Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
Robald Gillen
-- ...
TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
a Russian lawmaker said.
Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
Estonia side to join or not join NATO. But we have entitled
to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
of the North Atlantic Alliance".
Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
principles of new Europe.
yur/
(c) 1996-2000 ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
-0-
Copyright 2000
Eugene Holman
<gil...@nconnect.net> wrote:
> OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> -- ...
>
> TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> a Russian lawmaker said.
> Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> Estonia side to join or not join NATO.
This is a clear statement of Russia's admission that it has no say in how
independent states arrange for their security.
> But we have entitled
> to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> of the North Atlantic Alliance".
That and $1.50 will get him a cup of coffee in Helsinki.
> Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> principles of new Europe.
Considering the past 300 years of Russian - Estonian/Baltic relations, its
the lessons learned from the old Europe which are driving the baltic
countries into NATO.
It's rather indicative that Russia did not even bother to take up the
issue of the 5% of Estonia's territory that the RSFSR acquired as a
consequence of unilateral 'border adjustments' in 1944 and 1945 as an
argument to tempt Estonia to reconsider its application to NATO.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
Robald Gillen wrote:
> OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> -- ...
>
> TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> a Russian lawmaker said.
> Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> Estonia side to join or not join NATO. But we have entitled
> to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> of the North Atlantic Alliance".
This is what had to be told a long time ago - Estonia is free to join
NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country - there are a
lot of legitimate ways to do this.
If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him *unhappy*.
VM.
>
> Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> principles of new Europe.
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <39367403...@nconnect.net>, Robald Gillen
> <gil...@nconnect.net> wrote:
>
> > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > -- ...
> >
> > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > Estonia side to join or not join NATO.
>
> This is a clear statement of Russia's admission that it has no say in how
> independent states arrange for their security.
>
Insane words - having ~ 40% of the country population being "foreigners". I
would think TWICE before playing the game. What about a small nice North
Ireland?
>
> > But we have entitled
> > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
>
> That and $1.50 will get him a cup of coffee in Helsinki.
>
And Helsinki can also get a couple of megatons.
>
> > Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> > East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> > enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> > the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> > principles of new Europe.
>
> Considering the past 300 years of Russian - Estonian/Baltic relations, its
> the lessons learned from the old Europe which are driving the baltic
> countries into NATO.
>
You mean Germany?
>
> It's rather indicative that Russia did not even bother to take up the
> issue of the 5% of Estonia's territory that the RSFSR acquired as a
> consequence of unilateral 'border adjustments' in 1944 and 1945 as an
> argument to tempt Estonia to reconsider its application to NATO.
>
Take the territory Lithuania acquired under Stalin and give it to Estonia.
The problem is solved.
By-by, Russian hater.
VM.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <39367403...@nconnect.net>, Robald Gillen
> > <gil...@nconnect.net> wrote:
> >
> > > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > > -- ...
> > >
> > > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > > Estonia side to join or not join NATO.
> >
> > This is a clear statement of Russia's admission that it has no say in how
> > independent states arrange for their security.
> >
>
> Insane words - having ~ 40% of the country population being "foreigners". I
> would think TWICE before playing the game. What about a small nice North
> Ireland?
1. The percentage is 30%.
2. Not all of them are Russians, even if most of them have Russian as
their preferred language.
3. The overwhelming majority of them are grateful to be living in Estonia
and not in Russia.
> >
> > > But we have entitled
> > > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
> >
> > That and $1.50 will get him a cup of coffee in Helsinki.
> >
>
> And Helsinki can also get a couple of megatons.
"Great and strong are our air-raid shelters.
Mightier still is our diplomatic clout."
- from the Helsinkian urban anthem
> > > Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> > > East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> > > enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> > > the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> > > principles of new Europe.
> >
> > Considering the past 300 years of Russian - Estonian/Baltic relations, its
> > the lessons learned from the old Europe which are driving the baltic
> > countries into NATO.
> >
> You mean Germany?
No. I mean the country that arrested their legal governments in 1940, set
up puppet governments, and then occupied them for nine months, and then,
in 1944, repreated the exercise, but allowed it to last for almost half a
century.
> > It's rather indicative that Russia did not even bother to take up the
> > issue of the 5% of Estonia's territory that the RSFSR acquired as a
> > consequence of unilateral 'border adjustments' in 1944 and 1945 as an
> > argument to tempt Estonia to reconsider its application to NATO.
> >
>
> Take the territory Lithuania acquired under Stalin and give it to Estonia.
> The problem is solved.
>
> By-by, Russian hater.
>
Even Russians kow that what the USSR did to the Baltic countries was
wrong, illegal, and criminal.
Privetom,
Eugene Holman
pravda
: This is what had to be told a long time ago - Estonia is free to join
: NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country - there are a
: lot of legitimate ways to do this.
: If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him *unhappy*.
_Very_ generally taken, the Estonian viewpoint is: "We want to be a _wes-
tern_ country and 'join the _western_ club'. If we can also keep up good
relations with Russia, that'd be cool and beneficial and we're all for it.
However, moving to the _west_ is our key priority. If Russia doesn't like
it, that's too bad, but we will join the Western structures anyway, since
that's more important to us."
It's kind of like a divorce. Suppose your wife tells you she doesn't love
you anymore because you've been such a bastard, does all the papers and
is off to live with another man. Would you then do everything to ruin her
life and make her unhappy? I think it's not very productive.
There was a neat quote in a newspaper a while ago where a Russian high
government official said something in the effect of "according to the new
new geopolitical doctrine, Russia will demand more love from neighboring
countries". How could anyone _demand_ to be loved? The only way to be loved
is to start loving by yourself, and in my opinion, if Russia expects to be
trusted and her demands taken as rational, she should start making positive
steps by herself.
Simply put: Estonia (and other Baltics) will join NATO and other organiza-
tions anyway, and the firmer the opposition from Russia, the stronger the
will and motive for joining will be.
What would Russia _gain_ by making Estonia 'unhappy' in revenge?
Malleus
mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
>
> Robald Gillen wrote:
>
> > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > -- ...
> >
> > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
>
> NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country - there are
a
> lot of legitimate ways to do this.
>
> If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him *unhappy*.
>
>
I am your enemy, go ahead, try to make me unhappy. You cant, all you can
is to pretend you do not care. Ruskies disgust the whole world already
by the mere fact of their existence, it can become worse than that but
not much so. Every unfriendly act of Russia toward Estonia, legal or
not, will only make NATO stronger.
> >
> > Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> > East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> > enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> > the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> > principles of new Europe.
> > (c) 1996-2000 ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
> > -0-
> >
> > Copyright 2000
>
>
--
We'll be back after these messages
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <3937309C...@bellatlantic.net>, mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39367403...@nconnect.net>, Robald Gillen
> > > <gil...@nconnect.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > > > -- ...
> > > >
> > > > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > > > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > > > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > > > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > > > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > > > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > > > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > > > Estonia side to join or not join NATO.
> > >
> > > This is a clear statement of Russia's admission that it has no say in how
> > > independent states arrange for their security.
> > >
> >
> > Insane words - having ~ 40% of the country population being "foreigners". I
> > would think TWICE before playing the game. What about a small nice North
> > Ireland?
>
> 1. The percentage is 30%.
>
You want 30% to become 100%?
> 2. Not all of them are Russians, even if most of them have Russian as
> their preferred language.
What doesn't make them suffer less.
>
> 3. The overwhelming majority of them are grateful to be living in Estonia
> and not in Russia.
>
And overwhelming majority of them would like to get basic human rights.
>
> > >
> > > > But we have entitled
> > > > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > > > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
> > >
> > > That and $1.50 will get him a cup of coffee in Helsinki.
> > >
> >
> > And Helsinki can also get a couple of megatons.
>
> "Great and strong are our air-raid shelters.
> Mightier still is our diplomatic clout."
> - from the Helsinkian urban anthem
>
Look like your little Baltic friends are going to check this out.
>
> > > > Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> > > > East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> > > > enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> > > > the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> > > > principles of new Europe.
> > >
> > > Considering the past 300 years of Russian - Estonian/Baltic relations, its
> > > the lessons learned from the old Europe which are driving the baltic
> > > countries into NATO.
> > >
> > You mean Germany?
>
> No. I mean the country that arrested their legal governments in 1940, set
> up puppet governments, and then occupied them for nine months, and then,
> in 1944, repreated the exercise, but allowed it to last for almost half a
> century.
>
blah-blah-blah... What it has to do with Russia?
>
> > > It's rather indicative that Russia did not even bother to take up the
> > > issue of the 5% of Estonia's territory that the RSFSR acquired as a
> > > consequence of unilateral 'border adjustments' in 1944 and 1945 as an
> > > argument to tempt Estonia to reconsider its application to NATO.
> > >
> >
> > Take the territory Lithuania acquired under Stalin and give it to Estonia.
> > The problem is solved.
> >
> > By-by, Russian hater.
> >
>
> Even Russians kow that what the USSR did to the Baltic countries was
> wrong, illegal, and criminal.
>
"Even Russians kow" USSR has little to do with Russia, and if you such a political
purist then turn your eyes at your beloved NAtZO to look for criminality.
>
> Privetom,
>
Ostav' svoi lomanyi russkii dlya prostitutok, nel'zya po russki skazat' "Privetom",
predlog obyazatelen, poliglot hrenov.
VM.
> Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
Malleus wrote:
> In article <39372F23...@bellatlantic.net>,
> mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Robald Gillen wrote:
> >
> > > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > > -- ...
> > >
> > > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > > Estonia side to join or not join NATO. But we have entitled
> > > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
> >
> > This is what had to be told a long time ago - Estonia is free to join
> > NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country - there are
> a
> > lot of legitimate ways to do this.
> >
> > If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him *unhappy*.
> >
> > VM.
> >
> I am your enemy, go ahead, try to make me unhappy. You cant, all you can
> is to pretend you do not care.
"Are you happy Fat Bastard?"
VM.
> Ruskies disgust the whole world already
> by the mere fact of their existence, it can become worse than that but
> not much so. Every unfriendly act of Russia toward Estonia, legal or
> not, will only make NATO stronger.
> > >
> > > Russia's negative attitude towards NATO expansion to the
> > > East is conditioned by the fact that the Alliance's
> > > enlargement can lead to the violation of global balance on
> > > the continent, Lukin said, adding that it runs counter the
> > > principles of new Europe.
Vladimir Makarenko
pravda wrote:
> Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> : This is what had to be told a long time ago - Estonia is free to join
> : NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country - there are a
> : lot of legitimate ways to do this.
>
> : If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him *unhappy*.
>
> _Very_ generally taken, the Estonian viewpoint is: "We want to be a _wes-
> tern_ country and 'join the _western_ club'. If we can also keep up good
> relations with Russia, that'd be cool and beneficial and we're all for it.
> However, moving to the _west_ is our key priority. If Russia doesn't like
> it, that's too bad, but we will join the Western structures anyway, since
> that's more important to us."
>
This is exactly my point - it's Estonia's internal affair to be or not to be in
NAZtO,
Russia then has it's own *internal* affair - how to react.
You want to join the West club - fine, just do it in a way which would not put
a threat
to your neighbor.
>
> It's kind of like a divorce. Suppose your wife tells you she doesn't love
> you anymore because you've been such a bastard, does all the papers and
> is off to live with another man. Would you then do everything to ruin her
> life and make her unhappy? I think it's not very productive.
>
> There was a neat quote in a newspaper a while ago where a Russian high
> government official said something in the effect of "according to the new
> new geopolitical doctrine, Russia will demand more love from neighboring
> countries". How could anyone _demand_ to be loved? The only way to be loved
> is to start loving by yourself, and in my opinion, if Russia expects to be
> trusted and her demands taken as rational, she should start making positive
> steps by herself.
>
You are bringing up an unspecified quote and very "convenient" one.
Are you sure that the quote was not made up?
>
> Simply put: Estonia (and other Baltics) will join NATO and other organiza-
> tions anyway, and the firmer the opposition from Russia, the stronger the
> will and motive for joining will be.
>
> What would Russia _gain_ by making Estonia 'unhappy' in revenge?
It's not about revenge, it's about safety of the country.
Political (and economic) havoc in Estonia will make it's membership in NAZtO
pointless from military viewpoint, probably even profitable in this respect to
Russia. Of course it will cost some money, but security worth it.
VM.
Vello
>Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3937C71E...@bellatlantic.net...
>
>
>> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > 3. The overwhelming majority of them are grateful to be living in
Estonia
> > and not in Russia.
> >
>
> And overwhelming majority of them would like to get basic human rights.
Probably we just have different wiew on basic. Do they have something less
then immigrants in any other European country?
vienal...@my-deja.com
mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
>
> Malleus wrote:
>
> > In article <39372F23...@bellatlantic.net>,
> > mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Robald Gillen wrote:
> > >
> > > > OTC 05/31 1028 Russia against Estonia's accession to NATO
> > > > -- ...
> > > >
> > > > TALLINN, May 31 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will not agree on
> > > > compromise with Estonia on Tallinn's drive for joining NATO,
> > > > a Russian lawmaker said.
> > > > Summing up the results of the Russian parliamentary
> > > > delegation's visit to Estonia, chairman of the State Duma
> > > > Foreign Affairs Committee Vladimir Lukin told a press
> > > > conference on Wednesday "we have no right to make the
> > > > Estonia side to join or not join NATO. But we have entitled
> > > > to express our position on its drive for becoming a member
> > > > of the North Atlantic Alliance".
> > >
join
> > > NAZtO, Russia is free to provide a trouble for the country -
there are
> > a
> > > lot of legitimate ways to do this.
> > >
> > > If one wants to be your enemy - why bother - just make him
*unhappy*.
> > >
> > >
> > I am your enemy, go ahead, try to make me unhappy. You cant, all
you can
> > is to pretend you do not care.
>
> "Are you happy Fat Bastard?"
>
> VM.
>
Stay polite, Vladimir.
R.
vienal...@my-deja.com
Eugene Holman
mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> >
> > 1. The percentage is 30%.
> >
>
> You want 30% to become 100%?
If it became 100%, most of the Estonian Russians would flee to Brighton Beach.
> > 2. Not all of them are Russians, even if most of them have Russian as
> > their preferred language.
>
> What doesn't make them suffer less.
Russian is an officially recognized minority language in Estonia, and
those Russian-speakers who do not want to live in Estonia but cannot be
bothered to learn Estonian can live in places like Narva, where 95% of the
population speaks Russian. What's the big deal about Estonians wanting the
primary language of their country to be Estonian, or in their demanding
that people whose jobs involve contact with the public be able to speak
Estonian?
> >
> > 3. The overwhelming majority of them are grateful to be living in Estonia
> > and not in Russia.
> >
>
> And overwhelming majority of them would like to get basic human rights.
Please tell us what basic human rights they are being denied.
Russian-speakers in Estonia have *all* of the basic human rights that all
other legal residents have *except* the rights to vote in elections or
stand as candidates *if* they, after having lived in the country for ten
years, have still not taken Estonian citizenship. They can acquire these
rights by going through a simple naturalization process, something that
more than 120,000 have already done. Instead of writing *sobachee govno*
here like a *pridurak*, why not read what is being done to facilitate the
integration of Russian speakers into Estonian society by a government that
realizes that they are a resource, would like to maximize the number of
Estonian citizens, but still regards the perpetuation of Estonian language
and culture as its primary and immutable raison d'être
(http://www.riik.ee/saks/ikomisjon/programme.htm).
> > Even Russians kow that what the USSR did to the Baltic countries was
> > wrong, illegal, and criminal.
> >
>
> "Even Russians kow" USSR has little to do with Russia, and if you such a
political
> purist then turn your eyes at your beloved NAtZO to look for criminality.
>
Russia has publicly claimed itself to be the primary successor state to
the USSR. It acquired the USSR's seat in the UN Security Council as well
as many other positions in international organizations. Its army continued
the Soviet-begun occupation of the Baltic countries until 1995, four years
after they had achieved independence. As far as Estonia and Latvia are
concerned, Russia also kept and has refused to negotiate about the part of
their territorry that the USSR snatched in unilateral border 'adjustments'
after the war and which it has 'inherited'. Finally, Russia's "concern"
about Russian-speaking former citizens of the former USSR in foreign
countries seems to indicate that things Soviet are very much the concern
of official Russia. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand Russia's
'concern' for the basic human rights of a Russian-speaking Uzbek living in
Tallinn, Estonia, who is not yet an Estonian citizen because he has not
yet passed the naturalization requirements.
Russia cooperates and consults with NATO on many levels, and president
Putin has not excluded the possibility of NATO membership for Russia, an
important country for North Atlantic security, some time in the future. I
do not cooperate or conslut with NATO, nor have I ever considered applying
for NATO membership. And if you are looking for criminality, you need look
no further than what the Russian army is doing in Chechnya.
> > Privetom,
> >
>
> Ostav' svoi lomanyi russkii dlya prostitutok, nel'zya po russki skazat'
"Privetom",
> predlog obyazatelen, poliglot hrenov.
>
A schitaesh', chto ty vsegda pishseh' zdes' po-anglijski bez oshibok?
Russkie prostitutki dali by mne skidku, esli ja govoril by s nimi
po-anglijski...
Privetom,
Jevgenij Kholman
Vladimir
Eugene Holman wrote:
Est' oshibki i est' neznanie - tvoi sluchai n#2.
> Russkie prostitutki dali by mne skidku, esli ja govoril by s nimi
> po-anglijski...
>
> Privetom,
> Jevgenij Kholman
Holman, ty prosto tupoi ili "s privetom"? Ya zhe tebe tol'ko chto skazal - predlog
*obyazatelen" - ili "S privetom" ili "Privet". Uchis', durashka, poka eto besplatno.
VM.
Eugene Holman
and culture within the borders of the Estonian state as its primary and
immutable raison d'être (http://www.riik.ee/saks/ikomisjon/programme.htm).
I know many Estonian-Russians and Estonian-resident Russian speakers, and
none of them consider this an unreasonable objective.
> > Even Russians kow that what the USSR did to the Baltic countries was
> > wrong, illegal, and criminal.
> >
>
> "Even Russians kow" USSR has little to do with Russia, and if you such a
political
> purist then turn your eyes at your beloved NAtZO to look for criminality.
>
Russia has publicly proclaimed itself to be the primary successor state to
the USSR. It acquired the USSR's seat in the UN Security Council as well
as many other positions formerly held by the USSR in international
organizations. Its army continued the Soviet-begun occupation of the
Baltic countries until 1995, four years after they had achieved
independence. As far as Estonia and Latvia are concerned, Russia also kept
and has refused to negotiate about the part of their territory that the
USSR snatched in unilateral border 'adjustments' after the war and which
it has 'inherited'. Finally, Russia's concern about Russian-speaking
former citizens of the former USSR in foreign
countries, something which is justified and reasonable in the light of
their presence being the consequences of Soviet colonialism, seems to
indicate that the Soviet colonial legacy is very much the concern of
official Russia. Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand *Russia's*
concern for the basic human rights of a Russian-speaking Azeri living in
Tallinn, Estonia, who is not yet an Estonian citizen because he has not
yet passed the Estonian naturalization requirements.
Russia cooperates and consults with NATO on many levels, and president
Putin has not excluded the possibility of NATO membership for Russia, an
important country for North Atlantic security, some time in the future. I
do not cooperate or conslut with NATO, nor have I ever considered applying
for NATO membership. And if you are looking for criminality, you need look
no further than what the Russian army is doing in Chechnya.
> > Privetom,
> >
>
> Ostav' svoi lomanyi russkii dlya prostitutok, nel'zya po russki skazat'
"Privetom",
> predlog obyazatelen, poliglot hrenov.
>
A schitaesh', chto ty vsegda pishseh' zdes' po-anglijski bez oshibok?
Vladimir
vienal...@my-deja.com wrote:
or else? anyway this is a very appropriate quote for those who recognise it.
However I wonder how happened that you argue for politness.I remember
you were promoting quite a different style...
VM.
Andrejs Makwitz
hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) writes:
>A schitaesh', chto ty vsegda pishseh' zdes' po-anglijski bez oshibok?
>Russkie prostitutki dali by mne skidku, esli ja govoril by s nimi
>po-anglijski...
>
>A schitaesh', chto ty vsegda pishseh' zdes'
>po-anglijski bez oshibok?
Russkie prostitutki dali by mne skidku, esli ja>govoril by s nimi
po-anglijski...
LOL
Ne tolka skidku, ani bi dali tebe vso bezplanta yesli ti tolko vzal ih doma na
Helsinki.
Sincerely,
Andrejs Makwitz
Malleus
Vladimir <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Stay polite, Vladimir.
> > R.
>
> or else? anyway this is a very appropriate quote for those who
recognise it.
>
> However I wonder how happened that you argue for politness.I remember
> you were promoting quite a different style...
>
> VM.
guess
Malleus
> Ostav' svoi lomanyi russkii dlya prostitutok, nel'zya po russki
skazat' "Privetom",
> predlog obyazatelen, poliglot hrenov.
>
>
See? I warned you, stay polite or your criminal background shows.
Russia has a lot to do with USSR, more then any other state or with any
other state. Same people, same territory, same feelings, same property,
same barbarity as RSFSR. Russia is 80% USSR. It is like a bandit with
one his leg amputated claimed to be another person.
Vladimir
Andrejs Makwitz wrote:
Eshe odin znatok "na russkoe yazyki". Saryn' na kichku, a Holmana s babami na
Helsinku.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Malleus wrote:
> In article <3937C71E...@bellatlantic.net>,
> mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> ....
> > Ostav' svoi lomanyi russkii dlya prostitutok, nel'zya po russki
> skazat' "Privetom",
> > predlog obyazatelen, poliglot hrenov.
> >
> > VM.
> >
> See? I warned you, stay polite or your criminal background shows.
>
On my criminal background, please consult Mr. Cedrins (sp?), he caught me
harassing old women.
VM.
>
> Russia has a lot to do with USSR, more then any other state or with any
> other state. Same people, same territory, same feelings, same property,
> same barbarity as RSFSR. Russia is 80% USSR. It is like a bandit with
> one his leg amputated claimed to be another person.
Are you out of medication? Or it's overdose?
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Vello wrote:
> >Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:3937C71E...@bellatlantic.net...
> >
> >
> >> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > > 3. The overwhelming majority of them are grateful to be living in
> Estonia
> > > and not in Russia.
> > >
> >
> > And overwhelming majority of them would like to get basic human rights.
>
> Probably we just have different wiew on basic. Do they have something less
> then immigrants in any other European country?
They are not immigrants, you can call them migrants. They came (and often were
sent)
when it was legal. There is a reality of the history and I doubt that Estonia
as a state today
denies it with respect for example criminal records made during the Soviet
rule - the state
somehow recognize legality of them and thus the legacy of USSR.
VM.
Andrejs Makwitz
>From: Vladimir maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu
>Eshe odin znatok "na russkoe yazyki". Saryn' na kichku, a Holmana s babami na
>Helsinku.
Ne kakoi znatok. Ya pa ruski govarju ochin ploha, no lutshi chem tvaji
narodniki katoriji uze zili v Latviji bolshe chem 50 let govarjat pa Latishski.
Vot takii umnitsi.
A kakaja tebe problema s Holamana babkam? Tebe nuzhna? Ne stistnajsa.
Poprasi imu mozit bit on teba s kakoi paznakomet.
S privetom,
Tvoi, Andrej
Vladimir Makarenko
Andrejs Makwitz wrote:
> Valodotshka mena izprivlaet:
>
> >From: Vladimir maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu
>
> >Eshe odin znatok "na russkoe yazyki". Saryn' na kichku, a Holmana s babami na
> >Helsinku.
>
> Ne kakoi znatok. Ya pa ruski govarju ochin ploha, no lutshi chem tvaji
> narodniki katoriji uze zili v Latviji bolshe chem 50 let govarjat pa Latishski.
> Vot takii umnitsi.
Not bad really, enough to get through on the Moscow streets.
But: narodniki - political movement in Russia in the second part of XIX century.
Rather utopist one.
And: umnitsa - this is what you say when you feel admiration for someone's
intellectual work. Often refers to children or a person you are close to. Opposite
-
umnik, a person who tried to be clever and brew trouble or intellectual failure.
Neither word is a right choice for what you tried to express.
Back to narodniki-you wanted to say the people of the same ethnicity as I am. And
you are wrong.
The language (Russian) was common - ethnicities different.
And if you are living in the States - do you speak language of local Amerind tribe?
The people lived in highly multiethnic society, each local ethnic community was
speaking it's own language, those displaced used Russian as universal. Otherwise it
would be a Babylon Tower situation.
>
> A kakaja tebe problema s Holamana babkam?
Nikakoi. Saryn' na kichku!
> Tebe nuzhna? Ne stistnajsa.
> Poprasi imu mozit bit on teba s kakoi paznakomet.
>
I am not shy at all: Holman would you introduce me to your girls?
>
> S privetom,
> Tvoi, Andrej
You cannot use "tvoi" in Russian like that - it's intimate.
Or you want to date me too?
And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang it
means "crazy".
Poka,
VM.
Eugene Holman
>
> Or you want to date me too?
>
> And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang it
> means "crazy".
>
Spasibo za bezplatnoe obuchenie v russkom jazyke!
But let's get down to the main theme.
I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than immigrants, and I
think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly admitted
this when, even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started to give them
advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes called
anti-Russian in this forum, you certianly know that I have always opposed
any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' people for having had the
misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics when they were
under Soviet occupation.
But since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking poulation in
both countries understands why the Estonains and Latvians have set up the
naturalization procedure, and many of them have successfully completed it
and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
giving Russian speaking children the language and cultural skills and
background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
otustanding problems will have been resolved.
So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"? They wound up in an awkward
situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated well, and the
countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
and provided programs and forums in which Russiand speakers and locals
could discuss and recolve their differences. Now the Russian speakers in
all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and etter
social protection than they would in Russia, are learning or have already
learned the national languages and are thus bicultural and bilingual, can
travel to most western European countries without a visa, earn serious
currency, look forward to being members of the European Union and NATO,
live in countries that are not slowly backtracking into totalitarianism,
and do not have to worry about their sons being sent off to die in a
colonial war.
S privetom,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
>
> Or you want to date me too?
>
> And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang it
> means "crazy".
>
Spasibo za bezplatnoe obuchenie v russkom jazyke!
But let's get down to the main theme.
I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than immigrants, and I
think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly
acknowledged this when, even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started
to give them advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes
called anti-Russian in this forum, you certianly know that I have always
opposed any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' Russian-speakers for
having had the misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics
when they were under Soviet occupation.
Since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking poulation in
both countries understands why the Estonians and Latvians have set up the
naturalization procedure, and many have successfully completed it
and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
giving Russian-speaking children the language and cultural skills and
background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
otustanding problems will have been resolved.
So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"? They wound up in an awkward
situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
populations that had every reason to resent their presence, and the
countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
and provided programs and forums in which Russiand speakers and locals
could discuss and resolve their differences. Now the Russian speakers in
all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and better
Eugene Holman
>
> Or you want to date me too?
>
> And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang it
> means "crazy".
>
Spasibo za bezplatnoe obuchenie v russkom jazyke!
But let's get down to the main theme.
I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than as immigrants, and I
think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly
acknowledged this even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started
to give them advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes
called anti-Russian in this forum, you certianly know that I have always
opposed any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' Russian-speakers for
having had the misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics
when they were under Soviet occupation, and then being left stateless as a
consequence of the collapse of the occupying power, the USSR.
Since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking population in
both countries understands why the Estonians and Latvians have set up the
naturalization procedure, and many have successfully completed it
and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
giving Russian-speaking children the language and cultural skills and
background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
otustanding problems will have been resolved.
So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"? They wound up in an awkward
situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
populations that had every reason to resent their presence, and the
countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
and provided programs and forums in which Russian speakers and locals
could discuss and resolve their differences. Now the Russian speakers in
all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and better
social protection than they would in Russia, are learning or have already
learned the national languages and are thus bicultural and bilingual, can
travel to most western European countries without a visa, earn serious
currency, look forward to being members of the European Union and NATO,
live in countries that are not slowly backtracking into totalitarianism,
and do not have to worry about their sons being sent off to die in a
futile but lethal colonial war. Many of those Russian speakers who ran off
from the Baltics to Russia because they believed the propaganda they
heard, feared a bloodbath after 1991, and are still living in temporary
housing or tent cities, would gladly return to Estonia or Latvia if they
had the opportunity.
S privetom,
Eugene Holman
Andrejs Makwitz
In article <39388CCB...@bellatlantic.net>, Vladimir Makarenko
<mal...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>Not bad really, enough to get through on the Moscow streets.
Unfortunately, it's also enough to get through Riga's streets.
>But: narodniki - political movement in Russia in the second part of XIX
>century.
>Rather utopist one.
I am a firm believer in utopia, but do Russian utopias allow for the existence
of Latvians? Or any other mongrel peoples?
>And: umnitsa - this is what you say when you feel admiration for someone's
>intellectual work. Often refers to children or a person you are close to.
Well, yes. But it is also used sarcasticaly when overstating someone's
intellectual provess. For example: Vot Sasha. Takoi umnica. Zil v Rigi okla
35 let, no neznaet neadno slovo pa Latishski.
>Opposite
>-
>umnik, a person who tried to be clever and brew trouble or intellectual
>failure.
So, I stand corrected. Vot Sasha. Takoi umnik. Zil v Rigi okla 35 let, no
neznaet neadno slovo pa Latishski.
>Neither word is a right choice for what you tried to express.
"Neither word is THE right choice for what you tried to express." Since we are
giving out bezplatnaii lessons, I figured I'd return the favor. Who says that
S.C.B. can not be a force for good.
>Back to narodniki-you wanted to say the people of the same ethnicity as I am.
>And
>you are wrong.
>The language (Russian) was common - ethnicities different.
Not really. I have no problems with Armenians living in Latvia who speak
Russian or Uzbeks, Georgians, Moldovans etc.. A few years from now most of
them will either learn to speak Latvian or move to some other places. They
understand why Latvian is important to those who want to be citizens of Latvia.
Chances are that most of them had to put up with the same linguistics
restrictions in their homelands that the Latvians did. They can emphatize with
our predicament. The Russians, on the other hand, don't seem to get it. To
them it only seems natural that no matter where they live everyone should bend
over backwards to accomodate Russian linguistic chauvenism.
>And if you are living in the States - do you speak language of local Amerind
>tribe?
No, I do not. However, if the situation changes and the local Amerind tribe
does regain their power and chooses to request that I do speak it I can asure
you that I will. I do not consider having to learn the language of the land to
be violation of my "basic human rights". But I am "s privetom" in that way.
>The people lived in highly multiethnic society, each local ethnic community
>was
>speaking it's own language, those displaced used Russian as universal.
>Otherwise it
>would be a Babylon Tower situation.
It's not the multi-ethnic, it's the specific-ethnic that's the problem. Those
who continue to live in Latvia will still live in a multi-ethnic society and
they'll continue to speak their own languages. The only thing that has changed
which language will be used as the universal one. Only one group seems to see
this is as a denial of their "basic human rights". There is only one ethnic
group in Latvia that is mono-lingual. I eta ne mi Latishi.
>> S privetom,
>> Tvoi, Andrej
>
>You cannot use "tvoi" in Russian like that - it's intimate.
>Or you want to date me too?
Well, we certainly wouldn't want that. The only way I'd want to date you is as
in carbon, but why do you think that everyone wants to date you? Still
projecting?
>And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang
>it
>means "crazy".
Thanks for the warning.
Poka,
Vash, Andrej
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <39388CCB...@bellatlantic.net>, mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Or you want to date me too?
> >
> > And be careful: "s privetom" sounds ambiguous - in (very mild though) slang it
> > means "crazy".
> >
>
> Spasibo za bezplatnoe obuchenie v russkom jazyke!
>
"spasibo za besplatny urok russkogo yazyka".
>
> But let's get down to the main theme.
>
> I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
> Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than as immigrants, and I
> think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly
> acknowledged this even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started
> to give them advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes
> called anti-Russian in this forum,
You are not anti-Russian, or anti-Balt or anti-Whoever - in an objective viewpoint.
The fact is you are American and judge the situation from "neutral" American
viewpoint, by disregarding that people who are anti-Balt or anti-Russian are
speaking from there own personal tragedy stories. You read the cultures like a
catalogue of cars spare parts and the fact you do remember them doesn't make you to
understand them, and contradictions between them.
Mostly you resemble is this novel of Graham Green - was it "Quiet American"?
> you certianly know that I have always
> opposed any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' Russian-speakers for
> having had the misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics
> when they were under Soviet occupation, and then being left stateless as a
> consequence of the collapse of the occupying power, the USSR.
>
The point is there never was such an option - sending the Russians or russophonics
or whatever you call them out of the Baltics for the simple reason - today a train
with them comes to Russia, tomorrow a train with Russian troops arrives to the
Baltics. Or simultaneously. Thus we have- Lithuania have chosen the best way to go -
zero variant. Estonia - mild discrimination- what is corresponding to their (in
general) mild national character. Latvia - the tough way, what again coincide with
their rebellious, ever fighting way of life always under foreign occupation and and
always denying and bringing revenge on the occupants. What is disgusting that
Latvian Intelligentsia instead of extinguishing the flame is pouring oil on it. If
you deprive such big part of population of any participation in political life of
the country you have to think that this part will turn to underground activity.
Latvia mindlessly is cultivating itself into another North Ireland. Now this
shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough trouble in the world that
she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such ridiculous thing as
Russia is going to occupy Latvia? Maybe it's time for Latvians to stop to believe
that they will find a remedy for their country outside - starting with President and
finishing with NAtZO and think about getting organized?
My view is- if the Baltics and Finland (and Sweden) would make together independent
defense alliance, would warn firmly Russia that *they are going to fight against any
aggressor and not going to join any third party*, they would secure themselves much
better (and the World) from any kind of threat to their independence and they would
have no trouble with Russian speaking minorities which supported their independence
during the initial years.
The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it plain, to become
a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too poor, too weak.
But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving "rouge states"
nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom? Russia?
> Since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
> to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
> ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
> Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking population in
> both countries understands why the Estonians and Latvians have set up the
> naturalization procedure, and many have successfully completed it
> and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
> giving Russian-speaking children the language and cultural skills and
> background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
> non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
> otustanding problems will have been resolved.
>
> So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
> Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"?
There is one simple sign of if people are harassed or not- how many of them applied.
I do have an experience with statistics and I can tell you - if people do not buy
(read apply) something they do not think it worth the money (time).
If it happens en mass - call it Policy.
> They wound up in an awkward
> situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
> populations that had every reason to resent their presence,
this is your imagination - the fact is the population never had a chance to treat
them as it wanted to because it was Occupied and had no voice or chance.
> and the
> countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
> and provided programs and forums in which Russian speakers and locals
> could discuss and resolve their differences.
please drop this EU crap. At least in Latvia they Hate each other - read scb.
> Now the Russian speakers in
> all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and better
> social protection than they would in Russia,
oh, yes - I dared to ask some questions about that Kononov's case and as soon as I
started to ask "inconvenient" questions all answers I heard were nothing but ethnic
or personal slur. This is a nice example of how the Baltics are offering the better
"living standards" - I wonder where - in prison?
> are learning or have already
> learned the national languages
you know well these languages have no chance for survival (within a couple of
generations), as sad as it is.
> and are thus bicultural and bilingual, can
> travel to most western European countries without a visa, earn serious
> currency, look forward to being members of the European Union and NATO,
>
Get sober, for a Russian to become a member of NAZtO is like to become a member of
SS.
You can do this, just don't call yourself Russian afterward. The only country which
fought Nazis was Britain, again due to Churchill.
> live in countries that are not slowly backtracking into totalitarianism,
You mean Turkey?
>
> and do not have to worry about their sons being sent off to die in a
> futile but lethal colonial war.
You mean Chechnya? If it's colonial war you have to explain the numbers:
population of Chechenya of circa 1989 ~1.3mln people
today ~ 700,000
difference:
~400,000 - Chechens escaped to Russia (not Georgia or Azerbaijan)
~200,000 - Russians - it's obvious
> Many of those Russian speakers who ran off
> from the Baltics to Russia because they believed the propaganda they
> heard, feared a bloodbath after 1991, and are still living in temporary
> housing or tent cities, would gladly return to Estonia or Latvia if they
> had the opportunity.
>
Never heard about any kind of this kind of refugees.
And what propaganda you are talking about?
"National Inquirer"?
VM.
>
> S privetom,
> Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
> > Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than as immigrants, and I
> > think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly
> > acknowledged this even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started
> > to give them advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes
> > called anti-Russian in this forum,
>
> You are not anti-Russian, or anti-Balt or anti-Whoever - in an objective
viewpoint.
> The fact is you are American and judge the situation from "neutral" American
> viewpoint, by disregarding that people who are anti-Balt or anti-Russian are
> speaking from there own personal tragedy stories. You read the cultures like a
> catalogue of cars spare parts and the fact you do remember them doesn't
make you to
> understand them, and contradictions between them.
> Mostly you resemble is this novel of Graham Green - was it "Quiet American"?
Even if I am an American, I have been living in a Baltic country - Finland
- for more than 30 years and have followed the situation in the Baltics,
particularly Estonia, closely over those years. As you remember, I am
cofounder of a company in Estonia that now provides many of the textbooks
in Estonian as a second language and civics to the Russian-medium school
system, and I have been working this term at a private university in
Tallinn, Sotsial'no-gumanitrarnyj institut, teaching English to
Russian-speaking Estonians. I think that these years and this experience
give me some ability to understand stories of personal and communal
tragedies, and many of the contradictions between them.
> > you certianly know that I have always
> > opposed any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' Russian-speakers for
> > having had the misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics
> > when they were under Soviet occupation, and then being left stateless as a
> > consequence of the collapse of the occupying power, the USSR.
> >
>
> The point is there never was such an option - sending the Russians or
russophonics
> or whatever you call them out of the Baltics for the simple reason -
today a train
> with them comes to Russia, tomorrow a train with Russian troops arrives to the
> Baltics. Or simultaneously.
There was no option of deporting people. There was the political option of
making life so intolerable for them that they would decide on their own
that leaving would be their best option. In all three countries there was
talk of such measures on the extreme political right, and in Latvia they
resulted in such controversial policies, now abolished, of a 10% surtax on
the pensions of non-citizens and the complex "naturalization windows
model" of quotas and age cohorts for naturalization.
> Thus we have- Lithuania have chosen the best way to go - zero variant.
It was the best way to go - for Lithuania. The Russian-speakers in
Lithuania amounted to less than 10% of the population, most of them showed
enough respect for the local culture to have learned at least functional
Lithuanian, and Lithuania has a relatively large population with healthy
birth and fertility rates (10.52 births/1,000 population/1.45 children
born/woman).
> Estonia - mild discrimination- what is corresponding to their (in
> general) mild national character. Latvia - the tough way, what again
coincide with
> their rebellious, ever fighting way of life always under foreign
occupation and and
> always denying and bringing revenge on the occupants.
That's one interpretation. Another is that neither Latvia nor Estonia
could afford such a 'luxury' without seriously compromising their national
identity or even survival as distinct nations. Lithuania is 81%
Lithuanian, and the Russian and Polish minorities are about the same size,
neither of them posing a threat to Lithuania's identity or existence. In
Latvia you have lower birth and fertility rates (8.1 births/1,000
population/1.18 children born/woman), as well as 43.5% minorities, most of
them Soviet-era migrants and their descendants. In Estonia the situation
is not quite as threatening, but the figures are 9.05 births/1,000
population, 1.28 children born/woman, and 34.9% minorities, most of them,
once again, Soviet-era migrants and their descendants.
The pre-occupation populations of those two countries and their
descendents did not consider it fair to themselves or to the migrants to
accept the results of two generations of illegal and ethnocidal migration
by granting all legal residents citizenship - the zero option - with no
qualifications whatsoever. It was not fair to themselves, because that
would mean giving a large say in the manner the country was being run to
people who had shown little interest in it. It was not fair to the
migrants, because they would find themselves, unprepared to take a
reasonable standpoint, in a conflict between people who wanted to further
the russification of the countries, and people who were struggling to undo
the effects of an almost fifty-year illegal and culturally pernicious
occupation. Many Soviet-era migrants did not even understand the
circumstances which led to the illegal incorporation of the Baltic
countries into the USSR until 1989, the fiftieth anniversary of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. According to some of the discussions I have read
in the Russian langauge press in Estonia, a majority of them did not
understand the facts of the Soviet occupation and the negative impact they
had on Estonian identity until the mid 1990s. Judging from what Peteris
writes from Latvia, a disturbing number of them still there still don't
seem to understand the circumstances that led to their presence in Latvia
or the feelings that teh Latvian population has about it.
> What is disgusting that
> Latvian Intelligentsia instead of extinguishing the flame is pouring oil
on it.
That's a one-sided judgment. The Latvian intelligentsia represents a
diversity of opinions, and even some of the most ardent Latvian
nationalists would not deny that the Russian-speaking population now,
almost ten years after the re-establishemnt of Latvian independence, is an
integral part of Latvia. More important than the ideas of intellectuals,
though, is the fact that the Latvian government is firmly committed to
following an example similar to Estonia's aimed at integrating the Russian
speakers into Latvian society.
> If
> you deprive such big part of population of any participation in
political life of
> the country you have to think that this part will turn to underground
activity.
> Latvia mindlessly is cultivating itself into another North Ireland. Now this
> shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough trouble in the
world that
> she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such ridiculous
thing as
> Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
She didn't say that. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel that she
did not discount the possibility of a Russian occupation. Given some of
the statements that Russia has made about Latvia, the trade boycott
against Latvian products that the matyors of Moscow and some other local
officials have initiated, the fact that Russians generally perceive Latvia
to be a hostile state, and that Russia is mivffed about Latvia's fast
track to join NATO, I don't see anything remarkable in what she said. You
yourself wrote with respect to deporting Russians from Latvia and Estonia
that:
> The point is there never was such an option - sending the Russians or
russophonics
> or whatever you call them out of the Baltics for the simple reason -
today a train
> with them comes to Russia, tomorrow a train with Russian troops arrives to the
> Baltics. Or simultaneously.
If Russia would respond in such a manner to an orderly deportation - a
repatriation - of people who are not citizens of the countries concerned
to the country which has proclaimed itself to be the successor state to
the USSR, then President Vaira Vike-Freiberga's concerns are certainly
justified.
> Maybe it's time for Latvians to stop to believe
> that they will find a remedy for their country outside - starting with
President and
> finishing with NAtZO and think about getting organized?
>
> My view is- if the Baltics and Finland (and Sweden) would make together
independent
> defense alliance, would warn firmly Russia that *they are going to fight
against any
> aggressor and not going to join any third party*, they would secure
themselves much
> better (and the World) from any kind of threat to their independence and
they would
> have no trouble with Russian speaking minorities which supported their
independence
> during the initial years.
> The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it
plain, to become
> a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too
poor, too weak.
Those are not reasons. They are sovereign countries and have the right to
make their own security arrangements.
> But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving
"rouge states"
> nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom?
Russia?
Why can't Russia just accept that these states have the right to arrange
for their security in the manner which they consider best in the light of
their past experiences? NATO has a few skeletons in its closet, as does
Russia. As of now, they are cooperating. Ultimately, Russia, which is also
a legitmate member of the North Atlantic community, should also join NATO.
Seeing NATO as a potential enemy of Russia is a relic of cold war
thinking.
>
> > Since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
> > to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
> > ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
> > Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking population in
> > both countries understands why the Estonians and Latvians have set up the
> > naturalization procedure, and many have successfully completed it
> > and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
> > giving Russian-speaking children the language and cultural skills and
> > background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
> > non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
> > otustanding problems will have been resolved.
> >
> > So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
> > Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"?
>
> There is one simple sign of if people are harassed or not- how many of
them applied.
Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/estonia.html
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Of Estoniaąs population of just under 1.5 million, over 1 million are
Estonian citizens, of which 105,000 have been naturalized since 1992.
Almost 330,000 are stateless, but hold Estonian residence permits, and
over 100,000 are citizens of other countries, most of Russia. On December
8, parliament amended the Citizenship Law to allow stateless children born
in Estonia after February 26, 1992, to legally resident stateless parents
to acquire Estonian citizenship at the request of their parents and
without having to pass a language test. Both the EU and OSCE supported
easing the countryąs naturalization requirements, which could immediately
affect an estimated 6,500 Russian-speaking children.
[END QUOTE]
Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/latvia.html
[BEGIN QUOTE]
In 1998, the countryąs Law on Citizenship was amended to ease and
accelerate the naturalization process. The amendments eliminated the
so-called łnaturalization windows,˛ or specific periods during which
noncitizens may apply for citizenship. They also offer citizenship to
noncitizensą children born after August 21, 1991 (the date of Latviaąs
independence from the USSR) at their parentsą request and without a
Latvian language test. Although the amendments passed their first two
readings in parliament in May and June, their adoption was postponed when
a group of MPs, at the initiative of the Fatherland and Freedom Party,
requested that a referendum be held on the issue. On October 3, the
electorate ratified the amendments with a slim 52.5 percent of the vote.
The result was welcomed by international organizations, including the
European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE). Currently, approximately 650,000 of Latviaąs 2.5 million
inhabitants are noncitizens. According to estimates of the countryąs
naturalization department, 20,000-25,000 people could be expected to
become citizens each year under the new legislation.
[END QUOTE]
>
> I do have an experience with statistics and I can tell you - if people
do not buy
> (read apply) something they do not think it worth the money (time).
> If it happens en mass - call it Policy.
>
> > They wound up in an awkward
> > situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
> > populations that had every reason to resent their presence,
>
> this is your imagination - the fact is the population never had a chance
to treat
> them as it wanted to because it was Occupied and had no voice or chance.
I meant that *after* the re-establishment of independence the ex-Soviet
migrant populations have been treated decently, even if the pre-occupation
population plus descendants had emotionally justified reasons for
resenting their presence.
>
> > and the
> > countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
> > and provided programs and forums in which Russian speakers and locals
> > could discuss and resolve their differences.
>
> please drop this EU crap. At least in Latvia they Hate each other - read scb.
I read scb but I also visit Latvia (I'm off to Riga and Jurmala next
week). Our company has done some work with the Latvian government, and I
think I have a better understanding of the issues than the sampling we get
in scb. Even in scb most of the Latvians do not say 'Russians' out. They
tend more to say that those Russian speakers who have not learned the
language or otherwise shown some understanding for the fact that for the
past nine years they have been living in Latvia rather than in the USSR
are their own worst enemies. It is not surprising that there are some
people in Latvia who are uncomfortable with the existence of so many
Russian speakers in their country - it's an everyday remineder of half a
century of impotence and a hated occupation in which, as you say, they
"had no voice or chance" to determine their own fate. Still, even on so
touchy a topic as extending Latvian citizenship to the children of
non-citizens born in the country since the re-establishment of
independence on a 'zero options' basis, the majority of the Latvian
electorate voted in favor. That's not exactly a demonstration of hate.
>
> > Now the Russian speakers in
> > all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and better
> > social protection than they would in Russia,
>
> oh, yes - I dared to ask some questions about that Kononov's case and as
soon as I
> started to ask "inconvenient" questions all answers I heard were nothing
but ethnic
> or personal slur. This is a nice example of how the Baltics are offering
the better
> "living standards" - I wonder where - in prison?
Kononov's case was emotionally charged, and neither side handled it well.
The man did kill nine people, including a pregnant woman, in an incident
that nobody disputes was a war crime.
He was brought to trial, convicted, and given what some people consider
was an unusually harsh sentence. On the one hand, the sentence can be
regarded as mild, considering that the victims were non-combatants and, as
I mentioned, included a pregnant woman. On the other hand, he is an old
man and the events in question took place more than 55 years ago. One
might think that trying and convicting him, and then giving him a milder
sentence might have been justified, given his personal circumstances and
the time/space distance of the crime. If, let us say, a German who had
been convicted of a similar crime in Russia during the war were brought to
trial in Moscow, how would you expect him to be punished. How would you
feel if diplomatic pressure from Germany were to used to free him, and
then he was received as a hero when he returned to Germany? It's difficult
to decide how these matters can best be resolved more than half a century
after the war. In any case, whereas I can see Russia's concern about
Kononov's fate as justified, I think that offering him Russian
citizenship, making it look like this was the result of diplomatic
pressure, and regarding Kononov as some kind of a misunderstood hero were
in extremely bad taste and a particularly nasty example of populist
politicking.
> > are learning or have already
> > learned the national languages
>
> you know well these languages have no chance for survival (within a couple of
> generations), as sad as it is.
Estonian is one of the most dynamic languages in Europe nowadays, gaining
first and second language speakers at an unprecedented rate. This is a
result of Estonia's policy of insisting that the country have one and only
one official language, and of taking the effort to ensure that all
non-Estonians are bilingual in Estonian and their other langauge by the
time they finish secondary school. Estonia's immigration policy also
requires that new immigrants to Estonia learn the language as quickly as
possible. In Tallinn I have been served by Chinese and Indian speakers of
Estonian, which I also always speak there in shops, restaurants, and othe
rplaces. The Estonian Language Institute has done an excellent job over
the past decade of modernizing Estonian terminology and publishing
specialist distionaries. Estonian financial, legal, and commercial
vocabulary have all been developed so that there will be a minimal amount
of linguistic difficulty when Estonia joins the EU.
>
> > and are thus bicultural and bilingual, can
> > travel to most western European countries without a visa, earn serious
> > currency, look forward to being members of the European Union and NATO,
> >
>
> Get sober, for a Russian to become a member of NAZtO is like to become a
member of
> SS.
1. Not all of the Russian speakers in Latvia and Estonia are Russians.
2. Many of the Russian speakers, according to various opinion surveys, are
among the most enthusiastic supporters of EU and NATO membership. They
like EU membership because it will enable them to travel, work, and
possibly live in Western Europe where living standards are much hiugher
than in the Baltic states, and they like NATO because it provides a good
guarantee that Russia will not interfere with their homelands. The
feelings you talk about might be true for Russians of the cold war
generation, but they are no longer valid for younger Russians who live in
Narva and know what life is like in Ivangorod.
> You can do this, just don't call yourself Russian afterward. The only
country which
> fought Nazis was Britain, again due to Churchill.
How about the USA, due to Roosevelt? Or Canada, Australia, and the other
countries that made great sacrifices to defeat Nazi Germany? And how much
of the Soviet input was paid for by the Americans in the form of lend
lease aid?
>
> > live in countries that are not slowly backtracking into totalitarianism,
>
> You mean Turkey?
No, I meant Russia.
> > and do not have to worry about their sons being sent off to die in a
> > futile but lethal colonial war.
>
> You mean Chechnya? If it's colonial war you have to explain the numbers:
> population of Chechenya of circa 1989 ~1.3mln people
> today ~ 700,000
>
> difference:
> ~400,000 - Chechens escaped to Russia (not Georgia or Azerbaijan)
> ~200,000 - Russians - it's obvious
I know these statistics and understand that the Chechen war is not simply
a colonial war. nevertheless, young Russian men are being killed in it,
and their counterparts living in the Baltic countries are not.
>
> > Many of those Russian speakers who ran off
> > from the Baltics to Russia because they believed the propaganda they
> > heard, feared a bloodbath after 1991, and are still living in temporary
> > housing or tent cities, would gladly return to Estonia or Latvia if they
> > had the opportunity.
> >
>
> Never heard about any kind of this kind of refugees.
> And what propaganda you are talking about?
No. The people who left Estonia and Latvia because they feared ethnic
cleansing were promised housing and money by Russia, but often wound up
fending for themselves, since housing and money were not available for
them. The Finnish and Estonian governments even tried to alleviate the
situation by financing the construction of housing in Russia for some but
by no means all of these returnees. The excuse Russia gave for keeping
its military and their support people in the Baltics until the final
withdrawal in 1995 was lack of housing in Russia. According to various
sources, including RFE and Itar-Tass, many of them wound up in substandard
'temporary' housing or tent cities.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vello
Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:393B3050...@bellatlantic.net...
> The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it plain,
to become
> a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too poor,
too weak.
> But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving
"rouge states"
> nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom?
Russia?
Vladimir, why NATO seems to be "enemy for ever" for to-day russians? Sure
NATO stands against Soviet Union in years of totalitarism. But western
democraties also fight Germany when it was totalist - they stand up for
democracy and human rights, for European civilization. I hope you'll will
not denie that Russia was a part of Europe since 1917. Sure there is
differences between russian and, say, catholic confession, but it is no
bigger then, say, between catholic and lutheran and, how much I know it all
happens INSIDE of European culture. By soul and nature russians and, say,
french people are much closer then, say, finns and portugalians. And sure
there is not only understanding and love inside EU. Why russians want to
be something totally different today - in terms like Ottoman empire those
days. Why they want step out of Europe? What is the reason to look for
friends in antihuman rouge states instead of European ones?
Alo Merilo
> you know well these languages have no chance for survival (within a
> couple of generations), as sad as it is.
You are almost precisely quoting Eduard von Dellingshausen, last
Hauptmann of Estonia's Ritterschaft, circa 1918. Except that he
was not sad but rather enthusiastic about the perspective of
quick and "natural" replacement of Estonian and Latvian languages
with the more advanced German. Truth be told, way back then
(notably, three generations ago) the chances of German language
in that respect were quite considerable, but at present the
chances of English are only slim, and those of, say, Finnish
or Russian, non-existent. Wishful thinking.
Regards,
Alo Merilo
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <393B3050...@bellatlantic.net>, mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I agree with you, for once, that the Russian-speaking population in the
> > > Baltic countries is better regarded as migrants than as immigrants, and I
> > > think that the governments of Latvia and Estonia also implicitly
> > > acknowledged this even before the OSCE and Council of Europe started
> > > to give them advice on regulating the situation. Although I am sometimes
> > > called anti-Russian in this forum,
> >
> > You are not anti-Russian, or anti-Balt or anti-Whoever - in an objective
> viewpoint.
> > The fact is you are American and judge the situation from "neutral" American
> > viewpoint, by disregarding that people who are anti-Balt or anti-Russian are
> > speaking from there own personal tragedy stories. You read the cultures like a
> > catalogue of cars spare parts and the fact you do remember them doesn't
> make you to
> > understand them, and contradictions between them.
> > Mostly you resemble is this novel of Graham Green - was it "Quiet American"?
>
> Even if I am an American, I have been living in a Baltic country - Finland
> - for more than 30 years and have followed the situation in the Baltics,
> particularly Estonia, closely over those years.
Do not take defensive stance - it' nothing personal and I do not doubt your
knowledge of the countries. But tell me do you think you understand them as you
understand the neighborhood of your childhood? This is what I am talking about.
I spent quite a while in the States and love this country but will never be able to
appreciate the turkey dinner or the 4th July.
> As you remember, I am
> cofounder of a company in Estonia that now provides many of the textbooks
> in Estonian as a second language and civics to the Russian-medium school
> system, and I have been working this term at a private university in
> Tallinn, Sotsial'no-gumanitrarnyj institut, teaching English to
> Russian-speaking Estonians. I think that these years and this experience
> give me some ability to understand stories of personal and communal
> tragedies, and many of the contradictions between them.
>
You do, again I don't doubt this but your *personal history* left overseas not in
the bloody years through which the countries and people were.You somehow think that
I forward it as your personal fault, no I think it's not what can be felt by
outsiders without regard of their personalities.
>
> > > you certianly know that I have always
> > > opposed any plans to deport or otherwise 'punish' Russian-speakers for
> > > having had the misfortune to wind up being sent to or born in the Baltics
> > > when they were under Soviet occupation, and then being left stateless as a
> > > consequence of the collapse of the occupying power, the USSR.
> > >
> >
> > The point is there never was such an option - sending the Russians or
> russophonics
> > or whatever you call them out of the Baltics for the simple reason -
> today a train
> > with them comes to Russia, tomorrow a train with Russian troops arrives to the
> > Baltics. Or simultaneously.
>
> There was no option of deporting people. There was the political option of
> making life so intolerable for them that they would decide on their own
> that leaving would be their best option.
There was no such option - I do not know why you bring it in first turn.
> In all three countries there was
> talk of such measures on the extreme political right, and in Latvia they
> resulted in such controversial policies, now abolished, of a 10% surtax on
> the pensions of non-citizens and the complex "naturalization windows
> model" of quotas and age cohorts for naturalization.
>
> > Thus we have- Lithuania have chosen the best way to go - zero variant.
>
> It was the best way to go - for Lithuania. The Russian-speakers in
> Lithuania amounted to less than 10% of the population, most of them showed
> enough respect for the local culture to have learned at least functional
> Lithuanian, and Lithuania has a relatively large population with healthy
> birth and fertility rates (10.52 births/1,000 population/1.45 children
> born/woman).
>
I know, I know, that's why I omitted Lithuania.
If Estonian language is more difficult to learn how came that Estonia accommodated
more "migrants" than Latvia?
Or is it because Russians in Estonia are of different "breed" than in Latvia?
>
> > What is disgusting that
> > Latvian Intelligentsia instead of extinguishing the flame is pouring oil
> on it.
>
> That's a one-sided judgment. The Latvian intelligentsia represents a
> diversity of opinions,
Yes, I read one when I was in Russia - translation from Latvian, answered by Mark
Deich, life long reporter for Radio Liberty. The article was comparing Russian
history with bathroom history and portraying Russians as underhumans. KKK couldn't
wrote more sleazy.And it was a major Latvian newspaper - as M.Deich mentioned.
> and even some of the most ardent Latvian
> nationalists would not deny that the Russian-speaking population now,
the clue is - "some"
>
> almost ten years after the re-establishemnt of Latvian independence, is an
> integral part of Latvia. More important than the ideas of intellectuals,
> though, is the fact that the Latvian government is firmly committed to
> following an example similar to Estonia's aimed at integrating the Russian
> speakers into Latvian society.
>
like claiming that Russia is going to occupy ?
>
> > If
> > you deprive such big part of population of any participation in
> political life of
> > the country you have to think that this part will turn to underground
> activity.
> > Latvia mindlessly is cultivating itself into another North Ireland. Now this
> > shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough trouble in the
> world that
> > she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such ridiculous
> thing as
> > Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
>
> She didn't say that. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel that she
> did not discount the possibility of a Russian occupation.
When stranger tells you " I can kill you" or "I will kill you" do you feel big
difference?
She said this in the way to stay safe on "diplomatic language". You know this, I
know this,
and you trying to make points on that. Forget it.
> Given some of
> the statements that Russia has made about Latvia, the trade boycott
> against Latvian products that the matyors of Moscow and some other local
> officials have initiated, the fact that Russians generally perceive Latvia
> to be a hostile state, and that Russia is mivffed about Latvia's fast
> track to join NATO, I don't see anything remarkable in what she said. You
> yourself wrote with respect to deporting Russians from Latvia and Estonia
> that:
>
That Latvia is hostile, indeed an enemy state to Russia you can easily understand
reading this newsgroup.
The range of opinions on the side of Latvians varies from "send them back in the
cattle cars" to " I hate them too but do not have a nerve to shoot them on the
spot".
Now, with their admission to NAtZO they can become really dangerous.
>
> > The point is there never was such an option - sending the Russians or
> russophonics
> > or whatever you call them out of the Baltics for the simple reason -
> today a train
> > with them comes to Russia, tomorrow a train with Russian troops arrives to the
> > Baltics. Or simultaneously.
>
> If Russia would respond in such a manner to an orderly deportation - a
> repatriation
If you call this "repatriation" then a call nuking a "repatriation" too as all we
sinners were originating from Heavens.
> - of people who are not citizens of the countries concerned
> to the country which has proclaimed itself to be the successor state to
> the USSR, then President Vaira Vike-Freiberga's concerns are certainly
> justified.
President Viagra needs to have a sober look of what can happen because of her
polices.
>
> > Maybe it's time for Latvians to stop to believe
> > that they will find a remedy for their country outside - starting with
> President and
> > finishing with NAtZO and think about getting organized?
> >
> > My view is- if the Baltics and Finland (and Sweden) would make together
> independent
> > defense alliance, would warn firmly Russia that *they are going to fight
> against any
> > aggressor and not going to join any third party*, they would secure
> themselves much
> > better (and the World) from any kind of threat to their independence and
> they would
> > have no trouble with Russian speaking minorities which supported their
> independence
> > during the initial years.
> > The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it
> plain, to become
> > a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too
> poor, too weak.
>
> Those are not reasons. They are sovereign countries and have the right to
> make their own security arrangements.
>
OK. Don't be amazed what kind of "security arrangements" Russia will make in
response.
>
> > But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving
> "rouge states"
> > nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom?
> Russia?
>
> Why can't Russia just accept that these states have the right to arrange
> for their security in the manner which they consider best in the light of
> their past experiences?
I already said in this newsgroup - there are free to do whatever they want. And
Russia as well.
Do not complain later on.
> NATO has a few skeletons in its closet, as does
> Russia. As of now, they are cooperating. Ultimately, Russia, which is also
> a legitmate member of the North Atlantic community, should also join NATO.
> Seeing NATO as a potential enemy of Russia is a relic of cold war
> thinking.
>
NATO - North Atlantic - is Russia in North Atlantic? And this drivel about
"friendly" NATO etc. Please stop it - at least with me, I am old enough to remember
that NATO "will not expand" etc.
Why you would not explain me why you not lying this time? Or it is too shameful
point to stop on?
>
> >
> > > Since the occupation is regarded as having been illegal, something has
> > > to be done to legalize the status of these people while, at the same time,
> > > ensuring that Estonia and Latvia will remain essentially Estonian and
> > > Latvian. The overwhelming majority of the Russian-speaking population in
> > > both countries understands why the Estonians and Latvians have set up the
> > > naturalization procedure, and many have successfully completed it
> > > and become citizens. Most importantly, schools in both countries are
> > > giving Russian-speaking children the language and cultural skills and
> > > background they need to acquire social molbility in a primarily
> > > non-Russian speaking environment, so within ten or so years any
> > > otustanding problems will have been resolved.
> > >
> > > So, how can you seriously argue that Russian speakers in Estonia and
> > > Latvia are being denied "basic human rights"?
> >
> > There is one simple sign of if people are harassed or not- how many of
> them applied.
>
> Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/estonia.html
> [BEGIN QUOTE]
> Of Estonia╧s population of just under 1.5 million, over 1 million are
> Estonian citizens, of which 105,000 have been naturalized since 1992.
> Almost 330,000 are stateless, but hold Estonian residence permits, and
> over 100,000 are citizens of other countries, most of Russia. On December
> 8, parliament amended the Citizenship Law to allow stateless children born
> in Estonia after February 26, 1992, to legally resident stateless parents
> to acquire Estonian citizenship at the request of their parents and
> without having to pass a language test. Both the EU and OSCE supported
> easing the country╧s naturalization requirements, which could immediately
> affect an estimated 6,500 Russian-speaking children.
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/latvia.html
> [BEGIN QUOTE]
> In 1998, the country╧s Law on Citizenship was amended to ease and
> accelerate the naturalization process. The amendments eliminated the
> so-called Ёnaturalization windows,╡ or specific periods during which
> noncitizens may apply for citizenship. They also offer citizenship to
> noncitizens╧ children born after August 21, 1991 (the date of Latvia╧s
> independence from the USSR) at their parents╧ request and without a
> Latvian language test. Although the amendments passed their first two
> readings in parliament in May and June, their adoption was postponed when
> a group of MPs, at the initiative of the Fatherland and Freedom Party,
> requested that a referendum be held on the issue. On October 3, the
> electorate ratified the amendments with a slim 52.5 percent of the vote.
> The result was welcomed by international organizations, including the
> European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
> (OSCE). Currently, approximately 650,000 of Latvia╧s 2.5 million
> inhabitants are noncitizens. According to estimates of the country╧s
> naturalization department, 20,000-25,000 people could be expected to
> become citizens each year under the new legislation.
> [END QUOTE]
>
And?
>
> >
> > I do have an experience with statistics and I can tell you - if people
> do not buy
> > (read apply) something they do not think it worth the money (time).
> > If it happens en mass - call it Policy.
> >
> > > They wound up in an awkward
> > > situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
> > > populations that had every reason to resent their presence,
> >
> > this is your imagination - the fact is the population never had a chance
> to treat
> > them as it wanted to because it was Occupied and had no voice or chance.
>
> I meant that *after* the re-establishment of independence the ex-Soviet
> migrant populations have been treated decently, even if the pre-occupation
> population plus descendants had emotionally justified reasons for
> resenting their presence.
>
"Decently" - tell me about the privatization laws.
>
> >
> > > and the
> > > countries in which they were resident assumed the responsibility for them
> > > and provided programs and forums in which Russian speakers and locals
> > > could discuss and resolve their differences.
> >
> > please drop this EU crap. At least in Latvia they Hate each other - read scb.
>
> I read scb but I also visit Latvia (I'm off to Riga and Jurmala next
> week). Our company has done some work with the Latvian government, and I
> think I have a better understanding of the issues than the sampling we get
> in scb. Even in scb most of the Latvians do not say 'Russians' out. They
> tend more to say that those Russian speakers who have not learned the
> language or otherwise shown some understanding for the fact that for the
> past nine years they have been living in Latvia rather than in the USSR
> are their own worst enemies. It is not surprising that there are some
> people in Latvia who are uncomfortable with the existence of so many
> Russian speakers in their country - it's an everyday remineder of half a
> century of impotence and a hated occupation in which, as you say, they
> "had no voice or chance" to determine their own fate. Still, even on so
> touchy a topic as extending Latvian citizenship to the children of
> non-citizens born in the country since the re-establishment of
> independence on a 'zero options' basis, the majority of the Latvian
> electorate voted in favor. That's not exactly a demonstration of hate.
>
Like you don't know the truth behind the vote - a warning from EU.
> >
> > > Now the Russian speakers in
> > > all three Baltic countries enjoy higher standards of living and better
> > > social protection than they would in Russia,
> >
> > oh, yes - I dared to ask some questions about that Kononov's case and as
> soon as I
> > started to ask "inconvenient" questions all answers I heard were nothing
> but ethnic
> > or personal slur. This is a nice example of how the Baltics are offering
> the better
> > "living standards" - I wonder where - in prison?
>
> Kononov's case was emotionally charged, and neither side handled it well.
>
I do not know if the man really killed the innocent. The point is the trial was a
show one.
Case closed.
>
> The man did kill nine people, including a pregnant woman, in an incident
> that nobody disputes was a war crime.
>
How do you know?
>
> He was brought to trial, convicted, and given what some people consider
> was an unusually harsh sentence. On the one hand, the sentence can be
> regarded as mild, considering that the victims were non-combatants and, as
> I mentioned, included a pregnant woman. On the other hand, he is an old
> man and the events in question took place more than 55 years ago. One
> might think that trying and convicting him, and then giving him a milder
> sentence might have been justified, given his personal circumstances and
> the time/space distance of the crime. If, let us say, a German who had
> been convicted of a similar crime in Russia during the war were brought to
> trial in Moscow, how would you expect him to be punished. How would you
> feel if diplomatic pressure from Germany were to used to free him, and
> then he was received as a hero when he returned to Germany? It's difficult
> to decide how these matters can best be resolved more than half a century
> after the war. In any case, whereas I can see Russia's concern about
> Kononov's fate as justified, I think that offering him Russian
> citizenship, making it look like this was the result of diplomatic
> pressure, and regarding Kononov as some kind of a misunderstood hero were
> in extremely bad taste and a particularly nasty example of populist
> politicking.
>
Eugene, you know too little about me and history of my family. So stay away from
WWII.
I just don't like to talk about it.
>
> > > are learning or have already
> > > learned the national languages
> >
> > you know well these languages have no chance for survival (within a couple of
> > generations), as sad as it is.
>
> Estonian is one of the most dynamic languages in Europe nowadays, gaining
> first and second language speakers at an unprecedented rate. This is a
> result of Estonia's policy of insisting that the country have one and only
> one official language, and of taking the effort to ensure that all
> non-Estonians are bilingual in Estonian and their other langauge by the
> time they finish secondary school. Estonia's immigration policy also
> requires that new immigrants to Estonia learn the language as quickly as
> possible. In Tallinn I have been served by Chinese and Indian speakers of
> Estonian, which I also always speak there in shops, restaurants, and othe
> rplaces. The Estonian Language Institute has done an excellent job over
> the past decade of modernizing Estonian terminology and publishing
> specialist distionaries. Estonian financial, legal, and commercial
> vocabulary have all been developed so that there will be a minimal amount
> of linguistic difficulty when Estonia joins the EU.
>
I will answer this to another person - have a look if interested.
>
> >
> > > and are thus bicultural and bilingual, can
> > > travel to most western European countries without a visa, earn serious
> > > currency, look forward to being members of the European Union and NATO,
> > >
> >
> > Get sober, for a Russian to become a member of NAZtO is like to become a
> member of
> > SS.
>
> 1. Not all of the Russian speakers in Latvia and Estonia are Russians.
>
What makes them happy I guess - when they are denied to be citizens.
> 2. Many of the Russian speakers, according to various opinion surveys, are
> among the most enthusiastic supporters of EU and NATO membership.
" Many letters we received recently from working people all around the Soviet Union,
in which they ask why our State keeps too low prices for bread. Meeting their
request the Soviet Government decided to rise the price for bread..."
> They
> like EU membership because it will enable them to travel, work, and
> possibly live in Western Europe where living standards are much hiugher
> than in the Baltic states, and they like NATO because it provides a good
> guarantee that Russia will not interfere with their homelands. The
> feelings you talk about might be true for Russians of the cold war
> generation, but they are no longer valid for younger Russians who live in
> Narva and know what life is like in Ivangorod.
Aha, how about recent (1999) poll, which after Serbia bombing showed that ~70% of
Russians regard NAZtO as a deadly enemy?
>
>
> > You can do this, just don't call yourself Russian afterward. The only
> country which
> > fought Nazis was Britain, again due to Churchill.
>
> How about the USA, due to Roosevelt?
Who claimed war on whom? Remember?
> Or Canada, Australia, and the other
> countries
Satellites. And you know that. They didn't give a shit.
> that made great sacrifices to defeat Nazi Germany? And how much
> of the Soviet input was paid for by the Americans in the form of lend
> lease aid?
>
It was of help but we would win anyway. The help was marginal.
>
> >
> > > live in countries that are not slowly backtracking into totalitarianism,
> >
> > You mean Turkey?
>
> No, I meant Russia.
>
Think about Turkey.
>
> > > and do not have to worry about their sons being sent off to die in a
> > > futile but lethal colonial war.
> >
> > You mean Chechnya? If it's colonial war you have to explain the numbers:
> > population of Chechenya of circa 1989 ~1.3mln people
> > today ~ 700,000
> >
> > difference:
> > ~400,000 - Chechens escaped to Russia (not Georgia or Azerbaijan)
> > ~200,000 - Russians - it's obvious
>
> I know these statistics and understand that the Chechen war is not simply
> a colonial war. nevertheless, young Russian men are being killed in it,
> and their counterparts living in the Baltic countries are not.
>
If Ms. Viagra proceed in her ways - who knows.
>
> >
> > > Many of those Russian speakers who ran off
> > > from the Baltics to Russia because they believed the propaganda they
> > > heard, feared a bloodbath after 1991, and are still living in temporary
> > > housing or tent cities, would gladly return to Estonia or Latvia if they
> > > had the opportunity.
> > >
> >
> > Never heard about any kind of this kind of refugees.
> > And what propaganda you are talking about?
>
> No. The people who left Estonia and Latvia because they feared ethnic
> cleansing were promised housing and money by Russia,
Never heard - source , please. I bet there is no source.
> but often wound up
> fending for themselves, since housing and money were not available for
> them. The Finnish and Estonian governments even tried to alleviate the
> situation by financing the construction of housing in Russia for some but
> by no means all of these returnees. The excuse Russia gave for keeping
> its military and their support people in the Baltics until the final
> withdrawal in 1995 was lack of housing in Russia. According to various
> sources, including RFE and Itar-Tass, many of them wound up in substandard
> 'temporary' housing or tent cities.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
VM.
pravda
:> > shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough trouble in the
:> world that
:> > she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such ridiculous
:> thing as
:> > Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
:>
:> She didn't say that. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel that she
:> did not discount the possibility of a Russian occupation.
: When stranger tells you " I can kill you" or "I will kill you" do you feel big
: difference?
: She said this in the way to stay safe on "diplomatic language". You know this, I
: know this,
: and you trying to make points on that. Forget it.
It's amazing how the Russian government has interpreted this. Freiberga
basically said the only threat Latvia can face is from Russia. That's
basically the truth, given Russia's sort-of hostile attitude towards Latvia.
fEx Lithuania or Sweden hardly pose any thread towards Latvia, do they?
Here's the amazing propaganda stunt -- instead of stating that Russia does
NOT have any hostile intentions towards Latvia, Russian government respon-
ded with "How can this fucking little prick country Latvia DARE to think
Russia would pose any threat? How AGGRESSIVE can this sonofabitch fascist
piece-of-shit country GET? We have to NUKE the place down so those blood-
thirsty Latvians would not INVADE Russia! Such fucking arrogance!"
(Slight exaggerations ;).
: That Latvia is hostile, indeed an enemy state to Russia you can easily understand
: reading this newsgroup.
: The range of opinions on the side of Latvians varies from "send them back in the
: cattle cars" to " I hate them too but do not have a nerve to shoot them on the
: spot".
: Now, with their admission to NAtZO they can become really dangerous.
Vladimir, you're apparently a reasonably intelligent person. You don't think
Jon Hill's posts are dead serious, do you? Try to separate irony and painful,
exaggerated reactions that are present in most of the Latvian writers' posts,
from something they mean seriously. I know it's hard alright, like it's hard
to tell from your posts which parts do you take dead seriously and which are
exaggerations.
Anyway, you CANNOT expect serious answers if you just jump in, guns blazing,
blasting away at "NATzO" and "inhuman" Latvians by what you've just from the
editorials of your local newspaper, without even *considering* what you've
read might not be the truth and full truth. That's what us Balts hate the
most :). If you come screaming bloody murder about the "nazis" and "apart-
heid", expect nothing less than "commie bastards", "murderers", "sub-humans"
etc from the offended Balts.
I do salute Eugene Holman for his valuable contributions and patience, tho.
Eugene Holman
> Do not take defensive stance - it' nothing personal and I do not doubt your
> knowledge of the countries. But tell me do you think you understand them
as you
> understand the neighborhood of your childhood?
I think I understand Finland where I have spent 3/5 of my life, at least,
better. Having been raised as an American, I had had four different
chldhood neighborhoods in different part of NYC by the time I started
going to secondary school. By that time my parents lived in south-eastern
Queens by JFK airport, while I had to travel four hours a day to high
school in the north-western Bronx. Summers were spent working in other
parts of NYC, at summer camp, or in various libraries prepping for
university. I know abolutely nobody from any of my childhhod
neighborhoods.
If you go to culture, well yes, I obviously understand the turkey dinner
or the 4th of July, having imbibed them with my mother's milk, so to
speak, but I also undertand and am deeply moved by Finnish Independence
Day, December 6, as well as by the manner in which the Estonians celebrate
and honor those who, at various times during this century, have struggled
for the independence of their country. And Juhannus/Jaanipäev - the
Midsummer Festival which is so important up here in the Baltic region, is
so extraordinary that it cannot fail to move anyone who has gotten used to
it.
> This is what I am talking about.
> I spent quite a while in the States and love this country but will never
be able to
> appreciate the turkey dinner or the 4th July.
>
> > As you remember, I am
> > cofounder of a company in Estonia that now provides many of the textbooks
> > in Estonian as a second language and civics to the Russian-medium school
> > system, and I have been working this term at a private university in
> > Tallinn, Sotsial'no-gumanitrarnyj institut, teaching English to
> > Russian-speaking Estonians. I think that these years and this experience
> > give me some ability to understand stories of personal and communal
> > tragedies, and many of the contradictions between them.
> >
>
> You do, again I don't doubt this but your *personal history* left
overseas not in
> the bloody years through which the countries and people were.You somehow
think that
> I forward it as your personal fault, no I think it's not what can be felt by
> outsiders without regard of their personalities.
>
No, I think I understand what you are trying to say, and I cannot diasgree
with you 100% There is something about the first culture you learn that
leaves an indelible imprint. On the other hand, I have made the choice of
learning about and living within a different culture, one that interacts
to a greater degree than my first culture with neighboring cultures. Since
I am a student of culture, these different cultures are an ends rather
than a means for me, while for you the situation might be the opposite.
> >
It can be debated whether Estonian is more difficult than Latvian On the
one hand it is non-Indo-European, and totally alien, while Latvian is
Indo-European and shares many similaritiies in grammar and vocabulary with
Russian. On the other hand, Estonian is more systematic: once you
understand the basics it is easier than Latin or Russian because of the
more logical and exceptionless underlying grammatical and lexical
architecture. In any case, Russian-speaking children pick up Estonian
quite easily, and during the past five years I've noticed a marked
improvement in the spoken Estonian of the Russian vendors at the outdoor
markets.
I think that Estonian accommodated more migrants for three reasons:
1. The essentially 'mild' nature of the people, as you put it. Estonians
can be cold and standoffish - something often interpreted by Russians as
hostility, but they can also be coldly rational. They wanted their country
to be Estonian speaking, and they understood that the problems of the
Russian-speaking migrants were, for the most part, not of their own
making. Thus, they went to considerable lengths to hammer out a compromise
which would keep the country Estonian without adding to the tragedy of the
Russian-speaking migrants.
2. The fact that the Russian-speaking migrants, after some initial
scepticism, realized that the Estonian electorate was sincere. Round-table
discussions on minority/majority problems were set up, family exchanges
and summer camps were set up which allowed children and adults to make
first-hand acquaintance with members of the other group, and, eventually,
the entire country was committed to bulding something positive rather than
constantly replaying the past.
3. The fact that the Estonian majority felt threatened - but not overly so
- by the 38% minority population which the country had upon regaining
independence. The figure now stands at about 30% minority, some of the
reduction resulting from emigration, but some of it also resulting from
the fact that the concept 'Estonian' has been somewhat de-ethnicized. An
increasing number of the Russian-speakers who have taken Estonian
citizneship have placed their children in Estonian-medium schools and
consider themselves to be Estonians. Estonians, in turn, are more and more
willing to regard anyone, no matter what his/her ethnoc background, who
speaks Estonian and acts more or less as one expects Estonians to act as
Estonians.
So, right from the start there has been accommodation and adaptation on
both sides, and both sides are committed to the idea that this is an
ongoing process.
From the Estonian Government's Integration programme:
Source: http://www.riik.ee/saks/ikomisjon/programme.htm#pohieesmark
[BEGIN QUOTE]
The enabling of the preservation of ethnic differences means the existence
of conditions in society for the promotion of one's ethnic identity by
interested individuals who belong to ethnic minorities.
In the case of the non-Estonian target group, integration is expressed in
the gradual disappearance of those barriers which today prevent many
non-Estonians from being competitive in the Estonian labour market, taking
part in the educational opportunities available here and participating in
local cultural and political life. These barriers are above all connected
with shortcomings in knowledge of the Estonian language and local culture,
with uncertain legal status and also with fears and prejudices resulting
from rapid social changes.
In the case of the Estonian target group, integration is expressed in the
retreat of repellent attitudes towards ethnic minorities in the context of
the recognition of the multicultural model of society and is also
expressed in the decrease in fear concerning the survival of the national
identity and cultural domain.
Since integration contains elements that in certain cases may come into
conflict with each other (harmonisation and the preservation of
differences are conflicting processes), one must specify what variety of
social harmonisation and which differences to be preserved are referred to
in specific social spheres. For this purpose one must distinguish between
the common features and mutual interactions in the following main areas of
integration:
inguistic-communicative integration, i.e. the re-creation of a common
sphere of information and an Estonian-language environment in Estonian
society under conditions of cultural diversity and mutual tolerance.
Legal-political integration, i.e. the formation of a population loyal to
the Estonian State and the reduction of the number of persons without
Estonian citizenship.
Socio-economic integration, i.e. the achievement of greater
competitiveness and social mobility for every member of Estonian society
regardless of ethnic or linguistic attributes.
[END QUOTE]
My experience in both Estonia and Latvia has been that Latvian society is
more polarized. Although many people there seem to be following the
Estonian example and seeing that it works, there is, I would claim, a
greater feeling among Latvians that their country has been violated, and
that accommodation should be more a matter of Russian speakers adjusting
to Latvia than of Latvians adjustuing to Russian speakers. The ideal of
'harmonization', which the Estonian authorities and society have seen as
so central a goal, does not seem to be as imprtant to the Latvians, who
are perhaps more conservative ('clannis', as Peteris has put it) than the
Estonians, and reject offhand having to change their mentality and makeup
consequent to a wrong that was done to them in the recent past.
I think I understand this Latvian mindset - it is very human and stems
from very basic emotions - but its consequence is a Latvia in which the
members of the two communities retain a lot of mutual suspicion. Once
again, the Estonian programme recognizes the existence of such feelings
and was constructed to avoid them:
Source: ibid
[BEGIN QUOTE]
3.1 Why the state programme is necessary
As a result of the extensive migration that took place during the Soviet
period, a community using Russian as its first language has developed in
Estonia, and many of its members lack a sufficient outlet to the rest of
society. Linguistic attributes also largely determine the places these
people work and live, the education they receive and their social
mobility. Sociological investigations undertaken from the mid-1990s
suggest the formation of a "two societies in one country" model in
Estonia, which may become dangerous both socially and from the point of
view of security policy. It is particularly disturbing that many
non-Estonian adolescents fail to find sufficient opportunities for
self-realisation. At the same time growing unemployment is forming a
suitable environment for the spread of crime in society.
Yet there are also positive signs. A survey carried out in January of 1999
pointed to the integration process having reached a phase of
acclimatisation and tolerance.3
Integration as a whole is directed towards the creation of a balanced and
democratic multicultural society, although it is clear that this is a
complicated and also
contradictory process lasting decades and requiring the long-term and
systematic support of the Estonian State.
[END QUOTE]
The 'mild' Estonians realized that this two societies in one country idea
was dysfunctional right from the beginning, and they took concrete efforts
to avoid surces of conflict before they could arise. Generalizing, one
could say that more emotional Latvians did not regard this as possible or
fair to themselves, their history, or their heritage.
> > That's a one-sided judgment. The Latvian intelligentsia represents a
> > diversity of opinions,
>
> Yes, I read one when I was in Russia - translation from Latvian,
answered by Mark
> Deich, life long reporter for Radio Liberty. The article was comparing Russian
> history with bathroom history and portraying Russians as underhumans.
KKK couldn't
> wrote more sleazy.And it was a major Latvian newspaper - as M.Deich mentioned.
>
> > and even some of the most ardent Latvian
> > nationalists would not deny that the Russian-speaking population now,
>
> the clue is - "some"
Latvia is a larger country than Estonia and has a wider spectrum of
viewpoints. Estonians, like Scandinavians, put great value in compromise.
Latvians, it seems, are more stubborn and intransigent.
> > almost ten years after the re-establishemnt of Latvian independence, is an
> > integral part of Latvia. More important than the ideas of intellectuals,
> > though, is the fact that the Latvian government is firmly committed to
> > following an example similar to Estonia's aimed at integrating the Russian
> > speakers into Latvian society.
> >
> like claiming that Russia is going to occupy ?
She didn't 'claim' it; she said that it was one of her fears and that it
was not outside the realm of possible events. If you have read some of the
statements in the Russian press and even some of the pronouncements made
in the Duma about Russia's right to draw a line on NATO expansion you know
that her concerns are not just the product of neurosis.
A mouse looking at an elephant with rape on his mind.
> The range of opinions on the side of Latvians varies from "send them
back in the
> cattle cars" to " I hate them too but do not have a nerve to shoot them on the
> spot".
> Now, with their admission to NAtZO they can become really dangerous.
>
That is really far too simplistic. Even in this newsgroup there are many
Latvians - Juris, Adrejs, Peteris - who are willing to accept the presence
of the Russian-speaker minority in Latvia, but want them to do a better
job of adjusting to a new culture and changed circumstances. After almost
ten years of living in independent Latvia that is not too much to ask.
> > If Russia would respond in such a manner to an orderly deportation - a
> > repatriation
>
> If you call this "repatriation" then a call nuking a "repatriation" too
as all we
> sinners were originating from Heavens.
>
> > - of people who are not citizens of the countries concerned
> > to the country which has proclaimed itself to be the successor state to
> > the USSR, then President Vaira Vike-Freiberga's concerns are certainly
> > justified.
>
> President Viagra needs to have a sober look of what can happen because of her
> polices.
She is not and never has called for 'repatriation'. She has expressed
concern, like any responsible head of state would, for threatening noises
coming from a large and unpredictable neighbor.
> OK. Don't be amazed what kind of "security arrangements" Russia will make in
> response.
It can repeat the stupid policy that the US began when its pesky neighbor,
Cuba, did esssentially the same thing: make a complete fool of itself.
> > NATO has a few skeletons in its closet, as does
> > Russia. As of now, they are cooperating. Ultimately, Russia, which is also
> > a legitmate member of the North Atlantic community, should also join NATO.
> > Seeing NATO as a potential enemy of Russia is a relic of cold war
> > thinking.
> >
>
> NATO - North Atlantic - is Russia in North Atlantic?
Yes. The fleet at Murmansk defends Russia from possible incursions from
the North Atlantic. The Baltic Sea, which ends at St. Peterburg and on
which Kaliningrad borders, is part of the North Atlantic Ocean system.
Maritime access to Kalininrad and St. Petersberg necessarily involves the
North Atlantic. Russia is a North Atlantic country wigth legitimate North
Atlantic security interests. It should be a part of NATO and adjusting
thinking within both NATO and the Russian government to accommodate this
eventuality should be a high priority.
> And this drivel about
> "friendly" NATO etc. Please stop it - at least with me, I am old enough
to remember
> that NATO "will not expand" etc.
> Why you would not explain me why you not lying this time? Or it is too
shameful
> point to stop on?
That was during the Cold War. Things are different now. Russia whould want
to be engaged in all North Atlantic security issues, particularly since it
is a longer a major military power and is thus too weak to serve as a
counterbalance to everyone else. I could hardly think of a better case for
applying the American proverb: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
> > > There is one simple sign of if people are harassed or not- how many of
> > them applied.
> >
> > Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/estonia.html
> > [BEGIN QUOTE]
> > Of Estoniaąs population of just under 1.5 million, over 1 million are
> > Estonian citizens, of which 105,000 have been naturalized since 1992.
> > Almost 330,000 are stateless, but hold Estonian residence permits, and
> > over 100,000 are citizens of other countries, most of Russia. On December
> > 8, parliament amended the Citizenship Law to allow stateless children born
> > in Estonia after February 26, 1992, to legally resident stateless parents
> > to acquire Estonian citizenship at the request of their parents and
> > without having to pass a language test. Both the EU and OSCE supported
> > easing the countryąs naturalization requirements, which could immediately
> > affect an estimated 6,500 Russian-speaking children.
> > [END QUOTE]
> >
> > Source: http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/latvia.html
> > [BEGIN QUOTE]
> > In 1998, the countryąs Law on Citizenship was amended to ease and
> > accelerate the naturalization process. The amendments eliminated the
> > so-called łnaturalization windows,˛ or specific periods during which
> > noncitizens may apply for citizenship. They also offer citizenship to
> > noncitizensą children born after August 21, 1991 (the date of Latviaąs
> > independence from the USSR) at their parentsą request and without a
> > Latvian language test. Although the amendments passed their first two
> > readings in parliament in May and June, their adoption was postponed when
> > a group of MPs, at the initiative of the Fatherland and Freedom Party,
> > requested that a referendum be held on the issue. On October 3, the
> > electorate ratified the amendments with a slim 52.5 percent of the vote.
> > The result was welcomed by international organizations, including the
> > European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
> > (OSCE). Currently, approximately 650,000 of Latviaąs 2.5 million
> > inhabitants are noncitizens. According to estimates of the countryąs
> > naturalization department, 20,000-25,000 people could be expected to
> > become citizens each year under the new legislation.
> > [END QUOTE]
> >
>
> And?
Another American proverb: "They're working on it."
> > > I do have an experience with statistics and I can tell you - if people
> > do not buy
> > > (read apply) something they do not think it worth the money (time).
> > > If it happens en mass - call it Policy.
> > >
> > > > They wound up in an awkward
> > > > situation when the USSR disappeared, they were treated decently by
> > > > populations that had every reason to resent their presence,
> > >
> > > this is your imagination - the fact is the population never had a chance
> > to treat
> > > them as it wanted to because it was Occupied and had no voice or chance.
> >
> > I meant that *after* the re-establishment of independence the ex-Soviet
> > migrant populations have been treated decently, even if the pre-occupation
> > population plus descendants had emotionally justified reasons for
> > resenting their presence.
> >
>
> "Decently" - tell me about the privatization laws.
Privitization involved selling off state assets to citizens of the state.
It can be argued that the assets were of Soviet origin and thus should
have been made available to all former Soviet citizens. On the other hand,
when the Soviets occupied the Baltics they confiscated the assets of the
state, businesses, and individuals with no compensation whatsoever.
Restricting privatization to citizens can be justified as partial
compensation for the Soviet privatizations of 1940 and 1944.
> > I read scb but I also visit Latvia (I'm off to Riga and Jurmala next
> > week). Our company has done some work with the Latvian government, and I
> > think I have a better understanding of the issues than the sampling we get
> > in scb. Even in scb most of the Latvians do not say 'Russians' out. They
> > tend more to say that those Russian speakers who have not learned the
> > language or otherwise shown some understanding for the fact that for the
> > past nine years they have been living in Latvia rather than in the USSR
> > are their own worst enemies. It is not surprising that there are some
> > people in Latvia who are uncomfortable with the existence of so many
> > Russian speakers in their country - it's an everyday remineder of half a
> > century of impotence and a hated occupation in which, as you say, they
> > "had no voice or chance" to determine their own fate. Still, even on so
> > touchy a topic as extending Latvian citizenship to the children of
> > non-citizens born in the country since the re-establishment of
> > independence on a 'zero options' basis, the majority of the Latvian
> > electorate voted in favor. That's not exactly a demonstration of hate.
> >
>
> Like you don't know the truth behind the vote - a warning from EU.
That was part of the story, but not the whoe story. An increasing number
of Latvians is eager to put all of this arguing over citizenship behind
them and get on building the country. certainly the EU goading was not
unheeded, but there are other forces working in Latvia as well.
I'm sure that you, like most Russians, have many WW II tragedies in your
background. I, like many Americans, also lost some relatives in that war.
But that's not the point here. The Kononov thing has been on the agenda
for many years. It was an open and shut case much like the My Lai
massacre: the time, place, and people involved had long been known.
> > > Get sober, for a Russian to become a member of NAZtO is like to become a
> > member of
> > > SS.
> >
> > 1. Not all of the Russian speakers in Latvia and Estonia are Russians.
> >
>
> What makes them happy I guess - when they are denied to be citizens.
>
> > 2. Many of the Russian speakers, according to various opinion surveys, are
> > among the most enthusiastic supporters of EU and NATO membership.
>
> " Many letters we received recently from working people all around the
Soviet Union,
> in which they ask why our State keeps too low prices for bread. Meeting their
> request the Soviet Government decided to rise the price for bread..."
>
> > They
> > like EU membership because it will enable them to travel, work, and
> > possibly live in Western Europe where living standards are much hiugher
> > than in the Baltic states, and they like NATO because it provides a good
>
> > guarantee that Russia will not interfere with their homelands. The
> > feelings you talk about might be true for Russians of the cold war
> > generation, but they are no longer valid for younger Russians who live in
> > Narva and know what life is like in Ivangorod.
>
> Aha, how about recent (1999) poll, which after Serbia bombing showed
that ~70% of
> Russians regard NAZtO as a deadly enemy?
Russians and Baltic-resident Russian speakers are not the same thing.
Baltic-resident Russian speakers stand to gain many benefits from EU and
NATO membership and they are quite aware of this.
> > > You can do this, just don't call yourself Russian afterward. The only
> > country which
> > > fought Nazis was Britain, again due to Churchill.
> >
> > How about the USA, due to Roosevelt?
>
> Who claimed war on whom? Remember?
Like the USSR, the United States was the object of a perfidious sneak
attack. Unlike the USSR, the attacker was not its ally of convenience
(remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?, but a country, Japan, with which
it had some misunderstandings, but nothing warranting a sneak attack. A
few days after Pearl Harbor, Japan's ally, Nazi Germany, declared war on
the United States.
> > Or Canada, Australia, and the other
> > countries
>
> Satellites. And you know that. They didn't give a shit.
They sacrificed hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
> > that made great sacrifices to defeat Nazi Germany? And how much
> > of the Soviet input was paid for by the Americans in the form of lend
> > lease aid?
> >
>
> It was of help but we would win anyway. The help was marginal.
It helped the USSR during the crucial period during which its war
industries were being transferred to Siberia. Hitler thought he could
knock the USSR out in six weeks. If his generals had had their way and put
evrything they had into getting to Moscow, rather than disperse their
power by going for Leningrad in the north and Stalingrad in the wouth, and
if you had not received the thousands of motor vehicles, airplane parts,
and weapons made available by land lease, Germany would have prevailed.
Neither Stalin nor the Soviet military were prepared for June 22, 1941.
> Think about Turkey.
Russia is relevant to this discussion, Turkey isn't.
> > No. The people who left Estonia and Latvia because they feared ethnic
> > cleansing were promised housing and money by Russia,
>
> Never heard - source , please. I bet there is no source.
Althugh I'm sure I can dig up a source, my primary 'source' now is the
memory of interviews with Russians, many of them crying, on Finnish
television, as they were moving with all of their belongings from Narva
across the border. I have it on video. I remember clearly one elderly
woman saying that she could not stay in Estonia. They would make life
impossible for Russians, and "after all we've done for them". She
continued, crying, that the Russian governemnt would give them apartments,
work, and money. The Finnish press later told that Russia was having great
difficulty dealing with these migrats, and I remember that there was a
joint Finnish-Estonian project to build some housing for these people in
Russia because Russia lacked the resources to build it. Wetsern European
governments also financed some of the housing built for Russian military
withdrawn from the Baltics. But the housing situation for returnees, many
of them virtually kopekless, and withdrawn military, remains a problem in
Russia according to articles in RFE bulletins, the *Baltic Times*, and
other sources.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
understand the basics it is easier than Latvian or Russian because of the
more logical and exceptionless underlying grammatical and lexical
architecture. In any case, Russian-speaking children pick up Estonian
quite easily, and during the past five years I've noticed a marked
improvement in the spoken Estonian of the adult Russian vendors at the outdoor
markets. Estonians seem to be quite tolerant of imperfect Estonian, and
they give positive feedback when an effort is made to speak their
language.
I think that Estonian accommodated more migrants for three reasons:
1. The essentially 'mild' nature of the people, as you put it. Estonians
can be cold and standoffish - something often interpreted by Russians as
hostility, but they can also be coldly rational. They wanted their country
to be Estonian speaking, and they understood that the problems of the
Russian-speaking migrants were, for the most part, not of their own
making. Thus, they went to considerable lengths to hammer out a compromise
which would keep the country Estonian without adding to the tragedy of the
Russian-speaking migrants.
2. The fact that the Russian-speaking migrants, after some initial
scepticism, realized that the Estonian electorate was sincere. Round-table
discussions on minority/majority problems were set up, family exchanges
and summer camps were set up which allowed children and adults to make
first-hand acquaintance with members of the other community, and, eventually,
the entire country was committed to bulding something positive rather than
constantly replaying the past.
3. The fact that the Estonian majority felt threatened - but not overly so
- by the 38% minority population which the country had upon regaining
independence. The figure now stands at about 30% minority, some of the
reduction resulting from emigration, but some of it also resulting from
the fact that the concept 'Estonian' has been somewhat de-ethnicized. An
increasing number of the Russian-speakers who have taken Estonian
citizneship have placed their children in Estonian-medium schools and
consider themselves to be Estonians. Estonians, in turn, are more and more
willing to regard anyone, no matter what his/her ethnic background, who
Linguistic-communicative integration, i.e. the re-creation of a common
sphere of information and an Estonian-language environment in Estonian
society under conditions of cultural diversity and mutual tolerance.
Legal-political integration, i.e. the formation of a population loyal to
the Estonian State and the reduction of the number of persons without
Estonian citizenship.
Socio-economic integration, i.e. the achievement of greater
competitiveness and social mobility for every member of Estonian society
regardless of ethnic or linguistic attributes.
[END QUOTE]
My experience in both Estonia and Latvia has been that Latvian society is
more polarized. Although many people there seem to be following the
Estonian example and seeing that it works, there is, I would claim, a
greater feeling among Latvians that their country has been violated, and
that accommodation should be more a matter of Russian speakers adjusting
to Latvia than of Latvians adjustuing to Russian speakers. The ideal of
'harmonization', which the Estonian authorities and society have seen as
so central a goal, does not seem to be as important to the Latvians, who
are perhaps more conservative ('clannish', as Peteris has put it) than the
Estonians, and reject offhand having to change their mentality and makeup
consequent to a wrong that was done to them in the recent past.
I think I understand this Latvian mindset - it is very human and stems
from very basic emotions - but its consequence is a Latvia in which the
members of the two communities retain a lot of mutual suspicion. Once
again, the Estonian programme recognizes the existence of such feelings
and was constructed to alleviate them:
in the Duma about Russia's right to draw a line on NATO expansion, you know
that her concerns are not just the product of neurosis. If her hot line
telephone line were to ring, I don't thing President Vaira Vike-Freiberga
would expect it to be informing her of an invasion by Estonian,
Lithuanian, Belarussian, or Swedish troops.
job of adjusting to a new culture and changed circumstances. Even "more
Latvian than the Latvians, don't sully my culture" Jon understands the
cvarious dimensions of human tragedy involved and has stated that the
results of Soviet colonialism are a legacy that Latvians have to learn to
live with. After almost ten years of living in independent Latvia
expecting those Russian speakers who have not learned the local language
and otherwise learned to rerspect the culture which has taken them in and
given them homes, educated their children, and the means to earn a
livelihood is not too much to ask.
> > If Russia would respond in such a manner to an orderly deportation - a
> > repatriation
>
> If you call this "repatriation" then a call nuking a "repatriation" too
as all we
> sinners were originating from Heavens.
>
> > - of people who are not citizens of the countries concerned
> > to the country which has proclaimed itself to be the successor state to
> > the USSR, then President Vaira Vike-Freiberga's concerns are certainly
> > justified.
>
> President Viagra needs to have a sober look of what can happen because of her
> polices.
She is not and never has called for 'repatriation'. She has expressed
concern, like any responsible head of state would, for threatening noises
coming from a large and unpredictable neighbor. None of Latvia's other
neighbors have expressed even a word of concern about the manner in which
the Latvian government has decided to arrange for the country's security.
is no longer a major military power and is thus too weak to serve as a
Rein Sikk
Estonia etc. Baltic states.
My questions for the readers of this newsgroup are:
has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states
if so then please describe it : where and when.
Do Baltic states seem to be racist ones or not?
Thankfully
si...@estpak.ee
Eugene Holman
telephone line were to ring, I don't think President Vaira Vike-Freiberga
would expect it to be informing her of an invasion by Estonian,
Lithuanian, Belarussian, or Swedish troops.
>
various dimensions of human tragedy involved and has stated that the
results of Soviet colonialism are a legacy that Latvians have to learn to
live with. After almost ten years of living in independent Latvia
expecting those Russian speakers who have not learned the local language
and otherwise learned to respect the culture which has taken them in and
given them homes, educated their children, and the means to earn a
livelihood, is not too much to ask.
> > If Russia would respond in such a manner to an orderly deportation - a
> > repatriation
>
> If you call this "repatriation" then a call nuking a "repatriation" too
as all we
> sinners were originating from Heavens.
>
> > - of people who are not citizens of the countries concerned
> > to the country which has proclaimed itself to be the successor state to
> > the USSR, then President Vaira Vike-Freiberga's concerns are certainly
> > justified.
>
> President Viagra needs to have a sober look of what can happen because of her
> polices.
She is not and never has called for 'repatriation'. She has expressed
concern, like any responsible head of state would, for threatening noises
coming from a large and unpredictable neighbor. None of Latvia's other
neighbors have expressed even a word of concern about the manner in which
the Latvian government has decided to arrange for the country's security.
> OK. Don't be amazed what kind of "security arrangements" Russia will make in
> response.
It can repeat the stupid policy that the US began when its pesky neighbor,
Cuba, did esssentially the same thing: made a complete fool of itself that
German Prime Minister Schröder could not resist using it as the basis for
a double joke at President Clinton's expense last week by presenting him
with a box of Havanna cigars.
> > NATO has a few skeletons in its closet, as does
> > Russia. As of now, they are cooperating. Ultimately, Russia, which is also
> > a legitmate member of the North Atlantic community, should also join NATO.
> > Seeing NATO as a potential enemy of Russia is a relic of cold war
> > thinking.
> >
>
> NATO - North Atlantic - is Russia in North Atlantic?
Yes. The fleet at Murmansk defends Russia from possible incursions from
the North Atlantic. The Baltic Sea, which ends at St. Peterburg and on
which Kaliningrad borders, is part of the North Atlantic Ocean system.
Maritime access to Kalininrad and St. Petersberg necessarily involves the
North Atlantic. The Mediterranean and Black Seas, in which Russia, owing
to its naval presence in the Crimean Peninsula, also has legitimate
security interests, are also part of the North Atlantic ocean system.
Russia is a North Atlantic country with legitimate North Atlantic security
interests. It should be a part of NATO, and adjusting thinking within both
NATO and the Russian government to accommodate this eventuality should be
a high priority.
> And this drivel about
> "friendly" NATO etc. Please stop it - at least with me, I am old enough
to remember
> that NATO "will not expand" etc.
Like George Bush's 'Read my lips, no new taxes.' Situations change. Russia
should use the present situation constructively to make others understand
that it is a part of the North Atlantic community which cannot be ignored
when planning and assessing North Atlantic security.
Restricting privatization to citizens who are descendants of the victims
of those Soviet confiscations can be justified as partial compensation for
the Soviet nationalizations of 1940 and 1944.
> > I read scb but I also visit Latvia (I'm off to Riga and Jurmala next
> > week). Our company has done some work with the Latvian government, and I
> > think I have a better understanding of the issues than the sampling we get
> > in scb. Even in scb most of the Latvians do not say 'Russians' out. They
> > tend more to say that those Russian speakers who have not learned the
> > language or otherwise shown some understanding for the fact that for the
> > past nine years they have been living in Latvia rather than in the USSR
> > are their own worst enemies. It is not surprising that there are some
> > people in Latvia who are uncomfortable with the existence of so many
> > Russian speakers in their country - it's an everyday remineder of half a
> > century of impotence and a hated occupation in which, as you say, they
> > "had no voice or chance" to determine their own fate. Still, even on so
> > touchy a topic as extending Latvian citizenship to the children of
> > non-citizens born in the country since the re-establishment of
> > independence on a 'zero options' basis, the majority of the Latvian
> > electorate voted in favor. That's not exactly a demonstration of hate.
> >
>
> Like you don't know the truth behind the vote - a warning from EU.
That was part of the story, but not the whole story. An increasing number
of Latvians is eager to put all of this arguing over citizenship behind
them and get on building the country. Certainly the EU goading was not
My dad spent the 'best' five years of his life as a soldier in France,
Belgium, and Germany during WW II and immediately afterwards. But that's
power by going for Leningrad in the north and Stalingrad in the wouth. If
the USSR had not received the thousands of motor vehicles, airplane parts,
Gintis Kaminskas
• "Has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states..."
What the hell do you describe as "racism"?
•"Do Baltic states seem to be racist ones or not?"
yOU ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GENERALISE ON AN EMOTIVE subject. What would their
opinion be worth?
And why this topic, anyway? Whom are you serving?
Gintautas Kaminskas
"Rein Sikk" <si...@estpak.ee> wrote in message
news:8hj3ua$qhn$1...@kadri.ut.ee...
Eugene Holman
<kad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Are you serious? What kind of questions are these?
>
> • "Has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states..."
>
> What the hell do you describe as "racism"?
>
> •"Do Baltic states seem to be racist ones or not?"
>
> yOU ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GENERALISE ON AN EMOTIVE subject. What would their
> opinion be worth?
>
> And why this topic, anyway? Whom are you serving?
>
This is a legitimate subject.
The term 'racism' in this part of the world can be understood in at least
two ways:
1. Specific, usually negative, modalities of behavior directed at people
based on the fact that they belong to a different 'race'.
2. Specific, usually negative, modalities of behavior directed at people
based on the fact that they belong to a different 'ethnicity'.
As a person belonging to a different race than the one 99.9% of the
inhabitants of the Baltics belong to, I can state that my own view, based
on dozens of trips to both the Soviet-occupied and independent Baltic
states, spanning a time-speace framework of over 34 years aad
encompassing both major cities and the countryside, is that it would be
difficult to find a place in the world freer of race prejudice in sense 1
than the Baltic states.
As a person involved in various projects intended to alleviate race
prejudice in sense 2, I can also state that, given the history of the past
60 years, there is an extraordinary large amount of mutual understanding
and desire to overcome the traumas of the past, as well as surprisingly
few manifestations of a desire to rub people's noses in history in these
three countries. I see that as a strength rather than a weakness, and I
think that the open-minded, constructive attitude towards the legacy of
Soviet colonialism is a sign of the cultural strength and humanity of the
three+ Baltic peoples (the + being the Soviet migrant community ineach
country.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
sia...@aol.com
"Rein Sikk" <si...@estpak.ee> wrote:
> I am an Estonian journalist Rein Sikk writing a story abour racism in
> Estonia etc. Baltic states.
>
> My questions for the readers of this newsgroup are:
>
> has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states
> if so then please describe it : where and when.
>
>
> si...@estpak.ee
Rein,
This is a rather broad question. You really need to either define what
you are asking or provide more background to the story you are writing.
Vidas
toon...@my-deja.com
> You are not anti-Russian, or anti-Balt or anti-Whoever - in an
objective viewpoint.
> The fact is you are American and judge the situation from "neutral"
American
> viewpoint, by disregarding that people who are anti-Balt or anti-
Russian are
> speaking from there own personal tragedy stories. You read the
cultures like a
> catalogue of cars spare parts and the fact you do remember them
doesn't make you to
> understand them, and contradictions between them.
> Mostly you resemble is this novel of Graham Green - was it "Quiet
American"?
Eugene is not anti-Russian. The reason Russia doesn't want NATO to
absorb the Baltics and the Ukraine to Russia would be worse is that
Russia doesn't want to have any military alliance to be chipping away
at it's borders. Russia is declining, the surviability of the Russia
state is in doubt. Russia wanted friendly satelites to keep the
countries of Eastern Europe as Buffer zones in case NATO ever attacked.
Russia doesn't want to be a buffer zone and with it's low and declining
population, the Russian people may actually cease to exist since very
few countries symphasize with Russia except Belarussia, but even that
is very doubtful because the oppositions is against Lukashenko
reuniting with Russia.
Many Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Azeribaijanis,
Ukranians, and Belarussians are so distrustful of Russia because all
Russia does it sprews lies and very few countries can trust what Russia
will do considering what is happening in Chechnya. I wrote to an
Estonia woman who fear Russia and thank God that Estonia regained her
independence. She wasn't sure wheither it was a good idea for Estonia
to join the EU and NATO. She didn't trust Russia and most Baltics
consider themselves a victim of Russian colonism like Georgia and
Azerbaijan consider Russia a bully, but consider Turkey a cultural
cousin and a friend like the Baltics admire Sweden and Finland.
toon...@my-deja.com
Russia and has many more advantages. Turkey's military is upgrading
it's hardware and it's getting better. Turkey's infrastructure is
improving while Russia is declining. Turkey is has a higher than some
Eastern European countries like economic basket cases like Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine, and especially Russia. Turkey has always wanted to
be a part of the West even though it's a Muslim country that has gotten
unfair treatment. Yes, the military rules and induces democracy and
secularism on the people. Turkey is going to join the EU. When will
Russia decide that it wants too join the EU once it gets its act
together?
Vladimir Makarenko
Vello wrote:
> Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:393B3050...@bellatlantic.net...
> > The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it plain,
> to become
> > a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too poor,
> too weak.
> > But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving
> "rouge states"
> > nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom?
> Russia?
>
> Vladimir, why NATO seems to be "enemy for ever" for to-day russians? Sure
> NATO stands against Soviet Union in years of totalitarism. But western
> democraties also fight Germany when it was totalist - they stand up for
> democracy and human rights, for European civilization.
It is exactly the point. The NATO was created to oppose the Soviet military
power.
Now one disappeared and another left without a cause for existence. As any
bureaucracy does - it is creating the it's own cause. Even if it needs to break
down it's own and international law and bring about a major international
crisis.NATO today is like tanks which are used as city cabs.
NATO is not "enemy for ever". It is enemy in it's recent shape.NATO continually
refuses to give any guarantee for Russia's security while continue to tell sweet
promises.
> I hope you'll will
> not denie that Russia was a part of Europe since 1917.
Since of Before? Anyway. This century history of Russia was so violent that we
almost forgot in which hemisphere we live, forget about being part of something.
> Sure there is
> differences between russian and, say, catholic confession, but it is no
> bigger then, say, between catholic and lutheran and, how much I know it all
> happens INSIDE of European culture. By soul and nature russians and, say,
> french people are much closer then, say, finns and portugalians. And sure
> there is not only understanding and love inside EU.
This I do not understand - why you are raising the confession issue. To my mind
it's quite irrelevant because (mostly) today's Russians are "pagans" having no
idea about Christianity in general - thanks to 70 years of Soviet rule. It's not
true however with respect to the best what was written in the same period like
"Master and Margarita" and "Faculty of useless things".
> Why russians want to
> be something totally different today - in terms like Ottoman empire those
> days. Why they want step out of Europe? What is the reason to look for
> friends in antihuman rouge states instead of European ones?
I like to answer your question by a question - why the US still keeps Russia
under punishing import tax when China got a status of "most favorable nation"?
We are treated as enemy why should we be friendly in response?
And antihuman rogue states owes us big time money ( Iraq alone ~ 7 bln) and not
able to pay the debts because Russia supported embargo on them in the UN. As
result people are not able to buy medications and are anxious to learn if IMF is
going to allocate another *commercial* loan on time.
VM.
Eugene Holman
> Vello wrote:
>
> > Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> > news:393B3050...@bellatlantic.net...
> > > The thing is all of them have chosen "NAtZO Umbrella"- or to put it plain,
> > to become
> > > a threat to Russia. Now, Russia cannot stop them - it's obvious, too poor,
> > too weak.
> > > But we can do something the West would find terrifying - like giving
> > "rouge states"
> > > nuclear technologies, etc. When the DoomsDay come who is to blame whom?
> > Russia?
> >
> > Vladimir, why NATO seems to be "enemy for ever" for to-day russians? Sure
> > NATO stands against Soviet Union in years of totalitarism. But western
> > democraties also fight Germany when it was totalist - they stand up for
> > democracy and human rights, for European civilization.
>
> It is exactly the point. The NATO was created to oppose the Soviet military
> power.
No. NATO was created primarily to contain the spread of Soviet-backed
communism within the North Atlantic Security sphere, and secondarily to
make (Western) Germany part of the solution rather than part of the
problem with respect to otherwise maintaining security in the region. Now
Russia is as interested as anyone else in making sure that communism
doesn't spread, and everyone should understand that there can be no
security in the North Atlantic region, for Russia or anyone else, if
Russia is not actively involved in providing and maintaining it.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vello
Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:393DDA0C...@bellatlantic.net...
>
>
> Vello wrote:
> > Vladimir, why NATO seems to be "enemy for ever" for to-day russians?
Sure
> > NATO stands against Soviet Union in years of totalitarism. But western
> > democraties also fight Germany when it was totalist - they stand up for
> > democracy and human rights, for European civilization.
>
> It is exactly the point. The NATO was created to oppose the Soviet
military
> power.
> Now one disappeared and another left without a cause for existence. As any
> bureaucracy does - it is creating the it's own cause. Even if it needs to
break
> down it's own and international law and bring about a major international
> crisis.NATO today is like tanks which are used as city cabs.
> NATO is not "enemy for ever". It is enemy in it's recent shape.NATO
continually
> refuses to give any guarantee for Russia's security while continue to tell
sweet
> promises.
Also United Nations was created to oppose fascism. They still stand. NATO is
created to oppose ANY danger to his members. It was Soviet Union - so what?
Tomorrow it might be somebody else.
NATO guarantees his members only, paying the costs of defence structure.
>
> > I hope you'll will
> > not denie that Russia was a part of Europe since 1917.
lapsus linguae, before of course:-)
>
> Since of Before? Anyway. This century history of Russia was so violent
that we
> almost forgot in which hemisphere we live, forget about being part of
something.
>
> > Sure there is
> > differences between russian and, say, catholic confession, but it is no
> > bigger then, say, between catholic and lutheran and, how much I know it
all
> > happens INSIDE of European culture. By soul and nature russians and,
say,
> > french people are much closer then, say, finns and portugalians. And
sure
> > there is not only understanding and love inside EU.
>
> This I do not understand - why you are raising the confession issue. To my
mind
> it's quite irrelevant because (mostly) today's Russians are "pagans"
having no
> idea about Christianity in general - thanks to 70 years of Soviet rule.
It's not
> true however with respect to the best what was written in the same period
like
> "Master and Margarita" and "Faculty of useless things".
All lutherans are pagans say some people:-) But confession is also a way
kids are educated for hundreds/thousands of years, what values are more
highlighted by society, what less - it is traditions, habits and living
style. I don't think there is too much seriously religious people on Balkans
today - but, for illustration, croatians and serbs are different despite
they talk the same language (in no way I don't want to discuss who his
"better", just different). It is much stronger then 20-70 year "confessions"
like actual communism and fascism and will last much longer
>
>
> > Why russians want to
> > be something totally different today - in terms like Ottoman empire
those
> > days. Why they want step out of Europe? What is the reason to look for
> > friends in antihuman rouge states instead of European ones?
>
> I like to answer your question by a question - why the US still keeps
Russia
> under punishing import tax when China got a status of "most favorable
nation"?
> We are treated as enemy why should we be friendly in response?
Estonia is the single country in the world having double taxes when trying
to sell something in Russia:-)
For USA (and a lot of western states) it is something to protect
lifestandards keeping results of more cheap labour out of market. In this
case Estonia and Russia are in the same boat - we have the same problems.
Estonian way to deal the problem is joining EU - it would be effective for
Russia, too?
>
> And antihuman rogue states owes us big time money ( Iraq alone ~ 7 bln)
and not
> able to pay the debts because Russia supported embargo on them in the UN.
As
> result people are not able to buy medications and are anxious to learn if
IMF is
> going to allocate another *commercial* loan on time.
>
> VM.
I'm a bit idealistic probably, but I still think you'll don't count
everything in money. Somethimes losting his face will be more expencive then
losting some bucks:-)
Vello
> "Rein Sikk" <si...@estpak.ee> wrote:
> > I am an Estonian journalist Rein Sikk writing a story abour racism in
> > Estonia etc. Baltic states.
> >
> > My questions for the readers of this newsgroup are:
> >
> > has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states
> > if so then please describe it : where and when.
> >
> > Do Baltic states seem to be racist ones or not?
> >
> > Thankfully
> > si...@estpak.ee
>
Earlier this year due to one other conversation I ask jewish people I know
here do they have experiences of bad mood about jews. Results: 4 no, 1 yes.
No sayers: musician, head of department in gov. structure, teacher, student.
One "yes" goes from journalist.
At about year ago there was a problem with an afroamerican. When crossing
Latvian-estonian border by train he understands from the train staffs talk
word "neeger". You probably find the story if you contact directly
Postimees.
About month ago there was something in Ekspress related with one
afroamerican student girl - ask from Express.
Just week ago: on international press conference one politician (or was it
somebody from lead of Estonian Bank?) describes situation in process of
finding a new bank president "as in 10 little negroes by Agatha Christie -
they (bank president candidates) will disappear one by one"
for them who don't know estonian: neeger in estonian is neutral word like
long, left-hand, with glasses - just describing the person. "Black", "must"
in estonian is not neutral word but means both "black" and "dirty" (in
modest way - "I can't put that shirt - it is "must", I will wash it"). Most
educated people probably know here that it is better to not use word
"neeger" when talking in international environment, but to all staff in
shops, trains and buses.... Probably it would be easier to fix the
difference in border crossings:-) Just to compare: estonian for"eagle" is
"kulli", also popular family name. In finnish the same means cock (NOT the
bird this time)!! It just happens that some words will carry different
emotional load in different countries.
For readers who don't know estonian:
Andrejs Makwitz
>> "Rein Sikk" <si...@estpak.ee> wrote:
>> > I am an Estonian journalist Rein Sikk writing a story abour racism in
>> > Estonia etc. Baltic states.
>> >
>> > My questions for the readers of this newsgroup are:
>> >
>> > has anyone of You seen any racism in Baltic states
>> > if so then please describe it : where and when.
>> >
>> > Do Baltic states seem to be racist ones or not?
>> >
>> > Thankfully
>> > si...@estpak.ee
>>
In order to know whether or not we've seen racism in the Baltic States you
would first need to define your view of what is racism?
Racists believe that one race of people is superior to another. In that
regard, the Baltics are free of racism. Race is really not an issue in the
Baltics because the Baltics are fairly homogenous racially. The Baltics are
mostly, what is commonly refered to in the United States as, Caucasian. You as
an Estonian probably already know this, so why phrase the question in the
manner that you have?
Taken out of context you might find instances that would lead one to
charecterize the Baltics as holding certain racist views and using language
that some would consider to be racist. This would be very shortsighted because
you'd find the same problems in every nation on the face of the earth, so why
ask if this is a problem in the Baltics when the real question should be: is
this a global problem?
What you are looking for is perhaps whether there is a problem in the Baltics
with Nationalism? Once again, a very difficult question to answer because it
is difficult to define what is Nationalism? Nationalism can be good or bad,
whereas racism is always viewed negatively, and you need to define which
aspects of Nationalism it is that you'd care to investigate.
Do Baltic Nationalists believe that they are superior to all others? No. Not
really.
Do Baltic Nationalists belive that they should have superior rights in their
respective nations? Yes.
This might be viewed as the bad side of Nationalism, but only if taken out of
context of the past 50 years of Soviet occupation when the Balts had no rights
as Balts in their own nations.
Sincerely,
Andrejs Makwitz
ve...@my-deja.com
I'm sorry if I hurt some turkish friend. My message was about cultural
identity, not about to-day political realities. Japan is highly
developed by any mean but no way european society. Atatürk turns Turkey
with face to Europe and Turkey will be in EU (close future) and
european (it will take more time). It is quite rare that nation turns
from one cultural group to other. But now seems that Turkey and Russia
will probably just change the places. (When talking about such things
we must keep in mind all the time that no culture is "better"
or "higher" then other. If not, tragic misunderstandings and errors may
appear)
Vladimir Makarenko
pravda wrote:
> Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> :> > shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough trouble in the
> :> world that
> :> > she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such ridiculous
> :> thing as
> :> > Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
> :>
> :> She didn't say that. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel that she
> :> did not discount the possibility of a Russian occupation.
>
> : When stranger tells you " I can kill you" or "I will kill you" do you feel big
> : difference?
> : She said this in the way to stay safe on "diplomatic language". You know this, I
> : know this,
> : and you trying to make points on that. Forget it.
>
> It's amazing how the Russian government has interpreted this. Freiberga
> basically said the only threat Latvia can face is from Russia. That's
> basically the truth, given Russia's sort-of hostile attitude towards Latvia.
> fEx Lithuania or Sweden hardly pose any thread towards Latvia, do they?
>
Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent* state. But in it's attempt
to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-Russian tunes on any possible
occasion it could turn itself in the first domino chip which will cause an avalanche.
It's irresponsible, childish, adolescent kind of behavior. I think even West feels bad
about this.
>
> Here's the amazing propaganda stunt -- instead of stating that Russia does
> NOT have any hostile intentions towards Latvia, Russian government respon-
> ded with "How can this fucking little prick country Latvia DARE to think
> Russia would pose any threat? How AGGRESSIVE can this sonofabitch fascist
> piece-of-shit country GET? We have to NUKE the place down so those blood-
> thirsty Latvians would not INVADE Russia! Such fucking arrogance!"
> (Slight exaggerations ;).
>
If Latvia thinks that hostile stance is what Latvian-Russian relations recently are in
need of then let it be.
>
> : That Latvia is hostile, indeed an enemy state to Russia you can easily understand
> : reading this newsgroup.
> : The range of opinions on the side of Latvians varies from "send them back in the
> : cattle cars" to " I hate them too but do not have a nerve to shoot them on the
> : spot".
> : Now, with their admission to NAtZO they can become really dangerous.
>
> Vladimir, you're apparently a reasonably intelligent person. You don't think
> Jon Hill's posts are dead serious, do you? Try to separate irony and painful,
> exaggerated reactions that are present in most of the Latvian writers' posts,
> from something they mean seriously. I know it's hard alright, like it's hard
> to tell from your posts which parts do you take dead seriously and which are
> exaggerations.
>
There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them concentrates on
explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And so far that's what they
are doing with rare exemptions.
>
> Anyway, you CANNOT expect serious answers if you just jump in, guns blazing,
> blasting away at "NATzO" and "inhuman" Latvians by what you've just from the
> editorials of your local newspaper, without even *considering* what you've
> read might not be the truth and full truth. That's what us Balts hate the
> most :). If you come screaming bloody murder about the "nazis" and "apart-
> heid", expect nothing less than "commie bastards", "murderers", "sub-humans"
> etc from the offended Balts.
>
My local newspaper I suspect do not know about existence of the Baltics, sorry. For it
the rest of the world is somewhere on halfway to the Moon. But I enjoy to read its rare
articles on international issues: hardly one would find more entertaining stuff.
>
> I do salute Eugene Holman for his valuable contributions and patience, tho.
I wish he could know Russia as he claims though.
VM.
toon...@my-deja.com
> I'm sorry if I hurt some turkish friend. My message was about cultural
> identity, not about to-day political realities. Japan is highly
> developed by any mean but no way european society. Atatürk turns
Turkey
> with face to Europe and Turkey will be in EU (close future) and
> european (it will take more time). It is quite rare that nation turns
> from one cultural group to other. But now seems that Turkey and Russia
> will probably just change the places. (When talking about such things
> we must keep in mind all the time that no culture is "better"
> or "higher" then other. If not, tragic misunderstandings and errors
may
> appear)
I am just pointing out that Turkey is a land bridge between East and
West. Turkey gave up so much in order to survive. I think most Russians
thought it was going to be so easy to be a part of the West. Turkey
always wanted to be a part of the West so badly, no matter what it
could do, it wanted to be a part of it. I don't think Russia ever
wanted to be a part of the West. It might have copied things from the
West and despite having a common heritage with the West, Russia in it's
history was never democratic. During Communism Russia was very anti-
Western despite that it's a Christian country and Turkey being a Muslim
one. I think with Turkey is that Turkey needs to come to grips that it
can't give up it's Muslim past and be a Western country unless the
Turks want to convert to Christianity. It's interesting that Russia
took over almost all the Turkic states and Turkey was just lucky not be
taken over by the Bolsheviks or made a Satelite state of the Soviet
Union.
Yes, Turkey is a partly free country democracy induced by the military.
All European countries suffer to build democracy and has problems with
it like Spain and Portugal. Turkey is no exception, but the EU has a
bias* against Turkey because it's a Muslim country and the EU is a
Christian club for rich Christians but not for a poor Muslim country
like Turkey. Turkey is far more properious than even Christian
countries Romania and Bulgaria and even Russia for that matter. I do
believe that other Muslim countries like Albania and partly Muslim
countries like Bosnia will join the EU. Turkey will be a role model for
the Islamic World. Muslims will be inspire by Turkey and build Secular
Muslic Republics and their will be more Muslims countries that are
electorial democracies and not run by some crazy dictator or military
junta. Maybe, even Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia will join the EU. I
doubt the Central Asians states will since they are so weak and
undemocractic with the exception of Kyrgyzstan being the most
democractic out of all the stans.
*The bias against Turkey could be against what the Ottoman Empire did
in the Balkans and almost scared Europe from being taken over by Turkey.
Eugene Holman
> >
> > I do salute Eugene Holman for his valuable contributions and patience, tho.
>
> I wish he could know Russia as he claims though.
>
I don't think *anybody* can know Russia, perhaps not even a Russian. I
claim to know more about Russia than most Americans who are not
specialists, but I have never claimed any expertise concerning Russia. I
have visited the country more than 20 times, lived and studied in Moscow
for a month, worked as a guide in St. Petersburg, and travelled by train
in the old USSR from the Romanian border to Moscow. As you know, I have a
working, if imperfect, command of Russian, one good enough for me to be
able to discuss everyday as well as relatively abstract topics fluently,
if not necesarily with the most elegant phraseology and up-to-date idioms
and slang. When I have to ask my Russian-speaking friends for vocabulary
help, it's for relatively obscure words like 'rolling pin' or
'indictment'. That will be improving soon, because our company is
presently in the final stage of negotiations to open an ofice in Moscow,
which I will be visiting more regularly than now.
I will probably never know the Russia of small towns, the taiga, or the
endless expanses of Siberian forest. I read as much literature as I can
crowd into a busy schedule, and I think I have some understanding of and
sympathy for the *russkaja dusha*. I mne ochen' nravitsja borshch' so
smetanoj.
Best regards,
Eugene Holman
Andrejs Makwitz
<mal...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent* state. But in
>it's attempt to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-Russian
tunes >on any possible occasion it could turn itself in the first domino chip
which will >cause an avalanche. It's irresponsible, childish, adolescent kind
of behavior. I think >even West feels bad about this.
How does that differ from Russia's attempt to play anti-Latvian tunes at any
opportunity? Russia does not have anything to fear from Latvia, but Latvia has
much to fear from Russia. Last I checked, Latvia has yet to invade anyone or
bomb anyone or threaten to bomb anyone? What is it that Russia is so afraid
of? If Russia does not want Latvia to join NATO the solution is simple enough.
All Russia has to do is stop acting as if Latvia is still some unrully
province that needs to be brought back into the fold. Russia's attitudes
towards Latvia are no different than China's attitudes towards Taiwan. As long
as Russia keeps those attitudes, Latvia will keep seeking alliances to
neutralize Russian efforts.
>If Latvia thinks that hostile stance is what Latvian-Russian relations
>recently are in need of then let it be.
That is a strange characterization of hostile. All the Latvian President did
is state that an unstable Russia ruled by a totalitarian regime presents a
threat to all her neighbors. It even presents a threat to her own citizens.
This is not hostile. This is a statement of fact that few would try to
contradict. Alas, the increasingly totalitarian regime that currently rules
Russia saw this as a threat and responded with hostility.
>There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them concentrates
>on explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And so far
that's
>what they are doing with rare exemptions.
You mean to say that charecterizing a remark that voices a genuine concern as
hostile is a way to improve Russian-Latvian relations? Interesting.
>My local newspaper I suspect do not know about existence of the Baltics,
>sorry. For it the rest of the world is somewhere on halfway to the Moon. But I
enjoy >to read its rare articles on international issues: hardly one would find
more >entertaining stuff.
Sure they could. Right here.
Sincerely,
Andrejs Makwitz
BTW: I missed most of the posts as to what we should be refering to you as? I
saw a post about Vova, but I thought that was the diminutive for Victor. Isn't
Valodya the diminutive for Vladimir? I still prefer Gospodin Makaron, but
whatever you like best.
jonhi...@my-deja.com
> pravda wrote:
> > Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> > :> > shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough
trouble in the
> > :> world that
> > :> > she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such
ridiculous
> > :> thing as
> > :> > Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
She was not saying that russia plans to occupy Latvia; rather its your
russkies that are saying that.
> > :> She didn't say that. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel
that she
> > :> did not discount the possibility of a Russian occupation.
> > : When stranger tells you " I can kill you" or "I will kill you" do
you feel big
> > : difference?
> > : She said this in the way to stay safe on "diplomatic language".
You know this, I
> > : know this,
> > : and you trying to make points on that. Forget it.
> > It's amazing how the Russian government has interpreted this.
Freiberga
> > basically said the only threat Latvia can face is from Russia.
That's
> > basically the truth, given Russia's sort-of hostile attitude
towards Latvia.
> > fEx Lithuania or Sweden hardly pose any thread towards Latvia, do
they?
> Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent* state.
But in it's attempt
> to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-Russian tunes
on any possible
> occasion it could turn itself in the first domino chip which will
cause an avalanche.
If prosecuting occupying murderers is playing an anti-russian tune, I
would hope that russia gets the message and learns to dance; it will be
a prerequisite for any future meaningful association with the west.
> It's irresponsible, childish, adolescent kind of behavior. I think
even West feels bad
> about this.
Actually not. Please notice this quote from RFE today:
"Talbott added that "the NATO enlargement process will continue, it
does not endanger anyone and no democratic European country should be
left out of it for geographical or historical reasons, especially not
reasons connected to the Cold War," ETA reported. Officials signed a
joint communique that focused on various defense and economic issues
and stated that the U.S. welcomes "bringing to justice accused war,
criminals, regardless of ideology."
See - I told you so. Its wonderful isn't it?
> > Here's the amazing propaganda stunt -- instead of stating that
Russia does
> > NOT have any hostile intentions towards Latvia, Russian government
respon-
> > ded with "How can this fucking little prick country Latvia DARE to
think
> > Russia would pose any threat? How AGGRESSIVE can this sonofabitch
fascist
> > piece-of-shit country GET? We have to NUKE the place down so those
blood-
> > thirsty Latvians would not INVADE Russia! Such fucking arrogance!"
> > (Slight exaggerations ;).
> If Latvia thinks that hostile stance is what Latvian-Russian
relations recently are in
> need of then let it be.
You confuse offense and defense, criminal and victim ... so easily. So
explain to us; who is invading Chechnya currently?
> > : That Latvia is hostile, indeed an enemy state to Russia you can
easily understand
> > : reading this newsgroup.
> > : The range of opinions on the side of Latvians varies from "send
them back in the
> > : cattle cars" to " I hate them too but do not have a nerve to
shoot them on the
> > : spot".
> > : Now, with their admission to NAtZO they can become really
dangerous.
The only one sending anyone anywhere in in northeast europe in cattle
cars has been the kremlin. Don't believe me? Look it up in a non-
russian history book.
> > Vladimir, you're apparently a reasonably intelligent person. You
don't think
> > Jon Hill's posts are dead serious, do you? Try to separate irony
and painful,
> > exaggerated reactions that are present in most of the Latvian
writers' posts,
> > from something they mean seriously. I know it's hard alright, like
it's hard
> > to tell from your posts which parts do you take dead seriously and
which are
> > exaggerations.
> There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them
concentrates on
> explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And so
far that's what they
> are doing with rare exemptions.
Explain:
Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,
Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya,Chechnya...
> > Anyway, you CANNOT expect serious answers if you just jump in, guns
blazing,
> > blasting away at "NATzO" and "inhuman" Latvians by what you've just
from the
> > editorials of your local newspaper, without even *considering* what
you've
> > read might not be the truth and full truth. That's what us Balts
hate the
> > most :). If you come screaming bloody murder about the "nazis" and
"apart-
> > heid", expect nothing less than "commie bastards", "murderers",
"sub-humans"
> > etc from the offended Balts.
> My local newspaper I suspect do not know about existence of the
Baltics, sorry. For it
> the rest of the world is somewhere on halfway to the Moon. But I
enjoy to read its rare
> articles on international issues: hardly one would find more
entertaining stuff.
And thank *you* for being so amusing....
Jon Hill
Vladimir Makarenko
Vello wrote:
The question is who is today and there are signs that it is Russia. After
playing with "peacekeeping" from which it doesn't know who to get out the
organization is continue to grow with decision making effectively concentrated
in few hands or even two - American as in case of Chinese embassy bombing was.
And tell me whose security was at stake when the supreme commander of the
organization was giving an order to attack Russian troops just recently?
It was created exclusively to wage the nuclear war against the SU otherwise nor
Turkey neither Greece would make it to the club. And now it targets Russia.
I think this is very difficult topic -I mean complex : how religious differences
provide cultural. E.g. Germans are divided into Lutherans and Catholics but
share the same culture?
>
> >
> >
> > > Why russians want to
> > > be something totally different today - in terms like Ottoman empire
> those
> > > days. Why they want step out of Europe? What is the reason to look for
> > > friends in antihuman rouge states instead of European ones?
> >
> > I like to answer your question by a question - why the US still keeps
> Russia
> > under punishing import tax when China got a status of "most favorable
> nation"?
> > We are treated as enemy why should we be friendly in response?
>
> Estonia is the single country in the world having double taxes when trying
> to sell something in Russia:-)
Still? I thought it's gone. Then you should figure out how much you lose on the
trade and figure out if it worth to pay a Russian MP to get normal taxation. To
take a law through Duma if I remember correctly cost ~ 1mln. $$.
>
> For USA (and a lot of western states) it is something to protect
> lifestandards keeping results of more cheap labour out of market. In this
> case Estonia and Russia are in the same boat - we have the same problems.
> Estonian way to deal the problem is joining EU - it would be effective for
> Russia, too?
In the case of US - how come it doesn't do this with respect to China? Even
opposite -
it was just granted a permanent status.
As to joining EU - it's when being a small country is a plus. Russia has economy
which needs years of transformations to have any resemblance of what the EU
requirements ask. And again I am not sure that it is such a great place to be, I
know on the subject not much but looks like there is over regulation problems
there apart from endless lobbing.
>
> >
> > And antihuman rogue states owes us big time money ( Iraq alone ~ 7 bln)
> and not
> > able to pay the debts because Russia supported embargo on them in the UN.
> As
> > result people are not able to buy medications and are anxious to learn if
> IMF is
> > going to allocate another *commercial* loan on time.
> >
> > VM.
> I'm a bit idealistic probably, but I still think you'll don't count
> everything in money. Somethimes losting his face will be more expencive then
> losting some bucks:-)
Not everything is measured in money but than let's decide such moves on
referendum rather than by government. Otherwise damage is inflicted on people
who had no word to say and last money to lose.
And again, what's these sanctions did bad to Saddam? Nothing. And is he worse
than many others? It's questionable at least. Also we know the sanctions didn't
prevent him to build another couple of palaces. But those who are poor there do
suffer. It reminds me an old russian joke: Government announced hike in prices
for vodka. Drunken father comes home and a son asks him: Because they raised the
price will you drink less? - No, but you will be eating less for sure.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Alo Merilo wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> > you know well these languages have no chance for survival (within a
> > couple of generations), as sad as it is.
>
> You are almost precisely quoting Eduard von Dellingshausen, last
> Hauptmann of Estonia's Ritterschaft, circa 1918. Except that he
> was not sad but rather enthusiastic about the perspective of
> quick and "natural" replacement of Estonian and Latvian languages
> with the more advanced German. Truth be told, way back then
> (notably, three generations ago) the chances of German language
> in that respect were quite considerable, but at present the
> chances of English are only slim, and those of, say, Finnish
> or Russian, non-existent. Wishful thinking.
>
Here something about wishful thinking.
I don't care frankly about the German - they were a bit overconfident in
the time - right? And had an agenda.
Russian language has real chances to survive in Estonia just because the
country across the border with huge mass media in comparison with
Estonian.
Behind this thinking there also are the facts:
1. Estonia population has negative birth rate - and don't tell me it is
because economic turmoil - it's a process throughout the whole Europe
with South is doing better than North.
2. As Estonia become a member of the EU people will start to move in and
out. And "out" mostly Estonian and (what irony) Russians who know
Estonian enough to hold the passport, "in" mostly Western Europeans with
knowledge of any language but Estonian.
3. I don't know which language(s) is positioned best "to overtake" the
world. Two obviously that are well positioned are Spanish (big population
with extreme rate of growth) and of course Chinese (which dialect - I
don't know, probably both). E.g. if the recent dynamics of demographics
in the US continue then projected number of Hispanics in the States by
year 2050 is 50%, what makes me doubtful (almost) about chances of
English. English however has a real back up in India, but it's not clear
what kind of English version would emerge.
4. From what I said all languages are in jeopardy - its extent obviously
depends on how many people speaks it. Here Estonia has an advantage over
two other Baltic states as Finns speak a language which at least is close
- another back up.
5. How many languages which were in use 5000 years ago are in use today?
Eventually all modern languages will go.
VM.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alo Merilo
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <393FAFFF...@bellatlantic.net>, mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I do salute Eugene Holman for his valuable contributions and patience, tho.
> >
> > I wish he could know Russia as he claims though.
> >
>
> I don't think *anybody* can know Russia, perhaps not even a Russian. I
> claim to know more about Russia than most Americans who are not
> specialists, but I have never claimed any expertise concerning Russia. I
> have visited the country more than 20 times, lived and studied in Moscow
> for a month, worked as a guide in St. Petersburg, and travelled by train
> in the old USSR from the Romanian border to Moscow. As you know, I have a
> working, if imperfect, command of Russian, one good enough for me to be
> able to discuss everyday as well as relatively abstract topics fluently,
> if not necesarily with the most elegant phraseology and up-to-date idioms
> and slang. When I have to ask my Russian-speaking friends for vocabulary
> help, it's for relatively obscure words like 'rolling pin' or
> 'indictment'. That will be improving soon, because our company is
> presently in the final stage of negotiations to open an ofice in Moscow,
> which I will be visiting more regularly than now.
>
I never doubt the fact that you know Russia better than most Westerners and
Americans in particular. But it doesn't make the distance between you and Russia
shorter.
I remember you were writing about impressions of visiting Russian museum of Art in
St. Petersburg, oh God! What you concluded after looking at the mid XIX century was-
sorry if it is not exact words: this huge paintings (as huge as the country) are
tiresome, lacking the originality, etc. You didn't care that in hte time Russians
were just learning painting and were copying the W. Europeans who were dominated by
the French Academy. But even then you could see brilliant masterpieces as
Venetsianov and Kuingji (later in the century) created. And if you turn to the
recent Russian art these are the names that are remembered. "Official" art was
presented by mostly foreign names and their art was talent less (isn't it why the
rebellion of Impressionists happen?) with a great difference - Russians were
apprentices in the time, W.Europeans academics were teachers and bad ones. Take
Vinterhalter, (whose portraits of royal family you will find in Hermitage, second
floor, French department of XIX century) and tell me how his "sweet" paintings (and
huge) differ from what he was manufacturing all the W. Europe. Then try again to
make the connection between Russian paintings and size of the country, etc.
But keep in mind that just fifty years later Russians were one of mostly active
sides in abstractionist and construcivism (we left architecture out of brackets)
revolutions in art.
Try to argue this. And then came back to "tiresome, etc." Or as Mr. Halminas just
said about Russian literature "tedious". I guess he was reading infamous late
L.Tolstoy "About Art" where he was reprimanding Zolya for "naturalist" description
of sex. He (Tolstoy) somehow failed to address Barkov's " Luka Mudishev", and Henry
failed to read it (as always - Henry is reading ITAR-TASS, he hopes to find more
diamonds of literature there and he succeeds). And the piece (L. Gordeev argued
about absence of humor in European, for the case let's include Russia, literature
tradition before Pushkin) is obcsene but funny anyway and made (perhaps the only
one) his way to modern Russian reader.
Pushkin btw wrote "Gavriliada" as a humble pupil of Brakov, though a genious one.
> I will probably never know the Russia of small towns, the taiga, or the
> endless expanses of Siberian forest.
Siberian forests and Taiga are the same. This I can tell you as a grandson of a
Siberian hunter.
> I read as much literature as I can
> crowd into a busy schedule,
From what I could conclude you read mostly literature that is on academic programs
but not what really drives Russians. Have you read "Moskva - Petushki" ("Moscow till
the end of Line" in English translation) - very useful. As well as many others. XIX
century works became cosmopolite and bear little on understanding of what today's
Russians are up to.
> and I think I have some understanding of and
> sympathy for the *russkaja dusha*.
You mean - " na troih!"?
> I mne ochen' nravitsja borshch' so
> smetanoj.
>
No such thing in Manhattan. Just overpriced "Russian Tearoom" with its pretentious
visitors and shitty kitchen.
VM.
(suffering tremendously for lack of Borshch).
>
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> Eugene Holman wrote:
[SNIP, but thank you for the useful comments on art and literature]
>
>
> > I mne ochen' nravitsja borshch' so
> > smetanoj.
> >
>
> No such thing in Manhattan. Just overpriced "Russian Tearoom" with its
pretentious
> visitors and shitty kitchen.
>
Go to Brighton Beach. I had a great bowl of borshch followed by an even
greater shashlyk at a restaurant called *Primorskoe* on Stillwell Ave. a
few years ago.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
pravda
:> It's amazing how the Russian government has interpreted this. Freiberga
:> basically said the only threat Latvia can face is from Russia. That's
:> basically the truth, given Russia's sort-of hostile attitude towards Latvia.
:> fEx Lithuania or Sweden hardly pose any thread towards Latvia, do they?
:>
: Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent* state. But
: in it's attempt to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-
: Russian tunes on any possible occasion it could turn itself in the first
: domino chip which will cause an avalanche. It's irresponsible, childish,
: adolescent kind of behavior. I think even West feels bad about this.
My bet is, the problem isn't with Latvia at all - it's about how Russia
feels about the 'Western' part of the world in general. As long Russia
is under the constant, if self-implied, fear of NATO it doesn't matter
if Latvia is the paradise on earth or a disgusting nazi-country; Russia
is afraid of the expanding NATO and that's that. Dunno, maybe it's pre-
cisely like Western politics can't understand Russia, Russia can't under-
stand the West.
Prove me wrong --
NATO and the people of the member countries of NATO have no intention of
invading Russia now or in the foreseeable future. NATO would avoid invading
Russia altogether, especially considering Russia's defense doctrine which
involves use of nuclear weapons to retaliate. Latvia's (and other Baltics')
entrance to NATO would not cause NATO's stance towards Russia to shift,
because in the imaginary conflict, Baltic countries would suffer the most,
and neither have they the necessary vote to make a difference.
NATO is an alliance of normal countries, the most normal you can find in
this world at the moment. NO member country would want any conflict with
Russia. You're living abroad -- ask around if the people feel that attac-
king Russia would be a good idea. People in the Western countries would
like to like Russia, and think of it in good terms as about, say France or
Spain. Especially the people in the Baltics would like to like Russia
*very much*.
The problem lies in trust. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't seem to trust
the West. Unfortunately, people in the West, especially in Baltics, don't
trust Russia the slightest. Consider this newsgroup -- whatever we write
eachother we could as well talk to a brick wall, because there is no trust.
Hence, people in Russia so eagerly believe (and write!) stories of horror
of living in Latvia as a Russian, and people in Baltics and the West
think of Russia as a hellhole of totalitarianism and aggression. Simply
because we don't trust the opposite opinion even to consider the opposite.
: If Latvia thinks that hostile stance is what Latvian-Russian relations
: recently are in need of then let it be.
It's too bad you find such stance comfortable. That's what I felt was wrong
with Russia's reaction, too. Latvian-Russian relations *should* be warm and
good, and to make it that way, *both* sides must make steps for it.
: There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them concent-
: rates on explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And
: so far that's what they are doing with rare exemptions.
It's very much the same as Russian press feels about the Baltics. Every
little detail is made big news as to illustrate how rotten and evil the
countries of Latvia and Estonia are, because that's what the people AND the
journalists want to believe. In response, the journalists and the people
of the Baltics see Russia as the aggressive empire of evil, and possibly
use the news stories to illustrate such opinion.
Eugene Holman
>
> Prove me wrong --
> NATO and the people of the member countries of NATO have no intention of
> invading Russia now or in the foreseeable future. NATO would avoid invading
> Russia altogether, especially considering Russia's defense doctrine which
> involves use of nuclear weapons to retaliate. Latvia's (and other Baltics')
> entrance to NATO would not cause NATO's stance towards Russia to shift,
> because in the imaginary conflict, Baltic countries would suffer the most,
> and neither have they the necessary vote to make a difference.
>
> NATO is an alliance of normal countries, the most normal you can find in
> this world at the moment.
Here I vociferously disagree with you. Russia, in all of its chaos, is
much closer to a normal country than NATO is. NATO is an alliance of
strong and extrordinarily rich countries, most of whom got that way by
colonialism and rigging the world economic system in their favor
(neo-colonialism), and then extending membership in the club to a few
countries like defeated Germany and Italy that should have been members of
this select club, but flubbed it because of a combination extraordinarily
poor leadership and lack of national self-control. The NATO countries,
like the EU which converges with them to a considerable degree, account
for perhaps 1/6 of the world's population, but are consuming something
like 80% of the resources. Russia, wallowing in its present third-world
doldrums, is much closer to the
world's statistical average and, at least in this sense, a much more
normal country as far as this planet is concerned.
> NO member country would want any conflict with
> Russia. You're living abroad -- ask around if the people feel that attac-
> king Russia would be a good idea. People in the Western countries would
> like to like Russia, and think of it in good terms as about, say France or
> Spain. Especially the people in the Baltics would like to like Russia
> *very much*.
Rational thinking tells you that, but rational thinking also told the
USSR, which had a comfortable trade agreement and alliance of convenience
with Nazi Germany which allowed both of them them to pick up any pocket
change in the neighborhood that they could grab, that June 22, 1941 would
be just another summer day. It'll take at least a century before Russia is
able to overcome the trauma of Operation Barbarossa, nor can you really
blame them. Once bitten, twice shy.
It is so easy to forget that (European) Russia is the quintessential North
Atlantic country. St. Petersburg, the only major port serving the central
Russian heartland, has a vast, sprawling harbor covering hundreds of
square kilometers that can only be reached through the North Atlantic and
its northern extensions, the North Sea - Baltic Sea - Gulf of Finland
system. Its major port in the south, Sebastopol, at which it has a
military presence along with Ukraine, can only be reached through the
North Atlantic and its southern extensions - the Mediterranean Sea - Black
Sea system. Thus any organization that has as its objective ensuring
security in the North Atlantic community is necessarily incomplete if the
largest and most vulnerable North Atlantic nation, European Russia, is not
a member.
These contradictions, Russia's 'normality' against the abnormality of the
extraordinary prosperity characterizing almost all of the other North
Atlantic nations, and Russia's large but extremely vulnerable geographical
position within the North Atlantic community, will lead to catastrophe if
efforts are not made to integrate Russia into North Alantic security and
economic structures as soon and as completely as possible.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Vladimir Makarenko
jonhi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <393FAFFF...@bellatlantic.net>,
> mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > pravda wrote:
>
> > > Vladimir Makarenko <mal...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> > > :> > shithead - recent President of Latvia. Isn't there enough
> trouble in the
> > > :> world that
> > > :> > she decided it is a time to put up another fire saying such
> ridiculous
> > > :> thing as
> > > :> > Russia is going to occupy Latvia?
>
> She was not saying that russia plans to occupy Latvia; rather its your
> russkies that are saying that.
>
misspelling: it is "rooskies", don't believe me - ask Henry.
Learning a Bear to dance you would risk at least your feet.
> it will be
> a prerequisite for any future meaningful association with the west.
>
As we all can see the real prerequisite are cheap labor force and investment
opportunity, or eventually Profit.
Or you think when Bush get to the office there will be any change about
China?
>
> > It's irresponsible, childish, adolescent kind of behavior. I think
> even West feels bad
> > about this.
>
> Actually not. Please notice this quote from RFE today:
>
> "Talbott added that "the NATO enlargement process will continue, it
> does not endanger anyone and no democratic European country should be
> left out of it for geographical or historical reasons, especially not
> reasons connected to the Cold War," ETA reported. Officials signed a
> joint communique that focused on various defense and economic issues
> and stated that the U.S. welcomes "bringing to justice accused war,
> criminals, regardless of ideology."
>
I hope the US will start with Vietnam, Korean massacres and Okinava (sp.?)
rapes perpetrators.
Talbott has to think before he speaks (if capable of this unusual brain
activity).
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Andrejs Makwitz wrote:
> In article <393FAFFF...@bellatlantic.net>, Vladimir Makarenko
> <mal...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
> >Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent* state. But in
> >it's attempt to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-Russian
> tunes >on any possible occasion it could turn itself in the first domino chip
> which will >cause an avalanche. It's irresponsible, childish, adolescent kind
> of behavior. I think >even West feels bad about this.
>
> How does that differ from Russia's attempt to play anti-Latvian tunes at any
> opportunity?
I think it is rather a psychological illusion to which Latvia is prone to because
apart from Russia no one among the Big Ones mentions Latvia. On the other hand
Russia is always in focus so it has a lot of international news in which Latvia has
a marginal share. It's just natural.
> Russia does not have anything to fear from Latvia, but Latvia has
> much to fear from Russia. Last I checked, Latvia has yet to invade anyone or
> bomb anyone or threaten to bomb anyone?
Russia cordially invites Latvia... - shall I proceed?
> What is it that Russia is so afraid
> of?
NAZtO at less of 4 minutes of flight time of tactical missiles. No time to respond
adequately to aggressors.
> If Russia does not want Latvia to join NATO the solution is simple enough.
> All Russia has to do is stop acting as if Latvia is still some unrully
> province that needs to be brought back into the fold. Russia's attitudes
> towards Latvia are no different than China's attitudes towards Taiwan.
China's attitude towards Taiwan in nature is different than Russia-Latvia relations
and I think it doesn't need any explanations. The only common point is that in both
cases foolish drivel brews conflicts. And I don't remember that China would ask
change of status quo of Taiwan - just not to claim independence (Chinese are
patient - let's just wait another millennium ), and Russia doesn't request from
Latvia this - just to stop to fuel quarrel.
> As long
> as Russia keeps those attitudes, Latvia will keep seeking alliances to
> neutralize Russian efforts.
>
Russian effort is only about to secure rights of national minorities in Latvia. And
best proof for it that no such dispute exists between Lithuania and Russia.
>
> >If Latvia thinks that hostile stance is what Latvian-Russian relations
> >recently are in need of then let it be.
>
> That is a strange characterization of hostile. All the Latvian President did
> is state that an unstable Russia ruled by a totalitarian regime presents a
> threat to all her neighbors.
I will go to your neighbors (armed to their teeth) and tell them that if you get on
drugs you become violent and murderous maniac.
> It even presents a threat to her own citizens.
And to your own family.
>
> This is not hostile.
And then I would explain you that it is not hostile.
> This is a statement of fact that few would try to
> contradict. Alas, the increasingly totalitarian regime that currently rules
> Russia saw this as a threat and responded with hostility.
>
Totalitarian? Then all you can call Latvia - read E. Kallenberg.
>
> >There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them concentrates
> >on explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And so far
> that's
> >what they are doing with rare exemptions.
>
> You mean to say that charecterizing a remark that voices a genuine concern as
> hostile is a way to improve Russian-Latvian relations? Interesting.
A genuine concern? What she knows about Russia or Latvia for this matter.
Ignorant demagoguery and manipulation in the way : you wasn't caught - you didn't
stole.
>
> >My local newspaper I suspect do not know about existence of the Baltics,
> >sorry. For it the rest of the world is somewhere on halfway to the Moon. But I
> enjoy >to read its rare articles on international issues: hardly one would find
> more >entertaining stuff.
>
> Sure they could. Right here.
>
Today I asked an American colleague if she knows such country as Estonia. The
answer was "yes, is it near Spain?". Unfortunately I haven't chance to ask about
Latvia or Lithuania as I couldn't help smiling.
>
> Sincerely,
> Andrejs Makwitz
>
> BTW: I missed most of the posts as to what we should be refering to you as? I
> saw a post about Vova, but I thought that was the diminutive for Victor. Isn't
> Valodya the diminutive for Vladimir? I still prefer Gospodin Makaron, but
> whatever you like best.
Vova is diminutive for Vladimir, as rule used for children the shorter words the
easier for them to get used. Volodya is another diminutive but you can use it with
adults if you know him more or less or are relatively older. And anyway Russian due
to suffix system is incredibly reach for possible and impossible diminutives and
the opposite is correct as well. As to how you address me - why should I care? I
know who I am anyway.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <39407B0F...@bellatlantic.net>, mal...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> [SNIP, but thank you for the useful comments on art and literature]
> >
>
> >
> > > I mne ochen' nravitsja borshch' so
> > > smetanoj.
> > >
> >
> > No such thing in Manhattan. Just overpriced "Russian Tearoom" with its
> pretentious
> > visitors and shitty kitchen.
> >
>
> Go to Brighton Beach.
Of course I am visiting the place from time to time. But it's too far - with "D orB"
train it takes ~ 40 minutes just to get there. I found a couple of places on the
Second avenue in the Village.
> I had a great bowl of borshch followed by an even
> greater shashlyk at a restaurant called *Primorskoe* on Stillwell Ave. a
> few years ago.
>
I guess it's rather "Kafe Primorskoe" vs. "Restorant Primorski". Gender defines
the ending.
VM.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Malleus
Next thing you'd want "velikoross" or something
> Learning a Bear to dance you would risk at least your feet.
>
And all your four senses
> As we all can see the real prerequisite are cheap labor force and
investment
> opportunity, or eventually Profit.
For corrupt bureaucrats
> Or you think when Bush get to the office there will be any change
about
> China?
>
China is the future owner of the Russian Far East
>
> I hope the US will start with Vietnam, Korean massacres and Okinava
(sp.?)
> rapes perpetrators.
Keep hoping. There is nothing else left for you.
--
We'll be back after these messages
Andrejs Makwitz
In article <3941C6B1...@bellatlantic.net>, Vladimir Makarenko
<mal...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>> How does that differ from Russia's attempt to play anti-Latvian tunes at
>any
>> opportunity?
>
>I think it is rather a psychological illusion to which Latvia is prone to
>because
>apart from Russia no one among the Big Ones mentions Latvia. On the other
>hand
>Russia is always in focus so it has a lot of international news in which
>Latvia has
>a marginal share. It's just natural.
A psychological illusion? We'd be more than happy if the Big Ones, Bolshaya
Rossiya included, would continue not to mention us. A recent poll in Russia
claimed that Latvia was the number three, behind China and the USA, threat to
the Russian nation. What threat? We've never invaded Russia. We've never
threatened to invade Russia. We will never invade Russia. What are they so
afraid of?
>Russia cordially invites Latvia... - shall I proceed?
Sure. I'd like to see who it is that Russia invites Latvia too...? We have no
track record of bombing our neighbors or of bombing our own citizens. Russia,
on the other hand, has a very rich history of doing just that. I'd love to
hear the advice Russia has to offer in that respect. Their expertise would be
invaluable.
>NAZtO at less of 4 minutes of flight time of tactical missiles. No time to
>respond
>adequately to aggressors.
Well, that could be. Then again the Baltics have never been invaded by NATO.
They've been invaded by Russia more than once. Whether in the guise of
international communism or good old fashioned Russian imperialism. If Russia
doesn't want Latvia to join NATO, and I happen to be one of those who think
that joining NATO would be a waste of time and money, then all Russia has to do
is cordially decline all invitations to bomb Latvia and accept responsability
for the times she has.
>China's attitude towards Taiwan in nature is different than Russia-Latvia
>relations
>and I think it doesn't need any explanations. The only common point is that
>in both
>cases foolish drivel brews conflicts. And I don't remember that China would
>ask
>change of status quo of Taiwan - just not to claim independence (Chinese are
>patient - let's just wait another millennium ), and Russia doesn't request
>from
>Latvia this - just to stop to fuel quarrel.
I didn't think that it needed further explaining either. Alas, Russia
continues to view Latvia as just another province in her vast empire. She does
so without the cultural and historical ties that China has with Taiwan. The
only thing that Russia has in common with Latvia is that through out our common
history Russia has been the aggressor and has invaded our soil on more than one
occasion.
>Russian effort is only about to secure rights of national minorities in
>Latvia. And
>best proof for it that no such dispute exists between Lithuania and Russia.
Bullshit. You will have to try harder. The national minorities issue is a red
herring. National minorities are not a dispute between Lithuania and Russia
because Russia did not exert quite the same effort of transplanting national
minorities into Lithuania during Russia's award winning role as the friend of
the international working man. Does this mean that since they are not in
dispute Lithuania can act as she sees fit and join whatever global organization
she desires without interference from Russia?
>I will go to your neighbors (armed to their teeth) and tell them that if you
>get on
>drugs you become violent and murderous maniac.
Actually, if I were to get on drugs I would become as docile as a lamb, but
that's just my own preference. It is a good idea though. Some therapy for
Russia would go a long way for alleviating the fears of her neighbors. Until
this point Russia has acted as if violence and murder are her drugs of choice.
She seems to be going through some withdrawal pains. Perhaps some Prozac or
Valium could help her get over the pangs. It would be much healthier than
bombing the hell out of her own citizens.
>> It even presents a threat to her own citizens.
>
>And to your own family.
Yes.
>> This is not hostile.
>
>And then I would explain you that it is not hostile.
Huh? Are we in agreement?
>> This is a statement of fact that few would try to
>> contradict. Alas, the increasingly totalitarian regime that currently
>rules
>> Russia saw this as a threat and responded with hostility.
>>
>
>Totalitarian? Then all you can call Latvia - read E. Kallenberg.
I miss him too. I am still waiting for the completion of the China plan. My
chinese friends are anxious to hear the full details.
>>
>> >There are words and there are words. And as long as most of them
>concentrates
>> >on explaining Russians how bad they are there will be no good. And so far
>> that's
>> >what they are doing with rare exemptions.
>>
>> You mean to say that charecterizing a remark that voices a genuine concern
>as
>> hostile is a way to improve Russian-Latvian relations? Interesting.
>
>A genuine concern? What she knows about Russia or Latvia for this matter.
>Ignorant demagoguery and manipulation in the way : you wasn't caught - you
>didn't
>stole.
She knows that through out Latvia's history Russia has been the aggressor. She
knows that through out her history Latvia has spent more time under Russian
occupation than not. She knows that in the present day Russia still keeps
acting as if she has never ever done anything wrong. She knows that Russia's
favorite method of resolving disputes, real or imagined, is to bomb those she
disagrees with into oblivion. What do you know?
>Today I asked an American colleague if she knows such country as Estonia. The
>answer was "yes, is it near Spain?". Unfortunately I haven't chance to ask
>about
>Latvia or Lithuania as I couldn't help smiling.
Yesterday I asked a Mongolian friend about his experiences under Soviet
occupation. He said: " You mean the Russians?"
>Vova is diminutive for Vladimir, as rule used for children the shorter words
>the
>easier for them to get used. Volodya is another diminutive but you can use it
>with
>adults if you know him more or less or are relatively older. And anyway
>Russian due
>to suffix system is incredibly reach for possible and impossible diminutives
>and
>the opposite is correct as well. As to how you address me - why should I
>care? I
>know who I am anyway.
Come to think of it, Vitka is the dimunitive for Victor. My Russian is really
getting bad.
Sincerely,
Andrejs Makwitz
Malleus
> > <mal...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
> >
> > >Latvia doesn't pose any threat to Russia as an *independent*
state. But in
> > >it's attempt to become a part of Western alliances by playing anti-
Russian
> > tunes >on any possible occasion it could turn itself in the first
domino chip
> > which will >cause an avalanche. It's irresponsible, childish,
adolescent kind
> > of behavior. I think >even West feels bad about this.
> >
tunes at any
> > opportunity?
>
> I think it is rather a psychological illusion to which Latvia is
prone to because
> apart from Russia no one among the Big Ones mentions Latvia. On the
other hand
> Russia is always in focus
One scandal-monger, is not she?
> so it has a lot of international news in which Latvia has
> a marginal share. It's just natural.
>
> > Russia does not have anything to fear from Latvia, but Latvia has
> > much to fear from Russia. Last I checked, Latvia has yet to invade
anyone or
> > bomb anyone or threaten to bomb anyone?
>
> Russia cordially invites Latvia... - shall I proceed?
>
I shall: to give Russia a minutest excuse for military invasion
> > What is it that Russia is so afraid
> > of?
>
> NAZtO at less of 4 minutes of flight time of tactical missiles. No
time to respond
> adequately to aggressors.
>
Fligth time is the same both ways, and we remember who was an agressor
the last time
...
> > As long
> > as Russia keeps those attitudes, Latvia will keep seeking alliances
to
> > neutralize Russian efforts.
> >
>
> Russian effort is only about to secure rights of national minorities
in Latvia.
Like Jews or Kyrgyz
> And
> best proof for it that no such dispute exists between Lithuania and
Russia.
>
There are too many Russians in Lithuania. Yet.
> >..
> > All the Latvian President did
> > is state that an unstable Russia ruled by a totalitarian regime
presents a
> > threat to all her neighbors.
>
> I will go to your neighbors (armed to their teeth) and tell them that
if you get on
> drugs you become violent and murderous maniac.
>
Russia's neighbours need no telling: they know it from experience
> Totalitarian? Then all you can call Latvia - read E. Kallenberg.
>
No, it is what Kallenberg can call Latvia
> I haven't chance to ask about
> Latvia or Lithuania as I couldn't help smiling.
>
First person I hear of unable to talk while smiling