Meanwhile in Ukraine

[DonNicko]

You don't get it. Russia wasn't a "threat" in the 90's (neither is it today tbh.). Is it so hard to accept that Russia is not a good friend, and that everybody would rather look towards prosperous, pacifist and functional democracies? NATO didn't push East (or if it did, show me the tanks), it's the "Soviet Empire" that crumbled. If you think people from East Germany to Estonia actually liked being Soviet subjects, you need to take an unbiased 20th century history course, something I'm sure is quite hard to find in Russia, even today.

Tibe said that it was a threat, so I asked him why. Maybe Soviet Empire were a bad friend? Current Russia is 23 years old and if it is still bad friend, then why Latin America so friendly with us China, India, maybe because we went there with tanks? I don't want to talk about Soviet Union, in that case maybe you want to remember Germany in 40's, don't you afraid of them? Or something earlier do you want to remember. That all is in the past, After USSR were broken NATO said that they will not increase their influence on the East, but even when Russia were very weak they continued to do so, making some propoganda. Fear Russian beasts.

[Murmillus_Prime]

Tibe said that it was a threat, so I asked him why. Maybe Soviet Empire were a bad friend? Current Russia is 23 years old and if it is still bad friend, then why Latin America so friendly with us China, India, maybe because we went there with tanks? I don't want to talk about Soviet Union, in that case maybe you want to remember Germany in 40's, don't you afraid of them? Or something earlier do you want to remember. That all is in the past, After USSR were broken NATO said that they will not increase their influence on the East, but even when Russia were very weak they continued to do so, making some propoganda. Fear Russian beasts.

Anti-Russian propaganda has been never ending, soft propaganda for decades, Russians always villains in this movie or that movie, new articles about Russian corruption as though it never exists anywhere else, and then hard propaganda like the recent newspaper headlines stating that "Putin's Missile" downed the Malaysian airliner.. In the U.K and in many other NATO member state countries, propaganda against Russia is almost an every day and accepted norm. A recent example of this propaganda is the media hype surrounding the Litvinenko inquest, and the media vultures that jump on the bang wagon to show how brutal and murderous Russia is, all while having brushed under the carpet Obama's assassination of an American citizen via a drone strike. How else could NATO escape criticism from breaking its promise to Russia? Relentlessly pushing the world on to the bring of a potentially third and last world war in a last ditched attempt to save Western dominance over global trade through the petro dollar.

The latest round of sanctions was to punish Russia's move away from the Western economic system and towards the formation of an alternate global financial order through BRICS. Russia is for a multi-polar world, where as NATO is for a UNI polar world, one in which what they say or do goes and what any other rival says or does must be opposed and snuffed out or tarnished with outrageous propaganda.

[[ptx]]

(click to show/hide)

I just try to equalize, ok let's start, I think this will be my biggets post hereI have seen numerous pictures of separatist with broken one BUK, about video, that was said that it was Krasnodon near russian border, but that was lie, people on internet found that it was maybe another town but not Krasnodon, there were missing two missiles. Can be that broken one Buk? Yes it can. About announcements, yes he wrote that, then he claimed that he get this info and video from intertnet, he thought that this was another ukranian plane, so he wrote it. He didn't know who shot this plane, and after he knew that it was boeing, deleted his announcements. Not great proofs.
Another version that it was workable BUK and separatists tried to shoot military plane that russian radars showed at the time of crashing of the boeing, this military plane was in one line with commercial plane, so maybe if that BUK shot in that plane but missed and shot boeing. Then why this area were open for flights? And BUK system is not one machine it consists of three. But yes they could shot boeing, but from the earth you cant even see it on the height of 10k km. Without radar system it is almost impossible, but possible)
Another version that ukranian troops shot that plane all interesting facts and transportation of ukranian buks at the date of crash and activisation of working of ukranian buk's radars you can find here, there is english translation

(click to show/hide)

Yes, it can't fly on that height, only reach it for few minutes.
Yes, seems it is reasonable, then watch the video I gave, and think why they transferred their BUKs to area of crash, then got them back to the base
There are a lot of volunteers from Russia, Georgia and other countries, who fight there, there are a lot of people from Russia who fight for Ukranian army and a lot of who fight for rebels. Nobody can stop them.
I think that Putin don't even know about them. But I say that there are a lot of volunteers who fight for both sides. So they don't care what Putin will think about them.
Yes this is stupid propaganda, our prices will grow now about for 10-20%, but for russians it is common.
Well it can be, but can not be. I don't know, can't say exactly. Maybe Russia really gave them this buk, but that was only one part of Buk system, if this buk is not that broken one which rebels captured from ukranian base.

DonNicko, just how many logical and unbiased conclusions can you draw from the facts that:

• A plane was shot down over UKR-rebel warzone
• Only UKR side had air forces (why would UKR target a plane in this scenario?)
• Rebels have previously shot down numerous UKR military planes
• Rebel leaders made announcements directly after the plane was shot down, that they had downed another UKR military plane.

Please, try to be honest. The rest of the world has already made the only conclusion possible.

[Thomek]

@Murmi Yeah yeah, anti-west propaganda exists as well. You just don't speak russian so you don't see how crazy it is.

What makes me choose a side in this conflict is that I see it as system vs system, and the russian one is endlessly more crappy than the western one from my own experience and eyes.

When I was young and hadn't seen much myself, I thought the west did good because we exploited the rest of the world. (and we do)
But that's not the main reason the west excel.

In Poland I got to see remains of communism and russian way of thinking and it's horrendous. Power abuse and corrupted mentalities are the default mode. Huge collective resources are wasted for a little gain by few people. Money are spent in the most unwise ways by institutions.. We had a principal who tried to bankrupt my school, so he could build his own, new school next to it. You should see how inefficiently they build roads.. When I was in Russia, all that mentality seemed to be multiplied x10. It was shocking and sad to see.

Now I got a question for the Russians here:

Russia is a huge country with a well-educated population, reasonable infrastructure and enormous resources. How can it be that people are better off in Poland? A 40m people country savaged by both wwii and communism? And they have nearly no resources or huge industries to speak of, except farming?

Let me answer:

(click to show/hide)

Because your system sucks balls. And the Ukrainians had had enough of it.

And it has nothing to do with you being russian. Russians are fine, clever, generous and good people in my experience.

[Murmillus_Prime]

@Murmi Yeah yeah, anti-west propaganda exists as well. You just don't speak russian so you don't see how crazy it is.

What makes me choose a side in this conflict is that I see it as system vs system, and the russian one is endlessly more crappy than the western one from my own experience and eyes.

When I was young and hadn't seen much myself, I thought the west did good because we exploited the rest of the world. (and we do)
But that's not the main reason the west excel.

In Poland I got to see remains of communism and russian way of thinking and it's horrendous. Power abuse and corrupted mentalities are the default mode. Huge collective resources are wasted for a little gain by few people. Money are spent in the most unwise ways by institutions.. We had a principal who tried to bankrupt my school, so he could build his own, new school next to it. You should see how inefficiently they build roads.. When I was in Russia, all that mentality seemed to be multiplied x10. It was shocking and sad to see.

Now I got a question for the Russians here:

Russia is a huge country with a well-educated population, reasonable infrastructure and enormous resources. How can it be that people are better off in Poland? A 40m people country savaged by both wwii and communism? And they have nearly no resources or huge industries to speak of, except farming?

Let me answer:

(click to show/hide)

Because your system sucks balls. And the Ukrainians had had enough of it.

And it has nothing to do with you being russian. Russians are fine, clever, generous and good people in my experience.

Definitely Thomek, I completely acknowledge the existence of Russian propaganda. I don't think there is a nation state without its own form of propaganda. I don't have any first hand experiences myself, I guess all of my information comes from media sources, mainstream and alternative and then I form my own opinion. My opinions aren't largely formed on emotion as some peoples are, instead my opinions are formed on what appears to be in my view the most rational, logical reasons or explanation of a situation.

What I mean by opinions formed by emotion by the way is for example.If I had a father who loved and served in the army and I loved my father very much, that would give me an emotional interest on the subject of the army and therefore I would more likely forward opinions within that context that were based on emotional rather than form a more objective, rational/logical opinion.

Personally in regards to the Malaysian flight, I believe the separatists shot the plane down. I can't prove it, but I believe its the most likely version of events, based on the twitter account evidence, the successful shooting down of previous Ukrainian military aircraft.. Regardless of my opinion on the shooting down of a civilian airliner, I do not believe the separatists did it deliberately, yet the plane may have deliberately been diverted over a contested warzone in which aircraft were being shot out of the sky already.I don't believe the Russians were capable nor responsible of the diversion of the flight, but those with vested interests whom may have diverted the aircraft to damage separatist opinion and provide a wider military pretext. Now of course such opinions as the latter could be considered "conspiracy theory" territory, but then basing my opinion on the past, such as the lengths the U.S government and other governments would go to ignite a conflict/sway public opinion, then I believe my opinion carries legitimacy.

Opinions aside, the Ukrainian army is shelling civilians. Any amount of excuses could be given for this. The Ukrainian government chose a military over a political solution, and now the civilians reap what the politicians sow, as always.

[Turkhammer]

Bullshit mate.

Answer time.

1. Trading one foreign influence for another would have not resolved Ukraine's problems.
2. It's a shame that the protest against corruption was not just a protest, it was a full blown violent riot.
3. Russian forces did not annex Crimea, the Crimean population overwhelming voted to be re-incorporated into Russia, Russia already had troops stationed in Crimea as agreed with the last legitimate Ukrainian government.
4. Influenced by what happened in Crimea, revolted by the fact one of the first actions of the coup government was to remove Russian as an official  language status and the fact the protagonists in the coup had strong neo-N azi ties directly and indirectly sections of Eastern Ukrainian society revolted.
5. Many of the rebels weapons were captured from existing weapons stockpiles and from the new weapons stock piles amassed by encircled Ukrainian units the rebels had overwhelmed.
6. Russia is amassing troops and tanks and aeroplanes in response to NATO exercises and escalation in the region and the continuous shelling and rocket fire targeting Russian checkpoints being fired by Ukrainian forces.
7. See point 6.

Many neo- N azi affiliated with the current Ukrainian regime have expressed wishes to commit genocide against Russians, including a former Ukrainian president Yulia Tymoshenko expressing wishes to nuke Russia and slaughter the Russian people. This has further driven divisions amongst the Ukrainians further solidifying the East Ukrainian separatists justification for their actions. Remember, many Ukrainians fought along side the soviet Union against chocolate chip cookie Germany in WW2 and many suffered atrocities at the hands of chocolate chip cookie's first hand, this leaves a bitter impression for many Ukrainians when they find out their new government has chocolate chip cookie's in it.

Bullshit right back at you pal.

Reality check:

1.Trading a free association with Europe with being dominated by Russia would certainly have improved Ukraine's situation.  Saying otherwise is sophistry.
2.It's a shame the protests were met with Berkut violence.  Violence begets violence.
3.The Russians didn't annex Crimea huh?  No they just forced Ukrainian forces out of their bases at the point of a gun.  Note that was Ukrainian base not Russian ones.  The vote that you mention has zero support as a legitimate referendum outside of Russia.  It was engineered as an excuse for a land grab of another nation's land.  It was as engineered as was Germany's move into Austria in the Anschluss.
4.If eastern parts of Ukraine revolted because of Kiev policies (since wisely revoked) what the hell is Russia doing sticking it's nose in a civil war for?
5.How long do you believe those weapons and more importantly the ammunition captured will have lasted?  And where do the tanks come from.  The Russian Proxies can only revive so many WW2 tanks from the museums.  You are really blowing smoke with that one.
6.Rapid Trident has happened every year since 2011.  The large Russian troops are not a response to that they are in place to intimidate and if their puppets fail, to invade eastern Ukraine.  Other than the canard that neo natzis are running Ukraine the claim that NATO is any threat to Russia is the biggest red herring to be floated by the Kremlin and it's apologists.  supports in Ukraine.

Nothing you have posted has demonstrated that Russia does not have the lion's share of the blame for the tensions and crisis in Ukraine.

Personally in regards to the Malaysian flight, I believe the separatists shot the plane down. I can't prove it, but I believe its the most likely version of events, based on the twitter account evidence, the successful shooting down of previous Ukrainian military aircraft.. Regardless of my opinion on the shooting down of a civilian airliner, I do not believe the separatists did it deliberately, yet the plane may have deliberately been diverted over a contested warzone in which aircraft were being shot out of the sky already.I don't believe the Russians were capable nor responsible of the diversion of the flight, but those with vested interests whom may have diverted the aircraft to damage separatist opinion and provide a wider military pretext. Now of course such opinions as the latter could be considered "conspiracy theory" territory, but then basing my opinion on the past, such as the lengths the U.S government and other governments would go to ignite a conflict/sway public opinion, then I believe my opinion carries legitimacy.

Opinions aside, the Ukrainian army is shelling civilians. Any amount of excuses could be given for this. The Ukrainian government chose a military over a political solution, and now the civilians reap what the politicians sow, as always.

That is your most egregious assumption yet.  Did you even bother to check how many different commercial flights and companies flew over that route in the days and weeks before the Malaysian flight was shot down?  There were dozens.  The information is freely available.

How do you propose that "they" arranged to have just this particular airplane at that particular time appear on a scheduled flight path and at a scheduled time that any clown with an internet connection could see was scheduled to be there weeks before?  How did they convince the Russian proxy forces to fire on it?  Did they just hope to troll all over the airspace in the hopes that some dumb ass would fire a missile? 

Airline dispatchers chose the flight routes of their flights.  Do you really think that "they" could reach into the airline of a country that just tragically lost another plane months ago, a country that is basically a third world country and presumably is not beholden to the US and induce that country to divert it's plane to risk being shot down to create an incident?

No I don't believe your opinion has any legitimacy in this case.

Finally, the Ukrainians chose a military solution because they saw that there was no diplomatic solution short of complete surrender.  Crimea proved that to them.

[Murmillus_Prime]

Bullshit right back at you pal.

Reality check:

1.Trading a free association with Europe with being dominated by Russia would certainly have improved Ukraine's situation.  Saying otherwise is sophistry.
2.It's a shame the protests were met with Berkut violence.  Violence begets violence.
3.The Russians didn't annex Crimea huh?  No they just forced Ukrainian forces out of their bases at the point of a gun.  Note that was Ukrainian base not Russian ones.  The vote that you mention has zero support as a legitimate referendum outside of Russia.  It was engineered as an excuse for a land grab of another nation's land.  It was as engineered as was Germany's move into Austria in the Anschluss.
4.If eastern parts of Ukraine revolted because of Kiev policies (since wisely revoked) what the hell is Russia doing sticking it's nose in a civil war for?
5.How long do you believe those weapons and more importantly the ammunition captured will have lasted?  And where do the tanks come from.  The Russian Proxies can only revive so many WW2 tanks from the museums.  You are really blowing smoke with that one.
6.Rapid Trident has happened every year since 2011.  The large Russian troops are not a response to that they are in place to intimidate and if their puppets fail, to invade eastern Ukraine.  Other than the canard that neo natzis are running Ukraine the claim that NATO is any threat to Russia is the biggest red herring to be floated by the Kremlin and it's apologists.  supports in Ukraine.

Nothing you have posted has demonstrated that Russia does not have the lion's share of the blame for the tensions and crisis in Ukraine.

Nothing I have posted? Because you're wilfully ignorant and your opinions on the situation are emotionally formed.

Tell me, how's Greece doing in the EU right now? Since you seem to have a deluded idea that the EU is the Ukraine's magic savour as do many Western Ukrainians, when after all the majority of the hard working Ukrainians actually producing goods and generating GDP for Ukraine are Russian speaking East Ukrainians, without them there would be no Ukrainian economy, but look how they've been treated by West Ukrainians and the coup government.

In Crimea the Ukrainian military were forced out by militias and potentially by some undercover Russian troops too, whether you deem the Crimean vote legitimate or not, it's the legitimacy of the peoples will that matters most and they wanted to be with Russia again. You talk about legitimacy like the West has a monopoly on legitimacy, like fuck it does.

What's Russia doing sticking its nose in a civil war? What's the west doing sticking its nose in a civil war? In fact I could count on two hands how many civil wars the West has involved itself in, same can't be said of Russia, and what's more Russia has sided with Russian speaking Ukrainians whom have for generations had strong ties with Russia whom are under threat by Russian hating neo-N azi West Ukrainians.

If Russia are arming the rebels, good. You like talking about legitimacy, well since the West legitimised arming and funding rebel groups Russia can play at that game too, although Russia has far more justification for doing so, Ukraine is on ITS border, and the coup Ukrainian government are shelling civilians, you know that coup government with neo N azis whom expressed wishes to wipe out Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians? Those same coup government supporting neo N azi's that burned and shot those anti-government protesters in Odessa?

NATO has admittedly stepped up its exercises in the region in terms of both scale and frequency and NATO spokespersons have also voiced support for the Ukrainian coup government, Russia's fears are 100% justified. 100%

Please provide me with more drivel to respond to.

[Turkhammer]

Nothing I have posted? Because you're wilfully ignorant and your opinions on the situation are emotionally formed.

Tell me, how's Greece doing in the EU right now? Since you seem to have a deluded idea that the EU is the Ukraine's magic savour as do many Western Ukrainians, when after all the majority of the hard working Ukrainians actually producing goods and generating GDP for Ukraine are Russian speaking East Ukrainians, without them there would be no Ukrainian economy, but look how they've been treated by West Ukrainians and the coup government.

In Crimea the Ukrainian military were forced out by militias and potentially by some undercover Russian troops too, whether you deem the Crimean vote legitimate or not, it's the legitimacy of the peoples will that matters most and they wanted to be with Russia again. You talk about legitimacy like the West has a monopoly on legitimacy, like fuck it does.

What's Russia doing sticking its nose in a civil war? What's the west doing sticking its nose in a civil war? In fact I could count on two hands how many civil wars the West has involved itself in, same can't be said of Russia, and what's more Russia has sided with Russian speaking Ukrainians whom have for generations had strong ties with Russia whom are under threat by Russian hating neo-N azi West Ukrainians.

If Russia are arming the rebels, good. You like talking about legitimacy, well since the West legitimised arming and funding rebel groups Russia can play at that game too, although Russia has far more justification for doing so, Ukraine is on ITS border, and the coup Ukrainian government are shelling civilians, you know that coup government with neo N azis whom expressed wishes to wipe out Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians? Those same coup government supporting neo N azi's that burned and shot those anti-government protesters in Odessa?

NATO has admittedly stepped up its exercises in the region in terms of both scale and frequency and NATO spokespersons have also voiced support for the Ukrainian coup government, Russia's fears are 100% justified. 100%

Please provide me with more drivel to respond to.

Wipe your own chin to obtain requested drivel. 

You appear to be a conspiracy theorist, a quite common type, a willing tool, or a dedicated apologist for resurgent Russian nationalism and aggression or perhaps all three rolled into one.  It's quite useless to argue with a man who will not see, even though he is not blind. 

[Kafein]

Tibe said that it was a threat, so I asked him why. Maybe Soviet Empire were a bad friend? Current Russia is 23 years old and if it is still bad friend, then why Latin America so friendly with us China, India, maybe because we went there with tanks? I don't want to talk about Soviet Union, in that case maybe you want to remember Germany in 40's, don't you afraid of them? Or something earlier do you want to remember. That all is in the past, After USSR were broken NATO said that they will not increase their influence on the East, but even when Russia were very weak they continued to do so, making some propoganda. Fear Russian beasts.

NATO didn't push its influence East, the USSR lost it. The USSR also did not violently occupy and generally fuck up (e.g. Ceausescu) any of the other BRICS countries, which are too far away from Russia's sphere of influence to have any concern about Putin's jingoism, except perhaps China. They are simply too far away to be enemies. They also have mutual interests in destroying the burgeoning global village, particularly India and China with populations still decades away from humanistic enlightenment. There is no "fear Russia" propaganda going on in the West (propaganda would be structurally impossible anyway). However, there is an information bubble in Russia and for russophones in general, which includes the paranoiac illusion western countries are somehow "out to get Russia" which isn't based on any actual fact, but serves the official narrative very well.



Murmillus, if NATO was so evil and sneaky and since you uncovered their dirty little secrets one would think they would have made you disappear by now.

[DonNicko]

NATO didn't push its influence East, the USSR lost it. The USSR also did not violently occupy and generally fuck up (e.g. Ceausescu) any of the other BRICS countries, which are too far away from Russia's sphere of influence to have any concern about Putin's jingoism, except perhaps China. They are simply too far away to be enemies. They also have mutual interests in destroying the burgeoning global village, particularly India and China with populations still decades away from humanistic enlightenment. There is no "fear Russia" propaganda going on in the West (propaganda would be structurally impossible anyway). However, there is an information bubble in Russia and for russophones in general, which includes the paranoiac illusion western countries are somehow "out to get Russia" which isn't based on any actual fact, but serves the official narrative very well.

Really Nato didn't push the influence?
January, 1994. At the Bruxelles meeting at the highest levels country leaders of NATO declare again that "door" in NATO remains open for other European countries.
September 28, 1995. Publication "Researches about NATO expansion".
July 8-9, 1997. At the Madrid meeting at the highest levels three partner countries – Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic – receive the offer to begin negotiations on the introduction.
March 12, 1999. Accession to NATO of Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. Thus, in North Atlantic Treaty Organization 19 members
USA and Europe made a sanctions against Russia when Russia stopped the agression of Georgia also without any investigation, but sanctions were only half of year, before truth came out. What can I say about it? It is political game, not something like honesty.

(click to show/hide)

DonNicko, just how many logical and unbiased conclusions can you draw from the facts that:

• A plane was shot down over UKR-rebel warzone
• Only UKR side had air forces (why would UKR target a plane in this scenario?)
• Rebels have previously shot down numerous UKR military planes
• Rebel leaders made announcements directly after the plane was shot down, that they had downed another UKR military plane.

Please, try to be honest. The rest of the world has already made the only conclusion possible.

Really I try to be honest, and I can say that the rest of the west not the world made the only conclusion right after the crash without any investigation, in 2001 Ukr army was training and shot the commercial plane which were flying From Israel by a system of BUK, why they can't do that again? Kuchma, president for that time, said that it happens and didn't admit their guilt. Did you saw the video I gave if not then watch. There are direct facts what Ukr BUKS were doing at the date of crash. Nobody blame Ukraine that that area where many ukr military planes were shot was still open. USA said that they have the indisputable proofs that rebels shot the plane, oh really. How many times Russia asked them to show that proofs? As I said it can be that that plane was shot by rebels, but then it should be like a miracle, because if they even had workable launching system of the BUK, it is too hard to shoot the plane that you even can't see.
And those facts that you wrote are like I don't know, there is only that facts? USA shot the commercial plane in 1988 near Iran, 300 people were dead, George Bush said that it happens on the war, and the didn't excuse. Any sanctions? Ofcourse not. Guantanamo Bay detention camp, what a great democratic camp. Any sanctions? Ofcourse not. Only I can see that the west really don't need direct proofs to blame Russia. USA supported rebels in Syria. Any sanctions? Ofcourse not. Maybe I'm wrong but it looks like political game, not that the West wants to save the Ukraine.

Russia is a huge country with a well-educated population, reasonable infrastructure and enormous resources. How can it be that people are better off in Poland? A 40m people country savaged by both wwii and communism? And they have nearly no resources or huge industries to speak of, except farming?

Just because we don't have any workable system yet. Because billions and billions of dollars were sent to the west in 90's, why people in Poland are better? What is your wages, just interesting. But maybe those sanctions will help to make our industry better)

[Oberyn]

I wonder what reason countries like Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic could possibly have to distance themselves from Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Truly only perfidious western propaganda and NATO aggression could've turned them away from the love and gratitude they felt for the russian people.

What really boggles my mind is that you feel your country should have any sort of say in their decisions. Because you occupied and imposed your fucktardedly incompetent systems on them for decades, supported only by force and totalitarian control of society? They're not in your "sphere". They're their own independent, sovereign countries. Get over it. The reason they joined NATO and the EU after it is clear as day. Because it benefited them, because it was an asset, because it made their people more prosperous in a hundred different ways.They weren't conquered, or coerced into it.

[DonNicko]

I wonder what reason countries like Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic could possibly have to distance themselves from Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Truly only perfidious western propaganda and NATO aggression could've turned them away from the love and gratitude they felt for the russian people.

What really boggles my mind is that you feel your country should have any sort of say in their decisions. Because you occupied and imposed your fucktardedly incompetent systems on them for decades, supported only by force and totalitarian control of society? They're not in your "sphere". They're their own independent, sovereign countries. Get over it. The reason they joined NATO and the EU after it is clear as day. Because it benefited them, because it was an asset, because it made their people more prosperous in a hundred different ways.They weren't conquered, or coerced into it.

Oberyn, read my previous posts, you still talk about soviet union, OMG you still think that new Russia is like soviet union. And then you say that there is now brainwash and propoganda against Russia on the West? Just how people on that topic act against Russian Federation shows how the propoganda works. A lot of people just like to shittalk about Russia really. That what I see on this topic. Soviet Union has gone stop talk about it, or you still butthurt. Nato doesn't make countries prosperous, it is military organization. Or maybe you can tell how it make prosperous, maybe I missed smth.

[Tibe]

Nothing I have posted? Because you're wilfully ignorant and your opinions on the situation are emotionally formed.

Tell me, how's Greece doing in the EU right now? Since you seem to have a deluded idea that the EU is the Ukraine's magic savour as do many Western Ukrainians, when after all the majority of the hard working Ukrainians actually producing goods and generating GDP for Ukraine are Russian speaking East Ukrainians, without them there would be no Ukrainian economy, but look how they've been treated by West Ukrainians and the coup government.

wtf have you been smoking dude? At first I figured that I somewhat knew wtf you are talking about but it gets kinda wierd now. Your opinions arent emotionally formed? Than wtf are they formed on? Cause they arent based on facts and I can tell you that right off the bat. It sounds like your typical NATO world domination, Western propaganda to blame for all terror in the world, Russia totally misunderstood harmless country that was never to blame for everything kind of view you got going here. Which is the true sign of someone brainwashed. Dont get me wrong, you dont have to be brainwashed not to like the West and NATO, but your worldview is kinda fucked up wrong. Stating shit like westerners hate russians based on propaganda and that Russia is a harmless little butterfly is so fucking far from the truth and clearly shows you havent been around the block at all. I admit, my reasons are a bit emotional, but I got pretty solid background for it. Way to accuse me of being buried in the sand while you are still bluntly walking it the dark. GG

[Oberyn]

You don't think Russia's history (yes including while it was the leading cultural, military and political force of the Soviet Union) with these countries might perhaps explain why they joined a military alliance that was designed literally as a counter balance to it? The SU is completely relevant, especially when your current dictator for life has such a hard-on for it and attempts to hail back to it's days of "glory" constantly. Why even worry about countries that were under the SU "sphere" but Russia shouldn't give a fuck about otherwise? They're not part of your Federation and never were.

[DonNicko]

You don't think Russia's history (yes including while it was the leading cultural, military and political force of the Soviet Union) with these countries might perhaps explain why they joined a military alliance that was designed literally as a counter balance to it? The SU is completely relevant, especially when your current dictator for life has such a hard-on for it and attempts to hail back to it's days of "glory" constantly. Why even worry about countries that were under the SU "sphere" but Russia shouldn't give a fuck about otherwise? They're not part of your Federation and never were.

Ok Oberyn, there wasn't any need to join Nato, Russia were weak and didn't pretend to rule those counties, why they joined then? I don't know maybe USA gave them some cookies for that. And those countries got invited to join. Why not? Let's do it. It was easy for Nato to join offended countries, like Crimea joined Russia.