Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "NFKRZ" channel.

When the Soviet army left Europe, the Americans came there and now they don't want to leave. Europeans say that this is normal, but in fact it is a double standard.
23
Occupation means that your nation is ruled by a military administration, not a civilian government. Stop rewriting history.
7
@laurar.2053 Occupation means your region is controlled by the military administration, not by the civilian government. You call the presence of the Soviet army in Europe an occupation because your history was rewritten after the collapse of the socialist bloc. People came to power who hated socialism and therefore your history has been rewritten.
4
How many countries with the American army on their territory can conduct an anti-American policy? How many of the NATO member countries have a threat from Russia? I'm waiting for your answer.
4
@krokuke In the USSR, each national republic had its own local civil government. But after the collapse of socialism, nationalists came to power who rewrote history and called the USSR an occupier. It is incorrect to use their point of view because they have nothing to do with the policy of the soviet state.
4
@templecreations2351 If you want to be considered independent then there should be no foreign military bases on your territory. Because you have changed from Soviet bases to American ones and you are happy about it. I call this double standards.
2
The text of the Molotov Pact contains only spheres of influence, but not a military plan against Poland. Read it.
2
1. Germany destroyed the Polish state. The USSR entered the eastern territories that were no longer part of Poland. This does not mean that these two operations were coordinated with each other. 2. Occupation means that the territory is controlled by a military administration. In the Baltics, there was a civil government that chose to join the USSR. This is not an occupation.
2
USSR put pressure on the bourgeois government in the Baltics, but not on the entire nation. Occupation means that your nation has less civil rights compared to the rest of the USSR, but this was not the case. Only anti-Soviet elements and their family members were deported. After the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet period of history was rewritten in the Baltics, so you continue to insist on the term occupation. The modern government needs to create a national identity based on hatred to Russia.
2
@krokuke What is your problem? The USSR never declared that it was building a nationalist state. Russians were sent to other republics mainly as industrial workers in order to reduce the difference in the quality of life of different regions. If you open the soviet constitution, you will not be able to find laws there that restrict the rights of Estonians. These are equal inhabitants of the USSR. Thus, all this talk about the occupation is the opinion of modern politicians who are trying to create a new national identity based on hatred of ethnic Russians. But their opinion does not stand up to criticism because the term occupation means that your region should be controlled by a military administration. This was a reality in eastern Europe in the short period after the end of the war.
2
Any independent nation will not allow its own history to be demonized.
2
"Ribertop-Molotov pact, which was saying about dividing Europe" - proof please.
1
Please, quote a fragment of this pact where it says that the USSR and Germany are allies and plan to divide Europe together.
1
You are spreading false information and must apologize for this. The text of the secret protocols contains only the sphere of political influence, and not the creation of a military alliance.
1
@לעזאזלעםגוביידן The capitalist system is neo-colonial in nature. It is divided into regions that economically exploit others (metropolis) and those who are their victims (periphery). The metropolian government does this in order to have more power and gives part of the money received to improve the living standards of its people. It is not enough to say that the standard of living in Western Europe is higher, you need to find an answer why this happened. "Because socialism" is the false answer that modern government gives you to create a virtual enemy and divert your attention from its activities.
1
@tomkocur Poland and the Baltic States cannot control their ideology and worldview (incomplete sovereignty). The United States does not need to occupy these countries if they themselves have become part of the American system of globalization (Western values). But they say that they are completely independent. They condemn Soviet influence but welcome American influence. Double standarts.
1
1. Occupation means that your nation is ruled by a military administration, not a civilian government. Stop rewriting history. 2. Can you cite any Soviet document that aims to destroy the culture of the Baltics? I think not.
1
Demonization is a form of propaganda. You cannot use daemonization as an argument. Read the text of the Molotov Pact and you will see that he has no military plan against Poland. The USSR was a neutral state in 1939 and did not participate in the world war - this is true no matter what point of view you use.
1
@krokuke The USSR had an official ideology called internationalism. What's the problem if some of the people in the government are Russians? Does this negatively affect the quality of their policies? If you remember, the head of the soviet government was both the Russians (Lenin and Brezhnev), the Georgian Stalin and the Ukrainian Khrushchev.
1
@krokuke Of course not. Your culture was protected by the constitution. If the influence of Russian culture becomes too strong, then the government can change this.
1
@krokuke This is an objective process. The Russian ethnos has the highest number within the soviet state. Estonia cannot compete on this issue. Therefore, a more numerous nation exerts its influence on other peoples. This happened in many places, for example in the Crimea. But this does not mean that your culture will be destroyed because the equality of all nations is enshrined in the soviet constitution.
1
@Repoboba 1. Your numbers are wrong. 2. Russians are not foreigners for you. Lithuania was part of the Russian empire before that. 3. You will not be able to quote a single Soviet order where the Red Army receives the goal of "killing everyone you need." 4. To be occupied, your region must be governed by a military administration. 5. You should be grateful for the deportation because it ensured your safety. But modern propaganda tells you that the best people suffered. Russian liberals say the same thing. 6. Freedom of speech was proclaimed in the Soviet constitution (Article 125 from the 1936 edition). 7. Elections in the Soviet system were not between different parties, but for representatives of the progressive class, because a political party is an expression of the will of a social class. Today you vote for representatives of the parties of the bourgeois class.
1
@Repoboba 1. According to the documents, 17.5k people were deported from Lithuania in 1941, 13.3k in the period 45-48 and 31.9k in 1949. 2. Lithuania became part of the USSR in 1940 after the socialist revolution. From that moment on, its citizens associated themselves with the USSR, and not with the former Lithuania. Therefore, people from other Soviet republics were not foreigners to you. But after the collapse of the USSR, the nationalists gained power and said that it was an occupation, and the period before 1940 is correct. Projecting their opinion onto Soviet realities is manipulation. 3. The classic occupation goes like this: the Red Army destroys parts of the Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe and establishes a temporary military administration that works until the end of the economic chaos. After that, power passes to the civilian government and the period of occupation ends. This is the standard for all countries. 4. There were no alternative elections in Lithuania in 1940. This means that you cannot say that the Soviet government is illegitimate. In this case, you are dividing your history into a right and wrong period, but this is a product of propaganda. 5. You need to look not at the fact of deportation of people from Lithuania, but at what kind of activity they performed. Soviet intelligence received information that some of the Baltic nationalists were collaborating with Germany and planning to start an uprising in the event of a war. Therefore, the decision was made to deport. Also during the war, "forest brothers" appeared who killed mostly not Soviet soldiers, but Baltic citizens who supported the Soviet government. Therefore, the deportation was aimed at ensuring your safety. 6. After the collapse of the USSR, the Baltic nationalists began to create a new national identity based on hatred of the Russians. They created a theory about the dual occupation of the Baltic and said that the real patriots in WW2 were forest brothers. After the war, they lost their partisan struggle against the USSR, but you use their opinion as if they were your real government. This is illogical. 7. The term democracy means that power is exercised in the interests of the majority of people. But modern governments receive support from influential groups of people (minority), and the electoral system is a formal procedure for legitimizing their power. 8. Real independence includes the following categories: - military. - political. - economic. - ideological. - worldview. How much of this does Lithuania have today? When it was part of the USSR, then your sovereignty was complete. But after the collapse of the USSR, the vacuum in Eastern Europe was filled with American influence. Now Europe has the military presence of the American army, their political influence, the ideology is aimed at obtaining economic benefits (capitalism), and the worldview is part of the American program of globalization (their gender values, etc.). So when you say that Eastern Europe gained freedom after 1991, it doesn't sound serious. 9. If you are interested, then I am a citizen of Russia. The history of the 20th century is my hobby and I know that history should be studied using primary sources of information (preferably). For example, when someone tells me that Stalin was a tyrant who denied the idea of democracy, I can easily read his opinion on this issue. It turns out that the Soviet system denied only the liberal version of democracy, which it considered fake, and instead offered the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And if liberal democracy condemns violence, then the dictatorship of the proletariat says that violence is necessary to save your democracy from the influence of the bourgeois class and their allies (nationalists).
1
This is not parade.
1
If the Holodomor was caused by Stalin, how did it end?
1
Children of the Arbat is a propaganda book, just like Solzhenitsyn. You don't have to deny the Soviet national interests that Stalin and his government defended.
1
Can you name the scientific criterion of evil for me? Because what you are now saying is emotion. I want to see what evil Stalin did for you personally.
1
So you think that the killed Poles were friendly to the USSR? Did the deported Poles also pose a threat to the national security of the USSR? Was Stalin supposed to leave capitalism in Europe despite his own security? I'm wondering who told you that protecting your own state interests is evil?
1
Of course, you cannot confirm this with documents. Only emotions.
1
Your problem is that you are constantly trying to discredit Stalin instead of rationalizing it. Any demonization is propaganda. Try to consider Stalin's actions from the point of view of Soviet state interests.
1
You misunderstand Soviet national interests.
1
Нормальный человек понимает что термин оккупация означает господство военной администрации, а не гражданского правительства. Так что ты поспешил.
1
Shared spheres of political influence, not countries. And the USSR was not on the side of Germany in 1939, it was neutral.
1
Occupation means that instead of a civilian government, you are ruled by a military administration.
1