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.
Well, today Lukashenko said: "Crimea today is a part of Russian territory. We may recognize it or not recognize, but nothing will change because of that".
Well, today Lukashenko said: "Crimea today is a part of Russian territory. We may recognize it or not recognize, but nothing will change because of that".
I know: ) Therefore I also wrote about NATO.
Economic experts are sure that the rupture of the relations of Russia and Ukraine is very favorable to Belarus. So it will be able to increase export of the goods and to take a place of the Ukrainian goods in Russia.
But at the same time it that meets NATO, speaks that the Kremlin never influenced it and won't be.
I know: ) Therefore I also wrote about NATO.
Economic experts are sure that the rupture of the relations of Russia and Ukraine is very favorable to Belarus. So it will be able to increase export of the goods and to take a place of the Ukrainian goods in Russia.
But at the same time it that meets NATO, speaks that the Kremlin never influenced it and won't be.
Game?
Lukashenko always plays his games, yes As we say in Russian "и нашим, и вашим"
As for the benefits of Belarus -- well, that's a double-edged sword, so to say. On the one hand, you're right -- Belarus will try to take the Ukrainian economic niche in Russia. Besides, Lukashenko now has an additional trump in his game with Putin: "You see, I am your true ally, not like those Ukrainians. You should support our economy better, give us more loans/preferences and so on"
On the other hand, Russia will invest lots of money in Crimea. Besides, her economy may suffer because of Western sanctions and so on. Maybe Putin won't have that much money to support Lukashenko and Belarus.
Lukashenko always plays his games, yes As we say in Russian "и нашим, и вашим"
As for the benefits of Belarus -- well, that's a double-edged sword, so to say. On the one hand, you're right -- Belarus will try to take the Ukrainian economic niche in Russia. Besides, Lukashenko now has an additional trump in his game with Putin: "You see, I am your true ally, not like those Ukrainians. You should support our economy better, give us more loans/preferences and so on"
On the other hand, Russia will invest lots of money in Crimea. Besides, her economy may suffer because of Western sanctions and so on. Maybe Putin won't have that much money to support Lukashenko and Belarus.
yes, in Russia there will be no money for humanitarian assistance to "brothers" soon
Sanctions only began...
Today I read that the maintenance of the Russian army in Ukraine manages 400 million dollars a day...
For comparison the Budget of Ukraine for 2013 made 50 billion dollars...
And Russia won't be able to disengage armies from the Crimea because the territory "isn't recognized" and she will need to be held by means of military more many time...
Putin ruins the budget of Russia, and it is the best gift for Obama. The third world (economic) war began.
They say there's a barbarian in the Russian probably from the mongolian occupation. Alexander Nevsky sided with the golden horde instead of western european forces. This is what has led to problems with west to the present day.
Oh boy, yet another "specialist" on Russian history. ( *Sigh*)
When the city of Novgorod was in dire straights, being constantly attacked by "european forces" (first Swedish knights and then Teutonic Knights,) and the citizens of Novgorod asked Alexander Nevsky to return to the city and to fight the invasion, he agreed, but when he has been asked to fight Tatars as well, who were demanding heavy tithe from Novgorod, he refused to fight them and urged Novgorodians to continue to pay the tithe. His reasoning was that Tatars were too different as people; their race, their culture were distinctly different from Russians, so Tatars didn't threaten the existence of Russians as a young nation as much as Germanic people did.
"The term by which this subjection is commonly designated, the Mongol or Tatar "yoke", suggests ideas of terrible oppression, but in reality these nomadic invaders from Mongolia were not such cruel, oppressive taskmasters as is generally supposed.[6] In the first place, they never settled in the country, and they had little direct dealing with the inhabitants. In accordance with the admonitions of Genghis to his children and grandchildren, they retained their pastoral mode of life, so that the subject races, agriculturists, and dwellers in towns, were not disturbed in their ordinary avocations."
Yet according to Nevsky's reasoning, if Germans or Swedes would have conquered Russians, submitting them under THEIR yoke and religion, this would have been an end to Russians as a nation. They would have been simply absorbed by Germanic people. Don't forget that Alexander Nevsky himself was of Germanic origin, and so probably plenty of his men.
And while we are at that - the principality of Moscow ( when it was only a small fortress with few surrounding villages) has been willed by Nevsky before his death, in 1263, to his younger son Daniel. And that's who started expanding the borders of Moscow's principality.
The intermarriages with Tatars among the Russian nobility came at much later period in history, and for a different reason.
Quote:
I think the Russians will drink themselves into decline. A politician can only last for 10 years. With putin back in power, I feel it will lead to another era of stagnation that started Brezhnev. Russia depends too much on its oil and has not diversified.
You can "feel" whatever, but I'd say worry more about your own small nation ( whatever it is,) than about Russia's stagnation.
the question is, is there a general change in policy, is invading countries
or threat thereof, breaking treaties a tool in Russian policy.
Is this considered less important than protecting Russian speakers,
fighting nationalist movements, whatever.
What are the children taught in schools ? glorious history, wars ?
Putin in his speech mentioned gain of Crimea 1783, but also by breaking treaties.
In that time military success was probably considered more important,
but nowadays with airplanes, international trade, blocks, nukes,
global problems (global warming,bioterrorism,...) things look probably different.
That's presumably what Obama meant with wrong side of history.
the question is, is there a general change in policy, is invading countries
or threat thereof, breaking treaties a tool in Russian policy
Maybe we can say Russia does have a 'script' that's playing out after the USSR broke up but it's not written in stone?
Lots of strategic and tactical considerations no doubt go on from Russia as well as the West's end. Time was ok for going into Crimea. I sure would like to be a fly on the wall in Mr. Putin's mind takling in how he's viewing Ukraine right now. maybe he doesn't outright 'want it' but if 'mistakes' are made of course he will take advantage. You know so-called possession is arguably said to be nine-tenths of the 'law'. Mr. Putin validated that!
You said nonsense, I showed you from Egypt and leaflets Maidan in Ukraine. It is evident that this case is the same hand. And foolish to believe that the maidan applicable in Russia. We know the story well enough.
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I addressed your points. I don't think Russia will embrace maidan as a way to exert pressure on the government itching to suppress anything like that, I think you'll go straight to a civil war, political terrorism and all the things Russians already did trying to overthrow monarchy. For how long oil/gas profits would sustain political monstrosity Putin has concocted? After that see above.
But, it's funny that the Little Russians- Ukrainians, Belarusians - belorossy and Great - Russian - all Russian. the only difference is their location in the territory of Russia. Ukraine - a Russian word that says - that it is people who live on the edge (edges) of Russia.
A nation that forgets its roots and who they are doomed to extinction.
Nice parroting of the official propaganda lines of the Russian czars who declared themselves to be in charge of one and the only "true" Russians to legitimate their power and land grabs. It's not big deal that Kiev is located "on the edge" of Russia according to this idiotic propaganda Russians embraced wholeheartedly.
At the time of Kievan Rus', Moscow area (as well as most of NW Russia) was sparsely populated by Finnish tribes area sprinkled with a few Slavic settlers. 1000 years later, Kiev magically shifted "to the edge" of Russia, the entity that didn't even exist before Moscow rulers used Golden Horde military might to start absorbing other NW Rus principalities.
Kievan Rus was never a monolithic nation, there was no Kievan Rus ethnicity. Confederation consisted of many semi-isolated, barely related tribes (some of those were not even Slavic). Moscovites declared themselves to be one and the only true descendants of Kievan Rus, later on they stole the brand "Rus" and "Russians" all to themselves, declaring all the others Eastern Slavs "spoiled" by foreign influences and itching to reunite with Mother Russia brand Moscovites created.
A nation that invents its roots and uses that make up history to justify its domination over other nations is doomed, since it has no roots, just force fed propaganda called to excite chauvinistic masses.
Last edited by RememberMee; 03-23-2014 at 12:01 PM..
At the time of Kievan Rus', Moscow area (as well as most of NW Russia) was sparsely populated by Finnish tribes area sprinkled with a few Slavic settlers. 1000 years later, Kiev magically shifted "to the edge" of Russia, the entity that didn't even exist before Moscow rulers used Golden Horde military might to start absorbing other NW Rus principalities.
Kiev "magically shifted to the edge of Russia" only according to the likes of you, since you are clearly missing the whole period of disintegration of Kievan state and rise of such cities as Vladimir, Suzdal and so on - with other words the ones that comprise now the "Golden Ring" of Russia.
Besides, as I've already mentioned Moscow has been willed to youngest son of Alexander Nevsky already back in 1263 when Kiev was still there all right, but you prefer to ignore this fact in order to push your own agenda.
Now as far as Moscow prince "using Golden Horde military might" with a purpose of consolidating Russian lands and power - that was a lesson learned from the demise of Kiev. And Kiev was ruined by Mongols why? Precisely because Russian princes couldn't consolidate their powers and unite in the face of the common enemy. Hence, only after the rulers of Moscow were able to consolidate their power and submit other Russian principalities - only then they could overthrow the Mongol domination.
Quote:
Kievan Rus was never a monolithic nation, there was no Kievan Rus ethnicity. Confederation consisted of many semi-isolated, barely related tribes (some of those were not even Slavic). Moscovites declared themselves to be one and the only true descendants of Kievan Rus, later on they stole the brand "Rus" and "Russians" all to themselves, declaring all the others Eastern Slavs "spoiled" by foreign influences and itching to reunite with Mother Russia brand Moscovites created.
Moscovites had every right to do that, because they were the ones who retained the soul and purpose of Kievan Rus - the Orthodoxy. Galicia-Volhynia kingdom - yet another possible successor of disintegrated Kievan Rus has been dutifully submitted under the Roman Church and hence forever lost its claim to be a "unifier" of Russian lands. And neither can Western part of Ukraine ( the descendent of Galicia-Volhynia Kingdom, basically,) impose its own interests on the rest of Ukraine.
Quote:
A nation that invents its roots and uses that make up history to justify its domination over other nations is doomed, since it has no roots, just force fed propaganda called to excite chauvinistic masses.
It's not Russia but YOU who is trying to re-invent Russian history.
More than that - what I've briefly outlined in this post, explains why making Russian-speaking East and South of the country to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian is an attempt to turn the clock of history back. Russian language takes its roots from Ukrainian and the more Slavic culture was expanding Eastwards, with culmination in Moscow as the most secure location for its new capital, the more Russian language was developed and refined, while the Ukrainian version of it remained frozen in time.
Last edited by erasure; 03-23-2014 at 03:29 PM..
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.
As we say in Russian "и нашим, и вашим"
