria and Czechoslovakia to-be.

I am sorry if my impression is wrong, but it seems to me that you guys use arguments when it suits you.

Industrialized country doesn't mean a country with some factories. It means the overall technological level of the society.

Look, I am old enough to rememeber and have first-person experience of the Cold War era and the Eastern Block ruled by Soviet Union. I remember Soviet products, not just weaponry, but consumer goods. I am not doubting your achievments, but I rememeber the shortcomming too. We never aspired to be like Russia or SU in terms of technology.

[Flamming_Python]

Seriously?

I thought Sweden had a neturality policy.

Sweden was actually one of the initiators (together with Poland), of the Eastern Partnership programe. They have been active in trying to consolidate their influence in Finland, Norway, the Baltic States and Poland under a NATO umbrella.

[Switek]

Sweden was actually one of the initiators (together with Poland), of the Eastern Partnership programe. They have been active in trying to consolidate their influence in Finland, Norway, the Baltic States and Poland under a NATO umbrella.

Well it's peaceful way we try to defend our achivements.

[widi243]

Sweden was actually one of the initiators (together with Poland), of the Eastern Partnership programe. They have been active in trying to consolidate their influence in Finland, Norway, the Baltic States and Poland under a NATO umbrella.

blah blah keep talking I've all day to laugh. rofl

[Lokos]

if you want to deny it, go ahead, I don't care.

What, exactly, am I denying? Read the passage again, this time carefully.


A-H Empire was much more than Austria and Czechoslovakia to-be.

And Russia was much more than Moscow, Sankt Petersburg and a handful of other industrial centers. So? Like I said, Russia was a land in transition, where both industrial might and agrarian backwardness could be found - often in equal measure. Your appraisal was mistaken and in bad taste.


am sorry if my impression is wrong, but it seems to me that you guys use arguments when it suits you.

Who is 'you guys'?


Industrialized country doesn't mean a country with some factories. It means the overall technological level of the society.

It most certainly does not simply mean the 'overall technological level of the society'.

Allow me to quote Wiki:


Industrialization is the process of social and economic change whereby a human group is transformed from a pre-industrial society into an industrial one. It is a part of a wider modernisation process, where social change and economic development are closely related with technological innovation, particularly with the development of large-scale energy and metallurgy production. It is the extensive organisation of an economy for the purpose of manufacturing.[1] Industrialisation also introduces a form of philosophical change, where people obtain a different attitude towards their perception of nature.

As for this:


I am not doubting your achievments, but I rememeber the shortcomming too.

This is the second time in as many days that I have to tell someone to not assume I'm Russian. In fact, I'm not.

L.

[Flamming_Python]

In fact, the only Soviet allies in EE were governments and communist parties, installed by Soviet Union after WW2. In Poland commies never gained a legal mandate given by the nation. Most of societies were indifferent or hostile toward Soviets.

Well I would contend that claim. The Albanian and Yugoslavian communists came to power as a result of local partisan movements overthrowing fascist rule in the region; the Red Army did help the partisans in a few battles but otherwise had nothing to do with it. The Bulgarian and Czechoslovakian communist governments were installed with the help of Soviet forces but I believe also had the support of a large amount of their respective populations at that time. The Hungarian and Romanian communist governments were installed; but these countries were part of the Axis and invaded the USSR together with Hitler; thus the defeat and overthrow of their governments by Soviet forces was legitimate.


blah blah keep talking I've all day to laugh. rofl

What part of my post did you disagree with exactly?

[Russianlynxy]

The Hungarian and Romanian communist governments were installed; but these countries were part of the Axis and invaded the USSR together with Hitler; thus the defeat and overthrow of their governments by Soviet forces was legitimate.

Not to mention they switched sides in 1944 when the war reached their homeland... :roll:

[Switek]

Well I would contend that claim. The Albanian and Yugoslavian communists came to power as a result of local partisan movements overthrowing fascist rule in the region;

Well and relations of those countries with Moscow were full of tensions and even hostile in post war period....


... thus the defeat and overthrow of their governments by Soviet forces was legitimate.

The legitimation could come only from general elections... free, democratic and honest.

[cbiwv]

Russia is not isolated. They have alliances with many nations. They also have plenty of natural resources which will always assure them a place at the table. Biden is not a very intelligent man. He needs to look at the facts. The Russians have always found a way to make things work for them.

[hsh2]

Russia is not isolated. They have alliances with many nations. They also have plenty of natural resources which will always assure them a place at the table. Biden is not a very intelligent man. He needs to look at the facts. The Russians have always found a way to make things work for them.

Sure about that?:lol:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1219507341

[cbiwv]

Sure about that?:lol:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1219507341


He is what I call a educated Dumba$$.

[Atlantic Friend]

It's not that Russia is isolated now, I guess. It's more about it seems to have turned inward. "My way or the highway" is usually a costly policy, as even the US, who have assets that Russia presently doesn't, have themselved re-discovered in the past few years.

[cbiwv]

In all fairness I want to say this. I have talked to many Russians who hate America. Why? Our logistics played a vital role in the Red Army getting to Berlin. I have even been told by a Russian female Russian that they are the master race. I mean it almost appears that Putin is following Hitler's leadership methods. Nationalism is not always a good thing and it can be dangerous. It is obvious Russia is power hungry and would love nothing more than to see the demise of the U.S.

[Derbedeu]

Not to mention they switched sides in 1944 when the war reached their homeland... :roll:

First off, keep in mind that pretty much all of Eastern Europe was stuck between a rock and a hard place at the time. You had two behemoths squaring off on each other (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) and a bunch of victims in between them. Secondly, Romania sided with the Axis because at the time it looked like it would be the only chance it would have to regain some of its territory back, that it had lost illegally to the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hungary itself was pressured into attacking the SU by Nazi Germany as well.


thus the defeat and overthrow of their governments by Soviet forces was legitimate.

You forget that Antonescu came into power because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Romania lost huge amounts of its territory illegally. It facilitated the rise of Antonescu, who was determined to get back the territories lost. Also, the Soviets did not overthrow Antonescu, King Mihai did in 1944.

Ultimately though, the actions of Hungary, Finland, Romania, and other Eastern European countries were the direct result of either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. None wanted to be involved in a war, war was forced onto them by either Hitler, Stalin, or both.

[Flamming_Python]

The legitimation could come only from general elections... free, democratic and honest.

roflroflrofl

Those nations invaded us, of course we are going to overthrow them and put our own governments in. The same as both the USSR and America did in Germany, and as America did in Italy when it canceled the 1948 election as the communists were in danger of winning them.

What if we set up elections in Germany and Hungary and then the majority of the people there elected a fascist regime again? What if we set up elections in Germany, and they elected the nazis again? Would the right thing then have be to leave them alone with their fascists? Don't think so...

[Switek]

roflroflrofl

What's funny? Are you laughing at general rule or it's you a demoralized politically individual who always plays relativism? Esp. when went out of arguments? :)

West Germany were democratic country under US/French/British occupation and what? Nazis took power again?

[Flamming_Python]

First off, keep in mind that pretty much all of Eastern Europe was stuck between a rock and a hard place at the time. You had two behemoths squaring off on each other (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) and a bunch of victims in between them. Secondly, Romania sided with the Axis because at the time it looked like it would be the only chance it would have to regain some of its territory back, that it had lost illegally to the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hungary itself was pressured into attacking the SU by Nazi Germany as well.


You forget that Antonescu came into power because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Romania lost huge amounts of its territory illegally. It facilitated the rise of Antonescu, who was determined to get back the territories lost. Also, the Soviets did not overthrow Antonescu, King Mihai did in 1944.

Ultimately though, the actions of Hungary, Finland, Romania, and other Eastern European countries were the direct result of either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. None wanted to be involved in a war, war was forced onto them by either Hitler, Stalin, or both.

BS revisionism, all of it. In regards to Moldova/Bessarabia, we been over this already in another thread. Suffice to say, to keep things simple for the purposes of this conversation, let's say both nations had a claim on it. We took it back because we saw it as ours, but of course we did it in a brutal and illegal way. What we didn't do is invade Romania proper, or participate in a military campaign to exterminate the Romanian people from the face of the Earth. I understand why the Romanians declared war on us, and I understand why a hardcore nationalist like Antonescu came to power; but that doesn't give it an excuse for having joined the Axis in WW2. The same goes for Finland and the Baltic States; every Soviet soldier they killed was one less to repel fascism and stop Hitler's campaigns to exterminate the Slav, Jewish and Gypsy peoples in Europe; because that's exactly what would have happened if the Axis powers succeeded in their war against the USSR; no matter what individual motives and ambitions they had and how justified they were from their own perspective.

I don't know what Hungary has to do with this though, they declared war on the USSR simply because their government was an ally of Hitler, no other reason AFAIK.

Well I don't know much about King Mihai, I don't know whether he was opposed to Romania's fascist government from the years of '41-'43 when the war on the Eastern front still looked winnable, but from my impression it's unfortunate that he didn't manage to gather enough support earlier on to depose the government and switch Romania's allegiances earlier on. By the time he did, Soviet forces were already at the gates and after 3 years of brutal warfare, they weren't about to trust anyone who decided to switch sides at the last minute.

[cbiwv]

BS revisionism, all of it. In regards to Moldova/Bessarabia, we been over this already in another thread. Suffice to say, to keep things simple for the purposes of this conversation, let's say both nations had a claim on it. We took it back because we saw it as ours, but of course we did it in a brutal and illegal way. What we didn't do is invade Romania proper, or participate in a military campaign to exterminate the Romanian people from the face of the Earth. I understand why the Romanians declared war on us, and I understand why a hardcore nationalist like Antonescu came to power; but that doesn't give it an excuse for having joined the Axis in WW2. The same goes for Finland and the Baltic States; every Soviet soldier they killed was one less to repel fascism and stop Hitler's campaigns to exterminate the Slav, Jewish and Gypsy peoples in Europe; because that's exactly what would have happened if the Axis powers succeeded in their war against the USSR; no matter what individual motives and ambitions they had and how justified they were from their own perspective.

I don't know what Hungary has to do with this though, they declared war on the USSR simply because their government was an ally of Hitler, no other reason AFAIK.

Well I don't know much about King Mihai, I don't know whether he was opposed to Romania's fascist government from the years of '41-'43 when the war on the Eastern front still looked winnable, but from my impression it's unfortunate that he didn't manage to gather enough support earlier on to depose the government and switch Romania's allegiances earlier on. By the time he did, Soviet forces were already at the gates and after 3 years of brutal warfare, they weren't about to trust anyone who decided to switch sides at the last minute.


I honestly don't blame the USSR for not trusting those respective governments.

[Flamming_Python]

What's funny? Are you laughing at general rule or it's you a demoralized politically individual who always plays relativism? Esp. when went out of arguments? :)

West Germany were democratic country under US/French/British occupation and what? Nazis took power again?

My question is theroretical; what if the USSR, or for that matter the US/French/British forces, set up democratic elections in Germany, and the fascists won again? What do you think these countries would have done? What do you think would have been the right thing to do?

This question is a direct response to your assertation that the only legitimate thing to do for the USSR would have been to set up democratic elections in the countries which invaded and attempted to destroy it during WW2.

AFAIK, West Germany started off as a dictatorship under Western occupation; only later did democratic elections start.

[Derbedeu]

BS revisionism, all of it. In regards to Moldova/Bessarabia, we been over this already in another thread. Suffice to say, to keep things simple for the purposes of this conversation, let's say both nations had a claim on it. We took it back because we saw it as ours, but of course we did it in a brutal and illegal way. What we didn't do is invade Romania proper, or participate in a military campaign to exterminate the Romanian people from the face of the Earth. I understand why the Romanians declared war on us, and I understand why a hardcore nationalist like Antonescu came to power; but that doesn't give it an excuse for having joined the Axis in WW2. The same goes for Finland and the Baltic States; every Soviet soldier they killed was one less to repel fascism and stop Hitler's campaigns to exterminate the Slav, Jewish and Gypsy peoples in Europe; because that's exactly what would have happened if the Axis powers succeeded in their war against the USSR; no matter what individual motives and ambitions they had and how justified they were from their own perspective.

Suffice to say that the Soviet Union had no legal claim on Moldova, just as they had no claim on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, or Finland. You also forget that it was the Soviet Union that colluded with fascist Germany first. Not the above countries. Stalin also attacked Finland without provocation. In the end, my point still stands, all of these countries were effectively drawn into the war, not because they wanted to, but because Hitler and Stalin dragged them into it. So I'm afraid it's not BS at all.


I don't know what Hungary has to do with this though, they declared war on the USSR simply because their government was an ally of Hitler, no other reason AFAIK.Hungary was somewhat opportunistic during WWII, but from my understanding they never wished to attack the Soviet Union, they were happy with taking Transylvania from Romania. They were reluctant to invade the Soviet Union, since they had nothing to gain from it.


Well I don't know much about King Mihai, I don't know whether he was opposed to Romania's fascist government from the years of '41-'43 when the war on the Eastern front still looked winnable, but from my impression it's unfortunate that he didn't manage to gather enough support earlier on to depose the government and switch Romania's allegiances earlier on. By the time he did, Soviet forces were already at the gates and after 3 years of brutal warfare, they weren't about to trust anyone who decided to switch sides at the last minute.King Mihai turned 20 in 1941. Kind of hard to garner support and be taken seriously when you are that young. The fact that he did eventually manage to do so is impressive in itself. Of course he was forced to abdicate at gun point by the communists Stalin placed in power, who never legally elected.

[Flamming_Python]

In all fairness I want to say this. I have talked to many Russians who hate America. Why? Our logistics played a vital role in the Red Army getting to Berlin.

Not true, the vast majority of Russians greatly appreciate the USA for its help during WW2 both for the supplies sent over and for fighting Hitler with its own military. It's even possible that the USSR may not have won the war, if it wasn't for the USA; although this is a contested issue, no-one can say for sure.

Most Russians also don't hold anything against the USA from the days of the Cold War, as I'm sure most Americans don't either. Most of our grievances with America are more recent and start from '91; but hate is far too strong a word to describe it, and is in any case is directed towards the government rather than the country or people.


I have even been told by some Russians recently they are the master race. I mean it almost appears that Putin is following Hitler's leadership methods. Nationalism is not always a good thing and it can be dangerous. It is obvious Russia is power hungry and would love nothing more than to see the demise of the U.S.

Don't be ridiculous.

[Derbedeu]

My question is theroretical; what if the USSR, or for that matter the US/French/British forces, set up democratic elections in Germany, and the fascists won again? What do you think these countries would have done? What do you think would have been the right thing to do?

This question is a direct response to your assertation that the only legitimate thing to do for the USSR would have been to set up democratic elections in the countries which invaded and attempted to destroy it during WW2.

AFAIK, West Germany started off as a dictatorship under Western occupation; only later did democratic elections start.

The Western powers directly ruled West Germany for a time, but in the end they allowed free elections, something which the Soviet Union did not allow anywhere in Eastern Europe.

[Russianlynxy]

The Western powers directly ruled West Germany for a time, but in the end they allowed free elections, something which the Soviet Union did not allow anywhere in Eastern Europe.

Correction. Something the Communist forces WITHIN said countries did not allow. All the USSR did was support their rise to power in the first place. They were as much puppet governments as the contemporary ruling forces of Georgia and Ukraine today.

[Flamming_Python]

Suffice to say that the Soviet Union had no legal claim on Moldova, just as they had no claim on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, or Finland. You also forget that it was the Soviet Union that colluded with fascist Germany first. Not the above countries. Stalin also attacked Finland without provocation. In the end, my point still stands, all of these countries were effectively drawn into the war, not because they wanted to, but because Hitler and Stalin dragged them into it. So I'm afraid it's not BS at all.

Doesn't matter, they were allies with Hitler's army. And as such they should be happy that they lost; otherwise half of Europe's population would have been sent to the gas chamber. Anyone who isn't happy that that didn't happen, is a revisionist and a nationalist who places material comfort and conditions of his own people above the very survival of others. And that goes to all the Romanians, Finns and Baltics on this forum and others who are unhappy that they lost WW2.


King Mihai turned 20 in 1941. Kind of hard to garner support and be taken seriously when you are that young. The fact that he did eventually manage to do so is impressive in itself. Of course he was forced to abdicate at gun point by the communists Stalin placed in power, who never legally elected.

Well of course he was; what reason did Stalin have to trust him, because he changed Romania's allegiances at the last minute? All respect to him; I believe he was a good man and did the right thing, but to expect the Soviets to have trusted him is to be very naive. They weren't about to let any independent political forces flourish (or anyone they couldn't control) in a country that had just attempted to exterminate them; of course they installed their own people instead.

[Switek]

...

AFAIK, West Germany started off as a dictatorship under Western occupation; only later did democratic elections start.

Occupation forces had a very good plan. Former SS members and NSDAP members were excluded from political activity (of course there were some exceptions as always) and allowed to reestablish political parties and made free election firstly in commune, then county and the last on land level. Indeed there were AFAIK centralized German government and Allies made a deep decentralization of the country... It was more or less that way IIRC the schedule and dates iI do not remember

[cbiwv]

Not true, the vast majority of Russians greatly appreciate the USA for its help during WW2 both for the supplies sent over and for fighting Hitler with its own military. It's even possible that the USSR may not have won the war, if it wasn't for the USA; although this is a contested issue, no-one can say for sure.

Most Russians also don't hold anything against the USA from the days of the Cold War, as I'm sure most Americans don't either. Most of our grievances with America are more recent and start from '91; but hate is far too strong a word to describe it, and is in any case is directed towards the government rather than the country or people.



Don't be ridiculous.


I have been told that by one Russian female in all fairness. Sorry.

[Flamming_Python]

The Western powers directly ruled West Germany for a time, but in the end they allowed free elections, something which the Soviet Union did not allow anywhere in Eastern Europe.

Apart from of course in '89 when it withdrew from EE without a fight and without any aggressions. But too many people have forgotten that, and see modern Russia as a continuation of Stalin's USSR.

[Atlantic Friend]

Correction. Something the Communist forces WITHIN said countries did not allow. All the USSR did was support their rise to power in the first place.

Another correction then : Hungary, 1956. Czechoslovakia, 1968.

It was not exactly as if the SU simply validated local elections, now was it?

[Flamming_Python]

I have been told that by one Russian female in all fairness. Sorry.

Sorry for what? I'm sorry that some people have such views in my country if anything. But they don't form the majority, so like I said, don't be ridiculous.

[cbiwv]

Sorry for what? I'm sorry that some people have such views in my country if anything. But they don't form the majority, so like I said, don't be ridiculous.


Look I would love a alliance. I have relatives in Russia and a ancestor who died defending Moscow but know very little about them. It's like two different worlds.

[Derbedeu]

Doesn't matter, they were allies with Hitler's army. And as such they should be happy that they lost; otherwise half of Europe's population would have been sent to the gas chamber. Anyone who isn't happy that that didn't happen, is a revisionist and a nationalist who places material comfort and conditions of his own people above the very survival of others. And that goes to all the Romanians, Finns and Baltics on this forum and others who are unhappy that they lost WW2.

You forget you were allies with Hitler's army first. And secondly, no one here has said that they are unhappy that Hitler was defeated. They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the SU. SU wasnt a knight in shining armor for Europe, and that the crimes committed by the SU shouldn't be forgotten just because Hitler's crimes happened to be worst. And this is not even taking into account 40+ years of illegal occupation of the SU.



Well of course he was; what reason did Stalin have to trust him, because he changed Romania's allegiances at the last minute? All respect to him; I believe he was a good man and did the right thing, but to expect the Soviets to have trusted him is to be very naive. They weren't about to let any independent political forces flourish (or anyone they couldn't control) in a country that had just attempted to exterminate them; of course they installed their own people instead.Yes two years after the war was over they decided he was untrustworthy. I guess they couldn't trust Hungary in '56, or Czechoslovakia in '68 either? That makes it perfectly ok right? I didn't realize that the SU was granted a carte blanche to act however it pleased. :roll:

[cbiwv]

You forget you were allies with Hitler's army first. And secondly, no one here has said that they are unhappy that Hitler was defeated. They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the SU. SU wasnt a knight in shining armor for Europe, and that the crimes committed by the SU shouldn't be forgotten just because Hitler's crimes happened to be worst. And this is not even taking into account 40+ years of illegal occupation of the SU.


Yes two years after the war was over they decided he was untrustworthy. I guess they couldn't trust Hungary in '56, or Czechoslovakia in '68 either? That makes it perfectly ok right? I didn't realize that the SU was granted a carte blanche to act however it pleased. :roll:


Every nation has committed sins. Be gentle on our comrades.:)

[Derbedeu]

Apart from of course in '89 when it withdrew from EE without a fight and without any aggressions. But too many people have forgotten that, and see modern Russia as a continuation of Stalin's USSR.


40+ years later?

roflroflrofl

We both know the only reason that happened was because even Russians were getting fed up with their government. The SU collapsed, it didn't let go. The whole period from 89-91 was a mess in Russia. They were losing control faster then they could even realize.

[widi243]

BS revisionism, all of it. In regards to Moldova/Bessarabia, we been over this already in another thread. Suffice to say, to keep things simple for the purposes of this conversation, let's say both nations had a claim on it. We took it back because we saw it as ours, but of course we did it in a brutal and illegal way. What we didn't do is invade Romania proper, or participate in a military campaign to exterminate the Romanian people from the face of the Earth. I understand why the Romanians declared war on us, and I understand why a hardcore nationalist like Antonescu came to power; but that doesn't give it an excuse for having joined the Axis in WW2. The same goes for Finland and the Baltic States; every Soviet soldier they killed was one less to repel fascism and stop Hitler's campaigns to exterminate the Slav, Jewish and Gypsy peoples in Europe; because that's exactly what would have happened if the Axis powers succeeded in their war against the USSR; no matter what individual motives and ambitions they had and how justified they were from their own perspective.

I don't know what Hungary has to do with this though, they declared war on the USSR simply because their government was an ally of Hitler, no other reason AFAIK.

Well I don't know much about King Mihai, I don't know whether he was opposed to Romania's fascist government from the years of '41-'43 when the war on the Eastern front still looked winnable, but from my impression it's unfortunate that he didn't manage to gather enough support earlier on to depose the government and switch Romania's allegiances earlier on. By the time he did, Soviet forces were already at the gates and after 3 years of brutal warfare, they weren't about to trust anyone who decided to switch sides at the last minute.

]Its not revisionism it's pure fact. Biasing on it you doin't cover the truth what is verry uncomortable for today's Kremlimm rulers.
I don't if they pay you for that posts or you do it because eat soviet propaganda lies likeworm rolls but you don't cover thos evil what Soviet Union did cooperating with Hitler and after that when waht happend during a war and after the war. Done is done. Lies don't cover victims in a Katyn forest, victims of Gulag, victims of ethnic cleansing made by Stalin, economoic robbery of Eastern pact countris what USSR did after the War, invasion of Hungary, Invasion of Chechoslovakia in 1968 this was bad things what your beloved country did and any lie dont cover it. Any excuse don't cover balme of it. No martter how Putin & Co will try to screem and flexing muscle. And No matter how ofetn Russian mass media try to spread thi lis it don't cover the truth. If your country is proud of it proves that your country is wrong not mine. I didin't say taht my coutry was clear like an angel but comparing to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia my country looks pure like innocent virgin.
No matter how much you wiil screem from anger it's won't change nothing you cannot shout truth down. you have to face the truth and deal with it.

[Derbedeu]

Every nation has committed sins. Be gentle on our comrades.:)

I'm well aware of that. But most nations face up to their sins, or at the very least have the polite decency to not act as if they were blameless.

[cbiwv]

I'm well aware of that. But most nations face up to their sins, or at the very least have the polite decency to not act as if they were blameless.

I'm not under the impression the Russians come across as trying to be innocent. Didn't Putin even say that anyone who wanted the USSR to return was crazy or something to that extent?

[Russianlynxy]

I'm not under the impression the Russians come across as trying to be innocent. Didn't Putin even say that anyone who wanted the USSR to return was crazy or something to that extent?

"Those who don't miss the USSR have no heart, those who want it back have no brain"

[Vityaz]

Hasn't this all been discussed before? Is anyone really convincing anyone else? Though I shouldn't complain, I'm entertained by these arguments.

I was going to talk about Hungary and Horthy, but I think that would just stir the pot.

[FLIPO]

Oh God... Not this **** again... If Russia is soooooo weak and has no perspective - so why are you caring about IT so much?

[widi243]

I'm not under the impression the Russians come across as trying to be innocent. Didn't Putin even say that anyone who wanted the USSR to return was crazy or something to that extent?

Problem with today's Russia is that they denying even those facts what was consider as crimes during USSR in Gorbachev times. If Russians will built thiers presnt state basin on Stalinist lies it could have bad results to them and to the world.

[cbiwv]

"Those who don't miss the USSR have no heart, those who want it back have no brain"

Thanks. I knew it was something close.

[Sashko]

I'm well aware of that. But most nations face up to their sins, or at the very least have the polite decency to not act as if they were blameless.


And who, besides Germany, "faced up to their sins" during WW2?

[shadowsrider]

And who, besides Germany, "faced up to their sins" during WW2?

Well our country is this hard process... During communism it was impossible

[widi243]

Oh God... Not this **** again... If Russia is soooooo weak and has no perspective - so why are you caring about IT so much?

because it hit our families in the past and no we sees that bad things are going to happen with Russia today. You don't understand it. You hadn't deal with this evil like we was. Even I lucked for minimal part of this evil cominism system what Soviet's bring to us with war. It was over for us in 1989. It's only 20 years. And damages what it cause peopole in former Warsaw Pact will feel for dacades. And Putin's Russia are back to this worst tradions building theirs position on Stalinist basics. It's very alarming for us. Because it could happen again.

[widi243]

And who, besides Germany, "faced up to their sins" during WW2?
Almost everyone apart of Russsia.

[Paya]

And Putin's Russia are back to this worst tradions building theirs position on Stalinist basics. It's very alarming for us. Because it could happen again.
Comparing Putin to Stalin and the countries they governed is a bit over the top, don't you think?

Also, if you can imagine a scenario where the modern Russia would occupy or carve up Poland, no offense, but you might consider the possibility that you're clinically paranoid.

[widi243]

Comparing Putin to Stalin and the countries they governed is a bit over the top, don't you think?

Also, if you can imagine a scenario where the modern Russia would occupy or carve up Poland, no offense, but you might consider the possibility that you're clinically paranoid.

Nope I don't consider this scenario seriously. Deffinitly Putin nor Medvedev can't be compared with Hitler/Stalin duet. they arn't blody dictators. When I have to compere this to to any historical person what I know it would be rather Pilsudski because they are playine similar role in Russia like Pilsudski in II Republic of Poland. But I'm concernd what Russia will be for decades and when this leaders choose Stalins propaganda version of history and denying any fact what is uncomfortable to them its is arousing my anxiety about Russia in future. I'm rather wondering who will be after Putin/Medvedev and what would be when it will be much more impulsive person.

[Paya]

Nope I don't consider this scenario seriously. Deffinitly Putin nor Medvedev can't be compared with Hitler/Stalin duet. they arn't blody dictators. When I have to compere this to to any historical person what I know it would be rather Pilsudski because they are playine similar role in Russia like Pilsudski in II Republic of Poland. But I'm concernd what Russia will be for decades and when this leaders choose Stalins propaganda version of history and denying any fact what is uncomfortable to them its is arousing my anxiety about Russia in future. I'm rather wondering who will be after Putin/Medvedev and what would be when it will be much more impulsive person.
Sure, Putin is an authoritarian, but a democratically elected authoritarian.

I truly don't know what Russia will look like in twenty years time, but, considering the development of the world at large since WWII, it is highly unlikely that it will become an aggressive, expansionist empire the Poles remember.

As for Stalin, i have yet to hear an ordinary Russian say he was not a monster. He was, however, a monster who modernized the SU, turned it into a superpower, and helped defeat a far greater evil. And that, I guess, warrants a dose of respect for him, even from those whose families suffered under his rule.

[widi243]

Sure, Putin is an authoritarian, but a democratically elected authoritarian.

I truly don't know what Russia will look like in twenty years time, but, considering the development of the world at large since WWII, it is highly unlikely that it will become an aggressive, expansionist empire the Poles remember.

As for Stalin, i have yet to hear an ordinary Russian say he was not a monster. He was, however, a monster who modernized the SU, turned it into a superpower, and helped defeat a far greater evil. And that, I guess, warrants a dose of respect for him, even from those whose families suffered under his rule.


Yes he is. There are differences between them. Yes way to power was diffrent (Hitler was demcaticli elected too). And role what Pilsudski played in II Republic of Poland is similar to this what know are playing Putyin and Medvedev. Maybe I should saying Putin not Putin/Medvedev. I rather consider him as figurant. I'm not an expert. It's only my opinion.

[Paya]

Fair enough.

[widi243]

Sure, Putin is an authoritarian, but a democratically elected authoritarian.

I truly don't know what Russia will look like in twenty years time, but, considering the development of the world at large since WWII, it is highly unlikely that it will become an aggressive, expansionist empire the Poles remember.

As for Stalin, i have yet to hear an ordinary Russian say he was not a monster. He was, however, a monster who modernized the SU, turned it into a superpower, and helped defeat a far greater evil. And that, I guess, warrants a dose of respect for him, even from those whose families suffered under his rule.

yes ofcourse he did we know that to. Hitler did some god things for Germans too and even Nazi state treated ordinary German than Stalin treated ordinary Russian. But it not change evaluation of Hitlers regime nor Stalins. And it's not about ordinary soviet soldiers what did great job and was treated like a dogs by NKVD as enyone other.

[Sashko]

Almost everyone apart of Russsia.


Please specify "almost everyone" and exactly what did they apologize for.

[MZKT]

Almost everyone apart of Russsia.

Really? Who? somebody remember censoring of the NASM exhibition aboutHiroshima bombing 1995?
Actually apart from Germany there is no known case of a country making excuses for it's past, be it war crimes, genocide, colonialism or suppression.

BTW did Poland excused in front of Ukraine and Belarus for invading and occupying their western regions 1920-1939. Or biting a chunk off Czech Republic 1938 together with Hitler?


Comparing Putin to Stalin and the countries they governed is a bit over the top, don't you think?Indeed. Stalin transformed SU from a country with a plow to a country with an A-Bomb (Winston Churchill). Putin transformed an industrial country back to a cleptocratic ressource-export state.

[Flamming_Python]

This discussion is all BS, politicians are just using the issue to appeal to the domestic audience on both sides. Things like the renunciation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, were already done in the 80's. Now a group of Eastern European countries is conducting a propaganda campaign against Russia, and Russia is changing its position to more hard line stance compared with Perestroika USSR.


Really? Who? somebody remember censoring of the NASM exhibition aboutHiroshima bombing 1995?
Actually apart from Germany there is no known case of a country making excuses for it's past, be it war crimes, genocide, colonialism or suppression.

Indeed. Stalin transformed SU from a country with a plow to a country with an A-Bomb (Winston Churchill). Putin transformed an industrial country back to a cleptocratic ressource-export state.

Actually it was Yeltsin & Gorbachev, Putin simply picked up the pieces and did a reasonably good job of it.

[Flamming_Python]

You forget you were allies with Hitler's army first.

We weren't allies with Germany; we didn't fight WW2 on their side. However, it's true that Stalin and Hitler divided Eastern Europe between each other.


And secondly, no one here has said that they are unhappy that Hitler was defeated. They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of the SU. SU wasnt a knight in shining armor for Europe, and that the crimes committed by the SU shouldn't be forgotten just because Hitler's crimes happened to be worst. Fully agree, it was choice of lesser evils.


And this is not even taking into account 40+ years of illegal occupation of the SU.Eastern Europe had their own communist governments although we installed most of them to begin with. Romania and Albania stopped listening to us and did their own thing, and Yugoslavia was never our ally in the first place. I definitely don't remember SU occupying Romania, and probably neither do you :)


Yes two years after the war was over they decided he was untrustworthy. I guess they couldn't trust Hungary in '56, or Czechoslovakia in '68 either? That makes it perfectly ok right? I didn't realize that the SU was granted a carte blanche to act however it pleased. :roll:Yeah that was pretty BS, but it was the Cold War. It's over.

[Derbedeu]

Eastern Europe had their own communist governments although we installed most of them to begin with. Romania and Albania stopped listening to us and did their own thing, and Yugoslavia was never our ally in the first place. I definitely don't remember SU occupying Romania, and probably neither do you :)


True, I don't but then again I'm only in my twenties. My dad still has a vivid recollection of when the Russians left in '58. While you may be correct in that afterwords we had our own ****tard in charge (Ceausescu), I wouldn't say with certainty that we were allowed to do our own thing. Hungary and Czechoslovakia are ample proofs of this. We were given a false sense of independence but it was clear where we had to toe the line. In fact that is why the only thing I respect about Ceausescu was his refusal to partake in the invasion of Czechoslovakia or allow Soviet troops access across Romania in order to do so. My dad, who at the time was a tank commander, was sent to the Romanian-Soviet front since the tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Cause we honestly thought we'd be next after Czechoslovakia, even though we were standing up for our sovereign rights.


Yeah that was pretty BS, but it was the Cold War. It's over.Well unfortunately the repercussions still reverberate to this day. Yes not everything can be blamed on the Soviets (after all we were in charge of our country in day to day matters, and several of the shortcomings that you see today in Eastern Europe can be laid at the feet of the respective communist governments), but ultimately it was the SU who instilled those communist governments and did not allow for their removal, until the SU finally collapsed.

Also being dismissive of history is never a good thing. You would not take it so lightly if the crimes against Russia during WWII by the Nazis were simply dismissed as "Yea, it was pretty BS but it was WWII, it's over." It's one thing to forgive, it's quite another to forget.

[Kilgor]

Indeed. Stalin transformed SU from a country with a plow to a country with an A-Bomb (Winston Churchill). Putin transformed an industrial country back to a cleptocratic ressource-export state.



The ignorance of that post is hard to fault (EDIT: This is in reference to your previous post, not the latest one).

My rebuttal will be tart:

Between 1898 and 1913 Russia's economy grew by 96.8% - the greatest growth recorded by a European power. Industrial output between 1890 and 1913 was rising by 4-5% annually. Needless to say, the argument that Russia was a purely agrarian economy in the early 20th century is nonsense. Foreign investment in Russian industry reached 10% of the national income between 1885 and 1913. French investment alone during that period was estimated at three billion roubles.

Unbelievably enough, Russian industrial output also increased by 17% between 1914 and 1916... (for comparison's sake, Germany's fell significantly)

Please take care with the facts in the future.

-LOKOS



Sometimes I do agree with Lokos.
Don't fall for the Soviet myth of the peasant Russia being liberated and dragged forward by the wise and noble Bolsheviks.

[Russianlynxy]

Sometimes I do agree with Lokos.
Don't fall for the Soviet myth of the peasant Russia being liberated and dragged forward by the wise and noble Bolsheviks.

Early Bolsheviks actually wanted to destroy the country, they weren't interested in it's well being and progress. "Liberation of the Working people" was simply a pretext for mob rule.

[FLIPO]

because it hit our families in the past and no we sees that bad things are going to happen with Russia today. You don't understand it. You hadn't deal with this evil like we was. Even I lucked for minimal part of this evil cominism system what Soviet's bring to us with war. It was over for us in 1989. It's only 20 years. And damages what it cause peopole in former Warsaw Pact will feel for dacades. And Putin's Russia are back to this worst tradions building theirs position on Stalinist basics. It's very alarming for us. Because it could happen again.


The thing I understand is that you need a doc... And history teacher...

[widi243]

The thing I understand is that you need a doc... And history teacher...

I don't need them I know history of my country well. I don't need a doctor I won't tolarate when somebody is lying about history of my coutry!

[Flamming_Python]

Also being dismissive of history is never a good thing. You would not take it so lightly if the crimes against Russia during WWII by the Nazis were simply dismissed as "Yea, it was pretty BS but it was WWII, it's over." It's one thing to forgive, it's quite another to forget.

It's hardly fair to compare WW2-era crimes and Cold War-era crimes; they were on a completely different level. I agree with what you say; but the USSR doesn't exist anymore, most of these atrocities were admitted to in Perestroika times, yet nations in Eastern Europe a leading a concentrated campaign against Russia for political dividends, and as a way to justify a hostile foreign policy against it.

Besides, we didn't even touch Romania for the last 50 years, so what are you so bitter about specifically? :)

[mrxyz]

I don't understand why people write articles like this. It must be rooted in some deep insecurity that requires you to push Russia down at all times.

[Sashko]

I don't need them I know history of my country well. I don't need a doctor I won't tolarate when somebody is lying about history of my coutry!



And I'm still waiting for that list of countries that apologized (And what they apologized for). :| Since it was "almost everyone", it shouldn't be too hard for you to produce, right?

[shadowsrider]

Really? Who? somebody remember censoring of the NASM exhibition aboutHiroshima bombing 1995?
Actually apart from Germany there is no known case of a country making excuses for it's past, be it war crimes, genocide, colonialism or suppression.

BTW did Poland excused in front of Ukraine and Belarus for invading and occupying their western regions 1920-1939. Or biting a chunk off Czech Republic 1938 together with Hitler?

Indeed. Stalin transformed SU from a country with a plow to a country with an A-Bomb (Winston Churchill). Putin transformed an industrial country back to a cleptocratic ressource-export state.

Invasion of Poland in 1920 is Soviet version of history (only!).
About Stalin this really required new generation who forgot that members of the families disappeared. If you have no heart for your grandmothers and grandfathers than ok.

[MZKT]

The ignorance of that post is hard to fault (EDIT: This is in reference to your previous post, not the latest one).

My rebuttal will be tart:

Between 1898 and 1913 Russia's economy grew by 96.8% - the greatest growth recorded by a European power. Industrial output between 1890 and 1913 was rising by 4-5% annually. Needless to say, the argument that Russia was a purely agrarian economy in the early 20th century is nonsense. Foreign investment in Russian industry reached 10% of the national income between 1885 and 1913. French investment alone during that period was estimated at three billion roubles."Greatest growth" is natural since it started from almost zero, so even smallest absolute increases resulted in high relative growth. Still 4-5% annual industrial output growth is not even close to 10,5-16% achieved during 1928-1937. Further by 1913 Czarist russia was still far behind western countries, while by the end of the 30s SU already surpassed many of them in most the usual industrial indicators. Also the first two 5-years plans brought social advances like access to medical treatment, education,40-hours labour week and so on.


Sometimes I do agree with Lokos.
Don't fall for the Soviet myth of the peasant Russia being liberated and dragged forward by the wise and noble Bolsheviks. Stalin was no Bolshevik, he actually dealed with real Bolsheviks during the purges. If Trotzki had stayed in power instead of Stalin he would be more busy with his world revolution dreams instead of economy and finally hang on the red square while germans would perform their parade (in Warshau either)


Invasion of Poland in 1920 is Soviet version of history (only!).

Invasion of Poland? I'm talking about Polish invasion of West-Ukrainian republic and western regions of Belarussian national republic (+ some parts of Lithuania) 1919-1921. That's Ukrainian and Belarussian history. Poland never faced up for Pilsudksis policy, nor are we expecting or demanding it. Still quite funny how on the contrary some Poles claim that Russia being the only which did not excused for it's past.


About Stalin this really required new generation who forgot that members of the families disappeared. If you have no heart for your grandmothers and grandfathers than ok.My grandmothers and grandfathers are alive only because the industry created during the 30s could produce over 100000 tanks during WW2, and not capitulated in front of germans like Czarist Russia did (and Germans of the 40s had quite different plans for our population then germans of 1916)
BTW your grandmothers and grandfathers also survived onlly due to this fact.


Early Bolsheviks actually wanted to destroy the country, they weren't interested in it's well being and progress. "Liberation of the Working people" was simply a pretext for mob rule.not destroy the country, but destroy all countries and unite all people in supranational entity. It was quite an utopy, Sovietunion was lucky they didn't stayed in power for too long


Actually it was Yeltsin & Gorbachev, Putin simply picked up the pieces and did a reasonably good job of it. True, but Putin and Medvedev continues it. By neglecting processing industry and concentrating on ressource-exporting oligarchical economy model which cause whole branches to die during Putins government (Hristenko recently declared that Russia wont build long range passenger jets anymore, despite SU was once among the leaders in this industry)

[Mousepad]

Invasion of Poland in 1920 is Soviet version of history (only!).
About Stalin this really required new generation who forgot that members of the families disappeared. If you have no heart for your grandmothers and grandfathers than ok.

Well well, for what reason then, this invasion started from kicking Poles out of Kiev? Or you guys playing virgin card again?

[Andarius-Militarius]

"Greatest growth" is natural since it started from almost zero, so even smallest absolute increases resulted in high relative growth. Still 4-5% annual industrial output growth is not even close to 10,5-16% achieved during 1928-1937. Further by 1913 Czarist russia was still far behind western countries, while by the end of the 30s SU already surpassed many of them in most the usual industrial indicators. Also the first two 5-years plans brought social advances like access to medical treatment, education,40-hours labour week and so on.


Yes economic growth was high in the 1930s, albeit at the expense of forced labor, famines, and destruction of civil morality. Unfortunately it was communism which gave Russians the mentality they have today. As a result, many people are non-religious, alcoholics, and hold no social moral values. And thus we have an atmosphere of corruption and social degradation, where those who know don't care anymore and those who care don't know anymore ((C), Lord of War).

On the other hand, countries like Poland and Hungary moved past this sickness because the public had a natural hatred for communism (whereas the Russians had given in and learned to accept it). And when communism collapsed, some countries were ready and ready to join the market economy, while others were completely unprepared.

I also think there is a myth associated with the Soviet Union, as to how much everything was better. In terms of health, life expectancy stagnated from from the 1960s onwards hovering around 65-69 years (I think it almost reached 70 in 1988). Most people even then lived in substandard housing. Even all those apartment blocks were poorly built, and construction workers cut corners wherever they could. They same could be said about almost all other infrastructure. The real focus of on military spending, so yeah they could produce 10,000 tanks a year, but when it came to building infrastructure, facilities, and housing, they only spent the bare bones for it. As for feeding its people, it it weren't for dachas, the USSR would have probably faced the prospect of famine.

[Flamming_Python]

non-religious

That's good


alcoholicsHalf of those came from after communism collapsed.


hold no social moral valuesThat's just rubbish


And thus we have an atmosphere of corruption and social degradation, where those who know don't care anymore and those who care don't know anymore ((C), Lord of War).Any country of Russia's income level or below has big problems with corruption. Russia has it worse than some others because it has failed to push through reforms.


On the other hand, countries like Poland and Hungary moved past this sickness because the public had a natural hatred for communism (whereas the Russians had given in and learned to accept it). And when communism collapsed, some countries were ready and ready to join the market economy, while others were completely unprepared.Make believe; the economic growth of post-Soviet and Eastern European countries during the 90's depended on a lot of factors but not on 'natural hatred' for communism or how 'ready' they were. The economic and development levels in Poland and Hungary were lower; Poland was in martial law for the whole of the 80's, so naturally more people there were against it. In the USSR you had a lot of people for it, but actually the USSR fell apart at the same time as the other socialist governments; because of the same reason - mass discontent brought on by economic troubles.

[MZKT]

Yes economic growth was high in the 1930s, albeit at the expense of forced labor,

forced labor wasn't unknown in Czraist russia either, and in capitalist countries during their industrialization defacto as well, until Bismarck's social reforms (Remember "British pig is of more value then british worker"?)


famines, As regularly in Czarist Russia. However 1933 famine was the last in history of SU, the reason was the industrilization itself, in the year 1939 every second tractor built in the world was built in SU.


and destruction of civil morality. Unfortunately it was communism which gave Russians the mentality they have today. As a result, many people are non-religious, alcoholics, and hold no social moral values. And thus we have an atmosphere of corruption and social degradation, where those who know don't care anymore and those who care don't know anymore ((C), Lord of War).Utter rubbish, considering that crime, prostitution, corruption etc... levels exploded right after the fall of SU, otherwise you could claim that mongol occupation of the middle age is responsible for current social problems.
Every negative aspect statistic like death rate, tuberculosis rate, drug consumption etc show a giant increase exactly with the fall of SU. The current male llife expectancy is lower then 50 years before, I assume that's pretty unique worldwide.


On the other hand, countries like Poland and Hungary moved past this sickness because the public had a natural hatred for communism (whereas the Russians had given in and learned to accept it). And when communism collapsed, some countries were ready and ready to join the market economy, while others were completely unprepared.Since when hatred somehow influence economics?


I also think there is a myth associated with the Soviet Union, as to how much everything was better. In terms of health, life expectancy stagnated from from the 1960s onwards hovering around 65-69 years (I think it almost reached 70 in 1988). Declining life expectancy in post-soviet Russia better then stagnating in soviet Russia?


Most people even then lived in substandard housing. As are most people in CIS as today. Plus some people even became homeless, something unknown in SU.


Even all those apartment blocks were poorly built, and construction workers cut corners wherever they could. They same could be said about almost all other infrastructure. And despite horribly low maintenance expenses this infrastructure works till today. I really doubt a western countries infatrcuture would be still working if being strapped of any upkeeping for over a decade.


The real focus of on military spending, so yeah they could produce 10,000 tanks a year, but when it came to building infrastructure, facilities, and housing, they only spent the bare bones for it. As for feeding its people, it it weren't for dachas, the USSR would have probably faced the prospect of famine.If you provide statisctis for datcha percentage in the overall food amount.

BTW the years were Russia built zero tanks were followed by a state bakrupcy so it's not the military spending which devastated the region. It was indeed the destruction of moral values with all the resulting consequences, but by the neoliberal russian government which came to power 1991, not by sovietunion where those values ensured it was the second largest economy for 50 years.

Anyway the topic was 1930s vs late decades of Czarist Russia and the fact remains that SU was far more successfull in industrializing the country even despite worse conditions (first isolation, then german invasion and occupation). Maybe the industrilization could be performed with less victims, for example the famine 1933 would be avoidable if the transitioning from peasants to workers wouldn't be encouraged that strong and the disbalance between agrar-producing and agrar-consuming population would be performed slower. On the other side SU had no century for industrialization like western countries, and would be either caught in third world conditions or defeated by more advanced Lebensraum seekers in the conflicts between divergating european countries, like happened to Czarist russia 1916