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.
In general, this is true. But who pushes Russia on this path? Who makes a first dangerous steps? It is important.
That maybe so, but that still doesn't distract from Russia's internal issues. Russia's foreign policy isn't the only thing being criticized. Russia is still a very corrupt country where a huge chunk of the countries GDP gets wasted on corruption and the black market. Russia has issues with freedom of the press/speach, and even though western countries have biased press as well and PC culture is running rampant, doesn't mean that Russia shouldn't strive to be even better than the west. Also it doesn't distract that Russia, relative to it's natural resources and talent pool, is a poor country. Yes it's richer than many, but it could be doing much better.
Though I do have to give Russia props for not completely falling off the edge like Ukraine did which is poorer than a lot of African countries. I'm also aware that Russia is starting to diversify its economy, particularly in agriculture. Hopefully Russia continues it's economic growth and not stagnate like other post soviet countries.
I think what Milky Way Resident is trying to get at is that Russians tend to be very defensive of their history and their country. And that whenever an outsider/westerner points out anything negative about Russia, even if it is true, Russians well deflect it by stating that the US/Europe does the same thing, which often times is true as well. (I know this to be true as I do this quite often as well) In essence both sides become hypocrites. Westerners criticizing Russia for many of the things that the west is guilty of, and Russian's defending it because "unethical" westerners do it too. However one thing I want to point out to Milky Way Resident, is that I think most Russians are aware of Russia's flaws, and are embarrassed and tired of it, and are pretty open about discussing these issues amongst themselves. But when a foreigner comes into the conversation, Russians will try to tidy up the situation and try to present it as "not so bad", even though knowing full well of the ills eating Russia inside out. Similar to how when guests come over to a persons house, that person will try to make their house more presentable and the guest ends up leaving the house thinking said person is a very tidy person, even though most days said person leaves a mess around. And what I want to point out to the Russian community, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if the west does it, doesn't mean you have the moral high ground. Many westerners are aware of their flaws too and openly discuss about them amongst themselves too, and detest many of the things their governments do. For instance many Americans hate that their country spends so much money on the military and wars, when that money could be better spent on domestic issues. Many Americans hate the corporate greed that has taken over the country, and how everything is focused on making as much profits as possible, while many people in the bottom half of the social ladder don't know if they will still have a roof over their head in the next couple months. Americans detest their inefficient healthcare and education system as well as many other things. And I'm pretty sure Russian's have plenty of things to detest about their own country as well. I think all that Milky Way Resident wants is for you Russians to admit that Russia is a flawed country and has a lot to grow in, and that he/she is worried about the current path that Russia is set on. And all the Russian's want to say is that they are aware of their own problems and don't need outsiders pointing them out, since the people who know them best are the ones who actually live with them. It's like an anorexic person talking with an obese one. Anorexic person tells the obese one that they need to eat less or they will die of cardiovascular disease, and the obese one tells the anorexic one to shut up and instead eat more or else they will die on malnutrition, while all this time they both think they have the moral high ground in this debate and neither one can admit that they both think that they are fat.
I would say you have a pretty good understanding of what I'm getting at. The constant deflection is one of the biggest problems and ultimately ends up underlining their own culpability in the conflict. When it comes to WW2, their take is even more full of propaganda then that of any western country, where apparently the allies were funding the Nazi regime while the Soviets fought bravely. Had Hitler not invaded the SU, I doubt they would have stepped in to help the allies.
As to my take on the MIC in the US, I think it's a mixed bag. The downside is that it obviously ends up being used as a killing tool, but the funds that go into it, go into research which trickles down to society. Take drones or satellites for example, both were originally developed for the military but over the years that tech has been used to design commercial models that play important roles in everyday life.
It's also important to remember that Russia and every country that develops weaponry has an MIC.
What reply?
What reply can I give to people that live in alternative reality ( when it comes to WWII,) or people that already created the distinct world outlook "it's all Russia's fault.")))
Two reasons: it thought it could, and it realised it can't. Before 1939 Stalin thought that Finland was 'near abroad' (ближнее зарубежье), a piece of land which got away. But as we fought so valiantly, Stalin realised that we are a nation worth defending, and being a Nordic Nation instead of a Baltic slave.
In autumn 1940 Molotov went to Berlin and asked Hitler if the USSR could take another shot in conquering Finland, but Hitler said no, as he realised that Finland could play a valuable part in Barbarossa.
In 1944 when the Soviet army was the most powerful, against all expectations the Finns with the help of Germans stopped the Russian advance. The Karelian-Finnish front was the only one which failed its objective in Bagration.
Stalin succeeded in his objective kicking Finland out of the war, but he was in Bucharest, Sofia, Belgrade but not even close to Helsinki.
--
After the war, the leader of the control commission Zdanov asked Molotov "why we didn't take Finland, everything works so well there". Molotov replied "the Finns are so stubborn, just let them be".
These are the rationale of Russo-Finnish relations even today. Might sound ironic, but we got Russia's respect by killing as many Russians we could. And as all border issues are dealt with indefinitely, we have only an economic interest in Russia, and are open to all friendship proposals.
Mean people fighting to the death, no big natural resources, bad music, non-slavic culture. doesn't make any sense conquering us. Just let us bel
Ariete dear, can we create somewhere somehow a separate thread about brave, invincible Finns that totally annihilated the big bad Russia, David VS Goliath style, and bring all the wreaths and flowers to that thread?
What reply?
What reply can I give to people that live in alternative reality ( when it comes to WWII,) or people that already created the distinct world outlook "it's all Russia's fault.")))
So according to you
Criticizing Russia = It's all Russia's fault
You have a very interesting take on language or maybe in your alternative reality equal has a different meaning. Please enlighten me.
It was better than nothing. And if it wasn't better than nothing, why did Stalin demand to dismantle the fortifications?
Karelia is lost, and the issue is settled. Finland has no claims on Karelia anymore.
The Finnish resistance caused that the Soviet troops couldn't parade in Helsinki on Stalin's birthday. That fact made Stalin realise that Finland wasn't something you just come and take like the Baltic States.
Of course it could. Bagration started in June 1944 and the Red Army was to be in Helsinki in late July. But with German help the Finnish forces stopped the advance and the Russians never got more than into 30 kilometres inside the current border. But the Red Army had to get to Berlin, so the stubborn Finns was a nuisance. Could the Red Army conquer Finland? Absolutely. Would've the effort make that the Western Allies would get to Berlin first? Maybe.
And this is the doctrine of our defence today as well. Make the defence so stubborn that an invader would lose so much power that it makes no sense conquering us. We can never win a war against Russia, but we can create a scenario that it is not worth to conquer us. And not to be a keyboard warrior, I am one of those defending us.
Interesting Ari. As you said if Russia had wanted to it could have conquered Finland in 1944 and 45 but it sure would have thrown a wrench in their other plans. From what I understand Finland was not a goal except for reaching the line set in 1939. Destruction of AG Center and the thrust into the Balkans took all the effort the Red Army could muster that summer. The Soviets wanted the Germans more than you.
Karelia might reborn as an independant country. Russian are the majority now bu it can changes.
And as russia isn't really able to offer economic development to his citizens, people might be attarcts by an independance.
Two reasons: it thought it could, and it realised it can't. Before 1939 Stalin thought that Finland was 'near abroad' (ближнее зарубежье), a piece of land which got away. But as we fought so valiantly, Stalin realised that we are a nation worth defending, and being a Nordic Nation instead of a Baltic slave.
In autumn 1940 Molotov went to Berlin and asked Hitler if the USSR could take another shot in conquering Finland, but Hitler said no, as he realised that Finland could play a valuable part in Barbarossa.
In 1944 when the Soviet army was the most powerful, against all expectations the Finns with the help of Germans stopped the Russian advance. The Karelian-Finnish front was the only one which failed its objective in Bagration.
Stalin succeeded in his objective kicking Finland out of the war, but he was in Bucharest, Sofia, Belgrade but not even close to Helsinki.
--
After the war, the leader of the control commission Zdanov asked Molotov "why we didn't take Finland, everything works so well there". Molotov replied "the Finns are so stubborn, just let them be".
These are the rationale of Russo-Finnish relations even today. Might sound ironic, but we got Russia's respect by killing as many Russians we could. And as all border issues are dealt with indefinitely, we have only an economic interest in Russia, and are open to all friendship proposals.
Do you mean a entrance of Finland into the USSR or as an independent country with a communist regime? I think that Stalin did not plan to include Finland in the USSR. This version is confirmed also by the fact that the Finns were not declared war criminals for the blockade of Leningrad. Also Finland was the largest Western partner during the Cold War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
Mean people fighting to the death, no big natural resources, bad music, non-slavic culture. doesn't make any sense conquering us. Just let us bel
Your music is cool.
+ btw. Do you understand that they sing?
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.
