Russia to the West... is it a Threat or Hope?

[mzaseka]

Agreed.

Baltic states are doing exactly what is described by definition of the term nationalism above. At the moment they are exactly national countries, defending their national self-determination. Sometimes it turns ugly, but that's how they want to protect their national identity, after many years of different kind of occupation.

This statement is false, at least if you apply it to Russians. I am a ethnic Russian myself (Russian Canadian), and may I say, I Know the Russian history.

All the time in Russian history the Empire (under different names) fought against the Russian nationalism.

Unfortunately to Russians, most of the times in the last five centuries, the empire prevailed.

The most severe defeat was when Moscow Czar completely destroyed democratic Novgorod republic of Russians.

Russian nationalists fought against Russia's empire in many people wars led by cossaks Razin, Pugachev, Bolotnikov; they fought together with Polish insurgents ("For your and our freedom"), they fought against Jewish internacionale in Antonov's peasants army in Tambov region...

The empire supported xebophoby and always skillfully controlled international tensions ("Divide & Rule" approach).

But it always were afraid of idea of letting Russians to build their true national state.

People of Ukraine should be happy now after they separated themselves from the power of Moscow. Ukraine promotes nationalism - is Ukraine an empire? No!

Federation of Russia promotes multi-culturalism and fighting Russian nationalism. Is it empire? Yes!

I disagree. Wars in former Yugoslavia were developed on a base of different religious beliefs. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are all Slavs speaking the same common language. But they are divided as being Orthodox, Catholics and Muslims.

Wars between India & Pakistan were driven mostly because of religion differences.

And many religions (you like it or not) served nicely many empires in this world...

I doubt it too. If you have said A, you must also say B. Proclaiming Québécois as nation, we'rev provoking next question - why Nation without a state? And so on and so far.

Now, please pay attention that ethnic Russians, who are about 80% of Russia's population, are not even mentioned in Russia's constitution as Russian people!

They do not have their national state (even inside Russia, as Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chechens do).

How do you like Putin's remarks like "Pure Russians do not exist" or "Whoever thinks about Russian national state is either an idiot or provocateur"?

Russian nationalism is the only way to build new democratic Russian state! Back to the Great Novgorod? Yes, but with promoting the XXI century progress!

Agreed 100%!!!!! Thank you, Maxim! Very good notes!

Edited November 25, 2007 by mzaseka

[MMT]

Now, please pay attention that ethnic Russians, who are about 80% of Russia's population, are not even mentioned in Russia's constitution as Russian people!

They do not have their national state (even inside Russia, as Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chechens, Jews have).

How do you like Putin's remarks like "Pure Russians do not exist" or "Whoever thinks about Russian national state is either an idiot or provocateur"?

Russian nationalism is the only way to build new democratic Russian state! Back to the Great Novgorod? Yes, but with promoting the XXI century progress!

Well, if Russians like the democracy and if Putin's regime humiliates them a lot, then why do they vote for Putin? Is that another "Russian soul" puzzle?

[leo]

Well, if Russians like the democracy and if Putin's regime humiliates them a lot, then why do they vote for Putin? Is that another "Russian soul" puzzle?

Excuse me, but Russians do not have a right to vote freely. They MUST vote for Putin. They may not express their free will.

A few quotes to support this statement -

Houston Chronicle 'Russian workers told where, how to vote' http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/5332223.html

"It is unbelievable. The use of bureaucracy is on an unprecedented scale," said Marina Dashenkova of Golos, an election-monitoring group. "People are complaining that their bosses are forcing them to take absentee ballots and vote for whom they say."

The use of absentee ballots in this way is new, she said, and kills two birds with one stone for the Kremlin: By getting absentee ballots, people are registered as voting even if the votes are never cast, boosting turnout; and when they vote under the supervision of bosses they are likely to vote "correctly."

"It's pure pressure. They are saying, 'We are not forcing you, we are asking you, but if not, you will show your disloyalty to your company,'" said the woman, Anna, who declined to disclose her last name out of fear of being fired.

The pressure to get out the vote starts with Russia's more than 80 governors, most of whom are United Russia members. The orders, whether explicit or just implied, are then passed to government agencies, companies, hospitals and schools.

Russia Profile, 'Russian Elections 2007-2008: Is There any Choice Involved?', by Leon Aron, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a member of Russia Profile’s International Advisory Board

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?page...eid=a1196172808 - “I am afraid that, short of a miracle, an honest election, the outcome of which would be the result of an informed and effective choice, is unlikely,” he concluded.

And even in such prison the turnout on previous legislative election was only 55% !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legis...lection%2C_2003

[Maxim]

Excuse me, but Russians do not have a right to vote freely. They MUST vote for Putin. They may not express their free will.

I'd like to supplement it with another reference -

Neo-KGB to Russian resistance – ‘Shut your mouth up!’

http://www.vdesyatku.com/Neo-KGB.html

It's about KGB-state opressing Russian opposition. It's about other Russians (not Kasparov like) who most likely will boycott the elections.

Putin's regime is trying to put in prison all dissents and reincarnate the Soviet Union. It's already holding the world leadership on percentage of the country population behind bars. And they want even more of that.

But I think that on the contrary they would get what they deserved - a national revolution. Russia will be freed.

[Jerry Galinda]

Oleg! Do not even try to explain obvious things to Jerry. He does not understand simple things and has a mess in his head. He is trying deliberately to deviate the subject to the Nazi theme. He is just playing a fool. Never mind his bla-bla bla BS. We are talking here about Democratic National Russia, not about Reich and Nazis. Jerry has mixed smth.

Democratic National it's the same possible as "democratic communism" LOL

[Jerry Galinda]

Define nationalism first. Answering all of your questions is irrelevant until you could define the term. As I mentioned earlier, it's useless terminological debate, if you cannot offer to your opponents a definition of the subject. I offered you one definition, but you ignored it and keep battling.

Define nationalism.

"Define nationalism first." What for ?

In practise - we know in Europe -what is it nationalism !

but I think that it's the proper definition

1: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2: a nationalist movement or government

the most important word - "EXALTING" - that's all

[leo]

"Define nationalism first." What for ?

In practise - we know in Europe -what is it nationalism !

but I think that it's the proper definition

1: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2: a nationalist movement or government

the most important word - "EXALTING" - that's all

Thank you for finally agreeing to define nationalism in your terms.

As I suspected, your definition is completly different than mine, which I gave you two weeks ago. If you simply indicated your different understanding of the term right away, it would be no need for you to argue since that. Because we talked about different things, like apples and oranges.

Again, it's terminological dispute, which doesn't make sense to me.

[leo]

I'd like to supplement it with another reference -

Neo-KGB to Russian resistance – ‘Shut your mouth up!’

http://www.vdesyatku.com/Neo-KGB.html

It's about KGB-state opressing Russian opposition. It's about other Russians (not Kasparov like) who most likely will boycott the elections.

Putin's regime is trying to put in prison all dissents and reincarnate the Soviet Union. It's already holding the world leadership on percentage of the country population behind bars. And they want even more of that.

But I think that on the contrary they would get what they deserved - a national revolution. Russia will be freed.

Frankly, I am not surprised. I have no doubt that Pitin must go. He shouldn't gain any bit of support from us.

[Jerry Galinda]

Thank you for finally agreeing to define nationalism in your terms.

As I suspected, your definition is completly different than mine, which I gave you two weeks ago. If you simply indicated your different understanding of the term right away, it would be no need for you to argue since that. Because we talked about different things, like apples and oranges.

Again, it's terminological dispute, which doesn't make sense to me.

"Your" definition is "false".

Why - ?

Because such "nationalism" - don't exist.

Indicate such "nationalists" in Europe - naive, artificial definition - which can create only such scientist who don't know the history and practice in Europe.

I have no time - but later I will try to explain my attitude towards this problem.

The definition of “nationalism” according (probably Stanford scientist) reminds me the definition of patriotism.

But it’s the difference - they are not synonyms.

[MMT]

Excuse me, but Russians do not have a right to vote freely. They MUST vote for Putin. They may not express their free will.

Our media does not seem to be blaming Putin for his convincing victory in parliamentary elections yesterday. I guess it was a OK (the voting?)

It seems that we are leaning to what maxsyno was writing earlier - "Russia's in need of support not war".

Would you agree?

[leo]

Our media does not seem to be blaming Putin for his convincing victory in parliamentary elections yesterday. I guess it was a OK (the voting?)

It seems that we are leaning to what maxsyno was writing earlier - "Russia's in need of support not war".

Would you agree?

No, I can't agree on that. "The voting" was a joke or rather to say a very sad story. People's humiliation, no more than that.

Read British papers:

The Economist - How it was rigged www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10238268

The Times - Russian elections unfair, say Western monitors http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2990947.ece

The Times - Russians told: vote for Putin’s party ... or else

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2983720.ece

The Guardian - Fraud, intimidation and bribery as Putin prepares for victory http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...219492,00.html

The Guardian - Intimidation and dirty tricks help Putin to massive landslide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2220896,00.html