ZKCIF wrote:

I quote from jaro76, post 2271 in this thread:

Heck, Baltics did not consider any Russian living there a native even they were born there during USSR times.

My background:
I am Lithuanian, and, apart from travelling, I have been living in Lithuania all of my life.
I live in Kaunas, the city which has always been the symbol of nationalism in Lithuania.
I was born in 1975 and lived 15 years in the Soviet Union. Genetically, I am Jewish, but my first language is Lithuanian. I am perfectly fluent in Russian.
I represented an Anti-Soviet family, and I was prosecuted for my political views from the age of 7 (seven) when I refused to wear the Lenin's badge and I wore instead the badge featuring Trakai Castle, one of the symbols of our statehood. In my pre-teen years, I already knew in person many leaders of political resistance, such as Nijolė Sadūnaitė.
As early as in the primary school, I had talks with 'men in grey' about my political views.
Therefore, I believe that if anyone in Lithuania can have the worst grudge against the USSR, i am in a tiny group of several hundred or only several dozen people.

Therefore, I believe that I am qualified to know what it feels to be a Lithuanian in Lithuania and a Russian in Lithuania.
In Lithuania, there is no discrimination of the people of the Russian origin. Russian people are as respected as anyone else here.
We can even come back to the years of the 16th century religious fights in Europe and remember the only country where all religions and nationalities were actually and really tolerated and respected. Correct, that was Lithuania (and that continued after the full union with Poland, after 1569).
I have a Russian colleague. EVERYBODY considers her native.
In my previous job (before 2021; for 23 years in total), I had two Russian colleagues. Both were not singled out any time. They are native.
My PhD supervisor was Russian. She would be shocked if she found out that she is worse in our society.
My MA supervisor was Russian. And he was native.
These people do not want war.
And these people have always been an equal and valuable part of our society.
And these people are donating heavily (except for one putinist; yet even she has never been ostracized)
they speak fluent Lithuanian, even though it is probably the third most difficult language in Europe
I have taught more than 50 Russian students in my life. no segregation among children. same parties, same beer and cigarettes, same sex. no one cares if you are Lithuanian or Russian
Come to Lithuania anytime and see what's the situation of Russians here.
In Vilnius Airport, many important messages are in 3 languages, including Russian. Same goes at Vilnius railway station.

rant over
this was not a personal attack, but rather information that some people on this forum base their claims on explicit lies in order to disrupt the constructive conversation

After independence in 1991, the Estonian government automatically granted Estonian citizenship to the persons who resided in the country before its annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940, as well as to their descendants. Those who could not prove that or arrived after 1940 and their children born in Estonia or elsewhere could acquire Estonian citizenship on condition that they be proficient in the Estonian language and know the country's history. But about 125,000 people (most but not all of whom were Russian speakers) who failed the tests or refused to take them have become stateless, or “non-citizens”, who hold a grey passport.

The non-citizens are "citizens of the former USSR (...) who reside in the Republic of Latvia as well as who are in temporary absence and their children who simultaneously comply with the following conditions: 1) on 1 July 1992 they were registered in the territory of Latvia regardless of the status of the living space indicated in the registration of residence, or up to 1 July 1992 their last registered place of residence was in the Republic of Latvia, or it has been determined by a court judgment that they have resided in the territory of Latvia for 10 consecutive years until the referred to date; 2) they are not citizens of Latvia; and 3) they are not and have not been citizens of another state." as well as "children of [the aforementioned] if both of their parents were non-citizens at the time of the birth of the children or one of the parents is a non-citizen, but the other is a stateless person or is unknown, or in accordance with the mutual agreement of the parents, if one of the parents is a non-citizen, but the other – a citizen of another country".[2]

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

So what!? If your previous acquaintances decide they’d like to be friends with someone else and not you then it’s on YOU to change your behaviour NOT on others to appease you lest you have a violent outburst. Maybe they don’t like you because of your tendency towards violent outbursts. One might imagine that directing a violent outburst toward a previous acquaintance won’t help in that regard and unsurprisingly their new friends might actually help them not be a victim to those violent outbursts.

Russia is currently the equivalent of the angry ex-boyfriend walking around with a gun threatening new partners in the hope that that will bring her back. You seem to be suggesting that just a little bit of non consensual sex is acceptable to appease and him and then maybe he’ll be nicer to everyone else…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

jaro76 wrote:

To a degree I agree. However, how is this any different from 1992 Cuba. The only difference is that USA (the violent bully ex in this case) and the new boyfriend (Russia) were able to find a solution that worked for both.

johns624 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

Why does Russia need a "buffer zone"? Their old buffer zone was smaller, poorer countries who they subjugated and oppressed, who finally got their independence. NATO has not desire to go to the Urals.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

How do you think the influx of heavy weaponry to civilians will play into an EU bid?

To be clear, I'm not against arming the populace here, and I'm for Ukraine's quick entry into the EU, but it's an interesting question. Ukraine being in the EU will surely open the borders of Ukraine into the EU, and weapons can easily flow in ...

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

1991-2010

Ah, I thought you were talking about the time from the establishment of NATO.

Seems to me, from 1991-2010, portion of Russian society was too busy getting rich by selling petroleum to the West to worry about NATO.

bt

jaro76 wrote:

Buffer zone was needed for their protection and slow down potential enemy. There is no natural obstacle in the northern European plain.

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

To a degree I agree. However, how is this any different from 1992 Cuba. The only difference is that USA (the violent bully ex in this case) and the new boyfriend (Russia) were able to find a solution that worked for both.

You must mean 1962?

I would think now many in Cuba would love to become the new US girl friend but many may not want to lose that cultural identity and chaos that will come with rapid economic development.

bt

jaro76 wrote:

As for no desire of NATO to go to Ural. Well, maybe not now. But can happen ... Just that is not now, can change. At least that is realistic view on history.

jaro76 wrote:

As for part of the society getting rich .. well, west helped to plunder Russian economy during Yeltsin times. We closed our collective eyes and let dirty money flow to the western banks. But that is for other discussions.

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Buffer zone was needed for their protection and slow down potential enemy. There is no natural obstacle in the northern European plain.

So putin should have been able to maintain an “operation human shield” against their will so he wouldn’t have a tantrum? Well as it is right now he invaded that “human shield” and so if Ukraine capitulate, as you suggested, then what next, move the buffer zone away? Remove folks from NATO.

Why should russia get special treatment and be able to deny some countries freedoms afforded to others just so they can behave badly.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SL1200MK2 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

NATO membership must be requested by Ukraine. It would have been difficult because there was already an active war in Eastern Ukraine.

But good question.

Sweden and Finland would be easier to admit because economic and military ties are already established.



Excuses. People uses history to buffer their own fear and belief. Sometimes it is justified and sometimes it is paranoia.

You can find examples around the word when chances for democracy is derailed by greed and power lust (among other human failings) by various groups. Afghanistan is the latest example among many stretching to Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Democratization like NATO memberhsip require certain factors to come together. Some are lucky to attain it but require the cooperation of the populace.

bt

Paranoia is not rational. But people in general are not. If you want to be on a good terms, triggering paranoia is not good.
Also, if one side can argument with paranoia, than it is also OK for others (Baltics/Poland vs Russia paranoia).

As for democracy being needed for membership in NATO .. well, Turkey is prime example that we do not mind that much.
So having Russia on path to democracy (90' ) in a full ascension process would IMHO help a lot and prevent current situation.

So are you essentially saying that if we’re nice to Russia, they’ll be nice back? Are there are historical precedents set that show they can behave like big boys are girls?

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

We never tried when we had a chance. So we do not know. They did ask to join, but were refused in informal settings. I already sent you links about that.

That's because the West was still hoping to retain its imperial influences and Russia was busy expanding its own aspiration by supporting revolutions around the word. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.

To say that NATO could have offered Russia membership would be like offering a man a Toyota while he's driving a Ferrari.

bt

flipdewaf wrote:

johns624 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

Why does Russia need a "buffer zone"? Their old buffer zone was smaller, poorer countries who they subjugated and oppressed, who finally got their independence. NATO has not desire to go to the Urals.

As far as I can tell the “buffer zone” really means a way to keep a sphere of influence whilst not having to modify abhorrent behaviour.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Putin called the sanctions almost an act of war, so it must hurt somehow….

I don't get what he intended by saying that. Saying it before the war, OK, it might make some countries hesitant. But saying it now that sanctions are already in place, and he hasn't started a nuclear holocaust in response, is useless.

Note also that he has not turned off his oil / gas exports and countries are still buying.

jaro76 wrote:

Now I think that passed and they should find a better way to go from communist rule to democracy than the shock and super corrupt times in the European ex communist block. Hope they succeed in that and keep their identity in the process.

889091 wrote:

take a Toyota any day over a Ferrari......

889091 wrote:

How are countries actually still paying for this? Gold bars? Serious question though.

Aesma wrote:

Ukraine will not become an EU member anytime soon, so the point is quite moot.

jaro76 wrote:

I'm saying that if we would get Russia into NATO in the 90', together with Baltics and Poland, they would be no paranoia in Russia and we would probably never have to deal with alienated Russia by now.

jaro76 wrote:

Abhorrent behavior in 1991-2002? Like what?

jaro76 wrote:

IMHO Finland was totally acceptable scenario for Russia.

bikerthai wrote:

889091 wrote:

take a Toyota any day over a Ferrari......

Touche'



With gas prices going up, I'm glad I have an electric car.

bt

wingman wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

So right here, right now, in this 10 day old conflict you would advise NATO to declare war on Russia and start WWIII? That's what you and others on this forum are advocating for, going beyond the crystal clear boundaries of NATO's founding principles and obligations to engage with Russia in Ukraine, and likely within days in the Baltics, Poland, Germany and beyond. You think this is the correct move at this juncture? I want you to write down in this thread so we can all see it - "I, Pellegrine, believe that WWIII is the only intelligent move we can make right now." I'm not insulting you, I'm challenging you to type that out so you can, hopefully, appreciate the undeniable madness of it.

bikerthai wrote:

To say that NATO could have offered Russia membership would be like offering a man a Toyota while he's driving a Ferrari.

tomcat wrote:

You obviously don't live in one of these European countries where electricity price is going through the roof .

petertenthije wrote:

A toyota might be boring as hell, but it will always work, maintenance is relatively cheap, running costs are cheap and it will fit a whole family.

Meanwhile, a Ferrari is very exciting for sure. But unless you are loaded with cash, the maintenance and running costs will run you down. Not to mention having to take out the engine every other year for heavy maintenance.

tomcat wrote:

[...]You obviously don't live in one of these European countries where electricity price is going through the roof .[...]

lightsaber wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well you are absolutely wrong. It is abundantly clear that given an inch putin tries to take a foot, he has crept his way in to this awful position and likely the previous lack of action has emboldened him rather than trying to be friendly and capitulating further than has already been done is not sensible. When a child has a tantrum over wanting something the easy thing to do is to give them that thing, the right thing to do is something different, not because it is better for the immediate but because it is better for the long term.

You know how utterly useless what you are suggesting is right? It’s like when someone asks “what’s the best way to get to X?” And then responding with “starting from somewhere else”

You have continually advocated rolling over and letting the Russians have Ukraine and likely lead to removed freedoms for the Ukrainian people under the guise of ‘less deaths now’. You have also suggested that the freedom of nations to join NATO should have been removed to appease a dictator who claimed it posed a threat when self evidently the threat is FROM that dictator, even to his own people, although that’s hardly surprising.

Putin saying “I don’t want them joining NATO in case they are a threat to me” is really “I don’t want them joining NATO so I remain a threat to them”

You say you aren’t a putin apologist but everything else you have stated sings a different tune.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not his apologist. If something, I'm Russia 1991-2001 apologist. But that is for other discussion.

What I'm trying to say here, that beside:
- give Ukraine more weapons
- punish Putin
I do not see any long term plan. That is exactly the problem that get us into current situation. Well, at least in my opinion.
What is our long term plan? More sanctions? Sanctions forever?
Well, considering how great they worked on Cuba, we are in for a loooooong wait. Which is IMHO not good. And they will not solve how we are going to integrate Russia? Before ww2 end, there was already a plan how to rebuild and integrate Germany. I really hope this war will not be as long as ww2. So I would expect already someone planning how to avoid same mistake as we did with ww1 Germany and Russia after 1991.

The long term plan is integrate Ukraine into the EU economy.

To avoid this is for Russia to withdrawal from Ukraine, including the Crimea.

You are comparing the wrong wars, this is Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Put a large number of rifles into civilian hands so only a just government can rule, I suggest 20 million plus 20 billion rounds of ammo. At least 20,000 javalins and 5,000 stingers. Of course smuggle into the Crimea weapons

This will be a long partisan fight as the people of Ukraine do not want to be under a Tsar again.

The other long term plan is to make such an unjust war too costly to consider ever again. Have you read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat?" One must read that book to understand the sanctions have so far been light.

Soon people will realize tougher sanctions are needed to disuade such behavior. This is to prevent future unjust wars. I'm curious what other sanctions must be implimented. I personally feel strong enough about this I am diverting money away from business supporting Russia and thus the invasion.

Sanctions haven't mattered yet. Time to get real with them and punish companies and countries bypassing them.

I've never before seen the world so united on an issue.

Lightsaber

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Buffer zone was needed for their protection and slow down potential enemy. There is no natural obstacle in the northern European plain.

So putin should have been able to maintain an “operation human shield” against their will so he wouldn’t have a tantrum? Well as it is right now he invaded that “human shield” and so if Ukraine capitulate, as you suggested, then what next, move the buffer zone away? Remove folks from NATO.

Why should russia get special treatment and be able to deny some countries freedoms afforded to others just so they can behave badly.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

As for no desire of NATO to go to Ural. Well, maybe not now. But can happen ... Just that is not now, can change. At least that is realistic view on history.

Just as realistic as Russia wanting Alaska back.

jaro76 wrote:

As for part of the society getting rich .. well, west helped to plunder Russian economy during Yeltsin times. We closed our collective eyes and let dirty money flow to the western banks. But that is for other discussions.

Just like the West plundering South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc.

At last you have just admit that it is your fault "We closed our collective eyes" . Do not punish Ukraine for that failure.

bt

889091 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I don't get what he intended by saying that. Saying it before the war, OK, it might make some countries hesitant. But saying it now that sanctions are already in place, and he hasn't started a nuclear holocaust in response, is useless.

Note also that he has not turned off his oil / gas exports and countries are still buying.

How are countries actually still paying for this? Gold bars? Serious question though.

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Now I think that passed and they should find a better way to go from communist rule to democracy than the shock and super corrupt times in the European ex communist block. Hope they succeed in that and keep their identity in the process.

I would agree that going from authoritarian to a democracy is very difficult. Sometimes it takes someone outside of political sphere to set it in motion. Chile have succeeded as has some Latin American countries while others are still "in work".

Ukraine was on its way with their actor/comedian president. Now this invasion has upended all that and may have given birth to a new hardline/anti-Russian society. The total opposite of what you are trying to avoid. Or maybe it is exactly what Putin wants, being a great tactician and all.

bt

johns624 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

I'm saying that if we would get Russia into NATO in the 90', together with Baltics and Poland, they would be no paranoia in Russia and we would probably never have to deal with alienated Russia by now.

What makes you think that Russia would've wanted to be in NATO with the US controlling it?

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Abhorrent behavior in 1991-2002? Like what?

The cluster bombing of Chechen civilians?

Why would you limit it to the 1991-2002 period anyway? You think putin isn’t driven by anything from the Cold War? Hilarious!

Syrian government troops have often used cluster munitions — supplied by Russia -- against opposition strongholds during that country’s civil war, frequently hitting civilian targets and infrastructure.

Israel has used cluster bombs in civilian areas in south Lebanon, including during the 1982 invasion that saw Israeli troops reach the capital Beirut.

During the monthlong 2006 war with Hezbollah, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations accused Israel of firing as many as 4 million cluster munitions into Lebanon. That has left unexploded ordnance that threatens Lebanese civilians to this day.

The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has been criticized for its use of cluster bombs in the war with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels that has ravaged the southern Arabian country.

In 2017, Yemen was the second deadliest country for cluster munitions after Syria, according to the U.N. Children have been killed or maimed long after the munitions originally fell, making it difficult to know the true toll.

The last large-scale American use of cluster bombs was during the 2003 Iraq invasion, according to the Pentagon. The U.S. initially considered cluster bombs an integral part of its arsenal during the invasion of Afghanistan that began in 2001, according to HRW. In the first three years, it is estimated the U.S.-led coalition dropped more than 1,500 cluster bombs in Afghanistan.

jaro76 wrote:

IMHO Finland was totally acceptable scenario for Russia.

jaro76 wrote:

I would like to read more about how west helped to build a huge group of oligarchs in South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia and closed the eyes when that money was flowing to western banks. Got some read about it?

jaro76 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Buffer zone was needed for their protection and slow down potential enemy. There is no natural obstacle in the northern European plain.

So putin should have been able to maintain an “operation human shield” against their will so he wouldn’t have a tantrum? Well as it is right now he invaded that “human shield” and so if Ukraine capitulate, as you suggested, then what next, move the buffer zone away? Remove folks from NATO.

Why should russia get special treatment and be able to deny some countries freedoms afforded to others just so they can behave badly.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, read the res of what I wrote. Most of that was argued by many western politicians including people like Kennan, Kissinger etc.

jaro76 wrote:

If we would act better in the 90' we would not discuss the buffer zone. My opinion.

jaro76 wrote:

To paraphrase your question, why should USA get a special treatment and be able to deny some countries freedoms afforded to others just so they can behave badly?

jaro76 wrote:

The thing is, no one should. But don't preach to others about things you are doing too.

jaro76 wrote:

My last response to you as it seems you are focusing on out of context things and not on whole what I wrote.

jaro76 wrote:

Is it up to Cuba to host Russian nuclear weapons? Up to Venezuela?

jaro76 wrote:

Is it up to India to stay of this mess and do business with whoever they want?

flipdewaf wrote:

India, are free to choose whichever course of action they choose.

jaro76 wrote:

How far back we should go? That is a good question. In my opinion....

Newark727 wrote:

The "buffer zone" is an idea that is fundamentally inseparable from Russian imperialism. Russia is no more entitled to one than France or Britain were to vast chunks of Africa. If Russia needs land between itself and its presumed enemies, why can't other nations demand the same? Shouldn't Poland and Ukraine get "buffer zones" too, seeing as they're also repeatedly-invaded countries on the steppes of Eastern Europe? What makes Russia so special here? Nothing but the fact that it's bigger than its neighbors. It's simply a flimsy rationalization for the most ancient law of foreign policy, "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."