Russia. All that concerns Russia.Аnswers questions citizen of Russia. (UK, emigrating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't stop being surprised about the "remake" of the old Soviet classics.
Just discovered the song accidentally. Looks like the girl is Georgian(wikipedia...) and yes, like you said the song seems to be from some old Soviet movie.
Just discovered the song accidentally. Looks like the girl is Georgian(wikipedia...) and yes, like you said the song seems to be from some old Soviet movie.
The author of this song Bulat Okudzhava (known bard). Currently, this song is the unofficial anthem of the Airborne Troops (song use in parades while passing the paratroopers (commandos)).
Yea this doesn't help For sure there are "Structural differences", but the core design is similar.
So they had blueprints of STG44, Mikhail Kalashnikov said the German helped him... Did RT tell you it's purely Russian invention?
Actually the StG44 has more similarity with the G3 and the Spain CETME than the AK 47, I'm not so deep into technics but the interior of the AK 47 is entirely different from the StG44, it were the Germans that invented the concept of the assault rifle none the less, while Russia manufactured fully automatic rifles (AVS 36) prior than the Germans.
Just discovered the song accidentally. Looks like the girl is Georgian(wikipedia...) and yes, like you said the song seems to be from some old Soviet movie.
Same person then, huh? ( I see yet another old Soviet remake (from Soviet times I mean)))
Is this serious, or some British tabloid stuff? Do these far eastern regions of Russia have convenient access to the internet, fuel, heat, good roads, and imported (Mediterranean) food and high tech consumer goods? What about schools/adult education centers to help foreigners learn Russian?
A passage in the article makes it sound quite bleak and rugged, but also naturally beautiful.
Thank you.
OK, so I looked into it - no, it's not a "tabloid stuff," it looks quite legitimate, although a person who suggested this project in Duma back in 2015 ( don't remember his name now) wasn't all that sure about it himself (according to some.)
I see even a site already ( although it looks a bit uncertain too, sort of like the person who suggested this project I guess)))
So what can I say about it?
Number one - the idea is not all that original; one needs only to look back into history of Russia, namely Stolypin's reforms of 1906-1914 ( built upon earlier reforms of count Sergey Witte in 1890-ies.) You'll notice the same initiative in Stolypin reforms - the "homestead program" for mass resettlement of Russian peasants to Siberia
"This was encouraged by the Trans-Siberian Railroad Committee, which was personally headed by Tsar Nicholas II. The Stolypin agrarian reforms included resettlement benefits for peasants who moved to Siberia. An emigration department was created in 1906 at the ministry of agriculture. It organized resettlement and assisted the settlers during their first years in the new settlements. The settlers received on average 16.5 hectares of land per man. The total area allocated was 21 million hectares. Migrants received a small state subsidy, exemption from some taxes, and advice from state agencies specifically developed to help with peasant resettlement.[5]
In part thanks to these initiatives, approximately 2.8 million of the 10 million migrants to Siberia relocated between 1908 and 1913. This increased the population of the regions east of the Urals by 2.5 times before the outbreak of World War I."
Now the settlement of Europeans in Russia is again not new in history, although traditionally it were Germans, for historic reasons/blood ties with Russia. This took place back in the 1700ies.
"Catherine the Great published manifestos in 1762 and 1763 inviting Europeans (except Jews)[3] to immigrate and farm Russian lands while maintaining their language and culture. Although the first received little response, the second improved the benefits offered and was more successful in attracting colonists. People in other countries such as France and England were more inclined to migrate to the colonies in the Americas than to the Russian frontier. Other countries, such as Austria, forbade emigration. The settlers came mainly from Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, the Palatinate, and the Rhineland, over the years 1763 to 1767."
So as we can see the precedent of both ( foreign settlements and resettlement of peasants to Siberia) definitely existed in Russian history before ( and that's where most likely today's Duma is digging for ideas,) however what I see as a new development in this latest case, is that Putin targets specifically Britons out of all people. The last mass settlers from *perfidious Albion* came to Russia in substantial numbers back in the 1700ies, namely Scots ( Russians don't differentiate between people of British Islands) and from that point on, unlike other European continentals, who were arriving and settling in Russia on a regular basis here and there, Britons were rare visitors for geographical/cultural reasons, since two cultures are on the opposite ends of each other I'd say.
Now today from everything I gather, Great Britain is a source of constant friction between Putin's gov. and Western Europe. He ( and Russia) are greatly criticized from there on a constant basis, and in Putin's eyes I think he perceives Great Britain as a big obstacle to establishing the kind of rapport with Continental Europe ( Western part of it) that Russia used to have throughout history.
But at the same time, "not all is good in Danish kingdom" ( a common Russian expression from some fairy-tale, but I refer to Great Britain at this point. Putin knows that British government that constantly jabs him is in trouble itself, with a lot of discontent coming from British citizens for a number of reasons,) so he, in turn, makes his move, offering the discontent Britons to visit HIS country, where, unlike in Great Britain, the approval of the government ( i.e. Putin personally) stands at about 85%. That's what I think is going on on political level, as for practical level of this Russian Far East project... Let's see here. To address your question of "convenient access to the internet, fuel, heat, good roads, and imported (Mediterranean) food and high tech consumer goods?" I'd say yes and no. See, Russia ( unlike the US) although somewhat similar in size and distances, has little to no sprawl; Russian cities are quite condensed ( those at the Far East including,) and there I am sure you'll find those amenities (with exception of Mediterranean food I'd think, because it's not very suitable for Russian climate,) but once you are out of major cities, you get into total wilderness with little to none infrastructure at all.
For example I am looking at Khabarovsk I happened to choose it, because one of my relatives used to live there gazillion years ago, so it sounded at least somewhat familiar,
So you can see in this commercial an overview of the city (that BTW was named in 2010 #2 most favorable for investments city in Russia by Forbes.)
But then in the next video you can see the nature of the Russian Far East, and you'll get the idea that it's basically the wilderness for real, with little to no infrastructure at all.
OK, so I looked into it - no, it's not a "tabloid stuff," it looks quite legitimate, although a person who suggested this project in Duma back in 2015 ( don't remember his name now) wasn't all that sure about it himself (according to some.)
I see even a site already ( although it looks a bit uncertain too, sort of like the person who suggested this project I guess)))
So what can I say about it?
Number one - the idea is not all that original; one needs only to look back into history of Russia, namely Stolypin's reforms of 1906-1914 ( built upon earlier reforms of count Sergey Witte in 1890-ies.) You'll notice the same initiative in Stolypin reforms - the "homestead program" for mass resettlement of Russian peasants to Siberia
"This was encouraged by the Trans-Siberian Railroad Committee, which was personally headed by Tsar Nicholas II. The Stolypin agrarian reforms included resettlement benefits for peasants who moved to Siberia. An emigration department was created in 1906 at the ministry of agriculture. It organized resettlement and assisted the settlers during their first years in the new settlements. The settlers received on average 16.5 hectares of land per man. The total area allocated was 21 million hectares. Migrants received a small state subsidy, exemption from some taxes, and advice from state agencies specifically developed to help with peasant resettlement.[5]
In part thanks to these initiatives, approximately 2.8 million of the 10 million migrants to Siberia relocated between 1908 and 1913. This increased the population of the regions east of the Urals by 2.5 times before the outbreak of World War I."
Now the settlement of Europeans in Russia is again not new in history, although traditionally it were Germans, for historic reasons/blood ties with Russia. This took place back in the 1700ies.
"Catherine the Great published manifestos in 1762 and 1763 inviting Europeans (except Jews)[3] to immigrate and farm Russian lands while maintaining their language and culture. Although the first received little response, the second improved the benefits offered and was more successful in attracting colonists. People in other countries such as France and England were more inclined to migrate to the colonies in the Americas than to the Russian frontier. Other countries, such as Austria, forbade emigration. The settlers came mainly from Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, the Palatinate, and the Rhineland, over the years 1763 to 1767."
So as we can see the precedent of both ( foreign settlements and resettlement of peasants to Siberia) definitely existed in Russian history before ( and that's where most likely today's Duma is digging for ideas,) however what I see as a new development in this latest case, is that Putin targets specifically Britons out of all people. The last mass settlers from *perfidious Albion* came to Russia in substantial numbers back in the 1700ies, namely Scots ( Russians don't differentiate between people of British Islands) and from that point on, unlike other European continentals, who were arriving and settling in Russia on a regular basis here and there, Britons were rare visitors for geographical/cultural reasons, since two cultures are on the opposite ends of each other I'd say.
Now today from everything I gather, Great Britain is a source of constant friction between Putin's gov. and Western Europe. He ( and Russia) are greatly criticized from there on a constant basis, and in Putin's eyes I think he perceives Great Britain as a big obstacle to establishing the kind of rapport with Continental Europe ( Western part of it) that Russia used to have throughout history.
But at the same time, "not all is good in Danish kingdom" ( a common Russian expression from some fairy-tale, but I refer to Great Britain at this point. Putin knows that British government that constantly jabs him is in trouble itself, with a lot of discontent coming from British citizens for a number of reasons,) so he, in turn, makes his move, offering the discontent Britons to visit HIS country, where, unlike in Great Britain, the approval of the government ( i.e. Putin personally) stands at about 85%. That's what I think is going on on political level, as for practical level of this Russian Far East project... Let's see here. To address your question of "convenient access to the internet, fuel, heat, good roads, and imported (Mediterranean) food and high tech consumer goods?" I'd say yes and no. See, Russia ( unlike the US) although somewhat similar in size and distances, has little to no sprawl; Russian cities are quite condensed ( those at the Far East including,) and there I am sure you'll find those amenities (with exception of Mediterranean food I'd think, because it's not very suitable for Russian climate,) but once you are out of major cities, you get into total wilderness with little to none infrastructure at all.
For example I am looking at Khabarovsk I happened to choose it, because one of my relatives used to live there gazillion years ago, so it sounded at least somewhat familiar,
So you can see in this commercial an overview of the city (that BTW was named in 2010 #2 most favorable for investments city in Russia by Forbes.)
But then in the next video you can see the nature of the Russian Far East, and you'll get the idea that it's basically the wilderness for real, with little to no infrastructure at all.
Erasure, the homesteader programs in US history also offered no infrastructure. Even in modern times, homesteaders in Alaska have faced the same conditions as in the Far East. This includes Russian Old Believers from Oregon, some of whom chose to establish a community in Alaska. And most of the wilderness shots in the video were of Kamchatka, not Khabarovsk region.
Under Putin, a lot of development took place in Khabarovsk city and the greater Khab. region; a railway all the way down the Amur was built, because the only transportation connecting the villages and small towns there (including the former military industrial town, Komsomolsk-on-the-Amur) previously was the river and the hydrofoils that went up and down the river several times/day. Typical of Russia in the past (USSR and pre-USSR, as I'm sure you know), the gov't was too cheap to build roads or RR's in the vicinity of major rivers, opting instead to use the rivers as free roads.
When Russia stopped producing hydrofoils, the gov't was forced to put money into extending the railway and building more roads. A new hydro-electric plant was also built in the region. This is what allowed people to get air conditioners to provide a little comfort in the stifling summers, and it's what was being referred to when the speaker said Khabarovsk has become more "comfortable" in the last 10 years or so.
Obviously, the hydro development was the cornerstone of the plan discussed in the video, to turn the Khabarovsk area back into an industrial zone, serving commercial and military ships, and aviation. (I wonder if the new airplane factory will also start building hydrofoils again. I love those!) Hopefully, that will lead to further infrastructure development outside the cities.
Those historical homesteading projects you mentioned remind me of something I read about Stalin's creation of the Birobidzhan Jewish Autonomous Region and the so-called city there. People were lured out to this "city", and there was nothing. Large pools of standing water, harboring mosquitos, no infrastructure except wooden sidewalks (if that), everyone had to build their own log cabins. I found this particularly outrageous, given the contrast with Harbin, basically in the same region, but on the Chinese side of the border. Harbin, built by Russian engineers for the Czar, was a proper city, with the same type of period architecture you see in the film on Khabarovsk, and any Russian city. There was normal infrastructure for the time. There were no clouds of mosquitos. It was not at all the wilderness described by new arrivals to Birobidzhan. Russia obviously was perfectly capable of building nice cities, but in Siberia, sometimes chose to create nothing more than dumping grounds for people it didn't need or want.
OK, that's the end of that particular little rant.
Erasure, the homesteader programs in US history also offered no infrastructure. Even in modern times, homesteaders in Alaska have faced the same conditions as in the Far East. This includes Russian Old Believers from Oregon, some of whom chose to establish a community in Alaska.
But what years it were?
Quote:
And most of the wilderness shots in the video were of Kamchatka, not Khabarovsk region.
Yeah... But Putin sends them to Kamchatka, no?
Well, here is Khabarovsk region -
the beauty...
It would be nice to know what we're looking at, in the flooded village scene. Is that a recent event that might be related to climate change? Some kind of freak event like Hurricane Katrina? The river doesn't usually flood like that. What was the point of posting that video? There's not context.
And no, Putin isn't sending them only to Kamchatka, from what I understood of the article linked earlier. It's the whole Far East.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For sure there are "Structural differences", but the core design is similar.
Putin knows that British government that constantly jabs him is in trouble itself, with a lot of discontent coming from British citizens for a number of reasons,) so he, in turn, makes his move, offering the discontent Britons to visit HIS country, where, unlike in Great Britain, the approval of the government ( i.e. Putin personally) stands at about 85%. That's what I think is going on on political level, as for practical level of this Russian Far East project... Let's see here. 
To address your question of "convenient access to the internet, fuel, heat, good roads, and imported (Mediterranean) food and high tech consumer goods?" I'd say yes and no. See, Russia ( unlike the US) although somewhat similar in size and distances, has little to no sprawl; Russian cities are quite condensed ( those at the Far East including,) and there I am sure you'll find those amenities (with exception of Mediterranean food I'd think, because it's not very suitable for Russian climate,) but once you are out of major cities, you get into total wilderness with little to none infrastructure at all. 