Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sure but the region today is better for it with a declining murder rate and growing economy. Had NATO not intervened the situation could be much worst with a stagnate and aging population die to mass murder, it was the right thing to do.
At the moment - yes, it is. But in many ways the economy of the former Yugoslavia held on EU aid. When the EU will cease to provide assistance, there will be another massacre.
...and before I go, I want to let you know that you are talking here too much, because really...
really y'all are residing in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, as it turned out))))
NATO expanded eastwards, because the ex Warsaw Pact countries said "never again". The NATO countries accepted the new countries to join, and giving their guarantee that they will protect them in the time of war.
I can put myself in the shoes of the Baltic States, Poland and other Eastern Central European countries. I undertand perfectly clearly that they don't want to get assraped by Russia ever again. And that is exactly what would happen if the countries would not be in NATO.
No, I don't think the US is more peace-loving. But it's OUR kind of peace or war and OUR culture. Not some backwards Asian-Orthodox-Schauvinist culture Russia represents.
Same with me. I will rather DIE than having to see the Slav tricolour fly over our Parliament building.
It doesn't matter what the people of Crimea thinks about a rigged election. It violates all possible laws there are.
Russia is too poor and does not have the resources in order to invade and occupy Finland. It is already bogged down in other wars such as Syria and Eastern Ukraine.
NATO countries should increase their expenditure on military, especially countries like Germany, Netherlands and Italy. Most Western European countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense and it should be at least 2%.
Anyway the NATO countries with the biggest threat from Russia, should learn from other small countries surrounded by largely unfriendly neighbours such as Israel. Or be like Swizerland that survived the fate of most other European countries in the last few hundred years.
Russian GDP is down to about $1.2T and that makes about #12 globally. Combined US/EU GDP is $35T+.
Back in the day, the old USSR used be at least nominally #2.
The real issue with Russia is how to manage it's decline peacefully, and gracefully. There's little benefit to taking a pound of flesh. The fear of the possibility of loose nukes should be a big motivator.
Russian GDP is down to about $1.2T and that makes about #12 globally. Combined US/EU GDP is $35T+.
Back in the day, the old USSR used be at least nominally #2.
The real issue with Russia is how to manage it's decline peacefully, and gracefully. There's little benefit to taking a pound of flesh. The fear of the possibility of loose nukes should be a big motivator.
If I were you, I wouldn't worry about "peaceful and graceful decline" of Russia.
True that American government was planning to achieve this purpose thirty years ago, pushing onto Russia the economic model that would be deadly for her, that would make her dependable on Western banking system and constant borrowing among other things, and that her internal conflicts would erode her. But the pendulum swung the other way.
Look around you. Does America have not "internal conflicts" and contradictions? With the least qualified person coming now in the office, and the nation divided as never before since the civil war, beware of what's coming to the US. So it's not only the end for Russia the way we know it, but it's the end of the other super-power, that Russia takes down with it. It's biblical and it's bound to happen. We can only pray that this dismantling would happen in a peaceful way.
Yeah, the "fear of nukes" (loose or not) IS a big motivator for it.
If I were you, I wouldn't worry about "peaceful and graceful decline" of Russia.
True that American government was planning to achieve this purpose thirty years ago, pushing onto Russia the economic model that would be deadly for her, that would make her dependable on Western banking system and constant borrowing among other things, and that her internal conflicts would erode her. But the pendulum swung the other way.
Look around you. Does America have not "internal conflicts" and contradictions? With the least qualified person coming now in the office, and the nation divided as never before since the civil war, beware of what's coming to the US. So it's not only the end for Russia the way we know it, but it's the end of the other super-power, that Russia takes down with it. It's biblical and it's bound to happen. We can only pray that this dismantling would happen in a peaceful way.
Yeah, the "fear of nukes" (loose or not) IS a big motivator for it.
Yes, that's really what I was driving at. Disgruntled Russians run amok!
Yes, that's really what I was driving at. Disgruntled Russians run amok!
Oh that's not the worst that could happen. "Disgruntled Russians" are running amok on a permanent basis more or less, since the end of the world visits them quite often.
Now when disgruntled Americans will start running amok - (all those preppers including, but not limited to them,) - that's when it will be a sure sign of the end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
