Some Russians rethink Alaska sale

Oct 18, 2009 | Posted by: mostly numb but good | Full story: www.juneauempire.com

Is Russia having a case of seller's remorse for letting Alaska go for a pittance? And if so, why did it take so long? It was today in 1867 that Russia formally let Alaska go, peddling its Russian America territory to the underdeveloped United States for $7.2 million to ensure that its rival European power, Great Britain, didn't get it.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of89
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
American Dood

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 18, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Russian thought they were going to rip the americans off but then we sent our best jew negotiators.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

When America will be well and truly in trouble, it will seel Alaska.
Ronald Dumbsfeld

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Robespierre wrote:
When America will be well and truly in trouble, it will seel Alaska.
In your dreams...
Terek Cossack

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Right... So we can f$%k it up like we did Chukotka. No, thank you. Keep em, America.
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Tampere, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

Robespierre wrote:
When America will be well and truly in trouble, it will seel Alaska.
And when will America be in trouble? There are 359 billionaires in the United States of America and there are only 32 billionaires in the Russian Federation so keep on dreaming getting Alaska back tovarich.
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Tampere, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terek Cossack wrote:
Right... So we can f$%k it up like we did Chukotka. No, thank you. Keep em, America.
You are wrong. I have heard that Roman Abramovich did a very good job as the Governor of Chukotka so what are you talking about.
Terek Cossack

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Lukashenko is Dr Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. I have heard that Roman Abramovich did a very good job as the Governor of Chukotka so what are you talking about.
He did the best he could. Even spent money out of his own pocket (no big deal, with his billions). But it still has the highest alcoholism, poverty, and abortion rates in the country, and that is saying a helluva lot.
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Tampere, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terek Cossack wrote:
<quoted text>
He did the best he could. Even spent money out of his own pocket (no big deal, with his billions). But it still has the highest alcoholism, poverty, and abortion rates in the country, and that is saying a helluva lot.
Yeah but it is a hell of alot better place then it was in 2000 and that is all because of Roman Abramovich.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terek Cossack wrote:
<quoted text>
He did the best he could. Even spent money out of his own pocket (no big deal, with his billions). But it still has the highest alcoholism, poverty, and abortion rates in the country, and that is saying a helluva lot.
There is a rumour in Russia, that Abramovich wasn't nominated governor of Chukotka out of kindness, but for a reason.

When Putin came to power, he started to question the way the oligarchs had amassed such wealth in such a short time.
Some fell foul of the new rules, other were told to start paying their taces, etc... Khodorovski faced the gauntlet and ended up in jail; Berezovski chose exile.

Abramovich was offered the job in Chukotka, for him to repay the money Putin thought he owed, in supporting the region's budget with his own money.

That turned to be an intelligent move from both sides: Putin recovered money he would certainly never have done otherwise, whilst Abramovich was seen as a 'benefactor' to the impoveriched region, and amenable to Moscow.
Terek Cossack

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Lukashenko is Dr Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah but it is a hell of alot better place then it was in 2000 and that is all because of Roman Abramovich.
Oh, I agree. He even went as far as buying brand new Yamaha engines straight from Japan for local fishermen, for their boats, with his own money (again, to him, with his 20 billion dollars, a few hundred thousand is nothing, but to them, it meant they could go out and catch fish again, feed their families).
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Tampere, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Robespierre wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a rumour in Russia, that Abramovich wasn't nominated governor of Chukotka out of kindness, but for a reason.
When Putin came to power, he started to question the way the oligarchs had amassed such wealth in such a short time.
Some fell foul of the new rules, other were told to start paying their taces, etc... Khodorovski faced the gauntlet and ended up in jail; Berezovski chose exile.
Abramovich was offered the job in Chukotka, for him to repay the money Putin thought he owed, in supporting the region's budget with his own money.
That turned to be an intelligent move from both sides: Putin recovered money he would certainly never have done otherwise, whilst Abramovich was seen as a 'benefactor' to the impoveriched region, and amenable to Moscow.
Sounds like a pretty good deal. Considering that Abramovich was only worth 2 billion dollars when he started in 2000 and in 2008 he was worth 23 billion dollars. hahahha he got the share of the loot from Berezovsky"s and Khodorkovskys"s money.

But today he is only worth 8.5 billion dollars because of the global economic crisis.
Jacko

Lake Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 20, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

Lukashenko is Dr Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
And when will America be in trouble? There are 359 billionaires in the United States of America and there are only 32 billionaires in the Russian Federation so keep on dreaming getting Alaska back tovarich.
Russia is seeking to prove the arctic is their own territory. They planted a flag on it. They won't get Alaske back, but they will take other avenues. The US bought New York at a steal, as well as the Louisiana purchase. So far we keeping them too, only to give the whole thing to Mexico.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 20, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Nobody worries about what will happen to Sarah Palin when Alaska goes back to Russia.
A chat show host in Moscow perhaps?
Or a come-back as the Kremlin-designated governor?

Well, McCain must really feel 'stoupid' now ...
Jacko

Lake Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Robespierre wrote:
Nobody worries about what will happen to Sarah Palin when Alaska goes back to Russia.
A chat show host in Moscow perhaps?
Or a come-back as the Kremlin-designated governor?
Well, McCain must really feel 'stoupid' now ...
Alaska will become another tax free mexican welfare state before it becomes Russian proper again. In the US midwest great lakes area here it is cold and snowy. you wouldn't think many towns would become Mexican towns (I mean 85% hispanic), but they are. Alaska seems ripe for that too. the mexicans just move in, work real hard in tax free environments. live with five families per home to pay the mortgage. the women have about 7 babies each. the babies are automatic citizens who grow up and vote. we have a democracy, so they win. its the american way.( they are good people, but thats beside the point). call any business in America and the machine will first ask you if you speak spanish then press 1. that is proof of my arguement.
I respect Russia for not being so stupid as to give their country away. that is why Russia will always be Russia and the US will always be mexico.

There I go criticizing the good ole' USA again; and complimenting the Russians. Some people here ain't gonna like 'dat.....
Chris Crews

Palmer, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Russians have it all wrong. While they did have a few colonies such as Kodiak and Sitka, their activity in Russian America was very restricted to the coastal areas of the Aleutians, and Gulf of Alaska. They avoided the arctic, they almost never went into the interior, and they only made a few incursions into southwestern Alaska.

To say that Alaska was colonized through Russian blood and larbor is a @$#king joke! They came for the furs. They enslaved the Aleut people before almost wiping them off the face of the earth. They couldn't enslave the other peoples along the coast, so they tried to "Russianize" them through conversion to orthodoxy. They managed Alaska with chains, guns, murder, and eventually religion. Russian America was "colonized" with the blood and labor of Alaska natives, and it didn't work terribly well.

They did not make any long-lasting contributions in the area other than the establishment of the Eastern Orthodox Church in some areas. That's it. Nothing more!! Alaska has been settled, developed, and modernized by, and only by the US. Don't ever forget it. The Russians can stay in Russia. Keep out of Alaska!!

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacko wrote:
<quoted text>
Alaska will become another tax free mexican welfare state before it becomes Russian proper again. In the US midwest great lakes area here it is cold and snowy. you wouldn't think many towns would become Mexican towns (I mean 85% hispanic), but they are. Alaska seems ripe for that too. the mexicans just move in, work real hard in tax free environments. live with five families per home to pay the mortgage. the women have about 7 babies each. the babies are automatic citizens who grow up and vote. we have a democracy, so they win. its the american way.( they are good people, but thats beside the point). call any business in America and the machine will first ask you if you speak spanish then press 1. that is proof of my arguement.
I respect Russia for not being so stupid as to give their country away. that is why Russia will always be Russia and the US will always be mexico.
There I go criticizing the good ole' USA again; and complimenting the Russians. Some people here ain't gonna like 'dat.....
At least you made a correct argument about the pitfalls of unregulated immigration. If it's of any consolation, we in Britain suffer from the same problem, and are afflicted by the same softly-softly approach by our succesive governments.

We could have another 10 millions by 2033, according to the stats. Not a lot by your standards, but we are a smaller country.

One consolation for you; your hispanics don't come from far, are usually working, and have a culture that doesn't challenge yours (as far as I could judge visiting the States).

Our immigrants come from Africa, the Middle East and Far East Asia. They bring their own culture and want to keep it, and impose some of it if we let them too. They assimilate with difficulties and don't contribute to the cohesion in the country.

I bet I will be called racist for saying that...

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Russians, particularly trappers, were infamous for their mistreatment of Native Americans in Alaska. It is unlikely that they'd be well received by modern Alaskans, and certainly not by the USA, except, of course as tourists to see this beautiful state.

The Russians also dabbled in Hawaii and were evicted by the native Hawaiians. Little remains of their brief time there, but one can visit the "Old Russian Fort" on Kauai, basically a few rocks outlining whatever had been there. I have seen several Russian tourists in Hawaii enjoying this beautiful state. They are more than welcome.
Anti-Pipeliner

Jõgeva, Estonia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Maybe it's Chukotka (the Chukchi Peninsula), to be hended over to USA?:)

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Robespierre wrote:
<quoted text>

Our immigrants come from Africa, the Middle East and Far East Asia. They bring their own culture and want to keep it, and impose some of it if we let them too. They assimilate with difficulties and don't contribute to the cohesion in the country.
I bet I will be called racist for saying that...
The Latino illegal immigrants usually are semi-literate, do not speak English nor try to learn it, and often carry third world diseases such as TB. But they work hard and maybe in another generation will make good members of our society.

Robes, when you say "our" in your comment, to whom are you referring?

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 21, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Chris Crews wrote:
The Russians have it all wrong. While they did have a few colonies such as Kodiak and Sitka, their activity in Russian America was very restricted to the coastal areas of the Aleutians, and Gulf of Alaska. They avoided the arctic, they almost never went into the interior, and they only made a few incursions into southwestern Alaska.
To say that Alaska was colonized through Russian blood and larbor is a @$#king joke! They came for the furs. They enslaved the Aleut people before almost wiping them off the face of the earth. They couldn't enslave the other peoples along the coast, so they tried to "Russianize" them through conversion to orthodoxy. They managed Alaska with chains, guns, murder, and eventually religion. Russian America was "colonized" with the blood and labor of Alaska natives, and it didn't work terribly well.
They did not make any long-lasting contributions in the area other than the establishment of the Eastern Orthodox Church in some areas. That's it. Nothing more!! Alaska has been settled, developed, and modernized by, and only by the US. Don't ever forget it. The Russians can stay in Russia. Keep out of Alaska!!
Take it easy. I was only joking about Alaska, OK?
Alaska rightly belongs to the States.

You are right about the neglect when it was owned by Russia. In fact, Tasrist governments didn't care much about Alaska; it was mostly managed by a Russian private company and used as a coastal trading post. And you are also right in saying that Russia didn't try to colonise it by sending large population, as they could have done, like in Siberia. In these days, the Tsars decided where you lived, and Siberia became populated by Tsarist policy. That wasn't the case with Alaska.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of89
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••