Peter writes, “Western mainstream media constantly repeat that Russia overly meddles in the affairs of its neighbours, but if Russia’s neighbours go to hell in a hand basket it is Russia that is left to pick up the pieces.” But he overlooks the reality that most of Russia’s neighbours have gone to hell in a hand basket precisely because Russia forcibly took them there, forcibly kept them there for as long as it could, and since the end of empire has shown much difficulty in divesting itself of ongoing imperial twitches at their expense. Peter laments that a knock-on refugee effect of a possible war against Iran, initiated wisely or otherwise by countries that feel understandably threatened by Iran’s primitive rhetoric being joined with nuclear capability, will inconvenience Russia. One doesn’t quite know what might be the most diplomatic way to remind him of the “inconvenience” of millions of homeless and traumatised refugees that descended on the West as a result of the installation of Soviet occupation across half of Europe, and that continued for decades in a steady flow, interspersed with several major floodwaves, across the Berlin wall, out of Hungary, our of Czechoslovakia, and out of everywhere else where Soviet rule was planted and where an escape route could be found. It is good to see Peter’s latter-day concern about Russia perhaps now having to “pick up the pieces”. For most of living memory Russia caused the pieces.

@Marzipan6 You keep on reiterating the same old point which I constantly counter with the fact the Russians where not the ruling class during the Soviet era especially up until the post WW2 era. It was the western powers that created and installed Communism in Russia in the first place unless you believe Russian willfully supported a movement where the ruling ethnic Russian became a minority and hostile minorities became the majority and engineered the total destruction of it’s culture and citizenry and lead by non-Russian Marxist terrorist who protested hatred of Russia and Russians in exile financed by the same international bankers and groups like Jacob Schiffs “Friends of Russian Freedom” that it what you would call a well organised foreign coup of a country fully backed and propped up from abroad who claimed to be internationalists working for global revolution fully supported by western interests and banking elites up until the post WW2 era. So when western powers engineered the WW2 to eliminate Germany as an independent force manufacturing war the spread of Communism was inevitable a entity which they could control. So you are wrong when you say: “It is good to see Peter’s latter-day concern about Russia perhaps now having to “pick up the pieces”. For most of living memory Russia caused the pieces” I regards to Iran is this the same Iran the US has covertly been working with to help fight Islamic proxy wars in Afghanistan in 79, Bosnia and Chechnya as well as groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Stalin obvious identified himself as a Georgian when he attached land area in the Caucasus region to Georgia whilst in the Baltics it was strategic Obvious views Stalin expressed when he said this in an article in Brdzola newspaper (December, 1901) “Groaning are the oppressed nationalities and religions in Russia, among them the Poles and Finns. Groaning are the unceasingly persecuted and humiliated Jews, deprived even those rights that other Russian subjects enjoy the right to live where they choose, the right to go to school, etc. Groaning are the Georgians, the Armenians and other nations who can neither have their own schools nor be employed by the state and are compelled to submit to the policies of Russification”. They're trying to do the same today that they did with Communism with Islamism in Russia to stoke a revolution except this time go one further and literally destroy the country just like they did to Yugoslavia. The location and people are different and official ideology by the objective is the same. It is US lead policy since the collapse of the USSR to dismantle states and create new ones in alliance to western lead interests. Peter's right when he said: “But one thing is constant: American weapon contractors can still count on billions of US taxpayer dollars to counter military and security threats the US created in the first place.” There hasn’t been a major enemy we fight which we haven’t created from Communism to Islamism. A lot of the economic problems today in the post Soviet era especially in regards to Ukraine and Russia are due to economic policy engineered by George Soros and his Harvard crowd resulting in selling of state assets and industry at fire sale prices to western aligned businessmen and companies and the collapse in the global financial system due to US lead banking system failure.

Bailing out? It does not look like US and EU want to be bailed out. They have it all figured out, and Russia needs to do what is right, by staying out of it. Provided that it will not be forced to defend its own borders. Iran does not possess the long range missiles to threaten Europe. So, the short-range ones will be mounted on ships, and sit in the Mediterranean to protect Israel. We should be all happy, and there should be dancing in the streets? Not quite, we still need to --- "cripple" Iran, as Ms. Clinton famously put it. But why? Well, nobody knows why. Nobody. First, Iran was developing a nuclear bomb. No, that was denied by US Intelligence (such as it is); Iran is enriching uranium to the nuclear bomb grade; no, IAEA has refuted that, only nuclear energy level; Iran supposedly gave up on its PROGRAM years ago. But wait, we are talking about a program, not a bomb? Yes, Iran had a white paper circulating somewhere in their Ministry of Defense thinking about looking into developing a nuclear weapon. So, that was that. But no, we were told there was a laptop.... But the laptop was a forgery. Then, well, Tehran had a long range missile ready to be tipped (with something), almost ready? No, no, no --- it is a short-range missile, and nothing to tip it with. IAEA claims that no nuclear materials were diverted since it started inspecting, and the current enrichment is to the energy producing level. So, without a diversion --- what is up? Yes, I have the answer. Nuclear material must be coming from the same yellow cakes that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were made of! Russia and Iran are good neighbors. Russia has on a number of occasions declared that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is not developing one. Russia's Western "partners" are obviously not listening, or are not interested. If they choose to impose sanctions unilaterally, that will not oblige Russia. Iran is not a terrorist state, and neither US nor EU can invoke antiterorrist legislation to justify the sanctions. As the economies in the West are not getting any better, I am concerned that a crisis is almost a desirable goal. Somehow, between the certainty of poor economy, and the prospect of fishing in the murky water and possibly getting that big catch, fishing sounds by far more promising. Russia is not needed to bail out anyone, but to justify the aggression. This one Russia needs to pass. If any further cooperation with IAEA is required, by all means, go for it. But all of them talk how Iran "must" do it, without really saying what. Enough talking. Enough already. The Iran crisis is a highly desirable from Israel's point of view. Israel profited handsomely from the PAN-AM tragedy, when the wold's attention was gripped by the Palestinian uprising, and the brutal suppression. TV screens were filled with the pictures of Israeli soldiers' brutality. Then came the bombing of PAN-AM flight, and the pictures were off the screens. As it was a foregone conclusion that only a Muslim terrorist must have done it. No other line of investigation was pursued. Ever since 9/11, Palestinian issue was sidelined. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Iran. There simply will be no way to bring the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the international table. But what if this gets out of hand? Completely useless US politicians are not even considering this possibility. But it could easily happen. Not only Russian neighborhood can go up in flame, but also the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia. The feeble geriatric regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt can find themselves powerless if the Army decides to take matters in their own hands. It is not the Arab street that one has to worry about, but the Arab Armies. They can, overnight find themselves "under new management", and the US and NATO carriers may find themselves to be sitting ducks. No defense can address multiple attacks coming from multiple, close-range directions. Any attempt by US to fire intercontinental missile from other offshore places, or Alaska, could be intercepted by Russian and Chinese, as they could not tell the final destination of those missiles. So, what if the short-range "sure fire" bombing does not work, and the long range get us close to the nuclear war due to error and miscalculation? Is this worth it? When individual countries announce their own "sanctions", these are declarations of trade wars. These are all malignant developments in the international relations. What Russia needs to do is to insure that UN SC sanctions are complied with, and condemn trade wars in the name of "sanctions". Such behavior is very damaging to the existing global security mechanisms, and is placing a question on US and EU leadership aspirations. If any country can just go ahead and place "sanctions" on another simply because it is stronger, and it can do it, this would bring the lawlessness to the new heights. Russia alone should not bail anyone out: not those who are seeking its approval for aggressive actions, nor those who are sitting on the sideline, watching the spectacle, and occasionally making good speeches.

There is something very wrong with the whole Iran Israel conflict, I haven’t put my finger on it, but I almost get the feeling that the whole thing is choreographed. Senators put pressure on the FED, and within a day Teheran now demands the right to do whatever they want with nuclear technology, say that the holocaust is rubbish and Israel should be obliterated and Israel wants to nuke them to hell. The USA warms up to Russia, and now Israel is a ‘peaceful nation’ that never wants to attack Iran, and Ahmadinejad says to the BBC that they never want a nuclear weapon, a complete reversal! And what’s the story with EU sanctions against Iran, because Iran is on the Euro and the EU is its biggest market, it’s like the EU throwing its wallet away? I’m of the opinion that Iran Israeli conflict is relative to some bankers Estrogen cycle. See if you can see the orchestrated menopausal rage, because I don’t know why exactly but this whole Iran Israel thing seems to behave like a flapping fairy throwing tantrums… ha ha. There’s a worrisome irrationality to this whole thing, like burning the house down because you weren’t allowed to watch your TV channel. I don’t know if “Russia bailing out America” is the right title, it’s more like being married to a manic depressant neurotic nut, will anyone stay sane ;)

Marzipan: Judging from the results in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention some other places, what precisely is it that you expect the USA to do for you with a war on Iran, eh? P.S. I have read that 50% of the people who left East Germany came back. They didn't like the West. A smaller but significqant number comes back to Cuba. Third, if you liken the "defector" movement from the Warsaw Pact to wartime, you are really in for a huge shock if it comes to war, seems to me.

M6 never misses a chance to assign a blame to Russia, no matter what the subject of a discussion is. According to his logic the Soviet era atrocities can justify millions of refugees created lately by USA & Co. Get over it, M6, it's been a while since Estonia had become a "free" country. The economic model invented by Balts is not sustainable, so you'll need to come up with something better than that. You've written numerous posts with the same idea that Russia is to blame for everything bad.

Pauline, you misunderstand. I don’t “expect” the US to do anything for me anywhere, including by warring against Iran. The US gave me refuge in its region of Germany when I was a little child and when my family were penniless refugees having fled for the lives from Soviet Russian atrocities in Estonia, and for that I shall always be grateful. I simply point out that as a small part of the colossal waves of human suffering that Soviet Russia unleashed over Europe last century, Peter’s heartfelt concern about Russia hypothetically having to help with refugees in some future Iranian war struck me as funny. As for 50% of East German refugees returning – where did you read that? From the Russian MFA? The Berlin wall was not built because 50% of the absconders returned, but because East Germany was depopulating! As for those East Germans who risked their life crossing the Wall after it was up, I don’t know of any who returned. I do know that in re-unified Germany, people from the East often had a hard time making it in the western part of the country for many years, because the values and way of life in the east and west had become quite different. But that’s not what you were talking about. And that is not what Peter’s latest well-named Untimely Thought is about, either.

Grizzly, by no means is Russia to blame for everything bad. Only for the bad things it has done, nothing more and nothing less. If it asks pardon for it and seeks reconciliation, it can even be forgiven.But first it must come out of denial.

@Marzipan6 Funny because the same people that installed and ran Communism in Russia there American counterparts Trotskyite Communist Neocons are responsible for these continuous wars under the pretext of fighting international terrorism although the trail goes back to places like Bosnia which they actively supported and were at the forefront pushing the pro-Muslim agenda being senior members of various organisation and lobby groups not just in the Balkans but in Russia, China and other parts off the world. As Tom Lantos said: “The United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.” And the Soviet system only survived due to international support, a compliant mass media and billions of dollars worth of loans to prop up the regime. It was not until after 67 there was a seismic anti-Communist shit against Communism where we saw all these groups established in the US. So when the US and EU achieve there goal of Islamising Russia and it inevitably spills over its borders just like it did in the Balkans you will be moaning and complaining about that to.

Peter you and others on this forum seem to always seek the negative when it comes to the USA and NATO.Obama promised a “reset” and taking Russia’s concerns into consideration he has scrapped the missile shield. Also NATO’s secretary general has stated that he wants to work with Russia in developing a joint missile defense strategy in Europe.Medvedev has a positive attitude towards these developments, you and others come up with “what if’s”. why can’t you take things on face value. Until real not imaginary events change the situation. One of your “what if’s” concerns the 2 million Azaris you are worried that a NATO attack on Iran would send them flooding over the boarder into Azerbaijan. This of course would be a worry for Russia, but it would also be a big concern for Britain as we are Azerbaijan’s largest foreign investor most of these investments are in oil industry, So there is a much bigger picture and a large part of the picture is tied up with other partnerships in the region, who like Russia want a “stable” environment.

Marzipan, I thoroughly enjoy the discussions you generate, this is how history should be taught, as a raging debate. When history merges with politics and economics, it moves from something that happened in the past to the present, and its alive, its fantastic, and I thank you all for that. Johnx gets close to the area that fascinates me, this idea that maybe the good guys only win in movies, and the that the villain as dictated by CNN is much more likely to be the victim. It’s the illusion, the Matrix (a movie) behind history that has me absolutely spellbound. Doesn’t mankind’s calendar feel too short, doesn’t the synchronized media feel suspect, don’t you ever get the feeling we all being farmed… I do. Empires seem not to be countries, they seem to be portable economic units that move from host to host, and that’s the only way I can make sense of history. So ‘if’ a country breaks out of the system, and challenges the status quo, for me its not about the proxy wars, it’s a chance to prove my hypothesis, that mankind has a single enemy, and its hiding in our banking system, something so evil that its hard to classify it as human. War is sly and treacherous, but it really isn’t intelligent, written history doesn’t portray that, and I think world events today can only be explained as dangerous incompetence. If you guys get to the truth behind history, and I think you well on your way, one-day war will be impossible, humanity will know, and I think that day is coming soon. Whether our “leaders” are that aware, and whether they see current events as the opportunity to create heaven on earth, is more than questionable, but what I see happening is that people are now far more intelligent than the system that governs us. I think that either humanity, you guys, are going to destroy the system, or the system is going to destroy humanity. You can see it already on the web, this, “who runs our central bank, well in that case government, you can fight you own damn war, I’m not interested”. Global War or Global Revolution… one of those is coming.

The truth is the missile shield is just not economically viable it would take billions to install and maintain to keep up to date to counter the latest Russian anti-missile shield missiles And it’s not actually cancelled just suspended and Putin in 2007 proposed the idea of moving it to Turkey and Azerbaijan if it were to be used against an Iranian missile threat it would have a quicker intercept time. Economics trumps all.

Marzipan6, conversation with you feels like talking to a kitchen table. Basically, no conversation. One way communication. Have you ever heard of the concept of empire? From those set up by humans, to the Star Wars. Most of us have a good idea what empires are all about. Not you. Empires existed everywhere on earth, and in our dear Europe, as well. Now, we are living in the age of American Empire. Many empires "reinvented" themselves, and lived under "the new management", while others crumbled. Just to refresh your memory, in still rather recent history besides Russian Empire, there existed British, Austrian, Turkish and other with only few "possessions" still in the clutches. Until today, Caribbean Sea is still full of British, Dutch, French and of course, American colonies. Nice places to have a vacation. Every empire leaves pieces behind. As Rebecca West, in her immortal "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon" said in 1939, "... nothing stinks like a carcass of an Empire..." Empires brought some undeniably great things, and some undeniably horrible things. And everything in between. Without Russian Empire neither Estonia nor Finland would have existed today. And if Soviet Union did not prevail in WWII, most of the Eastern Europe would have been changed according to the well documented plans of the Third Reich. Poland was to be turned into the estates of wealthy Germans, with populace remaining in agriculture or industry. However, even a job for tending to the horses of the wealthy would have required German language. In places like Estonia, before the reforms under the Russian Tzar, native Estonians were not allowed any vertical mobility, and only Germans had all the wealth and political control. The Estophilia movement that created roots of modern Estonia was done under the prodding of Russian Emperor. Hitler would have reversed that, and return the rule to Germans, many of whom in Estonia never accepted the loss of power. Austo-Hungary nearly wiped out the languages of Czechs and Slovaks, and did nearly wipe out the Slovenian in Austria proper. And keep in mind that, it was only in 9th century that the first German speaking colonists arrived at the site of today's Vienna. Slavic speaking population until today calls the city by its former Slavic name, Bech. Russian Empire under Tzars was indeed an Empire. It gave privileges to the royalty, and linked them to the crown. That was true from the frozen north in Finland to the subtropical Abkhazia. But do not confuse Soviet Union with the Empire. That is a simplification that obscures the nature of change in the world that is happening even today. Soviet Union was a first attempt at forging a legally structured union. While you would scoff at the many achievements of that Union, they undeniably exist. Many of the nations of Central Asia formed their national and state institutions, and for the first time, developed writing in their own language, eliminated illiteracy, and embarked on the development in infrastructure, energy and manufacturing. As little as it may seem to you, it jump started the region into the modern era. European Union is nothing more then the recreation of Soviet Union, albeit in a different political climate. It has a more friendly face, but the issues of power and control underneath are not quite that gentle. Much force will be applied to those who refuse to comply. Just ask Serbia. Like the science fiction characters, Borg, their message is simple: "You shall be assimilated --- resistance is futile.." But all of a sudden, the resistance is not so futile. Financial crisis is shaking up the new, and improved version of Soviet Union, along with its military wing, NATO. With unknown consequences. How easily you skip over the minor things like WWII. Soviet Union would not have been in Eastern Europe had it not been for the Western folly. The folly is so tragicomic, that I cannot without laughing read all the somber analysis of the causes of WWII. Hey, England and France, along with US, thought Hitler and Mussolini were the answer to what ailed Europe. They did not "hear" the warning from Soviet Union, and the need for joint action. They heard it well enough. And they had a deal with Hitler. Hitler could take a chunk of Czech lands, and the rest would be gobbled up by happy neighbors, Hungary and Poland. Soviet Union then did what England and France did not expect, ever. Sign a deal with Hitler. Everybody thought that ideologically Soviet Union could not possibly sign any deals. But it happened. Soviet Union just made Hitler spell out his ambitions. He modestly stated that having influence just over half of the Eastern Europe, was going to be it. Soviet Union took an insurance policy, by making it clear that they consider that the red line. That raised all sorts of alarm bells in Europe. They were afraid not because of what was to happen to Poland, but they feared possible three outcomes, neither good for their crumbling empires. One, if Hitler was to live by the agreement, Europe was to be split in the sphere of influence. Two, Hitler was not going to honor it, meaning that the moment Hitler steps into Poland, Soviet Union would counter by moving to meet him at red line. This would not have been a happy outcome to British-French interests. And third, once Soviet Union moved in, it would have gained an advantage by wiping out all the Hitler's sympathizers throughout Eastern Europe, giving Soviet Union a potential margin for victory over Hitler. It is the simple calculus that resulted in the declaration of war, not any concern for Poland. And true enough, they remained very busy watching Soviet Union bleed, while bombing German cities. The idea was to save military and treasure for absolutely necessary battles, leaving the bloody Continent to self-destruct. And in the end, Soviet Union survived and prevailed, but was set back at least a hundred years in terms of population loss. The Soviet Union is no more. But if you are to judge by the hue and cry from the Eastern Europe, you would think that it is still there! So, instead of enjoying the freedom, and the security that NATO provides, there is still something missing. Could it be the historic itch, that same itch that occasionally pushes Poland into getting ahead of itself, and into a boatload of trouble? And in Baltics, the confusion between the desire of being independent, and being a dependency, is causing all sorts of identity crisis. But it shall pass. If anything, Germany must be embarrassed by this longing for the Germanic imperial past in the long gone dependencies. Russia and Germany have most reasons to remember the millions of their dead. Millions of young people were tossed into the war machine that devoured their hopes and the hopes of their parents. Yet, we do not hear them bicker. Because they both know what wars are. They were not the bystanders and incidental victims. They were both the history's actors --- and it was theirs to win or loose. And it could have happened either way. It is those who still think they can milk something out the politics and sentiments of the time that are doing all the talking. That too, shall pass. Especially if the trans-Atlantic funds that fuel the trash-talk dries up. Then you soon may be on your own, and will have to weigh carefully your real principles and interests. And the trash talk.

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. However, I don't think President Obama wants a military confrontation with Iran. Unlike Bush (who was obviously addicted to war) and Clinton (who started a war to dilute news coverage of the Lewinsky affair) I think Obama is much more benevolent. He seems able to resist the propaganda perpetrated by the extremist Republican Party of his own country. This weekend, he appeared on several news networks while ignoring the 24 hour Republican propaganda machine better known as "Fox News". Obviously, it's still early days but I am confident that Obama's administration will still prove to be the welcome change our world needs. Obama knows that talking is far more constructive than bombing. During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to work hard towards unilateral disarmament. The onus is now on America and Russia to work together to create a nuclear free world. As you suggested, the last place any nuclear weapon should be is in the Middle East. Israel should dismantle it's nuclear arsenal. If any nuclear attack threatened them, America would protect them anyway. Thus, they do not need nuclear capability. Britain and France could lead the way by abandoning their costly and pointless nuclear stockpile. Neither country can use their weapons without the green light from America. This would put these countries on the moral high ground of being able to persuade Israel to disarm. Peace in the Middle East would create much harmony across the world. We need to stop using the same old attitudes and start doing constructive things to bring about change in this region. As Obama would say "Yes we can!"

007, I don’t view the forces that animate history as being either metaphysical or conspiratorial – I don’t believe in ghosts, and I don’t think that people are either clever enough or disciplined enough to maintain coherent conspiracies that transcend borders and eras. But people do come equipped with highly developed powers of imagination, and depending on whether someone is disposed towards metaphysics or conspiracy theories, they can easily pick out and arrange favored points of data in hindsight to make a case for their particular preference. Human nature powers history, just as it powers everything else that people undertake, and human nature is calibrated by evolution to strive for the survival of self within one’s tribe, and for the survival of one’s tribe ahead of other tribes. Politics, economics, technology, sociology, religion and every other categorization of human effort is automatically tilted to serve those ends. Where kindness and altruism best contribute to individual and group survival, these are employed; where politics of either the ethical or the scheming kind serves, this is employed. Where co-operation does the trick, good; where conflict and warfare serve better, then it gets the nod. Trouble is that man’s physical power has expanded to where miscalculations no longer lay waste just a forest grove somewhere, but potentially destroy the whole planet. Some potential mistakes are no longer reversible, and this is why ethics now should have a far greater importance in national and in world affairs than might cynically have been deemed necessary in earlier ages. The West certainly has its problems with ethics, and there are forums where that is addressed. Russia has similar problems of its own particular flavor, and I draw attention to these here, with the hope of providing perhaps a tiny momentum towards change.

"It was not until after 67 there was a seismic anti-Communist SHIFT against Communism where we saw all these groups established in the US."

Regarding good guys winning only in movies – that is as may be, but applying the same template to WW2 is so over-simplistic as to be unusable. In WW2 there were the bad guys who never pretended to be anything else (ie, Nazi Germany), the bad guys that pretended to be the good guys (USSR), the self-interested dreamers who thought of themselves as the good guys but who had neither the sinister streak to be totally evil nor the clarity or courage of conviction to be totally good (the Western Allies) and the countries caught in the middle who wished that everyone leave them alone, and who knew that no matter which of the combatants would win, they themselves would lose (Eastern Europe). Because Eastern Europe had no voice of its own for 50 years following the War, both the bad guys and the self-designated good guys thought they were only two parties in the conflict. With the re-emergence of Eastern Europe freely telling its story for the first time, what Eastern Europeans knew all along is now becoming clear to everyone, namely that the simplistic “us and them” construct simply does not answer to reality. The West has accepted this, Russia huffs and puffs and cries, “No re-writing of history!”, and Eastern Europeans are vindicated, having finally emerged from their Soviet-imposed status of non-persons and non-countries.

M6, now, this is simplistic as to be unusable. Quoting your own version of history: "... In WW2 there were the bad guys who never pretended to be anything else (ie, Nazi Germany), the bad guys that pretended to be the good guys (USSR), the self-interested dreamers who thought of themselves as the good guys - Western allies) and the countries caught in the middle who wished that everyone leave them alone, and who knew that no matter which of the combatants would win, they themselves would lose (Eastern Europe)." Do you really believe that Germany started the war with the understanding that they were the "bad guys", who never pretended to be anything else? They started the war to get the lebensraum on the East, and against the "...the self-interested dreamers" that instituted war reparations that amounted to genocide. They started the war, as the "self-interested dreamers" used all the banking tools at their disposal to bring the country to its knees, and watch the starvation unfold. At the same time, these "self-interested dreamers" straddled the globe with colonies and possessions, and fought the wars for control of many lands with the viciousness that history is still to deal with. There is hardly a spot on African soil that the bloody stain does not cry to the heaven. And from Far East to the Middle East, from Mexico to Argentina, blood soaked was soil wherever the "self-interested dreamers" passed by. Germany was being left out of the party, squeezed, starved. So what, dreamed the "self-interested dreamers", there is plenty of land to your east. Do you want us to all the work for you? And protect you from the rising Communist state in the East. Germany was part of its time, part of the West, and thinking and acting in the manner consistent with the Western thinking at the time. Germany needed lebensraum, and the only way to have one was the Drang nacht Osten. And the Eastern Europe was to be colonized. Complain as you wish against the history, but those were the times, and those were the beliefs. Do you really believe that the Western Allies "...had neither the sinister streak to be totally evil nor the clarity or courage of conviction to be totally good ..." ? If so, you know very little of the history, and can make such simplistic, unusable conclusions. Germany was deprived of their "self interested dreaming", and was determined to get some. If you add to this the calamity that the disintegration of Austria-Hungary did to the elite in Vienna, perhaps you would have a better understanding of the Munich beer halls. Do you honestly believe that "the countries caught in the middle" wished that everyone leave them alone! And when did those countries come to that discovery? As far as history shows, East European countries had their own agendas, and were pursuing their own interests. In fact, most profited from the disintegration of Tsarist Russia, and fought wars that made them gain territory and even independence by exploiting the chaos. They did not want to be left alone at all, they went after what they could. And, again, when did Poland, for example, figure out that it may end up being the pawn? Not until very late. Up until then, Poland tried to play high stakes politics, profiting from the dismemberment of the Czech state. Many of them had strong pro-Hitler factions in their midst. They were hoping, until the last moment, that Hitler will offer them a deal, in exchange for fighting against Soviets. No, they did not know that "...no matter which of the combatants would win, they themselves would lose (Eastern Europe)." Not at all. That analysis came way after the fact, and the hindsight is always 20/20. It is not at all because Eastern Europe had no voice of its own, that now the "story can be told". This is not serious. History of Europe was written exclusively by your "self-interested dreamers", the very history you are now trying to redefine. You really believe that the "bad guys" and the "self-designated good guys" wrote the history!!! Not only that these two never, ever thought that they were the only two parties in the conflict. They could not --- even if they tried!! These two could not possibly compete with the Hollywood version of the War, and the heroic things the "self-interested dreamers" did to save the world. The Eastern Europe had misjudged its position in the world, and overreached. Once it became clear that Hitler was not going to be a gentleman, and potential partner, it was too late to find friends. And the "self-interested dreamers" had a much better math. They knew that once deemed impossible, Hitler-Stalin pact was a game changer. They had to put a trip-wire in Poland. They needed to insure that any deal between the two is spoiled, as otherwise, two powerful entities could have possibly emerged to threaten their world-wide controls. What new story did Eastern Europe so far tell? Nothing whatsoever. They did not explain their dalliance with Hitler. They did not explain the obvious hope that Hitler was going to invite them into the "new family of European nations", how Hitler fondly talked of his pan-European vision; and their crushing realization that Hitler wanted them for colonies. And the most confusing part of your, supposedly new story, is the debunking of the "simplistic us and them" . And who is "us" and who is "them"? And even more mysterious . notion that the West has accepted that? The West has hard time separating all the Hollywood productions of WWII, since more people "died" in those movies than US lost in the war. Now, apart from Hollywood, what did West accept? The West accepted that Germany started the war. The West condemned Germany at Nuremberg for the highest crime of them all, destroying peace. It was up to the historians to dig into the causes of the war, as the "self-interested dreamers" did not care about it. All historians agree that Germany invaded Poland, and that Soviet Union came in from the other end to face the onslaught. The rest is, as they say, history. Russia huffed and puffed, and lost over 20 million people to help Europe end the Hitlerian delusion. But some did not like it. So, Eastern Europeans are now vindicated? How? By getting out of the post WWII security arrangements that were not to its liking? Fair enough. But do not twist the truth, and give credit where due. Had it not been for Russia, people of Estonia and Finland would have never become "entities", nor have their own country. It was a Russian Tzar that freed Estonian peasant serfs, and gave them the freedom from their Germanic lords who lived in the cities. German visionaries united the aspirations of Estonian and Germanic populations, laying the foundation for the new nationality. Russia made Estonians an entity, and gave them the identity. And for that, you may show some gratitude. Your superficial "history" is not convincing, as it is black and white, devoid of the essential humanity in all people --- regardless of the uniform they carried. There are no "dreamers". Today we see the naked grab for foreign lands, under whatever pretext. We see war machines unleashed upon the innocents. That is what Eastern Europe does not see. Its Governments are too happy to partake in the new colonial adventures, and serve all over the world for that honor. In your own neighborhood you have closed your eyes at the destruction of indigenous Serbian population in Croatia, half of Bosnia, and Kosovo. Yet, your governments have always been on the side of those who committed the crimes. Do not get shocked if the world will not see you the way you want to be seen.

Dear Bianca: thank you for vesting so much time and effort in a kitchen table. The table appreciates it, and even presumes to write back. It advises that when you think to teach it Estonian history, you are treading unwisely! You write that “without the Russian Empire neither Estonia nor Finland would have existed today.” It is true that Finland and Estonia emerged from the Russian Empire, but it does not logically follow that if the Russian Empire had not held those regions for two centuries until 1918, Finland and Estonia would not and could not have emerged as nations. You write glowingly of Russian reforms in Estonia. Yet for more than the initial hundred years of imperial rule, the lot of Estonians steadily worsened under Russian control as Russia wound back reforms that Sweden had already applied during its almost a hundred years of rule there. Only after about 1860 did some reforms begin to happen under Tsar Nicholas I, and these continued under his successor, Alexander II. But progressive developments came to a screeching halt with Alexander’s murder in 1881. His successor, Alexander III, was an extreme hard-liner who practiced russification by decree while his successor, Nicholas II, was a do-nothing incompetent under whom the Empire finally crumbled. Estonia won its nationhood in 1920 after an almost 2-year bitter war against both Russia and Germany. Nationhood was not a gift from either; it was the result of Estonians’ own self-awareness, the ability to make the most of what opportunity presented, and the willingness to sacrifice and die for their cause despite the strong opposition of their imperial masters. Do not for a moment believe that any of that came “as a result of the prodding of the Russian Emperor.” Had Germany won WW2, Estonia would certainly not have had any foreseeable national future. Just as it did not have under the Soviets. Unlike Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia clothed its ideology in altruistic-sounding clap-trap, but in its dealings with Estonia it proved not only to be just as murderous as the Nazis, but any objective measure, even more murderous. Had Soviet occupation continued for another 50 years, forced russification would have been so complete and the destruction of Estonian culture would have been so comprehensive that it is impossible to imagine Estonian independence to have been restorable. Estonia would have been destroyed forever. But fortuitously Estonia found a way to restore its nationhood in 1991, and I would like to think it might have eventually emerged similarly from under a hypothetical Nazi yoke. You say that the Soviet Union was not an empire, but an attempt to forge a legally structured union. To borrow a quotation from Russia’s comrade-in-ideology, Chairman Mao, theirs was a legality that grew out of the barrel of a gun. The window-dressing of Soviet legality and federalism was just that – window-dressing, nothing more. And while the Soviet Empire (I call it this advisedly) did bring some advancements to its Asiatic areas, in its Western dominions it merely wrecked the Baltics’ standard of living which was many times higher than Russia’s in 1939, and dragged it down to pathetic levels that were similar to Russia’s own. You point out that the Soviet Union is no more, and I joyfully agree. But unlike in the case of the British, French, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch empires, post-Soviet Russia maintains a hostile stance to most of its former dominions, and there is a distinct lack of mutual good will between one-time ruler and one-time ruled. Unlike those other imperial nations, Russia doesn’t seem to have come to terms with loss of empire. Also unlike them, it maintains a fantastically distorted version of its own “history” vis-à-vis its former dominions, which those countries find offensive at best, and alarming at worst. But one of the closing sentiments of your post really flummoxes me, Bianca. You write, apparently of the Baltics, of some kind of “longing for the Germanic imperial past in the long gone dependencies.” Since the arrival of the pope’s German crusaders and their accompanying Baltic barons in the 1200s, the brutal nature of their rule deeply instilled the concept in Estonians that Germany was their number one enemy in the world. This conviction continued all the way through tsarist rule, it fired Estonians in their successful War of Independence battles against the Landeswehr, it remained the undertone of their pre-WW2 years of independence, and it was displaced only in 1940, and re-enforced after 1945, by the unspeakable and never-before experienced mass atrocities which t hey experienced at the hands of Soviet Russia. Estonians long for German imperialism about as much as they long for tsarist and Soviet imperialism – which is about as much as they long for a hole in the head. I’m afraid that when you issue forth on matters of Estonian history and Estonian sensibilities, you are out of your depths, Bianca, and do not really understand your subject.