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.
Anhity..
"Choosing" implies the presence of choices, and understanding of the nature of these choices.
General Russian population didn't have any of it, so the choice has been made FOR them. It was made by American bankers and American politicians, with the help of part of the Soviet nomenclature - people basically appointed by Americans, such as Gaidar and Chubais. And of course with the help of Yeltsin ( then president of the country, who was clueless as the rest of Russian population what "market economy" is all about, and what "versions" it has.)
And when some people in the parliament figured out the danger and decided to resist, they were promptly shelled by Yeltsin, with the backing of the US government.
There went the future of Russian democracy - down the drain.
When Yeltsin finally realized the consequences of all these "reforms" dictated by Americans, he was in utter shock, but it was too late to change anything.
So it was a crime of the century, and Baltic countries by the way didn't "choose" anything either.
It was chosen for them as well.
Yes, especially the bolded. That was absent. I'm sure most people still have no idea how to set prices for goods and services, for example.
The Baltics didn't choose? Who chose for them?
BTW, "nomenklatura" is translated as "nomenklatura". "Nomenclature" in English means something completely different.
Quote:
no·men·kla·tu·ra
ˌnōmənkləˈt(y)o͝orə
noun
(in the former Soviet Union) a list of influential posts in government and industry to be filled by Communist Party appointees.
Well, that's not quite right; it's the people who occupy those posts.
Here's wiki, on "nomenklatura":
Quote:
a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
Anyway, you can see that it's a loan word in English, designating something specific to the Soviet system. Well, I suppose you could possibly extend it, to mean the collection of high government posts appointed by the President (or the ruling Party) in any country. There are a lot of appointed posts in the US government: federal judges, ambassadors, Presidential cabinet members... Could those be called a nomenklatura, or is it different? What about African and Latin American countries?
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-30-2018 at 10:13 PM..
Yes, especially the bolded. That was absent. I'm sure most people still have no idea how to set prices for goods and services, for example.
What makes you think so, Ruth?
Of course they do.
It's common sense.
Overall I'd say that it's a big misconception that I hear sometimes, that "Russians didn't know how to run businesses, since Soviet system suppressed their abilities for too long."
To begin with, when Gorbachev-the-fool allowed SOME enterprenership ( they were called "co-ops" back then,) Moscow immediately received the new bars/restaurants/caffees, with the kind of food variety I haven't seen before. The new meat products appeared in the store across the place I lived - the long forgotten "buzhenina" and "carbonat" - the kind of cold cuts, comparable to German ones, I was pointing at in another thread. It was EXCEPTIONALLY good, not to mention Russian servilat/salami sausages.
And those who were producing and selling them, knew perfectly well what price to set.
And so was with the rest of business that Russians were ready to run - they knew perfectly well what they were doing ( including my cousin, who was getting into international joint venture at that time.)
So no, THIS kind of knowledge was not lacking; what WAS lacking, was the law framework, and understanding how "laissez faire" capitalism differs from the civilized one and mixed economy.
Quote:
The Baltics didn't choose? Who chose for them?
THAT I don't know, since they went their separate way, so whether the US were involved, or their economic "arrangements" were made directly with EU is a question to me.
Quote:
BTW, "nomenklatura" is translated as "nomenklatura". "Nomenclature" in English means something completely different.
Well, that's not quite right; it's the people who occupy those posts.
Here's wiki, on "nomenklatura":
That was typo Ruth, as many others. Sometimes I have time to come back and fix them, and sometimes I don't. As it was this time around, when my time of hair coloring was up)))
My sources in the military circles of the Lugansk People’s Republic told me in early March that they did not expect a Ukrainian attack ahead of the Russian presidential elections simply because of weather conditions preventing tank movements – whether heavy snow or the water runoffs from melting snow. In their opinion, a Ukrainian offensive would be possible no earlier than late April or May, i.e. now.
Now, as we can see, all the preconditions for a Ukrainian blitzkrieg are ripe or being prepared. Only one conditions, perhaps the most important factor, remains: geopolitics. A UAF offensive on Donbass would inevitably lead to a conflict between Russia and the West. This would be an extremely costly development. Hence why I would refrain from volunteering any unequivocal answer as to whether or not war is around the corner. Rather, we should continue to closely monitor both specific local developments and the larger geopolitical picture.
Anhity..
"Choosing" implies the presence of choices, and understanding of the nature of these choices.
General Russian population didn't have any of it, so the choice has been made FOR them. It was made by American bankers and American politicians, with the help of part of the Soviet nomenclature - people basically appointed by Americans, such as Gaidar and Chubais. And of course with the help of Yeltsin ( then president of the country, who was clueless as the rest of Russian population what "market economy" is all about, and what "versions" it has.)
And when some people in the parliament figured out the danger and decided to resist, they were promptly shelled by Yeltsin, with the backing of the US government.
There went the future of Russian democracy - down the drain.
When Yeltsin finally realized the consequences of all these "reforms" dictated by Americans, he was in utter shock, but it was too late to change anything.
So it was a crime of the century, and Baltic countries by the way didn't "choose" anything either.
It was chosen for them as well.
Quote:
Yes, especially the bolded. That was absent. I'm sure most people still have no idea how to set prices for goods and services, for example.
The Baltics didn't choose? Who chose for them?
Well, laissez-faire capitalism is one of the worst things ever. How did the Baltics get it? You know, judging mostly by my own country seems that similarily to Russia - inadvertently for most of it's people.
At the end/ after the end of soviet era it was believed socialism is guilty of everything, that "it never works" etc. Occupation of country by Stalin in 1940, deportations to Siberia, Stalin's gulag and other negative aspects of soviet system had heavily discredited it and shadowed it's positive aspects. This attitude was used and heavily magnified by right wingers who were smitten with Friedman, thatcherism, reaganism and other stuff like that.
We got it inadvertently - what do I mean with that? I mean 90 per cent or maybe 99 percent of those people who "sang for freedom" in 1988 or stood in the Baltic Chain in 1989 or did whatever they did then had no idea what was lying ahead. http://g1.nh.ee/images/pix/900x585/3...c-66422746.jpg
That 99 percent only wanted to get their countries' independence back, stolen by Stalin in 1940, they did not want to have poverty, 15 hours long working days and ridiculous salaries for what, they did not want big income gaps between poor an rich, they did not want the destrcuction of soviet welfare system, they did not want to get rid such things as practically free of charge electricity, communal expenses or accommodation, living quarters. And however, they got rid of those things.
(And yeah, as for freedom itself - besides, the Baltic countries gave up lots of their freedom to EU federal structures - so for now, if to exaggerate a bit- the rest is gone but the capitalism has remained and shines, with lots of freedom to clean the toilets in former west countries. )
You are going from 4 train cars of troops and equipment arriving to a village to war between Russia and NATO. Pretty crazy
I noticed that too. Four wagons are four train cars to me. That's 4 spgs which is a battery. Most of the rolling stock over there tends to be smaller in capacity than what we see in America. It seems more like a change out of equipment than a buildup. Some of those guns have been at the front for a long time and after so many rounds down the barrel the guns lose accuracy and field conditions are tough on equipment in general. Even if they go to a new location it's still only 4 guns and some rocket launchers/APCs. The child killers will need much more than that.
Russia has 25 to 30 thousand troops in an ark from Rostov-on-Don to Bryansk and that's just troops ready to go with a few hours notice. Air assets no one has a good idea of but it might as well be everything including the kitchen sink. Same with Airmobile assets.
I'll bet that if the Ukrops try it they get their asses handed to them on a diamond studded gold platter.
On Crimea, Russia's legal position is that, although the Ukrainian constitution prohibits local referenda on secession, this is now trumped by the UN Charter (article 1), which stipulates that people have the right to self-determination. Russia adopted this view following the July 22, 2010 decision of the International Court of Justice to recognize Kosovo's independence from Serbia. At the time, the U.S. State Department filed a brief in support of Kosovo arguing that "there was no general rule [because] these were political acts." They were therefore worthy of recognition because declaring independence had created a new "political reality" in the region.6
Russia originally opposed this ICJ ruling, but later found it quite congenial in Ukraine. Russia argues that Ukrainians living in Crimea and Donbass have the same right to determine their allegiance that Kosovars did when they were living in Serbia, and that the Crimean referendum of March 16, 2014 overwhelmingly ratified that decision.
Most international legal experts, however, argue that Russia facilitated the ability of Crimean authorities to hold such a referendum with masked military intervention. Therefore the results, and the annexation, should not be considered legal.7 To this Russia (and local Crimean officials) make two counterarguments. First, on the charge that the presence of Russian troops invalidates the referendum, the Crimean government argues that responsibility for law and order at the polling stations was borne by local self-defense forces and volunteers, not Russian troops.
Second, to the point that the Ukrainian Constitution states that the separation of a part of the country's territory cannot be subject to a local referendum, Crimean officials point out that the authorities in Kiev revoked the acting Ukrainian Constitution on February 21st and reinstated the 1996 constitution. This was done in one day, without any judicial review, and as such was illegal. The Crimean government responded by assuming control until ‘constitutional order' was restored in Kiev, and began negotiations with Kiev.8 When those failed, Crimean authorities acted in accordance with their view that Crimean sovereignty had been restored to the status quo ante by the revocation of the constitution, and this was the issue put to the people in the March referendum.9
On Crimea, Russia's legal position is that, although the Ukrainian constitution prohibits local referenda on secession, this is now trumped by the UN Charter (article 1), which stipulates that people have the right to self-determination. Russia adopted this view following the July 22, 2010 decision of the International Court of Justice to recognize Kosovo's independence from Serbia. At the time, the U.S. State Department filed a brief in support of Kosovo arguing that "there was no general rule [because] these were political acts." They were therefore worthy of recognition because declaring independence had created a new "political reality" in the region.6
Russia originally opposed this ICJ ruling, but later found it quite congenial in Ukraine. Russia argues that Ukrainians living in Crimea and Donbass have the same right to determine their allegiance that Kosovars did when they were living in Serbia, and that the Crimean referendum of March 16, 2014 overwhelmingly ratified that decision.
Most international legal experts, however, argue that Russia facilitated the ability of Crimean authorities to hold such a referendum with masked military intervention. Therefore the results, and the annexation, should not be considered legal.7 To this Russia (and local Crimean officials) make two counterarguments. First, on the charge that the presence of Russian troops invalidates the referendum, the Crimean government argues that responsibility for law and order at the polling stations was borne by local self-defense forces and volunteers, not Russian troops.
Second, to the point that the Ukrainian Constitution states that the separation of a part of the country's territory cannot be subject to a local referendum, Crimean officials point out that the authorities in Kiev revoked the acting Ukrainian Constitution on February 21st and reinstated the 1996 constitution. This was done in one day, without any judicial review, and as such was illegal. The Crimean government responded by assuming control until ‘constitutional order' was restored in Kiev, and began negotiations with Kiev.8 When those failed, Crimean authorities acted in accordance with their view that Crimean sovereignty had been restored to the status quo ante by the revocation of the constitution, and this was the issue put to the people in the March referendum.9
Americans and their stooges in Kiev were baking that coup d'etat with such joy and in such a hurry, that few inconvenient but important details slept away from their memory, apparently. Such as Kosovo.
Do they think that someone like Putin have forgotten all about it, and wouldn't put this card on the table?
Rightfully so.
So it's not even about the "soft power" of Russians, it's something much more obvious.
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.
Sometimes I have time to come back and fix them, and sometimes I don't. As it was this time around, when my time of hair coloring was up))) 
