Russian Life & People Digest
Question by Templar: Will Russia be satisfied with Abkhasia and South Ossetia?
Should the West throw in the Sudetenland? Am I just being paranoid? Should England invade Russia?
Russia seems to be going the “enlightened despotism” route, would you rather see Putin or the Queen Mum in charge? Nukes or Tea?
Answers and Views:
Answer by Krytox1a
I think they want Ukrane also…
Add your own answer in the comments!
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
LEFTwing gun nut VCC says
"Should England invade Russia?"
Sure!
If you want the entire British Isles to be a heap of radioactive slag.
Aleksei S says
Yes.
You are paranoid.
Russia is not strong enough now.
And nobody there wants big war.
And russia never started large war.
King Of Perk says
No because Russia is already what 245 times bigger than Georgia? whether a grain of salt or rock, in the ocean they are all the same. What i mean by that is Russia wants it ALL. They want all the power the region will allow them to have. England cannot invade Georgia but I would like to see an international force hold ground in making sure Russia doesn't bully around former satellite states. Also the US should respond by continuing a state of the art missile defense system in Central Europe.
We the US is still a super-power while Russia is just hungry to reclaim its position. So naturally the US should be instantly aggressive when the Russians try to see what can get away with.
NOTOBAMA says
Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity. As long as that perception exists in Moscow, the risk to other former Soviet territories – and in precarious regions such as the Middle East – will remain.
By its actions in Georgia, Russia has made clear that its long-range objective is to fill that “gap” if we do not. That, as Western leaders like to say, is “unacceptable”. Accordingly, we should have a foreign-minister-level meeting of Nato to reverse the spring capitulation at Bucharest, and to decide that Georgia and Ukraine will be Nato’s next members. By drawing the line clearly, we are not provoking Russia, but doing just the opposite: letting them know that aggressive behavior will result in costs that they will not want to bear, thus stabilizing a critical seam between Russia and the West. In effect, we have already done this successfully with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
In 1918-1920 Bolsheviks "have free" the Ukrainian workers and farmers from themselves – only to kill soon half from them during Golodomor or to destroy in Gulag.
In 1940 – Bolsheviks tried too do the same with the Finnish workers and farmers – thank God, it did not happen.
But the Bolsheviks-Nazi project for providing freedom to the countries of Baltic, Poland, Moldova has very successfully ended.
Well and then the Soviet tanks freed Budapest from Hungarians, Prague – from Czechs and Slovaks and Kabul – from Afghanis.
And all this international robbery referred to as “the international help ".
Smudgeward says
No but should Russia tell the US what to do when Texas leaves the union or a new territory joins.
Fear not but the Russians are going to scare the hell out of the cushy lives brigade that runs the US and UK now, our chaps will be doing some serious back pedaling and Russia will have what it wants of its old States, it's just not our business.
justfoolingaround says
we dont want ukraine, why for? lol after all its them usin our oil, not vice versa, besides their economy is much worse than even russian
and u wudnt want uk trying to invade russia 🙂
and just one more thing to all of u: do u really believe tht russia needs more land? ok then can u try explain why for? except for "it was like that in the times of ussr, so it wud look kinda cute on the map to be like that again" 🙂 russia has a growing economy, it doesnt have that stability and the more territory u have, the harder it is to keep it up.. the little countries can make bigger leaps in their development, than the bigger ones.. just look at tiny ireland for example, which turned into a wealthy country in less than a decade.. stop eating all the sht from the tv and try to think urself 😉
gosam777 says
Yes. England should invade Russia. Then come whining to the U.S. to bail them out again