Russian protesters rally demands Kozlodoew ( Putin ) gotta go

[Sbiker]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

Not only it... What about your Biden and Ukraine?

 

[Sbiker]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

 

[ESay]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

Actually, I already wrote about that. The main goal of the West was to prevent Yugoslavia from gaining any influence on the Balkans and as a result of that to prevent Russia from making a stronghold virtually in the center of Europe.

The current fluctuations of the Serb government prove the strategy to be right.

 

[Sbiker]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

Actually, I already wrote about that. The main goal of the West was to prevent Yugoslavia from gaining any influence on the Balkans and as a result of that to prevent Russia from making a stronghold virtually in the center of Europe.

The current fluctuations of the Serb government prove the strategy to be right.

) Say "welcome" to China

 

[ESay]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

Actually, I already wrote about that. The main goal of the West was to prevent Yugoslavia from gaining any influence on the Balkans and as a result of that to prevent Russia from making a stronghold virtually in the center of Europe.

The current fluctuations of the Serb government prove the strategy to be right.

) Say "welcome" to China

What does it have to do with China?

 

[Sbiker]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

Actually, I already wrote about that. The main goal of the West was to prevent Yugoslavia from gaining any influence on the Balkans and as a result of that to prevent Russia from making a stronghold virtually in the center of Europe.

The current fluctuations of the Serb government prove the strategy to be right.

) Say "welcome" to China

What does it have to do with China?

China just form own territory of influence It includes almost all Africa, big piece of ME and some European countries, not so friedly with EU...

 

[ESay]

Russians have never known or accepted anything other than autocrats. A western style democracy is probably not possible in a country that demands strongman leaders.

At least, we never know time without western aggression against Russia. So, we elect chief commander, not president.

When it was unique time without western aggression at begin of 90th, democratic Eltsin was good for Russia.

I get what you are saying (i think) but "Western aggression" has been more of an excuse than a reality for quite some time now. Shitty countries all over the world love to blame some foreign foe for The People not being free.

In fact, Western support of Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and straight aggression against Serbia, were perceived by Russians as an aggression against Russia. Therefore West destroyed Miloshevich, but promoted Putin.

The Russians would have voted in another czar regardless of the things in Yugoslavia or somewhere else. Even if they had perfect relations with the West.

The NATO operation in Yugoslavia was aimed at breaking up of it, landlock Serbia and surround it by NATO allies. In other words, to reduce influence to insignificance of a possible Russian ally.

WHat the Serbia did against NATO? Nothing... It was just too weak to fight with NATO - it was a real guilt, enough for destroy..

Actually, I already wrote about that. The main goal of the West was to prevent Yugoslavia from gaining any influence on the Balkans and as a result of that to prevent Russia from making a stronghold virtually in the center of Europe.

The current fluctuations of the Serb government prove the strategy to be right.

) Say "welcome" to China

What does it have to do with China?

China just form own territory of influence It includes almost all Africa, big piece of ME and some European countries, not so friedly with EU...

We were talking about Yugoslavia. The role of China there was less than zero. Currently, Serbia doesn't rely on it much, either.