You didn't even bother trying. Do you always call people "russophobes" when you are unable to refute their arguments?
No, I only do so when they are russophobic. Cool. Can I use the same technique to dismiss arguments from "the other side" because it's just russophilia? This reminds me of a question that I asked you not long ago, and you left it unanswered. So I won't answer yours, anyways it's mostly rhetorical  You were being a douchebag. Here you are: So the posts made by indignant westerners can be considered the proof of the opposite? No. Posts by indignant Westerners cannot be considered proof that covert Western troops, dressed in mufti, have been sent to east Ukraine to either pretend to be Russian-speaking rebels or to assist some rebel groups. That opposite makes no sense. And I was talking about the Russian argumentativeness as being an auxiliary or supporting argument in light of all the other evidence like photos and first-hand accounts (showing that Russia has been attacking Ukraine). Assuming that Russia has been wrongly accused by the West, Russians would be expected to respond in a rational manner, which includes accepting and open-mindedly discussing the possibility that maybe the Russian government has been attacking Ukraine. However, the stubborn denial, and the defensiveness towards the Russian government seems highly suspicious. The lack of diversity in the Russian opinions is also highly suspect. Most Westerners whom I've met seem very aware that some Western governments, especially the US, are probably up to no good. Even if they don't want to make direct accusations without knowing the facts, Westerners often have a healthy distrust towards their democratically elected representatives. And many of them often disagree with each other. Some Westerners have different opinions from other Westerners! You may be shocked by this, but Westerners often argue among themselves, even in the same thread on the Internet. The ability for Westerners to have different opinions also results in small government majorities, minority governments, hung parliaments, and 'low' levels of support for their country's leaders. As a side-effect, this makes it easier for leaders in more authoritarian regimes to falsely claim that they (for example: Putin) are doing a better job because they are more popular. Therefore, the united voice chanting in unison: "the Russian government is innocent! They are not involved in Ukraine's internal disputes! The rebels are real! The West is responsible for Ukraine's coup and the "Kiev junta"!" sounds very suspect. |
|
|
|
You didn't even bother trying. Do you always call people "russophobes" when you are unable to refute their arguments?
No, I only do so when they are russophobic. Cool. Can I use the same technique to dismiss arguments from "the other side" because it's just russophilia? |
|
|
|
I was going to say, I really hope that Russia doesn't become the new world ruler, considering how corrupt and totalitarian their government is, how much they trample on human rights, and how much their culture apparently breeds apathy and neonazi levels of nationalism, thinking that everyone just collapsing and being independent would be a much better outcome then being forced under Russia... And then I remembered that "As of 2012 oil and gas sector accounted for 16% of the GDP, 52% of federal budget revenues and over 70% of total exports", many of which are going to EU, so if the "West" collapses, Russia will follow. And before you say, "But China!...," at least 40% of China's exports are going to the "West," and that really high US debt you guys keep bringing up? A lot of that is to China, which owns $1.28 TRILLION in US debt, from which it earns $26.9 billion in interest payments every year, and which it holds as treasury notes to suppress the value of its own currency to make their exports cheaper and more competitive. If US collapses, not only will China instantly lose $1.28 trillion in assets, but it will lose a huge income, and its currency value will shoot up, as will the price of their exports and labor, making them really uncompetitive for outsourcing. Their economy will collapse as well, combined with massive unemployment. So, China will lose their export economy and many of their workers will become unemployed, Russia will find itself not being able to sell its oil to anyone (Brazil isn't doing all that well either BTW), and because much of Russia is held up by social welfare programs paid by those oil and gas profits (keeps the population pacified, but stupid, and keeps the economy from developing), when those social welfare programs dry up (or lead to massive hyperinflation), there will be massive mayhem in the streets of Russia. I am certain Jews will be blamed. So, if "The West" falls, your favorite pets Russia and China will fall with them. P.S. Oil and resources do not make for the richest economy in a nation. Who are the wealthiest, most economically developed nations in the Middle East? Oil-rich Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? Nope! It's Israel and Dubai, the two countries that have no oil whatsoever! Oh, you're very russophobic and predjudiced, twisting facts to support your fear-mongering claims. How is it possible to twist facts? It doesn't make sense to argue with you.
You didn't even bother trying. Do you always call people "russophobes" when you are unable to refute their arguments? |
|
|
|
  16 august 2008  Any Russian can google some old photo and say "the Ukrainians said this..." It's called putting words in someone's mouth. Provide a link to a *.UA website where the actual claim was made. And then prove that it wasn't planted by Russian opposition. |
|
|
|
The Soviet system came entirely out of Russia, and it was Russia invading other republics to build a Soviet Union.
you see this is where you are wrong. studying non-politically motivated historical accounts a little better can easily fix that. russians (as well as other nations within ussr) are also the victims of communist ideology which been imposed onto them from abroad (in fact from thinkers in great britain - the only monarchy left standing after ww1). then after coup that toppled czar in process foreign secret services (mostly british) organised a takeover of petrograd (now st piterburg) with introduction of communist ideology as a main sell point for confused and mislead public. trocki came from britain where he was trained. lenin came from switzerland together with paid international mercenaries and idea driven european communists (mostly ethnical jews). then to take the rest of the country the red army was established which was guided by the secret services and heavily sponsored by the wall street capital. once they won the war total destruction, theft, corruption and holodomor came to further break the country and extract wealth from it for western capital. mass murder became norm and huge citizen imprisonments followed, concentration camps were created, hunger etc. when stalin started to fight back for sovereignty he only managed to achieve that after 15 years walking along razor's edge exterminating the fifth column (or anyone related to it) - it was the only way, too much was being put at stake and too little time to achieve that. he was brutal man, but considering the circumstances he did manage to achieve the independence from the bankersSo, Stalin was really just a nice man who was forced to commit genocide to save his people from the globalist banksters? after the final purges of 37-38. by the way stalin wasnt even marksist - its believed he had very tight links with few of the remaining generals loyal to czar within military who seen stalin as the only solution to save russia from globalists. when bankers realised that they lost the strings to pull inside ussr, plan b had to be implemented and unleash hitler dog on stalin. as a result of ww2 brits completely exhausted themselves and pound sterling lost its reserve status to be passed onto usd and carry on the fight into cold war following the bretton woods.......
...so as you can see the fight goes on. for better or worse time will tell. but after losing cold war and total collapse and pillage of russia thought nineties people refuse to be defeated. they have the right to fight for their independence from russian/zionist oligarchy & international globalists. the reason putin is so popular now is because he is the only straw that russians have to save themselves - and results are already very clear. he was placed there by the globalists but he cheated them over and created his own patriotic ideology which is by the way extremely democratic and fair. the reason why ukraine is suffering still is because the oligarchy has completely exhausted the soviet inheritance and draind everything they could off the people without putting anything back into the system. the zionist oligarchs which are the most powerful entities in ukraine are the ones controlling the mass media and poisoning ukrainians even abroad....
Get well soon!  I would discuss the economics, but hey, when mass murder is necessary because "The 17 Terrorist Bloodlines"... |
|
|
|
More than anything, I think, Kharkov should be the one to be returned to Russia.THe oil money could transform Kharkov. I read that it was the third biggest urban center of the USSR but if you see Kharkov now, it is very dilapidated and clearly lacking in investments. Driving from Kharkov to Belgorod in Russia, which is nearly tenth smaller in population is just like flying from Bucharest to Budapest- from Third World to First World.The refurbishing that have been given to the Russian major cities lately will transform Kharkov. I'm thinking along the lines of Yekaterinburg, Rostov na Donu or even the much smaller in population but classier Far Eastern cities like Khabarovsk & Vladivostok....
Well-said. You're both being naive and greedy. Typical situation regarding national resources: when farmers 'own' the land, it usually only means the top-soil. If oil, gas or other resources are discovered underneath, foreign investors are likely to have plenty of legal means to mine the land, while providing only minimal compensation to the farmers or villages. There might be some local investment, access roads and other infrastructure, or a few local jobs, but that is only a tiny fraction compared to the profit that the investors get from the resource. Although it's completely normal for investors to seek out opportunities to capture as much wealth as they can, in this case the towns have obvious economic incentives to remain part of the Ukraine: 1) Kiev is physically closer on the map. 2) Ukraine is much smaller than Russia, so the same town is a larger proportion of the whole country. Local leaders would have more political influence, and less likely to have their needs ignored. 3) Moscow's economic policy is strongly anti-EU, while Kiev has been trying to increase trade with the EU. Russia's only hope of providing a better deal would be as part of a propaganda show, where they simply shower the towns with redistributed money to convince the locals that they made the right decision to join Russia. But before that happens, Russia keeps sending plain-clothes rebels to show them how dangerous and unstable the "Kiev Junta" is. |
|
|
|
You're just being obtuse. You think you'll get some points if I admit that one sentence was inaccurate? Fine, there are some American troops in Germany. But nobody gave a shit for the reasons that I explained earlier. The people were obviously happy to tolerate American troops because they could see that they were protecting a democratic system that was showing superior results compared to the communist Soviet system. Germany has now built itself back into an economic power-house, while the US appears to be weakening, so the situation may change soon.
In addition, it's interesting that you do not recognise East/West Germany and modern Germany, or Nazi Germany as different countries. Obviously, there would be a continuation of common factors like their culture and language. However, the same standards should also be applied to the Soviet Union and today's Russia. Yet whenever Soviet crimes are exposed, the usual response to claim that Russia was merely a member state, and a helpless victim, overpowered by the communist minority.
I recognize different Germanies, but this distinction doesn't in the least make the US troops which are stationed there less "occupational". In fact, now, when there is no more the evil USSR, it is even more questionable what the USA forces are doing there. Besides that, Germans are not happy about still being occupied (and there are no illusions about that, by the way), don't pretend it is not so. Actually, I'm laughing at how you put it, "happy to tolerate". This says it all, lol... An idealist Russian... this new species sounds even more dangerous than the nihilist cynics. So why do the Americans still hold their troops in Germany almost 23 years past the USSR's demise? What is your opinion on the cause of this? Do you have any? Perhaps the Americans think that a mere 23 years is not enough time even for Germans to get their act together, and that the Russians are being far too tough on the Ukrainians. I didn't quite understand what you meant. Do you mean that American troops in Germany are to prevent Russia's attack on it? If so, what about Italy, would Russians attack it but for the US forces there? It's called irony. I don't know why the Americans are there. They're probably NATO forces or part of other treaties. It's also likely to be imperial arrogance, where the US really does believe that Germany needs to be babysat for a few decades, to prevent anything from going wrong. Suggesting similar imperial arrogance, there have been several comments suggesting that Ukraine has had enough time to prove that they're capable of surviving as an independent country without getting re-absorbed into Russia. What says your manual about this?
Tell me more about these 'manuals' you speak of. |
|
|
|
You're just being obtuse. You think you'll get some points if I admit that one sentence was inaccurate? Fine, there are some American troops in Germany. But nobody gave a shit for the reasons that I explained earlier. The people were obviously happy to tolerate American troops because they could see that they were protecting a democratic system that was showing superior results compared to the communist Soviet system. Germany has now built itself back into an economic power-house, while the US appears to be weakening, so the situation may change soon.
In addition, it's interesting that you do not recognise East/West Germany and modern Germany, or Nazi Germany as different countries. Obviously, there would be a continuation of common factors like their culture and language. However, the same standards should also be applied to the Soviet Union and today's Russia. Yet whenever Soviet crimes are exposed, the usual response to claim that Russia was merely a member state, and a helpless victim, overpowered by the communist minority.
I recognize different Germanies, but this distinction doesn't in the least make the US troops which are stationed there less "occupational". In fact, now, when there is no more the evil USSR, it is even more questionable what the USA forces are doing there. Besides that, Germans are not happy about still being occupied (and there are no illusions about that, by the way), don't pretend it is not so. Actually, I'm laughing at how you put it, "happy to tolerate". This says it all, lol... An idealist Russian... this new species sounds even more dangerous than the nihilist cynics. So why do the Americans still hold their troops in Germany almost 23 years past the USSR's demise? What is your opinion on the cause of this? Do you have any? Perhaps the Americans think that a mere 23 years is not enough time even for Germans to get their act together, and that the Russians are being far too tough on the Ukrainians. |
|
|
|
You're just being obtuse. You think you'll get some points if I admit that one sentence was inaccurate? Fine, there are some American troops in Germany. But nobody gave a shit for the reasons that I explained earlier. The people were obviously happy to tolerate American troops because they could see that they were protecting a democratic system that was showing superior results compared to the communist Soviet system. Germany has now built itself back into an economic power-house, while the US appears to be weakening, so the situation may change soon.
In addition, it's interesting that you do not recognise East/West Germany and modern Germany, or Nazi Germany as different countries. Obviously, there would be a continuation of common factors like their culture and language. However, the same standards should also be applied to the Soviet Union and today's Russia. Yet whenever Soviet crimes are exposed, the usual response to claim that Russia was merely a member state, and a helpless victim, overpowered by the communist minority.
I recognize different Germanies, but this distinction doesn't in the least make the US troops which are stationed there less "occupational". In fact, now, when there is no more the evil USSR, it is even more questionable what the USA forces are doing there. Besides that, Germans are not happy about still being occupied (and there are no illusions about that, by the way), don't pretend it is not so. Actually, I'm laughing at how you put it, "happy to tolerate". This says it all, lol... An idealist Russian... this new species sounds even more dangerous than the nihilist cynics. |
|
|
|
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question)
...
I'm not Russian but you did not answer the question
They do not occupy Europe.Your leading question has a built-in claim that is false. Perhaps they have some forces near Georgia or former Yugoslav territory, but that's obviously not what you meant. Democratic governments answer to their people, not Washington. Germany and Italy are still occupied by the US army by any means. There are 56 (fifty six) United States Army installations in Germany and 113 (one hundred thirteen) in Italy. The biggest US army base (outside the USA) is located in Ramstein, Germany, where there are more than 54,000 American service members (and in 2006 it underwent an extensive expansion at that, lol)... Germany doesn't count as they were one of the main aggressors in WW2. That was part of the price Germany paid for getting defeated. That still does not explain why the Soviets refused to retreat from several other countries that were not Russia, and why they forced ethnically non-Russian children to learn Russian at school. Even if it's not possible to force everyone to learn something, it took time away from learning more useful subjects. So you tried to deceive. No. As I already explained, I hadn't considered US forces as occupants. Similarly, a heart transplant is not considered a form of cancer, even though it has different DNA. The fact is that Russia invaded Europe, not as liberators, but as cynical imperialists and thieves. Personally, you may consider them whatever way you want. But as I said before, they are still occupation troops in Europe. And as I said before but you ignored me, Germany does not count. Nazi Germany lost and was divided into 2 new countries: East Germany and West Germany. West Germany was firmly part of the Anglo-American West, but when the Soviet Union mysteriously collapsed despite the high standard of living, Germany underwent reunification. Which of the 3 different Germany's are you talking about? Nazi, East/West, or New? You seem to be trying to distract attention away from Soviet or Russian crimes, such as their military occupation and political interference in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and a few others. Then the Russians act surprised/confused when their former 'brothers' dislike Russia. It was you who stated that Europe is not occupied by the US forces, to begin with, so you may not point a finger at me. And Germany does count, but what certainly doesn't is whether it is East/West, or New, or whatever Germany (and don't forget about Italy)... You're just being obtuse. You think you'll get some points if I admit that one sentence was inaccurate? Fine, there are some American troops in Germany. But nobody gave a shit for the reasons that I explained earlier. The people were obviously happy to tolerate American troops because they could see that they were protecting a democratic system that was showing superior results compared to the communist Soviet system. Germany has now built itself back into an economic power-house, while the US appears to be weakening, so the situation may change soon. In addition, it's interesting that you do not recognise East/West Germany and modern Germany, or Nazi Germany as different countries. Obviously, there would be a continuation of common factors like their culture and language. However, the same standards should also be applied to the Soviet Union and today's Russia. Yet whenever Soviet crimes are exposed, the usual response to claim that Russia was merely a member state, and a helpless victim, overpowered by the communist minority. |
|
|
|
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question)
...
I'm not Russian but you did not answer the question
They do not occupy Europe.Your leading question has a built-in claim that is false. Perhaps they have some forces near Georgia or former Yugoslav territory, but that's obviously not what you meant. Democratic governments answer to their people, not Washington. Germany and Italy are still occupied by the US army by any means. There are 56 (fifty six) United States Army installations in Germany and 113 (one hundred thirteen) in Italy. The biggest US army base (outside the USA) is located in Ramstein, Germany, where there are more than 54,000 American service members (and in 2006 it underwent an extensive expansion at that, lol)... Germany doesn't count as they were one of the main aggressors in WW2. That was part of the price Germany paid for getting defeated. That still does not explain why the Soviets refused to retreat from several other countries that were not Russia, and why they forced ethnically non-Russian children to learn Russian at school. Even if it's not possible to force everyone to learn something, it took time away from learning more useful subjects. So you tried to deceive. No. As I already explained, I hadn't considered US forces as occupants. Similarly, a heart transplant is not considered a form of cancer, even though it has different DNA. The fact is that Russia invaded Europe, not as liberators, but as cynical imperialists and thieves. Personally, you may consider them whatever way you want. But as I said before, they are still occupation troops in Europe. And as I said before but you ignored me, Germany does not count. Nazi Germany lost and was divided into 2 new countries: East Germany and West Germany. West Germany was firmly part of the Anglo-American West, but when the Soviet Union mysteriously collapsed despite the high standard of living, Germany underwent reunification. Which of the 3 different Germany's are you talking about? Nazi, East/West, or New? You seem to be trying to distract attention away from Soviet or Russian crimes, such as their military occupation and political interference in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and a few others. Then the Russians act surprised/confused when their former 'brothers' dislike Russia. |
|
|
|
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question)
...
I'm not Russian but you did not answer the question
They do not occupy Europe.Your leading question has a built-in claim that is false. Perhaps they have some forces near Georgia or former Yugoslav territory, but that's obviously not what you meant. Democratic governments answer to their people, not Washington. Germany and Italy are still occupied by the US army by any means. There are 56 (fifty six) United States Army installations in Germany and 113 (one hundred thirteen) in Italy. The biggest US army base (outside the USA) is located in Ramstein, Germany, where there are more than 54,000 American service members (and in 2006 it underwent an extensive expansion at that, lol)... Germany doesn't count as they were one of the main aggressors in WW2. That was part of the price Germany paid for getting defeated. That still does not explain why the Soviets refused to retreat from several other countries that were not Russia, and why they forced ethnically non-Russian children to learn Russian at school. Even if it's not possible to force everyone to learn something, it took time away from learning more useful subjects. So you tried to deceive. No. As I already explained, I hadn't considered US forces as occupants. Similarly, a heart transplant is not considered a form of cancer, even though it has different DNA. The fact is that Russia invaded Europe, not as liberators, but as cynical imperialists and thieves. And the USA still occupies part of Europe, period (and one of the most developed at that). And I see once again that you are trying to switch the discussion from a topic you have been shown to lie about to quite a different theme...
Pffft... "But the USA did this... But the USA did that... Please ignore the Russian crimes because the West was guilty of some other crime..." |
|
|
|
sadly, your remarks are very shallow when studying geopolitics and crypto economy. whether one system being more superior or not is question to be answered once both systems eventually fail
The ends don't justify the means. The problem with such grand schemes such as Marxism is that people are expected to die or live terrible lives for the open-ended promise of some utopian future. Wasn't that Hegelian dialectic pseudo-intellectual fluff around since the early 1800s? What I would like to know is, how have the Russians adapted their politics to take into account 20th century advances in philosophy and sciences? Discussion of "Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis" sounds very Freudian when compared to Chaos theory, or the works of Einstein, Goedel, and Turing. - its a long-term answer. after the ww2 the west decided to live using the ponzi scheme system on futures' wealth - the wealth that dont exist yet. obviously from the prospective of a person this system is superior because its generating better living conditions in short period of time, but the downfall of that system is that there will be a day when house of cards comes down stripping all the wealth away from other generations down the line. Sounds like you've been reading Zero Hedge. They're just a mix of satire, dis-info, and thinly disguised American frustration with the EU. Incidentally, they're also evidence that the EU states are not puppets of the US, or at least they're asserting their independence. the soviet economical system is much harder to build since there is no non-existent wealth around - the wealth is only what physically exist. Could you explain how this non-existent futures wealth is meant to work? I'm always enthusiastic about getting more wealth from nothing. so by the end of 70s soviets managed to achieve very high standard living. Which Soviets? Coincidentally, the Soviet satellite states were slowly going bankrupt. The People's Republic of Poland was probably in the worst state where underground political opposition, disguised as a "worker's union" gained 10 million members, and by 1981 the authorities instituted marshal law to show the Soviet Union that everything was safe and under control, and there was no need to send any helpful peacekeepers who were performing unrelated military exercises near the eastern borders. give them 30-40 more years of non-interruptive development and they could have extremely stable non-crashing system with high quality of living that could last for centuries. though with arrival of gorbachev (& his masonic overlords) it all got dismantled from top to bottom. Undoubtedly there would have plenty of coordination around 1989 to organise the relatively peaceful coups, but do you really think all those millions of people would have agreed and participated if they hadn't been desperate and starving after decades of Soviet rule? And do you really think the communist rulers would have stood by and allowed democratic opposition to take over, if they believed they could win? With all due respect, your claim of a 30-40 year continuation sounds like a fantasy. Maybe Moscow was doing OK, but that's because they were stealing. |
|
|
|
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question)
...
I'm not Russian but you did not answer the question
They do not occupy Europe.Your leading question has a built-in claim that is false. Perhaps they have some forces near Georgia or former Yugoslav territory, but that's obviously not what you meant. Democratic governments answer to their people, not Washington. Germany and Italy are still occupied by the US army by any means. There are 56 (fifty six) United States Army installations in Germany and 113 (one hundred thirteen) in Italy. The biggest US army base (outside the USA) is located in Ramstein, Germany, where there are more than 54,000 American service members (and in 2006 it underwent an extensive expansion at that, lol)... Germany doesn't count as they were one of the main aggressors in WW2. That was part of the price Germany paid for getting defeated. That still does not explain why the Soviets refused to retreat from several other countries that were not Russia, and why they forced ethnically non-Russian children to learn Russian at school. Even if it's not possible to force everyone to learn something, it took time away from learning more useful subjects. Perhaps in a 1950s or 1960s context it would be understandable. European 'spoils' were divided between the major powers, and there might have been a legitimate struggle between Communist and Capitalist ideologies. But Western ideals of freer trade, democracy, and personal freedoms, were somehow more successful. As a competitive showcase, West Germany grew far richer than East Germany, and the whole of eastern Europe became poorer than the west. "Damage from WW2" was no longer a good excuse, and it appears that a significant amount of Soviet effort was wasted by stealing resources and keeping the people under control instead of building useful infrastructure. What the Soviets didn't understand, and now the Russians don't seem to understand, is people's resentment from being oppressed. It doesn't matter that someone else also had troops occupying their country. The American system was plainly better than the Soviet one. Therefore, a) it was more acceptable. b) Western policies were not affected by the emotions of frustrated politicians. TL;DR: yes the Americans also had troops in various places, but they also had a better system. |
|
|
|
Why do you guys keep saying that they were cheated by Putin?
[OFFTOPIC Ad hominem attack + red herring that distracts attention from the question] I see that the KGB has sent reinforcements. You guys don't really want the Russian economy to improve, do you? It would make your jobs too expensive, and they would be forced to outsource to India. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess we expand the definition of telepathy to include Rube Goldberg Skype  The 'emitter' could have just typed an instant message. The power of their mind would have electrically stimulated some nerves, which then activated some muscles in the hands, causing them to type on buttons with arbitrary abstract patterns drawn on top. Skip a few steps, and the 'receiver' makes some guesses about the meaning of those symbols, and thus 'reads' 'words'. UP NEXT: researchers hack computer by probing motherboard with oscilloscope. |
|
|
|
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question)
...
I'm not Russian but you did not answer the question
They do not occupy Europe. Your leading question has a built-in claim that is false. Perhaps they have some forces near Georgia or former Yugoslav territory, but that's obviously not what you meant. Democratic governments answer to their people, not Washington. |
|
|
|
And now, we're expected to believe Russian lies that they are not present in Ukraine?
No, but you're expected to show some solid proof that they're there. How much more proof do you need? I cannot heal your blindness if you choose not to see. This thread has over 200 pages of evidence, including evidence of Russians being brainwashed idiots who refuse to believe anything unless it comes from Putin's mouth. Hey smarty, why being so rude? Is this the only way you can express your thoughts? Which piece of proof do you consider the most solid? (for the record) The posts made by the indignant Russians. |
|
|
|
World War 2 had been over for decades, so why did the Russian soldiers still refuse to go home?
This is a good question, why US continues to occupy Europe over seven decades (rhetorical question) Where? (Not rhetorical. I expect an answer.) The Germans? Spain maybe? Where are all the oppressed European people who have been forced to adopt an obviously inferior and less efficient system of government, along with an extensive police state apparatus so that they cannot fight back? Your claim is nonsensical because over that time, the West was clearly superior in practically every metric you care to suggest. Superior wealth, superior personal freedoms, superior health and well-being... People would only oppose it if there was some other, even better alternative. It is only in recent times, where the US has apparently started to degrade severely, even if more subtle flaws were visible before 1990. Meanwhile, Western Europe (and, since 1990, Eastern Europe) has continued to rebuild. Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, the systems in the EU and the US are significantly different from each other. The typical Russian prejudice against "the West" cannot even be taken seriously because it's laughable and idiotic. |
|
|
|
And now, we're expected to believe Russian lies that they are not present in Ukraine?
No, but you're expected to show some solid proof that they're there. How much more proof do you need? I cannot heal your blindness if you choose not to see. This thread has over 200 pages of evidence, including evidence of Russians being brainwashed idiots who refuse to believe anything unless it comes from Putin's mouth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
