Russian Answer to EU- The Eurasian Union

[Winner]

Aha, so I've touched the sore spot

Rationalize that: a human being has much more to care about than just consuming (compared to a consumer).

Keep telling yourself that (on both counts)

Moderator Action: Trolling. Don't take the bait.

Infracted for this and two posts on the previous page. Remember, this is an RD thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Leoreth]

Winner, you live in a typical small unsignificant country, province of the Western Non-imperium, which once was painfully pwned by the West. People of such countries-provinces are known for arse-licking, ingratiating and fanatical imitation of the true Westerners. Even your avatar here reveals this strive to match European identity. So your constant offensiveness towards Russia is understandable, because Russia and the West are natural rivals, and dog on a chain is barking too when stranger is passing by.

Yes, that's totally politically incorrect. Have it, what you give.

That says more about yourself and the dominant political trends in Russia than about Winner or Czechia.

It seems like you can't fathom the fact that people can be happy without living in a great power, all while the fact that Russia lost its own empire bothers you.

Russia and "the West" are not natural rivals, at least not more than all nations are rivals to some point. Cooperation can work, even without political unions and institutions, but still the prevalent attitude towards EU and NATO appears to be paranoia.

Russia joining the European Union would be mistake for both the EU and Russia. The same way as Turkey joining the EU, for example.

Then I think we're on the same page there!

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

That says more about yourself and the dominant political trends in Russia than about Winner or Czechia.

I do not care. And it doesn't matter what Russians or Russian officials say or do, or don't say or do, Western mass consciousness and media would distort it to its own image. I've seen it enough to care only about completing my momentary gestalts when it comes to the "let's dissect Russia with Western standards" talk.

It seems like you can't fathom the fact that people can be happy without living in a great power, all while the fact that Russia lost its own empire bothers you.

Life is much more than just happiness. And happiness in turn is much more than the state of someone being happy. There is always the price for it, the means and history of how it was built and is sustained. And in no way "happiness" of Westerners comes from something good or better than that what other countries have, whom West criticizes or wages wars against, be it Libya or Iraq, China or Russia.

Russia and "the West" are not natural rivals, at least not more than all nations are rivals to some point. Cooperation can work, even without political unions and institutions, but still the prevalent attitude towards EU and NATO appears to be paranoia.

Well, in the world of politics, rivals cooperate and there's rivality in cooperation itself.

NATO central interests are national interests of the U.S. and the most extent are of West Europe.

And the true paranoia is when they build missile-defense infrastructure in Central-East Europe to defend against possible Iran attack, the state which doesn't even have nuclear weapons and is in a totally different place of the world, LOOOL.

 

[red_elk]

Anyway, this is a typical slippery slope fallacy. You have zero evidence that the West is planning to build some kind of a comprehensive strategic anti-ballistic shield aimed at neutralizing Russia's nuclear capabilities.

I'm talking not about current plans, but about future possibilities.
Basing on facts, two steps have been done in this direction:
1. The U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002
2. Attempts were made to create a few ABM-related military bases in Europe

The first step opened a possibility to destroy Cold War balance of power, based on Mutually Assured Destruction concept, the second one would be a first practical step in doing that. If in next few years the relations between Russia and USA will worsen, what will prevent the U.S. from increasing number of interceptors in Europe and building a few more bases in Canada and Alaska if they feel need to? Now, tell me how reducing potential effectiveness of Russian nuclear weapons is not a negative move for us.

I understand that you, as one of the best military specialists in the Internet, probably think that Russia doesn't need nuclear weapons at all, because it doesn't have any real or potential military threats to deal with, but for some reason it doesn't persuade me. We had too much of uninvited guests from different directions before 1949, and no one after that year. Coincidence, perhaps.

We have a thousand times more evidence that Iran is building a nuke, but you ignore that completely. Yeah...

Iran with nukes is about as much pain in the ass for Russia as it is for Europe. The same can be said about Pakistan with nukes. If non-proliferation is such a big concern with Iran, why nobody is eager to disarm Pakistan or Israel?

And BTW, currently the only country in Europe which has deployed anti-ballistic missile defences on its territory is... Russia. So why don't you just get real?

This system is protecting 1 (one) city, made in full accordance with ABM treaty and doesn't affect MAD. And you know this.

 

[Veles]

Whoa, much stuff happened here since I last checked it...

Now it seems you bros just don't get it. I'm not talking 'bout the current state of Russian Federation joining the current entity of European Union through the established procedures. After all Russia isn't like any other country that joined before, it alone is comparable to the whole of EU in many aspects. I'm talking here about a global concept of such union, regardless of the current political and ideological state of EU and Russia or other technicalities.

We should form a super awesome common state for Northern civilization (lemme call it that to avoid getting technical for now). On what principles and through what exact steps should this be acheived is a subject for a debate, which we can discuss now. (And while doing this, let's refrain from being jerks unneccessarily, please, both sides.)
One is clear: both RF and EU will have things to give up in this process in order to get a bigger mutual win.

 

[warpus]

Winner, you live in a typical small unsignificant country, province of the Western Non-imperium, which once was painfully pwned by the West. People of such countries-provinces are known for arse-licking, ingratiating and fanatical imitation of the true Westerners. Even your avatar here reveals this strive to match European identity. So your constant offensiveness towards Russia is understandable, because Russia and the West are natural rivals, and dog on a chain is barking too when stranger is passing by.

Yes, that's totally politically incorrect. Have it, what you give.

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think his resentment of Russia stems from the fact that the Czech republic was under Russian domination for 45 years after ww2.

If your country was under Polish domination, a mere puppet state ruled from Warsaw, I'm sure you'd have ill feelings towards Poland too.

 

[Pangur Bán]

In fairness Westerners tend to live if a cloud when it comes to the foreign policies of their own governments. The Americans are the biggest fantasists of all, but Western Europeans aren't much better: all one giant fight for democracy and freedom. People in regions recently victimized by Western powers, in the Middle East, and indeed in Russia too, tend to understand international politics way better than Westerners.

 

[Veles]

...If your country was under Polish domination, a mere puppet state ruled from Warsaw, I'm sure you'd have ill feelings towards Poland too.

Last time that happened we got so mad at Poland, we partitioned the living stuff outta it in the end and ruled it for a century after. Not sure if it benefited the Polish people; all was done with no hard feelings and with peace and prosperity for Slavic bros in mind, though

I don't agree that Warsaw pact countries were complete puppets and had no domestic support whatsoever, though.

 

[warpus]

Last time that happened we got so mad at Poland, we partitioned the living stuff outta it in the end and ruled it for a century after. Not sure if it benefited the Polish people; all was done with no hard feelings and with peace and prosperity for Slavic bros in mind, though

I don't agree that Warsaw pact countries were complete puppets and had no domestic support whatsoever, though.

Took you quite a while to accomplish that after we besieged and occupied Moscow in 1610.

Anyway, that was not the point.

 

[Verbose]

NATO central interests are national interests of the U.S. and the most extant are of West Europe.

And the true paranoia is when they build missile-defense infrastructure in Central-East Europe to defend against possible Iran attack, the state which doesn't even have nuclear weapons and is in a totally different place of the world, LOOOL.

Right...

US=NATO=EU... Got it.

 

[Veles]

Took you quite a while to accomplish that...

Doesn't matter, had Poland

...after we besieged and occupied Moscow in 1610.

Why did you have to do that, anyway?

Anyway, that was not the point.

Obviously.

Right...

US=NATO=EU... Got it.

This isn't actually too far-fetched a generalisation in the context of geopolitics.

 

[Snorrius]

That was the EU, was it?

The problem the EU members tend to have with Russia is that the Russian leadership doesn't take this citizens' rights and liberties, democracy included, stuff seriously...

Actually, if we talk about modern Russia than I would argue that in area of personal liberties Russia does much better than many of Western European countries. Honestly, if we are talking not about abstract democracy but about quality of life and personal liberties of individual, even Kuwait will be better than, say, UK.

 

[red_elk]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think his resentment of Russia stems from the fact that the Czech republic was under Russian domination for 45 years after ww2.

That's understandable, though not everybody recognize this resentment.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think his resentment of Russia stems from the fact that the Czech republic was under Russian domination for 45 years after ww2.

There were bad things in it and there were good. There was Soviet propaganda, which criticized and depreciated the West, capitalism and their influence. And there is Western propaganda now, which has been doing visa versa since those times. Soviet communist bloc is no longer there, though Western capitalist one is still there, and it still has those things which were introduced to resist communist idea before the 1917 year and after, some of which are bluff from the beginning, contradicts logic and facts, like modern liberalism, political correctness, multiculturalism and limitless consumerism. Though these ideas result in problems and contradictions today, and more and greater in the future to come, the West still perceives reality through the prism of them—at least mass media and most people do so, I don't think true politicians have ever deceived themselves.

The same prism and propaganda are used or surface when it comes to Russia or Soviet Era. By default bad things only and bad opinions are preferred in the question of Soviet influence on other countries, "occupation" of them or the situation in the Union itself. I do not know that much about Czechoslovakia to say whether bad or good, fair or unfair prevailed there, but I know about other countries and ex-republics, that there were more good and fair, though regardless of that people are taught, media and politcians concentrate solely on bad things when talking about those times (even in Russia), they invent myths and lies, reaching total absurdity.

The idea, for example, that Soviet regime was exclusively Russian and modern Russian Federation is the one to blame or the one to feel imperialistic looking to the past is absurd. Those who had made revolution in Russia, came to power and were in power in USSR, those people were of different ethnic and place-of-birth backround, Ukrainians, Georgians, Jews, Stalin was Georgian, Khruschov was Ukrainian. Local athourities of the republics were of local nationals predominantly. Countries, which made hatred of Soviet/Communist Era almost their national politics (and I can name them exactly: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) had had those communists and soviets among their populace and politicians before Soviet Union came there, along with resistance to communists/Soviets there was support of them, and even anti-Communist repressions.

If your country was under Polish domination, a mere puppet state ruled from Warsaw, I'm sure you'd have ill feelings towards Poland too.

Our country was under Polish domination in the past )

 

[warpus]

Why did you have to do that, anyway?

We wanted your women and vodka.

The only time in history Moscow was successfully occupied by an invading force, by the way... I think

There were bad things in it and there were good. There was Soviet propaganda, which criticized and depreciated the West, capitalism and their influence. And there is Western propaganda now, which has been doing visa versa since those times.

Yeah, but the HUGE difference is that Moscow ruled Prague directly by sending orders to the communist party ruling there.. Washington or Brussels don't do that.

The other huge difference is that they joined the EU and NATO voluntarily, contrasted with them joined the communist bloc only because they had a gun to their head.

That's the real reason why Russia is resented in ex-communist countries in central and eastern Europe. Surely this is not surprising.

And you know, whatever the history might have been, I'm sure we can all get along like the civilized humans we are.

 

[red_elk]

The only time in history Moscow was successfully occupied by an invading force, by the way... I think

...Napoleon?

 

[Snorrius]

Yeah, but the HUGE difference is that Moscow ruled Prague directly by sending orders to the communist party ruling there.. Washington or Brussels don't do that.

They do the same, it is just that instead issuing orders they do offers which Prague can not refuse. Better psychology same business.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yeah, but the HUGE difference is that Moscow ruled Prague directly by sending orders to the communist party ruling there.. Washington or Brussels don't do that.

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga — eight years of presidency in Latvia, is Canadian citizen and lived most of her life there.

Valdas Adamkus — ten years of presidency in Lithuania, is American citizen and lived most of his life in the U.S.

Well, there's a good candidate for Russia too (who's independent from Moscow) — Berezovsky

Right...

US=NATO=EU... Got it.

Then you got it wrong.

On the other hand, formally it's very close to what you wrote:

Spoiler :

 

[Veles]

We wanted your women and vodka.

Silly Poles... As if Polish women or vodka is any different We had enough of both in our time, we know for sure

This reminded me of a song, actually. [mp3, from official site, so must be non-pirated]

Spoiler :

Lyrics: (every line is repeated twice)

Oh you cossacks, the war people, nobody really likes you.
***
Once a Warsaw girl fell in love with a cossack lad.
She took him by his hand and lead him to the hall,
And from the hall to the room; then she laid him to bed.
She laid him to bed and started cuddling and kissing him.
She cuddled him and kissed him and called him his dear soul...
[at the end of thier business]She said "My dear, teach me some Russian, I'll teach you some French.
"How do you say in Russian "pass the girl that stocking please?"
In French that would be "a-yurley-yurley-yurley".
***
[the story ends, the initial speaker talks]
Oh, officer, the young one,
Please dissmiss my beloved one from being on watch,
The watch is lasting,
And the changes are seldom.
It's freezing outside,
Impossible to just stand there.

The only time in history Moscow was successfully occupied by an invading force, by the way... I think

I've recently read extensively on this age. This was almost unparallely epic age of heroism and awesomeness on our part. Poles were quite badass also. So much Slavic blood wasted, though.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

And you know, whatever the history might have been, I'm sure we can all get along like the civilized humans we are.

I'm not sure humanity is that civilized as it trying to persuade itself. Civilization is something of the intelligence phenomena as it was in the Civ1 intro. Modern world, its people masses may be freerer than in the past times but seems much less intelligent. That's why I love and hate Civ at the same time: it exaggerates intelligence and rational thought, but on the other hand lets me feel it in human world to save myself from the TV, masses' and my own stupidity