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.
so now we have an independent extra army of volunteers in Russia that acts on nationalism
and left ideas rather than treaties and international law and which may invade other
countries like the Baltic States should they become too much capitalistic or tear down
Lenin monuments ?!
Not stopping these is de facto a war, no matter how tricky Russian language Putin may
choose to describe it.
---------------edit----------------
well, I shouldn't have said war. More like providing mercenaries or supporting one party
in a war with money or weapons or logistics.
Sorry, but you clearly ignore the situation E. Ukraine has always been in as it relates to its relations with Russia. I do not know if you do this on purpose in order to not legitimize E. Ukraine's issues, or if you just do not know. Fact is they have never considered themselves part of Ukraine since 1991, anyone, and I mean anyone who has ever lived or visited there for any length of time would know this.
The Baltics are not Ukraine no more than Saudi Arabia is Iraq and has to fear a US invasion.
so now we have an independent extra army of volunteers in Russia that acts on nationalism
and left ideas rather than treaties and international law and which may invade other
countries like the Baltic States should they become too much capitalistic or tear down
Lenin monuments ?!
Not stopping these is de facto a war, no matter how tricky Russian language Putin may
choose to describe it.
---------------edit----------------
well, I shouldn't have said war. More like providing mercenaries or supporting one party
in a war with money or weapons or logistics.
Number 1 - I am not sure what Baltic countries has got to do with Ukraine, since Baltic countries were spoils of war, while Ukraine ( except for its westernmost parts) was part of Russia for the last 300 years, ( and before that,) not to mention that such cities as Sevastopol or Odessa are inseparable part of Russian history.
And number 2 - Russians are well-aware that all those "treaties" signed twenty years ago that you are referring to apparently, were designed with intention to weaken Russia and facilitate her future disintegration. Russians are well aware that their "upper class" - people in charge back in those days were working hand in hand with the US government, serving primarily its interests.
That's all clear, the only thing that I find amusing is that it is widely recognized that the WWII was in many ways the direct consequences of the Versaille agreement ( plus some other factors in that historic period,) that were pivotal for the development of future events.
However everyone seems to be in denial that whatever is coming on "Russian front," are direct consequences of the nineties. Yes, THAT I find quite amusing.
boxus,
I was talking about the legal situation, and this is independent of cultural relations.
The Baltics,Poland are afraid of Russian "intervention" and that's why they
wanted into NATO and always ask for more NATO-troops at their borders.
erasure,
the Baltics were mentioned because of the fear of some Russian neighbors
about intervention by official or unofficial Russian forces.
And as I wrote before, I think we shouldn't so much compare with history since things
are so much different today with nukes,internet,UNO,NATO,WTO etc..
Whatever you think were the reasons for the design of the treaties - they
were still signed and are valid.
the economical problems in Russia and its neighbors in the 90s, were they
a consequence of the political collapse of the USSR and ultimatively Gorbachev's
changes ? Most Russians seem to think so. I'm not so sure, has it been examined ?
> Corrupt and haphazard privatization process turned over major state-owned firms to
> politically connected "oligarchs", which has left equity ownership highly concentrated.
> Yeltsin's program of radical, market-oriented reform came to be known as a "shock therapy".
> It was based on the recommendations of the IMF and a group of top American economists,
> including Larry Summers.[36][37] The result was disastrous,
erasure,
the Baltics were mentioned because of the fear of some Russian neighbors
about intervention by official or unofficial Russian forces.
And as I wrote before, I think we shouldn't so much compare with history since things
are so much different today with nukes,internet,UNO,NATO,WTO etc..
Whatever you think were the reasons for the design of the treaties - they
were still signed and are valid.
What I think is not important in this case.
What Russians think about it, however IS important.
If someone is successfully cheated, ( or so it seems,) it doesn't make much sense to point at the papers obtained as the result of the deceit, and claim their validity.
These papers are valid only as long as those who drafted them are capable of enforcing the deceit, and not a minute longer.
the economical problems in Russia and its neighbors in the 90s, were they
a consequence of the political collapse of the USSR and ultimatively Gorbachev's
changes ?
No. What happened with Gorbachev, was only part of a problem. The real culprit was Yeltsin's governing. That's when major disaster took place.
Quote:
Most Russians seem to think so. I'm not so sure, has it been examined ?
> Corrupt and haphazard privatization process turned over major state-owned firms to
> politically connected "oligarchs", which has left equity ownership highly concentrated.
> Yeltsin's program of radical, market-oriented reform came to be known as a "shock therapy".
> It was based on the recommendations of the IMF and a group of top American economists,
> including Larry Summers.[36][37] The result was disastrous,
give a source. Some independent legal expert who says it was legal.
You must agree that the overwhelming majority of experts -including UNO-
say that it was illegal (see e.g. wikipedia). And a clear violation of the 1994 Budapest treaty.
Where is the official scientific Russian paper to argue and discuss the claimed legality and
to address the counterarguments and criticism ? (not just the usual rhetorik/propaganda)
but was it because of Yeltsin's policy ? And if yes, what exactly.
The transition from communism to free market was difficult in other converting
countries (who had no Yeltsin) too for some years, Poland ,GDR.
Or maybe it was just the time general recession in these countries.
Maybe it just couldn't have been avoided ...
Maybe for Russian's good current economy that intermediate problematic step
was just necessary.
Would that currently good economy also have happened without the transition to capitalism ?
the Baltics were mentioned because of the fear of some Russian neighbors
about intervention by official or unofficial Russian forces.
Reasons. We must look for the causes. Putin are not crazy. Russians are not crazy. Intervention requires reasons. I do not see these reasons. You see?
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.
