Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2014, 12:09 PM
 
128 posts, read 219,705 times
Reputation: 77

Advertisements

Erasure, I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't share your pro-Russian propaganda. Oh wait, you people have Syria on your side. Congrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2014, 05:27 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,131 posts, read 13,147,342 times
Reputation: 10105
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Well I'd suggest a crucial point is why that the US and Russia simply have so much hostility between each other and why the enmity hasn't relaxed at all. Oh yeah there's been detente and all but I've always felt it was a smoke-screen thrown up to camouflage the unrelenting difference in how to solve problems in the world. All it takes is something like the Ukraine to stir up the dust storm again.

You know both countries have their own internal problems but I'd suggest the Russians have it worse much worse domestically. There's a decline in population, diseases like AIDs and tuberculosis are on the increase, high rates of alcoholism, the life expectancy of Russian men is 64 years. This makes one ask where is the country going and what will it look like. Even if Russia would want to join the EU, would Europe be getting the 'best' Russia it could get under the circumstancess?? Outside oil and gas resources what will she contribute towards European integration and their societies where 'freedom' arguably could perhaps be and mean another word? Frankly, I think she would be very uncomfortable.
Some good points.

Regarding the United States and Russia - Strategically they would make good allies and compliment each other very well - one is traditionally a powerful land power and the other a powerful naval power. At least they should be friends like they were for many years before WW1. Being friendly would at the very least it would be useful diplomatically for both countries.

But unfortunately there are people in both countries locked in a cold war mentality.

Regarding the Russian economy - Russia is a big energy exporter, which certainly helps bring in revenue. But she also needs to grow her economy and start manufacturing things besides weapons. The European market would be a huge help for Russian exports but instead Russia seems to have greatly damaged her relations with the Europeans over the last few years. Especially with Eastern Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 09:52 PM
 
26,709 posts, read 22,323,164 times
Reputation: 9994
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Well I'd suggest a crucial point is why that the US and Russia simply have so much hostility between each other and why the enmity hasn't relaxed at all. Oh yeah there's been detente and all but I've always felt it was a smoke-screen thrown up to camouflage the unrelenting difference in how to solve problems in the world. All it takes is something like the Ukraine to stir up the dust storm again.

You know both countries have their own internal problems but I'd suggest the Russians have it worse much worse domestically. There's a decline in population, diseases like AIDs and tuberculosis are on the increase, high rates of alcoholism, the life expectancy of Russian men is 64 years. This makes one ask where is the country going and what will it look like. Even if Russia would want to join the EU, would Europe be getting the 'best' Russia it could get under the circumstancess?? Outside oil and gas resources what will she contribute towards European integration and their societies where 'freedom' arguably could perhaps be and mean another word? Frankly, I think she would be very uncomfortable.
Again - I'll re-post this material from "Europe" forum.

"Yeltsin’s propensity to terminate the political impasse by going outside of the Russian constitution was encouraged by a series of interventions in Russia’s internal affairs by the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury.
In August 1993, the IMF sponsored a conference in Moscow at which its officials criticized the budget bill currently under consideration by the Supreme Soviet. This bill included wide support in the parliament, but it included a budget deficit that exceeded what the IMF was willing to accept. In early September, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary [Lawrence] Summers testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He viewed the recent developments in Moscow with alarm: “The battle for economic reform in Russia has entered a new and critical phase in which many of Russia’s accomplishments on the economic front [sic] are being put at risk. The momentum for Russian reform must be invigorated and intensified to ensure sustained multilateral support.” The IMF, as later press leaks revealed, was “unhappy with Russia’s backtracking in reforms during the summer.” An IMF official said off the record, “Important measures in the budget field have not been taken, and credit discipline has been relaxed. This has put their reform program off track.”
Later, after the crackdown, [columnist] William Safire highlighted Yeltsin’s pre-approval from the West: “Last week, the confrontation between the reform executive and the red legislature [sic] came to a head over – of all things – the budget. Parliament proposed a foolhardy deficit [sic] of 25 percent of GNP, which it was ready to pass over Yeltsin’s veto. . . . With his Red Army and KGB and Dzherzhinsky [Division] ducks all in a row, and his personal relationship with Washington secure, the Russian leader – assured that no Clinton bet on him would be hedged – made his move. This is a calculated power play, long-planned and extra-constitutional, that is likely to put too much power into the hands of the Russian chief executive.”

Historians will be able to judge later from the archives whether the United States got more specific information from other sources and how far it gave Yeltsin advance approval for his actions. . . . On September 16, Yeltsin visited the Dzherzhinsky Division of the Interior Ministry at its base outside Moscow and was photographed brandishing a machine gun. . . . Western sources attributed the reappointment of [shock-therapy advocate Yegor] Gaidar to direct prodding from the IMF, saying that “Yeltsin acted under considerable pressure from the United States and international lending institutions like [the IMF].” . . .

On September 19, the IMF made public its decision to delay indefinitely the disbursement of the $1.5 billion loan to Russia. The IMF complained that Russia had not made promised budget cuts and had not reined in credit to industry. Accordingly, the money would not be forthcoming unless and until Russia “returned to the path of economic reform.” The World Bank also delayed a planned $600 million loan for Russia. A senior Clinton administration official said, We’re very encouraged by Gaidar’s return and by indications from the Russian government that they now see the need for a rapid turn toward stabilization.”

After visiting Moscow on September 14-15, Treasury Undersecretary Summers said that the Russian situation had improved since mid-summer: “The recent inflation has been too high, but I am encouraged by Russia’s official plans to get financial conditions back under control. It is crucial that these plans be implemented as a basis for economic growth in Russia and for the full effectiveness of Western support.”

The summers visit was critically important [as one commentator noted]: “Just before Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Congress September 21, the administration sent . . . Summers to Moscow to talk about the conditions for impending IMF aid. . . . Gaidar was immediately brought back as first deputy prime minister, and for the first time he really applied the shock therapy the IMF had been demanding. Bread prices were raised to the point where the daily minimum wage was roughly equal to the price of a loaf of bread in Moscow, and Gaidar promised a vigorous reduction of subsidies beginning January 1 of [1994]."

So to make the long story short - after this so-called "shock therapy" designed by the US and IMF there was the end to "liberal thinking" in Russia. It was the eye opening for Russians that once they were at their vulnerable point, once they've decided to trust the West and lower their defenses ( to refuse to be a military state, to refuse of their threatening ideology and all,) they immediately have been taken advantage of, not to say that there was downright an attempt to destroy them as a state. I am not going to describe in details now how the US helped to loot Russia in the nineties, but I'll only add that from that point on, the animosity of Russians towards Americans came already not on a governmental ( as it was during the Soviet times,) but on quite personal level.
This is the reason why Russian public now is deeply suspicious of any internal opposition to Putin, (since it usually has connection to the US government,) why Putin has a free hand and support, why Russian economy is dependent on sale of natural resources ( this trend has been firmly set in place in the 90ies,) why Russia has decline in population, why it's plagued with corruption and the rest.
Not that Russia was ever meant for integration in E.U to begin with in my opinion, but Putin's Russia has no place there at all.
Russia after the 90ies is a wounded bear, and wounded bear is always a far more dangerous animal than a healthy one, who goes about his business.

Last edited by erasure; 03-13-2014 at 10:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 02:07 PM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,595,678 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Not that Russia was ever meant for integration in E.U to begin with in my opinion, but Putin's Russia has no place there at all. Russia after the 90ies is a wounded bear, and wounded bear is always a far more dangerous animal than a healthy one, who goes about his business.
I would agree with these points made by erasure. And I could even agree somewhat about the causes of the 'end of liberal' thinking in Russia but I would have to say then it's almost as if to say Russia was so naive when in that dangerous 'liberal' (can we say 'democratic' den?) that instead of being a bear she was coming off as a lamb left to the slaughter. And acting like a lamb was probably the surest way to be put upon and to place the blame on those who brought on that 'shock therapy'. And all done by the result of perhaps 'democratization' in the system.

I think the plain thing is anything having any semblance to the 'deme' or 'demo' in Russia is a very difficult concept to grasp and work through in its society. It really is 'alien'. And really for any society that it is not used to behaving in that fashion. I don't know and I'm just surmising but perhaps with the nature of Russians, their culture and their institutions this may never happen because the environment just doesn't let it get a chance to hold roots. It is not a comfortbale mind-set in a Russian as say compared to an American.

The problem I think for Russia is that the march of relentess and 'open' communication and information will put great pressure on its society. America and Europe I think are much more 'open' societies to take in all that change that the world is undergoing now. Information runs like wildfire now free and unfettered. I'm afraid that if Russian society doesn't become flexible to take in this new informational scenario she will be an 'almost-dead' bear, deaf, dumb and blind to everything going around her. Frankly, I think we see the hints of that over by the Black Sea. In ancient times, Jason and his Argonauts boated over to Georgia (ancient Colchis) to search for the Golden Fleece. Question is today what is Russia really really looking for in her vault to take the Crimea forceably from Ukraine? What is its 'fleece' that she is looking for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 08:52 PM
 
26,709 posts, read 22,323,164 times
Reputation: 9994
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
And I could even agree somewhat about the causes of the 'end of liberal' thinking in Russia but I would have to say then it's almost as if to say Russia was so naive when in that dangerous 'liberal' (can we say 'democratic' den?) that instead of being a bear she was coming off as a lamb left to the slaughter. And acting like a lamb was probably the surest way to be put upon and to place the blame on those who brought on that 'shock therapy'.
Lol you've put a spin on things in order to bring your point across as usual that it's all somehow Russia's fault. All right then, since you are so bent on seeing in this situation nothing but a "bear" that can't be trusted, let me put things in a very simple way for you. Do you think then that a country that's represented by a downright predator bird can be ever trusted? So this is your answer for the nineties and what took place there.

Quote:
I think the plain thing is anything having any semblance to the 'deme' or 'demo' in Russia is a very difficult concept to grasp and work through in its society. It really is 'alien'.
And again you are wrong. The concept of "democracy" is neither "a very difficult concept to grasp" in Russia, nor it's an "alien concept" there. There are enough of intelligent and educated people in Russia who understand what it's all about, but Russia historically didn't fall into the category of states/nations where their citizens were privileged enough to be protected by laws and power of money/private property that ultimately guard "democracy" Western style.

Quote:
And really for any society that it is not used to behaving in that fashion. I don't know and I'm just surmising but perhaps with the nature of Russians, their culture and their institutions this may never happen because the environment just doesn't let it get a chance to hold roots.
Sure, it's very convenient to point at Russia with usual cliches - "oh, Russia is always like that, the "nature of Russians, their culture and institutions."
But that's precisely what I've said about the nineties. It was a perfect time to fix those "institutions" once and for all, since Russia is a European country. And as in any western European country, Russia finally had a chance to establish a middle class protected by the rights of private property, that was absent there for centuries. And with that, Russia would finally have had a democracy western style. See? As simple as that, because that's what historically was setting Russia apart from the rest of Europe. And that's precisely what DIDN"T happen in the 90ies; this opportunity has been stomped out yet one more time in Russian history, when all the country riches have been placed instead into few hands, intentionally so, which firmly set Russia not on a path of democratic European country that it rightfully deserved, but on a path of a third world country dependent on its natural resources. Sure enough, yet one more time the country has been saved from a brink of collapse by yet another authoritarian ruler, whom Russians obviously embraced out of necessity. The rest now is already history.

Quote:
It is not a comfortbale mind-set in a Russian as say compared to an American.
Repeating something that pleases your ear doesn't make it all true.

Quote:
The problem I think for Russia is that the march of relentess and 'open' communication and information will put great pressure on its society.
I think I've already explained what problem is/was, and it's not exactly the theories that you've created in your mind.

Quote:
Frankly, I think we see the hints of that over by the Black Sea. In ancient times, Jason and his Argonauts boated over to Georgia (ancient Colchis) to search for the Golden Fleece. Question is today what is Russia really really looking for in her vault to take the Crimea forceably from Ukraine? What is its 'fleece' that she is looking for?
She is guarding her geopolitical interests, that's the "fleece." The geopolitical interests that in opinion of some Russia doesn't have any right to have. Only the US have this god-given right apparently, lol again.

Last edited by erasure; 03-14-2014 at 09:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 08:55 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,595,678 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
She is guarding her geopolitical interests, that's the "fleece." The geopolitical interests that in opinion of some Russia doesn't have any right to have. Only the US have this god-given right apparently, lol again.

I read today where the Lithuianian PM said 'Russia is unpredictable'. Said with experience. So perhaps NORAD should be eyeing events in Siberia and Alaska???

I think the last few weeks have given us a very good indication of the future foreign policy of Vladmir Putin's reign. The king of the Steppes has spoken. He will protect 'ethnic' Russians WHEREVER they may be and disregard etrritorial sovereignity. So this looks like it will be the foreign polciy in 21st century Russia. Europe, the United States, the Baltics and NATO will have to get used to it. We are in for a very very bumpy ride.

I saw Lavrov and Terry side by side before their Crimean 'discussion' which apparently went nowhere. Both looked glum. I'll wait for Lavrov's memoirs about that day. Could he say it was a mistake or that it was Kerry...boy he asked too too much? We will see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 05:19 AM
 
9,672 posts, read 9,952,113 times
Reputation: 1916
Russia should of took the Crimea at the collapse of the USSR, it would not have this problem today , or the American looking down their gun barrels ...... Like wait until after the strategic advantage is gone before you act is hypocrisy ..... Just like kicking out the British from the rock of Gibraltar from Spain cut off the Mediterranean Sea for the Western nations from getting in and start a war there ... Same thing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 03:43 PM
 
18,869 posts, read 27,311,095 times
Reputation: 20208
Несмотря на то, что издание указа часто называют личной инициативой тесно связанного с Украиной Первого секретаря ЦК КПСС Н. С. Хрущёва, современные историки утверждают, что данное утверждение не совсем соответствует истине.[1] Как считают украинские исследователи, эта передача оказалась вынужденной мерой из-за тяжелейшей экономической ситуации на полуострове, вызванной послевоенной разрухой и нехваткой рабочей силы после депортации крымских татар[2], а переселенцы из российских регионов не имели навыков ведения хозяйства в степных зонах Крыма. Поэтому в 1954 году Крымская область была передана Украине со следующей формулировкой: «Учитывая общность экономики, территориальную близость и тесные хозяйственные и культурные связи между Крымской областью и Украинской ССР». 25 января 1954 года на заседании Президиума ЦК КПСС был утвержден проект Указа Президиума Верховного Совета СССР о передаче Крымской области из состава РСФСР в состав УССР. Первый секретарь Крымского обкома КПСС Павел Титов, который выступил против передачи области в состав Украинской ССР, был снят с должности и отправлен в Москву на должность заместителя министра сельского хозяйства РСФСP

Despite the fact that the publication of the decree is often called personal initiative is closely linked with Ukraine , First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev , modern historians argue that this statement is not entirely true. [1] How to find the Ukrainian researchers , this transfer was a necessary measurebecause of the difficult economic situation in the peninsula , and the devastation caused by the post-war labor shortage after the deportation of the Crimean Tatars [ 2], and migrants from the Russian regions did not have the skills of farming in the steppe zone of Crimea. Therefore, in 1954 the Crimean region was assigned to Ukraine with the following wording : "Given the similarities of the economies , the proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the region and the Crimea Ukrainian SSR ." January 25, 1954 at a meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee approved the draft decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the USSR . First Secretary of the Regional Party Committee of the Crimean Pavel Titov, who opposed the transfer region of the Ukrainian SSR , was removed from his post and sent to Moscow as deputy agriculture minister RSFS

Передача Крымской области из состава Ð*СФСÐ* в состав УССÐ* — Википедия

1. HISTORICALLY, Crimea was neither Ukrainian nor Russian. It was occupied by Tatars, as result of Mongol/Tatar expansion of Mongol hordes in 12th-13th century.
2. HISTORICALLY, it was the largest menace to the people of Ukraine and Southern Russia, later - South East Europe. As it was turned by Tatars along with their later superiors, Turks, into a slave market and slaves "Silk Way", so to speak, into Islamic countries. For centuries, primarily bravery of Ukrainian Cossacks held them at bay and paid them back grossly for atrocities done.
3. Politically, Crimea is extremely valuable piece fo land, due to its strategic geographic location. This was well understood by Russian empire, which took major effort to conquer it and establish it as a fore-post into Black Sea and the straight of Bosphorus, straight that routinely was gate to invasions into Russia/Ukraine by European countries. This was accomplished in 18th century I believe. But this does not make Crimea an indigenous Russian territory or ethnicity. It makes it very desired strategic piece of land.
4. Tatars, aka 25% of population there, sided with Germany during WW2 and were deported by Stalin's order. They have lots of historical beef with Russia now. Same time, they have lots of historical bad mojo with Ukraine either. Out of the 2, they are now trying to stick to the lesser evil, Ukraine being the one. Sort of ironic, considering how much blood they shad in Ukraine over centuries.
5. Southern Crimea is one large Navy outpost, for nuclear submarines and war ships. Entire infrastructure was constructed during the USSR period. It is well sought prime peace of property. I totally understand Russia's desire to acquire it back, under any "legitimate" excuse. So is Donetsk coal basin.
6. Historically, entire eastern Ukraine was Russified to the point of complete loss of its national spirit and desire for independence. Thanks to very unfortunate treaty signed by Bogdan Khmelnitsky in 1565 as far as I remember my school history. Thereafter, eastern Ukraine became Russian dominion and Western Ukraine - Polish. Eastern Ukraine will "democratically" "reunite with its historical older brother - Great Russian people" and Western Ukraine will likely end up in EU NATO front post. You all relaize that from a block designed to detain Red Army right after WW2, NATO became a block of aggressive expansion East? Into what West always wanted and never could get - UNFATHOMABLY RICH lands of Russia? Who do you think paid for revolution in 1917, followed by predatory sale of concessions to Western companies by Leon Bronstein, aka Trotsky? With bless his heart Stalin who put this all to the end and recouped Russia's gold and furs and diamonds and ores?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2014, 08:48 PM
 
26,709 posts, read 22,323,164 times
Reputation: 9994
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Sure, we can re-name "second sort" by "second tier" and it will make it all sound so much better))))


Back to that "second ( or is it already third in Ukraine's case?) tier" - this is what I'm reading on Voice of Russia today;

"The tentative agreement with the IMF which the Ukrainian authorities signed with the IMF on March 2, says that the country's entire gas pipeline system will be handed over for free in the American company Chevron's ownership the moment the basic agreement is signed, while the owners of the Mariupol, Zaporizhzhya and Dnipropetrovsk steel mills will be obliged to surrender their 50% stakes to Germany's Ruhr.


The Donbass coal industry will be handed over to Ruhr's subsidiary in Finland, she told Interfax on Sunday, citing media reports."


"Electricity tariffs will be raised by 40%, housing utility tariffs will be raised, too, gasoline excises will go up 60% and transportation tariffs 50%, while state support for childbirth will be cancelled, the free distribution of textbooks will be annulled at schools and the VAT relief will be scrapped in rural regions, she said."

Seemorerocks: The plunder of Ukraine

I know it's V.o. R.

But if someone knows something different, such information would be of course appreciated.







Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2014, 09:10 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,595,678 times
Reputation: 3146
[LEFT]
Quote:
A statement arguably 'over the top'...

When will the people of western and central Ukraine realise they have been sold into slavery? Will the nazis stay quiet?
Whoever wrote that just needs to get a counterbalance...like this.


The Moscow Times:
"
Quote:
Falling European production, coupled with the Asia-Pacific market swallowing up LNG volumes … means that Europe does not have much flexibility in terms of cutting gas purchases from Russia, implying that Gazprom is most likely not vulnerable to possible EU economic sanctions," Alfa Bank said in a note.
Quote:
Energy, of course, is the other 'battlefront' in the 'Putin-Ukrainian Chronicles'. And Ukraine, of course, needs to do something to offset possible 'valve closers'.
</I></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top