Why is not Russian language a world language?

[Alex Miller]

Whay is not Russian language-world language?

[Kitosdad]

You have just answered your own question .... in print.
_________________
Keep it simple ... Keep it interesting.

[Jan]

Why should be Russian afterall it is same bad as English.

[Jamie (K)]

[Jan]

Mothers were using a trick to force their kids to study Russian , it was explained to a child that if he wants to fight with them and win then he has to know enemy's language.
It was well understood but in general we were met with cooperation from Russian language teachers.
Nobody was really serious about Russian studing in Poland.
Many families were from Eastern Poland were CCCP were just fighting Polish whenever
they could and it was not a matter of knowing in that case it was a matter of clear decision we don't like Putin-like governing over us.

[Alex Miller]

Dear Jamie(K),USSR was empire like British empire or Spanish empire ect. And every empire must widen. If it widens it will live. For example the USA destroys Myslim countries for energy security for living.But in the issue the USA unlermines its own economics and acquires many enemys , isn't it?

[Jamie (K)]

Some empires can remain pretty stable without shrinking. The Soviet empire existed because the Marxist-Leninists believed in conversion of the world to their religion (Marxism is a non-theistic religion, after all). Apologists for the USSR used to say that the Russians invaded countries because they were "worried about protecting their own borders", but that was absurd, because every time they occupied a new country, they had more and bigger borders to worry about. It was simply naked expansionism, except when you consider states like Chechnya, that really did threaten Russia's internal security.

Before I had traveled much, I thought there was a moral equivalence between the US and Soviet "empires", but when visiting Soviet Bloc countries, I realized I was wrong. There was more oppression in the countries most closely allied to the USSR than in those most closely allied to the US, and there was much more economic hardship in the closest Soviet satellite countries than in US or NATO occupied countries. The Soviet system ruined economies, even in countries that had been very rich and technologically advanced before Soviet occupation. (These observations are generally true even though the US also sponsored some despotic regimes. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," as they say.)

It's hard to know what new enemies the US has acquired as a result of attacking and occupying majority Muslim countries. All the countries that are now angry at us for doing that already hated us before the wars started, so there is no love lost. The majority of the destruction is caused not by the US, but by radical Muslim insurgent groups that deliberately kill civilians or put them in danger, and that purposely try to destroy the countries' infrastructure. And it's certainly not the US that's currently murdering the Christians in Iraq and forcing them to flee by the tens of thousands.

One thing is certain, though. Despite all the propaganda you hear, the US isn't involved in those places "for oil". For one thing, Afghanistan has no oil. Secondly, the US gets only a small percentage of its oil from the Middle East. Most of it comes from the US itself, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Those countries don't always do what the US government wants them to, but the US does not attack and occupy them. In fact, Venezuela now has a dictator who is trying to turn his country into an oil-rich version of Cuba, and the US just lets him do it. So that "war for oil" claim is just a myth.

Another difference between the US and Soviet empires is that the Soviet empire never willingly let any country leave its orbit. The US allowed the Philippines and other countries to vote on remaining US protectorates. Some of them (like the Philippines) have voted for independence and got it without a revolution, some of them (like Puerto Rico) always vote to remain protectorates, and some (like Hawaii) have voted to become part of the United States. The Soviets never operated that way -- look at Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[Torsten]

[Jamie (K)]

Torsten, I think he means THE world language.

[Alex Miller]

Dear Jamie(K). All of your words about USSR are truthful. But USSR picked up economics of Asian countrys contituent in USSR. USSR built many schools,roads and haspitals in Afghanistan. How many schools built the USA in Afghanistan? Why production of opium is growing in Afghanistan 2002-2.800tons 2003-3.500tons 2004-4.200tons 2005-4.100tons 2006-6.001tons.

[Jamie (K)]

It's true that the USSR actually did improve the state of education, health and technological development in some countries it took over, including the "Stans" and even Bulgaria, which went right from the Turks to communism, if I'm not mistaken. Many of the people in those countries were happier to be under Soviet rule than under their previous regimes, because oppression with development is better than oppression without development, I suppose.

The US has been behind the building or rebuilding of many schools in Afghanistan, and that has been one of the objectives during the occupation. One of the main objectives has been to get girls back into school, since the Taliban forbade girls to be educated. And one of the security problems there involves Al-Qaeda targeting reopened schools for attack.

There was plenty of opium grown in Afghanistan even when the Soviets were in control. In fact, some would claim that the USSR encouraged its cultivation at the time both because opium brings in money and because it weakens the US. As for today, it's still a very chaotic situation in rural Afghanistan, and for the people there, raising opium is an alternative to starvation. The US and Afghan governments want to change this, but I imagine that if you stopped it overnight you'd get a famine or too much support for the insurgency.

[Alex Miller]

Dear Jamie(K). The Talibs were supplyed by money and arms from the US is not it?

[Jamie (K)]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At that time the Taliban were considered less of a threat than Russia, so the US supplied them. When they turned on their former ally, then the trouble began.

If you give your friend a knife to cut vegetables, and then he stabs you with it, it's not your fault. It's his fault.

[Alex Miller]

My friend. You have a distort morals. I think that cut vegetables and murdered man are not identical.

[Jamie (K)]

I was just using an analogy to make it clear that providing a "tool" to a friend or ally does not make the supplier responsible when his former ally uses the "tool" against him. People in the Middle East are not children, so they are morally responsible when they betray an ally. The betrayed ally is not responsible for that action.