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.
They have a long and bloody history. It makes me fear for the Ukraine.
They don't have the CIA-trained jihadists who are fighting for territory in Ukraine. There were mercenaries from the Chechen Caucasus Emirates insurgent group, but none are fighting for native homeland as in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kyrgistan, etc. There isn't the ability of foreign mujahideen from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Albania, etc. to blend in with the civilian population. The earliest Russian wars attributed to the strategy is Chechnya in 1994.
I have news for you, I am formally educated on this subject beyond what I know from family and friends and from living there too.
So with other words - you are indoctrinated. ( Well no, it's not "news" for me. )
Quote:
You are familiar with your experience and I am with mine.
It's not about *my experience* per se; it's about an ability to look into different sources ( both in English and in Russian) and to compare ( and double-check) who says what and why.
Quote:
Have you read Remnick's book? It was required reading to kick off our Russian studies.
Let's see here...
"This is an impressive narrative history covering a critical period in Russian history that haunts the world to this day.It provides context for Vladimir Putin's attempt to build a new (arguably evil) empire. "
"This book tells the story of the struggle of Russia to reclaim it's history from the tissue of lies the Communist Party packaged and sold in place of the truth. Remnick, who was an American journalist in Moscow, brings a host of information together detailing how people, at great risk to themselves, investigated the bloody facts of the history of the USSR which the Communists wanted to paint over."
So, can you spell "indoctrination" right there? ( Obviously, that's the reason why it was "required" in order to "kick off Russian studies.")
Luckily, not all Americans are dumb, and no Pulitzer Prize can fool them. So here is one more review of Remnick's book:
"The book reads like a memoir, it is not a piece of history. The author presents the history like a HS textbook-- the protagonists and antagonists are clearly defined, a simplified tale of good versus evil, more so the author's history of the events than the actual history of events. I understand an expose of a communist country is not particularly easy, but the author's orotund prose and ad hominem, straw man arguments are just lame, lacking any sort of integrity for research, history, objectivity.
A lot of this book is conversations with Russian commoners, who are either apotheosized by the author for their prescience/greatness or demeaned for being doltish milquetoasts. Readers need not form their own opinions because Remnick does it for them. He may be perfectly accurate in his simplistic characterizations for all I know (although I highly doubt it), but the presentation assumes the reader is too immature/stupid to draw conclusions on their own (or, perhaps worse, derive an opinion different than the authors!)
I am too lazy to quote it directly, but the first paragraph of page 284 makes my case.
If you want Remnick's history of the USSR read this book. If you want an objective, comprehensive history of glasnost and perestroika preceding the fall of the USSR, I would go somewhere else."
So while you were REQUIRED to read something like that, why would I waste my time on this book?
Quote:
Bush was representing the actual American "establishment" position too. We wanted the Soviet system destroyed and a democratic successor state.
Which would magically appear by placing all the country's riches in few hands? ( A process instigated and approved by *American economists.*)
Too funny.
Quote:
Not a Yugoslavian type of partition as it leads to instability.
What Yugoslavia had to do with the Soviet Union, pray-tell me)))
Quote:
It was in our financial class's interests to see this carried through to turn Russia into a part of Europe with growing markets and trade.
Wait a minute, the "financial class" of America is vehemently resisting such basic European idea as universal healthcare, considering it to be "too socialist," so what to say about the rest?
If Russia would REALLY have become "part of Europe" ( i.e. keeping most of its social security net, along with transitioning to the "free market," ) it would have been a success.
But that's NOT what Americans had in mind for Russia, now did they?
Quote:
There is tons of evidence of this, and none that breaking up states would make our investors richer.
Whaddayaknow, so the separate oil deals signed with Kazakhstan's or say Azerbaijan's "business people" don't make American ( and other) investors richer? It didn't make the American investors of "Yukos" richer as well you say?
Oh but it did. Because without breaking those states apart ( and privatizing the lucrative industries,) the former Soviet state was responsible for providing the natural resources to the "loser republics" - such as Tajikistan or Armenia. And those things would have had to be discussed and arranged on state\governmental level, instead of going directly to the "private owners" of the resources-rich former republics.
So sorry, but the break-up of the Soviet states made American investors richer, directly so.
Quote:
It all happened quick though. 1991 spiraled out of everyone's control. We didn't want the anti-Gorby coup to happen and obviously that changed the game for everyone.
Nothing happened "quick." In fact, the whole process was hanging in limbo for quite some time.
And of course Americans did not want anti-Gorby's coup, since these people ( the coup organizers) were reading correctly into situation, suspecting that the new pact signed by Gorbachev, could lead to the break-up of the Soviet Union.
But that's precisely what Americans were hoping for, for a number of reasons. Of course they were against any attempt to reverse the process.
Quote:
The breakup of the asian republics was aided by the respective leaders there wanting absolute control of their countries.
Which ( yet again) played straight in the hands of *American investors,* and not only. It was very convenient for American politicians now to negotiate with the heads of the "new countries," and to start building American military bases straight in Russia's backyard.
Quote:
That has borne out in the results. Same thing happened with Belarus.
Yes, "as the result."
Quote:
But the rest: Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia they all consisted of historical nation/states/people that wanted to not be Russian controlled anymore than Poland or Finland does.
Each and every of these respective republics/countries had different history of relations with Russia.
While Baltic countries preferred to stay under Russian dominance ( vs German dominance) during Tzarist times, they considered themselves occupied by the Soviet Union after the WWII ( which was understandable.)
But when it comes to Georgia and Armenia - they owe Russia their very existence, because otherwise they would have been gulped up by the neighboring Islamic states - be that Persia or Turkey.
And when it comes to "independence of Ukraine" - it was not about "Ukraine," but three westernmost regions, that, like Baltic states considered themselves occupied after the WWII, since they were not part of Ukrainian/Russian history from 11th century on ( or so.)
NOW of course they are trying to impose their identity on the rest of Ukraine, faultily so.
Quote:
Crimea should have then been given back to Russia, that is Ukraine's historical mistake.
That's a given.
I'm glad that you understand at least this part.
"This is an impressive narrative history covering a critical period in Russian history that haunts the world to this day.It provides context for Vladimir Putin's attempt to build a new (arguably evil) empire. "
"This book tells the story of the struggle of Russia to reclaim it's history from the tissue of lies the Communist Party packaged and sold in place of the truth. Remnick, who was an American journalist in Moscow, brings a host of information together detailing how people, at great risk to themselves, investigated the bloody facts of the history of the USSR which the Communists wanted to paint over."
So, can you spell "indoctrination" right there? ( Obviously, that's the reason why it was "required" in order to "kick off Russian studies.")
Luckily, not all Americans are dumb, and no Pulitzer Prize can fool them. So here is one more review of Remnick's book:
"The book reads like a memoir, it is not a piece of history. The author presents the history like a HS textbook-- the protagonists and antagonists are clearly defined, a simplified tale of good versus evil, more so the author's history of the events than the actual history of events. I understand an expose of a communist country is not particularly easy, but the author's orotund prose and ad hominem, straw man arguments are just lame, lacking any sort of integrity for research, history, objectivity.
A lot of this book is conversations with Russian commoners, who are either apotheosized by the author for their prescience/greatness or demeaned for being doltish milquetoasts. Readers need not form their own opinions because Remnick does it for them. He may be perfectly accurate in his simplistic characterizations for all I know (although I highly doubt it), but the presentation assumes the reader is too immature/stupid to draw conclusions on their own (or, perhaps worse, derive an opinion different than the authors!)
I am too lazy to quote it directly, but the first paragraph of page 284 makes my case.
If you want Remnick's history of the USSR read this book. If you want an objective, comprehensive history of glasnost and perestroika preceding the fall of the USSR, I would go somewhere else."
So while you were REQUIRED to read something like that, why would I waste my time on this book?
That book is a waste of time if you want to get the real picture and it's so like the larger mass of material we're exposed too here in the west. It's more meant to dull the mind into acceptance with dogma and tedious rambling than finding out the real truth of the matter.
That book is a waste of time if you want to get the real picture and it's so like the larger mass of material we're exposed too here in the west. It's more meant to dull the mind into acceptance with dogma and tedious rambling than finding out the real truth of the matter.
Well yes, indoctrination. The convenient for politicians outlook, imposed on its general population.
I mean of course the US is not the USSR - you still can find plenty of alternative sources of information, but that does not mean that "indoctrination" churned out by mass media doesn't exist. It certainly does.
P.S. Russians are loling at the latest G-7 meeting
It looks like Ukrainian identity/nationalism is a thing what has increased with years. In 1991 and overall in those years where took place the movement of secession of Baltic countries there were also pro Soviet movements in Baltics which opposed to independence movements and wanted to maintain them as republics within the Union. In Estonia such movement -the International Movement of Workers of Estonian SSR - was led eg by two ethnic Ukrainians and an ethnic Jew. What I want to say is that in past Ukrainians eg in other republics were in general always together with local Russians and shared same views and everything. And of course - the language. There were and are pretty many Ukrainians here but only a very tiny bit of them speak Ukrainian language as first language. (Overall, I believe the Ukrainian identity (and obviously anti-Russian feelings as well) of those Ukrainians who live in other former soviet republics is weaker than Ukrainian identity of Ukraine's Ukrainians.)
It looks like Ukrainian identity/nationalism is a thing what has increased with years. In 1991 and overall in those years where took place the movement of secession of Baltic countries there were also pro Soviet movements in Baltics which opposed to independence movements and wanted to maintain them as republics within the Union. In Estonia such movement -the International Movement of Workers of Estonian SSR - was led eg by two ethnic Ukrainians and an ethnic Jew. What I want to say is that in past Ukrainians eg in other republics were in general always together with local Russians and shared same views and everything. And of course - the language. There were and are pretty many Ukrainians here but only a very tiny bit of them speak Ukrainian language as first language. (Overall, I believe the Ukrainian identity (and obviously anti-Russian feelings as well) of those Ukrainians who live in other former soviet republics is weaker than Ukrainian identity of Ukraine's Ukrainians.)
Many Ukrainians in the Baltic states were "pro" Russian right up until 2014. All the ones I knew were, and they are an unrelated sample so I can't call them outliers. For example, my friends in Tallinn, who speak Russian first and hail from Odessa (and more of their family live in Russia than in Ukraine), were quick to point out to me the lies on Russian TV in late February of 2014 (the supposed mass exodus of Ukrainians fleeing to Russia and the persecution of Russian speakers in the south, etc). They were the ones who set off the alarms in my mind about what Russia's reaction to the revolution was going to be.
For sure though many of them who live in different countries all these years don't have a strong Ukrainian identity. It makes sense that the new Ukrainian anti-Russian identity would exist mostly in the country affect by Putin's disastrous intervention. If Russia intervened in Estonia in the same way, they would be hated more there too.
But here's the thing in all this, the coup in Moscow in 1991 was the catalyst for breaking up the USSR the way it did. I'm not surprised that this has been flipped into an anti-western conspiracy theory lately but I am surprised that people who should know better are giving into such ideas.
Many Ukrainians in the Baltic states were "pro" Russian right up until 2014. All the ones I knew were, and they are an unrelated sample so I can't call them outliers. For example, my friends in Tallinn, who speak Russian first and hail from Odessa (and more of their family live in Russia than in Ukraine), were quick to point out to me the lies on Russian TV in late February of 2014 (the supposed mass exodus of Ukrainians fleeing to Russia and the persecution of Russian speakers in the south, etc). They were the ones who set off the alarms in my mind about what Russia's reaction to the revolution was going to be.
For sure though many of them who live in different countries all these years don't have a strong Ukrainian identity. It makes sense that the new Ukrainian anti-Russian identity would exist mostly in the country affect by Putin's disastrous intervention. If Russia intervened in Estonia in the same way, they would be hated more there too.
But here's the thing in all this, the coup in Moscow in 1991 was the catalyst for breaking up the USSR the way it did. I'm not surprised that this has been flipped into an anti-western conspiracy theory lately but I am surprised that people who should know better are giving into such ideas.
No DKM. Most Balts and Ukrainians are simply trying to survive. Certain factions, small in number, are the motivational force behind the attitude towards Russia. The West uses a system of propaganda, lies, distortions and manipulation of material to feed to the masses. It's called information warfare, it's how you control people.
Average Russian, Estonian, Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Finnish, Nigerian, Eskimo and even American people left alone would get along together just fine in this world. The leadership of the western world doesn't want that though. Politicians in general don't want that.
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.
)
What I want to say is that in past Ukrainians eg in other republics were in general always together with local Russians and shared same views and everything. And of course - the language. There were and are pretty many Ukrainians here but only a very tiny bit of them speak Ukrainian language as first language. (Overall, I believe the Ukrainian identity (and obviously anti-Russian feelings as well) of those Ukrainians who live in other former soviet republics is weaker than Ukrainian identity of Ukraine's Ukrainians.)