Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


"You personally" is one thing. But what do you personally think would be the reaction of the US if someone tried to place missiles in Cuba?

to protect against a growing nuclear threat from say, El Salvador?

I think we might just need to help stop that threat from El Salvador. Russia might consider that wrt Iran.

[lord of the mark]

"These areas – or at least large swaths of them – were integral parts of the Russian “motherland” long before Texas and California belonged to the United States. For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Welsh and Scottish independence would be to Britain or Catalonian and Basque secession would be to Spain."


How about Irish independence to Britain? or Finnish independence to Sweden, or Norwegian independence to Denmark? Did Russia historically bother with that? Didnt the Soviet Union long support the IRA? Rank hypocrisy. The USSR was anti-imperialist, and had no problem attacking dominance that was just as old,if not older than its own dominance, as long as imperialism was defined to exclude its own empire.

Would it have made more sense for Ukraine to have hade difference boundaries? Maybe, but the West didnt draw the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR. The USSR was dissolved by the voluntary action of the heads of the SSRs, none of whom was in power by the action of the West.

[The Vagabond]

Re: Re: Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

Originally posted by Geronimo
If Putin is not aware that the US was unable to involve NATO in the invasion of Iraq (ie. Washington cannot make NATO countries do what it wants) then he is either incompetent or his statements are pure politics that should be ignored.

You got him here, I must admit.

Nonetheless, it is still true that the US is much more equal in NATO than the other members. I hope you won't object to that. But it's also true that the US cannot impose on NATO whatever decision.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


to protect against a growing nuclear threat from say, El Salvador?

I think we might just need to help stop that threat from El Salvador. Russia might consider that wrt Iran.

One can always find a pretext.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"These areas – or at least large swaths of them – were integral parts of the Russian “motherland” long before Texas and California belonged to the United States. For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Welsh and Scottish independence would be to Britain or Catalonian and Basque secession would be to Spain."


How about Irish independence to Britain? or Finnish independence to Sweden, or Norwegian independence to Denmark? Did Russia historically bother with that? Didnt the Soviet Union long support the IRA? Rank hypocrisy. The USSR was anti-imperialist, and had no problem attacking dominance that was just as old,if not older than its own dominance, as long as imperialism was defined to exclude its own empire.

Would it have made more sense for Ukraine to have hade difference boundaries? Maybe, but the West didnt draw the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR. The USSR was dissolved by the voluntary action of the heads of the SSRs, none of whom was in power by the action of the West.

Arguably, Ukraine means more to Russia than Ireland to England or Norway to Denmark. Kiev is our ancient capital, etc.

Also arguably, it was never a colony or an occupied territory, but rather an organic part of the country (except for western Ukraine, of course, which was a huge strategic mistake of Stalin).

But anyway, we recognized its independence irrespective of our feelings which (the feelings) you perfectly understand. But now bah, NATO membership looming over the horizon...

As for the borders, we've got the old Bolsheviks to thank for that.

[Arrian]

But now bah, NATO membership looming over the horizon...

Join us. Resistance is futile.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
One can always find a pretext.

Not for ABM in the Western Hemisphere. There's only one nuclear power this side of the globe.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Vagabond

Arguably, Ukraine means more to Russia than Ireland to England or Norway to Denmark. Kiev is our ancient capital, etc.

As a percentage of national territory, Norway to Denmark is far larger than Ukraine to Russia.

Ancient capital? Russia had many opportunities to shift its actual capital to Kiev, but never did so.

Also arguably, it was never a colony or an occupied territory, but rather an organic part of the country (except for western Ukraine, of course, which was a huge strategic mistake of Stalin).

In Britain, France, etc having some place have the status of colony meant that the locals didnt have the rights of citizens, in particular rights to vote in national elections (although in the French case even this is not quite true)

Given the absense of rights to ANYONE during most of the tsarist period, and the Soviet period, its hard to see how ukrainians being equal to Mosovites in having NO rights made Ukraine something different from a "non self-governing territory".

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Arguably, Ukraine means more to Russia than Ireland to England or Norway to Denmark. Kiev is our ancient capital, etc.

Surely it does not meen more than Kresy for Poland.
Grodno (Hrodna) and Wilno (Vilnius) were our capitals as well, parliamentary capitals of PL commonwealth. Lwów (Lwiw) was capital of "Polish Piemont", Galicja. All three had +60 polish majority, more in Lwow. In all three the second nation were, often polonised, Jews, and Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians were small (5% of Lithuanians in Wilno, 15% of Ukrainians in Lwow) minority. Lwow and Wilno were among 5 biggest centres of polish culture and science. Indeed, most of our greatest XIX century writers, scientists, etc come from what todays is beyond our eastern boarder. Yet, we lost them and somehow can deal with that.
It should be easier - Kiev was never majorly Russian, nor Minsk, though thanks to USSR russian language pushed out similar local ones, not only in the case of Belarusians or Ukrainians, but also, to a greater extent, Poles. If You want to be in union with Belarus and Ukraine, simply join EU together with them

Also arguably, it was never a colony or an occupied territory, but rather an organic part of the country (except for western Ukraine, of course, which was a huge strategic mistake of Stalin).

Tell that to cossacks under Peter the Great or Catherine the Great, or to graves of uniates of Belarus and Ukraine forced to orthodoxy by bullets. I'd also like to remind You, that territories of former PLC remained a bit separate from the rest of RE; Jews were allowed to live there, originally they received polish educational system (thanks to prince Czartoryski), they were promessed to be added to congress KoP etc.
The "organic" vision of Belarus and Ukraine didn't mean anything different than in Poland: persecuting linguistic and religional differences, and telling Belarusians and Ukrainians they are Russians (just a worse sort of).

Don't get me wrong: I think Russia, unvoluntarily, helped both Belarus and Ukraine. Especially Belarus would be completely polish today, were there no partages. Also, Ukraine alone would never get Yedisan, Budjak, Crimea etc. But Russia didn't think about it when it was conquering these lands.

But anyway, we recognized its independence irrespective of our feelings which (the feelings) you perfectly understand. But now bah, NATO membership looming over the horizon...

And what's the problem? You can join NATO too.

I wish NATO were as picky as the EU. But not a chance. NATO is already ready to grab Ukraine and Georgia and perhaps even more.

NATO doesn't "grab" anyone. Countries, democratic countries, can join them only out of their free will.

Too expensive. But Putin promised an asymmetric response which is much cheaper.

So Russia can't afford a might status, but keeps on trying?

Ancient capital? Russia had many opportunities to shift its actual capital to Kiev, but never did so.

Kiev was the capital of Kievan Ruthenia, a common ancestor to ruthenian nations:
- Ukrainians
- Belarusians
- Russians
and Poleshuks, Rusins, Lemks etc if You count them as separate nations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

Kiev was the capital of Kievan Ruthenia, a common ancestor to ruthenian nations:
- Ukrainians
- Belarusians
- Russians
and Poleshuks, Rusins, Lemks etc if You count them as separate nations.

Sorry for being unclear.

What I meant was that when Muscovy gained control of Kiev, they did not move their capital to Kiev. Nor did they through the centuries Kiev was under Tsarist rule. Nor did the USSR. The attachment to the historic capital seems rather recent.

I would contrast it to the cases of Greece, Italy, and Israel, where placing the location of the capital was an important issue as soon as independence/unification was achieved.

BTW - why didnt unified Poland put their capital in Krakow, rather than Warsaw?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Arguably, Ukraine means more to Russia than Ireland to England or Norway to Denmark. Kiev is our ancient capital, etc.

As a percentage of national territory, Norway to Denmark is far larger than Ukraine to Russia.

Norway is geographically separated from Denmark. No wonder they ended up with their own state.

Ukraine is closer to Moscow than most of Russia (even the European part of Russia). It was organically integrated into a common state with Russia.

Ancient capital? Russia had many opportunities to shift its actual capital to Kiev, but never did so.

And so what? The Japanese don't move their capital back to Kyoto, the Spanish back to Toledo. Yet these cities are of tremendous cultural importance to these nations.

It was not just territory that was chopped off Russia. But an essential part of its culture and self-identity.

Also arguably, it was never a colony or an occupied territory, but rather an organic part of the country (except for western Ukraine, of course, which was a huge strategic mistake of Stalin).

In Britain, France, etc having some place have the status of colony meant that the locals didnt have the rights of citizens, in particular rights to vote in national elections (although in the French case even this is not quite true)

Given the absense of rights to ANYONE during most of the tsarist period, and the Soviet period, its hard to see how ukrainians being equal to Mosovites in having NO rights made Ukraine something different from a "non self-governing territory".

What, the whole history and everything in this world revolve just around the idea of free elections?
If no free elections, there is nothing at all to discuss? The USSR didn't have free elections in the western sense, yet there were plenty of other ways for the people to advance, to express and to find themselves. And within that system, all ethnic groups were equal. This is the key. Hell, there were a lot of prominent Ukranians in all spheres of live. Two of our rulers (Khruschev and Brezhnev) were Ukranians. What further evidence do you need? It was not a colony, it was an organic part of the country, fair and square (with the exception of western Ukraine). In Britain, can you imagine an Indian becoming PM?

[Kuciwalker]

t was not just territory that was chopped off Russia. But an essential part of its culture and self-identity.

Sucks for Russia then, since the Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia. Why does any of this give you the right to preempt their foreign policy?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Vagabond

Norway is geographically separated from Denmark. No wonder they ended up with their own state.

Ah the magic of a body of water, thats it, imperialism is defined by crossing water. How convenient for Russia.

Ukraine is closer to Moscow than most of Russia (even the European part of Russia).

That its be true for Warsaw and Berlin as well, no?

And so what? The Japanese don't move their capital back to Kyoto, the Spanish back to Toledo. Yet these cities are of tremendous cultural importance to these nations.

But Toledo and Kyoto arent the capitals of independent countries, and the Spanish and Japanese arent going around talking about how theyve been victimized.

It was not just territory that was chopped off Russia. But an essential part of its culture and self-identity.

again, not so important a part as to relocate the capital there in modern times.

What, the whole history and everything in this world revolve just around the idea of free elections?
If no free elections, there is nothing at all to discuss?

That and associated rights are what means you cant say that Chad was simply part of France.

The USSR didn't have free elections in the western sense,

Or in any sense.

yet there were plenty of other ways for the people to advance, to express and to find themselves.

Really, do tell.

And within that system, all ethnic groups were equal. This is the key.

Equal in the absence of rights.

Hell, there were a lot of prominent Ukranians in all spheres of live. Two of our rulers (Khruschev and Brezhnev) were Ukranians. What further evidence do you need? It was not a colony, it was an organic part of the country, fair and square (with the exception of western Ukraine). In Britain, can you imagine an Indian becoming PM?

I'll let Molly answer for UK, if hes reading this, but it wouldnt quite be out of the question for France, certainly, which had representatives from Africa in the national assembly. And UK certainly had prominent Indians in England.

Not to mention prominent whites born in the colonies, Im quite sure.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson


Surely it does not meen more than Kresy for Poland.
Grodno (Hrodna) and Wilno (Vilnius) were our capitals as well, parliamentary capitals of PL commonwealth. Lwów (Lwiw) was capital of "Polish Piemont", Galicja. All three had +60 polish majority, more in Lwow. In all three the second nation were, often polonised, Jews, and Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians were small (5% of Lithuanians in Wilno, 15% of Ukrainians in Lwow) minority. Lwow and Wilno were among 5 biggest centres of polish culture and science. Indeed, most of our greatest XIX century writers, scientists, etc come from what todays is beyond our eastern boarder. Yet, we lost them and somehow can deal with that.
It should be easier - Kiev was never majorly Russian, nor Minsk, though thanks to USSR russian language pushed out similar local ones, not only in the case of Belarusians or Ukrainians, but also, to a greater extent, Poles. If You want to be in union with Belarus and Ukraine, simply join EU together with them

Poland lost all this so long time ago that this is not even true anymore.

As for the language, it's not for a Pole to raise such a question. Wasn't it you (together with the Germans) who cooked up an artificial language for the Ukranians in order to alienate them from Russia?

Tell that to cossacks under Peter the Great or Catherine the Great, or to graves of uniates of Belarus and Ukraine forced to orthodoxy by bullets. I'd also like to remind You, that territories of former PLC remained a bit separate from the rest of RE; Jews were allowed to live there, originally they received polish educational system (thanks to prince Czartoryski), they were promessed to be added to congress KoP etc.
The "organic" vision of Belarus and Ukraine didn't mean anything different than in Poland: persecuting linguistic and religional differences, and telling Belarusians and Ukrainians they are Russians (just a worse sort of).

Don't get me wrong: I think Russia, unvoluntarily, helped both Belarus and Ukraine. Especially Belarus would be completely polish today, were there no partages. Also, Ukraine alone would never get Yedisan, Budjak, Crimea etc. But Russia didn't think about it when it was conquering these lands.

This was so long time ago. I am speaking about the recent history and fresh wounds.

Besides, what is in reality "unvoluntary" and voluntary is a big philosophical issue, which I don't want to enter here.

And what's the problem? You can join NATO too.

No, we can't. They won't let us in.

NATO doesn't "grab" anyone. Countries, democratic countries, can join them only out of their free will.

Very well. It grabs the countries that want to join voluntarily.

So Russia can't afford a might status, but keeps on trying?

Of course. One must never surrender.

Kiev was the capital of Kievan Ruthenia, a common ancestor to ruthenian nations:
- Ukrainians
- Belarusians
- Russians
and Poleshuks, Rusins, Lemks etc if You count them as separate nations.

And up to recently we had a common state with these nations, of which they were an organic part.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

t was not just territory that was chopped off Russia. But an essential part of its culture and self-identity.

Sucks for Russia then, since the Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia. Why does any of this give you the right to preempt their foreign policy?

This and their proximity to Russia makes it imperative to avoid their turning into a hostile state and joining NATO.