LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksКонечно. Просто это правильное мнениеOriginally Posted by Ramil
А отсутствие заговора человеку, в него верящему, доказать невозможно.
Конечно. Просто это правильное мнение
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.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Открою страшную тайну. Не знаю как там Госдеп
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.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.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
English Edition
В обычных странах церковь отделена от государства, а в России - от Бога.
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.
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: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.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.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 $65,000,000Not exactly 50/50, closer to 60/40,
To refresh our memory, let's look at the chain of events of that timeYou 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.
В обычных странах церковь отделена от государства, а в России - от Бога.
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.
Ingenting kan stoppa mig
In Post-Soviet Russia internet porn downloads YOU!
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.
Not only, of course -- but american money played an important role.
Neither USA and Europe tried to hide their support of Yuschenko, either...
The russian businessman have a lot of interests in Ukraine; the american businessmen commonly do not.
About "meddeling in other countries" -- should we remember Iraq and Afghanistan?
And is really Russia moaning? Reading the western press, it seems like its their turn to moan (loudly).
Кр. -- сестр. тал.
This has not been a choice between a pro-Russian and an anti-Russian regimes.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.
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.Not only, of course -- but american money played an important role.
[...]
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?Neither USA and Europe tried to hide their support of Yuschenko, either...
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.About "meddeling in other countries" -- should we remember Iraq and Afghanistan?
Reading the western press I don't see much Ukraine coverage these days at all.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.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.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.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?
В обычных странах церковь отделена от государства, а в России - от Бога.
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.
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.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.
And that country is called Kyrgyzstan
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.Except for perhaps Czechoslovakia, none of those countries were run by commies, and Yanukovych is most definitely not one.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.
And that country is called Kyrgyzstan
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.
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?
Hei, rett norsken min og du er død.
I am a notourriouse misspeller. Be easy on me.
Пожалуйста! Исправляйте мои глупые ошибки (но оставьте умные)!
Yo hablo español mejor que tú.
Trusnse kal'rt eturule sikay!!!
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.
...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.
В обычных странах церковь отделена от государства, а в России - от Бога.
Some pigs fight for the trough, so what's the difference?.. And it's true about any country in the world...
Of all the things I've lost I miss MY MIND the most...
Me too
You just can't cook them properlyMe too
Send me a PM if you need me.
Why can't you qualify your statement? Why do you hate commies?Me too
Hei, rett norsken min og du er død.
I am a notourriouse misspeller. Be easy on me.
Пожалуйста! Исправляйте мои глупые ошибки (но оставьте умные)!
Yo hablo español mejor que tú.
Trusnse kal'rt eturule sikay!!!
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote