Scorpius wrote:

Well, perhaps I do not understand what you wanted to know about the Soviet period.

It was TWA772LR who asked about travel during the soviet period. I didn't need to ask - I have enough info from reliable sources and experienced it first hand in early eighties.

Scorpius wrote:

However, let's be honest - you don't know shit about the USSR.

If you'd write "don't know shit about Russia", youd be right. Unfortunately, I know way too much about the USSR. I wish I wouldn't be forced to know.

Scorpius wrote:

The existence of the Gulag does not negate the fact that social security in the USSR was the best in the world for a set of attributes.

Using one good thing to justify an atrocious one doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that the social security was meaningful only in one point of view - it was difficult to become completely without income.
But other than that - the social security meant that unless you were a careerist party officer, or worked somewhere where you could skim from your employer, you were sure to remain poor.

Scorpius wrote:

In addition, the number of prisoners of the Gulag was lower than people sitting in US prisons. But for some reason the U.S. does not call a terrible totalitarian state.

Again, somebody else's atrocity doesn't justify mine.

Scorpius wrote:

In addition, you would do well to apologize for your attacks on me - I came here with good will to engage in dialogue, and not listen to the empty accusations of lying.

Several things you wrote about the USSR were, how to put it, not entirely up to date. And yet I was not the one accusing you of trolling. That said, I sure as hell hope you're trolling and not honestly believing in what you're writing here.

Scorpius wrote:

I never wrote that the Soviet Union was the IDEAL state. I just explain that USSR and Russia are not the Evil Empire, as they tell in the West. If we consider the processes impartially, the Western countries have done far more evil, and more imperialistic.

As I lived in one of those countries that experienced the soviet imperialism fist hand, I dislike it just as much as what western countries have done to our area (but that was before the soviet influence)

Scorpius wrote:

Lately I see many warning signs that show that could start a war.

These were here since WWII. We're both too young to remember the Cuban crisis, building the Berlin wall, etc... My cousin was doing his mandatory military service during the Cuban crisis, they were sleeping dressed and ready to go fighting anytime. And yet nothing happened. I believe that if we survived the Kennedy + Khrushchev combo, we will survive Trump + Putin.

Scorpius wrote:

That's why I came here in the hope that if every citizen takes a step towards this war can be avoided. However, the response I get charges it is not clear what, and it just makes me hope that between the Russian and the Western community dialogue is possible. But if dialogue is not possible - only one option: war to complete destruction. Now you understand why I was there trying to explain to you my point of view?

Dialogue is always possible. But you have to excuse me, you sound like an army politruk from the seventies. That makes it difficult for somebody who has first hand experience with the matter.

jetwet1 wrote:

It seems that he has only had one version of events fed to him, why don't we take a little time and educate him a little, as I am sure he will educate us a little. Having spent time in Russia I can honestly say they were fed a......Hmm how to put this, disjointed ?, inaccurate ? maybe view of the west while we were also fed a somewhat less inaccurate view of the USSR, but still in some ways inaccurate.
I again ask that everyone takes a deep breath and take a few seconds to understand that when you have only had limited contact outside of your realm you may have things badly wrong.

I was fed exactly the same stuff about the USSR and peaceful socialist countries as Scorpius for the first 24 years of my life. And I have some personal insight. And yet I have a different view of the situation compared to Scorpius. For crying out loud, he sounds exactly like the rabid Citizen's learning* teacher we had in high school. Everything eastern was great, everything western was bad. She never even talked in first tense - individualism was unacceptable.
[/quote]

jetwet1 wrote:

or he could be a troll and I just fell for it lol.

[/quote]

I certainly hope he's a troll because if everybody in Russia is so indoctrinated, we're f@#$%d.

*Citizen's learning was a pure propaganda topic we had in school starting with Grade 5 all the way to the end of high school. It continued on the university too, but it was broken down into separate topics with it's own names. Heck, it was even a part of the state final exams at universities.

WildcatYXU wrote:

As I lived in one of those countries that experienced the soviet imperialism fist hand, I dislike it just as much as what western countries have done to our area (but that was before the soviet influence)

May I ask which country?

Bostrom wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

As I lived in one of those countries that experienced the soviet imperialism fist hand, I dislike it just as much as what western countries have done to our area (but that was before the soviet influence)

May I ask which country?

Sure. Czechoslovakia, later Slovakia. That's the area where my grandma was living in 5 countries without ever moving. OK, she moved once - but it was still in the same country where she was born. Then the countries started to change.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Again, somebody else's atrocity doesn't justify mine.

Hilarious.
...and No it does not justify.

But it explains rather well what moral authority that other entity has
and gives a good hint why this is brought up. obvious not to
foster iimproved behaviour after ones own example.

IMU this is meant when someone is called a "bigot"?
Demanding of others what he/she is not willing ( but cloaking it well) to follow him/herself.

WIederling wrote:

IMU this is meant when someone is called a "bigot"?
Demanding of others what he/she is not willing ( but cloaking it well) to follow him/herself.

I believe that would be hypocrite.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Sure. Czechoslovakia, later Slovakia. That's the area where my grandma was living in 5 countries without ever moving. OK, she moved once - but it was still in the same country where she was born. Then the countries started to change.

started to change? haha.

Redistribution of ownership or later national affiliation has been going on and on in that region for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Czechoslovakia

Poland has been moved all over the map. repeatedly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland

Only country I can think of that has a rather constant geographical shape is England
( independent existance of Wales, Scotland, Ireland going in an out over time.).

WIederling wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

Sure. Czechoslovakia, later Slovakia. That's the area where my grandma was living in 5 countries without ever moving. OK, she moved once - but it was still in the same country where she was born. Then the countries started to change.

started to change? haha.

Redistribution of ownership or later national affiliation has been going on and on in that region for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Czechoslovakia

Poland has been moved all over the map. repeatedly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland

Only country I can think of that has a rather constant geographical shape is England
( independent existance of Wales, Scotland, Ireland going in an out over time.).

You require an accurate definition of everything, don't you? So add in her vicinity and her lifetime.

Your first link is too late. She was born 21 years before Czechoslovakia was created. Moved 35 kms north about half year before Czechoslovakia was created. So she lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then it was the Democratic Czechoslovakia. It was followed by Horthy's post Vienna Arbitration Hungary. Then Czechoslovakia was back, this time the communist edition. I could add the post communist Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. And since she passed away in January 1993, she lived few days in current independent Slovakia. A lot of changes for one life time, wouldn't you think so?

You require an accurate definition of everything, don't you?

No, I was just ( trying to) turning your attention to the fact that communism and moving borders is not hardlinked
as you seem to have insinuated earlier.

WildcatYXU wrote:

You require an accurate definition of everything, don't you? So add in her vicinity and her lifetime.

Your first link is too late. She was born 21 years before Czechoslovakia was created. Moved 35 kms north about half year before Czechoslovakia was created. So she lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then it was the Democratic Czechoslovakia. It was followed by Horthy's post Vienna Arbitration Hungary. Then Czechoslovakia was back, this time the communist edition. I could add the post communist Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. And since she passed away in January 1993, she lived few days in current independent Slovakia. A lot of changes for one life time, wouldn't you think so?

Thank you for the brief history of your grandmother. Very interesting, and probably, quite common.

My grandparents on my mother's side came from what we today call Ukraine. They came to the USA, independently, about 1907, met and married in Brooklyn, New York, where my mother, their eldest child, was born in 1909.

My grandparents spoke Polish and Yiddish when they arrived in America. They considered themselves to be Polish.

The area that they came from had been, in fairly recent memory, Polish, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, western Ukraine and perhaps "other".

We have old photographs (pre-World War II) of some of my grandmother's relatives in Polish military uniform.

We do not know whether it was the Russians or Germans that were responsible for the complete destruction of my grandmother's village. No sign of it existed when the area was searched for possible family survivors in the late 1940s.

BobPatterson wrote:

Thank you for the brief history of your grandmother. Very interesting, and probably, quite common.

We do not know whether it was the Russians or Germans that were responsible for the complete destruction of my grandmother's village. No sign of it existed when the area was searched for possible family survivors in the late 1940s.

Yes, I dare to say her story is very common. And definitely happier than the story of your grandmother's village.

Bostrom wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

As for Czechoslovakia - I can't justify nor blame any of the parties. Of course - I'm sorry that those events took place. However, let's look at the final number of victims on both sides - they are about equal. Don't you find that this is not typical of "the brutal suppression of the rebellion army of civilians"?
Also, why in the invasion of Czechoslovakia blame only Soviet Union, but that the invasion took troops from Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland, have somehow forgotten?

Other countries invaded Czechoslovakia as well, true. But I find it hard to believe that it would have happened without the Soviet Union. But how about Hungary 1956? Or East Germany 1953? You are upset about Nato bombing another independent country, but can't blame the Soviet Union for doing the same?

Scorpius wrote:

Well, Yes - if we condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, why not condemn the invasion in Vietnam? How about condemnation of the invasion of Iraq?

I don't know where you get your news, but there were huge protests against the Iraq war in 2002/2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_ ... e_Iraq_War There were huge protest against the Vietnam war as well. Even a musical turned Hollywood movie protesting the war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNrqc6yvTU

However, if your reaction when Russia and the Soviet Union is criticized always is "but the west does bad things too", it's hard to take you seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque (Article available in russian as well.) It's important to be able to recognize that even your own country can do bad things. Look at how Germany has handled their nazi heritage, they have dealt with it and are now a respected country that no neighbouring countries are afraid of. (Even if they've had some PR-problems in Greece.)

Scorpius wrote:

2. Тhe problem is that our government suffers from paranoia - we see that and how do Western countries against us. You will not convince me that the NATO military bases on the territory of the former USSR republics intended for defense.You will not convince me that the NATO military bases on the territory of the former USSR republics intended for defense. And the fact that NATO closer to our borders are clear signs of aggression.

Great that you are able to admit the level of paranoia in Kreml. But, "You will not convince me" are the words of a fundamentalist, not the words of someone with an open mind. And it all boils down to if you think that independent states should be able to decide for themselves what to do, even if they happen to have a border with Russia?

As said earlier:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Here's one reason why: To keep your troops from coming back! Besides it's none of your business how Estonia, Poland or Slovenia organize their defense. Has it ever occurred to you that historical experience with Russia in the post-WW2 era is precisely the driving factor for NATO membership in countries too close to Russia for comfort?

The former Warzaw pact countries that joined Nato did so of their own free will. Probably as a way to remain independent. You were quick to point out that that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal, so i expect you to also admit that the Soviet occupation of Estonia was also illegal and the result of an invasion. I've met many people born and raised in the former Soviet satellite states, but I've yet to meet one person claiming that life was better before the fall of the Berlin wall.

The west doesn't hate Russia, even though that sometimes is the image that russian media tries to portray. But, we are not so fond of the current russian leaders, Putin is generally seen as an authoritarian leader doing his best to dismantle the last remains of democracy and turn himself into a dictator. But that doesn't mean I hate Russia and russians. Just as I don't hate the US just because I think Trump is not fit to be president.

I'm not here to deny anyone else's point of view. For starters, I could say that I support not all decisions of the Soviet and the current Russian leadership. However, let's be honest - Russians owe an apology to anyone, because if you understand the situation - almost everywhere the Russians were the victims of imperialist policies of the West. And as long as the Russian suffered in silence in the West was filled with high spirits. But as soon as the Russians began to say that they are tired, that their opinion is not taken into account, and that we have their political interests - how quickly the West began to stir up hysteria and anti-Russian propaganda. We can do multi-page debate with dozens of links to the story, but the common theme of my application is no country which is declared a victim of Russian aggression, is not the innocent victim.
In almost all cases, what is called the Soviet occupation or repression was a LOGICAL response of a superpower in certain events. Yes, often, the pattern resembles an elephant in a China shop - but this is the inevitable price for a complex political system that unites hundreds of different nationalities. No one has yet invented a better system, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union the world has not become more stable - on the contrary, more hotspots, more conflict, more injustice in the world. Your instructions on the events in Czechoslovakia or Hungary - it's just, even frivolous. I'm sorry, but in all of these events killed at least 10,000 people, while NATO only killed in Iraq several times more civilian, not counting the hundreds of thousands of refugees. I'm sorry, but Western countries are NOW being killed and oppressed more people than in the worst of times killed or oppressed in the USSR.
And you know that and against the events in Hungary, and against the events in Czechoslovakia were also protests in the Soviet Union? Have you read Yevgeny Yevtushenko's poem "Tanks go to Prague"? Try reading at least in translation.

As to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the countries in which glorify the SS battalions, they have the annual procession pass. There the Russian-speaking population still has a status "non-citizen", which means disqualification. Something too much of Nazism to the innocent victims of Soviet aggression, is not it?

BobPatterson wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

You require an accurate definition of everything, don't you? So add in her vicinity and her lifetime.

Your first link is too late. She was born 21 years before Czechoslovakia was created. Moved 35 kms north about half year before Czechoslovakia was created. So she lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then it was the Democratic Czechoslovakia. It was followed by Horthy's post Vienna Arbitration Hungary. Then Czechoslovakia was back, this time the communist edition. I could add the post communist Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. And since she passed away in January 1993, she lived few days in current independent Slovakia. A lot of changes for one life time, wouldn't you think so?

Thank you for the brief history of your grandmother. Very interesting, and probably, quite common.

My grandparents on my mother's side came from what we today call Ukraine. They came to the USA, independently, about 1907, met and married in Brooklyn, New York, where my mother, their eldest child, was born in 1909.

My grandparents spoke Polish and Yiddish when they arrived in America. They considered themselves to be Polish.

The area that they came from had been, in fairly recent memory, Polish, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, western Ukraine and perhaps "other".



We have old photographs (pre-World War II) of some of my grandmother's relatives in Polish military uniform.

We do not know whether it was the Russians or Germans that were responsible for the complete destruction of my grandmother's village. No sign of it existed when the area was searched for possible family survivors in the late 1940s.

My ancestors on the maternal side were old believers, which after the reform of the Church in the XVII century, were forced to flee from genotsitsa from their places of residence in the North-West of Russia. In the end, they settled on the territory of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, after having obtained permission of the authorities to the settlement. They subsequently during these three hundred years, not moving anywhere, lived in Poland, then in Russia, then under Austro-Hungary, then in the Ukrainian people's Republic, a couple of weeks in the Ukrainian Hetmanate, again in Russian, then Nazi Germany, then again in Russia (more precisely in the part of the Ukrainian SSR), it turned out on the territory of Ukraine. Do not find that slightly more than survived those Czechs? I myself, at 30 years old, was born and lived first in USSR, now live in Russia, and nobody can predict, whether there will be some changes before my eightieth birthday.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

As I lived in one of those countries that experienced the soviet imperialism fist hand, I dislike it just as much as what western countries have done to our area (but that was before the soviet influence)

May I ask which country?

Sure. Czechoslovakia, later Slovakia. That's the area where my grandma was living in 5 countries without ever moving. OK, she moved once - but it was still in the same country where she was born. Then the countries started to change.

Sure. Czechoslovakia, later Slovakia.

Yes, I do something similar is suspected. That you're either from Poland or from Czechoslovakia. You not know the Soviet Union because Czechoslovakia was not part of the USSR. By the way, Czechoslovakia was not a puppet state ruled by the same Czechs and Slovaks, just like you. No evil KGB agents from the Kremlin did not give special instructions to Czechoslovakia specially made life worse. Think about it - I think you are not those people blame for their troubles.

In this respect, the Soviet Union can be accused only in the same invasion in 1968, but again - we decide that judging by your statements you believe that 100 killed by Soviet troops in 1968, in Czechoslovakia, is a terrible crime, and 1700 civilians of Yugoslavia, killed by NATO troops in 1999, is not a crime and not awful, correctly I understood you?

To everyone: I apologize if not answered some of your question, it is difficult to conduct simultaneous discussions with multiple people in a different language. If I missed something and someone answered, I apologize - I'm not ignoring you and your question, but just could not miss the sight of him.

Scorpius wrote:

Yes, I do something similar is suspected. That you're either from Poland or from Czechoslovakia. You not know the Soviet Union because Czechoslovakia was not part of the USSR. By the way, Czechoslovakia was not a puppet state ruled by the same Czechs and Slovaks, just like you. No evil KGB agents from the Kremlin did not give special instructions to Czechoslovakia specially made life worse. Think about it - I think you are not those people blame for their troubles.

I really don't know what are you trying to say here, but i can assure I know more about life in a communist country and in the USSR than you. After all, you were 5 when the USSR was broken up.

Scorpius wrote:

In this respect, the Soviet Union can be accused only in the same invasion in 1968, but again - we decide that judging by your statements you believe that 100 killed by Soviet troops in 1968, in Czechoslovakia, is a terrible crime, and 1700 civilians of Yugoslavia, killed by NATO troops in 1999, is not a crime and not awful, correctly I understood you?

I'm not going to discuss the legitimacy of bombing the leftovers of Yugoslavia beyond stating that I don't think it was necessary (others may be of different opinion). However, you wrote something about NATO destroying Yugoslavia. Do you realize that at the time of bombing there was a bloody war in the area going on already for 8 years? Just in case you didn't get it, for 8 years. With over hundred thousand casualties and millions displaced, with massive loss of infrastructure and property. So saying "NATO" destroyed Yugoslavia is very inaccurate (to put it delicately)

WildcatYXU wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Yes, I do something similar is suspected. That you're either from Poland or from Czechoslovakia. You not know the Soviet Union because Czechoslovakia was not part of the USSR. By the way, Czechoslovakia was not a puppet state ruled by the same Czechs and Slovaks, just like you. No evil KGB agents from the Kremlin did not give special instructions to Czechoslovakia specially made life worse. Think about it - I think you are not those people blame for their troubles.

I really don't know what are you trying to say here, but i can assure I know more about life in a communist country and in the USSR than you. After all, you were 5 when the USSR was broken up.

Scorpius wrote:

In this respect, the Soviet Union can be accused only in the same invasion in 1968, but again - we decide that judging by your statements you believe that 100 killed by Soviet troops in 1968, in Czechoslovakia, is a terrible crime, and 1700 civilians of Yugoslavia, killed by NATO troops in 1999, is not a crime and not awful, correctly I understood you?

I'm not going to discuss the legitimacy of bombing the leftovers of Yugoslavia beyond stating that I don't think it was necessary (others may be of different opinion). However, you wrote something about NATO destroying Yugoslavia. Do you realize that at the time of bombing there was a bloody war in the area going on already for 8 years? Just in case you didn't get it, for 8 years. With over hundred thousand casualties and millions displaced, with massive loss of infrastructure and property. So saying "NATO" destroyed Yugoslavia is very inaccurate (to put it delicately)

I'm talking about NATO, about the same degree of inaccuracy that you about the Soviet Union and the events in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
But you never answered - do you blame the USSR for 100 dead in Czechoslovakia, but you don't blame NATO for 1700 dead civilians in Yugoslavia. You justify the bombing of civilian cities by the fact that there supposedly was a war. But in Czechoslovakia, for example, was a revolution in government. Why the INTERNAL Affairs of Yugoslavia was the reason for the bombing and killing of thousands of unarmed people, and the INTERNAL Affairs of Czechoslovakia could not be a pretext for the Soviet invasion? We call it double standards. You can't appreciate the aggression alone as an absolute evil, and at the same time enjoy more aggression other as a blessing. Decide already, pick a side.

Scorpius wrote:

you believe that 100 killed by Soviet troops in 1968, in Czechoslovakia, is a terrible crime, and 1700 civilians of Yugoslavia, killed by NATO troops in 1999, is not a crime and not awful,

You do realize that Czechoslovakia in 1968 was nominally and formally ally of the USSR and ironically the invasion and consequent Russian occupation was the only military action the Warsaw Pact ever saw in its history? If the objective was only to change the commie leadership in Czechoslovakia, there was no need for 7000 tanks and 500,000 soldiers in the streets. It was soldiers vs. civilians as the military was ordered to stand down, because even the commies were caught by surprise by being invaded by their comrades.
Anyway, a platoon of paratroopers would be enough to kidnap that sissy Dubcek and his fellow cowards. I am afraid the Kremlin actually started to believe all the nonsense about "counterrevolution" and NATO troops on the border. Once again, an example of Russian paranoia not confronted with any serious analysis and fact-checking: The US filmmakers have been shooting in northern Bohemia and around Prague in the summer of 1968 the movie "Bridge at Remagen"... that's where the stories about troops amassing at the border most likely came from.

In Yugoslavia it was NATO vs. regular Serbian "Yugoslav" army, which at the time of the intervention, waged wars against its federal neighbors for almost 8 years and committed numerous atrocities (with Russian backing and blessing at the UNSC). As much as civilian casualties are a tragedy the Serbs had an opportunity to simply part their ways with Slovenia, Croatia and others in a peaceful manner. They chose to keep it together by force and Milosevic should had been bombed back into stone age in June 1991 when he attacked Slovenia.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

you believe that 100 killed by Soviet troops in 1968, in Czechoslovakia, is a terrible crime, and 1700 civilians of Yugoslavia, killed by NATO troops in 1999, is not a crime and not awful,

You do realize that Czechoslovakia in 1968 was nominally and formally ally of the USSR and ironically the invasion and consequent Russian occupation was the only military action the Warsaw Pact ever saw in its history? If the objective was only to change the commie leadership in Czechoslovakia, there was no need for 7000 tanks and 500,000 soldiers in the streets. It was soldiers vs. civilians as the military was ordered to stand down, because even the commies were caught by surprise by being invaded by their comrades.
Anyway, a platoon of paratroopers would be enough to kidnap that sissy Dubcek and his fellow cowards. I am afraid the Kremlin actually started to believe all the nonsense about "counterrevolution" and NATO troops on the border. Once again, an example of Russian paranoia not confronted with any serious analysis and fact-checking: The US filmmakers have been shooting in northern Bohemia and around Prague in the summer of 1968 the movie "Bridge at Remagen"... that's where the stories about troops amassing at the border most likely came from.

In Yugoslavia it was NATO vs. regular Serbian "Yugoslav" army, which at the time of the intervention, waged wars against its federal neighbors for almost 8 years and committed numerous atrocities (with Russian backing and blessing at the UNSC). As much as civilian casualties are a tragedy the Serbs had an opportunity to simply part their ways with Slovenia, Croatia and others in a peaceful manner. They chose to keep it together by force and Milosevic should had been bombed back into stone age in June 1991 when he attacked Slovenia.

First, those whom you insist on calling commies (Russian language it is translated as an insulting nickname), twenty years before, had saved the world from Nazism, including the Czechoslovakia, which has successfully worked for the Nazis, producing for them tanks and planes. A considerable number of soldiers and commanders of the Soviet army killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia. And almost all of them were Communists, those whom you now through the lip are called commies. Second, the position of Czechoslovakia within the Warsaw Pact has nothing to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia. In the first and in the second case, there were victims among the civilian population, in the first and in the second case, these victims died from the weapons of the invading army. Only in the first case 100 people died, and the second 1700. Why killing 100 people is a terrible crime, and the murder of 1,700 people is "Serbs forced us to kill them"?

About the supposedly terrible massacre - stories, as with the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Stories that are designed to legitimize MASS murder of PEOPLE. At the same time, the West somehow didn't care about the history of mass genocide of the Russian population, which was in the former republics of the Soviet Union after its collapse.

Scorpius wrote:

Maybe you've heard a Russian student recently played in the Bundestag in Germany? His performance in Russia caused a very large negative response, in particular, I would like to cite the words of one of the Russian bloggers:Maybe you've heard a Russian student recently played in the Bundestag in Germany? His performance in Russia caused a very large negative response, in particular, I would like to cite the words of one of the Russian bloggers:
"If I had to speak in the Bundestag, as the boy Cole, I said these words:
— Dear deputies. Today I saw a miracle. And this miracle is called Germany. I walked to you and looked at the beautiful Berlin streets, the people, wonderful monuments, and now I stand here and look at you. And I understand that everything is a miracle. You all were born and live in Germany. Why do I think so?
[i][i]Because given that your soldiers did we have in the occupied territories, the soldiers of the red Army had the moral right to destroy the entire German people. To leave the place Germany scorched field, the ruins, and only paragraphs of textbooks would be reminded of what was once a country.
You probably don't remember all the details of the occupation, but this is not necessary. I'll just remind you that the soldiers of the Wehrmacht and the SS did to the Soviet children. They were shot. Often in the eyes of the parents. Or Vice versa, first shot father and mother, and then in children. Your soldiers raped children. Children were burned alive. Sent to concentration camps. Where they took blood to make the serum for your soldiers. Children starved. The children ate to the death of your shepherd. Children used as targets. Children brutally tortured just for fun.
Or here you have two examples. Officer of the Wehrmacht was difficult to sleep the baby, he took him by the leg and smashed his head on the corner of the stove. Your pilots on the station Lychkovo bombed the train, which was trying to take the children to the rear, and then your aces chased the terrified kids, shooting them in a bare field. Killed two thousand children.
Only one what did you do with the children, once again, the Red Army could have destroyed Germany completely with its inhabitants. Had the moral right. But I didn't. Do I regret this? Of course not. I admire the steel will of my ancestors who found some incredible power, not to become the same beast, what were soldiers of the Wehrmacht. On the buckles of German soldiers was written "God With us". But they were the devil incarnate and suffered hell on our land. The soldiers of the red Army were members of the Komsomol and Communists, but the Soviet people were much more Christian than the inhabitants of the enlightened religious of Europe. And did not retaliate. Unable to understand what the hell hell did not win.
You do not need to ask us for forgiveness, because you personally are not to blame. You can't be responsible for their grandfathers and great grandfathers. And then, only God forgives. But I'll be honest – for me the Germans are forever foreign, alien people. It's not because you personally are bad. It's in me shouts pain burnt by the Wehrmacht children. And you have to accept that at least my generation — for whom the memory of the war it honors my grandfather, his scars, his front-line friends will perceive you. What will happen then, I don't know. Maybe we will come mankurt who will be forgotten. And we much to do that, we pissed away a lot of that yourself, but I hope that all is not lost for Russia.
We certainly need to cooperate. Russians and Germans. We need together to solve problems. To combat ISIS and to build the pipelines. But you have to accept one fact: we will never repent for our Great war. And even more for the Victory. And especially in front of you. Anyway, again, my generation.
[/i][/i]Because it saved not only himself. We saved you from yourselves. And I don't even know what's important."

Speaking of christian: I do not think that Jesus would approve of the notion that genocide is right even if the people you are killing tried to kill your people first. And it is not like the Red Army where saints all the way, they did their fair share of killing and raping civilians too. However we shall never forget that Germany brought it all upon itself and the Wehrmacht undoubtedly did way more evil things. Having said that I think the boy is treated unfairly. He just wanted to contribute to reconciliation between Germany and Russia. Can I ask if you know who wrote the following words:

"my mother was a soft hearted and graceful woman [...] she said: 'how can you hate these people? These were average people and they died in the war too.' That was most astounding. We were taught by soviet books and movies. And we did hate. But for some reason she did not. 'What do you want of them. They were brave workers too, just like us. They were pushed to the frontlines.' I remember these words from my childhood days."

Thank you for this thread and for explaining the view of the "average Russian". I have a few more questions, hope you don't mind:

How many Russians do share your view of Russia as a victim of western aggression?
Is there a reasonable opposition to Russian mainstream political thought or are those people all either fascists or lunatics?
Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?
What do you think did happen to the more than 6 billion Euros Germany paid for the relocation of soviet troops from eastern Germany to Russia?

Best regards,
Jan

Ze

Scorpius wrote:

First, those whom you insist on calling commies (Russian language it is translated as an insulting nickname), twenty years before, had saved the world from Nazism,.

As far as I am concerned, nazism and communism are the same evil, only the colors and insignias are slightly different (and the piles of dead these two inhumane systems left behind).
There should have been a Nuremberg trial with communism back in the early 1990s.

Scorpius wrote:

including the Czechoslovakia, which has successfully worked for the Nazis, producing for them tanks and planes..

Oh please spare me... Coming from a Russian whose country actively helped the nazis to rearm in the 1930s, allowed them to,conduct secret weapons test in violation of the Versailles Treaty and supplied Hitler with fuel as late as the Battle of Britain. And let's not forget about the love affair between Stalin and Hitler through Ribbentrop - Molotov, they did such great job invading Poland together...

Joint Red Army - Wehrmacht parade at Brest-Litovsk.

Scorpius wrote:

A considerable number of soldiers and commanders of the Soviet army killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia.

Whatever it was that came with the Red Army was anything but liberty. The so called "liberation" was in fact just an export of communism. The Red Army was a terrible meat grinder, where human life was worth nothing and while it is a tragedy on a individual basis, the emotional blackmail coming from Russia is just cynical, because the human losses mean nothing in Russia.

Scorpius wrote:

the history of mass genocide of the Russian population, which was in the former republics of the Soviet Union after its collapse.

The last genocide in Russia against its own population was carried in the 1930s out by your dear leader Stalin, a mass murderer you revere so much.Alcoholism is decimating the population almost just as effectively if you will.

KL785 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Maybe you've heard a Russian student recently played in the Bundestag in Germany? His performance in Russia caused a very large negative response, in particular, I would like to cite the words of one of the Russian bloggers:Maybe you've heard a Russian student recently played in the Bundestag in Germany? His performance in Russia caused a very large negative response, in particular, I would like to cite the words of one of the Russian bloggers:
"If I had to speak in the Bundestag, as the boy Cole, I said these words:
— Dear deputies. Today I saw a miracle. And this miracle is called Germany. I walked to you and looked at the beautiful Berlin streets, the people, wonderful monuments, and now I stand here and look at you. And I understand that everything is a miracle. You all were born and live in Germany. Why do I think so?
[i][i]Because given that your soldiers did we have in the occupied territories, the soldiers of the red Army had the moral right to destroy the entire German people. To leave the place Germany scorched field, the ruins, and only paragraphs of textbooks would be reminded of what was once a country.
You probably don't remember all the details of the occupation, but this is not necessary. I'll just remind you that the soldiers of the Wehrmacht and the SS did to the Soviet children. They were shot. Often in the eyes of the parents. Or Vice versa, first shot father and mother, and then in children. Your soldiers raped children. Children were burned alive. Sent to concentration camps. Where they took blood to make the serum for your soldiers. Children starved. The children ate to the death of your shepherd. Children used as targets. Children brutally tortured just for fun.
Or here you have two examples. Officer of the Wehrmacht was difficult to sleep the baby, he took him by the leg and smashed his head on the corner of the stove. Your pilots on the station Lychkovo bombed the train, which was trying to take the children to the rear, and then your aces chased the terrified kids, shooting them in a bare field. Killed two thousand children.
Only one what did you do with the children, once again, the Red Army could have destroyed Germany completely with its inhabitants. Had the moral right. But I didn't. Do I regret this? Of course not. I admire the steel will of my ancestors who found some incredible power, not to become the same beast, what were soldiers of the Wehrmacht. On the buckles of German soldiers was written "God With us". But they were the devil incarnate and suffered hell on our land. The soldiers of the red Army were members of the Komsomol and Communists, but the Soviet people were much more Christian than the inhabitants of the enlightened religious of Europe. And did not retaliate. Unable to understand what the hell hell did not win.
You do not need to ask us for forgiveness, because you personally are not to blame. You can't be responsible for their grandfathers and great grandfathers. And then, only God forgives. But I'll be honest – for me the Germans are forever foreign, alien people. It's not because you personally are bad. It's in me shouts pain burnt by the Wehrmacht children. And you have to accept that at least my generation — for whom the memory of the war it honors my grandfather, his scars, his front-line friends will perceive you. What will happen then, I don't know. Maybe we will come mankurt who will be forgotten. And we much to do that, we pissed away a lot of that yourself, but I hope that all is not lost for Russia.
We certainly need to cooperate. Russians and Germans. We need together to solve problems. To combat ISIS and to build the pipelines. But you have to accept one fact: we will never repent for our Great war. And even more for the Victory. And especially in front of you. Anyway, again, my generation.
[/i][/i]Because it saved not only himself. We saved you from yourselves. And I don't even know what's important."

Speaking of christian: I do not think that Jesus would approve of the notion that genocide is right even if the people you are killing tried to kill your people first. And it is not like the Red Army where saints all the way, they did their fair share of killing and raping civilians too. However we shall never forget that Germany brought it all upon itself and the Wehrmacht undoubtedly did way more evil things. Having said that I think the boy is treated unfairly. He just wanted to contribute to reconciliation between Germany and Russia. Can I ask if you know who wrote the following words:

"my mother was a soft hearted and graceful woman [...] she said: 'how can you hate these people? These were average people and they died in the war too.' That was most astounding. We were taught by soviet books and movies. And we did hate. But for some reason she did not. 'What do you want of them. They were brave workers too, just like us. They were pushed to the frontlines.' I remember these words from my childhood days."

Thank you for this thread and for explaining the view of the "average Russian". I have a few more questions, hope you don't mind:

How many Russians do share your view of Russia as a victim of western aggression?
Is there a reasonable opposition to Russian mainstream political thought or are those people all either fascists or lunatics?
Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?
What do you think did happen to the more than 6 billion Euros Germany paid for the relocation of soviet troops from eastern Germany to Russia?

Best regards,
Jan

1.

How many Russians do share your view of Russia as a victim of western aggression?

Approximately 80-85%
2.

Is there a reasonable opposition to Russian mainstream political thought or are those people all either fascists or lunatics?

for a start, you are categorically incorrect to pose the question, using demagogic techniques. Russian politicians in General are not different from Western ones. Half the things you say our politicians, you don't understand, not knowing the context, you misinterpret half your media. In this respect, in Britain more fascist Parliament and the German Bundestag consists of lunatics.
3.

Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?

4.

Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?

Gorbachev in General in the country despise, calling him a traitor who sold the Soviet Union. Even more than Gorbachev, Yeltsin despised, propyl remnants of the country.
The collapse of the USSR brought not economic reasons, and the political incapacity of the elites. By the way, legally the decision on the dissolution of the Soviet Union is illegal as the referendum, about 80% of the Soviet population voted for the preservation of the state and the state system.
5.

What do you think did happen to the more than 6 billion Euros Germany paid for the relocation of soviet troops from eastern Germany to Russia?

The money was mostly stolen.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Ze

Scorpius wrote:

First, those whom you insist on calling commies (Russian language it is translated as an insulting nickname), twenty years before, had saved the world from Nazism,.

As far as I am concerned, nazism and communism are the same evil, only the colors and insignias are slightly different (and the piles of dead these two inhumane systems left behind).
There should have been a Nuremberg trial with communism back in the early 1990s.

Scorpius wrote:

including the Czechoslovakia, which has successfully worked for the Nazis, producing for them tanks and planes..

Oh please spare me... Coming from a Russian whose country actively helped the nazis to rearm in the 1930s, allowed them to,conduct secret weapons test in violation of the Versailles Treaty and supplied Hitler with fuel as late as the Battle of Britain. And let's not forget about the love affair between Stalin and Hitler through Ribbentrop - Molotov, they did such great job invading Poland together...

Joint Red Army - Wehrmacht parade at Brest-Litovsk.

Scorpius wrote:

A considerable number of soldiers and commanders of the Soviet army killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia.

Whatever it was that came with the Red Army was anything but liberty. The so called "liberation" was in fact just an export of communism. The Red Army was a terrible meat grinder, where human life was worth nothing and while it is a tragedy on a individual basis, the emotional blackmail coming from Russia is just cynical, because the human losses mean nothing in Russia.

Scorpius wrote:

the history of mass genocide of the Russian population, which was in the former republics of the Soviet Union after its collapse.

The last genocide in Russia against its own population was carried in the 1930s out by your dear leader Stalin, a mass murderer you revere so much.Alcoholism is decimating the population almost just as effectively if you will.

You are talking utter nonsense. First, 90% of trucks in the Wehrmacht were put to him by Ford plants. when the Ford plants were the Soviet? Secondly, how dare you have something there to talk about collaboration with the Nazis, when all of Europe and the United States actively helped the formation of the Nazis. About the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all you should be ashamed to mention after the Pact of Hitler-Pilsudski and the Munich agreement. I already stipulated earlier, however, you continue to talk nonsense. And Yes, to compare communism with Nazism is the true price European thanks. At that time, the USSR has donated over 30 million lives in the liberation of Europe, Europeans, sticking out his little finger, are swaggering talk about the fact that communism, say, Nazism is no different. You say some terrible things, I can't believe that a person can be so lacking conscience, reason and humanity. For you human life means nothing, just like you broadcast without change promotional texts, it's some kind of surreal nightmare.


Parade of the German-American Alliance in new York, East 86th St. 30 Oct 1939.


Handshake Polish Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigly and German attache, major-General of Bogislav von Studnitz on parade "independence Day" in Warsaw on 11 November 1938. Photo notable for the fact that the Polish parade was particularly attached to the capture of Cieszyn Silesia in the previous month. At the parade was specially column těšín poles, and in Germany on the eve of 9 to 10 November 1938, a so-called "crystal night", the first mass action of direct physical violence against the Jews in the Third Reich.

Scorpius wrote:

KL785 wrote:

Is there a reasonable opposition to Russian mainstream political thought or are those people all either fascists or lunatics?

for a start, you are categorically incorrect to pose the question, using demagogic techniques. Russian politicians in General are not different from Western ones. Half the things you say our politicians, you don't understand, not knowing the context, you misinterpret half your media. In this respect, in Britain more fascist Parliament

I'm not sure you did understand what I was trying to ask. I did not mean to say that Russian politicians are generally fascists or lunatics. Some are - Shirinovsky seems to be both - but that's not my point.

It seems to me that the opposition to Putin in Russia is labeled as fascist and/or crazy by Russian mainstream media. At least that is what is often reported in western media. Do you think that is true (the labeling of the opposition)? And do you think those Russians who critizise the Russian government are a valueable part of Russian society?

and the German Bundestag consists of lunatics.

that seems to be an accurate description of a fairly large part of them
With the AfD we have a party that tolerates Neo-Nazi figures in their ranks and which is in part being financed by Russian banks close to the Kremlin. Same with the Front National in France. What do you think about that?

Scorpius wrote:

Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?

Gorbachev in General in the country despise, calling him a traitor who sold the Soviet Union. Even more than Gorbachev, Yeltsin despised, propyl remnants of the country.
The collapse of the USSR brought not economic reasons, and the political incapacity of the elites. By the way, legally the decision on the dissolution of the Soviet Union is illegal as the referendum, about 80% of the Soviet population voted for the preservation of the state and the state system.

I don't think the economic problems the countries of the former USSR suffered in the 1990ies where all caused by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. At the beginning of the 1980s the soviet economy was still growing but the growth had slowed down significantly. The price of oil was falling and the USSR's production of oil was sinking too. You were engaged in a ruinous arms race with NATO and a costly war in Afghanistan. At the same time the USSR needed Dollars to pay for food imports from the west because the country's agricultural sector could not feed its own population. This seems like a very difficult situation. Nobody knows what would have happened if there had not been any reforms but to me it is pretty clear that the economic system of the USSR was not sustainable under these circumstances.

Scorpius wrote:

What do you think did happen to the more than 6 billion Euros Germany paid for the relocation of soviet troops from eastern Germany to Russia?

The money was mostly stolen.

Well that is sad but not entirely unexpected.

KL785 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

KL785 wrote:

Is there a reasonable opposition to Russian mainstream political thought or are those people all either fascists or lunatics?

for a start, you are categorically incorrect to pose the question, using demagogic techniques. Russian politicians in General are not different from Western ones. Half the things you say our politicians, you don't understand, not knowing the context, you misinterpret half your media. In this respect, in Britain more fascist Parliament

I'm not sure you did understand what I was trying to ask. I did not mean to say that Russian politicians are generally fascists or lunatics. Some are - Shirinovsky seems to be both - but that's not my point.

It seems to me that the opposition to Putin in Russia is labeled as fascist and/or crazy by Russian mainstream media. At least that is what is often reported in western media. Do you think that is true (the labeling of the opposition)? And do you think those Russians who critizise the Russian government are a valueable part of Russian society?

and the German Bundestag consists of lunatics.

that seems to be an accurate description of a fairly large part of them
With the AfD we have a party that tolerates Neo-Nazi figures in their ranks and which is in part being financed by Russian banks close to the Kremlin. Same with the Front National in France. What do you think about that?

Scorpius wrote:

Why do you think did Gorbachev started Perestroika, in what economic shape was the Soviet Union in 1985 ?

Gorbachev in General in the country despise, calling him a traitor who sold the Soviet Union. Even more than Gorbachev, Yeltsin despised, propyl remnants of the country.
The collapse of the USSR brought not economic reasons, and the political incapacity of the elites. By the way, legally the decision on the dissolution of the Soviet Union is illegal as the referendum, about 80% of the Soviet population voted for the preservation of the state and the state system.

I don't think the economic problems the countries of the former USSR suffered in the 1990ies where all caused by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. At the beginning of the 1980s the soviet economy was still growing but the growth had slowed down significantly. The price of oil was falling and the USSR's production of oil was sinking too. You were engaged in a ruinous arms race with NATO and a costly war in Afghanistan. At the same time the USSR needed Dollars to pay for food imports from the west because the country's agricultural sector could not feed its own population. This seems like a very difficult situation. Nobody knows what would have happened if there had not been any reforms but to me it is pretty clear that the economic system of the USSR was not sustainable under these circumstances.

Scorpius wrote:

What do you think did happen to the more than 6 billion Euros Germany paid for the relocation of soviet troops from eastern Germany to Russia?

The money was mostly stolen.

Well that is sad but not entirely unexpected.

Some are - Shirinovsky seems to be both - but that's not my point.

Oh, Zhirinovsky at us in the opinion of many, is something of a court jester. It is rarely taken seriously.

It seems to me that the opposition to Putin in Russia is labeled as fascist and/or crazy by Russian mainstream media.

You know, people like Navalny really use nationalist rhetoric. For example, it the Bulk a few years ago invented the political slogan "Stop feeding the Caucasus!" implying that the government needs to stop subsidizing the Caucasus regions of Russia like Chechnya or Dagestan. But these regions are subsidized for many years, and cease to invest money in it is to condemn their people to poverty and hunger. How do you think you have in the West began to treat the policy, which would call all black people bums, drug addicts and criminals? A Bulk is approximately speaks of Caucasians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and others, whose skin is in his opinion is not sufficiently white.
In the media, of course, to a certain extent exaggerate, however the basis for these news is real.

And do you think those Russians who critizise the Russian government are a valueable part of Russian society?

Mainly in opposition to the present power in Russia is those, who did not find the events of 1991-1999 years, famine, rampant crime and corruption, and does not understand that Putin came to power was the salvation for the country. To him and his methods can be viewed as anything, but it is impossible not to admit that after his coming the lives of the people in General began to improve.
That is, I want to say that there are some problems that really exist and which are really worth discussing, but in Russia there is no such opposition politicians who have built their rhetoric on the basis of proposals by the decision of such matters. Basically, their speeches amount to about this: "Putin is bad and must go, but we are good and should come to power. And then once it becomes all good." Not find it insufficiently substantiated political agenda? There are literally a handful of oppositionists, who can well defend their point of view, and with whom I generally agree, but none of them is a famous politician.
You need to understand the main thing - in the role of the opposition in Russia are the representatives of various oligarchs who want to access the uncontrolled looting of the country, as it was in the nineties.
So the answer to your question is this: I certainly understand that the existence of opposition is necessary for normal functioning of the state. However, most of the current so-called "opposition" in Russia - are not of any particularly valuable part of our society, as do empty criticism without specific proposals for solving problems. This is called populism.

With the AfD we have a party that tolerates Neo-Nazi figures in their ranks and which is in part being financed by Russian banks close to the Kremlin. Same with the Front National in France. What do you think about that?

Oh, Russia's open support of neo-Nazis would likely have been political suicide is clearly not the point, which is valid in the Russian society in the next hundred years. At the same time, I was not the first to see how Western media uses accusations of neo-Nazism after someone said that he was unhappy with rampant crime after the advent of refugees from Arab regions.So I would take caution to this issue, Marie Le Pen did not seem to me supporting Nazi ideology, and moderate nationalism involves only defending the interests of the nation, and not the oppression that this nation does not belong. In General, I can say that in Russia the excessive tolerance is not frowned upon, but Nazism is an ideology hostile in the opinion of the majority of citizens.
What to support Le Pen in the elections - it is a politician who potentially is configured to dialogue with Russia. I'm not surprised that the Russian government decided to support it. Because almost all opposition parties in Russia, loyal to the West, supported by Western countries financially and politically. Russia's support of the loyal opposition in Western countries is a logical return stroke. About support neonazisti figures in Germany, I've never heard of, so I ask you podrobnee to tell me about it if you do not complicate it.

Nobody knows what would have happened if there had not been any reforms but to me it is pretty clear that the economic system of the USSR was not sustainable under these circumstances.

No economic system can not be in conditions of economic embargo and constant preparation for global war. To a large extent the collapse of the USSR contributed to the West, and it is an absolute unprecedented act of aggression, and Russia will not forget for a very many years.


Thank You for your calm attitude and for the fact that you ask specific questions about specific problems.

Scorpius wrote:

Mainly in opposition to the present power in Russia is those, who did not find the events of 1991-1999 years, famine, rampant crime and corruption, and does not understand that Putin came to power was the salvation for the country. To him and his methods can be viewed as anything, but it is impossible not to admit that after his coming the lives of the people in General began to improve.

To me, you just put all your cards on the table with your answer. No surprise to me at all based on your posts. A real cheerleader!!

mmo wrote:

To me, you just put all your cards on the table with your answer. No surprise to me at all based on your posts. A real cheerleader!!

With best wishes from Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger, me seemeth.

Yeltsin's end also was the end of looting the country by foreign powers. Proven by The West painting Putin in satanic colours.

i.e. I don't think you know much about your own ?unconcious? cheerleadership.
We had a young American gentleman and Trump supporter here interviewed in a talk show 14 month ago
who actually believed that social strife in the US was caused by all that money spent on protecting Europe.

Even the former US ambassador Kornblum, also present, got his eyebrows gyrated into knots.
( Kornblum made the news when he gloriously "freed" all those DDR dissidents ( the overwhelming marjority
later turned out to be CIA recruits inserted in a ham fisted way and easily caught accordingly. )

WIederling wrote:

mmo wrote:

To me, you just put all your cards on the table with your answer. No surprise to me at all based on your posts. A real cheerleader!!

With best wishes from Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger, me seemeth.

Yeltsin's end also was the end of looting the country by foreign powers. Proven by The West painting Putin in satanic colours.

i.e. I don't think you know much about your own ?unconcious? cheerleadership.
We had a young American gentleman and Trump supporter here interviewed in a talk show 14 month ago
who actually believed that social strife in the US was caused by all that money spent on protecting Europe.

Even the former US ambassador Kornblum, also present, got his eyebrows gyrated into knots.
( Kornblum made the news when he gloriously "freed" all those DDR dissidents ( the overwhelming marjority
later turned out to be CIA recruits inserted in a ham fisted way and easily caught accordingly. )

You know absolutely nothing about me, my beliefs, my values or my political views.

So, perhaps you can come up with a coherent response instead of the instead of some off the wall meaningless dribble.

Believe me, I am as far from being a Trump supporter as there can be. So, for you to lump me in the same category just
goes to show how gullible, irresponsible and intellectually challenged you are! Pleas continue posting, it's very revealing and
quite amusing.

mmo wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Mainly in opposition to the present power in Russia is those, who did not find the events of 1991-1999 years, famine, rampant crime and corruption, and does not understand that Putin came to power was the salvation for the country. To him and his methods can be viewed as anything, but it is impossible not to admit that after his coming the lives of the people in General began to improve.

To me, you just put all your cards on the table with your answer. No surprise to me at all based on your posts. A real cheerleader!!

But how can you ignore reality? Indeed, Putin enjoys the support of the people. As a minimum, because all the others are much worse. Russia is still among the most popular leaders included Stalin - because during his reign, Russia went from an agrarian country, ravaged by civil war to superpower, which first went into space, which played a crucial role in world politics. No amount of propaganda by the Western media about the bad Putin won't be able to undo the achievements that have occurred while he was in power. It can be a lot of questions on various domestic political issues, but to start the conversation "Putin is bad because everyone says so" is not a good way of debate.

mmo wrote:

You know absolutely nothing about me, my beliefs, my values or my political views.

We do have a glimpse on those derived from your postings.
That must suffice for the time being.

Scorpius wrote:

But how can you ignore reality? Indeed, Putin enjoys the support of the people. As a minimum, because all the others are much worse. Russia is still among the most popular leaders included Stalin - because during his reign, Russia went from an agrarian country, ravaged by civil war to superpower, which first went into space, which played a crucial role in world politics. No amount of propaganda by the Western media about the bad Putin won't be able to undo the achievements that have occurred while he was in power. It can be a lot of questions on various domestic political issues, but to start the conversation "Putin is bad because everyone says so" is not a good way of debate.

Do you think Russia is still a superpower?

And what are the achievements of Putin?

Do you think Russia is still a superpower?

There is no one simple answer to this question.
Russia still has many problems - for example economy is quite inefficient (GNP is relatively low - not appropriate level for superpower).

But Russia has quite significant importance in international politics (in this area its definitely can be called superpower)

And what are the achievements of Putin?

In late 90s Russia was almost collapsing state with several regions on a verge of declaring independence. With collapsing economy (importing food 'cause local agriculture wasn't able to produce enough). With outrageous level of crime - in my hometown gangs waged wars for control of territory using AK-47.

When I was a student one of the university professors (who also was quite successful businessman) was killed during the lecture in front of approximately 100 students - three guys in masks went in with AK-47 and tore him apart with bullets. Literally. Killers were never found.

Now we have more or less stable situation. In this year Russia produced more grain than during the best year in Soviet Union.

Don't get me wrong - there are still a lot of problems in Russia. But in comparison with late Yeltsin times - it's really so much better, you can't even compare.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But how can you ignore reality? Indeed, Putin enjoys the support of the people. As a minimum, because all the others are much worse. Russia is still among the most popular leaders included Stalin - because during his reign, Russia went from an agrarian country, ravaged by civil war to superpower, which first went into space, which played a crucial role in world politics. No amount of propaganda by the Western media about the bad Putin won't be able to undo the achievements that have occurred while he was in power. It can be a lot of questions on various domestic political issues, but to start the conversation "Putin is bad because everyone says so" is not a good way of debate.

Do you think Russia is still a superpower?

And what are the achievements of Putin?

Do you think Russia is still a superpower?

Of course. Despite a serious weakening in the nineties, Russia remains a superpower, how would anyone in the West would like to pretend that it is not.

And what are the achievements of Putin?

1. Restoring order in Chechnya.
2. The recovery of the Russian economy after a decade of decline.
3. The restoration of the army and production in the country.

If to speak very briefly - here they are. In fact, you just don't know, haven't seen and can't even imagine what was going on in Russia under Yeltsin. With the advent of Putin's life in the country gradually began to improve. Is this enough or do you need to explain in more detail?

Scorpius wrote:

Of course. Despite a serious weakening in the nineties, Russia remains a superpower, how would anyone in the West would like to pretend that it is not.

- what is a superpower in your eyes?
- in what sense do you see Russia as a superpower?

Scorpius wrote:

1. Restoring order in Chechnya.
2. The recovery of the Russian economy after a decade of decline.
3. The restoration of the army and production in the country.

If to speak very briefly - here they are. In fact, you just don't know, haven't seen and can't even imagine what was going on in Russia under Yeltsin. With the advent of Putin's life in the country gradually began to improve. Is this enough or do you need to explain in more detail?

1. Crushing opposition and restoring a repressive regime.
2. Mostly due to high oil prices, not much achievement from Putin
3. Building up the military to 5,4% spending of the GDP, is this truly an achievement which benefits Russia in the end, and if so why?

Look, I understand that after the fall of the USSR, Russia was in chaos and Putin promised something and Russians wanted stability and a strong man in the Kremlin. Putin is indeed the strong man, but can you honestly say that the route to democratization and freedom (under Jeltsin) was rightfully given up for an autocratic regime which robs the Russian people in exchange for more stability and a bit of economic growth (which would have come either way, because of the oil prices).

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Of course. Despite a serious weakening in the nineties, Russia remains a superpower, how would anyone in the West would like to pretend that it is not.

- what is a superpower in your eyes?
- in what sense do you see Russia as a superpower?

Scorpius wrote:

1. Restoring order in Chechnya.
2. The recovery of the Russian economy after a decade of decline.
3. The restoration of the army and production in the country.

If to speak very briefly - here they are. In fact, you just don't know, haven't seen and can't even imagine what was going on in Russia under Yeltsin. With the advent of Putin's life in the country gradually began to improve. Is this enough or do you need to explain in more detail?

1. Crushing opposition and restoring a repressive regime.
2. Mostly due to high oil prices, not much achievement from Putin
3. Building up the military to 5,4% spending of the GDP, is this truly an achievement which benefits Russia in the end, and if so why?

Look, I understand that after the fall of the USSR, Russia was in chaos and Putin promised something and Russians wanted stability and a strong man in the Kremlin. Putin is indeed the strong man, but can you honestly say that the route to democratization and freedom (under Jeltsin) was rightfully given up for an autocratic regime which robs the Russian people in exchange for more stability and a bit of economic growth (which would have come either way, because of the oil prices).

Let's us put aside the dispute about whether Russia is a superpower - I'll answer this question later.

Crushing opposition and restoring a repressive regime.

In Russia there is no system of opposition - there are a handful of individual politicians, at least half of which are sponsored by Western countries. In the Western media SHOW that in Russia there is persecution of the opposition, but it is not. In comparison with the way any opposition movements are suppressed in the EU or the United States - in Russia, the absolute freedom of political choice.

Mostly due to high oil prices, not much achievement from Putin

And you know that oil and gas companies under Yeltsin paid almost no taxes? Only under Putin, after revealing punished the oligarch Khodorkovsky, the oil company began to pay to the government all required taxes.
Without that campaign of the war with tax evasion, which began with the arrival of Putin, this money would the people of Russia did not see, and they went straight to the Western offshore.

Building up the military to 5,4% spending of the GDP, is this truly an achievement which benefits Russia in the end, and if so why?

For a start is good because it creates the flow of funds in the economy. Russia in the last hundred years have created a very powerful industry, occupied in the military sphere. Why do you think that the Russian government should use this advantage as a basis for the development of its economy? It's billions of dollars only to direct revenue, not counting the fact that in the field of military industry employs several million people who due to the production of weapons get paid, feed their families and pay taxes. In addition, military production is gradually transferred to the civilian production, not as it was in the restructuring, and more smoothly and thoughtfully. Sukhoi Superjet is the result of military design Bureau in the civil sphere. The MС-21 also is a joint development of several design Bureau, previously involved in weapons manufacturing. And in Russia there is a saying: "Who doesn't want to support his army - will contain a foreign army".

Look, I understand that after the fall of the USSR, Russia was in chaos and Putin promised something and Russians wanted stability and a strong man in the Kremlin. Putin is indeed the strong man, but can you honestly say that the route to democratization and freedom (under Jeltsin) was rightfully given up for an autocratic regime which robs the Russian people in exchange for more stability and a bit of economic growth (which would have come either way, because of the oil prices).

Sorry, but no, you don't understand. Do you think that Yeltsin was freedom and democracy? But they were not. There was no freedom, no democracy. Was freedom of criminal gangs - they could do anything, and for them it was nothing. The opinion of the people was not taken into account - so what kind of democracy? The country plundered and sold. And the Western countries in this willingly participated. They helped the Russian oligarchs to withdraw the stolen money offshore, they are welcomed when these are stolen from the people of Russia money was invested into the economy of Western countries, they pay corrupt politicians for the fact that these politicians made the laws allowing Western companies for nothing to buy up Russian resources, not investing money in the Russian economy.
THIS is according to Western media was about freedom and democracy - so far from Russia that I could easily steal and export to the West all that you want - Russia in the Western media seemed overall friendly country. Once came a politician who said that Russia's national interests more, no one will ignore all Western countries threw a tantrum about the fact that Russia is the aggressor and democracy in Russia is absent.

Scorpius wrote:

To everyone: I apologize if not answered some of your question, it is difficult to conduct simultaneous discussions with multiple people in a different language. If I missed something and someone answered, I apologize - I'm not ignoring you and your question, but just could not miss the sight of him.

There are many question you haven't answered, or answered with a wall of text that makes little sense in english. So I'm going to repeat one of the questions. Do you believe that independent nations should be able to decide their own foreign policy, including which international organizations to join? Even if they share a border with Russia? Simple question, a yes or no answer will be fine.

Scorpius wrote:

Why the INTERNAL Affairs of Yugoslavia was the reason for the bombing and killing of thousands of unarmed people, and the INTERNAL Affairs of Czechoslovakia could not be a pretext for the Soviet invasion? We call it double standards. You can't appreciate the aggression alone as an absolute evil, and at the same time enjoy more aggression other as a blessing. Decide already, pick a side.

Which side have you picked?

Scorpius wrote:

KL785 wrote:

With the AfD we have a party that tolerates Neo-Nazi figures in their ranks and which is in part being financed by Russian banks close to the Kremlin. Same with the Front National in France. What do you think about that?

Oh, Russia's open support of neo-Nazis would likely have been political suicide is clearly not the point, which is valid in the Russian society in the next hundred years. At the same time, I was not the first to see how Western media uses accusations of neo-Nazism after someone said that he was unhappy with rampant crime after the advent of refugees from Arab regions.So I would take caution to this issue, Marie Le Pen did not seem to me supporting Nazi ideology, and moderate nationalism involves only defending the interests of the nation, and not the oppression that this nation does not belong. In General, I can say that in Russia the excessive tolerance is not frowned upon, but Nazism is an ideology hostile in the opinion of the majority of citizens.
What to support Le Pen in the elections - it is a politician who potentially is configured to dialogue with Russia. I'm not surprised that the Russian government decided to support it. Because almost all opposition parties in Russia, loyal to the West, supported by Western countries financially and politically. Russia's support of the loyal opposition in Western countries is a logical return stroke. About support neonazisti figures in Germany, I've never heard of, so I ask you podrobnee to tell me about it if you do not complicate it.

Well I have to admit there is no proof of financial support for the AfD, there were only rumours about it. These rumours were rooted in the Kremlins support for Marine le Pen. However there is ample proof of Russian support for the AfD through propaganda by media outlets financed by the Russian State like Russia Today, Sputnik, etc. and there is also the Internet Research Agency. In Germany these guys are actively trying to discredit the state and its government and are trying to create an atmosphere of crisis and fear. Which in turn propels said party, the AfD.

I will not complain about the propaganda because you could argue the west is doing the same in Russia.

But I wonder how much the Kremlin's antifascism is really worth if they support a party with people like Alexander Gauland and Björn (or Bernd? Can't remember) Höcke. People who want to be proud about the Wehrmacht again and who think it is wrong and shameful to talk about the crimes of Nazi Germany all the time. Granted, not the whole party consists of Nazis and they indeed want to better relations between Russia and Germany too, but still: there is a whole lot of underlying nazi ideology there.

Nobody knows what would have happened if there had not been any reforms but to me it is pretty clear that the economic system of the USSR was not sustainable under these circumstances.

No economic system can not be in conditions of economic embargo and constant preparation for global war. To a large extent the collapse of the USSR contributed to the West, and it is an absolute unprecedented act of aggression, and Russia will not forget for a very many years.

I agree it was an act of imperialist agression. On the other hand the USSR initially had an equally imperialistic aim: a communist world revolution with or against the will of the majority of people. That is why the cold war started in the first place: both superpowers wanted to expand their influence as far as possible.

Let me say that think, that it's important to talk with each other, so thanks for providing your views.
But I do not think that we are on the brink of a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO. It would indeed be suicide and there are to much reasonable people on both sides. (HINT: Even Trump I can't see starting a nuclear war though it surely is a stretch to call that guy reasonable)

So: no worries mate!

KL785 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

KL785 wrote:

With the AfD we have a party that tolerates Neo-Nazi figures in their ranks and which is in part being financed by Russian banks close to the Kremlin. Same with the Front National in France. What do you think about that?

Oh, Russia's open support of neo-Nazis would likely have been political suicide is clearly not the point, which is valid in the Russian society in the next hundred years. At the same time, I was not the first to see how Western media uses accusations of neo-Nazism after someone said that he was unhappy with rampant crime after the advent of refugees from Arab regions.So I would take caution to this issue, Marie Le Pen did not seem to me supporting Nazi ideology, and moderate nationalism involves only defending the interests of the nation, and not the oppression that this nation does not belong. In General, I can say that in Russia the excessive tolerance is not frowned upon, but Nazism is an ideology hostile in the opinion of the majority of citizens.
What to support Le Pen in the elections - it is a politician who potentially is configured to dialogue with Russia. I'm not surprised that the Russian government decided to support it. Because almost all opposition parties in Russia, loyal to the West, supported by Western countries financially and politically. Russia's support of the loyal opposition in Western countries is a logical return stroke. About support neonazisti figures in Germany, I've never heard of, so I ask you podrobnee to tell me about it if you do not complicate it.

Well I have to admit there is no proof of financial support for the AfD, there were only rumours about it. These rumours were rooted in the Kremlins support for Marine le Pen. However there is ample proof of Russian support for the AfD through propaganda by media outlets financed by the Russian State like Russia Today, Sputnik, etc. and there is also the Internet Research Agency. In Germany these guys are actively trying to discredit the state and its government and are trying to create an atmosphere of crisis and fear. Which in turn propels said party, the AfD.

I will not complain about the propaganda because you could argue the west is doing the same in Russia.

But I wonder how much the Kremlin's antifascism is really worth if they support a party with people like Alexander Gauland and Björn (or Bernd? Can't remember) Höcke. People who want to be proud about the Wehrmacht again and who think it is wrong and shameful to talk about the crimes of Nazi Germany all the time. Granted, not the whole party consists of Nazis and they indeed want to better relations between Russia and Germany too, but still: there is a whole lot of underlying nazi ideology there.

Nobody knows what would have happened if there had not been any reforms but to me it is pretty clear that the economic system of the USSR was not sustainable under these circumstances.

No economic system can not be in conditions of economic embargo and constant preparation for global war. To a large extent the collapse of the USSR contributed to the West, and it is an absolute unprecedented act of aggression, and Russia will not forget for a very many years.

I agree it was an act of imperialist agression. On the other hand the USSR initially had an equally imperialistic aim: a communist world revolution with or against the will of the majority of people. That is why the cold war started in the first place: both superpowers wanted to expand their influence as far as possible.

Let me say that think, that it's important to talk with each other, so thanks for providing your views.
But I do not think that we are on the brink of a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO. It would indeed be suicide and there are to much reasonable people on both sides. (HINT: Even Trump I can't see starting a nuclear war though it surely is a stretch to call that guy reasonable)

So: no worries mate!

Well, I couldn't do a quick search in the Internet to find some horrible things about Alexander Gauland. In his utterance there is a certain reason, like the soldiers of the Wehrmacht. In those conditions, not all German soldiers behaved like animals. And some of them are really worthy of a better relationship. You know, Josef Schulz, too, was a soldier of the Wehrmacht, do not forget.
To say something more, I can't, because not too familiar with the topic, but the logic of his statements is clear. Yes, the Third Reich was certainly monstrous and inhuman political system. But not all of its representatives were evil people. And it is understood even in the Soviet Union during the Second world war. So, for example, the Soviet Union was not satisfied with this, that gave the allies to Dresden.

But I do not think that we are on the brink of a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO.

In this respect, today's events are very reminiscent of the situation before the First world war. Then, too, nobody believed that the war will begin. But just one shot in Sarajevo and the massacre started.
You know that Russia is again powered, the system "Perimeter"? Western media also love to call her "Dead hand".

Bostrom wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

To everyone: I apologize if not answered some of your question, it is difficult to conduct simultaneous discussions with multiple people in a different language. If I missed something and someone answered, I apologize - I'm not ignoring you and your question, but just could not miss the sight of him.

There are many question you haven't answered, or answered with a wall of text that makes little sense in english. So I'm going to repeat one of the questions. Do you believe that independent nations should be able to decide their own foreign policy, including which international organizations to join? Even if they share a border with Russia? Simple question, a yes or no answer will be fine.

Scorpius wrote:

Why the INTERNAL Affairs of Yugoslavia was the reason for the bombing and killing of thousands of unarmed people, and the INTERNAL Affairs of Czechoslovakia could not be a pretext for the Soviet invasion? We call it double standards. You can't appreciate the aggression alone as an absolute evil, and at the same time enjoy more aggression other as a blessing. Decide already, pick a side.

Which side have you picked?

Do you believe that independent nations should be able to decide their own foreign policy, including which international organizations to join? Even if they share a border with Russia?

My answer is Yes, if it is not a threat to Russia.
However, in reality we have the fact: NATO was created as an organization designed for war with Russia and accession to it is a clear threat to Russia. And we have to respond appropriately to these threats.
So - if you announce that join NATO, then don't complain that you're under the gun of nuclear missiles of Russia and in case of war, your cities will be ground into dust.
You joined NATO, it means you are going to attack Russia, if you are going to attack Russia - then you become an enemy of Russia. And how to deal with enemies?

Which side have you picked?

I choose the side that does not approve of aggression and victims among the civilian population. And the extent of my disapproval is proportionate to the number of civilian casualties.

Scorpius wrote:

You joined NATO, it means you are going to attack Russia, if you are going to attack Russia - then you become an enemy of Russia. And how to deal with enemies?

No, it means you will defend AGAINST Russia, not attack Russia.

BobPatterson wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

You joined NATO, it means you are going to attack Russia, if you are going to attack Russia - then you become an enemy of Russia. And how to deal with enemies?

No, it means you will defend AGAINST Russia, not attack Russia.

To put it mildly, not true.
Even the NATO generals admit that the NATO contingent in Europe is not able to confront a ground operation by the Russian troops for a long time in case of war.
For the transfer of significant forces to Europe from USA will take about six months, this is without taking into account the fact that Maritime transport will be blocked by the Russian Navy in this case. At the same time, the grouping of NATO troops in Europe will be completely destroyed in about half the time.
But the deployment of missile defenses in Europe allows to reduce the potential of Russian nuclear forces in terms of capabilities of application launch-counter-nuclear strike (surprise, Russia's military doctrine provides for a nuclear strike only in response to a direct attack).
That is, membership in NATO does not protect in any way against a hypothetical Russian aggression, but allows US more firmly entrenched in Europe and to gain an advantage over Russia in case of war. What is aggression.

Scorpius wrote:

What is aggression.

That is the question. What is it?
So you are stating that voluntary, collective/cooperative defense agreements are aggressive?

I myself do not believe that NATO is an "aggressive" organization as I do not classify non-military/non-forceful means of expansion. Placement of systems would not qualify when a sovereign, independent nation, decides for itself.

Is it only the participation off the USA that makes it aggressive (you specifically identify the USA) in your opinion?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

What is aggression.

That is the question. What is it?
So you are stating that voluntary, collective/cooperative defense agreements are aggressive?

I myself do not believe that NATO is an "aggressive" organization as I do not classify non-military/non-forceful means of expansion. Placement of systems would not qualify when a sovereign, independent nation, decides for itself.

Is it only the participation off the USA that makes it aggressive (you specifically identify the USA) in your opinion?

Tugg

I am speaking from real world politics, not from abstract ideas. NATO is an organization created for war with Russia. No goals, no methods of NATO since the creation has not changed, we are aware of. At the same time NATO is not an organisation full partners, as I imagine it in the Western media. This organization "USA and its satellites". USA currently has more than fifty years are definitely the enemy of Russia. That is, by simple logical construction here displayed a simple thing: NATO is the organisation "Our enemy and its satellites". Joining NATO is undoubtedly the announcement of the enemy of Russia.
If you translate the analogy - NATO is a neighbor that puts you the gun to a temple, saying that he doesn't have to mean anything bad, and that it does not pose a threat, because he's not going to pull the trigger.
Sorry, but no, we these statements do not believe. If you say you are not enemies of Russia, first remove the gun from our heads. Disband NATO and remove your army from our borders. I forgot the US ships in the internal for Russia the Black sea? Forgotten aircraft of the United States over our borders? By the way, let me remind you that until Russia has air defense systems, allowing you to hit the enemy aircraft at high altitudes, the United States constantly violate the airspace of the USSR. Only when the Russian began bivalvian spy planes, flying over our territory stopped. But it didn't stop the provocation.
And Yes, if we talk about the republics of the former USSR, the attempt of their accession to NATO is a direct violation of the agreements reached at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can, for example, to read the Treaty establishing the CIS will learn a lot.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you think that Yeltsin was freedom and democracy? But they were not. There was no freedom, no democracy. Was freedom of criminal gangs - they could do anything, and for them it was nothing. The opinion of the people was not taken into account - so what kind of democracy? The country plundered and sold.

Does anyone in Russia know what democracy and freedom really look like? You have no experience, no tradition, Russia went from tsarist medieval ages to communists misery that lasted 70 years of continuous purging of intelligentsia. There is nothing to follow up on. Of course, that any beginning is diffucult. I can imagine postwar Germany was rough, the 1990s over here were, by today's standards, pretty wild as well. Any regime change is never easy. The longer it lasted, the more difficult it is. Quite logically. You gave up on opportunity without actually trying it. Of course that career apparatchik like Jeltsin could not deliver it, just as career KGB thug Putin won't.
What I find just unbelievable is your schizophrenic and paranoid blaming "the West" for anything and everything (while in fact geniuses like Lenin, Stalin or Brezhnev were the ones who ran the country into the ground), while being in total denial about the effects of communist tyranny on your own country and people.

Scorpius wrote:

NATO is a neighbor that puts you the gun to a temple, saying that he doesn't have to mean anything bad, and that it does not pose a threat, because he's not going to pull the trigger.

Funny, really. How about neighbor, who is a serial rapist and burglar with history of violating sovereignty of nighboring countries (1940 Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, 1953 E. Germany, 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1980 almost Poland) and when those countries také measures to collectively protect themselves, the rapist complains and blabbers nonsense about "aggression".

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

What is aggression.

That is the question. What is it?
So you are stating that voluntary, collective/cooperative defense agreements are aggressive?

I myself do not believe that NATO is an "aggressive" organization as I do not classify non-military/non-forceful means of expansion. Placement of systems would not qualify when a sovereign, independent nation, decides for itself.

Is it only the participation off the USA that makes it aggressive (you specifically identify the USA) in your opinion?

Tugg

I am speaking from real world politics, not from abstract ideas. NATO is an organization created for war with Russia. No goals, no methods of NATO since the creation has not changed, we are aware of. At the same time NATO is not an organisation full partners, as I imagine it in the Western media. This organization "USA and its satellites". USA currently has more than fifty years are definitely the enemy of Russia. That is, by simple logical construction here displayed a simple thing: NATO is the organisation "Our enemy and its satellites". Joining NATO is undoubtedly the announcement of the enemy of Russia.

I think you might benefit from learning a bit more about Nato and how it works. I'm not surprised if Soviet and Russian media portays Nato as an organization made up of USA and its puppet states as a way of destroying the Soviet Union/Russia. In reality, it was created for mutual defense of the member states. And it is not run by the USA. The Warsaw pact might have been dominated by Moscow, but Nato is an equal organization with headquarters in Brussels. Its current secretary general is former norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg and the Chairman of the Military Committee is the Czech general Petr Pavel. The goal of Nato is to defend the member countries in case of an attack, not to destroy Russia.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Do you think that Yeltsin was freedom and democracy? But they were not. There was no freedom, no democracy. Was freedom of criminal gangs - they could do anything, and for them it was nothing. The opinion of the people was not taken into account - so what kind of democracy? The country plundered and sold.

Does anyone in Russia know what democracy and freedom really look like? You have no experience, no tradition, Russia went from tsarist medieval ages to communists misery that lasted 70 years of continuous purging of intelligentsia. There is nothing to follow up on. Of course, that any beginning is diffucult. I can imagine postwar Germany was rough, the 1990s over here were, by today's standards, pretty wild as well. Any regime change is never easy. The longer it lasted, the more difficult it is. Quite logically. You gave up on opportunity without actually trying it.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that Russia during Yeltsin's rule was a free and democratic country, but many hoped that he was heading the country in that way. It is hard to replace a dictator with democracy, as many countries before have proved. And it can take time. But the last ten years, Russian democracy has been heading the wrong way. And there are many of us who are sorry for that, as we believe in democracy. https://infographics.economist.com/2017/DemocracyIndex/

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

What is aggression.

That is the question. What is it?
So you are stating that voluntary, collective/cooperative defense agreements are aggressive?

I myself do not believe that NATO is an "aggressive" organization as I do not classify non-military/non-forceful means of expansion. Placement of systems would not qualify when a sovereign, independent nation, decides for itself.

Is it only the participation off the USA that makes it aggressive (you specifically identify the USA) in your opinion?

Tugg

I am speaking from real world politics, not from abstract ideas. NATO is an organization created for war with Russia. No goals, no methods of NATO since the creation has not changed, we are aware of. At the same time NATO is not an organisation full partners, as I imagine it in the Western media. This organization "USA and its satellites". USA currently has more than fifty years are definitely the enemy of Russia. That is, by simple logical construction here displayed a simple thing: NATO is the organisation "Our enemy and its satellites". Joining NATO is undoubtedly the announcement of the enemy of Russia.
If you translate the analogy - NATO is a neighbor that puts you the gun to a temple, saying that he doesn't have to mean anything bad, and that it does not pose a threat, because he's not going to pull the trigger.
Sorry, but no, we these statements do not believe. If you say you are not enemies of Russia, first remove the gun from our heads. Disband NATO and remove your army from our borders. I forgot the US ships in the internal for Russia the Black sea? Forgotten aircraft of the United States over our borders? By the way, let me remind you that until Russia has air defense systems, allowing you to hit the enemy aircraft at high altitudes, the United States constantly violate the airspace of the USSR. Only when the Russian began bivalvian spy planes, flying over our territory stopped. But it didn't stop the provocation.
And Yes, if we talk about the republics of the former USSR, the attempt of their accession to NATO is a direct violation of the agreements reached at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can, for example, to read the Treaty establishing the CIS will learn a lot.

I have a hard time to wrap around your thoughts that NATO is aggressive. NATO isn't, it is at its core a defensive organization, it hasn't done any offensive actions on its own. Article five of its treaty says if you attack one of its members, then you attack all and that gives protection to its members.

I have come to the realization that Russia needs to have some comfort, so I would say, no more expansion to the Russian border. NATO at its current size is also at the limits of its control, so form the organizational perspective, the current size is its limit.

I have a hard time to believe that you truly feel that NATO has put a gun to the head of the Russian bear. For a long time, the nuclear missiles weren't aimed at Russia. but instead were aimed at nothing. Then Russia began to aim them again at American and European targets and that triggered America again to do the same. And shamefully for all, the reduction of the number of nuclear missiles is going way to slow and actually stopped.

I don't know anyone in The Netherlands, I know, this is anecdotical evidence, but then again it is also current policy, who feel directly threatened by Russia. A lot of irritation, yes, but threatened, no. Although, because of direct actions of the Russian Federation, 198 of my fellow countrymen were killed and thus 1 (journalist) in Georgia.

I will go into the rest of your views later today.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

A considerable number of soldiers and commanders of the Soviet army killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia.

Whatever it was that came with the Red Army was anything but liberty. The so called "liberation" was in fact just an export of communism. The Red Army was a terrible meat grinder, where human life was worth nothing and while it is a tragedy on a individual basis, the emotional blackmail coming from Russia is just cynical, because the human losses mean nothing in Russia.

That is a very important point. To many europeans, eastern Europe was liberated in 1989/1990. Replacing one dictator with another is not liberation.

Scorpius wrote:

Do you believe that independent nations should be able to decide their own foreign policy, including which international organizations to join? Even if they share a border with Russia?

My answer is Yes, if it is not a threat to Russia.
However, in reality we have the fact: NATO was created as an organization designed for war with Russia and accession to it is a clear threat to Russia. And we have to respond appropriately to these threats.
So - if you announce that join NATO, then don't complain that you're under the gun of nuclear missiles of Russia and in case of war, your cities will be ground into dust.
You joined NATO, it means you are going to attack Russia, if you are going to attack Russia - then you become an enemy of Russia. And how to deal with enemies?

Have you considered what this attitude might have to do with the actions of various countries? A neighbouring country that says you can do what you want as long as you don't do anything we might percieve as threatening is seen as a bit of a bully. Especially when phrases like "…no country which is declared a victim of Russian aggression, is not the innocent victim. In almost all cases, what is called the Soviet occupation or repression was a LOGICAL response of a superpower in certain events." are heard. Many people might wonder when Russia will make up an excuse for a new invasion.

Bostrom wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

A considerable number of soldiers and commanders of the Soviet army killed during the liberation of Czechoslovakia.

Whatever it was that came with the Red Army was anything but liberty. The so called "liberation" was in fact just an export of communism. The Red Army was a terrible meat grinder, where human life was worth nothing and while it is a tragedy on a individual basis, the emotional blackmail coming from Russia is just cynical, because the human losses mean nothing in Russia.

That is a very important point. To many Europeans, eastern Europe was liberated in 1989/1990. Replacing one dictator with another is not liberation.

Yes, I indeed feel that Eastern Europe liberated itself from communism, the same as Russia. Getting rid of the communistic system was indeed a liberation for all people who want to live a free life. I, for one, wish every earthling a happy and free live, get rid of oppression by anyone, whether it is an oppressive system like a dictatorship or autocracy, or an oppressive system of large companies, too big to fail, too large to handle for a single government.

Dutchy wrote:

NATO isn't, it is at its core a defensive organization, it hasn't done any offensive actions on its own.

I agree that NATO is, at its core, a defensive organisation. But whether they performed offensive actions can be debated. The 1999 intervention in Kosovo was without a UN mandate, technically making it offensive actions against Serbia in favour of KLA rebels. This of course was later used by Russia to justify their military operations extensive tourism by (former-) Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Do you think that Yeltsin was freedom and democracy? But they were not. There was no freedom, no democracy. Was freedom of criminal gangs - they could do anything, and for them it was nothing. The opinion of the people was not taken into account - so what kind of democracy? The country plundered and sold.

Does anyone in Russia know what democracy and freedom really look like? You have no experience, no tradition, Russia went from tsarist medieval ages to communists misery that lasted 70 years of continuous purging of intelligentsia. There is nothing to follow up on. Of course, that any beginning is diffucult. I can imagine postwar Germany was rough, the 1990s over here were, by today's standards, pretty wild as well. Any regime change is never easy. The longer it lasted, the more difficult it is. Quite logically. You gave up on opportunity without actually trying it. Of course that career apparatchik like Jeltsin could not deliver it, just as career KGB thug Putin won't.
What I find just unbelievable is your schizophrenic and paranoid blaming "the West" for anything and everything (while in fact geniuses like Lenin, Stalin or Brezhnev were the ones who ran the country into the ground), while being in total denial about the effects of communist tyranny on your own country and people.

Scorpius wrote:

NATO is a neighbor that puts you the gun to a temple, saying that he doesn't have to mean anything bad, and that it does not pose a threat, because he's not going to pull the trigger.

Funny, really. How about neighbor, who is a serial rapist and burglar with history of violating sovereignty of nighboring countries (1940 Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, 1953 E. Germany, 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1980 almost Poland) and when those countries také measures to collectively protect themselves, the rapist complains and blabbers nonsense about "aggression".

You're talking absolute nonsense, showing how your head is filled with propaganda about the bad evil Russian. The Soviet Union was the least aggressive state in Europe throughout its existence. The instructions on the supposedly missing tradition of democracy altogether ridiculous and absurd. In the Soviet Union was a democracy, if you compare it with the current Western countries. Let us remember how in the West in the sixties and seventies suppressed the protests. Let's remember how affordable watered "agent orange" and Napalm Vietnamese villages. Come on, tell us what of the great democratic traditions represented racial segregation in the United States, which lasted until assignaty years.Reading your comments, I come to the conclusion that you do not studied history, and now talk only in advertising slogans of propaganda leaflets. And I tell you once again - at least half of what you write here is a direct lie. And the second half is distortion of facts.
Think about it.