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.
erasure,
--------------------------------
wrt. the language problem
launch a formal complaint to UNO, let an independent group of experts
examine,elaborate,consider the language issue. Write scientific papers about it.
---------------------------------------
And you think that all these mentioned above organizations are not aware of issues I was talking about? Or that they wouldn't know any of it, had they expressed any interest in the issue?
No, they simply brush it aside as "unimportant," or rather as "not serving the purpose."
I've had a good laugh yesterday while reading your suggestion, so don't take it personal, but I'll have a bit of fun here at your expense;
German (noun)
definition from Free Global Vocabulary;
German - a person who is laboriously trying to make sense out of senseless world, and when this doesn't work, still applies a rigid set of rules deemed "logical" to anything and everything that comes his way.
If a German would be around circa 5-6 BC, he'd be the first one to suggest Jesus Christ to put his gospel in writing and complain in chronological order to High Synod of all the wrongdoings on Jewish part, with a copy sent to a Roman Procurator just in case the initial complaint didn't achieve the desired result.
In more modern times a German would most likely advise Russian peasantry to outlay in most logical order the reasons of discontent their overlords might have caused them, thus preventing the unnecessary Socialist revolution, in the same manner it has been avoided in Germany... wait! Wait a second, didn't they have a few of those in Germany around the same time?
Quote:
wrt. Serbia in WWI
I'm surprised that you argue with religious and blood ties now, after all that racism debate ....
And what's the "racism debate?" The fact that races do exist, or that there are "less valuable races" and "more valuable" ones?
I never said that races don't exist. But it's not up to me to make decisions which ones are "more valuable" and which ones are "not." I am not the one to determine the true "value;" after all we know what "face value" means - don't we?
Quote:
It leads to nothing. Others will use the same arguments.
What we need are clear rules, that withstand the propaganda from both sides.
------------------------------------
There are no "clear rules" my dear German friend, that's the whole point))))
If we would have known the source of our global problems, where all those "landless" nations came from for example, we'd known right away where to properly organize the "Kurdish state," or where to place Hmong people, or what to say Palestinians when they demand Jerusalem as their capital ( just an example.) But interestingly enough - we don't. There is no "clear rule" why to announce separation of Abkhazia from Georgia illegal, but separation of Kosovo from Serbia - legal. We don't know who Basques really are, and whether they should go their own way if they wish. It's all about opinions, and those who express them; how valid is their point and what's more important - how much weight it has. It's all about who/what is considered the leading power ( and why,) and whose interests this or that decision serves at the end. That's what creates the narrative; so deep down it's all about propaganda after all.
Quote:
wrt. NATO countires in Eastern Europe
they joined NATO because they were afraid of Russian invasion or political pressure
with threat thereof. Russia has a history of doing such things, as you know.
Well... Russia "was doing such things" as many other in history - fighting, expanding her territories, winning some and losing some. There was nothing drastically different up to 1939 and up, but those were the times when Russia has been targeted ( yet again) and this time around - for complete annihilation. When Russia came victorious out of this ( potentially mortal for her) conflict, all the countries that sided ( and were used by) Germany went under her boot. Particularly if to take in consideration, that the global power that was rising on the horizon at that point, was already set to rule the world finanacially, not by the old means of tanks and guns. Russian rulers understood it very well ( after reading the fine print of Marshall's plan,) and reserved the right to keep the "buffer zone" that was serving Russian interests financially speaking as well.
I know the least about the Eastern European countries ( what their experience was like, since I've heard it was different, depending on the country,) but I can understand that after so many years being used for someone else's interests, they wanted to be used ( and protected) by more "gentle rulers." Their wish was granted at that point, and in order to get an assurance that it's going to stay this way, they've asked for NATO protection.
I don't see any problem with that; they were the spoils of the WWII, so when the danger was over, Russia could easily part with them. After all, she didn't need them earlier in history ( with exception of Poland, but that's a different story,) so she can live without them for ages to come.
Quote:
Whether Putin wants a conflict with NATO ? No. But you know how it goes ...
there may be some problems ...just an example ... say nationalists kill the Russian ambassador,
Estonia does little to find and punish or deliver the suspects, there is an ultimatum etc.
Or a Russian spy airplane is shot or a "fascist" coup or ... whatever.
But all that sounds to me rather like a pretext to war, that Putin wants ( although according to you - he doesn't.) When you DON"T want a war, you'll find the ways to diffuse the potentially dangerous situation.
Quote:
I can well imagine that there is a point where the Russian public -influenced by propaganda, parades -
will demand invasion, as they did in 1914.
What are you talking about exactly? Remind me please of what took place in 1914.
-------------------------------------
Quote:
wrt. Hitler and Jews,
I don't understand what you mean.
What I mean is that every nation is like a "tree" ( or a bush if you wish - it has the lower layers of peasantry/tradesmen, then "middle layer" and the top.)
So the "conspiroplogists" are usually talking about "Jewish banksters" taking over the world; they don't talk much about the rest of Jews. Hitler, however was determined to destroy them all - no matter what level of the society a Jew came from - be that milkman or shoemaker. He went after them in order to eradicate the whole "tree," ( or rather "branch of the tree," to be more precise.) That's why I've said that there was something more sinister on his mind, then just "conspiracy theories."
Now that didn't sound too enticing but it does bring up an interesting point. What does Russia do if countries who perhaps wish to not be resigned to only having a relationship with them but with the EU as well? It would seem to me the logical choice would be to lean both and take the best of both.
Trav-ric.
I thought you already knew the answer to this one, but I guess not.
So here is again a speech of Vlad ( your favorite) in Minsk, on 26/08/14 (BEFORE any Maidan took place) on a possible signing of "Ukraine- EU association," or rather the possible consequences of it, in the "light of Ukraine belonging to the "Custom Union" at the same time.
He is talking here about the "deep integration of Ukrainian economy with former CIS countries," the "unique ties" in a number of industries, and that it was Ukraine that insisted on signing the "free trade zone" and on expanding these ties. ( Those ties were created not within the last few years, but "within the centuries with no exaggeration" and so on and so on.)
Then he goes about how much Russia "respects the choices of other states for self-determination, the freedom of creating alliances and military unions, economic freedom including, as long as it's "not at our expense." ( Note a look that lady Ashton is giving him at this point, lol.)
So if Ukraine signs the "association agreement" with EU, a number of demands ( he specifies which ones) will "simply lead to closure of Ukrainian market for Russian goods," and at the same time the adjustment to these requirements will make Ukraine to spend millions of Euros. With zero tariffs on EU-made goods ( that will take effect after ratification of agreement,) there will be a significant increase of European-made goods to Ukrainian market; not only that, the less competitive Ukrainian goods will be squeezed out from Ukrainian market and most likely they'll start flooding Russian market ( and other markets of custom Union, but first of all - Russian.) We can't disregard the risk of re-exported European goods, under the guise of "Ukrainian-made." It's very important to establish some kind of mechanism to properly identify the real origin of a product, but no one ever talked to us about that...About all these things I'm talking about here. In fact we've been told "it's none of your business, we are not discussing your trade relations with Canada or China, but let's not forget that Ukraine is right by our side, we have close economic relations. We are not the last trading partner for EU friends either, so it would be more proper to discuss all these issues here. We hope that we will adress them and get some answers here during these negotiations. (But back to the subject) - the initial estimated loss that we are going to receive ( from Ukraine signing the EU deal) is going to be one billion rubles (that's for Russia alone) so the first stage - 3 billion dollars. The entire sectors of our agricultural complex will be put at risk... Belorussia and Kazakhstan of course will have losses as well. Russia will not idly stand by; we will be forced ( I repeat it,) we will be forced to protect our market. We'll have to....cancel preferential treatment of Ukrainian goods. We don't want to discriminate, but we'll be forced to implement the standard trading regime with Ukraine.. the same by the way that's used in trade between the EU and Russia. WE'll have to re-evaluate the sanitary norms required from our Ukrainian friends... and we'll find how to implement the mechanisms identifying the exact origin of the products, because as we've already said, it's a great concern to us when it's coming to components. As it has been mentioned before, there is a threat that European-made goods will be making their way through Ukrainian territory. I know when Pyotr Alekssevitch (referring to Poroshenko) will have his turn, he will disagree with me, but I have to say that even today, within our Custom Union we already have EU-made goods in Russian Federation, that come to us illegally; they came through Belorussia in this case, unfortunately. (At 9:18) Here it is, it's written here; "Country of origin; Belorussia," but when we peeled the label off, it says "Poland." And there will be a wave of EU-made goods coming to us through Ukraine. I know that Belorussian authorities are doing their best to put stop on such things; we have an agreement with them at least.. we don't have such agreement with Ukraine."
So as you can see Travric - nothing personal on Putin's side. Just business.
Quote:
I have the feeling Vlad fears that. Thus that Eurasian Union which would link all in some great eco union to better the quality of life for Russians. That's great but it does cutoff populations from Western fare and presents sort of an either or situation. Why is that? Is Vlad perhaps afraid ethnic Russians wherever they will be will be poisoned with Western culture or something?
Here goes the "Eurasian Union with better quality of life for Russians."
Vlad is not a "statesman first and utmost." He is not Stalin, who, in spite of his brutality and paranoia was first of all a statesman. "Vlad" first and utmost is a dealer, a "businessman" that constantly counts his money. "Statesman" - that takes the back seat.
Of course it's BS - wherever someone like Jeffry Sacks is involved, the BS is walking near-by.
At that I'm sure that the concept of "peace index" does exist, although it would be better identified as the "risk index" - meaning the countries that are more predisposed to lead to the global conflict, the "hidden" ( and not so hidden) buttons. And the basis for the "points" should be quite different from what the "researchers" are operating there.
Things like "presence of oil" ( or other valuable natural resources, but oil in particular,) "strategic attachment" to this or that super-power, alliances, presence of nuclear weapons, religion - those should be the true factors in calculation what countries represent the biggest risk for current established "world order" and fragile balance.
Of course it's BS - wherever someone like Jeffry Sacks is involved, the BS is walking near-by.
At that I'm sure that the concept of "peace index" does exist, although it would be better identified as the "risk index" - meaning the countries that are more predisposed to lead to the global conflict, the "hidden" ( and not so hidden) buttons. And the basis for the "points" should be quite different from what the "researchers" are operating there.
Things like "presence of oil" ( or other valuable natural resources, but oil in particular,) "strategic attachment" to this or that super-power, alliances, presence of nuclear weapons, religion - those should be the true factors in calculation what countries represent the biggest risk for current established "world order" and fragile balance.
Nothing much to add to that, just to say that I agree with you on everything.
As for the remarks, I seem to pick up a fear from his end. I'd agree that he is the 'bizness' man here in the calculation. I'd suggest his fear says a bit in how views his own economy in context with European competition and activity with Ukraine. The latter simply wants to change the economic dynamics between the two. Russia doesn't want to deal with it. Perhaps they simply can't? Maybe there's a bit of rust in the economic gears propelling the Russian economy which makes them unable to put it with some changes outside themselves?
There is obviously 'new' thinking going on there in one part of the relationship. Vlad appears to want the same old same old eco setup which used to nestle comfortably in the mantra of how 'things were always done'. Now all of a sudden he's confronted with change and argues Russia is 'forced' to act based on behavior from another sovereign country to protect their interest. Rather than worry about 'protectionist' issues perhaps Vlad should be more forward thinking in the new state of the global economy and how Russia stands with it.
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.
Wait a second, didn't they have a few of those in Germany around the same time? 
