Конечно. Просто это правильное мнение :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
А отсутствие заговора человеку, в него верящему, доказать невозможно.
Printable View
Конечно. Просто это правильное мнение :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
А отсутствие заговора человеку, в него верящему, доказать невозможно.
Это не заговор. Это называется международная политика. ГосДеп США финансировал оранжевых - это медицинский факт. (И этому имеются доказательства).
Про заговор я не сказал ни слова.
Открою страшную тайну. Не знаю как там Госдеп :) но я тоже финансировал оранжевых. Как ты понимаешь, это означает что Ющенко пришел к власти благодаря мне, и теперь он -- моя марионетка. Так!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Кстати, в отличие от Госдепа (доказательства участия которого притянуты за уши), финансирования Януковича Россией никто особо и не скрывал. Впрочем, как я уже писал, это тоже не повод считать его российской марионеткой.
I don't think if you had anyone at that moment.Quote:
There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it.
Ok, as I remember Youshchenko lost the election. The injection of 65 million bucks overturned the result. I don't think it would have become possible, had America not invested the money. It was illegal as well. I think the odds were about 50/50 and the fact that Yanuckovitch still plays a key role in politics confirms my idea. So when you say "we", "success" and stuff like that, don't forget that you apparently mean half of Ukraine. Actually, I don't think there's a pro-Russian party wherever in the post-Soviet republics, because no one wants any foreign control (including Lukashenko, by the way). However, Russia is a good card to play in this game. I would totally be going ahead with my idea, but it's too late now and I want to sleep.Quote:
One profound delusion people both in Russia and in the West seem to have is thinking that Ukrainians evaluate the politicians based on their foreign policy leanings, and vote depending on whether someone is "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western". In truth, there are no true pro-Russian or pro-Western politicians in Ukraine at all, except maybe for certain really tiny and marginal parties that have never had any success
That's Mr. Yanukovich for you. In the context of this discussion he was "Putin-like" enough, which is why we did not want him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Ok, as I remember Youshchenko lost the election. The injection of 65 million bucks overturned the result. I don't think it would have become possible, had America not invested the money. It was illegal as well. [/quote:m2z38iz5]Quote:
[quote:m2z38iz5]One profound delusion people both in Russia and in the West seem to have is thinking that Ukrainians evaluate the politicians based on their foreign policy leanings, and vote depending on whether someone is "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western". In truth, there are no true pro-Russian or pro-Western politicians in Ukraine at all, except maybe for certain really tiny and marginal parties that have never had any success
You remember it wrong then.
Naturally. Not exactly 50/50, closer to 60/40, but yes, close. But while I'm speaking for the people whose opinion I share, I quite firmly believe that the way things came out was better for almost everyone.Quote:
I think the odds were about 50/50 and the fact that Yanuckovitch still plays a key role in politics confirms my idea. So when you say "we", "success" and stuff like that, don't forget that you apparently mean half of Ukraine.
Now you are starting to talk sense.Quote:
Actually, I don't think there's a pro-Russian party wherever in the post-Soviet republics, because no one wants any foreign control (including Lukashenko, by the way). However, Russia is a good card to play in this game. I would totally be going ahead with my idea, but it's too late now and I want to sleep.
To be more precise, there are _parties_ -- I would probably qualify Vitrenko as one such with her 2.9% of the vote. It's just that they have neither power nor support. And yes, Russia is a good card -- why it agrees to that role is another interesting question.
No, 50/50. the value of 60/40 is wrong figure bought for $65,000,000Quote:
Not exactly 50/50, closer to 60/40,
To refresh our memory, let's look at the chain of events of that timeQuote:
You remember it wrong then.
http://www.rususa.com/forum/message.asp ... 13-start-1
The oragne revoution started because Americans never agreed that Yanuckovitsh won the election. Let's remember that in the USA Bush won with violation US laws and they hushed up the things not to discredit the American world image. So it's a sort of double standard. They consider that Ukraine may be too snotty to afford what the USA can afford. Thus they deside what is suitable for Ukraine and what not.
Russians are just deluded and can't accept Ukraine, or at least a majority of Ukrainians turned away from them, and have to tell themselves that it only happened due to American money.
Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych. And that doesn't even mention the money his campaign got from Russian businesses. And then of course he had the support of outgoing president Kuchma.
Russians can hardly moan about America meddeling in other countries when Russia is one of the biggest meddelers around. Just because Ukraine is next to Russia doesn't make it alright.
There's not much "turning away": western Ukraine is generally anti-russian (and always was such), eastern Ukraine is mostly pro-russian (and remains such). The only thing changed is regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
Not only, of course -- but american money played an important role.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
Neither USA and Europe tried to hide their support of Yuschenko, either...Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
The russian businessman have a lot of interests in Ukraine; the american businessmen commonly do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
About "meddeling in other countries" -- should we remember Iraq and Afghanistan?Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
And is really Russia moaning? Reading the western press, it seems like its their turn to moan (loudly). :)
This has not been a choice between a pro-Russian and an anti-Russian regimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
American money did play a role -- but mostly not in the way you perhaps imagine. Like supporting elections monitoring -- obviously this was in favor of Yuschenko since he was not the one who was tampering with elections. It's hard to call something like that a bad thing.Quote:
Not only, of course -- but american money played an important role.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
[...]
The russian businessman have a lot of interests in Ukraine; the american businessmen commonly do not.
And you should ponder why the far larger amounts of Russian money did not help :)
BTW, the reason all Russian business money went to Yanukovich was not exactly simple lobbying, but intervention of the Russian state -- afaik there were several major Russian businessmen who met with Yuschenko and were prepared to help finance his campaign as well, but Putin gave a signal that was not happy with that, and vice versa.
No one (maybe except for Georgia) openly supported Yuschenko in the same fashion Putin supported Yanukovich (the famous the triple congratulation, hehe). People supported fair elections -- not exactly the same thing, is it now?Quote:
Neither USA and Europe tried to hide their support of Yuschenko, either...Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
In fact, now Yanukovich has a fair chance of becoming prime minister, but Americans do not worry much (and neither do I), and will accept it as long as it happens in accordance with a proper democratic procedure.
The point is that regardless of what is your opinion on those (that's a separate topic), Russia is no better so has no right to complain about some fictitious American influence in Ukraine.Quote:
About "meddeling in other countries" -- should we remember Iraq and Afghanistan?Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
Reading the western press I don't see much Ukraine coverage these days at all.Quote:
And is really Russia moaning? Reading the western press, it seems like its their turn to moan (loudly). :)
That's what I want to say. Ukraine now fully depends on Russian cheap gas and American money.Quote:
Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych.
Odd logic. Germany and France do not approve the American occupation policy either. Besides, if you're talking about the US, forget Russia and vica verse. Why should we compare the two countries all the time? Don't forget USA is holding wars on foreign territories.Quote:
The point is that regardless of what is your opinion on those (that's a separate topic), Russia is no better so has no right to complain about some fictitious American influence in Ukraine.
I wonder which elections to mean. People probably supported fair elections but Americans didn't. They paid their money to take control over Ukraine like they did in Iraq.Quote:
No one (maybe except for Georgia) openly supported Yuschenko in the same fashion Putin supported Yanukovich (the famous the triple congratulation, hehe). People supported fair elections -- not exactly the same thing, is it now?
All those revolutions were to get rid of the communist government in those nations. Unless Belarus is currently run by communists or facing the unfortunate possibility of having a commie run for president (like Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine), then I don't think Belarus will be having any revolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoonMonst3r
And that country is called Kyrgyzstan :)
Except for perhaps Czechoslovakia, none of those countries were run by commies, and Yanukovych is most definitely not one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Lukashenka might in fact be called a commie, he's definitely the closest one to that definition.
As for whether there will be any revolutions there, we need to wait and see.
Serbia WAS run by commies, (well, Yugoslavia was) and Yanukovych is indeed one. He was hand-selected by President Putin to run for prez of Ukraine. Putin is a former KGB colonel, and is probably a commie at heart. He called the collapse of the USSR a terrible political catastrophe and is expanding gov't control over everything, just like the Soviets. Of course he is going to select someone who agrees with him to run for a position of leadership. In fact, when Yanukovych was chosen by Putin, they carried out the ceremonies in a Soviet-style military parade. Not a communist? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by laxxy
RusskiSlav, what is your definition of a communist?
You are calling Yanukovich a communist just because Putin, who used to work in the KGB, supported him. Do you know any of the policies Yanukovich stands for?
ahhh... I suggest that maybe you go study some history, learn a bit about those countries and about who the commies actually are, and then come back to argue with people who actually know what was going on. Reading this very thread might enlighten you a bit about the situation in Ukraine, too, if you are interested in it enough to talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
...KGB and military parade, they sure are a dead giveaway for a commie, are they not?..
PS. I personally hate commies (including Lukashenka), but really, why should you speak of things you have no slightest idea about?
I fully expect our local commies (and we do have a few on this forum) to get here soon to show you off as an example of an American who does not know anything about history or foreign affairs (they think that everyone here is like that). This is why I am annoyed.
I think as well as Yushcenko, Yanukovich wants to live on acoount of Russia. They both want to suck tittes of two nursing mothers at the time and in this sence they are all the same.
Some pigs fight for the trough, so what's the difference?.. And it's true about any country in the world...
Me tooQuote:
Originally Posted by laxxy
You just can't cook them properly :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Why can't you qualify your statement? Why do you hate commies?Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Why don't you bomb them?Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Yep, blame everything on commies... And on bicyclists...
I never really understood the argument that Putin was "KGB". Who cares?
And no, he was not a 'Colonel'.
Putin started out his career working in Leningrad (His home town) keeping tabs on foriegners. What was described as a pretty bottom of the barrell job. As far as anyone knows the only time he even ever went overseas was to do some office work in East Germany.
Putin tried to resign from the KGB 3 times, the first two times he was just kept on their payroll... without even conducting any operations offiliated with the agency, while he worked with a friend who was a professor at a Leningrad university. In 1991 he was OFFICIALLY released from the agency, but hadn't actually worked for them for some time. I believe the best rating he ever recieved from superiors while serving in the KGB was "satisfactory".
He worked for the KGB, He was a patriotic soviet who wanted to serve his country, So sue him. Why dont you go sue all the WWII veterans from the eastern fron for being commies for that matter. Why dont we just sue everybody in the FBI too? Damn capitalists!
Im also pretty sick and tired of hearing people complain about Uzbekistan. Its all the kids do in the Uzbek class here at the DLI. The presdient of uzbekistan has been an allie of GW giving him bases and crap, from which to blow away taliban in afghanistan. The whole reason he is seen as "oppressive" is because he as all but outlawed the ismalic religion in his country. And for good reason. He shares a border with freaking afghanistan, HELLO!
He jails people who are suspected of being islamic terrorists in order to keep militant groups from setting training camps up in his country and as to not provide a safe haven for fleeing taliban into his country. Aww hes locking up extremists... poor guys! Guess what! SO DOES AMERICA.
Tired of the hipocracy.
You shouldn't put all bicyclists onto the same basket. Not all bicyclists are equal, you know!Quote:
Originally Posted by SSSS
Acctually, sometimes I just want put all the bicyclist next to the wall and shoot every second one in the back of their head...
Yes, that's what those sneaky bicyclists deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSSS
They are all probably commies anyway, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had secretly conducted military style parades at night, when everyone is sleeping. That is why they are riding bicycles, it's so that no one hears them coming!
MINSK - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Belarus, calling it "a model social state like the one we are beginning to create".
During a visit to Minsk, he called for a strategic alliance with Belarus to counter "hegemonic" capitalism.
Here's the BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209868.stm
Great... Chavez wants to bring back back dictatorship to South America, a drug-lord that deals oil instead of cocaine. And he wants to buy toys:
MOSCOW - Russia has struck a deal worth more than $1 billion to supply fighter jets and helicopters to Venezuela, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Friday.
MSNBC story :
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13972383/
I reckon Chavez is doing a great job in improving living conditions, but anyway.... just my opinion.
WHY do I hate commies?! Helloooo? Look what they did to Russia in 1917! In the years that followed, the Soviet government killed anyone who disagreed with them and/or spewed propaganda to the public who had to wiat in bread lines for hours a day just to get a basic meal! Commies lie--they claim "everyone is equal" when in reality someone (the commies) are in power and have control over everything. And they abuse that control and make life miserable for everyone else. Marx believed in some ideal utopian (which in Greek appropriately means "no place") society that is impossible to ever have, because human beings are not perfect, thus there cannot be a perfect society.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Well, first of all, I don't have any bombs. And if I did, I would not bomb them because I don't operate like a communist by killing everyone who disagrees with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by adoc
And what they did? Turned the poor and ruined by WWI country into the prosperous superpower?Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Please, stop this nonsence. Thousands of so called dissidents, who were disagreeing with "Soviet government", are alive and well.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Oh, yes. "Spewing propaganda..." I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
So does any so called democratic government.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Do you know, how many people are nostalgic about this "miserable" life?Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
Absolutely perfect society is, of course, impossible -- but it is possible to build society good enough for people to live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
It sure is. You just have to get rid of the commies first :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
[/quote:2b89e6qg][/quote:2b89e6qg][/quote:2b89e6qg]Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
Well, communism sure failed at that.
Gulag as such never existed after Stalin's death. Would you mind calling things as they really are? Second, during 1921-1953 years total number of sentenced by 'political articles' was 3.8 million. Let me note, by the way, that together with 'fake' spys, traitors, terrorists, etc., there were more than enough real ones. So, your figure of 20 million 'innocent victims' is quite unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
If we count as 'nostalgic' partly-nostalgic people, who doesn't want old times back, but likes certain elements of soviet past, then answer to your question is "almost nobody".Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
[/quote:3meaw53t]Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov
Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".
LOL! I agree, laxxy :DQuote:
Originally Posted by laxxy
You call me to read some history and cite Wikipedia, that's hardly most reliable source itself. And I like that phrase: "Some sources place the number at about 20 million". What sources exactly? And where did that sources take their information from? No answer. My source is reseach of V.N.Zemskov, based on documents from Central Archive of USSR, not on any estimations taken from the sky.Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
History of exagerration of those number started with Khrushev. Documents from archive point out, that he perfectly knew real number of all prisoners in camps and colonies in 1953, year of Stalin's death - 2 468 524 people, including pure criminals. But he, having his own agenda, said there were 10 million people in 1953 in camps only. That started some kind of race, under slogan "who more?". I saw figures of 50 million and higher, but they all are based on nothing, but imagination. And your figure of 20million is of the same imaginary kind.
The figure stays - 3.8 million political prisoners during 33 years, including those who deserved the penalty, and about million executed.
I don't understand, what's wrong with beign KGB colonel? Americans had president (G.Bush Sr.) who was head of CIA, so what? Why don't you complain?Quote:
Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".
[quote="Alex_Ivanov]Well, for someone who seems to know so much one would think you could spell KhrushCHev's name right. Geez, I'm not even Russian and I know that. And whether it was 3.8 million or not, the point is Stalin killed people in mass numbers. Normal leaders don't do things like that, and anyone who is "nostalgic" for Soviet times is twisted in the mind. They're nostalgic for the days of bread lines, no free press, government control over EVERYTHING, gulags, and mass murder? Okaaayyy....(sarcasm)Quote:
History of exagerration of those number started with Khrushev.
Quote:
Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".
The CIA is not a secret police in the same way the KGB is. The KGB knocked on peoples' doors at midnight and took them away to the gulag.Quote:
I don't understand, what's wrong with beign KGB colonel? Americans had president (G.Bush Sr.) who was head of CIA, so what? Why don't you complain?
Well, I know perfectly how to spell his name in cyrillic. Everything else is a question of transliteration, and I see no problem here even if I transliterated it wrong (anyway, are there some official rules? Sometimes it's funny to see how Russian names are transliterated by foreigners.)Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
3.8 million political prisoners, less than million executed, minus those who was executed not because of ideology, but for real crimes like treason, espionage, terrorism, let's say 600 thousand for ideological reasons.Indeed, it's a large number by any means.Quote:
And whether it was 3.8 million or not, the point is Stalin killed people in mass numbers. Normal leaders don't do things like that,
From the other side, Stalin completed too important tasks:
1. He cleared Russia from bolshevik scum that took over our country after 1917 and nearly destroyed it, sacrificing it for the sake of mythical "world revolution".
2. He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation.
For such global tasks, I consider number of victims acceptable, though I understand it sounds cynic.
Are they really twisted in mind? They're nostalgic for free&good education, healthcare, feeling safe and sure. That's why I call them 'partly nostalgic'. You try to draw black&white picture, where USSR is just big black stain. Wake up, there were a lot of wonderful things there. BTW, I don't remember standing in lines for bread, minimum of life-important goods was accessible even during worst days of USSR.Quote:
and anyone who is "nostalgic" for Soviet times is twisted in the mind. They're nostalgic for the days of bread lines, no free press, government control over EVERYTHING, gulags, and mass murder? Okaaayyy....(sarcasm)
CIA is intelligence service just like KGB/FSB. Read less scary tales before falling asleep, or one day you'll wake up at midnight in death-damp - someone's steps in corridor will seem like if they come to take you to the gulag. :)Quote:
The CIA is not a secret police in the same way the KGB is. The KGB knocked on peoples' doors at midnight and took them away to the gulag.
Good. The world would've been a lot better off if the Soviet Union hadn't existed. It was the Soviets who invaded Finland in 1939 and took away half their land, invaded Czechoslovakia and Hungary and destroyed their property (and took more lives) to crush anti-communism revolts, and planted nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida and scared the crap outta the Americans by threatening to turn the Cold War nuclear.Quote:
He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation
And education in the Soviet Union was not really "good". The schools taught students only what the government wanted them to know, that is, how great communism was. And just because you don't remember standing in bread lines doesn't mean other people don't. You're Russian, I'm sure you know of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--read The Gulag Archipelago and perhaps you'll have different opinions about the USSR.