Quis Russiam perdidit?

Composition and Communication Composition Board
1

An incomplete, and hastily made, translation of Mr. Pat Buchanan’s article entitled “Who Lost Russia?”

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=775

Quis Russiam perdidit?

Vespere nationum octo concilii, Vladimir Putin Russiam missilia in OTANem directuram esse nuntiavit. Resistendum est, ait ille, Bushis decisionem missilia antimissilia in Polonia et «radares» (sive radioelectrica instrumenta detectoria) in Re publica Bohemica ponendi. Qua de causa hoc facimus?

Civitates Foederatae systema ABN in Europa ad defendedum contra Iraniorum impetum esse dicunt. Sed Tehran neque bombam atomicam neque ICBM habet.

In alterum frigidum bellum tendere videmur, et, si verum est, onus non omnino manebit apud Kremlinem. Nam inter quos male concordiam coluerunt Clinton et Bush II, infantes … [boomers], qui victoriae fructum frigidi belli, potitum ab antecessoribus Maximae generationis, abiecerunt.

Quomodo fecerunt hoc?

Cum Ruber Exercitus domum ab Europa orientali se recepisset, Civitates Foederatae violando condiciones pacis OTANem ad orientem movere coepiunt.

Bellicosi contra russos nunc sub OTANem accipere volunt Ucraniam Georgiamque.

Num tam carae res hae sunt Civitatibus Foederatis ut ob eas bellum provocetur? Curnam societates militares iungimus in nationis praesidio milia armorum nuclearum habentis?

As always, corrections are welcome. :slight_smile:

2

decisionem missilia antimissilia in Polonia et «radares» (sive radioelectrica instrumenta detectoria) in Re publica Bohemica > ponendi



violando condiciones

in such cases that gerundium would a object take the gerundivium is used instead, agreeing as it would with the object, which take the proper case.

missilium…radarum (??)…pondendorum
condicionibus violandis

Nam inter quos male concordiam coluerunt Clinton et Bush II

this is badly writen. it should be "nam inter eos qui male concerdiam coluerunt C. e B. sunt the main sentence lacks the verb, and the relative was not taking the proper case in the sentence.

i dont now what kick away means :blush:

sub OTANem accipere

im not sure about this. :blush: (ad in, but sub???)

3

I’m sorry, I don’t follow. :blush:

im not sure about this. > :blush: > (ad in, but sub???)

what’s wrong with sub? I guess I could change it to “in”.

As for the rest, you are correct, I’ll make the changes when I post the rest of the article, when time permits, of course. :wink:

Vale, care Roberte!

4

instead of using the gerund with a object, one uses the gerundivum agreeing with noun in the case that the gerund would be conveying.

thus consilium urbem capiendi turns consilium urbis capiendae

what’s wrong with sub? I guess I could change it to “in”.

i dont know either, neither im certain of this usage,