More like because mig-31 was able to intercept it.

The civil war in Transnistria happened when Putin was just a suitcase carrier for the then-mayor of St. Petersburg.

He does. You don't.

No it doesn't make any sense at all. USA and Canada both were much more modern and rich countries in 1917. Russia on the other hand was badly beaten in the first world war, had a civil war, was invaded by foreign armed forces in 1918, was invaded by Poland in 1919 and was almost destroyed in WW2. USA and Canada, on the other hand, weren't, their infrastructure was intact and their human losses in both world wars were ridiculously small. Technologically Russia was at least 50 years behind USA in 1917, the life expectancy was 25 years lower. By 1960 a parity was reached. Soviet Russia started with a 24% literacy and ended with 99.8%. All that is a huge success in my book.
There were enough people from poorer countries trying to get to USSR because the standards of living there were higher than in their home countries. That is a normal process.
Basically you comparing a spoiled trust fund baby with somebody who started piss poor and even though that piss poor guy was able to rise quite high, since he wasn't as rich as the trust fund guy at the end, he was a loser in your eyes. That is a very childish view, to be honest.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of threatening the lives of people trying to run away from it, USA currently incarcerates almost as many people as Stalin had in his worst years. Good job, I say. That is what I call freedom you can be proud of.

Not false at all. Different countries had completely different starting positions and completely different things that happened to them after. But if you talk like that, why don't we compare USSR to Zimbabwe then?

Bad comparison. Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria all were ex-Socialist countries. All real estate there was previously people-owned, so they had the right to privatise their flats for free or almost free in the early nineties.

What else do you want to compare it with? Every other comparison would be apples-to-oranges. You can only compare it with what came before or what came after. Matter of fact, of all the former soviet republics only one has somewhat higher standards of living than before. Besides, you act as if Stalin was in power 1917-1991. But this sort of delusion is common to Americans, some of them asked me whether Hitler was still the head of state in Germany - in the late nineties.

Even so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

75.9% of Greeks own real estate. But only 53.3% of Germans do.

Matter of fact yes, USSR was very much a success, compared to its predecessor. The backwards Russian empire that was a century behind the developed world was transformed into a comparatively modern country that was finally able to feed itself (the last famine was in 1947, USSR was dissolved in 1991), while Russian empire had famines every 10 years or so. They've put the first man into space for fuck's sake, just 15 years after the most devastating war in the world's history!
Life expectancy at birth in 1960 was twice (!!!) of the life expectancy in 1900.
Could have been better if there was no need for fear of yet another foreign invasion.

Fewer problems? I think you forget the opium wars.

I certainly would not mind this kind of requirements.

Buddy, and why exactly don't you kill yourself? From what I have seen so far you are a waste of breath and nobody would be worse off if you just cease to exist. Just do it and nothing will ever test your patience again.

Frankfurt will definitely fail if you are in the city centre at +50.1086, +8.6658

This - the superstitious element - is, for some reason, very typical for orthodox Christianity. Same thing happens in Georgia (the country, not the state) and Russia.

And fugly flat looks. Besides, what good is better battery life if you have no battery?