Russia warns Ukraine it will retaliate over Nato

S2 · 23 Sep 08,, 21:41

"As to the bolded part, unfortunately USA (and their ally Pakistan) supported also Talibs, hoping they can introduce some order in Afghanistan haunted by war and terrorism..."

This will deserve further elaboration and, perhaps, linked support. You make two separate points which need proof- 1.) that support was provided to the taliban by the U.S. in cooperation with Pakistan and in addition to support provided by the Pakistanis of their own accord and to their own purposes and, 2.) that the ascribed motives are as indicated.

There's no reason to believe that our relationship with Pakistan in 1994 was such that we'd co-sponsor the Taliban as a nat'l unifying force-

"The United States has been a major provider of aid since independence and was the largest donor in the 1980s. All United States military aid and all new civilian commitments, however, ended in October 1990 after the United States Congress failed to receive certification that Pakistan was not developing a nuclear bomb. As of early 1994, United States aid had not resumed, but Agency for International Development projects already under way in October 1990 continued to receive funds."

Foreign Economic Relations

This is the larger study-

Country Studies- Pakistan Library of Congress

If intelligence contacts remained, our official relationship with Pakistan throughout the nineties was standoffish at best and bluntly antagonistic at worst. Any ambitions which we may have held as a gov't towards the development of Afghanistan didn't entail the elevation of the taliban and our attitude following their accession to power was equally non-committal. As such, I'd appreciate something definitive that would support your contention.

As to objectives, I hardly imagine that Pakistan's objective to achieving Afghan "order" had much beyond assuring "strategic space" in their private fiefdom viewed through a uniquely Pakistani prism.

**BD1** · 23 Sep 08,, 21:56

Originally Posted by Geralt

So you're another ex-Russian, but please; use some historical context about this.
Russia's Eastern neighbours have always been richer than the empire due to plenty of reasons, one of them being - what even Russian poster admitted in this very thread - that the Russian empire, unlike e.g. the British one, wasn't able to ensure good standards of living even to its own dominant nation! Another reason: you suffered from communism (or rather "real socialism") for longer than any of your European forced allies. But anyway, do you know that:
- before the Second WW, Czechy were richer than Austria and even some German lands?
- while Poland remained on the level of Spain?

Compare it to our current standards in relation to other EU members and you'll get - especially as we suffered from devoting consumers' good in favor of military complex as well, thanks, and the general results of our trade with the SU were beneficial for Soviets, as I've mentioned - what we "owe" to Soviet-introduced communism in the economic terms, even despite our generally successful attempts to make up for it since 1989/90!

and Estonia was on level of Finland

**Alex_Ivanov** · 23 Sep 08,, 22:15

Originally Posted by Geralt

Another Russian "defender of peace"... When some of you get that such jokes about aggression towards Russia's adjacent countries are not exactly funny for anyone else except you?

We see proper Russian borders in different places, that is the problem. Current borders of RF aren't justified neither ethnically, nor historically. As for the rest of the world - I am strongly support peace, non-interference and do not dream of global empire exporting communism, liberalism, monarchy, democracy or any other ideology or political system to other countries.

S2 · 23 Sep 08,, 22:50

"We see proper Russian borders in different places, that is the problem. Current borders of RF aren't justified neither ethnically, nor historically."

Isn't that somewhat irredentist after seventeen years. I can't recall this as an enduring element of Russian foreign policy since 1991. Have I been incorrect?

Alex, does the Russian government wish to redraw it's borders now?

**~~Spork55~~** · 23 Sep 08,, 22:56

Originally Posted by Geralt

Russia's Eastern neighbours have always been richer than the empire due to plenty of reasons, one of them being - what even Russian poster admitted in this very thread - that the Russian empire, unlike e.g. the British one, wasn't able to ensure good standards of living even to its own dominant nation!
Another reason: you suffered from communism (or rather "real socialism") for longer than any of your European forced allies. But anyway, do you know that:
- before the Second WW, Czechy were richer than Austria and even some German lands?
- while Poland remained on the level of Spain?

Well, did you just forget that USSR and most of USSR's neighbors were pummeled into a bloody pulp at the end of WWII? Everyone was starting from square 1 pretty much. But the satellite countries enjoyed higher standard of living and freedom up until USSR break up. Not that I mind

I think this was more of a bribery than anything else.

Originally Posted by Geralt

If those guys don't listen to this relatively softer form of blackmail, there's always a possibility of issuing Russian passports to minorities that lived/came to country X in the era of Russian colonialism and starting talk about their "protection", i.e. annexing by Russia territories inhabited by them, like it happened to Georgia and is starting to happen to Ukraine.

What sort of energy supplies blackmail has Poland been subjected to in the past by Russia? What did Russia want for Poland to do? (aside from paying market price for the said supplies)

Are you saying that ultimately Russia's goal is to annex part of Poland/Ukraine? Thus the empire-building angle? Please explain.

**Geralt** · 23 Sep 08,, 23:27

Originally Posted by Spork55

Geralt,

What sort of energy supplies blackmail has Poland been subjected to in the past by Russia?

Every single one, as to every single resource we've been getting from Russia (not that we exactly had a choice about Russia being our dominant supplier after 1945). Immediately once any political crisis came, we had crisises about supplies from Russia (of course, sometimes not officially because of politics, but because of "technical reasons", what Russia perfected until now, hence "technical breaks" in supplies to Lithuania or Poland just when - what a coincidence! - there were political tensions between our countries). There was even a known joke about the SU cutting off supplies to Poland after unexpected victory of our NT over their NT in hockey; but of course it was "only" a joke, they kept this privilege for more important moments!

What did Russia want for Poland to do? (aside from paying market price for the said supplies)

If you meant relations before 1989, we paid below-Western level prices for your goods just like you paid below-Western prices for our goods, while the overall result - as I've already mentioned - was generally unbeneficial to us.
If you meant after 1989, you're clearly wrong or confusing Poland with Ukraine since we've been paying Russia for oil/gas at market prices anyway!
And the part "what we want Poland to do?" is quite simple to answer. Even after you understood we're gonna remain a part of the West no matter what you do, you at least try to stop Poland from helping other countries in the same task! These attempts have some amusing moments, like Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Lavrov coming to Poland a couple of weeks ago and trying to reach a truce about Georgia - you can have your anti-rocket shield, but instead let us do what we want about ex-Soviet republics - and using compliments like "Poland is our spiritual guide about the West"! Not that it matters anything from someone who's natural-born liar/rightful descendant of Molotov-Gromyko tradition, but it's nonetheless amusing, especially if you consider some Russian posters here repeating: "Russia doesn't care about its neighbours anymore!".

Are you saying that ultimately Russia's goal is to annex part of Poland/Ukraine? Thus the empire-building angle? Please explain.

I'll do it only one time more since it should be obvious for you from things I've already explained; as to Poland, there's no a threat of traditional imperialism but there are threats of modern-way imperialism anyway. As to Ukraine, until a couple of weeks ago I'd think it's basically the same, but recent Russian actions about giving its passports to Russian "citizens" there make me think twice about it!

**Geralt** · 23 Sep 08,, 23:33

Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov

We see proper Russian borders in different places, that is the problem. Current borders of RF aren't justified neither ethnically, nor historically.

Do you mean these borders? I can only agree they are MUCH more justified than your current ones! ;-)
Image:Kievan Rus en.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the rest of the world - I am strongly support peace, non-interference and do not dream of global empire exporting communism, liberalism, monarchy, democracy or any other ideology or political system to other countries.

It's quite interesting you didn't mention not exporting being pro-Russian - no matter the ideology - among your neighbours...

**Ray** · 23 Sep 08,, 23:45

Can't you really see that you sound just as ignorant about European matters here as I would do if interrupted your recent thread about Indian-Pakistani ethnical matters and for instance tried to preach to the Penjabis some nonsense about whom they were - perhaps Mitra's followers - in the 5th century? Can't you see the obvious analogies? And now try to guess why I don't do such things in the threads I don't know much about and why it's generally much more preferable method of posting!

???

Have you imbibed something?

You appear incoherent, ignorant and rambling!

**Geralt** · 23 Sep 08,, 23:50

Originally Posted by Ray

???

Have you imbibed something?

Nope, I didn't, but if you can show me how to help you about "imbibing" something, i.e. apparently according to your definition understanding what we're talking about here, I'll be more than willing to help!

**Ray** · 24 Sep 08,, 00:03

I wrote in English.

Not a foreign language to me!

**~~Spork55~~** · 24 Sep 08,, 00:05

My question: "What sort of energy supplies blackmail has Poland been subjected to in the past by Russia? "

Originally Posted by Geralt

Every single one, as to every single resource we've been getting from Russia (not that we exactly had a choice about Russia being our dominant supplier after 1945).

No, "Russia" not "USSR".

Originally Posted by Geralt

And the part "what we want Poland to do?" is quite simple to answer. you at least try to stop Poland from helping other countries in the same task!<snipped>
you can have your anti-rocket shield, but instead let us do what we want about ex-Soviet republics

If this is blackmail then are you saying that Russia threatened to cut off energy supplies if Poland continues to help people Russia doesn't like? Do you have any evidence? Are there any other "examples" of energy blackmail to Poland?

Otherwise it's just one country *****ing at another. That's what diplomats do

Originally Posted by Geralt

..as to Poland, there's no a threat of traditional imperialism but there are threats of modern-way imperialism anyway.

So Poland is in threat of "modern-way imperialism" from Russia??? a little broad, don't you think. do you have a formal academic definition of such?

c'mon, think it through: russia will do things that poland doesn't like, and poland will do things that russia doesn't like - this is hardly "imperialism".

sounds like you're letting your imagination get the best of you without much of cold reason

**Geralt** · 24 Sep 08,, 00:30

Originally Posted by Ray

I wrote in English.

Not a foreign language to me!

Good to know, otherwise some third party's poster might be wrong about it.

**Geralt** · 24 Sep 08,, 00:48

Originally Posted by cyppok

Basically whatever I say doesn't matter weather its' factual or not because I am an agent of the Kremlin?

Please, don't descend to this level. Obviously, I didn't say anything to that effect; just that, what should be quite obvious, if you're Russian like you, you're naturally more inclined towards being pro-Russian.
While if you have some good rational arguments vs. my thesis, it shouldn't matter for anyone here if you're Kremlin agent or not, right?

I like rational negotiation, which isn't happening now. For the past 20 years about Russia has done most of the things it was asked to do, and it didn't get much in return. Not economic integration by speedier acceptance into WTO, nor common sense acceptance of some of its concerns regarding Nato and other issues.

And it's absolute and complete bull. What exactly did you get in the last 20 years, despite only very arguably deserving this? It's quite a long list:
- membership in G7, thus becoming G8;
- membership in the Council of Europe;
- special treatment of Russian occupation of Chechnya, especially after 9/11, when Putin managed to convince Bush that Chechen partisans should be treated just the same as Al-Quaeda terrorists;
- special treatment as to all other faults of your Putin's centralised "democracy";
- general agreement with your hypocritical pretensions that when it's inconvenient, you're not heirs of the Soviet empire (e.g. as to responsibility for Stalin's crimes), but once it's convenient for you (e.g. as to being sole disponents of post-Soviet nuclear weapons and USSR's permanent membership in the UN Security Council), you're such heirs perfectly well!
- special Russian status in relations with NATO, hence NATO-Russia Council;
- special Russian status in relations with EU, hence special EU-Russia agreement!
- and even as to things you've mentioned, your negotiations with OECD/WTO/about next agreement with EU went well until you started to demand privileges impossible even for your generally agreeable Western partners. Though now, after negative international response about your aggression towards Georgia, you're pretending it's not in your interest to become e.g. WTO's member in the first place, so I suppose you'll be trying to find another way to say it's all West's fault!

Russia did a lot of foolish things invading Afghanistan was one of them, invading Georgia was not. If the Caucus would have exploded and it would have since those mountain people recognize blood feuds that go on forever there would have been a state of war for the next several years that would have been undecided with Russia suffering for the actions of another country. (please look up what happened the previous time Georgia attacked one of these republics before Russia's involvement the confederation of mountain people agreed to aid the Abkhaz.) Unless Georgian's killed everyone of the other ethnicity in both republics they were not getting them back end of story.

The responsilibility for that situation is in like 90% yours, from setting the bordiers in accordance with "divide et impera" rule already in the SU's time, to trying to use it to your advantage in the early 90s and occupying Abchasia/South Ossetia since that time, to assisting ethnical cleansings in the meantime (which caused e.g. the ratio of Georgians being >50% of South Ossetia's citizens 15 years ago and Ossetians being 20% of these citizens being at least reversed now) to the recent military provocations causing this idiot Saakashvili to react and thus you having a chance to actually annex the troublesome territories. And please; don't try to pretend for even a while it's otherwise.

Getting back to the thread, I would like to know your opinion on the following.
The situation in Ukraine is very unstable right now would you support them joining Nato if the populous was against it for the majority at least say 70% if a referendum was held and the President applied for Map without regard for their wishes and the country went to shambles because of it? Because some parts of your arguments are very rageful idealism without pragmatism to realities. Just like the communists when they came to power trying to enlighten the dark and the foolish weather they want to or not, because they "knew best".

Your last two sentences are completely baseless on their own, but anyway; I didn't support Georgia's and Ukraine's NATO membership in the foreseeable future before your aggresion and I don't support it even now, even though to the lesser extent, just like about the anti-rocket shield in Czechy/Poland. And that's the whole result of your efforts; subjugate to Russia a little part of your neighbours' population for a price for making huge majority of it Russia's enemies. So I hope you're not surprised I reckon Russian imperialism doesn't make sense at all even in its most up-to-date and sophisticated version!

**Geralt** · 24 Sep 08,, 01:39

Originally Posted by Woland

The point of any empire is (as I see it) - you expand and use the subjugated territories/economies/people so your own citizens are more prosperous. Citizens of Rome had a high standard of living cause they used foreign slaves&resources; British Empire, US Empire are all the same with different images. Russian Empire, on the contrary, was something strange in its roots - native citizens of Russia were oppressed more than the subjugated nations; the economy of the empire was based on agriculture - which used the labor of native Russian peasants who lived no better than slaves - while the subjugated nations were living as they liked (usually).
When this mass of slaves was "allowed free" in the middle of 19th century, they were left without any land and actually forced to move to cities and work on factories - whoa, for free again. So we got the revolution and... just another strange "empire" with the economy drove by free labor of its own citizens.
The only thing that is brought up by the fact of successful wars of Russian Empire is my patriotic feelings. Okay may I trade half of them for Mercedes S500 please?

You're actually 100% right about Russian empire being unable to provide welfare even to its dominant nation's citizens, but on the other hand wrong as to Russians being treated worse than the subjogated nations. As to modern version of imperialism which Russia tries to employ now - please check my other posts in this thread.

**Geralt** · 24 Sep 08,, 01:47

Originally Posted by S-2

"As to the bolded part, unfortunately USA (and their ally Pakistan) supported also Talibs, hoping they can introduce some order in Afghanistan haunted by war and terrorism..."

This will deserve further elaboration and, perhaps, linked support. You make two separate points which need proof- 1.) that support was provided to the taliban by the U.S. in cooperation with Pakistan and in addition to support provided by the Pakistanis of their own accord and to their own purposes and, 2.) that the ascribed motives are as indicated.

There's no reason to believe that our relationship with Pakistan in 1994 was such that we'd co-sponsor the Taliban as a nat'l unifying force-

"The United States has been a major provider of aid since independence and was the largest donor in the 1980s. All United States military aid and all new civilian commitments, however, ended in October 1990 after the United States Congress failed to receive certification that Pakistan was not developing a nuclear bomb. As of early 1994, United States aid had not resumed, but Agency for International Development projects already under way in October 1990 continued to receive funds."

Foreign Economic Relations

This is the larger study-

Country Studies- Pakistan Library of Congress

If intelligence contacts remained, our official relationship with Pakistan throughout the nineties was standoffish at best and bluntly antagonistic at worst. Any ambitions which we may have held as a gov't towards the development of Afghanistan didn't entail the elevation of the taliban and our attitude following their accession to power was equally non-committal. As such, I'd appreciate something definitive that would support your contention.

As to objectives, I hardly imagine that Pakistan's objective to achieving Afghan "order" had much beyond assuring "strategic space" in their private fiefdom viewed through a uniquely Pakistani prism.

Umm... while of course you're fully entitled to demand links about my posts, this whole post of yours - combined with other your posts I remember - has some strange aroma about this. Cause it looks like you believe that USA always have been right about their every single move abroad and if someone claims otherwise - even if he talks about the most obvious things which even your politicians admit - then he should prove it more than someone talking about bad moves of every other country in the world! To the extent you want me to prove that... you supported Taliban to introduce order in Afghanistan, even though it's the most honorable reason why you could support them, so what to prove more about this aspect (once you know you did support Taliban, but as to this, please see below)? Or that Pakistan - despite some temporary tensions - has generally been US ally since the 70s, what all Indian posters here can vouch for? All in all, it surprisingly reminds me of the stance of many Russian posters here and on other forums, even though I'm arguing with them when they're saying that it's basically the same about Russian/American actions abroad and their moral justifications, i.e. always being inherently right... :-(
Coming back to topic at hand, even in the Wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone, so basically doesn't contain any controversial statements) you can see accusations about it:

Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The more advanced/specified info is e.g. here:

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban

US CA: Column: Bush's Faustian Deal With The Taliban

Afghan Taliban Grew With U.S. Support - New York Times

Someone with Big Lebovski's avatar IMHO should be just more flexible about his mental horizons! For the future, are you going to demand the links as well about such facts as:

- Vietnam being generally American failure,
- you entered Iraq under false pretences,
- you supported many dictators in the Latin America,
- the grass is green,
- the sky is blue?

Because I'd like to know whether only supporting the USA no matter the circumstances can let you avoid such bizarre questions here or is it possible to reach some more balanced, common stance about the things...