bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
already posted...
Two good video from VK:
some rare destroyed vechicles
Разгром украинÑких войÑк в Степановке ЧаÑÑ‚ÑŒ 1 | VK
Video
It is true that the Ukrainians wanted to rid Ukraine of corruption. The west, removed a corrupt but democratically elected president until 2015 (Viktor Yanukovich), and installed an even more corrupt interim puppet dictator (Arsenic Yatsenyuk), and now they have yet another corrupt oligarch and a chocolate seller (Petro Poroshenko), who was "elected" after the Ukrainian constitution was changed, without which, his election would be null and void.The way I see it, is that west finally woke up that majority of Ukrainians want to reform their country. They want to develop it, get rid of corruption they want to finally come together as a nation,
It is true that the west wants Ukraine not to be dependent on Russia, but that does not mean the west wants Ukraine to be independent. The west simply wants it to be dependent on the west. Why was Rheinmetall slated to take control of Ukrainian steel mills? Why were Ukrainian pipelines slated to be taken over by western companies?not being dependent on Russia on everything. Russian state policy is to have buffer zones around her, Russia is dependent of energy exports, it has no developed consumer or technology sector like the west, or developing countries like china, india, brazil etc. so it cannot offer Ukraine any help on developing those.
If not the greatest catastrophe, the collapse of the USSR was one of the greatest catastrophes on the 20th century. He is right.Putin has said that collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of 20th century,
Absolutely, considering the fact that the west, that touts "democracy," supports the fascist Baltic regimes that deny their minorities their right to vote.he has said that Russia feels she has the obligation to "protect Russian speakers" on her neighbor countries.
Let me ask you one thing, why do the great powers of the west Europe of Germany, France and UK go around invading other sovereign countries, murder thousands, and then blabber about democracy? Please clarify, if a country threatens a neighbouring country it is bad, but if a country bombs a distant country, it is fine?Let me ask you one thing, why does not great powers of the west Europe of Germany, France and UK have similar politics towards their neighbor.
That is not the reason. Yes, the things you are saying are true facts, but those facts are not the reasons. We can agree to disagree on this.The reason is simple in consumer societies of today markets for your product means power for your country.
There is no question of buying when you can steal, like we have seen in Iraq and Libya, where the wars were fought for oil, while the western leaders went about lying through their teeth about "weapons of mass destruction," and "democracy," and all other nonsense that the rest of the world is getting tired of hearing.A rich neighbor buys stuff from me and I get prosper, also my neighbor prospers if he generates the money from that trade to her development.
I don't think Russia is going to take advice from anyone, after its experience with the untrustworthy and backstabbing west since 1991.A hundred years ago at the age of industry wars were fought over raw materials and resources. Somebody should advice Russia about that fact.
What is so special about 1812? Why not go bit back further into the past, and talk about the Polish-Lithuanian invasions of Russia, or whatever it was called then (Muscovy)? So, good job cherry-picking, but history does not begin and end where you want.Regarding protecting Russian speaking people. What if prime minister of Sweden suddenly says: "We feel that the collapse of Swedish empire 1812 was a grave mistake, we feel we have the obligation to protect swedish speaking people in Finland, Denmark and Norway. Nato has surrounded us in south and west, we do not accept Finland have closer ties with NATO.
Federalization of Ukraine is what Putin suggested, but the west preferred bombing and shelling civilians. After all, the west stands for "peace."In Finland there have been cases of suppression of swedish speaking population, even if swedish is on paper second official language of Finland, it is speaken with funny accent that cannot be accepted. Swedish speaking areas of Finland have full right to become independent and Finland must be a federal state.
Finland can do whatever it wants. It is an independent and sovereign country. It should do what benefits the people of Finland.Finland should also resign European Union and join the new Scandinavian union to benefit from lower car taxes of sweden.
Sweden can do whatever it wants. It is an independent and sovereign country. It should do what benefits the people of Sweden.Sweden also feel that the Ã…land islands that are between sweden and Finland have always been part of sweden and a referendum should be arranged for her rejoining motherland." I do not see such intentions coming from Sweden, thank god!
Thank you for telling me your perspective.Dear Pmaitra, I am not trying to insult you, just try to show how strange the politics of our eastern neighbor look from our perspective.
Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. We agree to disagree on most things. But you are right that "western countries" like to fight their battles as far from home as possible. Former Yugoslavia and Ukraine are too close to central Europe and that is I think the main reason for these strong actions. BTW I have never seen Putin so nervous as today on press conference. I think UA is getting a momentum.It is true that the Ukrainians wanted to rid Ukraine of corruption. The west, removed a corrupt but democratically elected president until 2015 (Viktor Yanukovich), and installed an even more corrupt interim puppet dictator (Arsenic Yatsenyuk), and now they have yet another corrupt oligarch and a chocolate seller (Petro Poroshenko), who was "elected" after the Ukrainian constitution was changed, without which, his election would be null and void.
It is true that the west wants Ukraine not to be dependent on Russia, but that does not mean the west wants Ukraine to be independent. The west simply wants it to be dependent on the west. Why was Rheinmetall slated to take control of Ukrainian steel mills? Why were Ukrainian pipelines slated to be taken over by western companies?
If not the greatest catastrophe, the collapse of the USSR was one of the greatest catastrophes on the 20th century. He is right.
Absolutely, considering the fact that the west, that touts "democracy," supports the fascist Baltic regimes that deny their minorities their right to vote.
Let me ask you one thing, why do the great powers of the west Europe of Germany, France and UK go around invading other sovereign countries, murder thousands, and then blabber about democracy? Please clarify, if a country threatens a neighbouring country it is bad, but if a country bombs a distant country, it is fine?
That is not the reason. Yes, the things you are saying are true facts, but those facts are not the reasons. We can agree to disagree on this.
There is no question of buying when you can steal, like we have seen in Iraq and Libya, where the wars were fought for oil, while the western leaders went about lying through their teeth about "weapons of mass destruction," and "democracy," and all other nonsense that the rest of the world is getting tired of hearing.
I don't think Russia is going to take advice from anyone, after its experience with the untrustworthy and backstabbing west since 1991.
What is so special about 1812? Why not go bit back further into the past, and talk about the Polish-Lithuanian invasions of Russia, or whatever it was called then (Muscovy)? So, good job cherry-picking, but history does not begin and end where you want.
Federalization of Ukraine is what Putin suggested, but the west preferred bombing and shelling civilians. After all, the west stands for "peace."
Finland can do whatever it wants. It is an independent and sovereign country. It should do what benefits the people of Finland.
Sweden can do whatever it wants. It is an independent and sovereign country. It should do what benefits the people of Sweden.
If there is a war between Finland and Sweden, it would revolve around the specific merits and demerits of that case.
Thank you for telling me your perspective.
- I completely understand what your perspective is.
- I don't understand why you have the perspective you have.
Let me explain why.
Polish troops went into Iraq in complete violation of their sovereignty, and no one said a thing.
Georgian troops attacked the autonomous regions of South Ossetia, no one said a thing (they did, later).
When Russia responded, everyone started talking about sovereignty of Georgia. Why?
What sovereignty? South Ossetia and Abkhazia (IIRC, Adjaria as well), were autonomous regions within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (GSSR). When GSSR exercised its right to self determination in 1991, why deny that to the autonomous regions? Whatever happened to "democracy?"
When NATO invaded Serbia, bombed hospitals, trains carrying children, used depleted uranium munitions, supported the KLA terrorists, and encouraged the clandestine organ trade, because those organs were ending up in Europe, no one cared about "human rights." Yet, I see people talking about "peace."
Russia has not invaded anyone since 1991. Wherever it acted militarily, it was a re-action, after someone had started a conflict.
Why say that Europeans feel threatened by Putin saying something about USSR's collapse, or protecting Russian minorities. Yet, the Europeans are blind to their own governments actually invading countries and killing thousands?
What does this boil down to? Let me simplify.
- If Mr. A threatens Mr. B, it is a bad thing.
- If Mr. A beats up Mr. B, and breaks his bones, then it is fine.
Is this what Europeans think? Those that do, are deluding themselves; and no offense to all Europeans, as I believe not all Europeans are stupid.
Frankly, @jouni, and you have every right to disagree with me, but I think the European way of reasoning is completely irrational, if not outright malevolent. I also think Russia has the right to have buffer states, because it has been invaded twice, by Napoleon, and Germany, from the west, with catastrophic consequences. I also think the west, due to its greed and arrogance, has a lost a chance of peace between the east and the west. Europe's future is closer cooperation with Russia, and not antagonism.
Post us the video of Putin's news conference.Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. We agree to disagree on most things. But you are right that "western countries" like to fight their battles as far from home as possible. Former Yugoslavia and Ukraine are too close to central Europe and that is I think the main reason for these strong actions. BTW I have never seen Putin so nervous as today on press conference. I think UA is getting a momentum.
Presidentti Putinin ja presidentti Niinistön yhteinen lehdistötilaisuus | Uutisjuttuja | Tv | Areena | yle.fiPost us the video of Putin's news conference.
Maybe most of us would not know what he is saying, but we sure would like to see the body movements that proves that he is nervous.
"The sanctions policy pursued by the West, that is, ourselves, a necessary consequence of which, has been what the Russians are doing, causes more harm to us than to Russia," Reuters quoted Orban as saying on the radio, he added "in politics, this is called shooting oneself in the foot."
Russia is Hungary's largest trade partner outside of the EU, with exports worth $3.4 billion in 2013. Also it is highly dependent on Russian energy. Earlier this year Hungary agreed a $13 billion deal with Russian power company Rosatom to expand the country's only nuclear power plant.
"The EU should not only compensate producers somehow, be they Polish, Slovak, Hungarian or Greek, who now have to suffer losses, but the entire sanctions policy should be reconsidered," the Hungarian Prime Minister said, saying he is already looking for support to force through changes.
Despite the negative sentiment on Tuesday, Hungary's Agriculture Ministry stressed the Russian embargo won't significantly affect the Hungarian economy as the banned products account for less than a third of Hungarian agricultural exports to Russia, being only one percent of total national farming exports.