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.
The main difference that Russian forces were invited by legitimate government.
If some country will drop some bombs at the territory of my country. I would call it invasion.
I wouldn't. Luffwaffe constantly dropped bombs on English cities in the first half of World War Two (to the point where the whole historical center of Coventry and large swaths of East London were wiped out) but it would be inaccurate to consider that an invasion of Great Britain. An invasion happens only in the moment where foreign troops step on a country's soil
What I learnt from various sources is Russians executed or deported to Siberia (mostly to gulags there) hundreds of thousand of ethnic Balts (and maybe Poles in Belarus and Ukraine) and brought in Russians and other soviet republic nationals to these countries, particularly to big cities to supplement the population decline caused by this mass execution/deportation.
They russified (or rather sovietized) most of the cities in ex-commie countries by building commie blocks which are plain concrete blocks, destroyed historical buildings or transformed them into barracks, ruined economy by centralised soviet style management, etc. and didn't do anything to compensate for the loss. Instead they started to invade these countries again by buying real estates, emigrating to these countries, increasing their influence by suppressing anti-Russian attitude through intimidation and nobbling, etc.
This is not fair. At least Russians should compensate for the losses they made these countries to suffer before starting to try to enhance and restore their political/economical influence in these ex-commie countries.
Russians will not compensate a **** - because all you said is a lie, a distorted picture of history put into your brain by corrupted politicized historians.
People who were sent to Siberia from Baltic states were criminals, killing and robbing peaceful citizens.
Before joining USSR Baltic countries were mostly agrarian, USSR invested heavily in them, building factories, electric power stations, generating white collar jobs - this required some migration from Russia and other republics because locals would never be able to pull that level of industrialization themselves.
Stop spreading lies.
I am not saying the EU is paying something, I am saying Barozu personally writes that lol...
"I'm for EU absolutely and very happy we joined. I don't know much about the amount of financial help Estonia has received (probably a considerable sum, I don't doubt it) but this aspect is in my opinion not the most important. I really appreciate the idea of EU. I feel that belonging to EU means to strive towards some common values and in spite some inevitable grievances (bureaucracy etc) I see EU doing just that - supporting the so called European values."
Russians will not compensate a **** - because all you said is a lie, a distorted picture of history put into your brain by corrupted politicized historians. People who were sent to Siberia from Baltic states were criminals, killing and robbing peaceful citizens.
I am sure that SOME were sent to Siberia for legitimate reasons, but many were not; they were deported to Siberia for the heck of it, just to "dilute" the local population and to create the new mix somewhere else ( namely - in Kazakhstan and Siberia.) Russia can be quite a "moloch" ( Ariete used this word correctly) when it comes to people's destinies, and particularly during Stalin's times. But same fate befall many ethnic Russians too, so it would be incorrect to think that it were ethnic Russians sitting pretty and enjoying all the benefits of the system, while other ethnicities were under attack.
Quote:
Before joining USSR Baltic countries were mostly agrarian, USSR invested heavily in them, building factories, electric power stations, generating white collar jobs - this required some migration from Russia and other republics because locals would never be able to pull that level of industrialization themselves. Stop spreading lies.
This is also true that Baltic countries were among the poorest in Russian empire, Latvia in particular, hence their disproportionate participation in Communist revolution. Latvians suffered during Soviet time the most as well; their population dwindled down significantly - may be it's true what Solzhenitsyn said about them as in "revolution devouring its own children."
After the war Soviet government invested in Baltic countries too - it's true again, but it's not like they became part of the Soviet Union volonteerly.
I doubt that these high-middle-class Russians who do this possess any danger to the country. They bring profit for its economy.
A year ago I read somewhere about Russian businessman who invested in the reconstruction of a spa in Latvia. What's wrong with it?.
What's wrong with it? Everything.
See, the *investments* make countries dependable on *investors,* and this creates a *danger* for the country. Such dependency is reserved for the benefits of the Western countries, not Russia. Earlier in history Russia had her own sphere of interests (Russian tzars made it possible, and Stalin made sure it remained a case after the war,) but in the world where money rule, the counties that own the world banking system would like to squeeze Russia out of the game for good. You need to remember that American takeover of Europe ( as its sphere of influence) was Marshall's plan, that was not bringing in the weapons, but first of all those mentioned above investments, i.e. money. ( Same case was with Japan.) There was a reason you see why Stalin responded with COMECON a bit later.
P.S. Now that I remember, when I've said that Gorbachev most likely knew that all those newly independent E.E. countries were not going to be exactly "set free" and "independent," but become a sphere of economic interests of Western Europe, euro123 said that "what's a big deal, money were ruling the world for the last 2,000 years or so.."
Well yes, but the difference is, they were not ruling in such concentrated manner, with money concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and in fewer and fewer countries. And those that have the strings to those money, increasingly dictate the world politics.
Well obviously money is prime factor everywhere. My point was that there isn't direct connection here between money-"unionization" as you tried to imply.
I'd explain:
I mentioned that other factors play role such as geographical proximity of borders (think the EU) or common language(think Russian in the USSR).
Those are just 2 examples out of many. So far the West easily controls Eastern Europe namely thanks to the presence of these factors among others.
Money comes later when the West opens their market to EE or then it takes the young people to work in Western Europe, but you need again foundation for things to work in the first place.
Well obviously money is prime factor everywhere. My point was that there isn't direct connection here between money-"unionization" as you tried to imply.
Sorry I don't understand it.
Quote:
I'd explain:
I mentioned that other factors play role such as geographical proximity of borders (think the EU) or common language(think Russian in the USSR).
Oh, of course other factors are involved, but they only help/hinder the decisions of money flow.
The example of "common language" as it was in the USSR is a different matter all together.
Quote:
Those are just 2 examples out of many.
What are the other factors?
Quote:
So far the West easily controls Eastern Europe namely thanks to the presence of these factors among others.
Yes, the EE is conveniently located for this purpose, unlike, say... Georgia))) or Armenia.
Quote:
Money comes later when the West opens their market to EE or then it takes the young people to work in Western Europe, but you need again foundation for things to work in the first place.
Sorry I don't understand it again, particularly what it means "for things to work."
Because things can be "working wrong" in you opinion for example, looking at things from your end, but for someone else in EU labor committee ( or whatever it's called ) things are working perfectly well, as intended.
* Europe was mostly white = one race;
* Mostly christian = one religion;
* common border;
* English as a common language between Germanics;
* No need for military as each country had strong military.
Now how are you going to create a new union only between Eastern European countries?
No common language, weakened religious influence, need for strong military to resist both NATO/Russia/China and so on.
That's my point, the EU was going to happen regardless among its founding members but other countries were joined by force later. If however these countries want to break from the EU it will be much harder for them to create any "unification" these days. If however this is possible then they can think of common stock market, lack of vat, free travel, bank system and all the supposed benefits.
* Europe was mostly white = one race;
* Mostly christian = one religion;
* common border;
* English as a common language between Germanics;
* No need for military as each country had strong military.
The circumstances are more complex. Western Europe isn't the same as Eastern Europe. Different countries often have different interests and history. We have made sure of it during the recent migration crisis related to Syrian war.
Germany wanted to adopt thousand of migrants but Poland said "No". This wasn't a whim but had economic causes: the amount of money a state can spend and the quantity of free work positions.
* Europe was mostly white = one race;
* Mostly christian = one religion;
* common border;
* English as a common language between Germanics;
And what do you do with Romance countries? Haven't you heard multiple complaints here about their persistent resistance starting with ( but not limited to) France?
Quote:
Now how are you going to create a new union only between Eastern European countries? No common language, weakened religious influence, need for strong military to resist both NATO/Russia/China and so on.
Not only that. Ask the Polish for example - do they want such union, or are they much happier in the company of EU? How about Serbs? Aren't they "Eastern Europeans" as well?
Quote:
That's my point, the EU was going to happen regardless among its founding members but other countries were joined by force later. If however these countries want to break from the EU it will be much harder for them to create any "unification" these days. If however this is possible then they can think of common stock market, lack of vat, free travel, bank system and all the supposed benefits.
Totally unrealistic if you ask me - the huge differences in outlooks, goals and desires.
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.
) things are working perfectly well, as intended. 
Different groups of European States
