1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Our budget was comparable to a CN show, which are usually 11-minutes long, are comedy-centered and have much simpler BGs and characters."

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was no color revolution because there was no color.

In an edited reply above I just added a quote from a "victim" of an actual color revolution (Ukraine's Kuchma, a patriot of his country and a former Soviet too) about how America won't defend Ukraine despite the guarantees because America is selfish and unwilling to get any serious in anything against Russia, not even meaningful economic sanctions that would make America lose their money. So much for any sort of NATO threat to Russia.

Unfortunately.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

No "Turquoise Revolution". Just admit there was no color revolution.

Btw the Ukrainian aspiration to join NATO predates their actual color revolution (Orange Revolution). Kuchma had declared that officially in 2002.

Also Kuchma (who was brought down by a color revolution, mind you), more recently:

Leonid Kuchma: I don't think we should expect [military] intervention from Russia. We gave up Crimea very easily without firing a bullet. Ukraine could have done a lot to prevent the situation we have today. As for the next step, we can see that Russia is trying to create mayhem in southeastern Ukraine. To some extent Russia is succeeding in its goal, because there is not only an ideology and the protection of Russian-speakers behind it, but also very big money is involved here -- there is no doubt about it. Many political experts believe Russia will do everything it can to destabilize the situation in Ukraine's southeastern regions. Keeping a large contingent of military forces near the Ukrainian border is part of that effort, and it is having an impact. It can only be resolved with the help of the West and the United States. (...) As for the international community, there are dozens of examples in the world in which, at the beginning, everyone makes noise about but then Americans don't want to get involved and most importantly they don't want to waste their money. They all have promised to defend Ukraine's interests. But when it comes to introducing tougher economic sanctions, no one is going to do that. Because they all have their own financial interests in mind.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

And you know what else? I just found a 2009 interview where Shevardnadze himself will explain everything to you (also about Gorbachev, who in fact wanted to "encircle Russia" totally by having the Soviet Union join NATO once the Cold War was over):

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 1990, Germany's foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured you that "NATO will not expand to the east," and that states like Poland and Hungary could never be part of the military alliance. Because the conversation had revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher even became more explicit, saying that: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." According to reports, you replied that you believed everything he said. So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?

Shevardnadze: Times have changed. At the time we couldn't believe that the Warsaw Pact could be dissolved. It was beyond our realm of comprehension. None of the participating countries had doubts about the Warsaw Pact. And the three Baltic states, which are now part of NATO, were still part of the Soviet Union then. Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. For example, a national army limited to 370,000 members and Germany waives the right to nuclear weapons. An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the end of March 1990, Genscher and the then US Secretary of State James Baker, talked about the fact that there was interest among "central European states" about getting into NATO. You knew nothing of this?

Shevardnadze: This is the first I've heard of it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did you have a conversation with your colleagues in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary about a possible eastward expansion of NATO in the spring of 1990?

Shevardnadze: No, that was never discussed in my presence.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German documents give the impression that Moscow counted on the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Did you really think that would happen?

Shevardnadze: That may have been discussed after I resigned from the ministry of foreign affairs in December 1990. However during my time in office it was not.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In May 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought up the subject of the Soviet Union joining NATO during talks with the Americans. The Americans took that very seriously.

Shevardnadze: Gorbachev had that idea but he never took any realistic steps towards achieving this. Which is why it was never really discussed amongst the Soviet leaders.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?

Shevardnadze: The question never came up.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did the subject play a role in the ratification process of the Two-Plus-Four agreement (where the signatories included the two Germanys and the four powers that occupied Germany after World War II) that unified Germany?

Shevardnadze: No, there were no difficulties whatsoever with the ratification process.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?

Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion. Even Georgia was given the green light to join NATO at the Bucharest summit in April 2008.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the conference in Ottawa on German unity in February 1990, you had five telephone conversations with Gorbachev. Did you discuss a possible NATO enlargement -- beyond the GDR?

Shevardnadze: No. We only had German reunification on the agenda, nothing else. It was important to clarify our position, because France and Britain were opposed to the reunification of Germany. They were afraid of the emergence of a superpower with a huge political, military and economic potential, right in the center of Europe. The most stubborn of all reunification opponents was the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. When she spoke to Gorbachev in June 1990, they discussed the subject for hours. In the end she changed her position.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

India needs to move from Green to Cyan revolution, says Madhya ...

Feb 10, 2021 — Bhadoriya said that to build the foundation for the Cyan Revolution, the state government has launched the NAVAAS initiative. Self-help ...

cyan revolution - Urban Dictionary

cyan revolution. it means transport solutions with revolutionary multi-layer network planning and management had a revolution.

Nah, wrong. Try again if you want to convince me there was a "color revolution".

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good for them, can also start any number of others anyday. Anyone they want can access.

Whatever "color" was this supposed "color revolution"? I didn't get an answer this question. I don't remember NATO calling this aggression. I think you just made it up.

And no one really even cares about this country, frankly. Even Americans didn't really care about the protests in Cuba. Most of them probably don't even know Kazakhstan is a real country.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

That was your own Shevardnadze talking. He's changed quite some in only 10 years about them inches, eh? But you took his 1990 self over from him, I guess you can be the Soviet foreign minister in 2022. There is no such country but this doesn't seem to discourage you.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't agree with your idiotic alternate reality where you think things like that Shevardnadze was a Russian official, no. And Russia can start its own military pacts and expand them in any direction they want, no one is going to do anything about it. And it won't be an "aggression" too unless they actually do it through aggression.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

And yes, it was always independent countries courting NATO to be allowed to join (and Georgia sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq for that, and still was refused - Ukraine had also sent their troops to these NATO missions). There was never any sort of NATO's drive to "encircle" any country ever since the end of the Cold War, the expansion on the side of the organisation has been extremely relucant and we in Poland also had to work hard to be allowed to achieve the accession to the pact. It took over 8 years of asking: https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/poland-in-nato-20-years

During your completely irrelevant "one inch" talk, we were still in the Warsaw Pact (named after our capital). As a satellite of the Soviet Union, the country that haven't existed for 30 years, and is now replaced by Ukraine, among others.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

And in the case I'd you didn't read:

Georgia's future as an independent nation is hinged on obtaining firm guarantees for the-protection of these very values and we, therefore, strongly welcome further eastward expansion of the Alliance. We congratulate all those nations that have been invited to become full members of NATO or will be offered to join in the very" near future. As the president of a Black Sea state, I am particularly satisfied that the invitations have been extended to Romania and Bulgaria. This brings the Black Sea area into NATO's sphere of interests and adds a new dimension to its security.

We welcome the progress in deepening the cooperation between NATO and Russia and the distinctive partnership that has been forged between NATO and Ukraine since we regard these developments as a cornerstone not only of the Euro-Atlantic, but also of global security.

South-East Europe, particularly the Caucasus region has been gaining ever greater importance for the entire continent and the Euro-Atlantic community at large. The region serves as a major outlet for the Caspian hydrocarbons to world markets and at the same time provides the shortest routes linking the West to the natural wealth, labor and markets in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Far East. The same routes, however carry the risk of becoming thoroughfares for the spread of new transnational threats, different from those of the past including threats posed by terrorism. We, therefore, consider that the region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, indeed merits the special attention the Alliance has shown by deepening cooperation with it.

Anyone who has spent at least a week in Georgia knows well that by virtue of the dynamic development of the civil society, practically every problem of serious concern becomes here a subject of heated public debate. Yet, I can also assure you that perhaps the only issue in the recent years against which no reasonable argument has ever been suggested is the Georgian public's perspective on the future of the country's national security which is widely seen in the context of the country's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. I am happy that at the Summit of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council I can declare that Georgia is determined to be a full member of NATO and is resolved to work hard to prepare for this historic mission.

Looks to me Shevardnadze was, let's say, much less interested even 20 years ago in your stupid "one inch" quote someone told him in the completely bygone era of a completely different geopolitical reality than you are now in 2022 somehow and for some reason. But you be you.

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

What in https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s021122h.htm also with the very same Shevardnadze "is unclear exactly" to you in the completely new situation now after the end of the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact too, when literally everything has changed?

What "color" was this "color revolution"?

2
SupremeReader 2 points ago +2 / -0

And you know what? Shevardnadze himself soon became president of Georgia and began courting NATO to accept his new and independent country. Like here: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s021122h.htm This is how irrelevant is what they told Shevardnadze in 1990 when everything was completely different.

0
SupremeReader 0 points ago +1 / -1

Gorbachev was a Soviet leader, surely he didn't talk about the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's relations with NATO during this Cold War meeting. As relevant as the Ribbentrop-Molotov if they talk about "Soviet borders".

What "secondly, Kazakhstan"?

2
SupremeReader 2 points ago +2 / -0

Whatever "one inch" are you talking about? Is it paraphrased from some treaty? Any document or even just a declaration?

There were no "color revolutions in Central Asia". And NATO was never interested in Central Asian countries other than Afghanistan, other than a short lived American affair with the Manas Transit Center (for the war effort in Afghanistan 20 years ago), and even Afghanistan has been abandoned.

3
SupremeReader 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Encirclement" from one side?

I guess the Kaliningrad Military District has been actually "encircled" by us in Poland, but that's ever since they have Physically Removed all the native Prussians from Konigsberg in 1945.

5
SupremeReader 5 points ago +5 / -0

A lightning struck Martin Luther once and it only made him more deranged.

6
SupremeReader 6 points ago +6 / -0

They might have "frontline workers" soon at this rate of Russian aggression.

2
SupremeReader 2 points ago +2 / -0

Germany and thus the EU is appeasing Moscow like if it's Ribbentrop-Molotov again, because after they shut down their nuclear power plants like the idiots they are they're now dependant on the Russian literal power in order to survive.

Only the countries like Poland or the Baltics really stand with Ukraine, and the UK (as with the recent missile deliveries in the flights bypassing Germany) but it's after Brexit. Besides, Canada too. (Not America, or at least not since Biden too over as during the supposed "Russian collusion" period they have been aiding Ukraine.)

1
SupremeReader 1 point ago +1 / -0

It was the Berlin republic (and nominally, an empire still, the Deutsches Reich, thus the Reichstag) as the government moved to Weimar (not "Wiemar") only during a short lived period of the Communist uprising that lasted 1 week. After the badly-organized revolutionary "Spartacists" in the city were ruthlessly put down in short order (and their incompetent, relucant and actually pacifistic leaders tortured and murdered by soldiers, with the Bolshevik advisor/manipulator/mastermind sent by Lenin escaping unlike them), the government moved back to Berlin, where it stayed.

Germany is a (Bundes)republik only nowadays. And used to be a "Bonn republic" due to the Communist occupation of East Berlin, again, but for a long time. But back then it was still the Berlin... empire, actually. And there was never a "third" Reich as it was always the second, the first being the so-called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

view more: Next ›