User talk:Victor V V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Estonia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SMS Talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Estonia. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. The Helpful One (Review) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, no prob, I'm just learning, these are my first attempts to improve the image of my country by correct ways. I've moved everything to the discussion pagesVictor V V (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: this set of edits, including (my emphasis):
The United States, United Kingdom and the majority of other western democracies considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal forgetting about the propositions of the Treaty of Nystad, which had secured Russian possession of Estonia and Livonia without any limitations of time, this Treaty has never been terminated.[1]
This is a fascinating tidbit, alleging Nystad was/is still in effect, interesting for debates on blogs but not encyclopedic. You appear to be well read, so you are also quite aware of the treaties signed by Bolshevik Russia, successor to the Russian Empire, renouncing for all time any claims to sovereignty over the Baltic territories, followed by numerous additional covenants and charters to that effect signed by the Soviet Union. Please cease your vandalizing edits promoting your personal POVs regarding what Estonia owes to Russia, speculating that Estonia belongs to Russia, maintaining that the Soviets did not occupy Estonia, and postulating (unsourced) why Stalin was only protecting himself when the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. (Among other speculations and postulations.) I would add that marking your edits pushing your un-agreed to editorial POV as "restoring neutrality" is a well known ploy and will not work for you here.
I see you have already received a warning above. —PētersV (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear PētersV, each of your statements here regarding all these issues, should be discussed in the corresponding section of the related page. Let's meet there, it's not the subject for private talks.Victor V V (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments were posted here because they are not a debate of article content but a request you observe proper editorial etiquette and cease promoting contentions which have no basis in scholarship in order to paint a kinder gentler Russia. I am sorry for the image of Russia and then the USSR (let's not forget the attempted coup in Estonia in the 20's) that its behavior in the Baltics was not beneficent. It is what it was. There are far better ways to paint a positive image of Russia and its people, to have pride in being Russian, than to attempt to whitewash the darker actions of its leaders. I do not confuse Russia and the Russians with its leadership (pick any epoch) and what its leadership wrought. You should try to avoid that confusion as well. It is not becoming to Russian pride (or to your reputation as an editor of integrity seeking to promote a more positive image of Russia) to stoop to contending Estonia really still belonged to the USSR anyway when Stalin occupied it, etc., etc. —PētersV (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts about pride, but I would also add that there is certain prejudice. There has been said a lot of things that "the world is against Russia", but usually such people forget that almost each of the European country, and especially the US, have its disputable pages, British occupied India and China, US destroyed the Indian culture and signed the robbery treaty with Mexica, and so on. The matter is that when we discuss Estonia-Russian relations, one should not try to hide behind the backs of "the rest of the world", we should look at the problems as they are, as they were. And I here not just paint the image, I revise the history, comparing the sources, so I am not afraid of any conflicts or to be blocked, I would dispute all the subtle matters that I find interesting, searching for original sources and demanding such sources from the others. --Victor V V (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

West won the Cold War, the Soviet Union lost and collapsed into the dustbin of history, Western historiography triumphs. Attempts to revise the outcome of the Cold War or glorify the Soviet Union is inadmissible. Martintg (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Cold war is not the war it its original sense.

2. How did you relate the war outcome and the right to impose the biased vision in Wikipedia? Or you think Russia should necessarily again conquer half-Euripe to secure the right to say anything? Besides, Estonia was also the looser in the cold war (as a part od USSR). But I quit these disputes here on my page. You'd rather look for more references and learn not to use dirty biased languageVictor V V (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A vision based on undisputable reputably verified facts is not biased. It is "biased" only because you disagree with the result. Again, your defense of Soviet leadership and its actions calls your true loyalty to Russia's image into question. Russia needs to acknowledge the past and move on, not resurrect the past and continue to inflict old wounds anew. Estonia was never legally part of the USSR, so it was the winner when the USSR disintegrated. What a shame, probably would have lasted longer without having subjugated Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. —PētersV (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Being an observer of the Orthodox easter, you would think Victor would understand the concepts of repentance and redemption. If Russia today would freely acknowledge the crimes of the Soviet Union and make good those losses inflicted upon her neighbours, i.e. return looted university collections, etc, Russia would win many friends and be more influential in the world today. Martintg (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A good point, Martintg, - Orthodox. We are aliens to the Europe as we are Orthodox. A different civilization, connected through the religion with the Byzantine Empire, which is so hated in Vatican and among catholics - this is another deep reason for very complicated attitude towards Russia. That's the reason why the casualties during both the 1st and 2nd World wars so differ inside the Europe (between Germany and France, England, etc.) and on the border with the Orthodox Christian population. The Popes also have their hand here.

That's a recent movie for the reference. A new Russian "ideological strike". http://rutube.ru/tracks/639717.html?v=8a96fcfe7400898167971e4d057e86a2 (The Fall of the Empire. Byzantine Lesson (2007). Гибель империи. Византийский урок) The movie explicating the political and economical reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire, filmed by Russian Orthodox Church--Victor V V (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor, you clearly have a persecution complex. You really need to stop reading Russian sources. Orthodox Christianity is greatly respected in the West and its reaffirmation in Russia is viewed as nothing but positive. There were no religious boundaries in WWI and WWII, only a high correlation with territorial populations. Now you appear to postulate some campaign to kill Orthodox Christians across two World Wars? —PētersV (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See my additional comments here. Apparently my comments have been taken as an attack. Orthodoxy is one of the bright lights of Russia, not a target for persecution. I'm only frustrated you have as dark a picture of attitudes toward not only Russia but clearly its people as well. Consider separating attitudes toward Russian politicians and authority from attitudes toward Russia and the Russians. —PētersV (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask you for psychological comments, and I hope you will avoid making such inappropriate personal statements. I know a lot of examples that prove my point about the catholic and Vatican attitude towards Orthodox and Byzantine (in historical studies, in architecture and style, in religion). You can just read the article Byzantine Empire - they also point that and give references. About the world wars I just state that the relations between the Germans and French, English on the battlefield was less severe than on the Eastern front, and this is the fact. There were facts that on Christmas they were singing songs together, and then became friends, as well as various cases of giving up without consequent massacres of the civil population, while on the Eastern front Hitler wanted to completely clean the land. --Victor V V (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't think there is any hostility against Othrodox nations, afterall, NATO is working hard to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO alliance. Martintg (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We work in the opposite direction. How do you think - is NATO a military block or just a peaceful organization? Why has been NATO formed? The example of Yugoslavia in the light of recent events clearly shows that - do you agree or should I develop the argumentation? --Victor V V (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I was talking of Western attitudes, not "psychology." You see the West and Western press as an anti-everything Russian cabal. It is not. —PētersV (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is. I read a lot of newspapers from various country regularly. Look at the http://www.washingtonpost.com/, or BBC, any article on Russia is full of bias, and any historical reference, as in the worst logical circle, appeals to biased "scientific" researches. Those who control the media, control the information. As you are in NATO now, you should be glad. But, alas, each historical period ends someday. I live in China now, and I can tell that soon Chinese historical viewpoint (basing on "reliable" chinese-sponsored researches) will also be among the dominating ones. --Victor V V (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you robot--Victor V V (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Every once in a while...

  • ...Some people come and discover: What an outrageous lies! And turn into totally rewriting the article. We have long discovered that russia denies anything bad related to their history. Oh great Lenin and Stalin, protectors of proletariat and friends of people!
Also we know, that some western sources may be incorrect and biased. But the point is still WP:NPOV. And either way... If Russia says something, and basically rest of the world says something else? Who do you think is wrong? Russia or rest of the world? Surely it's russia, cause russia is never wrong! :P Suva Чего? 07:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you mean my corrections to the article about Estonia, then let's discuss it there, I don't see a slightest reason to move it to personal discussions, bla bla bla.--Victor V V (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your so-called contributions into the Estonia article are anything else but constructive and helpful. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting how great and legal the Soviet and Stalins acts were. (Karabinier) 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I depends from where you look, from Estonia or outside. I find it constructive. Noone has the right to call Stalin's acts illegal without studying the original archive materials, and basing only on what US or England says. They are not the "rest of the world", it's so primitive...
Without balancing, the article promotes the fascist ambitions of Estonia, closing its eyes on history. After the balancing, it leaves everyone with his own desires, before the neutral facts and references of the article. Dixi.
  • I'm sorry, but Estonia has absolutely no fascist ambitions. Neither do Latvia or Lithuania. Don't believe what the Russian press prints about "convicted at Nuremberg" Waffen SS. Latvian Waffen SS were Allied guards at Nuremberg. —PētersV (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What about Erna Retk games, Bronze soldier, and laws against Russian language? Under fascist ambitions I mean today's Estonia.--Victor V V (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)--Victor V V (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As Stalin broke treaties, that makes it all illegal, plain and simple. What excuses were concocted to make it appear that the Soviet Union had its hand "forced" are that, nothing but concoctions. Not to mention that the USSR signed a treaty that said there was no excuse and no circumstance whatsoever under which force would be used to resolve a dispute. Sorry. You might consider that the Baltic editors have studied the Russian and Soviet positions in some detail. —PētersV (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, in the history there had been secret treaties even worse that you can imagine, but it does not prevent us from studying it neutrally. For me, there can be nothing worse that Estonian betrayal of general Yudenich in 1919. And what, maybe that was a historical chance to overthrow Bolsheviks? Should we cry that Estonia and Finland have breached everything? No. This is a fact, followed by other facts.--Victor V V (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt the competence of the Baltic editors, considering all their arguments in each of the positions that I provide comments to. (Middle Ages, relation of Munich- Molotov act, and so on).--Victor V V (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alas, your arguments are based on using some facts, projecting them, and completely ignoring other facts. Since Russia "bought" Estonia as part of Nystad, it was successor Bolshevik Russia's to give up to Estonian sovereign authority, an act validated by successor USSR. You question our competence, we question your personal historiography. You could start by not painting yours as the "neutral" view. As for Yudenich, I've already discussed who was trying to take over the Baltics. He found himself on the wrong side. You condemn Estonia for one man, yet appear to hold Stalin blameless in the occupation and annexation of the Baltics and in the deportations and deaths of hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants (regardless of ethnicity). —PētersV (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not continue this discussion here, just have no time. I am now calling some Russian specialists that have written the article on Estonia in Russian Wikipedia, to take part in discussion in the English WP. I hope that will help to elaborate a neutral version. --Victor V V (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not attempt to insert Stalinist revisionist POV in the Estonia article or any other article related to the Baltics. I have read the Russian Wikipedia article on the occupation of the Baltics. It is unacademic inaccurate clap-trap of the worst order. Do not bring that WP:OR here. Articles already have sections for Soviet historiograpy, feel free to update those with more detail. —PētersV (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not attempt to teach me what I should do, and I will not teach you. But anyway, using only Estonian and NATO position is not enough.--Victor V V (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO position is the position of Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Icleland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the USA. Who shares the Russian position? Martintg (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so many: China (not a few, eh?), Iran, France (sometimes), Germany (sometimes), Spain (sometimes), Serbia, Czech Republic (sometimes), sometimes Venezuela.
NATO is just a military block, and opinions can vary on different subjects. Opinions are mainly based on media and researches sponsored by certain money. Some countries just want money from the rich West. Soon they will like money from rich China and rich Russia, let's wait and hope :). --Victor V V (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pop your balloon, but China never recognised the legality of the Soviet annexation of the Baltics either. Martintg (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no sense in recognizing the simple fact, because Chinese Republic has been founded in 1949, with the help of the USSR. Even if a country or a group of countries make such a declaration or communique, it hardly ever means anything in terms of real politik, because we all know how it works: Washington calls you and says that there must be a communique. And after the communique is issued, the Washington Senate also makes a condemning declaration. The only thing that matters is UN Security Council resolutions, these are obligatory (if you are not Israel). --Victor V V (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Поздравляю всех со светлой Христовой Пасхой! Happy Easter to everyone!!!

Victor V V (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • And you are not promoting a revanchist position of a Russian nationalist, when discussing the applicability of the Nystad treaty to contemporary Estonia? Martintg (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as the Tartu Treaty is not recognized, then we apply to the previous Treaty, which is Nystad. --Victor V V (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is silly, the USSR also signed treaties confirming the sovereignty of the Baltics, treaties it also broke. I'm regret you don't appear to have considered my advice on Russian pride. —PētersV (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You must be on the Orthodox calendar. A Happy Easter to you as well. —PētersV (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


  • "...What about Erna Retk games, Bronze soldier, and laws against Russian language? Under fascist ambitions I mean today's Estonia.--Victor V V (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)--Victor V V (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)..."
  • How's that fascist? Would you care to elaborate please? Don't buy all the crap "kremlin tv" sells you. BanRay 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what is fascist? What's your definition? --Victor V V (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If by fascism one means an embracing of authoritarianism, overt nationalism, repression of opposition, and belief in the supremacy of the state, then Russia is by any objective measure more "fascist" than Estonia. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, when 50% of Russian-speaking Estonian population are neglected - does this number say anything when you try to calculate who is more fascist? And the suppressed meeting yesterday near the place of the Bronze soldier? 50 injured, 1 dead. Totalitarian state, this is Estonia now.--Victor V V (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppressed meeting yesterday? There were few meetings yesterday and day before yesterday. None of them was suppressed and none of them came with any injured or dead. The statistics is about the bronze night riots year ago. And this is nothing compared to your own dear Russia. This is the first riot since 1991. And will remain the only one probably for many years. On the other hand suppressed riots in Russia are very common and will brobably bring more blood in one month than Estonian one has caused in it's whole existence. Suva Чего? 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And what planet, Victor, are you receiving your news from? The Western press indicated several dozen people, mainly Russian, demonstrated quietly and without incident. —PētersV (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We have enough sources in any country to receive news. A have already mentioned that western media is not a reliable source for me, everything needs to be double-checked.--Victor V V (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So what country you live in? I don't think Russian media would lie THAT much: How could 50 of the 30 participants get injured? That just doesn't compute. I live in estonia, and I can guarantee you, there were no riots, no suppressed meetings, nothing. There were few meetings, with 30 - 50 participants. None of them got suppressed and none of them caused any violence. I was there to saw one of them with my own eyes. Others I saw from TV and read from news. Suva Чего? 06:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, your words mean not so much, I trust the Russians that live there.--Victor V V (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Um do you actually even know any russians who live here? Or if you do, are they named Dimitri Klenski by any accident? I asked around and no russophone estonians I know didn't know anything about 50 injured and one dead in this weekend. Knowing estonian journalism, if there were even one person who twisted an ankle while climbing the stairs with a poster, the newspapers would be full about articles about the event. And not only on this day, but through the week. Instead there were lots of dissapointed articles about the weekend where not even one estonian drunkard didn't go and start a fight with some russian old man. Suva Чего? 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Well, I can see you guys are having a lot of fun here. Did Russia really buy Estonia from Sweden? Seems like Russia should go ahead and try to get it's money back. Just that it's a little like some guys show a treaty that they have bought the Eiffel tower in Paris but have difficulties with claiming their purchased property afterwards. But good luck with getting a refund from Sweden then.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The other guy suggested a better way - he said that after you win the war you have the right to install your viewpoint around the globe. I can interpret that as a good reasoning for Russia to fight in future (when the time comes) for the right to say a word. Absolutely no pride and no fun, just the reality :) --Victor V V (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the argument you guys have been using a while: "Soviet won the war thus we have The Right POV about the WWII!" Suva Чего? 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that is needed is putting things in historical perspective. Estonia has been conquered by several countries during the history (which means that Estonian vision has been undergoing change each time, you remember "good Swedish time"?), and the history is not over, it just uses different names now, because whatever NATO says, it continues expansion. Estonia itself now has no power, but Russia sees NATO at own doors, therefore it again becomes the battle of ideologies.

I support the civilization theory in this respect, and so I would avoid using the dichotomy democracy/Soviet, democracy/fascist, democracy/Russian. There is no democracy. US has built its industry on captured German scientific researches, and Germans were glad to cooperate, America knew of the Pearl Harbor attack before it, and the Japanese generals were glad to cooperate, becoming rich after the war. I would not mention Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and so on, and so on.

All your arguments about aggression would just sink if you put everything in historical perspective. --Victor V V (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You really are a conspiracy theorist after all. —PētersV (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to point the elements of conspiracy theory in my statement? Or if you call scientific researches that are not sponsored by NATO-countries grants as conspiracy theory researches, then you may call it as you wish, I don't care, We speak different languages, and it just proves the civilization theory. --Victor V V (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, as you wish, if in the lack of counter-arguments you play an insulted Estonian patriot, I'll stop.--Victor V V (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism in Estonia

  • What about Erna Retk games.

Does russia have military exercise games? Yes it does. Some news say that they excercise attacking estonia in some of them. Either way it's a military excercise game with historical background. And although the original exercise route was against Soviet Forces, being against Soviet does not equal to be fascist. :P Suva Чего? 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kommersant.com/p878513/Conference_on_Russian_military_reform_held_in_America/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.26.47 (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Nazi motives is the obvious element of fascism. I haven't heard of such Russian games that you mention. The reference is needed.--Victor V V (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi motives. There are none. This is a fabrication of russian propaganda machine. Erna retk was originally performed by soldiers of winter war Suva Чего? 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Чего-чего??? You are wrong, don't ever listen to Estonia propaganda, Suva|Чего, or you are just kidding now, trying to argue the absolute truth about Estonian fascist collaboration?

http://scepsis.ru/library/id_781.html - what's wrong in this article, for example?

  • It's the usual, predictable set of complaints about Baltic politicians being a thorn in Russia's side, about Soviet rule being labeled an occupation, and about calling [the article forgot to add "convicted at Nuremberg"] "SS" members "freedom fighters" in an act of vengeance. —PētersV (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Bronze soldier

How many statues are in central of Moscow to estonian who peasants died in Siberia concentration camps? If there were even one at as prominent location as bronze soldier was, I believe estonians would be more than happy to restore some monument to Tõnismäe to the Soviet who won against Nazis.

Either way, the monument to the "Liberators of Tallinn" is pretty much pointless anyway. None of the soldiers buried there was involved with (or not even proved that ever seen) Tallinn. Also tallinn was not held by german forces while it was taken back by soviet ones at that time. So if it even hasn't been new occupation followed by mass deportations and killings, talking about liberation is bit far fetched. Suva Чего? 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This monument means a lot to the Russian speaking population, that constitutes the large percent of population of the country. Their interests are not taken into account, ignored by totalitarian measures and their will is suppressed. For them, it is not "pointless".

As for the camps, they were for those who opposed the government, and as you know, many people opposed the government. The concentration camps is the measure that have been practiced in many countries starting from the English concentration camps in Africa against boeres, by the US against Indians, during civil war on both sides, and during the WW2 against etnical Japanese, as well as by Estonia against the Russians in 1919. Therefore, the argument that the labor camps is something exclusively Soviet, is wrong. Soviet camps were not the German and Estonian death camps.

--Victor V V (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that germany and other countries do have monuments against the atrocities they have performed on the people.

About the importance of the the monument. Nobody really cared about the monument until it were made important by both estonian and russian nationalist. (This was why it was removed in first place). If it were removed in 1991 or even 2005 nobody would have even noticed. Suva Чего? 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor, now the Soviets are no worse than anyone else? Only the Soviets can lay claim to the GULAG.
As for monuments that mean a lot to the Russians, what do you say of the rehabilitation of Dzerzhinsky's bust to the courtyard of the Moscow police? The head of the dreaded and murderous Cheka?
If Russians wish to participate in the life of their country, their path is clear. All Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were forced to learn Russian. One can learn the language of one's (new) country given well over a decade, don't you think? My parents learned English in the refugee camps in Germany. It's not that difficult if you show your (new) home some respect. Of course, with Russia continuing to lie about the past, that's not setting an example of respect to follow, now is it? —PētersV (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What's so special about GULAG? Or do you refer to Solzhenitsin's 60 millions, which is considered as absurd long ago? There's a lot of lies about GULAG, it's a large concentration labour camp.
Dzerzhinsky's bust is in the hall of each office of Russian FSB. Russian Cheka is no more murderous than any other great country special service, if you look objectively.
Yes, all Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were forced to learn Russian. That's an imperialistic attitude, very bad.--Victor V V (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


  • and laws against Russian language?

Which laws are exactly those? That you need basic command of estonian to gain citizenship of estonia? Or you mean you have to speak basic estonian to work in the shop where estonian people buy their stuff?

You might be surprised but there are similar laws in russia, much more restrictive in some areas. There are similar laws in almost any country. The nature and restrictivness of the laws ofcourse depends on the country, it's language and it's role in the world languages group. Like estonian language is spoken only in estonia while russian is spoken in large parts of the world. Thus estonian language needs to be protected against russian language to keep it living.

On the other hand, I think you meant laws invented by russian press. There actually aren't laws against talking russian on streets. There are no laws that say you can't work if you speak russian. Many jobs require different language skills. You are well covered in estonia if you speak Estonian, English and Russian languages. If you don't speak one of them or you do speak only one of them, you are far less covered not even considering which languages of those three you speak. Suva Чего? 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring the large percent of population. But, as Estonians were rebelling against "Russification", then why Russians can not claim their rights, if it happened so that they live there now? I think that considering such great percent of Russian speaking population (about 50%, but the independent research should be done), it should be made the second official language.--Victor V V (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's about 25% of russians. And even less those who can't speak estonian. Suva Чего? 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I mentioned that the independent research should be done. Your number says nothing to me. As you can be sure, Estonian government can not be interested in the independent research, but even 25% is very much, considering the age range - what's the percent for working population, elder people and so on. --Victor V V (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As said, not all of the 25% can't speak estonian, and many of them aren't even russophones. Not sure about statistics in that area.

Also, the investigations are not done by estonian government but, by third party statistics agencies. Also it's visible with bare eye: Tallinn has about 50% of russophones, Idavirumaa has more russians than estonians, and rest of the estonia has mostly estonians or estophone russians. Counting the numbers together you get about same statistics. Suva Чего? 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Claiming 50% of Estonia's population is Russian (speaking, primary language) is totally incorrect. —PētersV (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks again, but I repeat: only the independent research is convincing. If you mention such - give the reference, or it's just a useless waste of space on this wonderful page. --Victor V V (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Afraid I'm at lost here. How many Russian-speakers, living in Estonia do you know, Victor? I suppose none, because I am one and I don't think I'm following you here. Going from what you've written, I suppose I'm the one who's being suppressed and discriminated. Kremlin's propaganda machine is still doing fine eh? BanRay 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Тогда, может быть, аргумент ООН Вам покажется более убедительным?

http://www.newsru.com/world/28sep2007/amigos.html

ООН предлагает Эстонии сделать русский язык вторым государственным и учитывать интересы русскоязычных граждан Эстонии следует изменить политику в области представления гражданства и сделать русский язык вторым государственным языком. Об этом, как передает агентство Delfi, заявил специальный докладчик ООН по расизму, расовой дискриминации и ксенофобии Дуду Дьен. "Факт, что в Эстонии много людей не имеет гражданства, что это центральная проблема в стране и ее решение нужно пересмотреть", - сказал Дьен на пресс-конференции в Таллине. По его словам, знать эстонский язык - это совершенно нормальное требование, но статус русского языка должен соответствовать численности русскоязычного меньшинства в демократическом обществе. "Русский язык мог бы стать вторым государственным языком в Эстонии", - заключил представитель ООН. Он подчеркнул, что язык должен быть не барьером, а мостом, объединяющим общины, а если в Эстонии 20-30% русских, то "разумно их не игнорировать". Дьен также порекомендовал изменить деятельность языковой инспекции Эстонии, которую в русскоязычной общине называют "языковой инквизицией".


Russian Wikipedia provides much more information, however disputable you might consider it.

--Victor V V (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everything in ru.wikiepdia deals with Soviet historiography. :-) —PētersV (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Doudou Diène is pretty famous of saying things without further research. The second language status would hardly grant anything. Well signs and stuff would be also in russian language, which would probably only remove the last desires to learn estonian language. People would be still required to speak Estonian language to get a job in service. But now they also would be required to speak Russian by law. This would have stronger impact for estonians, wouldn't change anything for russians.
In my opinion if we need second language in estonia this should be something neutral and international. Like English. Cause in many offices people speak english to provide neutral ground for estonian and russian speaking people. Suva Чего? 05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems most often has been missed an aspect that in case Russian was to become an official language lets say in Estonia, it would become an official language of the European Union. From there on everything, all the EU documentation, the Euros, the EU passports etc. would need to be translated into Russian as well and Russian would stand next to all the other official languages of the EU. Anybody still thinks this is going to happen?--98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Even leaving out the EU part, it's highly unlikely it is going to happen. Atleast in near future. Estonian language is spoken only in one country in the world, and only by ~1M people. Estonians don't want their language to die out. Specially to the Russian language that's heavily used in large parts of the world, and which has many related languages. This is not a decision a government can do on their own and people are definitely not going to give their agreement on this. Suva Чего? 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me put this straight before going any further Victor, if you are going to cite Delfi as a source, I'm out of here. This may sound like a revelation to you, but large portion of those living here without citizenship, never wanted one in the first place. I don't think that getting Estonian citizenship is all that difficult, but then whining and complaining is always so much easier. You live in country where non-slavic looking person can't get into a nightclub and yet you talk about discrimination. You live in a country with no independent mass media and yet you talk about totalitarianism. It's sad that people like you are happy to fall for all the crap your government feeds you, without trying to use your own heads for once. BanRay 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, any source source I bring you consider as inappropriate. Fine, then I also quit it, I'll stimulate Russian team to re-edit all Baltic-related articles. As for Russia, such an attitude towards non-slavic looking persons takes place, but mostly in Moscow. In the Eastern part of Russia there are no such things as there are too many ethnic groups here. The difference for Estonia here, when they try to even slightly suppress Russians, is that it more seems like a revenge to Soviet annexation, adding this entering NATO, this anti-Russian military block. This is not a neutral position for a small country, and in terms of real politik, once the influence of NATO decreases (maybe due to some economical crisis), and coupled with growing Russian force, Estonia again would seem as it has often been before, placing itself in a very interesting and provoking position.--Victor V V (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


One more argument that that proves absolute fascism of the country named eSStonia:

A list of most wanted Nazi suspects Article Tools Sponsored By By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: April 30, 2008

The Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of 10 most wanted Nazis, as of April 1, 2008. It was released Wednesday:

an excerpt from the article, 8th and 10th position:

8. Mikhail Gorshkow, in Estonia: U.S. officials and Jewish groups accuse Gorshkow of helping kill Jews while serving as interpreter and interrogator for German Gestapo in Belarus. He returned to native Estonia in 2002 just before federal court stripped him of U.S. citizenship for lying about his war record. Prosecutors in Estonia investigating case.

10. Harry Mannil, in Venezuela: Former officer in Estonia's political police and German security forces during Nazi occupation of Estonia. U.S. authorities investigating Mannil's 1990s visa application concluded he took part in murder of hundreds of Jews, barring him entry. Was cleared in 2005 by Estonian investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity. --Victor V V (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the history behind Männil's story, SWF failed to provide evidence to support their claim and it's impossible to convict somebody without proper evidence (at least in country, which abides Rule of Law), unfortunately SWF chose to ignore this small and unpleasant fact and continues it's accusations. Too bad, but there's nothing to do. And please, could you stop your current (sorry to say, but - ridiculous) crusade against Estonia, your rhetoric is already very disturbing and this latest name-calling is insulting. Please stop. Ptrt (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as you wish, if in the lack of counter-arguments you play an insulted Estonian patriot, I'll stop.

--Victor V V (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Um.. what counter-arguments? Yes, I admit, I don't have any - because there's nothing to respond to, there's none even first-hand arguments, the discussion above isn't insightful dispute, but plain mud-slinging from one part, what do you think, what kind of "counter-arguments" could this deserve?

But whatever, if thinking like that keeps you other way happy and reasonable, I'm fine. Thank You. Ptrt (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue with U.S. OSI proceedings is that there is no presumption of innocence, no opportunity to dispute "evidence" (the OSI has attempted to convict people as Nazi collaborators who were children at the time--manufactured Soviet evidence, brought cases against individuals whose "trial in absentia" in the USSR had its results transcripts published before the "trial" occurred,...), no right to representation. Only individuals with infinitely deep pockets can afford to even fight these sorts of proceedings. Exoneration by Estonian authorities is far more likely a true finding of innocence than a revisionist defense of fascism. By purposefully ignoring the rules of law, the OSI has to prove nothing in order to deport someone. "Proof that someone lied" needs to be little more than uncorroborated, unverifiable "evidence" which the Soviets handed to the OSI on a platter.
   It's one of the saddest chapters in U.S. justice because it also casts doubt on those few rightly accused who should be convicted in public in a court of law and made an example of, never to see the light of day again. —PētersV (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But please do not mention Rule of Law, because what you use in Wikipedia on Estonia page is nothing more than prejudice: there I bring the citation of Stalin, and the local "lawyers" say it's not relevant because of Stalin's personality that should be never cited, without any arguments (but he has never been ever tried in any court). And here, you suggest that the recognized anti-fascist organization is not correct, and the case study is needed. I simply want you to see your own "logic", or whatever you use to deliver thoughts on screen :)--Victor V V (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do absolutely maintain that the OSI did not examine evidence presented by Soviet sources and they are documented to have proceeded with cases knowing evidence was not valid and suppressing the information they knew evidence was not valid. I do not say everything the OSI did is suspect. I do say their unquestioning faith in Soviet sources call into question their actions against individuals based on Soviet evidence, those targets being those the Soviets regarded as dangerous nationalist elements, most typically from the Baltics and Ukraine. Those studies (of OSI reliance on Soviet evidence, and where that evidence has been shown to have been manufactured) have, in fact, been done.
   Hitler was never tried in any court either, so lack of trial doesn't mean lack of guilt. But you knew that. :-) PētersV (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler shot himself or otherwise he would be tried, because his country lost. Stalin's country didn't loose, it was Gorbachev's country that lost the game - do you feel the difference? If anyone could be guilty, then why not Churchill and Roosevelt? Do you know about racism in the US in the beginning of the 20 century? Who was more fascist - US or anyone else, considering that US bankers had a lot of contracts with German companies, supplying them with oil? It's easy to rewrite the history, and now for you it's easy to follow the american-british way of biased "anti-communist" vision of Russia, applying this vision even to the Middle Age period. If you find it appropriate in your own eyes, well, go on. --Victor V V (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't follow the American-British view of self-glorification. Where WWII was concerned, Roosevelt died before he could see the results of his personal secret and illegal diplomacy with Stalin, but Churchill lived to see it. If he found the Iron Curtain descending over Eastern Europe to his dissatisfaction, it was his own doing, Stalin suggested Churchill keep the paper upon which they divided up Europe after Churchill suggested they burn it.
   American racism is irrelevant to Soviet subjugation of the Baltics. The predilection of American industry to ignore politics and morals in the pursuit of profit is also irrelevant.
   No one is "rewriting" history. What the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians have been writing about their history is not changed from their first independence, has been totally consistent throughout the era of Soviet occupation, and continues to be consistent. That it can be tagged as "anti-communist" and as being "on the side" of America is irrelevant. That it fits the agendas of anti-Russian fear-mongers today is irrelevant.
   What the Baltics have written about their history and their subjugation under the Soviets is based on facts and has remained 100% consistent--and has nothing to do with the agendas of superpowers past or present.
   The charge has been made here, in WP, that anti-Sovietism = anti-Russianism = a post-Soviet phenomenon/manufacture of Baltic and Eastern European "revenge"--and the "rewriting" of history you cite is one of the manifestations. Not so. As I've written elsewhere, I know individuals who were sitting across the table from Lavrov as negotiations over the official Soviet recognition of its occupation of the Baltics were being finalized--when the Soviet Union abruptly disintegrated. What Russian politicians pronounce and what has been imbued into the collective Russian memory is not what Russian officials do, in fact, know to be true (and admitted to, in treaty, with Lithuania). —PētersV (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance (or not)

Well, again, all your "irrelevance" is here in this phrase: "Roosevelt died before he could see the results of his personal secret and illegal diplomacy with Stalin" What kind of law did he infringed, I wonder? Was the Munich agreement illegal, too? Or establishing of the Bolshevik government that granted Estonia freedom? If it was also illegal (this government has not been recognized by Europe), then Baltic freedom is illegal, too, or you just pick out the moments you need from the chain of events. I think that the word "illegal" is irrelevant, or you should refer to the certain law act or who is empowered to judge the leader of the country and the country itself, the country that obviously won the war and established Soviet democracy on the controlled lands. This democracy provided the economic growth of Baltic countries, and it was Peter the Great, who established the University in Tallinn, which contributed a lot to forming your nation and developing you language, not swedish or german. Estonia was under Swedish and German barons rule before that, but you again prefer not to mention that these barons were destroyed - you only say that Russians killed Estonians, emptied the streets, and no more facts about this period. --Victor V V (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt told Stalin which countries Stalin could go ahead and annex and or subjugate and the U.S. would raise no objections, not defend them, thereby abrogate existing commitments, etc. One country's sovereignty is not another country's to give away. Plain and simple.
   Some Baltic counterpoint:
Whether or not the Bolshevik government, not recognized at the time, was legal/illegal, implications regarding whether Baltic freedom was/is legal/illegal, picking and choosing from chains of events
  • Including all events in a chain is not picking and choosing. Chain: tsarist Russia to Bolshevik Russia to USSR. The USSR reaffirmed and expanded all treaty commitments made by Bolshevik Russia with regard to the original peace treaty with Estonia. The USSR was eventually given international recognition. There's no issue of potential illegality.
Establishment of Soviet "democracy", current and historical contributions to Estonian economic growth (and presumably the well being of its inhabitants) dating back to Peter the Great.
  • Democracies do not publish detailed election results before an election takes place. The Soviet Union did. Not a democracy.
  • Additionally, countries which observe the rule of law do not publish transcripts of criminal trials before they have taken place. The Soviet Union did. Not a regime that honored the rule of law.
  • Peter the Great
  • Economic growth: nearly all of Estonia's and Latvia's inhabitants were slain as Peter the Great conquered Livonia from the Swedish Empire so I'm not sure what economic growth they experienced. No chain of Peter the Great to Estonian prosperity.
  • Establishing the University of Tallinn: the current University of Tallinn dates only to 2005. I'm assuming you meant the University of Tartu, which was founded under the Swedes. Under the terms of the treaty between Russia and Sweden, Russia agreed not to dissolve the university. Hardly "founding" it. No chain from Peter the Great to Estonian scholarship.
  • "Destruction" of barons: if anything it was the allure of Western life under the Swedes and Baltic German barons that drew Peter the Great to reside in Riga. (As the story grows, he was visiting Riga, studying the city's defenses to learn modern warfare technique; the Swedes got a bit nervous and asked him to leave. He left, and in a fit of pique then invaded Livonia.) The German barons continued to serve tsarist Russia as faithfully as they served their prior masters--in which point I do agree, their interests having nothing to do with the welfare or improvement of the Estonians, who would remain serfs into the 19th century. But destroyed? Hardly, in fact, reinforced.
  • Economic growth, tsarist Russia, general
  • To the degree the Baltics were industrialized there was growth. As for that translating to the benefit of Baltic natives, a Soviet publication commemorating 1905 observes, quoting a Rainis (Latvian) poem (my translation)
Tomorrow I must wake early,
Not a ray of sun for me in those rooms,
There—only dust and the smoke of dim sooty lamps,
There slowly my life wilts,
There slowly, with each tick of the clock,
My sixteen hours of eternity.
  • When Russia retreated out of the Baltics in WWI, it evacuated all the heavy industry that it could, what it could not, it destroyed or sabotaged beyond repair. That is why the Baltics were forced to become agrarian economies after independence.
  • Economic growth, Soviet Union
  • Discussed elsewhere at length, however, beyond just the destruction inflicted upon Estonia and its people, any rebuilding/growth was paltry compared to what would have been experienced had Estonia remained independent and in the West. When the Soviets retreated from their year of occupation as the Nazis invaded, they stripped the place bare. When they left as the USSR collapsed, they stripped the place bare again. By my count, Russia (whatever the incarnation) stripped the Baltics bare three times in one century. It's a tribute to the Baltic peoples they even have a candle to their name--no thanks to Russian beneficence. —PētersV (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good response, thanks, I'll study that.--Victor V V (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should mention that I do mean Russia (as in administration thereof) as opposed to Russians (the people). —PētersV (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My favourite movies

A movie about some modern myths - Zeitgeist (2007), in Russian (western Christianity and American shit) http://rutube.ru/tracks/444885.html?v=91e8c17924af0baa952aabc11e0dc367

A movie about the Byzantine Empire and lessons for Russia http://rutube.ru/tracks/429725.html?v=62a0e76107114da1cac7c24d64260db6

--Victor V V (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completely illegal Estonian-NATO plan of occupying Russian territories has been exposed by brave Russian intelligence

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/05/21/pechora/ 21.05.2008, 11:47:50

ФСБ опасается эстонской экспансии в Псковскую область

В ФСБ опасаются, что политика эстонских властей в отношении Печорского района Псковской области способна повредить национальным интересам РФ, сообщает агентство "Интерфакс" со ссылкой на начальника пограничного управления ФСБ по Псковской области Ивана Бобряшова. Речь идет об усилении влияния Эстонии на данной территории. Этот эффект достигается с помощью большого количества граждан с двойным гражданством. Сейчас в Печорском районе более 10 тысяч человек имеют как гражданство РФ, так и гражданство Эстонии. Они работают в том числе в органах местного самоуправления, в государственных учреждениях, в правоохранительных органах. Бобряшов заявил, что, опираясь на этих людей, Эстония может "прибегнуть к реализации своих устремлений в экономической и политической экспансии в отношении территории РФ". Напомним, что Россия и Эстония до сих пор не заключили между собой договор о государственной границе. По словам Бобряшова, сложности с заключением договора возникли как раз из-за нерешенного вопроса о принадлежности Печорского района Псковской области. Между тем отмечается, что призывники Печорского района предпочитают служить в эстонских войсках HАТО, а не в российских вооруженных силах. Это связано с тем, что в НАТО срок службы составляет 8 месяцев против одного года в армии РФ.--Victor V V (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian intelligence blames Estonia for fallout from Putin's refusal to recognize Estonian continuity
Proof positive that nefarious intent is in the eye of the beholder. I read the same passage regarding the disputed Pskov region and understand it as follows:
  • in the Pskov region, more and more of those with dual citizenship prefer to exercise the Estonian, including military service in the Estonian/NATO forces instead of Russian
  • Russian authorities have spun this as Estonia having aspirations to the Pskov region, taking the opportunity of no border agreement as an opening to woo Russians and Russian territory away from Russia
So, as I see it:
  • Pskov's inhabitants increasingly prefer association with Estonia. Rather than admitting this reflects poorly upon Russia, Russia accuses Estonia of being underhanded.
  • Estonia ratified the border agreement. Done deal. Putin then told the Russian foreign ministry to inform the Estonians that Russia would not honor the agreement. Why? Because the Estonian ratification alluded to its power of authority coming from/being vested in Estonia's original constitution, today's Estonia being a continuation of pre-WWII Estonia. Putin, and Putin alone, is personally responsible for there being no border agreement. Of course, now that Putin is prime minister, his mistakes cannot reflect poorly upon his own person, so again, the Estonians are at fault.
If Russia has concerns, they are of its own making and have nothing to do with Estonia. Estonia is not responsible for peoples' perceptions as to which--Estonia or Russia--is more preferable to serve. -PētersV (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And which is "true" or more "true"? :-) PētersV (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. And I should clarify the beholder is the news service, your title is a perhaps colorful but not unreasonable representation of the article (as near as I can tell), and certainly the reaction which was intended to be elicited. —PētersV (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone said that one interprets the world through knowledge of oneself. It is well known that the Kremlin is attempting a creeping annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia through mass issuing of Russian passports to these people. Now when Moscow sees some residents of the Pskov region obtaining Estonian citizenship, they immediately believe Estonia must have aspirations for the region, because afterall, that is what is being done in Abkhazia. Martintg (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From your words I could suggest that Estonia has no territorial claims to Russia, and maybe even has not entered the anti-Russian militaristic bloc that places rockets in the Eastern Europe. But obviously it is not so, and you try to make a too long line of reasoning, basing on the presupposition that potential spectator of this discussion would have the same anti-Russian bias as yours, setting of not from original facts, but from emotional attitude and one-sided inclinations. --Victor V V (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have to say that as soon as Russia denounced Latvia for smuggling arms to Georgia (this was quite some time ago), I "knew" that meant that Russia was smuggling arms to Abkhazia. To me, I do see a pattern harking back to the Soviet era of:
  1. Baselessly accuse others of what you are doing yourself.
  2. Choose to interpret events not to your favor as being the direct result of planned inimical actions perpetrated by your opposition and vituperatively denounce your opposition for said actions.
  3. Finally, engage regularly and often in these sorts of high-profile theatrics over situations to detract attention from your own (underhanded) actions in the situations in question or elsewhere.
For example, it's been a pattern that Latvia-flogging rises to a fever pitch during Duma general elections, during which time Latvian oppression of Russians is painted as more despicable than the Russians blowing up Chechen bodies to prevent identification.
   This has nothing to do with Baltic bias against Russia, this is simply empirically observed behavior. That #2 mirrors your (Victor's) own reaction to this particular situation with Estonia is--and I'll avoid using "bias" here--testimony to how completely Soviet era "interpretations" of geopolitical events has become an integral part of Russian communal memory and perspective. —PētersV (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Georgia and Abkhazia is that Georgian politicians are installed by the US, therefore their regime is considered to be anti-Russian (as long as USA continues to fund NATO), but Georgia is traditionally the sphere of Russian influence, therefore helping USA in supplying arms to that region is considered to be a threat to Russian security. The same is about any buffer country around Russia, including Baltics. You may call this empire ambitions or whatever, but in your argumentation you forget to compare Russian rhetorics with the US activity and ideological coverage: 1. Rumors about WMD in Iraq and Iraqi unjustice towards Kurds - repeated thousands of times by american officials. 2. Bloody occupation of Iraq, installing loyal government. 3. Installing american oil, arms trading, infrastructure, and other corporations in Iraq. 4. Securing the position of "holy" israel. 5. Allowing Turkey to bomb Kurds, and yesterday bush imposed sanctions on the Kurdistan Workers Party. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT009086.htm

In terms of real politics, buffer countries and zones do not matter much, their fate can be agreed on paper. This is the game between Russia and USA, who installs more loyal politicians.--Victor V V (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that very few people in Estonia would want another Ida-Virumaa (and certainly none of the governments so far). There are just a few interest groups: descendants of Estonian citizens who lived in these areas (eastern part of Petserimaa), and some "ultra-principled" people. Most people understand that getting these areas back, besides being completely unrealistic, would be of no use; on the contrary, it would create lots of problems. So despite of legal status of these areas, the Russian paranoia about "territorial claims" is too ridiculous even for a psychiatric case. Or wait ... maybe it's in fact neither ridiculous nor psychiatric -- maybe creating such a paranoia is just part of a clever propaganda campaign. Like stories about "Estonian female biathletes" (see Biathlon) fighting in Chechnya that were spread a few years ago -- or the "Estonian secret service agents" shown on Russian TV (the supposed "agent" couldn't even answer a simple question in Russian - very useful to send such "agents" to Russia indeed :). Lebatsnok (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)