Russie, Ukraine et F*ck the EU !

Je n'ai jamais dit que l'ouest serait plus jeune que l'Est, bien qu'a moitié vrai, les populations jeunes migrant vers la capitale.
En ce qui concerne le soutient des vieux aux rebelles et de ces derniers aux fables juives distillées par Moscou, il n'est plus à prouver depuis bien longtemps.
Le fait que les jeunes en aient par dessus la tete de Moscou et de la pseudo neo-CCCP semble évident.

Puisque sortant d'une communication téléphonique avec une charmante demoiselle de Louhansk totalement pro-ukrainienne; a croire qu'il n' ya a vraiment que les vieux grincheux a charge de la société pour croire a Novorossya..

Analyse Polonaise assez juste
Pour changer des imbroglio des pseudo Soral - Sapin et autres individus cherchant l'attention par la contradiction permanente.

surement de la propagande anti RUSSE





Non la mafia pro-Russie n’agresse pas ..

http://www.mondialisation.ca/ukraine-le-commandant-supreme-de-lotan-breedlove-aux-pays-de-leurope-de-lest/5401848


et ça croit aux farces juives...



c'est notre amis STRELKOPOPOV_CAESAR tenant la bananière ..


https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/994484_786569838052665_1713763559046146579_n.jpg?oh=995036a7fbad658767d479c2947fe568&oe=54D0090A
pro FR et commentaires qui vont bien

Walter Ols Tout cela est très bien.J'espère que les Russes vont défiler sur les Champs ! Il faut dire que la politique sioniste de Hollande (propos de Laurent Fabius contre la Russie) place une certaine France dans la ligne de mire de Poutine !!! Je suis Français et d'ancienne souche mais je préfère me tourner vers la Russie que vers cet Occident atlantiste qui fait le jeu d'Israël et du capitalisme US !

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Puisque sortant d'une communication téléphonique avec une charmante demoiselle de Louhansk totalement pro-ukrainienne; a croire qu'il n' ya a vraiment que les vieux grincheux a charge de la société pour croire a Novorossya..

Analyse Polonaise assez juste
Pour changer des imbroglio des pseudo Soral - Sapin et autres individus cherchant l'attention par la contradiction permanente.

COSAK COSAK COSAK !!!

Même si j'étais un aficionado ukrainien pro-occidental, je trouverais la prose de ce clown totalement ridicule.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Je n'ai jamais dit que l'ouest serait plus jeune que l'Est, bien qu'a moitié vrai, les populations jeunes migrant vers la capitale.
En ce qui concerne le soutient des vieux aux rebelles et de ces derniers aux fables juives distillées par Moscou, il n'est plus à prouver depuis bien longtemps.
Le fait que les jeunes en aient par dessus la tete de Moscou et de la pseudo neo-CCCP semble évident.

Pfff, tes propos sont risibles Arti. Tu racontes n'importe quoi...

Les jeunes ukrainiens en ont peut-être ras-le-bol de Poutine, pas les russes. Je rappelle que Poutine contrairement à notre président, a un soutien écrasant dans l'opinion publique.

D'ailleurs, ce qui l'intrigue le plus c'est comment au bout de 3 remarques tu fermes ton clapet quand t'es face à Cosak ou moi, en terminant souvent par des "ouuuué, t'as raison".

Par contre sur le forum on dirait que tu mènes ta propre vie lol. Tout seul dans sa bulle....
Bubbleboy.

Cosak cherchant un polonais à fracasser.

Poutine: 2 - Ukraine: 0

Merci Papa Poroshenko !!

http://m.rfi.fr/europe/20140916-ukraine-votes-parlement-satisfont-pas-toutes-parties/

Sans parler de l'entrée en vigueur des fausses promesses de l'UE sur l'accord déplacé à 1 an d'ici lol....

Comme s'il avait peur que l'Ukrainz devienne le cheval de Troie que les russes utiliseront pour faire chier l'UE.

Putain, ça les mecs ça serait ouf.

Boooooooooooom

Les jeunes ukrainiens en ont peut-être ras-le-bol de Poutine, pas les russes. Je rappelle que Poutine contrairement à notre président, a un soutien écrasant dans l'opinion publique.

Ce n'est pas parce qu’une masse est nombreuse qu'elle se trouve avoir raison et c'est justement ce qui fait de la Russie un état fasciste.. Soutien de masse à un régime autoritaire.. mais qu'en penses les minorité négligées de Russie qu'on parc dans les isbas ? Tout ce qui prouve un aveuglement, donc l'utilisation d'une propagande de masse sur des esprits non éduqué, non civilisé et non apte à entretenir la moindre idée démocratique pour sombrer dans la passons pseudo religieuse propager par les barbus. 80%de la population sur 1000 sondés a Moscou, ce sont probablement les memes méthodes de sondage utilisées ici et bas.
Le fait qu'il n'y ai que des vieux au Donbass n'est pas une nouveauté puisque région d'Ukraine souffrant le plus de la non régénération ( dégénérescence?).. Il n'y pas une video depuis le début pour prouver le contraire et un simple passage sur le wiki appuierait mes arguments par 100..

Mon analyse ne se base pas sur une question de gout et tendance ni sur la démonstration anti Hollande, anti UE.. anti ceci ou bite comparateur. Ce n'est pas parce que Hollande n'a pas le soutien des 90% d'abrutis vivant sur la partie de ce monde nommée France qu'on devrait considérer les soit disant 80% de P comme une victoire de inintelligence et de la démocratie..

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Ce n'est pas parce qu’une masse est nombreuse qu'elle se trouve avoir raison et c'est justement ce qui fait de la Russie un état fasciste

Non-sens total.

Cependant le fourvoiement démocratique de la Russie est entièrement imputable à Poutine. Cela n'en fait pas un pays fasciste, car ce mot a un sens.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:mais qu'en penses les minorité négligées de Russie qu'on parc dans les isbas ?

Tu veux parler des millions de musulmans qui vivent dans des républiques officiellement musulmanes et qui peuvent construire des mosquées ou prier dans la rue bien plus facilement qu'en France ou même aux Etats-Unis ?

Idem pour la république chamaniste/bouddhiste de Bouriatie... avec ses bonzes et ses chamanes payés par l'Etat (ce que même le Népal ou le Bhoutan ne font pas) ?

Bref ta phrase décrédibilise encore tes propos.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Le fait qu'il n'y ai que des vieux au Donbass n'est pas une nouveauté puisque région d'Ukraine souffrant le plus de la non régénération

L'âge moyen et le taux de moins de 25 ans des trois régions ukrainiennes frontalière avec la Russie (hors Crimée) y est comparable en France à l'Alsace, ou aux Etats-Unis à l'Etat de Washington (Seattle).

Encore un non-sens péremptoire.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Il n'y pas une video depuis le début pour prouver le contraire

En effet : il n'y en a pas une, mais des centaines.

Un récent article ans Le Monde affirmait aussi que pas une seule vidéo ne montrait le soutien de la population (Marioupol, Lougansk, même Kharkov) aux séparatistes. Des dizaines de liens ont été postés par des lecteurs, et l'article a été retiré en silence.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:un simple passage sur le wiki appuierait mes arguments par 100

En effet, les wikis polonais et baltes confirmeront tout ce que tu dis, avec une précipitation et un manque d'intelligence qui devraient te faire honte. Les wikis russes sont aussi mensongers et manipulateurs, mais moi au moins j'en suis conscient.

Hello gents.
interesting discussion. A few cents of my own if I may.

Agree, countries, parties, groups follow their interests and lie in the process. Manipulation of the public opinion happens everywhere. I do not have doubts that press in Ukraine and (to a lesser extent) in the West is biased or use simple propaganda tricks. However, the level of propaganda and lies by the Russian authorities and in Russian media is unprecedented and blatant. No need to look at Ukranian or Western interpretation of the events, just a simple analysis of the information given by the state TV channels and in (clearly) pro-gov media in past months as well as official information coming from Russian authorities themselves demonstrate how contradictory and at times ridiculous they are. Lie is lie, but lie that is aimed at generating hate is one of the worst crimes.

And, pointing at US or West saying “hey, they did the same” is no excuse here. At least US haven’t sent “volunteers” or bombed Canadian territory under pretext of saving the English speaking Canadians from the “fascist French speakers”. (well, not a very good analogy, but I could not find a better way to show how ridiculous the Russian official position is).

Another example, which speaks for itself:
In the very first days of the conflict on one of the state TV channels, a rather lengthy and convincing lecture on the Russian nuclear missile capabilities was given, with animation of rocket flying in the direction of US and Europe, and with precise information of how much time would be required for the “retaliation”. I was watching that with my family and could not believe my eyes … in first days of conflict!!! What the hell was that?! madness!!!

Btw, I do not buy the idea of Russia reacting to the years of Western “aggression”. US have indeed gone too far in promoting own interests in post WW2 time and further expansion of NATO in former Warsaw pact states and former SU states was perhaps too pushy (or perhaps not?!). Serbia was another sensitive point that West handled badly. Etc etc

However, in past 5-7 year excistance of NATO was forgotten and Russia was gaining ground on the international arena. So, instead of using economical and perhaps more orthodox political tools for promoting own interests, Russia (read: Putin) embarked on a hazardous adventure, which has nothing to do with interest of the Russian and Russian people imo, let alone people of Ukraine. More likely, Putin saw threat in Ukraine turning to EU after all and potentially renouncing on the criminal capitalism model of Russia (and other parts of the former SU territories), possibly fearing maidan scenario in Russia.

Finally, I think there are enough indications that Novorossiya project was not an improvisation, but a well-prepared scenario, although maidan might have accelerated the events. However, looks like the “oppressed” people of Novorossyia are not craving for being saved after all.

The problem of Ukraine is that in 25 years of the independence it could get firmly on her feet economically, thus remaining too tightly bound to the Russian market, and therefore politically. Motives were largerly internal (corruption, peoples mentallity, slow reforms), but also external, dependance on the Russian market and Russian gas in particularly. Corruption was always a problem in Ukraine, regardless the regime, although in times of the regime of Yanoukovich it reached unusual even for Ukraine heights. However, Ukraine always been a bit more liberal and there were still some mechanisms of correcting the country course and for some changes.

Maidan is almost exclusively linked to pro-EU demonstrations, but dissatisfaction with Yanoukovich regime came also from deep financial troubles he brought country in (at some point there was not enough money to pay the government employees, smth unseen since first post-soviet years) and increasing push of the Yanoukovich regime for strengthening presidential power and ensuring that there will be no surprises during the elections. Well this brings us to Maidan, but on that in another post perhaps.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:And, pointing at US or West saying “hey, they did the same” is no excuse here. At least US haven’t sent “volunteers” or bombed Canadian territory under pretext of saving the English speaking Canadians from the “fascist French speakers”. (well, not a very good analogy, but I could not find a better way to show how ridiculous the Russian official position is).

I disagree.

Ukraine's official history displays Russia (and Russians) as mostly war criminals for centuries, ignoring their own role in the Soviet Union. Russian-speaking people had to get rid of their roots/ancestors or live as second-class citizens regarding their rights with their own language.

Don't forget the 1st amendment in the Ukrainian constitution: "Ukraine is a monoethnic and monocultural country"

If that happened in Belgium (Dutch-speaking people doing the same to Walloons), I am 100% sure France would support the latter. I am also sure Wallons would try to get out of Belgium if French language was banned from any public instance in Belgium, and even intervene if they got bombed by the Flemings for trying.

Well, there is truth in what you say, Cosak. After splitting of SU in indi states, nationalists became very prominent in political life in former SU republics, with a strong drive for promoting their native language and renouncing on Russian as the official language. Think of Baltic countries, Moldova, Ukraine; not sure how it was in Belorus and former Asian republics of SU. This often stems from putting equal mark between Russian and communist/soviet, which is unfair of course. There were enough aberrations and even cases of violation of people’s right on the territory of former soviet republics, e.g. promotions on ethnical basis or clear stigmatization of the role of Russia and Russians in history. And I think Russia had the right and did react to those excesses, e.g., as those in case of Baltic countries.

However, turning back to Ukraine, did all those disputes turned into a true oppression of or en masse violence against Russian-speaking population? Was there indeed an unsolvable inter-ethnic conflict on the Ukraine territory that required an urgent military intervention? To me an inexistent inter-ethnic conflict was created and used as pretext to satisfy one’s sick ambitions. I do not think Maidan was more anti-Russian than previous orange revolution, although they were anti-Kremlin indeed. Why no harsh measures taken back then?

Let’s not forget that Russia never gave an example of fair treatment of other ethnicities on their own ground, be it under communist or tsar’s rule. Anyway, the federalization model with very large autonomy (army, police, etc.), which Putin’s regime is trying to enforce in Ukraine , is out of questions on the Russian territory itself.  Oh, wait, Chechnya is de facto such a state in state. So, they are spreading the federalization joy!

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:I do not think Maidan was more anti-Russian than previous orange revolution, although they were anti-Kremlin indeed. Why no harsh measures taken back then?

Maidan was at first a healthy pro-democratic riot. I supported them because I hope this would also happen in Russia. But quickly these anti-Yanukovich riots were used by the US (Victoria Nuland said it herself) to restore a pro-US and pro-NATO government. I understand the (ethnic) Russian of Crima and Eastern Ukraine to get fed up by this shit and start rioting themselves.

Besides Crimea (which is out of this debate), what did ask the Donetsl, Kharkov and even Odessa's citizens ? Federalism, not independance. Nothing else than what already exists in Germany, USA, Canada, Brazil, etc. Within a day thes were called "terrorists" or "Putin's agents". Quickly enough this turned into a (literally) bloody mess. It would have been better to respect every one's identity. Putin could do nothing against that, but Ukraine didn't want to. The hell with them now.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:Let’s not forget that Russia never gave an example of fair treatment of other ethnicities on their own ground

Are you delusional?

1) In 1983 I remember a mosque was built in the middle of nowhere in Siberia because some Tatars came in a village.
2) The state farm nearby the city I grew up in gave 20% of its production to former Korean immigrants/prisoners to help them.
3) Georgia and Armenia altogether had as many gov funds than the whole Russian soviet republic.
4) Nowadays Tatars in Kazan or Astrakhan have more rights to build mosques and pray aloud than in France; the same applies for the Buryat buddhists/chamans.

Though I must admit Uzbeks (or any other Chuchmeki) are not very welcome in Moscow or other big cities. But poverty and immigration is not a problem only in Russia.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit: wait, Chechnya is de facto such a state in state. So, they are spreading the federalization joy!

Chechnya is a different problem. Don't forget two important things about the Chechnya wars:
1) 85% of rebels weren't from Chechnya, but mostly from Egypt, Yemen and Jordan. It was a fucking Jihad, not a war for freedom
2) Chechens are the most fighting people in the world. The only thing they master is war. Mamelukes were basically Chechens, and many traditional guard unit in Near/middle-East still wear Chechen outfits. So, whatever the circumstances, they'll fight for anything.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:
85% of rebels weren't from Chechnya, but mostly from Egypt, Yemen and Jordan
It was a fucking Jihad, not a war for freedom

Weak argument.
Islamic religion doesn't separate daily life, politics, culture and spirituality. A holly war is also both a fight for God and a fight for changing the laws and the government that is to say to get released from the oppressors.

Moreover, I don't know the exact figures, but I'm pretty sure, 85% of the rebels in Moldova weren't transnitrian guys. And there are plenty of russians and caucasians in Eastern Ukraine.

Jihadists and Novorossya soldiers are not so different : they are both political militants.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:

Are you delusional?

1) In 1983 I remember a mosque was built in the middle of nowhere in Siberia because some Tatars came in a village.
2) The state farm nearby the city I grew up in gave 20% of its production to former Korean immigrants/prisoners to help them.
3) Georgia and Armenia altogether had as many gov funds than the whole Russian soviet republic.
4) Nowadays Tatars in Kazan or Astrakhan have more rights to build mosques and pray aloud than in France; the same applies for the Buryat buddhists/chamans.

Nice symbol, but not very convincing, regarding the whole history.
What about the forced russification that was imposed to russian neighbours (Poland, Latvia, Finland, Bessarabia and after in the USSR) ?

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:
Maidan was at first a healthy pro-democratic riot. I supported them because I hope this would also happen in Russia. But quickly these anti-Yanukovich riots were used by the US (Victoria Nuland said it herself) to restore a pro-US and pro-NATO government. I understand the (ethnic) Russian of Crima and Eastern Ukraine to get fed up by this shit and start rioting themselves.

US have likely stuck their nose in there (and they indeed had no business there), however it does not change the significance of the event, as many crimes, blood shed of innocent, and involvement of political charlatans does not change the significance of say French revolution or 1917 revolution. It's not for the Russia (read: Putin) to intervene as it did.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit: Besides Crimea (which is out of this debate), what did ask the Donetsl, Kharkov and even Odessa's citizens ? Federalism, not independance.

Is that a fact? Who can say how many demanded that? And how many were maid to beleive it's in their interest?

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit: Within a day thes were called "terrorists" or "Putin's agents".

Not before labelling any opponent fascist and banderovetz. Why not yankee slaves?

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit: Quickly enough this turned into a (literally) bloody mess. It would have been better to respect every one's identity. Putin could do nothing against that, but Ukraine didn't want to. The hell with them now.

Respecting who's identity? And who's demand? A bunch of soldiers of fortunes and criminals taking government buildings?

Although there was some support from locals in the beginning and perhaps a significant one, the support ran thin soon and never been overwhelming. For example, Kharkiv with large Russian-speaking populations remained indiferent to the rebel cause.

The early success of rebels was due to early Russian involvement and weakness of the central government and local corrupted police force, and not overwhelming support of the locals. Expectation of a quick Russian involvement was always in the air and rebels themselves expressed dissatisfaction with Putin's "hesitation" after first weeks of fighting.

With this said, the new Ukranian authorities, military and paramiliatry had their share of blame for the blood shed and mess that followed.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit: Let’s not forget that Russia never gave an example of fair treatment of other ethnicities on their own ground

Are you delusional?

1) In 1983 I remember a mosque was built in the middle of nowhere in Siberia because some Tatars came in a village.
2) The state farm nearby the city I grew up in gave 20% of its production to former Korean immigrants/prisoners to help them.
3) Georgia and Armenia altogether had as many gov funds than the whole Russian soviet republic.
4) Nowadays Tatars in Kazan or Astrakhan have more rights to build mosques and pray aloud than in France; the same applies for the Buryat buddhists/chamans.

Though I must admit Uzbeks (or any other Chuchmeki) are not very welcome in Moscow or other big cities. But poverty and immigration is not a problem only in Russia.

Neither your exclamation nor what you listed seriously undermine my statement, but I'll take "never" back and repalce it with "rarely". That would be more fair.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit: wait, Chechnya is de facto such a state in state. So, they are spreading the federalization joy!

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:  Chechnya is a different problem. Don't forget two important things about the Chechnya wars:
1) 85% of rebels weren't from Chechnya, but mostly from Egypt, Yemen and Jordan. It was a fucking Jihad, not a war for freedom
2) Chechens are the most fighting people in the world. The only thing they master is war. Mamelukes were basically Chechens, and many traditional guard unit in Near/middle-East still wear Chechen outfits. So, whatever the circumstances, they'll fight for anything.

Kaukasus is a long standing problem, since The Caucasian Wars. Chechnya was just another chapter in that neverending story, admittedly with modern twist.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:
85% of rebels weren't from Chechnya, but mostly from Egypt, Yemen and Jordan
It was a fucking Jihad, not a war for freedom

Weak argument.

There isn't a worse argument to defend a nationalist cause than calling foreign mercenaries. Moreover if you say it's related to Islam, then it means that was a Jihad, something western countries never admitted.

So I am 100% right about what I said.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:Jihadists and Novorossya soldiers are not so different : they are both political militants.

What soldier isn't then? SS men were political militants, Salvation army too.

That remark is pointless and manipulative, you only tried to put Jihad and Novorossya in the same sentence to soil them.

Pointless.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:Nice symbol, but not very convincing, regarding the whole history.
What about the forced russification that was imposed to russian neighbours (Poland, Latvia, Finland, Bessarabia and after in the USSR) ?

In "forced russification" there is the word "forced". It never occurred except in Siberia. The only place where Russians were forced to go was Siberia.

• Poland from 1619 to 1624 "polonized" the current Belarus by slaughtering about 300.000 Russians and settled their own Jews their, which were killed by the Nazis in 1942.
  
• Latvia was part of the USSR and it was forbidden for Russian to "emigrate" there without a special authorization from the Party? Why? Because Baltic Republic had for more state subsidies and shortage were rare (unlike in Russia).
  
• Finland? There is no significant Russian minority in Finland before the collapse of USSR. Russian owned Finald from 1809 to 1917, and never tried to populate it with ethnic Russians, that's a nonsense if you knew just a tiny bit the Russian history with Sweden or the Russian aristocracy. Altough the Finns think they have a lot of Swedes, due to their far longer occupation and real coloniaztion. Not Russians, sorry for the wrong stereotype.
  
• Bessarabia has indeed been a victim of Stalin's bloodthirsty habits, like most of the USSR regions. Russians, Austrians and Jews were always living here, no forced colonization has even been reported here.
  

In short, I am just commenting a bunch of typical anti-russian stereotypes.

If you want to criticize Russia, you have tons of good arguments, including historical, social, whatever. It just requires to know what you're talking about.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:US have likely stuck their nose in there (and they indeed had no business there), however it does not change the significance of the event, as many crimes, blood shed of innocent, and involvement of political charlatans does not change the significance of say French revolution or 1917 revolution. It's not for the Russia (read: Putin) to intervene as it did.

Nothing of that would have happened if Ukraine (Yanukovich or Yatseniuk, whoever) gave Eastern Ukraine the right to use Russian language officially, and stop teaching their children they are from a criminal (or genocidal) breed.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:Is that a fact? Who can say how many demanded that? And how many were maid to beleive it's in their interest?

It's a request from Crimea, Kharkov and Donestk for about 24 years. You can't pretend ethnic Russians started to feel as second-class citizens only six months ago.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:Not before labelling any opponent fascist and banderovetz. Why not yankee slaves?

When Ukraine calls thousands of its own citizens "terrorists", it's different from propaganda shit on Russian channels. In the first case that led to tanks in streets and Grad-bombing of civilians.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:Respecting who's identity? And who's demand? A bunch of soldiers of fortunes and criminals taking government buildings?

No, for people like friends of mine in Odessa or Sebastopol who asked why in school they were forbidden to speak Russian, and why they taught them their grand parents were parts of a genocidal crew.

Stilgar (NBC) a écrit:With this said, the new Ukranian authorities, military and paramiliatry had their share of blame for the blood shed and mess that followed.

Their share? 90% of it...



[quote="Stilgar (NBC)"]Neither your exclamation nor what you listed seriously undermine my statement, but I'll take "never" back and repalce it with "rarely". That would be more fair.

I gave you few facts gathered from a random place in the middle of Russia. Statisically it might be just an exception, but I think it's not. Though I know Russia is mostly filled with mujik' spirit, with strong tendencies for toughness and rudeness.

... On reparlera des minorités massacré par les blancs de Moscou dans quelques temps... un morceau de pain et un verre d'eau ne suffiront pas a maintenir ces liens artificiels..
La russie regorge de raciste et de xenophone paranoiaque, L'ukraine en etant la plus belle representation actuelle..

Pour le reste J'attendrai avec impatience les milliers de videos de jeunes gens bien éduqués et pro-russe..
Les entrepreneurs de l'Ukraine profiteront d'ici l'année prochaine d'avantages commerciaux avec l'Europe pendant que les gopniks russes mangeront des patates et se soûleront à la vodka avec les bomjs de Kiev..
Poutine disparaîtra bientôt laissant à sa place un être plus enclins aux avantages européens qui forcera la marche du peuple russe n'ayant de cesse de s'agripper à ses églises et ses traditions archaïques en tentant d'emporter frères et cousins dans une profonde dégénérescence consanguine ..Qu'est ce qui pourrait sauver la RUssie si ce n'est l’éveil de son peuple à la p r o d u c t i v i t é plutôt qu'à la paranoïa et au refus généralisé de se consacrer à résoudre les problèmes intérieurs avant de chercher l'erreur et la faute du coté des americains... ?

USA-EUROPE - 100/ Russie Poutinienne +100 patates -l'Ukraine- le reste à suivre +

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:

So I am 100% right about what I said.

I'm trying to show you there is no objective difference between your war for freedom and Tchetechnia's Jihad : foreign fighters, mercenaries, political goals and I could add fight against an outside imperialism.

Your objection against Stilgar's remark is also a personnal feeling, not a fair argument.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:
What soldier isn't then? SS men were political militants, Salvation army too.

A new Godwin's law witness ?
Professional soldiers or mercenaries aren't militants. And the main difference between SS and local jihadists/local Novorossya supporters is in the behaviour : some are attacking a foreign land, some others are defending their own.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:
In short, I am just commenting a bunch of typical anti-russian stereotypes.

No, you're just doing the same as before : trying to encompass a large subject in a tiny one to defend your point of view.

• Let's take a look at your Poland's argument.
  You're not discussing what I told and just saying Poland did the same in Belarus a couple of centuries before.
  
  And of course, you're forgetting the 19th century and the Regnum Serenissimum Poloniae where polish was banned from public locations and from schools.
  Russia did the same in Latvia and enforced catholicism prohibition.
  
  
• Now, let's consider Finland.
  Again, you're short of memory and doesn't mention the tsarist russification. In 1899 and 1900, the February decrete and the language manifesto deny the right to finnish people to be represented by their diet and to speak their language in the administration.
  
  
• In Bessarabia, deportations started before Staline, during Tsar's age.
  
  I quote two census (Source : Wikipédia) :
  
  

  Wikipedia French a écrit: Selon le recensement de 1817, la Bessarabie était peuplée à 86 % de Roumains, 6,5 % d'Ukrainiens, 1,5 % de Russes (Lipovènes) et 6 % issus d'autres groupes ethniques. Quatre-vingts ans plus tard, en 1897, la répartition ethnique avait sensiblement évolué, avec seulement 56 % de Roumains (désormais appelés Moldaves), mais 11,7 % d'Ukrainiens, 18,9 % de Russes et 13,4 % de personnes issues d'autres groupes ethniques. En quatre-vingts ans, la part de la population autochtone avait donc chuté de 30 %.

  
  And I'm generous, I don't talk about the generalization of the Cyril alphabet, that the USSR imposed to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan...
  
  It's a complete lack of coherence to support ukrainian separatists because of language oppression and to deny the existence of russian same behaviours in the past.
  So tell me now : who is manipulative ?
  

[Grognard]_Cosak] a écrit:
If you want to criticize Russia, you have tons of good arguments, including historical, social, whatever. It just requires to know what you're talking about.

You don't need to be scornful or contemptuous.
It's not a knowledge contest about russian history and I assume you would crush anybody here in this area.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Les entrepreneurs de l'Ukraine profiteront d'ici l'année prochaine d'avantages commerciaux avec l'Europe

S'ils sont aussibons que les Polonais pour mendier à l'UE et dépenser chez les Américains, c'est possible. Mais c'est peu probable à cause d'un niveau de corruption qui est supérieur à la Russie ou l'Albanie. En attendant, à la frontière Russie-Ukraine près de Kharkov, le niveau de vie est dans un rapport de 1 à 3.

[Grognard]_Articho a écrit:Qu'est ce qui pourrait sauver la RUssie si ce n'est l’éveil de son peuple à la p r o d u c t i v i t é plutôt qu'à la paranoïa et au refus généralisé de se consacrer à résoudre les problèmes intérieurs avant de chercher l'erreur et la faute du coté des americains... ?

Je le souhaite ardemment. Poutine est une crapule nuisible sur la scène intérieure, je l'ai toujours dit. La paranoïa anti-occidentale qu'il promeut dans tous les médias n'est pas totalement infondée, mais typique d'un pays à la politique malsaine.

C'est pour cela que j'étais sincèrement pro-Maïdan au début, quand je rêvais qu'il se produise la même chose en Russie.

C'est après que ça a mal tourné, et que l'UE et les Américains ont poussé le bouchon un peu trop loin... Les ressentiments accumulés depuis 24 ans ont ressurgi, et Poutine n'a fait que suivre.

On va repasser en français... et pour Brumaire, tu ne peux pas répéter des choses dont j'ai démontré l'inverse deux posts avant.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:Professional soldiers or mercenaries aren't militants. And the main difference between SS and local jihadists/local Novorossya supporters is in the behaviour : some are attacking a foreign land, some others are defending their own.

Premier exemple de débat obtu : j'ai dit dans un post précédent que l'écrasante majorité (de 75 à 90%) des combattants contre les Russes en Tchétchénie n'étaient pas Tchétchènes, mais essentiellement Égyptiens, Yéménites et Jordaniens.

Et là tu me parles de gens qui défendent leur patrie en ignorant le propos précédent ?

D'ailleurs chez les Arabes la guerre de Tchétchénie est désignée sous le terme "خان المقدس الفتح" ("reconquête de la terre du khan sacré"), une sorte de recréation du califat. Le terme "indépendance" n'est présent que dans les médias occidentaux. Aucun des belligérants (Russes et autres) ne l'évoque. C'est évidemment compréhensible pour la propagande russe, mais révélateur pour les autres. Au passage j'écris "autres" car "pro-tchétchènes" n'a pas de sens de la part d'étrangers venus faire la guerre sainte dans une région qui n'a jamais connu la charia.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:No, you're just doing the same as before : trying to encompass a large subject in a tiny one to defend your point of view.

Erreur, je ne faisais que répondre point par point, pour montrer que la "russification forcée" est un phénomène insignifiant face aux tentatives (elles bien réelles) des Allemands, Turcs, Autrichiens, Polonais et même Suédois (Finlande). Je ne cite ici que les zones limitrophes à la Russie, les Américains ayant (eux) parfaitement conclu leur colonisation.

Si tu veux employer l'argument de la colonisation, tu ne peux ignorer l'intégralité des autres acteurs. La seule zone que les Russes ont bel et bien colonisé, c'est la Sibérie. En Europe, ils ont se sont globalement fait plus massacrer par les autres et par eux-mêmes.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:Let's take a look at your Poland's argument.
You're not discussing what I told and just saying Poland did the same in Belarus a couple of centuries before.

Exact, c'est la nature des guerres. Dans un débat sensé, on ne peut dire que A est méchant contre B, et taire que B a fait la même chose. Sauf d'un point de vue émotionnel...

Oui, les Russes ont dominé la Pologne pendant une siècle et demi. Et oui les Polonais ont fait la même chose. Et les Allemands (Prussiens, Saxons, Autrichiens) bien pire en Pologne. Est-ce qu'on entend les mêmes jérémiades victimisantes ou les mêmes rappels incessants dans chaque article ?

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:And of course, you're forgetting the 19th century and the Regnum Serenissimum Poloniae where polish was banned from public locations and from schools.
Russia did the same in Latvia and enforced catholicism prohibition.

Tu veux rire ? Ceci ne s'est appliqué qu'aux tutorats de la noblesse et des écoles de cadets (de l'armée russe, car la Pologne n'existait plus).

J'en ai débattu des dizaines de fois avec des Polonais... À chaque fois ils doivent finir par admettre que les Russes n'ont rien fait contre la culture ou l'identité polonaise pendant le 19e siècle ou durant le Pacte de Varsovie. Cependant la brutalité politique est clairement à la charge des Russes, d'où ma détestation de Staline et de Nicolas Ier (et de la plupart des dirigeants russes et soviétiques en fait).

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:Again, you're short of memory and doesn't mention the tsarist russification. In 1899 and 1900, the February decrete and the language manifesto deny the right to finnish people to be represented by their diet and to speak their language in the administration.

Concernant la représentation du peuple, elle a aussi été bannie ailleurs en Russie après les émeutes décabristes de plus en plus nombreuses. Les doumas locales ont partotut été dissoutes ou aliénées en y mettant des bourgeois ou des vieillards séniles.

Dans les "protectorats" annexés tels que la Pologne ou la Finlande, ces assemblées étaient perçues comme les seules entités d'existence nationale. Leur quasi-disparition est naturellement perçue comme une oppression contre leur identité. Cette impression est légitime, mais (si on connaît le sujet) erronée.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:And I'm generous, I don't talk about the generalization of the Cyril alphabet, that the USSR imposed to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan...

It's a complete lack of coherence to support ukrainian separatists because of language oppression and to deny the existence of russian same behaviours in the past.

Tu as raison pour la première partie : les bolchéviks ont en effet imposé l'écriture en cyrillique en Asie Centrale.

Pour la seconde, ta logique devient douteuse, sinon risible. Les Soviétiques n'ont jamais interdit la pratique de la moindre langue (sauf une exception : le Japonais à Sakhaline). Quand j'étais petit je suis allé à Tachkent (Ouzbékistan). Personne ne parlait russe... sauf les Russes et ceux qui avaient voyagé. Aucun panneau n'était en russe (sauf sur les grandes routes). Les bâtiment publics, eux, comportaient des inscriptions en russe et ouzbek.

On est très loin de lois ukrainiennes actuelles.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:So tell me now : who is manipulative ?

Pour manipuler il faut taire des réalités et en valoriser d'autres. C'est exactement ce que tu fais en ne prenant à chaque fois que des arguments à charge, dont je démontre systématiquement le côté partial, sinon mensonger ou faussement naïf.

Attention cependant, je n'érige pas la Russie en nation immaculée. Je suis cependant très vigilant et méthodique quand on se permet une facilité intellectuelle déplorable pour l'attaquer.

[Grognard]_Cosak] a écrit:You don't need to be scornful or contemptuous.
It's not a knowledge contest about russian history and I assume you would crush anybody here in this area.

Je ne suis pas là pour séduire quiconque, et je serai ravi qu'on me démontre que j'ai tort et que la Russie a été un pays plus impérialiste que l'Autriche, l'Allemagne, la Suède, les Ottomans, les Américains, les Français, les Espagnols, les Portugais, les Chinois, les Japonais... On reproche à ce pays une attitude qui fut la plupart du temps bien pire, bien plus répandue, et bien plus assumée, chez pratiquement l'intégralité des dix ou quinze autres pays qui comptent ou ont compté. Quant à l'actualité ukrainienne, on est soit pour la liberté des peuples, soit pour le strict respect des traités. Et dans tous les cas la position russe en Crimée comme au Donbass est juste, et je peux le démontrer aisément sans user de la ridicule propagande de Poutine.

Kaliningrad ne serait pas un embryon de colonisation?

[Grognard]_Raistlin a écrit:Kaliningrad ne serait pas un embryon de colonisation?

Bonne remarque, mais si on veut être exact il s'agirait d'une colonisation ukrainienne/biélorusse car après 1945, après l'expulsion des Allemands ce sont les habitants des villes d'URSS rasées (par les Allemands) les plus proches qui y furent envoyés, donc biélorusses et ukrainiens. À noter aussi en 1945 des dizaines de milliers d'ex-partisans Juifs (et leur famille) de l'Ouest ukrainien, rescapés des séides de Bandera, qui ont refondé à Kaliningrad la plus grande communauté ashkénaze hors Israël. On est loin de la colonisation russe forcée... Les Français annexent l'Alsace et la Meuse en 1918, dix fois plus peuplées, et y envoient de myriades de paysans de la Somme et de Champagne.

Les Russes ont plutôt été relogés vers l'Oural (Ekaterinbourg) ou la Sibérie occidentale (Novosibirsk).

À comparer avec Hawai, l'Île de la Réunion (voire la Corse), Sveaborg, Aland, Chypre-Nord, Tibet, etc...


Le premier rattachement symbolique de Königsberg/Kaliningrad à la Russie a été décidé par... Napoléon qui offre un protectorat commun sur la zone à Alexandre Ier en hommage à leur accord trouvé. Tilsit, Eylau et Friedland se trouvent actuellement en Russie, tout près de Kaliningrad.

Cosak, you do not have to dispel for me all the stereotypes about Russia and the Russians: Russian is my native language, I am half Russian, and I lived first 25 years of my life on the territory of SU or former SU. So, I know a few things about that. I also know quite a bit about stereotypes of the Russian/Soviet people about West. Those are far deeper embedded in people minds. Btw, I am interested to hear your arguments, but please be aware that I am rather interested in big picture and global significance of events, and (importantly) their consequences. You certainly bring up some interesting facts, but you tend to focus too much on details.

Now, if you see the current events as the noble struggle for the rights of the Russian population in Ukraine and correction of the historical injustice, then your view is naïve and/or biased. IMO, Russia again has been drugged into a conflict with the whole world by their “wise” leaders, which is neither in interest of Russia, nor the Russians, wherever they live. And all with “great” goal in mind and “best” intentions. I do not know how to make it clearer?!  I just do not see how the current Russian external policy, whatever its formal justification or hidden agenda, can benefit Russia in short or long run, or how it helps solving the issues you named and which are supposedly being addressed by conflict in East Ukraine, or achieve any other clear-cut goal. If you or anyone can dispel this conclusion of mine, I’d be grateful. Until then, anything that justifies that policy is nothing but demagoguery to me.

Looks like the end results of the Putin’s gamble will be deep economic recession, a stronger anti-Russian sentiment in the former SU space, and in the world, and very sober social and economic perspective for the Russian population. Although there is a very good chance that Ukraine will lose currently occupied territories, the process of her integration in EU and eventually in NATO will accelerate. NATO will spring again to life. West (US in particularly) will continue to pressure Russia economically and will not stop until fully satisfied. Even EU, which was reluctant to act against Russia and own interests, is now aware that Putin's Russia is not a partner. Action and reaction.  

Perhaps Putin does not mind this turn of events. External threat meaning the power should be tightened and the nation mobilized. Vovka finally made his time machine work, but it can go back in time only.