We are now heading back into the cold war

[Sackboy]

They may be marginalised but Russia's actions don't exactly help. Look what they did in Georgia and other disputed territories when they hand out Russian passports to Russian speakers and then act on the pretext of protecting their citizens. Russian nationalists have often called for the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol so you can't blame the Ukrainians for not embracing them with open arms.


Either way its pretty clear Medvedev is merely a puppet and Putin still controls Russia.


He called the Soviet Union's collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century", which hardly sounds like an endorsement.

They defended their troops in South Ossetia. Their peace-keeping colleagues were shot at close quarters by Georgian 'peacekeepers' who had previously been working alongside them for many years. That is nothing short of barbarism. There was also evidence of American involvement in the conflict and certainly prior to it, though they have not admitted it yet. A senior Georgian cabinet minister (now removed) confirmed their suspicions.

Former citizens of the Soviet Union were entitled to passports. It was common practice to get them. The Russian government didn't just decide one day to hand them out. People were cut off from each other by the break up of the Union - hence Putin's assertion that it was a "Geopolitical diisaster", because in that sense it was. They also had to scramble to move assets around, ships, nuclear missiles, tanks etc.. and make new agreements, like they have with Khazakstan and the space programme; Ukraine and Savastopol (navy).

With this 'Putin is a puppet' thing, you're merely regurgitating Time Magazine or Newsweek. He is the PM. He was the most popular President Russia has ever had, so the people didn't want him to leave. This was the best solution. There is no evidence that he is still in control, but you can imagine that Medvedev would need some guidance, just like Obama had from the current Whitehouse (he's not president yet). The PM has a different role - most of the internal politics. If Putin comes back, then he can. Some western governments allow 3 terms in a row, but Russia does not.

Savastopol contains a majority of Russian citizens, which is why it's such a sensitive area. Ukraine is getting stirred up by American interference (NATO/AID etc). They are BANKRUPT and don't know which way to turn. Their people don't want NATO, but their government does. Is that a democracy?

Russia is the successor to the USSR, its the Soviet Union without some of its parts but it took e.g. the Soviet Union's UN security council seat etc. so its not much of a stretch to refer to them as one and the same.

Poland was one of the Warsaw Pact countries but it wasn't part of the Soviet Union. It wasn't exactly a voluntary member either.

Putin's hardly a democrat, I wouldn't really call him a capitalist either. He's not communist but he's far from laissez-faire in his ideology, seems closer to the fascist corporatism.

I am. It wasn't a pure neutrality pact though, from the wiki link you posted:

It was essentially an alliance by another name. I'd condemn both Switzerland's and Chamberlain's "peace in our time" actions but that isn't really the topic of this thread so I didn't mention it. I wouldn't say they're on the same scale as the USSR's though.

Russia is not the USSR. Their whole philosophy is vastly different. By extension, you can say that the ANC is the National Party, "without some of its parts"! Why not say Germany is the Nazi Party ... and so on. What you say about the UN seat is interesting. I must look that up.

Poland was first annexed by the USSR (became part of) and then later Polish leaders ceded it. Collaboration if you like, but they don't like to talk about that.

Putin a fascist. You're joking of course!

You seem to have an issue with neutrality. Don't like fence-sitters do you? Russia wasn't ready for war, just like Britain was not. It bought them time.
If you want to mention carving up territory then Yalta was the place where all that happened. It defined the modern world for centuries. Britain and the US were at the forefront.

Regarding the first item of the Soviet agenda for Eastern Europe, Poland immediately arose; Stalin stated the Soviet case:
“ For the Russian people, the question of Poland is not only a question of honor but also a question of security. Throughout history, Poland has been the corridor through which the enemy has passed into Russia. Twice in the last thirty years our enemies, the Germans, have passed through this corridor. It is in Russia’s interest that Poland should be strong and powerful, in a position to shut the door of this corridor by her own force…It is necessary that Poland should be free, independent in power. Therefore, it is not only a question of honor but of life and death for the Soviet state.

wiki
They didn't get their independence, but it shows Poland's importance to Russia.

 

[Xarog]

Versailles was a mistake but perhaps more of a mistake was negotiating a treaty at all, rather than insisting on unconditional surrender, thereby allowing Hitler to perpetuate the myth that the army was "stabbed in the back" by politicians etc. Of course if it wasn't for the great depression Versailles wouldn't have been as much of an issue. Its always easy to criticise with hindsight.

Just because the great depression served as a catalyst doesn't mean that the underlying sense of injustice would have gone away - something else would have triggered it. Because, afterall, the treaty was not just, nor fair, nor reasonable.

The suggestion that the Allies could have carried on fighting the war is also an unreasonable one. All the major powers were on the point of collapse; just because Germany gave up first (and then only because they presumed that Wilson's 14 points would be governing the surrender), doesn't mean that any of the other powers were in any position to continue the war. In fact, the only reason that the war didn't restart once Germany found out what the terms of surrender was actually going to be was simply because they'd already sunk their own navy and started recalling their troops, etc.

Then there's the fact that Germany had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the war. It's completely unjust to have placed the blame at their door in the first place. Any such claim would rightfully have riled Germans, and eventually the Germans would have rebelled (with force if neccessary) to end such an unreasonable "agreement".

 

[PeterCH]

wiki
They didn't get their independence, but it shows Poland's importance to Russia.

Well Hitler also wanted to keep a few Poles around as slave labourers so that's OK I guess.

Every country is entitled to self determination/sovereignty. In this context the European countries in the East have been dominated by Russia from the mid 1700s - in fact they did not exist, local language teaching was forbidden and the Tsar was to be treated as sovereign.

Stalin wiped out the majority of Polish intelligentsia in his occupied zone and the post-Stalinist Soviet Union (and Russia) still regard the people who did his bidding as national heroes and veterans. In addition Stalin's commentary about security of the SU being aided by a 'strong' Poland only comes from the fact that the majority of pre-WW1 industry the Russian Empire possessed
was in Poland. This is also a reason why Russia lost WW1 to Germany, who
quickly occupied the Russia section of Poland.

Russia has security concerns but it's concerns should not override the concerns of any other country. If Czech Rep and Poland want the ABM shield - chiefly because they're happy to have US troops on their soil as an additional layer of protection - Russia's voice only counts a distant second. They can ask the US to install military bases in Russia too if they want
security but in other respects they should just accept not being an evil superpower and let things go.

Secondly, Putin's statement about the collapse of the Soviet union being a terrible disaster is true. It opened up Russia to their own ex-KGB mafia control, the grabbing of wealth by Communist Party officials, collapse of the economy, unemployment, loss of health and social benefits etc. Those were true disasters however, those were only of the Russian people's doing in instilling a Communist system in their empire. They had also imposed that evil system on their neighbours who were only liberated when the system died.

The fact is that the Soviet Union and not it's collapse was the greatest geopolitical calamity in recent history. The Soviet Union supported wars and criminal regimes throughout the world and oppressed hundreds of millions of people. Putin's intention and statements are only too clear in this regard. Instead of rebuilding a strong, democratic Russia Putin has attacked critics and restricted press freedoms and instituted his ex-KGB buddies as heads of different Russia gov bodies and Oil Companies. He has also made himself PM
with obvious control over the President and still runs everything.

This is fine for Russia, which has only had democracy since 1991 but
the thinking of Russia's leaders regarding recreating the military might of the SU is worrying and it's anti-US dogma still prevails.

 

[PeterCH]

Poland was first annexed by the USSR (became part of) and then later Polish leaders ceded it. Collaboration if you like, but they don't like to talk about that.

.

This is totally wrong. What do you mean Polish leaders ceded it?

Poland was occupied chiefly by 3 countries - Austro-Hungary, Russia and Germany(Prussia) prior to World War 1. After the defeat of Germany in WW1, one of Wilson's points was the recreation of a soverign Poland (and other states) as those countries had been independent for short periods in the 19th century and prior to the 19th century. Poland was given territory back from Germany and Austro-Hungary however, the RUssian terrirtory now under SOviet control had to be won back and a Polish-Soviet war errupted which ultimately led to the defeat of the Red Army and Poland gaining full independence once again. In 1939 the Soviets attacked from the East and divided the country roughly in the middle as agreed to by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. After WW2 Poland lost a huge amount of territory in the East - this was give to the Soviet Union and some ex-German territories were given to Poland instead - this is to some degree responsible for some tensions between Poland and Germany at present time.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but it sounds like you've been reading a ton of Russian/Soviet propaganda. Please do objective research before repeating strange things.

 

[PeterCH]

Russia is not the USSR. Their whole philosophy is vastly different. By extension, you can say that the ANC is the National Party, "without some of its parts"! Why not say Germany is the Nazi Party ... and so on. What you say about the UN seat is interesting. I must look that up.

Except that the wins and gains of the Soviet Union are revered by the RUssian leadership and most of the population. The majority of the Russian people HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW GENOCIDAL THEIR REGIME WAS.
I have Russian friends, a colleague a mine is married to a Russian woman and she, her son and friends have been totally clueless about the evil role the Soviet Union played in its genocide against the Russian people themsleves, the ethinic people of the USSR Republics, it's neighbours and finally other nations around the world. Many people still worship Stalin and consider him great.

Secondly the Russia leadership unlike the leadership in SA has NOT changed. The same people are still basically in power - those who are not too old anyway. I don't see the NP leadership in charge of South Africa anymore
but I do see that most Russian MPs and the Russian leader himself are
ex-Commies. The same went for Boris Yeltsin who was a full blown Communist Party member. The military chiefs of staff are basically the same people too.
None of these people comes from a new generation.

The whole period of the Cold War has strengthened the traditional Russian view of the Western Europe as the source of vital threat. Put together, the age-old memories of European forays into Russia (Polish, Swedish, French, German) and ideological idiosyncrasies as a result of the Marxist-Leninist view of Europe have produced an effect on both Russian thinking and Russian strategy, leading to deep mistrust, suspicion and hostility. Equally Russian forays into Europe, starting with early 18th century and on, have forged the European mistrust and suspicions towards Russia. Anti-Communism has also worked. Both sides seemed to be doomed for eternal confrontation.

http://www.eusec.org/kremenyuk.htm

 

[Nanfeishen]

Poland's importance to Russia.

That statement is the underlying fact from Imperial Russia through to the situation today.

At the beginning of the WW1, Poland was part of Imperial Russia, by 1917 the Eastern Front had been extensively pushed into Russia, and the with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Russia lost further territory.
Although the treaty didnt last very long it provided relief for the Bolsheviks in their civil war and gave independence to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_I)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

The Polish Soviet War (February 1919 – March 1921) further cemented Polands Borders and with the signing of the Riga Peace treaty, the borders remained pretty much intact until WW2.
Unfortunately Poland ceded much of the gained territory back to Russia after the end of WW2, as part of the Allied redrawing and partitioning of Europe post WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War

Interestingly the first sign of the importance of Poland per se emerges from the above article in the following paragraph:

Poland's Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, felt the time expedient to expand Polish borders as far east as feasible, to be followed by the creation of a Polish-led federation (Międzymorze) of several states in the rest of East-Central Europe as a bulwark against the potential re-emergence of both German and Russian imperialism. Lenin, meanwhile, saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to assist other communist movements and help conduct other European revolutions.

Poland once again suffered drastically with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, wich allowed Stalin to march the Red Army into Poland and reclaim much of the land lost under the original Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
The loss of Finland due to the Brest-Litovsk treaty, was what prompted the attempt by Stalin to regain further lost territory, as he was also worried about being attacked from that direction. This resulted in the Finnish-Russian war or Winter War of 1938-1939.

By the end of WW2, Poland was under Soviet influence along with the Baltic states and parts of Germany, creating a decent enough buffer for Russia from Western Europe, and diminishing any chance of Russia being threatened from its Western Approaches which historically and militarily is its weakest point.

Much of Russia's mistrust of the Western powers stems from a little known time at the height of the Bolshevik revolution, and involves the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.
This was the first attempt made by the Western Powers to halt the spread of Bolshevism.
This include the landing of troops in and around Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk, that fought against the Red Army 1918 -1919.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

With all the mistrust that built up over the years between the old Soviet Union and the West, which led up to the Cold War, and then the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is no wonder that Russia today still has an underlying national fear of its Western Frontier.
Today we have a united Germany, and independant Poland, and historically neither ever boded well for Russia.
IMO, Russia is particularly worried of history repeating itself.

 

[Alan]

Then there's the fact that Germany had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the war. It's completely unjust to have placed the blame at their door in the first place. Any such claim would rightfully have riled Germans, and eventually the Germans would have rebelled (with force if neccessary) to end such an unreasonable "agreement".

ROFL yes it's not like Germany gave Austria Hungry a 'blank cheque' of support

 

[DigitalSoldier]

Forget the Amero its so yesterday

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wFs99zBTRO0

Worldwide Currency System to be Presented to U.S.A. by EU Leaders

Video description:

European Union President Nicholar Sarkozy and European Commission President J. M. Barroso are to travel to Washington to press for a sweeping overhaul of the Global financial system to include a blueprint for a Worldwide Currency System at a crunch meeting with George Bush at the weekend.

News link

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1224164821.64

New World Order

/Dons tin hat

It is not Russia that we need to be concerned about, but the West with it's Imperialistic aggression that has been funded by the Central Bankers for the last 100 years and more.

Russia may still be our Saviour one day?

The signs are there.

The UK Pound is going to be done away with in favour of the Euro. The Pound is devaluing as we speak. Intentionally.

Canada, USA and Mexico will form the American Union. The US Dollar will fall away in favour of the Amero as the US Currency has been debased

Single currencies will be the flavour of the next few decades. People across the world will accept them as the Media helps to sway us to this extent.

All in all the Central Bankers of the World want more than the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. They want it all. World domination. Single currencies, smart chips, RFID chips, you name it.

Russia, perhaps China and a few other smaller countries like Venezuela may be the obstacle in the way of these Bankers. Even South Africa may play a part?

/Removes tin hat

 

[Syndyre]

With this 'Putin is a puppet' thing, you're merely regurgitating Time Magazine or Newsweek. He is the PM. He was the most popular President Russia has ever had, so the people didn't want him to leave. This was the best solution. There is no evidence that he is still in control, but you can imagine that Medvedev would need some guidance, just like Obama had from the current Whitehouse (he's not president yet). The PM has a different role - most of the internal politics. If Putin comes back, then he can. Some western governments allow 3 terms in a row, but Russia does not.

I never said Putin is a puppet, I said he was the puppeteer, Medvedev's the puppet. He may have been popular but how much of that is due to the fact that most of the media is Kremlin controlled etc? Putin's regarded as being the true source of power by almost everyone that studies Russian politics.

Savastopol contains a majority of Russian citizens, which is why it's such a sensitive area. Ukraine is getting stirred up by American interference (NATO/AID etc). They are BANKRUPT and don't know which way to turn. Their people don't want NATO, but their government does. Is that a democracy?

Its a sensitive area because the Russians insist on stoking nationalism there. No matter what their citizenship is they're in sovereign Ukrainian territory and there shouldn't be any question of that area's status. If the government was voted in democratically then it is a democracy.

Russia is not the USSR. Their whole philosophy is vastly different. By extension, you can say that the ANC is the National Party, "without some of its parts"! Why not say Germany is the Nazi Party ... and so on. What you say about the UN seat is interesting. I must look that up.

You're comparing countries and political parties which are two totally different entities. The ANC now governs the country the NP used to govern. Their policies may be different but they still govern the same sovereign territory. Its in that sense that Russia is the successor to the USSR.

Their policies and actions are a different topic.

Poland was first annexed by the USSR (became part of) and then later Polish leaders ceded it. Collaboration if you like, but they don't like to talk about that.

Source? Poland was an independent country post-WW1 and was invaded and occupied by Hitler and Stalin during WW2. It was eventually occupied by the Russians and became one of the Warsaw Pact countries but it wasn't a part of the USSR the way the Baltics and Ukraine etc. were.

You seem to have an issue with neutrality. Don't like fence-sitters do you? Russia wasn't ready for war, just like Britain was not. It bought them time.
If you want to mention carving up territory then Yalta was the place where all that happened. It defined the modern world for centuries. Britain and the US were at the forefront.

I've got no problem with neutrality if its true neutrality but as I said dividing up sovereign territory between yourself and another party is hardly neutrality.

 

[Sackboy]

Well Hitler also wanted to keep a few Poles around as slave labourers so that's OK I guess.

Every country is entitled to self determination/sovereignty. In this context the European countries in the East have been dominated by Russia from the mid 1700s - in fact they did not exist, local language teaching was forbidden and the Tsar was to be treated as sovereign.

*Unless the country pursuing sovereignty happens to be South Ossetia or Abkhazia , right?
*Poland was also a kingdom at one stage. "Good King Wenceslaus ...". So why can't Russia have a Tsar??
*Russia and Polish conflict goes back to the 16th Century

Stalin wiped out the majority of Polish intelligentsia

*he also wiped them out in all parts of the Soviet Union, so don't feel victimised that there were no intelligent people left and probably explains a few things which are happening there now.

If Czech Rep and Poland want the ABM shield - chiefly because they're happy to have US troops on their soil as an additional layer of protection - Russia's voice only counts a distant second. They can ask the US to install military bases in Russia too if they want security but in other respects they should just accept not being an evil superpower and let things go.

*It depends on their true motivation, which many believe is not as a 'shield'. If the Poles can have US troops, then why can't Russia have troops in S. Ossetia or Ukraine or anywhere else, like Cuba, without causing a fuss? I doubt whether they would need US troops on their own territory!?! If they can't be an evil superpower, can they be another type?

Secondly, Putin's statement about the collapse of the Soviet union being a terrible disaster is true. It opened up Russia to their own ex-KGB mafia control, the grabbing of wealth by Communist Party officials, collapse of the economy, unemployment, loss of health and social benefits etc. Those were true disasters however, those were only of the Russian people's doing in instilling a Communist system in their empire. They had also imposed that evil system on their neighbours who were only liberated when the system died.

*No, as we discussed, and as you conceded, he didn't say that.
*Rusia was a mess under Yeltsin, which is why Putin was so important.
*No, not all former Soviet territories are feeling liberated whilst now out of the USSR. Some could even be classed as dictatorships. I could give some examples

The fact is that the Soviet Union and not it's collapse was the greatest geopolitical calamity in recent history. The Soviet Union supported wars and criminal regimes throughout the world and oppressed hundreds of millions of people. Putin's intention and statements are only too clear in this regard. Instead of rebuilding a strong, democratic Russia Putin has attacked critics and restricted press freedoms and instituted his ex-KGB buddies as heads of different Russia gov bodies and Oil Companies. He has also made himself PM
with obvious control over the President and still runs everything.
*PHEW The USSR supported countries that had similar interests or which were out of favour with its enemy, the US. This is an obvious and wise tactic in any conflict.
*Putin, as President, appointed whomever he needed. If they were friends, then there is little unusual or wrong about that in politics. Look at Obama and see how many of his friends are in positions of power. Tony Blair appointed his own long-time friends to cabinet (Brown was one).
*No, Medvedev as President appointed Putin PM, by popular request.
*No, the President runs things, though of course an experienced, hughly successful ex-President would naturally offer valuable advice to a newly instated President. Please provide evidence that "he still runs everything".

This is fine for Russia, which has only had democracy since 1991 but
the thinking of Russia's leaders regarding recreating the military might of the SU is worrying and it's anti-US dogma still prevails.
*yes, it's a new democracy, but it's also a Russian style democracy. Russia is a vast country with a different history and cannot be styled on the US system.
*They do want to rebuild their military, which is quite reasonable given the previous state of it. They also don't come even close to the military spending of the USA or China.

...