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.
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Putin wants to take back the lands that Russia lost during the breakup of the USSR, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI. The difference is Russia is still too weak to directly occupy them so he's stalling for time... Repeating the Sudetenland scenario several times over. Russia is getting weaker as time goes by though as its share of the world economy has dropped back to 2%. So the occupied countries are also waiting for Russia to weaken enough to reclaim their territories.
That would mean subsidizing those territories as it was back in Soviet times. And that means losing profits from gas/oil sales to EU.
Putin/people in his government want none of it.
What they want is to USE those lands to their own economic advantage, without actually "taking them back."
And that's what you seem to not to comprehend.
Putin is NOT A SOVIET LEADER. He is CORPORATE CEO - first and utmost.
Russia does occupy territory in 3 former Republics without the consent of their freely elected (ie, legitimate) governments. But in 1 country, they are more than occupying territory, they are literally engaging in violent hostile acts against the central government. You can frame it as a response to secret plots by the West all you want but the sanctions will continue until this stops.
That's more of your American propaganda.
And yes, it IS all about the "secret plots by the West" by the way. (In case of Abkhazia in particular, NATO lost one more desirable strategic port, as it was a case with Crimea and Sevastopol.)
Grega look at all the territories Stalin had in 1938 ( and all the constructions/reconstructions/projects) that he had to undertake there, and ask yourself, why did he need some ADDITIONAL territories on top of that?
P.S. Hitler's ultimate invasion goals were really not "taking back the lost territories" - it was only a pretext to something else. So it doesn't really make sense to equate Stalin to Hitler (as it's often done.)
For similar reasons the Russian empire acquired them, most importantly for shortening the frontline and moving it away as far as possible from the heartland, and secondly those lands weren't undeveloped and they mostly escaped the disasters of the civil war which is one of the reasons why the Baltic states always had a higher standard of living compared to everyone else. Also in 1987 (the year of the first census) Riga was the 6th largest city in the empire, even larger than Kiev, Vilnius was the 9th largest, Chișinău was the 16th, larger than Nizhny Novgorod. So I would say at the very least back then the Baltic states were very important, and it probably was a huge embarrassment for the Soviet Union/Russia to have lost control of that vital land after having it for hundreds of years and that such little countries were able to beat back the Bolsheviks during the civil war.
But yes I agree that Hitler's ambitions went much further than just reassembling the German empire.
Also I think there are parallels that can be made between Stalin's quest to retake lost lands, and Putin's quest to regain global power status. That being said I don't think Putin wants to require all those lands, but when the opportunity arises he obviously takes it, as we saw with Crimea. But living in a puppet state isn't much better than living in an occupied one either, and for the case of Ukraine they can either be a puppet of US/Europe or Russia. Ukraine could try and find a different path similar to what Finland did during the cold war, but you need some skilled diplomats to do that.
Your criticism is pointless in the face of the fact that the destruction of the Russian Federation is a strategic goal of American policy. Efforts to this end are ongoing and are relentless. Russia must take steps to defend itself. Period.
While my criticism may have been tongue in cheek in nature, I stand by my observation.
It's not just Russia though, it appears to apply to most of Eastern Europe. My family is Eastern European and many exhibit that kind of behavior.
Increase in public disobedience. Negative influence of Western rock music
Increase in violent behavior. Blame American movies that glorify violence
Essentially, there's always an excuse for everything, and that's not even getting into the political and religious stuff.
Look at this thread, thousands of pages that at the end of the day are mostly just ongoing repeats of what was said before. I've been gone for over a month from CD and I see no change at all on this page. I could probably come back in a year and things would likely stay the same.
For similar reasons the Russian empire acquired them, most importantly for shortening the frontline and moving it away as far as possible from the heartland, and secondly those lands weren't undeveloped and they mostly escaped the disasters of the civil war which is one of the reasons why the Baltic states always had a higher standard of living compared to everyone else.
No Grega, this is just an assumption I think. "Baltic lands" were ones of the poorest ones ( rural areas) in the Russian Empire and that's the reason why Latvians ( in particular) were supporting the Reds so eagerly. (On a side note; I think it had something more to do more with the relations between the Baltic Germans and the Balts, than with "Russian Russians" per se. I think that such factor that the Russian Empire had so many different ethnic groups that had THEIR OWN patterns of interaction within the Empire are often overlooked.)
That's number one, and number two - Peter the Great acquired "the Baltics" from Sweden after the Great Northern War, after the victory of Peter the Great. The major reason Peter the Great was fighting Sweden, was the access to the Baltic Sea for trade with Europe, which Sweden was denying to Russia for many years, and which was important for Russia's future development.
Quote:
Also in 1987 (the year of the first census) Riga was the 6th largest city in the empire, even larger than Kiev, Vilnius was the 9th largest, Chișinău was the 16th, larger than Nizhny Novgorod. So I would say at the very least back then the Baltic states were very important, and it probably was a huge embarrassment for the Soviet Union/Russia to have lost control of that vital land after having it for hundreds of years and that such little countries were able to beat back the Bolsheviks during the civil war.
Russians had it only since 1721 - (so roughly only for 200 years,) so it couldn't have been THAT much of embarrassment. The SAFETY concerns (from the military point of view) that loss of these territories could represent was a whole different matter.
As far as "such little countries beating back the bolsheviks" - not exactly, there were other forces involved, ( Russian White Army including,) not to mention the bloody civil war within the "Russia proper," so the breakaway of provinces should be expected in this situation - there is nothing "embarrassing" there.
Quote:
But yes I agree that Hitler's ambitions went much further than just reassembling the German empire.
Also I think there are parallels that can be made between Stalin's quest to retake lost lands, and Putin's quest to regain global power status. That being said I don't think Putin wants to require all those lands, but when the opportunity arises he obviously takes it, as we saw with Crimea.
Watch closely what Putin is doing ( VS Stalin.) Right here, at 1:19 -
That's all Putin wants, he has no interest of taking over these impoverished areas - not more than Americans do.
Crimea is yet another example. Sevastopol is a strategic military naval base, so Putin takes over it as soon as. Donbass/Eastern Ukraine has nothing of his financial interests, so he doesn't touch it, when he has an ample opportunity to do so.
As I've said, there is a difference between the statesman ( as Stalin was) and the CEO.
Quote:
But living in a puppet state isn't much better than living in an occupied one either, and for the case of Ukraine they can either be a puppet of US/Europe or Russia. Ukraine could try and find a different path similar to what Finland did during the cold war, but you need some skilled diplomats to do that.
I don't think Ukraine has any particular "different path" now, since it's already sold to the IMF.
It's also very fashionable in Russia and Eastern Europe to point the finger at someone else and look for ways to deflect at every turn.
If I had a dollar for every instance that an Eastern European grandma said something along the lines of what you just did on countless occasions on CD, I'd be a millionaire by now.
MWR, try to stay relevant please.
Tell us something more about those grandmas, some historic facts about them, what kind of world events they were involved in - that kind of stuff.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s sanctions against Iran and Venezuela have inadvertently increased demand for a Russian brand of crude oil, boosting revenues for the nation’s exporters.
Russian oil companies received at least $905 million in additional revenues between November and July, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The calculation is based on difference between the Urals spread to the Brent benchmark over the period compared to the five-year average.
That's all Putin wants, he has no interest of taking over these impoverished areas - not more than Americans do.
Crimea is yet another example. Sevastopol is a strategic military naval base, so Putin takes over it as soon as. Donbass/Eastern Ukraine has nothing of his financial interests, so he doesn't touch it, when he has an ample opportunity to do so.
As I've said, there is a difference between the statesman ( as Stalin was) and the CEO.
Crimea was a part of Russia that happened to be in Ukraine, right? When Ukraine made this decisive shift away from Russia in 2014 it made sense (to me) to formally reintegrate Crimea back to Russia. It seems so obvious that this is the way it should be. But I don't see this as a business move because clearly Russia has poured a LOT of resources into this project for not much return economically.
As for the Donbass, the business reasons for taking that region would have been more financially rewarding than Crimea, so there must be a different reason for rejecting this idea to take it over.
Putin needs it to be a counterweight to the further westward shift of Ukraine but since the Donbas is going to be outvoted, pressure by force rather than political pressure is how he can hope to achieve that. As Macron is learning today, Putin is happy to make peace but only on his terms where his proxies can veto western integration.
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.
"Baltic lands" were ones of the poorest ones ( rural areas) in the Russian Empire and that's the reason why Latvians ( in particular) were 
The SAFETY concerns (from the military point of view) that loss of these territories could represent was a whole different matter. 
