107Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksНу ГДР на момент перед объединением не была частью какой-то другой страны. Поэтому это не лучшее сравнение.Originally Posted by SergeMak
Ну ГДР на момент перед объединением не была частью какой-то другой страны. Поэтому это не лучшее сравнение.
Это переход на личность и крайне неуважительная манера высказываться. Предупреждения не даю, но беру на заметку.
"...Важно, чтобы форум оставался местом, объединяющим людей, для которых интересны русский язык и культура. ..." - MasterАdmin (из переписки)
ГДР была как минимум членом военного Варшавского договора и Совета экономической взаимопомощи (СЭВ). По сути дела, ГДР была важной частью надправительственного объединения, которое в двух словах называлось "социалистическим лагерем". Крым в составе Украины, кстати, формально имел статус автономной республики, то есть тоже был неким относительно суверенным образованием.
С другой стороны, какая разница? Что, полная аннексия государства чем-то лучше частичной аннексии?
very poor analogy; the Crimea and NovoRossiya were not loaned to the Ukraine; there were gifted/donated to them by decision of Russia's ruling powers. And since when does 'not returning a gift' qualify as stealing?
please always correct my (often poor) russian
И снова пальцем в небо! До 1917 года Украины вообще не существовало как суверенного государства, а в 1922 году новоиспеченная Украина с неустоявшимися границами была принята в состав СССР. После чего границы еще много раз перекраивались в основном по экономическим соображениям, а вовсе не этническим. Никто в советские годы всерьез не рассматривал возможность выхода Украины из состава СССР, поэтому передача Крыма ничего не значила - чисто популистское решение недальновидного политикана.
Теперь по поводу подарков. Если мне добрый человек дарит подарок, и если я порядочный человек, а не порядочная скотина, то я буду благодарен ему.
В 1990 году СССР по сути подарил Восточную Германию Западной. Вместо благодарности мы увидели расширение НАТО на восток, поддержку русофобов в Грузии и на Украине, поддержку фашиствующих элементов в странах Балтии, раздувание вооруженного конфликта в бывшей Югославии и все в этом же духе.
Если это не проявление русофобии, то что?
giving something back that did not belong to them in the first place is a completely different story...
But SergeMak, i respect that you have a different view; in your response you raise many different points and topics; which to engage with would best be served in another thread
please always correct my (often poor) russian
Yes, I think you are spot on, and you are describing it better and more to the point than I did.
That's exactly what I was getting at.
For us in Scandinavia, it's particularly STRANGE that this enormous Russophobia has overtaken the whole area, when there is absolutely no good reason.
It's interesting that it stood out so much that this Sergei Markov particularly noticed it.
Some might say that political winds have changed, but they have changed in Russia too!
Russia has never tried to bully Scandinavia, hasn't done anything at all against us in any way, form or shape (I mean, in modern times). Finland and the Winter war - I don't agree with what the USSR did, but if you know the history it, it wasn't out of the blue, and the USSR would definitely have stopped with Finland, had it succeeded. It would have been no different than pre 1917.
At least for the the USA, it's "business as usual" to criticize Russia. But for me, I just don't see where this is coming from and what brought it on.
Example from today below. DN is the largest daily paper in Sweden. This type of article is EVERY day...
This one is for the more intellectual reader, who reads the Editorial....
Imperiedrömmar: Inför ryska hot måste vi stå enade - DN.SE
First paragraph translation:
---------------------------
Imperial Dreams: We must stand united against the threats from Russia
All of us who had hoped that Russia had put the imperial dreams behind it were brutally awakened by the crisis in Ukraine. The Georgia war of 2008 was a bad omen. Now we know for sure that V. Putin has embarked on a revisionist path, using aggressive nationalism as his tool. The only question is what risks he is prepared to take, and exactly what the size is, of the area to which Moscow considers itself entitled. (....)
---------------------------
Notice the dramatic and agitational tone!
"Let's stand united, blah, blah..."
And the implicit question mark "how big is this area....?"implying "it could be us... or our neighbour"
(which is ridiculous to the extent that it's not even worth commenting on. )
And "threats", what threats? Who exactly has Russia threatened and with what?
The article doesn't say, of course, because there is no substance to the claim.
But it makes a dramatic header.
And then the article manages to sneak in a few references about how "safe" the NATO countries are, while we are allegedly "exposed" to these "imperial dreams" of Putin.
It's total tosh obviously because there are NO quoted sources, nothing substantial at all, just an exercise in agitation at its crudest. It's not even serious journalism, and if you stop to think for one second.
And you could write an identical article about the USA of course. But they would never do that.
In a country that only has two national daily papers, the impact of this type of article is enormous.
And the Russia coverage it's just an endless cycle of "gays", "human rights", aggressive RU army exercises, Putin-is-bad etc.
There wasn't a fraction of this level of criticism against Russia during the Cold War, even though our press was not officially controlled by anyone. Now suddenly, Russia is super dangerous?! w00t? Why now?
To me, Russia is stable and predictable at the moment. The insight into what's going on is better than in Soviet times, and the lawless dangerous Russia of the 1990s has been quelled.
Where is this ending, or leading to?
I guess my best hypothesis is that some forces have decided that it's time for our country to join NATO and this is how to turn public opinion that was always against it. At least half the job is already done, in that case. Judging from the comments to the editorial.
Then for me, I overcompensate by being practically an apologetic for Russia, or a Russophile, lol,
Did they also give gifts to Santa Claus? Because he doesn't exist either. But SergeMak already answered your question and I couldn't have said it better:
@ Hanna: I seriously couldn't believe that article. I had to check the date on the paper because I honestly couldn't believe any journalist could be that paranoid and irrational. He seriously needs to consider getting professional help. I don't know if there's a cure for schizophrenia but they could keep it controlled with meds. But not the same meds the Obama administration is on - those obviously don't work.
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
Thanks for understanding!
This kind of thing is what made me so hung up on the anti Russia propaganda.
I don't like it when somebody tries to shove a pre-defined opinion down my throat, and that is exactly what this is.
They have zero substance to this Russophobia - it's whipped up out of thin air, and it's very strongly orchestrated. The ownership of media in Sweden is a really concerning. I'm just wondering who's orchestrating it.
I think there is plenty of room for discussions about things that are wrong in Russia. It's certainly not a perfect country that should be let off the hook about everything it doe. But all this anti-Russia talk just makes me defend it even on points where I'd normally have reservations.
And here's another observation: RT is really beginning to get on Washington's nerves. It's the only truly alternative news channel, along with Press TV which I doubt anyone in the US dares to watch.
Press TV was banned from all European satellites, so the only way to see it in Europe now, is to stream online. They used some absolutely ridiculous justification for it that was totally hollow.
I think they will try something similar with RT soon.
In all of such threads and discussions ppl finally come to something like "russian ppl is OK but russian govermnment did a lot wrong things to it's own ppl and others".
You'll never understand europian russophobia if you don't get rid of simple propaganda tricks which are being used to keep that rossophobia alive.
like not long ago one american asked me "why russia is so crazy about attacking other countries and taking their land?". That one question explains a lot.
Russians were being hated by europeans (especially europen elites) for being different.
For their ability to stay together, to be proud and to be unconquerable.
We are the main competitors for anglo-saxons on the continent. But we are not that agresive like they are.
And for having a too big territory.
There are a few things that got me interested in the Russophobia issues.
1. I've been accused of being anti-American because I respect Putin and like Russian people. According to them, if you don't hate every Russian you see then you must be a communist and anti-American. I don't see any logic for that response.
2. Political hypocrisy. That a civil war makes an election in Syria illegal but not in Ukraine. That harming citizens is illegal unless they're pro-Russian. That our country isn't supporting the new government for economic reasons - except Hunter Biden.
3. I spent some time today reading about the Rwandan Massacre and the bombing of Yugoslavia. They both happened in the 1990's. I was shocked.
Over a million people were killed during the Rwandan Genocide and our country and the UN did nothing to stop it. There wasn't any bombings, no weapons were seized, and the broadcasts that fueled the genocide were never even jammed.
But in Yugoslavia, the UN never passed a resolution to use force but that didn't stop NATO. They bombed Yugoslavia for almost 3 months with depleted uranium shells. Fifteen years later people were still dying of cancer in Serbia.
Neither Rwanda or Yugoslavia was a NATO member and neither country was a threat to any other country. NATO refused to use force against Africans but they used excessive force against the Slavic people of Yugoslavia.
I want someone to explain to me how a few thousand deaths in Yugoslavia was dramatically more serious than over a million deaths in Rawanda. And why it was necessary to poison the entire country of Yugoslavia with depleted uranium.
I also want it explained why our president supports killing civilians all over southeastern Ukraine. Will Obama or the UN condemn the use of phosphorous weapons against the citizens of Luhansk? I'm still waiting to hear about that.
But there is some good news. Russian Americans had a Day of Russia parade with balloons and Ribbons of St. George and everyone thought it was totally cool! At least New Yorkers aren't Russophobic!
Ethnic Russians march across Brooklyn bridge in NYC to mark Russia Day - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video
Лучше смерть, чем бесчестие! Тем временем: Вечно молодой, Вечно пьяный. - Смысловые Галлюцинации, Чартова дюжина 2015!
Пожалуйста, исправьте мои ошибки. Спасибо.
День России в Нью-Йорке 2014
"...Важно, чтобы форум оставался местом, объединяющим людей, для которых интересны русский язык и культура. ..." - MasterАdmin (из переписки)
@ Uhohxplode
i do not understand why you keep on complaining about Obama...
for you it is the 2nd best government in the world (just behind Russia) - so surely they cannot be that bad.
you are wrong about Rwanda not being a threat to another country; the fighting in Rwanda casued havoc in Eastern Congo; so much so that basically the Kinshasa government at the time basically lost all control of the eastern regions.
Other than that i agree with your post regarding the feeble attempt by the UN to step in.
please always correct my (often poor) russian
UhOx - by reading this forum you are certainly swallowing the "red pill".
Wait until you start working, and you are forced to pay taxes to fund drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Or the next invasion, wherever that will be.
It breaks my heart, that some of my tax money in the UK at the moment, is used supporting this.
Recently on TV was a documentary (Russian probably) about this nice-looking man:Over a million people were killed during the Rwandan Genocide and our country and the UN did nothing to stop it.
Pol Pot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I knew that millions were killed, but was not aware about any details, such as fresh idea to shoot school teachers etc. Very gloomy film.
In that case, the fiend too was left to his own devices.
And today, very often some horrible news come from Nigeria, but it doesn't look like anybody cares.
"Невозможно передать смысл иностранной фразы, не разрушив при этом её первоначальную структуру."
Well it was during the Cold War. It was like a creepy status quo back then. Nobody could officially intervene outside "his" own area, unless it was to stop a country from switching sides. Like the USSR did with Czechoslovakia, and the USA did with Vietnam and others.
Things like Libya and Syria couldn't have happened.
So Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, being a communist revolutionaries (obviously with a screw loose....) must have had the protection of either the USSR or China.
Similarly creepy and scary stuff happened on areas controlled by right wing military dictatorships supported by the USA, in South America, Southern Europe, East Asia etc.
Smaller countries were like pawns on the chessboard for the superpowers back then......
EDIT: Correction: Apparently the USSR was innocent. According to Wiki, Khmer Rouge was supported by "The West and China"?!
i was always fascinated by the Khmer Rouge - as I could not comprehend how people can so cruelly kill their own.
the stories about Tuol Sleng camp are horrendous - basically you had zero chance to survive if you happened to end up there (and all who did end up there, did so for no particular reason at all).
I think one of the leading characters at the time (= 'Duch' he is called went on trial last year or the year before). Pity Pol-pot could never stand trial.
please always correct my (often poor) russian
I'm totally perplexed by this. It makes zero sense. I don't recall hearing a word about it until the early 2000s when I stumbled across a biography of a woman who survived the ordeal. I wonder if that was because our media went very easy with revolutionary/socialist governments back then, or if it was simply that nobody knew. And it turns out that Pol Pot survived well into the 1990s and was supported by the West and the UN. Why would the United Nations support a known mass murder and radical communist revolutionary. It seems to go against their normal ethics.
A old school friend of mine actually got briefly kidnapped in Cambodia in the late 1990s. I don't know by whom or why, and according to himself he eventually just paid his way out of it although it took some time to get money tranferred so he was with them a few days. Maybe it was the Khmer Rouge.
I've seen pictures from there; what a beautiful country with a proud heritage. I hope they can bounce back and become a successful nation.
@ Hanna;
i remember my mother in the 1980's telling us about the Khmer Rouge (we we children then). So if she knew - living in a remote area of a remote country (then South West Africa) without any media access (no internet etc) then it could not have been so secret and people did know about them.
But yes, most people i know, know nothing about Cambodia and Khmer Rouge.
And I also cannot understand why the perpetrators were so shielded. Not sure who protected them; and not sure who supported them originally.
For sure is not many people cared about what happened there.
I read somewhere that only 12 people (12 single people) managed to survive Tuol Sleng
please always correct my (often poor) russian
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
