# Forum About Russia Politics  Is Belarus next??

## TheMoonMonst3r

For a peaceful democratic revolution?  We had the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Serbian revolution, Rose revolution in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and Pink & Yellow in Krygzhstzyrzrzzzygz(whatever the hell that country is called)stan.  Is Belarus next? 
If not, is the Belarussian language going to die?  http://www.zubr-belarus.com/

----------


## Jca

> ...Rose revolution in Georgia...

 How was that? I'm afraid I'm not quite up to date , what happened to Shevarnadze and how is Georgia nowadays, politically and socially speaking?

----------


## Scorpio

> ...Rose revolution in Georgia...
> 			
> 		  How was that? I'm afraid I'm not quite up to date , what happened to Shevarnadze and how is Georgia nowadays, politically and socially speaking?

 In Saakashvili's Georgia situation only worsened. So, I'll not be surprised much, if next revolution happens there.

----------


## mike

I think there is a bigger problem we must address.  What happens when they run out of colors?  Eastern Europe will go into a nosedive of stagnation without another businessman-led "revolution" carefully coordinated by the international press and supported by the US State Dept.  I fear we will not see any more changes in the status quo of the former bloc for a thousand years after the Checkerboard Coup of 2012   ::

----------


## Welf

> Is Belarus next?

 probably Russia? I saw group of guys on 1st May with Orange flags, Ukrainian brothers are ready to help and they are already collecting orange things for future revolution. that is just funny and sad at the same time.  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

For the benefit of colour blind people there should be no red or green revolutions staged.

----------


## TATY

> For a peaceful democratic revolution?

 Democratic?  
Belarus' seems the most likely. 
When you said Serbia I thought you meant the break up of Yugoslavia, and I was thinking "peaceful, democratic!?!?" Then I remembered the one in 2000 when they got rid of Slosba.

----------


## FL

Nobody have guessed right.
It is one of the most terrible variant - Uzbekistan.

----------


## shone

Hmmm, US can do whatever they want but we (Serbs) are always ready to die for Russia. It seems that Ukraine was american provocatoin on Russia. Serbia wasn't like that. Yes, we replaced milosevic and USA played its part, but we still (and perhaps always) say: Mother Russia. Thay couldn't change that.

----------


## Sukhoff

> Hmmm, US can do whatever they want but we (Serbs) are always ready to die for Russia. It seems that Ukraine was american provocatoin on Russia. Serbia wasn't like that. Yes, we replaced milosevic and USA played its part, but we still (and perhaps always) say: Mother Russia. Thay couldn't change that.

 Thanks a lot, brother!
You know that Russians (Slavic part at least) consider that Serbs are our brothers.

----------


## shone

> Originally Posted by shone  Hmmm, US can do whatever they want but we (Serbs) are always ready to die for Russia. It seems that Ukraine was american provocatoin on Russia. Serbia wasn't like that. Yes, we replaced milosevic and USA played its part, but we still (and perhaps always) say: Mother Russia. Thay couldn't change that.   Thanks a lot, brother!
> You know that Russians (Slavic part at least) consider that Serbs are our brothers.

 Well I know...and that is the reason I sad that. Even if Russians don't consider Serbs as brother nation, Serbs will always be on the side of Russia no mather what. We care about the history relatinship with Russia and help that Russia gave to Serbia, so we will be gratefull FOREVER.

----------


## Scorpio

Well, the question is answered: elections in Belorussia are over. Final results: 
Alexander Lukashenko: 83%
Alexander Milinkevich: 6,1%
Segrey Gaidukevich: 3,5%
Alexander Kozulin: 2,2% 
so, the people of Belorussia clearly made their choice. Your comments?

----------


## TATY

> Well, the question is answered: elections in Belorussia are over. Final results: 
> Alexander Lukashenko: 83%
> Alexander Milinkevich: 6,1%
> Segrey Gaidukevich: 3,5%
> Alexander Kozulin: 2,2% 
> so, the people of Belorussia clearly made their choice. Your comments?

 I believe there was a certain amount of fraud in the election, but even without it I still think Lukashenko would have won with a large majority. 
My friend was an election observer, so I'm interested in his views when I get them.

----------


## basurero

мне по барабану. It doesn't matter they're all corrupted. There will be no change.

----------


## Bisquit

When speaking of so-called "color revolutions" Western press forgets that Russia has already had "revolution" in 1991. Consequences of this "revolution" are still percieved in Russia and, I dare say,  most of people don't want another "revolution" of that kind.

----------


## Scorpio

> When speaking of so-called "color revolutions" Western press forgets that Russia has already had "revolution" in 1991. Consequences of this "revolution" are still percieved in Russia and, I dare say,  most of people don't want another "revolution" of that kind.

 And even before, in 1917 -- color was red. Remember?  ::

----------


## TATY



----------


## Бармалей

> IMAGE: MOLDY ORANGE

 That's farking foul. Ugh. Next time why don't you just post a picture of some foot fungus or STD-affected region, eh?   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> When speaking of so-called "color revolutions" Western press forgets that Russia has already had "revolution" in 1991. Consequences of this "revolution" are still percieved in Russia and, I dare say,  most of people don't want another "revolution" of that kind.

 Huh? What revolution? I thought we were still fighting communism to help that Nicholas II guy come back to the throne?!?!  :P

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Reminds me of Saddam getting 100% of the vote before the war started, even the dead voted for him...  ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Reminds me of Saddam getting 100% of the vote before the war started, even the dead voted for him...

 Which reminds me of this, lol:

----------


## basurero

Why do they name them after colours anyway?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

The rose revolution wasn't named after a color, but a flower!

----------


## Бармалей

Dance Dance Revolution wasn't named after a flower, but...uhm...a dance?  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

вот видишь, все револуция не взяли соё имя от светов!

----------


## basurero

Они взяли свои имена с потолка, мне кажется.

----------


## adoc

> Why do they name them after colours anyway?

 because they are after people with heart and not busy at work, 17-18 years old that is.  Imagine how much of brainless support a revolution would get if it was called "the real estate tax maneuver revolution" or "the successful business team building strategy revolution".  You would need a person who can read just to understand what this is about.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Then to get REAL support from that group they should call it "the free-sex revolution"

----------


## Бармалей

> Then to get REAL support from that group they should call it "the free-sex revolution"

 They would themselves be promptly overthrown by the "the free-sex AND beer revolution." My revolution is better than yours! Nah-na-na-nah-na!  :P

----------


## TATY

Ukraine holds parlimentary elections today, and Yanukovych's "Party of Regions" is due to beat Yushchenko's "Nasha Ukrayina" bloc, by a significant margin. 
Opinion polls put Party of Regions at 30%, with Our Ukraine at just under 20%.

----------


## adoc

> Then to get REAL support from that group they should call it "the free-sex revolution"

 How about girls, are you forgetting about the better half of the stupids?  Then you should call it "The free sex and cuddly animals revolution", and that somehow does not work together too well, and then again, you need someone who can read.  Now, if you call it blue or pink or red or freedom, everyone can fantasize of what gets them off.

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  Then to get REAL support from that group they should call it "the free-sex revolution"   How about girls, are you forgetting about the better half of the stupids?  Then you should call it "The free sex and cuddly animals revolution", and that somehow does not work together too well, and then again, you need someone who can read.  Now, if you call it blue or pink or red or freedom, everyone can fantasize of what gets them off.

 "The Free Sex and Shoes Revolution" should work, I'd say.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Come on, we all know that women don't bear much revolution gist in them. All revolutions are done by MEN.   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Come on, we all know that women don't bear much revolution gist in them. All revolutions are done by MEN.

 So you would support the "Misogyny Revolution?"   ::

----------


## Scorpio

> Reminds me of Saddam getting 100% of the vote before the war started, even the dead voted for him...

 According to official election results (in January 2004, in Georgia) Saakashvili got 96%, or something alike.
Besides, it is well known, what at least 10-15% (probably, even more) of georgian population were abroad -- mostly in Russia -- working to support their families. How he got 95% with 15% of "official" voters not voting at all -- this still remain a miracle. Maybe, dead souls were involved too.  :: 
(Of course, nobody in Europe or USA complained about this elections -- everybody still calls them "fair" and "democratic".)

----------


## Bisquit

I think the future Ukrainian political alliance is not vital. They'll be like cats and mice and that bad for the national economy.

----------


## adoc

> Come on, we all know that women don't bear much revolution gist in them. All revolutions are done by MEN.

 I can tell you haven't been attending any major "revolutions" lately.  The whole point of going to the barricades is an intention to score.  And you have good chances too - these chicks are wild.

----------


## Бармалей

And apparently Lukashenko isn't the sharpest tool in the shed:
Bad idea: arresting a diplomat
Worse idea: arresting several diplomats
Worst idea: sentencing a former ambassador to 15 days in jail http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  Come on, we all know that women don't bear much revolution gist in them. All revolutions are done by MEN.     I can tell you haven't been attending any major "revolutions" lately.  The whole point of going to the barricades is an intention to score.  And you have good chances too - these chicks are wild.

 Cool. 
Down with the Labour party!

----------


## Slavophile

On another note...I'm quite positive about Belorussian surviving as a language. It has an oral tradition and, although it is very similar to Russian, is far more widely spoken then say Vlach, which itself has split into two different streams of dialect. If the Belarussian state desires to continue direct rule as an independant nation-state, it will encourage a diversion between Belarussian and Russian (as well as Ukrainian. Perhaps it would borrow more heavily from Polish or Lithuanian?) Alternatively if a deal were worked out between the Belarussian state and the Russian government to allow the absorbtion of Belarus into Russia in return for their continued power in belarus and/or other perks, (Perhaps a king Zog-Italian style deal as the most extreme possibility), the language would reflect increased Russification.  
Last time I read an economic journal on Russia with an article on belarus, it was suggesting a failure of rapproachment between Belarus and Russia, which is simply why i am suggesting the Belarussian language should be healthy.

----------


## Ramil

I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there. 
US promised money for the Ukraine but apparently they've out of budget by now  ::  
I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then. 
They could not understand a simple notion that NOBODY in the West really wants Urkaine, Georgia, Byelarus and any other country any good. The worse situation in the East is the better and safer they feel.

----------


## Scorpio

> I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there. 
> US promised money for the Ukraine but apparently they've out of budget by now  
> I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then. 
> They could not understand a simple notion that NOBODY in the West really wants Urkaine, Georgia, Byelarus and any other country any good. The worse situation in the East is the better and safer they feel.

 The sad Ukrainian story reminds me about the old truth: "The smart people are the ones, who can learn from somebody else's mistakes". Why before the "orange revolution" didn't them try to look at Saakashvili Georgia, for example? They'll knew better, what to expect from future. 
Although, again, in retrospect, they did seem to learn on Russia mistakes, as well. Just remembering 1991-93... a good material for learning, too. 
BTW, *Urkaine* -- какая удачная очепятка!  ::

----------


## Ramil

Why? The struggle for power has always welcomed scum of any kind. The question is whether that scum is qualified to hold any power? All they think is the personal enrichment. 
Who cares about Ukraine anyway while they're filling their pockets. 
To try to break economic ties with Russia in exchange for some vague promises about huge foreign investments and the membership in NATO - is simply to rob the country out of any opportunity of economic growth. It can be either a sheer idiocy or a serious crime.

----------


## mishau_

who can tell me why the politicans are bursting up in Ukraine all the time like a bunch of clowns? So much time has past, and they never reach a concensus. Is that very useful for the country?

----------


## TATY

> I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there. 
> US promised money for the Ukraine but apparently they've out of budget by now  
> I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then. 
> They could not understand a simple notion that NOBODY in the West really wants Urkaine, Georgia, Byelarus and any other country any good. The worse situation in the East is the better and safer they feel.

 Economic collapse? Don't exaggerate.

----------


## Бармалей

> Ecomic collapse? Don't exagorate.

 I like you, the majority of your posts and your music site, soo I'ma goin two lat thiis wone pazz witout moking yur  Engrish skillz.   ::

----------


## Bisquit

Вообще-то правильнее будет написать "...шпионишь за Путиным".

----------


## mishau_

> Don't exagorate

 Переводится как "Не загорай". На Украине - хрень, в Белоруссии - хрень, в России - тоже хрень, в Европе - двойная хрень, в Америке - тройная хрень, и вся политика - сплошная хренотень. Бармалеюшка, я расшифровал твою патонкаффскую подпись, составив текст из заглавных букв. Вот что вышло: УЕЙ САП СУХА НАХ!  
А "допускать" ошибки в английском нельзя, их можно только ляпать как кляксы, воротить и веретенить.

----------


## Бармалей

> Вообще-то правильнее будет написать "...шпионишь за Путиным".

 Vadim already slapped me on the wrist for this in another post -- thanks!

----------


## laxxy

> I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there.

 Hardly.   

> I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then.

 I have never seen anyone who really thought that everyone will suddenly become "rich and fine". 
Still, it's quite obvious that the choice that was made was the right one and you will find no one in Ukraine who would regret making it. The parliamentary elections showed that quite clearly, too.

----------


## laxxy

> The sad Ukrainian story reminds me about the old truth: "The smart people are the ones, who can learn from somebody else's mistakes". Why before the "orange revolution" didn't them try to look at Saakashvili Georgia, for example? They'll knew better, what to expect from future.

 Did you mean that the life under Schewardnaze's regime was much better?  ::

----------


## laxxy

> who can tell me why the politicans are bursting up in Ukraine all the time like a bunch of clowns? So much time has past, and they never reach a concensus. Is that very useful for the country?

 No, that's not useful, but that's how Ukrainians are  ::  There is a Ukrainian saying, "gde dva ukrainca tam tri het'mana". This has always been a major source of our troubles.

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  
> Ecomic collapse? Don't exagorate.   I like you, the majority of your posts and your music site, soo I'ma goin two lat thiis wone pazz witout moking yur  Engrish skillz.

 I can spell perfectly well when I'm not rushing :P

----------


## basurero

Is that your music site?

----------


## Бармалей

> Is that your music site?

 Yes. TATY = Dima Bilan.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there. 
> US promised money for the Ukraine but apparently they've out of budget by now  
> I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then. 
> They could not understand a simple notion that NOBODY in the West really wants Urkaine, Georgia, Byelarus and any other country any good. The worse situation in the East is the better and safer they feel.   Economic collapse? Don't exaggerate.

 Maybe I'm exaggerating but only a little.

----------


## Scorpio

> Originally Posted by Scorpio  The sad Ukrainian story reminds me about the old truth: "The smart people are the ones, who can learn from somebody else's mistakes". Why before the "orange revolution" didn't them try to look at Saakashvili Georgia, for example? They'll knew better, what to expect from future.   Did you mean that the life under Schewardnaze's regime was much better?

 You may be right -- most probably, under Shewardnadze life was better, than under Saakashvili's regime. (I'm almost 100% sure  it wasn't worse  ::  ) 
However, I wonder, why do you insist on comparing two evils: why not to compare life in modern Georgia with life in Soviet times Georgia instead?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I've never had so much fun than in times of Ukrainian "orange" revolution. I've predicted economic collapse within a year and that's exactly what happenned there.   Hardly.

   

> I've spoken to people who supported orange revolution. They all were sure that once Ukraine breaks free from Moskali's oppression they will be rich and fine. Yushenko was regarded at least a demi-god then.
> 			
> 		  I have never seen anyone who really thought that everyone will suddenly become "rich and fine".

 Если хочешь, могу прислать тебе мою переписку с украинскими ребятами того времени. Всё говорили, что пройдёт год-два и Ющенко и Тимошенко сделают из Украины богатейшее государство  ::    

> Still, it's quite obvious that the choice that was made was the right one and you will find no one in Ukraine who would regret making it. The parliamentary elections showed that quite clearly, too.

 Большинство получила, насколько я знаю, "Партия Регионов" Януковича. Или это всё происки "кровавой гебни"? По-моему результат парламентских выборов говорит в пользу моих утверждений: 
Партия регионов - 186 мест в парламенте, 
блок Юлии Тимошенко - 129, 
блок "Наша Украина" - 81,
Соцпартия - 33, 
Компартия - 21. 
И насчёт того, что никто не жалеет о выборе - это тоже одно из твоих крупных заблуждений. 
Оранжевым дерьмом засрали мозги в первую очередь молодёжи, обмануть которую оказалось легче всего.

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by laxxy        Originally Posted by Scorpio  The sad Ukrainian story reminds me about the old truth: "The smart people are the ones, who can learn from somebody else's mistakes". Why before the "orange revolution" didn't them try to look at Saakashvili Georgia, for example? They'll knew better, what to expect from future.   Did you mean that the life under Schewardnaze's regime was much better?    You may be right -- most probably, under Shewardnadze life was better, than under Saakashvili's regime. (I'm almost 100% sure  it wasn't worse  )

 Why? Do you know anyone in Georgia who says so?   

> However, I wonder, why do you insist on comparing two evils: why not to compare life in modern Georgia with life in Soviet times Georgia instead?

 Because this difference is not of Saakashvili's making, and because it is not in his (or anyone else's) power to return to "Soviet Georgia". 
When evaluating Putin, you'll probably be comparing him to Yeltsin rather than Brezhnev.

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by laxxy  I have never seen anyone who really thought that everyone will suddenly become "rich and fine".    Если хочешь, могу прислать тебе мою переписку с украинскими ребятами того времени. Всё говорили, что пройдёт год-два и Ющенко и Тимошенко сделают из Украины богатейшее государство

 If you like, you may -- I bet you are misinterpreting things. It's quite clear to anyone with half a brain, and has always been, that no one can create "богатейшее государство" in a couple years.    

> Still, it's quite obvious that the choice that was made was the right one and you will find no one in Ukraine who would regret making it. The parliamentary elections showed that quite clearly, too.

 So? The "orange" side in 2004 was composed of Yuschenko+UT+Moroz mainly (+some people who did not get over 3%). 
129+81+33=243>>186.    

> И насчёт того, что никто не жалеет о выборе - это тоже одно из твоих крупных заблуждений.

 No, it's a fact. Russian media tries to distort and hide it, but it is true nonetheless. I have never seen such a person, neither online nor in real life, and I am sure that neither have you. 
For clarity: I am of course not talking about Yanukovich's supporters here, they were not making that choice to start with and therefore have nothing to regret, even though they are unhappy about how things turned out. I understand and respect their opinion (at least, as far as most people from Donetsk are concerned), and maybe next time they have better luck.  
As a note: I'd personally have loved a NU+PR coalition, in fact the one thing that surprised me was the number of "hardcore orange" fans among my friends who would not accept it under any circumstances (In principle, I can imagine even myself voting for PR if things change enough to warrant it, but it does not mean that I would have preferred Yu. to lose in 2004). 
But to those who supported Yuschenko the right side in 2004 is as clear now as it was clear then. There were many different reasons why different people voted for Yuschenko (and none of them had anything to do with hopes of suddenly becoming a "богатейшее государство"), and all those reasons are still valid.   

> Оранжевым дерьмом засрали мозги в первую очередь молодёжи, обмануть которую оказалось легче всего.

 Извини, но дерьмом засрали мозги в первую очередь таким как ты россиянам -- настолько, что они до сих пор верят в "руку Америки" и отказываются видеть крайне очевидные вещи. 
А к молодежи ни я, ни большинство моих друзей, ни мои родственники, практически все голосовавшие за Ющенко, к сожалению, уже не относимся.

----------


## Ramil

> So? The "orange" side in 2004 was composed of Yuschenko+UT+Moroz mainly (+some people who did not get over 3%). 
> 129+81+33=243>>186.

 Угу, только вот не вместе они нифига теперь (только номинально). И не будет у президента большинства в Раде. 
Тимошенко была послана на... да в принципе ей туда дорога с самого начала была, просто её бабки тогда были нужны.
А сейчас Ю. уже с Януковичем мосты налаживает (с "бандитом", по его собственным словам).  
Темпы экономического роста замедлились (оранжевые прочили рост). Снизился уровень жизни (это уже статистика).
И в Евросоюз что-то не торопятся Украину принимать.   

> И насчёт того, что никто не жалеет о выборе - это тоже одно из твоих крупных заблуждений.

 Учитывая то, что на Украине у меня полно знакомых и даже родственников, либо все они мне врут, либо заблуждаешься ты.   

> No, it's a fact. Russian media tries to distort and hide it, but it is true nonetheless. I have never seen such a person, neither online nor in real life, and I am sure that neither have you.

 Я так и думал - происки кровавой гебни.    

> Оранжевым дерьмом засрали мозги в первую очередь молодёжи, обмануть которую оказалось легче всего.

 Спорить с оранжевыми - бесполезно. Это я понял ещё тогда, поэтому лично я дискуссию сворачиваю.  
Хотя вот один вопрос:
Можешь ли ты привести примеры положительных изменений от правления Ющенко? (Только не лозунгами а фактами?)

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by laxxy  So? The "orange" side in 2004 was composed of Yuschenko+UT+Moroz mainly (+some people who did not get over 3%). 
> 129+81+33=243>>186.   Угу, только вот не вместе они нифига теперь (только номинально). И не будет у президента большинства в Раде.

 And so what? They were together in 2004. They won together in 2004. Now they've split, so their supporters have split too, but they still continue to support them. And their coalition has the majority in the parliament.   

> Тимошенко была послана на... да в принципе ей туда дорога с самого начала была, просто её бабки тогда были нужны.

 Скажем скорее так -- ее попытались послать, но нифига не вышло  ::  Она сама кого хочешь пошлет. Ну ничего, посмотрим каким она будет премьером во второй раз.    

> А сейчас Ю. уже с Януковичем мосты налаживает (с "бандитом", по его собственным словам).

 В чем я его полностью поддерживаю. ПР сейчас и Янукович-2004 -- это две большие разницы.   

> Темпы экономического роста замедлились (оранжевые прочили рост).

 Есть такая проблема. Хотя они бы в любом случае замедлились, но заметная доля вины таки на "оранжевых", да. Но не все в жизни сводится к экономическому росту в отдельно взятом году.   

> Снизился уровень жизни (это уже статистика).

 Странная какая-то статистика у тебя. Реальные доходы населения по статистике выросли.   

> И в Евросоюз что-то не торопятся Украину принимать.

 А что, обещали?   

> [quote:2trpe5cj]И насчёт того, что никто не жалеет о выборе - это тоже одно из твоих крупных заблуждений.

 Учитывая то, что на Украине у меня полно знакомых и даже родственников, либо все они мне врут, либо заблуждаешься ты.[/quote:2trpe5cj] 
Они все голосовали за Ющенко? А теперь говорят что надо было за Януковича?   

> Хотя вот один вопрос:
> Можешь ли ты привести примеры положительных изменений от правления Ющенко? (Только не лозунгами а фактами?)

 Для начала: основным фактором в моем выборе, и в выборе многих моих знакомых, были вовсе не надежды на резкие положительные изменения. В первую очередь было желание остановить все ускорявшееся движение от (пусть и весьма неидеальной) демократии к авторитаризму, и это не лозунги. Те же темники (то есть, указания от администрации президента что можно а что нельзя показывать по телевизору), и, конечно, как кульминация, весь цирк с самими выборами. И не столько даже сами фальсификации, сколько уровень наглости с которым они делались. И то же самое начиналось и в экономике. 
В 2004 был реальный риск получить в Украине режим образца российского (только в ухудшенном варианте), а то и белорусского. Это была своеобразная точка бифуркации. Мы ее успешно прошли, и теперь можно смело идти голосовать за ПРУ, у кого есть такое желание  ::  
Теперь что касается положительных изменений, приведу несколько:
1. Вышеупомянутая свобода слова. Это не лозунг, а вполне реальная вещь, хотя у меня такое впечатление что в России она ценится меньше: те же темники регулярно рассылались и у нас и у вас, но у нас они почти все и сразу публиковались на оппозиционных вебсайтах и т.п. из-за утечек, а у вас это происходило всего несколько раз. Видимо народ более запуган. Относительно честные выборы в 2006.
2. В экономике -- выплаты на рождение детей (8000 гривень, ~$1600), и вообще реальный рост доходов населения. Продажа Криворожстали. В ВТО похоже, в этом году вступим (правда пока не вступили, за достижение не считаю). 
Хватит?
Может, теперь ты расскажешь в чем, по твоему мнению, нам было бы лучше, выбери мы в 2004 году Януковича?

----------


## TATY

Life for the average Ukrainian is not any worse, and not much better since the 'Orange Revolution'. 
I can't really argue with Ramil and Scorpio that it was a bit of a flop, but it is nothing like the disaster they are making it out to be. 
"Economic collapse" is not at all accurate. Yes economic growth slowed dramatically. But a slow in growth does not = collapse. Also it is set to increase again in 2007 (if the Russians (or Tymoshenko for that matter) leaves the gas alone!).

----------


## mishau_

Look, that may be interesting! 
The Union of Right Forces and other Russian pro-western parties and movements supported the Orange in Ukraine. Good. However, due to their own ambitions they always quarelled with each other and never managed to win any further elections in Russia as appropriate. Well, the Right are still at logoheads and they seem they will never merge. And they support the new Ukrainian politicans and these politicans in turn burst up as well as the Right in Russia! Let me predict: the Ukrainian pro-western politicans will never find a consensus! They will take after Russian right forces, always splitting, bursting up, playing dirty tricks, using dirty PR campagns, and so on.  
Looks like Nemtsov with others share their experience of losers, teaching Ukrainian politicans how to find themselves thrown on a side of the road! What a load of piles.

----------


## laxxy

> Look, that may be interesting! 
> The Union of Right Forces and other Russian pro-western parties and movements supported the Orange in Ukraine. Good. However, due to their own ambitions they always quarelled with each other and never managed to win any further elections in Russia as appropriate. Well, the Right are still at logoheads and they seem they will never merge. And they support the new Ukrainian politicans and these politicans in turn burst up as well as the Right in Russia! Let me predict: the Ukrainian pro-western politicans will never find a consensus! They will take after Russian right forces, always splitting, bursting up, playing dirty tricks, using dirty PR campagns, and so on.  
> Looks like Nemtsov with others share their experience of losers, teaching Ukrainian politicans how to find themselves thrown on a side of the road! What a load of piles.

 I must agree on the evaluation of the current breed of the Russian right as sore losers (although it does not seem to me that they play the game any dirtier than anyone else). One thing the Ukrainian right (who I greatly sympathize with) do NOT need is their advice, it's more like "listen to them and do the opposite". If anything its them who should learn from us, but they are too arrogant for that. 
But even though the ukrainian right were all a part of the "orange" side in '04, I would not qualify the whole movement as right at all. Tymoshenko in particular has been alarmingly leftist, leave alone Moroz. And Ukrainian politics have been rather fractuous since time immemorial, we need no Russians to teach us how to argue with each other, we do that quite well on our own  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil        Originally Posted by laxxy  So? The "orange" side in 2004 was composed of Yuschenko+UT+Moroz mainly (+some people who did not get over 3%). 
> 129+81+33=243>>186.   Угу, только вот не вместе они нифига теперь (только номинально). И не будет у президента большинства в Раде.   And so what? They were together in 2004. They won together in 2004. Now they've split, so their supporters have split too, but they still continue to support them. And their coalition has the majority in the parliament.

 У меня бы уже язык не повернулся назвать это коалицией. Одно название. Коалиция - это несколько групп с совпадающими если не интересами, то хотя бы целями.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  А сейчас Ю. уже с Януковичем мосты налаживает (с "бандитом", по его собственным словам).   В чем я его полностью поддерживаю. ПР сейчас и Янукович-2004 -- это две большие разницы.

 Такие перемены в поведении и выборе "партнёров", В.И. Ленин называл политической проституцией. Умный был мужик, кстати.    

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Снизился уровень жизни (это уже статистика).   Странная какая-то статистика у тебя. Реальные доходы населения по статистике выросли.

 А теперь эти доходы возьми, учти инфляцию и рост цен на энергоносители.
Прибавь возросший внешний долг (по нему, в конечном счёте, платит население).   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  И в Евросоюз что-то не торопятся Украину принимать.   А что, обещали?

 они нет, но Ющенко обещал.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Учитывая то, что на Украине у меня полно знакомых и даже родственников, либо все они мне врут, либо заблуждаешься ты.   Они все голосовали за Ющенко? А теперь говорят что надо было за Януковича?

 не все, но некоторые голосовали. и многие жалеют об этом. Единственное, что их оправдывает, они не видели альтернативы Ющенко, голосовали скорее против старого режима Кучмы, чем за Ющенко.   

> Для начала: основным фактором в моем выборе, и в выборе многих моих знакомых, были вовсе не надежды на резкие положительные изменения. В первую очередь было желание остановить все ускорявшееся движение от (пусть и весьма неидеальной) демократии к авторитаризму, и это не лозунги. Те же темники (то есть, указания от администрации президента что можно а что нельзя показывать по телевизору), и, конечно, как кульминация, весь цирк с самими выборами.

 1. Телевизор есть средство пропаганды. Верить в то, что в нём показывают нельзя никогда. Повторяю - НИКОГДА. Каждый раз, когда включаешь телевизор, надо говорить себе: "Там - ВРАГ!".
2. Весьма демократично выглядело заявление Ющенко, что он не признает другого результата, кроме собственной победы. (Я на болтике вертел такую демократию).     

> И не столько даже сами фальсификации, сколько уровень наглости с которым они делались. И то же самое начиналось и в экономике.

  ::  Да или ТАК!  ::  Только вот проблема - такой же в точности хернёй занимались и сами оранжевые. И до выборов и после.   

> В 2004 был реальный риск получить в Украине режим образца российского (только в ухудшенном варианте), а то и белорусского. Это была своеобразная точка бифуркации. Мы ее успешно прошли, и теперь можно смело идти голосовать за ПРУ, у кого есть такое желание

 Вы получили марионеточное правительство.   

> Теперь что касается положительных изменений, приведу несколько: 
> 1. Вышеупомянутая свобода слова.

 Иллюзия. См. то, что я писал про телевидение и печать. Свободы слова нет ни в одной стране мира. Вернее есть возможность высказывать любую херню, только толку от этих высказываний - ноль целых хрен десятых. Страна - как трамвай, пофигу кто у руля, он всё равно катится по рельсам. А пассажиры, разумеется, могут высказываться, только вот маршрута движения это не меняет.    

> 2. В экономике -- выплаты на рождение детей (8000 гривень, ~$1600), и вообще реальный рост доходов населения. Продажа Криворожстали. В ВТО похоже, в этом году вступим (правда пока не вступили, за достижение не считаю).

 Выплаты - это хорошо, интересно мне правда, откуда в бюджете денюжки нашлись и не аукнется ли это потом. Насчёт ВТО - сомнительная честь и сомнительные выгоды. Чтобы какой-то дядя из-за океана уже официально указывал, чем, как и где торговать, по каким ценам и пр.   

> Хватит?
> Может, теперь ты расскажешь в чем, по твоему мнению, нам было бы лучше, выбери мы в 2004 году Януковича?

 Будешь смеяться - было бы всё точно так же. Не изменилось бы ни-че-го. Просто вместо американской марионетки, посадили бы российскую.

----------


## laxxy

> And so what? They were together in 2004. They won together in 2004. Now they've split, so their supporters have split too, but they still continue to support them. And their coalition has the majority in the parliament.
> 			
> 		  У меня бы уже язык не повернулся назвать это коалицией. Одно название. Коалиция - это несколько групп с совпадающими если не интересами, то хотя бы целями.

 Мне не совсем понятно, почему внутренние противоречия этой коалиции тебя так волнут. Однако речь шла о том, что процент тех кто симпатизировал "оранжевым" в 2004 не снизился, и до сих пор значительно превышает процент тех, кто поддерживает Януковича.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  И в Евросоюз что-то не торопятся Украину принимать.   А что, обещали?

 И когда же это было? Может цитату приведешь?   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Учитывая то, что на Украине у меня полно знакомых и даже родственников, либо все они мне врут, либо заблуждаешься ты.   Они все голосовали за Ющенко? А теперь говорят что надо было за Януковича?

 "Ругать Ющенко" не означает "сожалеть о сделанном выборе". О чем, собственно, и речь.   

> [quote:1jojw50h]И не столько даже сами фальсификации, сколько уровень наглости с которым они делались. И то же самое начиналось и в экономике.

  ::  Да или ТАК!  ::  Только вот проблема - такой же в точности хернёй занимались и сами оранжевые. И до выборов и после.[/quote:1jojw50h]
А как насчет голову включить? В 2004 власть во _всех_ регионах Украины находилась прочно в руках сторонников Януковича. У оранжевых не было никакой возможности заняться "такой же херней". Что касается после -- смотрим на выборы 2006, сравниваем с 2004.   

> [quote:1jojw50h]В 2004 был реальный риск получить в Украине режим образца российского (только в ухудшенном варианте), а то и белорусского. Это была своеобразная точка бифуркации. Мы ее успешно прошли, и теперь можно смело идти голосовать за ПРУ, у кого есть такое желание

 Вы получили марионеточное правительство.[/quote:1jojw50h]
Да-да, а оранжевую революцию нам устроили американцы. Извини, но смешно просто.    

> Теперь что касается положительных изменений, приведу несколько: 
> 1. Вышеупомянутая свобода слова.

 О да. Пошли автоматические аргументы. До чего вы все-таки предсказуемы. Демократии тоже видимо нигде нет.   

> 2. В экономике -- выплаты на рождение детей (8000 гривень, ~$1600), и вообще реальный рост доходов населения. Продажа Криворожстали. В ВТО похоже, в этом году вступим (правда пока не вступили, за достижение не считаю).

 Ну для тебя выгоды сомнительные, для меня очевидные. С другой стороны например Ющенко своим достижением вывод войск из Ирака считает, а я вот не уверен что это такое уж достижение. То же касается и прочих вопросов. Ну так для того и демократия, чтобы выбирать ту власть, политика которой нам предпочтительнее.   

> Хватит?
> Может, теперь ты расскажешь в чем, по твоему мнению, нам было бы лучше, выбери мы в 2004 году Януковича?

 Отчего же ты так распинаешься что дескать нас обманули и мы себе во вред выбрали Ющенко, если ты сам считаешь что Янукович ни в чем не был бы лучше?   

> Просто вместо американской марионетки, посадили бы российскую.

 Кстати, я о Януковиче вовсе не настолько плохого мнения как ты.

----------


## Ramil

Демократии нет!
Её нет нигде. Россия сейчас находится в позднем феодализме. 
Демос (народ) + кратия (править). 
В какой стране мира правит народ?
Правят деньги и экономические интересы.
Народу оставили иллюзию свободы, предоставив им право раз в несколько лет кидать никому не нужные бумажки в никому не нужные урны. В выборах участвуют не отдельные личности, а представители финансово-промышленных группировок, лоббирующие интересы тех, кто им платит. И в России, и в Европе, и в США. В настоящее время общественным мнением научились вертеть так, что так называемый "выбор народа" есть ни что иное, как насаждённое извне мнение политтехнологов. Жестокая, но правда, девиз "Пипл хавает" правит везде, начиная с рекламных роликов памперсов, заканчивая большой политикой. 
Демократия подразумевает выражение интересов народа. Кто и о чём сейчас спрашивает народ? Любой пиарщик скажет, что народ (пипл) - это быдло. (Я не согласен с этим утверждением, однако такое мнение бытует и достаточно распространённо). Как ему скажут, так он и проголосует, причём будет полностью уверен в том, что поступает осознанно и правильно.
У людей нет (и уже давно) доступа к достоверной информации. В том море информационных сообщений, найти горсть правды - всё равно, что искать жемчужину в выгребной яме - дело долгое и неблагодарное, к тому же нет гарантии того, что та "жемчужина", на поверку, не окажется простой стекляшкой.
Без доступа к достоверной (правдивой) информации осознанный выбор и голосование невозможны. 
В настоящее время вообще не важно, кто сидит в кресле президента или председателя парламента. Они всё равно решают очень мало и находятся в рамках ограничений, наложенных теми, кто их туда посадил (и это не "народ").
Забудьте слово демократия. Последняя демократия умерла в Древнем Риме.
Сейчас это слово используется лишь для поддержания иллюзии того, что народ имеет право выбора. От народа уже давно ничего не зависит.

----------


## Scorpio

> Originally Posted by Scorpio        Originally Posted by laxxy        Originally Posted by Scorpio  The sad Ukrainian story reminds me about the old truth: "The smart people are the ones, who can learn from somebody else's mistakes". Why before the "orange revolution" didn't them try to look at Saakashvili Georgia, for example? They'll knew better, what to expect from future.   Did you mean that the life under Schewardnaze's regime was much better?    You may be right -- most probably, under Shewardnadze life was better, than under Saakashvili's regime. (I'm almost 100% sure  it wasn't worse  )   Why? Do you know anyone in Georgia who says so?

 Personally -- no. "Virtually" -- I encountered lots of people ready to confirm my point of view.
For example (http://apsny.ge/forum/index.php?topic=247.15): 
Вчера вечером встретился со своим приятелем. Рассказал о своей поездке в ближнее Подмосковье, что встретил там на рынке грузинку из Тбилиси, торговала у армян. Разговорились они с ней, рассказала, что 5 лет работала в Греции (муж дома, с детьми, живет на деньги, которые она им посылает), зарабатывала не плохо, была довольна, но этой весной ее вызвали местную иммиграционную службу и вежливо попросили уехать. Она с подругой подалась сначала в Москву, но там ничего не нашла и остановилась в области. Один армянин, добрая душа, взял ее на работу. Платит мало, но она все еще надеется.
У меня вопрос. Может кто знает на форуме. Что, с Грецией напряженка тоже? Почему попросили убираться по-добру по-здорову?
И может кто ответит, она дала однозначный ответ, если в Грузии так хорошо, почему грузин так разбросало по свету? Почему они вынуждены переезжать с места на место в поисках заработка? Правительство думает о своих гражданах за рубежом? Я давно уже гражданин России, мне забота команды «бесноватого» не нужна, а как же остальные? А если и Россия начнет их вежливо просить? Куда им податься, в ЕС, с их ужесточившимися въездными правилами?  Cry
И еще скажу, чтобы вы тут  россиянам мозги не пудрили. Я в Грузии давно не был, но по телефону регулярно разговариваю. Хреново это еще мягко сказано. Нормальная жизнь и цивилизация только в центре Тбилиси, ну еще может быть в Ваке, Сабуртало, и то очень относительно. Да, забыл Цхнети! Там такие дворцы бизнесмены от бюрократии отгрохали – Рублевка плачет! Отдаленные районы – Вазис Убани, Глдани, Дигоми и т.д. – полная ж-па. Все здания изношены, обшарпаны, зимой отапливаются буржуйками, платные лифты. На улицах грязь, хотя местные жители стараются по кусочкам перед своими подъездами подметать, а службы соответствующие не работают. На базаре все постоянно дорожает, особенно картофель, сахар, мука, а фруктов - завались. Большинство живет на грани фола. И если такое в Тбилиси – столице, то что же творится в провинциях?
Очень многие, во всяком случае, из тех, кого я лично знаю, живут на деньги, присылаемые родственниками из-за границы. Только те, кто в Америке, говорят, что уже практически сидят на чемоданах, так как работали нелегально, няньками, прислугами, ухаживали за стариками (русскоязычными иммигрантами), а теперь с тревогой ждут принятие нового иммиграционного закона, по которому те, кто находится в стране нелегально менее 5 лет подлежат депортации. Может в законе оговорку сделают – для граждан демократической братской Грузии – исключение? Wink Grin    

> However, I wonder, why do you insist on comparing two evils: why not to compare life in modern Georgia with life in Soviet times Georgia instead?

 Because this difference is not of Saakashvili's making, and because it is not in his (or anyone else's) power to return to "Soviet Georgia".[/quote] 
What do you want to say -- it's beyond his power to return *Soviet Georgia's life level*?   

> When evaluating Putin, you'll probably be comparing him to Yeltsin rather than Brezhnev.

 Why? If we're evaluating countries total progress for recent 10 years, we must compare Putin with Yeltsin, and if for recent half century -- with Brezhnev and so on. The same is true for Georgia as well.

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by Scorpio        Originally Posted by laxxy  Did you mean that the life under Schewardnaze's regime was much better?    You may be right -- most probably, under Shewardnadze life was better, than under Saakashvili's regime. (I'm almost 100% sure  it wasn't worse  )   Why? Do you know anyone in Georgia who says so?
> 			
> 		  Personally -- no. "Virtually" -- I encountered lots of people ready to confirm my point of view.
> For example (http://apsny.ge/forum/index.php?topic=247.15):

 So, you have not seen anyone personally, and "virtually" you can usually find any opinion if you look long and hard enough -- I'm sure you'll be able to find many messages like this one saying that some things improved under Saakashvili (btw, this one looks like a reply to one of those). So the evidence seems inconclusive at best, yet you are "100% sure". That's what surprises me.  
Speaking of this particular eywitness account,  it is mostly general complaining about life, he nowhere addresses anything specific that changed under Saakashvili that made life much worse. 
As a note: I don't really have much of a personal opinion on the matter, I've seen a couple of positive comments from Georgians but I'm not really following the issue too closely, and that is not enough to form an opinion. I've been to Georgia on business a few times in '96 and '97, and at that time most people were actually pretty happy with Schewarnaze, crediting him for ending a most horrible period of lawlessness and civil war. Every night I would have to use a kerosene lamp to work on my laptop, which I would charge during the day. I also found the government bureaucracy relatively easy and pleasant to deal with, they were on average more approachable and less arrogant than Ukrainian ones at the time. But much time passed since then, so things and people's attitude must have changed.   

> [quote:2osc9mc9][quote:2osc9mc9]However, I wonder, why do you insist on comparing two evils: why not to compare life in modern Georgia with life in Soviet times Georgia instead?

 Because this difference is not of Saakashvili's making, and because it is not in his (or anyone else's) power to return to "Soviet Georgia".[/quote:2osc9mc9] 
What do you want to say -- it's beyond his power to return *Soviet Georgia's life level*?[/quote:2osc9mc9] 
Er... do you honestly believe that is even remotely possible in near future? Georgia went through a ~90% drop in national income in the early 90's, it lost large swats of its' territory, much of the most productive population has left the country. For a while armed thugs were driving around in the streets of Tbilisi, killing whoever they liked for as much as a watch. It is not easy to recover from something like that, especially not for a country without large oil reserves or other unique advantages. It is possible and I am sure it will be done, but it is not easy.  
Even in Russia and Ukraine you can find many people who still think the life in Soviet times was better (whether that's actually true is another matter). But in our countries things have never been nearly so bad as in Georgia.   

> [quote:2osc9mc9]When evaluating Putin, you'll probably be comparing him to Yeltsin rather than Brezhnev.

 Why? If we're evaluating countries total progress for recent 10 years, we must compare Putin with Yeltsin, and if for recent half century -- with Brezhnev and so on. The same is true for Georgia as well.[/quote:2osc9mc9] 
Because a politician, like any other person, should be evaluated on the results of _his_ work -- not that of his predecessors or anyone else. There are many things to like and many things not to like in what Putin did, but they must come from a comparison of year 2006 to year 2000 when he came to power, not year 1983. Saakashwili is no more responsible for the low life standard in Georgia in 2003 than Putin is for the oil price drop of 1985. 
And I doubt you could effectively compare Putin or Saakashwili with Brezhnev even if you did use the right reference frame for each one, because they worked in rather different environments.

----------


## laxxy

> Демократии нет!
> Её нет нигде. Россия сейчас находится в позднем феодализме. 
> Демос (народ) + кратия (править). 
> В какой стране мира правит народ?
> Правят деньги и экономические интересы....

 I see this becoming more of a religious discussion, and such generaly do not produce much results. You are apparently using some idealized definitions of your own invention, and there is little that can be argued about when there is no agreement on definitions. 
To start, what do you exactly mean by "правит народ"? What are "интересы народа"? 
There are no perfect political systems anywhere, but to say that because of it we can not make comparisons of any kind is like saying that it is not possible to use the concept of gas pressure just because there are no ideal gases in real world. 
It would be interesting to know however what was it that was making Ancient Rome more democratic for you than, say, the contemporary US. 
BTW, feudalism and democracy are not exactly mutually-exclusive either, these concepts are quite unrelated imo.   

> В настоящее время общественным мнением научились вертеть так, что так называемый "выбор народа" есть ни что иное, как насаждённое извне мнение политтехнологов. Жестокая, но правда, девиз "Пипл хавает" правит везде, начиная с рекламных роликов памперсов, заканчивая большой политикой. 
> Демократия подразумевает выражение интересов народа. Кто и о чём сейчас спрашивает народ? Любой пиарщик скажет, что народ (пипл) - это быдло.

 Oh, "Любой пиарщик" will of course tell you that -- it is called self-marketing. Ukrainian elections showed everybody what such arguments are worth -- the money spent on Yanukovich dwarfed the amounts on the other side by an order of magnitude, there was a veritable army of highly experienced Russian пиарщик's on his side, as well as all the power of the state apparatus and controlled media. We all know the results.   

> У людей нет (и уже давно) доступа к достоверной информации. В том море информационных сообщений, найти горсть правды - всё равно, что искать жемчужину в выгребной яме - дело долгое и неблагодарное, к тому же нет гарантии того, что та "жемчужина", на поверку, не окажется простой стекляшкой.
> Без доступа к достоверной (правдивой) информации осознанный выбор и голосование невозможны.

 This is why the freedom of speech is important.    

> В настоящее время вообще не важно, кто сидит в кресле президента или председателя парламента. Они всё равно решают очень мало и находятся в рамках ограничений, наложенных теми, кто их туда посадил (и это не "народ").

 Conspiracy theories seem rather popular in Russia.

----------


## mishau_

So, you all tend to look upon Ukraine trough the prism of Russia. That's not clever, I think we need to look on it in general as if it were a totally side country like Romania or the Sudan. I try to be objective and understand in which of the two countries it's better to live. So far I may say that in Moscow live is better than in Kiev. I'm not sure about London, maybe it goes vica verse. So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to   whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for  long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement. It a swamp. By degree they are getting down to the bottom and instead of thinking of a way to ged rid of the swamp they are struggling and hoping that some one will land them a hand. And I see people are patient enought or let me say tolerant or let me think ignorant and negligent, as those politicans are still in power. Who don't people go and say "basta, we're fed up with your functioning, we want to built a really independent state, indeendent from both Russia, USA, whatsoever"?

----------


## Ramil

> It would be interesting to know however what was it that was making Ancient Rome more democratic for you than, say, the contemporary US.

 If nothing else - the fact that there political censorship and the restrictions of "freedom of speech" are in force in the contemporary USA.
Along with many other restrictions that are incompatible with the concept of democracy.   

> Oh, "Любой пиарщик" will of course tell you that -- it is called self-marketing. Ukrainian elections showed everybody what such arguments are worth -- the money spent on Yanukovich dwarfed the amounts on the other side by an order of magnitude, there was a veritable army of highly experienced Russian пиарщик's on his side, as well as all the power of the state apparatus and controlled media. We all know the results.

 Indeed. Amounts invested in Yushenko were much much greater and the results were predictable from the start. This is not what I call democracy. Whoever has more money wins.    

> [quote:2ez2kixf]Без доступа к достоверной (правдивой) информации осознанный выбор и голосование невозможны.

 This is why the freedom of speech is important. [/quote:2ez2kixf] 
There's no direct connection between the freedom of speech and the general availability of information. Modern governments allow people to speak freely knowing that nobody knows anything anyway, moreover - the "freedom of speech" creates an illusion that everything is allright. When 1000 people start to speak it creates such "informational noise" that any truth may be concealed within and nobody will know anything about it.    

> [quote:2ez2kixf]В настоящее время вообще не важно, кто сидит в кресле президента или председателя парламента. Они всё равно решают очень мало и находятся в рамках ограничений, наложенных теми, кто их туда посадил (и это не "народ").

 Conspiracy theories seem rather popular in Russia.[/quote:2ez2kixf] 
Narrow-mindedness and gullibility seem to be rather popular in Ukraine  ::

----------


## laxxy

Sorry, but you are a bit hard to understand in places. You may write in Russian if that's easier for you.   

> So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to   whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for  long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement.

 That's what public politics is like anywhere, although I agree that Ukraine's one is more fractuos than most. It's not necessarily such a bad thing in itself, and it is definitely preferrable to having a strong man (or woman) on the "Ukrainian throne". There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. I do not see that happening again in the near future.   

> Who don't people go and say "basta, we're fed up with your functioning, we want to built a really independent state, indeendent from both Russia, USA, whatsoever"?

 It is independent enough as it is, I don't think indendence is under much threat, nor has it ever been, really, not even in '04. And it's not really related to the question of democracy that much.  
One profound delusion people both in Russia and in the West seem to have is thinking that Ukrainians evaluate the politicians based on their foreign policy leanings, and vote depending on whether someone is "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western". In truth, there are no true pro-Russian or pro-Western politicians in Ukraine at all, except maybe for certain really tiny and marginal parties that have never had any success.

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by laxxy  It would be interesting to know however what was it that was making Ancient Rome more democratic for you than, say, the contemporary US.   If nothing else - the fact that there political censorship and the restrictions of "freedom of speech" are in force in the contemporary USA.
> Along with many other restrictions that are incompatible with the concept of democracy.

 And what do you exactly mean by "political censorship" in the USA? Sorry, but you still sound like a conspiracy theorist. 
And democracy is not something that is either present or not.    

> [quote:3nyw80lh]Oh, "Любой пиарщик" will of course tell you that -- it is called self-marketing. Ukrainian elections showed everybody what such arguments are worth -- the money spent on Yanukovich dwarfed the amounts on the other side by an order of magnitude, there was a veritable army of highly experienced Russian пиарщик's on his side, as well as all the power of the state apparatus and controlled media. We all know the results.

 Indeed. Amounts invested in Yushenko were much much greater and the results were predictable from the start. This is not what I call democracy. Whoever has more money wins. [/quote:3nyw80lh] 
Quite frankly, you are being rather ridiculous. Do some research into the matter -- Yanukovich had and spent many times more money than Yuschenko. Leave alone the other factors I mentioned, that count for a lot more than just money alone, of course. Not like the money didn't matter at all -- I spent some of my own, too.    

> [quote:3nyw80lh][quote:3nyw80lh]Без доступа к достоверной (правдивой) информации осознанный выбор и голосование невозможны.

 This is why the freedom of speech is important. [/quote:3nyw80lh] 
There's no direct connection between the freedom of speech and the general availability of information. Modern governments allow people to speak freely knowing that nobody knows anything anyway, moreover - the "freedom of speech" creates an illusion that everything is allright. When 1000 people start to speak it creates such "informational noise" that any truth may be concealed within and nobody will know anything about it. [/quote:3nyw80lh] 
To start, not too many "modern governments" do that -- until recently Ukraine hasn't had one of those, and Russia still hasn't got one either  :: 
And the truth won't be concealed as long there is enough people who are interested in it coming out, and there will be such people. 
Al Gore had no trouble making people aware of his point of view on global warming, for example, although I would not call it "truth".   

> [quote:3nyw80lh][quote:3nyw80lh]В настоящее время вообще не важно, кто сидит в кресле президента или председателя парламента. Они всё равно решают очень мало и находятся в рамках ограничений, наложенных теми, кто их туда посадил (и это не "народ").

 Conspiracy theories seem rather popular in Russia.[/quote:3nyw80lh] 
Narrow-mindedness and gullibility seem to be rather popular in Ukraine  :: [/quote:3nyw80lh] 
"...здесь влияние советского марксизма, значительно более глубокое и всеобъемлющее, чем мы подозреваем. При всем нашем марксистском историцизме в советском анализе всегда присутствовала теория заговора. Если за идеологией скрываются материальные интересы, а за формально правовыми и демократическими институтами — власть монополистической буржуазии, значит, надо искать комнату, где монополисты обсуждают, как дурить народ, и где они делят «баснословные барыши».
Сама эта советская картина мира была усвоена потому, что легла на сознание народа, который никогда не выбирал власть, который знает, что всегда решал не он, а кто-то за него, и убежден, что так и у всех народов, иначе и быть не может. Это додемократическое и досовременное сознание. И у него есть еще более глубокие архаические корни. Для древнего мышления характерны поиски каких-то субъектов, стоящих за непонятными естественными процессами. Мы объясняем украинскую революцию происками ЦРУ, а грузинскую — средствами Сороса так же, как древние люди болезнь объясняли порчей, эпидемию — колдовством, а движение Солнца по небу — тем, что его толкает жук-скарабей."  http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/ ... -s12.shtml

----------


## Ramil

Я же говорю. Спорить бесполезно.
Ты считаешь, что с Украиной всё в порядке - дай тебе бог. И Украине, чтобы я оказался не прав.  :: 
А насчёт всего остального - скажи, где ты берёшь информацию? Ты же говоришь лозунгами и штампованными фразами, сам того не замечая. Ещё раз - я желаю всем людям в мире добра и процветания. Но когда из телевизоров, газет и прочих СМИ реками льётся ложь, никто не может обрисовать действительное положение вещей. А насчёт людей, которые "проявляют интерес" - забудь. Всем на всё на@рать. И интереса никто не проявляет. Как сегодня скажет CNN, так завтра будет "думать" общественное мнение. 
На территории бывш. СССР нельзя верить ни одному! средству массовой информации. Это действительно для всех бывших союзных республик. Ты глуп, если доверяешь хоть одному из местных СМИ. В Европе, может быть, ещё остались действительно "независимые" СМИ, но их очень мало. В отсутствие СМИ основным источником информации являются слухи, достоверность которых также находится под большим сомнением, да мнение "как у всех вокруг", также имеющее весьма мало общего с действительностью.  В сухом остатке имеем тот факт, что никто нихрена не знает о действительном положении вещей. 
Это даже не  всемирный заговор - это издержки века информационных технологий.

----------


## laxxy

> Я же говорю. Спорить бесполезно.
> А насчёт всего остального - скажи, где ты берёшь информацию? Ты же говоришь лозунгами и штампованными фразами, сам того не замечая.

 Ну а я бы то же самое сказал про тебя. Вот прямо в этом треде можешь наблюдать пример с твоим, в целом, единомышленником: как у людей создают уверенность в чем-то при отсутствии фактов. 
В особенности (говоря о штампованных фразах) идея о том что демократии или там свободы слова, дескать, нигде в мире нет, и значит и нам они не нужны, последнее время в России усиленно пропагандируется  ::  
Прочитай статью по ссылке, кстати. Она хорошая. Телевизор, кстати, я не смотрел уже с 2003 года (исключение -- текущий футбольный чемпионат). 
Что же касается украинских выборов '2004, то я тут, возможно, несколько нетипичный человек -- я, например, в свое время с 3 министрами первого оранжевого правительства водку пил (лет за 8 до событий), да и Ющенко знал еще по его работе в Нацбанке. Мое к ним отношение формировалось не из СМИ.   

> Ещё раз - я желаю всем людям в мире добра и процветания. Но когда из телевизоров, газет и прочих СМИ реками льётся ложь, никто не может обрисовать действительное положение вещей. А насчёт людей, которые "проявляют интерес" - забудь. Всем на всё на@рать. И интереса никто не проявляет. Как сегодня скажет CNN, так завтра будет "думать" общественное мнение.

 Ну вот приведи пример, какой именно информации не хватает жителям, например, США, для того чтобы сделать правильный по твоему мнению выбор. И почему люди, заинтересованные в таком выборе, сидят и молчат. 
Потом опять же, есть CNN и есть Фокс. Есть The Boston Globe и есть The New Republic. Кому из них подчиняется общественное мнение?   

> На территории бывш. СССР нельзя верить ни одному! средству массовой информации.

 Согласен. И не нужно верить, нужно думать. И анализировать информацию из разных источников. Их независимость вовсе не является необходимым условием -- достаточно, чтобы не *все* они были зависимы от *одних и тех же* людей. А если читатель еще и отдает себе отчет в возможной заангажированности источников, проблем для него не будет. 
Наверное, единственный действительно профессиональный и заслуживающий доверия источник аналитики в мире -- это английский журнал The Economist. Да и тот иногда заблуждается. 
Впрочем, конечно, есть еще один момент -- у человека всегда есть некий prior, говоря статистически -- определенный набор взглядов, во многом на подсознательном уровне, который заставляет его относиться к информации, подтверждающей эти взгляды, намного менее критически, чем к информации, им противоречащей. Эти priors меняются крайне медленно, но однако все же меняются (в 1991 г. я, например, был активным сторонником сохранения СССР, и на украинском референдуме голосовал соответственно). Поэтому такой человек, даже если он не смотрит телевизор и получает информацию из разных источников, может делать из нее некорректные выводы. Чтобы этого не происходило, важно иногда останавливаться и задумываться. Полезно также иногда представлять, как выглядело бы для тебя некое спорное событие или выражение, если в нем поменять стороны местами.  
Эти priors можно наблюдать на примере отношения многих россиян к украинским событиям -- многие если не сознательно, то подсознательно не признают, что Украина является независимым государством, таким же как и Россия, и предпочитают смотреть на ситуацию сквозь призму давно закончившегося глобального противостояния т.н. "супердержав", воспринимая современную Россию как наследника СССР, а Украину как обманом оторванную ее часть.   

> Это даже не  всемирный заговор - это издержки века информационных технологий.

 В действительности все гораздо проще, чем на самом деле (c)  ::

----------


## Ramil

Всё гораздо проще - если что-то глобальное происходит - значит за это кто-то заплатил. Дальше по формуле Who gains from the crime?

----------


## laxxy

> Всё гораздо проще - если что-то глобальное происходит - значит за это кто-то заплатил. Дальше по формуле Who gains from the crime?

 hehe. Do read that article, it's about you  ::

----------


## Ramil

Статья как статья. Частное мнение частного человека. Ни одного факта, кроме пространных рассуждений. Ничего эта статья не доказывает. Я могу тоже привести тебе ссылки на несколько сотен статей, говорящих о том, что выборы на Украине - жидомасонский заговор. Толку-то?
Я своё мнение сформировал не из телевизора, а из своего опыта работы помощником депутата ГД РФ. Я всю эту "кухню" видал изнутри и знаю цену таким статейкам. Я их сам, бывало, щелкопёрам заказывал.

----------


## laxxy

> Статья как статья. Частное мнение частного человека.

 Конечно. Просто это правильное мнение  ::  
А отсутствие заговора человеку, в него верящему, доказать невозможно.

----------


## Ramil

Это не заговор. Это называется международная политика. ГосДеп США финансировал оранжевых - это медицинский факт. (И этому имеются доказательства).
Про заговор я не сказал ни слова.

----------


## laxxy

> Это не заговор. Это называется международная политика. ГосДеп США финансировал оранжевых - это медицинский факт. (И этому имеются доказательства).
> Про заговор я не сказал ни слова.

 Открою страшную тайну. Не знаю как там Госдеп  ::  но я тоже финансировал оранжевых. Как ты понимаешь, это означает что Ющенко пришел к власти благодаря мне, и теперь он -- моя марионетка. Так! 
Кстати, в отличие от Госдепа (доказательства участия которого притянуты за уши), финансирования Януковича Россией никто особо и не скрывал. Впрочем, как я уже писал, это тоже не повод считать его российской марионеткой.

----------


## mishau_

> There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it.

 I don't think if you had anyone at that moment.   

> One profound delusion people both in Russia and in the West seem to have is thinking that Ukrainians evaluate the politicians based on their foreign policy leanings, and vote depending on whether someone is "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western". In truth, there are no true pro-Russian or pro-Western politicians in Ukraine at all, except maybe for certain really tiny and marginal parties that have never had any success

 Ok, as I remember Youshchenko lost the election. The injection of 65 million bucks overturned the result. I don't think it would have become possible, had America not invested the money. It was illegal as well. I think the odds were about 50/50 and the fact that Yanuckovitch still plays a key role in politics confirms my idea. So when you say "we", "success" and stuff like that, don't forget that you apparently mean half of Ukraine. Actually, I don't think there's a pro-Russian party wherever in the post-Soviet republics, because no one wants any foreign control (including Lukashenko, by the way). However, Russia is a good card to play in this game. I would totally be going ahead with my idea, but it's too late now and I want to sleep.

----------


## laxxy

> There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. 
> 			
> 		  I don't think if you had anyone at that moment.

 That's Mr. Yanukovich for you. In the context of this discussion he was "Putin-like" enough, which is why we did not want him.   

> [quote:m2z38iz5]One profound delusion people both in Russia and in the West seem to have is thinking that Ukrainians evaluate the politicians based on their foreign policy leanings, and vote depending on whether someone is "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western". In truth, there are no true pro-Russian or pro-Western politicians in Ukraine at all, except maybe for certain really tiny and marginal parties that have never had any success

 Ok, as I remember Youshchenko lost the election. The injection of 65 million bucks overturned the result. I don't think it would have become possible, had America not invested the money. It was illegal as well. [/quote:m2z38iz5] 
You remember it wrong then.   

> I think the odds were about 50/50 and the fact that Yanuckovitch still plays a key role in politics confirms my idea. So when you say "we", "success" and stuff like that, don't forget that you apparently mean half of Ukraine.

 Naturally. Not exactly 50/50, closer to 60/40, but yes, close. But while I'm speaking for the people whose opinion I share, I quite firmly believe that the way things came out was better for almost everyone.   

> Actually, I don't think there's a pro-Russian party wherever in the post-Soviet republics, because no one wants any foreign control (including Lukashenko, by the way). However, Russia is a good card to play in this game. I would totally be going ahead with my idea, but it's too late now and I want to sleep.

 Now you are starting to talk sense.
To be more precise, there are _parties_ -- I would probably qualify Vitrenko as one such with her 2.9% of the vote. It's just that they have neither power nor support. And yes, Russia is a good card -- why it agrees to that role is another interesting question.

----------


## mishau_

> Not exactly 50/50, closer to 60/40,

 No, 50/50. the value of 60/40 is wrong figure bought for $65,000,000    

> You remember it wrong then.

 To refresh our memory, let's look at the chain of events of that time http://www.rususa.com/forum/message.asp ... 13-start-1 
The oragne revoution started because Americans never agreed that Yanuckovitsh won the election. Let's remember that in the USA Bush won with violation US laws and they hushed up the things not to discredit the American world image. So it's a sort of double standard. They consider that Ukraine may be too snotty to afford what the USA can afford. Thus they deside what is suitable for Ukraine and what not.

----------


## TATY

Russians are just deluded and can't accept Ukraine, or at least a majority of Ukrainians turned away from them, and have to tell themselves that it only happened due to American money. 
Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych. And that doesn't even mention the money his campaign got from Russian businesses. And then of course he had the support of outgoing president Kuchma. 
Russians can hardly moan about America meddeling in other countries when Russia is one of the biggest meddelers around. Just because Ukraine is next to Russia doesn't make it alright.

----------


## Scorpio

> Russians are just deluded and can't accept Ukraine, or at least a majority of Ukrainians turned away from them,

 There's not much "turning away": western Ukraine is generally anti-russian (and always was such), eastern Ukraine is mostly pro-russian (and remains such). The only thing changed is regime.   

> and have to tell themselves that it only happened due to American money.

 Not only, of course -- but american money played an important role.   

> Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych.

 Neither USA and Europe tried to hide their support of Yuschenko, either...   

> And that doesn't even mention the money his campaign got from Russian businesses.

 The russian businessman have a lot of interests in Ukraine; the american businessmen commonly do not.   

> Russians can hardly moan about America meddeling in other countries when Russia is one of the biggest meddelers around.

 About "meddeling in other countries" -- should we remember Iraq and Afghanistan?
And is really Russia moaning? Reading the western press, it seems like its their turn to moan (loudly).  ::

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by TATY  Russians are just deluded and can't accept Ukraine, or at least a majority of Ukrainians turned away from them,   There's not much "turning away": western Ukraine is generally anti-russian (and always was such), eastern Ukraine is mostly pro-russian (and remains such). The only thing changed is regime.

 This has not been a choice between a pro-Russian and an anti-Russian regimes.   

> and have to tell themselves that it only happened due to American money.

 American money did play a role -- but mostly not in the way you perhaps imagine. Like supporting elections monitoring -- obviously this was in favor of Yuschenko since he was not the one who was tampering with elections. It's hard to call something like that a bad thing.
And you should ponder why the far larger amounts of Russian money did not help  ::  
BTW, the reason all Russian business money went to Yanukovich was not exactly simple lobbying, but intervention of the Russian state -- afaik there were several major Russian businessmen who met with Yuschenko and were prepared to help finance his campaign as well, but Putin gave a signal that was not happy with that, and vice versa.   

> Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych.

 No one (maybe except for Georgia) openly supported Yuschenko in the same fashion Putin supported Yanukovich (the famous the triple congratulation, hehe). People supported fair elections -- not exactly the same thing, is it now?
In fact, now Yanukovich has a fair chance of becoming prime minister, but Americans do not worry much (and neither do I), and will accept it as long as it happens in accordance with a proper democratic procedure.   

> Russians can hardly moan about America meddeling in other countries when Russia is one of the biggest meddelers around.

 The point is that regardless of what is your opinion on those (that's a separate topic), Russia is no better so has no right to complain about some fictitious American influence in Ukraine.   

> And is really Russia moaning? Reading the western press, it seems like its their turn to moan (loudly).

 Reading the western press I don't see much Ukraine coverage these days at all.

----------


## mishau_

> Yes America put money into the NGOs, but Putin hardly hid the fact he supported Yanukovych.

 That's what I want to say. Ukraine now fully depends on Russian cheap gas and American money.   

> The point is that regardless of what is your opinion on those (that's a separate topic), Russia is no better so has no right to complain about some fictitious American influence in Ukraine.

 Odd logic. Germany and France do not approve the American occupation policy either. Besides, if you're talking about the US, forget Russia and vica verse. Why should we compare the two countries all the time? Don't forget USA is holding wars on foreign territories.    

> No one (maybe except for Georgia) openly supported Yuschenko in the same fashion Putin supported Yanukovich (the famous the triple congratulation, hehe). People supported fair elections -- not exactly the same thing, is it now?

 I wonder which elections to mean. People probably supported fair elections but Americans didn't. They paid their money to take control over Ukraine like they did in Iraq.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> For a peaceful democratic revolution?  We had the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Serbian revolution, Rose revolution in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and Pink & Yellow in Krygzhstzyrzrzzzygz(whatever the hell that country is called)stan.  Is Belarus next?

 All those revolutions were to get rid of the communist government in those nations. Unless Belarus is currently run by communists or facing the unfortunate possibility of having a commie run for president (like Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine), then I don't think Belarus will be having any revolutions. 
And that country is called Kyrgyzstan  ::

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by TheMoonMonst3r  For a peaceful democratic revolution?  We had the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Serbian revolution, Rose revolution in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and Pink & Yellow in Krygzhstzyrzrzzzygz(whatever the hell that country is called)stan.  Is Belarus next?   All those revolutions were to get rid of the communist government in those nations. Unless Belarus is currently run by communists or facing the unfortunate possibility of having a commie run for president (like Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine), then I don't think Belarus will be having any revolutions. 
> And that country is called Kyrgyzstan

 Except for perhaps Czechoslovakia, none of those countries were run by commies, and Yanukovych is most definitely not one. 
Lukashenka might in fact be called a commie, he's definitely the closest one to that definition.
As for whether there will be any revolutions there, we need to wait and see.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by TheMoonMonst3r  For a peaceful democratic revolution?  We had the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Serbian revolution, Rose revolution in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and Pink & Yellow in Krygzhstzyrzrzzzygz(whatever the hell that country is called)stan.  Is Belarus next?   All those revolutions were to get rid of the communist government in those nations. Unless Belarus is currently run by communists or facing the unfortunate possibility of having a commie run for president (like Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine), then I don't think Belarus will be having any revolutions. 
> And that country is called Kyrgyzstan    Except for perhaps Czechoslovakia, none of those countries were run by commies, and Yanukovych is most definitely not one. 
> Lukashenka might in fact be called a commie, he's definitely the closest one to that definition.
> As for whether there will be any revolutions there, we need to wait and see.

 Serbia WAS run by commies, (well, Yugoslavia was) and Yanukovych is indeed one. He was hand-selected by President Putin to run for prez of Ukraine. Putin is a former KGB colonel, and is probably a commie at heart. He called the collapse of the USSR a terrible political catastrophe and is expanding gov't control over everything, just like the Soviets. Of course he is going to select someone who agrees with him to run for a position of leadership. In fact, when Yanukovych was chosen by Putin, they carried out the ceremonies in a Soviet-style military parade. Not a communist? I don't think so.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

RusskiSlav, what is your definition of a communist?  
You are calling Yanukovich a communist just because Putin, who used to work in the KGB, supported him. Do you know any of the policies Yanukovich stands for?

----------


## laxxy

> Serbia WAS run by commies, (well, Yugoslavia was) and Yanukovych is indeed one. He was hand-selected by President Putin to run for prez of Ukraine. Putin is a former KGB colonel, and is probably a commie at heart. He called the collapse of the USSR a terrible political catastrophe and is expanding gov't control over everything, just like the Soviets. Of course he is going to select someone who agrees with him to run for a position of leadership. In fact, when Yanukovych was chosen by Putin, they carried out the ceremonies in a Soviet-style military parade. Not a communist? I don't think so.

 ahhh... I suggest that maybe you go study some history, learn a bit about those countries and about who the commies actually are, and then come back to argue with people who actually know what was going on. Reading this very thread might enlighten you a bit about the situation in Ukraine, too, if you are interested in it enough to talk about it. 
...KGB and military parade, they sure are a dead giveaway for a commie, are they not?..  
PS. I personally hate commies (including Lukashenka), but really, why should you speak of things you have no slightest idea about? 
I fully expect our local commies (and we do have a few on this forum) to get here soon to show you off as an example of an American who does not know anything about history or foreign affairs (they think that everyone here is like that). This is why I am annoyed.

----------


## mishau_

I think as well as Yushcenko, Yanukovich wants to live on acoount of Russia. They both want to suck tittes of two nursing mothers at the time and in this sence they are all the same.

----------


## SSSS

Some pigs fight for the trough, so what's the difference?.. And it's true about any country in the world...

----------


## RusskiSlav

> PS. I personally hate commies

 Me too

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too

 You just can't cook them properly  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too

 Why can't you qualify your statement? Why do you hate commies?

----------


## adoc

> Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too

 Why don't you bomb them?

----------


## SSSS

Yep, blame everything on commies... And on bicyclists...

----------


## Dogboy182

I never really understood the argument that Putin was "KGB". Who cares? 
And no, he was not a 'Colonel'. 
Putin started out his career working in Leningrad (His home town) keeping tabs on foriegners. What was described as a pretty bottom of the barrell job. As far as anyone knows the only time he even ever went overseas was to do some office work in East Germany. 
Putin tried to resign from the KGB 3 times, the first two times he was just kept on their payroll... without even conducting any operations offiliated with the agency, while he worked with a friend who was a professor at a Leningrad university. In 1991 he was OFFICIALLY released from the agency, but hadn't actually worked for them for some time. I believe the best rating he ever recieved from superiors while serving in the KGB was "satisfactory". 
He worked for the KGB, He was a patriotic soviet who wanted to serve his country, So sue him. Why dont you go sue all the WWII veterans from the eastern fron for being commies for that matter. Why dont we just sue everybody in the FBI too? Damn capitalists! 
Im also pretty sick and tired of hearing people complain about Uzbekistan. Its all the kids do in the Uzbek class here at the DLI. The presdient of uzbekistan has been an allie of GW giving him bases and crap, from which to blow away taliban in afghanistan. The whole reason he is seen as "oppressive" is because he as all but outlawed the ismalic religion in his country. And for good reason. He shares a border with freaking afghanistan, HELLO!  
He jails people who are suspected of being islamic terrorists in order to keep militant groups from setting training camps up in his country and as to not provide a safe haven for fleeing taliban into his country. Aww hes locking up extremists... poor guys! Guess what! SO DOES AMERICA. 
Tired of the hipocracy.

----------


## DDT

> Yep, blame everything on commies... And on bicyclists...

 You shouldn't put all bicyclists onto the same basket. Not all bicyclists are equal, you know!

----------


## SSSS

Acctually, sometimes I just want put all the bicyclist next to the wall and shoot every second one in the back of their head...

----------


## laxxy

> Acctually, sometimes I just want put all the bicyclist next to the wall and shoot every second one in the back of their head...

 Yes, that's what those sneaky bicyclists deserve. 
They are all probably commies anyway, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had secretly conducted military style parades at night, when everyone is sleeping. That is why they are riding bicycles, it's so that no one hears them coming!

----------


## capecoddah

MINSK - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Belarus, calling it "a model social state like the one we are beginning to create". 
During a visit to Minsk, he called for a strategic alliance with Belarus to counter "hegemonic" capitalism. 
 Here's the BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209868.stm 
Great... Chavez wants to bring back back dictatorship to South America, a drug-lord that deals oil instead of cocaine. And he wants to buy toys: 
MOSCOW - Russia has struck a deal worth more than $1 billion to supply fighter jets and helicopters to Venezuela, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Friday. 
MSNBC story : http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13972383/

----------


## basurero

I reckon Chavez is doing a great job in improving living conditions, but anyway.... just my opinion.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too   Why can't you qualify your statement? Why do you hate commies?

 WHY do I hate commies?! Helloooo? Look what they did to Russia in 1917! In the years that followed, the Soviet government killed anyone who disagreed with them and/or spewed propaganda to the public who had to wiat in bread lines for hours a day just to get a basic meal! Commies lie--they claim "everyone is equal" when in reality someone (the commies) are in power and have control over everything. And they abuse that control and make life miserable for everyone else. Marx believed in some ideal utopian (which in Greek appropriately means "no place") society that is impossible to ever have, because human beings are not perfect, thus there cannot be a perfect society.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too   Why don't you bomb them?

 Well, first of all, I don't have any bombs. And if I did, I would not bomb them because I don't operate like a communist by killing everyone who disagrees with me.

----------


## Scorpio

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too   Why can't you qualify your statement? Why do you hate commies?   WHY do I hate commies?! Helloooo? Look what they did to Russia in 1917!

 And what they did? Turned the poor and ruined by WWI country into the prosperous superpower?   

> In the years that followed, the Soviet government killed anyone who disagreed with them

 Please, stop this nonsence. Thousands of so called dissidents, who were disagreeing with "Soviet government", are alive and well.   

> and/or spewed propaganda to the public who had to wiat in bread lines for hours a day just to get a basic meal!

 Oh, yes. "Spewing propaganda..." I see.   

> Commies lie--they claim "everyone is equal" when in reality someone (the commies) are in power and have control over everything.

 So does any so called democratic government.   

> And they abuse that control and make life miserable for everyone else.

 Do you know, how many people are nostalgic about this "miserable" life?   

> Marx believed in some ideal utopian (which in Greek appropriately means "no place") society that is impossible to ever have, because human beings are not perfect, thus there cannot be a perfect society.

 Absolutely perfect society is, of course,  impossible -- but it is possible to build society good enough for people to live in.

----------


## laxxy

> Absolutely perfect society is, of course,  impossible -- but it is possible to build society good enough for people to live in.

 It sure is. You just have to get rid of the commies first   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by laxxy  PS. I personally hate commies   Me too         Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  In the years that followed, the Soviet government killed anyone who disagreed with them      
> 			
> 				Please, stop this nonsence. Thousands of so called dissidents, who were disagreeing with "Soviet government", are alive and well.
> 			
> 		  Because they were able to survive the gulag, yeah. But 20 million are dead.        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  Commies lie--they claim "everyone is equal" when in reality someone (the commies) are in power and have control over everything.   [quote:2b89e6qg]So does any so called democratic government.   Uh, no. In any democratic government, everyone is equal UNDER THE LAW. According to communism everyone is supposed to be equal in every possible way, i.e. no one has more money than anyone else. You have to work for what you earn, and some people work harder than others. We're not all equal.        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  And they abuse that control and make life miserable for everyone else.   [quote:2b89e6qg]Do you know, how many people are nostalgic about this "miserable" life?   Do you know how many people are not?        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  Marx believed in some ideal utopian (which in Greek appropriately means "no place") society that is impossible to ever have, because human beings are not perfect, thus there cannot be a perfect society.   [quote:2b89e6qg]Absolutely perfect society is, of course,  impossible -- but it is possible to build society good enough for people to live in.

 [/quote:2b89e6qg][/quote:2b89e6qg][/quote:2b89e6qg] 
Well, communism sure failed at that.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Because they were able to survive the gulag, yeah. But 20 million are dead.

 Gulag as such never existed after Stalin's death. Would you mind calling things as they really are? Second, during 1921-1953 years total number of sentenced by 'political articles' was 3.8 million. Let me note, by the way, that together with 'fake' spys, traitors, terrorists, etc., there were more than enough real ones. So, your figure of 20 million 'innocent victims' is quite unrealistic.   

> Do you know how many people are not?

 If we count as 'nostalgic' partly-nostalgic people, who doesn't want old times back, but likes certain elements of soviet past, then answer to your question is "almost nobody".

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  Because they were able to survive the gulag, yeah. But 20 million are dead.      
> 			
> 				Gulag as such never existed after Stalin's death. Would you mind calling things as they really are? Second, during 1921-1953 years total number of sentenced by 'political articles' was 3.8 million. Let me note, by the way, that together with 'fake' spys, traitors, terrorists, etc., there were more than enough real ones. So, your figure of 20 million 'innocent victims' is quite unrealistic.
> 			
> 		  Yes, I KNOW the gulag didn't exist after Stalin died, but when he was alive he killed about 20 million. Look it up in any history textbook or anywhere online and you'll see that it's greater than 3.8 million. This is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:  
> Some sources place the number at about *20 million*, which includes approximately 5 million kulaks and other peasants killed between 1929 and 1933; 5 million who died during the Ukrainian Holodomor, 5 million executed between 1933 and 1953 (including military personnel executions during the Great Patriotic War), and 5 million dead in gulag camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge  <--don't believe me? Go see for yourself. It's under the section called "Victim toll". 
> [quote:3meaw53t]If we count as 'nostalgic' partly-nostalgic people, who doesn't want old times back, but likes certain elements of soviet past, then answer to your question is "almost nobody".

 [/quote:3meaw53t] 
Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by Scorpio  Absolutely perfect society is, of course,  impossible -- but it is possible to build society good enough for people to live in.   It sure is. You just have to get rid of the commies first

 LOL! I agree, laxxy   ::

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Yes, I KNOW the gulag didn't exist after Stalin died, but when he was alive he killed about 20 million. Look it up in any history textbook or anywhere online and you'll see that it's greater than 3.8 million. This is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:

 You call me to read some history and cite Wikipedia, that's hardly most reliable source itself. And I like that phrase: "Some sources place the number at about 20 million". What sources exactly? And where did that sources take their information from? No answer. My source is reseach of V.N.Zemskov, based on documents from Central Archive of USSR, not on any estimations taken from the sky. 
History of exagerration of those number started with Khrushev. Documents from archive point out, that he perfectly knew real number of all prisoners in camps and colonies in 1953, year of Stalin's death - 2 468 524 people, including pure criminals. But he, having his own agenda, said there were 10 million people in 1953 in camps only. That started some kind of race, under slogan "who more?". I saw figures of 50 million and higher, but they all are based on nothing, but imagination. And your figure of 20million is of the same imaginary kind.  
The figure stays - 3.8 million political prisoners during 33 years, including those who deserved the penalty, and about million executed.   

> Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".

 I don't understand, what's wrong with beign KGB colonel? Americans had president (G.Bush Sr.) who was head of CIA, so what? Why don't you complain?

----------


## RusskiSlav

[quote="Alex_Ivanov] 

> History of exagerration of those number started with Khrushev.

 Well, for someone who seems to know so much one would think you could spell KhrushCHev's name right. Geez, I'm not even Russian and I know that. And whether it was 3.8 million or not, the point is Stalin killed people in mass numbers. Normal leaders don't do things like that, and anyone who is "nostalgic" for Soviet times is twisted in the mind. They're nostalgic for the days of bread lines, no free press, government control over EVERYTHING, gulags, and mass murder? Okaaayyy....(sarcasm)   

> Well then no wonder the Russians elected a former KGB colonel for their "president".

  

> I don't understand, what's wrong with beign KGB colonel? Americans had president (G.Bush Sr.) who was head of CIA, so what? Why don't you complain?

 The CIA is not a secret police in the same way the KGB is. The KGB knocked on peoples' doors at midnight and took them away to the gulag.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Well, for someone who seems to know so much one would think you could spell KhrushCHev's name right.

 Well, I know perfectly how to spell his name in cyrillic. Everything else is a question of transliteration, and I see no problem here even if I transliterated it wrong (anyway, are there some official rules? Sometimes it's funny to see how Russian names are transliterated by foreigners.)   

> And whether it was 3.8 million or not, the point is Stalin killed people in mass numbers. Normal leaders don't do things like that,

 3.8 million political prisoners, less than million executed, minus those who was executed not because of ideology, but for real crimes like treason, espionage, terrorism, let's say 600 thousand for ideological reasons.Indeed, it's a large number by any means. 
From the other side, Stalin completed too important tasks: 
1. He cleared Russia from bolshevik scum that took over our country after 1917 and nearly destroyed it, sacrificing it for the sake of mythical "world revolution".
2. He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation. 
For such global tasks, I consider number of victims acceptable, though I understand it sounds cynic.   

> and anyone who is "nostalgic" for Soviet times is twisted in the mind. They're nostalgic for the days of bread lines, no free press, government control over EVERYTHING, gulags, and mass murder? Okaaayyy....(sarcasm)

 Are they really twisted in mind? They're nostalgic for free&good education, healthcare, feeling safe and sure. That's why I call them 'partly nostalgic'. You try to draw black&white picture, where USSR is just big black stain. Wake up, there were a lot of wonderful things there. BTW, I don't remember standing in lines for bread, minimum of life-important goods was accessible even during worst days of USSR.   

> The CIA is not a secret police in the same way the KGB is. The KGB knocked on peoples' doors at midnight and took them away to the gulag.

 CIA is intelligence service just like KGB/FSB. Read less scary tales before falling asleep, or one day you'll wake up at midnight in death-damp - someone's steps in corridor will seem like if they come to take you to the gulag.  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation

 Good. The world would've been a lot better off if the Soviet Union hadn't existed. It was the Soviets who invaded Finland in 1939 and took away half their land, invaded Czechoslovakia and Hungary and destroyed their property (and took _more_ lives) to crush anti-communism revolts, and planted nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida and scared the crap outta the Americans by threatening to turn the Cold War nuclear. 
And education in the Soviet Union was not really "good". The schools taught students only what the government wanted them to know, that is, how great communism was. And just because _you_ don't remember standing in bread lines doesn't mean other people don't.  You're Russian, I'm sure you know of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--read _The Gulag Archipelago_ and perhaps you'll have different opinions about the USSR.

----------


## mishau_

> 2. He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation.

 Alone? On his own? Was he God? Or he had the magic wand?  ::   
If he hadn't done that,... it'd have been done by someone else!    ::

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> If he hadn't done that,... it'd have been done by someone else!

 It's not about him personally, I don't practice cult of any personality. It's more about methods and policy. It's clear to me, that more liberal policy, more evolutional rather than revolutional development couldn't bring the same result. And there wasn't time for slow way like NEP - too many foreign threats were around.  
After Hitler took power in 1933 it was clear to many people, that there will be big war in Europe. Almost undevelopped and ruined USSR wasn't in shape to counter this threat, and clock was ticking.

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> Good. The world would've been a lot better off if the Soviet Union hadn't existed.

 I do not care about states, I care about nation. USSR was necessary for our nation to survive in certain circumstances, and we did survive, whether you like it or not, and regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise.   

> It was the Soviets who invaded Finland in 1939 and took away half their land

 A half?  ::    

> and planted nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida and scared the cr@p outta the Americans by threatening to turn the Cold War nuclear.

 So? US nukes were in Turkey, very close to our borders as well. Let me remind you USSR wasn't who invented nuke and planned massive A-bombing of the opponent. It was US. Soviet nuke created later in fact saved the world from hundreds of new Hiroshimas, disrupting those plans.   

> And education in the Soviet Union was not really "good". The schools taught students only what the government wanted them to know, that is, how great communism was.

 Talking about Soviet education, please, don't show how bad is your own.    

> And just because _you_ don't remember standing in bread lines doesn't mean other people don't.

 I remember standing in lines, but not for bread - that was my point.   

> You're Russian, I'm sure you know of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--read _The Gulag Archipelago_ and perhaps you'll have different opinions about the USSR.

 I read it. Nevertheless, my opinion stays, because it's based on something more than one book of Solzhenitsyn.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> So? US nukes were in Turkey, very close to our borders as well. Let me remind you USSR wasn't who invented nuke and planned massive A-bombing of the opponent. It was US. Soviet nuke created later in fact saved the world from hundreds of new Hiroshimas, disrupting those plans

 US nukes were in Turkey to counter the Soviets in Cuba, in case they were fired. They didn't just put them there unprovoked. The US A-bombing of Japan has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, and Soviet weapons didn't prevent more bombings, they only increased the chances of nuclear war, hence the Cuban Missile Crisis. The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance of a nuclear war.  
And if Soviet education was so good, how come it was the Americans who beat you guys in just about everything except Sputnik and hockey? They developed the A-bomb and H-bomb first, they made it to the moon first, and they had the greater economy. 
And Solzhenitsyn knows what he's talking about--he spent 11 years in a gulag. Have you read _One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich_? How about _We Never Make Mistakes_? 
And if half of Finland doesn't seem so bad to you, how about robbing 14 other countries of their independence and making them part of a nation that practices mass murder?

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> The US A-bombing of Japan has nothing to do with the Soviet Union

 In fact it had. This was demonstrtion of force, without any real military need, becasue Japan was almost defeated by that time and after USSR promised to the Allies to attack it 3 month after Germany's defeat, Japan was doomed. There wasn't any need in A-bombing.   

> Soviet weapons didn't prevent more bombings, they only increased the chances of nuclear war

 In case you don't know, there were U.S. plans to finish USSR, heavily damaged by WW2 with A-bombs, US was producing A-bombs in large numbers and planes were ready. USSR broke American monopoly on Nuclear weapons and guaranteed mutual destruction was the thing that prevented transformation of Cold War in 'Hot' one, and plans were forgotten. 
Realise one simple thing, initially USSR was defending side. Cuba was needed to cool American hot heads forever, because technology of those days wasn't very advanced and there was necessity to keep nukes as close to possible targets as possible. And US' satellites were in general closer to USSR, than Soviet satellite countries to US. Except Cuba.   

> The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance of a nuclear war.

 I mostly agree, but with small correction. The more one country has advantage over others in nukes, the greater the chance of a nuclear war. If possible enemies are equal in nuclear strength, nuclear war will never begin. And the question remains, who started it all?   

> And if Soviet education was so good, how come it was the Americans who beat you guys in just about everything except Sputnik and hockey? They developed the A-bomb and H-bomb first, they made it to the moon first, and they had the greater economy.

 And if your education is so better than mine, why don't you know that hydrogen bomb (I mean not huge ones for testings, but small and deadly one plane can carry) was created in USSR, as well as peaceful nuclear power station?Soviets were better in space stations, automatic inter-planet probes, were first in video-recording and bunch of other things.   

> And Solzhenitsyn knows what he's talking about--he spent 11 years in a gulag.

 I don't say that he described gulag from inside correctly in general, but sitting there he couldn't see it from outside, could he?   

> And if half of Finland doesn't seem so bad to you, how about robbing 14 other countries of their independence and making them part of a nation that practices mass murder?

 I thought I just misunderstood you. No, you said "half of Finland" again. Well, I simply don't know what to answer, especially if you're better educated. Anyway, I suspect your knowlege has some empty spaces.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> In case you don't know, there were U.S. plans to finish USSR, heavily damaged by WW2 with A-bombs, US was producing A-bombs in large numbers and planes were ready. USSR broke American monopoly on Nuclear weapons and guaranteed mutual destruction was the thing that prevented transformation of Cold War in 'Hot' one, and plans were forgotten.

 And where did you get THIS information? From the records of the USSR again? You know, all I have is _your word_ that stuff came from Soviet records. You could be making that up for all I know. And the USSR couldn't have been "damaged by A-bombs" because they weren't used until Hiroshima. The Manhattan Project was in process solely for the purpose of Japan, not to nuke the Soviet Union.    

> I don't say that he described gulag from inside correctly in general, but sitting there he couldn't see it from outside, could he?

 And you couldn't see it from the inside, could you? 
And about education: I never said I was better educated than you. But listen to this: Education used to be good here (like in the days of the Cold War), but today is a different story. My math and science education is very good, but when it comes to subjects like English and history, I have to agree with you: it's terrible. I learned most things in those fields outside of the classroom. In history, for example, the cirriculum is pre-designed by the state to include only what they want us to know, and what they want us to know is their own opinion, and it  is very left-leaning, as is communism. Education in that field in a way resembles that of...THE SOVIET UNION. 
And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me. 
So...you and me, an American and a Russian, arguing over whether the Soviet Union was good or bad...looks like the Cold War isn't really over then, is it?  ::

----------


## Alware

> And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me.

   ::   ::   ::

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> And where did you get THIS information?

 Some fragments of the info can be found even in wikipedia you read. Here's only one planned operation for example, there were many  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot _
Operation Dropshot was the United States Military code-name for a proposed nuclear war with the USSR in the post-WWII period more commonly known as The Cold War. Whilst details of the plan differ between sources, the operation is rumoured to have had the potential to wipe out up to 80% of the Soviet Union's industrial power in one attack, which would involve up to 300 nuclear missiles .  According to UK Parliament Records, there was never any "Soviet plan to attack America or western Europe."_  
"Dropshot" is about nukes. Let me remind cancelled Operation "Unthinkable" also. http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/ 
Now answer me, who planned agression and who was defending side. And what USSR's records have to do with all this stuff, if that isn't our plans, we've never planned anything like that, even during Cuban crisis, search all Soviet archives up to the last piece of paper, you'll find nothing about striking first.   

> And the USSR couldn't have been "damaged by A-bombs" because they weren't used until Hiroshima. The Manhattan Project was in process solely for the purpose of Japan, not to nuke the Soviet Union.

 Due to my poor English, you misunderstood me. I meant:
USSR was damaged by war in 1941-1945. We lost many people and our economy suffered a lot. But somebody wanted to bring us some more suffering, with A-bombs, that were successfully used against Japan and planned to be used against USSR.   

> And you couldn't see it from the inside, could you?

 Only through Solzhenitsyn's eyes.  ::  But it is irrelevant how it looks from inside, if we speak about it's place in USSR history.   

> And about education: I never said I was better educated than you. But listen to this: Education used to be good here (like in the days of the Cold War), but today is a different story. My math and science education is very good, but when it comes to subjects like English and history, I have to agree with you: it's terrible. I learned most things in those fields outside of the classroom. In history, for example, the cirriculum is pre-designed by the state to include only what they want us to know, and what they want us to know is their own opinion, and it  is very left-leaning, as is communism. Education in that field in a way resembles that of...THE SOVIET UNION.

 I do not pretend to be better educated and smarter than you either. It was just my reaction to your words that Soviet education was bad compared to western. I finished my education in post-soviet Russia, but the system itself remained Soviet from the top to bottom. So I'm not ashamed to state that I'm Soviet-educated.  ::  Soviet education was/is incredibly good in natural scienses, like mathimatics, physics, and such. Considering your last words, I'm think that now we just swithed gates on the same field.  ::  To be honest, the U.S. reminds me USSR in general. Once I said that to defeat monster one should become more terrible one. I'm afraid that's what happened to U.S. It seems that all we left in the past is reborn on the other side of the ocean. I'm even more afraid that U.S. still consider themselves flagman of the free world, though lost that flag somewhere in the way. United States - Soviet Union. US - SU. A mirror. What a bitter irony!   

> And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me.

 I can laugh like Alware do, but I wouldn't. I just recommed you to find some additional info about that war. It started because of small portion of land close to Leningrad. Stalin offered Finns to exchange that land for bigger land in Karelia, but they refused and War began. Soviets finally got what they wanted, but that never was anything like "half of Finland". And when Finland was defeated in 1944 again, no Finnish land was annexed.   

> So...you and me, an American and a Russian, arguing over whether the Soviet Union was good or bad...looks like the Cold War isn't really over then, is it?

 Maybe it's not over, but I think it's not our failure mainly... As for SU, let's say it wasn't absolutely good, nor absolutely bad. And remember, it's not just abstract thing somewhere. It was a country we was born and lived in. We don't like when someone tries to paint it in all-black, because it wasn't all-black, though we don't like everything from that time either.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Some fragments of the info can be found even in wikipedia

 I thought you said wikipedia wasn't the most reliable source. But what really tells me this isn't necessarily true is the code name "Dropshot". In the WW2 era, US military code names were generally not related to the operation in any way, like "Overlord" was D-Day, and "Pegasus Bridge" was some air-raid that I've forgotten. "Dropshot" sounds way too obvious for an operation that involves dropping bombs.   

> we've never planned anything like that, even during Cuban crisis.

 If you never planned on striking with missiles, what were they doing off the coast of Florida?   

> search all Soviet archives up to the last piece of paper, you'll find nothing about striking first.

 But did you actually _look_ through every last peice of paper in the Soviet archives?    

> Stalin offered Finns to exchange that land for bigger land in Karelia, but they refused and War began

 And who's fault is that? The Finns' or the Soviets'? If the Finns didn't want to exchange land, the Soviets should have just let it be. Instead they invaded the country, and war began.   

> hydrogen bomb (I mean not huge ones for testings, but small and deadly one plane can carry) was created in USSR

 I was talking about the huge kind. The US invented it first.   

> I do not pretend to be better educated and smarter than you either. It was just my reaction to your words that Soviet education was bad compared to western. I finished my education in post-soviet Russia, but the system itself remained Soviet from the top to bottom. So I'm not ashamed to state that I'm Soviet-educated.  Soviet education was/is incredibly good in natural scienses, like mathimatics, physics, and such. Considering your last words, I'm think that now we just swithed gates on the same field.  To be honest, the U.S. reminds me USSR in general.

 Yes, the US, in a way, is resembling the USSR more and more. My example of our education system is just one example. Solzhenitsyn wrote another book called _Warning to the West_, in which he told them to shape up or they would become like their Cold War enemy. As you later say, US-SU is a like a mirror image. I'm afraid you are right. 
And I only meant Soviet education was "bad" in the sense that the schools only told the kids that communism was flawless and didn't want them to know otherwise. When it comes to math and science, you're right--their education there _was_ very good. Russians have always been very good at math and science.   

> Once I said that to defeat monster one should become more terrible one. It seems that all we left in the past is reborn on the other side of the ocean. I'm even more afraid that U.S. still consider themselves flagman of the free world, though lost that flag somewhere in the way. United States - Soviet Union. US - SU. A mirror. What a bitter irony!

 "To defeat the monster, become a more terrible one". President Reagan thought along those lines. He ran a campaign commercial, saying something like "There's a bear [the USSR] in the woods. Some say the bear is tame. But isn't it good to be stronger than the bear, just in case?" 
Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus anyway?  ::

----------


## Alex_Ivanov

> If you never planned on striking with missiles, what were they doing off the coast of Florida?

 To ensure that if we're attacked, our back strike won't miss. You know, rockets at that time weren't accurate enough on long distances.   

> But did you actually _look_ through every last peice of papaer in the Soviet archives?

 One is innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to prove we're guilty in preparing nuclear war, I'd leave that enormous work to you.  ::    

> If the Finns didn't want to exchange land, the Soviets should have just let it be. Instead they invaded the country, and war began.

 It's fault of all sides - Soviets, because they invaded, Finland, because it didn't keep distance from Hitler's Germany, so Soviets worried about possible nazi satellite a few kilometers away of second Russian town, and wanted to move border farther from it, and Hitler's Germany, because it prepared huge war, so everybody had to worry about his safety.   

> Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus anyway?

 Forget it!  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> But did you actually _look_ through every last peice of papaer in the Soviet archives?

  

> One is innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to prove we're guilty in preparing nuclear war, I'd leave that enormous work to you.

 Well, the Cuban missile crisis was in 1962. Operations "Dropshot" and "Unthinkable" (if they really were planned) were after WW2, in 1945, according to those documents on the link you posted. And, had those operations been real, we never carried them out. And yet, 20 years later, (which should've been plenty of time to figure out nothing nuclear was looming), Soviet missiles appear 90 miles off US land.   

> Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus, anyway

  

> Forget it!

 I'd _like_ to forget it, actually. I tried posting some stuff about Belorussian politics earlier, as well as other stuff on other threads, but other people (I don't know where they were from, their locations didn't say) didn't take me seriously simply because I was an American. They claimed all Americans were stupid and biased. I changed my location to say "The world" instead of "USA" because I was tired of being made fun of. So thank you for not saying the same things they said to me.

----------


## mishau_

> Originally Posted by mishau_  So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to   whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for  long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement.   That's what public politics is like anywhere, although I agree that Ukraine's one is more fractuos than most. It's not necessarily such a bad thing in itself, and it is definitely preferrable to having a strong man (or woman) on the "Ukrainian throne". There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. I do not see that happening again in the near future.

 You seem you don't want to either listen to or hear me. Once again, when I say that it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron I mean this:  http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/  http://www.proua.com/news/2006/08/12/144141.html 
Do you understand me? Establishment of the authority vertical, you know, that's what it's called. Unfortunalelly, my worst predictions always come true and never do my best ones. And you say "I do not see that happening again in the near future." But no one wishes to duscuss it till it happends indeed. While you hear only yourself some one will beat you around.

----------


## mishau_

У меня сложилось ощущение, что Украина и Белоруссия воспринимали российскую помощь как должное и поэтому в результате пересмотра ценовой политики со стороны России у этих стран появилось ощущение, что у них что-то незаконно отбрали.  
Но дело даже не в этом. В свете сказанного Лукашенко:  _
"Должен сказать, что и Европа, и США в этой ситуации повели себя порядочно. Они предложили помощь и поддержку, если это будет нужно белорусскому государству и народу. И это мы никогда не забудем. Если европейцы готовы в этом отношении сотрудничать с Белоруссией, то мы пойдем на любое сотрудничество с Европой ради обеспечения нашей национальной безопасности в области поставок углеводородного сырья", - подчеркнул Александр Лукашенко._ 
И мне интересно, какую такую поддержку и помощь Европа и США предложили "последнему диктатору Европы".

----------


## laxxy

[quote=mishau_][quote=laxxy] 
[quote="mishau_":2xp4sc7b]So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to   whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for  long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement.[/quote] 
That's what public politics is like anywhere, although I agree that Ukraine's one is more fractuos than most. It's not necessarily such a bad thing in itself, and it is definitely preferrable to having a strong man (or woman) on the "Ukrainian throne". There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. I do not see that happening again in the near future. 
[/quote] 
You seem you don't want to either listen to or hear me. Once again, when I say that it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron I mean this: 
[url="http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/"]http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/[/url]  http://www.proua.com/news/2006/08/12/144141.html 
Do you understand me? Establishment of the authority vertical, you know, that's what it's called. Unfortunalelly, my worst predictions always come true and never do my best ones. And you say "I do not see that happening again in the near future." But no one wishes to duscuss it till it happends indeed. While you hear only yourself some one will beat you around.[/quote:2xp4sc7b] 
ahhh somehow i missed this post at the time -- but no, this was no great cause to worry unlike '04  ::  he can try whatever he wants, but the situation is quite different now (as in August...)

----------


## laxxy

> У меня сложилось ощущение, что Украина и Белоруссия воспринимали российскую помощь как должное и поэтому в результате пересмотра ценовой политики со стороны России у этих стран появилось ощущение, что у них что-то незаконно отбрали.  
> Но дело даже не в этом. В свете сказанного Лукашенко:  _
> "Должен сказать, что и Европа, и США в этой ситуации повели себя порядочно. Они предложили помощь и поддержку, если это будет нужно белорусскому государству и народу. И это мы никогда не забудем. Если европейцы готовы в этом отношении сотрудничать с Белоруссией, то мы пойдем на любое сотрудничество с Европой ради обеспечения нашей национальной безопасности в области поставок углеводородного сырья", - подчеркнул Александр Лукашенко._ 
> И мне интересно, какую такую поддержку и помощь Европа и США предложили "последнему диктатору Европы".

 one can promise anything. But the 2nd episode of the circus was surely fun to watch, even better than the first one ))) i knew it would be ))

----------


## Pejko

I was passing by when I saw written "velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia". I am from that part of the world, so I have stopped here for a moment.  
Velvet, oh yes.. can be the real revolution done with a velvet glove in a velvet way? Can be the strong might overthroven by kind and velvet smile as happened in our state of Czechoslovakia in 1989? Hm.. 
There were circa 150 000 (at least) soldiers in military service, ready to get orders, ready to start their machines.. ready to stop the revolution.. Yes, you can say, that these 150 000 of man power were just a young boys who disagree with the regim as well as the young students on cities

----------

