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.
That's every tinpot imperialist's excuse - a strong hand is needed to keep the unenlightened from fighting among themselves. We heard it in 1956. We heard it in 1968.
Quote:
I don't believe that at all.
Sure - we all remember the petty warlords in East Germany, once the wall fell. The civil war in Poland. The way Hungary fell into complete anarchy. The Baltic states essentially reduced to tribal warfare. Czechoslovakia erupting in violence.
Wait, no - we don't. Because none of that happened.
If you knew what happened from 1944 to 1958 you will see what the USSRs occupation stopped from happening. The Germans were forced to abandon huge stores of weapons and other supplies and the landscapes were littered with weapons. They army got a lot of them but there was a lot simply disappeared. Banditry, ethnic strife, outlawry continued for a long time after WWII. In 1948 there was a famine and it came about not just because of the thorough beating the infrastructure sustained but because of a complete breakdown of law and order in late 1946 and 1947. In 1949 they sent the army in for a second time, politicians (warlords) were hanged or sent to Siberia, known thugs were hunted down and killed and order was restored under the muzzle of a rifle and guess what? Trains could get goods where it was needed, crops could get planted and harvested. The people stopped going hungry.
Quote:
They're more than welcome to have a solid defense, but I don't give two hoots for their crocodile tears about NATO being, like, so mean. They oppressed their neighbors under an inhumane system for as long as they could get away with it and - unlike Germany - haven't gotten around to admitting that perhaps that was a pretty bad move on their part. And frankly, they could do with a bit of a clean-up in their own house.
Thank you for your opinion. Keep in mind the saying about such things too.
Not surprising as the democrats are a pro-EU party and look very unfavourably towards Brexit.
They are also an internationalist party that believe strongly in world treaties like NATO, NAFTA, The UN, Paris Climate Accords etc.
Complete opposite from the Republicans of course.
I think what the democrats want is a united Europe to push back against what they perceive as eastern (Russian) provocation.
Of course this is silly. George H W Bush signed the US/Canada free trade agreement, to which Mexico was a signatory. It was the beginning of NAFTA. Reagan in fact first proposed it back in 1980. Nixon opened trade with China. Lots more examples of Repubs supporting international trade and treaties, but I'm not going to hand them to. you on a silver platter. You should research it yourself. You'll get more out of the learning experience that way.
Oh yes, life in the East Bloc was so awesome. Now? You can be a faithful Party Member for decades and still not move up on the waitlist for a Trabant.
Can you think in more abstract terms than "waitlist for a Trabant"?
If yes, here it comes.
So the Russians ( as in "Russian people") volunteerly drop the Soviet system, trusting Western promises of "better and brighter future" and bring their guard down.
The West in return assures that Russians can take time to establish the word of law in their country ( helping along to create the new basis for it, replacing the Soviet one.)
At that for the first time Russian citizens feel that their rights are protected, they can trust their own institutions ( be that economic or political ones,) they have functional multi-party system, and they can even ( *gasp*) purchase the new "Trabant" without waiting in line for years.
What do you think would have happened under this scenario?
I'll tell you what.
Number one - old European countries ( Germany, France, Italy,) would have had a fantastic market for their products, since Russians traditionally loved their luxury items - fashions, household items, cars, cosmetics - you name it. Russians have been "groomed* for it, since Peter the Great times, when "Old Europe" served as a midwife during the birth of the modern Russian state.
This would have rejuvenated the economies of the "Old Europe," and whatever their masters were good at for centuries, producing all these quality products, would keep on staying afloat and flourishing, because Russian market would have been plentiful and stable. ( Europeans will NEVER have such market/opportunities in US, since US is very protective of its own "luxury item producers," which to me personally come across as subpar comparably to the Old world.)
Russians, being pretty creative would have found what to produce themselves and what to trade with Europeans, as long as the new economic ( and political) system was put on a solid and fair base.
So where would this leave Eastern Europeans?
Anywhere they wish.
Russia feels stable and secure?
Check.
No aggression coming her way in the form of NATO or any other military unions?
Check.
So the small Eastern European countries could do as they'd wish; if they'd find the way to trade with Western European countries/to receive investments - fine; but chances are - they'd find their niche in economic ties with Russia yet again, since such developing economic behemoth could offer plenty of opportunities for everyone, if its engine would be working properly.
So no need for EEs to slave in foreign lands as cheap labor - they could stay home. RUSSIANS would be coming most likely to the Black Sea shores of Bulgaria in droves instead, adding to Bulgaria's state coffers.
So where would it leave the US?
Home as well - in its own hemisphere, to rule its own domain.
Mexicans invested plenty of effort and labor in America's flourishing; it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.
You don't like half of Mexico moving into US?
Then why not to bring part of production to Mexico?
You can still make money on the cost of labor, they are grateful for provided jobs, while staying in their own country - win-win situation.
All the internal strife in America - the "right," the "left" - by all means, argue and experiment all you want - it's no one else's business, as long as America minds its own.
And if Americans could find their own deals, their own niches in Europe ( or Russia) - who would argue.
As long as Russia feels secure and stable, the world is in balance.
Do I need to explain now what happened instead of THIS scenario, and why?
Can you think in more abstract terms than "waitlist for a Trabant"?
It's called an "example". Former East Germany is better off in every conceivable respect than they were while under Moscow's thumb, and you know it.
Quote:
Russia feels stable and secure?
Check.
The Eastern Europeans I've met weren't overly concerned with Russia's feelings. And they sure as all out weren't going to park their national security in some sort of assurance that "Mother Russia is feeling safe now".
Quote:
No aggression coming her way in the form of NATO or any other military unions?
Check.
Russia's former vassal states saw NATO as their assurance. County-on-country, the military power imbalance is crazy.
"The Russian-speaking minority is being mistreated. Our brethren are crying out for help." It's an old playbook.
Quote:
So the small Eastern European countries could do as they'd wish; if they'd find the way to trade with Western European countries/to receive investments - fine; but chances are - they'd find their niche in economic ties with Russia yet again...
So small countries making deals with the big country - mm-hmm, I can see why backers of the big country would like that. A lot. It's that balance of power thing again.
Quote:
Do I need to explain now what happened instead of THIS scenario, and why?
I'm sure there's an interesting version of reality forthcoming. But frankly - anyone can dream up a golden alternative of what could have been. Reality will never measure up to your fantasies.
If you knew what happened from 1944 to 1958 you will see what the USSRs occupation stopped from happening.
It happened but the occupation stopped it from happening - OK, then. Or are you saying that the French, British and US occupied zones were rife with banditry? Because that would be a bit at odds with reality.
It's called an "example". Former East Germany is better off in every conceivable respect than they were while under Moscow's thumb, and you know it.
"Eastern Germany was under Russian thumb" for a reason.
You seem to be missing this point over and over again.
Quote:
The Eastern Europeans I've met weren't overly concerned with Russia's feelings. And they sure as all out weren't going to park their national security in some sort of assurance that "Mother Russia is feeling safe now".
And that's why they end up as cheap labor and second sort of people in EU.
Quote:
Russia's former vassal states saw NATO as their assurance. County-on-country, the military power imbalance is crazy.
"Assurance" of what?
So why do they keep on screaming in fear of "Russian invasion" if they are so "assured?
Quote:
"The Russian-speaking minority is being mistreated. Our brethren are crying out for help." It's an old playbook.
In case of Ukraine - it IS mistreated.
And it DOES need help.
Quote:
So small countries making deals with the big country - mm-hmm, I can see why backers of the big country would like that. A lot. It's that balance of power thing again.
What does it even mean?
Are you trying to say that the very fact that big countries exist is "unfair?"
Speaking about "fantasies..."
Quote:
I'm sure there's an interesting version of reality forthcoming. But frankly - anyone can dream up a golden alternative of what could have been. Reality will never measure up to your fantasies.
That's right.
Here is the reality now, of what took place, instead of my "golden alternative."
So instead of helping post-Soviet Russia to become that "democratic lawful state," American government decided that it's not what it wanted.
Shake hands with the bunch of crooks that are ready to sell their country for good price, acknowledge their "service" with good bribes, get easy access to the natural resources, convert the currency overnight for convenience of the "business deals," and let the "unfortunate citizenry" die in droves in the process. They are only a ballast in "commercially-successful society" anyway.
Then move to Communist China, and disregard all your previous claims against the "horrors of communism." After all money don't smell, when the communist leaders promise good return on investments, while selling the labor of their compatriots for cheap.
This way you kill two rabbits with one bullet; one - the cost of labor in this communist workshop undercuts any possible competition from European labor, and number two - it floods Russia with Chinese-made junk (instead of quality European goods,) while paying dividends to American companies.
But wait, this is not where it ends.
Since Russia remains now "belligerent and undemocratic," it only makes sense to point at its "eternally hostile and evil nature," while shoving the "alarmed Eastern European countries" one after another into the questionable "union" with old European countries.
Here, Germany - we've got something for you. Instead of that lavish Russian market, why don't you take Visegrad-4 countries ( Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia,) to patch up your economy somewhat, so that you wouldn't feel too miserable?
The rest of you ( developed countries) can use some cheap labor of these "new Europeans," since they don't have much to offer - well, cheap labor and their hatred for "belligerent Russia," that refused to roll over and die as it was envisioned ( damn!)
But that's OK.
It's "American exceptionalism" we are talking about here, the country that feels so deserving to climb on top of the world.
Even if it has to "lie, steal, cheat or kill" for that.
And by "cheat" I mean all those stolen "left ideas" from Russia, that don't sit with American past very well.
The problem is - there are plenty of other cheaters out there, and lately they tend to forge the unions.
So these stolen left ideas plus thirty five genders as part of the " new, progressive America" that's climbing on top the world, don't look all too promising all of a sudden, now do they?
On another note, wasn't weed legal in the American state of California? Seeing how many pro-eu posters like some danish neonazis and half-ukrainians in Oak-(something) are from there, I'm starting to see a pattern here...
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.
