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.
So any nation that thinks the way to have peace is to remain weak because that's what Russia wants, is clearly mistaken.
At this point I find it hard to believe they've won in Georgia, given their "progress" Russia can't even win against North Makedonia. Putin said his military is no match vs nato but he has nukes - I mean bi**ch, forget about nato you can't win against 30% of Ukraine - they're really useless without nukes (and vodka). Even more ironically the country that behaves as the real leader now is Turkey, you can't blame them and I swear if I wasn't contemporary of these events I'd never believe Turkey is the good guy and Russia - bad.
WWII was fought because of Hitler, a totalitarian that started invading other countries. If he had left other countries alone, there would never have been WWII.
When a totalitarian dictator invades another country they think they are making their country better. But what they really want is to keep their totalitarian power, because they know a democracy will vote them out of power.
It seems every totalitarian dictator becomes a paranoid isolationist, and when democracy gets too close, they will attack it.
WWII was fought because of Hitler, a totalitarian that started invading other countries. If he had left other countries alone, there would never have been WWII.
When a totalitarian dictator invades another country they think they are making their country better. But what they really want is to keep their totalitarian power, because they know a democracy will vote them out of power.
It seems every totalitarian dictator becomes a paranoid isolationist, and when democracy gets too close, they will attack it.
^^^This is the thing. IMO the writing was on the wall when Yeltsin's chosen successor figured out a way to appoint himself dictator-for-life, whether as President or Prime Minister, then the change to the Constitution allowing unlimited 4-year terms (or are they 6 years, now?)
It was clear then, that the Soviet Union was alive and well, if a bit tattered. It did not bode well for the future. Of course, an invasion of a neighboring country still couldn't be foreseen at that stage, but the clinging to power was ominous. You knew it was going to be more of the same-old, same-old. "BACK in the USSR", as Paul McCartney aptly crooned right on Red Square, under the dictator's watchful eye.
Chilling. And sad. There are plenty of Russians who would like Russia to be a normal country, with a genuine democratic process, less corruption, and some hope of an improved standard of living. While things have improved to a small degree for the average citizen, there's still a long way to go. Salaries are still at Soviet levels, more or less. The country is flooded with imported consumer goods, but Russia still doesn't produce much of that on its own (which would be more affordable to citizens). Light industry is still a neglected segment of the economy, and now the war and subsequent sanctions have crushed any hope for improvement.
The growth of civil society institutions got flushed down the toilet when charitable foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) were banned as "foreign agents", and freedom of the press and freedom of expression were curtailed. And now anyone daring to speak accurately of events in Ukraine risks a prison sentence. The change to a market economy has turned out to be mere window-dressing on a system that too closely resembles the past that was supposed to be left behind; window-dressing that enables even greater corruption than before.
For the time being, there's no end in sight. And the rest of Europe had been rudely awakened to the renewed possibility of chronic wars in its central/eastern segment.
WWII was fought because of Hitler, a totalitarian that started invading other countries. If he had left other countries alone, there would never have been WWII.
When a totalitarian dictator invades another country they think they are making their country better. But what they really want is to keep their totalitarian power, because they know a democracy will vote them out of power.
It seems every totalitarian dictator becomes a paranoid isolationist, and when democracy gets too close, they will attack it.
When Hitler invaded Poland, he never thought of making Poland better. He wanted more territory for Germany and Germans.
Secondly, Hitler wanted to spite the France for the Treaty of Versailles which required that Germany pay financial reparations, disarm, lose territory, and give up all of its overseas colonies. He never thought of making France better. Never care what the French thought.
Finally, Hitler was democratically elected in 1993. His plan, embraced by much of the German population, was to do away with politics and make Germany a powerful, unified one-party state.
Quote:
Public opinion on the war oscillated. At the beginning Germans were deeply opposed. The seemingly easy victory over France made people euphoric; setbacks had the opposite effect. But even though the regime suffered bouts of immense unpopularity, particularly in the summer of 1943, most Germans never wavered in their belief that they shouldn't give up.
For the time being, there's no end in sight. And the rest of Europe had been rudely awakened to the renewed possibility of chronic wars in its central/eastern segment.
It's like how Serbia started WWI and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Central/Eastern Europe seems doomed to be a hotbed of insurrection/conflict.
It's like how Serbia started WWI and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Central/Eastern Europe seems doomed to be a hotbed of insurrection/conflict.
And now Serbia has been warned against joining NATO. So we can see, that those who say the NATO issue was just a pretext, were wrong. It's interesting, though, to see how the man thinks. He fails to see, that his "preventive" measures are having the opposite effect, and are serving as a motive with increased urgency for more countries to join. This could lead to a vicious circle. I hope not.
But I don't think NATO would accept Serbia, anyway. I think that would be unwise. Although Bulgaria's already in there. It's a little too close to Moscow for my taste.
Normally he was fine, but sometimes (or often times) you could tell he was inebriated. He really lived the drunk Finnish guy stereotype.
Yes, and that was unfortunate. He wouldn't have gotten banned, otherwise.
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.
