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 American history can shed some light on the evolution of the events in the swamps and forest of NE Europe. 240 years ago, people of the same culture, language and origin as English had a sparsely populated, unexploited continent in front of them. And it was enough for the Americans to get an independence bug in them, freedom rhetoric, taxes, grievances etc. those are minor things compared.
And now think about those ancient slavic tribes expanding into and exploiting their new motherlands. Were they any different in their grabbing instincts than Americans? They had all those new forests and swamps to claim, uniting with mother tribe or any tribe was not on the menu. The agenda of unity as to improve exploitation of resources, division of labor and military power must follow "speciation" of the tribes from a mother tribe and explosion in diversity. Russian comrades just mindlessly project unification agenda of the Russian Empire onto ancient past.
Again, since in all probability the Poles are the "purest" descendants of the mother of all Slavic tribes, Russians positioning themselves as the natural uniters preserving all that purity etc. is a nonsensical claim on multiple levels.
That Poles can "unite" anything is a "nonsensical claim" I can tell you that much, ( although they tried it once.)
Kievan Rus was all about Orthodoxy - their princes worked on this matter quite laboriously, in order to avoid going under the church of Byzantium, but to have their own autocephalous church. That's what Kiev was all about, that's the reason why Ukraine asked for Moscow's help in the 1600ies, that's the reason why Ukraine got united with Russia and the rest.
Poland on another hand became a vassal of Rome and always remains someone else's vassal til today.
It tried briefly back in the day to grab Ukraine, but precisely because of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy it didn't work out.
The history of the US has got nothing to do with all of that, because these were already much later times.
The Russian nation has been born much earlier, in Kievan Rus, with its center of development constantly moving Eastward for a number of reasons. And it were Russian princes who were constantly expanding and claiming new territories surrounding them in what's now European part of Russia. Russian history can be compared to US history more or less only from the point of conquering Siberia ( about 17th century.)
So go read books, genius))))
"The disintegration, or parcelling of the polity of Kievan Rus' in the 11th century resulted in considerable population shifts and a political, social, and economic regrouping. The resultant effect of these forces coalescing was the marked emergence of new peoples.[29] While these processes began long before the fall of Kiev, its fall expedited these gradual developments into a significant linguistic and ethnic differentiation among the Rus' people into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians."
Divided by the Russian, Ukrainians and Belarusian were not in the 11th century. I am surprised that it is in Wikipedia. Even the term "Rus" was not used for the entire territory of the country at the time. In Novgorod people wrote "go to Rus" (go to Kiev) at the time.
It has been "edited" by some "Voevoda" four months ago, so you shouldn't be surprised any longer. The Ukrainians running like chickens with their heads cut off trying to re-write their history and pretend that they've never had anything to do with Russia))) Never ever. They were always pure "Europeans" you know, not Russian heathens)))
Comrade Erasure, people and tribes expanding into unoccupied lands diversify to become new people and tribes, all way until the space is filled, and only then agenda changes to dog eats dog, unification and nation building. You mindlessly project again. Proto Poles gave birth to many proto slavic tribes expanding into new area and splitting further. Kievan Rus was not a nation, it was a failed attempt to create collective at the wrong time when speciation pressure was too high.
people of Kievan Rus preserved pagan believes for centuries after nominal christening, Orthodoxy was helped greatly by Mongols realizing controlling value of the Orthodox Church. That is when Russian anti Western/anti Catholic sentiment was born. Princes and priests relying on pagan Mongols to rule needed to explain that to the masses as an attempt to prevent scheming Catholics from "enslaving" Rus. The myth is still alive.
Your case against unification with Mother Poland is weak. How some finno ugric mongrels, who adopted an artificial language and thoroughly synthetic culture can be more pure than Mother Poland?
Not a dictatorship, but a government desired by the people based on the former model. Belarus is a democracy whose main goal is stability.
"Democracy" implies functional multi-party system, which Belorussia can't afford in her current economic situation. It has to remain a dictatorship, in order to protect itself from predatory Western practice.
If it is a dictatorsip, then it is a benevolent one. And personally I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship (other examples : Portugal and Spain in the sixties/early seventies, Hungary and its "Gulaschsozialsmus in the '80s, China now-not at the time ;of mass murderer Mao-etc) than in a malevolent "democracy" (like my country today, socialist France).
If it is a dictatorsip, then it is a benevolent one. And personally I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship (other examples : Portugal and Spain in the sixties/early seventies, Hungary and its "Gulaschsozialsmus in the '80s, China now-not at the time ;of mass murderer Mao-etc) than in a malevolent "democracy" (like my country today, socialist France).
If outside the law intimidation and executions, some number of corpses in the name of greater good dont bother you, there are some other things to consider. There is a difference between left and right wing dictatorships. The lefties tend to destroy social organism more thouroughly since they try to manage economy, and rightwingers just let it be. Complex system is simplified so a limited person like Lukashenko could personally manage it. Not a good idea. It is like rot simplifies complex biological tissues into smelly mash. Normally, lefty dictators cannot run the scheme for too long. If Russia would stop funding friendly Lukashenko regime, your dream of a stall, a whip and fodder would disappear overnight, or Belarus must "evolve" into something far less "benign", see North Korea.
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.
