Estonian capital suffers second night of violence

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Sohni

By "surprisingly" I meant that it we got lots of international attention and quite strict announcements by both EU and NATO towards Russia. We have always counted on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to repeat and prepared to fight alone and die for Fatherland, but it was nice to see someone actually cares.

I care for any country, nation or region of Europe be it big or small. Be it Estonia or Russia. At least I care while there is something left to care for in it. I may never set a foot in Estonia and I do not have any interests, personal or national, in Estonia or in the Baltic region. But still I care because it is a part of the rich ethnic and cultural diversity of Europe and as such it is World Heritage. Or well, it should be.

But the EU or NATO care? I'm afraid that it is there where I see naïvety. NATO is the military machine of support and expansion of the Anglo-American world and of its globalized vision of the world which is destroying the identities of nations inside and outside Europe. The EU is but an economic club with only profits on sight. A market. And you know what you are when a market cares for you, a commodity.

but if it makes you happy..

Russian threat is the point why Estonia, just as whole ex-soviet and ex-Warsaw-pact part of Europe is trying to get into those alliances, to get some confidence and some friends for the time when wannabe-USSR should rise again.

Good luck then. This has been discussed before and I don't feel like searching for the particular posts right now, so I'll brief you on how much the Anglo-American alliance cared for those countries in WWII after selling them out in the Yalta Conference. They were left to their fate inspite the power that Roosevelt and Churchill had at the time to keep pushing eastwards. By keeping Europe divided as they did with the Iron Curtain, Western Europe was theirs. Eastern Europe served as a bartering token.

Read your own words I have quoted in bold: you ARE justifying intervention of Russia.

I'm pointing to a reality, which is that some countries are being used as pieces in a game board of power.

What the rest of Europe should do is to try to integrate Russia in a common European project, a true one and not that market called the E.U. Not to serve as a convenient platform for the expansion of the interests of the U.S.

That is not justifying Putin and his government.

We are not influence zone of Russia, PERIOD. And I think Russia got the hint...

Unfortunately we are all pieces of that game, unless a project for a new Europe is realized one day.

NATO is necessary, just as U.S. presence. Simply because Western European countries would sell Eastern European countries one by one just to keep Soviet Russia calm, while Americans enjoy their victory in Cold War and are determined to keep their position as a victor. They don't give much crap about us, small countries, but they certainly don't want Soviet Union to rise again - THAT makes us allies.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

That's a false axiom. The enemy of your enemy can be more destructive for you, only more subtle at it.

I admit that other alternatives are at present far from reach. But that doesn't mean that one has to give in.

Agreed, he doesn't have. But all his recent moves in Iran and Palestine show that he wants to have.

His moves in Iran are not geared against Europe, but against America. Unfortunately, because of NATO and the increasingly Atlantist E.U., Europe is dragged into the game.

Shouldn't we, ideally, struggle for independence? Isn't that what Estonia struggles for in front of Putin? Why not in front of Bush too?

With islamic Central Asian countries already playing by Putin's rules, Chechnya massacred.... What muslim unrest would you expect for Putinist Soviet Russia?

What about the Muslims within its own frontiers?

Tell me, is it Russia that has trained and armed Islamist terrorists? Is it Russia that has finished off the one strong laicist country of the Middle East, Iraq, turning it into a fertile field for jihadists? Is it Russia that is supporting the expansion of a turcophile state, Albania, inside the borders of Europe? Is it Russia that is pressing the E.U. to integrate Turkey with a population of nearly 71 million muslims?

The answer to all those questions is "no, it is America". The enemy of your enemy which is, according to yourself, your friend. With such friends, who needs enemies?

[Routasydän]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Wilpuri, it would appear that the Finns reach to perfection. Will you be so kind as to help me to pick up some adjectives to define the Finns from what I have observed about them on the internet?

It would be like a game. I tell you what I have observed, I give you a number of adjectives for each item, and you pick up the one that you find more appropriate.

It should be fun. Nothing constructive, much on the contrary, but fun.

And yes, before you ask, we could do that with most other countries too.

At first, I thought it best not to reply, as you might have another of those "he's obessed with me"-episodes. I decided its a risk I'm willing to take.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that the majority of Russians I have met online happen to be brainwashed by the Kremlin, the Russian media and the Soviet historical school into thinking, that they have some sort of justification for calling themselves the good guys of WW II, and they entertain the ridiculous notion that everyone (particularily the west) is out to get them. Or do you sympathize with Russians, who go on about how the removal of the Bronze statue is a blasphemy, calling Estonia the new fascist power of Europe, etc, etc ad nauseum. It is ridiculous. Most Russians I've met online follow this line of logic, and no matter how you try to reason your arguments, they are without exception met with some emotional out-burst about some atrocity or other committed by the troops of the Baltic countries or Estonia, who themselves were under occupation at the moment, and presenting this as some sort of evidence of their alliance with National Socialist Germany. It just so happens that the sample of Russians I've met online share this view. It is not because of my anti-Russian bias, it is because it is.

This why it is extremely refreshing to meet people like svin, with whom you can discuss the matter without all that aggressiveness. I think its interesting that most free-thinking Russians, who make up their own minds instead of blindly following the Kremlin, inhabit forums with some form of nationalist orientation (this in my experience), while on other non-political forums they are far more Kremlin-influenced. Perhaps not so strange once you think about it.

Mynydd, you can go ahead with your adjectives. Most Finns I meet online are like most Finns I meet in real life. Nothing more, nothing less. I know my people well enough not to be intimidated by your opinions about them. You happen to like Russia and Russians, and you are quick to come to their defence when you perceive that an insult has been hurled at them. This is not the case, however. I'm simply stating my empiric observations and leaving it at that.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by wilpuri

At first, I thought it best not to reply, as you might have another of those "he's obessed with me"-episodes. I decided its a risk I'm willing to take.

You decided to take a risk? Don't be so pretentious. You haven't jumped over any walls. The doors were fully open for you to enter and an invitation had been convieniently issued to your name.

In bull fighting jargon it would be called an invitation for the bull to get into the cloth.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that the majority of Russians I have met online happen to be brainwashed by ...

No, I don't have a problem with whatever you may have met online. Or in real life for the matter. I do, however, have a problem with you or anyone else using Stirpes to project his phobias or his fears, beyond what's reasonable for the goals of the forum.

I do have a problem with the willingness that I have observed in Finns --you included--, and the readiness to take up any chance to hit on Russians and to make them guilty for everything that has occurred on the face of earth since the Last Glacial Millenium.

You couldn't help yourself to jump into the bandwagon as soon as a couple of critiques were made by others, could you?. But what called most my attention is the choice of words that you made to define your view of the Russians that you've met on the internet: "incredibly narrow-minded and stubborn in the face of reason".

The reason why these words called so much my attention was that you being a Finn, you've been too quick to accuse them of what Finns are being known for.. I was going to say on the internet, but I'll take for good your words below that there is no difference with the real life.

And if you happen to be similar in that respect to Russians that you have met online, at least they seem to be quite happy and proud of their identity and don't beg in public to be accepted as part of a different identity people. Only a few weeks ago someone called my attention on this fact, yet again. And again, incidentally, only a few days ago by someone completely different.

But I'd rather leave it here and not take this to an exposure which would most surely prove unpleasant. The importance for Stirpes of what I'm mentioning is that, notwithstanding these facts, I don't see Russians (or others) taking it as an opportunity to open the lynching session against the Finns.

So I would advice you to follow their example.

Mynydd, you can go ahead with your adjectives.

It was for you to pick up the adjectives, not me. Two people are the minimum of players required for the game.

Most Finns I meet online are like most Finns I meet in real life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, that doesn't make things better. On the contrary..

I know my people well enough not to be intimidated by your opinions about them.

And yet I was sure that you wouldn't accept the challenge.

You happen to like Russia and Russians, and you are quick to come to their defence when you perceive that an insult has been hurled at them. This is not the case, however. I'm simply stating my empiric observations and leaving it at that.

And, like you can see from what I wrote above, I was just going to state my empiric observations on Finns, just like you did. The difference is that I would have left the choice of the adjectives to you.

As for the reason why I am quick to come to their defense, there is something called here to break a lance for someone, when he is being put unjustly or unjustifiedly under attack. It used to be a characteristic of people, which I hope that it hasn't been lost forever with modernity.

Don't look for a rationale to it, because it has to do not with rationality but with feelings that might prove too strange for you to understand them.

[Routasydän]

Sure, Finns are eager to criticize Russians and Russia, but perhaps you can figure out why. Some causes are conveniently displayed in this topic title. But to act as if you yourself or others don't indulge in such criticism against one or other nation would be hypocritical to the extreme. It certainly has a ring of ethnic favourtism to it, on a board where all European nations are supposedly on equal footing.

If the Russians I have met are what I've said, who are you to deny me the right to tell of my experience or presenting my opinions, for that matter? Forums are places of discussion. Why not discuss.

I have no phobias concerning Russians. I happen to work with quite a few at the moment, and they have all been good, warm people so far. This does not, however, mean that I can accept Russian interference in the politics of other nations or the usual Russian political and historical world view. It is so grossly opposed to my own, I possibly couldn't.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by wilpuri

Sure, Finns are eager to criticize Russians and Russia, but perhaps you can figure out why.

Do I have to? Do you see anywhere here that it says "free ride for Finns on Russians"?

Some causes are conveniently displayed in this topic title. But to act as if you yourself or others don't indulge in such criticism against one or other nation would be hypocritical to the extreme.

Criticism and veiled lynching are two different things. I will come back to your calling me a hypocrite in a moment. In fact, through the next lines.

It certainly has a ring of ethnic favourtism to it, on a board where all European nations are supposedly on equal footing.

Now, your victimism is pathetic at the time that it is hypocritical beyond belief. If Russians on Stirpes engaged on an agenda against the Finns, they would be equally stopped from doing so.

But, as it happens, they don't and their behaviour is faultless as you have had to admit yourself.

If the Russians I have met are what I've said, who are you to deny me the right to tell of my experience or presenting my opinions, for that matter? Forums are places of discussion. Why not discuss.

Another example of victimism and hypocrisy.

Firstly, I have not denied you any right. Secondly, we are discussing the issue. And thirdly, if it is escalated to the point of disturbing the normal working of the forums I reserve the right to stop by any means available.

I have no phobias concerning Russians. I happen to work with quite a few at the moment, and they have all been good, warm people so far.

And now comes the touchy speech. Why is it that it leaves me indifferent?

This does not, however, mean that I can accept Russian interference in the politics of other nations or the usual Russian political and historical world view. It is so grossly opposed to my own, I possibly couldn't.

We cater for nationalists here, not for imperialists. Look well, look again, and make sure that you have a good enough reason before making certain remarks.

[Routasydän]

I can see where this is going, once more.

You win.

[Menydh]

I hope that you don't mind that I have the last word too.

[Routasydän]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I hope that you don't mind that I have the last word too.

Of course not. You wouldn't be you if you didn't.

[Sohni]

Mynydd, as I understand your words (first post on page 6 of this thread) can be summarized as:
"Everybody hates, nobody cares, life sucks."
What would you suggest us to do then? Be alone, isolate ourselves from everyone and become easy prey for neosoviet imperialism?


I think Russia and U.S.A. cannot be compared here in any way.

"It is good to have big strong friends as long as they are far away from you". I don't remember anymore where I heard it, but those words do have a point.

I cannot imagine Estonia being occupied by U.S., besides, I can't think of anything Americans would badly want from us except great strategic location - as allies they can already use that.
Russia is right near us and as history has proven too well, it's not a friend. More like someone who makes us disappear in a "friendly" hug.

As it has been so far, good will to make compromises with Russia make it consider you weak and open for more demands. Show of strength is probably the language putinist imperialists understand better, so I don't mind at all if steel and missiles would be brought to NATO countries bordering Russia, even if those are American bases.
It would make Russia think twice about restoring Soviet Union and also give little more motivation for West to fight side-by-side with us when need comes - their own people and gadgets would be in danger.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Sohni

Mynydd, as I understand your words (first post on page 6 of this thread) can be summarized as:
"Everybody hates, nobody cares, life sucks."

There are about 4 posts of mine on page #6. Probably 5 when I post this new one. I can only guess that you refer to post #101.

All I can say is that your summary is an oversimplification of what I've written. And in fact it is more than that. It is an oversimplification of a total misunderstanding or misread.

There are two different (though related) issues in there. For one of the issues, I'm making a reading within the grand picture, while your reading is within the small picture. You shouldn't jump to conclusions from one to the other. It has two possible readings and both must be considered, but separately before coming to a one conclusion.

The other issue, though related, it is of a different nature. How this all reads (or should read) in a framework of nationalist and europeanist politics.

You'll have to excuse that I'm going to leave the discussion here for the time being. I just wanted to make a note and it is late, but I promise that I will come back to this within the next hours.

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

It is not about disagreeing in the first place. It is about mocking about a native European folk wich is outlawed and not tolerable.

Next is infractions for not obeying to Stirpes rules.

This link was not about Russians having been deported into Gulags but about non-Russian folks under Russian occupation that were deported and enslaved.
Here is an interesting link about Gulags

And you finally said it - "the Russian occupation". That wasn't a Russian occupation but Soviet. There is a difference, you know. Russians suffered under the Soviet occupation the same way like the others, and pointing out only other people's victims is a clear notice of what these authors wanted to achieve. They want to blame Russians for everything, although it wasn't Russians who were in charge, at that time.

It is you directing this thread ito a wrong direction. Your uncritical siding for the imperial Russian side has nothing to do with patriotism.

Indeed.
That's it all about here. And your siding with Post-Soviet imperialism is targeted against nationalism.

Am I? This is classical twisting of the theses. It's not Estonia who is threatened here, it is Russia, and she is not threatened directly by Estonia, but by NATO. Instead of standing on the same side with Russia, Estonian government chose here to side with the traditional Russian and all European enemies!

Russia does not have to have national interests within Estonian borders. It is Russias duty to bring their people back home and to care for them, and not to stir uprisings in other countries. NATO does not have anything to do with that, the Baltic nations joined NATO because they fear Russian imperialism. I can imagine Estiona would not have joined NATO if there would be no Russian colonists within her borders and no Russian threat.

Oh really? There are Russian colonists in all other ex-Soviet states, but I'm not seeing Armenia, Belarus or Kazakhstan joining the NATO. Besides, was there a "Russian threat" in the '90ies, when Estonian government decided to join the NATO?

And what happened before these clashes? Permanent Russian interventions in neighboring states' affairs as if these were still part of the USSR. Neither Georgia nor Estonia are "Russian Space", it is time for the Russian government to get this. The more Russia threatens them, the more the unwelcomed US presence will grow. Beggars can't be choosers, when noone but the USA comes for help at least this help is appreciated.

They aren't Russian space, but they are bordering with Russia, and Russia has every right to be worry, because many of her neighboring countries are joining NATO, and if you think that they are joining NATO because of some patriotic reasons, then you're pretty naive. Mikhail Sakashvili is a typical ZOG product. He don't give a fuc.k about Georgian national interest, he's installed there by Americans, to incite the anti-Russian policy!

And what do these alleged zionists do? Whan I read at e.g. SF, Russia already is completley under the control of Jewish oligarchs. What conspiracy theory comes up next?

Today is much better than it was in the '90ies. Most of these Zionist tycoons are now in prison, or they've fled the country, like Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, Abramovich etc.
Putin has done very much for Russia.

I am well aware my county is occupied. But I do not see any signs of a new Cold War to be honest. The next war, if there will be any, will be a civil war.

I wasn't talking about your country specifically, I was talking more generally.

There is no Iranian question. Now you use Zionist vocabulary...

You're right, there isn't, that's why I wrote Iranian question with these symbols - " ".

Geostrategical control and a war against some insurgents that dare to fight against the USA/West.

Finally we agree. But don't forget that most of these insurgents, were created, supported and financed by Americans, for the reason to fight against anti-American countries. Like Osama bin Laden who recruited mujahedin volunteers to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and latter Serbs in Bosnia.

When all this is this clear for you so answer the question wy the USA did not already invade Iran? Iran is no big threat exept to some Arab emirates maybe.

Because they need a pretext. And surely because they don't know for sure whether Iran has nuclear armaments or hasn't.
But I'm pretty sure that, if something goes wrong, Israel is going to throw nuclear warheads at Iran first.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Sektor

And you finally said it - "the Russian occupation". That wasn't a Russian occupation but Soviet. There is a difference, you know. Russians suffered under the Soviet occupation the same way like the others, and pointing out only other people's victims is a clear notice of what these authors wanted to achieve. They want to blame Russians for everything, although it wasn't Russians who were in charge, at that time.

Certainly no other period and leader of the Soviet era can be singled out for the deportations and forced mass movements of peoples, like that under Josef Stalin.

And Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian.