They’re probably being a little over-dramatic here — mounting an invasion of Ukraine is, after all, somewhat more risky than cleaning out Ossetia and Abkhazia, and is a huge logistical undertaking. How likely is it, really, that Russia would do such a thing?
But the Ukrainian foreign minister has decided to go public with his case. Here’s the story from Friday’s Elsevier, as translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:
Russia on repetition: passports for Ukrainians- - - - - - - - -
The Kremlin hands out passports to ethnic Russians in Ukraine without being accountable for it. Ukraine fears a repetition of Russian military power as happened in Georgia. The Russian passports are handed out from Sevastopol where the Russian fleet is anchored.
So said the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs of Volodymyr Volodymyr Ohryzko this Friday in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Georgia
In the longer term, Moscow can use the presence of Russian citizens in Ukraine “as an excuse for an invasion like happened last month in Georgia,” says Ohryzko.
Back then the Russians handed out passports widely to inhabitants of the renegade Georgian regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Sevastopol
The passports are issued by the Russian consulate in Sevastopol in the Crimea, in Ukraine. The country has around fifty million inhabitants of which ten million are ethnic Russians.
The Crimea, a peninsula in the Black Sea, was established [as an oblast] in 1954 by communist leader Nikita Khrushchev and given to Ukraine. Three quarters of the population there is ethnic Russian, and Russian is the main language.
Strategic importance
The Crimean Peninsula is of great strategic importance to Moscow. The Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed in the port city.
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko wants Sevastopol to become the home base of a NATO fleet.
That last sentence is the kicker: Sevastopol as the home port for a NATO fleet.
One doesn’t have to be a Russophile to see why the Russians might object to this. The Crimea is historically Russian and has an ethnic Russian majority. What earthly reason would NATO have to establish an outpost there, except as a direct provocation to the Russians? Why would the Russians read it in any other way?
The Soviet commissars did a vast disservice to the Russian people by drawing the internal boundaries of the Soviet republics in the way they did. I’m sure it made sense at the time, as a divide-and-rule technique, or as a way of distributing power among party favorites with local fiefdoms.
But the long-term consequences of such foolishness are now being played out. The Politburo’s geographic tinkering in the 1950s was just as dangerous as were the borders in the Balkans, or “Churchill’s hiccup” in Iraq.
58 comments:
The Ukranian military needs to go into the Crimea and destroy all Russian passports being given out recently stating that they are not legitimate.
It definitely sounds like Russia is preparing to take the Crimea from the Ukraine. Nuts. The U.S. needs to smack Iran really soon, so they can help take care of business with the Ukranians.
Greetings:
This concept of "dual citizenship" seems to be snowballing out of control. Stanley Renshon at the Center for Immigration Studies web site has a couple of interesting articles on the insidious effects of "dual citizenship" even when the Russians aren't involved.
The US needs to stop antagonising Russia stupidly. The events to which I refer are our policy in the Balkans (the recognising of Kosovo). Russia and the US should be able to ally together against countries like Iran.
By the way, I just learnt recently that "Kremlin" in Russian is Кремль. Just thought I'd share my newly acquired Russian with everyone. I'm taking Russian at university this year.
An analysis in the Financial Times states the obvious:
The west is strategically wrong on Georgia
Naïveté about the Islamic world aside, the author makes an excellent point: The West needs to become used to the fact that we have no dominant position in the world, and that we need to know our limitations and show restraint.
The trick at this moment is that restraint may easily be perceived as weakness, and could cause a lot of our foreign policies to fail.
Trying to convert Crimea into a NATO outpost will *not* go down well in Кремль (Natalie: Great idea!), for sure.
We have real enemies to face. Duking it out with our Christian fellow men in Russia instead does not make sense.
Natalie,
Remember, when learning a new language it is neccessary to learn about the culture also. I hope you like cheap vodka.
As an Eastern European who was forced to learn Russian during the barbarian occupation I am expressing my utmost amazement at your infatuation with this Asian, despotic, totalitarian country.
Keep your idiotic language propaganda for yourself...
I bet none of you ever set foot in the Russian reality which killed millions of their own and give us the Gulag and the dog named Laika.
What else? Please, say it if you know more.
Those murderers are the new leaders: the KGB guys and the human animals at the Lyublanka prison.
I believe your love for this brutal country that never was part of Europe rooted in your absolute hatred for your own life, your country, your civilization and this self hatred compels and propels you towards any sinister power that set to destroy your way of life. And this distant, romanticized, - shrouded in mysticism - empire appears to be the right candidate for some of you.
We Eastern Europeans who were deported to the Kolyma river to the Camps in Siberia only to die of hard labor in permafrost, the relatives of the massacred Poles at the Katyn forest...we don't forget and don't forgive.
Russia of the Tzars, Party Chiefs, or other Strong Leaders remained the same trough centuries; it doesn't matter who rules: they obey the strongest who wield power for life.
I bet none of you ever set foot in the Russian reality
Well, I did.
which killed millions of their own and give us the Gulag and the dog named Laika.
Excuse me, but as far as I know, that was the Soviet Union. Which us Conservatives stood staunchly against. Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
What else? Please, say it if you know more.
Yes. I've heard, in detail, that the Soviet regime was installed through massive funding by Imperial Germany during WWI, with the intention of destroying Russia. That regime is gone, finally, and Russia is not the expansionist regime the Soviet Union used to be.
Your anti-Russian racism is a disgrace for this blog.
What's a disgrace, Henrik R Clausen, is that you fail to see the similarities between USSR and Russia.
Quote "Russia is not the expansionist regime the Soviet Union used to be" REALLY? If you fail to see that Russia' disastruous economy and a failing army is what kept this country to reiterate its past crimes, you're not much of a "CD-redaktor".
Maybe you see Russia as the big brother who will save Europe from islamic rape, but you forget that Russia supports openly Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah - and also started this islamic madness by invading Afganistan.
I'm an Eastern European as is Bela.
For your information, we ARE the same race as russians (the europeans ones, anyway), so keep the "racism" card away - is so used today that it became round.
Good luck to you and Natalie learning Russian. We were just been able to forget it. Кремль - how cute... you Westerners have no clue - read some history first, then speak.
Parts of my country is still occupied following Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and Georgia is dismembered under our eyes, and you? Dreaming about big Christian nation? This one?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article551693.ece
Seeing their disregard of human life and lack of respect for basic human rights I can see Russia fit to became a muslim nation in 30 years or so. Especially when "christian" population is going down mainly due to cronic alcoholism.
YminusX, do you realize what went before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Operation Cyclone, where the *West* started the Islamic madness, and the Russians reacted to it. To which we lied openly about an 'unprovoked' invasion. That invasion was provoked by CIA infiltration, and Carter knew that.
When one goes into details, black and white evaporates. I have many friends in East Europe, some of who remember the Soviet system and some don't. One of my closest friends spent 30 years of his life reestablishing Christianty in the Soviet sphere of influence and is today the chairman of the Georgian-Danish Friendship Society.
But I refuse to demonize the Russians. You folks do that just fine. We have real enemies to face, and the knee-jerk reactions from the US administration are utterly hopeless in forging a new working relationship with Russia on that subject.
The Russian regime is, after all, much less problematic than those in the Middle East, where infiltrators (like we had Communists some decades ago) are present in Europe and the US, undermining our democracies.
As for my status as a CD-ROM Editor, I don't think it would be affected even in the case that my thinking about Russia was entirely wrong. I suggest you abstain from such 'ad hominem' attacks.
NATO served its use and should be dissolved. If the United States withdrew its guarentee to Europe and pulled out its troops, you would save billions of dollars, also, we in Europe would then have to prepare to defend ourselves instead of sucking on the American teet, making us lazy and spoilt. It would force us to look again at our bloated welfare states and 'get real'.
Russia is not an Asiatic despotism, it is a European nation, the Russians I've met are White, Christian and very European, you can see it in the Russian language, it is familair, as fimiliar to me as German.
We wold be fools to goad Russia into atacking Ukraine, what would we do then? Go to war?
I do think that Belarus and Ukraine will eventually be reabsorbed by Russia, it is an enivitabity, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are so similar, all come from Keivan Rus, in fact it is Kiev and Novgorod that are to Russia what Kosovo is to Serbia.
It is in the interests of Europe to have a strong confident and friendly Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are not worth fighting for.
It is in the interest of the United States to leave Europe be, America does not understand Europe and especially Slavic Europe, America can no longer afford the defence it provides us, it would be in America's interests to leave now and let us sink or swim alone.(I mean financially)
The Orange revolution was a Soros backed NeoCon sham, and Yushenko a NeoCon stooge.
With Ukraine and Belarus, Russia would once again be a great power, let us leave her be, let us encourage Russia instead of demonising her.
An article posted on Jihadwatch just a couple of hours ago reminded me of the story of the Kingdom of Prester John. Prester John was the king of a mythical kingdom that was held up as the hope and salvation of the christian lands in the east, who faced annihilation by the muslims. He lived somewhere on the other side of the muslim lands. The parallels with today, with the believe that Ivan will come and rescue the west... whilst Prester John didn't exist and Russia does, the possibility that the Russians are our saviours is... tenuous at best.
A little bit of geographical re-arrangement may well be necessary but don't, whatever you do, assume that Putin is going to come riding over on his white horse to save us. He's the leader Russia wants, maybe even needs, but he isn't ours, and he will throw us to the Islamic wolf in a second if he thinks it will give him an advantage at home.
Well....this is fantastic....
If it makes you feel better, blame them and hate them....but I doubt that hattress can anyone make feel good....
Soviet Union and before that imperial Russia made lot of bad to your nations...that is a fact and there is not any way how we can deny it....
But why arent you able to admit that like everything it has two sides????
When Russian state has been weak and subordinated by Tatars, specially Poles and Lithuanians did they best to enrich themselves at the cost of their weak neighbours..... Then your state had become too weak and Russians began to take back what you have "stolen"....
So I think that considering the past before start of communism you can hardly blame Russians for the same thing you did to them when you had the power to do it...
With regard to more recent past, again do not forget how it all started....
Above all it has been stupidity of your leaders, which enabled your bad fate after the second world war and losses of Polish nation during the war........
In case of Hungary it has been your leaders, who decided to make alliance with Nazis.....nobody forced you to do it.....
Who plays with fire must count that he can get burnt....
And why was possible Molotov Ribbentrop?
Because stupid leaders of Poland and Czechoslovakia prefered soulles and short term interests before security.....
Instead of make compromise and form alliances, they just thought how could they enrich themselves at cost of the other side....
I have no problem to accept blame and admit, that Czechoslovakia leaders were incredibly stupid, when they formed relations with their neigbhours in way which caused that in time of confrontation with Nazis, they stayed alone, but I do not see any reason why "it is all the Russians fault"
Our leaders were stupid, so our nations paid for it.....
Oh and by the way.....I do not know if you remember, but Nazis did very nasty things to Russian nation and plans which had Nazis with Poles were much worse than those of Soviets....
Today Russia in not Soviet Union, if nothing change, it is dying nation (not that situation of central European states is much better...)
Perhaps they recover, perhaps not, but fact is that power of Euro-atlantic civilization (if something like this still exists) is diminishing rapidly and any conflict with Russia will make things just worse for us....
If you prefer destroying of all what has been left by our ancestors just to punish Russia for its existence, then I pity you......
Well....if you believe to those who thing, that the end of the World is coming and the best you can do is to make it faster, then I understand.....that is probably incurable....
Luckily it seems that McCain does not belong to this crowd....
Irish Tory is perfectly right, when he wants America let Europe be alone...
All those more than forty years of american presence in Europe has been just waste of money......
If Europe is strong enough, she will alive, if not, she will die.....but if she is dying, you cannot do more than just prolong its agony....
Well....if you believe to those who "thinK"
of course....
I hope I was not too offensive....
But I really do not like the blame game....
Russians were just the first victims of communism.....
I do not blame them for a wish of having strong state and I do not blame them that they do not like idea of NATO having its bases encircled around Russian borders....I guess Americans also would not like having Russian bases in Canada and Mexiko.....
One more thing.....
If Ukraine is going to join NATO with aim of military base in Sevastopol, against the will of Russia and Russians who lives there and are in huge majority, then I have no problem with Crym going back to Russia.
If Russia wanted to reoccupy whole Ukraine against will of its inhabitants and to reoccupy the Baltic states, then yes, this is causus beli...
But I am really curious, how will you persuade your "allies" in NATO, when all Europe is desperately dependent on Russian oil and gas and I guess this will just hardly change in near future...... This will change no sooner than when Russian will run out of their sources or after they will start to sending it all to China and India instead to Europe...
"How likely is it, really, that Russia would do such a thing?"
Ukraine is ahuge country. To invade and conquer it, the Russians cannot only rely on military force. Before the Russians are to get Ukraine (or its Eastern parts), the Russianswill have to:
a) Resort to diplomacy and make a "Western Ukrain" seem viable. Divide and Conquerer, they'll have to make the people in Western Ukraine wanting to get rid of Eastern Ukraine.
b) Belarus. They will have to mannage to get Belarus so that they can eficiently cut Ukraine in the middle.
c) A pretext.
That's why I think they will peacfully annex Belarus first or envolve Belarus in this.
All this is to happen before 2012.
Baron, I like very much to see that you are - as usual - standing for what really matters. In this case "European Civilisation", "The West" and, especially, the Truth. You are right on your last assertions.
Natalie,
how the hell can your write Cyrilic??? Your key pad must be very different from my... tçççç...
We've to make a trip to Moskva! :)
Bela-
"Russia of the Tzars, Party Chiefs, or other Strong Leaders remained the same trough centuries; it doesn't matter who rules: they obey the strongest who wield power for life."
One of my best friends is a Russian (an American for over 30 years now) whose father was a dissident poet who actually broke out of jail and managed to flee to Italy and eventually here with his family. They both would agree with your above quote wholeheartedly. They have said to me many times that there is something about the Russian character that loves a heavy handed rule. They actually gave it about five years after the Soviet collapse before some "knuckle dragger" would take over.
Bela,
while I think I can understand your disgust, your anti-Russianism is so ridiculous that you even call Russia a: "asian, despotic, totalitarian country."
I can not see any difference between Russia and the Nations east of the Romano-Celtic-Germanic continuum, that is, to the East of Germany, Austria and Italy. The difference may be that Russia usually is not subjugated to other powers? It's the only traditionally "free" Slavic Nation?
-----------------------------------
YminusX,
"you forget that Russia supports openly Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah"
And you seem to be uncapable of analysing why, is it not? A tip: You don't have to be a genious, it's the most obvious thing.
"I can see Russia fit to became a muslim nation in 30 years or so."
Are you sure you are so keen on Russians? First, in Russia, the Central-European and Northwest regions are plus 95% East Slavic, European and Christian. In Russia the muslims are not in Moscow or St. Petresburg but in their own republics. Russia can grant them independence as soon as they become a threath, as she has done concerning Kazakhistan and Azerbaijan for instance.
That is a stupid mith. Russia is 85% European and Christian, which is more than the U.S. and in Russia, there are no Democrats. Actually, Russia is doing a hell of a job to improove the numbers of their Russian, white and Christian peoples unlike some Nations I know. So, Russia is on the good path. She's not perfect, but is better than the European Union, and has a great, great potential. So, please:
stick to reality!
Irish Tory,
I think that Swedes, Irish and other non NATO members (or even recent members) should not be aloud to dictate whether or not NATO should be dissolved. Try just to worry with your little Island, ok?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Ireland joining NATO but, to read what you wrote, especially you not being in NATO...
Archonix,
Prestes João lived in Ethiopia. In the XV century a team of Portuguese spies made the voyage to find him (by foot). They got divided, one group went from North Morocco all the way through muslim lands 'till Ethiopia, another one went trough Turkey and reached India. They never found the man, and one of the two teams was killed by muslims, while the other returned to Portugal.
They have said to me many times that there is something about the Russian character that loves a heavy handed rule.
Just might be true. Average Russians have little inclination to get into politics - partly because they're doing well already, partly because the System will resist or absorb any independent voice.
The best way to deal with this is probably not to attempt to force a 'regime change', but to deal with it head on, as in finding real ways to get rid of the energy dependence, rather than condemning a country for conducting politics with obvious self-interest.
Actually, i wouldn't mind our politicians acting a bit more in our self-interest rather than shelling out tax money to Palestinian Authority (PLO), Gaza, Libya, Turkey and the other merry recepients. Not to mention getting into military adventurism.
Let's take a note from the Russians rather than condemning them.
Spackle wrote: "Russia.....they obey the strongest who wield power for life.......there is something about the Russian character that loves heavy handed rule."
Indeed, I once read somewhere, something written by an historian who pointed out that the MONGOLS invaded Eastern Europe in the 1200's, looted,sacked,burned,raped,pillaged, and then went home. But farther east, in Russia, they stayed and ruled for about 200 years. The Russian Tsars who threw them out were just as brutal, or more so, as the Mongol Khans.
The Tzars were never, ever as brutal as the Communists. Tzars would actually be widely respected and visit the countryside to see for themselves how people were faring. Communists were much too elevated and elitarian to bow down to ordinary people in this fashion.
One correction: The current Russian regime sure is authoritarian, but (unlike the Soviet Union) it isn't totalitarian. Quite the opposite - today in Russia you can get away with a lot of wild things that in the West would be regulated away.
Natalie,
Too bad you got flamed for your post when you tried to show us your new ( Cyrrillic ) toy. I actually like toys of that sort ( linguistic. ) But as you can see, the subject of Russia is a hot button. Indeed, my own family came to the USA from Poland and, yes, there was a lot of "trouble" concerning Russia.
If you'll forgive me for my flippant comment about the cheap vodka, let me recommend to you ( and other GoV'ers ):
Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror" which is pretty much the standard work on the subject.
"Harvest of Sorrow" ... hmm, I think by the same author, but I'm not sure now as it has been some years since I read it. ( I can't find my copy at the moment, uh, my filing system leaves a lot to be desired :) )
Solzhenytsen's writings ( based on personal experience! )
And a really remarkable story, "The Long Walk" by Slavomir Rawicz, who escaped from the gulag by walking across the Gobi Desert and the Himalayas.
Let me add the "Black Book of Communism" to the list. I didn't read it myself (I know Communism is bad :), but others have recommended it highly.
Afonso, I am afraid that your assumption that there are not many muslims in Moscow is wrong....
What I have read or heard there are at least 2 millions of them there.
Well I do not remember exactly...perhaps it is 1 500 000 or 2 500 000, but certainly it is quite a lot..
Question is how religious they are.....
I think it is logical....because Moscow is the richest region in Russia and so it attracts masses of people and of course amongst them also muslims...
official composition of population by census from 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow#Ethnic_groups
So it seems at least one million is quite probable....
And ethnic Russians are certainly declining while minorities are migrating and having higher birth rate....
Question is if this trend is irreversible and what will the Russians do....if they do something...again, I would bet more on Russians than on the most nations of WE...
On my way out of here, I just wish to salute the young people (such as Natalie and Afonso), whose got open and investigative minds. And whatever the old guys say, knowledge never hurts!
Martin is also a new recruit who I think makes a whole lot of sense in what he's writing. Just one thing though:
Luckily it seems that McCain does not belong to this crowd....
Make sure to read Trifkovic's assessment of McCain:
McCain and Soros: The Most Dangerous Man in America, Bankrolled By the Most Evil Man in the World
As for Muslims in Москва and elsewhere in Russia, what I have heard is that the religiousness isn't overwhelming. And that, seeing the splendor of the resurgent Orthodox Church, some 2 million of them have converted to Christianity.
It's hard to verify. But would be a good development.
YminusX,
Parts of my country is still occupied following Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and Georgia is dismembered under our eyes, and you?
What is it that you are hungry for? Köningsberg? Or is it Vilnius that you want back? But you know that is not part of Russia.
Maybe you can give back what you stole from Germany with Stalin's help, and then have Poland move east. You have a case for parts of that, but most of it is inhabited by Ukrainians and Belorussians, and was so before your imperialistic expansion and Polonization of the region.
Henrik,
Let me add the "Black Book of Communism" to the list. I didn't read it myself (I know Communism is bad :), but others have recommended it highly.
You recommend a book you haven't read, and do not seem to intend to read. You are implying that the recommendation is for someone who is less knowledgeable than you and so unknowledgeable as to be unaware of that Communism is bad. Who do you suggest that is?
afonso h:
Of course, since you are perching on the farthest point of Europe from where things can look very different. Have you ever traveled to the East?
"I can not see any difference between Russia and the Nations east of the Romano-Celtic-Germanic continuum".
Sorry pal the "Romano-Celtic-Germanic continuum" exists only in your overstretched mind for such things is the product of your fertile imagination.
Do you mean that Hungary and Romania, Poland, the Baltics, are the same as Mother Russia? - for they are in East from your "continuum". No difference at all?
Oh my G!
Russia, Soviet or otherwise inveterately supported all the rogue regimes which were hostile to the West: Brezhnev armed the Arabs, Castro, Putin supports Chavez, the Mullah of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and on and on...since 1950.
===========================================
martin
"And why was possible Molotov Ribbentrop?
Because stupid leaders of Poland and Czechoslovakia prefered soulles and short term interests before security"
Care to elaborate your weird statement?
"Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries' territories. All were subsequently invaded, occupied, or forced to cede territory by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or both. Only Finland was able to defend herself against the (Soviet) invasion and remained an independent Western democracy.
Martin, here is the photocopy of the original text:
http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm
Please, make some research before putting up incoherent statements.
Don't be carried away by your fantasies.
==============================================
==============================================
Conclusion:
Anyone with first hand encounter with Russia, Soviet or not, has harrowing experiences related to that country.
Naive, ignorant Westerners, who never lived under Russian occupation and only "met a nice guy" from Russia in London, have a crush on the alcoholic Russians:
Did you know that Russian soldiers drank the perfumes in occupied Europe during WWII?
Wasn't Bela the poster complaining about Marxist NGOs and George Soros quite recently? I'm not sure about it and I don't have time to go through the archives.
Russia is the only significant force in the white world willing to put these Soros funded commies in their place. Almost every country under American hegemony has people like Soros controlling much of the press and universities spreading maladaptive memes that the average person falls for. Compared to the cultural Marxists of the West Putin is a dose of sanity in an insane world.
And no one here - as far as I can tell - is suggesting that Russia be allowed to take over Hungary or Poland. But Crimea is obviously different given its history and the on the ground reality of its ethnic demographics.
Besides if Russians are such barbarians (as bela claims) then aren't Ukrainians the same? Genetically is there much difference between these two peoples? Given their similar phenotypes, language, and the fact that many Ukrainians are 'Russified' it is likely they are genetically as close as you can get. So why should we help one over the other especially when one (Ukraine) wants to join hands with our internal Marxist enemies (like Soros)?
дарагий гаспадин
я гаварю по русски я не люблю руссия
avery bullard
Once upon a time the battle lines were strait ones and simple: good guys on the left, all the bad ones on the right or reversed.
Today things are much more complicated: the line is zigzag, friends and foes can change places overnight; such is life. There is no consistency in any political stand for we are living in a volatile world. One guy can change the whole landscape like Schroeder and Merkel, or Obama and McCain...
Soros is the incarnation of the Evil: I support Putin's effort to crush him. But I am against the Russian support of the Mullah and all the scumbags from Castro, Chavez and the likes. And the Russian imperialism.
" Compared to the cultural Marxists of the West Putin is a dose of sanity in an insane world."
You are correct I concur.
"Almost every country under American hegemony has people like Soros controlling much of the press and universities..."
This is true: the onslaught of the Marxists is relentless in the US too. The slight difference is that while Europe succumbed to Marxism 50% Americans still resist mainly in the "Red States".
I want to rectify a malicious propaganda put forth by Cons.Swede namely that Multiculturalism is an American export to the EU.
This is a lie.
Multicult. and PC is the product of the Frankfurt School: Marcuse, Adorno, Hockheimer, Lukacs escaped Hitler and in the US as University profs. indoctrinated a whole generation of young student who are now infesting the new youth as profs themselves.
Marxism in all forms - along with Fascism - is European product, it's beyond any doubt.
Bela, I know, my English sucks, so it can be difficult to understand, what exactly I mean...i try it to explain in more understandable way....
"Because stupid leaders of Poland and Czechoslovakia prefered soulles and short term interests before security"
Soooo....
If elites of central European countries did not hate each other so much, Nazis would not have a chance.....
The Czechoslovakia is perfect example...because of Trianon, we had terrible relations with Hungary, because of Těšín, we had terrible relations with Poland and of course we had not too good relations with Austria.....
It is difficult to predict what would happen if....and of course it is absolutely ahistorical....But perhaps more favourable frontiers with Hungary would help us to have normal relations, probably not friendship, but hopefully at least good enough to not be encircled by enemies....
If we let Těšínsko to Poland, we could have friendly relations with them and if we were more fair with more 3 000 000 of Germans who lived in Czechoslovakia, we would have better relations with them and they would be more loayal to Czechoslovakia.....
Yes....these are too many "ifs", but I am sure that at least of of those aspects has been possible....(and I did not talk about unability of our elite to give more right so Slovaks because of artificial ideology of "Czechoslovakism" = Czechs and Slovaks as one identic nation, in fact just a tool to counter German minority, which if I am not mistaken has been more numerous than Slovaks..:)
If Poland has been in military alliance, our chances against nazis would have been much better....
Czechoslovakia had good army, the biggest problem had been absence of any real allies amongst neighbouring countries (of course, there has been Little Etente, but it aimed against Habsburgs and Hungary)
Look at this map:
http://www.oahshb.cz/staremapy/full_big/1935half.jpg
After Anschluss it has been really difficult do defend....but alliance of Czechoslovakia and Poland would make things much better.....
Such alliance has been impossible because of our stupid politicians.....
There are some questions...Hitlers army was not in such a good shape before occupation of Czechoslovakia...and fact is that our arms helped Nazis a lot in first period of war....specifically against Poland....
Yes, Polish army sucked technically, but just plain numbers could be together with us sufficient deterrance...and if not, I guess Blitzkrieg would not be so easy for Germans, so perhaps French would have time to actually do something....It would be too risky to Nazis and it could all end quite fast.....
So that is why I say, that all has been caused by stupidity of our leaders.....
I hope it is clear now.....
To Conservative Swede...
I meant mainly, that McCain is religiously mild, so perhaps he will not feel necessity to fasten "armageddon"
I hope it wont be as bad as it seems from that article....
The last really admirable president was Reagan,....and if had to choose between Obama and McCain...ufff....I am happy I dont have to make this choice;)
Bela, you speak truth to an insane world. Thank you!!!
Martin,
Americans are not religiously driven in the way you suggest. Unless we'd speak of the secular civic religion of which McCain is the most zealous representative.
martin,
Don't worry about your English, it's good enough, for many on this forum - like myself - English is second language.
Please do not try to perceive WWII trough narrow Czech-Polish prism:
"If elites of central European countries did not hate each other so much, Nazis would not have a chance....."
The emergence of Hitler had nothing to do with love or hate: it was a reflexive answer to the Bolsheviks who after Russia moved to Hungary, followed by the Spartacists in the Weimar Republic and the Commies tried to take over Spain. Europe were at the verge of becoming Bolshevik.
In 1919 the Commies took over Hungary for 100 days committing the standard genocide, so Hungary turned to fascism. So did Spain, and Germany.
You need to re-learn history from different sources.
Don't you think that your idea according to which the Czech and Polish Army could have stopped Germany all by themselves is a little bit over the top?
As a fellow Easterner, an ex-Hungarian I suggest you to use these forums to widen your vision: forget Czech, Hungarian etc. sources, search the Internet for several other sources, also study opposing views as well. Get out of your country in imagination and discover the wider world.
"As for Muslims in Москва and elsewhere in Russia, what I have heard is that the religiousness isn't overwhelming. And that, seeing the splendor of the resurgent Orthodox Church, some 2 million of them have converted to Christianity."
I have heard some rumours too...it would be nice and it has some logic....Communists repressed all religions...I would bet that Orthodox church is preferred one in Russia and we knows how it works with muslims:p
It is more easy to assimilate to the strong, arogant and selfconfident nation than to the ever withdrawing weaklings poisoned by selfhatred.....
I can despise many things about Russia, but the sole fact that they are proud of themselves makes them much liveable than us.....which is something they have common with those approximately 50% ?? :) percent of Americans :)
Hmmm, all these discussions back and forth about Russia, Stalin, Hitler, borders, are interesting.
For me, Russia's expansionist desires, fueled by the wealth from oil and gas, and the threat to Europe if they with hold those resources, is paramount. If Russia chooses to violate the sovereignty of any it's neighbors, they are morally equivalent to the USSR.
If Russia doesn't act as a responsible nation, then it can fornicate itself.
The USSR was an evil empire, and any attempts to reincarnate it, are unacceptable.
The Soviets were instrumental in overthrowing the Shah of Iran, as Jimmah Carter was, and even though their communist take over of Iran failed, they profited mightily from Iran, and still do.
I fail to see a great deal of difference between the behavior of the commies then, or the former commies that control Russia now, with the exception of there is more cash to corrupt the country, now.
To Bela:
"Don't you think that your idea according to which the Czech and Polish Army could have stopped Germany all by themselves is a little bit over the top?"
That is the question...I am not a military historian....I do not know exact numbers of a Polish army, I know that Czech Army had been pretty strong but of course not comparable to the army of many times bigger Gernany.
It is just guess, but let me guess, that Poland and Czechoslovakia both backed by France would be too much for still not sufficiently armed Germans...blitzkrieg not possible and to make war on three frontlines from the beginning...it seems like too much even for German military
If we have to go to the real roots of our current problems, then we should start with the First World War, that was by my opinion the turning point, after this war everything changed for worse...
Perhaps such a war has been inevitable...even so, it certainly could end in a different way, if England let France to loose :)
Martin,
Yes, that's a great source. However, making a fast gathering of that info you get:
Russians - 85%
East Slavs - 88%
and a maximum of 4~5% of non Europeans (muslims+all others)
You have also to take into account that in Moscow there is no type of Multiculturalism as we see in the West. So, and considering Moscow the major European city - the second being Istambul - 5% is not much. Yes, a million may seem a good estimative but I still doubt that it is significative or that their numbers are or will raise exponentially.
For instance, see this.
And if you think it is open to everybody as in the West, think twice! I'll give you a more credible source and I belive you have what it takes to "suck all the juice" from the article.
So, take it! The Kremlin is (was?) sponsoring panflets and placards which showed a young blonde Russian women rfusing a ride from a swarthy, beetle-browed taxi driver, under the slogan: "We're not going the same way."
"Those who hoped that Russia's first post-totalitarian generation would be liberal, have been dissapointed. Although explicit support for extremist and racist groups is in the low single figures, support for racist sentiments is mushrooming.
Slogans such as "Russia for the Russians" now attract the support of half of the population. Echoing Kremlin propaganda, Nashi denounced Estonians as "fascist", for daring to say that they find Nazi and Soviet memorials equally repugnant. But, in truth, it is in Russia that fascism is all too evident."
In the second link you can also read that, one of the slogans of new Russia is:
"It is strongly reminiscent of the Tsarist era slogan: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality".
I am good with that, especially in Russia, where they need a strong authocratic man as we latins need beautifull women and great football players... :)
Also, I can not find a link but I heard that ethnic cleansing in Moscow ad St. Petresburg (by white skinheads and neo-nazis for instance) is only second in the world to the violence commited in South Africa. I remember reading a news story about that kind of criminality and I was shocked mainly due to two things:
a) the murder of a nine years old Taik girl and
b) Russian neo-nazis organising a great gathering of neo-nazis of many Nations in Russia warning its Italian counterparts to wear distinctive cothes in order to not be miss-identified with "browny" Caucasians (mainly muslims).
Also, the Russin authorities do not care about this. I think that if those people do not attack women and children, Russian authorities do not care at all.
Considering it all, in the end, the Russians will give a longer and bitter fight than we will/are.
By the way, Conservative Swede is way right.
I am sick of the victimisation of Jews and, guess who? Poles!
(Please, let's not make a whole new thread just becuse of my declarations. All I mean is that Poles were not the only ones to suffer.)
Czechoslovakian army of course.....
And I should not forget those 3 000 000 of not too friendly Germans in Czechoslovakia :))...but still...
I look at this with Czech-Polish prism because it is something what makes me angry for years:)
Czech and Poles are different, we had some conflicts in the Middle Age :), but I think that difference has never been so big to make us enemies like it happened after establishment of our states...
Now I will jump to the really distant past....:)
There were many reasons why Byzantine empire has been perished by Osmans, I think one of the most important has been that until the bitter end every so called "christian" neighbour tried to stole at least a bit of it....and we all know what has followed...
And it is always the same...
Same scheme is repeating itself again and again and again, unability to learn from our history and repeating of the same mistakes again and again is really something depressing
Our only luck is, that something like this is universal for whole human kind. not just the Europeans :)
But one day it can happen that it will come really too late....
I think I will take some break for a few days.....such discussions are quite time-consuming :)
Bela,
Go read the post of Avery Bullard. He is right.
I would only correct him that East Ukraine is genetically closer to Russia than Western Ukraine. The problem with Ukraine is the centre, Kyev region. The East is clearly pro-Russian and the West pro-West (or is it only pro-Poland?). Kyev is pro-money.
But some like to say that Ukrainians are Swedes and Russians are Japanese...
"дарагий гаспадин
я гаварю по русски я не люблю руссия"
All I can get from that is "daragi gaspadin ia gavaro po Rusky ia ne lolio(?) Russia"
That must mean Russia sucks because Russia is Russian? I do not know Russian.
But Bela, you seem to lose your eyes over Histrory. There is no "romano-germanic-celtc" continuum?
What will you say next, that Finland is part of Scandinavia?
I'll just resume the History of Portugal and Spain untill the arrive of jihad:
1000 a.c - The Celts arive
200 a.c. to 200 b.c - The Romans conquer
~450 - The Visigoths and Suebi arrive
711 - The bloody muslims arrive.
Germanic+Roman+Celic culture = WESTERN EUROPE!!!
That is: Portugal, Spain, France, Ireland, Britain, Begium, The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and of course, Italy.
These traditionally independent Nations/culturlly recognisable bodies border:
a) Poland=Slavs
b) Chezchs=Slaves (with strong Germanic influence)
c) Hungarians=well...
d) Ex-Yugoslavians=Slavs
e) Greece=Greeks.
Is it that difficult for you to understan?
"Do you mean that Hungary and Romania, Poland, the Baltics, are the same as Mother Russia?"
No, I do not, of course not. I only say that you have (had) more in common with Russia than what you have with us. Maybe, this is not true in relation to the Czechs but the others... I think its irrefutable.
Martin,
Your Eastern European view of History scares me.
To me, everything wrong is due to the West, from the fall of Constantinople, to the Second World War...
And it's always the same problem:
France!
Don't you think the same there?
Which troops did France send to help the last emperor of Constantiople? Didn't they made more and more demands?
And when Hitler entered through Bohemia, did not the French abandoned their allies to the East of Germany at their own luck? Didn't France humiliated Germany in and since WWI. And the European Union, and the revolution of 1789...
The problem are the frogs. Or so I think.
afonso h;
I was laughing when some posters proudly used a few Cyrillic letters in full ecstatic mood as if something of a miracle happened; what a wonderful thing to see the word Kreml in writing!
I put it in Russian: daragiy (dear) gospodin (sir) Ya (I) gavaryu (speak) po Rusky (Russian) ya (I) nye (not) lyublyu (like) Russia...
"support for racist sentiments is mushrooming."
Why don't you shriek loud your favorite war cry: "RACIST!" "RACIST!"
Incidentally I am glad that the "Eastern Europeans view of History scares you" - it means we are right for the real protagonist of historical events are those who took part in it.
The far away spectators opinion doesn't count much.
" I only say that you have (had) more in common with Russia than what you have with us"
Since 3/4 of Hungary was under Ottoman occupation (up to the Gates of Vienna!!) for over 150 years therefore Hungary is more Turkish than Russian. You are off the marks, but keep spouting off your theories, feel free to do so.
Bela,
nye?? I would swere it was "nyet".
"The far away spectators opinion doesn't count much."
It's kind of true. It is also true that I am watching all this way to confortable, exactly in the opposite side of Europe (I heard Portugal actually does have a maritime borderwith the U.S.A....) but, and I think it is a big but, objectivity has also much to due with impartiality. Or at least, "distanciation".
Concerning that last assertion of yours, it makes no sense. I would never say that because the muslim stayed up utill five hundred years in some reas in South Portugal and up to eight hundred years in Southern Spain.
But, while the Western European States/Cultural areas are well established for long, the East has been:
a)Russian
b)German (or Austrian)
c)Turkish.
Take as an example Poland. Poland was moved several miles to the West and everybody is happy. Would that happen in the West? Of course not! Why? Because you in the East have not a tradition of State-hood.
Do you remember when I said that Westerners did fought their wars while the Easterners did not?
Eastern Europe came to exist after World War One, Western Europe, right after the fall of the Roman Empire. I am no better than you, you are not better than Russians, Russians are not better than me. We are all Europeans, we all have our "specification" but you have more in common with each other, than to the West of Europe. However, Europe Civilisation is only one and Russia is a part of it.
afonso h:
Like in English: Nyet = No
nye + verb = don't (do something like speak)
"But, while the Western European States/Cultural areas are well established for long, the East has been:
a)Russian
b)German (or Austrian)
c)Turkish.
Bullshit and hogwash: Romanians, Baltic nations, Hungarians are not part of the 3 group listed.
"Eastern Europe came to exist after World War One, Western Europe,"
Are you on drugs? Who stopped the Turks if not the Polish King Jan III Sobieski:
Sobieski's greatest success came on September 12, 1683 with his victory at the Battle of Vienna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Sobieski#Battle_of_Vienna
Hungary:
Matthias Corvinus of Hungary
Matthias Corvinus[1] (Matthias the Just; February 23, 1443 – April 6, 1490) was King of Hungary and Croatia ruling between 1458 and 1490. He was also crowned King of Bohemia in 1469 and ruled Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia; from 1486, Matthias was Duke of Austria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus
Hungary:
Stephen I of Hungary
the first King of Hungary (1001-1038).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary
As soon as you start spawning inaccurate historical fact you are disqualified from serious discussion. This a rule.
afonso h:
I have found this for you:
"Portugal gained its first de jure independence (as the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal) in 1065 under the rule of Garcia II."
Compared to Hungary:
Stephen I of Hungary
the first King of Hungary (1001-1038).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary
Cool off buddy Hungary was a Kingdom when Portugal was a "dependency of the Kingdom of León".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Portugal
Go back to school and study European History classes and stop writing inaccuracies.
afonso h:
During reign of King Stephen I. Hungary was already an European State (1001-1038)yet neither was Russia nor Portugal.
Supposedly Pope Sylvester II issued a bull (a decree) making Stephen king by his authority and sent him a crown.
from:
Glimpses of Christian History
http://chi.gospelcom.net/lives_events/more/stephen_hungary.shtml
Nice to know. Now, take this:
Portugal can be recognised as a distinct Nation (different from State) since one thousand years before the birth of Christ:
Wikipedia for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiussa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oestriminis
Portugal = Galaecian tribes + Lusitanian tribes.
Our History does not starts in 1147.
The Suebi Kingdom was the first Germanic kingdom of Europe after the fall of Rome. I am not talking of States, but Nations, peoples and cultures.
afonso h:
Getting desperate?
1000 years BC?
It was the Bronze Age then, check the world map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century_BC
Only the Middle Eastern-African-Asian nations existed at that time. Nothing in Europe.
I am out of your nonsenses...keep fooling the idiots...
1000 BC! Ha ha ha
Afonso, in response to your question about the Cyrillic letters: I was able to set up my computer to have a Cyrillic keyboard as well as my regular English one. I can easily toggle between the two. Send me an email (natcat200 [at] gmail [dot] com) if you want me to give you detailed instructions... And I would absolutely love to go to Москва someday.
I don't see what's wrong with my sharing of my newly acquired Russian. I am quite proud of the fact that I was able to get a Russian keyboard layout and thought I'd put it to good use. Russian is actually my favourite class this year--I've been wanting to learn the language for a long time now.
Дo свидания, good GoV commenters. That means goodbye.
Oops... reading that, I think I may have given the impression that I was leaving forever or something... I just meant I'm leaving this website for now because I'm going to bed. I would have said good night in Russian but I forget how.
Natalie,
I don't speak Russian so I'll not take your time. I am though considering learning Russian but this year I'll just learn a bit more of English...
Thanks though.
-------------------------------
Bela,
You are definetly right. Bronze age? It was not Bronze Age, it was the Iron Age. I said the most round number... that's mile.
However, I'll leave you this link
Notice how the three Western "styles" look almost exactly to the three traditional Portuguese divides: Northern - Galaecian; Central - Lusitanian; and South (but always West from the Guadiana river.)
Yes, there is no State but there was a people. And if you think those peoples do not "share Nationhood", take this:
"The poem Ora Maritima, written by Avienus in the fourth century AD and based on the Massaliote Periplus of the sixth century BC, states that all of western Iberia was once called for the name of its people, the Oestriminis, which were replaced by an invasion of the Saephe or Ophis (meaning Serpent). From then on western Iberia would have been know as Ophiussa (Land of the Serpents). The poem probably translates the impact of the Second wave of Indo-European migrations (Celtic) in the seventh century BC."
Oestreminis or Ophiussa. What matters is that it is all the Western Iberia.
"The poem also describes the various ethnic groups the present at that time:
* The Saephe or Ophis, today seen as probably Hallstatt culture Celts, IN ALL OF WESTERN IBERIA (MODERN PORTUGAL) (my note: including Galiza, which never was part of the Portuguese state but where still today Portuguese is spoken).
* The Cempsi, probably Hallstatt culture Celts, in the Tagus mouth and the south up to the Algarve.
* The Cynetes in the EXTREME SOUTH and SOME CITIES along the Atlantic coast (...), probably not Indo-European, but autochthonous Iberian of Tartessian background (even if strongly or totally celticized over the next centuries).
* The Dragani, Celt or Proto-Celt of the first Indo-European wave, in the mountainous areas of Galicia, northern Portugal, Asturias and Cantabria.
*The Lusis, probably a first reference to the Lusitanians, similar to the Dragani (Celt or Proto-Celt of the first Indo-European wave)."
My conclusion: you have all of them: Ophies / Ophiussa, the serpent people in all of Portugal. Then, you have the main regional differences: Dragani in the North (The people of the Dragons), Lusitanian people in the Centre ( The people of the light) and the Cempsi/Celtici in the South*.
*
"Also during the sixth century BC there was a cultural shift in southern Portuguese territory after the fall of Tartessos, with a strong Mediterranean character (...) In the fourth century BC the Celtici, a new wave of Celtic migration (of the La Tène culture), enter Iberia going as far as modern-day Portuguese territory and settle in the Alentejo also penetrating in the Algarve (South Portugal)."
If you do not believe in a disinction between the Cempi/Celtici in Southern Portugal and the Southern Spain, or in a close proximity of those Celtici/Cempsi with the rest of Portugal, you have to take note that the Celticity or Indo-Europeanicity of those in the Portuguse side was not matched by those in the Spanish side: Tartessos.
And then, you can look to the Roman southern borders.
That is pretty much a Nation to me.
And Bela, you miss understood my words. Prbabily it is my fault.
Of course Eastern and Central Europe have always existed! I cannot contest that. What I am sying is that it was always a troubled area and the powers (which took their indendence for a lot of time) were all exogenous but Russia, that is: Germans and Turks.
This is true to such a point that it diveded blood brothers: Croats and Serbs. Because one had more Germanic influence and the other had to take a lot of kicks from the Turks.
afonso h
It's meaningless to argue with you for you have showed absolute ignorance over European Historical matters.
Present day nations - with few exemptions like the Jews, Chinese - are not the direct descendants of Antique nations. Italians are not the old Romans, the HUNgarians are not HUN people even though Attila is buried in Budapest, Egypt is not pharaoh-an but Arab, the French are Germans, the Basques are not Spaniards etc.
"exogenous"? = what the hell does that mean?
1. Biology Derived or developed from outside the body; originating externally.
2. Botany Characterized by the addition of layers of woody tissue.
3. Medicine Having a cause external to the body. Used of diseases.
I agree: Russia and Portugal are the two great nation on Earth. Hungarians and Romanians are in fact Russians and the Brits are in fact Portuguese because the Neanderthals wandered all across Europe: here is the proof from Wiki:
"Modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
All Neanderthals spoke either Portuguese or Russian in 24,500 BC.
Ok then.
Afonso, I wouldn't have offered if I didn't mind helping... it's really no problem.
Post a Comment