# Forum About Russia Politics  "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

## Hanna

I want to start a thread on this, because in certain European countries, it's getting completely out of hand. People are beginning to think that Putin is our time's Hitler, and that's media's work.  
Obviously this thread is not relevant from the American perspective, since the USA has a larger population larger military and an ocean between themselves and Russia. So any Russophobia in the United States would be downright absurd. 
However, in certain European nations, it's at least within the frame of the possible, to have a fear of Russia, because technically these countries are too small to stand up to Russia, should it be completely determined. Nevertheless, the thought is ludicrous from any economical, moral or political perspective.  
Yet, open a paper in the Nordic countries, the Baltics, parts of Eastern Europe, and this is near hysteria.  
An individual called Sergei Markov "Putin's deputy" said in preparation for a visit to Finland, that Russians are the new Jews, of Europe. It's fashionable to bash them, and no accusations are too far-fetched, insulting or proposterous.  
Article here (can be translated from Swedish with automated translator - it's *really* good).  "Vill ni vara med och starta ett tredje världskrig?" | Hbl.fi 
I was out of Scandinavia for 10 years when this extreme Russophobia apparently crept into the public consciousness via media _(before that, it wasn't - during the Cold War media never took a stand - it was the golden rule then. During the 90s they were too busy writing about geographical changes, gangsters and criminality. Then came Putin and that's when it started.)_.  
I started following Scandinavian press again some years ago, and Markov is right. It's insane: 
One day it's belated Soviet bashing to make up for what they lost pre-91. 
Then it's reporting about the RU army and its alleged plots on Europe. 
Next its a full run down of everything that's wrong with Putin, including any similarities between him, and Hitler. 
Then its politically correct stuff: Russians beat their wives! Russians are homophobic and racist!  Russians booze! Last I read: Russian tourists are rude to European tourists in Turkey and Thailand.  (well really! time to join nato...!)    
You can prove anything you want with stats and subjective opionion. 
On and on. New variations and repetition. Almost every day. Never anything positive. Just blackpainting, from any angle.  
Open up an open forum and people will spew out insults and accusations about Russians. Usually completely unfounded in realit.  *
I understand how they turned people against the Jews in the 30s now.* If you just read the same thing again and again, with no alternative perspective offered, most people will believe it. And if you say the others are hostile, people will get hostile back. 
We see it from some on this forum here.  
I really feel this is madness and it goes straight against Northern and Eastern European interests. Russia could be a great trading and cultural partner, and has very obviously left imperial aspirations behind. Russia has not attempted to throw its weight around in Europe, and is not stroppy about language, culture or its larger size (these are things that would make me annoyed). The criminality directly related to Russia has reduced to average levels. In REAL terms, there is no problem.  
But to media - there will be a problem as long as there is a country called Russia. It should be split up into smaller parts and completely in US / EU reigns. A Russia that's not on its knees, like in its 90s, is a provocation....  
For me, all this had the opposite effect. Russophilia. I always sort of liked Russia since childhood though. Had a gorgeous nested doll and watched lots of Ru kids programs on TV. LOL.  
And lately: The more somebody tries to shove an opinion down my throat, the more liable I am to want to take the opposite views, to the extent that I have supported the annexation of Crimea, even though probably I would otherwise have been mildly against it. Watched RT, a channel I would probably never have bothered with had my interest in Russian language not suddenly awakened, and regular media lost its perspective on Russia.   *Let's have a discussion about this - particularly relevant from other Euros if you read this.  
Are you a Russophoble or a Russophile, or an interested observer?* * How did you reach your viewpoint? *

----------


## SergeMak

> I was out of Scandinavia for 10 years when this extreme Russophobia apparently crept into the public consciousness via media (before that, it wasn't - during the Cold War media never took a stand - it was the golden rule then. During the 90s they were too busy writing about geographical changes, gangsters and criminality. Then came Putin and that's when it started.).

 No, you are not right. It didn't started with Putin's advent. Russophobia in Europe has a few centuries' long history. It's spinning its odious web since XVI century and probably has deeply penetrated European culture as well as that of USA as it is its direct heir.
That's what Wikipedia says on the subject (it's interesting how Russian and English articles differ): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%F3%...80.D0.B8.D1.8F Russophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Hanna

I personally didn't notice it until ca 2004...  
Although I remember in the 1990s bad guys/girls (gangsters) in Scandinavian films were always Russian. Or rather, people pretending to speak Russian. 
It got really predictable; if a Russian person was in the plot, you knew that he was up to no good.  
Personally, for my family, my dad lost a lot of money due to deals that went bad with Russia around 1991. Thank goodness the internet wasn't around in those days to document it. But it certainly didn't make me like Russia for the following decade, although it wasn't really anyone's fault in particular.  
Before that - in my lifetime - no Russophobia in the extreme way we see now, although some of course disliked the USSR. I associated Russia with cosmonauts, ice hockey, chess, folk costumes and music/arts before then. A bit dull and old fashioned.... Some deep, artsy extentialist film on TV when you wanted something lightweight. 
I think a couple of hundred years ago though, people in Sweden hated Russia because of the various wars and battles. There is a poem about it which people my father's age know by heart, against "Muscovites".
And I think Russians attacked at some point, and burned down a city in Sweden. But this is 100s of years ago... We did the same things to others... 
So if you dig DEEP then yes, there is some Russophilia.  
I think Poland has similar issues, maybe stronger in their case.  
I know this is an awkward topic, but it's the reality of what's happening in Europe today. 
It's a huge propaganda war against Russia.

----------


## eisenherz

I am against this type of either/or (for/against) approach; it tends to prevent reasonable debate. When categorized in either group, any argument (even a valid one) you might bring is somewhat devalued to begin with - as you are expected (and known to) to defend your category even at the expense of merit, logic or fairness. 
In my opinion there exists a lot of middle ground. If you were born and raised in Russia, I would expect you to love and support your country; however that does not have to come at the cost of being completely blind. It also helps at times to be able to distinguish between country and government. The more dictatorial a government, the thinner this line of separation becomes.
If you are born outside Russia (like myself) you can easily have a very soft spot for Russia for:
* its deep culture and beautiful language
* its immense capacity for suffering and withstanding hardship
* its amazing pride and human spirit
* its significant contribution to history, all areas of science and politics 
At the same time it is impossible not to recognize the harm and damage various Russian governments have brought to their own people (never mind others); many of Russia's/Soviet Union achievements (be it infrastructure, manufacturing, society restructuring or scientific developments) came at huge cost to the environment (think Nickel Norilsk) and damage to a section of the population (my own ancestors were caught up in this).
Be it as it may, I consider myself to be sympathetic towards Russia, but Russia as the country (its culture and its people) rather than the government.  From a European perspective, I can only give a 'german' view; and there, I do not really see that extreme 'Anti-Russia' view. Most people are reasonable objective; yes - many are concerned about the recent Crimea/Ukraine activities, but so are they about the USA NSA spying activities and a lot of other issues.

----------


## SergeMak

Such "politically correct" attitude can be expressed towards any other nation/country including Germans and Germany. This attitude nevertheless has has no relation to the theme we are discussing. I am sure there is russophobia as a means for continuous brainwashing of Western people during decades if not centuries. Russophobia is instilled not as extreme 'Anti-Russia' view, as you said, but rather in small portions of arrogant, moralizing, mocking disparaging attitude towards Russian people, their customs and habits. You can see it in the Western press, movies, TV shows an so on. All this suggests disdain and disdain is the latent and thus the most dangerous kind of hatred. And it's useless to say that hatred is the other side of fear.

----------


## eisenherz

@ SergeMak
the 'disdain' you feel Russia is the victim off, is no worse or better than the one dished out to many others; eg North Korea, USA (many criticise the USA just as much as Russia), Germany (remember the countless cheap war movies with 'bad, stereotyped' Germans in them), Iran, Israel, Palestina etc. It is purely a matter of perspective and being receptive to listening. It is obvious that being Russian you are less receptive for example for disdain being dished out towards Israel. I do not think that any individual country is treated in an particularly unfair manner...also remember that role players on the worldscene intrinsically affect more people; hence you cannot expect to be significant and be shielded from public scrutiny at the same time. Even here in Africa, people and media criticise China, Russia, the USA and Europe all the time - in no particular order.

----------


## maxmixiv

> We did the same things to others...

 Oh yes, every Russian knows it very well: Battle of Poltava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## SergeMak

> I do not think that any individual country is treated in an particularly unfair manner...

 Oh, yeah! Tell this cow to the Serbs!

----------


## Lampada

> Oh, yeah! Tell this cow to the Serbs!

  Про Украину забыли.

----------


## SergeMak

> Про Украину забыли.

 Забудешь, как же...
В день Святой Троицы украинские вояки обстреляли храм, убили ребенка. Всю ночь обстреливали жилые кварталы Славянска, уже пустили в ход установки залпового огня. Борьба с терроризмом, говорите? 
Сербов убивали иностранные агрессоры, а в Украине собственные военные устроили геноцид.

----------


## Lampada

> Забудешь, как же...
> В день Святой Троицы украинские вояки обстреляли храм, убили ребенка. Всю ночь обстреливали жилые кварталы Славянска, уже пустили в ход установки залпового огня. Борьба с терроризмом, говорите? Сербов убивали иностранные агрессоры, а в Украине собственные военные устроили геноцид.

 Много противоречащих одна другой трактовок происходящего. Вот нагуглилось:  ""_Боевики разместили на территории церкви, недалеко от железнодорожного вокзала, артиллерийскую установку,_ *с которой обстреливали жилые кварталы Славянска. В результате обстрела в городе получили повреждения несколько зданий", - отметил спикер АТО. "  * Ужасно.

----------


## eisenherz

> Oh, yeah! Tell this cow to the Serbs!

 @ Serge, I was talking about 'disdain being dished out', not anything else

----------


## SergeMak

Я не собираюсь комментировать слова спикера АТО, по крайней мере пока он еще на свободе, а не дает показания, сидя на скамье подсудимых.
Предлагаю вернуться к основной теме нашего разговора. Речь шла о русофобии и русофилии. 
Еще раз повторю свое субъективное мнение - русофобия в Европе существует не просто как бытовое неприятие русских, как чужаков. Такое неприятие и подозрительность - распространенное явление, существующее во всех народах. Русофобия существует как сознательно внедряемая в сознание граждан на протяжении многих поколений идея.
По поводу русофилии - такого явления в России не существует и никогда не существовало. Существует идея славянофильства, но это несколько другая идея.

----------


## UhOhXplode

I'm neither. I was already exposed to Russian people in real-life early and I talk to them at a lot of sites online. So the only way I can discuss Russophobia or Russophilia is by talking about the Russian government and military. 
The Russian people are the Slavic people and they're just people like anyone else. Each group of people have their own culture, traditions, and history and that's cool. 
That's why the heroes in the book I'm writing are Dmitry (Russian) and Cory (American). I'm writing it that way so people can understand that heroes can be from any country, be friends, and work together to conquer evil. Because there aren't any geopolitical borders for good or evil. Both are everywhere in the world.
I know there was a lot of political/ethnic hating during the cold war - I read a lot about that. But it has to stop. The world can't afford another world war and every country should have the right to govern itself and deal with it's own issues.
About Crimea - The people decided to join Russia. About the Donbass - the people decided they wanted independence. I respect and I accept both decisions. About Obama/Poroshenko - It proves that evil can exist in any country since they both have tons of blood on their hands from the Donbass. It doesn't cause me to hate either country but it does cause me to hate the leaders. 
But even leaders change. So I don't get how any intelligent person could be Rossophobic or Russophilic. I mean, nobody in America is gonna like/dislike everything that happens here and nobody in Russia is gonna like/dislike everything that happens there. 
I remember that Maxmixiv showed me a picture of Omsk. It was a broken building with graffiti on the walls and some garbage laying around. But hey, you can see the same pictures of big American cities and it's the same. But the really important issue is just the people and not cities or buildings. Things can get damaged but they can also get fixed and it's people that do that.
So yeah, I think that anyone that has Russophobia or Russophilia needs to go home - they're drunk. And the only way to get sober is to ignore all the media and make your own decisions. The only thing that keeps propaganda alive is propaganda. When people stop reading and watching the propaganda (or even just know what it is), it dies. Oh, and stop looking at extreme patriotism and borders because borders are only doors to new worlds - not barriers that keep evil in or out because evil is everywhere. It's only laws that control evil and the laws are everywhere too.  
Btw, I also believe that people and human conscience are way more important than politics. So people with the same values and the same morality should live together - That's how countries began. 
And now that I'm thinking about that, maybe that's more important than whether somebody likes living in the country they're in. I mean, isn't it the same as being a hypocrite for someone to live in a country that doesn't support their values and morality?
Anyway, I'm very lucky that I was taught not to believe everything I see or hear.

----------


## iCake

> I remember that Maxmixiv showed me a picture of Omsk. It was a broken building with graffiti on the walls and some garbage laying around.

 Something else for you to remember of Omsk then  Любинский проспект  Иртышская набережная

----------


## 14Russian

> Such "politically correct" attitude can be expressed towards any other nation/country including Germans and Germany. This attitude nevertheless has has no relation to the theme we are discussing. I am sure there is russophobia as a means for continuous brainwashing of Western people during decades if not centuries. Russophobia is instilled not as extreme 'Anti-Russia' view, as you said, but rather in small portions of arrogant, moralizing, mocking disparaging attitude towards Russian people, their customs and habits. You can see it in the Western press, movies, TV shows an so on. All this suggests disdain and disdain is the latent and thus the most dangerous kind of hatred. And it's useless to say that hatred is the other side of fear.

 This is produced by Western media but also promoted by the Kremlin/Putin to assist in brainwashing/indoctrinating people in Russia.   The same 'us vs them' mentality and propaganda that the USA uses when they try to promote patriotism and obtain the favour required to justify their warmongering.   That is quite ironic, isn't it? 
But, really, the OP has little genuine interest in Russia and is gravely misinformed despite all the posts and time taken in the forums.  I perceive a lot of boot licking of neo-Soviet and pro-Putin posters but very little substance and evidence of any real knowledge.   
Putinist Russia is harmful and neglectful of ethnic Russians so he must invent an enemy and Western nations fit the bill nicely.

----------


## lodka

> Вот нагуглилось

 Ты еще нагугли, что в Луганске кондиционер взорвался и что в Одессе люди сами себя подожгли. 
Поселок Семеновка (пригород Славянска) стерт с лица земли. Это тоже ополченцы сделали?

----------


## SergeMak

Не реагируйте на нее, разве не понятно, что она специально провоцирует нас с целью перевести разговор на личности и закрыть тему под предлогом "оскорбления модератора", как уже бывало.
Давайте лучше по теме. 
Eisenherz пишет: "Most people are reasonable objective; yes - many are concerned about the recent Crimea/Ukraine activities..."
Может быть объясните мне, почему воссоединение России с Крымом объявляется Западом "аннексией", а объединение Германий - нет?
Давайте посмотрим на факты: до 1990 г. на политической карте мира было 2 Германии - ФРГ и ГДР. После 1990 г. - осталась одна ФРГ, заметно увеличившаяся в размерах, а ГДР исчезла. Разве это не аннексия? Если бы то, что произошло, было действительно объединением, то должно было бы возникнуть некое новое государственное образование, с новым правительством, конституцией и т.д. Кстати, а кто-нибудь что-нибудь слышал о рефереднуме в ГДР по поводу присоединения к ФРГ? Я нет.
Так и где же объективность?

----------


## eisenherz

на мой взгляд, разница между 'German unification' и 'Crimea situation' большой.
но, думаю что должно быть другая тема. 
[i'd be happy to contribute to a debate around this, but as this detracts from the Russiaphobia/Russiaphilic topic, I think this would rather belong to a different topic/thread]

----------


## UhOhXplode

I just read 3 sentences that are a perfect example of Russophobic indoctrination. All 3 used the system of disinformation described in Sun Tzu's book, The Art Of War. But I've noticed it's not the only technique people use to spread prejudice.
Other methods include exaggeration and context. One of our neighbors shot 4 unarmed people and they didn't do anything to him. He just shot them! He's a nutjob and people should stay away from him or call the police!
Scary? What I didn't say was he shot them with paintball guns at a party. That's how to use "context" to spread disinformation without even lying. I've noticed that journalists use it a lot in the news when they write articles about Syria and Ukraine.
That can also be used in reverse to make Hell look like Heaven. But what's important to always remember is that nobody really knows what's in the closet till they open the door. 
The only cure for disinformation is exploration. Do I know that Russians are cool? Yeah, because I've met them in real-life and online. Do I know that some Russians can be criminals? Yeah, because I've seen stories about Russians being arrested in Russia. 
Do I know what Omsk is like? No, because I've never been there... yet. But I'm sure it's like any big city with good points and bad points.
If Obama or Putin told me to wax their car would I do it? No.  
About the politics: I read the history. Crimea and Novo-Rossiya were part of Russia before 1917. When the USSR broke up, they shoulda still been part of Russia. It's obvious that both were a Ukrainian land-grab.
It's so simple. If someone loaned me a socker ball and knee pads, I would return them when the game was over. Ukraine didn't return those 2 regions when the USSR game was over. That's stealing. 
About our president, just this:  

> On June 4, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko met with US President Barack Obama to discuss the ongoing crisis in the eastern European country. Obama announced he would be sending Kiev an additional USD 5 million in military equipment.

 Since the Obama administration keeps supporting the Ukrainian army, even after those people were burned alive in Odessa (I noticed he didn't say anything about the 5 year old girl that was killed in the Church in Lugansk), then the only conclusion I have is that the Obama administration doesn't have a soul. There's a huge difference between soldiers killing soldiers and soldiers shelling civilians.

----------


## lodka

> Может быть объясните мне, почему воссоединение России с Крымом объявляется Западом "аннексией", а объединение Германий - нет?

 Ну ГДР на момент перед объединением не была частью какой-то другой страны. Поэтому это не лучшее сравнение.

----------


## Lampada

> Не реагируйте на нее, разве не понятно, что она специально провоцирует нас с целью перевести разговор на личности и закрыть тему под предлогом "оскорбления модератора", как уже бывало.  ...

 Это переход на личность и крайне неуважительная манера высказываться.  Предупреждения не даю, но беру на заметку. ::

----------


## SergeMak

> Ну ГДР на момент перед объединением не была частью какой-то другой страны. Поэтому это не лучшее сравнение.

 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?

----------


## eisenherz

> It's so simple. If someone loaned me a socker ball and knee pads, I would return them when the game was over. Ukraine didn't return those 2 regions when the USSR game was over. That's stealing.

 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?

----------


## SergeMak

> 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?

 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?

----------


## eisenherz

> В 1990 году СССР по сути подарил Восточную Германию Западной. В

 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

----------


## Hanna

> Such "politically correct" attitude can be expressed towards any other nation/country including Germans and Germany. This attitude nevertheless has has no relation to the theme we are discussing. I am sure there is russophobia as a means for continuous brainwashing of Western people during decades if not centuries. Russophobia is instilled not as extreme 'Anti-Russia' view, as you said, but rather in small portions of arrogant, moralizing, mocking disparaging attitude towards Russian people, their customs and habits. You can see it in the Western press, movies, TV shows an so on. All this suggests disdain and disdain is the latent and thus the most dangerous kind of hatred. And it's useless to say that hatred is the other side of fear.

 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,

----------


## UhOhXplode

> 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?

 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:   

> 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?

 @ 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.

----------


## Hanna

> @ 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.

 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.

----------


## Alex_krsk

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.

----------


## lodka

> for being different

 And for having a too big territory.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> 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.

 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

----------


## Lampada

*День России в Нью-Йорке 2014*

----------


## eisenherz

@ 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.

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## maxmixiv

> Over a million people were killed during the Rwandan Genocide and our country and the UN did nothing to stop it.

 Recently on TV was a documentary (Russian probably) about this nice-looking man: 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.

----------


## Hanna

> Recently on TV was a documentary (Russian probably) about this nice-looking man: 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.

 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"?!

----------


## eisenherz

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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

 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.     

> In 1979, after the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, Pol Pot fled to the jungles of southwest Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge government collapsed.[13] From 1979 to 1997, he and a remnant of the old Khmer Rouge operated near the border of Cambodia and Thailand,  where they clung to power, with nominal United Nations recognition as  the rightful government of Cambodia. Pol Pot committed suicide[14] in 1998

 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.

----------


## eisenherz

@ 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

----------


## SergeMak

Режим Пол Пота не поддерживался Советским Союзом. Во время революции в Камбоджии (Кампучии) было разрушено советское посольство, а советских дипломатов собирались расстрелять. Посольство, правда, удалось эвакуировать. Пол Пот придерживался очень радикальных взглядов, в основе которых был положен моаизм. С Китаем у Советского Союза в тот период времени отношения тоже были очень плохие - чуть ли не на грани войны. В конце концов, конец правительству Пол Пота положила Вьетнамская народная армия - армия социалистического государства, чем спровоцировала вооруженную агрессию Китая (тоже социалистического государства). Так что не надо равнять под одну гребенку все социалистические страны.
Я прекрасно помню, что времена моего детства и юнности, пришедшиеся как раз на тот период (я родился в 1969 году), дня не было, чтобы в газетах и по телевизору не говорили о "кровавом режиме Пол Пота".

----------


## Hanna

Russian embassy in Kiev vandalised, and Ukrainian minster calling Putin a f---cker on TV.

----------


## Alex_krsk

That "minister" had done a great favor to his russian counterpart 
Russophobia in europe  is always a bad sign
but it used to end up more or less the same so far  _«Россия - карлик, я поставлю её на колени.» Карл 12-й, XVIII век.
Швеция навсегда лишилась статуса великой державы. 
«Я покорю отсталую Россию.» Фридрих, середина XVIII века.
В 1759 году русская армия вошла в Берлин. 
«Россия - колосс на глиняных ногах.» Наполеон, XIX век.
В 1814 году русская армия взяла Париж. 
«Я завоюю СССР к концу года.» Гитлер, XX век.
В 1945 году покончил с собой, когда советская армия вошла в Берлин. ﻿ 
«Россия – всего лишь региональная держава»  Барак Обама, март 2014 года........
Ждём......_﻿

----------


## Hanna

> That "minister" had done a great favor to his russian counterpart 
> Russophobia in europe  is always a bad sign
> but it used to end up more or less the same so far  _«Россия - карлик, я поставлю её на колени.» Карл 12-й, XVIII век.
> Швеция навсегда лишилась статуса великой державы. 
> «Я покорю отсталую Россию.» Фридрих, середина XVIII века.
> В 1759 году русская армия вошла в Берлин. 
> «Россия - колосс на глиняных ногах.» Наполеон, XIX век.
> В 1814 году русская армия взяла Париж. 
> «Я завоюю СССР к концу года.» Гитлер, XX век.
> ...

 
Yes, history definitely confirms this. It's tragic that all these defeated empires have come at such a high price for regular people in Russia. 
Death, destruction, "scorched earth" etc. 
I am Swedish as you know, but when I went to school, mainly in the 1980s, Karl XII was incredibly impopular (politically incorrect), as well as that entire period of history. I hardly learned anything about him at all - it was all brushed over.  
 However in the past he used to be considered a big hero; poems written about him etc. Older people can recite them by heart.  Since he lost the Swedish empire, I don't really understand why anyone thought him a hero. The school version was that he was only 15 or something like that, when he became king. He was brought up to glorify war, and was manipulated into the war with Russia by advisors with ulterior motives. The huge defeats against Russia "cured" Sweden of any interest in wars until this day, which is probably a good thing. Personally I think it's a shame that all that territory was lost, but as far as I understand it, most of the aggression came from us, not from Russia (per school history, but I am sure a nationalist would think it was completely justified!) so based on what little I know about it, there is no strong reason to feel slighted. Plus, it was a long time ago...   
I very clearly remember my history teacher saying that "nobody can win a war of invasion against Russia", explaining why in terms of geography, natural factors and Russia's traditional tactics. She said others have tried before from the south and the east, we were among the first modern European nations to find that out, then half of Europe went on to repeat the same mistake citing the list, which matches yours above.  
But then just a few years later, I read "what nobody in Europe could do with bayonets, cannons and tanks, the Americans did with Coca Cola, rock'n'roll and entertainment and a spending race (i.e.win the Cold War and get Russia on its knees).

----------


## Alex_krsk

> I don't really understand why anyone thought him a hero.

 Napoleon had lost the war too but he's a hero for a lot of nations in europe. Before he went to russia he gave europe law and some other things.    

> what nobody in Europe could do with bayonets, cannons and tanks, the Americans did with Coca Cola, rock'n'roll and entertainment

 All fell (including ukraine, yugoslavia and other) but Russia went through communism (which was also british-American gift) went through  _Coca Cola, rock'n'roll and entertainment_ and some other in 90s... but survived and now is washing all the sht away.
What about spending race... nobody knows how long it's left fot dollar bubble to grow before it explodes. So who's finally the winner is a question.
That's why they are all so histerical. (when they are confident of victory they are calm and smiling, but now things are a bit different)  
Great peacful but inconquerable nation is standing up again.

----------


## Hanna

Yes, as long as Russia doesn't turn into a bully, and starts behaving like the USA, then I hope that it rises fast again.  
As for the USA I think it is in self destruct mode, and it might well take Europe with it. 
We are in the same hook as of the War, and the Eastern European countries, partly too, since 1990.  
I'm referring to things like destruction of family values, rampant immoral values, culture of corporate greed and excessive consumption, environment and the death of privacy. 
Taking on millions upon millions of people with little or no education, who can't read and write, have totally different cultures and little interest in adapting along with violent pasts where they came from. Then handing out benefits year after year to such people while they sit on their back without working.  
I think all of this and more, is destroying Europe and the US to varying degrees from within.  
Russia isn't into that to the same extent. I think it goes without saying that all of the above undermines the strength and future of Europe and the USA.   
The USA has its dollar bubble that must burst eventually, like you say. Unless they start using weapons to turn things to their advantage. But that would also expose them in front of the whole world. I think the US is beginning to get exposed for what it is now, to more and more people, even in Europe. Whereas neither Russia nor China does much that could possibly annoy people in the Middle East, East Asia, Africa or South America. 
I believe it's living on borrowed time.  
Russia and China having more stability in the leadership, and a history of long term planning, socialist style, can be much more methodical and strategic about its actions. 
For the USA, it's all "here and now". What can make us the most money right here and now? What will win the election in a year? Short term idiotic goals that will eventually lead to destruction. While China, and probably Russia is having a much longer perspective in mind. 
I think this type of patience and strategical thinking pays off, while short term opportunism is ultimately  
Russia has to eliminate corruption though! And reduce the class differences between the poor in the countryside and the rich in the large cities.

----------


## Hanna

> Russian embassy in Kiev vandalised, and Ukrainian minster calling Putin a f---cker on TV.

  

> However, Geoff Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, wrote on Twitter  that the minister had been "seeking to defuse a dangerous situation", * calling Deshchytsia "a skilled diplomat and credit to Ukraine*".

 I wonder if he had said the same, if a Russian had been standing outside the US embassy in Moscow shouting "Obama is a f---cker". 
In London, you can't get anywhere near the US embassy to protest, or security policy will pick you up and you will end up on watch lists. 
If somebody in London went and tried to shout "Obama is a f---cker" outside the US embassy, he'd go to prison.

----------


## Alex_krsk



----------


## UhOhXplode

> @ 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.

 2nd best government in the world - Not the 2nd best leaders. Even people that voted for Obama don't like Obama, lol. People are saying that he could be the worst President in American history. 
Oh, and I didn't know the Rwandan Genocide was a threat to other countries. The article I read was posted by a Rwandan woman that survived the genocide. Her baby was cut in half and she was beaten in the swamp and left for dead. I can't even imagine that kind of cruelty. That genocide shoulda been stopped before it ever started.   

> Russian embassy in Kiev vandalised, and Ukrainian minster calling Putin a f---cker on TV.

 Is there any intelligent life in Kiev? They look like savages. But if that's what the EU wants then... good luck...   

> I wonder if he had said the same, if a Russian had been standing outside the US embassy in Moscow shouting "Obama is a f---cker".
> In London, you can't get anywhere near the US embassy to protest, or security policy will pick you up and you will end up on watch lists. 
> If somebody in London went and tried to shout "Obama is a f---cker" outside the US embassy, he'd go to prison.

 How old is Geoffrey Pyatt? 2? 3? Does he even have an IQ? Now I understand why Ukraine is having a civil war. People like Pyatt would be perfect tools for starting wars.   

> 

 LOL! Ukraine sold itself to the lowest bidder! So maybe the best way to deal with Kiev is to do and say stupid stuff. It seems to attract them. 
Anyway, while I was gone I stayed in the loop with what's happening in Ukraine and Iraq. I was shocked that the west blocked condemnation of the attack on the Russian embassy in Kiev - I was hoping the west was at least that civilized but no. 
It was an obvious violation of International Law and it should have been condemned automatically. The UN is guilty of ethnic prejudice and of violating it's own principles.

----------


## Alex_krsk

Ukrainian so called government is just doing what they are told by the US.
Political (and may be phisical) life of those "ministers", "prime ministers" and "presidents" fully depends on their success in defeating and depopulating Donbass (after they lost Crimea).
Washington doesnt need western ukraine, the US want to get south east resources and to cut russia off europe.   
That reminds me of iraq WMD.
Lying, denying obvous reality is old tactics.
But this time it looks more like histerics.
Either they have some secret tricky plan or it's just an agony. 
Let's wait and see

----------


## Hanna

All of this has really opened up my eyes about what the EU has become. It's not just the USA driving this. EU is just as guilty, in relation to Ukraine. It's really breaking my heart. I can't deny that the EU has become a monster, and it's not just Ukraine but also Syria and Libya.  
I really wanted to see the good in the EU, but it's getting harder and harder. I'm getting to the point that I am beginning to feel that I was wrong, when I was so pro EU back in the 90s. I guess it was disillusion with socialism (which I had more or less believed in with varying level of strength while growing up), and feeling that "Russia is a dump and the USSR was a hoax" (back in the 90s, that's how it seemed...)  I've always been very suspicious against the US, so that ideology was never even on the agenda. 
The EU and European unity was almost the last nice ideal left to believe in! Sadly it has become: 
1) an US puppet, 
2) a very un-democratic entity 
3) a joke of a union - most Europeans simply don't feel any loyalty towards countries at the other end of the union. At the most, they feel some limited brotherhood with a couple of neighbours, and not even that is a given. There is no ethnic, religious, ideological or other relevant glue to keep the EU together. 
4) The Euro wasn't properly managed and proved to be more than certain countries could responsibly handle. Some of the countries that were needed to make the Euro a success, refused to join it. Other countries that would like to use it, are not allowed. 
5) We have first, second and third class European nations, one nation that doesn't want to be in the EU at all, and simply sabotages the positive projects. 
6) The open borders, while lovely for regular people have also given non European economic migrants, opportunistic gypsies and all kinds of criminals free reign. I personally hated the border checks pre-EU but we might soon get to a point when they are the lesser of many evils. Some countries like the UK never scrapped it to begin with.  
The EU is partly responsible for these lost lives in Ukraine. The EU has dangled a carrot under the noses of Ukrainians who obviously deluded themselves about what their realistic prospects are, in relation to the EU. 
They showeved attention, money and support over the various coup makers, leaders etc  in connection with the coup d'etat. 
Normally they wouldn't give time of the day to Ukraine. 
They will not sort out the Ukraine's economy in a positive way,  they'll turn it into a new market for EU junk products, a sweatshop location and haven for shady EU companies that can't operate above the light in Germany or the UK, similar to Romania. The Ukraine will be used as a pawn in the game against Russia, similar to Poland and the Baltics. All the while the well educated emigrate. I think the Ukrainians will fined. Any profits generated in Ukraine will leave the country, probably un-taxed.  
I have no realistic idea whether Russia treated Ukraine better, but I would have thought so, and that Ukraine was on a much more equal and favoured position in relation to Moscow compared with Brussels.

----------


## SergeMak

And still, the EU has to survive, or else the US will subordinate the European countries one by one. The real struggle that we are witnesses to is between the US and China for the right to dominate on the European market. Of course, it would be much better for Europe and Russia if we could manage to establish friendly and mutually beneficial relations. But this needs that a new generation of politicians came to power who can realize that Russia isn't a threat to Europe.

----------


## Hanna

> And still, the EU has to survive, or else the US will subordinate the European countries one by one. The real struggle that we are witnesses to is between the US and China for the right to dominate on the European market. Of course, it would be much better for Europe and Russia if we could manage to establish friendly and mutually beneficial relations. But this needs that a new generation of politicians came to power who can realize that Russia isn't a threat to Europe.

 We haven't been able to stand up to the US as a union though. Instead, it's become the US accomplice, and a stronger one than any of the countries individually. If anyone is going to stand up to the US, sadly I don't think it's going to be us. But that, and holding our own against Asia was one of the reasons I supported the EU idea so strongly back whenever. It was also to protect against right wing dictatorships in the South European countries, and at the time it seemed that it would be the best thing for Eastern Europe where people were just disillusioned and miserable back then. 
Personally because I  
As for China, I fear the day they really become economically stronger than Europe. 
I have worked enough with Asians to know how cut-throat and ruthless they are in business and work situations. Even Americans are nicer to work for in comparison with Japanese and Indians (I assume China and South Koreans are similar). And Americans are more similar culture and race.  
They can't behave like that in Europe right now, because we are still holding our ground. But this may change.

----------


## niko89

Russophobia is a bad thing. Nobody should hate people, just because they were born in Russia. That is wrong. I see it as racism.  ::

----------


## Alex_krsk

rather interesting article Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

----------


## Hanna

> Jag är en vacker och genomklok och lagom tjock man i mina bästa år

  ::  ::  ::  I will pay close attention to what you have to say then!    

> rather interesting article Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

 Nah..... Those facts he mention must be a co-incidence. Well argued and presented, but too far fetched.  _But I'll tell you what - if they ban or somehow get RT off the air in the USA, then I'll believe they are up to something big. RT is driving Washington nuts and it's telling truths to Americans every day, that they are not supposed to know. So if they planned something, they would have to get RT off the air, just for starters. As well as restricting the internet, but I think there is a plan for that._ 
While I wouldn't put it beyond the USA to cook up a reason as to why Russia must be attacked with nukes (the usual drawl about terrorism, human rights, democracy or something), they would need a propaganda campaign of at least a few years to convince even half their population that there was any merit to it.  They want to keep up the illusion of being a democracy that fights for things like human rights. Attacking Russia which simply can't be accused of the normal "atrocities" or "terrorism" would be hard to justify.  
Or am I giving them more credit than they deserve here? Maybe the Putin-is-Hitler rhetoric is about exactly that. Seems too mad to be true though.  
Another reason:  I personally think there is a certain amount of racism (or simply valuing white/Caucasian Christian lives more than moslem, Asian or African)  in all these US invasions and wars.  Russians are mostly white, Christian and certainly educated. Americans don't want to fight white, educated Christians. Europeans may not love Putin, and some may have a historical grief with Russia. But nobody wants to see Moscow nuked (other than maybe Carl Bildt and William Hague). I am sure of that.  
It was the same thing in the Cold War. They never dared to take on any actual Soviets directly, it was always a war through proxy; Vietnam, Korea, Laos and various other places in South America, Asia and Africa. Between the US and the USSR it was almost a gentleman's quarrel between spies and politicians. The people who died,  were people in developing or less fortunate countries. 
Back in the Cold War days, hardly no Americans had been to the USSR.  Almost any propaganda/lies could be told and nobody would would be the  wiser. To this day, most Americans believe the average day in the USSR was like living in a prison colony. (I have no idea what Russians believed about the USA, or if it was as badly misrepresented).  
Today, there must be hundreds of thousands of Americans who have  visited Russia. And there are hundreds of thousands of people living in  the US, who were born in Russia. They couldn't pull off a Cold War style propaganda campaign today, because too many people would be able to expose it. And if they went to war against public opinion, they would expose themselves as true fascists to their own population.   *Plus, as any cold war child knows: If one of these countries attack the other, they will doom themselves at the same time, and take most of Europe with them.  * No way the Americans will risk that. They can't use nukes against a country that has nukes itself and can retailiate against them or their allies. That's the only line they won't cross, and that's probably why it's driving them nuts when countries they don't like get nukes.    

> Obama clearly means business here, and so the government that we have installed in Kiev is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine, in order to convince the residents there that resistance will be futile. Part of the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the losses of all of Ukraine's unpaid debts to Russia, so that far _less_ of Ukraine's unpaid debts _to the IMF, U.S. and E.U._, will _remain_ unpaid. It's basically an international bankruptcy proceeding, but without an international bankruptcy court, using instead military means. It's like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment, and the one with the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is the reason why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down the rebellion in Ukraine's southeast.

 Touché. The only thing that is incomprehensible about this, is why Ukrainians, whether they like Russia/Putin or not, let themselves be used to run the errands of IMF, Washington and Brussels at their own expense.

----------


## eisenherz

in my opinion - despite some shortcomings - the level of democracy in most European countries is still head and shoulders above most other places around the world.
i would hardly call it an 'undemocratic monster'.
the consistant level of reasonably free and fair elections and a low-level corruption justice system as we have in most EU countries just does not exist elsewhere (save for very few exceptions like maybe Canada, New Zealand, Japan); certainly hardly anyone in Africa comes close and not many in far or near east, or for that matter South or Middle America.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> All of this has really opened up my eyes about what the EU has become. It's not just the USA driving this. EU is just as guilty, in relation to Ukraine. It's really breaking my heart. I can't deny that the EU has become a monster, and it's not just Ukraine but also Syria and Libya.  
> I really wanted to see the good in the EU, but it's getting harder and harder. I'm getting to the point that I am beginning to feel that I was wrong, when I was so pro EU back in the 90s. I guess it was disillusion with socialism (which I had more or less believed in with varying level of strength while growing up), and feeling that "Russia is a dump and the USSR was a hoax" (back in the 90s, that's how it seemed...)  I've always been very suspicious against the US, so that ideology was never even on the agenda. 
> The EU and European unity was almost the last nice ideal left to believe in! Sadly it has become: 
> 1) an US puppet, 
> 2) a very un-democratic entity 
> 3) a joke of a union - most Europeans simply don't feel any loyalty towards countries at the other end of the union. At the most, they feel some limited brotherhood with a couple of neighbours, and not even that is a given. There is no ethnic, religious, ideological or other relevant glue to keep the EU together. 
> 4) The Euro wasn't properly managed and proved to be more than certain countries could responsibly handle. Some of the countries that were needed to make the Euro a success, refused to join it. Other countries that would like to use it, are not allowed. 
> 5) We have first, second and third class European nations, one nation that doesn't want to be in the EU at all, and simply sabotages the positive projects. 
> 6) The open borders, while lovely for regular people have also given non European economic migrants, opportunistic gypsies and all kinds of criminals free reign. I personally hated the border checks pre-EU but we might soon get to a point when they are the lesser of many evils. Some countries like the UK never scrapped it to begin with.

 It's not good or bad. The world is just divided into parts that are serving growing dollar system.
1. the metropolia
2. the consumers (golden billion)
3. the sweatshop
4. the others still unliberated 
The 1st is not goegraphical region i think. It's more like club of companies which are big enough to be above  national laws. They control their tools - the US government, NATO, IMF and some others.  
Second- the consumers. Those in europe, north america and some in asia.
The culture of consuming doesn't  imply any hesitation betweengst advertising and purchase. that's why  

> destruction of family values, rampant immoral values

 only those are perfect consumers who don't have any obligations to each other, any memory and any traditions. 
whose only obligation is in time credit payment. 
third - the sweatshop. Those are to follow their carrot as long as possible. 
the other - is what is dangerous to the system. And the main danger is Ruissia.\ 
Of course in reality it is more complex but general picture looks like this.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Another reason:  I personally think there is a certain amount of racism (or simply valuing white/Caucasian Christian lives more than moslem, Asian or African)  in all these US invasions and wars.  Russians are mostly white, Christian and certainly educated. Americans don't want to fight white, educated Christians. Europeans may not love Putin, and some may have a historical grief with Russia. But nobody wants to see Moscow nuked (other than maybe Carl Bildt and William Hague). I am sure of that.

 THat's true. Russia seems to be only indo-european nation (alon with those ethnic groups withing russian borders and some beyond) that is getting out of that dollar system again.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> in my opinion - despite some shortcomings - the level of democracy in most European countries is still head and shoulders above most other places around the world.
> i would hardly call it an 'undemocratic monster'.
> the consistant level of reasonably free and fair elections and a low-level corruption justice system as we have in most EU countries just does not exist elsewhere (save for very few exceptions like maybe Canada, New Zealand, Japan); certainly hardly anyone in Africa comes close and not many in far or near east, or for that matter South or Middle America.

 First i think you confuse EU commissons and european national electoral systems. 
Second, even european national legislature is not as democratic as it appears in mass media (which mostly form the opinions). I personally had to deal with austrian law and it appeared to be much more stupid and undemocratic than "totalitarian" USSR law.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Ukrainian so called government is just doing what they are told by the US.
> Political (and may be phisical) life of those "ministers", "prime ministers" and "presidents" fully depends on their success in defeating and depopulating Donbass (after they lost Crimea).
> Washington doesnt need western ukraine, the US want to get south east resources and to cut russia off europe. 
> That reminds me of iraq WMD.
> Lying, denying obvous reality is old tactics.
> But this time it looks more like histerics.
> Either they have some secret tricky plan or it's just an agony.
> Let's wait and see

 I think you're right. I was shocked that my country was letting Kiev use military force against it's own citizens on so many levels. I mean, if they would let that happen in Ukraine then what would stop them from doing that here in our country?
And since all the violations that Kiev is committing are being approved by our country, then our country must be as messed up as Kiev.
But it does add up that the west would want southeast Ukraine since that's where the bulk of the Ukrainian economy is. But Monsanto could be interested in western Ukraine for it's GMO's.
I think the only people who won't get profits from this are the Ukrainian people. 
In other news, the Russian team is playing against South Korea today in Brazil. It's their first match and South Korea is scared, lol. They probably still remember the match in Dubai last year. The group H opener starts at 17:00 here so that's 02:00 am in Moscow. Should be a really exciting match!

----------


## eisenherz

> First i think you confuse EU commissons and european national electoral systems. 
> Second, even european national legislature is not as democratic as it appears in mass media (which mostly form the opinions). I personally had to deal with austrian law and it appeared to be much more stupid and undemocratic than "totalitarian" USSR law.

 
I am not confusing them  - the EU is based on democratic principles more so than most other places. 
If you cannot agree that Austria is a more democratic place than what the USSR was; than basically our views on the world are just very different.  Also consider that having laws is one thing, but the consistant and fair application thereof makes a big difference too. I cannot recall Austria making a mockery of law by arbitrarily relocating people to remote areas where the party at power sees fit (eg Karaganda). 
I would believe you that Austria has some stupid laws too - and maybe less than perfect; however in Austria your rights as an individual are less trampled on than just about every country outside Europe (save maybe a very few)

----------


## Alex_krsk

> I am not confusing them  - the EU is based on democratic principles more so than most other places.

 Iassume you know the way eurpian "comissions" are being formed. You might consider it democratic why not.   

> If you cannot agree that Austria is a more democratic place than what the USSR was;

  i didn't say that  

> than basically our views on the world are just very different.  Also consider that having laws is one thing, but the consistant and fair application thereof makes a big difference too. I cannot recall Austria making a mockery of law by arbitrarily relocating people to remote areas where the party at power sees fit (eg Karaganda).

  what does it have to do with law? things you are talking about  were under stalin's rgime. May be i should recall Austria-Hungary either?   

> I would believe you that Austria has some stupid laws too - and maybe less than perfect; however in Austria your rights as an individual are less trampled on than just about every country outside Europe (save maybe a very few)

 That was all about rights of individual.
last year in january i went to austria to ski. I rented a car and was going to stick my dash cam on frontwindow like i used to do before. The rent compoany guy noticed that and told me that now it's illegal to have a dash cam. I wasn't surprised but when i arrived i tried to find out wats going on.
Here's waht i found out.
I don't have any links and references here by me but you can easily find it if you know some german (my german is very poor so it's gonna take long) so i'm typing from my memory.
There's such comission in Austrian government called "data protection comission".
That commission (i wander what memebers of that commisiion were on) spawned a law (i wander how some "commision" can make a law at all) that bans any dash cams in a private cars. (10 000 euro fine for first violation and 25 000 for second and folowing). Not only it bans dash cams but any video recording devices (including cell phones).
But it is allowed to use dash cams in vehicles of state run companies and services. To me that means that *a private person can be video recorded from withing any state owned vehicle (without any judge's decision) while the same is not allowed for that private person.* Which means that the state is higher that a private person while in a "democratic" society it should be the other way around. (reminds me NK)
Another funny thing is that it's not prohibited to video record when you are not in the car. When you are in car you can't take picturesbut if you got out you can record as much as you want.

----------


## Hanna

> I cannot recall Austria making a mockery of law by arbitrarily relocating people to remote areas where the party at power sees fit (eg Karaganda).

 No, they didn't, because while this was happening in Russia, the Austrians were busy waving swastika flags and assisting their brudervolk with sending people to Treblinka and Auschwitz instead. No disrespect against the Austrians, and I am sure there were many who would have preferred not to, or re-write history a bit, but it's what happened.  
Yes, the USSR/Stalin relocated people, during the war; it was probably completely misguided,  but at least they didn't kill people on purpose. And the USSR stopped that when the war was over, and only a small minority of the population was affected.  
Nobody here is old enough to remember those days. I don't want to sound like I'm defending that, because I'm not, but it was different times. When anyone here speaks of the USSR, they speak about the 1960s-80s  
Of course they had a functioning justice system; there were regular criminals there, like everywhere else. Thieves, smugglers, black marketeers, violent people, hooligans etc. And probably also people who were wrongly accused of a crime and needed a fair trial to be acquitted. My understanding is that such a system existed in the USSR, at least from the 1950s onwards, and that only a fraction of criminal cases in the USSR had the slightest to do with politics.  
 I know that English speaking countries tend to believe that only trial by jury is fair, but most continental European countries don't use that system, and leave it to judges after hearing counsels of both sides. As far as I know, the USSR had non-jury trials in which the prosecutor and legal counsel of the defendant presented the case in front of a judge and citizen observers. Personally I think a professional judge, if he is reasonably unbiased is more likely to judge fairly, than a jury.  As to what happened during the second world war: All the countries involved did horrible things during the war, didn't they...? Enough said. Plus, the extreme actions of Stalin, and his personality cult were condemned by his successors, and it was not repeated again.    As for after the Russian revolution: The revolution took place almost 100 years ago, in a much harsher era. We can't judge their actions then, by today's standards, even though I agree that the bolsheviks were brutal and didn't have a great deal of respect for lives of their perceived enemies... In the rest of Europe, we had illiterate children working 12 hour shifts in factories, and peasants who weren't allowed to leave the estates of their land owners. So it's relative....  
Also;  this was right after the most brutal war the world had ever seen; First world war with the gruesome deaths in the trenches, mustard gas and all that. Many, many more people died in that war, than in the Russian revolution. One of the first things the USSR did after it was founded, was to withdraw from this practically meaningless war, which achieved nothing other than set the scene for the second world war.   
I think the big difference, and what you are getting at, is that in countries like the USSR, the difference were that judges had to be communist party members and loyal to the state. Modern China probably has the same setup. So they would perhaps go along with some ideologically motivated judgments on rare occasions when something like that came up. I think such cases were very much exceptions. But that's why they appeared to use the criminal system against people who won't conform with the ideology or went against the state.

----------


## Alex_krsk

BTW the US government didn't hesitate to relocate most of japanese from the coast when WWII began

----------


## Hanna

> in my opinion - despite some shortcomings - the level of democracy in most European countries is still head and shoulders above most other places around the world.

 Yes, the countries are. But I am referring to the EU itself. It's run by the comission which is not democratic.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> When anyone here speaks of the USSR, they speak about the 1960s-80s

    ::

----------


## Lampada

> BTW the US government didn't hesitate to relocate most of japanese from the coast when WWII began

 Да, но всё-таки извинились:  *From Wrong To Right: A U.S. Apology For Japanese Internment* : Code Switch : NPR

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Да, но всё-таки извинились:  *From Wrong To Right: A U.S. Apology For Japanese Internment* : Code Switch : NPR

  а ктто утверждал обратное?

----------


## Lampada

> а ктто утверждал обратное?

 И как-то компенсировали всех доживших.  Ты вроде параллели проводишь.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> И как-то компенсировали всех доживших.  Ты вроде параллели проводишь.

 I apologize for being that dumb. Но моё скудоумие не в состоянии дотянуться вашего глубокомыслия.

----------


## eisenherz

> No, they didn't, because while this ywas happening in Russia, the Austrians were busy waving swastika flags and assisting their brudervolk with sending people to Treblinka and Auschwitz instead. No disrespect against the Austrians, and I am sure there were many who would have preferred not to, or re-write history a bit, but it's what happened.  
> Yes, the USSR/Stalin relocated people, during the war; it was probably completely misguided,  but at least they didn't kill people on purpose. And the USSR stopped that when the war was over, and only a small minority. ....

 hanna, i know you are very knowledgable and i respect you for that. but it appears to me your opinion on the ussr was largely formed post 1970. yes the austrians did those things during the war, but you are very very wrong with your assertion that stalin did this during the war only and did not kill people on purpose.  i do not want to write books to you but maybe familiarise yourself with the times and doings of jeschow and lawrentij beria. think about the countless people that went through the underdground cells of lubjanka and butyrka. read about the people disappearing without any fair trial in countless working prison camps - from way before the war to way after the war. let me give you some examples:  karaganda for example dolinka from 1931 tp 1959, workuta from 1938 to after 1960, kolyma until 1987. if after all of that you still think people were not being killed without a fair justice system in huge numbers way before and after the war and you think austria is just as bad, well then we just completely disagree.

----------


## Hanna

I am vaguely familiar with what you bring up, eisenhertz, and I know that Stalin ran a very harsh regime in the 1930s, and was brutal against those he thought were his enemies, or enemies of the state.  
And you are right that I judge the USSR from the era that I am familiar with. 
I visited the USSR a few times in the 1980s, in my childhood, I watched kiddies programs from there growing up, and artsy Soviet films in my teens. 
Balanced by the odd US film with Soviet villians, or bestseller with some gruesome story about people who were wronged by the USSR. I always figured the truth was somewhere in between. But after 1990 - the US version has been accepted by many as the truth. I.e. everybody there was a tragic victim.  
Like everyone else in the 1990s I watched the news when all the dirt on the USSR was dug up; bones of people along the roads in East Siberia; retarded and handicapped children tied to their beds in in state asylums, poverty bringing out the worst in people etc. I certainly grasped pretty fast that there was a very dark and ugly side to the USSR, and that what I had seen on holidays and TV was far from the whole picture. Very disillusioning. 
 HOWEVER I don't think _most_ other people in recent times had horrific experiences either. My own relatives lived in Tallinn and later Leningrad. They had plenty of opportunity to leave the country ("defect") had they wanted to, but they had made it clear that they were not interested. While I don't think they felt that they lived in an ideal country, they thought at the time, that it was good enough, and they had a comfortable life. None of this victimisation I read about later, that happened to some Baltic people happened to anyone in that family.  
Plus, plenty of people here have told about their happy childhoods growing up in the USSR, and I think that is the majority.  I have no reason to distrust them - I'm sure they would say so, if their experience of life in the USSR was really bad. There are also people here, who left back in those days - they haven't really brought up any major grievance either. I guess the grass just seemed greener in North America, or Israel or wherever they went to.  
But seriously, I don't see the point in dwelling obsessively on the past. For example some Brits can't hear the word Germany or Germans without starting to obsess about various aspects of the War. It's tiresome, rude and pointless. Everybody in Germany knows it all too well, so what's the point? I feel the same way about the harsh aspects of Stalin's regime, about the US having discriminated against blacks, and slavery, the many faults of the British empire. 
Finally --- it's the older relatives of the Russians, who had to put up with Stalin, right? So let THEM judge him, if they want. Stalin did nothing to me or anyone in my family. I have no reason to dwell on him any more than historical faults of any other country.

----------


## SergeMak

> think about the countless people that went through the underdground cells of lubjanka and butyrka. read about the people disappearing without any fair trial in countless working prison camps - from way before the war to way after the war.

 No, you wrong, the exact number of the victims of Stalin repressions is very precisely counted. Strangely enough but the bolsheviks were good accountants. There is a dossier for every disappeared victim. There is a small problem - this number is not big enough to satisfy modern West anti-soviet (read "anti-Russia") propaganda.
You can read about it here: Легенда о количестве жертв сталинских репрессий (Владимир Иванов 57) / Проза.ру - национальный сервер современной прозы

----------


## eisenherz

@ Serge
counted they may be - i give you that.
but accounted for -many are not (esp where half-foreigners) were imvolved

----------


## eisenherz

@ hanna; you are right.... no need to dwell om the past too much , got carried away a little.... better to look forward

----------


## Hanna

> No, you wrong, the exact number of the victims of Stalin repressions is very precisely counted. Strangely enough but the bolsheviks were good accountants. There is a dossier for every disappeared victim. There is a small problem - this number is not big enough to satisfy modern West anti-soviet (read "anti-Russia") propaganda.
> You can read about it here: Легенда о количестве жертв сталинских репрессий (Владимир Иванов 57) / Проза.ру - национальный сервер современной прозы

 So what IS the figure, and is it contested? I honestly have NO idea. 
The article was a bit hard to follow, I thought. 
Another aspect to this, is that the USSR really strongly rejected Stalin's personality cult and his brutal tactics almost immediately after he died.  
It's clear that a lot of higher up people were scared of his regime, and as soon as he was off the scene, they rejected him, and discouraged personality cults in other communist countries.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> So what IS the figure, and is it contested? I honestly have NO idea.

 I don't know what the "true" figure is, but for JUST *the Ukrainian S.S.R. victims during the first "Five-Year-Plan" (1928-1933)*, I've seen estimated death tolls ranging from 5 million (a number admitted by later Soviet historians) to 20 million (a number claimed by some Ukrainian nationalists living outside the USSR). 
Different political biases aren't the only source of the disagreement. It's likely that millions of "unaccounted for" Ukrainians were geographically displaced by the "Первая пятилетка", but many did not die as a direct result of the Plan -- instead, they may have perished years later during the Nazi invasion (not as a result of being murdered by their own government). 
Also, there were two serious droughts in Ukraine during this five-year period, which suggests that many would have died from famine anyway *even if the Five-Year-Plan had not existed* -- yet it's almost certainly the case that the Plan needlessly increased the total number of famine deaths. But what percentage of the deaths from starvation should be blamed on Stalin's policies, and what percentage were due to the "unavoidable natural disaster" of the two droughts? (In other words, if a famine occurs under conditions of a centrally-planned economy, should we conclude that the famine itself was "planned"?) 
P.S. Of course, there are similar uncertainties when trying to estimate the total number of Chinese who died under Mao, or the "real" number of African victims during the centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. (We don't know the total number who died IN AFRICA while being transported to the slave ships, for example.)

----------


## Hanna

Exactly - Stalin was ruthless, but the war situation made him worse than he otherwise would have been. As for the that whole starvation-in-Ukraine episode; it was one of the many things that I came to the light in the 90s, wasn't it? We will never know about the "what if" speculation. I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.  
Almost all European countries have a horrible famine at some point in their history over the last couple of centuries. Ukraine's was quite recent, that's all. Of course, if Ukrainians really believe that they were being starved deliberately, it's not hard to understand that they have an axe to grind.  
Also, unless if I'm not mistaken, it was under Stalin that the Soviet Union was so super productive that the USA flipped over and choked on its coffee... 
They got worried that communism could be a serious contender to capitalism in terms of productivity and innovation _(so far, that doesn't seem to be the case, unless people are high on revolutionary fever, have good leaders and there is some very strong motivation to work hard...)_  
Not to mention the victory over Nazism which happened while Stalin lead the country. So there WAS a positive side to his leadership.  
Stalin almost won "most popular Russian" in that competition a few years ago - despite technically not being Russian. Clearly there are people in Russia who admire some aspects of his leadership.  
I totally leave it to the people of the ex USSR countries to judge him, or not. It's got nothing to do with me.

----------


## Eric C.

> They got worried that communism could be a serious contender to capitalism in terms of productivity and innovation (so far, that doesn't seem to be the case, *unless people are high on revolutionary fever, have good leaders and there is some very strong motivation to work hard...*)

 I know one such country, but the problem is, their level of innovation is still stuck in the 1950s xD 
The problem of every commie regime is, that it's in fact a two-layer system --- developed capitalism for the "dear leaders", and slavery for everyone else. Such a system will always suck at every aspect.

----------


## Eric C.

> I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.  
> Almost all European countries have a horrible famine at some point in their history over the last couple of centuries. Ukraine's was quite recent, that's all. Of course, if Ukrainians really believe that they were being starved deliberately, it's not hard to understand that they have an axe to grind.

 If a state (that is, an institute that has protecting ppl's safety and their private property as one of its main purposes) instead robs people's houses and steals everything from them, even food, then you can certainly blame such a state for anything that those actions might possibly result in. If the majority of people in the area became victims of starvation because their food had been stolen from them --- it does look like a deliberately triggered starvation.

----------


## SergeMak

> Almost all European countries have a horrible famine at some point in their history over the last couple of centuries. Ukraine's was quite recent, that's all. Of course, if Ukrainians really believe that they were being starved deliberately, it's not hard to understand that they have an axe to grind.

 Ukraine wasn't the only exUSSR territory that suffered from starvation. Almost every region with good soil and developed agriculture suffered - that is South Russia, Belorussia, lands along banks of Volga river, Western Siberia, South Urals and Kazakhstan.  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...jpg?uselang=ru
So, Russians suffered from this famine not less than Ukrainians.   

> I know one such country, but the problem is, their level of innovation is still stuck in the 1950s xD 
> The problem of every commie regime is, that it's in fact a two-layer system --- developed capitalism for the "dear leaders", and slavery for everyone else. Such a system will always suck at every aspect.

 First. There is always a few years, sometimes a few decades between an innovative research and its final result in production of consumer goods. For example, the physics of solid state semiconducters which gave birth to modern electronics was researched in the 1920-s. By the way, the contribution of Soviet physicists in this field was quite significant. So, if a country produces goods that contain innovations of 1950s - it's very competitive. 
Second. You are completely wrong. (Deleted. L.) You haven't lived in the soviet society and can't compare it with liberal capitalism which began after the break down of the Soviet Union. I and millions of Russian people have this experience so it's up to us to decide what is better.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> If a state (that is, an institute that has protecting ppl's safety and their private property as one of its main purposes) instead robs people's houses and steals everything from them, even food, then you can certainly blame such a state for anything that those actions might possibly result in. If the majority of people in the area became victims of starvation because their food had been stolen from them --- it does look like a deliberately triggered starvation.

 And Akinfeev let Lee Keun-ho make a 25 meter goal because he wanted Russia to lose to South Korea tonight in Brazil... I wonder if Kerzhakov will have him arrested for treason. LOL!
I think the drought and famine caused the starvation. That and the burning and sabotage of collectivist farms by the Kulaks who opposed the agricultural improvements. If I thought there was anything intentional about it I would call it attempted Ukrainian suicide.
And the more I think about Poroshenko the more I think it's a definite possibility... 
Also, I totally do agree with SergeMak. The break-up of the USSR and everything that happened in the 1990's was an important learning curve for Russians. They are the only ones that really know what that was like so they are the people that have to make any final judgements and decide about their future... not us.

----------


## SergeMak

An article about the great famine: Тайны голода 30-х 
"По подсчётам В. Кожинова [65], коллективизация и голод привели к тому, что в 1929-1933 годах смертность в стране превысила смертность в предыдущие пять лет НЭПа ( 1924-1928 ) в полтора раза (*надо сказать, что совершенно аналогично изменение показателей смертности в России имеется начиная с 1994 года по сравнению со второй половиной 80-х годов*). Самое интересно, что после завершения коллективизации, в 1934-1938 годах смертность (включая потери от пресловутых "репрессий") была даже ниже НЭПовских показателей 1924-1928 годов." 
"П. Краснов [75] не считает, что число жертв голода было таким большим. Он пишет. "Об отсутствии каких-либо свидетельств многомиллионной гибели населения в те годы говорит наиболее авторитетный исследователь того периода - Земсков , которого никак нельзя заподозрить в симпатиях к Сталину и коммунистам. Он однозначно утверждает, что от голода погибло несколько сотен тысяч человек. Немало! Но, для Царской России - это было обычным делом, а после этого провала Советская Власть навсегда решила проблему голода, извечного бича России (если не брать последствия Гражданской и Отечественной войн, к которым общественный строй имел небольшое отношение). Кроме того, в 1930-33 гг. по территории СССР прокатилась жестокая эпидемия тифа, бича того времени и непременного спутника массовых миграций. Отличить сейчас погибших от тифа и от голода невозможно, скорее всего, это несколько сот тысяч человек, возможно до 1 миллиона." П. Краснов [76] выдвинул предположение о том, что смертность от голода была небольшой, люди же умирали в основном от эпидемии тифа."

----------


## Hanna

> Second. You are completely wrong. (Deleted. L.) You haven't lived in the soviet society and can't compare it with liberal capitalism which began after the break down of the Soviet Union. I and millions of Russian people have this experience so it's up to us to decide what is better.

 Well said! Nobody can be in a position to make an honest comparison unless they lived in both societies. Obviously people within Russia have different perspectives, but I'm beginning to notice a trend. I didn't know what make of any of it until I joined here. Also it's obvious that those who left and moved to the USA for example were perhaps not the happiest citizens in the USSR, and also that they taken on opionions projected on them.

----------


## Eric C.

> I think the drought and famine caused the starvation. That and the burning and sabotage of collectivist farms by the Kulaks who opposed the agricultural improvements.

 I wouldn't say of course it was an act of planned genocide against a nation, even though it looks like that from many perspectives. But you can't deny that what the commies did in the countryside in those times was total robbery of everyone who had anything to rob. And just before the famine, it had been food mostly. It went for the "purposes of supplying the working class" or whatever else BS they had to say. So, as the drought destroyed any current food people were growing, they also ran into the total absence of any savings they had made, and that was ultimately why they had literally nothing to eat... 
And just in case you don't realize what those "collective farms" are, it goes like this: you're a farmer and you grow stuff and sell stuff from your farm, so now you disown your farm, and give it up to the state, and you're hired by the state to work on {formerly your} farm for something close to the current minimum wage. Pretty tough huh?

----------


## UhOhXplode

> I wouldn't say of course it was an act of planned genocide against a nation, even though it looks like that from many perspectives. But you can't deny that what the commies did in the countryside in those times was total robbery of everyone who had anything to rob. And just before the famine, it had been food mostly. It went for the "purposes of supplying the working class" or whatever else BS they had to say. So, as the drought destroyed any current food people were growing, they also ran into the total absence of any savings they had made, and that was ultimately why they had literally nothing to eat... 
> And just in case you don't realize what those "collective farms" are, it goes like this: you're a farmer and you grow stuff and sell stuff from your farm, so now you disown your farm, and give it up to the state, and you're hired by the state to work on {formerly your} farm for something close to the current minimum wage. Pretty tough huh?

 It would also be very easy to call the Great Depression in America a planned disaster. It's very easy for influential people on Wall Street to control markets and the investors that didn't off themselves made massive amounts of money when it happened.
Or maybe the housing bubble? Goldman-Sachs made a ton of money and drove tons of Americans into poverty.
And there's also the people of Oklahoma who were forced to move to California during the dust bowl period. Have you ever read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes of Wrath"? The ones that didn't work for slave wages were in prisons or murdered.
But hey, who chopped down all the trees that caused the dust bowl?
#Conspiracy theory 
The only one I would consider to be a conspiracy in that list is the housing bubble. But only as a conspiracy of greed by Goldman-Sachs. Btw, dad already pulled out of that company before that happened. 
Oh, and don't forget all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, lol. So imo, the 1932-1933 famine is just another conspiracy theory to add to a massive list. 
But I think I already said in another post - No, I would never live in a communist country. If other people are fine with that lifestyle that's cool but that wouldn't be me. I don't need that much freedom but I definitely need more freedom than that.
And no way I would ever work for a minimum wage! We discussed that at another forum and I really don't get how anyone could survive with that little money. I get very happy just knowing I will never have to.

----------


## iCake

> I get very happy just knowing I will never have to.

 Never say never. It's not that I'm wishing a poor life on you, in fact, I hope you'll never have to live like that. It's just most of those Ukrainians refugees never thought they would end up living in a war zone and etc. 
One thing that the life teaches you (also it usually does that the hard way) is that you can never be 100% sure of what will happen in the future

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Never say never. It's not that I'm wishing a poor life on you, in fact, I hope you'll never have to live like that. It's just most of those Ukrainians refugees never thought they would end up living in a war zone and etc. 
> One thing that the life teaches you (also it usually does that the hard way) is that you can never be 100% sure of what will happen in the future

 That's a really scary thought but we did discuss that at another forum. I won't repeat what they said (lol) but their comments weren't as civil and helpful as yours. But I am learning because one of them taught me how to make something he called breakfast soup.
It's made with something called Rammen noodles (noodles that look like a scrub pad) and American cheese slices (it's a wonky cheese that feels like soft rubber) and an egg and some veggies. It definitely wasn't a Croque-monsieur but I was really surprised about the flavor. It was really cheap food but it had an amazing flavor. So maybe I could adapt.  
Anyway, I've been trying to not think about the war in Ukraine. I saw a picture of an old woman standing in her shelled house by what was left of her stove. She was crying and I was thinking omg! what if that had been my grandma. It really bites because you can see that she's too old to work and get her house and all her stuff back. I hope that somebody can help all those people so they can get their stuff back.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> As for the that whole starvation-in-Ukraine episode; it was one of the many things that *came to the light in the 90s*, wasn't it? We will never know about the "what if" speculation.

 Well, actually, a _bit_ earlier than that. Welsh journalist Gareth Jones was able to visit Ukraine in 1933, and after returning to the West, he published the following on 29 March:   

> I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, 'There is no bread. We are dying'. This cry came from every part of Russia, from the Volga, Siberia, White Russia, the North Caucasus, and Central Asia. I tramped through the black earth region because that was once the richest farmland in Russia and because the correspondents have been forbidden to go there to see for themselves what is happening. 
> In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the spittoon and the peasant again grabbed it and devoured it. The Communist subsided. I stayed overnight in a village where there used to be two hundred oxen and where there now are six. The peasants were eating the cattle fodder and had only a month's supply left. They told me that many had already died of hunger. Two soldiers came to arrest a thief. They warned me against travel by night, as there were too many 'starving' desperate men.

 This very quickly got the Kremlin's attention, because just two days later, Stalinist *жополиз* extraordinaire Walter Duranty (then the _New York Times_' correspondent in Moscow) attempted to rebut Jones' account of a developing famine as an exaggeration, and implied that Jones was deliberately trying to discredit the USSR. 
And Jones responded to Duranty:   

> "My final evidence is based on my talks with hundreds of peasants.  They were not the “kulaks”- those mythical scapegoats for the hunger in Russia-but ordinary peasants.  I talked with them alone in Russian and jotted down their conversations, which are an unanswerable indictment of Soviet agricultural policy.  *The peasants said emphatically that the famine was worse than in 1921 and that fellow-villagers had died or were dying.*

 So, knowledge of this "episode" is not something that became known to *the world* only in the 1990s, after the Soviet period -- though it was nearly impossible to discuss it within the USSR until the period of glasnost in the 1980s.   

> I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.

 It seems quite believable to me that Stalin wanted to starve SOME towns/villages "on purpose" -- namely, those areas that he considered to be pockets of anti-Soviet resistance in Ukraine and elsewhere -- but that the final number of deaths may have been a lot higher than he deliberately planned. (Farmers and their families who have died from starvation can't be forced to work digging coal or laying railroads, after all.) 
I agree, though, that the famine (and the overall misery caused by the forced collectivization) should not be generally counted as "intentional genocide" of a people.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> And just in case you don't realize what those "collective farms" are, it goes like this: you're a farmer and you grow stuff and sell stuff from your farm, so now you disown your farm, and give it up to the state, and you're hired by the state to work on {formerly your} farm for something close to the current minimum wage.

 Which might have been okay if it had turned out that the collectivized farms would be Ultra-Efficient and Super-Duper-Productive (which was, of course, the Communist Party's prediction) and therefore yielded 20-30 times as much food per man-hour of labor (or per hectare of land) as the "outdated" private agriculture had. 
But that's NOT what happened -- agriculture was always a disappointingly under-performing sector of the Soviet economy, even during periods when the USSR was self-sufficient in food and didn't have to rely on imports. 
The above-mentioned Walter Duranty tried to rationalize the brutality of the First Five-Year Plan by writing "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" -- but the bitter joke was that, in the end, farm collectivization never resulted in the promised "omelets", even after breaking millions of human "eggs."

----------


## Alex_krsk

It took 3 posts in "russophobia" topic to come to standard "stalin, commie, labor camps, north korea  etc" argument. Even pol pot, collective farms and famine are there. Whereas russiphobia is much older than  aforecited historical facts and has nothing to do with most of them. 
These are just tools for anti-russian propaganda to keep russophobia alive. 
When i said that it was not that bad in the USSR od 60s - 80s i didn't mean that i wanted to bring it back. I just meant that it wan't bad. Stalin's USSR and the USSR after changes of 60s were two different countries but that just doesn't fit in russophobes' binary mode of thinking. Victims of anti-russian propaganda just can't get over their old formula russian=soviet=commie. They couldn't expect russia to survive the disaster of 90s so they just didn't inven't anything new. And now being stuck in cold war they just sound funny. 
Now Russia is modern capitalist democracy, it's not perfect but not worse then others. Free country (more free than most of the west). It also has a luxury that's just unaffordable for almost all western countries - it's sovereing and independent. Of course there's a high price it has to pay for that, but i believe it's worth it. And ut 's just inacceptable for those who didn't expect it. THat's why they prefer to stay in their bubble of the past. But after one stays in the past too long the awakening can be rather painful and frustrating. Lest they wake up too late.

----------


## lodka

Many sportsmen who participated in Sochi Olympics 2014, before they came to Sochi, seriously thought there is no toilet paper in Russia and brought their own paper with them. What else to say after that?

----------


## UhOhXplode

This is the Russophobia and Russophilia thread? LOL. My bad. I thought it was Ancient History 101. 
It is really strange that so many people diss the USSR... except the Russians that lived there. They don't seem to have any serious issues with it.
But I looked at my monitor and it claims that it's 2014 so I really don't get how the USSR or some Cambodian tyrant is relevant to Russia today. 
And yeah, Russia is sovereign, strong, and independent but it's also the future of space exploration. Russia has the RD-180 rocket engine and that's serious levels up from the US Merlin-1C. Since our country turned the space program over to private corporations, we need 9 Merlin-1C's just to get the million pounds of thrust required for near-Earth orbits. That's 9 Merlin-1C engines or just 1 RD-180. And don't forget, the MIR space station was built and constantly manned for over 10 years. The US Sky Lab space stations 2-4 were manned for less than 6 months. And now the new Angara heavy-lift vehicle is scheduled for a test launch at Plesetsk cosmodrome in just 6 days. Now we're talking serious manned, deep-space capability! 
No way! If this was the 1910's then yeah, I'd discuss that part of ancient history. But this is 2014 and any ethnic group of people that can accomplish what Russia is still accomplishing in manned space flight totally is worth friending. Russia=space=the future.
So yeah, I think Russophobia totally would disappear if the conversation was limited to the 21st century, accomplishments, and personal experience with Russians. You can't know anything about anybody until you meet them dead-on and without prejudice.
It doesn't mean you'll like every Russian you meet or that Russians would like every American they meet but hey, only very strange (or drunk) people like everybody they meet, lol.  
I also think it's pretty wonky when people accuse Russians of being too aggressive. What? More aggressive than us? Not even! It's aggressiveness that builds strong nations and explores space. The non-aggressive Earthlings are living in under-developed, 3rd world countries... like California.
LOL @ the toilet paper issue! But yeah, I can believe there would be people stupid enough to buy into that.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> It is really strange that so many people diss the USSR... except the Russians that lived there. They don't seem to have any serious issues with it.

 For those who interested in life in late USSR I'd  recommend watching "Служебный роман" movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-1...ViDwsbTd9SV5gz
link seems to still work despite that new youtube copyright policy
Unlike most other movies of that time this represents REAL life of soviet office workers of that time. 
english subtitles suck btw

----------


## Hanna

No, but think about it; It's NOT strange that people from English speaking countries think that life in the USSR was awful and everything there was a total failure, or really oppressive.  
There are probably thousands of "documentaries" (read: propaganda) about exactly that, from the BBC, Discovery Channel, History Channel and various American media outlets. 
Not to mention literally hundreds or thousands of Hollywood films where Russia and Russians are portrayed negatively. An American stops the evil Russian plan and saves some beautiful girl who is super grateful.  *
I think it's almost impossible for a normal person not to be affected by that.*  
I watched that kind of stuff for the first time, in the 1990s. English speaking TV on cable was just a revelation for me - for a while I couldn't get enough of it.  
I have to admit, I mostly believed these documentaries, and was totally shocked. It seemed that people in Russia were downright cruel for allowing certain things to go on, not to mention the leaders who appeared incompetent and ruthless.  
And I believed it, despite the fact that I had visited the USSR several times. I figured: "Well, I only saw central Leningrad really, and tourist areas in Latvia. It must have been that the rest of the country was terrible and only a few big cities and tourist areas were good."  
Now I feel very torn about it: Nobody wants to be an apologetic for a cruel regime, or feel that they are affected by propaganda. On the other hand - I personally don't think the USSR was an evil empire and I saw nothing at all to give any indication in that direction.  *Since there is so much misinformation, I feel that the ONLY credible source of information about this, is the people who experienced it themselves.* I.e. people here like Alex_krsk, Basil77,  Crocodile and others who have been speaking about it. 
Of course, there is a mixed bag from them as well - but you can definitely see a pattern.  
Oh and another thing that came up here several times that just isn't true, is that people who visited the USSR as tourists, weren't allowed to walk around freely. The suggestion being that they were only allowed to see "approved" sights. Well that is just not true. I am not going to bore anybody with tourism stories from my childhood, but neither my trips, or several other trips that I heard of, required guides all the time. I think it was needed for translation mainly, and for the same reason that you might use a guide in any other country. Lots of people drove their cars to the Black Sea, hardly with a guide in their car.    

> For those who interested in life in late USSR I'd  recommend watching "Служебный роман" movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-1...ViDwsbTd9SV5gz
> link seems to still work despite that new youtube copyright policy
> Unlike most other movies of that time this represents REAL life of soviet office workers of that time. 
> english subtitles suck btw

 I've seen it  ::  Somebody recommended it when I first joined this forum. Gosh, so much nicer than offices I work in.... Nice film.  
However - I think this film depicts Moscow, right? Rural USSR was somewhat backwards, wasn't it - and went through hell in the 90s when state jobs and subsidies died. It was really sad, to see how the Russian countryside just feel through the floor in the 1990s. I just hope they are back on their feet. I don't know myself. But in Moscow it seems people have been doing fine most of the time.   _But on the hygiene articles issue: Actually, there was a certain imo standard female product that was not available in the USSR. Of course, there were alternatives - but very old fashioned. I really don't know why the USSR didn't come up with a bit more choice on that front. Today I am sure Russia has the same Johnson & Johnson products as everyone else though. _

----------


## Throbert McGee

> LOL @ the toilet paper issue! But yeah, I can believe there would be people *stupid* enough to buy into that.

  I don't know what the *current* "toilet-paper standards" are in major Russian cities. 
 I do recall very well from the early 1990s, however, that: 
 (1) *Public* restrooms quite often had no toilet paper at all; 
 (2) When public restrooms did have paper for wiping your butt, it was often *squares cut from old newspapers*. 
 (3) While it was  easy to find "real" toilet paper on rolls at Russian stores, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that you could use the stuff as a substitute for sandpaper. 
 (4) _Soft, comfortable, absorbent_ toilet paper could also be found in some Russian stores, *but the label was always in English or some other Western European language*. (I can remember some Russian friends marveling over the extreme comfort of "pre-moistened towelettes" imported from Italy, because they were SO MUCH NICER than the toilet paper actually manufactured in Russia.) 
 Sure, it's possible that things have greatly improved since then -- but if so, then it's a rather recent improvement, and the notion that "it's difficult to find good TP in Russia" is hardly what I would call a *развесистая клюква* (in the sense of a "baseless stereotype".)

----------


## Hanna

Oh seriously!
no American quality toilet paper = very evil country   ::  
For goodness sakes; if it's there when you need it and it can do the job, it doesn't need to be triple-sheet extra fluffy cream-coloured Princess Deluxe....! 
According to guidebooks I've come across, the standard recycled European toilet paper isn't good enough for sensitive American butts either... 
It makes me laugh. 
Maybe that's the secret of how to win a war against America - just deprive her of loo paper...  
-------------------- 
Below: Example of what I was talking about earlier. Listen to the *extremely dramatized voice*... use of "*experts*", *dramatic sound effects* and unsubstantiated claims. No attempt at giving any other perspective on the events described. 
 This is NOT an objective documentary it has a very clear agenda and message. This type of presentation IS propaganda, a text-book example!  There are literally hundreds if not thousands near identical "documentaries" and the BBC among others love them.  *
If this type of information is ALL you ever saw about the USSR, then of course, that's what you'll believe.*  
Initially they are jumping back and forth between the civil war in Russia and the 1930s as if it was the same period. This appears to be a fairly recent documentary but it's worthy of the cold war, in it's exaggerated one-sidedness.

----------


## SergeMak

> If a state (that is, an institute that has protecting ppl's safety and their private property as one of its main purposes) instead robs people's houses and steals everything from them, even food, then you can certainly blame such a state for anything that those actions might possibly result in. If the majority of people in the area became victims of starvation because their food had been stolen from them --- it does look like a deliberately triggered starvation.

 My father is native Ukrainian from South Russian Belgorod region. He was born in 1931, his parents were just simple peasants so he is one of those who survived the "starvation". Of course, he was too young to remember this time in detail but he talked with his parents, and he doesn't agree with your estimate of those events.
On the other hand, talking about protecting of people's private property, I would recommend to you to read the Constitution of Russian Federation. It says that in our country all type of property are equally respected. That means, that if the state has a duty to protect private property, it also has the same responsibility towards all other types of property - municipal, state, social, join-stock and so on. During the Soviet period of history a great industry was built in the Soviet Union - thousands of plants and factories. All this assets didn't belong to a certain person or a group of people - they were in a socialist property - the property of all Soviet people. So, how could it happen that all this property suddenly became a property of certain oligarchs in the 1990s when the liberal capitalist reforms started in the country approved by the Western politicians? Do you know what results these brought to Russian people? I'll tell you: deindustrialisation, impoverishment, social inequality, criminalization, corruption, decline in life expectancy, decline of birth-rate, terrorism ans so on. All this I saw in plenty an example with my own eyes. Have you ever worked without getting paid for three and more months when the inflation rate was more than 30%? I did. Have you ever received you wage not in money but in some natural goods, as, for example, sausage? I did.
So don't tell me about the great liberal values and the bad life in the Soviet Union.
Life in the Soviet Union was not easy, but there was a positive dynamic almost during the whole Soviet period. People always new, that to-day we maybe don't live very good, but to-morrow it will be better, and it really would happen.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> . Have you ever worked without getting paid for three and more months when the inflation rate was more than 30%? I did. Have you ever received you wage not in money but in some natural goods, as, for example, sausage? I did.
> So don't tell me about the great liberal values and the bad life in the Soviet Union.

 But now it's much better than in 90s and much bettre than in the USSR so maybe it's not that bad with tose "liberal values".    

> .
> Life in the Soviet Union was not easy, but there was a positive dynamic almost during the whole Soviet period. People always new, that to-day we maybe don't live very good, but to-morrow it will be better, and it really would happen.

 I'm afraid it wouldn't. Those were only promises, things stayed the same every year. But i may be wrong considering china. Chinese managed to make reforms without revolutions. Whie the rgime in china is still much more strict than in USSR (which is ok with the western media btw when russia is always accused in some laws that are more strict in those western countries)

----------


## Hanna

I should definitely add SergeMak to the list of people who know what they are talking about, when it comes to the USSR. It was very interesting to read about your experiences. That's tons more relevant and credible than what anyone who did not experience this era first-hand has to say.  
When it's described in that way, then it's very tragic that most of what the Soviet Union tried to achieve, came to nothing. I don't agree with everything about the USSR, and I am not doubting that a lot of people were very fed up with it towards the end. But I nevertheless think most of the ideals were very noble. 
Most tragic is old people in the ex USSR today, I guess.  
Imagine if they spent most of their working life doing something that was partly ideologically motivated, trying to build up the country and/or communism because of genuine commitment. They experienced hardships during the war, and primitive conditions in their early working life.  
Then just as they reach retirement, everything they worked for their entire life just comes crumbling down and is sold in the most vulgar capitalist sell-out in world history! 
Then the person finds that he/she has to live on a pittance of a pension that reduces them to tragic poverty for the rest of their lives. While oligarchs are cruising their world and spending the fruits of Soviet labour and thievery on extravagant and unnecessary luxury.  
And just to add insult to injury the person might be in Ukraine, the Baltics or somewhere, where, in addition to everything else, he/she is subject to condemnation or discrimination because of language reasons. Perhaps also considered a scape-goat for long-ago events that they are not responsible for.   
It's really tragic to think about.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Then the person finds that he/she has to live on a pittance of a pension that reduces them to tragic poverty for the rest of their lives.

 My gf's grandmother is 85, her pension is about 32 000 roubles (which is about 950 dollars) for that money she can afford much more that she could with her soviet pension.

----------


## Lampada

> My gf's grandmother is 85, her pension is about 32 000 roubles (which is about 950 dollars) for that money she can afford much more that she could with her soviet pension.

 Ух ты!  Она, наверное, ветеран Великой Отечественной войны. Дай Бог ей здоровья!
А так средняя пенсия по старости сейчас в три раза меньше:   С 1 апреля средняя пенсия в

----------


## Alex_krsk

> А так средняя пенсия по старости сейчас в три раза меньше:   С 1 апреля средняя пенсия в

 Да 12 тысяч сейчас пенсия. Это начисление. Обычно плюс к этому идёт местная надбавка. плюс льготы. В среднем на руки получается 16 - 18 т.р.

----------


## Hanna

> My gf's grandmother is 85, her pension is about 32 000 roubles (which is about 950 dollars) for that money she can afford much more that she could with her soviet pension.

 Good to hear that she can manage well on that.  
So does this mean Putin is beginning to fix the problems for old people in Russia, or is she just fortunate with a higher pension than average?  
In one of the Ukraine threads, somebody was suggesting that pensions in Russia can sometimes be as low as 250 USD per month. I.e. they said that while the situation for old people is bad in Ukraine, it's not much better in Russia. 
As far as I am concerned poverty and hardship among the old is a tremendous tragedy.

----------


## SergeMak

According to Ukrainian news agency UNIAN Средняя пенсия в Украине за 3 месяца выросла на 1 доллар : Новости УНИАН the average pension in Ukraine is 1428 hrivnyas which equals to 125 USD or 92 euros or 4359 rubles. As you can see, minimal pension in Russia is 3 times higher than average pension in Ukraine.

----------


## Lampada

> According to Ukrainian news agency UNIAN Средняя пенсия в Украине за 3 месяца выросла на 1 доллар : Новости УНИАН the average pension in Ukraine is 1428 hrivnyas which equals to 125 USD or 92 euros or 4359 rubles. As you can see, minimal pension in Russia is 3 times higher than average pension in Ukraine.

 Хорошо б, если на Крым это распространилось.  У моей подруги родители в Симферополе.  Они очень радовались, что их пенсия резко изменится.  А она поднялась пока на 20%.  Они, правда, ожидают, что позже ещё будут добавки.  Цены же на продукты и товары уже подскочили почти в два раза.

----------


## Hanna

> Хорошо б, если на Крым это распространилось.  У моей подруги родители в Симферополе.  Они очень радовались, что их пенсия резко изменится.  А она поднялась пока на 20%.  Они, правда, ожидают, что позже ещё будут добавки.  Цены же на продукты и товары уже подскочили почти в два раза.

  ::  
Почему цены так много увеличилась? 
Я была в Украине; еда не очинь много дешевле, чем в Европе...

----------


## Lampada

> Почему цены так много увеличилась? 
> Я была в Украине; еда не очинь много дешевле, чем в Европе...

 Не знаю, вот тут вычитала:  В Крыму цены на продукты выросли вдвое, а зарплаты и пенсии до сих пор не повысили | Экономическая правда 
Тут ещё есть:  http://15minut.org/article/ceny-na-p...05-07-10-31-00

----------


## UhOhXplode

> I don't know what the current "toilet-paper standards" are in major Russian cities.
> I do recall very well *from the early 1990s*, however, that:
> (1) Public restrooms quite often had no toilet paper at all;
> (2) When public restrooms did have paper for wiping your butt, it was often squares cut from old newspapers.
> (3) While it was  easy to find "real" toilet paper on rolls at Russian stores, it's only a slight exaggeration to say that you could use the stuff as a *substitute for sandpaper*.
> (4) _Soft, comfortable, absorbent_ toilet paper could also be found in some Russian stores, but the label was always in English or some other Western European language. (I can remember some Russian friends marveling over the extreme comfort of "pre-moistened towelettes" imported from Italy, because they were SO MUCH NICER than the toilet paper actually manufactured in Russia.)
> Sure, it's possible that things have greatly improved since then -- but if so, then it's a rather recent improvement, and the notion that "it's difficult to find good TP in Russia" is hardly what I would call a развесистая клюква (in the sense of a "baseless stereotype".)

 They spent over $50 billion on the Sochi venue and some idiots thought they forgot the TP? LMAO! For that much money the TP coulda been lined with gold! LMAO!
But yeah, I can understand why there wasn't much TP in Russia in the 1990's. I read that Western influence in Russia almost totally destroyed the country. 
But Russia survived the 1990's and fought back to become the 2nd most powerful nation on Earth. That commands respect and Russia and the Russian people have mine. Russia IS unconquerable.  
Russian TP could be a substitute for sandpaper? That's what I call multi-functional. I mean, how soft does it need to be for a quick wipe, lmao?    

> My father is native Ukrainian from South Russian Belgorod region. He was born in 1931, his parents were just simple peasants so he is one of those who survived the "starvation". Of course, he was too young to remember this time in detail but he talked with his parents, and he doesn't agree with your estimate of those events.
> On the other hand, talking about protecting of people's private property, I would recommend to you to read the Constitution of Russian Federation. It says that in our country all type of property are equally respected. That means, that if the state has a duty to protect private property, it also has the same responsibility towards all other types of property - municipal, state, social, join-stock and so on. During the Soviet period of history a great industry was built in the Soviet Union - thousands of plants and factories. All this assets didn't belong to a certain person or a group of people - they were in a socialist property - the property of all Soviet people. So, how could it happen that all this property suddenly became a property of certain oligarchs in the 1990s when the liberal capitalist reforms started in the country approved by the Western politicians? Do you know what results these brought to Russian people? I'll tell you: *deindustrialisation, impoverishment, social inequality, criminalization, corruption, decline in life expectancy, decline of birth-rate, terrorism ans so on. All this I saw in plenty an example with my own eyes.* Have you ever worked without getting paid for three and more months when the inflation rate was more than 30%? I did. Have you ever received you wage not in money but in some natural goods, as, for example, sausage? I did.
> So don't tell me about the great liberal values and the bad life in the Soviet Union.
> Life in the Soviet Union was not easy, but there was a positive dynamic almost during the whole Soviet period. People always new, that to-day we maybe don't live very good, but to-morrow it will be better, and it really would happen.

  

> But now it's much better than in 90s and much bettre than in the USSR so maybe it's not that bad with tose "liberal values". 
> I'm afraid it wouldn't. Those were only promises, things stayed the same every year. But i may be wrong considering china. Chinese managed to make reforms without revolutions. Whie the rgime in china is still much more strict than in USSR (which is ok with the western media btw when russia is always accused in some laws that are more strict in those western countries)

 ^ Thanks.  ::  That's what makes this the most epic forum I've ever joined. And that's what I call history - people. Politicians and outsiders write the textbooks and media but it's the people who really know what happened... and what's happening.
Btw, I think the USSR knew that life would get better in Russia. I think they knew that the Russian people would make life better... and they did. In the end, it's not really about governments, it's only about the people.
It's people that make governments... and break them. I think in Russia the government is the people... Well, more than it is in America.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Не знаю, вот тут вычитала:  В Крыму цены на продукты выросли вдвое, а зарплаты и пенсии до сих пор не повысили | Экономическая правда 
> Тут ещё есть:  http://15minut.org/article/ceny-na-p...05-07-10-31-00

 Не читатйте СМИ и не смотрите ТВ! Ни Украинские ни Российские ни Американские ни Европейские (ни какие другие). Не превращайте свою голову в унитаз. 
Я *НИКОГДА* о событиях на Украине не сужу по Российским СМИ.

----------


## SergeMak

> Не знаю, вот тут вычитала:  В Крыму цены на продукты выросли вдвое, а зарплаты и пенсии до сих пор не повысили | Экономическая правда 
> Тут ещё есть:  http://15minut.org/article/ceny-na-p...05-07-10-31-00

 As Mikhail Bulgakov, who lived in Kiev, said "never read Soviet newspapers before dinner..." http://video.yandex.ru/iframe/svyblov/p9vjvklf5b.2303

----------


## SergeMak

> But now it's much better than in 90s and much bettre than in the USSR so maybe it's not that bad with tose "liberal values".  
> I'm afraid it wouldn't. Those were only promises, things stayed the same every year. But i may be wrong considering china. Chinese managed to make reforms without revolutions. Whie the rgime in china is still much more strict than in USSR (which is ok with the western media btw when russia is always accused in some laws that are more strict in those western countries)

 I'm not against the "liberal values". In fact, I'm not against any great idealistic values at all be it religious values or humanitarian ones. I'm against fanatical adherence to any principles, because it leads to creation of idol, and that is violation of the 2nd Commandment:
"Вторая заповедь: Не сотвори себе кумира, и всякаго подобия, елика на небеси горе, и елика на земли низу, и елика в водах под землею: да не поклонишися им, ни послужиши им".
Those who impose on people fanatical adherence to maybe the most great values in fact very often appear to follow very low and greedy aims. So when you hear when smb praise some values ask yourself - what aims is he after?  
As for Soviet stagnation, yes it had place, but it was only 1 or maybe 1,5 last decades of the Soviet period. In fact, that stagnation killed the Soviet Union.
As for the assertion, that life is now better than in the 90s - yes, but thanks to what? Thanks to selling gas and oil abroad - about 60% of the budget income is from this. It cannot last forever, we need to develop industry, and I don't see much advance in this.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> However - I think this film depicts Moscow, right? Rural USSR was somewhat backwards, wasn't it - and went through hell in the 90s when state jobs and subsidies died. It was really sad, to see how the Russian countryside just feel through the floor in the 1990s. I just hope they are back on their feet. I don't know myself. But in Moscow it seems people have been doing fine most of the time. 
>  [/I]

 No. It depends on what you mean by "rural". In north (and area where i used to live was considered "north") ppl made even more money.
And the educartional level and culture was mostly the same. 
My father was a research scientist (physics) and my mother was  university profesor (befor they biult  Krsnoyarsk university there used to be a branch of Novosibirsk university) and i recall that atmosphere of university. That was a nice time. Authorities didn't bother scientific society with ideology while paying them quite a good money so there was a smell of anti soviet romantics, dissident home made literature and lots of other interesting stuff.  
If you mean agricultural sector that's true there was a decay almost all the late soviet time.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> As for the assertion, that life is now better than in the 90s - yes, but thanks to what? Thanks to selling gas and oil abroad - about 60% of the budget income is from this. It cannot last forever, we need to develop industry, and I don't see much advance in this.

 That's true. But there is light. It takes time. It takes like 5 years to destroy everything (even shorter while looking at Ukraine) and 55 to rebiuld. (i hope that goes fater). 
But look at norway btw. What do they produce besides pumping oil and gas? Not that much.

----------


## SergeMak

What is the population size of Norway? Less than 5 million. And the oil and gas income is only 30% of their state budget. Hm... 
By the way, on the rise of prices in Crimea. Maybe it will surprise some Russian emigrants to know (я не перехожу на личности... :: ), that unlike as it used to be in the Soviet times, the Russian government doesn't set the prices on consumer goods - we have liberal capitalist economy now (we appreciate the liberal values indeed!). So what is the accusation of the government about? It's the retailers who are to blame. Prices in Russia are higher than in Ukraine (because the standard of living is higher), but not twice. But you cannot deny that the government promised to gradually raise the pensions and it is fulfilling the promise.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> What is the population size of Norway? Less than 5 million. And the oil and gas income is only 30% of their state budget. Hm...

 That's not true. And there's something else than just a state budget http://rosreferendum.com/information/menunorway.html 
But the most important thing that Norway doesn't own their oil and gas, they just collect tax from BP. 
Norway had exchanged their sovereignty for garanteed piece of their oil pie.
That's the best what they could do. Small country in Europe just had no choice when all the world oi is being sold for dollars.
And what they have in return? One of the happiest nation on earth. 
But norway is a small nation. Furthermore they fully accept all the european "values".  
Nobody would let russia be anything close to that. In 90s they were getting Russia redy to be thrown into chaos and split like Yugoslavia before and Ukraine now.
The phrase that "fossils belong to the people of Russia" was erased from the constitution. And Putin still can't brake through "liberal" resistence to bring it back.
Khodorkovsky was almost done with his deal of selling almost half of Siberia to BP. Etc   

> By the way, on the rise of prices in Crimea. Maybe it will surprise some Russian emigrants to know (я не перехожу на личности...), that unlike as it used to be in the Soviet times, the Russian government doesn't set the prices on consumer goods - we have liberal capitalist economy now (we appreciate the liberal values indeed!). So what is the accusation of the government about? It's the retailers who are to blame. Prices in Russia are higher than in Ukraine (because the standard of living is higher), but not twice. But you cannot deny that the government promised to gradually raise the pensions and it is fulfilling the promise.

 You started to discuss cuases of high prises having no idea what the prices really are. (I don't take into account provided links to Ukrainian media)
Half of this thread is full of basles cpeculations like this  ::

----------


## Hanna

> But look at norway btw. What do they produce besides pumping oil and gas? Not that much.

 As their neighbour and speaking the language, more or less... In addition to oil, they have
1) Fish, fish and more fish.... 
2) Svalbard and a slice of the Arctic and whatever is hidden there... 
3) Ports to the Atlantic that Sweden and Finland use as well - it's a source of income. 
4) A little bit of ship building - but it's cheaper to do it in Asia, so I don't know if it's still active.  
The state there is HUGE and apparently very bureacratic in an old fashioned way. They never had to/needed to or wanted to slim down the state - so everything is very bureaeucratic. 
They have managed the oil money quite well, paying back all debts and investing in public services.  
The state, mainly,  owns the oil, similar to in Russia, I think...  But lots of private companies are involved in serving Statoil, that's what some people got rich on there.  
They know they have to get ready for when the oil runs out and have lots of projects preparing for it. 
Same dilemma as Russia I think. They know they need to diversify but it's not easy. . 
Before they found the oil they were a well managed social democratic, and quite christian country. However, historically (pre-1950s or so, *Norway was always poor*, but people are hardworking and honest. They had a big transformation of society recently though. Same thing as the rest of Western Europe; issues with immigration and drastic rise in criminality.   

> But the most important thing that Norway doesn't own their oil and gas, they just collect tax from BP. 
> Norway had exchanged their sovereignty for garanteed piece of their oil pie.

 Really? Are you sure about that? I thought that Statoil (state owned Norwegian official oil company). owned the Norwegian oil and BP or anyone else bought off them. In Scandianvia you see their oil tankers and petrol stations everywhere. I think it sells gas as well.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Statoil is similar in its structure, to Gazprom I believe.

 Statoil is technically a bramch of BP. While on mass media it's more or less independent.
But i may be mistaken, information is pretty old.   

> Really? Are you sure about that?

 I'm afraid i'm. But let me check for some sources     

> I thought that Statoil (state owned Norwegian official oil company). owned the Norwegian oil and BP or anyone else bought off them. In Scandianvia you see their oil tankers and petrol stations everywhere. I think it sells gas as well.

 One of my clients owns a network of gas stations with signs "LUKOIL" whereas he only has a long term contract for supply with lukoil and nothing else.
In the US there are a bunch of gas companies with different fancy logos which are just branches of chevron

----------


## Hanna

> Statoil is technically a bramch of BP. While on mass media it's more or less independent.
> But i may be mistaken, information is pretty old.

 Oops, I was editing my post while you replied  ::   
I'm no expert on this either, but I don't think BP owns Statoil. 
I recently worked at BP, I think I would have heard... And it's not in the Wikipedia article. 
BP had a couple of thosand employees in Norway, which I remember from this previous job...  
Statoil must employ 10,000 people, at least!  
Anyway, their situation IS similar to Russia's, and they have a lot less oil than Russia. 
They will face the end of oil and gas before Russia does.
Hopefully they have sorted something out by then - or it's back to fishing and knitting colourful cardigans for them...  ::

----------


## SergeMak

> That's not true

 If it's not true - it's Wikipedia who's to blame, not me. I'm not a specialist on Norway, all I know is Norway and Russia are too different countries to make valid comparisons. It's you who began to compare them.    

> You started to discuss cuases of high prises having no idea what the prices really are. (I don't take into account provided links to Ukrainian media)
> Half of this thread is full of basles cpeculations like this

 I know what the prices were last summer there, because I was in Crimea last summer and I know what the prices really were. Some of them were really lower, especially strong alcohol beverages, some of them slightly lower - such as sausages and meat, some of them were about as high as in Russia, such as bread, some of them were in fact higher - that is dairy products. If they have risen twice by now, they should be far higher than those in continental Russia now.  
If you don't believe me, here is a link to an old article dated by 2009. Цены в Крыму растут к лету
 As you can see, the prices in Crimea were not very lower than in Russia even then especially in summer:   

> 25 апреля 2009        Эльви Усманова 
> Цены в Крыму растут к лету 
> Еда и питье , Цены 
> В Крыму в магазинах и лавках можно найти любые товарыВ Крыму продукты стоят несколько дешевле, чем в Москве и Петербурге, однако и особой дешевизны тоже нет - не Индия. А в сезон в Ялте цена на черешню может быть даже выше, чем в Москве. Цены на продукты в марте-апреле 2009 года в Симферополе, Севастополе, на Южном берегу Крыма были такие... 
> В скобках даны примерные цены в рублях 
> Продукты:
> Растительное масло 12-14 грн/л (60-70 руб.)
> Масло сливочное 200-грамм 6 грн (30 руб.)
> Хлеб – 2,3-3,5 грн (буханка или батон) (18 руб.) 
> ...

 PS. Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know what "basles" means.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> It's you who began to compare them.

 I didn't. I suggested to recall what they do produce. But you quoted wikipedia (very credible source) about oil income of state budget instead.    

> I know what the prices were last summer there, because I was in Crimea last summer and I know what the prices really were. Some of them were really lower, especially strong alcohol beverages, some of them slightly lower - such as sausages and meat, some of them were about as high as in Russia, such as bread, some of them were in fact higher - that is dairy products. If they have risen twice by now, they should be far higher than those in continental Russia now.  
> If you don't believe me, here is an old link to an article dated by 2009. Цены в Крыму растут к лету
>  As you can see, the prices in Crimea were not very lower than in Russia even then especially in summer:

 I still cant see where does it say that they are twice higher. 
I usually don't believe any "aricles" and reports.
What about prices in Crimea I think the best source would be photos of store and gas station prices fron ppl who are there now.
I hope soon i'll get some.    

> PS. Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know what "basles" means.

 must be "baseless" - a typo. (i'm working here, sorry)

----------


## SergeMak

About prices in Crimea- here is a link from a Sevastopol's forum: Ура!!! Позитивные новости Крыма и Севастополя!!!!! &bull; Sevpolitforum.info
People are indignant about the rumors of drastic price raise.   

> I still cant see where does it say that they are twice higher.

 Nobody can. Except for some Ukrainian patriots and some of their American sympathizers (не буду переходить на личности).

----------


## rockzmom

I know, I have been away from MR for awhile... I have a lot to catch up on. I saw this thread and it caught my eye as I wanted to post something about what I saw on TV last night and Hanna actually commented about it at the start of the thread...   

> Although I remember in the 1990s bad guys/girls (gangsters) in Scandinavian films were always Russian. Or rather, people pretending to speak Russian. 
> It got really predictable; if a Russian person was in the plot, you knew that he was up to no good.

 Last night, a new TV series started here in the U.S., The Last Ship. It wasn't all that great but I started it so I figured I would watch until it ended and at the very end of the episode they foreshadowed and then they showed the preview for next week... the bad guys who started the plague that has killed off 80% of the world's population within 4 weeks... who else... the Russians! Why please tell me is it always the Russians??? For once can't it be someone else?        

> As for the USA I think it is in self destruct mode...I'm referring to things like destruction of family values, rampant immoral values...

 ORLY? Destruction of family values and rampant immoral values? Before I get my panties all bunched... please tell me, based upon what and who's values?

----------


## lodka

> Destruction of family values

 I know it could sound very strange to Americans, but flourishing of homosexuality is the destruction of family values.

----------


## Basil77

> About prices in Crimea- here is a link from a Sevastopol's forum: Ура!!! Позитивные новости Крыма и Севастополя!!!!! &bull; Sevpolitforum.info

 Just have spent a couple of hours browsing this forum. I was aware, of course, that Crimeans didn't like to be a part of Ukraine, but they sound like it was some kind of occupation by foreign troops and now they are finally free. I haven't been in Crimea since late 90s and didn't know forced Ukrainization was so agressive during the past decade. People there seem to literally hate all Ukraine-related.

----------


## Hanna

Yes I was referring to that kind of stuff. It's one thing to treat everybody with respect and humanity; it's quite another thing to allow porn clubs, pride parades and demo condoms to 12 year olds in school. I have conservative values on that front because I believe that anything else is destructive to society in the long run. At least more so than the alternatives. This kind of stuff originated in the USA, but Europeans have been all too quick to emulate most of it. So whose values? Well I guess I was talking about traditional values, or Christian values. 
Other things that seems "self-destructive" to me in the the USA, is that it is beginning to be the norm with 1-2 shooting sprees per month. Wouldn't happen if they restricted gun ownership and didn't constantly show violent shows on TV and allow perversely violent video games. The fact that this happens so much is a sign of a society that is twisted.  
I think a lot of US culture just appeals to the lowest human instincts; sex and violence. 
I just think that violence should never be glorified and sex is a private matter. 
But if the main objective is to sell, and for the seller to get rich and money is the highest virtue, then it's just logical that the most easy-to-sell concepts, products and lifestyle will always win out.  
And the wars. The USA is just spreading chaos and destruction in its path. How many failures is it going to take until they stop invading other countries. Or will nothing short of a taste of its own medicine, or the dollar bubble popping do the trick.  *
And this isn't actually attacking just the USA, rockzmom! So don't take it personally if at all possible!* (People like you make me think the USA can't be all evil...) *I  can go on a long tirade about my own country, that has some extremely weird and very destructive stuff going on. Or Europe in general.* So sure - I am anti-American, in many respects but I am anti a lot of things that go on in Europe too. And most of the things that America starts, Europe quickly lashes on to. 
I respect the Russians for rejecting a lot of this, and for not shying away from taking the slack for doing so. And I have noticed that more and more Europeans seem to begin to take notice.

----------


## Hanna

> Just have spent a couple of hours browsing this forum. I was aware, of course, that Crimeans didn't like to be a part of Ukraine, but they sound like it was some kind of occupation by foreign troops and now they are finally free. I haven't been in Crimea since late 90s and didn't know forced Ukrainization was so agressive during the past decade. People there seem to literally hate all Ukraine-related.

 I think the Ukrainization worked on some younger kids though. It seems that there were actually the odd teenagers who wanted to stay Ukrainian. 
And Sofia Rotary, who lives there, as it-ogo pointed out....  ::

----------


## Eric C.

> Yes I was referring to that kind of stuff. It's one thing to treat everybody with respect and humanity; it's quite another thing to allow porn clubs, pride parades and demo condoms to 12 year olds in school. I have conservative values on that front because I believe that anything else is destructive to society in the long run. At least more so than the alternatives. This kind of stuff originated in the USA, but Europeans have been all too quick to emulate most of it. 
> Other things that seems "self-destructive" to me in the the USA, is that it is beginning to be the norm with 1-2 shooting sprees per month. Wouldn't happen if they restricted gun ownership and didn't constantly show violent shows on TV and allow perversely violent video games. The fact that this happens so much is a sign of a society that is twisted.  
> I think a lot of US culture just appeals to the lowest human instincts; sex and violence. 
> I just think that violence should never be glorified and sex is a private matter. 
> But if the main objective is to sell, and for the seller to get rich and money is the highest virtue, then it's just logical that the most easy-to-sell concepts, products and lifestyle will always win out.  
> And the wars. The USA is just spreading chaos and destruction in its path. How many failures is it going to take until they stop invading other countries. Or will nothing short of a taste of its own medicine, or the dollar bubble popping do the trick.  *
> And this isn't actually attacking just the USA, rockzmom! So don't take it personally if at all possible!* (People like you make me think the USA can't be all evil...) *I  can go on a long tirade about my own country, that has some extremely weird and very destructive stuff going on. Or Europe in general.* So sure - I am anti-American, in many respects but I am anti a lot of things that go on in Europe too. And most of the things that America starts, Europe quickly lashes on to. 
> I respect the Russians for rejecting a lot of this, and for not shying away from taking the slack for doing so. And I have noticed that more and more Europeans seem to begin to take notice.

 The U.S. culture and set of lifestyles are way more diverse than this, but I guess those anti-American people have hard times realizing that, if any at all. Ironically, people in the South, who are the biggest gun owners in numbers, are also the biggest followers of the traditional family values. The absolute most of people in the U.S. use their guns to prevent violence, not to start it. Corrupted minds start violence, not the gun your hands hold. 
My two points I think I should make here are: *First*, gun possession and movies featuring violence don't really cause violence to be carried out in real life, and neither do porn movies or night clubs people go to for casual sex destruct family values. Some people just have to relax at times, others just have other values, and you just cannot enforce yours on them, so even if those options were unavailable, they would still find something else. And it's all about freedom of choice. People have to have as many options as possible, and they'll make their choice based on their hearts and minds, anyway. *Second*, every country has problems. If you can find issues like school shooters in some states, fine, but why get so fanatical about those? Making it a feature of the whole country's culture and way of life is totally irrational. For that matter, one could say one of the biggest features of the Russian culture are alcoholism and amazingly bad roads, and they would be immediately labeled the biggest russophobes history has ever known. Then why go that way about other countries? Maybe every one of us should just fight all those nasty little phobias inside us, and not let them take over our common sense?

----------


## Throbert McGee

> Maybe that's the secret of how to win a war against America - just deprive her of loo paper...

 ROFL! Look, I know that toilet paper isn't a very big deal -- as a 10-year-old, I went on two-week Boy Scout campouts in rural Turkey (it was a joint American/Turkish scouting program); I was also in the Boy Scouts in Japan; I've done youth hostels, I've done wilderness trips, I know how to wipe my butt with newspaper or Sears catalog pages or oak leaves.  
At the same time, however, lots of people are more picky than I am about what they wipe their butt with. If you want to attract wealthy 55-year-old foreign tourists who'll spend a lot of money in restaurants and fine hotels, rather than 20-year-olds who plan to stay in cheap youth hostels, it's important to pay attention to minor details like "toilet paper quality." (Remember, at least part of the rationalization for spending so much money on Sochi is that the facilities would continue to generate revenue from *international tourism* long after the Olympic games were over.)   

> Initially they are jumping back and forth between the civil war in Russia and the 1930s as if it was the same period. *This appears to be a fairly recent documentary but it's worthy of the cold war*, in its exaggerated one-sidedness.

 I don't at all agree with Hanna's characterization of the documentary -- of COURSE a movie about mass graves filled with executed victims is going to use "dramatic" music (whaddaya expect, Khachaturian's "Sabre Dance"?), and but I "Liked" her comment anyway because of her point about the documentary's recentness. 
(There's nothing wrong with this kind of "one sided" documentary as a sort of antidote to the rosy-colored, pro-Soviet apologetics of liars like Walter Duranty, or as an eye-opener for extremely naive viewers who think that "Communism is just like sharing cookies in kindergarten". But people who already know that Stalin had blood on his hands deserve a more balanced look that is just as honest about the bloody brutality of Tsarist society and other problems that the USSR was trying to solve.)

----------


## rockzmom

> I know it could sound very strange to Americans, but flourishing of homosexuality is the destruction of family values.

 Iodka, Hi... we have not spoken before... thank you for being open and honest.  ::  
The thriving of a single class of humans to be the downfall of family values, a nation or even the world... well, we have heard that claim before with African Americans and ending slavery, women suffrage, Jews and Hitler, marriages outside one's faith, interracial marriages and bi-racial children, and then homosexuality and now transgender and legalized same-sex marriages.  
I realize that the below is way oversimplified however...
Once we as a world decide to accept one another: black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Straight or LGBT, male or female and so on and that your idea of "normal" and my idea of "normal" may not be the same but we still have the same rights to be on this Earth and live in peace and be safe, obtain a quality education, have a relative happy and prosperous life, and be able to be with whomever we choose to be with... all without the fear of prosecution or persecution... then the humans in this world will actually FLOURISH. We will stop killing one another over stupid things like girls trying to attend school when it is forbidden, because in that area of the world, that is considered, ya know... strange and the destruction of family values.

----------


## lodka

As I said - I knew it would sound strange to Americans.

----------


## Lampada

> As I said - I knew it would sound strange to Americans.

 No, it would not.  There is still plenty of homophobia in America too. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.
The same is in the EU - _ "__Luxembourg will be the ninth EU member state to introduce same-sex marriage, following legislation in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, France and the UK."_

----------


## UhOhXplode

> I know, I have been away from MR for awhile......

 Welcome back.  :: 
I saw the promo on Youtube and I left a short but (imo) brilliant comment... I basically told them where they could put their new serial after I hit the dislike button.
I'm an American (born here) and I like my country (just not a lot of the politicians) but it's definitely no God. But yeah, isn't it interesting that I've never seen a Western movie or serial with a Russian hero...   

> The U.S. culture and set of lifestyles are way more diverse than this, but I guess those anti-American people have hard times realizing that, if any at all. Ironically, people in the South, who are the biggest gun owners in numbers, are also the biggest followers of the traditional family values. The absolute most of people in the U.S. use their guns to prevent violence, not to start it. Corrupted minds start violence, not the gun your hands hold. 
> My two points I think I should make here are: *First*, gun possession and movies featuring violence don't really cause violence to be carried out in real life, and neither do porn movies or night clubs people go to for casual sex destruct family values. Some people just have to relax at times, others just have other values, and you just cannot enforce yours on them, so even if those options were unavailable, they would still find something else. And it's all about freedom of choice. People have to have as many options as possible, and they'll make their choice based on their hearts and minds, anyway. *Second*, every country has problems. If you can find issues like school shooters in some states, fine, but why get so fanatical about those? Making it a feature of the whole country's culture and way of life is totally irrational. For that matter, one could say one of the biggest features of the Russian culture are alcoholism and amazingly bad roads, and they would be immediately labeled the biggest russophobes history has ever known. Then why go that way about other countries? Maybe every one of us should just fight all those nasty little phobias inside us, and not let them take over our common sense?

 You're right about your first comment. I live in the south where Christian values are very important and most people have guns... I love my Marlin .308 lever-action, MXLR centerfire rifle. And there aren't any porn theaters here and nobody I know plays the bloody online video games. I also agree that it's people and not guns that kill. Also, I think the media focuses on the shcool shootings and despite the fact that they aren't that common, the media can make it seem like they are. But tbh, there shouldn't be any school shootings period. 
But I do know that too much freedom of choice is the reason that America doesn't even have a culture. I mean, what is an American? It's Islamists, survivalists, satanists, Baptist hate groups, non-denominational religions, Catholics, Jewish communities, rival gangs... etc etc. It has 50 states and probably almost 500 subcultures and 4 of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world. It's just a collection of any culture anybody chooses or creates. 
Btw, our country also has the highest percentage of it's population in prisons. A lot of those prisons are private prisons and I think they could easily qualify as labor camps.
Anyway, I could easily adjust to alcoholics and bad roads if I never had to deal with gay parades and gay harassment. And hey, I know a lot of Christians at the Christian forum could too. There's a lot of pro-Russian talk at that forum.
So what does it mean to be an American? More money and tons of freedom to be anything so maybe that's what Americans are... rich anythings.   

> I realize that the below is way oversimplified however...
> Once we as a world decide to accept one another: black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Straight or LGBT, male or female and so on and that your idea of "normal" and my idea of "normal" may not be the same but we still have the same rights to be on this Earth and live in peace and be safe, obtain a quality education, have a relative happy and prosperous life, and be able to be with whomever we choose to be with... all without the fear of prosecution or persecution... then the humans in this world will actually FLOURISH. We will stop killing one another over stupid things like girls trying to attend school when it is forbidden, because in that area of the world, that is considered, ya know... strange and the destruction of family values.

 What? One world = one culture = one government? Ain't gonna happen. Part of being human is a mix of good and bad traits. The bad ones can be controlled by laws but it's never perfect. For example, discrimination is illegal in America but there's still tons of discrimination and racial groups. Also, gay discrimination is illegal in America but the LGBT is alarmed by the dramatic increases in anti-gay violence in the US. And don't forget, despite American opposition to military oppression, our country is actively supporting it in Ukraine.
Technology and governments have evolved but people are still about the same as they were 3,000 years ago. We're still that same species.    

> As I said - I knew it would sound strange to Americans.

 It never sounds strange to Americans born in the southern states.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> The U.S. culture and set of lifestyles are way more diverse than this, but I guess those anti-American people have hard times realizing that, if any at all.

 Thosr anyi-Russian people kept repeating  stupid propaganda stereotypes for a long time. What "reslization" did you expect in return?   

> The absolute most of people in the U.S. use their guns to prevent violence, not to start it. Corrupted minds start violence, not the gun your hands hold.

 THat's pretty questionable. A corrupted mind without a gun can't kill that many ppl as with.   

> The absolute most of people in the U.S. use their guns to prevent violence

 How many ordinary americans are ready (in reality) to kill another american even for self defence? 
But anyways here's another stereotype about gun control in russia.
Russian gun law in some aspects is more liberal than american federal one. And far more liberal than those in europe.
Russia is ninth in world rating of public gun posession ratio. (which i personally don't like. having spent some time in army i can't imagine a situation in my everyday life when i would need one) 
here are the requirements for a gun purchaser in russia  *Общий список необходимых документов для получения разрешения на гладкоствольное, охотничье оружие*  
1. Ксерокопия гражданского паспорта (страница с фотографией и пропиской),
2. Медицинская справка 046-1 (комплексная оружейная справка),
3. Квитанция об оплате единовременных сборов,
4. Фотография 3х4 (4шт.на матовой бумаге),
5. Рапорт участкового инспектора о проверке условий хранения оружия (металлический ящик, сейф для хранения оружия)
6. Заявление гражданина.
7. Обязательная сдача экзамена по знанию условий хранения, ношения и применения оружия.   *Для получения лицензии на покупку нарезного оружия* 
Вы в своем ОЛРР по месту жительства должны взять справку, подтверждающую стаж владения гладкоствольным оружием.
Вы предоставляете документы:
1. Ксерокопия гражданского паспорта (страница с фотографией и пропиской),
2. Медицинская справка 046-1 (комплексная оружейная справка),
3. Квитанция об оплате единовременных сборов,
4. Фотография 3х4 (4шт.на матовой бумаге),
5. Рапорт участкового инспектора о проверке условий хранения оружия (металлический ящик, сейф для хранения оружия)
6. Заявление гражданина.
7. Обязательная сдача экзамена по знанию условий хранения, ношения и применения оружия.
но согласно Закону об оружии, вы имеете право приобрести нарезное оружие , только при 5-летнем стаже владения гладкоствольным охотничьим оружием.
Документы в случае получения лицензии на нарезное оружие , сдаются не в районный Отдел Лицензионно-Разрешительной работы, а в Окружной ОЛРР.
Срок рассмотрения заявления на получение лицензии на покупку нарезного оружия от 30 дней.   *Общий список необходимых документов для получения лицензии на травматическое оружие* 
1. Ксерокопия гражданского паспорта (страница с фотографией и пропиской),
2. Медицинская справка 046-1 (комплексная оружейная справка),
3. Квитанция об оплате единовременных сборов,
4. Фотография 3х4 (4шт.на матовой бумаге),
5. Рапорт участкового инспектора о проверке условий хранения оружия (металлический ящик, сейф для хранения оружия)
6. Заявление гражданина.
7. Обязательная сдача экзамена по знанию условий хранения, ношения и применения оружия.  *ВНИМАНИЕ!
ВЫ НЕ ПОЛУЧИТЕ ЛИЦЕНЗИЮ НА ОРУЖИЕ, ЕСЛИ:*
1. Вам менее 18 лет;
2. Вы имеете непогашенную судимость;
3. Вы совершили повторно в течение года административное правонарушение, посягающее на общественный порядок, – например, хулиганство;
4. Вы не имеете постоянного места жительства – оно подтверждается регистрацией («пропиской»).   *Без лицензии приобретаются:* 
• механические распылители;
• аэрозольные и другие устройства, снаряженные слезоточивыми или раздражающими веществами;
• электрошоковые устройства и искровые разрядники отечественного производства;
• пневматическое оружие с дульной энергией не более 7,5 Дж и калибра до 4,5 мм включительно.
Конструктивно сходные с оружием изделия, пневматические винтовки, пистолеты и револьверы с дульной энергией не более 3Дж, сигнальные пистолеты и револьверы калибра не более 6 мм и патроны к ним, которые по заключению МВД РФ не могут быть использованы в качестве огнестрельного и газового оружия, приобретаются без лицензии и не регистрируются.   

> Also, I think the media focuses on the shcool shootings and despite the fact that they aren't that common, the media can make it seem like they are.

 The public opinion is being prepared for gun law restrictions. It took Australia four months to ban public guns completely. I think in the US it will take like 5 -7 years.

----------


## Hanna

By the way; I want to point out that my response was not in order to complain about the USA. Rockzmom asked why I thought it was in "self destruct mode", so I gave my answer. 
I don't feel strongly about it what Americans do within their own borders.  
I may think certain phenomenons are self-destructive for a nation, but I may be wrong, and even if I'm not, it's not really my problem. Some of the arguments for gun ownership make sense, if you see the mindset of those that argue it. 
 I save my big US rants for the foreign policy. Wars and meddling abroad.  
As for the whole debates about homosexuality, violence as entertainment, pornography or wide-spread gun ownership. There are of course arguments and counter arguments for either side of this. My personal view is that all of the above are destructive for a society, see Rome, Greece which escalated all of these as they began to crumble. But it's just a view, and if the majority of Americans don't agree, that's their business. 
I respect uHoHexplode's cultural position on this - I'm aware that there is a cultural different view on this. Widespread availability of weapons makes these massacres easier to perpetrate, but if that's a price Americans are willing to pay, then it's not my business. It might well be that there is so many weapons already in circulation that a ban would just be meaningless anyway. If I was American, I would be concerned about the massacres though, and what drives so many people to do it. Why does it happen almost weekly in the USA, but not in China, Russia or even the EU? What is the underlying cause?  
As for gun ownership in Russia - aren't a lot of the weapons simply what people keep for hunting/shooting wild game in the forest? I guess there are also weapons used by gangsters in the 90s still around. 
But Russia doesn't have gun shops like the USA has, does it? Or normal people who imagine they need to walk around armed, or keep firearms at home to "protect themselves".  
About the plans for world government which UhOhx mentioned, well - here in London we have people from every corner of the world in large quantities, the internet connects us to anywhere we want in the world. We have a CCTV camera in every 15 metres or so in urban areas, and where you'd least expect it in the countryside. We use the same global payment methods as the rest of the Western World. (Visa, Mastercard and international banks). There is UN and EU as global organs.  
I definitely think that the super state or world government is coming. All the development is in that direction. And I don't think it will be nice. Like all Christians I am aware of the end time prophecies which incidentally includes practically everything that this world already is, or is becoming. If you know it, you know what I mean, else no need to bring it up here.Funny chance or prophecy playing out? I don't know, but it's interesting and rather dark times we live in.  
Well the thread is about Russophobia or Russophilia, so this is the last post from me about the USA in the thread!

----------


## Alex_krsk

> As for gun ownership in Russia - aren't a lot of the weapons simply what people keep for hunting/shooting game in the forest

 I've never seen any statistics on that but out of my expirience (just the ppl i know who have guns) half of them bought it just cause it's cool to have one others just earn term to qualify for an assault rifle of just like to shoot in shooting clubs. NOONE of them had bought it for selfe defense. And of course there are some hunters.   

> - plus perhaps a leftover from the wild 90s

 May be some criminals do possess some . But i'm talking about legal registered guns.   

> or perhaps something people somehow sneaked away from their military service?

   - that was never possible.    

> Russia doesn't have gun shops like the USA has, does it?

  It does. And they are much more bigger fancier and richer. there are like 40 of them in my city оружие в Красноярске — 2ГИС
---------------------------------------------------------
also you can buy a weapon online http://www.izhguns.ru/info_gds.php?i=GBL0201023KJ and they'll mail it to you   

> Or normal people who imagine they need to walk around armed,

  have never met one   

> or keep firearms at home to "protect themselves".

  they say there are some but i personally don't know anyone of them  ::   
I'm personally  strrongly asured that a normal person in russia (in america in europe) doesn't need a firearm in his everyday life.
It's more than enough to have some non-lethal weapon.

----------


## SergeMak

> Once we as a world decide to accept one another: black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Straight or LGBT, male or female and so on and that your idea of "normal" and my idea of "normal" may not be the same but we still have the same rights to be on this Earth and live in peace and be safe, obtain a quality education, have a relative happy and prosperous life, and be able to be with whomever we choose to be with... all without the fear of prosecution or persecution... then the humans in this world will actually FLOURISH.

 Strangely enough is that some of the western countries are ready to accept not just homosexuality, but aggressive propaganda of homosexuality and cannot accept a modest woman in a hijab

----------


## SergeMak

> ...one could say one of the biggest features of the Russian culture are alcoholism and amazingly bad roads, and they would be immediately labeled the biggest russophobes history has ever known. Then why go that way about other countries? Maybe every one of us should just fight all those nasty little phobias inside us, and not let them take over our common sense?

 Oh yeah? Why not?
By the way, I don't believe that Ukrainians drink less than Russians do.

----------


## Hanna

There is a member posting in this thread, who I would say is an almost ludicrous parody of Russophobia.  
If there is a fault that a nation or nationality could possibly have, then this member will accuse Russia of it.
Be it alcoholism, rudeness, warmongering, ugliness or electing the wrong president. 
He has never said a nice word about Russia, ever in this forum (by all means, prove me wrong if you can). 
So I wouldn't worry too much about any comments from this member, or waste my time responding to his accusations.

----------


## Hanna

> I've never seen any statistics on that but out of my expirience (just the ppl i know who have guns) half of them bought it just cause it's cool to have one others just earn term to qualify for an assault rifle of just like to shoot in shooting clubs. NOONE of them had bought it for selfe defense. And of course there are some hunters.  
> May be some criminals do possess some . But i'm talking about legal registered guns. 
>   - that was never possible.  
>  It does. And they are much more bigger fancier and richer. there are like 40 of them in my city оружие в Красноярске — 2ГИС
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> also you can buy a weapon online Карабин ВПО-140 223Rem and they'll mail it to you 
>  have never met one 
>  they say there are some but i personally don't know anyone of them   
> I'm personally  strrongly asured that a normal person in russia (in america in europe) doesn't need a firearm in his everyday life.
> It's more than enough to have some non-lethal weapon.

 *So based on that, it won't be long until you too have lunatic shooters in schools and shopping precincts.*

----------


## Alex_krsk

> *So based on that, it won't be long until you too have lunatic shooters in schools and shopping precincts.*

 As soon as government decides it's enough for people to play with their toys the shootings will start. 
I can see no reason for weapons to be openly sold to public but money.
All the BS about self defense is just a distraction. 
Firearms cause more harm then help.  
To use a firearm one should have a strong motivation and be psychologically prepared to kill, otherwise things will go pretty random. And the fewer we have motivated killers with firearms in the society the better.  
-----------
PS http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%...D0%B2%D0%B0%29  shooting in school http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...BE%D0%B2%D0%B5 shooting in office 
and there were some others 
Imo military service (especially participation in hostilities) is the best injection against stupid desire to have a firearm. But of course lest we all have that kind of vaccination

----------


## rockzmom

> Strangely enough is that some of the western countries are ready to accept not just homosexuality, but aggressive propaganda of homosexuality and cannot accept a modest woman in a hijab

 That is the wonderful thing about living in the Washington, D.C. area... we are a middle of the road area. We are not really Southern and we are not really Northern. Many people here are diplomats and people come here from other countries and cultures... we are the true definition of the term "melting pot" (a place where different peoples, styles, theories, etc., are mixed together). I guess we have learned to become more accepting and tolerant of others.  
Love the first line of this ONE!!!       
This is not the high school my girls attended; however, it is in our district.     
Today is primary election day in Maryland!!! It is not thought that Ms. Mizeur will win; however, if elected in November, she would be the first out lesbian governor of any state.

----------


## Hanna

> That is the wonderful thing about living in the Washington, D.C. area...  we are a middle of the road area. We are not really Southern and we are  not really Northern. Many people here are diplomats and people come  here from other countries and cultures...

 Sounds like a nice corner of the USA  ::  You've got the best of all worlds by the sounds of it! I remember reading the "Homecoming" series as a child - it takes place in Maryland, very nicely depicted.    

> Today is primary election day in Maryland!!! It is not thought that Ms. Mizeur will win; however, if elected in November, she would be the first out lesbian governor of any state.

 If I lived in Maryland, I wouldn't want to know about the governor candidate's sexual life and preferences, but about the person's skills and ability to manage the state and its economics. I really don't see how this person being lesbian is going to benefit anyone in the state. I think she should have kept that to herself. 
There has already been a Lesbian head of state, btw. Johanna Sigurdardottir in Iceland. I admire her politics a lot - she was great for Iceland at a very difficult time. 
I don't think she intended for it to be known that she was lesbian though, it just emerged somehow and people accepted it because she was well liked for other reasons. She brought Iceland out of the banking collapse of 2008 by refusing to be bullied by the IMF or international banks, and also banned striptease clubs. 
I don't hate gay people or wish them any ill at all. I just think it's gone too far, when people are forced to travel to work in a gay-flagged bus for a week (happened to me) or Europe votes for somebody to win Eurovision mainly because it's "cool" that the person is a transvestite. Etc. Plus, as a person who calls myself a Christian, I would lose all credibility if I didn't acknowledge what the bible very clearly says about it.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> There is a member posting in this thread, who I would say is an almost ludicrous parody of Russophobia. 
> If there is a fault that a nation or nationality could possibly have, then this member will accuse Russia of it.
> Be it alcoholism, rudeness, warmongering, ugliness or electing the wrong president.
> He has never said a nice word about Russia, ever in this forum (by all means, prove me wrong if you can). 
> So I wouldn't worry too much about any comments from this member, or waste my time responding to his accusations.

 It's very interesting that one of Snowden's leaks was about members of the CIA and the NSA setting up questionable accounts on the social networks to attempt to control public opinions. Just saying...   

> *So based on that, it won't be long until you too have lunatic shooters in schools and shopping precincts.*

 I'm psychologically and emotional prepared to kill. I mean, has anyone ever had fresh rabbit roasted over a spit in the forest? That's worth killing for!  :: 
I really don't get why anytime guns are mentioned people get all over the home defense and crime issues. There's too many totally legal things that people can use for weapons... if you're not on a hunting trip. To catch wild game you need an accurate rifle.
Btw, we've never had to use a gun for home or self defense... only hunting.   

> That is the wonderful thing about living in the Washington, D.C. area... we are a middle of the road area. We are not really Southern and we are not really Northern......

 ^ That's the flowers. Anyone wanna see the thorns? They're massive.
Btw, DC is definitely North.    

> If I lived in Maryland, I wouldn't want to know about the governor candidate's sexual life and preferences, but about the person's skills and ability to manage the state and its economics. I really don't see how this person being lesbian is going to benefit anyone in the state.
> There has already been a Lesbian head of state, btw. Johanna Sigurdardottir in Iceland. I admire her politics a lot - she was great for Iceland at a very difficult time. 
> I don't think she intended for it to be known that she was lesbian though, it just emerged somehow and people accepted it because she was well liked for other reasons. She brought Iceland out of the banking collapse of 2008 by refusing to be bullied by the IMF or international banks, and also banned striptease clubs.

 It would really help if people voted for politicians in the US instead of actors and celebs. But I really don't see that happening anytime soon. But she probably will win just to prove that gays can be politicians. I mean, that is the whole point of the election, right?

----------


## rockzmom

> Btw, DC is definitely North.

 Check your map honey...  ::

----------


## Hanna

Ok what about this then?  A typical story about Russia on the BBC. If it's not anti Putin then it's anti USSR story. This one is kind of interesting: 
The first Russian copy of Doctor Zhivago by Boris Palsternak, was published by the CIA and distributed to the USSR in 1988 (I'll take a wild guess that it was circulating before that as well, informally).
However, per the BBC it was the CIA that brought this masterpiece to Russia.  BBC News - How the CIA secretly published Dr Zhivago *
Right or wrong?*  Any other books you want the CIA to publish for you you, folks?  ::   
Have you read the book (I haven't, but I watched the British film with Kiera Knightley...)    

> The CIA's Doctor Zhivago project was part of a wider effort by the  agency to get forbidden novels into Eastern bloc countries, including  books by George Orwell, James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov and Ernest  Hemingway.

 Sneaky anti-Russia psy-ops tactics, or serves the USSR right for not allowing the books? 
As I understand it, this type of stuff still goes on, although slightly a bit more low key. Putin knows it, and has done things like challenge the British council and US "human rights" organisations for the most blatant cases. 
Other books printed by the CIA and distributed to Eastern Europe according to the BBC.    

> A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce, which  is about a young man who questions and rebels against his upbringing Animal Farm, described by its author George Orwell as a "satirical tale against Stalin" Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell The God That Failed - essays by six ex-communist writers who had grown disillusioned with communism Pnin by Vladimir Nabokov, which follows a Russian-born professor living in the US

----------


## Eric C.

Oh yeah, what a scary monster ready to eat up the glorious socialist society ideals was unveiled --- forbidden novels! Interestingly enough, while people in the U.S. could still read the commie manifesto if they wanted to, people in the USSR had to seek sneaky ways to read Orwell, for instance. He was right, btw, about the year of 1984 in certain areas. And all the freaking tyrants out there should already know that even if they can kill and incarcerate millions of people, they cannot defeat art, creativity and people's will for change, and it's them and their regimes who will be defeated in the end.

----------


## Eric C.

> So what does it mean to be an American? More money and tons of freedom to be anything so maybe that's what Americans are... rich anythings.

 If everyone is truly happy being who they are, no matter how much they differ, that nation is unconquerable. Collectivists just don't get this. It's people who make up a nation, not the other way around.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Check your map honey...

 I did check my map.  ::      

> If everyone is truly happy being who they are, no matter how much they differ, that nation is unconquerable. Collectivists just don't get this. It's people who make up a nation, not the other way around.

 Interesting. They couldn't defeat art, creativity and peoples' will for change when Rome fell. That started the Dark Ages...
Btw, Russia is over 1,000 years old and it's still unconquered Russia. So there must be a lot of happy Russians.  ::  America is less than 240 years old. I wonder if it will still be here 760 years from now... 
People really must have been obsessed with Russia in the 20th century! I really don't get why the CIA spends so much time and money trying to destabilize every country on the planet. And I wonder who's next now that they've destabilized Ukraine...
Btw, the peace talks in the Donbas are breaking down. The separatists shot down a Ukrainian military chopper that was flying over Lugansk. I wonder why Kiev would order a military chopper into Lugansk during a cease-fire. It would be the perfect time for a military strike against more citizens...
Anyway, President Putin says he will use the Russian military if necessary to protect the ethnic-Russians and other civilians in southeastern Ukraine. Ukrainian cease-fire in peril amid new violence

----------


## SergeMak

> Oh yeah, what a scary monster ready to eat up the glorious socialist society ideals was unveiled --- forbidden novels! Interestingly enough, while people in the U.S. could still read the commie manifesto if they wanted to, people in the USSR had to seek sneaky ways to read Orwell, for instance. He was right, btw, about the year of 1984 in certain areas. And all the freaking tyrants out there should already know that even if they can kill and incarcerate millions of people, they cannot defeat art, creativity and people's will for change, and it's them and their regimes who will be defeated in the end.

 Wow! How brave it is to struggle against a "monster" that was defeated a quarter of century ago! But let me warn you that while you are revelling in kicking a dead lion a real monster is rising up behind you back. The US army killed about 200 000 civilian people during the 1st war in Iraq and more than a million during the second war. And the people of the US just closed their eyes on that, as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. But don't have any illusions that this monster will not discard you life as it has already discarded millions of innocent lives all over the world when it sees fit. Remember: the bell tolls for you...

----------


## Eric C.

> Wow! How brave it is to struggle against a "monster" that was defeated a quarter of century ago! But let me warn you that while you are revelling in kicking a dead lion a real monster is rising up behind you back. The US army killed about 200 000 civilian people during the 1st war in Iraq and more than a million during the second war. And the people of the US just closed their eyes on that, as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. But don't have any illusions that this monster will not discard you life as it has already discarded millions of innocent lives all over the world when it sees fit. Remember: the bell tolls for you...

 Some propagandist poster here said something about CIA helping people of Eastern Europe get novels banned by their commie regimes, and I had to respond, I just didn't quote the text, but I think it was pretty obvious what I was responding to. My point was that regimes that fight books and writers do not end up well, and that those who do now might want to think of how THAT monster ended to stop making the same mistakes. You're right that I cannot fight something that's already down, and I have no such goal whatsoever. 
And you have no doubt my friend, that those giving orders to the  media you watch to show how the "evil Ukrainian troops" use "phosphorous bombs" against "civilians" will discard your life just as well, when they think time is right.

----------


## 14Russian

> Wow! How brave it is to struggle against a "monster" that was defeated a quarter of century ago! But let me warn you that while you are revelling in kicking a dead lion a real monster is rising up behind you back. The US army killed about 200 000 civilian people during the 1st war in Iraq and more than a million during the second war. And the people of the US just closed their eyes on that, as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. But don't have any illusions that this monster will not discard you life as it has already discarded millions of innocent lives all over the world when it sees fit. Remember: the bell tolls for you...

 -> "as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. "
You are a troll.  Same as the other neo-Soviet posters.   Why not just say who you are? 
BS about 'neo-fascist' Kiev government is getting old.   What is it about them that fits that description?   Russia bans publications and has lots of censorship.   There's more freedom in Ukraine than in Russia.   That might change with the pro-Western EU dictatorship but saying they are 'neo-fascist' CURRENTLY is not just exaggeration, it's utter BS.   Russia is a neo-soviet dictatorship right now but do you complain or talk about that?   НЕТ!  Until then, you are just a hypocrite parroting the same old rhetoric that your Kremlin media dictates to you.   Learn to think for yourself, huh?

----------


## Hanna

How appropriate that we get two perfect examples of Russophobes and their opinions following each other in this thread. Since neither poster will own up to a nationality, it's hard to know exactly what has influenced and contributed to their Russophobia, but their comments are so predictable that we can probably guess without too much trouble. 
Thank you boys for your contributions.

----------


## Lampada

> How appropriate that we get two perfect examples of Russophobes and their opinions following each other in this thread. Since neither poster will own up to a nationality, it's hard to know exactly what has influenced and contributed to their Russophobia, but their comments are so predictable that we can probably guess without too much trouble. 
> Thank you boys for your contributions.

 Ханночка, не надо обзывать участников форума русофобами.  Во-первых, это обижает, во-вторых - я уверена, что ты неправа.  Я эту тему внимательно не читаю, но к тому, кто  не одобряет политику государства или относится критически, это слово не относится, если я значение этого слова правильно понимаю.   Это как отождествлять политику с культурой.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> regimes that fight books and writers do not end up well

 Yes. In Germany they banned some interesting books of some rather famous polititian. Poor Germany. 
And you have no doubt my friend, that those giving orders to the  media you watch to show how  "evil" Ruaains give orders to the  media will discard your life just as well, when they think time is right.   

> Ханночка, не надо обзывать участников форума русофобами. Во-первых, это обижает, во-вторых - я уверена, что ты неправа. Я эту тему внимательно не читаю, но к тому, кто не одобряет политику государства или относится критически, это слово не относится. Это как отождествлять политику с культурой.

 Полностью согласен с модератором, обзывать никого никогда и ни кем нельзя. 
(Whereas those ppl use to call Hanna anti-american while she always points out tha she's only anti american government and foreign policy. Но они почему-то замечаний от медораторов не получают)

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Wow! How brave it is to struggle against a "monster" that was defeated a quarter of century ago! But let me warn you that while you are revelling in kicking a dead lion a real monster is rising up behind you back. The US army killed about 200 000 civilian people during the 1st war in Iraq and more than a million during the second war. And the people of the US just closed their eyes on that, as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. But don't have any illusions that this monster will not discard you life as it has already discarded millions of innocent lives all over the world when it sees fit. Remember: the bell tolls for you...

 ^ QFT 
The Kiev government is a collection of neo-fascists but don't forget, they also never arrested the ones that burned those people alive in the Union building in Odessa. Since my country didn't take any action to denounce the Kiev government then I can only conclude that my government supports burning innocent people alive, shelling civilians, and burning them with phosphorous weapons. Only a monster would support those things. But hey, only a monster woulda supported the shelling of Yugoslavia so there's obviously been a lot of monsters in the White House. 
Why are we even discussing book banning? There's a huge list of books that are banned in the US. I think every country bans some books. And don't forget, the only reason the CIA wanted those books in the USSR was to destabilize the country. So maybe all the deaths that happened during the October Revolution weren't enough to get the CIA happy... 
Btw, why do I keep seeing things like "neo-Soviet dictatorship" in the threads? It's totally obvious that Russia is a Federation with free elections.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> It's totally obvious that Russia is a Federation with free elections.

 That's another issue, I always hear that Putin is a dictator who use fraudolent elections to come to power. But most of ppl i know support him and voted for him. 
How come the majority of free ppl (no one still coudn't poit out a freedom that russians do not enjoy and citizens of western "free" countries do) support him and vote for him and he's still a dictator?

----------


## lodka

> There's more freedom in Ukraine than in Russia.

 Have you been there?

----------


## BappaBa

> You are a troll.  Same as the other neo-Soviet posters.   Why not just say who you are?

  

> Ханночка, не надо обзывать участников форума

 *Yankee Doodle-doodle-doo*

----------


## SergeMak

> -> "as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. "
> You are a troll.  Same as the other neo-Soviet posters.   Why not just say who you are? 
> BS about 'neo-fascist' Kiev government is getting old.   What is it about them that fits that description?   Russia bans publications and has lots of censorship.   There's more freedom in Ukraine than in Russia.   That might change with the pro-Western EU dictatorship but saying they are 'neo-fascist' CURRENTLY is not just exaggeration, it's utter BS.   Russia is a neo-soviet dictatorship right now but do you complain or talk about that?   НЕТ!  Until then, you are just a hypocrite parroting the same old rhetoric that your Kremlin media dictates to you.   Learn to think for yourself, huh?

 Is insult all you are capable of? Do you really think that insulting other members of the forum makes you look any smarter or somehow better? it's pathetic! I just don't care.
All I know, the bell tolls for you too.
PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. Russia has almost the same political and economical model of oligarchic monopolistic capitalism as Ukraine has, imputed by the IMF after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The only difference is that in Ukraine the oligarchs have completely subdued the state to their private needs, while in Russia they haven't succeeded that goal completely due to Putin's so-called "dictatorship".

----------


## Eric C.

> All I know, the bell tolls for you too.

 So, the bell tolls for anyone who happens to disagree with your view of the world? You know, insulting someone just coz you two can't agree on something isn't good either, but it's still better than threatening. Think about that. Seriously.

----------


## SergeMak

> So, the bell tolls for anyone who happens to disagree with your view of the world? You know, insulting someone just coz you two can't agree on something isn't good either, but it's still better than threatening. Think about that. Seriously.

 I am not threatening anybody. The bell tolls for everybody. If you don't know it's a quotation of John Donne - an English poet of the XVII century:
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
Think of the deep philosophical meaning of this idea. If you think that you can be safe and happy in your comfortable country not noticing all the blood-shed and all the injustice that's going in the world, you're in a big trouble. Think about that. Seriously.

----------


## UhOhXplode

It was so obvious why that quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll" was used. What's not obvious is how anyone could consider it to be a threatening statement... Well, unless they think classic books are a threat. lol.
And when I think about all those people in the peaceful OWS demonstrations that were beaten and pepper sprayed, I think using that quote was appropriate. Apathy supports monsters. 
President Putin's job approval rating = over 82%.
President Obama's job approval rating = about 41%.
So which President should somebody suspect got into office with a corrupt election?
Only a Russophobe would say Putin.  
Btw, the Princeton University study concluded that America is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy:  

> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
> In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

 BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy 
So how can anyone say that our government isn't corrupt? It doesn't matter who we vote for because they aren't the people who make the important decisions.

----------


## 14Russian

> Is insult all you are capable of? Do you really think that insulting other members of the forum makes you look any smarter or somehow better? it's pathetic! I just don't care.
> All I know, the bell tolls for you too.
> PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. Russia has almost the same political and economical model of oligarchic monopolistic capitalism as Ukraine has, imputed by the IMF after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The only difference is that in Ukraine the oligarchs have completely subdued the state to their private needs, while in Russia they haven't succeeded that goal completely due to Putin's so-called "dictatorship".

 Funny slogans doesn't improve your argument.   (Вытерто. Л.)   Maybe, you suspect you are wrong, if my post bothers you? 
PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. ->  Seriously?  LOL!   There's Russians in Russia who have written to great extent on this.  But, yes, go ahead and tell me your claim.  ::    It's amusing. 
Russia is imposing it's neo-Soviet framework, Ukraine is not.   Yes, Ukraine is probably moving towards a corrupt Western system but that doesn't make it 'neo-Soviet.'   You know the difference between our arguments?   You're a neo-Soviet apologist and critique the West.  I criticize both.

----------


## Lampada

Вы должны воздерживаться от переходов на личности. Напоминаю:  переход на личность, публичное выражение неуважения к другому есть нарушение правил форума.  Конечно, тема горячая, и я призываю всех к соблюдению спокойствия в дискуссии.

----------


## 14Russian

Of course.  But, I don't see a violation of the rules in any of those replies.   I find their posts subjective and biased and suggested the contrast:  anti-West slant (which is fine, by me, probably) vs neo-Soviet/Putinist apologist tone - which recent discussions of particular Westerners also share.   
I also objected to Mr. Mak's assertion (check post) about the Kiev government but I explained this illogical evaluation already.   No one has disputed it yet so either they have no counter argument or it's perceived as accurate. 
I guess I can express it better but, honestly, it's just my belief that some of the statements aren't just false but rather absurd.   I am against certain criticism of Russia but when it's warranted and justified, then it should be examined and acknowledged instead of whining and defensiveness that sounds childish and immature.   Correct?   I try to explain where I'm coming from so my critiques are not baseless.

----------


## 14Russian

> It was so obvious why that quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll" was used. What's not obvious is how anyone could consider it to be a threatening statement... Well, unless they think classic books are a threat. lol.
> And when I think about all those people in the peaceful OWS demonstrations that were beaten and pepper sprayed, I think using that quote was appropriate. Apathy supports monsters. 
> President Putin's job approval rating = over 82%.
> President Obama's job approval rating = about 41%.
> So which President should somebody suspect got into office with a corrupt election?
> Only a Russophobe would say Putin.  
> Btw, the Princeton University study concluded that America is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy:  BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy 
> So how can anyone say that our government isn't corrupt? It doesn't matter who we vote for because they aren't the people who make the important decisions.

 My final reply for a while unless some new posters participate.   Sorry.  ::    The U.S. is a democracy if you consider that democracies ...A) don't work and B) are flawed since it is empowerment of special interest groups and a dumbing down of the masses.   Imho, whether you want to call America an oligarchy or democracy, is rather irrelevant.   Those who find democracy to be an ideal will obviously disagree. 
Whether approval ratings are high or low or election % are at 80% or 90%, is not enough info to go on.   What was the turn out?   What is the evidence that the entire election was fair or untainted.  Sorry, but you obviously don't talk to many Russians.   Talking to a bunch of Putin fans here is not going to provide a fair sample.   If you insist you have never heard of any Russian citizens or politicians claim of rigged results and interfering with elections, then I question how much you have investigated what happens in Russia.   Plus, the media is controlled and there is a heavy influence on that industry to what they will spin and how they will do it.   So, having "80% vote for Putin' is more or less not indicative of firm support or a functioning political system that approves of the status quo.   On the other hand, one could possibly argue that the electorate's minds are molded to support the status quo based on repetive conditioning to accept the current system since citizens would have to take time to weed through information outlets which are all presenting information how they (i.e. the Government) want it delivered.   
It should not be rocket science that you can have corruption in both the USA AND Russia and there isn't one that is 'better' than the other.   Corruption is...uh, corruption. 
Thanks for reading.  Good day.

----------


## Hanna

I've noticed something which I think is positive in the Swedish media recently (since the Ukraine crisis). This is that Swedish media sometimes quotes RT, without the affadavit about it being "Russian state media", "propaganda" etc. 
I don't know if this trend happened elsewhere in continental Europe as well, but the quality of journalism in many smaller countries has diminished in a very obvious ways. In some  cases it's not much more than a translation of a story in the English speaking press.  
In the past, the main news  outlets had their own reporters in cities like Moscow, the main European capitals and elsewhere in the world. If at all possible, they sent somebody who spoke the local language. For example the journalist covering Russia, would be Russian speaking and have a high degree of insight into local conditions. 
But now - the journalists can all speak reasonably good English, and the internet is available. No need for serious journalism anymore - just copy and translation from the English speaking press! A lot of the times these journalists don't have enough insight to know the difference in flavour between the BBC, Daily Telegraph, Fox News and Alex Jones -- with some borderline ludicrous results. 
That's been the pathetic trend for the last 8-10 years.  
So for the Russia-coverage, they would just grab it from Reuters, Daily Mail, Washington Post or similar types of sources. Usually you can spot it with Russian stories because the journalists doing the translating that now passes for journalism are so ignorant that they will keep the English transliteration of Russian names of people and places, rather than using the normal Nordic traditional transliteration of Cyrillic. I.e, "Yuri" instead of "Jurij". 
It's really pathetic and it certainly gives the game away. I'm not the only person to have noticed this. Somebody else's propaganda becomes our news. You often see ironic comments to news stories like "good translation from Washington Post". 
However, now that they "discovered" RT, they are actually beginning to report in a more balanced way. I assume they realise that RT is Russian. It's still pathetic that they only bother reading in English, and don't actually try to conduct their own interviews and research.  
But at least RT is preferable to using US and British media exclusively. Hopefully the journalists are reading some of the comments and noticing that the tides are turning for quite a few people across the world. Many people are aware that RT is more truthful than most of the English speaking press with a lot of issues.  
I can only guess that the same thing is probably happening in many other European countries as well as Sweden. Places like Scandinavia, Benelux etc.  
The money Russia spends on RT is money very well spent. ::

----------


## UhOhXplode

> My final reply for a while unless some new posters participate.   Sorry.    The U.S. is a democracy if you consider that democracies ...A) don't work and B) are flawed since it is empowerment of special interest groups and a dumbing down of the masses.   Imho, whether you want to call America an oligarchy or democracy, is rather irrelevant.   Those who find democracy to be an ideal will obviously disagree. 
> Whether approval ratings are high or low or election % are at 80% or 90%, is not enough info to go on.   What was the turn out?   What is the evidence that the entire election was fair or untainted.  Sorry, but you obviously don't talk to many Russians.   Talking to a bunch of Putin fans here is not going to provide a fair sample.   If you insist you have never heard of any Russian citizens or politicians claim of rigged results and interfering with elections, then I question how much you have investigated what happens in Russia.   Plus, the media is controlled and there is a heavy influence on that industry to what they will spin and how they will do it.   So, having "80% vote for Putin' is more or less not indicative of firm support or a functioning political system that approves of the status quo.   On the other hand, one could possibly argue that the electorate's minds are molded to support the status quo based on repetive conditioning to accept the current system since citizens would have to take time to weed through information outlets which are all presenting information how they (i.e. the Government) want it delivered.   
> It should not be rocket science that you can have corruption in both the USA AND Russia and there isn't one that is 'better' than the other.   Corruption is...uh, corruption. 
> Thanks for reading.  Good day.

 It's been a very interesting discussion.  ::  And tbh, it's also summer and I haven't had a lot of time to participate either (I get a lot of my links from dad). But yeah, I don't believe that there's even been a government that wasn't corrupt in some way but I don't really consider it to be that important - unless most of the people in a country are seriously oppressed and starving. I don't see that happening in the US or Russia so I don't believe the corruption is that serious in either country.
I think I already mentioned that people are a mix of good and bad traits. Laws control some of the bad traits but not all of them and they don't do very much to control the bad traits of wealthy people. I've learned that much from my own personal experiences. When I mess up, I learn not to do it again but without any serious consequences. That's not how it happens for people that don't have money. 
Anyway, it's still very interesting how so many laws in Russia are approved by the people. 76% of Russians wanted the anti-gay-propaganda laws and over 80% wanted the annexation of Crimea. Also, the job approval ratings (imo) are more important than the elections. If a President gets most of the votes but he doesn't do very much that the people approve of then that's tons worse than if a President gets into office with a rigged election and does what the people want him to do. And btw, since the governments have so much influence in the media then it would be impossible to really know if an election was or wasn't rigged. That's true for America too.
That's just another reason why I see Russia and the US as being different but equal. It's also why I pasted the Russian flag on the American South on my map. As for Christian values, the American South is more like Russia than the American North. We don't support all the Federal gay rights laws and our State has even fought the Federal government to keep the Ten Commandments in the State Capital building. Our governor even said "We are a Christian State founded on Christian values.". Russia is very Christian too but they don't have to fight the Federal government for support. 
So yeah, you won't find as many Russophobes in the American South as you will in the American North. And you won't find very many Pussy Riot supporters either. 
Btw, I agree with what SergeMak says about the Kiev government but since the thread is about Russophobia/Russophilia, I've mostly just been focusing on that.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> I am against certain criticism of Russia but when it's warranted and justified, then it should be examined and acknowledged instead of whining and defensiveness that sounds childish and immature.   Correct?   I try to explain where I'm coming from so my critiques are not baseless.

 You contradict yourself here. When other forum members *talk* you keep on showing up with dreary repetition of words that happened to be learned somehow. "neo-Soviet" - not only can't it be "examined and acknowledged" but even understood. And you never bothered to explain the implication. This is a perfect example of "defensiveness that sounds childish and immature".   

> Russia is imposing it's neo-Soviet framework, Ukraine is not. Yes, Ukraine is probably moving towards a corrupt Western system but that doesn't make it 'neo-Soviet.' You know the difference between our arguments? You're a neo-Soviet apologist and critique the West. I criticize both.

 What response rom forum members do you expect posting basless slogans?  "You know the difference between our arguments?" what difference might be known between somthing nonexistent?     

> Whether approval ratings are high or low or election % are at 80% or 90%, is not enough info to go on. What was the turn out? What is the evidence that the entire election was fair or untainted. Sorry, but you obviously don't talk to many Russians. Talking to a bunch of Putin fans here is not going to provide a fair sample. If you insist you have never heard of any Russian citizens or politicians claim of rigged results and interfering with elections, then I question how much you have investigated what happens in Russia.Plus, the media is controlled and there is a heavy influence on that industry to what they will spin and how they will do it. So, having "80% vote for Putin' is more or less not indicative of firm support or a functioning political system that approves of the status quo. On the other hand, one could possibly argue that the electorate's minds are molded to support the status quo based on repetive conditioning to accept the current system since citizens would have to take time to weed through information outlets which are all presenting information how they (i.e. the Government) want it delivered.

 Same old song. What else than "election %" do you need to say who wins and who loses? Putin was supported by 63%, you probly belong to othe 37% i see no  problem this is called *a democracy*. You are being in  opposition to current government still can share your view on the internet (in ru, com, net and othe domain zones ) you are not in jail, you don't starve and may be even quite waelthy, and you can *vote for those you support*. An the fact that the majority supports the others doesn't automatically make eclections unfair. (Oh i forgot, only elections approved by "free world" can be fair). Anyways, minority is being respected (i.e. has every right) so why majority shouldn't be? 
Ithink we have had enough of stupid ideology
not long ago they said - "lets build communism" which they proved can't even exist
then it was like - "let's move to golden billion" which is way far from "golden" it used to be 50 years ago 
I don't want some other country's foreign policy to be russia's domestic policy. Because it can't be other then destructive.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. ->  Seriously?  LOL!   There's Russians in Russia who have written to great extent on this.  But, yes, go ahead and tell me your claim.    It's amusing. 
> Russia is imposing it's neo-Soviet framework, Ukraine is not.   Yes, Ukraine is probably moving towards a corrupt Western system but that doesn't make it 'neo-Soviet.'   You know the difference between our arguments?   You're a neo-Soviet apologist and critique the West.  I criticize both.

 I totally did miss this post.
1. There are also Russians that tried to sell Siberia to the West. See Mikhail Khodorkovsky. If you want to see what I think of Khodorkovsky, look in the toilet because it's also what I think of Pussy Riot.
2. I had some free time so I googled "neo-Soviet". It's a bigoted anti-Russian term.  

> Neo-Sovietism is a broad term of reference relating both to existing policy decisions in the former Soviet Union and to a small political movement dedicated to reviving the Soviet Union in the modern world. Some commentators claim that current Russian President Vladimir Putin holds many neo-Soviet views, especially concerning law and order and military strategic defence.

 Notice how it's used to describe everything in the USSR as being wrong. That's how prejudiced people think. Also, it's being used to diss President Putin. So it's a control statement used for intimidation, not logical debate.
Nobody can say that everything in the USSR was bad... except a political bigot. Imo, it would be a lot more constructive to avoid that term and just discuss individual policy issues.  
3. You're right. Ukraine would never be "neo-Soviet" since they want a system controlled by Western puppet oligarchs. But the Ukrainian government has supported some of the most heinous and vicious crimes against it's own people that I've ever heard about. Satan must be a lot like Poroshenko. 
Well, nobody's perfect but if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong. Anyone that wants anything less than that for their country has serious problems (imo).

----------


## lodka

> if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong.

 Недавно один ведущий в известном шоу, где речь шла об Украине, сказал, что ему звонят друзья из Италии и спрашивают: "а нельзя ли договориться, чтобы Путин был у нас президентом?"  ::

----------


## Eric C.

> Недавно один ведущий в известном шоу, где речь шла об Украине, сказал, что ему звонят друзья из Италии и спрашивают: "а нельзя ли договориться, чтобы Путин был у нас президентом?"

 И это был ваш шанс, стоило ответить так, "Конечно, но помните, товар обмену и возврату не подлежит" =))

----------


## iCake

> И это был ваш шанс, стоило ответить так, "Конечно, но помните, товар обмену и возврату не подлежит" =))

 Петросян, вы ли это?  ::

----------


## Eric C.

> Петросян, вы ли это?

 Сомневаюсь, что ваш тот комик осмелился бы публично рассказать эту шутку в этом контексте. =))

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Сомневаюсь, что ваш тот комик осмелился бы публично рассказать эту шутку в этом контексте. =))

 Да никто бы не осмелился, шутка-то мега смешная, я 2 часа из под стола вылезти не мог.

----------


## Eric C.

> Да никто бы не осмелился, шутка-то мега смешная, я 2 часа из под стола вылезти не мог.

 Согласен, некоторые глупости никаким юмором не исправишь, и получаются плоские вещи вроде той.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Согласен, некоторые глупости никаким юмором не исправишь, и получаются плоские вещи вроде той.

 это лучше петросяна

----------


## Alex_krsk



----------


## Alex_krsk



----------


## Hanna

Here is another example of top class unbiased journalism from Sunday Times:  * Sunday Times: Emperor Putin has his eyes on the Arctic and the Baltic* 
North Korea would probably be very pleased to copy this article and just substitute the word "Putin" for "Obama" and "Arctic and Baltic" for, say "Ukraine and Belarus". Other than that, the tone and message is perfect for heavy-duty propaganda purposes...

----------


## hddscan

Hanna, I think Russians are accustomed to the distrust and sometimes even hatred of some Westerners. But it doesn't really matter for most of the Russians, because majority will never feel that attitude personally. Such Russophobic propaganda targets population of Western countries and has a goal to create a certain level of acceptance of some questionable politics, used by officials of those countries.

----------


## Hanna

> Hanna, I think Russians are accustomed to the distrust and sometimes even hatred of some Westerners. But it doesn't really matter for most of the Russians, because majority will never feel that attitude personally. Such Russophobic propaganda targets population of Western countries and has a goal to create a certain level of acceptance of some questionable politics, used by officials of those countries.

 I think it puts a cloud over Europe though, not to mention missed opportunities in terms of cooperation, business or whatever due to mistrust. If Russia is treated with nothing but hostility it might eventually start responding in kind. 
The cold war is over and personally I am not convinced the good guys won... 
Now it seems there are very strong forces trying to resurrect the cold war, and I am not talking about Russia, which I perceive as very peaceful and totally uninterested in conflicts. If Russia wanted to expand or had imperial ambitions there are plenty of things it could do in the ex USSR, in parts of Eastern Europe and the rest of the world.  
But Russia seems to be focussed on itself and completely finished with being an empire of any kind.  
It deserves to be left alone and not constantly the victim of smearing and negative propaganda. I live in the UK at the moment - whatever did Russia do to the UK? Nothing! Yet the UK press hates Russia. That is russophobia.  
Now I read that the US is sending its bet coup maker and professional meddler as ambassador to Moscow, one John Terfft. I wonder what colour he picked for the revolution he no doubt already planned....

----------


## Hanna

_Oops, the "Mariupol" thread was closed while I typed my comments, so I'll post it here, since it fits this topic as well. The comment is in response to the exchange between Redfox and SergeMak._  
------ 
Redfox, I think you are mixing up the era/generations and that you are letting your negative feelings regarding the USSR somewhat blind you regarding the practical realities. Also, like many Russians, you are judging your country (Russia) very harshly.  
I want to give my impressions:   Russia, at the time of the revolution, was_ well_ behind most of Western Europe, and America in terms of development.The way that the peasants lived was very primitive.Industry was not developed.Many people (the majority?) could not read or write. 
 Surely everybody in Russia knows that Imperial Russia was not a modern country in its days, right? Maybe it had been modern in earlier times, but not in the early 20th century. If it had been strong, efficient and looked after its citizens, the revolution wouldn't have happened!  
Russia had somehow stifled development in the the countryside and among the poor.  
Sweden where I come from was also poor in those days; a cold, strongly religious and generally backwards country on the outskirts of the continent. But everybody could read and there was industry and natural resources exploited. 
There were NO peasants from my grandparents generation who couldn't read. There had been compulsory schooling for 6 years, from ca 1850. 
But *SergeMak* is explaining how his grandmother who I assume is not much older than mine (born 1919 and 1927) could not read, but that her children and grandchildren received high quality education at university level. That was during her lifetime, presumably, and it shows remarkably fast progress. I have seen pictures of how peasants lived at the time of the revolution; it is shocking.  
I am *not* defending the over-use of violence in the revolution, the excesses of Stalin and sometimes cruel and insensitive treatment of people in the early days of the USSR. The USSR did some things that I would totally condemn and had practices up until the end that must have been VERY frustrating for people to put up with. 
I am _not_ defending it due to Communist beliefs, and either way I am well aware that most European Communists were very critical of the ideology of the the USSR. 
However; I respect that the USSR achieved ENORMOUS progress, in very short time, for all their faults. That can't be denied!  
That's why the USA eventually became so paranoid about the USSR. 
They had to blackpaint it, because there was a lot that was attractive in, to people who had no other way to improve their lives, or that of their children.   
In nearby countries, they lived in fear of a similar spontaneous or USSR backed revolution for decades afterwards.  
Workers peasants and others across Europe were inspired by events in the USSR, and out of sheer fear that the revolution would spread, their conditions were improved. The mere existence of the USSR helped peasants and workers across Europe. If they formed a Marxist Leninist study group, got a banner with a hammer and sickle and held a few meetings, their houses were quickly fixed, salaries went up and other good things happened.... 
Later, the USSR educated Africans built infrastructure, schools, hospitals and helped them for no particular benefit to the USSR.  
In Sweden we had our first proper election only months after the 1917 revolution in Russia. Hardly a chance! My grandfather who grew up on a small estate in the countryside told how scared his family had been of the Bolsheviks, and how this fear caused his negligent and alcoholic father was forced to spend money on improving living conditions for peasants on their land after the peasants had some communist meeting. 
In the UK, there were huge improvements to the living conditions of the working classes once the genie of Marxism was let out of the bottle... And even more so, after 1917. It's well documented.  
So my first point is that *the USSR was a positive influence outside its own borders*, for peasants workers and intellectual people in Europe and the third world.  
My other point is that *you cannot compare the USSR with the USA, because the starting positions were different!* 
Frankly, the people who emigrated to the USA, were self-selected, people with a "drive" to improve their lives. They were entrepreneurial risk takers with initiative.  
Secondly; the land was open and the opportunities were endless. Of course somebody could quickly improve their life if they coult just grab a large piece of fertile land, for free, and not have to pay tax! That was the situation in the USA up to the early 20th century, at least for people who were prepared to move far West or North. 
During the 19th century there were completely un-exploited natural resources close to the new cities, owned by nobody. 
They had entrepreneurial freedom that did not exist in imperial Russia. The American constitution that they are so proud of, worked well back in those days, (at least if you were white...) The state could not bully people like the tsar regime in imperial Russia did.   *Was Imperial Russia really "freer" than the USSR* - even for those lucky enough to have good lives? I doubt it. People couldn't say what they wanted, people who complained and they had less opportunities than during the USSR era to improve their lvies.  
By all means, criticize the USSR for what it did wrong (brutal in the early days and during Stalin, insensitive, ineffective and later stagnated). But don't deny what it did well. 
It educated people, improved living conditions for the great majority, peasants, workers.  
Compare the standard and opportunities during Soviet days, of *Tadjikistan with Afghanistan* nearby that has the same tribes and religion.  
Look at how *native populations* lived in the USA, and still do to some extent up in Alaska and at Indian reservations. It's a complete disgrace. The USSR took much better care of such populations and was more sensitive to their cultures.  *
And what are you talking about when you imply that modern Russians are less educated / intellectual / cultured than Westerners?* 
I.e. *"Liberal Arts"* (A strange American expression which essentially means they continue studying the things they should have learned in high school, for 4 more years at university, which they have re-named (and demoted) to calling "college". At college they learn very little of practical knowlege. An excellent idea to push in a country where you have to pay a small fortune to attend university...  They are paying for something they should have received for free, in school.)  To get the useful higher education needed for the work place, they have to continue on to a Masters which I believe is called University at that stage.  *
That Russians aren't intellectual simply isn't right!* You have a reputation of being intellectual, didn't you know that? Which country do you consider to be significantly intellectually superior to Russia? If you say the USA, I will laugh...  
I grew up watching plenty of Russian content on TV, not because of any ideological reasons largely, but mainly because the artistic and intellectual quality was considered superior to that of alternative countries they could have imported from. Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia also cut the mark in that department, btw). Of course, we also had English speaking, German etc content. For children's material the difference in quality was stunning and very little American content sipped through in my childhood.  
Why are you putting your country down like that, when it doesn't deserve it... ? 
Americans are the opposite: They keep telling themselves they are the freest, richest, most moral even though its not true apart from for the really well off.  *You Russians are almost the opposite. You are convinced you are much worse than you actually are.*  *
As for intellectual people:  
We only need to look here in this forum.* I have noticed that:  The average Russian member is stellar at history, in many cases they know aspects of my country's history better than I do, and I am well educated.Russians here are familiar with topics like Political philosophy and have read classics ranging from Greek odes to the English/French/German/Spanish classics, not to mention Russian.People are familiar with world religions and their own Christian heritage.Most Russians here are well familiar with classical music, opera, theater  
I am almost certain that this is heritage from the USSR. 
It's very much an upper middle class marker in most of Western Europe to be take part in such culture. If you take Americans, they are rarely intellectual in that respect, it's just not the heritage there.
But in Russia, it's almost the norm.    
When we see Russians who are less cultured/intellectual, it's younger people who were educated after the influence of the USSR ended, with junk TV, computer games.  
So sure: Russia doesn't have "Liberal Arts colleges", but somehow, the population is still more intellectual than in the country that does!

----------


## RedFox

Hanna, спасибо за мнение. Я отвечу на русском, т.к. мой словарный запас не позволяет эффективно общаться на подобные темы на английском. 
В разговоре о РИ и СССР всегда присутствует несколько уровней смыслов. Уровень первый: 
Что касается развитости РИ и уровня образования в ней, я хочу обратить ваше внимание на следующую вещь: отсылки к РИ используются сторонниками советской власти для *оправдания* коммунистического режима. Мол, «Это не большевики виноваты в жертвах массового голода, в расстрелах и так далее. На это всё были *объективные обстоятельства*, а сами большевики беспокоились исключительно о благе людей!»
Как вы понимаете, это *пропаганда*, а не реальная история. Чем страшнее будет описана РИ, тем проще сказать, что большевики ни в чем не виноваты.
Поскольку вы пишете: «I am not defending the over-use of violence in the revolution», то вы стоите на принципиально иных позициях, чем советские. Поэтому, например, я и вы можем при необходимости предметно обсудить: каков был уровень образования в РИ, как развивалась экономика в то время, в какой форме проходили сталинские репрессии и так далее. Для нас это будет вопрос научный и исторический.
А для советских людей это вопрос исключительно пропаганды и религиозной веры. Сначала пришедшие к власти бандиты придумали сказку, как было страшно жить в РИ, потом те, кто не достаточно знаком с историей, им поверили. 
Надо сказать, среди поклонников советского режима уровень незнания истории просто невероятен. Например, для всего мира катынский расстрел — преступление советского режима, а для советских — это преступление *немецких национал-социалистов*. Я по мере возможности просто пытаюсь говорить правду.
И поэтому я не ленюсь каждый раз при встрече с остатками советской пропаганды про "как страшно жили люди в РИ" повторять: никакой причинно-следственной связи между жертвами Сталина и правлением Романовых — нет. 
Уровень второй: 
Давайте посмотрим на тезисы, которые вы озвучили: 
1. Russia, at the time of the revolution, was well behind most of Western Europe, and America in terms of development.
2. The USSR did some things that I would totally condemn and had practices up until the end that must have been VERY frustrating for people to put up with.
3. The USSR achieved ENORMOUS progress, in very short time. That's why the USA eventually became so paranoid about the USSR. 
Вопрос из этих тезисов возникает следующий: являются ли практики СССР необходимыми для достижения того прогресса, который был достигнут?
На мой взгляд — нет. Уничтожение частной собственности, низведения крестьян до состояния рабов, расстрелы офицеров, ученых и писателей, цензура и замена науки на изучение талмудов вождей — всё это никак не может способствовать достижению прогресса. Это то, что *тормозит* прогресс.
А если так, то выводы получаются такие:
1. Без Сталина Россия достигла бы более впечатляющих результатов, чем с ним.
2. Россия до революции имела огромный потенциал развития, если даже в «урезанном» стараниями Сталина виде смогла представлять угрозу для США. 
Уровень третий: 
Значение имеет не только уровень развития, но и динамика развития. РИ — это, по меркам истории, молодое государство. Оно началось с Петра Первого. Это начало XVIII века. В практическом плане — это империя, возникшая «из ниоткуда». Начало XVIII века: Россия — «просто страна где-то на северо-востоке Европы», провинция и захолустье. Середина XIX-го века: Россия — уже одна из мировых держав, с которой приходится считаться Франции и Великобритании.
По темпам развития Россия, как ни странно, схожа с США. И США, и Россия создали себя посредством сухопутной колонизации огромной территории, при чем создали «из ничего». США просто «не должно было быть» — это историческая аномалия. Россия Петра Первого — это тоже историческая аномалия. 
Что касается внутриполитического развития, Россия во многом повторяла путь Франции (и заимствовала французские идеи). Так же как и во Франции, в РИ должна была произойти революция. Социалистическая, само собой. И вот здесь начинается интересное. Социализм существовал в двух вариантах. Лайт-версия — в виде сплава социализма с демократией. И хардкорная версия — в виде коммунизма. России достался коммунизм. 
Уровень четвертый: 
Почему России достался коммунизм, репресии, культ Сталина и прочее? Я бы сказал, России в этом плане «помогли». РИ пыталась играть наравне с такими странами как Франция, Великобритания и Австро-Венгрия, но при этом по внутриполитическому развитию отставала от них (в силу своей молодости). В Западной Европе уже отчетливо оформились nation states современного типа, а в РИ всё еще был абсолютизм. Путь от абсолютизма до национализма нужно было пройти «по ускоренной программе».
Это открывало окно внутриполитических нестабильностей. Победить Россию на внешней арене было проблематично, а вот на внутренней — запросто. В приходе к власти большевиков и превращении страны в тоталитарное государство есть немалая заслуга британской короны. Британия уже в ту пору прекрасно умела засылать агентов влияния по всему миру. 
И сейчас мы имеем довольно абсурдную ситуацию. Россия — это не Первый Мир, потому что она так и не доросла до европеского nation state, сошла с рельс политического развития на полпути. Но Россия — это и не Третий Мир, т.к. мы никогда не были ничьей колонией. Так и болтаемся во Втором Мире уже около ста лет. 
Единственный путь развития государства, который лично я вижу в таких условиях — это:
Ускоренное строительство nation state и формирование дееспособной русской нации. Использование преимуществ нашего политического и географического положения для конкурирования с современными государствами: позиционирование России как страны, идущей по курсу традиционных европейских ценностей; контроль миграционных потоков из стран Средней Азии; модернизация православия, восстановление его имиджа и дееспособности в услових XXI-го века; ускоренное развитие IT, создание благоприятных условий для миграции к нам специалистов, которые не могут реализовать себя в рамках США и Западной Европы (Павлы Дуровы должны ехать к нам, а не уезжать отсюда); налаживание тесного сотрудничества с Китаем, создание альтернативных каналов импорта и экспорта ресурсов; восстановление сферы влияния над традиционно русскими территориями, включая Украину, Беларусь и Казахстан. 
Вместо этого «элита» страны занимается черт знает чем. Это обычные советские КГБшники, партийцы, мафия из национальных меньшинств и прочий сброд. Они, попав из СССР в реальный мир, просто не понимают, что им тут теперь делать и как жить. Прежде чем восстановится нормальное функционирование государственного аппарата, должно смениться поколение. Должны вырасти люди, чей мозг не задет советской пропагандой, затем эти люди должны добиться успехов в бизнесе и в государственной службе, попасть во власть — и только тогда можно будет говорить о том, что в России появилась политика. Нужно еще лет 15-20.
Путину же Россия — как шапка титанов для лилипута. Люди, за 2 века создавшие империю таких размеров, — это титаны и гиганты. Несчатный советский полковник КГБ просто не в состоянии разумно распорядиться таким наследством.   

> Also, like many Russians, you are judging your country (Russia) very harshly.

 Отнюдь. Я всего лишь выступаю на стороне здравого смысла. Я за то, чтобы мои сограждане прекратили «натягивать сову на глобус» (такая пословица  ::  ) и начали относиться к истории России XX-го века как к набору фактов, которые необходимо знать, а не как к предмету религиозного почитания.

----------


## Hanna

Very interesting response, thanks! We just have a slightly different outlook on things, but you know your own country better than I do, so I won't challenge you on it.

----------


## RedFox

Еще несколько дополнений:   

> Frankly, the people who emigrated to the USA, were self-selected, people with a "drive" to improve their lives. They were entrepreneurial risk takers with initiative.

  А как, вы полагаете, осваивалась территория Сибири? Точно такими же инициативными людьми.   

> My other point is that *you cannot compare the USSR with the USA, because the starting positions were different!*

 Это звучит так, будто за окном всё еще 60-е и гонка вооружений.  :: 
Я сравниваю то, что можно сравнить в историческом контексте. Меня интересует природа различных политических и социальных процессов, а не «количество чугуна на душу населения», ну или в чем там измеряла успехи советская власть, не помню.  ::    

> *Was Imperial Russia really "freer" than the USSR* - even for those lucky enough to have good lives? I doubt it.

 Я вам так отвечу:
Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой. Создаются университеты, школы, больницы, люди учатся уважать друг друга, жить по закону, а не по праву сильного.
Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники (в прямом смысле; основные лица ВКПб — бывшие уголовники: грабители и террористы), проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту из НКВД, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа.   

> *And what are you talking about when you imply that modern Russians are less educated / intellectual / cultured than Westerners?*

 А я такого и не говорил.  ::  Средние слои населения имеют приемлимый уровень образования.
Однако, *«элита»* страны такого образования, как, например, элита Франции или Германии — не имеет. А в РИ — имела.

----------


## 14Russian

> You contradict yourself here. When other forum members *talk* you keep on showing up with dreary repetition of words that happened to be learned somehow. "neo-Soviet" - not only can't it be "examined and acknowledged" but even understood. And you never bothered to explain the implication. This is a perfect example of "defensiveness that sounds childish and immature". 
> What response rom forum members do you expect posting basless slogans?  "You know the difference between our arguments?" what difference might be known between somthing nonexistent?.

 I'll address this briefly because it's a waste of time to go into detail with so many insignificant points made by yourself and other Westerners who are Putin loyalists and the thread has transformed into a back-rubbing competition of pointless comments back and forth.   
(Вытерто.Л.)  ::

----------


## 14Russian

> I totally did miss this post.
> 2. I had some free time so I googled "neo-Soviet". It's a bigoted anti-Russian term. 
> Notice how it's used to describe everything in the USSR as being wrong. That's how prejudiced people think. Also, it's being used to diss President Putin. So it's a control statement used for intimidation, not logical debate.
> Nobody can say that everything in the USSR was bad... except a political bigot. Imo, it would be a lot more constructive to avoid that term and just discuss individual policy issues.  
> 3. You're right. Ukraine would never be "neo-Soviet" since they want a system controlled by Western puppet oligarchs. But the Ukrainian government has supported some of the most heinous and vicious crimes against it's own people that I've ever heard about. Satan must be a lot like Poroshenko. 
> Well, nobody's perfect but if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong. Anyone that wants anything less than that for their country has serious problems (imo).

 2.  Russian Nationalists who don't like what Putin has done to ethnic Russians use the term often.  Those Russians know more than you or I do.   I am certain they're more informed than most of the lame arguments in this thread.  ::     It's an apt term to describe the current system, policies and regime.   So, it's more than appropriate and accurate.   It's those who are misled and clueless to whine and complain about the term.     
3.  Can you wrap your head around the idea that both the Ukraine government and Putin regime could both be in the wrong and bad for both sides?   I know that is a brain buster but try it.  ::

----------


## Eric C.

RedFox, очень интересный пост, действительно! Вы прояснили для меня очень многие моменты, касаемые вашего мировоззрения, и я должен сказать, в лучшую сторону! Согласен практически со всеми пунктами анализа событий 20-го века в вашей стране (британские агенты как ключевые фигуры красного бунта представляется несколько спорным), а также пути развития вашего государства, кроме установления сферы влияния над "традиционно русскими территориями". Дело в том, что территории, перечисленные вами не всегда были под сферой влияния РИ. Геополитическая история - вещь довольно скользкая в том плане, что если начать в ней копаться и "восстанавливать историческую справедливость", то можно придти к тому, что отрезать большую половину территории и от РИ (читайте, современной территории РФ). Вместо этого, я думаю, было бы оптимальным, предположив нынешние устоявшиеся границы государств непреложными, просто уважать право на суверенитет и территориальную целостность всех соседних государств, и, не допуская никакой культурной/экономической экспансии, просто выстраивать с ними добрососедские отношения. Это все насчет внешней политики. Пути же развития внутренней политики, описанные вами, уже кажутся оптимальными на всех уровнях. Это же касается оценок способности текущего руководства вашей страны реализовывать их. =))

----------


## Hanna

> Еще несколько дополнений: 
>  А как, вы полагаете, осваивалась территория Сибири? Точно такими же инициативными людьми. 
> Это звучит так, будто за окном всё еще 60-е и гонка вооружений. 
> Я сравниваю то, что можно сравнить в историческом контексте. Меня интересует природа различных политических и социальных процессов, а не «количество чугуна на душу населения», ну или в чем там измеряла успехи советская власть, не помню.  
> Я вам так отвечу:
> Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой. Создаются университеты, школы, больницы, люди учатся уважать друг друга, жить по закону, а не по праву сильного.
> Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники (в прямом смысле; основные лица ВКПб — бывшие уголовники: грабители и террористы), проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
> «Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту из НКВД, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа. 
> А я такого и не говорил.  Средние слои населения имеют приемлимый уровень образования.
> Однако, *«элита»* страны такого образования, как, например, элита Франции или Германии — не имеет. А в РИ — имела.

 I don't strongly disagree with anything you say, but I think you'd find me more to the left of yourself on an old fashioned right - left scale, that's probably why I am more inclined to see the good in the USSR and be harsher in my judgment of imperial Russia which was practically feudal in some respects.  *I think a country should be judged on how it treats the majority, not on how the top part of society lives*. Your views seem to be more in  line with what Americans call "neo-con".  
You should also consider, *where would YOU be in the hierarchy if not for the revolution?* Unless your ancestors were part of the prosperous bourgeoise before the revolution, odds are that your family benefited from a lot of what the USSR offered.  
And even if your ancestors were part of the small clique at the top; would you have enjoyed your priveliges while other countrymen were starving and freezing?   *Imperial Russia was hardly a democracy either* as I understand with those who dared challenge the powers being sent into exile or even executed. How long would that have continued if the revolution didn't happen?  
And when Germany invaded, 1941, could the tsar with Imperial Russia have pulled off what Stalin did with the USSR?  Things could have ended very differently.  
I am aware as you say, that there was a very *cultured elite in St Petersburg, Moscow and elsewhere in the Russian empire*, and that St Petersburg and Moscow were modern and forward. 
I know there were excellent educational institutions in St Petersburg at the time, and that the Russian elite travelled widely in Europe and got new impressions and brought ideas home, and that there were impressive building project as well as the exploration of Siberia during this time.  
But while that happened, there were simultaneously* people who barely had shoes on their feet in the winter, couldn't read or write, suffered malnourishment but still believed that the tsar was divine.* Very backwards, you can't deny that. 
Obviously Russia lost much of it elites in the revolution, and put a lid on capitalist style development projects. Communism has some very unattractive sides to it, the way it deals with religion being one of them. 
And socialist planning conducted by flawed humans isn't a dynamic, flexible or flawless way of running an economy. I am not disputing that capitalism is more efficient at least for short term profits. 
Without the revolution who knows? Maybe Russia would be like Brazil today, some really rich people and some really poor. Or maybe more like the USA - but I believe the melting pot / immigration / new lands situation was quite unique.   *As for the level of education of leaders in modern day Russia*; Who are you comparing with? Americans? 
Are American leaders so much better educated and smarter? How come they always start these insane wars that end in total failure and doesn't achieve what they believe. Sergei Lavrov has really impressed me as incredibly sharp and a bit of a rennaissance person. I don't think Putin is some caveman either, even though my view of him is not quite as positive as of Lavrov.  Which leaders is it that you admire and that seem to be so much more refined than Russia's?  Merkel? Hollande? Xi Jinping?  Surely not Obama?! I have more respect for Putin in that case.  *
Or did you mean the state of higher education in general?* 
If so, I can understand you are concerned, I read about bribes and corruption at universities. I knew that there have been times in the past when scientific/tecnical degrees from the USSR were highly rated; back in the 1960s-70s.  
Putin should prioritize higher education and invest in excellent universities and vocational educations -  anything else would be stupid. If talented people have to go abroad to get a really good education, then Russia is at a disadvantage. I am sure the Russian leadership is aware of that. Partly it's up to people who work in education and at universities to stop accepting bribes and raise the bar. 
I don't know how common this is, but I read about it several times.

----------


## hddscan

RedFox, you made some very good points, I agree with many of them but I think you missing the big picture.
You think that all Russian problems are in a bad ruler - change former KGB officer to somebody else and Russia would be fine. It is very Russian to believe in a good tzar that would come and help  :: 
The truth is that many Western countries(especially one) are actively resisting Russian projects to become a strong state and globalization is in a full play at that task.
Whenever Russia tries to make a move in world politics it sees resistance: sanctions against Russia and Russian allies, anti-Russian propaganda, economical and political black-mailing, all these weapons are actively used every day.
At the same time, for the last at least 10 years we see that one country decided that it can use brutal force to get what it wants and uses military almost everywhere on the planet, whenever it feels fit.
And as you were saying:
"Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники ,проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа."
And sadly that country behaves exactly like you described but on a world wide scale. And Russia and some other countries probably feel obligated to resist such behavior which does not make Russia very popular in the eyes of some Western countries and also does not ease Russian development. 
I'm glad that at least some countries (like Russia) resisting world wide aggression, because otherwise it would be НКВД of the whole world and that is scary.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> 2.  Russian Nationalists who don't like what Putin has done to ethnic Russians use the term often.  Those Russians know more than you or I do.   I am certain they're more informed than most of the lame arguments in this thread.     It's an apt term to describe the current system, policies and regime.   So, it's more than appropriate and accurate.   It's those who are misled and clueless to whine and complain about the term.     
> 3.  Can you wrap your head around the idea that both the Ukraine government and Putin regime could both be in the wrong and bad for both sides?   I know that is a brain buster but try it.

 The fact that Russian Nationalists use that term doesn't make it an intelligent or productive term. And no, I don't whine or complain but I will point out terms that are counter-productive in a debate.
If those Nationalists are that opposed to Putin and prefer the disaster called 1990's Russia, they can move to Detroit Michigan and have that lifestyle back. Well, they may wanna invest in some APC's, body armor, tanks, and AK-47's before they move. Detroit is so much like Russia was in the 90's. I think they call it the American Dream - I just call it a nightmare. 
And yeah, I am well aware that the Ukraine regime and the Russian government are both involved in the Ukraine disaster... and the USA... and every country in Europe... and the UN... and the NGO's.... and NATO... Did I miss somebody?
But it's not bad for Russia. The Russian economy is growing, despite all the sanctions, and US trade with Russia has risen more than the trade with Europe. But hey, even the US Chamber of Commerce is highly opposed to any more sanctions. 
One thing I do know about the Ukrainian disaster and it was life-changing: Our country didn't condemn the heinous slaughter in the Union building in Odessa. They even actively blocked any investigations.
Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation.
If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then yeah, I would be very proud to be called a neo-Soviet.  
@ Hanna and RedFox: Thanks for all the insights into the USSR. That's a very interesting topic.
But don't forget, there are no time machines so nobody can go back and change up the October Revolution. So nobody can really know if Russia would have advanced as quickly as it did without communism.
I'm not a communist but I am impressed with what the USSR accomplished and I have learned what Russia was like between the USSR and President Putin. Weak and illiterate countries do not rise to become world leaders like Russia did.
Also, I think the American education system is severely over-rated. There's a lot of government control and the focus is highly vocational. There's even plans to rewrite more of the American history textbooks.
If I was enrolled in the US public school system, my education would be almost completely vocational.
Anyway, if I had to write a review of the Obama administration, I would call all of them illiterate. Maybe they all went to college but nothing they do or say ever proves it. But hey, anyone can get college degrees in the US... if they have enough money. They can buy their grades.

----------


## maxmixiv

> Люди, за 2 века создавшие империю таких размеров, — это титаны и гиганты. Несчатный советский полковник КГБ просто не в состоянии разумно распорядиться таким наследством.

 Видали мы тех гигантов. Боюсь тот, кто сменит Путина, будет похилее в 10 раз. Или нет, но фамилия его будет Сталин, как вариант. На другие элиты рассчитывать не приходится.   

> Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой.

 Как так вышло, что при монархии разрыв в уровне образования разных слоёв получился в сто крат больше, чем при большевиках? Что в этом хорошего? Народ не успевал расти  ::  
Ещё раз: в благополучно развивающихся странах революции не происходят, и даже тысячи агентов английской королевы не в силах поломать государство. И наоборот: если обращаться  по-скотски со своим народом, то он на ура примет любые обещания и чужую королеву, и всё это с приходом уголовников, куда же без них?

----------


## 14Russian

> The fact that Russian Nationalists use that term doesn't make it an intelligent or productive term. And no, I don't whine or complain but I will point out terms that are counter-productive in a debate.
> If those Nationalists are that opposed to Putin and prefer the disaster called 1990's Russia, they can move to Detroit Michigan and have that lifestyle back. Well, they may wanna invest in some APC's, body armor, tanks, and AK-47's before they move. Detroit is so much like Russia was in the 90's. I think they call it the American Dream - I just call it a nightmare.

 *Those Nationalists know their country far more than you do. * 
I think it's fair to say that Russians there who feel oppressed to Putin and see that his clan is ruining the country have the RIGHT to object to what's going on.   How come you can whine about the USA and make speeches but THEY 'can just move.'   What a hypocrite.     

> But it's not bad for Russia. The Russian economy is growing, despite all the sanctions, and US trade with Russia has risen more than the trade with Europe. But hey, even the US Chamber of Commerce is highly opposed to any more sanctions.

 The economy is NOT growing.   wakeupnow.info - В. Наганов: Путинские экономические заслуги 
Hanna and UhOhXplode have no to little knowledge of the country or the politics and only because they are lapdogs to neo-Soviet leanings do you entertain them.  ::    There's no real discussion here.    ::  
I hope my last sentence is accepted.   I edited the rest.*    If not, the record shows they have little knowledge.   Each time I prove them wrong with facts, they disregard it or make inane statements with no substance behind it.    ::    Пока.  ::

----------


## RedFox

> Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation.
> If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then yeah, I would be very proud to be called a neo-Soviet.

 Oklahoma, USA.
Советский троллинг из неожиданного источника.

----------


## RedFox

> Как так вышло, что при монархии разрыв в уровне образования разных слоёв получился в сто крат больше, чем при большевиках? Что в этом хорошего? Народ не успевал расти

 «Этой песне нет конца, начинай сначала.»
Какая буква в слове и-н-д-у-с-т-р-и-а-л-и-з-а-ц-и-я вам не ясна?

----------


## maxmixiv

> Какая буква в слове и-н-д-у-с-т-р-и-а-л-и-з-а-ц-и-я вам не ясна?

 Вторая И.
Потому что гладиолус? А можно поподробней? И куда мы всё-таки движемся, к nation state или совсем в другую сторону?

----------


## RedFox

> А можно поподробней?

 Подробнее было уже неоднократно. Индустриальному рабочему нужна грамотность. Крестьянину не нужна. Это мировой тренд. При чем тут большевики? Ни при чем.   

> И куда мы всё-таки движемся, к nation state или совсем в другую сторону?

 Зависит от того, кто такие «мы».

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Подробнее было уже неоднократно. Индустриальному рабочему нужна грамотность. Крестьянину не нужна. Это мировой тренд. При чем тут большевики? Ни при чем. 
> Зависит от того, кто такие «мы».

 Мы движемся по-броуновски, в основном.  Хорош страдать, пошли лучше пива попьём.

----------


## RedFox

> Хорош страдать, пошли лучше пива попьём.

 Да ну, в такую жару.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> *Those Nationalists know their country far more than you do.*

 So do the over 80% of Russians that live in Russia and support President Putin. *yawns*   

> I think it's fair to say that Russians there who feel oppressed to Putin and see that his clan is ruining the country have the RIGHT to object to what's going on.   How come you can whine about the USA and make speeches but THEY 'can just move.'   What a hypocrite.

 1. Everybody has the right to object to anything. So do I. 
2. I never whine. I observe and make decisions.
3. It was a totally rhetorical statement. I was comparing Detroit to Russia during the 1990's. They're Russians. Moving to another country would be a preference, not a solution. If they really wanna affect changes they should stay in Russia. 
We already discussed "How come" vs "How" in another thread. The former expression has Biblical roots.
The proper form for the statement "What a hypocrite" in a debate is "Don't you consider that hypocritical?". The former statement is always considered to be emotionally based and dismissed.   

> The economy is NOT growing.   wakeupnow.info - В. Наганов: Путинские экономические заслуги

 The latest statistics in that link are 2011. This is 2014. My source was a chart and information posted 2 days ago.   

> Hanna and UhOhXplode have no to little knowledge of the country or the politics and only because they are lapdogs to neo-Soviet leanings do you entertain them.    There's no real discussion here.

 Chill. My ambitions are to be a writer (sci-fi) and to study physics. I don't know what Hanna's ambitions are but I don't think she ever mentioned becoming a politician.
And I will prefer any system of government I decide to prefer. This is not a popularity contest and I seriously doubt me or Hanna will be altering the fate of the world.
If you aren't familiar with the American ethic called "Freedom of Expression", you should consider reading the US Constitution. It's full of it.   

> I hope my last sentence is accepted.   I edited the rest.*    If not, the record shows they have little knowledge.   Each time I prove them wrong with facts, they disregard it or make inane statements with no substance behind it.      Пока.

 You and your friends' records show that. That's a few people out of 7 billion. *yawn*
It's obvious that I don't know that much yet about Russia or Russians. That doesn't mean I'm not learning. And it doesn't mean that I don't have the right to my opinions - that would only be true in a Totalitarian State.   

> Oklahoma, USA.
> Советский троллинг из неожиданного источника.

 Well, I wanted to troll from the Antarctic but I couldn't find my gloves and I hate frozen keyboards. But you are miles over my head intellectually and you're Russian - that speaks volumes. It doesn't mean that we would have the same conclusions if we were intellectual equals but your insights have earned my respect. But don't forget, I'm human and humans have a strong need to have conclusions - even if they could be premature. People live in fear without conclusions.
So I find proof that President Putin's "neo-Soviet" views are not a serious threat and I go to Russia. Is there any better place to learn about Russia and Russians? 
Anyway, I know where you're coming from. Chekhov called Krasnoyarsk the most beautiful city in Siberia with the Nikolayevskaya Sopka, Karaulnaya Gora, and Chornaya Sopka mountains and the Tatyshev and Otdyha islands in the Yenisei river. Lots of birch and pine forests near the city and it's an important junction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad and a major producer of aluminum in southern Siberia. I like the architecture and the city looks really cool at night on both sides of the river with the bridge in between.
But I really don't know where "Not Where You Live" is and that reduces credibility.

----------


## RedFox

А если серьзно, то 
1. Неосоветский — это оксюморон, поскольку подразумевает, что в промежутке «обычный» и «нео» было что-то иное. Государственная система РФ, Беларуси и Украины никогда и не переставала быть советской. В начале 90-х годов прошлого столетия она перестала быть социалистической — это да. Однако, не советской это её не сделало. 
2. «Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation. If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then...» — как вы лихо поставили знак равенства между целым и его частью.   

> Tatyshev and Otdyha islands

 Латиницей это выглядит пугающе.  ::

----------


## dtrq

> 1. Неосоветский — это оксюморон, поскольку подразумевает, что в промежутке «обычный» и «нео» было что-то иное. Государственная система РФ, Беларуси и Украины никогда и не переставала быть советской. В начале 90-х годов прошлого столетия она перестала быть социалистической — это да. Однако, не советской это её не сделало.
> D

 Опуская рассуждения об обоснованности утверждения что сегодняшняя гос. система  - "советская" (многие черты, безусловно, сохранились), замечу, что когда говорят "NeoSoviet" - далеко не всегда подразумевают устройство государственной системы.

----------


## RedFox

> 2. I had some free time so I googled "neo-Soviet". It's a bigoted anti-Russian term.
> Notice how it's used to describe everything in the USSR as being wrong. That's how prejudiced people think. Also, it's being used to diss President Putin. So it's a control statement used for intimidation, not logical debate.
> Nobody can say that everything in the USSR was bad... except a political bigot. Imo, it would be a lot more constructive to avoid that term and just discuss individual policy issues.

  

> The fact that Russian Nationalists use that term doesn't make it an intelligent or productive term. And no, I don't whine or complain but I will point out terms that are counter-productive in a debate.
> If those Nationalists are that opposed to Putin and prefer the disaster called 1990's Russia, they can move to Detroit Michigan and have that lifestyle back. Well, they may wanna invest in some APC's, body armor, tanks, and AK-47's before they move. Detroit is so much like Russia was in the 90's. I think they call it the American Dream - I just call it a nightmare.

 В неменьшей степени контрпродуктивным является противопоставление вещей, имеющих принципиально различную природу, как это делаете вы. Зеленое не противопоставлено холодному, они находятся на разных шкалах.
«Катастрофа 90-х», как вы выразились, — это переход от социалистической экономики к капиталистической. Кратковременный провал в экономике и последующее её восстановление абсолютно закономерны.
При чем здесь Путин? Путин здесь ни при чем. На его месте рептилоид с Сириуса справился бы с «восстановлением» экономики не хуже: достаточно было бы просто сидеть в Кремле и не мешать обществу самому разобраться с ситуацией. Общество разобралось.
Определенные плюсы у Путина, конечно, есть — особенно на фоне спившегося Ельцина, управлявшего страной не приходя в сознание. Вполне мог бы до власти дорваться и такой человек, который к этому времени уже бы развалил страну. Но поддерживать политика только лишь за то, что он не алкоголик и не развалил страну... это как-то экстравагантно, вы не находите? 
При этом, да, можно сказать, что Путин проводит «нео-советскую» (я бы сказал, просто советскую, без всяких нео-) политику.
Надо сказать, капитализм в исполнении советского гос.аппарата плох ровно настолько же, насколько в его исполнении был плох социализм. «Что ни делает дурак, всё он делает не так.»
Заметьте, что «неосоветская Россия» — та самая, про которую «контрпродуктивно пишут националисты» — абсолютно капиталистическое государство. Никому в здравом уме и в голову не приходит рассуждать о возврате к плановой экономике: ни Путину, ни его противникам с левой или правой стороны спектра. Вопрос советскости вообще не экономический. Это вопрос культурно-этнический и управленческий. 
Видимые результаты этой политики:
* Уничтожение свободы слова в СМИ, борьба со свободой слова в интернете. Введение цензуры.
* Уголовные преследования политических партий и активистов.
* Де-факто введение в судебную практику понятия мыслепреступления под видом термина «разжигание розни».
* Ущемление прав граждан по этническому принципу. Выходцы Северного Кавказа — первый сорт людей, прочие народы — второй, русские — третий.
* Стимулирование миграции в Россию представителей нижних классов стран Средней Азии.
* Повышение пошлин и введение прочих мер запретительного характера вместо стимулирования конкурентоспособности собственной экономики.
* Культивирование культурно-политических мифов позднего СССР, таких как борьба с «загнивающим западом». В роли пугала выступают геи и лесбиянки, «американцы, которые усыновляют русских детей, чтобы продать на органы», «бездуховная поп-культура» и прочее.    

> So do the over 80% of Russians that live in Russia and support President Putin. *yawns*

 Во-первых, без уточнения «поддерживают в чем именно» эта фраза смысла не имеет. Во-вторых, ни у вас, ни у меня нет технической возможности узнать, кого поддерживают русские в рамках страны. 80% — откуда такая праздничная цифра? Из опросов ВЦИОМ?   

> 3. You're right. Ukraine would never be "neo-Soviet" since they want a system controlled by Western puppet oligarchs. But the Ukrainian government has supported some of the most heinous and vicious crimes against it's own people that I've ever heard about. Satan must be a lot like Poroshenko.

 Эту часть я бы тоже прокомментировал, но с позавчера это запрещено.

----------


## RedFox

> Опуская рассуждения об обоснованности утверждения что сегодняшняя гос. система  - "советская" (многие черты, безусловно, сохранились), замечу, что когда говорят "NeoSoviet" - далеко не всегда подразумевают устройство государственной системы.

 В культурном плане советскость сохранилась еще более, чем гос.апаарат. «Новая историческая общность» никуда не делась.

----------


## dtrq

> В культурном плане советскость сохранилась еще более, чем гос.апаарат. «Новая историческая общность» никуда не делась.

 Поэтому говорят "пост-советское". То, что сегодняшнее общество серьезно отличается от советского так же глупо отрицать, как и то, что оно сохранило многие его черты.   

> Видимые результаты этой политики:
> * Уничтожение свободы слова в СМИ, борьба со свободой слова в интернете. Введение цензуры.

 Ну, это уж преувеличение. Ужесточение порядков в этой сфере, безусловно, наблюдается, но до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны.  

> * Уголовные преследования политических партий и активистов.

 Обычная мировая практика. Преследуют-то всякую радикальную шушеру, которая никаких народных интересов не представляет.  

> * Де-факто введение в судебную практику понятия мыслепреступления под видом термина «разжигание розни».

 Мыслепреступление потому и называется мыслеперступлением, что ограничивается головой мыслящего, а разжигание - это вполне конкретные действия и призывы к таким действиям, затрагивающие окружающий мир. 
К тому же, до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко.  

> * Ущемление прав граждан по этническому принципу. Выходцы Северного Кавказа — первый сорт людей, прочие народы — второй, русские — третий.

 Ой, ну не смешите. Это когда 'racial profiling' на улицах настолько норма, что воспринимается как само собой разумеющееся, или когда для кавказских регионов существует негласное ограничение на службу в армии - это первый сорт?  

> * Культивирование культурно-политических мифов позднего СССР, таких как борьба с «загнивающим западом». В роли пугала выступают геи и лесбиянки, «американцы, которые усыновляют русских детей, чтобы продать на органы», «бездуховная поп-культура» и прочее.

 Совершенно логичное поведение при геополитической конфронтации. Можно сказать, положительный признак того, уж извините за избитую фразу, что "Россия встает с колен". У них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит, с не меньшим накалом.

----------


## RedFox

Прекрасный образец советского мышления, спасибо.
Граница между советским и несоветским проходит прямо по головам людей. Мы все в определенной степени советские.   

> Ну, это уж преувеличение. Ужесточение порядков в этой сфере, безусловно, наблюдается, но до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны.

 "Мы не такие плохие как *они*."
Особенно показательно слово *еще*.
"Мы *еще* не такие плохие как *они*."   

> Обычная мировая практика.

 "Мы как все."   

> Преследуют-то всякую радикальную шушеру, которая никаких народных интересов не представляет.

 Враги народа.   

> Мыслепреступление потому и называется мыслеперступлением, что ограничивается головой мыслящего, а разжигание - это вполне конкретные действия и призывы к таким действиям, затрагивающие окружающий мир.

 См. табу.   

> К тому же, до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко.

 "Мы *еще* не такие плохие как *они*."   

> для кавказских регионов существует негласное ограничение на службу в армии - это первый сорт?

 Ограничение на то, чтобы быть частью непристижного социального класса, — это ущемление. См. три партийных лозунга ангсоца.   

> Совершенно логичное поведение при геополитической конфронтации.

 Молодая социалистическая республика в кольце врагов... Пардон, заговорился по старой памяти. Молодая капиталистическая республика в кольце врагов.   

> Можно сказать, положительный признак того, уж извините за избитую фразу, что "Россия встает с колен".

 Недостаточно сильно встаёт, надо чтобы вставала так, как в 50-80-х. См. карательная психиатрия.   

> У них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит, с не меньшим накалом.

 "Мы не такие плохие как *они*."

----------


## dtrq

> "Мы не такие плохие как *они*."

 Прошу заметить, подмену частного общим не я здесь произвел. 
Что касательно аргумента "А у вас негров линчуют" - ничего не поделаешь, пока есть люди, которые убеждают, что Запад - идеал и образец для подражания, и при этом все время поднимают проблемы, которые на Западе стоят если не острее, то хотя бы не менее остро. Потому что противоречие получается.   

> "Мы как все."

 Да. Так а что плохого в этом аргументе? Надо быть не как все?  

> Враги народа.

 Возможно. Если откинуть те исторические ассоциации, которые вы в это словосочетание вкладываете, и смотря о ком речь.   

> Особенно показательно слово еще.

 Показательно то, как кто интерпретирует слова.  

> См. табу.

 Табу - это всегда плохо? Если, конечно, мы говорим не о религиозном применении термина.  

> Ограничение на то, чтобы быть частью непристижного социального класса, — это ущемление. См. три партийных лозунга ангсоца.

 Непристижного класса? Что это за класс? 
Служба в армии является одним из инструментов поднятия социального статуса и улучшения карьерных перспектив, а на Кавказе была одним из основных доступных.
Вы точно из России?  

> Молодая социалистическая республика в кольце врагов... Пардон, заговорился по старой памяти. Молодая капиталистическая республика в кольце врагов.

 Нет, не в кольце.   

> Недостаточно сильно встаёт, надо чтобы вставала так, как в 50-80-х. См. карательная психиатрия.

 Не уловил связи между вставанием с колен и карательной психиатрией.  

> *они*

 Мне вот интересно, разделение "мы-они" является естественным для любого человека в той или иной степени, а для националиста - ключевым. Вы вроде симпатизиурете националистическим идеям, почему же используете обличительный тон, выводя из моих слов это жирное "они"? Впрочем, как совмещается западничество с национализмом я тоже понимаю с трудом, учитывая тенденции западной мысли по национальным вопросам.

----------


## RedFox

> Мне вот интересно, разделение "мы-они" является естественным для любого человека в той или иной степени, а для националиста - ключевым. Вы вроде симпатизиурете националистическим идеям, почему же используете обличительный тон, выводя из моих слов это жирное "они"?

 Потому что у вас отсутствует позитивная программа. «Быть не хуже дяди Пети» — это интеллектуальная дегенерация. Я сомневаюсь, что смысл вашей индивидуальной жизни сводится к тому, чтобы быть не хуже соседа. Думаю, даже у самого опустившегося в бытовом плане человека — бомжа какой-нибудь — есть что-то, что его греет. У вас тоже есть, тем более, вы и не бомж. Скажем, если человеку нравятся языки, он будет изучать языки. Сравнение себя с дядей Петей ему при этом не требуется, на отношения дяди Пети к языкам и на дяди Пети языковые способности ему глубоко и честно плевать. Даже и в голову не придёт озадачиться такой ерундой.
Тем не менее, переходя от уровня индивидуального на уровень социальный, вы, ничуть не смутясь, начинаете оперировать сравнениями «с Петей» как из рога изобилия. В одном вашем недлинном посте я насчитал четыре.
По сути что происходит? Советскому обществу говорят: общество, давай жить лучше? А в ответ: "до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны", "обычная мировая практика.", "до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко", "у них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит".
Чувствуете? Если вам начальник на работе предложит бесплатно поработать на выходных, вы ответите примерно в той же тональности. "А что сразу я, вон Петя сидит нихрена не делает". И будете правы. Потому что работать бесплатно в выходные — мало кто любит.
Вот и советские. Советское общество как целое — *не любит жить*. Живёт вымученно и через силу. Старается, чтоб было не хуже, чем у соседа. Нет в нем порыва, нет собственного внутреннего желания, есть только усталое «чтоб было как у белых людей». Ну а результаты — соответствующие. Это карго-культ жизни. 
В «естественном разделении "мы-они"» главным «для любого человека» является *мы*. Для любого, кроме советского. 
Я не говорю уж о том, что ответ вида «у них негров линчуют геев женят» — это ответ нашкодившего ребёнка в стиле «он первый начал». Россия, тебе 300 лет или 5 годиков?   

> Впрочем, как совмещается западничество с национализмом я тоже понимаю с трудом, учитывая тенденции западной мысли по национальным вопросам.

 Зависит от ваших определений западничества и национализма.

----------


## dtrq

Я же в предыдущем посте высказался по поводу того, откуда идет это "у них не лучше". Я не знаю, руководствуется ли этим принципом среднестатистический россиянин, оценивая  положение дел в стране, но отвечают так всегда именно западникам, которые во всем ставят в пример соответственную часть мира. И это совершенно логично - если вам постоянно ставят в пример дядю Петю, а потом осуждают вашу привычку выпить на выходных, вы в праве возразить: "Но дядя Петя хронический алкоголик. Как же так, разве я не должен во всем походить на него?" 
Кроме того, российскому обществу уже не первый век настойчиво ставят в пример Европу, позднее Америку, это противопоставление "Россия-Запад" уже въелось в национальный менталитет, мы всю нашу действительность оцениваем через призму этих сравнений, как и поколения до нас. И это "а у вас негров линчуют" - естественная реакция на попытки в очередной раз надавить на это место. И советскость тут ни причем, безудержное западничество вошло в национальную черту со времен царской России, достаточно почитать русскую классику. В советское время лишь сформировался тот защитный механизм, о котором мы говорим, вернее, сменил другой - славянофильство, которому не было места в советской идеологии, несмотря на схожесть некоторых положений.

----------


## Hanna

> But don't forget, there are no time machines so nobody can go back and change up the October Revolution. So nobody can really know if Russia would have advanced as quickly as it did without communism.

 No, but it's a very interesting question and I imagine every single person in Russia and the ex USSR countries has considered it, and/or has a strong view on it.  
I think that RedFox attempted to do an analysis and I believe his conclusion was that Russia would have done better without the revolution and that the accomplishments of the USSR would have taken place anyway, or were irrelevant.  
I am less convinced - I think it would have taken a long time for disadvantaged groups to get the advantages that the USSR offered them within only a a decade or two. There are Russian Nobel prize winners and prominent scholars and scientists whose parents or grandparents were practically illiterate peasants.  
I also wonder if Imperial Russia would have been able to defend itself effectively against the attack from Nazi Germany, and whether regular soldiers would have had the same motivation to defend the territory of the USSR and liberate Eastern Europe. Things might have looked very different in Europe today, if they hadn't. Imperial Russia might have settled for simply defending its own historical territory and left Europe to the Nazis. The USSR went further West than Russia had ever been before, thereby defeating the nazis. Because fascism is the natural enemy of communism it spurred the USSR on in a way that might not have happened otherwise. Imperial Russia might even have reached some agreement with Nazi Germany that would have prevented it from getting drawn into the war completely.  
Would Imperial Russia have built a sputnik and sent the first man into space? Part of the incentive for doing that, were ideological.  
What would the situation be like in Central Asia? I think they'd be were Afghanistan and North West China are - instead they were treated as equals in the USSR, received support to develop their republics  and are lightyears ahead of Afghanistan. I doubt most of the people there regret the USSR.  
Would there have been democracy in Russia during the 20th century if the revolution never happened? Who would have accomplished that, and how would it have happened in absence of a revolution? Given what I know about Imperial Russia it seems unlikely.  
My feeling is that Russia would have remained a country with extremely strong class divides without the revolution. Like Brazil today, perhaps, or other nations in South America which has well educated modern populations in the cities and poverty / poor education in rural areas. Russia is such a large and diverse country that only a really ambitious ideology with a centrally planned economy could have quickly achieved the changes that it achieved, across the nation.  
However, for anyone who considers the USSR a total fiasco, obviously anything would have been preferable, including brutal class divides during the 20th century. I think that for a large, grand country like Russia, a really dramatic change and a grand, super ambitious ideology was the only way to achieve change across the country.

----------


## hddscan

> По сути что происходит? Советскому обществу говорят: общество, давай жить лучше? А в ответ: "до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны", "обычная мировая практика.", "до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко", "у них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит".
> Чувствуете? Если вам начальник на работе предложит бесплатно поработать на выходных, вы ответите примерно в той же тональности. "А что сразу я, вон Петя сидит нихрена не делает". И будете правы. Потому что работать бесплатно в выходные — мало кто любит.

 How is it related to Soviet society?
This is a universal thing, it's everywhere.
First of all: "if your boss asks you to work for free on weekends" would sound really strange in any capitalistic country. It's a job, and you work for some sort of gratitude, usually money. So no employee would understand that question. Second: it is ok to point out that you work a lot and some people do not and it is a job of your boss to make sure that you understand each other.
As for "до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны", "обычная мировая практика.", "до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко", "у них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит". - IT IS TRUE. And I don't see why people should not point that out. The expectations you set supposed to be realistic or nobody would follow you. One step at a time. Otherwise your goals wouldn't be better as: "мы будем строить коммунизм и это наша великая цель". People cannot follow you to a goal that would take centuries to reach, people want results and they want them fast.

----------


## 14Russian

> So do the over 80% of Russians that live in Russia and support President Putin. *yawns*

 (Вытерто. Л.)   
Russian news and information is controlled and various Russians have gone into great detail about it.   I have read on this site and other forums of the same (Pro-Putin) mentality and those Russian friends have told me about them.   So, your comment is redundant since you have no clue.   
It sounds like Red Fox is objecting to your assertions, too.   ::   
Russia has controlled, to a great extent, what people think although it could be said that this influence tactic also exists in other countries.   But, it is especially applicable in places like Russia.   One has to accumulate several sources and investigate more extensively to obtain accurate info and insight.   Obviously, you don't do so at all.  Parroting pro-Putin articles on the internet (most likely Western sources who prefer to toot Putin's horn) and repeating Pro-Putin Russian nationals isn't accomplishing that either.   
(Вытерто. Л.) ::

----------


## RedFox

> First of all: "if your boss asks you to work for free on weekends" would sound really strange in any capitalistic country. It's a job, and you work for some sort of gratitude, usually money. So no employee would understand that question. Second: it is ok to point out that you work a lot and some people do not and it is a job of your boss to make sure that you understand each other.

 Замечательно, что вы поняли половину аналогии. Плохо, что вы не поняли вторую половину.
Итак, где ж тот бос, с которым у советского общества контракт на то, насколько хорошо оно должно жить? Где он?   

> As for "до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны", "обычная мировая практика.", "до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко", "у них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит". - IT IS TRUE. And I don't see why people should not point that out.

 Безусловно. А еще Аллах велик и всемогущ, и покарает неверных. And I don't see why *muslim people* should not point that out.

----------


## hddscan

> Замечательно, что вы поняли половину аналогии. Плохо, что вы не поняли вторую половину.
> Итак, где ж тот бос, с которым у советского общества контракт на то, насколько хорошо оно должно жить? Где он?

 I don't see any relevance. Perhaps you should use simpler analogies  ::   

> Безусловно. А еще Аллах велик и всемогущ, и покарает неверных. And I don't see why *muslim people* should not point that out.

 There is creative path and destructive path. You are mixing those. And it looks like: "натягивание совы на глобус"

----------


## RedFox

> Would Imperial Russia have built a sputnik and sent the first man into space? Part of the incentive for doing that, were ideological.

 Спутник определенно не стоит 10 миллионов человек, погибших в ходе гражданской войны. (Это не считая всех тех, кто погиб от голодомора и репрессий позднее.)
Если мы предположим, что стоит, и что величие страны измеряется в спутниках, самолётах и подводных лодках, то нам следовало бы признать Нацистскую Германию — вершиной человеческой эволюции. 
Один характерный штришок из жизни отца русской космонавтики Королёва. Вернее, из его смерти: _Следователь КГБ сломал Королёву челюсть, ударив Сергея Павловича графином по скуле; вследствие неудачного сращения кости, Королёв не мог достаточно широко раскрывать рот даже во время еды._
Из-за этой травмы во время операции (он был болен саркомой) возникли сложности при интубации трахеи. Ему не смогли корректно ввести дыхательную трубку в трахею. Во время этой операции Королёв скончался. 
Вы знаете, мне *не хочется говорить ничего хорошего* о государстве, в котором одного из талантливейших людей на планете избивает графином следователь КГБ. Хотя конечно хорошее в СССР было, не только плохое... Но вот просто не хочется.
Эти твари должны быть изгнаны обратно в ад.

----------


## Hanna

> First of all: "if your boss asks you to work for free on weekends" would  sound really strange in any capitalistic country. It's a job, and you  work for some sort of gratitude, usually money. So no employee would  understand that question. Second: it is ok to point out that you work a  lot and some people do not and it is a job of your boss to make sure  that you understand each other.

 Just want to point out: If you have a management job, they don't ask - it's expected that you work weekends if needed (which is more common than not). I have never been paid for it.    

> (Вытерто. Л.)

 That is an arrogant statement, coming from a besserwisser who is clearly just as brainwashed himself, as he accuses others of being. uHoX has attempted to inform himself as best he can but he doesn't have the benefit of age, or having spent time in Russia.  
And if you are such a beacon of knowledge regarding Russia, what exactly are your credentials? Why should anyone listen to you on this topic? You haven't said anything regarding your connection to Russia or the sources of your allegedly superior observations.  
If Russia is such a dump, everybody here, apart from Eric C. and Redfox are brainwashed "Putinists", then why exactly do you use this forum?  
It seems that there are other places online that you would enjoy more and that would obviously benefit tremendously from the presence of such a "polite", "enlightened" and "knowledgeable" individual :irony: as yourself.  
Plus, I think you insulted both uHox, myself and others enough now.
I am sure that I won't be the only person who report your rude and aggressive post. Skärp dig!   

> Спутник определенно не стоит 10 миллионов человек, погибших в ходе гражданской войны.

 I won't argue with that at all. But you are picking one isolated achievement and putting it against a very specific negative aspect of the revolution. It's not that 10 million people were deliberately sacrificed to launch the first sputnik.  But I see what you are trying to get across and it's definitely a valid reflection. Russia paid a high price for the achievements of the USSR. Too high? It's for the Russians to say. Your views are clear.  
Your way of thinking in general seems very influenced by the American view of Russia, Putin and Russian history (I.e. Putin is an ex KGB dictator etc, etc and the USSR was an evil dump). I don't think your views are not shared by most of the Russians here, at least not fully. *
Is there any political party or movement in Russia today that represent these types of views that you are expressing? * 
As for Putin's background in the KGB; it seems he's as much an opportunist as most politicians in the world today. I.e. he used whatever political organisation that was available, to pursue his personal quest for success and power. When he started his career, there wasn't much to choose from - KGB apparently, was his choice. Not everything they did was horrible and I'm not aware that he did anything objectionable during his time there.  
If I was Russian I'd say, "rather an ex KGB man as president, than an oligarch or foreign backed puppet."  But it would also mean that I'd be fairly cautious of him and regard his policies with suspicion. 
 Obviously his time there has affected the way he views certain questions.  
 However, he didn't use nepotism or family connections to get to where he is, but supposedly achieved it based on talent, or being good at playing the political game. He did other things as well, between becoming president and being KGB, didn't he?
I am not at all overly impressed by him but I don't see any big reason to hate or fear him either.

----------


## dtrq

> Безусловно. А еще Аллах велик и всемогущ, и покарает неверных. And I don't see why *muslim people* should not point that out.

 Ну, считать они могут как угодно, но подкрепить реально эти утверждения они ничем не могут.     

> Вы знаете, мне не хочется говорить ничего хорошего о государстве, в котором одного из талантливейших людей на планете избивает графином следователь КГБ. Хотя конечно хорошее в СССР было, не только плохое... Но вот просто не хочется.

 А можно узнать, что конкретно вызывает такую реакцию?
То, что на допросах спецслужбы применяют меры физического воздействия? Уж извините за опять двадцать пять, но это не исключительная черта советского государства, ни тогда, ни сейчас. Да, опять "негров линчуют", но все же ненависть у вас  по этому поводу вызывает только своя страна, какая же в этом "позитивная программа"?
Или возмущает то, что били "одного из талантливейших людей на планете"? Так а что же, нужно теперь делать разграничения, кого можно бить, а кого нельзя, кто человек высшего порядка, а кто не очень? По моему, уж лучше когда равенство, хоть и в таком вопросе. 
Навскидку, Алан Тьюринг, кстати, тоже был одним из талантливейших людей на планете. Я что-то не слышал ни от одного британца, что он не хочет говорить ничего хорошего о Великобритании по этому поводу.

----------


## Lampada

> (Вытерто. Л.) (Вытерто. Л.)

 Предупреждение.  За последующий оскорбительный переход на личности последует бан на три дня.

----------


## RedFox

> But you are picking one isolated achievement and putting it against a very specific negative aspect of the revolution. It's not that 10 million people were deliberately sacrificed to launch the first sputnik.

 Отнюдь, я могу также и обобщить. Примерно так:
«Некоторые люди утверждают, что СССР достиг больших успехов в промышленности, образовании и так далее, и что без революции эти достижения были бы невозможны. Это спорный вопрос, но даже если предположить, что это утверждение верно — все эти достижения всё равно не стоят 10 миллионов погибших в ходе революции и гражданской войны.» 
Недавно я смотрел документальный фильм о ВМ2, вернее, документальный сериал, в нем было около 20 серий. Каждая серия рассказывала про какой-нибудь из крупных эпизодов войны: битва за Сталинград, курская битва, борьба за регионы Кавказа, наступление на Киев и так далее. По ходу рассказа давались сводки потерь, а в конце каждой серии — итоговые сводки. «Невосполнимые потери личного состава составили... в той-то битве 20 000 человек... в той-то битве 9 000 человек... в той-то битве 35 000 человек...» и в конце серии общий итог: «В ходе сражений за Ржев с января 1942-го по март 1943-го погибло 392 000 человек». И так каждую серию.
Сначала я пытался эти числа осмыслить, вместить в сознание. После 3-й или 4-й серии мой мозг просто выключился.
Человек не в состоянии воспринимать такие вещи. 
Когда у вас умирает близкий друг или родственник — это горе. Когда вы слышите, что за несколько недель погибло 35 000 человек — это то, для чего не может быть ни чувств, ни мыслей, ни слов в языке. 
Каждый еще в школе слышал подобные числа. "В той-то войне погибло столько-то, в той-то войне — столько-то." Обычно в том возрасте над этим не задумываешься. Ответишь правильно — получишь хорошую оценку, после чего забудешь эти числа навсегда. Просто числа.
А вот будучи взрослым стоит попытаться вдуматься, ЧТО стоит за этими числами...
Мне почему-то кажется, что все люди делятся на две группы. Те, кто об этом задумался, и те, кто нет. И это очень важное разделение. Все остальные деления на политические партии и движения — вторичны. 
Так вот. Возвращаясь к теме гражданской войны...
10 000 000. Число.
Все остальные разговоры про промышленность, индустриализацию, уровень образования и прочее — это всё вторично.
А про число забывать нельзя. Это самое важное.

----------


## RedFox

> Your way of thinking in general seems very influenced by the American view of Russia, Putin and Russian history (I.e. Putin is an ex KGB dictator etc, etc and the USSR was an evil dump).

 Отнюдь. Моё мировоззрение — это мировоззрение Пушкина, Достоевского, Розанова и многих других русских писателей и мыслителей, а также вгляды античной философии, проповедей Христа и буддизма. Что может сделать обычный человек — так это не пытаться спорить с великими, а взять тетрадку и «списать слова». И обдумать. И затем попытаться мыслить собственной головой. 
Что касается Америки, к США я отношусь скептически.
Люди, создавшие США, были дальновидны. Они тоже в первую очередь «списали слова». Списывали с Римской Империи, списывали с талантом, государство получилось сильное. Но я не американец, и меня планы американского правительства (равно как и его пропаганда) волнуют мало. На данном историческом этапе правительство США — геополитический противник.   

> I.e. Putin is an ex KGB dictator etc, etc and the USSR was an evil dump

 Есть существенная разница, если про evil dump и KGB dictator будет говорить человек, не выросший в России, и если буду говорить я.
Если иностранец начнёт рассказывать про диктатора Путина, то это *не его собачье дело*. Независимо от того, я националист, коммунист или либерал, такому человеку будет один ответ: иди и занимайся политикой у себя дома, без тебя разберёмся.
Если же о Путине говорю я, то для меня это *эпизод внутренней политики моей страны*. Возможно, СССР — был империей зла, но я об этом и говорю как раз потому, что люблю свою страну. Не любил бы — уехал бы куда-нибудь в теплые края, в Чехию какую-нибудь. Не любил бы — пел бы "Путин (Вытерто. Л.)" и "(Вытерто. Л.)".   

> And if Russia is such a dump, everybody here, apart from Eric C. and Redfox are brainwashed "Putinists", then why exactly do you use this forum?

 Вы не поверите, ни разу в жизни не видел ни одного brainwashed putinist. Быть путинистом — всё равно что быть -истом... нууу... стиральной машинки. Вы можете представить фаната стиральной машинки? Вот и с Путиным так же. Есть люди, которые считают, что Путин полезен. Я считаю что Путин уже 2 года как не полезен. Обычное дело, у людей разные мнения.   

> then why exactly do you use this forum?

 Это языковой форум вроде бы.  ::    

> *
> Is there any political party or movement in Russia today that represent these types of views that you are expressing?*

 Холмогоров, например. Крылов. Тор. Это люди, за которых я бы проголосовал, если бы они избирались в Думу.
Если говорить не только о политиках, но и о писателях: Галковский.
И Стрелков, разумеется.
А партий в России уже лет 10 как нет — вместо партий у нас Путин.

----------


## RedFox

Статья об отношениях России с разными странами Запада.

----------


## RedFox

> А можно узнать, что конкретно вызывает такую реакцию?

 Конкретно, такую реакцию вызывает то, что деградировавшая тварь бьёт русского ученого. Деградировавшая тварь должна быть поймана и посажена в клетку.   

> То, что на допросах спецслужбы применяют меры физического воздействия? Уж извините за опять двадцать пять, но это не исключительная черта советского государства, ни тогда, ни сейчас.

 Меня не интересует сложный внутренний мир твари. Меня интересует посадить тварь в клетку.   

> но все же ненависть у вас  по этому поводу вызывает только своя страна, какая же в этом "позитивная программа"?

 Мою ненависть вызовет любая тварь, поднявшая руку на мой народ.   

> Навскидку, Алан Тьюринг, кстати, тоже был одним из талантливейших людей на планете. Я что-то не слышал ни от одного британца, что он не хочет говорить ничего хорошего о Великобритании по этому поводу.

 Алана Тьюринга по-человечески жаль. Но детали биографии Алана Тьюринга — внутреннее дело Британии. Я не британец. Я русский. 
Вопросы?

----------


## Lampada

> ...Это языковой форум вроде бы.  ...

 Там вопрос вроде не к тебе был, а к 14-му.
Путин, выбран Президентом и пользуется повсеместой поддержкой в России. Не очень прилично на него катить здесь ни россиянам, ни иностранцам.  И вообще от критики личностей президентов лучше воздерживаться.

----------


## Lampada

> ... then why exactly do you use this forum? ...

 Ханночка, это вообще-то персональный вопрос.  Никто не должен оправдываться за участие в нашем форуме или объяснять его/её мотивы.  Все-все-все могут участвовать в форуме, если хотят, даже те, которым русский язык не нужен.

----------


## UhOhXplode

Information overload...  ::    

> А если серьзно, то 
> 1. Неосоветский — это оксюморон, поскольку подразумевает, что в промежутке «обычный» и «нео» было что-то иное. Государственная система РФ, Беларуси и Украины никогда и не переставала быть советской. В начале 90-х годов прошлого столетия она перестала быть социалистической — это да. Однако, не советской это её не сделало. 
> 2. «Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation. If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then...» — как вы лихо поставили знак равенства между целым и его частью. 
> Латиницей это выглядит пугающе.

 1. I agree that "Soviet" is a better term than "neo-Soviet". I also agree that the Soviet influence affects modern politics. But I don't agree that the Soviet influence is always a bad thing.
2. The most important Part. Any other political problems can be fixed. But if the Soul is gone.... too late. 
Latin probably looked scary in Byzantium too.     

> В неменьшей степени контрпродуктивным является противопоставление вещей, имеющих принципиально различную природу, как это делаете вы. Зеленое не противопоставлено холодному, они находятся на разных шкалах.
> «Катастрофа 90-х», как вы выразились, — это переход от социалистической экономики к капиталистической. Кратковременный провал в экономике и последующее её восстановление абсолютно закономерны.
> При чем здесь Путин? Путин здесь ни при чем. На его месте рептилоид с Сириуса справился бы с «восстановлением» экономики не хуже: достаточно было бы просто сидеть в Кремле и не мешать обществу самому разобраться с ситуацией. Общество разобралось.
> Определенные плюсы у Путина, конечно, есть — особенно на фоне спившегося Ельцина, управлявшего страной не приходя в сознание. Вполне мог бы до власти дорваться и такой человек, который к этому времени уже бы развалил страну. Но поддерживать политика только лишь за то, что он не алкоголик и не развалил страну... это как-то экстравагантно, вы не находите? 
> При этом, да, можно сказать, что Путин проводит «нео-советскую» (я бы сказал, просто советскую, без всяких нео-) политику.
> Надо сказать, капитализм в исполнении советского гос.аппарата плох ровно настолько же, насколько в его исполнении был плох социализм. «Что ни делает дурак, всё он делает не так.»
> Заметьте, что «неосоветская Россия» — та самая, про которую «контрпродуктивно пишут националисты» — абсолютно капиталистическое государство. Никому в здравом уме и в голову не приходит рассуждать о возврате к плановой экономике: ни Путину, ни его противникам с левой или правой стороны спектра. Вопрос советскости вообще не экономический. Это вопрос культурно-этнический и управленческий. 
> Видимые результаты этой политики:
> * Уничтожение свободы слова в СМИ, борьба со свободой слова в интернете. Введение цензуры.
> ...

 President Putin had everything to do with the transition from communism to capitalism. He was leading the people and he eliminated the massive National Debt owed to the Western banks. In the West, money is a weapon that destroys other countries and supports power. If President Putin hadn't eliminated those debts then "Russia" right now would very likely be 81 different countries and Russia itself would be as bankrupt and messed up as Romania. Never underestimate the power of the Western oligarchs. And no, they don't care if people starve and die.
You say that the Russian people would have made the transition without Putin. That's like saying that America would have built itself without the wealthy Founding Fathers. That never happens in the real world. The oligarchs have the power. 
* I read 4 different Russian newspapers (Российская газета, Красная звезда, Комсомо́льская пра́вда, and Аргументы и факты). I also watch Russia Today. I haven't noticed any serious infringement on Freedom of Speech. The views aren't always pro-Putin.
* The political opposition in the US is imprisoned, killed, or shut down by other means. Ron Paul was declared incompetent and the Kennedy's were shot. It's probably the same in most major countries.
* "Hate speech" and other tools here are also used to support "Political correctness".
* Citizens of the North Caucasus should be infringed imo. There's too many terrorists.
* No comment. I don't know enough about this part of the topic yet.
* No comment. I don't know enough to discuss economics yet at that level.
* Are they myths? America is full of race hatred, gang warfare, bizarre and heinous crimes (even against kids). Did you read about the gay American couple that adopted a Russian infant for sex? Or the black teenagers that shot a baby in the face and killed it?
This list is massive. Is that what you want for Russian culture?
Western freedom creates those atrocities. 
About the gay issue. Homosexuality is legal in Russia. If it works the same way as normal relationships, then they will know when somebody wants to interface. I mean, the signs are very obvious, lol. So there's no reason to approach the wrong people or make a huge public issue about sex. That should be private and personal, not a huge parade.  
Finding a poll that the American forum would accept wasn't easy. But I found a reputable poll that was accepted by them. So now even those anti-Russia/anti-Putin Americans are convinced that Putin's job approval rating is over 80%.
I'll look for the poll again and link it when I have time.   

> (Вытерто. Л.)   
> Russian news and information is controlled and various Russians have gone into great detail about it.   I have read on this site and other forums of the same (Pro-Putin) mentality and those Russian friends have told me about them.   So, your comment is redundant since you have no clue.   
> It sounds like Red Fox is objecting to your assertions, too.    
> Russia has controlled, to a great extent, what people think although it could be said that this influence tactic also exists in other countries.   But, it is especially applicable in places like Russia.   One has to accumulate several sources and investigate more extensively to obtain accurate info and insight.   Obviously, you don't do so at all.  Parroting pro-Putin articles on the internet (most likely Western sources who prefer to toot Putin's horn) and repeating Pro-Putin Russian nationals isn't accomplishing that either.   
> (Вытерто. Л.)

 *American* news and information is controlled and various *Americans* have gone into great detail about it. I have read on this site and other forums of the same (*Pro-Obama*) mentality and those *American* friends have told me about them. So your comment is redundant since you have no clue... 
Since you didn't add sources to support your claims then I'll add a few for mine. http://www.infowars.com/fec-chair-go...election-laws/ Politics | Freedom of the Press is not Free | Washington Times Communities Why Jill Abramson Was Fired : The New Yorker 
The New York Times editor was fired because she published a story that supported the pro-Russian views. 
RedFox has offered different insights, not opposition. She (or he) is a worthy opponent in a debate. And RedFox isn't abusive. 
Imo, every country is working to control what people think. In my country, it's called being "politically correct". And it's especially applicable in every country, not one more than another. 
I never said Putin was perfect but I do support him. 
REPLY TO THE THREAD: 
There are massive libraries full of legal documents, legal code, political policies, legislation, party platforms, etc etc...
But 99% of the people who go to the polls and vote don't know very much about that. Why?
If they knew what they really needed to know about politics, there wouldn't be any time left to raise families, design cars, build cities, raise crops, explore space, advance medicine, design aircraft, design clothing, create symphonies...
Politics is another job you can add to that list.
If a politician isn't doing his job in a way that makes the people mostly happy then they can elect a new politician. The same is true if an architect designs a bad house. They can lose their job.
What people can't afford to do is devote eveybodys lives to nothing but politics. They will starve or die of exposure to the elements. 
So no, I do not believe that people need to know everything about politics. The only requirement is that they hire the right politicians to make them happy. Russia has leaders that make most of the people happy. 
But the topic is "Russophobie" and "Russophilia" so, what's scary in the 21st century?
1. A country that invaded and destroyed 7 other countries since 2000 and has military bases all over the world?
2. A country that only deals with issues on it's borders and only has military bases in it's own country?
3. A country that has the highest percentage of it's population in prisons?
4. A country that can't compete with that record?
5. A country that has 4 of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world?
6. A country that has none of those 50 cities?
7. A country that doesn't object to people being burned alive?
8. A country that does object to that? 
What really confuses me is why nobody ever discuesses "Ameriphobia". It's a scary place to live.

----------


## maxmixiv

> 10 000 000. Число.
> Все остальные разговоры про промышленность, индустриализацию, уровень образования и прочее — это всё вторично.

 Большевики наверняка не думали, что так получится. Они радость хотели доставить нам. А царь всё равно сгноил бы на бессмысленных войнах эти миллионы.

----------


## dtrq

> Конкретно, такую реакцию вызывает то, что деградировавшая тварь бьёт русского ученого. Деградировавшая тварь должна быть поймана и посажена в клетку.
> Меня не интересует сложный внутренний мир твари. Меня интересует посадить тварь в клетку.
> Мою ненависть вызовет любая тварь, поднявшая руку на мой народ.
> Вопросы?

 Вот как, понятно. 
Вопросы... Если "не интересует сложный внутренний мир твари", откуда же ненависть и убеждение, что это тварь? Может быть, этот гэбэшник был честнейшим и благороднейшим человеком, по всем пунктам превосходя "русского ученого". А вы сразу "деградировавшая тварь", "в клетку посадить". Может быть, был действительно подонком, но как это оправдывает ненависть к нескольким периодам истории своей страны? 
И потом вот это вот "мой народ". Так народ-то вас не поддерживает, народу не нравится когда плохо говорят о его прошлом. Народ хочет гордиться своей страной и историей, а не стыдиться и ненавидеть. 
Впрочем, можете не отвечать, это так, приглашение к размышлению на досуге. 
Кстати, я тут почитал, история про сломанную следователем челюсть - лишь предположение одного журналиста, который сам заявляет, что подкрепить его нечем.

----------


## RedFox

> Там вопрос вроде не к тебе был, а к 14-му.

 Да? Надо мне внимательнее читать реплики))

----------


## RedFox

> Вопросы... Если "не интересует сложный внутренний мир твари", откуда же ненависть и убеждение, что это тварь? Может быть, этот гэбэшник был честнейшим и благороднейшим человеком, по всем пунктам превосходя "русского ученого". А вы сразу "деградировавшая тварь", "в клетку посадить".

 Переходите сразу к финальному пункту пропаганды: «Да кто такие русские? Как будете определять русскость? Черепомеркой? Нет никаких русских. Одни только славянизированные татаро-угры.»   

> И потом вот это вот "мой народ". Так народ-то вас не поддерживает, народу не нравится когда плохо говорят о его прошлом. Народ хочет гордиться своей страной и историей, а не стыдиться и ненавидеть.

 Обычное лживое подтасовывание и передергивание.
Мой народ в XX-м веке гордится Королёвым, Гагариным и развалинами нацисткого рейхстага. Мой народ гордится всеми тысячами и миллионами тех, кто пережил ваше сволочное правление и не скурвился, не опустился и не деградировал до личинки чекиста.  Мой народ не гордится подонками и бандитами. Моему народу нечего стыдиться.
Стыдиться должен *ваш народ*. Народ Джугаашвилли, Берий, Абрамовичей, Новодворских, Жириновских, Шацев, Кацев и прочих Матрацев, пирующих в моей стране уже почти целое столетие. Стыдиться и каяться. Ползать на карачках, размазывая кровавые сопли по асфальту, и каяться, каяться, каяться. Я понятно выражаюсь?

----------


## Lampada

> Стыдиться должен *ваш народ*. Народ Джугаашвилли, Берий, Абрамовичей, Новодворских, Жириновских, Шацев, Кацев и прочих Матрацев, пирующих в моей стране уже почти целое столетие. Стыдиться и каяться. Ползать на карачках, размазывая кровавые сопли по асфальту, и каяться, каяться, каяться. Я понятно выражаюсь?

 _...ваш народ_?  Опять двадцать пять:  каждый имеет право на своё мнение и на право его высказывания.  Но манеру выражения для этого форума нужно выбирать аккуратнее.  Не цепляться и идти в круговую атаку сразу _с места в карьер,_ да непотребным языком.  Можешь _сойти с белого коня_ и вести дискуссию в спокойном человеческом тоне? Или хочешь и российскую политику послать в мораторий?
ЗЫ.  Что за выборка? А никаких других евреев, грузин не знаешь?

----------


## dtrq

> Переходите сразу к финальному пункту пропаганды: «Да кто такие русские? Как будете определять русскость? Черепомеркой? Нет никаких русских. Одни только славянизированные татаро-угры.»

 Как-то не уловил связи этого высказывания с процитированным текстом.   

> Мой народ в XX-м веке гордится Королёвым, Гагариным и развалинами нацисткого рейхстага. Мой народ гордится всеми тысячами и миллионами тех, кто пережил ваше сволочное правление и не скурвился, не опустился и не деградировал до личинки чекиста.  Мой народ не гордится подонками и бандитами. Моему народу нечего стыдиться.
> Стыдиться должен *ваш народ*. Народ Джугаашвилли, Берий, Абрамовичей, Новодворских, Жириновских, Шацев, Кацев и прочих Матрацев, пирующих в моей стране уже почти целое столетие. Стыдиться и каяться. Ползать на карачках, размазывая кровавые сопли по асфальту, и каяться, каяться, каяться. Я понятно выражаюсь?

 Ну уж не обманывайте себя. _Ваш_ народ также гордится Сталиным и не любит, когда ему рассказывают про кровавую гэбню. Гэбней он зачастую тоже гордится.  А иначе вы про какой-то малочисленный народец говорите, который и Гагариным гордится (искренне, а не на словах), и одновременно ненавидит СССР. В реальности одно обычно исключает другое. 
Про "наш" и "ваш" народ вообще любопытная фантазия. "Ваш" (т.е. мой, как бы) это, я так понимаю, грузины и евреи. Ну к грузинам быть хоть снисхождение проявили, там-то случаи совершенно эпизодические  :: 
Так как сам я к этим этническим группам не отношусь, и никто из моих предков, насколько я знаю, в "сволочном правлении" не участвовал, позволю себе самоисключиться из этого вашего кацево-матрацевого народа. 
У вас, извините, в голове какой-то винегрет из западничества, русского национализма и совкофобии, замешанный на эмоциональном восприятии мира и непримиримости с собственной историей. Я не представляю какая "позитивная программа" может из этого родится, и чем вы со своими мечтами о кровавых соплях принципиально отличаетесь от тех же идейных чекистов.

----------


## Lampada

Слушайте, у вас личная переписка/перепалка здесь получается.  Думаю, никого она не заинтересует.  Можете перевести её в какую-то скрытую от публики форму?

----------


## RedFox

> _...ваш народ_?  Опять двадцать пять:  каждый имеет право на своё мнение и на право его высказывания.

 Я ни у кого свободу слова и не отбирал. Я высказал мнение, что народ, _на который намекает dtrq_, должен сидеть за совершенные преступления. Моё мнение. Или ты считаешь, что только некоторые имеют «право на своё мнение и на право его высказывания».   

> ЗЫ.  Что за выборка? А никаких других евреев, грузин не знаешь?

 Евреи и грузины тут ни при чем. Разделение не этническое.   

> Но манеру выражения для этого форума нужно выбирать аккуратнее.  Не цепляться и идти в круговую атаку сразу _с места в карьер,_ да непотребным языком.

 Знал на что шел. Готов понести наказание.   

> Можешь _сойти с белого коня_ и вести дискуссию в спокойном человеческом тоне?

 Могу. С теми, кто может _сойти с белого коня_. Не я первый на него _вскакивал_. Сижу вот пишу ответ UhOhXplode-у, никого не трогаю.   

> Слушайте, у вас личная переписка/перепалка здесь получается.  Думаю, никого она не заинтересует.  Можете перевести её в какую-то скрытую от публики форму?

 Я воздержусь от общения с dtrq в любой форме.

----------


## RedFox

> President Putin had everything to do with the transition from communism to capitalism. He was leading the people and he eliminated the massive National Debt owed to the Western banks. In the West, money is a weapon that destroys other countries and supports power. If President Putin hadn't eliminated those debts then "Russia" right now would very likely be 81 different countries and Russia itself would be as bankrupt and messed up as Romania. Never underestimate the power of the Western oligarchs. And no, they don't care if people starve and die.
> You say that the Russian people would have made the transition without Putin. That's like saying that America would have built itself without the wealthy Founding Fathers. That never happens in the real world. The oligarchs have the power.

   :: 
Простите мой смех, но это было и правда смешно.
Сравнивать бледную моль Путина с людьми, создавшими Америку... Кажется, внешнеполитическая пропаганда России всё-таки работает намного эффективнее, чем я предполагал.
Во Франции Ле Пен искренне считает Путина русским националистом, вы искренне считаете Путина спасшим Россию от развала...
Поставим Путину плюсик: пропаганду он делать умеет. 
Это заставляет меня вспомнить слова Галковского о том, что Россия — это огромное увеличительное стекло. Сидели под стеклом Романовы — транслировали миру идеи просвещения. Потом под стекло заполз Сталин и начал шевелить усами. Будь это какая-нибудь КНДР — никто бы даже не заметил. Иное дело — увеличительное стекло размером в 1/6 часть суши. Потом заполз Путин, и стекло из полковника КГБ сделало *Человека*. Все смотрят:
— Ай да человек! Человечище! Молодец. Красавец. Спас Россию, — понимающе кивают головами друг другу. 
На мой взгляд, личность президента должна занимать людей чуть больше, чем личность слесаря из ЖЭК. А возможно, даже меньше. Во всяком случае, со слесарем мне придётся общаться, если протечет кран или забьётся канализация. А вот от президента никакой прямой выгоды мне нет. Ну сидит чиновник в Кремле, занимается своими делами. Пусть сидит.
То, что везде «Путин, Путин, Путин, Путин» значит одно из двух: либо он действительно великий человек. Либо система работает не правильно.
Но на великого человека он не тянет, от слова «вообще». Господи, какой великий человек, если он вот уже 14 лет не может объяснить себя стране и миру?
— Дядя, ты кто?
— Я тут это... президентом... Амфоры ловлю. Русский я! Матрешка, балалайка, особый путь... А я президентом, значит. Ну русский же, ну... Амфоры... 
И так по кругу. 
А вопрос who is mister Putin так и остаётся без ответа. Может и нет никакого Путина. *Наваждение.*    

> * I read 4 different Russian newspapers (Российская газета, Красная звезда, Комсомо́льская пра́вда, and Аргументы и факты). I also watch Russia Today. I haven't noticed any serious infringement on Freedom of Speech. The views aren't always pro-Putin.

 Это тоже заставляет меня улыбнуться.  ::  Я живу в этом государстве всю жизнь и каждый день могу наблюдать за тем, что в говорят по телевизору, в газетах и в интернете. Вы читаете 4 газеты. Думаю, что нет смысла в деталях пояснять, насколько отличается объем новостной информации на русском языке, который виден мне и вам.   

> About the gay issue. Homosexuality is legal in Russia. If it works the same way as normal relationships, then they will know when somebody wants to interface. I mean, the signs are very obvious, lol. So there's no reason to approach the wrong people or make a huge public issue about sex. That should be private and personal, not a huge parade.

 Я думаю, вы не вполне хорошо понимаете суть всех этих законов.
Большинству людей нет никакого дела ни до геев, ни до придуриваний Кремля. Равно как и Кремлю нет никакого дела до своих же законов.
Есть закон: «запрещена пропаганда гомосексуализма». Что это значит? Всё, что угодно.
Или вот есть закон: «популярные сайты должны регистрироваться как СМИ». Что это значит? *Всё, что угодно.* 
Вот вы пишете: «So there's no reason to approach the wrong people or make a huge public issue about sex. That should be private and personal, not a huge parade.» Это мнение.
Если государство действует сообразно вашему мнению, вы считаете, что система вас защищает. Если государство действует не сообразно вашему мнению, вы считаете, что система вас притесняет. На самом деле, обе точки зрения были бы ошибочны. *С точки зрения системы, у вас не должно быть мнения.* Наличие у вас мнения — это аномалия, прикол. Необъяснимое природное явление. 
Певица Валерия в телевизоре рассказывает, что она хочет чтобы её дети жили в здоровом обществе без гомо-пропаганды, и поэтому она поддерживает закон. При этом она снимается в лесбийском клипе. (А дети её вообще живут в Англии.)
Противоречие? Ничуть. Просто у певицы Валерии нет своего мнения, она колеблется вместе с «политикой партии». Другое дело, если вы, например, честный адвокат и хотите честно защищать людей, да еще и в политики решили выбиться. Если вы попадетесь на глаза системе, то вскоре окажется, что вы пропагандируете гомосексуализм, уклоняетесь от выплаты налогов или похищаете детей на органы. Это нормально. Обычный путь обычного несистемного политика.
В тюрьму вас при этом, скорее всего, не посадят. Система ведь не хочет ничего плохого, она вообще не знает добра и зла. Она вас просто _поправляет_, так сказать, учит жизни. Хотя, конечно, если будете сильно мешать, как Навальный, постараются изолировать. 
Почему это происходит? Потому что общество живёт в состоянии спектакля, где 5% дегенератов делают вид, что они элита. При этом они еще и *уверены*, что они элита. Если Ленин 100 лет назад понимал своё реальное место: вор, который выбился в уважаемые люди. И вел себя соответственно. А эти нет, они искренние. СССР воспитывал управленцев, и он их воспитал. Вот только культурный уровень у этих управленцев — это уровень зав.складом.
По сравнению с Пушкиным, это инфузории или амёбы. И когда амёбы сталкиваются с теми, кто превосходит их культурно, они делают единственное, что могут делать: облепляют со всех сторон и стараются переварить. Не со зла, опять таки. Они просто ничего другого не умеют.
Большинство из этих людей русской идентичности не имеет. И это сильно заметно на примере того же Путина.
— Ты кто?
— Амфоры, тигры, день Победы...
— Понятно.
Если бы Путин сказал: «Я русский офицер, и сейчас мы с вами будем строить сильную Россию. Начнём с защиты всех русских людей, кто остался за границей после падения СССР. Уничтожим азиатскую и кавказскую мафию. Подумаем, как модернизировать промышленность и инфраструктуру и создать благоприятные условия для бизнеса, чтобы русские люди ездили на лучших в мире русских машинах по лучшим в мире русским дорогам. Разработаем программу, как дать нашим детям лучшее в мире образование в условиях XXI-го века.  Создадим боеспособную контрактную армию, способную эффективно отстаивать русские интересы в любой точке мира,» — сказал бы и начал бы это делать, то он правил бы 15 лет, и еще 15, и потом еще 15. Без всяких фальсификаций выборов. Оппозиции, такой как Альбац или Немцов, вообще не существовало бы, про них бы никто не знал (а те, кто случайно узнал бы, отвернулся бы в ужасе).
Но Путин не может этого сказать. Он не русский, и русские для него — чужие. 
Путин намного лучше того, что было за эти сто лет. В частности, это первый, после Ленина, советский лидер, имеющий нормальное среднее образование. И он в качестве лидера был хорош. От начала нулевых по начало 10-х. Делал именно то, что реально было сделать. Но в середине 10-х годов XXI-го столетия он анахронизм, тянущий страну в прошлое. 
А что касается нашего разговора, происходит следующее. Я говорю:
— Внутри России есть такое явление, назовём его «советские», его наблюдаемые признаки — это A, B и С.
Вы мне говорите:
— В Америке тоже есть A, B и С. 
Охотно верю. Я слабо знаком с внутренними делами США, но почему бы, действительно, в Америке ни быть A, B и С.
Однако речь всё же про Россию. Я знаком с внутренними делами России, и я про них рассказываю.    

> Are they myths? America is full of race hatred, gang warfare, bizarre and heinous crimes (even against kids). Did you read about the gay American couple that adopted a Russian infant for sex? Or the black teenagers that shot a baby in the face and killed it?

 Важно не то, насколько правда, а то, для чего эта правда используется. Вот позавчера была тут тема To Be A Russian, там ведь нет ни одной ненастоящей фотографии — все настоящие. Но эта «правда» используется для пропаганды. В реальности всегда есть хорошее и плохое. Всегда можно взять фотоаппарат и наснимать такого, что никому жить не захочется.
В Америке полно преступников, но Америка *не состоит из преступников*.
Для чего эта пропаганда используется в России — для той же цели, что и нелепые законы. Чтобы устроить спектакль, в котором никто ничего не понимает. И втрихаря переварить и низвести до своего невысокого культурного уровня. 
Мышление благопристойных людей:
Первый: Вот есть такая проблема, можно пробовать решить эту проблему так... или вот так...
Второй: А я не согласен, что это проблема, всё нормально. Вот мои аргументы: <...>
Третий: А я думаю, что всё-таки проблема. И поддерживаю вариант такой-то. Потому что <...> 
Мышление советской системы:
— У нас нет никаких проблем! Посмотрите, какой разврат в Америке! Вы хотите жить так же? Вы либо дурак, либо агент влияния. Вас надо изолировать! 
Обычный разговор с советским происходит так:
— А давайте мы посмотрим, как живут в других странах и возьмем на вооружение налучшие способы управления страной и ведения экономики? Вот, например, во Франции... (обычно до конца не дослушивают)
— Во Франции??? Да во Франции геев женят! Ах ты жид, власовец, западник, пятая колонна, деды воевали, СССР наша родина...  — такой поток бессвязной речи может литься до вечера. 
Или другой вариант:
— Господа, а вы знаете, какие миграционные законы есть в Великобритании и как они менялись в разные годы?
— Миграционные законы??? Ах ты фашист! Интернационал, деды воевали, многонациональный народ, Абрек-наш-друг, я-знаю-одного-узбека-он-отличный-человек, да как ты можешь, да тебя убить мало, плюйте в него, бейте ногами, сильнее, сильнее!... — и тоже до вечера. 
Почему-то первый вариант homo sovieticus называет себя «патриотами», а второй вариант — «либералами». А на мой взгляд, между ними нет никакой разницы. 
К счастью, homo sovieticus медленно, но неуклонно превращаются в нормальных людей. Еще лет 15, и в России появится настоящая политическая жизнь.

----------


## RedFox

_(Из комментариев у Галковского, не моё)_ 
1) Извините за назойливость, просто одна Ваша цитата задела: 
"Приход революционеров к власти обернулся огромным пшиком в содержательных областях деятельности. Как и нулевой результат великой французской культуры после свержения Людовика, не давшей миру в годы революционного мракобесия почти ничего". 
Тут Вы опять людей жалеете. А ведь _всё гораздо хуже_. Французская революция, как и революция 1917 года в России, не только ничего не дала науке и культуре, но и прямо физически уничтожала носителей того и другого. 
2) Для меня символом французской революции навсегда останется срубленная голова Антуана Лавуазье. Сейчас о нём забыли. Современный школьник или студент (не химик и не физик) невнятно пробормочет о "принципе Ломоносова-Лавуазье", но вряд ли пояснит, в чём его смысл. Это одна из формулировок закона сохранения энергии, но Лавуазье мы любим не за это. Зверушка 16 лет (с 1775 по 1791 гг.) _занималась порохом_. Он буквально жил в арсенале; его квартира располагалась над главным пороховым погребом. Метод очистки селитры Лавуазье-Боме применяется до сих пор. Уже это достойно оплаты в золоте по весу автора открытия. Но это лишь вершина айсберга. Лавуазье _создал всю цепочку производства пороха_ во Франции: от разведки месторождений селитры до технологии безопасного хранения готового продукта и его эффективной защиты от сырости в полевых условиях. 
3) Результат получился интересным. Вот сегодня Германия Бразилию в футбол раскатала с унизительным счётом 7:1. Почему? А _бегали быстрее_. Бразильцы за немцами не успевали. Это я к чему: говорят, что Наполеон Бонапарт - гений. Наверное. Только французы _стреляли быстрее_. Во всех армиях мира тогда был норматив пехотного полка: 5 залпов в минуту. Французы давали 6 залпов в минуту, причём без особого зверства в муштре. Англичане и пруссаки старались-пыжились, солдат палками дрессировали - а больше 5,5 залпов в минуту не могли. В артиллерии разрыв был ещё заметнее из-за великолепного качества французских орудий. Только изобретение англичанами ударного капсюля-детонатора позволило им скачком выйти на 7 залпов в минуту в пехоте, но это случилось уже после наполеоновских войн. В чём причина скорострельности французов? А у них _порох имени Лавуазье горел быстрее_. Очистка лучше - быстрее горит. И осечек меньше: опять же, очистка лучше - сгорает весь. 
4) И вот Лавуазье, _человека, обеспечившего стратегическое преимущество Франции_, в 1794 году по абсолютно необоснованному обвинению волокут на гильотину и казнят. У товарища Сталина учёные всё же в шарашках работали, он на гильотину Курчатова не таскал. А вот Ленин учёных расстреливал, ибо, как Вы верно в предыдущем посте написали, "вязальщицы". 
5) "Республика не нуждается в учёных". Коротко и ясно. Говорят, так ответили революционеры на протесты против казни Лавуазье. _Вот лицо революции_. Она ни в чём не нуждается, поскольку самодостаточна. До полного выгорания революционеров.

----------


## hddscan

RedFox, I've read Galkosky's texts. Although I don't agree with him fully. Here is what I've noticed:
 - He is a very talented writer
 - He knows history well
 - Many of his posts are filled with racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism.
 - He's writing in a mentoring style, which by default excludes normal dialog with him and shows that his idea of "supremacy" is not only based on national qualities but on personal, as well. In other words he is trying to show that he is "the light in the darkness" and all of his readers are "dumb sheep". 
 - He's a hypocrite, here is why: he always pushing "Russia is for Russians" narrative but at the same time he lives outside of Russia, claims that he is a cosmopolitan and do not hesitate to admit that he partially has Ukrainian blood in him. 
It is interesting to read his articles but I consider them as propaganda of Russian chauvinism and try to be careful not to fall in his traps.

----------


## RedFox

> RedFox, I've read Galkosky's texts. Although I don't agree with him fully. Here is what I've noticed:
>  - He is a very talented writer
>  - He knows history well
>  - Many of his posts are filled with racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism.
>  - He's writing in a mentoring style, which by default excludes normal dialog with him and shows that his idea of "supremacy" is not only based on national qualities but on personal, as well. In other words he is trying to show that he is "the light in the darkness" and all of his readers are "dumb sheep". 
>  - He's a hypocrite, here is why: he always pushing "Russia is for Russians" narrative but at the same time he lives outside of Russia, claims that he is a cosmopolitan and do not hesitate to admit that he partially has Ukrainian blood in him.

 Свойства характера Галковского не имеют ни малейшего значения. Это всё равно что ругать книгу за цвет обложки.   

> racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism

   ::

----------


## iCake

> Свойства характера Галковского не имеют ни малейшего значения. Это всё равно что ругать книгу за цвет обложки.

 Ага. А еще от характера человека совершенно не зависит стиль его письма, да, кстати, от его мировоззрения еще совершенно не зависит то, о чем он будет писать и что будет преподносить в книге, в которой он по сути излагает свои идеи  ::  
Кто-то ещё меня в отсутствии логики упрекал  ::  
Ещё, вот ты очень любишь говорить всем, что они поддались влиянию так называемой русской пропаганды. Пожалуйста, ответь мне на такой вопрос. Почему ты думаешь, что вышеупомянутая книга не подпадает под категорию пропаганды другого разлива? Ну очень интересно  ::  
Последнее. Вот ты тут всех пытаешься убедить в правильности своего видения ситуации в России. У меня вопрос. Зачем ты это делаешь? Что это тебе даст? Надеешься кого-то переубедить потому что ты из категории "опять в интернете кто-то не прав?" 
Не логичнее ли бы было добиться самому президентского или какого другого влиятельного поста, и уже после сделать всё возможное для изменения ситуации в стране на свой лад? 
Или ты тут просто ведешь набор приверженцев твоей точки зрения? Как получается?  ::  
Всего хорошего тебе.

----------


## RedFox

> Пожалуйста, ответь мне на такой вопрос. Почему ты думаешь, что вышеупомянутая книга не подпадает под категорию пропаганды другого разлива? Ну очень интересно

 _(вздох)_
Какая «вышеупомянутая»?   

> Вот ты тут всех пытаешься убедить в правильности своего видения ситуации в России. У меня вопрос. Зачем ты это делаешь? Что это тебе даст? Надеешься кого-то переубедить потому что ты из категории "опять в интернете кто-то не прав?"

 Мне скучно, бес...   

> Или ты тут просто ведешь набор приверженцев твоей точки зрения? Как получается?

 Ага. Строю планы по захвату мира.

----------


## iCake

> _(вздох)_
> Какая «вышеупомянутая»?

 А кроме как дурака включить ничего сделать не можешь?  ::  Перейди постами выше и найдешь-таки вышеупомянутую книгу. Только, пожалуйста, не надо тут придираться к словам, вроде, а то было совсем не книга, а...   

> I've read Galkosky's texts

 Как ты эту писанину не назови, она все равно имеет место быть.   

> Мне скучно

 Знаешь, есть множество других способов развлечь себя. Многие из них, кстати, приносят хоть какую-то пользу.   

> Ага. Строю планы по захвату мира

 Первое, книжечка на картинке конечно адовая, очень подходит твоим "свойствам характера" 
Последнее, не нужно как бы забывать о других вопросах, поставленных мной, в моем предыдущем посте и, пожалуйста, говори по существу. Не надо тут приводить какие-то собственные доводы, вроде "строю планы по захвату мира". Заметь, что я не говорил, что ты этим занимаешься, я всего лишь спросил: "Зачем ты это делаешь?" 
Ну, конечно же, если твой ответ про захват мира был правдивым, что ж, могу только пожелать тебе удачи. Кстати, такие далеко идущие планы требуют очень много времени на воплощение, может не стоит его тратить на бесполезную грызню на форуме?

----------


## RedFox

> Перейди постами выше и найдешь-таки вышеупомянутую книгу. Только, пожалуйста, не надо тут придираться к словам, вроде, а то было совсем не книга, а...

 Именно это я и собираюсь сделать.
iCake, тебе действительно не хватает образования. Ты абсолютно не умеешь выражать свои мысли. Кроме того, возможно, ты мыслить умеешь не очень хорошо. Потому что иначе ты бы задумался: писатели обычно за жизнь успевают написать _несколько_ книг. А еще статей и так далее. И поскольку я понятия не имею, какие именно Galkosky's texts мой уважаемый собеседник had read, то ответить на твой вопрос в принципе не могу: «Почему ты думаешь, что вышеупомянутая книга не подпадает под категорию пропаганды другого разлива?»    

> Знаешь, есть множество других способов развлечь себя. Многие из них, кстати, приносят хоть какую-то пользу. 
> Первое, книжечка на картинке конечно адовая, очень подходит твоим "свойствам характера" 
> Последнее, не нужно как бы забывать о других вопросах, поставленных мной, в моем предыдущем посте и, пожалуйста, говори по существу. Не надо тут приводить какие-то собственные доводы, вроде "строю планы по захвату мира". Заметь, что я не говорил, что ты этим занимаешься, я всего лишь спросил: "Зачем ты это делаешь?" 
> Ну, конечно же, если твой ответ про захват мира был правдивым, что ж, могу только пожелать тебе удачи. Кстати, такие далеко идущие планы занимают очень много времени, может не стоит его тратить на бесполезную грызню на форуме?

 О, кажется, у меня появился поклонник.  ::  Что дальше? Захочешь пригласить меня на свидание?  ::

----------


## iCake

Спасибо, посмеялся  ::  Что дальше? Школьником меня назовешь? А словами вертеть это ты мастер, конечно  ::  Свои "романтические" фантазии оставь при себе  ::  
Удачи тебе во всем. Она тебе понадобится

----------


## dtrq

Интересную закономерность я тут заметил.
RedFox из Сибири.
iCake из Сибири.
Я тоже из Сибири.
Наверное, дух политических ссыльных говорит в нас, побуждая страсть к политическим срачам.

----------


## iCake

> Интересную закономерность я тут заметил.
> RedFox из Сибири.
> iCake из Сибири.
> Я тоже из Сибири.
> Наверное, дух политических ссыльных говорит в нас, побуждая страсть к политическим срачам.

 Возможно  ::  Но по большому счету я просто хотел узнать, чего уважаемый товарищ RedFox хочет добиться. Жаль, но так и не получилось

----------


## hddscan

> И поскольку я понятия не имею, какие именно Galkosky's texts мой уважаемый собеседник had read

 Fair enough
Here is one - galkovsky: 901. ХО
And this is an example of the quotes that feed nationalism and Russian chauvinism:
"Вернуться в русское лоно украинцы могут (даже западные), но только двумя путями. Или после жёсткой военной операции и зачистки местной интеллигенции (на самом деле простейшая и легчайшая вещь – но только при сильной России с сильной национальной властью). Тогда за два года хохлы так прокакаются, что забудут имя-отчество Шевченки и украинские буквы." 
"Ну, во-первых, постараться минимизирвоать контакты с любыми гражданами Украины, даже если это родственники. Срыв кода это прежде всего переход к фантастической лжи – вы беседуете со лжецами, и что от них ожидать совершенно неясно. Может быть что угодно. А люди живут в тоталитарном государстве, где за неправильное слово могут убить на улице в центре города." 
"Вы беседуете со своей тётушкой из Житомира, а её череп уже пробит иглой робота-трансформера. И робот её голосом интересуется о том, не видели ли вы военных самолётов в ростовском аэропорте." 
"Во-вторых, надо тщательно учесть в РФ всех людей с украинскими паспортами и потребовать НА ДЕЛЕ перейти на нашу сторону. Кто жмётся, в 24 часа на историческую родину, желательно в чём мать родила. То же касается беженцев." 
"В-третьих, отслеживать украинцев в органах власти и открыто задавать любые вопросы, на которые люди должны открыто ответить. Если ответить не могут, гражданство РФ оставить, а на занятие госдолжностей – беруфсферботен, даже для простых учительниц." 
"В-четвёртых, минимизировать, а лучше вообще прекратить любые виды экономического сотрудничества и даже гуманитарную помощь. Вся гуманитарная помощь будет отобрана у адресатов, продана, а деньги пойдут на убыстрение производства атомной бомбы для москалей." 
"В-пятых, общественность должна начать травлю людей, связанных с современной Украиной и украинским правительством." 
"Теперь о позитиве. Россия сделала в этом году огромный шаг в сторону создания собственного национального государства и шаг этот одновременно есть шаг в сторону демократии. Подобный «раскол» между РФ и Украиной только радует." 
"За русско-украинским шурум-бурумом как-то само собой, неприметно для публики, получилось вот что. Украина превратилась в абсорбент советского шлака."

----------


## RedFox

> Возможно  Но по большому счету я просто хотел узнать, чего уважаемый товарищ RedFox хочет добиться. Жаль, но так и не получилось

 Чего можно добиться, в интернете, господи? Я тебе честно ответил цитатой Фауста — развлекаюсь.

----------


## RedFox

> Here is one - galkovsky: 901. ХО
> And this is an example of the quotes that feed nationalism and Russian chauvinism:

 Лампада теперь не позволит обсуждать украинскую тематику публично. Можно продолжить в частном порядке, если вам интересен украинский аспект этих текстов. 
По остальному, что не затрагивает Украину, — у меня вопросы такие: 
Почему национализм в текстах Галковского — это плохо?
Почему меры информационной защиты от агрессивного соседнего государства в условиях тлеющего военного конфликта рассматривается вами как шовинизм? (Безотносительно Украины.)
Вы также упоминали расизм и нацизм — на каких источниках вы основывались?

----------


## iCake

> И поскольку я понятия не имею, какие именно Galkosky's texts мой уважаемый собеседник had read

  

> Fair enough

 Простите товарищ hddscan, но какой же это fair enough, если товарищ RedFox на твои справедливые замечания о том, что ты увидел в прочитанном тобой Galkosky's texts:   

> Here is what I've noticed:
> ... - Many of his posts are filled with racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism...

 Товарищ RedFox ответил вот такой насмешкой?   

> racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism       Originally Posted by RedFox

 Значит, товарищ RedFox прочитал все тексты Галковского, чтобы так категорично отсечь возможность присутствия racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism в его текстах, не так ли?

----------


## RedFox

> Значит, товарищ RedFox прочитал все тексты Галковского, чтобы так категорично отсечь возможность присутствия racism, nationalism(sometimes almost Nazism) and Russian chauvinism в его текстах, не так ли?

 Меня всегда смешат слова шовинизм и расизм. (Если, конечно, речь идет не о Ku Klux Klan.)

----------


## iCake

> Меня всегда смешат слова шовинизм и расизм. (Если, конечно, речь идет не о Ku Klux Klan.)

 Хорошо, не изволишь мне объяснить, почему эти слова тебя смешат?  ::

----------


## hddscan

> Почему национализм в текстах Галковского — это плохо?

 Because it doesn't leave a chance for a dialog - "it's my way or a highway" and promotes national hatred while the whole world is trying to fix that situation. Do you want Russia to develop in the eyes of the world? Teach people some tolerance first.   

> Почему меры информационной защиты от агрессивного соседнего государства в условиях тлеющего военного конфликта рассматривается вами как шовинизм? (Безотносительно Украины.)

 Strange question, you don't want me to bring up Ukraine but at the same time want to fit my answer into the frame of current conflict with Ukraine. 
Generally the censorship limits free will and I believe that's what you don't want.   

> Вы также упоминали расизм и нацизм — на каких источниках вы основывались?

 You can read Galkovsky's LJ about the US and black people in power in the US, he's quite graphic about it.

----------


## hddscan

> Простите товарищ hddscan, но какой же это fair enough

 I meant that we didn't have a subject to discuss before.
Now we do - Galkovsky's posts in his LJ.

----------


## RedFox

> Хорошо, не изволишь мне объяснить, почему эти слова тебя смешат?

 Это баззворды. Пугало политкорректности.

----------


## iCake

> Это баззворды. Пугало политкорректности.

 Соглашусь здесь с тобой. Но есть разница между действительным присутствием расизма и шовинизма и использованием этих слов в целях навязывания людям идей политкорректности.

----------


## RedFox

> Because it doesn't leave a chance for a dialog - "it's my way or a highway" and promotes national hatred while the whole world is trying to fix that situation. Do you want Russia to develop in the eyes of the world? Teach people some tolerance first.

 Именно четко и однозначно позиционированные национальные интересы дают базис для любого межнационального диалога.
Посмотрите на дипломатов. Они что, стесняются принадлежности к своей стране? Как же они ведут переговоры в этом случае?
"Я русский, он немец" — это объективные факты. Мы разные, у нас разные интересы. Сразу ясно: надо договариваться. 
Не нашей стране учиться толерантности. Мы занимаем не малую часть земной поверхности, на которой обитают десятки различных народов. У всех народов сохранился язык и культура. Тем, у кого не было письменности, мы её дали. Тратили и тратим сначала имперский бюджет, затем советский бюджет, а теперь федеральный бюджет на изучение этих культур и их поддержку. Теперь посмотрите на США. *Вот кому* следует поучиться толерантности *у нас*. 
Первый шаг толерантности — это признание права других быть не похожими на тебя. Говоря, что националистический Галковский — это плохо вы, фактически, отказываете ему в этом праве.   

> Generally the censorship limits free will and I believe that's what you don't want.

 Цензура — это, безусловно, зло. Это моё личное мнение.
Но я задам вам вопрос. Вернее, два вопроса...
Предположим, идёт 1915 год. Первая Мировая. В Лондоне вдруг появляется немец и начинает рассказывать, что англичане — быдло и тупые насекомые, которых следует стереть с лица земли, и что Германия скоро именно это и сделает.
Что сделают с этим немцем англичане?
И, по вашему мнению, правы ли они будут в этом, или им надо было бы поступить как-то иначе?   

> You can read Galkovsky's LJ about the US and black people in power in the US, he's quite graphic about it.

 Ну, во-первых, эта статья изрядный троллинг. Бывает.
Во-вторых, если отбросить весь расистский троллинг, то суть статьи вовсе не неграх. Автор ставит вопрос: почему США проводит такую бездарную внешнюю политику. Откровенно говоря, я с ним согласен — современная внешняя политика США действительно бездарная.
С выводами его я, однако, не во всём соглашусь. Что касается выводов, там в числе выводов есть и такой:  _«Негры же, а затем латиносы стали в известный момент восприниматься американцами тоже как «свои плохие люди». Но это чужие плохие люди. 
Ещё хуже то, что американцы стали воспринимать как своих «перемещённые лица», у которых была своя КУЛЬТУРА, враждебная американской уже потому, что она была неамериканской. Яркий пример здесь тот же Бжезинский. Я сомневаюсь, что он написал бы свою безответственную болтовню, живя в Варшаве. Пожалел бы поляков. Чужих американцев ему так же было не жалко, как их не жалко Кондолизе Райс или Обаме. Из той же оперы госпожа Олбрайт, тоже сильно пострадавшая головой по эмигрантской части. Все эти люди не знают и не любят Америку. Она им НЕ РОДНАЯ.
И все эти люди за последние 30 лет профукали «американскую мечту» и 200-летние усилия американской государственности.»_ 
Отсюда и «негры на картинках» в рамках троллинга. 
Вы вот считали только верхний, поверхностный слой информации и сделали вывод про расизм.
Я считал второй: расизм или не расизм, а это информационное оружие. Если начнётся война, и потребуется против США развернуть *реальную* пропаганду (а не игрушечную путинскую), то вопрос культуры — ключевой.
А там наверняка есть еще и третий слой.

----------


## dtrq

> Теперь посмотрите на США. *Вот кому* следует поучиться толерантности *у нас*.

 Ну я даже не знаю как похлеще прокомментировать такие финты. Верю, верю что скучно! Но все же, приличия ради, можно было удержаться от использования аргументации, за которую страницу назад обвиняли оппонента в совковом мышлении. Пример про немцев и англичан из той же оперы. Вы это осознанно и цинично так делаете, или это такая высшая форма двоемыслия? 
Хотя насчет "поучиться" согласен. Толерантности, и еще вопросам феминизма. Не в плане количества, но качества. Самого подхода. Эти вопросы у нас были решены гораздо раньше и менее болезненно, чем то, что происходит у них.

----------


## hddscan

> Именно четко и однозначно позиционированные национальные интересы дают базис для любого межнационального диалога.
> Посмотрите на дипломатов.

 I think you mixing up national interests with multinational intolerance and they are not the same thing.    

> Не нашей стране учиться толерантности. Мы занимаем не малую часть земной поверхности, на которой обитают десятки различных народов. У всех народов сохранился язык и культура. Тем, у кого не было письменности, мы её дали. Тратили и тратим сначала имперский бюджет, затем советский бюджет, а теперь федеральный бюджет на изучение этих культур и их поддержку. Теперь посмотрите на США. *Вот кому* следует поучиться толерантности *у нас*.

 That is simply not true and I know it, because I can compare.
First of all there is little information about national intolerance in far Russian regions, Russian MSM are totally silent about, meanwhile national intolerance existed even during the USSR times, everybody who've been in army in those regions knows that.
Second, if you look on migrants that come to Russia you can notice public resistance toward them, almost on all social levels, situation is improving slowly but it's not perfect for sure.
As of the US: the US is probably the most multicultural country in the world, huge portion of its population consists of first generation immigrants. Tolerance and multicultural support is taught in schools to kids (unlike in Russia), there are job policies about multinational tolerance(unlike in Russia), nobody's gonna show you negative attitude if you cannot speak the language of the country fluently (unlike in Russia). There are many multicultural grocery shops, restaurants, theaters, clubs, etc.    

> Говоря, что националистический Галковский — это плохо вы, фактически, отказываете ему в этом праве.

 Actually it was you who told that, I was just answering your question    

> Цензура — это, безусловно, зло. Это моё личное мнение.

 At least we have some agreement  ::   

> Но я задам вам вопрос. Вернее, два вопроса...
> Предположим, идёт 1915 год. Первая Мировая. В Лондоне вдруг появляется немец и начинает рассказывать, что англичане — быдло и тупые насекомые, которых следует стереть с лица земли, и что Германия скоро именно это и сделает.
> Что сделают с этим немцем англичане?
> И, по вашему мнению, правы ли они будут в этом, или им надо было бы поступить как-то иначе?

 And I'm gonna quote you  

> По сути что происходит? Советскому обществу говорят: общество, давай жить лучше? А в ответ: "до уровня советской цензуры и ограничения свободы слова еще как до луны", "обычная мировая практика.", "до западного рвения в борьбе с нетолерантностью нам пока далеко", "у них сейчас там тоже самое в отношении России происходит".

 It seems that you don't want to compare Russia with other countries when it doesn't fit in your ideology but gladly would do that if it supports your point of view, so maybe you are not being truthful with yourself and other readers of this forum?
I don't want to go to such details, I'm glad that we have agreement on censorship in general.   

> Ну, во-первых, эта статья изрядный троллинг. Бывает.
> Во-вторых, если отбросить весь расистский троллинг, то суть статьи вовсе не неграх.

 That's how a great propagandist would create a piece of propaganda, it mixes propaganda payload with other, very interesting and fair information, however it doesn't change the fact that propaganda has reached its target.   

> Вы вот считали только верхний, поверхностный слой информации и сделали вывод про расизм.

 I call it as I see it. 
But it seems that you want to convince me that Galkovsky is "белый и пушистый" and I simply can't agree to that. Moreover I see that you are fond of his ideas and try to deliver them here, using the prism of your outlook. And I'm just trying to shake that a little, so you maybe would try and question his goals and methods.

----------


## RedFox

> Но есть разница между действительным присутствием расизма и шовинизма и использованием этих слов в целях навязывания людям идей политкорректности.

 Отож.
А действительное присутствие обычно бывает двух крайних видов: либо от «респектабельных политиков», либо от маргинальных движений. При чем, если копнуть вторые, то за ними всегда стоят те же самые респектабельные политики.
Всем насрать на людей, важно только бабло. Один только Иисус всех любил не за деньги. 
Вот почему сейчас такой упор именно на гомофобию? Потому что «гомофобы» живут на основных запасах нефти на планете.
А в Африке, между тем, всё так же продолжают делать женское обрезание. Но борьба за права женщин никому не интересна. Ибо не выгодно.

----------


## iCake

> Отож.
> А действительное присутствие обычно бывает двух крайних видов: либо от «респектабельных политиков», либо от маргинальных движений. При чем, если копнуть вторые, то за ними всегда стоят те же самые респектабельные политики.
> Всем насрать на людей, важно только бабло. Один только Иисус всех любил не за деньги. 
> Вот почему сейчас такой упор именно на гомофобию? Потому что «гомофобы» живут на основных запасах нефти на планете.
> А в Африке, между тем, всё так же продолжают делать женское обрезание. Но борьба за права женщин никому не интересна. Ибо не выгодно.

  ::  Ну, зачем мне Америку заново открыл? Это и так все понятно.

----------


## Hanna

> What really confuses me is why nobody ever discuesses "Ameriphobia". It's a scary place to live.

 Haha, very inventive, but spot on.  
I discuss it from time to time here.. And I am considerably more scared of the US, than Russia. Of course, back in the cold war days, the fear was more real - the nuclear war paranoia. Super powers blow eachother up, and takes all of Europe with them. Luckily that fear is long gone though. The modern fear isn't exactly on that level, it's just a slight feeling of being uncomfortable: I get that uncomfortable feeling from the US bases in Europe.  
 But here is why to be concerned: 
Even though I don't even live there, the US is spying on my phone calls and email and internet usage. Because of the US, certain websites are blocked. They can just turn up anywhere in the world, and kidnap people they don't like, as happened to several Russian citizens, and countless Middle Easterners. If you label somebody a terrorist, then suddenly the person no longer has any legal rights and America can do whatever it likes with him; murder him and his family in a drone attack right in their house. Kidnap him or just turn up and execute him. 
I currently live in a country that is effectively under US occupation. There are at least 15 US bases here in the UK including nuclear equipped. The UK could never effectively stand up against the USA if it wanted, as long as these bases are here on British soil.  
Even protesting outside US bases, is an offense that can lead to a prison sentence.  
That said, I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of Russia either. But whatever they do wrong they usually reserve for their own citizens and try to keep within their own borders. But I'm not denying that seriously annoying Russia probably isn't a good idea either.  
But in a comparison, to me, the US is considerably scarier. 
-- unbelievable how much rubbish the Germans are putting up with, from the US. Two spies revealed in one week! NSA spying and the whole country littered with US bases. Don't they have any national pride or dignity?

----------


## RedFox

> Ну я даже не знаю как похлеще прокомментировать такие финты. Верю, верю что скучно! Но все же, приличия ради, можно было удержаться от использования аргументации, за которую страницу назад обвиняли оппонента в совковом мышлении.

 Давать пропаганду вместо логики? "Не русский, не жалко."  ::    

> Пример про немцев и англичан из той же оперы.

 Хосспади, еще один! Щас пост допишу, там ниже будет ответ на этот вопрос.

----------


## RedFox

> I think you mixing up national interests with multinational intolerance and they are not the same thing.

 Поскольку речь изначально шла о национализме, то стоит уточнить понятия.
Вы назвали Галковского националистом. Затем вы дали ему следующую характеристику: «Because it doesn't leave a chance for a dialog - "it's my way or a highway" and promotes national hatred while the whole world is trying to fix that situation. Do you want Russia to develop in the eyes of the world?»
Отсюда следует логический вывод, для вас национализм равен национальной нетерпимости.   

> meanwhile national intolerance existed even during the USSR times, everybody who've been in army in those regions knows that

 Чайник Рассела.   

> Second, if you look on migrants that come to Russia you can notice public resistance toward them, almost on all social levels, situation is improving slowly but it's not perfect for sure.

 То есть мы все должны быть в восторге от того, что к нам едут низшие слои со всей Средней Азии, чтобы затем стать безропотными рабами в руках путинских олигархов.
Вы НИЧЕГО не знаете о состоянии дел в России.
Если для вас ужасная нетолерантность заключается в том, что на невладеющего русским языком кассиршу в магазине криво посмотрит покупатель, то это невероятная наивность. Впрочем, об этом парой абзацев ниже.
Смешать в кучу социальные, экономические, этнические, национальные и исторические аспекты, а из получившегося винегрета построить пропаганду. Превосходно.   

> As of the US: the US is probably the most multicultural country in the world, huge portion of its population consists of first generation immigrants. Tolerance and multicultural support is taught in schools to kids (unlike in Russia), there are job policies about multinational tolerance(unlike in Russia), nobody's gonna show you negative attitude if you cannot speak the language of the country fluently (unlike in Russia). There are many multicultural grocery shops, restaurants, theaters, clubs, etc.

 Слова multicultural много, понимания смысла реальных этнических процессов мало. От того, что вам в школе повторят сотню раз multinational tolerance, весь мир не станет мыслить так же, как вы. Именно этого понимания, КМК, в этой хвалебной оде и не хватает.
Что такое чеченец? Это воин, который живёт по кодексу чести. Что в этом кодексе самое важное для европейца? Это, что этот кодекс несовместим с европейскими представлениями о морали.
Если вашу сестру оскорбит какой-нибудь человек, а вы (допустим) в порыве ярости его убьёте — вас потом всю жизнь будет мучить совесть. Это европейская мораль, то, что мы впитываем с младенческого возраста.
Чечена же будет мучить совесть если он обидчика *не убьёт*.
Это — реальное различие культур.
«Мигранты — это такие забавные ребята, которые говорят на странном языке, носят странную одежду и едят странную пищу. Не обижайте мигрантов, мальчики!» Нормально. Для детского сада сгодится.
Но вот потом, когда ребёнок подрастёт, наверное ему стоит узнать, что культуры отличается *не только* тем, что говорят на разных языках. 
Реальную multinational tolerance США осуществляла в Ираке. Сейчас доосуществляла до еще одной войны. Вдруг, оказалось, что иракцы — это вовсе не веселые ребята из магазинчика китайской кухни через дорогу, а три совершенно разные этнические группы, которые *не хотят* жить вместе. И еще более они не хотят видеть американцев.
Во Вьетнаме тоже неплохо порезвились американцы. В Югославии. 
Вот эта политическая наивность поражает и ужасает. Американцы реально ведут себя так, как-будто думают, что им везде рады, надо только побольше улыбаться и не показывать negative attitude.
Старая Европа сотни лет училась искусству политики, выстраивая отношения как между собой, так и со своими колониями. И конечно, Старая Европа состоит не из ангелов, и все участники действуют прежде всего в собственных интересах. Но худо-бедно, у Старой Европы получалось управлять миром так, чтобы избежать лишней крови. Американцы же... это нечто. 
Дорогой мой собеседник. Понимаете, когда multinational intolerance выражается в том, что на вас криво смотрит народ на улице — это неприятно, конечно. Но пережить можно. А вот когда multinational intolerance демонстрируется при помощи авиаударов — это... обиднее. 
Отрадно думать, что весь мир сводится к grocery shop. А он не сводится. 
Но, надо сказать, больше, чем всё это, меня поразило «the whole world is trying to fix that situation» в предыдущем вашем сообщении. 
Далее, что касается цензуры. Ваши суждения, равно как и нежелание ответить на вопрос, напоминают мне некоторых политиков левого спектра.
На вопрос вы не ответили, а привели мою цитату, которая вообще не про то. Пример с первой мировой я привел не для того, чтобы сослаться на «у них негров линчуют», а чтобы не нарушить правила форума. Мы говорим не про Украину-Россию, мы говорим про цензуру вообще и про государство вообще. Можете мысленно заменить Англию на Рептилостан рядом с Сириусом, а 1914-й на 2538-й, это без разницы. 
Я человек скучный и прагматичный. Понимаете, я исхожу из того, что реально возможно.
Не убивать — лучше, чем убивать. Но если вас призовут на войну, вы будете убивать.
Свобода слова лучше цензуры. Но когда идёт война, цензура может спасти ваш народ, а свобода слова — нет. 
Здесь абсолютно та же наивность, что в случае с нетолерантностью. Вы заменяете реальный мир красивыми лозунгами. Но политика — хоть и не точная наука, а по сложности не уступает квантовой физике. Для каждой ситуации нужен свой анализ и свой подход, головой думать нужно постоянно, а не только на уроке. Вышли за пределы области определения теории — получили мусор вместо результата. 
Например, я могу сказать: "я осуждаю Америку за Югославию". Но я не могу сказать: "я осуждаю американского солдата за Югославию". Почему? Потому что области разные.   

> It seems that you don't want to compare Russia with other countries when it doesn't fit in your ideology but gladly would do that if it supports your point of view, so maybe you are not being truthful with yourself and other readers of this forum?

 Хорошо, я скажу ясно и четко, чтобы прочитали все, кто, возможно, был не в курсе. Я русский человек, выросший на русской земле и говорящий на русском языке. Одни мои предки осваивали Сибирь, а другие мои предки жили на этой земле еще до прихода колонистов. Я уважаю людей любого происхождения, однако нет для меня на свете ничего более ценного и любимого, чем мой русский народ. Я наплевательски отношусь к любым идеологиям и -измам. Единственная истинная ценность, которая доступна человеку — это любовь. А любовь невозможно засунуть в идеологию, невозможно заставить любить из-под палки, будь это хоть коммунизм, хоть выхолощенная американская толерантность, хоть еще какая нелепая политическая концепция. Любовь — это индивидуальный опыт познания бога.
Я надеюсь, теперь у нас не осталось недомолвок. Уровень предвзятости моих суждений можете считать любым, каким вам захочется.   

> But it seems that you want to convince me that Galkovsky is "белый и пушистый" and I simply can't agree to that. Moreover I see that you are fond of his ideas and try to deliver them here, using the prism of your outlook. And I'm just trying to shake that a little, so you maybe would try and question his goals and methods.

 Пока что вы не сказали ничего нового.
1. Галковский — историк, философ и пропагандист.
2. Пост про Америку был откровенно издевательский, хоть и с мыслями по существу.
Очевидные факты. 
Если идеи ошибочные, — оспорьте. Если хотите убить идею, говорите не про личность автора идеи, говорите про ошибки в фактологии и логике.
Ну и, разумеется, не относитесь слишком серьёзно ко всему этому.  ::  Любой спор — это игра. До чего бы мы ни доспорили, от этого абсолютно ничего не изменится.   

> But it seems that you want to convince me that Galkovsky is "белый и пушистый" and I simply can't agree to that.

 Я вам говорю, что Галковский — умный. Если вы ставите целью его переспорить в чем-либо, вы должны быть умнее его.
А уж пушистый он для американца (я так понимаю, вы из Америки) или нет... Меня это мало волнует.  ::

----------


## hddscan

> Поскольку речь изначально шла о национализме, то стоит уточнить понятия.
> Вы назвали Галковского националистом. Затем вы дали ему следующую характеристику: «Because it doesn't leave a chance for a dialog - "it's my way or a highway" and promotes national hatred while the whole world is trying to fix that situation. Do you want Russia to develop in the eyes of the world?»
> Отсюда следует логический вывод, для вас национализм равен национальной нетерпимости.

 Well, let me make it more clear: Galkovsky promoting "национальную нетерпимость" and it's very clear(to me and obviously to some other readers of this forum) from the quotes I posted before, let's narrow it done to those quotes, because discussing etiquette of Russian diplomats or other "сферических коней" is way far from initial discussion     

> Вы НИЧЕГО не знаете о состоянии дел в России.

 Чайник Рассела.   

> Смешать в кучу социальные, экономические, этнические, национальные и исторические аспекты, а из получившегося винегрета построить пропаганду. Превосходно.

 Чайник Рассела.   

> Слова multicultural много, понимания смысла реальных этнических процессов мало. От того, что вам в школе повторят сотню раз multinational tolerance, весь мир не станет мыслить так же, как вы. Именно этого понимания, КМК, в этой хвалебной оде и не хватает.

 Чайник Рассела.   

> Реальную multinational tolerance США осуществляла в Ираке.

 .
Чайник Рассела. 
As you can see, two can play this game. If you are going to make such statements I will hold you to your words and will ask for proof and then details and then more proof and it will be great and useless trollism. So let's not go there, because it's not related to Galkovsky or Russophobia, at all. 
If you want to discuss ethnic or cultural problems of Rusisa or the US, please create separate topic, but if you gonna throw accusations on my every post I can't promise to support the discussion.   

> Дорогой мой собеседник. Понимаете, когда multinational intolerance выражается в том, что на вас криво смотрит народ на улице — это неприятно, конечно. Но пережить можно. А вот когда multinational intolerance демонстрируется при помощи авиаударов — это... обиднее.

 .
OMFG, how oh how multicultural tolerance in society related to not very smart external politics of the country? There are Americans here who would say that American politics in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. is bad and inhumane. Why do you try to blame American society for that? How would you like that people would say to you: "you are a bad person because your president is Putin", where is logic in this?    

> 1. Галковский — историк, философ и пропагандист.

 That's it, we have an agreement. I just want to add that he's propagandizing Russian chauvinism far too often, that's my point. We could agree to disagree if you'd like.    

> Я вам говорю, что Галковский — умный. Если вы ставите целью его переспорить в чем-либо, вы должны быть умнее его.

 Hmm, that's very strange thought. For example: I'm pretty good in reverse engineering of ARM firmware, I bet he can't do that, does that mean that he is not smart? And if he is smart, how we gonna measure who's smarter? And who's gonna be the judge? 
Very are only opinions and I'm not "должен" measure who's get the longer... brain to tell my opinion. I also remember that I'm not the only person who said to you that you judge people by your own logic and try to position that as a fact, maybe try to be less maximalistic?   

> А уж пушистый он для американца (я так понимаю, вы из Америки) или нет... Меня это мало волнует.

 Ярлычки навешивать любили советские политработники, вас по-моему в этом уже кто-то упрекнул, не стоит строить дискуссию на попытке унизить собеседника (это вы у Галковского нахватались?), особенно не владея фактами. 
И пожалуйста, не пишите здоровенные простыни ответов - тяжело читать и отвечать

----------


## RedFox

> <...>
> И пожалуйста, не пишите здоровенные простыни ответов - тяжело читать и отвечать

 Не читал. Слишком длинно.

----------


## RedFox

Кстати, раз уж сегодня день пиара Галковского. 
Hanna, к нашему разговору об уровне образования элиты, вспомнилось такое: link

----------


## hddscan

> Не читал. Слишком длинно.

 Thank you for confirming my opinion about your character.

----------


## RedFox

> Thank you for confirming my opinion about your character.

 Не нравится?
Вот и мне не нравится. 
Что особенно показательно: в одном абзаце обвинение в "попытке унизить собеседника", а в следующем — прямое указание на то, что мнение собеседника вообще никак не интересует. 
И ни одного ответа по существу. 
Я вам хамил? Я вам не хамил. Вы мне хамите.
Направление, куда идти, сами найдёте.

----------


## hddscan

> Я вам хамил? Я вам не хамил. Вы мне хамите.

 Хмм, извините?
Довольно странный метод вести дискуссию, не находите? Сначала вы съехали с обсуждения пропаганды Галковского, пытаясь увести меня в теоретизирование понятий и прочие викисловари, после того как я попытался вам сказать что я думаю, вы мне методично стали объяснять что я "сам дурак", ничего не знаю, говорю не о том и вообще на викисловарь не гожусь (хотя я реально был во многих странах и видел все своими глазами, а не с дивана), а в конце добавили, что если я вдруг окажусь американцем, то вообще мое мнение вас не интересует, лишь усугубив  ваши шовинистические взгляды.
После того, как я вам на это указал, вы и того хуже, отправили меня в пешее эротическое путешествие в известном направлении. 
А по-поводу простыней - учитесь уважать собседника, формируйте свою мысль крато, читать длинные опусы тяжело, особенно когда в них много разных мыслей, а если начать отвечать на все, то простыни получаются неимоверных размеров, я пытался сократить, но вам это явно не нравится, не знаю как тут быть. 
PS: по поводу цензуры, я уже писал: меня устраивает то, что наши мнения совпадают о цензуре в целом

----------


## RedFox

> Хмм, извините?
> Довольно странный метод вести дискуссию, не находите? Сначала вы съехали с обсуждения пропаганды Галковского, пытаясь увести меня в теоретизирование понятий и прочие викисловари, после того как я попытался вам сказать что я думаю, вы мне методично стали объяснять что я "сам дурак", ничего не знаю, говорю не о том и вообще на викисловарь не гожусь (хотя я реально был в многих странах и видел все своими глазами, а не с дивана), а в конце добавили, что если я вдруг окажусь американцем, то вообще мое мнение вас не интересует, лишь усугубив  ваши шовинистические взгляды.
> После того, как я вам на это указал, вы и того хуже, отправили меня в пешее эротическое путешествие в известном направлении. 
> Я по-поводу простыней - учитесь уважать собседника, формируйте свою мысль крато, читать длинные опусы тяжело, особенно когда в них много разных мыслей, а если начать отвечать на все, то простыни получаются неимоверных размеров, я пытался сократить, но вам это явно не нравится, не знаю как тут быть. 
> PS: по поводу цензуры, я уже писал: меня устраивает то, что наши мнения совпадают о цензуре в целом

 Я вам писал ровно то, что хотел писать и именно в том объеме, какой хотел написать. Если вы не готовы выслушать собеседника полностью, зачем вы вообще начинаете дискуссию? А если потеряли интерес, можно так и сказать об этом, без попыток пренебрежительного указывания. Далее. Я не знаю, по каким викисловарям вы лазили или не лазили, но если какие-то слова вызывают проблемы с пониманием, это в той же степени не моя вина, что и не ваша. К дискуссии вас никто не принуждает и силком не тянет.
Про вашу способность превратно понять фразу "А уж пушистый он для американца (я так понимаю, вы из Америки) или нет... Меня это мало волнует." я развернутых пояснений давать не буду, т.к. опасаюсь за свою способность сохранять невозмутимость. То же касается и обвинений в шовинизме.
Если я вас где-то оскорбил в «длинном сообщении», приношу свои извинения. Я не имел к тому никакого намерения, и любое возможно прозвучавшее оскорбление — результат недостаточно четкой передачи информации с моей стороны.
Ответных извинений не жду. Диалог продолжать не намерен.
Всего наилучшего.

----------


## hddscan

> Если я вас где-то оскорбил, приношу свои извинения.

 accepted  

> Диалог продолжать не намерен.

 I guess I'm gonna be the third? person who cannot hold a discussion with you. It seems to me that if you cannot convince a person to agree with you on everything, you simply start throwing accusations (not only my opinion).  Может быть в консерватории что-нибудь подправить?
Отвечать не обязательно

----------


## RedFox

> Отвечать не обязательно

 Нет уж, отвечу, ибо давайте лучше доведем ситуацию до маразма! Старый-добрый маразм, мы все там будем, кто доживёт!.. 
Вот скажите, вы считаете, что сейчас общаетесь нормальным тоном? Меня это интересует в целях познания мира, так сказать. Понять, что у других в голове. 
Вот я сейчас встану в позицию того осла. Зачем? Мне интересно, что из этого выйдет. Психологический эксперимент. Итак:   

> It seems to me that if you cannot convince a person to agree with you on everything, you simply start throwing accusations

 Если бы вы внимательно следили за темой, вы бы заметили, что я по многим вопросам не согласен с Hanna и UhOhXplode. Не укажите, какие именно я обвинения выдвинул в их адрес?
Однако же, беда, я simply started throwing accusations видимо с того, что вы меня обозвали шовинистом. То есть, как-то нелогично получается... я начал кидаться обвинениями... это выразилось в том, что вы меня назвали шовинистом. Может всё было несколько иначе?   

> (not only my opinion)

 С какой целью вы указали эту ремарку? Вы не полагаетесь на своё мнение? Я думаю, что полагаетесь. Значит цель была иная.
Вы понимаете, что именно эта ремарка в вашем сообщении отделяет нечто более-менее нормальное, даже с учётом start throwing accusations, от откровенного наезда?   

> Может быть в консерватории что-нибудь подправить?

 Может и подправить. А как вы считаете, консерватория, которая бросает обвинения в шовинизме, не нуждается в некоторой правке? 
И наконец! Самое важное. Скажите, какой у разумного человека (эх, ка бы я был разумен! да ведь ни черта подобного) был бы резон  продолжать дискуссию, если человек пишет: «Ну и, разумеется, не относитесь слишком серьёзно ко всему этому.  ::  Любой спор — это игра. До чего бы мы ни доспорили, от этого абсолютно ничего не изменится.»
А в ответ получает обвинение в шовинизме.
Вот это мне интереснее всего узнать. 
Впрочем, я соглашусь. Я шовинист. Это в коллекцию к русофобу, врагу народа, колораду, ну и там еще какие-то были. Мои доблестные ачивки со всего рунета. 
Знаете, что меня удивляет? Ни один англофон меня еще никак ни разу не обозвал. То есть это-то как раз не удивляет. Это нормально. Удивляет то, что творят русскоязычные. 
Я вообще тот еще говнюк, и действительно резок в высказываниях, о чем потом жалею. Но если уж что, мне так и говорили. Мол, широко шагаешь, парень, штаны бы поберег.
Но если уж по-русски, то — нет, у нас если что, то обычно, как минимум, идиот... или вот шовинист. В порядке вещей.
А еще русскоязычные не умеют извиняться. И ошибок признавать не умеют.

----------


## iCake

> А еще русскоязычные не умеют извиняться. И ошибок признавать не умеют.

 Улыбнуло  ::

----------


## Lampada

С моим уважением к напечатанному слову и любовью к демократии я ваши труды модерировать не в состоянии.  Не Политика, а сплошная ругня, трёпка нервов и, по-видимому, плохая карма.   Пусть висит, как есть.  По крайней мере, все увидят, _кто есть кто_, и как русскоязычные не могут полюбовно договариваться.  Напишите мне в личку, кто хочет модерировать такую Политику.  Буду ходатайствовать перед Мастерадмином.

----------


## hddscan

> Вот скажите, вы считаете, что сейчас общаетесь нормальным тоном? Меня это интересует в целях познания мира, так сказать. Понять, что у других в голове.

 я думал мы уже закончили делать реверансы, по крайней мере после остыла меня вами в известном направлении.   

> Если бы вы внимательно следили за темой, вы бы заметили, что я по многим вопросам не согласен с Hanna и UhOhXplode. Не укажите, какие именно я обвинения выдвинул в их адрес?

 хочется вам продолжать себя накручивать? Ну вот - "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)
обсмеяли человека ни за что, опять в стиле "сам дурак".   

> Однако же, беда, я simply started throwing accusations видимо с того, что вы меня обозвали шовинистом.

 видимо все-таки нет, если проследить хронологию    

> С какой целью вы указали эту ремарку? Вы не полагаетесь на своё мнение? Я думаю, что полагаетесь. Значит цель была иная.

 цель простая, у вас на меня сейчас явная аллергия, поэтому трезво мои ответы вы не сможете рассматривать (я так думаю), поэтому я попытался вам сказать что это не только мое мнение, попытаться призвать вас прислушаться   

> Вот это мне интереснее всего узнать.

 Ну вы же продолжаете? Я вам кое-как отвечаю. 
Юпитер, ты сердишься, значит, ты не прав  ::    

> Впрочем, я соглашусь. Я шовинист.

 о чем тогда спор    

> Но если уж что, мне так и говорили. Мол, широко шагаешь, парень, штаны бы поберег.

 страна советов, что поделать.   

> А еще русскоязычные не умеют извиняться.

 я думаю это личные качества    
я бы хотел подбить кой-какие тезисы, которые вытекают из нашей дискуссии (опуская ломание копий и драматичное заламывание рук)
1. Мы оба согласны что Галковский хороший историк, философ и пропагандист. 
2. Мое мнение что пропаганда Гладковского направлена на укрепление русского шовинизма, которого у русских и так через край. Ваше мнение на этот счет я не уловил, если можете оветить одним предложением - спасибо, если нет, то пусть будет загадка.
3. Мы согласились что цензура в общем, ограничивает свободу личности и это плохо; частности, предложенные вами я обсуждать не готов, потому как считаю что не владею достаточным количеством правдивой информации на этот счет. Согласиться с вашим мнением без дискуссии однако тоже не могу, уж извините.
4. Мы можем обсудить различия Америки и России в вопросах толерантности в отдельной теме, если вы захотите конечно. Я не считаю что война в Ираке является ярким проявлением нетолерантности, однако допускаю что информационная война против мусульман в США имеет место быть, как впрочем и в России.

----------


## RedFox

Почему Путин не замечает русских? (заседание Совета по межнациональным отношениям) — Sputnik & Pogrom

----------


## UhOhXplode

Well, I see the thread evolved into a possible romance and the Ku Klux Klan...  ::  Very creative!  ::    

> Простите мой смех, но это было и правда смешно.
> Сравнивать бледную моль Путина с людьми, создавшими Америку... Кажется, внешнеполитическая пропаганда России всё-таки работает намного эффективнее, чем я предполагал.
> Во Франции Ле Пен искренне считает Путина русским националистом, вы искренне считаете Путина спасшим Россию от развала...
> Поставим Путину плюсик: пропаганду он делать умеет.
> Это заставляет меня вспомнить слова Галковского о том, что Россия — это огромное увеличительное стекло. Сидели под стеклом Романовы — транслировали миру идеи просвещения. Потом под стекло заполз Сталин и начал шевелить усами. Будь это какая-нибудь КНДР — никто бы даже не заметил. Иное дело — увеличительное стекло размером в 1/6 часть суши. Потом заполз Путин, и стекло из полковника КГБ сделало *Человека*. Все смотрят:
> — Ай да человек! Человечище! Молодец. Красавец. Спас Россию, — понимающе кивают головами друг другу.
> На мой взгляд, личность президента должна занимать людей чуть больше, чем личность слесаря из ЖЭК. А возможно, даже меньше. Во всяком случае, со слесарем мне придётся общаться, если протечет кран или забьётся канализация. А вот от президента никакой прямой выгоды мне нет. Ну сидит чиновник в Кремле, занимается своими делами. Пусть сидит.
> То, что везде «Путин, Путин, Путин, Путин» значит одно из двух: либо он действительно великий человек. Либо система работает не правильно.
> Но на великого человека он не тянет, от слова «вообще». Господи, какой великий человек, если он вот уже 14 лет не может объяснить себя стране и миру?
> ...

 Well, there was a leader (President Putin) that strongly affects what happens. So if you say that the people would have done the same thing, you're just saying that Putin was doing what the people wanted. It's really cool when a President does what the people want him to do. People tell me that it doesn't happen very often in America.   

> Это тоже заставляет меня улыбнуться.  Я живу в этом государстве всю жизнь и каждый день могу наблюдать за тем, что в говорят по телевизору, в газетах и в интернете. Вы читаете 4 газеты. Думаю, что нет смысла в деталях пояснять, насколько отличается объем новостной информации на русском языке, который виден мне и вам.

 I agree that not being in Russia is a disadvantage. But I could study architecture in school and not design a building. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't learn all that I can before I start working.   

> Я думаю, вы не вполне хорошо понимаете суть всех этих законов.
> Большинству людей нет никакого дела ни до геев, ни до придуриваний Кремля. Равно как и Кремлю нет никакого дела до своих же законов.
> Есть закон: «запрещена пропаганда гомосексуализма». Что это значит? Всё, что угодно.
> Или вот есть закон: «популярные сайты должны регистрироваться как СМИ». Что это значит? *Всё, что угодно.*
> Вот вы пишете: «So there's no reason to approach the wrong people or make a huge public issue about sex. That should be private and personal, not a huge parade.» Это мнение.
> Если государство действует сообразно вашему мнению, вы считаете, что система вас защищает. Если государство действует не сообразно вашему мнению, вы считаете, что система вас притесняет. На самом деле, обе точки зрения были бы ошибочны. *С точки зрения системы, у вас не должно быть мнения.* Наличие у вас мнения — это аномалия, прикол. Необъяснимое природное явление.
> Певица Валерия в телевизоре рассказывает, что она хочет чтобы её дети жили в здоровом обществе без гомо-пропаганды, и поэтому она поддерживает закон. При этом она снимается в лесбийском клипе. (А дети её вообще живут в Англии.)
> Противоречие? Ничуть. Просто у певицы Валерии нет своего мнения, она колеблется вместе с «политикой партии». Другое дело, если вы, например, честный адвокат и хотите честно защищать людей, да еще и в политики решили выбиться. Если вы попадетесь на глаза системе, то вскоре окажется, что вы пропагандируете гомосексуализм, уклоняетесь от выплаты налогов или похищаете детей на органы. Это нормально. Обычный путь обычного несистемного политика.
> В тюрьму вас при этом, скорее всего, не посадят. Система ведь не хочет ничего плохого, она вообще не знает добра и зла. Она вас просто _поправляет_, так сказать, учит жизни. Хотя, конечно, если будете сильно мешать, как Навальный, постараются изолировать.
> ...

 If gays don't advertise that they are gay then nobody will know and they can find jobs. 
But I do agree that laws can be abused. Using the anti-terror laws in America, anybody can be arrested for any reason. And if they are arrested using those laws, then they lose the right to have a lawyer.
People need laws even if they aren't perfect.
Btw, Putin is what? Maybe 60's years old? People that old almost always like the past. That's why everybody in my house plays classic music... except me. I like the new sounds. 
And I do appreciate your insights but in America, mostly the A, B, C isn't very popular since mostly politicians just want more money. An American politician "Ron Paul" wants the A, B, C but the other politicians just laugh at him.   

> Важно не то, насколько правда, а то, для чего эта правда используется. Вот позавчера была тут тема To Be A Russian, там ведь нет ни одной ненастоящей фотографии — все настоящие. Но эта «правда» используется для пропаганды. В реальности всегда есть хорошее и плохое. Всегда можно взять фотоаппарат и наснимать такого, что никому жить не захочется.
> В Америке полно преступников, но Америка *не состоит из преступников*.
> Для чего эта пропаганда используется в России — для той же цели, что и нелепые законы. Чтобы устроить спектакль, в котором никто ничего не понимает. И втрихаря переварить и низвести до своего невысокого культурного уровня.
> Мышление благопристойных людей:
> Первый: Вот есть такая проблема, можно пробовать решить эту проблему так... или вот так...
> Второй: А я не согласен, что это проблема, всё нормально. Вот мои аргументы: <...>
> Третий: А я думаю, что всё-таки проблема. И поддерживаю вариант такой-то. Потому что <...>
> Мышление советской системы:
> — У нас нет никаких проблем! Посмотрите, какой разврат в Америке! Вы хотите жить так же? Вы либо дурак, либо агент влияния. Вас надо изолировать!
> ...

 Trust me, any bad news about Russia is used for propaganda in America too. I never see anything good in the news about Russia... unless I see it in non-American media. 
Did you see the American news articles about the successful test of the new Angara rocket yesterday? The articles made it sound like a total disaster. The truth is, it was a successful launch of an innovative new rocket.
But with or without propaganda, I definitely would not advise any country to use our government as a model for their own country. It creates massive problems and too many wars. 
Btw, I'm in Siberia too. Oklahoma was considered to be uninhabitable. That's why it was one of the last States in the Union. They had to give the land away free to get people to move here.
No natural lakes, dangerous weather, and an extreme and unpredictable climate. Also, lots of dangerous snakes and spiders. Well, the rattlesnakes are okay if they don't bite you... they taste a lot like chicken. But no way I'll ever eat fried tarantulas! But I did have one for a pet.

----------


## Hanna

Has Russia KIDNAPPED a Ukrainian helicopter pilot and brought her to Russia to face trial? 
Nadezhda Savchenko, I think her name was.  
I think it's really shocking and I am totally against that sort of behaviour by any country, including Russia. What's the truth about this?  
Apparently she was operating the helicopter that fired the shot that killed two Russian journalists. Obviously that was wrong, but she is a soldier following orders in a civil war. Additionally: she hardly fired the shots if she was busy operating the helicopter.  
Russia cannot blame HER for killing these journalists; the ones guilty are in Kiev, Washington and Brussels.  
If this is true, it's really disappointing. If she was smuggled into Russia by the separatists, RU ought to take the high road and send her home.

----------


## hddscan

> If this is true, it's really disappointing. If she was smuggled into Russia by the separatists, RU ought to take the high road and send her home.

 The Ukrainian version: she got smuggled by the separatists 
The Russian version: she got arrested while being on Russian land and posing herself as a refugee. 
BTW: nobody's blaming her for killings just yet, the accusations are for supporting and planning the killings. Allegedly she was a pilot that corrected fire of Ukrainian artillery that killed journalists. That's possible participation in a forethought murder, if proven of course.

----------


## UhOhXplode

Comment deleted by me. It was too off-topic.
Edit again:
K. I'll replace it with this. How could anybody get phobic about this?  ::   Angara, Total Success!

----------


## Eric C.

> The Ukrainian version: she got smuggled by the separatists 
> The Russian version: she got arrested while being on Russian land and posing herself as a refugee.

 I'm not willing yet to drag myself into discussing what she was really doing while on the chopper, but just a quick look at this line makes me feel real inconsistency in this whole story. I mean, why would any Ukrainian chopper pilot in a situation like this ever go to Russia and pose themselves as a refugee?!!!

----------


## Lampada

Вся украинская тематика под мораторием.  Прошу не нарушать!

----------


## RedFox

> Well, there was a leader (President Putin) that strongly affects what happens. So if you say that the people would have done the same thing, you're just saying that Putin was doing what the people wanted. It's really cool when a President does what the people want him to do. People tell me that it doesn't happen very often in America.

 Неа, я хочу сказать, что роль Путина сильно переоценивают за пределами России из-за эффекта «увеличительного стекла».
Но вы правы в том, что интересы Путина и народа действительно совпадали во многом. Примерно с 1999-го года по 2008. 
Путин всегда был слаб как политик (я бы сказал, он вообще не годен как политик), но вполне хорош в качестве управляющего.
Например, за все 15 лет Путин ни разу не вступил в публичные дебаты с другими политиками. Я думаю, ему просто нечего сказать. 
В конце 90-х стране был нужен хороший управляющий. Ельцин стал настолько недееспособен, что страна де-факто осталась без президента. Путин — это человек, связанный с определенными олигархическими кругами. Его последовательно продвигали по должностям: заместитель руководителя ФСБ -> секретарь Совета безопасности -> премьер-министр.
В качестве премьер-министра он себя показал очень хорошо. После этого его продвинули в президенты. 
Президентство Путина вам, я полагаю, хорошо известно: борьба с несистемными олигархами, создание «вертикали власти», Единая Россия в качестве партии власти, устранение Думы как самостоятельного политического субъекта и так далее. 
Ну... действительно хороший управляющий. Пришел и со всеми управился.  ::  
Реальные проблемы для страны начались, когда Путин решил баллотироваться на 3-й срок после президентства Медведева. 
В стране кончился дикий период, люди перестали бегать с голодными глазами и стали задумываться о том, что лежит на следующих ступеньках пирамиды Маслоу. Например о политике и о смысле существования нашей страны. Страна интеллектуально выросла, а правительство (и стоящие за ним олигархи) — не выросло.

----------


## RedFox

> But with or without propaganda, I definitely would not advise any country to use our government as a model for their own country. It creates massive problems and too many wars.

 Для меня правительства США и стран Европы — это прежде всего опыт. Повторять ничьё правительство я не предлагаю.  ::  
Имхо, есть всего три варианта будущего России в XXI-м веке:
1. Олигархам советской ментальности удастся остановить развитие гражданского общества. В этом случае РФ повторяет судьбу СССР: окраины отваливаются, в центре начинается хаос.
2. В результате борьбы среди элиты к власти приходит национально ориентированный лидер и начинает ускоренную модернизацию страны. Этот вариант можно назвать «Пётр Великий 2.0». Практически невероятен.
3. В результате смены поколений государственный аппарат за 10-20 лет трансформируется в национально ориентированный, развиваются демократические институты, разблокируются механизмы социальных лифтов. 
Каждый гражданин страны, который вырван из лап «деды воевали, многонациональный народ, Абрек-наш-друг, я-знаю-одного-узбека-он-отличный-человек»-мышления — это еще один шаг от первого варианта в пользу третьего.    

> Btw, I'm in Siberia too. Oklahoma was considered to be uninhabitable. That's why it was one of the last States in the Union. They had to give the land away free to get people to move here.
> No natural lakes, dangerous weather, and an extreme and unpredictable climate. Also, lots of dangerous snakes and spiders. Well, the rattlesnakes are okay if they don't bite you... they taste a lot like chicken. But no way I'll ever eat fried tarantulas! But I did have one for a pet.

 Мне вспомнилась поговорка: «Закон — тайга, прокурор — медведь»  ::

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Для меня правительства США и стран Европы — это прежде всего опыт. Повторять ничьё правительство я не предлагаю.  
> Имхо, есть всего три варианта будущего России в XXI-м веке:
> 1. Олигархам советской ментальности удастся остановить развитие гражданского общества. В этом случае РФ повторяет судьбу СССР: окраины отваливаются, в центре начинается хаос.
> 2. В результате борьбы среди элиты к власти приходит национально ориентированный лидер и начинает ускоренную модернизацию страны. Этот вариант можно назвать «Пётр Великий 2.0». Практически невероятен.
> 3. В результате смены поколений государственный аппарат за 10-20 лет трансформируется в национально ориентированный, развиваются демократические институты, разблокируются механизмы социальных лифтов. 
> Каждый гражданин страны, который вырван из лап «деды воевали, многонациональный народ, Абрек-наш-друг, я-знаю-одного-узбека-он-отличный-человек»-мышления — это еще один шаг от первого варианта в пользу третьего.  
> Мне вспомнилась поговорка: «Закон — тайга, прокурор — медведь»

 Very correct.  ::  And when you are in that court, Always dress properly and remember, there could be more than one prosecutor.

----------


## dtrq

В тему национализма. Доклад Информационно-аналитического центра «Сова» «Украина спутала националистам карты: Ксенофобия и радикальный национализм и противодействие им в России в первой половине 2014»  

> ...русские националисты, как это часто бывает в этой среде, стали отказывать друг другу в праве называться «русскими националистами», одни – на основании того, что противник не поддерживает русских, другие – потому что противник предал идеи национализма.

  ::

----------


## RedFox

> В тему национализма. Доклад Информационно-аналитического центра «Сова» «Украина спутала националистам карты: Ксенофобия и радикальный национализм и противодействие им в России в первой половине 2014»
>  ...русские националисты, как это часто бывает в этой среде, стали отказывать друг другу в праве называться «русскими националистами», одни – на основании того, что противник не поддерживает русских, другие – потому что противник предал идеи национализма.

 У русских националистов полный порядок. А вот как припекает ваших — любо-дорого смотреть.  _- Скажите, как вы определяете русскость? По языку, культуре, крови, еще как-то?
- По вводу войск на Донбасс. Ввел - русский, не ввел - чурка._

----------


## RedFox

_Зачем лагеря, душегубки и печи?..
Есть бомбы и правозащитный укроп.
Европа спасает права человечьи,
Страну загоняя бомбежками в гроб, - 
Потом ее живо отстроят под ключ,
И дух перепашут, и многих окучат,
И сладостной славы обломится луч -
И премию Нобеля Павич получит.
(И премию Павича Нобель получит!) 
А также на кучу убитых мостов
Объявятся конкурсы вместе с жюрями,
Их уши торчат из европских кустов
И правозащитными бьют козырями, 
И ждут долгостроя, строительства в долг,
Чтоб долго в долгах новодела вариться.
…Но, воя, вползет в подсознание волк
Растерзанной сербости, он растворится - 
Как соль, этой солью приправят еду,
И море, и кровь. Незабвенно и просто.
И сербости я надеваю звезду,
Чтоб сербов не бросить в аду холокоста._ 
Юнна Мориц. 1999.

----------


## dtrq

> А вот как припекает ваших — любо-дорого смотреть.

 "Ваших" - это кого? Опять "матрацев"? Я же говорил, что к ним не отношусь.

----------


## RedFox

> "Ваших" - это кого? Опять "матрацев"? Я же говорил, что к ним не отношусь.

 ...радостно цитируя их ресурсы.

----------


## dtrq

Ну уж не знаю. Новостной сайт - один из многих в моей RSS-ленте, центр "Сова" вроде как обычная российская либеральная правозащитная организация, что, в общем-то, все равно, пока информация, ими предоставляемая, соответствует действительности.
А радостно - потому что я считаю националистов опасными идиотами, стремящимися, не понимя того, развалить мою страну, сделав из нее вторую Украину. Чем больше эти идиоты грызутся между собой - тем меньше у них времени наносить из благих намерений урон России.

----------


## RedFox

> А радостно - потому что я считаю националистов опасными идиотами, стремящимися, не понимя того, развалить _мою страну_, сделав из нее вторую Украину. Чем больше эти идиоты грызутся между собой - тем меньше у них времени наносить из благих намерений урон России.

 Ну вот видите.  ::

----------


## wanja

Александр Билецкий - Если бы во время Великой Отечественной работал интернет...

----------


## hddscan

> Александр Билецкий - Если бы во время Великой Отечественной работал интернет...

 Like не ставлю, но за линк спасибо, интересная импровизация

----------


## Hanna

Without any proof at all, all the English speaking news channels are busy telling the world that pro-Russian separatists shot down the Malaysian plane, using weapons from Russia.  
"Putin has some questions to answer" —BBC.     
I thought this belonged in the Russophobia thread, since it fits the theme of the thread.  
Anyone who wants to know the other side of the story, turn to RT on http://rt.com/news/  (streaming).  
Don't jump to any conclusion either way; RT too, is doing a good job of dropping hints in the other direction even though they are more restrictive.

----------


## RedFox

> Without any proof at all, all the English speaking news channels are busy telling the world that pro-Russian separatists shot down the Malaysian plane, using weapons from Russia.  
> "Putin has some questions to answer" —BBC.     
> I thought this belonged in the Russophobia thread, since it fits the theme of the thread.  
> Anyone who wants to know the other side of the story, turn to RT on http://rt.com/news/  (streaming).  
> Don't jump to any conclusion either way; RT too, is doing a good job of dropping hints in the other direction even though they are more restrictive.

 Общие соображения:
1. Пассажирские самолёты идут на высоте 10k, там его в принципе нечем достать ополченцам.
2. Воздушное пространство над зоной АТО было официально закрыто Украиной, пассажирский самолёт туда мог попасть только по прямой диверсии авиадиспетчера.
3. Вспоминается выстрел в Сараево, начавший Первую мировую войну.
4. Кажется, пора срочно выяснить, есть ли поблизости бомбоубежища, рассчитанные на ядерный удар.

----------


## hddscan

> Общие соображения:
> 1. Пассажирские самолёты идут на высоте 10k, там его в принципе нечем достать ополченцам.

 Allegedly the rebels might have "Buk" missile systems that were taken in June from Ukrainian military base. However official Kiev claimed that those "Buk" systems were broken by Ukrainian military during their retreat from the base. 
At the same time Ukrainian military has 27 "Buk" missile systems near Donetsk, they were set there on July 15th (according to Russian sources)  

> 2. Воздушное пространство над зоной АТО было официально закрыто Украиной, пассажирский самолёт туда мог попасть только по прямой диверсии авиадиспетчера.

 Apparently that is a common practice for high-flying aircraft to go through a zone of war conflict, it was done so before in Ukraine and other countries. 
However the course of the plane has been altered(can be verified through historical information) by Ukrainian flight control  (they were controlling the course of the aircraft and nobody denies it). Official version: "due to storms in the area of original flight course"  
Note to the moderator:  I know it's a veto on Ukrainian topic but could we at least talk about the plane crash?

----------


## Hanna

Apparently, firing the type of missile system that can lock onto a moving target at 10,000 m (where large passenger planes tend to be) is a HIGHLY specialised skill, that requires a team of people who are trained to work together as a in a professional situation. Completely computerised. 
It seems really unlikely that the rebels would have BOTH the equipment AND the necessary skills.  
It doesn't seem logical that it's them. 
If any local militia could shoot down a Boeing 777 at cruising height, then surely terrorists around the world would be doing it regularly?  I think it takes a proper national military to do that and therefor I'm leaning towards UA military, simply making a huge mistake.  
Apparently UA downed a Russian passenger plane in 2004, by mistake over the Black Sea.  
I think they somehow mistook the plane for a military aircraft and downed it. Like a drone or a fighter jet. Apparently Russia has been sending drones over the area.  
But isn't the mis-identification spectacular?  
A Boeing looks nothing like a drone or military planes, it's MUCH larger and flies much higher.  Surely drones and military aircrafts don't fly at that height?! It seems very odd that it wasn't possible to distinguish between a Boeing 777 and a military target.  
Whoever is behind this obviously didn't do it on purpose, but what a monumental fail. So tragic. If it is the rebels despite my hunch, then it's a PR suicide.  
Did you notice the fire engine? I was just a little bit sad to see that this rural area is using a 45 year old fire engine at a major aircraft disaster. Well done them for keeping it operational for that long. It looked in good shape despite its age.  But they must be very short of funds if they can't afford to replace a fire engine from the 1960s.  
Thank goodness at least nobody local was killed! With bad luck, there could have been deaths at the impact location too.  
If you want to be really sinister there are two aspects: 
1) Malaysia Airlines --- again?!  What are the odds?!
2) Some kind of psy-ops / black ops operation to turn public opinion and pave the way for NATO intervention in Ukraine.

----------


## Lampada

Ханна, пока есть только один факт:  самолёт потерпел крушение, всё остальное умозрительные домыслы, от которых при такой трагедии необходимо воздерживаться до официального заключения. Тем более, что на все украинские темы на форуме объявлен мораторий.

----------


## RedFox

> до официального заключения

 Кто верит в правдивость официальных заключений (любых)?

----------


## Lampada

_В Москве люди несут цветы к диппредставительству Малайзии (ул. Мосфильмовская, 50) и посольству Голландии (Калашный пер., 6). На подоконниках посольства Голландии лежат цветы, горят свечи._

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Кто верит в правдивость официальных заключений (любых)?

 82 children, 3 infants, and 213 adults died in that crash. It's very sad and the only important issue is that they learn what caused the crash so they can help prevent future disasters. Nobody knows what caused the crash yet so it could be pilot error or a malfunction.
There's something really wrong about this week. First the metro crash in Moscow and now this. My condolences for everybody who lost family and friends in these tragic events.  
Btw, they found a second black box and international teams will be investigating the accident. I would post a link to the article but it's too political. They should be focusing on the crash and the victims, not politics.

----------


## hddscan

> Ханна, пока есть только один факт:  самолёт потерпел крушение, всё остальное умозрительные домыслы, от которых при такой трагедии необходимо воздерживаться до официального заключения. Тем более, что на все украинские темы на форуме объявлен мораторий.

 I guess there is a problem with official conclusion.
Theoretically only Ukrainian and Malaysian officials can make such conclusion. Neither of those two has enough resources and knowledge to investigate such crashes. Not to mention that Ukraine is one of the suspected sides.

----------


## Hanna

This is the most read tabloid in the UK. 
The headline is seen by every Brit who passes a newspaper stand or a shop that sells magazines. Agitation & propaganda, much? 
Perhaps it illustrates the need to present both sides of this to any English speakers who happen to pass by.      
I'll follow Redfox' advice and check out where the nearest nuclear shelter is. :sarcasm: Who knows what those scary Russians will do next? :irony:

----------


## hddscan

That's sad but I guess Russians will live in their world and Brits in theirs.
Once again it is proven that the East and the West are not ready to unite or even collaborate. 
PS: Those scary Russians have more nukes than anybody else, so better make that shelter big and bury it deep.

----------


## RedFox

bobik_57 - Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не "Бук-М1"
Самолёт был поражен осколочно-стержневой боевой частью.
Слова эксперта: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnd9gAxhC-c «самолёт падал не вертикально». Значит пролетел существенное расстояние от точки поражения.
Для меня вывод недвусмысленный. Самолёт сбила украинская авиация. 
Меж тем, по Луганску сегодня весь день шпарят Грады и авиация. Трупов мирных жителей столько, что скоро хватит на еще один Боинг. Но «мировому сообществу» насрать. Славяне — не люди, нас не жалко. 
Пожалуй, этот мир действительно достоин того, чтобы сгореть в ядреном огне. Надо было Хрущеву нажать тогда на кнопку, в 62-м. Может разумные осьминоги, ну или кто там придёт после нас, будут хотя бы чуть добрее и честнее.

----------


## hddscan

> bobik_57 - Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не "Бук-М1"
> Самолёт был поражен осколочно-стержневой боевой частью.

 I would wait for real experts, before jumping to conclusions.
Same picture, different opinion - https://twitter.com/vilnezheettya/st...837952/photo/1   

> Для меня вывод недвусмысленный. Самолёт сбила украинская авиация.

 This should be much-much easier to detect than the missile because of the speed.  
Russia is silent on this today but the West is already unwrapped all the propaganda guns and firing at will, many people already "sure" that it was the rebels and they got their weapons from Russia. It's massive brainwashing with no real evidence.
Some people however see resemblance of the tactics that were used "proving" Iraqi WMD.

----------


## hddscan

I tried to investigate a little and I came to conclusion that Ukrainian "Buk" systems (location info has been reported by Russia) are pretty far from the crash site. They could have shot down the plane but it's a big stretch.
Here is the map.  1.jpg

----------


## Basil77

> This is the most read tabloid in the UK.

 These two are even better:       

> I tried to investigate a little and I came to conclusion that Ukrainian  "Buk" systems (location info has been reported by Russia) are pretty far  from the crash site. They could have shot down the plane but it's a big  stretch.
> Here is the map.

 Insiders in Ukrainian military said they fired and missed. So the job was finished by a fighter jet.

----------


## Lampada

Тема закрывается до окончания расследования катастрофы.

----------

