EU looks East, proposes new partnership to the Eastern countries

[Julian Delphiki]

You really can't spot the effect of Soviet infrastructure still tieing these states to Russia whether they like to or not, making them structurally dependant on Russia, whether they like it or not?

Finland is out of it simply because it had the great good fortune of never being part of the Soviet Union. And that wasn't for want of the Soviets trying.

And you really are fooling yourself if you think the Finns have forgotten anything.

They're just terribly soft spoke towards Russia, just like thy were towards the Soviet Union, out of fear, while being armed to the teeth. Every nation in western Europe downsized their cold war invasion defence beginning with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Except the Finns. Much too risky with Russia for a neighbour in their opinion.

Thanks for typing that for me

 

[Julian Delphiki]

hmmm, well, its an almost universally held opinion on him, so I dont know why you singled me out. User specific polls arent allowed (Unless Winner started one hmself), but I'm fairly sure I know what the result would be if there was one entitled "Is Winner anti-Russian". To tell the truth, I'm not particularly impressed with the opinions of someone who dosent like Hugo Chavez "Because he gives money to poor people and they only waste it out of stupidity", but I'm glad to know I'm both amusing and irritating you.

No, it's not. I don't always agree with him, but you often try to debunk him just by the claim 'anti-russian'... which is what is somewhat done to you by others on other threads under 'anti-american' or 'red'.

 

[RedRalph]

No, it's not. I don't always agree with him, but you often try to debunk him just by the claim 'anti-russian'... which is what is somewhat done to you by others on other threads under 'anti-american' or 'red'.

Not universal, but almost. I have seen him being accused of being anti-Russian about as many times as I have seen Pannonius being accused of being anti-Islamic. Winner himself admits that many people think this about him, he has said as much.

 

[Yeekim]

No, it's not. I don't always agree with him, but you often try to debunk him just by the claim 'anti-russian'... which is what is somewhat done to you by others on other threads under 'anti-american' or 'red'.

I might add, that while Winner usually provides articles and argumentation (one-sided, but still reasonable argumentation), our friend Ralph way too often answers just with smiley attacks. The fact that someone might be anti-russian does in no way mean his arguments or conclusions are wrong.

 

[RedRalph]

I might add, that while Winner usually provides articles and argumentation (one-sided, but still reasonable argumentation), our friend Ralph way too often answers just with smiley attacks. The fact that someone might be anti-russian does in no way mean his arguments or conclusions are wrong.

No, it certaintly dosent. However the fact that Russia is singled out again and again and again makes Winner the anti-Russian equivalent of Pannonius. Some of his criticisms of Russia are correct. But he goes on and on and on about Russia, as Pannonius does about Islam (some of Pannonius' criticism of Islam are perfectly valid too). He brings Russia into threads which are nothing to do with them. He makes criticisms of Russia and dosent apply them to other countries. If Winner made a negative reference to Russia every so often, in the correct context, then fair enough. But its a fixation. Look, I know you and him have a similar agenda and you arent going to agree with me anyway. but FWIW (and I accept this dosent make it true), My view on Winner is a fairly widely held one, so if you think its a misconception on my part, its one most CFC regulars have. Winner has admitted this himself. so part of the problem (if there is one), is how Winner comes across, not just how others interpret him.


winner, If you dont want such a long user specific post tell me and I'll delete cause I dont want to get banned.

 

[Winner]

I might add, that while Winner usually provides articles and argumentation (one-sided, but still reasonable argumentation), our friend Ralph way too often answers just with smiley attacks. The fact that someone might be anti-russian does in no way mean his arguments or conclusions are wrong.

Especially when he's not. To be anti-Russian, I'd have to hate Russians as a people, just as being anti-semitic means you hate Jews as a people. That's not the case, so I'd say that my opponents need a better term. Anti-Kremlin should be fairly accurate description of my views.

EDIT (to Ralph): nah, I don't mind, but let's get back to the matter at hand.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, fair enough. threadjack over.

 

[Steph]

That's not the case, so I'd say that my opponents need a better term. Anti-Kremlin should be fairly accurate description of my views.

It's strange to be against a building. Like being Anti Eiffel Tower if you don't like the French policy.

 

[Winner]

It's strange to be against a building. Like being Anti Eiffel Tower if you don't like the French policy.

No, that would be more like anti-Élysée Palace And in the U.S. case, like anti-White House.

It's about what Kremlin represents - the Russian autocracy, nepotism, corruption, expansionism etc., I don't want to get through all that here again.

 

[plarq]

Especially when he's not. To be anti-Russian, I'd have to hate Russians as a people, just as being anti-semitic means you hate Jews as a people. That's not the case, so I'd say that my opponents need a better term. Anti-Kremlin should be fairly accurate description of my views.

EDIT (to Ralph): nah, I don't mind, but let's get back to the matter at hand.

We're only anti-Zionism, not anti-Jewish, and no anti-Semiticism, since it includes Arabs and other Semites.

 

[Steph]

No, that would be more like anti-Élysée Palace.
It's about what Kremlin represents - the Russian autocracy, nepotism, corruption, expansionism etc., I don't want to get through all that here again.

Kremlin, or Elysée, are just the place where the head of state is.
But Elysée 81 under Mitterand and Elysée 2008 with Sarkozy are not exactly the same thing.

Perhaps you see a perfect continuity in the Russian policy, so Kremlin can be used as a fit them all word, but still, it's the policy, not the place that you dislike.

Aren't you rather anti-Russian imperialism?

 

[Winner]

Kremlin, or Elysée, are just the place where the head of state is.
But Elysée 81 under Mitterand and Elysée 2008 with Sarkozy are not exactly the same thing.

Perhaps you see a perfect continuity in the Russian policy, so Kremlin can be used as a fit them all word, but still, it's the policy, not the place that you dislike.

Aren't you rather anti-Russian imperialism?

Imperialism is just one of Kremlin's policies I dislike. I think that anti-Kremlin is what people would understand.

 

[TheLastOne36]

All of the Eastern European states owe their very existence to Russia. If not for them they would have quite likely been exterminated by the Nazi's for being inferior Slavs. Eastern Europe was far better off under the USSR than Nazi Germany. The Eastern Europeans should be grateful. Russia also developed much of the heavy industry of these countries at its own expense, provided universal education and health care, as well as housing. Ultimately Eastern Europe benefited from the firm Russian rule and they have their current stability, infrastructure, and development to thank for that. It was a mutually beneficial situation. There was no exploitation.

Its intresting to note that the Eastern European countries owe the vast majority of their development to other countries, superior countries shall we say. Whether it was Austria-Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, or Russia. Even the Ottoman Empire.

Central, and Eastern Europe would have been much better if niether of the two had control. Alot of central and eastern europeans aren't slavic, and and many slavs were the nazi's allies during the war. Central Europe and most of South-Eastern Europe was already developed, and we would've gotten it, but better if we were part of the West from 1946-onwards.

Sweden Denmark did nothing and didn't even set foot in central/eastern europe, Austria-Hungary only industrialized Hungary and Czech, Germany also did nothing, Russia did do some stuff like rebuilding things after the war and helping out eastern Europe alot. I'm unsure about the Ottomans, but i bet they wouldn't waste there time industrializing southern Europe, and it was Poland who modernized most of it's nieghbours. (Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and others).

I'll discard your post as ignorance and not bother with much more.

 

[Verbose]

Sweden [snip] did nothing and didn't even set foot in central/eastern europe

What, what!

After a century of war and invasion we don't even get a mention for having set foot there?

All the Stately Homes of Sweden from the 17th c. are packed with loot from Poland, Bohemia and other assorted places in that region.

Silver is of course lauding the thieves here, but come on, at least recognise all that stuff what we nicked!

 

[Winner]

What, what!

After a century of war and invasion we don't even get a mention for having set foot there?

All the Stately Homes of Sweden from the 17th c. are packed with loot from Poland, Bohemia and other assorted places in that region.

Silver is of course lauding the thieves here, but come on, at least recognise all that stuff what we nicked!

If it makes you feel better, church bells in St. Peter's Cathedral in Brno still strike noon at 11 o'clock:

The bells strike 12 at 11 o'clock. This is a reminder of the siege of Brno in 1645 by the Swedes. Having spent months attempting to break Brno, the Swedes decided on one last assault, but would retreat at twelve if the city had not been taken. The city discovered this and as the Swedes began to break through the city commander ordered the bells ring 12 (this was at 11). On hearing the noon struck the Swedes retreated and the city was saved.

BTW, you stole the biggest bible in Europe from us, along with many other valuable things. Damn Vikings, they have it in their blood!

 

[Mirc]

This is great news. The EU is doing the right thing. I'm not advocating too-fast-joining as some fearmongering people seem to think the EU will do, but this is a great strategy.

Oh, and can't wait to bring Ukraine and Moldova in the EU. (although I totally understand the economy would make it impossible at the time) I'm sure it will be treated as the Third Union of All Romanians here, soon after it happens. I gladly await the day when European national boundaries will be just flexible lines on a language distribution map.

 

[Winner]

This is great news. The EU is doing the right thing. I'm not advocating too-fast-joining as some fearmongering people seem to think the EU will do, but this is a great strategy.

Oh, and can't wait to bring Ukraine and Moldova in the EU. (although I totally understand the economy would make it impossible at the time) I'm sure it will be treated as the Third Union of All Romanians here, soon after it happens. I gladly await the day when European national boundaries will be just flexible lines on a language distribution map.

That day is still far away.

All the idiots babbling about "sovereignty", "national independence" etc. will try to delay it as long as they can.

 

[Verbose]

If it makes you feel better, church bells in St. Peter's Cathedral in Brno still strike noon at 11 o'clock:

BTW, you stole the biggest bible in Europe from us, along with many other valuable things. Damn Vikings, they have it in their blood!

Yup!

Without the opportunity of looting more affluent and civilised people, like the Poles and the Bohemians, there would be precious little of value from the 17th c. in Sweden today.

Thankfully an opportunistic cavalry screen in 1648 managed to capture Prague castle (quick enough the defenders didn't have time to close the gates) and make off with pretty much the entire treasury of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

There are statues in public places in Stockholm lifted from Prague. There is artworks from the Renaissance masters in its public museums from the same source.

And as you mentioned, the "Devil's Bible" is still kept at the University Library in Uppsala. Every year the Czech government makes a formal request for its returned. Every year the Swedish government rebuffs it with the argument "Looting was legal back then, so we're keeping it."

The last Swedish Commander in Chief in the 30 Years War Carl Gustaf Wrangel's biggest headache was to make the war last long enough for him to steal enough. Fighting the war was a distant second.

Then he built this, Skokloster Castle, one of the Great Houses of Europe, paid for entirely with the wealth of Poles, Bohemians, Germans etc.

I can recommend a visit, not least for Central Europeans who might be interested in where their stuff ended up.

 

[Mirc]

That day is still far away.

All the idiots babbling about "sovereignty", "national independence" etc. will try to delay it as long as they can.

I know that very well.

 

[TheLastOne36]

What, what!

After a century of war and invasion we don't even get a mention for having set foot there?

All the Stately Homes of Sweden from the 17th c. are packed with loot from Poland, Bohemia and other assorted places in that region.

Silver is of course lauding the thieves here, but come on, at least recognise all that stuff what we nicked!

Well if it wasn't for the swede, i would've been rich now! My ancestor owned a big company in Krakow untill the swedes looted and destroyed it..

But you guys never actually did anything else, and nothing at all positive...