GardenLady
Active Member
And maybe he could have made Mexico pay for it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe NATO should back down?
And maybe he could have made Mexico pay for it.
But the soul of the Soviet Empire
lived on in Grand Poobah Putin.
Maybe the Russian Empire, not Soviet.
A violent oppressive totalitarian regime either way.
He's a Soviet at heart.
So what else is new in this world?
Doubtful, since he's a big supporter of the Orthodox Church, very much unlike the Soviets.
He's a neo-Soviet.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, things happen which surprise us. Theists term it as divine destiny, fate, some have special Gods/Goddesses for it. Hinduism has Brahma in-charge of fate, Vidhata. Atheists term it as chance and probability. Yeah, Ukrainians had the choice, they chose to confront Russia.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is not like that. That is why India annexed Sikkim. Allowing Sikkim to be an independent country would have left a very thin corridor (21-22 km) between Eastern India and the rest of India. This is real-politik. But we allowed full democracy and freedom in Sikkim, perhaps better than King's rule.
We will allow the same to Kashmir, the delimitation process (population based number of constituencies and their area) will end by this month, and Kashmir will go to a fair and democratic election before the end of the year under the eyes of international observers. The Commission has asked for the opinions for the last time. It will save Kashmir from the Pakistani religious madness.
Last edited:
"Soviet" is just the word for "council." I don't know how it turned out that the other words in "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" were translated into English, except the word "Soviet." I guess the "Union of Council Socialist Republics" doesn't really sound like much in English. Or the "Council Union." That doesn't sound very frightening at all, does it?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
So you are saying Putin is unable to make choices. Only Ukrainians can.
What makes Ukrainians so fundamentally different from Russians and their leadership, that the former is capable of making choices, and the latter is not?
You keep repeating this garbage over and over, but repetition does not make it true. Putin invaded Ukraine, not the other way round.
Ukraine did not cause Putin to bomb civilians. Ukraine did not cause Putin to bomb hospitals. Ukraine did not cause Putin to murder children.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I agree with you. Putin was not forced to take the action that he has taken.
However, most Ukrainians expected "Russia" to attack them at some point. They know the mindset .. they knew that siding with the west would not be easy.
Should "NATO back down" ? Of course not !
Its members take it seriously.
However, NATO must only act in defense. Putin and his cronies need to take great care.
Last edited:
We don't limit words based upon etymology.
When then acquire new meanings, those must be acknowledged.
Putin must face the "realpolitik" that thousands of hisIt is not like that. That is why India annexed Sikkim. Allowing Sikkim to be an independent country would have left a very thin corridor (21-22 km) between Eastern India and the rest of India. This is real-politik. But we allowed full democracy and freedom in Sikkim, perhaps better than King's rule.
We will allow the same to Kashmir, the delimitation process (population based number of constituencies and their area) will end by this month, and Kashmir will go to a fair and democratic election before the end of the year under the eyes of international observers. The Commission has asked for the opinions for the last time. It will save Kashmir from the Pakistani religious madness.
The Siliguri Corridor
soldiers will die in his brutal invasion of Ukraine.
Things are looking hopeful that Russia will be defeated,
resulting in a stronger NATO, & with countries seeking
more manufacturing independence from tyrant nations.
You mean words like "socialist"?
Is socialist now a proper name like "Soviet"?
(Did you notice the capitalization?
This confers additional meaning.)
Are you quibbling, or actually trying to argue
that "Soviet" has no reference to the USSR?
Socialist can be a proper name when it is the official name of a political party. Nevertheless, words can change meaning over time, depending on frequency of usage. Whether they're proper names or not is irrelevant to that.
I'm taking issue with the term "neo-Soviet." Soviet is a reference to the USSR, which no longer exists. However, when it did exist, its government was officially atheist and discouraged religious practice (although never outright banned religion). Since Putin is clearly pro-religious, then to associate him with the Soviet Union in this context seems incongruous.
He's also obviously pro-capitalist, too, so this is another incongruity.
The official position regarding the Romanovs and Tsar Nicholas has also changed significantly, which seems to indicate that Putin is more nostalgic for the tsarist, capitalist, imperial, Orthodox Russia of old than he would appear to be for the Soviet Union.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to see, and I don't understand why you keep insisting that he must be "Soviet" when all visible indications would say otherwise.
You offered "socialst" with a lower case "s".
I used Soviet with an upper case "S".
Definition of soviet | Dictionary.com
3 (initial capital letter)Often Soviets. a governing official or person living in the Soviet Union:
Putin was a high official in the USSR.
He brings that culture with him in current day Russia.
Thus..."neo-Soviet".
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No. Both China and Russia engage with the world under "Capitalist rules", but that doesn't mean that they agree with the philosophy.
Clearly, they do not .. but it is all hypocrisy that is based on equal rights for workers etc. .. and ends up in corruption, money hiding and money laundering.