Letter to the American People on Ukraine by Alexander Dugin In this difficult hour of serious trouble on our Western borders, I would like to address the American people in order to help you understand better the positions of our Russian patriots which are shared by the majority of our society. Difference Between the two Meanings of Being American (In the Russian View) 1. We distinguish between two different things: the American people and the American political elite. We sincerely love the first and we profoundly hate the second. 2. The American people has its own traditions, habits, values, ideals, options and beliefs that are their own. These grant to everybody the right to be different, to choose freely, to be what one wants to be and can be or become. It is wonderful feature. It gives strength and pride, self-esteem and assurance. We Russians admire that. 3. But the American political elite, above all on an international level, are and act quite contrary to these values. They insist on conformity and regard the American way of life as something universal and obligatory. They deny other people the right to difference, they impose on everybody the standards of so called “democracy”, “liberalism”, “human rights” and so on that have in many cases nothing to do with the set of values shared by the non-Western or simply not North-American society. It is an obvious contradiction with inner ideals and standards of America. Nationally the right to difference is assured, internationally it is denied. So we think that something is wrong with the American political elite and their double standards. Where habits became the norms and contradictions are taken for logic. We cannot understand it, nor can we accept it: it seems that the American political elite is not American at all. 4. So here is the contradiction: the American people are essentially good, but the American elite is essentially bad. What we feel regarding the American elite should not be applied to the American people and vise versa. 5. Because of this paradox it is not so easy for a Russian to express correctly his attitude towards the USA. We can say we love it, we can say we hate it – because both are true. But it is not easy to always express this distinction clearly. It creates many misunderstandings. But if you want to know what Russians really think about the USA you should always keep in mind this remark. It is easy to manipulate this semantic duality and interpret anti-Americanism of Russians in an improper sense. But with these clarifications in mind all that you hear from us will be much better understood. A Short Survey of Russian History 1. The American Nation was born with capitalism. It didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. The ancestors of Americans had not experienced an American Middle Age, but a European one. So that is a feature of America. Maybe that’s the reason why Americans sincerely think that Russian Nation was born with communism, with the Soviet Union. But that is a total misconception. We are much older than that. The Soviet period was just a short epoch in our long history. We existed before the Soviet Union and we are existing after the Soviet Union. So in order to understand Russians (and Ukrainians as well) you should take into consideration our past. 2. Russians consider Ukraine as being part of the Greater Russia. That was historically so – not by the conquest, but by the genesis of Russian Statehood that started precisely in Kiev. Around Kiev our people and our State were constructed in the IX century. It is our center, our first beloved capital. Later in the XII-XIII centuries different parts of Kievian Russia were more or less independent with two main rivals – the Western principalities Galitsia and Wolyn and the Eastern principality of Vladimir (which later became Moscow) existing. All of these areas were populated by the same nation, Eastern Slavs, all of whom were Orthodox Christian. But the princes of the West were more engaged in European politics and they had more direct contact with Western Christianity and relatively less with the Eastern branches. The title of Great Princes was held in the East by royalty who were considered the masters of the whole of Russia (not always de facto but de jure). In the Mongol period the West as well as the East of our Russian principalities were held under the Golden Horde. Eastern Russia was more or less solid and its power grew around the new capital Moscow. After the fall of the Tartars the rule of the Moscow principality affirmed itself as a regional hegemon that was confirmed by the fall of Byzantine Empire. Hence the doctrine of Moscow as the Third Rome. The destiny of the Western area was quite different. It was incorporated first in a Lithuanian State that later became Polish. The Orthodox western Russians we put under Catholic rule. The earlier main principalities – Galitsia and Wolyn were fragmented and have lost any trace of independence. Some parts were under Lithuania, others under Austria and Hungary, a third belonged to Romania. But all that concerns us now is only the Right-Bank of modern Ukraine. The Left Bank was peopled by Cossacks – the nomad population common to the all lands of Novorossia, space that include Eastern and South-Eastern Ukraine and South Western Russia. Crimea was at that time under Ottoman rule. 3. The growth of the Moscowit Empire integrated first all the Cossack lands (Novorossia) and little by little other territories peopled by Western Russians liberating them from the Poles and Germans. The Moscowit princes believed that they were restoring Old Russia, Kievan Russia uniting all Orthodox Slavs – Eastern and Western in this unique Kingdom. 4. During the XVIII – XIX century the unification of the Western Russian lands was accomplished and in many battles the Moscowit Emperors had finally taken Crimea from the Ottoman Turks. 5. In WWI the Germans conquered the Western Russian lands. It didn’t last long. After that came the October Revolution and the Empire was split into many parts with new nations being born into existence. There was an attempt to construct a Ukrainian nation by different people – Petlyura, Makhno and Levitsky who tried to found three ephemeral States. These States were attacked by Whites and Reds and fought among themselves. Finally the Bolsheviks restored the lands of the Tsarist Empire and proclaimed the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union then artificially created the Ukrainian Republic consisting of Western Russia (Galitsia, Wolyn) and Southern Russia (Novorossia). Later in the 1960′s to that the Republic of Crimea was added. So in this Republic were united three main ethnic groups: Western Russians, the descendants of the Galitsia / Wolyn principalities; the Cossacks / Great Russian population of Novorossia; the Crimea peopled by Great Russians and the rest of the pre-Russian Tartars. This Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was created by the Bolsheviks and was the origin of modern Ukraine. This Ukraine declared independence in 1991 after the split of the USSR. More than that the declaration of independence provoked this split. 6. So modern Ukrainians have three lines of descent – Western Russian, Cossacks, Great Russian and a small Tartar minority in the Crimea. Ukrainian Identity and the two Geopolitical Options 1. The contradiction of Ukraine consists in the multiplicity of identities. Just after the declaration of the new state – the modern Ukraine in 1991 – the question of pan-Ukrainian identity arose. Such a State and nation never existed in history. So the nation had to be constructed. But the three main identities were very different. Crimea populated by Greater Russians along with most parts of Novorossia which were clearly attracted to the Russian Federation. The Western Russians claimed to be the core of a very specific “Ukrainian nation” that they imagined in order to serve their cause. The Western Russians who partly supported Hitler in WWII (Bandera, Shukhevich) possessed and still possess strong ethnic identity where the hatred toward Great Russians (as well as toward Poles to a lesser scale) plays a central role in this identity. This can be traced to the past rivalry of the two Russian feudal principalities projected onto imperial times and followed by Stalin’s purges. These purges were directed against all ethnic groups, but Western Russians read it as the revenge of the Great Russians on them (Stalin was Georgian and the Bolsheviks were internationalists). So the chosen identity of the newly created State of Ukraine was exclusively Western Russian (purely Galitsia / Wolyn style) with no place for a Novorossia and Great Russian identity. 2. This particularity was expressed in two opposite geopolitical options: Western or Eastern, Europe or Russia. The Western lands of Ukraine were in favor of European integration, the Eastern and Crimea in favor of strengthening relations with Russia. The men from Galtsya were dominant in the political elite presenting a Ukraine with only one identity – a Western one – and denying any attempt of the South and East to express their own vision. In the Western Ukraine anti-sovietism was deeply rooted as well as certain complaisance with the ideas of Bandera and Shukhevich who were considered as national heroes of a new Ukraine. The hatred toward Great Russians was dominant and all anti-Russian xenophobic rhetoric hailed. 3. In the East and South soviet values were still solid and Great Russian identity was in turn the overwhelming feeling. But the East and South were passive and their political power was limited. Still the population regularly expressed their choice giving their votes to pro-Russian or at least not so openly Russo-phobic or pro-Western politicians. 4. The challenge for Ukrainian politicians therefore was how to keep this contradictory society together always balancing between these two opposite parts. Each part demanded completely irreconcilable choices. The Westerners insisted on a European direction, Easterners and Southerners on a Russian one. All of the Presidents of the new Ukraine were unpopular, almost to the point of being hated precisely because they were absolutely unable to resolve this problem that had no solution at all. If you please one half of the population immediately you are hated by the other half. In this situation Westerners were more active and vigorous and partly succeeded in imposing their version of a pan-Ukrainian identity on all of the political space of the country – with the considerable help of Western Europe and above all the USA. Events and Their Meaning 1. Now we have approached the present crisis. The Orange revolution of 2004 was made by Westerners who challenged the legal victory of Victor Yanukovitch who was considered the candidate of the East. A Third round of elections (against all democratic norms) was revolutionary imposed in order to give the power to the Western candidate (Yustchenko). Four years later new elections gave the Western President only 4% of the votes and the Eastern candidate Yanukovitch was elected. This time his victory was so obvious that nobody could challenge it. 2. Yanukovitch led the politics of balance. He was not really pro-Russian but didn’t respond to all demands of the West either. He was not very lucky and effective, trying to trick Putin and Obama, disappointing both as well as Ukrainians of any side. He was an opportunist without a real integral strategy, which was almost impossible to develop in a society with a split personality and a split identity. He reacted more than acted. 3. Next, when he made a hesitating and reluctant step toward Russia, abstaining from signing the preparation Treaty of a distant entrance in EU, the opposition (Westerns) revolted. That was the reason Maidan was founded. The revolt was initially that of the West against the East and South. So its russophobic and Nazi nostalgic features are essential to its existence. 4. The opposition received huge support from the Western countries – above all from the USA. The role of America in all these events was decisive and the will to overthrow a pro-Russian President was shown by American representatives to be firm and strong. Now the fact that snipers who killed most of victims in the rioting were not those of Yanukovitch is exposed. It is clear that they were part of the USA’s plan for revolution in the Ukraine and part of a plot to escalate the conflict. 5. The Maidan opposition waged revolution, overthrew Yanukovitch who ran from the country to Russia, and quite illegally seized power in Kiev. There was an illegal putsch that brought the completely illegal junta to power. 6. The first steps of the Westerns after seizure of power were: * declaration of wishing entrance into NATO * attacks on the use of the Russian language * a plea to be accepted in the EU * a refusal for Russia to continue to have a Navy base in Sebastopol (Crimea) * the appointment of corrupted tycoons as governors in the East and South Ukraine. 7. In response to these things Putin took control over Crimea based on on the decrees of the only legal President of the Ukraine, Yankovitch. He also received from the Russian Parliament the right to deploy in Ukraine the Russian army. Crimean authorities were recognized by Moscow as the representatives of their land and Putin has plainly refused any relations with the Kiev junta. 8. So now we are here. Short Prognosis 1. Where will this lead? Logically Ukraine as it was during the 23 years of its history has ceased to exist. It is irreversible. Russia has integrated Crimea and declared herself the guarantor of the liberty of the freedom of choice of the East and South of Ukraine (Novorossia). 2. So in the near future there will be the creation of two (at least) independent political entities corresponding to the two identities mentioned earlier. The Western Ukraine with their pro-NATO position and at the same time a ultra-nationalist ideology and Novorossia with a pro-Russian (and pro-Eurasian) orientation (apparently without any ideology, just like Russia herself). The West of Ukraine will protest trying to keep hold over the East and South. It is impossible by democratic means so the nationalists will try to use violence. After a certain time the resistance of the East and South will grow and / or Russia will intervene. 3. The USA and NATO countries will support by all means the Westerns and the Kiev junta. But in reality this strategy will only worsen the situation. The essence of the problem lays here: if Russia intervenes in the affairs of the State whose population (the majority) regard this intervention as illegitimate, the position of the USA and NATO States would be natural and well founded. But in this situation the population of the East and South of Ukraine welcomes Russia, waits for it, pleads for Russia to come. There is a kind of civil war in Ukraine now. Russia openly supports the East and South. The USA and NATO back the West. The Westerns are trying to get all Ukraine to affirm that not all the population of the East and South is happy with Russia. This is quite true. Also true is that not all of the population of the West is happy with Right Sector, Bandera, Shukhevich and the rule of tycoons. So if Russia would invade the Western parts of Ukraine or Kiev that could be considered as a kind of illegitimate aggression. But the same aggression is in present circumstances the position of the USA that strives to help the Kiev junta take the control of the East and South. It is perceived as an illegitimate act of aggression and it will provoke fierce resistance. Conclusion 1. Now here is what I would say to the American people. The American political elite has tried in this situation as well as in many others to make the Russians hate Americans. But it has failed. We hate the American political elite that brings death, terror, lies and bloodshed everywhere – in Serbia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria – and now in Ukraine. We hate the global oligarchy that has usurped America and uses her as its tool. We hate the double standard of their politics where they call “fascist” innocent citizens without any feature resembling fascist ideology and in the same breath deny the open Hitlerists and Bandera admirers the qualification of “Nazi” in the Ukraine. All that the American political elite speaks or creates (with small exceptions) is one big lie. And we hate that lie because the victims of this lie are not only ourselves, but also you the American people. You believe them, you vote for them. You have confidence in them. But they deceive and betray you. 2. We have no thoughts of or desire to hurt America. We are far from you. America is for Americans as President Monroe used to say. For Americans interests and not for others. Not for Russians. Yes, this is quite reasonable. You want to be free. You and all others deserve it. But what the hell you are doing in the capital of ancient Russia, Victoria Nuland? Why do you intervene in our domestic affairs? We follow law and logic, lines of history and respect identities, differences. It is not an American affair. Is it? 3. I am sure that the separation line between Americans and the American political elite is very deep. Any honest American calmly studying the case will arrive to the conclusion: “let them decide for themselves. We are not similar to these strange and wild Russians, but let them go their own way. And we are going to go our own way.” But the American political elite has another agenda: to provoke wars, to mix in regional conflicts, to incite the hatred of different ethnic groups. The American political elites sacrifice American people to causes that are far from you, vague, uncertain and finally very very bad. 4. The American people should not choose to be with Ukrainians (Western Russians – Galitsya,Wolyn) or with Russians (Great Russians). That is not the case. Be with America, with real America, with your values and your people. Help yourselves and let us be what we are. But the American political elite makes the decisions instead of You. It lies to you, it dis-informs you. It shows faked pictures and falsely stages events with completely imagined explanations and idiotic commentary. They lie about us. And they lie about you. They give you a distorted image of yourself. The American political elite has stolen, perverted and counterfeited the American identity. And they make us hate you and they make you hate us. 5. This is my idea and suggestion: let us hate the American political elite together. Let us fight them for our identities – you for the American, us for the Russian, but the enemy is in both cases the same – the global oligarchy who rules the word using you and smashing us. Let us revolt. Let us resist. Together. Russians and Americans. We are the people. We are not their puppets. Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an adviser to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters. Of course what he wrote is propaganda. The Russians don't really love Americans. But still it sums up the Russian viewpoint pretty well. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
| Summary plz. |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
| Numbers 2 and 3 are very similar my view of America, I like the freedom but have zero love and extreme distrust for the elite. I'd be more positive if the Elite didn't exist to ruin everything great about America and other nations. |
 |
KyuuAL said: Summary plz. This land was ours before you were even an idea (9th centruy hell the Russian Navy alone is 500 years old.). The Eastern part has been ours, we respect your land and ideals, but keep on your side of the Atlantic and we'll do the same, we've spilled alot of blood keeping this land out of the hands of those that have tried to destroy us, so check your leaders before they start something that gets out of hand. Also don't see us as soviets, that was a small part of our history, however the South and Eastern Ukraine belong to the Greater Russia, and how dare you Americans have forces trying to snatch out ancient capital. In conclussion its asking the American people to respect Russian rights and to stop its political masters to stop what will likely lead to a war, given the Ukraine splitting in half is all but assured at this point. Its not as inflamitory as that and has alot of history, but thats what it amounts to. And I do belive Russia has no Territorial designs outside of its Imperial Regions that streatch back hundreds of years. |
RedArmyShogun said: KyuuAL said: Summary plz. This land was ours before you were even an idea (9th centruy hell the Russian Navy alone is 500 years old.). The Eastern part has been ours, we respect your land and ideals, but keep on your side of the Atlantic and we'll do the same, we've spilled alot of blood keeping this land out of the hands of those that have tried to destroy us, so check your leaders before they start something that gets out of hand. Also don't see us as soviets, that was a small part of our history, however the South and Eastern Ukraine belong to the Greater Russia, and how dare you Americans have forces trying to snatch out ancient capital. In conclussion its asking the American people to respect Russian rights and to stop its political masters to stop what will likely lead to a war, given the Ukraine splitting in half is all but assured at this point. Its not as inflamitory as that and has alot of history, but thats what it amounts to. And I do belive Russia has no Territorial designs outside of its Imperial Regions that streatch back hundreds of years. Thanks for summary RedArmyShogun, and thank you OP for a very interesting read. Didn't finish it all yet, but probably will later. As an American, I strongly identify with Dugin's #1. Due to corruption, lack of term limits, lack of decent non-career-politician candidates to vote for, and other factors, we the people are slowly losing control of our own country. We may already be an oligarchy, the truth is that big lobbies like drug companies, military contractors, banking, and other interests have enough funds to easily sway the legislative process. The needs of our people, and thus by extension the needs of the peoples of the rest of the world, are secondary to the career politicians and corrupt CEOs desire to line their own pockets and solidify their own power and influence. There is no good reason, not one, why the US needs to inject itself into the Ukrainian situation right now. Why we are putting pressure on an already tough situation is beyond me. I'm sure money is involved somewhere. And I'll be honest, RedArmyShogun, I think that a lot of Americans see Russia as both the Russian people and the Russian political elite also. As in Dugin's letter, we have tremendous respect for the Russian people's sheer indomitability, ingenuity, and cunning. Unfortunately communism is a parasite that is keeping you guys down. As a history major, it is one of my regrets that I never studied Russian history while I had the chance to do sol at university. Maybe some day... |
| Ah I'm not saying that, I'm speaking from his and the Russian point of view. Russia however has a very rich history, where it is often the victim of agression from the outside, more than it has waged wars. |
RedArmyShogun said: Ah I'm not saying that, I'm speaking from his and the Russian point of view. Russia however has a very rich history, where it is often the victim of agression from the outside, more than it has waged wars. Yeah, I'm sure that's true. For any country, probably, you could say there are wars they had no choice about and wars they should never have started. The same holds true for us. I know from my university studies that at points in history Japan was pretty serious about taking Russian territory away from them, and one of Hitler's dumbest moves was stabbing Stalin in the back during WWII. I'm not too upset about that last one, though, ended up working out pretty good for us... :) The Russian bear kicked some serious Nazi butt. |
Jackrabb1t said: RedArmyShogun said: Ah I'm not saying that, I'm speaking from his and the Russian point of view. Russia however has a very rich history, where it is often the victim of agression from the outside, more than it has waged wars. Yeah, I'm sure that's true. For any country, probably, you could say there are wars they had no choice about and wars they should never have started. The same holds true for us. I know from my university studies that at points in history Japan was pretty serious about taking Russian territory away from them, and one of Hitler's dumbest moves was stabbing Stalin in the back during WWII. I'm not too upset about that last one, though, ended up working out pretty good for us... :) The Russian bear kicked some serious Nazi butt. That was actually one of Hitler's smarter moves. Stalin preyed on Germany anyway and just supported them so that the Nazis would hold out longer and could weaken England + the US. It was just a matter of time until Stalin would have broke the non-agression pact and stabbed Germany in the back to take his share of the disintegrating German Empire. Knowing that, Hitler attacked at a time when nobody would have expected it and if the German troops had reached Moscow sooner, the campaign may well have had been a success. There wasn't really anything else that Hitler could have done at that point, besides negotiating for peace which was out of the question for him. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
Shiratori99 said: Jackrabb1t said: RedArmyShogun said: Ah I'm not saying that, I'm speaking from his and the Russian point of view. Russia however has a very rich history, where it is often the victim of agression from the outside, more than it has waged wars. Yeah, I'm sure that's true. For any country, probably, you could say there are wars they had no choice about and wars they should never have started. The same holds true for us. I know from my university studies that at points in history Japan was pretty serious about taking Russian territory away from them, and one of Hitler's dumbest moves was stabbing Stalin in the back during WWII. I'm not too upset about that last one, though, ended up working out pretty good for us... :) The Russian bear kicked some serious Nazi butt. That was actually one of Hitler's smarter moves. Stalin preyed on Germany anyway and just supported them so that the Nazis would hold out longer and could weaken England + the US. It was just a matter of time until Stalin would have broke the non-agression pact and stabbed Germany in the back to take his share of the disintegrating German Empire. Knowing that, Hitler attacked at a time when nobody would have expected it and if the German troops had reached Moscow sooner, the campaign may well have had been a success. There wasn't really anything else that Hitler could have done at that point, besides negotiating for peace which was out of the question for him. Just a few corrections since I see some common misconceptions here as well: Stalin has never supported nor was allied with Hitler. USSR was conducting an open anti-Nazi policy at least until 1938's Munich Agreement. Thus Hitler never stabbed Stalin in the back of in any other body parts. It should be mentioned here that the whole Nazi party was funded and brought to power by England's money, with the only purpose: to destroy USSR, or to weaken it enough for England, France and other countries to share the spoils. So in fact, the ones stabbed in the back by Hitler were the English. More than that, it should also be noted that in April of 1939, a few months before the time when USSR had discussions regarding the non-aggression pact with Germany, it was also discussing the mutual help treaty with England and France, which England refused, still believing that Hitler will be lesser evil than Stalin, and being afraid that USSR will place its neighbouring countries like Poland, Romania, into its zone of influence (which eventually happened anyway). Even Churchill admitted afterwards that they would've signed this treaty if they knew beforehand what's gonna happen afterwards. After failing to sign this treaty, both USSR and England moved towards signing the non-aggression pact with Germany, and USSR was simply faster, that's all. Thus, England was forced to retaliate against Germany once Hitler attacked Poland, and USSR earned a couple of years to prepare for the war. It could've easily been the opposite. And regarding the actual topic, take everything Dugin says with a grain of salt. He is indeed a propagandist, but at the same time, some of the points he present here are perfectly valid. Anyway, believe it or not, Russia doesn't want war with anyone. Neither we do want to claim Crimea or any other parts of Ukraine or other countries. If we did, and if Putin was such a badass that doesn't give a shit about other countries opinion, we could've done it at any time. Really, just think about it. About half of former USSR republics would've gladly join Russia themselves, but we're not taking them back. Because, to put it bluntly, we don't need them. We don't need to put an extra burden on our economy which hasn't been great as of late. Russia doesn't benefit from war, just see what happened with rouble in the last few months, mostly because of Ukrainian events. You may think whatever you want of Putin, but one thing about him is certain: he's not an idiot. And as long as there's a chance to avoid an open conflict, he will avoid it. And if this conflict actually starts, it won't be Russia that started it. |
| I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but: seishi-sama said: Stalin has never supported nor was allied with Hitler. USSR was conducting an open anti-Nazi policy at least until 1938's Munich Agreement. Thus Hitler never stabbed Stalin in the back of in any other body parts. The Soviet Union supplied Germany with resources during the early period of the war. And Stalin was pretty surprised that Hitler actually attacked him (even though his intelligence agency warned him). And It should be mentioned here that the whole Nazi party was funded and brought to power by England's money, with the only purpose: to destroy USSR, or to weaken it enough for England, France and other countries to share the spoils. So in fact, the ones stabbed in the back by Hitler were the English. England's political course changed alot after Churchill came to power. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
seishi-sama said: Just a few corrections since I see some common misconceptions here as well: Stalin has never supported nor was allied with Hitler. Nope, I think, the term "supporting" isn't really wrong, if we consider the whole kontext of Hitlers and Stalins imperialist commerce regarding Poland. The other thing is that the ascent of the NSDAP was never financed by the British government, but mainly by private corporations. For example the company Hugo Boss or Henry Ford(an outspoken antimitotic) supported Hitler and the origins of the NSDAP in terms of money, no joke. |
Shiratori99 said: I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but: seishi-sama said: Stalin has never supported nor was allied with Hitler. USSR was conducting an open anti-Nazi policy at least until 1938's Munich Agreement. Thus Hitler never stabbed Stalin in the back of in any other body parts. The Soviet Union supplied Germany with resources during the early period of the war. And Stalin was pretty surprised that Hitler actually attacked him (even though his intelligence agency warned him). Supplied, true. Surprised, true. But supplied not because he actually wanted to (Stalin openly called Hitler and Ribbentrop "dirty pigs" even after signing the pact and stated numerous times that the agreement with nazi was signed only to keep USSR at peace, if only temporarily), and surprised not because he never expected it of Hitler, but simply because he never expected it happening so soon. Shiratori99 said: And It should be mentioned here that the whole Nazi party was funded and brought to power by England's money, with the only purpose: to destroy USSR, or to weaken it enough for England, France and other countries to share the spoils. So in fact, the ones stabbed in the back by Hitler were the English. England's political course changed alot after Churchill came to power. Sadly, England's political course was always running into anti-Russian direction, no matter when or where or who... which is quite ironic because on paper, the two countries were often allies. :/ Anyway, to spice things up even more, here's some Paul Craig Roberts on Ukraine: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/06/looting-ukraine-begun/ |
Behemoth11 said: seishi-sama said: Just a few corrections since I see some common misconceptions here as well: Stalin has never supported nor was allied with Hitler. Nope, I think, the term "supporting" isn't really wrong, if we consider the whole kontext of Hitlers and Stalins imperialist commerce regarding Poland. The other thing is that the ascent of the NSDAP was never financed by the British government, but mainly by private corporations. For example the company Hugo Boss or Henry Ford(an outspoken antimitotic) supported Hitler and the origins of the NSDAP in terms of money, no joke. Well, regarding Poland, if there wasn't any "imperialist commerce" from Stalin, he would've been a saint. But he obviously wasn't a saint so... he obviously tried to make the best out of this agreement. And regarding financing, it's more or less the same. Corporations were and are the lifeblood of any capitalist society, to the point they often decide the course of national policy, so in this context it's only "de jure" definition. |
| But whether Hugo Boss or Henry Ford are part of the British society and their support was founded by their personal intention or ideology. I think, that's a difference. |
nucleon said: Well that may mean US has to hand back land to native Americans. And Russia hand back land to the Qing China and the world should shuffle their land all again. Obviously Mongolia should get a share too. Okay let me correct the holes here. One the Native Americans were wiped out and the Mongols lost by right of rule and War. Same with the Chinese. The Russians SILL live there, Of the Ukrainian population around 18 of the 40 million are still ethnic russians, or Ukranians that are culturally Russian and control the land to the east. They arn't some minority you can go "lol leave" towards. That land IS Russian. It was along with Crimea trades off during the glory days of the USSR when everyone condiserd it a formality and no one seen it as likely it would fall. The Russians never consider this situation would happen. As to why not take the land back when it fell? Simple. Yelstien and Kruschev. US President Bush (1st one) Told them back when it was all starting that if the USSR allowed its satalites to go they would not advance NATO a single step past Germany. He gave a solem oath and promise. The same oath was offer to Yelstin to keep Russian soldiers back. During this time the Russians lost large numbers of its population to other states that were given land out of "solidarity" and Yelstin being the useless drunk he was had to keep to the deal while NATO lied and advanced step after step as he needed the aid to keep in power. Its not much talked about by any news media but a coup was attempted against him. And he dismantled the Durma and his own government a number of times. Historically when any army from the west heads east, it results in an Invasion of Russia, at least half the time the Asian's bring things to sell, and Russia lost around 35 million lives (20 of that in WW2) keeping that land out of the hands of various Empires, and later the Nazi's. Whom let me add are now in positions of power in Kiev. And Russia should just "leave"? Watch as Nato takes one more state, and places in its Military and Missiles at the Gates of Moscow facing east? Let me put it from a US point of view. Now it won't be spot on given the time and a few other factors. Say today China joins hands with South America and makes the PAN Alliance. Or the Pacific American Nations Alliance. And the US forms the North American union, where the US state of Texas is after a War given a huge chunk of Mexican land, land paid for after a Mexican PAN supported Invasion kills several million Americans, enough so to affect the current population in the long run. Then in the resulting PAN arm race the US breaks. Its in need of Loans, the Chinese show up and go "Pan won't advance another Step. Here have some money" Then a drunk useless president is proped up, the US losses CA New Mexico, South CAl, and Texas, though they are all there own nations with an Agreement between PAN and the US Remnants to live neutural. Then the Next year China goes. Hey America you arn't communist and you can't stop us. Mexico Joins Pan, then South CAl, then New Mexico. They arn't too upset as alot of Americans don't live there, but then a coup breaks out in Texas from Mexicans on the Other side of the Rio Grande, Mexicans that are from the Party that killed several Millions of Americans. Its clear they are a threat to the US Security, And the Americans still living there. More so when Chinese officals show up with PAN officals to back the rebelion. Meanwhile Texans take up arms in the regions that belonged to the US and beg the US to help them. The US has paid Millions of lives in blood for the land, built it up from nothing, and invested millions in it. Frankly it doesn't make a damn that it originally belonged to Mexico. They lost it in a War they could not win, least there is honor in that, and the populations moved out and were small. Now should the US sit on its hands and watch as Texas joins the PAN and its American population is killed, subjegated, or thrown out? If you can answer yes to that or say still the Russians have no right, either you have no heart or you have no brains. Regardless people in the US and EU need to read third party news, and then ask themselves, do they want leaders that do shit like they are doing. And to pull out the ear plugs and no longer ignore the rapes of all that made those nations great at one point. |
RedArmyShogunMar 13, 2014 6:49 AM
nucleon said: Texas is not a country right now. Let it get separated first. Moscow never admit it sent troops to Ukraine. That's the situation. The west aren't interested in military moves. Instead it has started to lend money already. If China is good enough to offer attractive economic terms for Texas and Texas is an independent country to decide on it's own. Yes, it can move on to do what ever it likes. It seems someones don't recognize what a country means. That's the point. What constitutes a country and what not is arbitrarily defined by politicians. There is no universal definition for it. The "right of territorial integrity" is a law used to manifest the status quo which is in the interests of the ruling elite, since no country wants to give independence to one of their territories. Ironically, this principle is used by the Russians themselves in matters like Chechnya, yet denied in Ukraine. But this is simply because this law is nonsensical in the first place. It is a political tool, nothing more or less. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
| Its largely a tool as pointed out. However in Truth they arn't Russian soldiers. All of them are at the bases they already had, and the local area's seen as parts of it. Those other soldiers you see are more or less PMC's hired by the Russian Government, And mostly if not all made up of local Ukrainians. So from a point of view Russia is being 100% honest. Just like the EU and US is when it says it sent no troops in, inspite of the fact proof has been found that PMC's and Intel are in operation in support of the Western side. Its a new form of War. |
| The WWII references really bugs me so, despite derailing, here's my contribution: Germany and the USSR signed a 10-year NAP, thus the '41 invasion is a legitimate situation to be called a "stab in the back". The '41 invasion was not a stupid decision, Stalin already had made plans to invade by '42 or '43, thus war was inevitable and striking the enemy before they are ready is a wise decision strategically (The stupid decision was the Battle of Britain, in actuality. And DoW'ing the USA). Stalin also was warned of the German invasion but refused to believe it because of his pride, and because it was also fishy in some aspects, such as the lack of a stockpile of winter equipment / supplies by the Germans (which came to bite them in the ass in the winter of '41-'42). Unfortunately, the fishy parts were just Hitler being retarded and Stalin paid the price. But anyway, I'm surprised Ukraine even lasted this long as a whole piece, since its divisions were clear from the moment they became independent. Really, I'd assume that the US would have to concede to Russia here, since it's doubtful that Obama would want to commit to military action without local support and/or firm post-action plan, as shown in his intervention, and lack of one, in Libya and Syria respectively. (US isn't intervening in Syria because if it'd did, it'd have to occupy the entire place lest it becomes a shithole, and if Syria becomes a shithole, Lebanon becomes a shithole, and it'll eventually spill into Iraq and the entire ME... so thus lacks the firm post-action plan). |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |