User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:31 am

Scorpius wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Sounds kinda "first strikey" to me... Dutchy has made no mention or indication of any intention or desire to attack Russia so no response and therefore nothing like what you suggest. Its is actually kinda threatening....

Tugg

LOL, do you live in a world of pink unicorns? Or didn't you study history? Then you'd know that the conflict of interests in which one party tries to present itself more worthy and has more right to the other party to end the war.
The history of the whole of Europe over the past three hundred years tells you that Russia's opinion on politics and territorial division in Europe and the world cannot be ignored. It ALWAYS ends in wars and defeat of Europe. And Russia as a result grows new territories. At the same time, Russia is not an aggressor unleashing such wars. You are constantly reminded of this, and constantly Europeans repeat the same mistakes. Trying to accuse Russia of being forced to react to the consequences of your actions - you make yourself look like idiots. Again and again.


Bad kremlebot! No threatening war just because Russia has a Napoleon complex!
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:55 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
As a patriot of my country, I am categorically against any division of the territory of my homeland.


Your homeland is Russia. USSR was a clusterf*ck of annexed, occupied and stolen territories. A house of cards. Russia can't even govern itself and yet you still dream of restoring the Evil Empire in all its dubious "glory"? Gimme a break.


Who was "annexed" or "occupied"? Maybe, some territories were taken into Russian Empire by military force, just as it was common practice during those periods in history. I can think of Finland early 19th century and today's Poland, but what's now called "occupations" and "annexation" was common in Europe back in those days. Many though, if not most, were joining Russian Empire and later even USSR voluntarily. Examples - Eastern Ukraine, Georgian kingdom, pretty much all Siberia. I would even mention Baltic countries in 1940s - the unification with USSR was largely supported by local population circa 1940, despite what their current governments claim.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:04 am

Jouhou wrote:
Bad kremlebot! No threatening war just because Russia has a Napoleon complex!


I'd perhaps clarify that a bit. Periodically, once every 100-150 years Europe gets united (not unlike today's EU), and decides to stick into Russia (examples - Napoleon 1812, Germany in 1945). Then this united Europe gets into serious trouble with Russia, gets its a$$ kicked, and as the result there generally are some territorial negotiations, some participants of that "united Europe" get re-positioned slightly. Such are traditions on that continent.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:07 am

anrec80 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Bad kremlebot! No threatening war just because Russia has a Napoleon complex!


I'd perhaps clarify that a bit. Periodically, once every 100-150 years Europe gets united (not unlike today's EU), and decides to stick into Russia (examples - Napoleon 1812, Germany in 1945). Then this united Europe gets into serious trouble with Russia, gets its a$$ kicked, and as the result there generally are some territorial negotiations, some participants of that "united Europe" get re-positioned slightly. Such are traditions on that continent.


But it's starting to look like Russia wants to try this out now, despite seeing many fail on their land over history. At least by some of the opinions expressed here.
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:28 am

Jouhou wrote:
But it's starting to look like Russia wants to try this out now, despite seeing many fail on their land over history. At least by some of the opinions expressed here.

It looks like Europe is once again getting ready to get fucked up after the attack on Russia.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:19 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
But it's starting to look like Russia wants to try this out now, despite seeing many fail on their land over history. At least by some of the opinions expressed here.

It looks like Europe is once again getting ready to get fucked up after the attack on Russia.


Who wants to attack Russia?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8203
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: R u s s i a

Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:59 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
But it's starting to look like Russia wants to try this out now, despite seeing many fail on their land over history. At least by some of the opinions expressed here.

It looks like Europe is once again getting ready to get fucked up after the attack on Russia.


Who wants to attack Russia?

As near as I can tell Scropius (and perhaps others in Russia) feels that any response to a Russian action. that is in any way adverse to the motherland, is equivalent to attacking Russia. So they invade a country and if you put sanctions on them, you are attacking them. And apparently this is "attacking them first" so you are "first striking them".

Remember, it's a persecution complex. They are under attack all the time, by everyone, and they are helpless and not able to stop it so they must attack (or as they imagine it, respond). It's something stuck in their head and demeans their great country. It is a problem they must solve internally themselves. However it is entirely possible they will "externalize" it.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:49 am

Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Who wants to attack Russia?



Image
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:38 am

Scorpius wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Who wants to attack Russia?



Image


Uh. From what I know of Nato base locations, that map isn't accurate.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:45 am

Scorpius wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Who wants to attack Russia?



Image


The question was who was bothered enough with Russia to seek war with them? Answer: no one. It is all in the mind of the Russians and is cultivated by Putin's government. Group thinking, have a great enemy outside and the group becomes close and less critical within. Great for Putin's autocracy and you have all the classic signs for falling for it, Scorpius. Ah well wasted bits and bytes here, you will never ever believe it that NATO doesn't want war........
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:50 am

Jouhou wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
Tugger wrote:


Image


Uh. From what I know of Nato base locations, that map isn't accurate.


Besides that, except for Europe, most bases aren't NATO basis at all, but American basis, there is a difference. It is a self-centered idea of some Russians. Simple as that.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:58 am

Dutchy wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Scorpius wrote:

Image


Uh. From what I know of Nato base locations, that map isn't accurate.


Besides that, except for Europe, most bases aren't NATO basis at all, but American basis, there is a difference. It is a self-centered idea of some Russians. Simple as that.


I literally can't figure out what that's a map of even. Doesn't line up with US bases either. Pretty sure someone just stamped nato logos randomly on a map.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:08 am

Probably that is the case, someone playing around with a map, do I dare to say it is someone in St. Petersburg?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:49 am

Image
The expansion of NATO in the direction of the Eastern part says much more about your plans, gentlemen europeans and americans.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:56 am

Tugger wrote:
Remember, it's a persecution complex.

Paranoia, "under siege" mentality and total denial of their own past is part of Russian collective psyché.
If you get a chance, watch this movie documentary: https://youtu.be/zq13WQxF8l8
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:59 am

Scorpius wrote:
The expansion of NATO in the direction of the Eastern part says much more about your plans, gentlemen europeans and americans.


Thanks for proving Tugger's point. :roll:
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:22 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Image
The expansion of NATO in the direction of the Eastern part says much more about your plans, gentlemen europeans and americans.


Yup paranoia. Countries whom wants to have some security, which I can understand looking at the history, and therefore applied for NATO membership. And looking at your warmongering statements, I would say the other way around is far more likely. You are on record saying the Baltic region is part of Russia for instance. Don't turn your own expansion plans around, my Russian friend. Russia seized a lot of territories lately, either by destabilization or real occupation.

That is the "funny" thing with you, you accuse everybody of everything but Russia is the one whom actually is doing it.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:32 pm

Question. How do You assess the last speech of Mr. Churchill delivered in the United States of America?
Answer. I regard it as a dangerous act calculated to sow the seeds of discord between the allied States and impede their collaboration.
Question. Can we assume that Mr. Churchill's speech is detrimental to the cause of peace and security?
Answer. Of course, Yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill is now in the position of arsonists of war. And Mr. Churchill is not alone — he has friends not only in England but in the United States of America. It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are a striking reminder in this regard, Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the cause of waging war by declaring racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation.
Mr. Churchill begins the cause of the outbreak of war, too, with racial theory, arguing that only Nations speaking English are full-fledged Nations called to decide the fate of the world. The German racial theory brought Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans as the only full-fledged nation should rule over other Nations. The English race theory leads Mr Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that Nations speaking the English language, as the only full-fledged should rule over the other Nations of the world.
In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States present Nations not speaking the English language, a kind of ultimatum: recognize our domination voluntarily and then all will be fine, otherwise inevitable war.
But Nations shed blood for five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their countries, not to replace the rule of the Nazis with the rule of Churchilli. It is likely, therefore, that non-English-speaking Nations, which together constitute the vast majority of the world's population, will not accept new slavery.
The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, as a hardened Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.
There is no doubt that the setup of Mr. Churchill is at war, call to war with the Soviet Union. It is also clear that such a setup of Mr. Churchill's is incompatible with the existing Treaty of Alliance between England and the Soviet Union. However, Mr. Churchill in order to confuse readers, in passing declares that the term of the Soviet - English Treaty on mutual assistance and cooperation could be extended to 50 years.
But how to combine such a statement of Mr. Churchill with his installation on the war with the USSR, with his preaching of war against the USSR? It is clear that these things can not be combined. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war with the Soviet Union, considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty to 50 years, it means that he considers this Treaty as an empty piece of paper, necessary for him only to cover it and disguise his anti-Soviet installation.
Therefore, it is impossible to take seriously the false statements of Mr. Churchill's friends in England to extend the term of the Soviet-English Treaty to 50 years or more. The extension of the term of the contract does not make sense if one of the parties violates the contract and turns it into an empty piece of paper.
Question. How do you view the part of Mr. Churchill's speech where he attacks the democratic system of our neighboring European States and where he criticizes the good-neighbourly relations established between these States and the Soviet Union?

Answer. This part of Mr. Churchill's speech is a mixture of slander elements with elements of rudeness and tactless.
Mr. Churchill asserts that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia — all these famous cities and the populations in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence but to a large extent, the increasing control of Moscow." Mr. Churchill qualifies all this as having no borders "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.
It does not take much effort to show that Mr. Churchill rudely and shamelessly slander here both Moscow and the named neighboring States of the USSR.
First, it is absurd to speak of exclusive Soviet control in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils with representatives from four States and where the USSR has only 1/4 of the votes. It happens that some people can not slander, but we need to know the measure.
Secondly, we must not forget the following facts. The Germans made the invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union.
As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost about seven million people to German hard labor in the battles with the Germans, as well as the German occupation and hijacking of the Soviet people. In other words, the Soviet Union lost several times more people than England and the United States of America combined. Perhaps in some places they tend to forget these colossal victims of the Soviet people, who provided the liberation of Europe from Hitler's yoke.
But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that in these countries there are governments loyal to the Soviet Union? How is it possible, without going crazy, to qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
Mr. Churchill argues that"the Polish government, which is under the domination of the Russians, was encouraged to huge and unfair encroachments on Germany."
Here is that word is rude and offensive slander. Modern democratic Poland is led by outstanding people. They proved in practice that they are able to defend the interests and dignity of the Motherland in a way that their predecessors were not able to do. What is the basis for Mr. Churchill's claim that the leaders of modern Poland can allow "domination" of representatives of any foreign States in his country? Is it not because of the slander here Mr. Churchill on the "Russian" that has the intention to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union?..
Mr. Churchill is displeased with what Poland did a u-turn in its policy towards friendship and Alliance with the Soviet Union. There was a time when the relations between Poland and the USSR were dominated by elements of conflicts and contradictions. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to pick up Poland under the guise of protection from Russians, to intimidate Russia by the specter of war between her and Poland and to maintain for themselves the position of arbitrator.
But this time is a thing of the past, because the enmity between Poland and Russia has given way to friendship between them, and Poland, a modern democratic Poland, no longer wants to be a ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that this circumstance leads Mr. Churchill in irritation and pushes him to rude, tactless antics against Poland. It's no joke to say he's not allowed to play at someone else's expense...
As for the attacks of Mr. Churchill on the Soviet Union in connection with the expansion of Western borders
Poland due to the last captured by the Germans in Polish territories, there is, I think, it explicitly distorts the map. It is known that the decision on the Western borders of Poland was made at the Berlin conference of three powers on the basis of requirements of Poland. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers the demands of Poland correct and fair.
It is likely that Mr. Churchill is dissatisfied with this decision. But why Mr. Churchill, sparing no arrows against the position of the Russian in this issue, hides from his readers the fact that the decision was taken at the Berlin conference unanimously, that the decision voted not only Russian, but also the British and Americans? What was the need for Mr Churchill to lead people astray?
Mr. Churchill goes on to argue that "Communist parties, which have been very insignificant in all of these Eastern European States, have reached an exceptional force far superior to their numbers, and seek everywhere to establish totalitarian control, police governments, prevail in almost all of these countries and to date, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, they do not have any genuine democracy."
It is known that in England one party, labour party operates now the state, and oppositional parties are deprived of the right to participate in the government of England. This is called from Mr. Churchill a true democracy.
In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary manages a block of several parties — from four to six parties, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, ensured the right to participate in the government.
This is called from Mr. Churchill totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule. Why, on what basis — do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself by his vociferous speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, police rule.
Mr. Churchill would like Poland was ruled by Sosnowski and Anders, Yugoslavia — M. and Pavelic, Romania — Prince Stirbei and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some king of the house of Habsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the fascist gate may provide a "genuine democracy". This is the "democracy" of Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Churchill wanders about the truth when he talks about the growing influence of Communist parties in Eastern Europe. However, it should be noted that it is not quite accurate. The influence of Communist parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism used to dominate (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where German, Italian or Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).
The rise of Communist influence cannot be considered an accident. It is quite natural phenomenon. The influence of the Communists grew because during the hard years of the domination of fascism in Europe, the Communists proved reliable, courageous, self-sacrificing fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom of peoples.
Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about "ordinary people from small houses", Barsky patting them on the shoulder and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not as simple as it may seem at first glance. They, "ordinary people", have their own views, their own policies, and they know how to stand up for themselves. They are the millions of these "common people" who have banned Mr. Churchill and his party in England, giving their votes to labour.
It is they, millions of these "ordinary people", isolated in Europe reactioners, supporters of cooperation with fascism and gave preference to the left democratic parties. It is they, millions of these "ordinary people", having experienced the Communists in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the Communists deserve completely the confidence of the people. Thus increased the influence of Communists in Europe. This is the law of historical development. Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development, and he has sounded the alarm, appealing to force. But he also didn't like the appearance of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First world war. He also beat then the alarm and organized a military campaign "14 States" against Russia, making it my goal to turn back the wheel of history. But the story was stronger cursillistas intervention and the quixotic manners of Mr. Churchill led to what he then suffered a complete defeat.
I do not know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will be able to organize a new campaign against Eastern Europe after the second world war. But if they succeed— which is unlikely, because millions of" ordinary people " stand guard over the cause of peace — it is safe to say that they will be hit just as they were hit in the past, 26 years ago.
(An interview with Stalin's Pravda newspaper on Churchill's speech in Fulton. March 14, 1946)
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:55 pm

I see there is a Retro Day at the troll factory today.
You've sure got that one right... Stalin's "Pravda".
BTW, the interview is with whom?
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:00 pm

L410Turbolet wrote:
I see there is a Retro Day at the troll factory today.
You've sure got that one right... Stalin's "Pravda".
BTW, the interview is with whom?

An interview with Stalin for the newspaper "Pravda". Do you not know about the existence of such a newspaper?
 
User avatar
Dahlgardo
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:46 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:12 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Image
The expansion of NATO in the direction of the Eastern part says much more about your plans, gentlemen europeans and americans.


Don't you think free democratic sovereign nations should be able to decide for themselves which alliances they want to be a part of?
You forget these countries have had the experience to be under the "Russian sfhere of interest".
Apparently this was not fun.
leave your nines at home and bring your skills to the battle
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:15 pm

Scorpius wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:
I see there is a Retro Day at the troll factory today.
You've sure got that one right... Stalin's "Pravda".
BTW, the interview is with whom?

An interview with Stalin for the newspaper "Pravda". Do you not know about the existence of such a newspaper?


To be totally honest, I am scared about the Vikings, don't you know they already invaded The Netherlands multiple times, first time was in 810(!).
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:21 pm

Of course I know it. That's why I wrote it in hyphens. "Pravda" written in Pravda had nothing to do with the truth.

Anyway, I don't see what point you are trying to get across by copy/pasting an interview with a mass murderer and a tyrant from 70 years ago? To reaffirm your image of a Soviet revanchist?


Mr. Churchill goes on to argue that "Communist parties, which have been very insignificant in all of these Eastern European States, have reached an exceptional force far superior to their numbers, and seek everywhere to establish totalitarian control, police governments


History has proven Churchill to be spot on with his predictions.
Hovewer, this is a real gem:

How is it possible, without going crazy, to qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:34 pm

Dahlgardo wrote:
Don't you think free democratic sovereign nations should be able to decide for themselves which alliances they want to be a part of?
You forget these countries have had the experience to be under the "Russian sfhere of interest".
Apparently this was not fun.

What independent democracies are in question if you yourself have recently indicated that the separation procedures carried out in violation of the Constitution of States are null and void? Maybe let the two of you finally start telling the truth - NATO supported the separatism in the Soviet Union, declared illegitimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, held in violation of the Constitution, and now in the ranks of the separatists in order to weaken Russia before you try to attack her.
 
User avatar
Dahlgardo
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:46 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:52 pm

Scorpius wrote:
What independent democracies are in question if you yourself have recently indicated that the separation procedures carried out in violation of the Constitution of States are null and void? Maybe let the two of you finally start telling the truth - NATO supported the separatism in the Soviet Union, declared illegitimate dissolution of the Soviet Union, held in violation of the Constitution, and now in the ranks of the separatists in order to weaken Russia before you try to attack her.


Only the Baltic states (which was illegally annexed) are current NATO-countries that were a part of the ex Soviet Union.
The Soviet empire fell apart because it was DONE. It was a politcally, economically and humantarian disaster.
Once the former eastern block countries became democratic and independent they rejected Russia completely and joined EU and NATO.
My inlaws are from Legnica, and they can tell you what it was like to be under Russian occupation and sphere of interest.
It was not fun.

As for the Soviet Union, it was the acting Russian president that dissolved the Soviet union.
leave your nines at home and bring your skills to the battle
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:03 pm

Thanks Scorpius, for giving us some detail on the bullshit you Russian elites sell to the Russian version of deplorables.
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:15 pm

Dahlgardo wrote:
My inlaws are from Legnica, and they can tell you what it was like to be under Russian occupation and sphere of interest.
It was not fun.

I wonder how much fun it was under English occupation to the people of India?
And how fun was it for the people of Vietnam under French occupation?
And how much fun is the people of Afghanistan living under American occupation?
As there occupied by the British part of Ireland, is there enough fun? And how's Scotland?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:27 pm

Dahlgardo wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
Image
The expansion of NATO in the direction of the Eastern part says much more about your plans, gentlemen europeans and americans.


Don't you think free democratic sovereign nations should be able to decide for themselves which alliances they want to be a part of?
You forget these countries have had the experience to be under the "Russian sfhere of interest".
Apparently this was not fun.


haven't you learned anything from our resident Russian propagandist? He believes in great Russia and all this territory needs to listen to mother Russia. So no, he doesn't believe these countries have the right to decide for themselves. That is the whole point of Scorpius.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dahlgardo
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:46 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:33 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Dahlgardo wrote:
My inlaws are from Legnica, and they can tell you what it was like to be under Russian occupation and sphere of interest.
It was not fun.

I wonder how much fun it was under English occupation to the people of India?
And how fun was it for the people of Vietnam under French occupation?
And how much fun is the people of Afghanistan living under American occupation?
As there occupied by the British part of Ireland, is there enough fun? And how's Scotland?


I'm glad you can see how imperialism and oppression is bad, and you need to accept the borders of sovereign nations.
leave your nines at home and bring your skills to the battle
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8203
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:03 pm

Scorpius wrote:
I wonder how much fun it was under English occupation to the people of India?
And how fun was it for the people of Vietnam under French occupation?
And how much fun is the people of Afghanistan living under American occupation?
As there occupied by the British part of Ireland, is there enough fun? And how's Scotland?

India is a free and sovereign nation now. It has border battles and concerns with neighboring nations but no one including Britain believe they should be subject to those nations and follow their directives.

Vietnam is also a free and sovereign nation now. It has concerns with neighboring nations but is stable and no one including France believe they should be subject to the neighbors or former occupiers and follow their directives.

Afghanistan is actually a free nation now, it has major issues and the "assistance" that the USA offer has not helped it. Much like the assistance Russia/the USSR provided it in years past. I do not think the USA should be any more involved than I believe Russia should be involved in assisting some of it neighbors.

Northern Ireland is not "occupied" unless you think Kaliningrad is "occupied" (oh and maybe you could throw Crimea in as well). There is a long history there and Ireland is not threatening to invade not calling for an end to any occupation. The people there need to make their own decisions and they have been working on that now for about 20 years now. And in fact Britain is encouraging its autonomy.

Scotland has autonomy and it will be allowed to leave, to separate itself from rule by London if it so chooses. Are there any places in Russia or its sphere where that is allowed?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:58 pm

Dahlgardo wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
Dahlgardo wrote:
My inlaws are from Legnica, and they can tell you what it was like to be under Russian occupation and sphere of interest.
It was not fun.

I wonder how much fun it was under English occupation to the people of India?
And how fun was it for the people of Vietnam under French occupation?
And how much fun is the people of Afghanistan living under American occupation?
As there occupied by the British part of Ireland, is there enough fun? And how's Scotland?


I'm glad you can see how imperialism and oppression is bad, and you need to accept the borders of sovereign nations.


:checkmark: and hopefully he will embrace what he is priesting.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Alfons
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: R u s s i a

Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:28 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Dahlgardo wrote:
My inlaws are from Legnica, and they can tell you what it was like to be under Russian occupation and sphere of interest.
It was not fun.

I wonder how much fun it was under English occupation to the people of India?
And how fun was it for the people of Vietnam under French occupation?
And how much fun is the people of Afghanistan living under American occupation?
As there occupied by the British part of Ireland, is there enough fun? And how's Scotland?


The citizens of a democratic ruled country, are deciding where they want to go. Not a leader of a foreign communist country. Do you agree to that?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:13 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Who wants to attack Russia?



[img]...[/img]



Image

In general, within the EU nobody wants to fight, in Russia on the other hand.......

http://www.welingelichtekringen.nl/same ... rland.html
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8203
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: R u s s i a

Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:22 pm

Dutchy wrote:
In general, within the EU nobody wants to fight, in Russia on the other hand.......

Weirdly your image is missing a key piece, the phrase at the top:
Image

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: R u s s i a

Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:50 pm

Tugger wrote:
Weirdly your image is missing a key piece, the phrase at the top:
This! Also, the specific question(s) of the survey is not explained. If asked “would you fight to defend your country when it is attacked” will get another answer then “would you fight if your country ordered you to Afghanistan”.

Come on Dutchy, you van do better.
Attamottamotta!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:06 pm

petertenthije wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Weirdly your image is missing a key piece, the phrase at the top:
This! Also, the specific question(s) of the survey is not explained. If asked “would you fight to defend your country when it is attacked” will get another answer then “would you fight if your country ordered you to Afghanistan”.

Come on Dutchy, you van do better.


Exactly, the question put forward would you fight for your country could mean both things, but if all people are asked the same, the results are nevertheless relevant. Just shows that war isn't on the mind of most EU citizens.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:17 pm

Still unsure, mr Putin about your victory tomorrow?

A day before the presidential election, the Russian police sat in several cities on Saturday in offices of the opposition movement of Aleksei Navalny and other opposition parties.

An unknown number of people were arrested at the raids. Members of Navalny's party in St. Petersburg had announced that they would serve as observers on the election on behalf of their leader.


I guess Mr. Putin doesn't like observers whom doesn't serve him.

In Dutch: https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/5181305/ru ... ingen.html
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:20 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Still unsure, mr Putin about your victory tomorrow?

A day before the presidential election, the Russian police sat in several cities on Saturday in offices of the opposition movement of Aleksei Navalny and other opposition parties.

An unknown number of people were arrested at the raids. Members of Navalny's party in St. Petersburg had announced that they would serve as observers on the election on behalf of their leader.


I guess Mr. Putin doesn't like observers whom doesn't serve him.

In Dutch: https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/5181305/ru ... ingen.html


Dutchy, what's your (or this newspaper for that reason) problem? Every country has their own legislature and enforcement practices. And - Mr. Navalny does not have a party.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Exactly, the question put forward would you fight for your country could mean both things, but if all people are asked the same, the results are nevertheless relevant. Just shows that war isn't on the mind of most EU citizens.


Dutchy, who cares what's on the mind of yours or other EU citizens? A big uncle from Washington, DC will come and say "EU goes to war". And that's it. And the EU leaders will simply "demonstrate solidarity", because they don't know how to do anything else.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:07 pm

Breaking news: Putin wins Russian election. I'm shocked.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:21 pm

Jouhou wrote:
Breaking news: Putin wins Russian election. I'm shocked.


And not only that - his results completely fit into "democratic" standards. And what's even more surprising - there was one other candidate who gained more than 10% of votes!!!
 
WIederling
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: R u s s i a

Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:19 am

anrec80 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
Breaking news: Putin wins Russian election. I'm shocked.


And not only that - his results completely fit into "democratic" standards. And what's even more surprising - there was one other candidate who gained more than 10% of votes!!!


As long as the US designated Leader of the Russian Opposition doesn't win the election the outcome must be seen as tainted.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Scorpius
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: R u s s i a

Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:00 am

WIederling wrote:
As long as the US designated Leader of the Russian Opposition doesn't win the election the outcome must be seen as tainted.

Oh, let alone have to Navalny. That horse died a long time ago.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: R u s s i a

Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:17 am

Scorpius wrote:
WIederling wrote:
As long as the US designated Leader of the Russian Opposition doesn't win the election the outcome must be seen as tainted.

Oh, let alone have to Navalny. That horse died a long time ago.


Western press outlets haven't noticed yet. :-)
Navalny still is first stop for talking about the current elections.
See last nights Tagesschau, ...
Murphy is an optimist
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:11 am

WIederling wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
WIederling wrote:
As long as the US designated Leader of the Russian Opposition doesn't win the election the outcome must be seen as tainted.

Oh, let alone have to Navalny. That horse died a long time ago.


Western press outlets haven't noticed yet. :-)
Navalny still is first stop for talking about the current elections.
See last nights Tagesschau, ...


One Navalny's best friends (K. Sobchak) was running for President. She didn't score even 1%. This is the real weight of this "first stop".
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:46 am

XCLUSIVE: ‘Lone DNC Hacker’ Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
Robert Mueller’s team has taken over the investigation of Guccifer 2.0, who communicated with (and was defended by) longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.
SPENCER ACKERMAN
KEVIN POULSEN
03.22.18 7:00 PM ET
Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU), The Daily Beast has learned. It’s an attribution that resulted from a fleeting but critical slip-up in GRU tradecraft.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive ... ce-officer

We will see where this will lead to.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:13 pm

Dutchy wrote:
XCLUSIVE: ‘Lone DNC Hacker’ Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
Robert Mueller’s team has taken over the investigation of Guccifer 2.0, who communicated with (and was defended by) longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.
SPENCER ACKERMAN
KEVIN POULSEN
03.22.18 7:00 PM ET
Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU), The Daily Beast has learned. It’s an attribution that resulted from a fleeting but critical slip-up in GRU tradecraft.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive ... ce-officer

We will see where this will lead to.



Yeah - “as “the daily beast”has learned. How and from where - omitted, as usually.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:46 am

L410Turbolet wrote:

Why would allegedly peace loving Russia, the same Russia that pledges never to attack anyone invade the Netherlands? Makes no sense. Have you fallen out of your script?


Why does not it make sense? You've been told before here about some traditions on the Eurasian continent. Every 100-150 years or so Europe gets united, and then goes to war into Russia. Where it suffers defeat and gets into trouble. As the consequence, Russians visiting Netherlands is perfectly understandable, agreeable and reasonable, agree? Just as visiting Germany in 1945.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6549
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:23 pm

anrec80 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:

Why would allegedly peace loving Russia, the same Russia that pledges never to attack anyone invade the Netherlands? Makes no sense. Have you fallen out of your script?


Why does not it make sense? You've been told before here about some traditions on the Eurasian continent. Every 100-150 years or so Europe gets united, and then goes to war into Russia. Where it suffers defeat and gets into trouble. As the consequence, Russians visiting Netherlands is perfectly understandable, agreeable and reasonable, agree? Just as visiting Germany in 1945.


I can only shake my head about this. This is an unbelievable why of reasoning.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
anrec80
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: R u s s i a

Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
L410Turbolet wrote:

Why would allegedly peace loving Russia, the same Russia that pledges never to attack anyone invade the Netherlands? Makes no sense. Have you fallen out of your script?


Why does not it make sense? You've been told before here about some traditions on the Eurasian continent. Every 100-150 years or so Europe gets united, and then goes to war into Russia. Where it suffers defeat and gets into trouble. As the consequence, Russians visiting Netherlands is perfectly understandable, agreeable and reasonable, agree? Just as visiting Germany in 1945.


I can only shake my head about this. This is an unbelievable why of reasoning.


What’s unbelievable? L410Turbolet asked if it’s at all possible for Russians to pay a visit to Netherlands. I just asnwered his question and explained an example of such circumstances.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2707200X, mad99, smallvoyageur and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos