Military Review

On the "loyal allies" of Russia

118
On the "loyal allies" of Russia



The reproach is so typical that, they say, Russia did not save its ally Serbia from NATO bombings - and how can it be believed after that? For a person who knows a little history 20 century, this reproach can not but sound like a frank absurdity. You just have to ask yourself very politely and aggressively: when, strictly speaking, was Serbia an ally of Russia? That is, when Serbia did not “ask for help”, but offered something? And when was Serbia oriented to Russia?

If anything, during the Second World War the Serbs remembered Russia only when the German divisions were ready to invade the territory of Yugoslavia, but not earlier. During the Second World War, the Serbian partisan leadership was focused primarily on the Anglo-Saxons, but not on Stalin. That is, there already in the course of the guerrilla war everything was “not so simple”. To say that the Yankees and Tommy were supporting Tito with all their might would be a frank exaggeration.

The post-war history of breaking with the USSR and reorienting to the West is well-known: Stalin allegedly wanted to enslave the freedom-loving peoples of Yugoslavia, but here you are not here ... And everyone voices this and only this version: about the bad aggressor Stalin and the heroic and freedom-loving (money-loving?) Tito. And this very version of the “attempted raider seizure” is, in fact, generally accepted, and no one even tries to object and call it into question. Where is the evidence? And the evidence is held “by contradiction”: since Tito firmly arrested all pro-Soviet-minded comrades inside the country, this is no accident, and this was a salvation.

The bitter lackluster truth was that Yugoslavia did not want to enter the Soviet zone of influence. Completely and categorically. Here they had a kind of “national consensus”. And the Yugoslavs in general, and the Serbs in particular, looked at the West and only at the West (at the same Germany), but by no means at the beggar of the USSR. And all subsequent years and decades there was a clear pro-Western orientation and there were no fluctuations here. The Serbs were not interested in all the post-war decades, what Russia lives there and what its problems / anxieties are!

Full "ignore" and full euroorientation. I did not say that it was bad, and I did not say that the Serbs owed us something. But the fact took place. No “pro-Soviet / pro-Russian” opposition, no “sudden jerks to the east” were observed. Tito was one of the fathers of the Non-Aligned Movement. Ostensibly neutral ... receiving bonuses from both sides.

On the Russian Serbs remembered just after the collapse of the USSR. When they, in turn, began to pinch and press. For what? Yugoslavia was a prosperous Euro-oriented democratic country. Much more civilized and European than the same modern us Ukraine. Nevertheless, Yugoslavia "went under the knife." Czechoslovakia did not resist, and there was a peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And the Serbs rested. And there was a war, bloody and cruel, in which it was the Serbs who were accused. And the Russians were accused of not saving Yugoslavia.

I try hard to understand why the Russians should have saved the very Yugoslavia? With some kind of fright? Yugoslavia was a sovereign state, and its rulers themselves decided to be friends with whom. And they were not friends with Russia. But when NATO bombs rained down on them, it was then ... then the zealous leaped, and they remembered the Orthodox fraternity of the two nations.

Gloat? No no no no gloating, and can not be. For what they fought ... I just wanted to note that the Yugoslav leadership did not consider it necessary to enter into allied relations with Russia, moreover, at the end of the 40s, these relations were purposefully and toughly broken (it seems to me, not without a hint from our foreign "partners"). The West categorically did not need Yugoslavia in the Department of Internal Affairs, and they achieved their goal.

And after 40 years, the results of this geopolitical decision followed. And do not separate one from the other (the gap with the USSR from the NATO bombings). And so, it turns out great: bad Russia wanted to imprison Yugoslavia under Stalin and did not save under Yeltsin. Both here and there Russia is to blame, and the West is all in white. The distribution of roles is only strange, and it is not at all clear what prevented the Yugoslavs from being friends with the USSR, while the Soviet Army stood in Hungary?

They wanted to save their sovereignty? Well, they saved him! After recognizing Kosovo as an “international community,” it became absolutely clear. To win together, it is necessary, first of all, to be on the same side from the very beginning.

There is also a mention of "Libya, unsaved." The counter question will be about the same: why exactly were we supposed to save her? We had military bases there? Muammar Gaddafi defended primarily Russian business interests in Libya? No, this is not an invitation to “quarreling”, but simply direct and honest questions to those who accuse us of “non-rescue”. What was the direct and specific interest of Moscow to “pull out” the Gaddafi regime? Chinese business interests were not as serious as an example. Why Beijing did not save Gaddafi, you can ask?

That is, they periodically tell us with aspiration what a superpower China is. With value, raising up the index finger, they say: look and learn ... But why did not China save the Libyan Jamahiriya? And even did not try to do it? The main business interests in Libya were just China, but not Russia. Not so easy, say? Well, who can argue?

And if someone forgot, then Gaddafi actively financed the election campaign of Sarkozy. Why didn't the French president save his Libyan friend? For some reason, it is considered inconvenient to ask about it. Strange: Gaddafi financed Sarkozy, but not Putin, not Medvedev and United Russia, but for some reason it was the Russians who had to save him. Why didn't the heroic colonel from Libya try to financially support the political career of a no less heroic lieutenant colonel from Russia? What prevented him?

What prevented Libya from focusing on Russia? Well, this option was not even considered. Europe, China is yes. But not Russia. No, there were proposals, well, like “for denyuzhku” not to allow the UN Security Council to sanction against the Libyan state. Interesting such a proposal. But no reciprocal political / economic concessions were assumed (which is normal with respect to a respected power). A permanent member of the UN Security Council (!) Was offered a simple job for a cash settlement (like digging a ditch or distributing flyers).

And then, when Comrade Gaddafi European falcons broke the hell out of dogs, questions arose precisely to Russia. But not to France or China. Are Russians extreme? Or red? Or both?

It is very difficult to understand what responsibility Russia bears for the collapse of Yugoslavia / Libya - they were not our allies. No, when the air-raid sirens howled, they quickly remembered that there is such a wonderful country with a nuclear weapons under the name of Russia. And I even recall the statements of the Serbian politician at the time of the NATO bombings that “Russia must uncover its missiles ...”

The logic is rather strange: allied relations between countries are built up in decades, not in five minutes. Now here is such a harmful, mocking question: what if in 1999 Russia would save Yugoslavia from NATO bombings? Well, a certain “miracle in the Balkans” would have happened, and by military and diplomatic efforts we could have prevented these bombings. So, what consequences would this have for Russian-Serbian relations?

Today we already have a huge post-Soviet (post-great-power) experience of political relations with neighboring states. And simply enough, you can “figure it on your fingers”, what would be the result of “saving Belgrade from NATO”. So, hardly after that we would have a naval / air base in the territory of Yugoslavia. Very unlikely. If it did not arise in the much more favorable conditions of the Soviet era, then in the modern era we would definitely not have provided it.

Regarding the Russian business and its entry into Yugoslavia. Probably, too, everything is extremely clear, simple and clear. Suddenly, it would be revealed that the Serbs are madly grateful to us, but they prefer to do business with traditional partners. That is, after a while in Russia there would be a very inconvenient question: why did we save them?

Just knowing a little Serbs and their real behavior in European politics, it is extremely difficult to experience impetuous optimism. At that moment, when they could (without doing anything superheroic) really help "fraternal Russia" during the beginning of the Cold War, they, mobilizing the whole nation, "put the Russians in the cold." Yes, that's right - you need to call things by their proper names.

Very often bystanders of political processes pay much attention to words, beautiful gestures and political declarations. So, you can use the opposite method: “follow hands,” that is, pay attention only to real actions. Chatter is ignored in principle. Words are, you know, only words (if, of course, they are not confirmed by one-on-one with real actions).

And after the very turn in the end of 40, the fraternal Serbs felt very comfortable without “friendship with Russia” (after Stalin there were many rules, but there was no interest even in Gorbachev. To Gorbachev, Karl!). Friendship with the West was quite enough for them that way until 91 ... But when they were besieged from all sides, it was here that they “volans-nevalen” remembered a distant northern country (which “friends” usually remember only when the fluffy northern animal comes ). I would be careful not to call it "friendship." Somehow not very similar.

Once again: no one says that the Serbs / Libyans owe us something in the coffin of life. No, not so. But in the opposite direction, this wonderful principle works. What actually such interesting offered Gaddafi Putin / Medvedev? You can voice? Yes, in itself, the defeat of Libya - this is bad, this is sad. But why the blame for "non-rescue" is immediately placed on Russia? And if they were saved, then what would be interesting for us?

In the same way, “think on your fingers”: Russia saves the Libyan Jamahiriya from the death that threatens it ... The joy and gratitude of the Libyan people knows no boundaries ... This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the official Tripoli has long-established business contacts with Europe / China / USA. And so just can not change everything. And after a while, the Russians would be surprised to find that it was not them who got the most interesting contracts.

Not once or twice met harsh accusations of not supplying air defense complexes to Iran. Strange as it may seem, it is difficult to blame Russia for something, so these are the ones that have not been delivered to C-300, ay-ay-ay, what a shame. Meanwhile, with a more calm / careful consideration of the problem, the picture emerges quite different.

There is a certain interstate contract for the supply of arms (usually not some left-wing commerce trades in arms). At the same time, there was no need to talk about any “allied” relations between Moscow and Tehran - pure business. Let's do this: boldly separate the bones from the raisins. Relations with Iran have always been rather complicated (the end of the 20 of the 20th century is not an exception). We didn’t have any “obligations” to the Ayatollahs.

So C-300 to Iran is a pure weapon business. No more and no less. Well, I must mention the complicated tangle of political problems around the Iranian nuclear program and UN sanctions (UN sanctions, Karl!). Russia was not obliged to "at any cost" and in spite of everything to supply these complexes to Iran. Russia was not obliged to "substitute" in the international arena because of Iran, which almost never was its ally.

Yes, politics is so cynical. It looks funny when a state with a thousand-year-old richest diplomatic history is being tried to be divorced to be “weak” as a schoolboy. There is a contract ... but there are UN sanctions.

But even here, things are not so simple, and not everything is so simple: the United States, at the suggestion of its Israeli partners, actively wanted to bomb Iran with its undeveloped rockets, numerous centrifuges and Shiite spiritual leaders. That was, that was. And it was not empty threats - preparation for strikes was conducted very actively. And there was no war inside Iran, Iran did not attack anyone, and no matter how there were no reasons.

But, you have a nuclear program, and we believe that it is military. In fact, the differences are likely to lie in the field of oil control and independent Iranian politics. And the United States has been actively pressing Iran since the 1979 revolution. And the attack of evil Saddam had this interesting reason behind it.

The United States does not need large, independent states - they are underfoot. Therefore, Iran is actively pressed. But from this, Iran did not want to become an ally of the USSR / RF. In principle - their business. But there were no moral obligations (except for purely commercial ones) for Russia to Iran and could not be. Although it was the Russian Federation, and not the EU and not the PRC, that it actively “discharged” Iran from the attack of the “coalition forces”.

Here, one “prince of Persia” (presidential candidate) said that he did not believe that Russia would fulfill all its obligations towards Iran. In general, political obligations are not so much a matter of faith (it is different for us), as political / economic agreements. To count on the fact that Russia, on its own initiative and without any signed documents, will begin to resolve the foreign policy problems of the Persian people frankly naively.

In general, relations between Moscow and Tehran are very complicated and ambiguous. The paradox is that our friends and enemies in the region seem to be the same: both Russia and Iran are friends of Assad and the “non-friends” of various Bahraini there, Cathars and KSA ... We were even accused of supporting the Shiites against the Sunnis ... They lived! Both Iran and Russia have antagonistic relations with the USA and very good relations with China ... Both Iran and Russia are old opponents of the janissaries. You see, how much we have in common: the Russians and the Persians, which year wage the hardest war in Syria against ... those who are on the right side of history.

But friendship is somehow not formed ... Attempting to use a jump airfield in Iran to strike at the terrorists (while even Iranian generals are regularly killed by their hands!) Led to a scandal. With the construction of a certain railway in Iran (announced during Putin’s visit to this country), everything turned out to be very mysterious.

In general, Iran is not only oil, it is also a very extensive market (about 80 of millions of inhabitants), only Russian companies for some reason do not wait there. The Chinese and Europeans are another matter. That is, strategic cooperation is unevenly formed, it is not easy. The scandal over civilian aircraft (which the freedom-loving Persians prefer to buy precisely in the wicked West, but not in Russia) led to the cancellation of Rogozin’s visit at the time.

That is, with the fact that the Comrades Persians want to get more or less clear from Russia (military technologies / systems / nuclear reactors + military-political cover from the US), but with the fact that they are ready to provide in return there is no clarity. And as we know - there are no free cakes. That is why the "cooperation" is not easy and not fast. By the way, after the lifting of the sanctions, the Comrade Persians immediately declared that contracts already concluded with Russian companies need to be revised.

No, do not think that I have something against the Persians - I am completely impressed by their desperate courage and youthful maximalism. The trouble is that the American threat of "sudden Tomahawks" has not disappeared anywhere, it became especially clear after Trump was elected. The Persian comrades did not have time to rejoice at the lifting of the sanctions and calculate the profit from the “renegotiation of contracts with Russia”, as the newly elected American president clearly stated that the Ayatollahs are “radishes” and that the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program does not suit him at all.

That is, in a fairly complex foreign policy situation, the Persian comrades demonstrate the rare ability to “change shoes in the air” and change direction faster than any weather vane. The case is unconditional, but the rocket is unconditionally American ... What is this? There are two distinct forces in Iran: the Islamist nationalists and the Westerners. Conditionally of course. For obvious reasons, neither of them nor others particularly favor Russia: the former are for reasons of historically religious, the latter “because Russia is not America.”

So, either one or the other can achieve dominance - this gives little to Russia. Neither the national Islamists, nor the Westernizers can build a serious foreign policy concept that takes into account Russian interests, and the short-term petty-grass cooperation does not interest us.

Air defense systems and reactors in general no one wanted to supply Tehran (except Russia!), So this is not for us a great achievement ... if Iran had an alternative - there might have been German reactors and American air defense systems. But the Germans refused to finish building the reactors (under pressure from the Americans). With the "alternative Russian" air defense, too, everything is clear.

That is why “cooperation on the Moscow-Tehran line is going so hard and straining. Iran desperately needed the very reactors and the very air defense complexes not so much because of their uniqueness, but because of their inaccessibility for Iran. And Moscow went to certain political costs, agreeing to deliver such sensitive "goods" to Iran, quite logically counting on the "continuation of the banquet", which was not followed. That is, if we take the deal “on radars and reactors” in its pure form, then it is not profitable for Russia: the political costs repeatedly overlap the economic benefits.

According to the results, if the approach is the same - they fulfill the signed contracts and “run away” ... then it is better not to. There's no point. Russia is no longer in the situation to grab any penny. If “in the appendage” to these strategic goods Iran acquired in Russia “other different things” for “stop” billions, then yes - Russia's behavior would not be correct, but if the “cooperation” begins on reactors and air defense systems and the same ends ... you get specified in the contract. In my time.

I do not like? Not "blairodood"? Sketch me a list of countries pursuing foreign policy on completely different principles (start, perhaps, from France).

The problem of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iran (and many others!) Is that they are in principle oriented / were oriented towards the West. The axis is this: nationalism-Westernism. And the supposedly necessary for the development of "supernanotechnology" can be obtained only there, in the West ... so with all the riches of choice ... Russia doesn’t fit into this scheme almost at all, but it is actively trying to use it "for its own selfish interests." The same Iran at one time rather successfully nationalized the oil industry, relying on the fact that there was not only US NAVY on the planet, but also the Soviet Navy ... it is clear that the USSR “did not break anything off” from this.

That is, the standard scheme: being in a difficult life situation, some particularly cunning personalities are trying to push Russia and the West with their foreheads and fuck their little gesheft with it. Fine, fine, but why should we? We need such “cunning” and “biconvex” allies only in the museum. And if someone persistently wants to set us against America, then this does not mean that he is our ally.
Author:
Photos used:
narzur.ru
Articles from this series:
Purse with legs
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 24 October 2017 04: 58
    18
    "..... I’m stubbornly trying to understand why the Russians were supposed to save that very Yugoslavia? From such a fright? ...
    Yes, and you don’t understand, the author is not a fig and never ... For you to save, it is to immediately start a war with mattresses and NATA ...
    Well, “with what fright?” ... Well, probably because at the end of the 20th century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity! And only Russia could stop it, but it was hindered by the "holy times" of Borka-drunk ...
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 24 October 2017 06: 10
      38
      The article is correct! Suckers in politics and economics can not be!
      And politics is an expression of the economic interests of an individual, society, classes, professional and religious corporations, peoples and states.
      Each nation state should know what is a national priority for it and accordingly build its foreign policy with other countries. And for this, a national state ideology must be developed that expresses the interests of the majority of the country's population.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 24 October 2017 06: 36
        18
        I liked the article. I have always been opposed to representing the USSR and Russia guilty of events. This is a continuation of the imposition of a guilty complex in one way or another. Type, ah! The Bolsheviks killed the tsar (and the archives are still not open and it is not known for certain). I don’t say anything about the victory over the Nazis because everyone reads the articles here. And do not impose any blame! Then at least for modern events ---- it suddenly turns out, let Russia at least be to blame for anything! Let the Russians be ashamed and repent.
        1. insular
          insular 24 October 2017 06: 43
          32
          Quote: Reptiloid
          I’m not talking about the Victory over the Nazis because everyone reads the articles here

          But in vain. Because this is a significant topic.
          Fascism was defeated by all the peoples of the USSR, and almost to distill the brothers dress up who made the greatest contribution. But the Russians betrayed Milosevic ... And so, just once, only the Russians. Where screams Ukrainians surrendered Serbs? Where the screams of the Belarusians surrendered to the Serbs? Or are Ukrainians and Belarusians no longer Slavs? Or at that time Ukraine and Belarus did not have almost comparable armies with Russia?
          Silence ... Russians surrendered nevertheless they know.
          Around the cries of Gorbachev and Yeltsin ruined the USSR .. And where is the mention of the brothers? or their collapse (Belovezhskaya Pushcha) is unprecedented?

          I think so - if all responsibility for the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR is hung on Russia (and Russians in particular), then the achievements of these states and those times are ONLY Russia. Dot. Without options, shut up their mouths either to those who blame or to those who share in the common (but as a rule they share and blame the same ones).

          The guilt complex and the inferiority complex are purposefully driven into us. This must be fiercely resisted.
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 24 October 2017 07: 44
            +3
            Quote: insular
            Quote: Reptiloid
            I’m not talking about the Victory over the Nazis because everyone reads the articles here

            But in vain. Because this is a significant topic ..
            Well, you yourself did not become either about Germans, nor about Poles, nor about Balts, nor about Ukrainians. Why in vain?
            Not so long ago, here, in the comments, the Bulgarian wrote, ““ you left us in the 90s, you are to blame for everything! ”“ And at least someone asked, asked how and what we had, of those whom the USSR provided and supported?
            1. insular
              insular 24 October 2017 07: 46
              +4
              Quote: Reptiloid
              Well, you yourself did not become either about Germans, nor about Poles, nor about Balts, nor about Ukrainians. Why in vain?

              No, I just did. And I’m really looking forward to my favorite comment with the phrase “we had to help the Serbs because we are Slav brothers” wassat just to remember all the Slavs, who, as it were, did not owe us the Slavs, just as they did not owe to the Serbs.
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 24 October 2017 08: 03
                0
                Quote: insular
                Quote: Reptiloid
                Well, you yourself did not become either about Germans, nor about Poles, nor about Balts, nor about Ukrainians. Why in vain?

                No, I just did. .
                I did not find anything about the reproaches of these nations in connection with the Second World War.
                1. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 08: 17
                  0
                  Fascism was defeated by all the peoples of the USSR, and almost on distillation the brothers dress up who made the greatest contribution

                  Be sure to list all the "brothers" by name?
                  1. Diana Ilyina
                    Diana Ilyina 24 October 2017 09: 32
                    16
                    insular Today, 08:17 ↑ New
                    Be sure to list all the "brothers" by name?
                    Well, about the "little brothers" there has already been written so much that I think it will be unnecessary to repeat myself. In general, Peter I started this topic with the phrase that one state’s hand is the army, and the second fleet, and Alexander III closed it, once saying that Russia has only two friends, the army and navy, that’s the point! If you rephrase the emperor a little, now Russia has three friends, the army, the navy and the VKS (if we separate the VKS separately from the army), something has changed in more than a hundred years ?! No, it has not changed. I will say more and will never change until Russia and the Russians in any form exist.
                    About the Serbs, though hurt, but forced to agree with the author. All you have to do is not confuse the whole people and the policies of their government. However, this applies to all peoples. Among the Poles there are also those who are ready to restore the monuments to our soldiers, but these are more likely to be exceptions to the rules.
                    So we have no allies, and never have been. There were only forced companions, and then temporarily and out of great need! And with allies like the Anglo-Saxons in general, and enemies are not necessary.
                    1. Reptiloid
                      Reptiloid 24 October 2017 10: 04
                      +2
                      Wonderful good morning! You are back, Diana!
                      The topic of the article is not new, but there are always those who want to reproach our country, Russian people. There are always our compatriots who repent or be ashamed! As long as there are, articles should appear!
                    2. To be or not to be
                      To be or not to be 24 October 2017 10: 23
                      12
                      How not to remember the words of great ancestors !!
                      Ilyin on the goals of the West in Russia
                    3. Winnie76
                      Winnie76 24 October 2017 12: 16
                      +7
                      Quote: Diana Ilyina
                      All you have to do is not to confuse the whole people and the policies of their government.

                      This reminds me a lot of the argument - I am not a prostitute, I just really need money. In the government, all the bastards, but the people are white and fluffy, for all the good versus all the bad.
                      Vobschem Russky Serbs Phai Phai
          2. netslave
            netslave 24 October 2017 08: 36
            +1
            When they say Russian over the hill, they don’t understand the difference between a resident of the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR, the RSFSR, the Russian Federation or just Russian as a nationality. Citizen of the country = representative of the titular nation. Everything is one - everything is one.
      2. xetai9977
        xetai9977 24 October 2017 10: 20
        +4
        The article is correct in the sense that Iran is not a "friend" to anyone. This is a note of those that almost every article about Americans arises with a cry of "and we are with Iran .....!" . The Persians were always on their minds and, if necessary, can change their position by 180 degrees in a day. By the way, in Iran a real cult of the West. This is for those. who does not know the realities of this country.
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 24 October 2017 13: 37
        +2
        Quote: Tatiana
        The article is correct! Suckers in politics and economics can not be!
        And who were these same suckers? An article with a smack, whatever one may say, the moral of the category "Bolivar will not take out two" and "its own shirt is closer to the body." But is it not the case that Russia won for itself without a word of mouth with Milosevic, Saddam and Gaddafi? All of them were (became) the enemies of our sworn "partners", and so paid. It was not necessary to unleash the Third World, defending anyone, but the enemy of my enemy is always a potential ally and a real partner who is ready to be of some use. If the US behaves like a gangster country, it should be treated as it deserves. There is no dirty policy, there are dirty politicians who create all the dirt, on the same scheme a little article is concocted. If Russia is different, another pole of power, in particular, and spiritual, the morality of the Anglo-Saxons is hardly suitable for us. We are urged to be indifferent, so that from our silence the same States would finish off Iran, the DPRK, maybe Belarus ... Who will we stay with? There are no weak allies, there is a weak leader, the misfortune of Russia that we ourselves are dependent on the West, that a series of concessions, from the collapse of the Soviet Union, the withdrawal of our troops from Eastern Europe, and led to what happens in the world without a socialist power pole, without a counterweight . And finally, no need to speculate about unleashing the Third World because of Milosevic or Gaddafi, but you should be able to defend your interests, as it was in Vietnam, Korea or Cuba, by any available means, otherwise, according to such articles, we are not only Yankees on We will allow Ukraine and Georgia to gain a foothold, but they will also climb into Belarus.
    2. insular
      insular 24 October 2017 06: 21
      14
      Quote: Hurricane70
      at the end of the XNUMXth century in the center of Europe, pour depleted uranium ammunition into peaceful cities

      In the center of Europe ... Where is the center of Europe, and where is Russia.
      In Africa, children are starving.
      Quote: Hurricane70
      this is a crime against humanity!

      And the criminals have already been jailed? No? So where does Russia come from?
      If the West treacherously betrayed and bombed a peaceful European state with which it had much greater ties, Russia is to blame, which did not have these ties. This is logical!
      Quote: Hurricane70
      ! And only Russia could stop it

      Could and must from allied relations - this is not the same thing. This is what the author writes about. There was no union. There were no promises. Why all of a sudden?
      Quote: Hurricane70
      For you to save is to immediately start a war with mattresses and NATA ...

      This meant entering into direct confrontation and returning to the Cold War, but in a very indicated state, having lost the basis of its forces after the collapse. So, because of the muddy types, who did nothing to support Russia, Russia had to risk its very life as a state? So what for?
      Let the experience of the Serbs, Libyans, Iranians and Syrians be examples of "multi-vector" friends "and other" brothers ".
      Oh yes, I forgot Ukraine. Also a good example of a successful sitting on two chairs. There are also many screamers "we owe Ukraine." Yes, no more than Ukraine, and we do not oversleep Ukraine, and Ukraine overslept Russia. Unable to integrate into the Russian world, Ukraine betrayed Russia - betrayed itself.
      1. zoolu350
        zoolu350 24 October 2017 07: 06
        +7
        For your own safety and prestige. It’s always better to fight on someone else’s territory, and not on one’s own, this is an axiom. Ukraine is already our territory, and the war came there because of the Russian oligarch’s unwillingness to fight the Enemy (Fed owners) in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. He still does not want to fight with the owners of the Fed in Ukraine - part of the territory of Great Russia (USSR), which means that the war will soon come to Russia.
        1. insular
          insular 24 October 2017 07: 11
          +5
          Quote: zoolu350
          prestige.

          Is it in the 91st then? Ptestizh and the 91st, how did you come together?
          Quote: zoolu350
          in Ukraine - parts of the territory of Great Russia (USSR)

          Ukraine is not part of Russia just the stupidity of the leaders of the USSR. Tell in what year Ukraine was separated from the RSFSR? In the USSR, republics had complete independence from each other and were not part of each other. So also, as it were, not very much in the subject.
          Quote: zoolu350
          Ukraine is already our territory and the war came there because of the Russian oligarch’s unwillingness to fight the Enemy

          She came because of the meanness and treachery of Ukraine and part of the Ukrainian people, thievery and greed, permissiveness that began with the phrases “Russia owes us”, with active support and passive silence. Now, not settling, grieving that it is not convenient for their children to kill Russians in wet partials.
          1. zoolu350
            zoolu350 24 October 2017 07: 31
            +4
            In 1991 there was no prestige, and also in 1999, 2003, 2011, 2014 it was not there either. When it will be?
            And the Bryansk region of the Russian Federation is not part of the Primorsky Territory of the Russian Federation. The stupidity of the oligarchy of the Russian Federation, as I understand it?
            Of course, the oligarchy of the Russian Federation agreed to consider Ukraine as a separate state (the Bialowieza conspiracy) and immediately the enemies of the Russian people (the owners of the Fed and their slaves banderlogs) came running and began to convince the Russian people of Ukraine that they were “great Ukrainians”. But now you say: "They (the Russian of Ukraine) themselves are to blame for having become Neo-Bandera." What I will tell you. Give me the appropriate resources, and in 50 years I will be able to convince the Chinese in Beijing that they are descendants of the Russians.
            1. insular
              insular 24 October 2017 07: 40
              +3
              Quote: zoolu350
              Of course, the oligarchy of the Russian Federation agreed to consider Ukraine as a separate state (Belovezhsky conspiracy)

              Each of the republics of the USSR was equally obliged to protect the integrity of the Union. Translate at least one weighty argument, according to which the RSFSR is obliged, but not others. Or maybe you list the composition of the Bialowieza conspiracy hello?
              Quote: zoolu350
              and began to convince the Russian people of Ukraine that they are "great Ukrainians"
              Russia began to convince that they are great Ukrainians?
              Quote: zoolu350
              But now you say: "They (the Russian of Ukraine) themselves are to blame for having become Neo-Bandera."

              Once again, Ukraine is part of the Republic of Ingushetia and part of the USSR, the RSFSR (RF) part of the Republic of Ingushetia and part of the USSR, by what right can someone demand assistance from Russia, without offering assistance to Russia? Are they any special?
              Russia is obliged to help Ukraine no less than Ukraine Russia. And you somehow technically escaped the guilt of the Ukrainian oligarchy. How is that?
              1. zoolu350
                zoolu350 24 October 2017 08: 04
                +3
                [quote = insular] [quote = zoolu350] Each of the republics of the USSR was equally obliged to protect the integrity of the Union. Translate at least one weighty argument, according to which the RSFSR is obliged, but not others. Or maybe you list the composition of the Bialowieza conspiracy hello?
                Are you pretending How will the republics of the USSR protect the USSR if the authorities in the capital of the USSR (Moscow) were among the first to proclaim that they were not the USSR?
                The Ukrainian oligarchy is the same oligarchy of the Russian Federation, but with a Bandera label (only a label, not ideas).
                1. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 08: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  How will the republics of the USSR protect the USSR if the authorities in the capital of the USSR (Moscow) were among the first to proclaim that they were not the USSR?

                  Moscow is just a place of congresses of Soviets, the USSR was ruled by the Council of People’s Deputies (i.e. the woof of all republics, independent of each other and reporting only to the Council of People’s Deputies). The basic law of the USSR in Section III determined the national and state structure of the Union, and also secured the right of the republics of the Union to freely secede from the USSR. Each leaving republic - is obliged to bear responsibility for an exit independently as it is guided by own right, without compulsion.
                  Your ignorance is your problem. You can dream of anything, but it has little to do with reality.
                  The collapse of the Union is the fault of the whole Union, and not of a single republic or person. And this guilt begins, including with the Basic Law of the State.
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Ukrainian oligarchy, this is the same oligarchy of the Russian Federation
                  Logically, what can I say ... wassat and mom is the same dad ...
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 24 October 2017 08: 27
                    +4
                    Yeah, if the cement says that it is not part of the wall and flows into a puddle, then bricks without it will calmly keep the wall? Thanks to people like you, in 10 years in Voronezh and Bryansk they will start jumping and saying how Muscovites oppressed them.
                2. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 08: 32
                  +2
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  if the authorities in the capital of the USSR (Moscow) were among the first to proclaim that they were not the USSR?

                  Chronology:
                  Event One - your lie is revealed immediately:
                  On December 8, 1991 in Viskuly near Brest (Republic of Belarus), the presidents of the RSFSR and Ukraine Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk, as well as the chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich, signed the “Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States” (known in the media as the Belovezhskaya agreement). The document, which consisted of the Preamble and 14 articles, stated that the Soviet Union ceased to exist as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality. However, based on the historical community of peoples, the relations between them, taking into account bilateral treaties, the desire for a democratic rule of law, the intention to develop their relations on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty, the parties agreed on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
                  And not the authorities and not in Moscow .. And not even the RSFSR.
                  Event Two:
                  On December 10, the Supreme Councils of Ukraine and Belarus ratified the agreement on the creation of the CIS
                  And they could not ratify and then the conspiracy would be the end,
                  Event three and only now the RSFSR
                  On December 12, the agreement was ratified by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR [16]. The legitimacy of this ratification was questioned by some members of the Russian parliament, since according to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR in 1978, the consideration of this document was exclusively the responsibility of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, since it affected the state structure of the republic as part of the USSR and thus entailed changes to the Russian constitution
                  Yes, yes, the RSFSR has a separate constitution like others, for states (republics) are independent. The USSR is not RI, it is not a single homogeneous state, but a union of states.
                  Event Four:
                  On December 21, 1991, at the meeting of the heads of republics in Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan), another 8 republics joined the CIS: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the Alma-Ata Declaration and Protocol to the Bialowieza Agreement were signed the creation of the CIS
                  The others came out, already at the very end, but what remained? although it remained not to go out and proclaim the exit of the previous ones illegal and demand a revision of the agreements, dragging out the issue and postpone decisions.
                  Event five
                  On December 23, the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR ratified the Bialowieza Agreement along with the Alma-Ata Protocol [20]. Mention that Kazakhstan is a union republic of the USSR remained in the Constitution of the Kazakh SSR in 1978 (Chapter 7. The Kazakh SSR - Union Republic as part of the USSR, Articles 68-75) until January 28, 1993, when it was adopted and entered into force Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan
                  And they have their own constitution ... Well, then ...
                  Event six
                  December 25, Mikhail Gorbachev announced the termination of his activities as President of the USSR. On the same day, the agreement on the creation of the CIS was ratified by the Supreme Council of Tajikistan
                  Wow, just now ...
                  Event seven
                  On December 26, 1991, the Council of the Republics of the Supreme Council of the USSR (formed by the Law of the USSR of 05.09.1991 No. 2392-1, but not provided for by the Constitution of the USSR) adopted a declaration on the termination of the USSR in connection with the formation of the CIS
                  Death...
                  All betrayed the Union, all bodies refused. The patient is dead.
                  Well, the top of your lies:

                  In April 1992, the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Russian Federation refused three times to ratify the Bialowieza Agreement and exclude from the text of the Constitution of the RSFSR mention of the constitution and laws of the USSR [27], which subsequently became one of the reasons for the Congress of People’s Deputies to confront President Yeltsin and subsequently led to a violent dispersal Congress in October 1993 [28] [29]. The Constitution of the USSR and laws of the USSR continued to be mentioned in Articles 4 and 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - Russia (RSFSR) 1978 [30] until December 25, 1993, when the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote, which did not contain a mention of the Constitution and laws of the USSR.

                  On June 19, 1992, President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk signed a law on the complete exclusion of references to the USSR (including the Constitution of the USSR) from the 1978 Constitution of Ukraine [

                  So what's up with the first and last? Only the RSFSR and fought until the last with the death of the Union. To the end, refusing to sign this betrayal.
                  They betrayed Russia and the Union, Russia owes nothing to anyone.
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 24 October 2017 08: 53
                    +3
                    Wow. And what happened on June 12.06.1991, XNUMX. ? Everyone is trying to make this date a holiday in the Russian Federation.
                3. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 09: 02
                  +3
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Wow. And what happened on June 12.06.1991, XNUMX. ? Everyone is trying to make this date a holiday in the Russian Federation.

                  And, another ignorance on your part and an attempt to give out wishful thinking.
                  This date was head of the RSFSR selected (not the USSR), subordinate to the USSR (to the head of the USSR - to President Gorbachev).
                  What is wrong? Each republic has its own head (first secretaries of the Central Committee) and only the RSFSR did not have a head (only chairmen of the Council of Ministers).
                  Each republic has its own head, its own constitution.

                  By the way, This (the election of the President of the RSFSR) happened simultaneously with the All-Union referendum on the preservation of the USSR. And the people voted to preserve the USSR. So do not lie. The collapse occurred later when a group of persons, without having the authority to do so, entered into a conspiracy and when the Republic of the Union ratified an illegal conspiracy (read above).

                  So where are the first ones? What is there in Moscow?
                  You’re like an anecdote .. not the first but the last, not in Moscow, but in the BSSR, and that's right ... But the RSFSR disputed this until the last and, as a result, the parliament was dispersed by tanks. Yet the others quietly peacefully waved.
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 24 October 2017 09: 11
                    +2
                    Excerpt from Art. 5 of the Declaration of State Sovereignty: "the supremacy of the Constitution of the RSFSR and the Laws of the RSFSR throughout the territory of the RSFSR; the acts of the Union of the SSR that conflict with the sovereign rights of the RSFSR are suspended by the Republic on its territory .."
                    So streamline.
                4. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 09: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  So streamline.

                  Wraps around something yours. Do not apply this to me.
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Excerpt from Art. 5 of the Declaration of State Sovereignty: "the supremacy of the Constitution of the RSFSR and the Laws of the RSFSR throughout the territory of the RSFSR; the acts of the Union of the SSR that conflict with the sovereign rights of the RSFSR are suspended by the Republic on its territory .."

                  These Declarations (parade of sovereignty) on the delimitation of powers between the USSR and the subjects of the Union in the framework of the Constitution of the USSR (Brezhnev)
                  The actual reduction of the USSR to the form in which the EU now exists.
                  The collapse of the USSR, with the proclamation of the CIS, happened later.
                  Before the collapse, decisions of the USSR State Council were binding. And the President of the USSR subordinated power structures and troops.
                  Moreover, it was the Bialowieza conspiracy that stipulated the exclusion of the USSR from the constitutions of the New States, which meant the death of the USSR, in principle, contrary to the referendum.
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 24 October 2017 09: 40
                    +2
                    The destruction mechanism of the USSR was launched by Khrushchev, forced by Gorbachev in 1991. this is the last act of the “Marlezon Ballet" performed by EBN. Your fantasies that the EBN with the company wanted to create the Soviet EU have no foundation.
                5. insular
                  insular 24 October 2017 09: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  The destruction mechanism of the USSR was launched by Khrushchev, forced by Gorbachev in 1991.

                  Much earlier. With the removal of the strongest republics from the RSFSR.
                  The USSR was wretched and not strong initially. Represented a certain (very great) power in the world, but sewn with white thread. This is not a matter of conversation.
                  Quote: zoolu350
                  Your fantasies that the EBN with the company wanted to create the Soviet EU have no foundation.

                  What EBN wanted didn’t bother me at all. In his company were the leaders of Belarus and Ukraine. Actually now re-read everything from the very beginning.

                  It’s another matter that it is precisely from a legal point of view that the transition period is what the EU is, even more, the CE head is not subordinated to a single command of the armed forces, the EU just does not boldly dream about it. So the State Council of the USSR, during the perestroika period, was not just the current EU counterparts, but much more authoritative than the EU structures, in our time.
                  And only from the events of the Bialowieza conspiracy and ratification of the collapse of the State Council of the USSR lost its full force. And later, with the ratification and destruction of the mention of the USSR constitution in the constitutions of the Subjects, it was excluded as the principle of interaction of the subjects (in fact, because of which the parliament was shot).

                  Now, explain understanding of which the Russian Federation owes to someone? The exit was entirely voluntary, from the stage of the adoption of declarations of independence, to the ratification of agreements.
                  1. zoolu350
                    zoolu350 24 October 2017 10: 03
                    0
                    The Russian Federation was to defend MYSELF in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. And save the USSR for YOURSELF. Is Edrolub’s share heavy?
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 24 October 2017 11: 57
                    0
                    Quote: insular

                    The USSR was wretched and not strong initially. Represented a certain (very great) power in the world, but sewn with white thread. This is not a matter of conversation.
                    .
                    This is how wretched it is? What a slander! In training manuals got lost !!! Well, well !!!!!!
                    1. Krabik
                      Krabik 27 October 2017 04: 00
                      0
                      As if the USSR had collapsed, the conclusion is that it was not durable.
                      The word "not strong" can be replaced by "wretched", if a thought is formulated more roughly.

                      In my opinion, something like this.
                6. Rey_ka
                  Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 38
                  +1
                  And where was the leading and guiding force and the new community of man?
                  It is so inherent in man that he takes good for granted, all the more so if it is not deserved. Recall what human sacrifice is in religion? this is a reminder to everyone that you need to sacrifice something even for yourself for the sake of everyone else. but somehow we don’t want to be a victim, but everyone wants to use the result!
            2. Korsar4
              Korsar4 24 October 2017 07: 59
              +1
              No. Will not work. Archimedes got better with the Earth.
      2. BecmepH
        BecmepH 24 October 2017 07: 52
        +1
        There are also many screamers "we owe Ukraine." Yes, no more than Ukraine, and we do not oversleep Ukraine, and Ukraine overslept Russia. Unable to integrate into the Russian world, Ukraine betrayed Russia - betrayed itself.
        Excellent!
    3. Molot1979
      Molot1979 24 October 2017 06: 53
      +6
      Dear, will you have any other arguments besides the fact that the Serbs are Orthodox brothers to us? I note that some crimes against humanity are not an argument at all. If only because either pouring depleted uranium on the cities is a crime in general, regardless of whether it is in the center of Europe, or in the center of Africa, or it’s just a war, in which everything is directly prescribed for what in civilian life in the camps send. And if ammunition with uranium is a crime in general - let's save everyone around the world. True, what will we be for and will there be enough strength with such an approach? On this top even the rich USSR has overstrained, to feed all the rogues for free, not like we. And the gentlemen from the former Yugoslavia - fiery greetings. That is why they should have thought about their Russian Orthodox brothers 30 years earlier? You see, everything would be different.
      Finally, clearly in the thesis of the author of the article, the real, and not in words, ally-Assad, Russia saved in the most direct sense of the word, uncovered the rockets and entered the war on its side. Because an ally. Long and faithful. Would such Amanita Gaddafi - would rule his Jama-heriya today.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 24 October 2017 07: 14
        10
        Quote: Molot1979
        Russia saved the real, not verbally, ally Assad in the most direct sense of the word by uncovering the rocket and entering the war on its side. Because ally. Long and faithful

        Thank you, you made me morning good
        I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, right laughing
    4. Olgovich
      Olgovich 24 October 2017 06: 55
      +6
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Yes, and you do not understand the author is not a fig and never ..

      Yeah, the woman who was robbed, beaten on the street also did nothing good to the passerby. But if he does not help her, he is a dishonorable person.
      1. insular
        insular 24 October 2017 07: 27
        +3
        Quote: Olgovich
        Yeah, the woman who was robbed, beaten on the street also did nothing good to the passerby. But if he does not help her, he is a dishonorable person.

        Then how to evaluate those who joined the rapist because the passerby did not help the woman? Moreover, not only did they join the rapist, they also accuse the passerby that it was his fault.
        Does this logic seem strange to you? Maybe even suspicious? wassat
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 24 October 2017 09: 22
          +5
          Quote: insular
          Then how to evaluate those who joined the rapist because the passerby did not help the woman? Moreover, not only did they join the rapist, they also accuse the passerby that it was his fault.

          it’s not about them. And the woman obviously should not count on the help of the author: she did not have time to do anything good to him.
          But the problem is that the author also has a wife, and, according to the author, she has no one to rely on. Even to him: what if she didn’t do enough good for him? request
          1. Krabik
            Krabik 27 October 2017 04: 06
            0
            Take for example you as a passerby.

            Here the poor woman was gutted on the street by 7 thugs.
            And you are such a powerful and at the same time very cute boy, walking alongside smoking a cigarette.

            And of course, you will rush under the knife saving the still-cooled body of a poor stranger forgetting about your family, mother and relatives ?!

            Another question arises for you: what is better for you to betray your wife and mother or a stranger on the street ?!
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 24 October 2017 07: 52
        +5
        Olgovich! In ordinary life, people help older people cross the road. To the inhabitants of their country, their city. This does not mean that the Russian Federation owes to someone something beyond its borders.
      3. Rey_ka
        Rey_ka 24 October 2017 09: 57
        +1
        The concept of decency has greatly changed as one convict says: a person if he does not have a billion, then he seems to be not a person ...
      4. Rey_ka
        Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 03
        +1
        Well, the concept of decency has changed a lot. Explanatory Dictionary Ozhegova ORDER-HONEST, consistent with accepted rules of conduct. and now the rules have changed. And as one convict used to say: a person who does not have a billion seems to be not a person ....
      5. free
        free 24 October 2017 10: 38
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        Quote: Hurricane70
        Yes, and you do not understand the author is not a fig and never ..

        Yeah, the woman who was robbed, beaten on the street also did nothing good to the passerby. But if he does not help her, he is a dishonorable person.

        Why are you soft and warm in the way?
    5. raw174
      raw174 24 October 2017 08: 10
      +7
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Well, probably because at the end of the XNUMXth century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity! And only Russia could stop it

      And what are the dividends from this Russia? Who are these civilians to us? It is at the household level that one needs to act "in a patsansky style", in honor and conscience, and international politics requires calculation and a cold approach, benefits are needed ...
    6. Basil50
      Basil50 24 October 2017 08: 56
      +5
      hurricane
      Well, go and fight instead of the Serbs. Yugoslavia was behind the coup attempts in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the GDR and many more where. And all this is jointly by the French, British, Americans.
      As soon as IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH STALIN refused to participate in the war with Italy for * cutting down * the territory of Yugoslavia, in Yugoslavia all those who were suspected of sympathy for the Soviet Union were brutally destroyed. And specialists from the SOVIET UNION had to be redeemed, those whom they could and managed.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 24 October 2017 09: 11
        +1
        Quote: Vasily50
        hurricane
        Yugoslavia was behind the coup attempts in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the GDR and many more where ....... But the specialists from the SOVIET UNION had to be redeemed, those whom they managed and managed.
        I did not know about specialists.
        I know that when my grandfather taught in the 60s at the Military Academy, then among other foreign students there were Yugoslav ones. Apparently, after the events you mentioned, the USSR, as always, forgave the little brothers?
        1. Krabik
          Krabik 27 October 2017 04: 15
          0
          As if there was a choice to forgive or not.

          But now the little brothers got what they deserved.
      2. Basil50
        Basil50 24 October 2017 09: 22
        +1
        Well, the unforgettable Khrushchev spoiled wherever he could.
    7. avt
      avt 24 October 2017 09: 41
      +9
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Well, “with what fright?” ... Well, probably because at the end of the XNUMXth century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity!
      bully The zampolites pulled themselves up bully With propaganda slogans
      Quote: Hurricane70
      And only Russia could stop it, but it was slowed down "

      fool What would the Russian ponder slow down "brake? Well, and the article is correct, only the author for some reason did not add the invoices directly to the specific persons mentioned. Milosevic went to the USA before the collapse of Yugoslavia and received a blessing" for the post of "Balkan Lincoln." Actually, he ended up like Lincoln, but what about Yugoslavia - the creator of the non-aligned countries under Tito would be the Euroopean USA ...... so Milosevic didn’t have the mind to understand - the place was taken by the EU.
      Bolivar will not stand two
      Saddam simply lay down under the USAA and even cut out ALL Communists under the USSR. Here in the literal sense of the word as a sign of fidelity to the new owner. He even asked permission from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait. Well .... what did you get? Whose ally is he? What kind of buns did you have to take it out of the loop? Muamor himself outwitted himself in two chairs trying to sit, but it turned out to sit down on a toilet seat. That I had not heard about the fact that there, as in the days of the USSR in Egypt and the Democratic Social Democratic Republic, the USSR fleet base was . The current Kaftar has lost this chip after Syria, but he has begun to shout. so that the case article. Plus
    8. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 11
      +2
      But because we are Russian, and that’s why, right from birth, everyone owes everything!
    9. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 24 October 2017 19: 30
      +5
      But how else can one make a war? Just by entering it on someone else's side or how?
      The Balkans for Russia have always been a suitcase without a handle, but at the same time they drank a lot of Russian blood and all on the ball. What kind of devents did Russia have from Bulgaria as well as from Serbian brothers or Tito partisans? (Or are you talking about altruism and the brotherhood of Christian Slavs so you maybe my friend and work for nothing and feed your family with the Holy Spirit?). Yes, NATO bombers were pouring on peaceful cities, but where were the inhabitants of these peaceful cities before and if they are ostriches then who is their doctor? If you can’t find a friend (or someone who signs up) for you) but everything has a price, but in the Balkans Slavic brothers are used to slogans (like abroad will help us). And what did it take in the 19-20 centuries, but on the threshold 21 the Russians didn’t get smarter. Here it is.
    10. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 25 October 2017 00: 12
      +1
      Quote: Hurricane70
      "..... I’m stubbornly trying to understand why the Russians were supposed to save that very Yugoslavia? From such a fright? ...
      Yes, and you don’t understand, the author is not a fig and never ... For you to save, it is to immediately start a war with mattresses and NATA ...
      Well, “with what fright?” ... Well, probably because at the end of the 20th century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity! And only Russia could stop it, but it was hindered by the "holy times" of Borka-drunk ...

      Oh ... how many cliches ... one depleted uranium, which is used only for heavily armored targets (dear, infection), pours onto cities ... with F-16, I suppose ... bombs. The review is MILITARY.
    11. kyznets
      kyznets 26 October 2017 04: 51
      +1
      I would like to answer comrade Hurricane 70. It turns out that for your mental suffering from the trampled humanity in Yugoslavia or in Libya, could "only Russia" and should only Russia sacrifice its people, economic, political and other resources? What kind of nonsense is the name of the third international? Who do we, Russia and Russians still owe?
    12. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 27 October 2017 00: 23
      +1
      Quote: Hurricane70
      Well, probably because at the end of the XNUMXth century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity! And only Russia could stop it, but it was hindered by the "holy times" of Borka-drunk ...

      Well, at the end of the XNUMXth century, "in the center of Europe" massively massacred civilians. And we harnessed, saved, laid a bunch of our people and gave the little brothers independence. Then, at the Berlin Congress, the West squeezed out half of their territory. So what??? In both World Wars, the Bulgarian brothers fought against us, on the side of our enemies !!! And now they are in NATO! And the construction of the South Stream blocked !!!
      Do you think the Serbs would behave differently?
      This is called "breed sucker!" If this is yours - for God's sake! I, personally, are against it! And I don’t want my Country to do their work for others, without getting anything in return!
      How much can you step on the same rake?
      It's time to think about yourself!
    13. Dormidontych
      Dormidontych 12 November 2017 17: 58
      0
      I could stop it. But this means again to flood the alien fire with Russian blood.
      And the author is right. Yes, allies are when the oncoming movement and mutual benefit. And not when the Russian Vanya again trying to breed for free help ...
  2. tasha
    tasha 24 October 2017 05: 03
    +6
    The article is useful and necessary. I do not quite agree with the author about the "cunning" and "biconvex". Sovereign states, own politics, own interests. And to expect from them hugs and promises of eternal friendship like "Friend Bill ...", it seems to me naive ....
    A strong country - friends will appear on their own .. We need to make our country strong.
    I will share: I come across the Chinese who work in Russia. I deliver something to them, a pretty penny. And you know how ashamed of our country is when they ask where this figure is made ... Where, where ... in PRC ... sad
  3. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 24 October 2017 05: 26
    +7
    “Tricky” and “biconvex”
    but there are also multi-vector and cunning ....
  4. Molot1979
    Molot1979 24 October 2017 06: 46
    +4
    The thought is true. Love and friendship mean not just two sides, but not one at all, but also some mutual obligations and mutual efforts. In politics, things like friendship and love are not talked about at all. They are not there. There are maximum allies. But in the union, more than one player plays. And the union, as the author correctly noted, is not goat jumping five minutes before the end. These are decades of mutual work.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 27
      0
      Explanatory Dictionary: Friendship is a close TRUST relationship. And this is dangerous. if you change it, Friend can appreciate your secrets and resell it profitably to your partner
    2. Olezhek
      24 October 2017 17: 16
      0
      And the union, as the author correctly noted, no goat jumps five minutes to the full end. These are decades of mutual work.


      Absolutely right
  5. alex-cn
    alex-cn 24 October 2017 06: 59
    +2
    The logic of most of the accusations is quite clear - it is easier to manage a person with a complex of guilt. And Russia for the West is now practically uncontrollable ...
  6. MadCat
    MadCat 24 October 2017 07: 07
    +2
    The term "friendship" in relations between countries is erroneous and artificially introduced by propaganda as a justification for certain actions. It's time to move away from children's tales of incredible "friendship" between independent states ...
  7. Gardamir
    Gardamir 24 October 2017 07: 22
    +5
    The author is a huge minus. And why did Nabiullina transfer billions of dollars to America in August? Because partners and they need money.
    I understand that professing the ideology of partnership the word ally is unpleasant!
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 24 October 2017 07: 28
      +3
      Quote: Gardamir
      The author is a huge minus. And why did Nabiullina transfer billions of dollars to America in August? !

      Because the Russian economy is controlled by the states. The Russian Federation --- external management. The colony. And when did this happen? Even in the last century!
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 24 October 2017 08: 44
        +2
        This will continue as long as this exists: https://narod-novosti.com/ekonomika/?p=komu-prina
        dlezhat-zolotovalyutnyie-rezervyi-rossii- &
        ; page = 1 sad
    2. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 09: 34
      +1
      This is another example from psychology. Have you ever conducted a survey: why are you friends? 80% will answer that when I feel bad they will help me. Here is such a consumption. No one will say that they are needed so that I can help them! And now, the more capitalization is man, man is a wolf shark and food .... And the more cynical and unscrupulous the more successful and richer. The Bible only indirectly states that wealth is Sin.
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 24 October 2017 10: 40
        +1
        Well, actually “friendship” is akin to “love”, but it arises primarily on a “community of interests”. As soon as "interests" diverge, usually "dies" and "friendship" ... Of course, there are exceptions, but as one classic said: "with age everything passes and love and friendship, there remains only attachment to children .... but also she finally passes .... "
  8. kto-totutzdes
    kto-totutzdes 24 October 2017 08: 05
    +1
    The article is correct! Suckers in politics and economics can not be!
    I completely agree, perhaps the wrong times
  9. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 24 October 2017 08: 41
    +2
    Russia cannot have friendly relations with the Persians from the word "in general." The Persians have a very long memory and they will never forget the “Persian campaigns” of Russia, as Russia threw out the Persians from the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, they will not forget the occupation of WWII, the “philosophizing” of the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the Lebanese wars, and indeed the anti-Iranian rhetoric of the entire Soviet period , as well as support for Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war ....
    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 24 October 2017 08: 56
      +1
      Russia can have quite loyal relations with Iran, because the owners of the Fed (and you mattress covers) have done much more evil for Iran.
      1. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 24 October 2017 10: 55
        +4
        I would agree with you, if it were not for one “but” the Americans are sitting on cash flows and all levers of regulation of world finances are with them, it is more clear to say “they are sitting on money” robbing and having the whole world in debt, and Russia is sitting on “ naked priest "robbing his and without a poor population, and even" rolls back "to America, so that Iran is well aware that the" friendship "with Russia will not produce anything in the future (well, apart from military technologies, which in principle can already be obtained cheaper and in other places, in the same China). In the East, it is customary to respect the strong and “make friends” with the generous and hassle-free. Friendship with Russia will bring nothing but additional hemorrhoids to Iran, and this is well understood in Iran. There are more oriented to China ...
        1. zoolu350
          zoolu350 24 October 2017 16: 18
          +2
          You are a dangerous mattress pad, for you are able to think logically. I agree. The situation is exacerbated by the periodic "scam" oligarchy of the Russian Federation of Iran, for the sake of "respected partners" (the owners of the Fed). Loyalty is the maximum that the Russian Federation can count on in relation to Iran.
    2. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 09: 32
      0
      all human memory only within the limits of one generation only they emotionally vividly see the experience. And contemporaries about what happened 100-200 years ago at the level of myths. We communicate normally with the Germans; nobody in righteous anger goes to clean their face
    3. Standard
      Standard 24 October 2017 14: 21
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      anti-Iranian rhetoric throughout the Soviet period

      But Soviet specialists worked in secular Iran. And they left the Islamic revolution almost painlessly.
  10. Humpty
    Humpty 24 October 2017 08: 42
    +2
    I liked the article as a whole. Involuntarily makes you think about the quality of modern allies of Russia, I do not mean reliable, of which two are known. I mean the CSTO.
    One Russian ally would have been crushed by neighbors, but nevertheless gave the Pentagon the opportunity to set up laboratories to work with dangerous infections.
    The wisest of the allied presidents continues with word and deed the translation of his people onto the “right side of history”.
    I look at another great ally of Russia for 30 centuries of history and 2200 years of statehood, congratulations.
    Another ally is a certain country of frightened barmaleys.
    Toward the close of the "father" - a friend.
    Somehow more literate Russia needs to work with friends-allies.
  11. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 24 October 2017 08: 59
    +1
    Why the French president did not save his Libyan friend
    . this is already from the category of human psychology. a man likes no comfort. And here Sarkozy knows what and to whom he owes and it is not very comfortable for someone to be obliged (worse than a mortgage). And for Sarkozy Gaddafi as an irritant. We eliminate the irritant and again in the comfort zone .... So everything is fine
  12. captain
    captain 24 October 2017 09: 02
    +4
    “In the whole world we have only 2 loyal ally,” Alexander loved !!! to speak to his ministers: “our army and navy. Everyone else, at the earliest opportunity, will gang themselves up against us.”
    Do not add, do not diminish. Great words of the Russian sovereign. We have no friends and allies and cannot be. Nobody has yet canceled the envy of our natural wealth.
    1. Standard
      Standard 24 October 2017 14: 18
      0
      Quote: captain
      Great words of the Russian sovereign. We have no friends and allies and cannot be. Nobody has yet canceled the envy of our natural wealth.

      One German once said that with this phrase we dispersed sincere helpers.
      Note - in the complete absence of the sovereign. The fact is that the president (or general secretary) is not a sovereign.
      And the help of Mongolia, Tuva during the Second World War - how to determine it? And the same China?
      So we postpone this formulation to other times.
  13. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 24 October 2017 09: 12
    +1
    The photos already cited at the beginning of the article and with a hidden "question mark" cause an initial dislike of the author. It's my personal opinion.
    And if someone persistently wants to pit us with america, then this does not mean that he is our ally.

    The author, and who do you think is our ally?
    1. avt
      avt 24 October 2017 11: 59
      +3
      Quote: rotmistr60
      The author, and who do you think is our ally?

      I’m not the author, but yeah, I don’t bother with a similar question, because, again, it’s said yes
      Quote: captain
      In the whole world we have only 2 faithful allies, - Alexander loved !!! tell your ministers: - our army and navy. Everyone else, at the earliest opportunity, will gang themselves up against us

      Well, the rationale for this
      Quote: captain
      themselves gang up against us

      from the same author
      They are afraid of our vastness
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 24 October 2017 12: 50
      +2
      Quote: rotmistr60
      The author, and who do you think is our ally?

      And there are no permanent allies. No one in the modern world. Nobody is ready to shed blood for others because they have their own shirt ... Only situational unions according to the criteria are profitable / disadvantageous. The situation has changed - the "allies" have changed.
      Suppose we suggested that Assad or Lukashenko solve all the problems of our Western "partners". Reliable guarantees provided. That's all. And there are no more Syria and Belarus with us. For as in the old joke, the West is better than PR.
  14. Stas157
    Stas157 24 October 2017 09: 30
    +6
    The author of the article tries to take an accounting and mercantile approach to the topic - What allies should Russia have ?. The logic is simple - you are me, I am you! In fact, this problem needs to be looked at from a completely different angle. Namely. If Russia considers itself one of the centers of power in the world, then it needs and simply needs allies. No way without it! It works this way. The weak seek support and protection from the strong. That is, a weak Serbia is looking for a strong one in Russia. And there is no question who owes more to anyone! Just if you are strong you will always support the weak. And they, in turn, are weak, just make the strong strong.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 14
      +1
      Now you need to watch "you are me, I am you" otherwise you are a sucker and a loser! They always taught me: Son, if you have problems, do not ask for help, solve everything yourself, because as soon as your problems are closest to you and no one like you can understand them
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 24 October 2017 12: 58
        +5
        Quote: Rey_ka
        The weak seek support and protection from the strong. That is, a weak Serbia is looking for a strong one in Russia. And there is no question who owes more to anyone!

        The fact of the matter is that in peacetime the weak look in their mouths to the west. Eurointegrated in all places. Demonstrate undersurgery and boho-vectors. And in wartime - "Uncover Russia."
        Uncover better than your uncovered.
        1. Olezhek
          24 October 2017 17: 00
          0
          The fact of the matter is that in peacetime, the weak look in the mouth to the west. Eurointegrated in all places. Demonstrate nedogorkannost and bohatovatornost


          Well, something like this...
        2. mervino2007
          mervino2007 24 October 2017 18: 13
          0
          <Vinnie76 "The fact of the matter is that in peacetime the weak look into the mouth of the West.">
          - Because the Russian Federation is weak. Economically. Strong is spiritual. But this plays in moments of crisis, and even then not always. Therefore: helping the weak is our cross .... And we have been bearing it since those ancient times, when we were strong, in all forms ...
    2. Olezhek
      24 October 2017 17: 02
      +1
      If Russia considers itself one of the centers of power in the world, then it needs and just needs allies. Without this in any way! If Russia considers itself one of the centers of power in the world, then it needs and just needs allies. Without this in any way!


      Just if you are strong you will always support the weak.


      And when the need / danger passes - the “weak” will immediately remember that he is “independent.”
  15. win9090
    win9090 24 October 2017 09: 46
    0
    Cool allies in Russia.
    Political outcasts and killers.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 24 October 2017 10: 23
      0
      Libyans say it now everything is relative. they are now praying on Gaddafi ....
    2. bratchanin3
      bratchanin3 24 October 2017 10: 44
      +2
      Well, for some reason, Russia (the USSR and Rosimperii) always had weak and dependent peoples (states) as allies. And I had to fight with strong and self-sufficient states (Turkey, Germany, Austria, Iran ....), which can not be said about England.
  16. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 24 October 2017 10: 38
    +1
    It is unfortunate that the article appeared late. The author very clearly and simply explained complex geopolitical processes. I am grateful to the author for the article and good political analytics.
  17. Forest
    Forest 24 October 2017 10: 56
    0
    Quote: Hurricane70
    "Yes, and you don’t understand, the author is not a fig, and never ... For you to save, it is to immediately start a war with mattresses and NATA ...
    Well, “with what fright?” ... Well, probably because at the end of the 20th century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity! And only Russia could stop it, but it was hindered by the "holy times" of Borka-drunk ...

    Are you aware of the state of our aircraft at the end of 90's? When the fuel to the planes was almost tearing down the rear airliners?
  18. iouris
    iouris 24 October 2017 12: 11
    0
    The listed state leaders were clients of the USSR in the sense that they did not join the bloc led by the United States and bought weapons from the USSR. The political essence of the Russian Federation is the Anti-USSR. In this sense, the Russian Federation arose as a country of "universal people", i.e. US customer. In this status, a country cannot have allies other than the United States.
    1. Karen
      Karen 24 October 2017 22: 21
      0
      Quote: iouris
      The listed state leaders were clients of the USSR in the sense that they did not join the bloc led by the United States and bought weapons from the USSR.

      Actually, I know the name of the person whom the homeland sent to one of these countries. The group and brought to power the man from the picture.
      According to him, if someone at their work confessed to his superiors that he was tired .... in a couple of days, he bought a kondrashka from the air.
      ______
      I strongly advise you to find out how Stalin was in 1949. disagreeable to him the Bulgarian Minister of Defense was replaced ...
      _______
      In Yugoslavia ... Strong was the leader Tito. And his letter to Stalin to reconcile and not to send more shooters to him, otherwise he can also send - only once - with a + result.
      ____
      I always have before my eyes ... G. Seleznev said: "... only one scenario is acceptable ... and we will not betray Yugoslavia, and we will set up the Navy base there."
  19. turbris
    turbris 24 October 2017 12: 13
    +2
    That's right, Russia owes nothing to anyone and the experience of “helping” seems to be friends, ends with the fact that they demand reparations from us and destroy the monuments to the dead. Russia should care first and foremost about its security, and it is possible to help someone if it is beneficial to it and not vice versa. All these conversations about friends in Serbia do not hold water, therefore the Serbs themselves did not really strive to save themselves, soon they will be in NATO and the EU, there is nothing to worry about them.
  20. Old26
    Old26 24 October 2017 12: 57
    +5
    Nda !. A long time ago it wasn’t such that I reread the article twice. Rather, there is a diagonal read. The article is interesting in that it does not focus on the “emotion component”. like Comrade Hurricane70 (No offense, but the phrase about ammunition with depleted uranium is precisely the “emotional” component. It would be as if Serbia would be bombarded with exclusively ordinary ammunition, not prohibited, like ordinary bombs - this would not be a crime against humanity .... )

    No, the interest of the article is. kmk, that person said openly, but "why should we ???" Why do we have to be “plugged in every hole” at a time when we are frankly thrown.
    Some time ago, one of the TV channels showed the old Soviet film “TASS is authorized to declare ...” There are many interesting thoughts in this picture, but I will focus on one. At a conversation between Slavin (Solomin) and Zotov (Kuravleva). And the statements of Zotov (Kuravlev) about how the Americans are doing and how we are doing. I will not say that it is verbatim, but the meaning was as follows
    American get deep into the country, and we are afraid to offend

    And so it is. It was enough for any country to declare that they were following the socialist path of development, as the rain of help, sometimes free of charge, began to pour on them right away (maybe for some time this was right). At the same time, unlike the Americans, we "do not intermeddle" in every country, we are afraid to offend. But this country is changing the vector to another country (for example, to the western one) and they simply throw us. They cannot even throw Americans, not because there will be a military invasion. Just by then, the Americans will be the owners of mines, factories, minerals ... And they have two options. Throwing means invasion. Or do not throw.
    We didn’t have that. And it was enough to be replaced by the leadership of Egypt itself, as the vector changed and we were simply thrown out of Egypt. After what the USSR did for Egypt militarily (and these are two Arab-Israeli wars). Yes, and you can name a lot of other countries. When they were "pressed" - they rushed into the arms of the Soviet Union. The same Algeria. The leadership has changed - the vector has also changed. Shipments were quite significant. Only at the beginning of the 80s, Algerian aviation had about 2,5 hundred Soviet military aircraft, under a hundred helicopters (I’m not talking about other areas). But so what? Did we "get into" Algeria so that it was not profitable for them to throw us? No. And by inertia we consider all those whom we helped to consider “allies”. And to be honest, then of all the allies of the USSR in the second half of the twentieth century, only a couple of states could claim this title. - Cuba and perhaps Vietnam ...
    The author is simply talking about things that we don’t want to hear. Sometimes we turn a blind eye to the negative manifestations from such "allies" in relation to our country.
    How many of us know that in the early 80s in Syria it was planned to create a crooked naval base. Not the MTO point that we have now, but the base. With a parking place for about 30-40 ships, including our aircraft carriers cruisers. With the airfield, which was supposed to be based up to 4 regiments. including bombers. It seemed that after all, reach out and the base will be. Moreover, it seems that the then president, the father of the current H. Assad, was “on the grave of life” obliged to us for the military-economic assistance that the USSR provided him. But no. He did not like the opinion of the USSR about the Syrian invasion of Lebanon - and the base was covered with a copper basin. And why? Yes, because there were no “levers” to click on it

    So it is now. The author is somewhat right. Once the Persians allowed us to fly through their territory and use their air base as an airfield, and that’s all. We melted right away - how come ALLIES. Some here at the military offer to drive everything to Iran, including ICBMs and nuclear weapons .. But in fact, all this revolves around one or two contracts. And they are not allies to us. We have similar interests - yes. But not more. The Allies airbase is no longer allowed to use us, to shoot from the Caspian, instead of chasing bombers around Europe - too ...
    In short, IMHO the article still makes you think that it’s rather rare in
    1. Standard
      Standard 24 October 2017 13: 37
      0
      Somewhere recently there was a serious article about historical relations with Iran. Particularly impressed with the slogan "Death of Russia."
    2. Olezhek
      24 October 2017 17: 08
      0
      Some here at the VO offer to drive there, to Iran, everything, including ICBMs and nuclear weapons .. And in fact it all revolves around one or two contracts.


      We have similar interests - yes. But not more.


      Oddly enough - in fact almost so.
    3. xtur
      xtur 26 October 2017 10: 58
      0
      > So about it is. It was enough for a country to declare that they were following the socialist path of development, when a rain of help began to pour down on them, sometimes free of charge (maybe for a while this was right).

      the position of the author of the article is extremely infantile,
      Never, under any social order, are resources unownedThe resources that were spent on foreign countries were quite demanded in the USSR, and could well be used in the USSR, therefore there is no reason to believe that the decisions on the use of these resources were unreasonable, and that there was no struggle for them.
      For the influence on each country that has successful / important resources, the same war went on between the countries.
      It doesn’t follow that the Soviet special services did not fight for influence in all the countries from which the USSR was thrown out - whoever must defend Soviet investments, the army, special services, diplomats are full-time defenders of foreign policy investments. It’s just that an equal rival fought against the USSR — the USA + England, with both resources and personnel who know the situation in these countries. Sometimes the USSR won the special services war, sometimes it lost - in war as in war. And only tantrums fall from this into a stupor
  21. Standard
    Standard 24 October 2017 13: 33
    0
    For some reason, the author did not recall Skople destroyed by the earthquake. Which Khrushchev completely restored at Soviet expense. So there was some period of friendship?
  22. Sektant
    Sektant 24 October 2017 14: 38
    0
    What kind of diarrhea? What ur - mentally inferior - 0d wrote this?
  23. Sektant
    Sektant 24 October 2017 14: 51
    +1
    Serbs are a small nation and, unlike Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles and others, they remember and pass on their respect and gratitude to their generations. To evaluate "what he did for me" is in the spirit of liberalists!
    1. Alexander Baryshnikov
      Alexander Baryshnikov 2 November 2017 04: 31
      0
      Your nickname is not very, but they said the right thing. And these liberals are descendants of those Soviet hucksters "you to me - I to you." And do not be shy.
  24. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 24 October 2017 16: 49
    0
    Quote: Tatiana
    You cannot be suckers in politics and economics!

    And writing off multibillion-dollar debts to generally poor countries and not having anything in return - how is it? what
    An interesting article, there are rarely such. 100500 ++++
    1. Alexander Baryshnikov
      Alexander Baryshnikov 2 November 2017 04: 29
      0
      Remove the Soviet coat of arms from the avatar, "internationalist." Confused.
      1. 16112014nk
        16112014nk 2 November 2017 11: 50
        0
        I was born in the Soviet Union! And I have a passport of a citizen of the USSR!
  25. borys
    borys 24 October 2017 20: 28
    0
    At first glance, the article is correct. But not so simple. Indeed, Russia to other states
    should not. But Russia has the right and must defend its own interests. When drinking
    supported the sanctions against Saddam. After some time, the Americans dumped Saddam. Together with
    with him covered the copper basin and the debts of Iraq to the Soviet Union / Russia. A lot of money. And then on
    ISIS arose in this territory, which now has to be fought. Interestingly, the main burden
    this war falls precisely on Russia. In the process, you have to somehow enter into agreements with
    with the same Iran and Turkey. So was it necessary or not to support the "son of a bitch" Saddam?
  26. Old26
    Old26 24 October 2017 21: 39
    0
    Quote: borys
    But Russia has the right and must defend its own interests. When drinking
    supported the sanctions against Saddam.

    Sanctions against Saddam EMNIP were imposed after his occupation of Kuwait. Introduced on August 2, 1990. On August 3, the USSR joined the sanctions. Do you think it was necessary not to support? After capturing a neighboring country?
  27. Yarik
    Yarik 25 October 2017 00: 24
    0
    The author lied a bit about political gain. For Russia, the main thing is that striped would not appear on the Caspian Sea from Iran. It was necessary to talk about this, and not about how little we earned there. All that they would earn there would still go to Cyprus or the islands.
  28. xtur
    xtur 26 October 2017 10: 25
    0
    The article is saturated with incredible infantilism. the author is not aware of the geopolitical interests and that the position of the elites is amenable to correction.

    And Gaddafi was the author of a completely original concept of society, including he was absolutely fair not with everything along the way even with the USSR, not to mention the Russian Federation. Iran is really a thing in itself and is trying to be as independent as possible - and given how many times it was thrown by the Russian Federation to please the Americans, its caution towards the Russian Federation can hardly be called unjustified
  29. Sergey824
    Sergey824 26 October 2017 17: 43
    0
    Thanks to the author. Indeed, it is very convenient, in which case to blame Russia. Are we Mother Teresa? Pioneer, who is responsible for everything?
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 27 October 2017 14: 03
    +1
    The correct article. Why should Russians save everyone? Already saved Europe from Napoleon from Hitler and where is the gratitude? Europeans enthusiastically water us on a competitive basis. The USSR helped all the underdeveloped countries. Industry worked. GDP grew, and in stores it was a rolling ball and rolled down to food coupons. Now I look, everything is back to square one again from Russia there is humanitarian aid to Syria, it would be better if they distributed these products to pensioners.
  32. intuzazist
    intuzazist 28 October 2017 19: 50
    +1
    Quote: Hurricane70
    Well, probably because at the end of the XNUMXth century in the center of Europe, pouring ammunition with depleted uranium into peaceful cities is a crime against humanity!

    And yet, with what fright did Russia have to save Milosevic? !!! Who is he, matchmaker, brother ?! Some brothers have already been saved !!! Two worlds opposed us fought !!! And now the Georgians, who survived as an ethnic group thanks to Russia, jerked at us !!! And about the brotherhood of nations, you tell the mothers of our fallen peacekeepers and soldiers ...................................... .
    .
  33. Nitarius
    Nitarius 28 October 2017 20: 22
    0
    Well, finally, a competent article! something The same Mongolia threw us in the USSR when they built a tannery! so generally silent! swine knows no bounds!
    1. Alexander Baryshnikov
      Alexander Baryshnikov 2 November 2017 04: 25
      0
      Do you know how much and why Mongolia (and Tuva, which was also outside the USSR at that time) has provided us with assistance since June 22, 1941? No? Lend-lease rests until 1943! You don’t know, better keep silent, you’ll pass for a smart one.
  34. Alexander Baryshnikov
    Alexander Baryshnikov 2 November 2017 04: 23
    0
    I didn’t think that there was so much liberal shit on the topvar! And on Shipka - in vain! And Slatina in vain! Freaks, a simple question for “historians” - how many countries participated in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905? You do not know, hystorics! Shkolota! It’s not for you to judge geopolitics and history. Sit with the keys on your sofas, military, and do not bay.