NationStates Jolt Archive

Besides, Ethiopia was never conquered or occupied by the west, and I'm pretty sure they're a third World Country

Darn, and you were so on a roll ... there was that little incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War) between 1936 and 1941 involving that fellow who ran Italy, you know, the heavy-set fellow, the one with the helmet on all the time ...

Darn, and you were so on a roll ... there was that little incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War) between 1936 and 1941 involving that fellow who ran Italy, you know, the heavy-set fellow, the one with the helmet on all the time ...
1935.

Also, the late 1890s, the Italians were there too.

1935.

Also, the late 1890s, the Italians were there too.

1935, 1936 ... but in the 1890s didn't they get their heads handed to them? There was no occupation like there was during the 30s.

Darn, and you were so on a roll ... there was that little incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War) between 1936 and 1941 involving that fellow who ran Italy, you know, the heavy-set fellow, the one with the helmet on all the time ...

Mario?

Mario?

No, the tall one, Benito.

1. Much like Japan after world war II. But Japan seems to rebuilding its military too. Since they've amended their constitution.
Japan is barely rebuilding only in the face of one massive chinese military fighting machine.

2. The world is becoming a much colder place. Problem with being lone superpower is that it corrupts and makes one think they have the right to go around dictating everyone else's internal policies.
At least with two superpowers, you have balance. With only one, you have no balance. There was nothing to stop Bush from launching attack on Iraq with fake evidence. If the Soviet Union was still around, I think that Bush would have thought twice before sending troops in.
Ever hear of Vietnam? or Korea? The only thing a New Soviet Union would do is redirect our points of interest with troops, there would most definitly be wars and the threat of the nuclear destruction of the entire world to boot.

No, the tall one, Benito.

Hitler, Binito and Tojo...

It'd be a comedy had it not been a tragic world war.

1935, 1936 ... but in the 1890s didn't they get their heads handed to them? There was no occupation like there was during the 30s.
They were there for a wee while, but aye, they got the shit beaten out of them pretty sharpish.

Incidentally, this is why fascist leaders were called Ras. A Ras was a unit leader in the Abyssinian army, and it brought about connotations of being able to fight well above your on-paper abilities And All That Jazz.

Hitler, Binito and Tojo...

It'd be a comedy had it not been a tragic world war.
I, for one, am most impressed with Benito of the three. His excellent posturing in speeches was...err... excellent, even if the actual content was pure bollocks

They were there for a wee while, but aye, they got the shit beaten out of them pretty sharpish.

Incidentally, this is why fascist leaders were called Ras. A Ras was a unit leader in the Abyssinian army, and it brought about connotations of being able to fight well above your on-paper abilities And All That Jazz.

I always thought that "Ras" was a royal title in Ethiopia, equivalent to "prince." Haile Selassie was known as Ras Tafari before he ascended to the throne, which is why the Jamaicans who held him to be the Second Coming of Christ are called "Rastafarians."

With all this talk of Kosovo "being in Europe" being used to say Russia should stay out of it, it appears to have escaped notice that Russia, itself, is actually a European nation. It's capital is located in Europe.
Well if you wanna go this route, most of russia is located in Asia.

But several links on the Foriegn Affairs site show how the west is starting new cold war against Russia.

1. When Russia decided on its own, to change from imperialist power to normal great power, it got treated like crap by its fellow European nations. As a result, Russia had no choice but to start its own system.
How did it change from an imperialist power recently? It still attempts to dominate the politics of those countries around it and considers itself better than those countries
2. Europe and US tried to dictate to Russia how Russia could use its oil leverage.
Well lets see, extorting the hell out of other countries is a little more than leverage and I'm not just talking about the big evil U.S. here, I'm talking about using its oil for impressment on those countries around it.
3. The west is unreasonably insisting that Russia remain weak so that west european countries can use Russians for cheap labor.
I don't know where this cheap labor thing came in but aren't insisting it remain weak just not try and assimilate the countries around it. I don't see that as too much to ask.

4. Russia is a member of the G 8 which is the world's most industrialized nations. Westerners must realize that Russia is not Mexico.
Well they do have an unreasonably powerful man who rules his country like a south american dictator but other than that no it is not. it is fairly industrialized but if you're trying to compare it to the other countries on that list you are in the wrong.

1. THe policies of the US and NATO are causing the start of a new cold war.
Doubt it, considering that as much as you wish it was, Russia is no longer the power that it was.
2. American's wrongfully believe they single handedly won the cold war. Most of the Russian people disagree. Because that's not how it happened. Americans are arrogant to think other wise.
I do not believe this and while I'll agree that some ignorant backwater idiot would believe that, it is not true. While America was a huge part of the winning of the war, there were other factors that contributed to the downfall of the USSR like for instance the backward policies instated in the country.
3. Number one mistake America and the West Europeans are making is treating Russia as if it was a defeated enemy from great war.
They were defeated but this is a different government that we are dealing with and we are merely trying to make sure that the Russians don't make the same mistakes they did in the USSR.
4. They didn't need Americans or any other westerners preaching that communism was bad. Russians already knew this from experience. That is why they dumped communism. Not because of rhetoric from any western state.
Well duh, it was a bad system to begin with.
5. America has 16 years to prove itself a friend of the Russian people. America has failed. Instead, America has left the impression that they want a weak Russia that can be trampled anytime America or Western Europe feels like it.
We really don't have to prove anything, if the russians wanted our friendship, they could have proven that their country has changed.
6. Americans think they can force Russia to do what America wants. Then Americans throw temper tantrum when that does not happen.
If Russians think they can force america to do what it wants, then they can keep whining.
7. While Europeans and Americans think of Russia as defeated third world nation, they forget that Russia was never conquered or occupied by the west.
Comparing a military victory to an ideological victory and here I thought you had more sense than that.
8. Russia is not a client state of the west for the west to dictate terms to.
And neither are the numerous countries that Russia attempts to dictate terms to.

Russia is a member of the G 8 which is the world's most industrialized nations.
The G-7 is supposed to be the world's 7 largest industrialised economies.

The G-8 is really just the G-7 + Russia, because Russia's economy isn't big enough to qualify.

The Group of Six was formed in 1975 when the top financial officials from the USA, UK, Japan, West Germany, France, and Italy met and agreed to reconvene annually. Canada was added the next year to make it the G-7, and those were the 7 largest free industrialised economies in the world. Canada did fall behind Spain for a while, but the members of the G-7 were never updated.

When the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia was invited to join, even though its economy was never big enough to count among the 8 largest.
Westerners must realize that Russia is not Mexico.
Isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_figures_for_year_2006.png

What the fuck are you on about now?

Woohoo for bullshit sources.

No choice my arse.

So?

Not really, Poland's in the EU now, and we also have North Africa.

Not most industrialised but richest. Hence why Luxembourg isn't a member and China is.

No they aren't, Russian dick-swinging is, see their removal of British diplomats.

Yes, quite, we of Western Europe helped, too.

We stopped doing this circa 1992.

Yes, well, they spent fucking ages saying that capitalism is bad.

Examples?

Examples?

It's still very poor.

Seeing as it's really not that rich, well armed or well governed compared to its western neighbours, I don't see why we can't treat it at a client state...

Putin's great, the regional leaders in Russia seem to be extremely corrupt.

1. Russia is historically a European state. Any war between west europeans and Russians would be a European civil war. True, Russia has a large amount of asian territory, but that is becuase, like western europe, Russia was colonial power. There are only two differences between colonial Russia and colonial western Europe. Russia didn't need a navy to conquer new lands. The Western Europeans had to have a navy because they weren't connect by land to any territories of primitives. Because of this, while Western Europe lost its colonies, Russia was able to hang on to its colonially claimed territory.
Yet the heart of Russia remains in Europe, as does Russia's capital.
Russians' have more in common with the rest of Europe than they do with with the Chinese or the Central Asians. Remember that the original Russian state was founded not by asians but by Europeans from Scandinavia.


2. Foreign Affairs is a well respected journal with well respected authors.

3. The fact that the US and West Europe are still trying to dictate to other countries how to use their own oil supplies, says that the NATO nation's think they own the world.

4. Europe does not own North Africa. Europe can't dictate things to North Africa. Africa, like Russia, won't allow Europe to dictate terms to them. In fact, because of European's arrogant policies, most of Africa is choosing to sign economic deals with China rather than with European governments or companies.

5. Actually, China is not a member of the G-8. You might be thinking of the World Trade Organization. But so far China is still only an applicant. The G8 is actually the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, UK, Japan, and Russia. China is not a member of G8.

6. Wrong, west Europeans still do this.

7. You can't treat Russia as a client state because Russia is equal to Europe. You can't dominate them economically, you can't dominate them politically, and you will never be able to dominate Russia militarily.

Gasp



I wondered how long it would take before that site came up



Wait wait wait.....excuse me? It got treated like crap because yes, it did collapse under pressure, and withdrew from the war. Therefore, it did not get rewarded in the treaty. Also, there was that whole "worldwide socialist revolution" that kinda turned off most of the west. And to my knowledge, it never stopped being an imperialist power. Just under a diffrent name, "spreading the revolution"



Because thats how we do things. If we nationalized our agricultural industry and made you pay signifigantly higher prices as a result, you'd be pretty angry too


We have Mexico, China, and in Europes case, Africa. Why would we need Russia?



You're right. It has a smaller economy than Mexico does.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85407/dmitri-trenin/russia-leaves-the-west.html

Oye Vey



Because they infiltrated Russia and poisioned a promenent Parliment critic with a rare kind of radioactive element....oh wait......



We belive we didn't casue your fall, just hastened it.



Eh, that stopped in the 90s I belive


They knew that communism was bad? Then why did it take the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a coup before they finally revolted?


By.....what? Not throwing money at you? This is buisness, and incidentally Western Stock Brokers are loving to make money off another growing market.





I'm pretty sure the Germans in World War Two would disagree, seeing as how they occupied a ton of Russia. Besides, Ethiopia was never conquered or occupied by the west, and I'm pretty sure they're a third World Country



And neither is Kosovo a client state of Russia

There was no treaty ending the Cold War. It just ended on its own. Ending a cold war is not the same as ending a hot war. You can't dictate terms to the other side.

Europe and USA pay large subidies to their farmers. This differs from nationalized farming how? In both cases, the farmers are directly supported and propped up by the government.

America and Europe still trying to treat Russia like defeated occupied nation.

They revolted against Communism before the Soviet Union disintegrated. It was the revolt against communism that led to dismantling of the Union. Not the other way around. The coup was by communists hardliners trying to keep control of Soviet Empire and Eastern Europe.
That is why East Europeans helped Russians defeat coup.

Western Stockbrockers give all their money to corrupt mafiasos.

The Germans occupied a small sliver of Russia but were beaten back by Russian people.

Kosovo is not client state, Kosovo is a territory of Serbia. Serbia is ally of Russia.

Japan is barely rebuilding only in the face of one massive chinese military fighting machine.


Ever hear of Vietnam? or Korea? The only thing a New Soviet Union would do is redirect our points of interest with troops, there would most definitly be wars and the threat of the nuclear destruction of the entire world to boot.

The Soviet Union would have responded to the genocides of the 90's by sending in troops. The west stood by and did nothing.

A joke that Russians tell on themselves: "Under Communism, we were on the brink of calamity, but since then, we have taken forward steps."

What the hell does Russia have to do in any of this?!

Also, I don't really see why they shouldn't be able to leave if they want to. I mean, it's the same way Quebec can leave if the majority there vote for separation.

Also, I don't really see why they shouldn't be able to leave if they want to. I mean, it's the same way Quebec can leave if the majority there vote for separation.
Precisely.

It's a non-issue. There are only two problems in the way:

1. Making sure of the safety of the minorities in the various areas - which is something the UN and a few well-managed conferences should be able to do.

2. Overcoming people who think they're somehow worse off because their country looks smaller on a map.

The first needs to be tackled better than it is at the moment. The second is ridiculous, and no one should be wasting their time by granting concessions.

After what the Serbs did to the Muslims, I say let them have their independence. Milan Milutinović should have been hanged like Saddam. No one should pay attention to China and Russia (the two nations that support Serbia) because they are also killing their own Muslim minorities within their own lands. It is in their own interest not to see Kosovo become a new nation (If Kosovo is recognized, then why shouldn't the Chechens in Russia or the Uighurs in China also gain their independence as will?)

What the hell does Russia have to do in any of this?!

Also, I don't really see why they shouldn't be able to leave if they want to. I mean, it's the same way Quebec can leave if the majority there vote for separation.
Canada resolved it through elections. Other countries like Serbia, Russia, and China wouldn't allow it. Besides, for Quebec to separate, a majority of 60% (I prefer 83% :D) is needed from the pro-separatism side and that is politically a masterpiece.

Well, the Muslims have done a lot of things to the Serbs, too. That is why the concern about what will happen to the Serb minority in an independent Kosovo is not a trivial one.

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=239&linkid=2241

Russian airborne troops can be in Serbia in a maximum of 24 hours, considering their high state of readiness.

Russia currently has the world's 5th largest foreign currency reserves. A nation's reserves of foriegn currency being a primary determinator of a nation's wealth and economic strength. This means Russia is economically more powerful than three of the other G8 members. Certainly a lot lot more rich than Mexico.

With simple economic sanctions, US allies in Moldova and Georgia would be devastated. Since most of their trade is with Russia.

In retaliation for Kosovo, Russia could recognize and send troops to newly independent republics that "used to be" part of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Pact) could be become the new Warsaw Pact with India and Iran having already applied for membership in this anti western alliance.

One Russian ally, Uzbekistan, kicked the US off its territory after America and Europe tried to dictate Uzbek internal policies.

Kyrgyzstan, the only central asian nation to host US and NATO forces, is now moving to evict the Americans and their allies. Again, because of western arrogance.

Even Kazahkstan is in discussions to join the SCO in an alliance against the US.

The stability of Georgia depends almost entirely on good will from Moscow.

If Russia diverted the oil it now ships to western Europe, which makes up 25% of Western Europe's oil supply, to Asia, I doubt the Europeans would be so cocky in their attitudes toward Russia.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen

Precisely.

It's a non-issue. There are only two problems in the way:

1. Making sure of the safety of the minorities in the various areas - which is something the UN and a few well-managed conferences should be able to do.

2. Overcoming people who think they're somehow worse off because their country looks smaller on a map.

The first needs to be tackled better than it is at the moment. The second is ridiculous, and no one should be wasting their time by granting concessions.

About the second,

I recall to have read that kosovo forms the heartland of the serbian (orthodox) heritage.The Serbs have not always been a minority in the region. Though this is not enough cause to block the secession of Kosovo, arrangements have to be made to protect the Orthodox heritage in Kosovo.

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=239&linkid=2241

Russian airborne troops can be in Serbia in a maximum of 24 hours, considering their high state of readiness.

Using what route? No nation is going to allow a Russian Military Plane to violate their airspace on a mission like this.

Using what route? No nation is going to allow a Russian Military Plane to violate their airspace on a mission like this.

I guess most countries would... especially if the planes were properly escorted

I guess most countries would... especially if the planes were properly escorted

It won't be tolerated.

It won't be tolerated.



Russia may no longer be competing for hegemony, but Russia is still a major power and few nations are able and willing to bear the costs stop it... especially on behalf of kosovo

That said Russia would not do it, because it too is not willing to bear the costs of a military intervention on behalf of kosovo :)

There was no treaty ending the Cold War. It just ended on its own. Ending a cold war is not the same as ending a hot war. You can't dictate terms to the other side.

I was talking about WWI, which for some reason I thought you were talking about. Sorry for the confusion

Europe and USA pay large subidies to their farmers. This differs from nationalized farming how? In both cases, the farmers are directly supported and propped up by the government.

Subsidies are diffrent than nationalizing, mainly in that we don't directly control the prieces and reap the benifits

America and Europe still trying to treat Russia like defeated occupied nation.

No, were treating them like arrogant pricks who are trying to re-ignite the cold war


They revolted against Communism before the Soviet Union disintegrated. It was the revolt against communism that led to dismantling of the Union. Not the other way around. The coup was by communists hardliners trying to keep control of Soviet Empire and Eastern Europe.
That is why East Europeans helped Russians defeat coup.

Uh, no, Im pretty sure many countrys left the Soviet Union before it disinigrated. IE poland, etc.

Western Stockbrockers give all their money to corrupt mafiasos.
I know many stockbrokers, and I know for a fact that one of them donates most of his money to charity, not corrupt mafiosos. The mafia has been really weak since the 80s, so...

The Germans occupied a small sliver of Russia but were beaten back by Russian people.

You need to check up on your military history my friend. The Germans advanced all hte way to Moscow

Kosovo is not client state, Kosovo is a territory of Serbia. Serbia is ally of Russia.

Uh, Kosovo is an independent territory that suffered genocide. Its as much a part of Serbia as Austria was a part of Germany

The Soviet Union would have responded to the genocides of the 90's by sending in troops. The west stood by and did nothing.

Doubt that, they did respond by sending troops into Kosovo as far as I know.

Russia currently has the world's 5th largest foreign currency reserves. A nation's reserves of foriegn currency being a primary determinator of a nation's wealth and economic strength. This means Russia is economically more powerful than three of the other G8 members. Certainly a lot lot more rich than Mexico.

With simple economic sanctions, US allies in Moldova and Georgia would be devastated. Since most of their trade is with Russia.

In retaliation for Kosovo, Russia could recognize and send troops to newly independent republics that "used to be" part of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Pact) could be become the new Warsaw Pact with India and Iran having already applied for membership in this anti western alliance.

One Russian ally, Uzbekistan, kicked the US off its territory after America and Europe tried to dictate Uzbek internal policies.

Kyrgyzstan, the only central asian nation to host US and NATO forces, is now moving to evict the Americans and their allies. Again, because of western arrogance.

Even Kazahkstan is in discussions to join the SCO in an alliance against the US.

The stability of Georgia depends almost entirely on good will from Moscow.

If Russia diverted the oil it now ships to western Europe, which makes up 25% of Western Europe's oil supply, to Asia, I doubt the Europeans would be so cocky in their attitudes toward Russia.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen

And what sort of allies would russia have by doing this? that is the real question. You talk about Kosovo like it is some sort of client state of Russia, and you expect that they will welcome Russia with open arms of friendship. Sounds like the Afghanistan war the USSR got itself into.

Doubt that, they did respond by sending troops into Kosovo as far as I know.
Damn right. Almost every EU nation and indeed the US sent troops in.

I guess most countries would... especially if the planes were properly escorted

The Russians would probably give them a heads up before doing anything. That's something America never does for the countries whose airspace it constantly violates.

Considering that Ukraine and Romania both oppose US policies on forcing Kosovo independence and the fact that neither has the ability to actually block Russia from flying over their countries, the most they would do is issue an official diplomatic protest at the UN.
Of Course, Ukraine has the same stuff that Russia has. But Ukraine agrees with Russia on the matter of Kosovo so they would likely contribute forces to any Russian operation.

Speaking of which, Putin is now Time's Man of the year for changing Russia back into a great power on the same level as the US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1928881920071219

The Russians would probably give them a heads up before doing anything. That's something America never does for the countries whose airspace it constantly violates.

A heads up then a flat out no. Remember, nations can bar aircraft from entering their airspace.

Considering that Ukraine and Romania both oppose US policies on forcing Kosovo independence and the fact that neither has the ability to actually block Russia from flying over their countries, the most they would do is issue an official diplomatic protest at the UN.

And then we have a full act of war as violating the airspace of another nation over their objects is legally an invasion. What makes you think that Romania and Ukraine, both of whom do not trust nor like Russia for what they did on their soil that they'll do nothing?

Of Course, Ukraine has the same stuff that Russia has. But Ukraine agrees with Russia on the matter of Kosovo so they would likely contribute forces to any Russian operation.

I call bullshit.

Speaking of which, Putin is now Time's Man of the year for changing Russia back into a great power on the same level as the US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1928881920071219

And the point of this is?

I was talking about WWI, which for some reason I thought you were talking about. Sorry for the confusion



Subsidies are diffrent than nationalizing, mainly in that we don't directly control the prieces and reap the benifits



No, were treating them like arrogant pricks who are trying to re-ignite the cold war




Uh, no, Im pretty sure many countrys left the Soviet Union before it disinigrated. IE poland, etc.


I know many stockbrokers, and I know for a fact that one of them donates most of his money to charity, not corrupt mafiosos. The mafia has been really weak since the 80s, so...



You need to check up on your military history my friend. The Germans advanced all hte way to Moscow



Uh, Kosovo is an independent territory that suffered genocide. Its as much a part of Serbia as Austria was a part of Germany

Price controls are price controls. Regardless of what you call it, you are still controlling agricultural prices.

Actually it is America who is reigniting the cold war with their quest for world domination and Europe's quest for recolonization of Africa.


Poland was never part of the Soviet Union. Poland was always its own country. The Soviet Union was Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova. And none of them left until Gorbachev said the USSR was dumping communism and that any republic who wanted to do so was free to leave.


They don't give money to American mafia, they give it Russian mafia. They also buy Russian politicians in attempt to interfere illegally in Russian internal matters.

They never took Moscow.

Kosovo is not an independent territory, it was never an independent territory. America is going to have to go Serbia and Russia to make it one.

Damn right. Almost every EU nation and indeed the US sent troops in.

After ten years. After the majority population which consisted of Serbs was wiped out.

Why did they wait so long? Because Europe wanted to take Kosovo away from Serbia and turn it into colony of West Europe.

Price Union. Poland was always its own country.

WRONG!! It has never always been its own country. It was Part of Imperial Russia.

Over the past millennium, the territory ruled by Poland has shifted and varied greatly. At one time, in the 16th century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the second largest state in Europe, after Russia. At other times there was no separate Polish state at all. Poland regained its independence in 1918, after more than a century of rule by its neighbours, but its borders shifted again after the Second World War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland

Russia doesn't have the military power to be able to fight the US alone, add NATO and EU, and it's quite literally what happened to the Iraqi Army when the US invaded in 1990. In fact, Britain or Germany alone would be able to fend off the Russians.

Note that they support Hillary, showing that they're a liberal and have little concept of reality on international politics. No, I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independant.

A heads up then a flat out no. Remember, nations can bar aircraft from entering their airspace.



And then we have a full act of war as violating the airspace of another nation over their objects is legally an invasion. What makes you think that Romania and Ukraine, both of whom do not trust nor like Russia for what they did on their soil that they'll do nothing?



I call bullshit.



And the point of this is?
No country is going to go to war over their airspace being violated by country which clearly much much stronger than theirs. The only reaction would be diplomatic protest because in a war, Russia would wipe out Romania.

Ukraine has only been in independent state for 10 years out of the hundreds of thousands of years of human history.

You forget that Ukraine not a member of NATO. Ukraine has more in common with Russia than it does with western Europe or the US.
You also forget that Ukraine is a member of the CIS, not a member of NATO.
You also forget that Ukraine has told its military to shoot down any NATO aircraft caught flying in Ukrainian airspace.

The Russians would probably give them a heads up before doing anything. That's something America never does for the countries whose airspace it constantly violates.

Considering that Ukraine and Romania both oppose US policies on forcing Kosovo independence and the fact that neither has the ability to actually block Russia from flying over their countries, the most they would do is issue an official diplomatic protest at the UN.
Of Course, Ukraine has the same stuff that Russia has. But Ukraine agrees with Russia on the matter of Kosovo so they would likely contribute forces to any Russian operation.

Speaking of which, Putin is now Time's Man of the year for changing Russia back into a great power on the same level as the US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1928881920071219

Sure must be great to have a government of entirely ex-Kgb members, making it literally a police state. Alan Greenspan:
"'The Russian economy is today best described as a market economy backed by a still imperfect rule of law. A significant segment of the nation's most valued assets is in the hands of the state or of Kremlin allies. Political control has been reinforced through control of the major media operations, with most of the remainder "encouraged" to censor themselves. Putin and his policies remain immensely popular. Objections from the Russian public are few; apparently the chaos of Yeltsin's democracy - including financial defaults that savaged people's savings - left a residue of profound discomfort. A poll in 2006 reported that almost half of the Russian people value material well-being over freedom and human rights: democracy and freedom of speech are not high priorities. Given a choice between the democratic freedoms and economic instability of the Yeltsin years and the stability and authoritarianism that have emerged under Putin, for now most Russians prefer Putin.' Greenspan went on to say that eventually there would be a backlash."

Canada resolved it through elections. Other countries like Serbia, Russia, and China wouldn't allow it.
Why not?

Again I ask, is this Serbian/Russian position a rejection of the right to self-determination?

No country is going to go to war over their airspace being violated by country which clearly much much stronger than theirs. The only reaction would be diplomatic protest because in a war, Russia would wipe out Romania.

Ukraine has only been in independent state for 10 years out of the hundreds of thousands of years of human history.

You forget that Ukraine not a member of NATO. Ukraine has more in common with Russia than it does with western Europe or the US.
You also forget that Ukraine is a member of the CIS, not a member of NATO.
You also forget that Ukraine has told its military to shoot down any NATO aircraft caught flying in Ukrainian airspace.

Ukraine has more in common with russia? such as being dominated by the country for like 500 years. Is it any surprise that the candidate that least supported russian national interests was poisoned? Honestly thats just disgusting. Or there is the fact that putain had his opponent jailed. What a great guy, smothering democracy in a blanket of lovely totalitarianism. I'd like to see the report that has the statement that Ukraine will shoot down any nato plane.

After ten years. After the majority population which consisted of Serbs was wiped out.

Why did they wait so long? Because Europe wanted to take Kosovo away from Serbia and turn it into colony of West Europe.

Actually it was two before Nato became involved. the war started in 1992 and nato came in, in 1994. Colonies are a bit outdated and you assume that Western Europe acts as a cohesive block. its a bunch of nations that have different agendas and ideas about government not a single nation that somehow dominates the entire western part of Europe. :rolleyes:

Poland was never part of the Soviet Union. Poland was always its own country. The Soviet Union was Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova. And none of them left until Gorbachev said the USSR was dumping communism and that any republic who wanted to do so was free to leave.
Well the thing is while poland was not a part of the soviet union, just as Eastern Germany was not a part of the soviet union, it was under the heavy influence and almost blatant imperialism of the country. Why do you think it was symbolic of the destruction of the USSR when the Berlin wall came down?


They don't give money to American mafia, they give it Russian mafia. They also buy Russian politicians in attempt to interfere illegally in Russian internal matters.
If you have any legitimate studies to back this up I'd be interested to see them.
They never took Moscow.
But they came damn close, mostly do to the bumbling efforts of one Joseph Stalin, to say that they only took a "sliver" of russia is just a blatant lie, they took most of the inhapibitable land of russia and effectively widdled it down to a weak nation.

Kosovo is not an independent territory, it was never an independent territory. America is going to have to go Serbia and Russia to make it one.
I doubt whether Russia would go that far as to declare war over something that really doesn't involve it in the slightest. Serbia perhaps, but thats an easy one.

But they came damn close, mostly do to the bumbling efforts of one Joseph Stalin, to say that they only took a "sliver" of russia is just a blatant lie, they took most of the inhapibitable land of russia and effectively widdled it down to a weak nation.

And if it was not for the Russian Winter, Moscow probably would have fallen as well. Even Zukov stated that if Moscow had fallen, Russia would have lost the war.

The Russians would probably give them a heads up before doing anything. That's something America never does for the countries whose airspace it constantly violates.

Considering that Ukraine and Romania both oppose US policies on forcing Kosovo independence and the fact that neither has the ability to actually block Russia from flying over their countries, the most they would do is issue an official diplomatic protest at the UN.
Of Course, Ukraine has the same stuff that Russia has. But Ukraine agrees with Russia on the matter of Kosovo so they would likely contribute forces to any Russian operation.

Speaking of which, Putin is now Time's Man of the year for changing Russia back into a great power on the same level as the US.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1928881920071219

Russia really isn't on the same power level as the U.S., I'd like to see the fact that romania and Ukraine both agree with russia in writing or documented in some fashion.

By the way, as to Ukraine's involvement in the CIS:
On April 9, 2005, Minister of Economics of Ukraine said at a news conference "there is no hope for CIS development" and that Ukrainian government is considering halting its financial contributions to CIS bodies.[9] Ukraine had historically become one of the CIS founding countries. At the same time Ukraine is the participant and not the member of CIS as it did not sign the Rules (Statute) of CIS. Ukraine is against turning of CIS into the "superstate" entity and against delegating to such entity of any authority to override the national governments decisions. Ukraine is against delegating to CIS of the status of the international law subject and does not recognize the CIS right to represent its interests in the international arena or in the international organs. Ukraine does not support any attempts to revive in the post-soviet territory any new amalgamations of federative or confederative character, is against creation on the CIS basis of political, military or economic union around mutual center. Ukraine departs from the fact that each of the countries - participants of CIS conducts its foreign policy independently and determines the scope of its activities within CIS. Ukraine does not take part in the CIS military-political structures. Ukraine is currently gradually further "wrapping up" the scope of its participation in the CIS activities. Ukraine's strategic target is integration into the European and Euroatlantic structures.

"I recall to have read that kosovo forms the heartland of the serbian (orthodox) heritage.The Serbs have not always been a minority in the region. "
Not always, but you have to go back to the 15th century to get to a time when Serbs were the majority ethnicity there.
Serbia conquered the territory, along with all of Albania, during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when Ottoman rule finally collapsed in the area after decades of increasing feebleness. The Great Powers decided that Serbia should not be allowed to rule Albania, and created an independent state there (Russia was strongly against the idea); originally its borders were to have been defined by where Albanian was the majority language, so that Kosovo would have been included, but Serbia made an emotional plea that it needed to have the holy site of Kosovo Polje ("Crow Field", from all the birds feeding on Serb corpses) where they lost an epic battle to the Turks in 1389. Claiming a territory because your people used to live there, long long ago, is a peculiar notion, but sometimes it prevails: see Israel/Palestine, and the Poles' reoccupation of Silesia and western Pomerania after a thousand-year break.

Why not?

Again I ask, is this Serbian/Russian position a rejection of the right to self-determination?

I think the issues are the rights and safety of the Serbian minority in independent Kosovo with Albanian majority.

Serbia wants to keep hold of Kosovo in order to promote the rights of the Serbians in Kosovo (at the cost of Kosovo Albanians). Russia OTOH supports Serbia because they're allies but also because Russia has an agenda of its own: It doesn't wan't Kosovo to become an example to some of the Russian territories wanting independence despite the opposition of the Motherland (eg. Chechnya).

In case of Kosovo, you only have to look a decade back to remember what kind of ethnic tensions were talking about and why granting independence isn't as easy an issue as it should be. It also shows why a majority descision isn't always a good descision.

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.

This funny:
Americans and EU support Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda kill women and children in Chechnya. Then Al Qaeda attack USA. USA and EU suddenly decide that Al Qaeda is enemy and illegally invade Afghanistan and illegally invade Iraq which had no connection to Al Qaeda.

The fact that they were fighting Al Qaeda, an enemy of Russia for over a decade, was the reason Russia allowed US to put troops into Central Asia. But then US overstepped its bounds, trying to dictate to Russian allies what they could and could not do in their own territories. So Central Asia kick USA and Europe out of their lands.

Chechnya was never about human rights or genocide. It was always about terrorism. Al Qaeda terrorism.

They attacked Russia long before they attacked USA or Europe.

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.
The mystical al-Qaeda strike again!

Next up: WW2 was started by al-Qaeda, not Hitler.

<snip>

There's a conspiracy theory, stating that bomb attack which started II Chechen War was organised not by Chechen terrorists, but by Russian secret service. Thus Putin could invade Chechnya and rise in polls as tough leader who does not negotiate with terrorists and separatists. :) I do not say I believe it, but I don't think they are particularly above it.

By the way, Chechens rebel against Russia since the time when Russia claimed Caucasus. It's gonna be about 200 years.

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.

Um Brachiosaurus? It was the Chechen rebels that took over the Moscow Theater as well as the school in question.

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.

This funny:
Americans and EU support Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda kill women and children in Chechnya. Then Al Qaeda attack USA. USA and EU suddenly decide that Al Qaeda is enemy and illegally invade Afghanistan and illegally invade Iraq which had no connection to Al Qaeda.

The fact that they were fighting Al Qaeda, an enemy of Russia for over a decade, was the reason Russia allowed US to put troops into Central Asia. But then US overstepped its bounds, trying to dictate to Russian allies what they could and could not do in their own territories. So Central Asia kick USA and Europe out of their lands.

Chechnya was never about human rights or genocide. It was always about terrorism. Al Qaeda terrorism.

They attacked Russia long before they attacked USA or Europe.

When in doubt, blame it on the Muslims...:rolleyes:

After ten years. After the majority population which consisted of Serbs was wiped out.
Bullshit.

Only in fiction, I'm afraid:

http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/Grigor_Stoyanovich.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters_%28video_game%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_%28TV_miniseries%29

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.

This funny:
Americans and EU support Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda kill women and children in Chechnya. Then Al Qaeda attack USA. USA and EU suddenly decide that Al Qaeda is enemy and illegally invade Afghanistan and illegally invade Iraq which had no connection to Al Qaeda.

The fact that they were fighting Al Qaeda, an enemy of Russia for over a decade, was the reason Russia allowed US to put troops into Central Asia. But then US overstepped its bounds, trying to dictate to Russian allies what they could and could not do in their own territories. So Central Asia kick USA and Europe out of their lands.

Chechnya was never about human rights or genocide. It was always about terrorism. Al Qaeda terrorism.

They attacked Russia long before they attacked USA or Europe.

So do you have any evidence to back up this wild outlandish theory or are you just trolling it up right now? which I'm beginning to suspect is why you created this thread.

Chechnya rebellion was not carried out by chechens. It was caused by Al Qaeda terrorists who ran around Chechnya killing innocent women and children. Then they began blowing civilians up in Dagestan and in Moscow theaters and elementary schools.

<SNIP>

So the Chechnyan Rebellion was entirely by Al-Queda?

March 08, 2005
Chechen Terrorist Leader Killed

Aslan Maskhadov, the leader of Chechnya's rebellion, has been killed by Russian forces.

Muskhadov had a $10 million dollar bounty on his head and was considered the most wanted man in Russia. Maskhadov had led the Chechen rebellion in the early 1990s until a cease-fire was negotiated with then President Boris Yeltsin.

Maskhadov was a bitter rival to the al Qaeda linked Shamil Basayev. Basayev has been linked to the Beslan massacres and has promised more Beslan like attacks in the future. Maskhadov ran against Basayev in 1997 for the Chechen Presidency and won.

Maskhadov was later driven out of office by the Russians when he declared Chechnya an independent state.

The press reports that Maskhadov was simply a leader of a nationalist movement in Chechnya are mistaken. Maskhadov is accused of planning the hostage crisis at the Nord-Ost theater in Moscow. 129 hostages later died, mostly as the result of a botched rescue operation.

Further, the MSM likes to portray Maskhadov as a moderate, contrasting him to the al Qaeda linked Basayev, but Maskhadov's nationalism was tied closely to his Muslim identity. His army is composed of jihadis drawn from around the world to repel the infidel invaders (Russia). Clearly, Maskhadov was a jihadi who saw his mission to end the 400 year old Russian control of Chechnya as a religious imperetive.

Images: (top) Reuters photo of the dead Maskhadov. (bottom) Maskhadov pauses to say prayers with his army of jihadis. (below) Russian television station NTV airs video of Maskhadov dead on the street.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/070555.php

When in doubt, blame it on the Muslims...:rolleyes:

Well, based on statistics I saw a while ago (not sure where to find them now or how accurate they are/were) a majority of the Chechnyans in favor of separating from the Russian Federation are Muslim.