Russians are getting uppity

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You didn't have to bring on the war by pushing Serbia to reject Austria's demands.

WTF? Are you trying to say that we are responsible for start of WW1?

Again, certainly, and both sides were wrong. I have no problem admitting as much

I was wrong. We could agree sometimes. About this I have absolutely the same opinion.

[Heresson]

Bullsh*t. OUR tzar was dead and he has no heirs. Thats why it called Weilka smuta or 'chaos times'. We had no leadership. Russia was out of control. Dmitry was your fake. And there is no much honor to kill civilians, when Russians get their crap together and realized that it is time to kick some Polish butts untill it's to late you were crushed.

If You kicked polish butts, how come we had territorial gains?
I know You are hopeless diplomats

(I ment Demetrios not Bemetrios of course )
Dymitr probably wasn't true, but He was a good, liberal
leader and the folk loved him. Not those bad Russian boyars
though.

Did Lisowski do that? Oh, I guess He had reasons...
Perhaps He got to know the local, Russian, kitchen....

[Ned]

Serb, back on topic for a moment. I am generally supportive of Russian action against the Islamic terrorists in Georgia. But if Russia wants to invade, it should get UN approval first, don't you think?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
If You kicked polish butts, how come we had territorial gains?
I know You are hopeless diplomats

How Poland could have territorial gains if you claim that it wasn't a Polish army who attacked us?

(I ment Demetrios not Bemetrios of course ) Dymitr probably wasn't true, but He was a good, liberal....

He was fake and traitor, no one loves traitors.

Did Lisowski do that? Oh, I guess He had reasons...

Of course and much worse things. Such things as mass rape even doesn't count as atrocities for him. In contest for "Attila of XVII century" he wins hands down.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
Serb, back on topic for a moment.

Topic? In this thread?

I am generally supportive of Russian action against the Islamic terrorists in Georgia. But if Russia wants to invade, it should get UN approval first, don't you think?

Georgia is freindly country for us. We are tied with Georgia very close, but their current president acts very strange, at least strange.
I don't think we will invade. It would be very, very big mistake. We don't want to conquer Georgia or smth of that kind. We need that part of Georgian territory (uncontroled by Georgian government today) stop being a base for terrorists who attacking Russia.
I guess it should be joint Russian-Georgian anti-terrorist operation. No violation of inernational laws and of course not some kind of war against Georgia.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb

How Poland could have territorial gains if you claim that it wasn't a Polish army who attacked us?


He was fake and traitor, no one loves traitors.

Of course and much worse things. Such things as mass rape even doesn't count as atrocities for him. In contest for "Attila of XVII century" he wins hands down.

Smoleñsk was granted us by Dymitr in exchange for help against Swedes. But we had to siege it anyway.

People liked Dymitr; he was murdered by boyars and claimed that He was killed by Poles...
On the other hand, You might have given yourself an explentation why Poles don't like Russians...

Nothing is comapred to Russian soldiers. You were proud pupils of Mongols, and Lisowski was a proud pupil of yours.

Attila of XX century Do You mean Stalin?

OK, He was a Georgian. When it comes to Georgia, Russia not only needs a permission of UN, but also of Georgia itself. I'm sure that after all this
brilliant diplomatical action which was threatening with
invasion and offending their president not minding supporting separationists for years in their own country they won't be very keen on helping You

[Heresson]

Eastern European corner

Oh, some news I read; I already told |You about Russian persecution of catholic church - arresting and banning priests without any reason, mass hatred demonstrations, forbidding building churches and vandalism with use of guns also etc - it's all because of a specificacy of Russian church; who claims that Russians are geentically orthodox and no-one else can evangelise them. But while catholic church does what he can to make the orthodox sure that they are only for Germans and Poles, protestants do not, and they are converting the orthodox on mass scale. Though the hatred against the protestants isn't as common as against catholics, and the orthodox bishops and officials aren't attacking it with such force, protestants are having hard times in Russia too. Their missions is quite successfull, there are 5000 parishes in Russia now 9in comparison to 11000 Orthodox parishes)- not very numerable when it comes to the faithfull (72mln of Russians call themselves orthodox, only 3mln protestants), but very active and growing in power,
unlike the Orthodox church, to churches of which hardly anyone comes. Examples of attacking the protestant priests, and burning churches are common;
if someone goes to the police they answer "Oh, You are from those sects... You know, You are in Orthodox Russia". The authorities either pretend that the problem does not exist or they don't knbow about it, or are supporting the actions, like in Rostow region, when the army gave the orthodox priests a helicopter so that they could fly (with a blessing of their archbishop) over catholic churches and pray for banning catholics out of Russia.
They claim that catholics can open their churches only if the orthodox agree on that.
In the entrance to Constitution, as "traditional" religions
of the Russian Federation, Orthodox, Buddhists, Jews
and Muslims were included. I remember that the catholics and the protestants protested because it may be a first step to delegalising them, but I'm not quite sure if they succeeded. Today, a delegate to Duma Aleksandr Czujew
issued a proposition to say exactly which religions are traditional and which not, and to take away from the not-
traditional ones the ability to lead a charitiative missions,
to teach religions in schools, to have a free time in state tv, to have lower taxes, of which the "traditional" churches could take advantage. he proposes that a traditional church could only be one which had its
structures in tzarist Russia. Both protestants and catholics
had its structures (though Roman catholics were persecuted, and Greek-catholic church was destroyed)
as pre-revolution Russia owned catholic and protestant lands. I also know that there were catholic (Polish) churches in Petersburg, and a catholic council there (as tzars, as Chineese today, did not respect pope's souvereignity over catholics and tried to separate them from Rome). But it seems Czujew sees the case different...

------

So that it wouldn't look like I'm bashing Russia only.
Lithuania introduced new lcitizenship laws. According to them, ex-citizens of Lithuania that left it for some reason,
can come back to it and regain Lithuanian citizenship
only if their ancestors were Lithuanians and they are declaring themselves as Lithuanians.
Except for that, the law says that all that resigned of Lithuanian citizenship before or after the war,
can regain it, "unless they aren't repatriants",
which means that if they haven't moved to "the land of their ancestors". This law is pointed mostly against Poles and Jews, which were big minority on current territory of
Lithuania before ww2; if after the war they were banned
or fled to Israel or Poland, they can't come back.
But this law is pointed out against all national minorities,
including Russians, which are now (before Poles) the biggest national minority in Lithuania.

[David Floyd]

WTF? Are you trying to say that we are responsible for start of WW1?

Well, Russia pretty much kicked off the series of large mobilizations, and only Russia could have prevented WW1 by urging Serbia to work with Austria-Hungary.