Stop the America-bashing!

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
So, portraying Chechnya as some kind of Russian colony is absolutely absurd...

Oops, maybe I didn't use the right words, I never meant Chechnya was a Russian colony. The African decolonisation by Europeans was only an example of what hypocrisis can do.

Excuse me, we are, In Rwanda? It is in Africa, right? Are you really talking about Russians?

Apologize again, I wrote 'you', I meant 'we' of course.
In french you can use the 'you' to mean 'anybody', I thought in english, it was the same.

EDIT: Almost forget a very important thing.
Did your former colony attacked continental Belgium? And if (only hypothetically) Congo army attacks Belgium what would you do then?

Honestly, I would say that we would defend our borders, like we did in both WW. Now if the question is about hiting an ennemy on its own ground, well, it never happened in the past. Belgium was often occupied, or under other's rule (France, Spain, Austria, Holland, Germany), but never attacked anyone. We have no great military tradition.
I don't know exactly how we get in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, but I was never told about some great military campain. I know our king of that time bought it for himself. Later he gave it to the state of Belgium. But I don't know to whom he bought it.
We sent our troops in the past in Africa when our own citizens were in trouble, but it was always in coordination with France and US. But as you said, Congo was for us a colony, and never considered as our own territorial ground, so it is difficult to compare with Chechnya.

Of course natives were unable to rule themselves properly, if I understand you properly they do it as in times before they become a Belgian colony.

Well, yes and no. When you conquer/colonize a country, even if they are not as technologically advanced as you, they have local elites and a way of ruling themselves. This rule may be not-efficient, but it worked. With some local wars - and the europeans used the local rivality to conquer the whole country - but it was their own way.
During the occupation/colonisation, you forbid those able/gifted natives to learn and adapt to the new situation, you forbid them also to learn their traditionnal ways (you kill local culture) and after a few generation, you have a people used to be servant of foreigner, with a foreign logic,...
To give you an excessive example, take Polpot in Cambodge: he killed all intellectuals and then he had a people unable to rule himself. Instead of killing them, forbid the gifted to learn and you will have the same result, or starve them, so read/write is secondary in regards to eat.
The situation after is worse than the situation before.

In Chechnya it was absolutely reverse situation:
...
So, portraying Chechnya, as some kind of colony is the super absurd, all colonial powers lost their colonies decades ago.

Agree, I never wanted to say that Chechnya was (or was not) a colony or was (or was not) educated, but - by taking a colonial/education example - just that things were not always simple.

Let me take a last example:
Take a people - any
and put them in refugee camps at 1 per 10sq meter, forbid communication between them - let's say it is for your own security
make water their first concern, before anything else;
forbid the political leaders to levy taxes to organize the whole thing - pretend that with the money they will buy weapons;
and of course, you can never forbid the religious leaders to receive money from their followers;
now that this people is not helped by politicals, but well by religious people, wait until they are able to rule themselves, wait until they become moderate and democratic.

That is another example of people who 's#!t in the boots' of others.

[Arrian]

There is probably only one reason the United States never had to deal with a Chechenya-like situation: we pretty much wiped out the Native Americans. I wonder if Adolf Hitler was thinking of the Westward expansion of the United States when he came up with Lebensraum (spelling?). Yeah, that analogy may seem harsh, but so was the treatment of the Native Americans.

Before someone brings it up, I may as well explain why I don't think the U.S. Civil War qualifies as a "Chechenya-like situation."
Although the Civil War involved a group of states attempting to break away from the union, it wasn't about ethnicity and religion - it was about a "way of life" which included the institution of slavery. The South didn't want the North telling it what to do, particularly with regard to the ownership of other human beings. It was more of an ideological dispute, which I think seperates it from what's going on in Chechenya.

-Arrian

[Serb]

I do not even mean to exploit it. I am absolutely sure that your claims about you’re Civil war was a war against slavery no less true then your claims that your “humanitarian bombardments” of Yugoslavia is war against monstrous dictator who make ethnical purges.

And you try to convince me that USA never put yourself in Chechen-like situation. Open your eyes men. What kind of situation your bombardments of Yugoslavia then?
And finally Tell me please your vision of what’s going on in Chechnya.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


No, it's even pretty similar.

Excuse me, I don’t get it, are you agree or not that our expansionism is different from colonial type, like GB for example?

The core Russia is a small part of today's, it's even less than it's European part. And that is where Russians come from. All other territories were captured and "colonized" by the Russian Emperors during many centuries.

I do not deny that we expanded through conquest, but again it has differences with western conquest. I suppose you know that core Russia was occupied by Mongols for period of time about 300 years, and only in 1380 separated feudal states united own tiny armies in one big army, and was able to defeat Mongol horde. But it was not lead to an end of occupation and it last about 100 years more. But while occupation was over, attacks on our Eastern borders were not over. As one of our politicians joked- “Russians are very peaceful people, we’ve spend last 800 years constantly fighting in wars and military campaigns”. Western colonialism was based on technological superiority, while I wouldn’t say that our army was far superior with compare with our enemies. Btw wars was not the only way for expansion, many territories joined Russia by own will seeking for protection, for example this is how Ukraine joined Russia in 1654.

Many of those civilizations (yes!) in Eastern Asia didn't even care that they were captured, they were nomads, hunters and fishermen and remained this till today, not caring about governments and local powers.

All those "...stan" territories as well as Siberia always was under rule of various empires since times of the Golden Horde. Yes, they were nomads, but it is the way of life in empires like the Mongols Empire. But I wouldn’t say that they are nomads today. Would you denied that Russian culture make hugest impact and changed the way of life of all this people?

And the area there is relatively thin settled anyway, so there's not much man power for revolts.

Well it’s fair, as well it was not enough manpower to oppress them, I suppose you can imagine distance between those territories and core Russia. I think you know about modern Russian roads and know what is “rasputica”, and can easily imagine roads of that times, well actually there are nothing to imagine it simply do not existed. So, I suppose you can imagine how much time it takes to bring forces to those lands with use of horses as transport. All our expansion on east is familiar with American’s expansion on West, but with little differences again. Yes, Russians are not native population of Siberia, as you said those lands were poor populated by nomads, but when we’ve come there and build up our cities, we’ve become an absolutely majority of population, with no doubt. Our cities assimilate natives; we not killed them or put them in reservations.
Sorry, sir Ralph with this line I cannot agree.

But especially in the Middle East regions live enough people, who are tired of this state. As seen in Chechnya, Russia keeps it's "colonies" by cruel oppression. As long as this lasts, Russia will not have inner peace.

I am really sorry that you think so. Please try to think logically. Peter the Great proclaimed the Russian Empire 300 years ago. In fact we lived in this empire since Ivan the Terrible in that times it called “Rus” and we still live in this empire, it only changed names Rus/R.E./S.U./R.F. Do you really think that through oppression it is possible to keep “colonies” for such long period of time? Look to history of all other empires used this way, did you not notice that all great empires lost their colonies in second half of last century. No matter how cruel oppression is, no nation can forever tolerate it. It was perfectly shown by all former colonies of all colonial countries in last century.
We are always was, and always will by a ONE NATION, consisted of many nationalities, with ONE COMMON CULTURE, consisted of many cultures and religions. This cocktail is called a Russian CIVILIZATION, and we mixed so hard, then I don’t know whom you may call a pure Russian today.

… but I have even in Soviet times seen, how disdainful Russians talked about the merchants from the caucasus, who sold fruits in the market places,

The only one thing I want to say about this is just: try to imagine that all your family including you far, far relatives lives in one house during more then thousand years, and you see faces of this people every day, and that for such long time you know everything about your neighbors, their actions, preference etc. Is it possible then you’ll start to treat some of your relative better then others and otherwise?

(I would not wonder if half of Israels population are former Russian Jews)

I suppose if I don’t read your previous posts I may be found this line offensive. It sounds like charge in anti-Semitism and nationalism. Would you be wonder if I tell you that before 1917 1/3 of all worlds’ Jews lived in Russian Empire? (This information I’ve reed on one of the Jewish Internet sites) Many of them leave with first wave of immigration because of revolution happens, but many remains. When the Iron curtain was up, new wave of immigration begun, and I can assure you Jews was not major part of emigrants. Was it wondering that Jewish emigrants chose Israel as a new home?

On the other hand, being in Estonia (I know it's not Russia), I got not served in stores, because the people thought I was a Russian (I talked in Russian to them) and later got nearly my feet licked when they realized, that I'm from Germany (just from saying the word sh*t in German).

I must agree that it’s true. I think it comes from Peter the Great times, because of his conquest of Baltic States. These states were under Sweden rule and of course have western culture. They treat us as barbarians. Btw, as I know you gone include them in EU. Is it not concern you (I mean EU officials) that Russian population in those countries do not have a civil rights, while its pretty big part of the whole? If I’m not mistaken 20-40%.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb
All those "...stan" territories as well as Siberia always was under rule of various empires since times of the Golden Horde. Yes, they were nomads, but it is the way of life in empires like the Mongols Empire. But I wouldn’t say that they are nomads today. Would you denied that Russian culture make hugest impact and changed the way of life of all this people?

Although I've never compared first hand, it's my impression that Russia has done a much better job of allowing the indigenious peoples their own culture than the West has.

Here in Canada we have a similar situation as you do, especially in Siberia, in regards to the original natives of a distant area. Our response was to tell these people they were inferior. We took their children from thier homes, and forced them to live in dormatories where they were sometimes beaten if they so much as spoke a single word of their native tongue, or acted any differently than what Christian morality deemed appropriate at the time.

We've made many attempts to destroy their way of life to the point that now, many of them have forgotten how to be self-reliant on their own land, as they used to be. Some of these tribes have all but forgotten their language, thier art, their customs. In some cases, it's only their oldest members that can still remember, and are able to speak in their own tongue, produce the art they used to, etc.. Only in the past few decades has there been any effort at all by our government of preserving this cultural knowledge.

Yet I see documentaries of people who still seem to live much as they used to in your country. They still have their own language and customs, and they're allowed to live thier lives as they see fit. As I said, I've never compared the approaches to our similar situations first hand, but judging from what I've seen from the media, I'd say we could learn a few lessons from your country.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
On the other hand, being in Estonia (I know it's not Russia), I got not served in stores, because the people thought I was a Russian (I talked in Russian to them) and later got nearly my feet licked when they realized, that I'm from Germany (just from saying the word sh*t in German).

That's exactly the same reaction that Canadians get when people realize we're not Americans. Is that prove that the US is an oppressive nation?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Willem
That's exactly the same reaction that Canadians get when people realize we're not Americans. Is that prove that the US is an oppressive nation?

No. My example was meant to prove that many nationalities in the former SU and today's Russia are not really friends as they are told to be.

Originally posted by Serb
I suppose if I don’t read your previous posts I may be found this line offensive. It sounds like charge in anti-Semitism and nationalism.

I'm not talking about aggressive Anti-Semitism as it existed in Germany in times of the 3rd Reich. But face the fact, for the average Russian the Russian Jews are all but popular. I knew a few when I was there. Just for example, they got mobbed at work, even in Soviet time. Or how else do you explain the massive exodus of Jews from Russia to Israel, in a land that hasn't found peace since it exists? And why is the word "pogrom" a Russian word?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


No. My example was meant to prove that many nationalities in the former SU and today's Russia are not really friends as they are told to be.

Yet we have a similar problem here in Canada with Quebec. We still live together with a certain amount of respect however. Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I certainly see a similarity between my country and what Serb is talking about. Perhaps you fail to see it, coming from a culture that up until recently was largely homogenous.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Serb
Btw, as I know you gone include them in EU. Is it not concern you (I mean EU officials) that Russian population in those countries do not have a civil rights, while its pretty big part of the whole? If I’m not mistaken 20-40%.

I know this and don't consider it good. But the EU as it is does not tolerate this behavior, so I guess it's a condition to change this. By the way, it's also one of the reasons why Turkey is not yet in the EU.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Willem
Yet we have a similar problem here in Canada with Quebec. We still live together with a certain amount of respect however. Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I certainly see a similarity between my country and what Serb is talking about. Perhaps you fail to see it, coming from a culture that up until recently was largely homogenous.

Oh, I'm sure at the average you and Serb are right, and I agree to 95%. The remaining 5% are nationalities like Chechens. And as long as they remain oppressed (sorry, for flattening their homes I haven't got another word), they will rebel again and again.

[Arrian]

Serb,

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to convince you that the United States did a GOOD thing by nearly annihilating the Native Americans. It was mocking self-criticism (in the national sense), actually.

I did not say that the Civil War was against slavery. Slavery was one of the primary root causes of the war, however. The conflict was over whether or not the rebel states could choose to leave the Union - a debate I do not intend to get into here. The main reason the South wished to leave the Union, however, was their fear that the North, which was becoming increasingly powerful (both politically and economically) would impose an end to slavery upon the South. The Confederate States didn't want that, so they tried to leave.

I have said before, maybe not here, that I did not agree with Nato's actions in Yugoslavia, such as the bombing of Serbia. I'm not attempting to convince you that it was right. I do think that Milosevich's downfall was a good thing, but the ends do not justify the means. However, the U.S. has not put itself in a Chechnya-like situation in the Balkans, because we don't lay claim to that territory as part of our nation, whereas Chechenya is part of Russia. We don't want Kosovo as the 51st State, or even as a "territory" like Puerto Rico.

I didn't mean to say that Russia had made some error that lead to the Chechen war, though it may have, I don't really know. My post was sarcastic - in other words, Russia's "mistake" was not ethnically cleansing Chechenya at some earlier time, as the United States did during its westward expansion. Since Chechnya is still populated by "natives" it is more difficult for Moscow to maintain control.

As for my thoughts on Chechnya... well, I don't know all that much about the history of that area, but I have seen reports of atrocities committed (and yes, I understand the outrage over the bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow) by the Russian Army. I occasionally read the Moscow Times (since I can't read Russian, my options are a bit limited) and that's where I saw those reports. Whether or not Russia is right to fight the war, I won't pass judgement, as I feel I should know more about the history of Chechnya before doing so. But if the conduct of the Russian military matches what I read in the Moscow Times many months ago, I don't like it. Just as I don't like it when ANY army acts like that. Please do not assume I'm anti-Russian - you seem to respond to my posts as if I'm trying to convince you that your country is "bad" and mine is "good." That is not the case.

-Arrian

[Serb]

Sorry,
I think when I type that post I was too emotional, and not because of your post. I’ve misunderstood you, sorry.
I just want to remind once again that the outrage over the bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow, like outrage about all previous acts of terrorists, was not the reason why the war was started. The war was started when those bustards attacked a neighbor Dagestan- another subject of Russian Federation. It can't be called by other words then the- ‘declaration of war’. They start this war, not we are. Why are you (western world) bashing us for victory in defensive war? Is it fair?

[Harovan]

About Dagestan I know only what our media said. That is only one source of (mis)information and not sufficient to make a difference between truth and NATO propaganda. To be honest, I didn't put much own interest in this matter and will not argue about this.

May be you explain your point of view. But please, if you can, without any emotion. I don't wish to know what the Russian newspapers write or TV says. I want to know what you believe to be the truth. Try to clean the propaganda fog away.

[Serb]

Ok, Ralph I’ll try.
You have to forgive me. I know that sometimes I am too emotional, but this is because I am too tired to hit a two bricks wall with my head. I am continuously saying to all of you that the second campaign has nothing common with the first. And if some of your (western world) arguments for bashing us in times of first war was reasonable, are you not realize that the same was here in this time? I was against this war as most of the Russians. Practically this war was stopped because of the public opinion was against this war. Then the second campaign was war against terrorism (absolutely the same as Americans done in Afghanistan), not against Chechen people, because for the period of three years passed after we completely leave Chechnya, there was established the Taliban’s type regime which constantly threatened to Russia through terrorist’s acts, stealing people from Russia for use those people as slaves, and for receiving ransom. And massive invasion in Dagestan launched by terrorists was culmination of their actions. We can’t no longer tolerate this.
I do not have access to your mass media in this time. So I don’t know how your media portrayed those events.But I wonder, if those events might be portrayed as something different. In 1999 about 5000 terrorists invade Dagestan with only one purpose- to capture this territory and to take control under this land.The familiar event you might see when UCK attacked Macedonia, after they were victorious in Kossovo. Terrorist’s regimes are never stopped, they always expand, when they achieved one goal they point another. Invasion in Dagestan was stopped on first stage by natives, by people who start to defend their land with arms in their hands, Dagestan’s people perfectly know what’s going on in Chechnya and do not wanted to live under terrorist’s rule. Later Russian army arrived; terrorist was defeated and they retreat to their base- Chechnya. Our army followed them and destroyed this snake’s nest. And they were successful because local Chechen people do not resist them, this people was tired of terrorists rule, they do not want live longer under such regime.
That’s all.
I am really had to go now, on birthday party. Ralph I suppose as man who know Russians very good you realize that I’ll do not show here for couple of days.

[Harovan]

Of course I understand. Enjoy!