What do you think about the Soviet Union exporting raw materials to Germany right up to hours after operation Barbarossa was started? Your country didn't stop trading with Germany even though Germany had already occupied most of western Europe, was bombing London and persecuting the jews. Maybe because Stalin was afraid of what Germany might do if provoced? He knew the Red Army couldn't stand against Germany.

What the Soviet Union did was similar to what Sweden did. So maybe we should broaden this moral debate a little?

Eviction of all who thought otherwise than Soviets commanded, is genocide and attempts to annihilate.

Soviets tried to devastate just about every nation they conquered and occupied.
All the sufferings these nations had to endure is still shadowed by what happened to many non Russo-tribes in the Soviet area. Most of the Finno-tribes are essentially gone thanks to the Soviets. Because of the forced movings, and Soviet made famine.

And what remains of the Ukranians old customs, language and culture?

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

And what remains from finnish old customs, language and culture?

Do you eat from wooden dishes, wear hand-made clothes and every evening sing traditional finnish songs during the mastering of wooden spoons or hand-made textile under the light of splinter?

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

Please name Finno-tribes that had gone... Finno-ugrians live in Mordor, for example.

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

You know, Finns living in Finland are just one Tribe of many. The ones which lived in Eastern Karelia were smaller and thus were overrun by Moscowian Russians. Their old customs and language has little spark left, thanks to you.

Sometimes.
Our culture does have more depth than that, just like yours does.

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

Or are about to go.. The ones in Russian Federation area. Isn't it odd that other kinsmen do well? Even the Magyar are generally well off, despite your brutal occupation.

http://www.fennougria.ee/public/kaart.jpg

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

hummmmm


The Perils of Putinism
December 15, 2007; Page A12
Plans for a transition of power were unveiled this week in Russia. The news is that there won't be one.

Many Russians and foreign investors alike were cheered by Vladimir Putin's clearest signal yet of his intention to stay in charge beyond March's presidential elections. Shares soared on his endorsement Monday of longtime aide Dmitry Medvedev to nominally take his spot in the Kremlin. Shares jumped again a day later when the heir apparent returned the favor and pledged to name Mr. Putin as the next Prime Minister with, so everyone presumes, stronger powers than the next President.

HOT TOPIC



Where is Russia Headed After Putin?This choreographed switcheroo is Putinism to a tee. The President and his men trample on civic freedoms and concentrate power in the name of "order" and "stability." With the economy growing on the back of oil approaching $100 a barrel, up from $15 when Mr. Putin took office in 2000, complaints are muted -- sometimes by force. But of all people, Russians ought to have learned from history that personalizing and centralizing so much authority brings trouble down the road.

An old friend of Mr. Putin's from his KGB days told us this week that the President wanted to step down to establish a precedent for future Russian leaders. But in the same breath he said that it was too dangerous for Mr. Putin to step aside -- for Russia, and for Mr. Putin himself. This is largely true, and is another feature of Putinism.

The President has made himself indispensable to keeping the peace among his boyars. The 42-year-old Mr. Medvedev holds no sway over the influential Kremlin group of siloviky -- the ex-KGB men around Mr. Putin, a KGB colonel himself -- or the security services as a whole. To them, as well presumably to Mr. Putin, Mr. Medvedev's remarkable features are his loyalty and lack of any evident charisma. An added bonus for Mr. Putin is that his choice of sidekick-in-chief was hailed abroad as a "liberal" -- which is only true compared to the other candidates floated in recent months. Mr. Medvedev's first comments Tuesday were so deferential to Mr. Putin that no doubt was left about who will stay boss.

The Putinites have their own self-serving reasons for wanting the current regime to continue. Though less brashly than the oligarchs around Boris Yeltsin, the current establishment has done very well for itself in the past eight years. Dmitry Trenin, a Russian analyst at Carnegie's Moscow Center, writes in his new book "Getting Russia Right" that the same people "rule and own" the country. Having expropriated wealth from the previous crowd, they're worried that the same could happen to them.

Mr. Putin knows that leaving power is dangerous for a Russian politician. Every single previous national leader went out in a coffin (from natural or unnatural causes) or in disgrace. So he is looking for ways to protect himself by holding on to the reins.

This transition could have helped Russian democracy to mature. The country lost an opportunity in this decade of good economic times to build a proper and predictable political system around institutions rather than men. The blame falls squarely on Mr. Putin.

If all the President cared about was restoring economic health and Russian pride, he could have claimed credit for the few good reforms his government carried out (such as the flat 13% income tax) and rode the petroleum boom to the bank. But his actions reveal a deep unease about his own appeal to Russians.

The Kremlin went out of its way to destroy the free media, freeze out national opposition parties, cancel the elections of regional governors, and shrink independent civil institutions. The courts and the Duma were neutered, and elections made irrelevant. This month's parliamentary poll was the least free since Mikhail Gorbachev introduced perestroika.

A turning point was Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" in 2004. There, an Orthodox Slav nation rose against a corrupt and authoritarian clique in spite of a booming economy; this came too close to home for the Kremlin. In its wake, Mr. Putin has turned Russia's government into the most anti-Western outside of Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. The recent campaign saw his nationalism hit a new high pitch.

The absence of democracy is dangerous for Russia, and the world. Putinism hangs on a single man. It denies Russians a proper outlet to discuss their problems. Others will be found. Fast rising inflation has brought impromptu demonstrations. The Kremlin has opened a Pandora's box by embracing neo-fascist youth groups and ideas that will be hard to control. After the thaw under Messrs. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Russian citizens are once again nothing compared to the power of the state, and they may one day rediscover a taste for liberty. All of this makes Russia unpredictable.

In the meantime, power struggles will continue among various factions inside the Kremlin, beyond view and unchecked by laws. Contrary to its own advertising, Putinism has sown the seeds of instability. The tapping of Mr. Medvedev and the prominent role carved for Mr. Putin in no way ends the great uncertainty about Russia's near- and long-term future. It merely accentuates it.

Free Preview - WSJ.com

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Fennica, your map is ridiculous.

That's your brotha from finno-ugric Khanty's tribe:



And that's your ethnic brothas from Nenets family:

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

Fennica, are you joking? I laughed alot.

Magyars "escaped from Russian occupation" from Ural to Europe when Russians did not existed.

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

As I recall and re-read, I did not say that Magyar escaped from Soviet territory. Magyar did revolt because of the illegal Soviet occupation. In 1956.

And the map, which shows the Finno-Ugric language relations. Then you go and put Khanty's there like we'd have anything related these days, same the remnant of their original language. Sad, even from you.

While back you tried to claim that Turks were blood-kin to us, and now these. You are so keen on finding pics, do put Estonian and a Finn here aswell.

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

Surely, I'll broaden it. The trade in a war is natural thing, as well as trading partner becomes the enemy. For instance in WW1 first Russia was ally of France and Britain against Germany. At the end of WW1 British assaulted Russia. They stayed the fierce enemy for USSR and tried to blockade it's economy until their strategical considerations forced them co-operate with us against Hitler and set the naval trade. The point is not that the states do that. It is the sort of risky game contest, in which one state tries to overrun another. The point is that real powers have honour to take full responsibility to win or lose. That is honest. But there are states and societies, which always get fat in all wars just selling their services to both sides alternately like the whore, loudly blessing the stronger and condemning the loser.
In the 1944 as the Soviet Army pushed Nazis beyond the borders of USSR and started to move across Europe to Berlin, we expected there had to be bloody guerilla resistance including civilians, like our own in 1941; that all the allies and "neutral" partners of Reich will defend every square inch of it. But speed with which you gave up Germans was incredible.

You didn't comment on Soviet trade with Germany there, something you critized Sweden for.

Simple. The US and the USSR traded with Germany, as far as Hitler's actions in Europe stayed within the frames of conventional war. But Sweden traded with Germany as Hitler wound out the new type of war - racial genocide against Jews and peoples of East. When Hitler invaded Belgium and France to avenge the Versaille , annexed Austria and Sudets there were no genocide and deliberate extermination of humans.
As Swedish surrendered light-haired and blue-eyed Norvegians and other Europeans of the "incorrect" political views to Gestapo to be tortured and slain, it's damn horrable to imagine what happened to Jews. But, of course, the official history is merciful to those, who write it.

Today we have hindsight, we know what happened in Germany at the time, and when extermination of people began. Contemporary leaders didn't have that knowledge.

What was known at the time was that jews where persecuted, what was known was that Hitler wanted them gone, one way or the other, as he wanted other groups gone, and it was known what dreams he had of Lebensraum in the East. Present day Poland was already under nazi rule, a future part of the Lebensraum.

Soviet and swedish leaders had basically the same knowledge about Germany, and both countries traded with Germany, as did the US. Trade only stopped when war was declared.

So the Soviet Union can't take any moral credit, they did what they could, they didn't do what they should.

Soviet Union traded with Germany BEFORE the War, while Sweden DURING the war, providing Germany with over 80% of its metal for weapons.

It is criminal behavior. It is just like to sell weapons to the maniac when you know that he kills people.

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes