Topic: Meanwhile in Ukraine... Revolution. - page 80. (Read 227070 times)

But now they have a "democracy" and IMF loans

By the way, according to constitution it's quite interesting procedure.

If autonomous SSR decided to leave one SSR and join another SSR, it would require:

• Local referendum on the autonomous SSR territory;
• Review of referendum results in the local and federal government;
• All-Union referendum;
• From 3 to 5 years of transitional period for adaptation of local law.

As far I know, nothing of this happened in 1954... It seems that Khrushchev understood that even local referendum would say "NO, FUCKING NO!"

It even had no own government. RSFSR was under direct control of the USSR federal government, until the middle 1980s.

Kazakh SSR and RSFSR were the only republics with positive balance. All other states, including Estonia and Luthania, were in permanent debt.

However, why should we care about this facts, he won't accept anything except propaganda.

Food and fresh water required land.

Without the land, how you'll grow the crops?

Ummmm...
Food and fresh water?

Don't spread lies. The law bans explicit gay propaganda being spread to children. If you wan't to kiss some guy, then it is perfectly OK to do so.

Only thing worth a damn in this world is land...

I hope everything works out in ukrain
BitcoinINV

That's what I was arguing for as well, but got downvoted.


Not entirely. Those people that were in charge of the Soviet Union, are now in charge of Russia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithauen, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, well, you get the picture.

RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, for those who don't know), had least to say in its own governing, compared to the other republics in the Soviet Union. Even its name, Russia, was stripped and obscured into this abbreviation of RSFSR. Leaders of the USSR were in many cases not even Russian. I think Gorbachev was the first real leader of USSR who was Russian as well. Russia was for the most part the donor, while the other republics, the recipients (with the possible exception of the Baltic republics, which were always better off than the rest*), and I am not just talking about money flow. Crimea is one of the more publicised donorships done by USSR without Russian consent (and against the Constitution of the Soviet Union).
So when talking of the period between 1917 and 1992, when you say "Soviets" or "USSR", you are covering the whole union, and by using "Russians" or "Russia" or "RSFSR", you are talking about a federation (which in turn consist of multiple coexisting nationalities), which almost ceased to exist during the USSR reign.

* A small digression: In USSR, travelling to the Baltic republics was like travelling to the West. I remember visiting some friends in Tallin, coming from Moscow myself and being amazed by high life standards and the general atmosphere of prosperity there. The Baltic countries now, under EU, are not even a shadow of their former self, and when I visited now "from the other side", I was again "amazed" in the sense of "appalled". If they were so opposed to the notion of unions, they should have taken the Norwegian route and said no to EU (Norway said no to EU twice, and is much happier for that).


We are entering the area of legal semantics. By the way, in Norway it's a criminal offence to partake beer in the street. If a patron of a restaurant takes his glass of wine outside, that restaurant will have its license revoked by the police on the spot. And smoking in public undesignated areas will result in a hefty fine.

In Russia, no one would put you to jail for kissing, gay or heterosexual. However, organising a gay parade will not be tolerated as it is perceived as a forceful social propaganda.
If you really want to see a country where gay people are criminalised, travel to India, where you can be put in jail for it, or travel just 60 years back in time to Great Britain, where you could get "treated" (hint: Alan Turing a computer science genius, persecuted by the British authorities for being gay and coincidentally committed suicide the same year Crimea was separated from Russia. He was first pardoned by the Queen in 2013, a few months before Crimea reunited with Russia - coincidence again). The laws as they were formulated in Russia, then in Soviet Union and now in Russia again never went to these extremes. Russian Empire was actually one of the most liberal with this regard, and, guess what, was ridiculed by Europe for that.


---
PS: Reminding all that it's the 1st of April. Any news in any outlet should be taken with extreme caution. Not that the whole Ukrainian farce hadn't been one huge April Fool's joke.

USA, Middle East, and Canada didn't collapse after crude oil prices nosedived, so it wasn't just that. It actually collapsed when its military spending ended way higher than the badly planned economy could handle. At some point, USSR just couldn't afford to pay for itself any more (I believe the final straw was a new experimental football sized submarine they built and couldn't afford to pay for)


Why? Are the people currently in power NOT the same exact people who used to work for the KGB and such? Who in russian government is not an old soviet government member or old soviet oligarch? (I suspect of those at the top, it's a very small list).


But the laws don't say "don't give children gay sex," they say "don't expose children to gay things, period." It's like banning showing a bottle of wine, or a beer, to any children, on TV or otherwise. If I held hands with another guy, or kissed him in public, where children could see, I would be breaking the law. If I was drinking a beer in public, even outside a restaurant, that's still legal. That's why that law was attacked.

As trustworthy as any news outlet. You always have to filter out the propaganda, indiscriminately if you hear it on the Western on Eastern news channels.


Break it up? Last I checked Russia accepted Crimea back into its fold, but otherwise advocated strongly for the unity of Ukraine, despite strong separatist movement in the South-Eastern regions.


For it to be a constitutional republic, there first needs to be a constitution that is not constantly rewritten with regards to presidency election procedures and citizen rights.


I would very much like people started to differentiate between Russia and Soviet Union.
Besides, fake propaganda works both ways.
May I, for example, recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Incident-Sakhalin-True-Mission-Flight/dp/1568580541/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396253280&sr=1-1&keywords=Incident+at+Sakhalin%3A+The+True+Mission+of+KAL+Flight+007


The European fixation on gay laws after fake propaganda, perverting the facts around the said laws, which, despite what EU was touting, do not limit or criminalise gay persons. It limits exposure of gay morals to children in much the same way as alcohol and tobacco commercials are prohibited in many European countries.
This is one of those "truths" that happen to be the exact opposite.

"Mobilization of everyone under 55" is rather different that what actually happened, "Ukrainian parliament passes bill raising military age to 55."

Am I supposed to assume any article with .ru or rt in it is as trustworthy as Fox News or Soviet Pravda?


Putin may have made Ukraine a much more unified country by trying to break it up and claiming it's part of Russia:
http://news.yahoo.com/conflict-russia-galvanizes-ukraines-identity-105124073.html



In Ukraine they went from a totalitarian "democracy" to a constitutional republic, so it's at least a little bit of a revolution.


Um, I think you missed the entire 20th century, when Russia honed its skills at proclaiming the "truth" to be the exact opposite of what it was. Remember all that Soviet propaganda and fake news that they did for decades? Why do you think that changed?



Um, how so? I don't get it :/

I think you should get a mental checkup.

I'm no political stratagist but I suspect this issue is going to lead to alot of trouble for the worlds population.  Russia supported Iran and Syria and now look what is on there doorstep...

Regarding this, "Obama says 'bigger nations cannot simply bully smaller ones'. Wait... what?" don't forget that the whole reason he won the election in the first place is because the majority of people here believed that bigger nations shouldn't bully smaller ones, and Obama heavily campaigned on and supported that idea. G W Bush was the guy who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama was picked to get US the hell out of there, so I'm not sure you can hang that mess around his head (unless you believe US should have remained in Iraq to provide "security."

le lol, was pretty clear that she was a "attention whore" that took the opportunity to gain more attention 

Yep, that was funny. She've got some popularity in exchange for her professional reputation.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/i7q6ld/vladimir-putin-s-propaganda-machine---russia-today---liz-wahl

I wonder to know what she will do with her career a couple of years later. Highly recommended to view.

P.S. And bonus  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIiiwe6TUtY

I liked when the RT anchorwoman quit (on air live) a couple weeks ago.

RT simply relayed the interview with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lavrov. It all boils down to who's word one prepares to take, and the time will tell. It always does. It's quite revealing watching some of the interviews with retired CIA officers, shedding some light about, for example, the defamatory information war that US was waging, while USSR had its troops in Afghanistan.

Any significant state would try to sway less powerful states, and Russia is no exception. The action itself can be called many things. Persuasion, diplomacy, threat, trade agreements, military bases, bribery. Take your pick. The one who is more successful at it and uses it the most will get the most votes.  

PS: Hmmm:
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-attack-cars-137/

What I find special with the picture, is that there's a guy with the Ukrainian flag, and everything is rather peaceful.


In the meantime, the horses for the Ukrainian race are selected:

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-presidential-candidates-bids-197/

From the comments:

BS. It is the US which always bullies the less powerful nations, not Russia.

Uhaha I see "Gayropean union" on the poster, that was funny