Russian 'election'
 

I won't be able to stay up late and see who won, can someone post that for me?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43088445
Yeah, apparently not.

Trump in an upset win.

Exit polls show Putin taking about 75% of the vote.

Big surprise. :shifty:

:haha:

As I've stated on more than one occasion on this forum....Putin is a democratically elected dictator.

RIGGED

And the winner of the 2024 Russian election is...PUTIN.

America lets people choose between Antrax and Ebola, Russians could vote for Ebola, and Germans get the Antrax anyway that they have deliberatedly voted against.

:88)

Ancient Greeks heard only 5-15% of their city residents - the male, free and wealthy ones - in hearings and for majority votings. Only these few were "citizens" eligible to raise their voice and cast their vote.

It's not rigged. Since there are no other candidates, the partaking 73 percent indeed must have voted for him :03:

No surprise.. anyway after what happened after 1989 the west is to blame for a good part. Should i really quote Sky :hmmm:, well in this case:

"What many already forgot is that Putin, when he took over from Yeltzin, has ended the chaos of the era after the Sovjet Union's fall. Initially, Putin worked for and tried to bring Russia closer to Europe, on equal eye levels. But then the West betrayed him two times. First the Western predators tried to extract as much loot from the weak new-Russian economic environment as possible and tried to keep the new Russian state and its adminsutraiton out of stable control, and second the West promised to not move up towards Russia'S borders, and naive as they were at that time, the Russians believed that. They got betrayed, and Putin learned to lessons. First, give the West the opportunity to erode and abuse Russia'S wealth and economy, and it will do so, and second: Western promises and verbal agreements do mean nothign and are not worth the air it takes to speak them out.

Putin delivers on the Russian desire for national pride. He sorted out the hostile economic sell-out of Russian property and ecnomy at the cost of allowing oligarchic crime and corruption taking control of parts of the economy again while making it clear by setting several examples that these oligarchs are tolerated, but better do not take on the state itself in their greed, else they, individually, have to pay the highest price. All the revitalising of the Sovjet cult and Stalin cult needs to be seen in the light of all these factors that the West allowed to form and that the West even supported. The West is not as innocent as it claims in creating the situation as it is today. Putin initally did not start to go this way - he reacted to the bitter lessons he got taught by the West - by fallign back to proven Sovjet controlling schemes and reactions."

(from: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=73)

May i add that Putin is meanwhile a prisoner of his own politics. Who else should govern Russia and hold extremists, terrorists and crime at bay? Can a real democratically elected government without having to fear "secret service cleanings" deal with it, or would it all go the way of the Weimarer Republic?

Sorry but I wave the B.S. flag on the 'not one inch' westward NATO expansion broken promises excuse. Even Mikhail Gorbachov said the agreement was to allow for the timely removal of Russian forces from East Germany and former Soviet bloc countries, that's it, end of story. Russia got time to peacfully remove itself from Eastern Germany and in return left you Merkel.

Number two NATO expansion westward is based on invitation and the acceptance by independent nations. Those independent nations DO NOT require the permission of Putin.

Poor little Russia, horse crap. They made their bed now lie in it.

^ Nonsense. First it should read eastward expansion, but i guess in Trump times words have no meaning anymore :O:

Timely removal of russian forces from east Germany alright, the Russians did it. Included in this treaty is the Nato's promise not to expand eastward, but to create a cordon secure, not touching the russian or the west german border.
Later the "outstretched hand" of the West disguised the dagger in the other hand, trying to destabilize and trying to take over what was left of the Soviet Union.
They indeed made their bed in trusting, and now lie in what came of it.

LOL oops ummm yes looking at the globe North up that would be 'east'ward expansion

yes well i thought it was a glitch, np :salute:
And initially it was not Merkel, but Kohl who was left to Germany. Complete standstill for decades to come.

(Google translation)
"A unified Germany, anchored in a changed (political) NATO, whose treaty area is not shifted east."

This is a memorial note of the US Secretary of State James Baker after a conversation on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom he summarized the "final result" of the interview.

As the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (FAZ) further reported on Tuesday, the historian Mary Elise Sarotte of the University of Southern California at the annual convention of American historians in New York presented and explained this generally unknown fact.

"That meant: Nato should not even be extended to the territory of the GDR. Baker left a letter for Kohl, who visited Moscow a day after him. Accordingly, he had asked Gorbachev before the choice whether he would prefer a non-aligned Germany without US troops or a Germany with Nato bond and the assurance that the alliance area should not 'one inch' grow, "adds the FAZ.

Kohl then made an offer to Gorbachev on the Bakers line, with which he obtained Soviet approval for reunification. The failure of Gorbachev had been to give written confirmation of the freezing of geopolitical status.In addition, an initial secret note published in 2009 on Genscher's statement of 10 February 1990 on Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze reads:

"BM (Federal Minister): We are aware that joining a united Germany with NATO raises complicated questions. For us, however, it is clear: NATO will not expand to the east. "Genscher remembered what had happened in 1956 in the Hungarian uprising: Parts of the insurgents had announced that they wanted to join the Western alliance, and thus Moscow had the pretext for a military intervention delivered. As far as the GDR was concerned, Genscher explicitly added: "As for the remainder, the non-expansion of NATO, this applies in general."

A year or two ago it was very easy to search the intardnet and find the Gorbachev interview. I read it several times and once posted a link on subsim. He stated quite explicitly there were no promises made that would prevent east ward expansion of NATO after the transition.

Funny, today all I read are articles which inundate the net accusing NATO of broken promises. Though I must admit I only went back 6-7 pages looking for the interview. Seems we are force fed information designed to influence our thoughts.

I found the old post but unfortunately I didn't post a link to it. Must have been back in the day before Sailor Steve got on us for not posting links and using those ***** asterisks. :D


old post: According to Mikhail Gorbachev former secretary general of the Soviet Union said: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

All that was agreed upon was until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.

There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

And yes, maybe trust could have been an issue especially when dealing with the siloviki I would say are one reason why western business closed up shop and left the region and those that remain, remain wary. Maybe too its not so much about trust but about compatibility.

The West gave Russia its word, and then showed that this was worth nothing. You may say now: "Your own guilt, you stupid Russians", but do not be surprised that they learned the lesson and never give a dime for any of your future promises, announcement and lip confessions again.

I know that it was not signed in a treaty that NAOT shoudl stay away. But NATO told the Russians: if you stick to your word, we stick to ours. They did what they said they woudl do, and pulled out - and NATO broke its own word and moved in.

That lesson sank deep. Got fooled once, never get fooled again.

And Gorbatchev - that is a topic in itself. Dont get me started. He was not the only one doing a lot of talking at that time. I recall that even American and NAOT diplomats later admitted that according assurances were made in spoken words. And I also recall that one American could not resist to lecture the world on the difference between a verbal assurance, which in his view obviously can be ignored any time, and a written treaty.

That today nobody wnats to hear this anymore and treats it as if it never happened, is clear. Nobody likes to admit that he played unfair. And it was the time when the victory of the West was declared, and the end of history was announced, and everybody in the West was full of his ego, and the defeat of socialsim was celebrated.

Well, there is news. Socialism is stronger than ever in the past 100 years in Europe, and Sovjet cult celbrates a great revival in Russia.