NationStates Jolt Archive

Getting Medvedev's message
Nov 6th 2008 | MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition

A belligerent state-of-the-nation address from Russia’s president

http://media.economist.com/images/20081108/4508EU1.jpg

IT TOOK Dmitry Medvedev a while to find a suitable moment for his first state-of-the-nation address. The date had changed twice before the Kremlin settled for November 5th. This timing was meant to show that Russia’s agenda is unaffected by such trivia as America’s presidential election. But it also smacked of rival attention-seeking: even as the world listened to Barack Obama’s victory speech, Mr Medvedev was laying out a Russian version of democracy. The main television news devoted 45 minutes to Mr Medvedev, leaving just five minutes for Mr Obama.

The two main events of the year, Mr Medvedev said, had been the August war in Georgia and the world economic crisis. And America bore responsibility for both. The war stemmed from the presumptuous policies of America’s government; the economic crisis was a result of its arrogance and selfishness. It had ignored the advice of countries such as Russia and undermined everybody’s financial markets. Yet Russia, he promised, will not back down in the Caucasus—and nor will it be pulled down by the economic crisis.

Mr Medvedev did not even refer to Mr Obama’s victory in his speech, let alone congratulate him (he sent a telegram later). Indeed, he suggested that it was for America to make a move towards repairing its relationship with Moscow. He also offered a response to the expansion of NATO and the construction of missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia will place short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, on Europe’s border, and also install a radio-electronic device to scramble America’s missile-defence system.

Alexander Golts, a Russian military analyst, says that this is the first time since the cold war that Russia has declared its intention to create a military threat to the West. Whether it can be backed by real military capabilities is another question. The timing of this threat looks particularly odd: even Soviet hawks used to wait for six months after an American election to make big statements of military strategy.

Having delivered his attacks on America, Mr Medvedev spent most of his 90-minute speech talking about Russian politics. His liberal-sounding language might have come from an opposition politician. He lashed out at excessive bureaucracy that yields nothing but corruption, and gave warning against state meddling in private business. Bureaucracy is guided by the same mistrust of free enterprise as 20 years ago, he said: it frightens business so that it doesn’t do the wrong thing, controls the media so that they don’t say the wrong thing and interferes in elections so that voters don’t back the wrong person.

This last point was pretty hollow coming from a man who was hand-picked as president by his predecessor and patron, Vladimir Putin. Mr Medvedev also enjoyed the full might of Russia’s bureaucratic and media machine on his way to the top job. Yet a mismatch between words and actions is a trademark of the Kremlin. It seems that it can adopt liberal or nationalist rhetoric with equal ease to push its message of strength and power.

Thus, Mr Medvedev went out of his way to pay respect to the constitution, only to propose a significant change: to extend the presidential term from four to six years, and the parliament’s from four to five years. This was not originally Mr Medvedev’s idea. Mr Putin first suggested it last year and he may also be the main beneficiary. The new rules will come into effect only at the next presidential election. If Mr Putin, widely seen as Russia’s real boss, decides to return when Mr Medvedev’s first term expires in 2012, he could then be looking at another 12 years in power.

The planned extension of the presidential term was accompanied by liberal gestures that would in practice make little difference to Russia’s highly autocratic political system. Mr Medvedev said that the government should be made more accountable to parliament, for example. In reality, however, the Russian parliament was long ago turned into a rubber-stamping body dominated by Mr Putin’s United Russia party. There is no longer any significant opposition to speak of.

One area Mr Medvedev did not talk enough about was the economy, even though this is what most Russians are now worried about. He warned state bureaucrats and law enforcers not to exploit the crisis to settle scores or grab assets. But he said little about how to unblock the banking system or tame public spending. Indeed, Mr Medvedev’s main response to the financial crisis appears to be more anti-Americanism and moves to preserve the political system. This is unlikely to make Russia more democratic or prosperous.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12564707

Well? What to make of this story. There are a few interesting topics here.

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe and its electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.

2. Medvedev, Putin and the Russian government. What do you guys think about their authoritarianism, their centralization of power, the lack of power that the Russian parliament has (it's still called the Duma, right?), Medvedev's wish to lengthen political terms and the possibility of Putin eventually running again??

3. Medvedev basically avoided Russia's domestic economic situation. To put it bluntly, shit sucks there. He chose instead to blame everything on America and talk about the crisis in the States, but not the awful economic climate that exists in his country, nor what they would do to combat it. I find that super interesting.

Well?

Well? What to make of this story. There are a few interesting topics here.

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe and it's electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.

2. Medvedev, Putin and the Russian government. What do you guys think about their authoritarianism, their centralization of power, the lack of power that the Russian parliament has (it's still called the Duma, right?), Medvedev's wish to lengthen political terms and the possibility of Putin eventually running again??

3. Medvedev basically avoided Russia's domestic economic situation. To put it bluntly, shit sucks there. He chose instead to blame everything on America and talk about the crisis in the States, but not the awful economic climate that exists in his country, nor what they would do to combat it. I find that super interesting.

Well?
1. It's electronic attack warfare.
2. The Russians need to get their government fully sorted out.*
3. OK, who doesn't blame America nowadays? It's the popular thing to do.

In essence, I think he's just bashing America to take everybody's mind off how bad their shit really is.
*Yes, I realize the shape America's government is in its current state.

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe


Tit for tat. Nothing much to make a fuss about at this point.


and it's electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.

If it goes live, maybe. But then again, the Cold War saw a lot of EW going back and forth between the two with radio and jamming and it didn't go hot. Unless it's a precursor to an actual attack, all it will do is trade jamming and jamming countermeasure techniques between the two.

Tit for tat. Nothing much to make a fuss about at this point.
But I strongly believe the difference is that the missile defense shield is just that, for defense. The missiles in question destined for Kaliningrad are not a cooperative international missile defense shield.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the U.S. orginally asked Russia to include itself in designing the European missile defense shield, to take part in the process, and Russia declined and objected.


If it goes live, maybe. But then again, the Cold War saw a lot of EW going back and forth between the two with radio and jamming and it didn't go hot. Unless it's a precursor to an actual attack, all it will do is trade jamming and jamming countermeasure techniques between the two.
Indeed, but that in itself is the very point that I have been making and that the Economist seems to be making, that with every new day, new tensions arise between Russia and the U.S./West which seems to jet our two ever splintering regions into factions, which seems like it could develop into a new Cold War, or simply a new state of "rivalry" between East and West.

None of this is especially surprising. Russia has all the characteristics of a dictatorial Petrostate. Of course they're going to respond to us putting up a missile shield and interfering in their "near abroad."

I'm interested as to how Obama's apparent popularity around the world is going to affect attempts by certain leaders who have resorted to 'blame the US' every time something goes wrong.

Hm. Missiles in Kaliningrad? Like the Poles and Baltic states needed another reason to hate Russia.

This is LOL.

The US should stay the fuck out of the Russia stuffs in the first place.

I'm interested as to how Obama's apparent popularity around the world is going to affect attempts by certain leaders who have resorted to 'blame the US' every time something goes wrong.

Some of the new president smell is going to wear of eventually. But Obama probably had the best shot of patching relations with the Russians--McCain was hyper-bellicose on the Georgia conflict, among other things. And Hillary Clinton had the disadvantage of being a Clinton.

But I strongly believe the difference is that the missile defense shield is just that, for defense. The missiles in question destined for Kaliningrad are not a cooperative international missile defense shield.

Obviously not, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that the missile defense shield will be composed of just that. Even if it has no offensive weaponry installed, the amount of surveillance equipment will be quite extensive I would imagine. This is Russia's way of responding. Tit for tat as I've said.


Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the U.S. orginally asked Russia to include itself in designing the European missile defense shield, to take part in the process, and Russia declined and objected.

The TMD would have been under US purview in any case. I cannot see Russia willingly handing over their best tech and expertise into American hands under the name of "cooperation".


Indeed, but that in itself is the very point that I have been making and that the Economist seems to be making, that with every new day, new tensions arise between Russia and the U.S./West which seems to jet our two ever splintering regions into factions, which seems like it could develop into a new Cold War, or simply a new state of "rivalry" between East and West.

They're testing the waters, seeing how much Bush, and then Obama, are willing to continue the whole containment/regional interference policies that have been in place for a long time.

Considering that the Democrats didn't care much for Dubya pitching the idea of planting AMSes in Poland to begin with, NPR did wonder why Meddy didn't simply have a quiet behind the scenes talk with Obama about getting those quashed.

1. Russia is deploying missiles...

We're deploying missiles. They're deploying missiles.

Big deal.

If it ever comes down to war, they'll at least have the satisfaction of saying 'we' started it.

Well, surprise, surprise: looks like Georgia wasn't acting purely defensively (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print):
Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.

This vindicates Obama's call for restraint on both sides.

Considering that the Democrats didn't care much for Dubya pitching the idea of planting AMSes in Poland to begin with, NPR did wonder why Meddy didn't simply have a quiet behind the scenes talk with Obama about getting those quashed.

Because he didn't think of doing so? Because he wants to send a particular message?

Its just Russia's cock waving. Im willing to bet they wont even do it, and if they do, its just to show that they can still play with the big boys, not a real military threat.

This, however, does make me glad Obama won. That means we're more likely to deal with his diplomatically, as opposed to the way that many have handled Russia lately, as if we're still in the Cold War.


If we treat Russia like a legit player, things will get better.

Well, surprise, surprise: looks like Georgia wasn't acting purely defensively (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print):

This vindicates Obama's call for restraint on both sides.

What? Georgia started it. As far as I'm concerned, the Russians had every right to do what they felt they needed to and fuck restraint. They should also be allowed to put missiles where they damn well please.

I support russia over america. regardless. because russians are funnier.

Considering that the Democrats didn't care much for Dubya pitching the idea of planting AMSes in Poland to begin with, NPR did wonder why Meddy didn't simply have a quiet behind the scenes talk with Obama about getting those quashed.

Democrats didn't care for it back then because it was a Republican idea. The same concept allowed the Republicans to oppose the illegal bombing of Serbia, yet support the formation of an independent Kosovo.

Considering that the Democrats didn't care much for Dubya pitching the idea of planting AMSes in Poland to begin with, NPR did wonder why Meddy didn't simply have a quiet behind the scenes talk with Obama about getting those quashed.

he cant use the US as a reason to expand if they are. So he is going to make it so Obama cant take them down by being the craziest Russian on the block that he can.

Russia is accused of having a pre-cold war attitude towards the US, but has the US's passive aggressive attitude towards Russia sure hasn't helped at all. Why are they putting the missile shield in eastern Europe when they say that the threat comes from the Middle East anyway? It could go further into central Europe, were it could be far more useful to intercept early detected, high altitude ICBMs. It's almost like it WAS done to antagonize Russia. The US is to blamed if another cold war ignited.

Russia is accused of having a pre-cold war attitude towards the US, but has the US's passive aggressive attitude towards Russia sure hasn't helped at all. Why are they putting the missile shield in eastern Europe when they say that the threat comes from the Middle East anyway? It could go further into central Europe, were it could be far more useful to intercept early detected, high altitude ICBMs. It's almost like it WAS done to antagonize Russia. The US is to blamed if another cold war ignited.

The AMS was Cowboy Dubya's idea. Hopefully Obama will do something to keep it down. And Meddy did say he would only set up the missiles if the AMS was built in Poland.

when kennidy forced russian missles out of cuba, calling kruchef's bluff, was he "declairing a military threat agains russia"?

didn't exactly seem that way to me.

gese and ganders. no?

Well? What to make of this story. There are a few interesting topics here.

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe and its electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.

Yes, it would be an act of warfare.


2. Medvedev, Putin and the Russian government. What do you guys think about their authoritarianism, their centralization of power, the lack of power that the Russian parliament has (it's still called the Duma, right?), Medvedev's wish to lengthen political terms and the possibility of Putin eventually running again??

I hate their authoritarianism as I do all authoritarianism, and I believe that some kind of armed civilian resistance is currently justified.


3. Medvedev basically avoided Russia's domestic economic situation. To put it bluntly, shit sucks there. He chose instead to blame everything on America and talk about the crisis in the States, but not the awful economic climate that exists in his country, nor what they would do to combat it. I find that super interesting.

Well?
They've been doing that for a very long time. That was the way Putin, when interviewed by 60 Minutes, ducked all questions about racism and internal repression of the population. His argument was basically "don't be so sanctimonious; you did it too. Ergo, it's okay if Russia does it." And he sort of had a point; what he is doing is deeply immoral, and I think it's so immoral that he abrogates his right to live, but I will concede that his point talking about how the US has no international credibility still stands.

What? Georgia started it. As far as I'm concerned, the Russians had every right to do what they felt they needed to and fuck restraint. They should also be allowed to put missiles where they damn well please.

Yes, Georgia provoked it, but Russia also violated Georgian territory. The war did no one any good, including the Russians. And Russia has no right to bully smaller countries just because they're geographically proximate. Putin's acting like he wants the Russian empire back.

1. It's electronic attack warfare.
2. The Russians need to get their government fully sorted out.*
3. OK, who doesn't blame America nowadays? It's the popular thing to do.

In essence, I think he's just bashing America to take everybody's mind off how bad their shit really is.
*Yes, I realize the shape America's government is in its current state.

1. The Radar here in Czech Republic is electronic warfare too..
2. Your note adresses this point well enough
3. I do not blame America. I do blame the last two US Administrations for being reckless and shortsighted. At least Powell had the sense of jumping the fence endorsing Obama and of making public apology for his UN speech on Iraq.

Well, surprise, surprise: looks like Georgia wasn't acting purely defensively (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print):

This vindicates Obama's call for restraint on both sides.

TY for the link! I had missed that.
Please accept this one in exchange:
Saakashvili ex-ally demands probe of Georgia war (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=343225)

The AMS was Cowboy Dubya's idea. Hopefully Obama will do something to keep it down. And Meddy did say he would only set up the missiles if the AMS was built in Poland.

The Star Wars are an old Republican idea. Reagan was one of the first proposers of this. I also think that it is a nifty way to sponsor aereospatial companyes in a time of crysis with almost unlimited funds.
If it were for checking future Iranian (the North Korean option I find simply ludicrous) ballistic missiles from reaching the european NATO countryes a more logical positioning should have been Turkey as the ABM are supposed to hit their target during ballistic flight.
The ABM are just an excuse to build the radar(?) in Czech Republic.

Oh, and it was Russia that offered its radar in Azerbaijan to the US to help in the buiding of the AMS. Not the other way around.
Putin Offers Azerbaijan Radar to U.S. (http://www.kommersant.com/p-10856/Radar_Azerbaijan/)

Also the USA should keep in mind that Russians are paranoid by culture (you would be too if every and each one of your neibourghs tried to invade you at some point of history). Offering NATO membership to countryes in Russia's sphere of influence regardless of their democratic status is not a way to keep relations easy.

Last but not least, on the georgian affair. The next US administration should be careful in dealing with a president (I will not call him dictator yet) that likes to be compared to Josif Vissarionovič Džugašvili and Lavrenti Pavlovitsj Beria. And I'm talking about Saakashvili, not Medvedev.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/104ygtvi.asp?pg=2

Well?


Well, you seem to have forgotten to either back this up or withdraw it....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14151069&postcount=224

We should also keep in mind that Russia is not sold on the threat of Iran. They see Iranian ascendancy in the Middle East as preferable to American/Saudi dominance, and they have common cause as a fellow petrostate. So saying, "don't worry, this missile shield is directed at Iran, not you," doesn't really cut it.

I support russia over america. regardless. because russians are funnier.
http://www.yakov.com/images/shoImg1.jpg
http://justinsomnia.org/images/in-soviet-russia-blog-hacks-you-tshirt.jpg

We should also keep in mind that Russia is not sold on the threat of Iran. They see Iranian ascendancy in the Middle East as preferable to American/Saudi dominance, and they have common cause as a fellow petrostate. So saying, "don't worry, this missile shield is directed at Iran, not you," doesn't really cut it.
A possible solution is to stop relying so much on petrostates.

I support russia over america. regardless. because russians are funnier.

Yep, suppressing dissidents and murdering journalists always tickles me.

Well, you seem to have forgotten to either back this up or withdraw it....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14151069&postcount=224Anyone else, other than Corneliu (2), and i would say, "Wait for it ..." ... but, nopers.

Putin Offers to Cooperate with U.S. on Missile Defense (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46615)
A more official source on Putin's offer.

Putin Offers to Cooperate with U.S. on Missile Defense (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46615)
A more official source on Putin's offer.*le gasp*
Time to initiate postcount to TAI's visit to Moderation.

*le gasp*
Time to initiate postcount to TAI's visit to Moderation.

Ahem... What??

Anyways, this thread is old news...
Missile shield 'threatens Russia' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515411&highlight=russia+poland+radar) thread back in 22-01-2007...

Any reason why are we adressing this instead of Star Trek vs. Star Wars vs. Galaxy Quest?

1. Russia is deploying missiles in what seems to be a direct intention of military threat against the West, notably Central Europe/Eastern Europe and its electronic jammer of a military defense system that sovereign nations agreed upon in territory that does not belong to Russia. I believe that that could constitute electronic warfare...if they go through with it.


Interesting sidenote: The entire Iskander missile force is already deployed to the internationally recognized border with Georgia. Russia would either need to stand down those rockets, or they would need to spend a whole lot of money building new ones to put in Kaliningrad. His little missile-based pissy fest looks a whole lot less convincing when you actually look at it.

I laugh so hard when Russia talks about corruption.

Yes, Georgia provoked it, but Russia also violated Georgian territory. The war did no one any good, including the Russians. And Russia has no right to bully smaller countries just because they're geographically proximate. Putin's acting like he wants the Russian empire back.

Georgia has been refusing to allow a component substate to claim independence from Georgia.

If this were Russia refusing Georgia the right to independence, you'd be attacking Russia for it.

Indeed, in that situation, I'm not convinced you'd call defending Georgia 'bullying'.

Georgia has been refusing to allow a component substate to claim independence from Georgia.

If this were Russia refusing Georgia the right to independence, you'd be attacking Russia for it.

Indeed, in that situation, I'm not convinced you'd call defending Georgia 'bullying'.

If you think Russia is acting out of charitable intentions, then you're deceiving yourself. It wants to expand Russian influence in the near abroad and undermine the pro-Western democratic government of Georgia. Georgia may have directly provoked the conflict, but Russia has been undermining the peace for years. Georgia is at fault, but the Russian response was excessive and unwarranted. Defending breakaway regions is one thing, but invading and occupying Georgia proper is another.

And I'd like to see a Russia apologist explain how Georgia's actions in South Ossetia are any different from Russia's in Chechnya.

What I mean by "bullying" is attempting to undermine Saakashvili's government, and trying to strong arm former Soviet republics like they did to Ukraine.

Georgia may have directly provoked the conflict, ....... Georgia is at fault,
Legally speaking, this is all that matters.


And I'd like to see a Russia apologist explain how Georgia's actions in South Ossetia are any different from Russia's in Chechnya.
No is defending their acts - what Russia did was use Kosovo as a precedent for it's own backyard. Not exactly shocking.

What I mean by "bullying" is attempting to undermine Saakashvili's government, and trying to strong arm former Soviet republics like they did to Ukraine.

Well if Saakashvili hadn't run for election on a strong nationalistic background of "reuniting" Georgia-proper (despite the fact the breakaway republics had been pretty autonomous since the 1990's), and then tried to follow up on that - maybe they wouldn't have gotten the shit kicked out of them. Ukraine seems to be smarter in this regard.

The US is not entirely blameless in this manner. Bush walked over a lot of treaties and commitments we have had with Russia. Russia is only acting like a nation should. The US decides to put a missle defense close to it's borders. They are suppose to take that lying down? Or maybe the US doesn't consider the Russian goverment legit? Or it's people and government less than people? I am not saying the Russians are right in the matter. But the US hasn't exactly shown itself as friendly to Russia in the past.

They don't have the money to, there we go.

But Russia should also understand that Bush is a moron and compensate for that fact.
I doubt the US has any real need to worry, did you see any reports on the Russian tactics for defeating Georgia?
Very badly behind, basically they used sheer numbers to defeat them. Georgia actually had Air superiority for almost the entire operation i recall.
The only thing Russia has is Oil prices and supply it can fuck up for Europe.

Now Obama fair enough he's a better choice than McCain, But Russia? the day i see a Black man leading the Russia is the day i eat my shoes. and my shoes aren't edible either.

Legally speaking, this is all that matters.There's fault on both sides. What exactly happened is still unclear.

Well if Saakashvili hadn't run for election on a strong nationalistic background of "reuniting" Georgia-proper (despite the fact the breakaway republics had been pretty autonomous since the 1990's), and then tried to follow up on that - maybe they wouldn't have gotten the shit kicked out of them. Ukraine seems to be smarter in this regard.

Yes, Saakashvili badly miscalculated. I don't know what he was thinking. But Russia should not be able to destabilize another country's government because they don't like its policies. Nor should they be allowed to poison people.

2. Medvedev, Putin and the Russian government. What do you guys think about their authoritarianism, their centralization of power, the lack of power that the Russian parliament has (it's still called the Duma, right?), Medvedev's wish to lengthen political terms and the possibility of Putin eventually running again??


I want to backtrack and comment on this. In all honosty, post-Soviet Russia needs a heavily authoritarian leaders like Putin and Medvedev. Its the only way things could get done. Without a strong, nearly autonomous centralized executive, post-Soviet Russia would probably have fallen apart.

Putin has done wonders in Russia. In the west, we may demonize him and say Russia is undemocratic, and it mostly is. However, look at how far Russia has come since 1989. Russia will not be ready for real, liberal, democracy until it can have it without the risk of it falling apart or being overthrown by a military coup.

I want to backtrack and comment on this. In all honosty, post-Soviet Russia needs a heavily authoritarian leaders like Putin and Medvedev. Its the only way things could get done. Without a strong, nearly autonomous centralized executive, post-Soviet Russia would probably have fallen apart.

Putin has done wonders in Russia. In the west, we may demonize him and say Russia is undemocratic, and it mostly is. However, look at how far Russia has come since 1989. Russia will not be ready for real, liberal, democracy until it can have it without the risk of it falling apart or being overthrown by a military coup.

I've been wondering if this is the reason why the US is having a hissy fit. This maybe the reason why Bush is acting so very much like an asshole with them. What is he going to do? Put them on his Axis of Evil list for not having a form of government that isn't truely a pure Democracy.

I've been wondering if this is the reason why the US is having a hissy fit. This maybe the reason why Bush is acting so very much like an asshole with them. What is he going to do? Put them on his Axis of Evil list for not having a form of government that isn't truely a pure Democracy.

People like Bush dont seem to realize that the Cold War is over. Thats the main reason he's been poking Russia.

There's fault on both sides. What exactly happened is still unclear.
Not really. It's pretty well been established that Georgia attacked South Ossetian forces, and in doing so killed several Russian soldiers (acting as "peacekeepers" supposedly). Russia responded to 'safeguard its remaining troops in the area'. You could be cynical about it's actions and reasoning, but it's hard to argue that was the formal basis for it's actions.


But Russia should not be able to destabilize another country's government because they don't like its policies.
Of course not. (A lot of countries in the West do that too remember.) But the point from the Russian perspective can easily be put forward that it was defending it's troops (i.e citizens) from aggressive actions of another state. Whether you believe that or not is one thing - however factually and legally speaking, that is clear. Proportionality comes into it sure - and that might be something that Russia may be held accountable for.

Nor should they be allowed to poison people.
Again, true. However that was unrelated to Georgia. And again, pot meet kettle.

I want to backtrack and comment on this. In all honosty, post-Soviet Russia needs a heavily authoritarian leaders like Putin and Medvedev. Its the only way things could get done. Without a strong, nearly autonomous centralized executive, post-Soviet Russia would probably have fallen apart.

Putin has done wonders in Russia. In the west, we may demonize him and say Russia is undemocratic, and it mostly is. However, look at how far Russia has come since 1989. Russia will not be ready for real, liberal, democracy until it can have it without the risk of it falling apart or being overthrown by a military coup.

I thought it was the discovery of more oil in Russia that can account for it's increase in economic power. I think Russia is still very weak from the Communist era at least from a social and educational perspective. At the moment i don't think it needs military endevours.

Not really. It's pretty well been established that Georgia attacked South Ossetian forces, and in doing so killed several Russian soldiers (acting as "peacekeepers" supposedly). Russia responded to 'safeguard its remaining troops in the area'. You could be cynical about it's actions and reasoning, but it's hard to argue that was the formal basis for it's actions.Take a look at the NYT article I linked. It's pretty clear Georgia wasn't acting in self-defense, but Russia may be culpable as well. There's reports that Russian soldiers may have committed war crimes, and Russia was massing "peacekeeping" forces in and near Georgia before the attack on Ossetian forces.

Of course not. (A lot of countries in the West do that too remember.) But the point from the Russian perspective can easily be put forward that it was defending it's troops (i.e citizens) from aggressive actions of another state. Whether you believe that or not is one thing - however factually and legally speaking, that is clear. Proportionality comes into it sure - and that might be something that Russia may be held accountable for.
Russia is also at fault for handing out Russian passports just so it could act to protect its "citizens." Of course I understand the Russian perspective, but its actions are putting it on a collision course with the West, which will ultimately be detrimental to everyone.

Again, true. However that was unrelated to Georgia. And again, pot meet kettle.We haven't done anything like that for a while, and when we did, it always turned out badly.

I want to backtrack and comment on this. In all honosty, post-Soviet Russia needs a heavily authoritarian leaders like Putin and Medvedev. Its the only way things could get done. Without a strong, nearly autonomous centralized executive, post-Soviet Russia would probably have fallen apart.

Putin has done wonders in Russia. In the west, we may demonize him and say Russia is undemocratic, and it mostly is. However, look at how far Russia has come since 1989. Russia will not be ready for real, liberal, democracy until it can have it without the risk of it falling apart or being overthrown by a military coup.

The strength of the Russian economy is directly linked to the rise in oil prices, which is why I've referred to it repeatedly as a petrostate. The idea that Putin has caused Russian success was debunked in this Foreign Affairs article: (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105-p40/michael-mcfaul-kathryn-stoner-weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html)
The reemergence of Russian autocracy under Putin, conversely, has coincided with economic growth but not caused it (high oil prices and recovery from the transition away from communism deserve most of the credit). There is also very little evidence to suggest that Putin's autocratic turn over the last several years has led to more effective governance than the fractious democracy of the 1990s. In fact, the reverse is much closer to the truth: to the extent that Putin's centralization of power has had an influence on governance and economic growth at all, the effects have been negative. Whatever the apparent gains of Russia under Putin, the gains would have been greater if democracy had survived.
One can only wonder how fast Russia would have grown with a more democratic system. The strengthening of institutions of accountability -- a real opposition party, genuinely independent media, a court system not beholden to Kremlin control -- would have helped tame corruption and secure property rights and would thereby have encouraged more investment and growth. The Russian economy is doing well today, but it is doing well in spite of, not because of, autocracy.
As Putin and his team devise schemes to avoid a real handover of power later this year, their contortions to maintain themselves at the head of the Russian state seem much more successful than their efforts at improving governance or growing the economy at a faster pace. World energy and raw-material prices make sustained economic growth in Russia likely for the foreseeable future. But sustained autocratic rule will not contribute to this growth and, because of continued poor governance, is likely to serve as a drag on economic development in the long term. Russians are indeed getting richer, but they could be getting even richer much faster.

The Kremlin talks about creating the next China, but Russia's path is more likely to be something like that of Angola -- an oil-dependent state that is growing now because of high oil prices but has floundered in the past when oil prices were low and whose leaders seem more intent on maintaining themselves in office to control oil revenues and other rents than on providing public goods and services to a beleaguered population. Unfortunately, as Angola's president, José Eduardo dos Santos, has demonstrated by his three decades in power, even poorly performing autocracies can last a long, long time.

The strength of the Russian economy is directly linked to the rise in oil prices, which is why I've referred to it repeatedly as a petrostate. The idea that Putin has caused Russian success was debunked in this Foreign Affairs article: (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105-p40/michael-mcfaul-kathryn-stoner-weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html)

I was more refering to him actually holding Russia together. Besides, Putin has continued the more free market policies put into place by his mentor Yeltsin, so while he doesnt dserve all the credit, one cant say hes had nothing to do with it.

I was more refering to him actually holding Russia together. Besides, Putin has continued the more free market policies put into place by his mentor Yeltsin, so while he doesnt dserve all the credit, one cant say hes had nothing to do with it.

Many of the former Soviet states have at least semi-functioning democratic systems. There's nothing inherent within Russian society that blocks democracy. That's Putin's fault.

As for continuing free market policies--we have to give him credit for not reverting to communism? An oligarchical petrostate where CEOs are sent to prison so the government can seize their companies is not exactly a pro-business environment.

Many of the former Soviet states have at least semi-functioning democratic systems. There's nothing inherent within Russian society that blocks democracy. That's Putin's fault.


Except for the threat of a military coup. In Soviet Russia, the military was a much bigger player than it was in the many Soviet satellite states.

Except for the threat of a military coup. In Soviet Russia, the military was a much bigger player than it was in the many Soviet satellite states.

Yes, that was true, especially in the first few years of Yeltsin's first term. But Putin has seized more power and taken the country in a more antidemocratic direction. It's ultimately bad for Russia, and a more enlightened leader would have seen that.

Yes, that was true, especially in the first few years of Yeltsin's first term. But Putin has seized more power and taken the country in a more antidemocratic direction. It's ultimately bad for Russia, and a more enlightened leader would have seen that.

I dont mean to come off as agreeing too much with Putin. I tend to be pro- post Soviet Russia in a lot of cases, but I think a lot of Putin's acts are detestable.


That doesnt mean I dont admire some of what he has done to hold Russia together.

If you think Russia is acting out of charitable intentions, then you're deceiving yourself. It wants to expand Russian influence in the near abroad and undermine the pro-Western democratic government of Georgia. Georgia may have directly provoked the conflict, but Russia has been undermining the peace for years. Georgia is at fault, but the Russian response was excessive and unwarranted. Defending breakaway regions is one thing, but invading and occupying Georgia proper is another.

And I'd like to see a Russia apologist explain how Georgia's actions in South Ossetia are any different from Russia's in Chechnya.

What I mean by "bullying" is attempting to undermine Saakashvili's government, and trying to strong arm former Soviet republics like they did to Ukraine.

I didn't say that Russia was acting out of charitable intentions, did I?

Does anyone really believe that the US put troops in Iraq for purely 'charitable' reasons? I doubt it. Why would I expect more from Russia?

But all we're looking at here, is jockeying for power, position and territory. Georgian politicians jockeying for power over sub-Georgian nationalism, Russia and Georgia jockeying for territory in conflicted areas, and new balances being struck in the region.

I didn't say that Russia was acting out of charitable intentions, did I?

Does anyone really believe that the US put troops in Iraq for purely 'charitable' reasons? I doubt it. Why would I expect more from Russia?

But all we're looking at here, is jockeying for power, position and territory. Georgian politicians jockeying for power over sub-Georgian nationalism, Russia and Georgia jockeying for territory in conflicted areas, and new balances being struck in the region.

Which is why I initially said that in terms of realpolitik, the war in Georgia was bad for both sides, and both sides would have been better off avoiding it. If Russia wants to maintain Great Power status in the 21st century, it needs to engage with the West, not attempt to reestablish a sphere of influence. In the long term, this type of action will be bad for them. And Georgia was obviously a loser too.

Many of the former Soviet states have at least semi-functioning democratic systems. There's nothing inherent within Russian society that blocks democracy. That's Putin's fault.

There's also a difference in political traditions and aspirations of various peoples of former Soviet Union. Some less politically correct could argue that Russians just got used to being bullied around, while the Baltics never felt much like Soviets, and had West to look up to. Russia, on the other hand, often emphasized its "peculiarity". It is worth mentioning, too, that transition from authoritarian socialism to democratic capitalism is difficult and often results in impoverishment/disproportional distribution, what obviously can radicalize the opinions.

Of course, it does not mean I consider Russia democratically-challenged; I'm just repeating a handful interpretations of the country's situation.

Yes, Georgia provoked it, but Russia also violated Georgian territory. The war did no one any good, including the Russians. And Russia has no right to bully smaller countries just because they're geographically proximate. Putin's acting like he wants the Russian empire back.

No, Putin acting as any sane leader would. South Ossetians are Russians. They carry Russian passports and the like. Putin has the right to defend his people and crush the Georgians. What the Georgians did was a kin to poking and teasing a dog. And then when the dog bites, they go running to their mommy(the US) claiming the dog bit them for no reason. International politics isn't a game, they need to learn that.

No, Putin acting as any sane leader would. South Ossetians are Russians. They carry Russian passports and the like. Putin has the right to defend his people and crush the Georgians. What the Georgians did was a kin to poking and teasing a dog. And then when the dog bites, they go running to their mommy(the US) claiming the dog bit them for no reason. International politics isn't a game, they need to learn that.

You mean when the dog did what it could to get its tail in poking range? Or better, it'd be somewhat alike if Pitbull or Dobermann declared li'l runaway Smokey its own, and thus the boy owner chasing Smokey his enemy :D

There's also a difference in political traditions and aspirations of various peoples of former Soviet Union. Some less politically correct could argue that Russians just got used to being bullied around, while the Baltics never felt much like Soviets, and had West to look up to. Russia, on the other hand, often emphasized its "peculiarity". It is worth mentioning, too, that transition from authoritarian socialism to democratic capitalism is difficult and often results in impoverishment/disproportional distribution, what obviously can radicalize the opinions.

Of course, it does not mean I consider Russia democratically-challenged; I'm just repeating a handful interpretations of the country's situation.

My point is that Russia was not destined to be an oligarchical state run by a cadre of ex-KGB officers with imperial ambitions. Vladimir Putin is largely responsible for taking it in the direction, and we should do everything possible to encourage a more positive path of development. Empathizing with Russian nationalists can only get us so far.

My point is that Russia was not destined to be an oligarchical state run by a cadre of ex-KGB officers with imperial ambitions. Vladimir Putin is largely responsible for taking it in the direction

Hmmm. Well that is an interesting debate.

Personally, I would put the blame at Yelstin's door.

My point is that Russia was not destined to be an oligarchical state run by a cadre of ex-KGB officers with imperial ambitions. Vladimir Putin is largely responsible for taking it in the direction, and we should do everything possible to encourage a more positive path of development. Empathizing with Russian nationalists can only get us so far.

First sentence: m'kay, I of course agree. As for the second, it's not like Putin just showed up and ubermensched everyone to bow to the sound of his name. He was, say, "nominated" by Yeltsin, plus his agressive rhetoric would not fall on fertile ground, were the people happy and well-off. As I said, this did not make Russia destined for anything, just weighted the scales to this one way's favour.

No, Putin acting as any sane leader would. South Ossetians are Russians. They carry Russian passports and the like. Putin has the right to defend his people and crush the Georgians. What the Georgians did was a kin to poking and teasing a dog. And then when the dog bites, they go running to their mommy(the US) claiming the dog bit them for no reason. International politics isn't a game, they need to learn that.

You are justifying invading and "crushing" a sovereign nation just to teach them a lesson. Russia's response was heavy-handed and irresponsible.

As for Yeltsin, he's to blame, too. But I would contend that Putin is responsible for consolidating power and shutting down the democratic process. Yeltsin never took total control of the system.

No, Putin acting as any sane leader would. South Ossetians are Russians. They carry Russian passports and the like. Putin has the right to defend his people and crush the Georgians. What the Georgians did was a kin to poking and teasing a dog. And then when the dog bites, they go running to their mommy(the US) claiming the dog bit them for no reason. International politics isn't a game, they need to learn that.

Russia has issued it's passports to the people of foreign country. Don't be so naive to believe that Putin's intention was to "defend his people". It is the method Russia uses for years. Like they "defended" Finnish workers in 1939, Baltic comrades in 1940, like Hitler "defended" Germans in Czechoslovakia.

Those great defenders...

Today they are issuing their passports to the people in Crimea, which is an integral part of Ukraine. When the problem of Crimea will rise in 2017 (or even earlier), Russia will have a chance to "defend" someone again.

A radar is not a threat. More often radar is for purposes of protection and defense. And if Russia wants to put up any equipment that blocks radar then that isn't a military strike unless they use it against us or anyone first. But personally, I don't see what Russia's problem is. It's for protection and can be used for their protection also. Free missle shield for Russia...nothing to quarrel about.

I was more refering to him actually holding Russia together. Besides, Putin has continued the more free market policies put into place by his mentor Yeltsin, so while he doesnt dserve all the credit, one cant say hes had nothing to do with it.

Wait? Putin actually learned from Boris "Buy Me A Drink" Yeltsin?

A radar is not a threat. More often radar is for purposes of protection and defense. And if Russia wants to put up any equipment that blocks radar then that isn't a military strike unless they use it against us or anyone first. But personally, I don't see what Russia's problem is. It's for protection and can be used for their protection also. Free missle shield for Russia...nothing to quarrel about.

Radar linked with Anti Ballistic Missiles.

You are justifying invading and "crushing" a sovereign nation just to teach them a lesson. Russia's response was heavy-handed and irresponsible.

As for Yeltsin, he's to blame, too. But I would contend that Putin is responsible for consolidating power and shutting down the democratic process. Yeltsin never took total control of the system.

I think you're oversimplifying, and I think you do it deliberately.

Russia didn't invade Georgia and 'crush' it just to teach them a lesson'.

South Ossetia has called for independence from Georgia, and sought closer ties with Russia. They identify as part of Russia, effectively being held in an unwanted union by a greater power.

Remember just a few years ago when the USSR was falling apart? Remember the various conflicts in the Balkan states as they settled into a new balance? Georgia has been divided - half of it trying to split from Georgia, and the other half trying to stop it. Our normal diplomatic response has been to back the separatists.

But not this time.

Why? Because they will make our former 'enemy' stronger?

You say the response was heavy-handed and irresponsible. I think maybe you're being ignorant of world politics... even US politics, if you think this was a particularly extreme response.

I think what scares people, REALLY, is that Russia is supposed to be dead, now. We're supposed to have 'won', there - and they're supposed to do as we say, and play nice in their corner. We kind of wanted them to be poor and broken, and they're scaring people by going against expectations. They are still a power, and they're starting power projection - not unlike ourselves - and I think that THAT is what is terrifying so many people.

Russia has issued it's passports to the people of foreign country. Don't be so naive to believe that Putin's intention was to "defend his people". It is the method Russia uses for years. Like they "defended" Finnish workers in 1939, Baltic comrades in 1940, like Hitler "defended" Germans in Czechoslovakia.

Those great defenders...

Today they are issuing their passports to the people in Crimea, which is an integral part of Ukraine. When the problem of Crimea will rise in 2017 (or even earlier), Russia will have a chance to "defend" someone again.

So, they're offering an alternative route to separatists? How is that wrong?

Just because it's Russia?

Or do you think that it's a Faustian bargain? If it is.... if a separatist region chooses to dance with the devil... isn't that their choice?

Wait? Putin actually learned from Boris "Buy Me A Drink" Yeltsin?

Yep. In fact, Yeltsin appointed him.

Yep. In fact, Yeltsin appointed him.

Probably the one sharp thing Yeltsin did in his political career.

Probably the one sharp thing Yeltsin did in his political career.

The ONLY sharp thing he's ever done.

I think you're oversimplifying, and I think you do it deliberately.

Russia didn't invade Georgia and 'crush' it just to teach them a lesson'.Uh, no. I've said that it's a complex conflict with fault on both sides. I was responding to a claim of unimpeachable righteousness on the part of Russia.

Remember just a few years ago when the USSR was falling apart? Remember the various conflicts in the Balkan states as they settled into a new balance? Georgia has been divided - half of it trying to split from Georgia, and the other half trying to stop it. Our normal diplomatic response has been to back the separatists.

But not this time.
It's not true that we normally back separatist movements. It's very rare. Separatist movements are destabilizing. We and the international community typically regard them as internal affairs.

You say the response was heavy-handed and irresponsible. I think maybe you're being ignorant of world politics... even US politics, if you think this was a particularly extreme response.If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant, then back up your argument. I think Russia would have benefited from taking a more measured response. Do you think it's the norm to respond to international crises by sending tanks into other countries? They could have occupied South Ossetia and called for international intervention. Am I "ignorant" for thinking that invading and occupying Tblisi was unnecessary?

I think what scares people, REALLY, is that Russia is supposed to be dead, now. We're supposed to have 'won', there - and they're supposed to do as we say, and play nice in their corner. We kind of wanted them to be poor and broken, and they're scaring people by going against expectations. They are still a power, and they're starting power projection - not unlike ourselves - and I think that THAT is what is terrifying so many people.Russia is refusing to become an responsible stakeholder in the international system. China is rising quickly, but even with their massive military force and oppressive human rights record, no one is talking about a Cold War with China. Why? Because China has shown an intent to gain international influence through economic growth and trade, instead of through military force.

I think Russia's actions show how little they know about our internal politics and how it was pretty unlikely that a Democratic administration would put much effort into the supposed anti-missile missile defense system.
But I believe it is to the advantage of the current crop of Russian patriots to be at odds with the west. This way they can portray the west as boogie men while stoking Russian fear and nationalism. Expect a couple of minor and possibly one major war over the next twenty years if this Russian government stays in power and China and/or NATO don't take action. They will make grabs for ex-Soviet territory to keep these new nations weak.
All the while they will promise to remain on the side of peace while taking a bit here and a bit there (See Georgia). The best thing to do is bring as many of theses new states into NATO and/or alliance with the People's Republic of China as possible.
Anyone who thinks about this and has been paying attention will see that this missile defense system could not, even in Putin's deranged dreams, be an effective deterent to the Russian ICBM threat. As to the placement in eastern Europe it makes excellent sense if the goal is to stop a limited missile strike launched from southern Asia (Iran or Pakistan) or the Middle East against western Europe.

"""Getting Medvedev's message
Nov 6th 2008 | MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition

A belligerent state-of-the-nation address from Russia’s president

http://media.economist.com/images/20081108/4508EU1.jpg

IT TOOK Dmitry Medvedev a while to find a suitable moment for his first state-of-the-nation address. The date had changed twice before the Kremlin settled for November 5th. This timing was meant to show that Russia’s agenda is unaffected by such trivia as America’s presidential election. But it also smacked of rival attention-seeking: even as the world listened to Barack Obama’s victory speech, Mr Medvedev was laying out a Russian version of democracy. The main television news devoted 45 minutes to Mr Medvedev, leaving just five minutes for Mr Obama.

The two main events of the year, Mr Medvedev said, had been the August war in Georgia and the world economic crisis. And America bore responsibility for both. The war stemmed from the presumptuous policies of America’s government; the economic crisis was a result of its arrogance and selfishness. It had ignored the advice of countries such as Russia and undermined everybody’s financial markets. Yet Russia, he promised, will not back down in the Caucasus—and nor will it be pulled down by the economic crisis.

Mr Medvedev did not even refer to Mr Obama’s victory in his speech, let alone congratulate him (he sent a telegram later). Indeed, he suggested that it was for America to make a move towards repairing its relationship with Moscow. He also offered a response to the expansion of NATO and the construction of missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia will place short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, on Europe’s border, and also install a radio-electronic device to scramble America’s missile-defence system.

Alexander Golts, a Russian military analyst, says that this is the first time since the cold war that Russia has declared its intention to create a military threat to the West. Whether it can be backed by real military capabilities is another question. The timing of this threat looks particularly odd: even Soviet hawks used to wait for six months after an American election to make big statements of military strategy.

Having delivered his attacks on America, Mr Medvedev spent most of his 90-minute speech talking about Russian politics. His liberal-sounding language might have come from an opposition politician. He lashed out at excessive bureaucracy that yields nothing but corruption, and gave warning against state meddling in private business. Bureaucracy is guided by the same mistrust of free enterprise as 20 years ago, he said: it frightens business so that it doesn’t do the wrong thing, controls the media so that they don’t say the wrong thing and interferes in elections so that voters don’t back the wrong person.

This last point was pretty hollow coming from a man who was hand-picked as president by his predecessor and patron, Vladimir Putin. Mr Medvedev also enjoyed the full might of Russia’s bureaucratic and media machine on his way to the top job. Yet a mismatch between words and actions is a trademark of the Kremlin. It seems that it can adopt liberal or nationalist rhetoric with equal ease to push its message of strength and power.

Thus, Mr Medvedev went out of his way to pay respect to the constitution, only to propose a significant change: to extend the presidential term from four to six years, and the parliament’s from four to five years. This was not originally Mr Medvedev’s idea. Mr Putin first suggested it last year and he may also be the main beneficiary. The new rules will come into effect only at the next presidential election. If Mr Putin, widely seen as Russia’s real boss, decides to return when Mr Medvedev’s first term expires in 2012, he could then be looking at another 12 years in power.

The planned extension of the presidential term was accompanied by liberal gestures that would in practice make little difference to Russia’s highly autocratic political system. Mr Medvedev said that the government should be made more accountable to parliament, for example. In reality, however, the Russian parliament was long ago turned into a rubber-stamping body dominated by Mr Putin’s United Russia party. There is no longer any significant opposition to speak of.

One area Mr Medvedev did not talk enough about was the economy, even though this is what most Russians are now worried about. He warned state bureaucrats and law enforcers not to exploit the crisis to settle scores or grab assets. But he said little about how to unblock the banking system or tame public spending. Indeed, Mr Medvedev’s main response to the financial crisis appears to be more anti-Americanism and moves to preserve the political system. This is unlikely to make Russia more democratic or prosperous.
http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=12564707"""

The ignorance of the Economist astounds me.

1. "Yet Russia, he promised, will not back down in the Caucasus—and nor will it be pulled down by the economic crisis." - that's been Russian policy before America declared Independence, Medvedev didn't invent it. Caucasian is a volatile region that gets Russia in trouble, so they're anal about it. Nothing new, it's centuries old! Economist's grade on Russian History: F

2. "The two main events of the year, Mr Medvedev said, had been the August war in Georgia and the world economic crisis. And America bore responsibility for both. The war stemmed from the presumptuous policies of America’s government; the economic crisis was a result of its arrogance and selfishness." - Israel also said that foolish American policies in Georgia led to the war. In addition so did an Indian think tank. Also, Norway blamed America for the Economic Collapse, as did France, Germany, Spain, etc. Medevedev just summed up the two. 1 + 1 = 2, really shouldn't the Economist be able to add?

3. "let alone congratulate him (he sent a telegram later)" - sending a telegram isn't congratulating? Wait, a sec, they why does Hallmark have all those cards that are sent just like a telegram?

4. "Alexander Golts, a Russian military analyst, says that this is the first time since the cold war that Russia has declared its intention to create a military threat to the West." - Yes the other 15,000 nukes, some of which can hit American cities are clearly not a military threat. Golts'/Economist's military grade: F

5. "It seems that it can adopt liberal or nationalist rhetoric with equal ease to push its message of strength and power." - Isn't that what the United States has been doing all along?

6. "make little difference to Russia’s highly autocratic political system." - Russia's voter turnout: almost half of the entire population (not just the registered voters); percent that voted for Putin/Medevedev: 70%. Clearly Autocratic. Economist - shouldn't they be able to do some number crunching?

7. "But he said little about how to unblock the banking system or tame public spending." - except for the part where he outlined a huge banking system solution to the crisis and told people what to do, what not to do and where to find the information. Great lie by the Economist. What a bunch of losers.

If you really want to know what's going on, here it is: Russia's no threat to the US; they've adopted the Code of Hammurabbi. Obama can actually finish off Al Qaeda, so the Neocons just need someone that Americans will fear. Hence they're drumming up anti Russian rhetoric. "Fear the Russians - they will come to get you!" Nevermind the fact that Russia could have outright annexed Georgia and didn't do so. Nevermind the fact that Russia invited the US to cooperate on building a base in Ajerbaijan, a deal that the Neocons, not Russia rejected. Nevermind the fact that until the US went into Iraq, Russia was helping the US defeat Al Qaeda. I hope that Hope and Optimism can once again triumph over fear on the Russian issue. Oh yeah, and Economist & Neocons, where are those WMDs? Where's the Hussein/bin Laden link you promised in your editorials? Where's Iraq being able to pay us back? Why's Ukraine's economy about to collapse, while Belarus' is doing stellar, the exact opposite of what you predicted? Isn't it time you stopped "predicting"?

when kennidy forced russian missles out of cuba, calling kruchef's bluff, was he "declairing a military threat agains russia"?

didn't exactly seem that way to me.

gese and ganders. no?

JFK said to Khruschev:

"Comrade, if you pull your missiles out of Cuba publicly, I'll get US missiles out of Turkey privately."

And Khruschev agreed. And no one got nuked.

Interesting sidenote: The entire Iskander missile force is already deployed to the internationally recognized border with Georgia. Russia would either need to stand down those rockets, or they would need to spend a whole lot of money building new ones to put in Kaliningrad. His little missile-based pissy fest looks a whole lot less convincing when you actually look at it.

Yes, because Russia couldn't use one of their other 15,000 nukes to place on Georgia's borders. Must be Iskander. Great military analysis, I heard the Economist is hiring.

It's not true that we normally back separatist movements. It's very rare. Separatist movements are destabilizing. We and the international community typically regard them as internal affairs.


Perhaps you don't remember the dissolution of the former USSR? Perhaps you're not aware of our political leanings in the direction of Chinese claims to 'separatists'? In fact - it' basically our policy for half the globe, to oppose territorial claims - to Kashmir, Tibet, etc. Sometimes, more forcefully than others.


If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant, then back up your argument. I think Russia would have benefited from taking a more measured response. Do you think it's the norm to respond to international crises by sending tanks into other countries? They could have occupied South Ossetia and called for international intervention. Am I "ignorant" for thinking that invading and occupying Tblisi was unnecessary?


No, but you are ignoring our own occupation of Iraq, for example - where our solution to NO crisis, was to send in the tanks. Or Vietnam, where our solution was to carpetbomb the shit out of them. And I'm sure you're aware how territories like Texas really entered the Union?


Russia is refusing to become an responsible stakeholder in the international system. China is rising quickly, but even with their massive military force and oppressive human rights record, no one is talking about a Cold War with China. Why? Because China has shown an intent to gain international influence through economic growth and trade, instead of through military force.

Russia is refusing to become a stakeholder on your terms.

In another few years, Russia and China will be among the dominant powers - if not THE dominant powers. The geopolitical globe is going to be redrawn in the next few years, and Russia and China will be stakeholders... and the US will be left in the cold unless they change their approach.

The strength of the Russian economy is directly linked to the rise in oil prices, which is why I've referred to it repeatedly as a petrostate. The idea that Putin has caused Russian success was debunked in this Foreign Affairs article: (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87105-p40/michael-mcfaul-kathryn-stoner-weiss/the-myth-of-the-authoritarian-model.html)

Oil prices are at an all time low now. Why's Russia's economy still growing?

Many of the former Soviet states have at least semi-functioning democratic systems. There's nothing inherent within Russian society that blocks democracy. That's Putin's fault.

As for continuing free market policies--we have to give him credit for not reverting to communism? An oligarchical petrostate where CEOs are sent to prison so the government can seize their companies is not exactly a pro-business environment.

All of the CEOs sent to prison were legitimately convicted of tax evasion, a fact conveniently omitted by anti-Russia media. While it is true that pro-Kremlin Oligarchs didn't go to jail due to tax evasion, saying that one shouldn't be punished for his crime because someone else isn't being punished for it, is bullshit.

Take a look at the NYT article I linked. It's pretty clear Georgia wasn't acting in self-defense, but Russia may be culpable as well. There's reports that Russian soldiers may have committed war crimes, and Russia was massing "peacekeeping" forces in and near Georgia before the attack on Ossetian forces.
Georgia shooting first is about like Poland shooting first. After so many troops mass on your boarder it reaches a point where the military says either we shoot first or we don't get a chance to shoot at all.

Russia is also at fault for handing out Russian passports just so it could act to protect its "citizens." Of course I understand the Russian perspective, but its actions are putting it on a collision course with the West, which will ultimately be detrimental to everyone. Hitler had requested the same thing for the large German population in Poland.
We haven't done anything like that for a while, and when we did, it always turned out badly.

Pretty much was a repeat of the start of WWII just Russia needs someone to split Georgia with and it would have begun.

Georgia shooting first is about like Poland shooting first. After so many troops mass on your boarder it reaches a point where the military says either we shoot first or we don't get a chance to shoot at all.

Ah. Like the start of the US Civil War, yes?

Russia has issued it's passports to the people of foreign country. Don't be so naive to believe that Putin's intention was to "defend his people". It is the method Russia uses for years. Like they "defended" Finnish workers in 1939, Baltic comrades in 1940, like Hitler "defended" Germans in Czechoslovakia.

Those great defenders...

Today they are issuing their passports to the people in Crimea, which is an integral part of Ukraine. When the problem of Crimea will rise in 2017 (or even earlier), Russia will have a chance to "defend" someone again.

Fun Fact: When you shoot at the Russian Army they tend to shoot back. Also, Putin spent $620 million on reconstruction of civillian institutions in South Ossetia - something tells me he cares about the people. I'm not saying that there's not another $620 million for military basis, but Putin does care about the Ossetian population. Whether his reason for this is political (keeping the Caucasus stable) or Altruistic is debatable. Also, if you think that Russian will invade Ukraine - you get an F in military arts. No need for Russia to invade Ukraine anyways: step #1: Russia cuts off all exports to Ukraine; step #2: Russia waits for Ukrainian economy to collapse; step #3: Russia gets what it wants. You are so 1940's.

Georgia shooting first is about like Poland shooting first. After so many troops mass on your boarder it reaches a point where the military says either we shoot first or we don't get a chance to shoot at all. Hitler had requested the same thing for the large German population in Poland.

Pretty much was a repeat of the start of WWII just Russia needs someone to split Georgia with and it would have begun.

Great argument. Except umm, Poland didn't shoot first. Facts are your best friend in any argument. Also, if Georgia didn't attack, Russia would have to hold off at least for two weeks, enough time for UN to insert an international force and solve the conflict peacefully. Russia wouldn't piss off China over South Ossetia.

Ah. Like the start of the US Civil War, yes?

That was just the south starting it. there indications Lincoln was willing to talk about removal of federal bases provided the South Pay for the federal land they sat on and pay their share of the national Debt. The military of the South Wanted a war so they could kill a bunch of Yankees and come back heroes.

Perhaps you don't remember the dissolution of the former USSR? Perhaps you're not aware of our political leanings in the direction of Chinese claims to 'separatists'? In fact - it' basically our policy for half the globe, to oppose territorial claims - to Kashmir, Tibet, etc. Sometimes, more forcefully than others.
It's our policy to support the territorial claims of our allies and oppose those of our rivals.

No, but you are ignoring our own occupation of Iraq, for example - where our solution to NO crisis, was to send in the tanks. Or Vietnam, where our solution was to carpetbomb the shit out of them.Yeah, and those didn't turn out so well for us, did they? That's why I said the prudent move on Russia's part would have been to attempt to defuse the crisis peacefully. Sure, some states act rashly and excessively, but they always fare worse for it.



Russia is refusing to become a stakeholder on your terms.

In another few years, Russia and China will be among the dominant powers - if not THE dominant powers. The geopolitical globe is going to be redrawn in the next few years, and Russia and China will be stakeholders... and the US will be left in the cold unless they change their approach.
As I said before, Russia has weak economic development and weak institutions. Their geopolitical and economic clout is tied directly to energy prices.

I think Russia's actions show how little they know about our internal politics and how it was pretty unlikely that a Democratic administration would put much effort into the supposed anti-missile missile defense system.
But I believe it is to the advantage of the current crop of Russian patriots to be at odds with the west. This way they can portray the west as boogie men while stoking Russian fear and nationalism. Expect a couple of minor and possibly one major war over the next twenty years if this Russian government stays in power and China and/or NATO don't take action. They will make grabs for ex-Soviet territory to keep these new nations weak.
All the while they will promise to remain on the side of peace while taking a bit here and a bit there (See Georgia). The best thing to do is bring as many of theses new states into NATO and/or alliance with the People's Republic of China as possible.
Anyone who thinks about this and has been paying attention will see that this missile defense system could not, even in Putin's deranged dreams, be an effective deterent to the Russian ICBM threat. As to the placement in eastern Europe it makes excellent sense if the goal is to stop a limited missile strike launched from southern Asia (Iran or Pakistan) or the Middle East against western Europe.

A couple questions if I may:

Aside from economic pressure and shooting back, how did Russia try to "conquer" other post-Soviet countries?

Wouldn't Iran or Pakistan attack Israel before attacking Western Europe? Or Eastern Europe?

Why would China want to join NATO?

Yeah - those already refute your point.

As I said before, Russia has weak economic development and weak institutions. Their geopolitical and economic clout is tied directly to energy prices.

Are you trying to ignore my posts? Didn't I ask you earlier: the price of oil is at an all time low - why's Russia's economy still growing?

That was just the south starting it. there indications Lincoln was willing to talk about removal of federal bases provided the South Pay for the federal land they sat on and pay their share of the national Debt. The military of the South Wanted a war so they could kill a bunch of Yankees and come back heroes.

The North were occupying military bases in sovereign territory, and the South were expecting those positions to be reinforced imminently.

But, you basically said what I wanted you to say: "That was just the south starting it". Yep, and that 'was just Georgia starting it'.

Oil prices are at an all time low now. Why's Russia's economy still growing?

All time low? I think not. With inflation adjusted, oil was $25/barrel in the mid-1990s. This year it's averaged in the $90 range, and is still above $60. And I didn't say it's just oil--Russia supplies pretty much all of Europe with natural gas--nor did I say the Russian economy would directly rise and fall with the vicissitudes of the energy market, nor did I say that natural resources are the only industry in Russia. But the fact remains that oil and gas still dominate Russian exports, and as such Russia remains highly dependent on energy prices.

It's our policy to support the territorial claims of our allies and oppose those of our rivals.


Yes.

Meditate on that.


Yeah, and those didn't turn out so well for us, did they? That's why I said the prudent move on Russia's part would have been to attempt to defuse the crisis peacefully. Sure, some states act rashly and excessively, but they always fare worse for it.


See the difference, though?

We got involved in Iraq, and basically got our asses kicked for a decade. We got involved in Vietnam and basically got our asses kicked for a decade.

Russia sorted out it's problem with Georgia, and was back home in time for tea.


As I said before, Russia has weak economic development and weak institutions. Their geopolitical and economic clout is tied directly to energy prices.

I think this is mainly wishful thinking. Sure - the petro-economy hasn't been hurting Russia recently, but I think your underestimating Russia if you think that's 'it'.

Are you trying to ignore my posts? Didn't I ask you earlier: the price of oil is at an all time low - why's Russia's economy still growing?

I cannot respond to your posts instantaneously, as I try not to make assertions (like "the price of oil is at an all time low") without fact checking.

See the difference, though?

We got involved in Iraq, and basically got our asses kicked for a decade. We got involved in Vietnam and basically got our asses kicked for a decade.

Russia sorted out it's problem with Georgia, and was back home in time for tea.No, it hasn't sorted out the problem. They're back where they started--occupying the separatist parts of Georgia--while managing to piss off the West and escalate tensions. Just because it wasn't as bad as our expedition into Iraq doesn't mean it was the best idea.

I think this is mainly wishful thinking. Sure - the petro-economy hasn't been hurting Russia recently, but I think your underestimating Russia if you think that's 'it'.I don't think that's "it," but whereas China's economy will be fueled by a large population and untapped domestic markets, Russia's is not indefinitely sustainable because it's been fueled by energy. Russia's population is declining, and it will face difficulties in the future if it does not invest in infrastructure, build civil institutions, etc.

That said, it poses a major geopolitical challenge to the U.S. and NATO in the foreseeable future. I think the best course for both sides is to deescalate any potential conflict, which is why I think that Putin's invasion of Georgia and unequivocal American support for Georgia despite strong evidence that it's at least partially culpable, is not going to help anyone in the long run.

See the difference, though?

We got involved in Iraq, and basically got our asses kicked for a decade. We got involved in Vietnam and basically got our asses kicked for a decade.

Russia sorted out it's problem with Georgia, and was back home in time for tea.


Not quite, thing is, we actually utterly annihilated the official Iraqi forces in a short amount of time, we were just shit at handling the huge amounts of insurgency, but tried to clear up the mess in Iraq anyway. Russia aren't really even trying to do that.

Not quite, thing is, we actually utterly annihilated the official Iraqi forces in a short amount of time, we were just shit at handling the huge amounts of insurgency, but tried to clear up the mess in Iraq anyway. Russia aren't really even trying to do that.

How dare they let a country clean up its own mess! So UnAmerican! Maybe we should get a new HUAC.

How dare they let a country clean up its own mess! So UnAmerican! Maybe we should get a new HUAC.

You pointlessly invade and ruin their country, at least helping them back on their feet is better than fucking off and leaving them to rot.

All time low? I think not. With inflation adjusted, oil was $25/barrel in the mid-1990s. This year it's averaged in the $90 range, and is still above $60. And I didn't say it's just oil--Russia supplies pretty much all of Europe with natural gas--nor did I say the Russian economy would directly rise and fall with the vicissitudes of the energy market, nor did I say that natural resources are the only industry in Russia. But the fact remains that oil and gas still dominate Russian exports, and as such Russia remains highly dependent on energy prices.

You implied that Putin rode in on the high energy prices. Then you said that Russian economy would not rise and fall directly due to Russian energy markets. So before Putin, Russian energy markets (according to you) were the engine of growth. After Putin, again according to you, Russia's economy doesn't directly depend on them. Congratulations comrade, you have just proven how Putin improved Russia's economy.

You pointlessly invade and ruin their country, at least helping them back on their feet is better than fucking off and leaving them to rot.

Fun Fact: When the Russian army is shot at, they tend to shoot back. Also, would you rather have Russia take over Georgia? Stop and think. And the Russians did spend $620 million on helping out South Ossetia rebuild it's infrastructure.

You implied that Putin rode in on the high energy prices. Then you said that Russian economy would not rise and fall directly due to Russian energy markets. So before Putin, Russian energy markets (according to you) were the engine of growth. After Putin, again according to you, Russia's economy doesn't directly depend on them. Congratulations comrade, you have just proven how Putin improved Russia's economy.

Russia's economy has improved, but not because of Putin's policies. It's not actually that hard of a concept.

Fun Fact: When the Russian army is shot at, they tend to shoot back. Also, would you rather have Russia take over Georgia? Stop and think.

I'd rather they try and undo the damages.


And the Russians did spend $620 million on helping out South Ossetia rebuild it's infrastructure.

But what of the rest of Georgia? Although this is an unfair comparison anyway, Russia's goal was to try and aid the nationalist insurgents, making it a lot easier for them, the reverse is true for the US.

I think this is all dick swinging. I'm sure the Russians are really unhappy about the missile defense platforms that will be surrounding their country.

Great argument. Except umm, Poland didn't shoot first. Facts are your best friend in any argument. Also, if Georgia didn't attack, Russia would have to hold off at least for two weeks, enough time for UN to insert an international force and solve the conflict peacefully. Russia wouldn't piss off China over South Ossetia.

study a little more I am not talking about the radio station I am talking about the build up afterward. Give the Polish attack was 45 minutes prior to planned German attack. still the same deal.

I doubt china would have got mad. China doesn't really care about anything outside what they consider their sphere of influence.

Fun Fact: When the Russian army is shot at, they tend to shoot back. Also, would you rather have Russia take over Georgia? Stop and think. And the Russians did spend $620 million on helping out South Ossetia rebuild it's infrastructure.

Russia is giving aid to the separatists, and America is giving aid to the Georgians. Neither one is inherently morally superior! Each side is looking out for its own interests!

No, it hasn't sorted out the problem. They're back where they started--occupying the separatist parts of Georgia--while managing to piss off the West and escalate tensions. Just because it wasn't as bad as our expedition into Iraq doesn't mean it was the best idea.


You say 'escalate tensions' like it's a bad thing, and something they should have avoided?


I don't think that's "it," but whereas China's economy will be fueled by a large population and untapped domestic markets, Russia's is not indefinitely sustainable because it's been fueled by energy. Russia's population is declining, and it will face difficulties in the future if it does not invest in infrastructure, build civil institutions, etc.

That said, it poses a major geopolitical challenge to the U.S. and NATO in the foreseeable future. I think the best course for both sides is to deescalate any potential conflict, which is why I think that Putin's invasion of Georgia and unequivocal American support for Georgia despite strong evidence that it's at least partially culpable, is not going to help anyone in the long run.

The best course for Russia is war, actually. They have the kind of military economy that will still thrive on a war footing. Not that I think they're going to push to (real) war, but brinkmanship and the occassional skirmish is actually good for Russia, and bad for us.

And right now, we're the spectre. Our foreign policy of the last few years, with regards to Russia, has constructed the perfect backdrop for pushing a militaristic agenda. Our responses to things like Georgia are not going to make a damned bit of difference in Georgia - but they may well make or break Russia's military economy. And - at the moment - we're 'making' it.

You say 'escalate tensions' like it's a bad thing, and something they should have avoided?



The best course for Russia is war, actually. They have the kind of military economy that will still thrive on a war footing. Not that I think they're going to push to (real) war, but brinkmanship and the occassional skirmish is actually good for Russia, and bad for us.

And right now, we're the spectre. Our foreign policy of the last few years, with regards to Russia, has constructed the perfect backdrop for pushing a militaristic agenda. Our responses to things like Georgia are not going to make a damned bit of difference in Georgia - but they may well make or break Russia's military economy. And - at the moment - we're 'making' it.

Like I said, permanent wartime economies have always been ultimately detrimental. Russia doesn't have the resources to indefinitely sustain the military it had twenty years ago. But in the meantime it's going to really suck for us. I think post Cold War American foreign policy has been monumentally mishandled.

Like I said, permanent wartime economies have always been ultimately detrimental.


Not entirely. The Cold War was basically a 'permanent wartime economy'... which is probably why Bush has been trying to restart one for a term... basically since it became obvious that the economy was headed towards the crapper.


Russia doesn't have the resources to indefinitely sustain the military it had twenty years ago.


It will have to adapt, sure. It doesn't need to sustain 'the military it had twnety years ago', and so long as they bear that in mind, they'll be fine.


But in the meantime it's going to really suck for us. I think post Cold War American foreign policy has been monumentally mishandled.

And you'll get no argument from me there.

Not entirely. The Cold War was basically a 'permanent wartime economy'... which is probably why Bush has been trying to restart one for a term... basically since it became obvious that the economy was headed towards the crapper.

The Cold War was a permanent wartime economy financed by huge debt. We can't sustain our current levels of military spending either. That's why we need to stop playing global hegemon, and back off of Russia so they can stop their defensive posturing and move towards economic integration with the developed world. Kinda too late now, though.

The Cold War was a permanent wartime economy financed by huge debt. We can't sustain our current levels of military spending either. That's why we need to stop playing global hegemon, and back off of Russia so they can stop their defensive posturing and move towards economic integration with the developed world. Kinda too late now, though.

If that had been our basic model, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. Especially - if the politics of the last term and a half had never happened - this kind of discussion would be a theoretical... a 'what if'.

We're bankrupting ourselves in wars on two fronts (among other things), while Russia is seeing the positive sides of a slightly militaristic footing. At this rate, we're going to pass Russia, going the wrong way.

Yes, because Russia couldn't use one of their other 15,000 nukes to place on Georgia's borders. Must be Iskander. Great military analysis, I heard the Economist is hiring.

First off, get your facts straight.

The Iskander missile is a conventional, sub-ballistic missile, it's very hard to intercept (unlike it's predecessor, the Scud), and doesn't carry with its use the moral onus of a nuclear attack. The Iskander was built to have a weapon that could strike Europe, but not violate the INF treaty, which the SS-23-N Spider would do.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/ss-26.htm

You can't just replace it with "any other nuke", because the Iskander isn't a nuclear missile.

Man, George Kennan is still right about the Russians.

People like Bush dont seem to realize that the Cold War is over. Thats the main reason he's been poking Russia.

I'd daresay that Bush has largely been reacting to Russia, rather than proactively trying to provoke it. After all, he's the one who "saw Putin's soul".

Putin is a Russian nationalist and imperialist. His statements and actions indicate that he wants to rebuild the Russian Empire, and reinstate the rule of Moscow over its former subject peoples.

I'd daresay that Bush has largely been reacting to Russia, rather than proactively trying to provoke it. After all, he's the one who "saw Putin's soul".


I'd daresay you're wrong, and the folksy bullshit Bushism isn't evidence.

I'd daresay you're wrong, and the folksy bullshit Bushism isn't evidence.

I don't think the Bush administration is deliberately provoking a new Cold War. I think they fail to recognize the existence of legitimate strategic interests other than America's. The Bush administration circa 2000 bought into the universalist, "end of history" crap, and thought that because Russia was adopting capitalism, they were going to be on "our side." They believed Tom Friedman's McDonalds' Theory of War--give them burgers and consumerism, and they won't fight us. That's the upside to the Georgian conflict--that stupid theory has finally been discredited.

I'd daresay you're wrong, and the folksy bullshit Bushism isn't evidence.

Yes, actually it is. Bush was making an attempt to draw nearer to Russia, after the September Eleventh attacks, because Russia has been dealing with the problems of Islamic extremism and terrorism far longer, and in a much more significant fashion than the US. Not to mention the fact that the US was particularly leery of China at that point in time, and viewed Russia as a weaker partner who could be used to counterbalance the rise of the PRC. Even in US popular culture, Russia was being portrayed as less of a bad guy in the early part of this past decade. Films like K-19 and Enemy at the Gates portrayed Russians as the good guys, and in books by that most hawkish and belligerent of American authors, Tom Clancy, Russia was the good guy.

Russia, on the other hand, has been riding high on radically increased energy costs. It has attempted to reassert its authority in its neighboring states through local agents, intimidation and outright aggression. It's government has been gleefully murdering dissidents in horrendous fashions, and blasting the piss out of its own citizens.

You are quite wrong.

Yes, actually it is. Bush was making an attempt to draw nearer to Russia, after the September Eleventh attacks, because Russia has been dealing with the problems of Islamic extremism and terrorism far longer, and in a much more significant fashion than the US. Not to mention the fact that the US was particularly leery of China at that point in time, and viewed Russia as a weaker partner who could be used to counterbalance the rise of the PRC. Even in US popular culture, Russia was being portrayed as less of a bad guy in the early part of this past decade. Films like K-19 and Enemy at the Gates portrayed Russians as the good guys, and in books by that most hawkish and belligerent of American authors, Tom Clancy, Russia was the good guy.

Russia, on the other hand, has been riding high on radically increased energy costs. It has attempted to reassert its authority in its neighboring states through local agents, intimidation and outright aggression. It's government has been gleefully murdering dissidents in horrendous fashions, and blasting the piss out of its own citizens.

You are quite wrong.


Im sorry, Im not entirely into believing George Bush or anything he has to say about other leaders....or anything for that matter.

Im sorry, Im not entirely into believing George Bush or anything he has to say about other leaders....or anything for that matter.

Well, then you should be agreeing with me, because Bush is the one who thought Putin was a nice guy in the first place. Putin isn't a nice guy.

Or are you just going to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary?

With what money? Oil prices have already fallen to levels threatening the balance of the Russian federal budget, and their economy will be dragged down soon thereafter. They can't hope to fund their armed forces at all without the resource dollars of the past nine years; their non-oil GDP simply can't sustain a competitive level of military spending. Plus, the US has more than twice their population and a GDP over eight times the size of Russia's (and a far stronger basis for that GDP as well), so they're really screwing up if they try anything.

Yes, actually it is. Bush was making an attempt to draw nearer to Russia, after the September Eleventh attacks, because Russia has been dealing with the problems of Islamic extremism and terrorism far longer, and in a ......

hahah stop right there ,you soo naive if think rusia let you just walk in .they actualy helped usa get in there and double crossed them,.there is a lot of reasons all world powers got crushed in afganistan since alexander macedonian...till u.s.s.r.

hahah stop right there ,you soo naive if think rusia let you just walk in .they actualy helped usa get in there and double crossed them,.there is a lot of reasons all world powers got crushed in afganistan since alexander macedonian...till u.s.s.r.

What the hell are you going on about?

What the hell are you going on about?
.cost of maintaining fit soldiers and terain coverage (which can never be complete ) is 10-15 times higher in there then in europe .then suply routes are big problem. high altitude makes vehicles use more fuel then ordinary .they rent ukranian and rusian transport aircraft for supply and .....etc.etc...
but watch this you might get it----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoxlzPGIPt4

.cost of maintaining fit soldiers and terain coverage (which can never be complete ) is 10-15 times higher in there then in europe .then suply routes are big problem. high altitude makes vehicles use more fuel then ordinary .they rent ukranian and rusian transport aircraft for supply and .....etc.etc...
but watch this you might get it----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoxlzPGIPt4

Even more what? I don't see how this pertains to the US attempting to cosy up to Russia to develop a strategic relationship at all.

And Ron Paul? Why did you drag out that nutter?

Well, then you should be agreeing with me, because Bush is the one who thought Putin was a nice guy in the first place. Putin isn't a nice guy.

Or are you just going to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary?

Good point. All the evidence... let me see if I can recall... K19 and Enemy At The Gates, right?

Good point. All the evidence... let me see if I can recall... K19 and Enemy At The Gates, right?

Now you're mixing issues. Putin is a genuinely awful human being, and a rotten leader. He's shown that at home and abroad. That's regardless of whether the US was trying to cosy up to Russia.

Or do I have to break it out for you?

Now you're mixing issues. 99,9999% OF AMERIKANS POLITICIANS is a genuinely awful human being, and a rotten leader. He's shown that at home and abroad. That's regardless of whether the Russia was trying to cosy up to u.s.a..

Or do I have to break it out for you?

we all know what (as someone said) "GREAT SATAN" policy they are dealing of in former ussr republics...

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=wzH7AAiqGqs&feature=related

There was a Tom Clancy novel around the turn of the millennium called The Bear and the Dragon, in which America gets Russia into NATO to help them fight China. That was pretty much the prevailing attitude at the time--We beat them already, let's move on to the next enemy.

You are quite wrong.

Little gestures, like attacking Putin on human rights, at a meeting of pro-democratic powers in 2007, are either incredibly ill advised, or are deliberate provocation.

I think a combination of both, but that still makes me right.

Now you're mixing issues. Putin is a genuinely awful human being, and a rotten leader. He's shown that at home and abroad. That's regardless of whether the US was trying to cosy up to Russia.

Or do I have to break it out for you?

I'm not mixing the issue at all. Your argument that it's Russia drawing us towards a new Cold War, rather than American foreign policy... is apparently supported by some movies.

I realise this is going to be difficult for you to accept... but movies are sometimes fictional, and don't necessarily ALWAYS have to be pre-approved according to current foreign policy motifs.

Is Putin an awful leader? You certainly seem to think so, although he seems quite popular, and the fact that Russia is being perceived as a threat suggests that he must have some clout.

Is he a horrible person? It's probably a matter for debate... but THAT debate, isn't THIS debate - since we weren't talking about whether he pets bunnies and kisses kittens, we were talking about the increasing tensions between the US and Russia... and, more specifically, who is escalating.

So - it's YOU that is mixing issues.


American foreign policy has been contrived to antagonise, not just Russia, but certainly including Russia. It is our responses to Russia in the wake of the dissolution of the soviet union, that made it possible for someone like Putin to gain power... and so much of it, so quickly.

We beat them already, let's move on to the next enemy.

you could stop viewing rest of the world as da enemy....

I'm not mixing the issue at all. Your argument that it's Russia drawing us towards a new Cold War, rather than American foreign policy... is apparently supported by some movies.

When Bush took office, he called for a "strategic partnership" with Russia, but referred to China as a "competitor" rather than a "strategic partner." He called for a joint US-Russia missile defense system. But he pledged to defend Taiwan. I think there's no doubt that at the turn of the millennium, America was positioning itself to oppose China as a major strategic threat, and regarded Russia as a country that was highly imperfect but potentially developing along the right track. That position has since reversed itself.

It's not a position that the Bush administration deliberately maneuvered into. It's one that they blundered into. Russia is simply exploiting America's current international weakness to challenge U.S. supremacy. Whose "fault" that is doesn't really matter in international politics.

I'm not mixing the issue at all. Your argument that it's Russia drawing us towards a new Cold War, rather than American foreign policy... is apparently supported by some movies.

I realise this is going to be difficult for you to accept... but movies are sometimes fictional, and don't necessarily ALWAYS have to be pre-approved according to current foreign policy motifs.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm arguing that movies, and art in general, reflect the general attitudes of society. Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Night of the Living Dead were not accurate depictions of reality, but they did tell us something about the culture from which they were derived. Films like M, The Last Laugh and Metropolis tell us something about the society from which they were derived.

Art imitates life.

And that's not my only evidence, either. You just cherry picked what I said. The US viewed Russia as a strategic partner in a world that might have become polarized between the US and China. The US saw Russia as a country that had been dealing with Chechnya and Islamic terrorism for a decade--and longer. Russia was not the Middle East, and seemed to be a more stable source of energy. The US had every reason to come close to Russia, and tried to.

Is Putin an awful leader? You certainly seem to think so, although he seems quite popular, and the fact that Russia is being perceived as a threat suggests that he must have some clout.

Increasing personal and crony power is not the goal of a leader. Good governance is the goal of a good leader, and Putin is not remarkable for his commitment to good governance.

Is he a horrible person? It's probably a matter for debate... but THAT debate, isn't THIS debate - since we weren't talking about whether he pets bunnies and kisses kittens, we were talking about the increasing tensions between the US and Russia... and, more specifically, who is escalating.

So - it's YOU that is mixing issues.

My argument is, simply, that Putin is not reactive, he is proactive. His actions are to increase his own personal power first, and Russia's power second, and that only because it increases his own personal power.

Putin is the one who is escalating. He has the resources and the reason to escalate. The US doesn't on both counts.

American foreign policy has been contrived to antagonise, not just Russia, but certainly including Russia. It is our responses to Russia in the wake of the dissolution of the soviet union, that made it possible for someone like Putin to gain power... and so much of it, so quickly.

Oh, how? Is it because we intruded into territory Russia declared to be their own private backyard? Is it because the countries Russia has oppressed for centuries sought security against Russia within the Western NATO alliance? Is it because we didn't bail out a country whose predecessor had done it's best to antagonize the US?

Russia howling about victimization is a joke. What happened after the cold war is the result of the seeds they, themselves sowed.

I'm not mixing the issue at all. Your argument that it's Russia drawing us towards a new Cold War, rather than American foreign policy... is apparently supported by some movies.


Why on earth do you assume that he was basing his ideas solely on that? Seriously, that's awful deductive skills on your part. Regardless, please explain how the US is being the aggressor rather than the reactor in this case.


Is Putin an awful leader? You certainly seem to think so, although he seems quite popular, and the fact that Russia is being perceived as a threat suggests that he must have some clout.

So naive popularity and causing concern amongst other nations makes you a good leader, how exactly?

It's easy to understand why Putin blames his foreign policy on deliberate American provocation, but it's hard to understand why anyone would believe him. What exactly would the U.S. gain by engaging in a new Cold War with Russia?

Putin gets the blame for escalating tensions, Bush gets the blame for letting it get to this point.

Is he a horrible person? It's probably a matter for debate... but THAT debate, isn't THIS debate - since we weren't talking about whether he pets bunnies and kisses kittens, we were talking about the increasing tensions between the US and Russia... and, more specifically, who is escalating.

So - it's YOU that is mixing issues.
Putin is a sociopath unable to admit wrongdoing. Those are pretty awful traits in a world leader and are most certainly relevant when discussing how Russia deals with other countries. The amount of antagonism and arrogance displayed by the Bush administration doesn't somehow absolve the current Russian junta from being the dicks they are.

Why on earth do you assume that he was basing his ideas solely on that? Seriously, that's awful deductive skills on your part.


I didn't say 'he was basing his ideas solely on that'. I said that he was claiming movies as evidence.

Nice strawman, though.


So naive popularity and causing concern amongst other nations makes you a good leader, how exactly?

Ah, another strawman. I said he must have some clout... I assume that's not too localised a phrase, right? Most people get what I mean by that? Some weight? Some power?

What is being a leader if it's not being able to unite people and move them towards a goal?

Putin is a sociopath unable to admit wrongdoing. Those are pretty awful traits in a world leader and are most certainly relevant when discussing how Russia deals with other countries. The amount of antagonism and arrogance displayed by the Bush administration doesn't somehow absolve the current Russian junta from being the dicks they are.

Still irrelevant, just like it was when Anda started it, though.

Okay, let's say Putin is bad. Horrible, in fact. He always forgets birthdays and anniversaries, he hates christmas, kicks puppies and watches Chevy Chase movies. He's all the evil possible to roll into such a small space.

So?

Does that mean that Russia are escalating? Does it mean that G. W. Bush's regime, which spent almost a decade handcrafting heartshaped cookie baskets and mailing them to old people, is absolved of escalation?

No - because character is irrelevant to this matter. As is the way you treat people in your own country. MAYBE - there might be some leeway for international issues - you could argue that whoever is more visibly violent on the world stage is creating an atmosphere that might cause fear of old hostilities.

Shall we examine that possibility? Shall we open that gold envelope? I'm so excited! I wonder who's gong to win!!

It's easy to understand why Putin blames his foreign policy on deliberate American provocation, but it's hard to understand why anyone would believe him.

Cuba Crisis.

I didn't say 'he was basing his ideas solely on that'. I said that he was claiming movies as evidence.

Nice strawman, though.That was your sole to response his ideas. You dismissed them out of hand and still have not responded appropriately.

Ah, another strawman. I said he must have some clout... I assume that's not too localised a phrase, right? Most people get what I mean by that? Some weight? Some power?

What is being a leader if it's not being able to unite people and move them towards a goal?

First, a true leader would not fear political opposition or an independent media. Bending someone to your will with an iron fist is not leadership. Second, Putin's "clout" is irrelevant to the question of whether he is responsible for escalating tensions between Russia and the U.S.

Cuba Crisis.

What do you mean by that? The Cuban Missile Crisis took place at the height of the Cold War and involved the Soviets putting nuclear missiles just a few miles off of America's coast. Where is the analogy?

Putin is a sociopath unable to admit wrongdoing. Those are pretty awful traits in a world leader and are most certainly relevant when discussing how Russia deals with other countries. The amount of antagonism and arrogance displayed by the Bush administration doesn't somehow absolve the current Russian junta from being the dicks they are.

nice description of yourself ....
but you forget it was sakashvillain who attacked first using cover of darkness to get the edge over russians with his nightfighting iraeli equipment...

there wouldnt be any war so far havent they attacked backed by mccains little helpers.
-----
meanwhile back in germany lot of people are saying this...

“We want the russians back. We want the wall back. 10 m higher than before. No more yankee nor british (b)astards. no more stinky celtic morons. no more drunken english hooligans. no more anglo-irish cripples.”
-unemployed young east-german.

What do you mean by that? The Cuban Missile Crisis took place at the height of the Cold War and involved the Soviets putting nuclear missiles just a few miles off of America's coast. Where is the analogy?

those interceptors missiles are now closer to moscow then missiles in cuba were close to washington...:rolleyes:

That was your sole to response his ideas. You dismissed them out of hand and still have not responded appropriately.


Because his 'evidence' is zeitgeist. Movies.

Zeitgeist and movies are exemplars of a time - but they are not intrinsically reliable evidence for official policy.


First, a true leader would not fear political opposition or an independent media. Bending someone to your will with an iron fist is not leadership.


Opinion.


Second, Putin's "clout" is irrelevant to the question of whether he is responsible for escalating tensions between Russia and the U.S.

Which is why that wasn't an issue I raised.

What do you mean by that? The Cuban Missile Crisis took place at the height of the Cold War and involved the Soviets putting nuclear missiles just a few miles off of America's coast. Where is the analogy?

In the conetxt of your question? Seriously?

Why would anyone believe him... Why did anyone believe the US government during that Crisis?

those interceptors missiles are now closer to moscow then missiles in cuba were close to washington...:rolleyes:

And they are defensive missiles. They pose no physical threat to Moscow.

Saying that America today poses a threat to Russia comparable to that at the height of the Cold War...that's bogus.

In the conetxt of your question? Seriously?

Why would anyone believe him... Why did anyone believe the US government during that Crisis?

Because we had photographs. Seriously, what's your point? You're making a broad claim about Russia foreign policy--that Putin has been compelled to escalate tensions because of American policy. "Cuban Crisis" is not a compelling argument in support of that claim.

Because his 'evidence' is zeitgeist. Movies.

Zeitgeist and movies are exemplars of a time - but they are not intrinsically reliable evidence for official policy.Give evidence to the contrary, then. We are saying that official statements and broad public opinion show that Russia was not regarded as a strategic threat eight years ago.

Which is why that wasn't an issue I raised.
What's the issue, then? So Putin is powerful. Are we to respect power for its own sake?

Because we had photographs. Seriously, what's your point? You're making a broad claim about Russia foreign policy--that Putin has been compelled to escalate tensions because of American policy. "Cuban Crisis" is not a compelling argument in support of that claim.

Because we had photographs?

And what... Russians can't see pictures or footage of the US in Iraq? Russians won't hear about 'strategic missile defences' just outside their borders?

Give evidence to the contrary, then. We are saying that official statements and broad public opinion show that Russia was not regarded as a strategic threat eight years ago.


Don't see the inherent conflict in that?

If they weren't a threat eight years ago, and they are now... something changed?

Our government got more hawkish, more theocratic, less tolerant, and MUCH less diplomatic. We experimented in nationbuilding wars. We proclaimed the Bush Doctrine (on it's own, enough of an incentive to stir up the sleeping Russian war machine). We diplomatically attacked even our 'allies'.


What's the issue, then? So Putin is powerful. Are we to respect power for its own sake?

No.

You miss the point. I didn't raise the issue - Andaluciae did. I said it was irrelevant. Now you are asking me to defend something I was saying wan't even on the topic, and that I was arguing against?

Don't see the inherent conflict in that?

If they weren't a threat eight years ago, and they are now... something changed?

Our government got more hawkish, more theocratic, less tolerant, and MUCH less diplomatic. We experimented in nationbuilding wars. We proclaimed the Bush Doctrine (on it's own, enough of an incentive to stir up the sleeping Russian war machine). We diplomatically attacked even our 'allies'.

I've already said that Bush's foreign policy was incompetent. But Clinton fought proxy wars against Russia in Bosnia and Kosovo. Even this year, I saw a Russian editorial that described Hillary Clinton as the wife of Bill Clinton, "enemy of the Serbs and all Slavic peoples." But although Yeltsin vocally opposed American actions, he did not choose to sharply increase military tensions between the U.S.

The Bush administration entered office with the intent of improving relations with Russia. Despite the administration's many failings, you cannot pretend that actions towards Russia were more hostile after 2000. Putin is exploiting America's weak international position to ramp up tensions. It has nothing to do with Putin feeling "threatened."

I've already said that Bush's foreign policy was incompetent. But Clinton fought proxy wars against Russia in Bosnia and Kosovo.


So... we ramped up conflict in the region... and...


Even this year, I saw a Russian editorial that described Hillary Clinton as the wife of Bill Clinton, "enemy of the Serbs and all Slavic peoples." But although Yeltsin vocally opposed American actions, he did not choose to sharply increase military tensions between the U.S.


...Russia didn't...


The Bush administration entered office with the intent of improving relations with Russia. Despite the administration's many failings, you cannot pretend that actions towards Russia were more hostile after 2000.


I can't 'pretend' it, but I don't have to pretend. Our actions towards EVERYONE were more hostile after 2000. France aren't an enemy - they're an ally, and look how we treated them?


Putin is exploiting America's weak international position to ramp up tensions. It has nothing to do with Putin feeling "threatened."

And you know this because you're his therapist? (In which case, you're probably breaking some sort of code discussing such things). Or - is this speculation?

As I said before, Russia has weak economic development and weak institutions. Their geopolitical and economic clout is tied directly to energy prices.

Let's be honest here. Energy, gads of it, is practically a requirement of modern civilization. Unless WWIII breaks out, Russia's economy is going to stay strong until something better than oil and gas becomes widespread, or it runs out of both.

I can't 'pretend' it, but I don't have to pretend. Our actions towards EVERYONE were more hostile after 2000. France aren't an enemy - they're an ally, and look how we treated them?We're talking about Russia. And the fact that you don't like Bush or that Bush shut France out of Iraq is not a threat to Russia.

And you know this because you're his therapist? (In which case, you're probably breaking some sort of code discussing such things). Or - is this speculation?

It's wholly illogical for the Bush administration to ramp up tension with Russia. America has no intention of attacking Russia Putin knows that America is not a threat to Russia, but he also knows that escalation will hurt America and potential strengthen Russia's position. So yes, I'm supposing that Putin is not insane. Which, since I'm not his therapist, I must assume.

It's wholly illogical for the Bush administration to ramp up tension with Russia. America has no intention of attacking Russia Putin knows that America is not a threat to Russia, but he also knows that escalation will hurt America and potential strengthen Russia's position.

You say it is wholy illogical, and yet you already said we HAD ramped up the tensions. You said that the Clinton regime made militaristic moves in the Russian sphere of influence, and that Russia didn't escalate in retaliation.

You've already admitted we were at fault, for unilateral escalation.

Why would it suddenly be contrary?

You say it is wholy illogical, and yet you already said we HAD ramped up the tensions. You said that the Clinton regime made militaristic moves in the Russian sphere of influence, and that Russia didn't escalate in retaliation.

You've already admitted we were at fault, for unilateral escalation.

Why would it suddenly be contrary?

Uh no, neither side escalated the conflict. Which is what would be happening now if Russia did not have an evil leader and we did not have an incompetent one.

Uh no, neither side escalated the conflict. Which is what would be happening now if Russia did not have an evil leader and we did not have an incompetent one.

We placed military forces within a stone's throw of their borders. We've progressed to this great 'static defence platform' idea. We have escalated.

You are justifying invading and "crushing" a sovereign nation just to teach them a lesson. Russia's response was heavy-handed and irresponsible.

As for Yeltsin, he's to blame, too. But I would contend that Putin is responsible for consolidating power and shutting down the democratic process. Yeltsin never took total control of the system.
Russia's response may have been heavy handed, but it's not irresponsible. Geogria will think twice about pulling that kind of shit again in the future.

As for "shutting down" democracy, Putin and United Russia remain wildly popular among the vast majority of Russians.

Russia it`s self is a gaint ,and have it`s on threats and one of those threats is not america but so called "NATO" thats a big threat ,not even to russia but in later future it will be a threat to india ,and rest of the world ,it`s has been a threat in asia and in south asian region when it attacked iraq and afghanistan respectively,and china will also be threatining america and NATO too.

My take on the whole mess is. Everything in Europe needs to be Europe's problem. I am tired of dealing with it. Let the EU deal with Russia call us if you need NATO support but that's about it. We are busy in countries in central Asia and the mid east at the moment.

Or are you just going to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary?

Putin probably is a dick. Good, strong leaders tend to be dicks.

Problem is, Putins not an idiot. He needs to look out for Russia, thats what leaders of countried do. However, hes not about to start a war with the west when he cant win.

Putin probably is a dick. Good, strong leaders tend to be dicks.

Problem is, Putins not an idiot. He needs to look out for Russia, thats what leaders of countried do. However, hes not about to start a war with the west when he cant win.

likely has to do with, It is easy to convince people they are not miserable if you rattle the saber against someone externally.
They did it during the cold war, we did it during the cold war. We wont actually go to war.

they are doing it now and if the economic crisis continues we will rattle the saber too.

Let's be honest here. Energy, gads of it, is practically a requirement of modern civilization. Unless WWIII breaks out, Russia's economy is going to stay strong until something better than oil and gas becomes widespread, or it runs out of both.
The latter being the thing to keep in mind. Russian corporations have been underinvesting in new developments for years, and whenever extra cash has come in from foreign oil companies to build up new fields and infrastructure, the government goes in there and steals their stuff. That's great for Gazprom, Rosneft, et al right now, but it sucks for them in the long run.

Basically those Europeans involved in the energy industry know already that Russia won't be able to match the EU's demand for energy in a few years. And when that happens, its influence and importance will necessarily suffer. Plus, in the EU there is plenty of public demand for "something better than oil and gas", so there is a lot of development going on, matched with a lot of public money. In Germany for example, the question is what to do with the houses that are still heated with gas - I would imagine that most new houses being built now ger designed with alternatives in mind.

So...who wants to make bets on which eastern european country is the first one Putin will restore to the Resurgent Russian Empire, and how long it takes him to rook Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania while "The One" dithers?

nice description of yourself ....I don't go around chasing people that I ran over.
but you forget it was sakashvillain who attacked first using cover of darkness to get the edge over russians with his nightfighting iraeli equipment...Tu quoque fallacy.
there wouldnt be any war so far havent they attacked backed by mccains little helpers.
-----Prove it.
meanwhile back in germany lot of people are saying this...

“We want the russians back. We want the wall back. 10 m higher than before. No more yankee nor british (b)astards. no more stinky celtic morons. no more drunken english hooligans. no more anglo-irish cripples.”
-unemployed young east-german.Gosh, what are you trying to say with this?

Still irrelevant, just like it was when Anda started it, though.

Okay, let's say Putin is bad. Horrible, in fact. He always forgets birthdays and anniversaries, he hates christmas, kicks puppies and watches Chevy Chase movies. He's all the evil possible to roll into such a small space.

So?

Does that mean that Russia are escalating? Does it mean that G. W. Bush's regime, which spent almost a decade handcrafting heartshaped cookie baskets and mailing them to old people, is absolved of escalation?

No - because character is irrelevant to this matter. As is the way you treat people in your own country. MAYBE - there might be some leeway for international issues - you could argue that whoever is more visibly violent on the world stage is creating an atmosphere that might cause fear of old hostilities.

Shall we examine that possibility? Shall we open that gold envelope? I'm so excited! I wonder who's gong to win!!They are. It takes two to escalate. You're coming across sounding like you think the Russians are totally blameless.

Not entirely. The Cold War was basically a 'permanent wartime economy'... which is probably why Bush has been trying to restart one for a term... basically since it became obvious that the economy was headed towards the crapper.

Actually it is pretty certain that this was the reason. Ever read the Northwood reports? Quite interesting stuff.
RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

As for "shutting down" democracy, Putin and United Russia remain wildly popular among the vast majority of Russians.Um, that makes no sense.

They are. It takes two to escalate. You're coming across sounding like you think the Russians are totally blameless.

I don't think they're blameless, but I think there's a difference between being the antagonist, and reacting. I think Russia has largely been reacting.

Actually it is pretty certain that this was the reason. Ever read the Northwood reports? Quite interesting stuff.
RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Shhh. You can't mention PNAC around here.

<.<

>.>

:eek:
*jumps for cover

I didn't say 'he was basing his ideas solely on that'. I said that he was claiming movies as evidence.

Nice strawman, though.


You said he was trying to support his arguments by citing movies (whilst ignoring everything else), except that he wasn't, that was an aside to demonstrate how this view filtered down to popular culture.


Ah, another strawman. I said he must have some clout... I assume that's not too localised a phrase, right? Most people get what I mean by that? Some weight? Some power?


I don't define having a lot of 'political clout' as good leadership. It doesn't mean anything, you could be the most corrupt leader on earth and still have a lot of political count, that doesn't make you GOOD at leading. In fact, looking at Russia, he is horrifyingly bad, almost as bad as the leaders of the Soviet Union.


What is being a leader if it's not being able to unite people and move them towards a goal?

Russia, united!? Bwahahahahah!

Cuba Crisis.

What!? You think Putin honestly gives a flying fuck about an event in the 60s? You think such an event could even begin to justify Russia's foreign policy?

What!? You think Putin honestly gives a flying fuck about an event in the 60s? You think such an event could even begin to justify Russia's foreign policy?

No.

Hence I didn't say that.

I don't go around chasing people that I ran over.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Prove it.
Gosh, what are you trying to say with this?

http://www.vesti.ru/videos?cid=&vid=149225
well sorry for translation since my russian is slightly more than basic.
The material show well prepared the georgians were and how much support they had from other nations. The BUk system was recently verified by ukrainian specialist and still had stickers in ukrainian on its command post. The communication system aboard the Range rovers , the computers, the gps, and other electronic devices seemed very much integrated with the drone and artillery sisyetem of the georgians. In fact I was surprised to see that the georgians had so much modern equipment in C3. Seems strange to me that everybody said the russians overpowered their command system.
The show also mentions the presence of ukrainian technicans and staff (passports and terstimonials) on the battle ground.
It also shows a great deal of modernised equipment such as the BTR (ukrainian) with italian turretor T72 with polish upgrade, everything to fuel up the russian feeling that everybody is conspiring against them
And also a lot of materials taped and filmed with US forces sharing intelligence, training and know how with georgian army,
You don t have to be a russian to get a feeling of what the russians perceive as a very strong NATO effort to build up a georgian army which was used un purpose against russia.
Gloves are off.
Russia is very angry. Not much more they can do now... But no reason to expect a possible appeasement of the situation as long as they will feel encircled and threatend:mad:

No.

Hence I didn't say that.

Then what are you trying to say?

Um, that makes no sense.

My point is the party and person most Russians want to lead the country are in power. That's sort of the point to democracy is it not? So whether elections are slightly rigged or the numbers skewed doesn't really matter.

First off, get your facts straight.

The Iskander missile is a conventional, sub-ballistic missile, it's very hard to intercept (unlike it's predecessor, the Scud), and doesn't carry with its use the moral onus of a nuclear attack. The Iskander was built to have a weapon that could strike Europe, but not violate the INF treaty, which the SS-23-N Spider would do.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/ss-26.htm

You can't just replace it with "any other nuke", because the Iskander isn't a nuclear missile.

Wait a sec; so let me get this straight: we are supposed to percieve Russia as a threat, because Medevedev legitimately accused the US of two things that the US did, and because Russians moved conventional missiles on their own territorry? Wow, just wow. You have just discredited the Economist Article completely, thank you for informing me comrade. :D

It's easy to understand why Putin blames his foreign policy on deliberate American provocation, but it's hard to understand why anyone would believe him. What exactly would the U.S. gain by engaging in a new Cold War with Russia?

Putin gets the blame for escalating tensions, Bush gets the blame for letting it get to this point.

1. Putin wants a stable Caucasian Region, because he wants a stable Russia.
2. The US is funding Georgia.
3. Georgia continued to fund Chechnya even after Beslan.
4. Russia (even before the 2008 South Ossetian War) was ecstatic with the status quo.
5. Georgia wanted to change it (Mikhail Saakashvili's promise to annex South Ossetia, ergo to change the status quo).

See how that is US provocation?

Kosovo: 2003 Russia and Serbia sign an alliance. Serbia views Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia. The US, through NATO, gives Kosovo the greenlight for independence.

See how that is US provocation?

Missiles in Poland: ok, if you guys are going to bitch about Russia moving conventional missiles around, Russians will bitch about those missiles. I don't really care about Poland, nor about missiles in Kaliningrad.

Ukraine into NATO: Russia has been quite explicit about not letting any countries adjacent to Russia, with military capabilities (which excluded the Baltic States) into NATO. That's been Russian policy longer then NATO existed. The US pressured (albeit failed at it) the other countries to let Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

See how that is US provocation?

So in response to those three, Russia said enough is enough. They would've still kicked the Georgians out of South Ossetia, and act that almost everyone (Poland, UK and US being the NATO exceptions, oh and Baltics, but I don't count those) agreed that Russia had the right to move into South Ossetia. However when the Russians demolished Senaki Military Base, they sent a clear message to NATO, enough with the bullshit already. Kosovo, Ukraine into NATO and Georgia Fiasco were the factors leading up to it. And even here the Russians made an effort not to harm Georgian civillians, I wish I could say the same for Georgia's side.

Now how did recognizing Kosovo help US security? How did suggesting for Ukraine to enter NATO help US security? How's getting an influence in the Caucasian Region help US security? These were stupid provocations by Bush, uncalled for, and led to a response. Now prior to Kosovo, how did Russia provoke US, aside from actually convicting pro-Western CEOs of fraud and corruption, something that I wish the Republicans would've done here?

First, a true leader would not fear political opposition or an independent media. Bending someone to your will with an iron fist is not leadership. Second, Putin's "clout" is irrelevant to the question of whether he is responsible for escalating tensions between Russia and the U.S.

You are welcome to read the forums on Russia Today (www.russiatoday.com/forums) which are independent (the forums, not the paper). Independent Media is trying to rise in Russia, but it faces several problems: the mafia from the Yeltsin years still has some clout that Putin is fighting, and the mafia (who actually did kill Politkovskaya) are keeping independent media down. When you've got 70% approval ratings, you don't care about opposition. Also, Putin is a star in Russia. Not because of the Iron Fist Approach, indeed there are no Gulags or Gitmos in Russia. He's popular because he gives the people fair wages and pensions. Gorbachev and Solzhenitsyn are cool with Putin and that's saying a lot.

As for the "clout" being irrelevant, Brains, I expected better from you. You damn well understand that if Putin didn't have his "clout" and if he would keep on running Russia into the ground like Yeltsin, no one would have a problem with that. People are afraid of a resurgent and powerful Russia, and that's where Putin's "clout" comes into play.

Yep, suppressing dissidents and murdering journalists always tickles me.

it tickles me too. I hate journalists (except those who work for the government) and dissidents are dissidents and must be dealt with.

and why theyre funny?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9V_aOCga0

And they are defensive missiles. They pose no physical threat to Moscow.

Saying that America today poses a threat to Russia comparable to that at the height of the Cold War...that's bogus.

But, but, but, isn't it also bogus to say that "Russia declares intention of military threat against West"?

It's wholly illogical for the Bush administration to ramp up tension with Russia. America has no intention of attacking Russia Putin knows that America is not a threat to Russia, but he also knows that escalation will hurt America and potential strengthen Russia's position. So yes, I'm supposing that Putin is not insane. Which, since I'm not his therapist, I must assume.

Yes, that's because Bush always acts with logic. Like in Iraq.

So...who wants to make bets on which eastern european country is the first one Putin will restore to the Resurgent Russian Empire, and how long it takes him to rook Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania while "The One" dithers?

ROFL! You are so funny. I am going to bet Georgia. Oh wait, they could've taken it and didn't. There goes your argument.

Um, that makes no sense.

Putin likes power. He is smart. He is wildly popular in Russia. Why would he oppose Democracy (from Greek Demos Kratia - means majority rule)? If you have 70% approval rating, dictator or not, you tend to support Democracy, so his argument makes perfect sense. Of course is someone doesn't like Russia, then the argument makes no sense.

What!? You think Putin honestly gives a flying fuck about an event in the 60s? You think such an event could even begin to justify Russia's foreign policy?

If you read the entire forum, you'd find a post there that explains why Grave n Idle meant by "Cuban Missile Crisis". Since your reading comprehension skills have failed you, I will recap:

Cuban Missile Crisis, missiles can hit Washington, US no likey.
Current missile program in Poland. Missiles can hit Moscow. Russia no likey.

If you read the entire forum, you'd find a post there that explains why Grave n Idle meant by "Cuban Missile Crisis". Since your reading comprehension skills have failed you, I will recap:

Cuban Missile Crisis, missiles can hit Washington, US no likey.
Current missile program in Poland. Missiles can hit Moscow. Russia no likey.

Also, Cuban Missile Crisis: Result of U.S. meddling culminating in the botched Bay of Pigs invasion.

Current Missile Crisis: Result of U.S. meddling culminating in the recognition of Kosovo, siding with a clearly belligerent Georgia, and the proposed set-up of missiles that can reach Moscow.

Also, Cuban Missile Crisis: Result of U.S. meddling culminating in the botched Bay of Pigs invasion.

Current Missile Crisis: Result of U.S. meddling culminating in the recognition of Kosovo, siding with a clearly belligerent Georgia, and the proposed set-up of missiles that can reach Moscow.

Also interesting to note is that the CIA funded the Taliban. How come there's no Taliban-like organization that KGB funded? But that's asking too much of some readers....

In some cases, it's the US's fault.

With them negociating with Poland to establish a
missile defense program against Russian missiles,
is clearly trying to disrespect Russian authority
within the region. Without these missile threat by
Russia, they wouldn't get their respect from the
West. This is why Russia frequently trying to reorder
their stance. They want to be viewed as an potentially
aggressive nation that will roar back if you try anything
on it... Russia's move is smart.

The US's side is smart as well. Defending it's Polish borders
from possible missile threats by Russia, and NATO's strategic
advantage. Technically, they have Russia surrounded.

Putin likes power. He is smart. He is wildly popular in Russia. Why would he oppose Democracy (from Greek Demos Kratia - means majority rule)? If you have 70% approval rating, dictator or not, you tend to support Democracy, so his argument makes perfect sense. Of course is someone doesn't like Russia, then the argument makes no sense.

That's true. In his term of presidency, he tightened
his grip on underground anti-government media. He
also tightened his grip on strategic allies that may
benefit Russia in long terms, ex. China's cheap labor,
and in a way, he's like a greedy fox.

His style is none like any other. He has power, and
knows many things on what do to and what not to do.
He's a former KGB, and so he knows a lot of need to
perform the tasks.

Also interesting to note is that the CIA funded the Taliban. How come there's no Taliban-like organization that KGB funded? But that's asking too much of some readers....

The U.S. channeled support to the mujahideen to weaken the USSR after it entered Afghanistan. Much like how the Soviets and Chinese aided the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese after the US entered Vietnam.

The U.S. channeled support to the mujahideen to weaken the USSR after it entered Afghanistan. Much like how the Soviets and Chinese aided the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese after the US entered Vietnam.

Except the Viet Cong assimilated in Vietnam rather than try to overthrow Uncle Ho and establish their own rule. Not to mention they didn't blowback in the Russians' faces.

Except the Viet Cong assimilated in Vietnam rather than try to overthrow Uncle Ho and establish their own rule. Not to mention they didn't blowback in the Russians' faces.

No. The Viet Cong were Vietnamese. The mujahideen were Afghan. "Assimilation" has nothing to do with it. The difference in the aftermath of the two conflicts is because of differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan, not because of fundamental differences in US and Soviet policy. Afghanistan is highly fragmented and filled with different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups. The mujahideen were not one unified group, which led to them fighting amongst themselves after the Soviets left. The Vietnamese were united by a common language and history, not to mention a strong leader and military government.

Also, the mujahideen were not the Taliban. The Taliban came to power in the mid-1990s.

Except the Viet Cong assimilated in Vietnam rather than try to overthrow Uncle Ho and establish their own rule. Not to mention they didn't blowback in the Russians' faces.

actually they did blow back in both china and Russia Faces. And whipped the Chinese asses when they came to "liberate them". Just Russia never was able to reach that far(far less carriers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Cuban Missile Crisis, missiles can hit Washington, US no likey.
Current missile program in Poland. Missiles can hit Moscow. Russia no likey.

GnI answered the question, asking why anyone should really believe Putin blames his foreign policy on US provocation, with the example of the Cuba Crisis. That is such obvious, phenomenal bullshit, your wishy washy nonsense does not stop that from being so.

Putin likes power. He is smart. He is wildly popular in Russia. Why would he oppose Democracy (from Greek Demos Kratia - means majority rule)? If you have 70% approval rating

Where the hell do you get this nonsense? I'm guessing it's from Russian governmental sources, which really show how very non-objective your judgement is on this case, since Russia ranks amongst the very bottom consistently on all corruption and transparency indexes, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to actually trust their figures.

Also interesting to note is that the CIA funded the Taliban. How come there's no Taliban-like organization that KGB funded? But that's asking too much of some readers....

Iran. You realize the revolution was funded by the soviets, and until Khomeini got back the communist elements in the revolution almost took control. That's why the soviets tended to back Iran and the US tended to back Iraq.

Bring on Russia!

Iran. You realize the revolution was funded by the soviets, and until Khomeini got back the communist elements in the revolution almost took control. That's why the soviets tended to back Iran and the US tended to back Iraq.
What he doesn't realize seems to be alot. Let's check this out, shall we.

Also interesting to note is that the CIA funded the Taliban. How come there's no Taliban-like organization that KGB funded? But that's asking too much of some readers....

Later on, Soviet secret services worked to establish a network of terrorist front organizations and have been described as the primary promoters of terrorism worldwide.[13] [14][15] According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky from the First Chief Directorate of the KGB once said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."[16] He also claimed that "Airplane hijacking is my own invention". In 1969 alone, 82 planes were hijacked worldwide by the KGB-financed Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[16] George Habash, who worked under the KGB's guidance,[17] explained: "Killing one Jew far away from the field of battle is more effective than killing a hundred Jews on the field of battle, because it attracts more attention."[16]

Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa described the operation "SIG" (“Zionist Governments”) that was devised in 1972, to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the United States. KGB chairman Yury Andropov allegedly explained to Pacepa that "a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States."

The following organizations have been allegedly established with assistance from Eastern Bloc security services: the PLO, the National Liberation Army of Bolivia (created in 1964 with help from Ernesto Che Guevara); the National Liberation Army of Colombia (created in 1965 with help from Cuba), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) in 1969, and the Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia in 1975.[18] [19]

The leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, established close collaboration with the Romanian Securitate service and the Soviet KGB in the beginning of the 1970s.[20] The secret training of PLO guerrillas was provided by the KGB.[21] However, the main KGB activities and arms shipments were channeled through Wadie Haddad of the DFLP organization, who usually stayed in a KGB dacha BARVIKHA-1 during his visits to Russia. Led by Carlos the Jackal, a group of PFLP fighters accomplished a spectacular raid the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries office in Vienna in 1975. Advance notice of this operation "was almost certainly" given to the KGB.[22]

A number of notable operations have been conducted by the KGB to support international terrorists with weapons on the orders from the Soviet Communist Party, including:

Transfer of machine-guns, automatic rifles, Walther pistols, and cartridges to the Provisional Irish Republican Army by the Soviet intelligence vessel Reduktor (operation SPLASH) in 1972 to fulfill a personal request of arms from Michael O'Riordan.[23]
Transfer of anti-tank grenade RPG-7 launchers, radio-controlled SNOP mines, pistols with silencers, machine guns, and other weaponry to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine through Wadi Haddad who was recruited as a KGB agent in 1970 (operation VOSTOK, "East").[24]
Support of the Sandinista movement. The leading role here belonged to the General Intelligence Directorate of Communist Cuba.[25]

And if you'd like a glimpse into just one of many specific terrorist groups supported by the Eastern Block, just take a look at this group and what they did to, what was that Marx quote...hmm, "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror"......

http://www.johanneswilm.org/media/1/thumbnail_20070227-RAF.png
Heard of them?
They recieved financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the East German equievant of the KGB, who also reported to the KGB and was extremely loyal to Moscow.

So please, the next time you come into my thread, leave your pro-Soviet revisionist 'history' at the door.

http://www.johanneswilm.org/media/1/thumbnail_20070227-RAF.png
Heard of them?

Yes, the Royal Air Force. :p

Yes, the Royal Air Force. :p

Lolz :p

Walked into that one.

But anyway, jokes aside, my post stands and it is very important that people don't fall for pro-Soviet revisionist 'history'....

Lolz :p

Walked into that one.

But anyway, jokes aside, my post stands and it is very important that people don't fall for pro-Soviet revisionist 'history'....

You're right, but the RAF aren't exactly like the Taliban. I think he meant to say Al-Qaeda, though.

You're right, but the RAF aren't exactly like the Taliban. I think he meant to say Al-Qaeda, though.
The RAF are just one of the many terrorist organizations supported by the Soviet Union and their puppet states....nothing is 'exactly like' the Taliban, but that doesn't really mean anything and certainly doesn't make one able to claim this: "How come there's no Taliban-like organization that KGB funded?"

The Soviet Union/KGB/Soviet Puppet States supported international left wing terrorism which was in line with their ideological beliefs because Marx himself believed in it. There is no denying this.

There is no denying this.

No, there's no denying your failure to answer to this. Quotes or a withdrawal please.
Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14151069&postcount=224)

The Soviet Union/KGB/Soviet Puppet States supported international left wing terrorism which was in line with their ideological beliefs because Marx himself believed in it. There is no denying this.
Yes there is.

It's very much debatable as to the level of support Marx would have given terrorist groups. He seems to show support for non-democratic means of grabbing power (see his post-1848 articles for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung and the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto), while Engels says in The Principles of Communism that democracy is of little use to the proletariat, but how far Marx's support for terrorist organisations would have gone is up in the air.

actually they did blow back in both china and Russia Faces. And whipped the Chinese asses when they came to "liberate them". Just Russia never was able to reach that far(far less carriers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Ok, blowing back into ones face, means seriously becoming a threat. China invaded Vietnam, and got what any invader who invades without a legitimate reason gets - their asses kicked. Vietcong was a threat to Russia only in a Neocons wet dream. Oh wait, they were just voted out of power, dreams do come true, my dreams :D

What he doesn't realize seems to be alot. Let's check this out, shall we.





And if you'd like a glimpse into just one of many specific terrorist groups supported by the Eastern Block, just take a look at this group and what they did to, what was that Marx quote...hmm, "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror"......

http://www.johanneswilm.org/media/1/thumbnail_20070227-RAF.png
Heard of them?
They recieved financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the East German equievant of the KGB, who also reported to the KGB and was extremely loyal to Moscow.

So please, the next time you come into my thread, leave your pro-Soviet revisionist 'history' at the door.

Umm, ok, let me put this in terms you can understand: Al Qaeda is a World Threat, not a Regional Threat. The only World Threat in your qoute has the word "alledged" in front of it. PLO's goal is to get Jerusalem. Al Qaeda's goal is to get a nuke. See the difference? Good. In addition, the Economist is #1 at revisionist history, revising their views on Russia after Putin legitimately kicked out Chevron. I merely stated a fact, and facts be definition are not revesionist history. I realize that the facts I present, are those you don't like. However when you have an international thread based on a bullshit article, I will bring those facts in. It's not a nicety contest between KGB and CIA, both had their fair share of evil deeds. However the greatest mistake was Al Qaeda, and I bring it up, in hopes of avoiding such mistakes in the future. A secret service should have the ability to go "ok these mofos are just to crazy for us to back". Let's hope in the future, they're smarter about it.

GnI answered the question, asking why anyone should really believe Putin blames his foreign policy on US provocation, with the example of the Cuba Crisis. That is such obvious, phenomenal bullshit, your wishy washy nonsense does not stop that from being so.

Because the current Russian Foreign Policy relies heavily on the Code of Hammurabbi, the essense of which is "we'll treat you how you treat us". It's not my wishy washy nonsense, it's Russia's Foreign Policy. Remember when Britain kicked out four Russian Diplomats, what did Russia do? Kicked out four British Diplomats. When US recognized Kosovo? Russia blocked their UN entry. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia, Russia turned the tables on Georgia. When US raised the price of Russian visas, to $31, Russia raised the price on US visas to $31. It is so easy to spot if you have an open mind about Russia, that it is ELIMENTARY my dear Watson. ELIMENTARY! But you still have to pretend that you don't get it, because then all of your nonsense about Russia is proven for what it is, nonsense.

The CIA didn't create al Qaeda. It supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The Afghan Arabs never received any funding from the U.S, they were independently funded by Arab sources.

However, because the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan and let it become a failed state, bin Laden was able to set up shop there after Sudan kicked him out.

Where the hell do you get this nonsense? I'm guessing it's from Russian governmental sources, which really show how very non-objective your judgement is on this case, since Russia ranks amongst the very bottom consistently on all corruption and transparency indexes, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to actually trust their figures.

(The quote referred to my saying that Putin's approval rating was above 70%). Your hatred of Putin blinds you so much, that you just fail, epically:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/06/whyputinispopular

"Little wonder that, seven years into his presidency, Putin continues to score an approval rating of 70% plus, a figure that makes western leaders green with envy."


http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/321396.aspx

"This is an era in which Russia is getting stronger, reasserting itself internationally, becoming more stable at home and growing economically. And if it’s the image of a shirtless, machete-wielding president which best represents the man who can do all that and enjoy approval ratings at about 70 percent, maybe it’s not such a bad thing."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12411

"- Vladimir Putin maintains a high level of public support in Russia, according to a poll by the Yury Levada Analytical Center. 77 per cent of respondents approve of the president's performance, up one point since May."

Need more sources comrade? Because I'm lazy, but if you actually read, (with reading comprehension and without your blind hatred of Putin and Russia) actually read neutral to Russia sources, you'd find that Putin is wildly popular.

The CIA didn't create al Qaeda. It supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The Afghan Arabs never received any funding from the U.S, they were independently funded by Arab sources.

However, because the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan and let it become a failed state, bin Laden was able to set up shop there after Sudan kicked him out.

Can we just agree to use this as an example, and prevent f*ck ups like this in the future?

Ok, blowing back into ones face, means seriously becoming a threat. China invaded Vietnam, and got what any invader who invades without a legitimate reason gets - their asses kicked. Vietcong was a threat to Russia only in a Neocons wet dream. Oh wait, they were just voted out of power, dreams do come true, my dreams :D

yes and if you haven't noticed Vietnam is a US ally now.
and the invasion was China attempting to correct Vietnam's interpretation of communist doctrine.

Can we just agree to use this as an example, and prevent f*ck ups like this in the future?

The lesson is that America's adventures in the Middle East always end badly. It's such a complex region that it's impossible to avoid messing something up.

I don't quite agree about Putin's popularity ratings. It's easier to have high approval when you're not in an open democracy. But the idea that Russia is acting out of malevolence in its foreign policy is bogus. Putin's doing what he perceives to be in Russia's interest. The U.S. needs to accept that there are legitimate security interests other than its own.

yes and if you haven't noticed Vietnam is a US ally now.
and the invasion was China attempting to correct Vietnam's interpretation of communist doctrine.

The point here is that China INVADED Vietnam. Al Qaeda blew up those buildings without any legitimate reason, other then hatred for the US. Ergo, I want this to be a lesson for all secret service people not to back crazy Mofos. Also, Vietnam is also Russia's ally. Interesting how that works. Apparently you don't have to pick sides in the modern World, maybe there's no Cold War after all.

The lesson is that America's adventures in the Middle East always end badly. It's such a complex region that it's impossible to avoid messing something up.

I don't quite agree about Putin's popularity ratings. It's easier to have high approval when you're not in an open democracy. But the idea that Russia is acting out of malevolence in its foreign policy is bogus. Putin's doing what he perceives to be in Russia's interest. The U.S. needs to accept that there are legitimate security interests other than its own.

Well Brains, you also have to factor in the facts that Putin has no credible opponents. SPS lost credibility due to their "reforms" that Putin had nothing to do with. I mean if it was Putin vs. FDR, it'd be less approval rating, but again, after Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin - Russians have a president they can be proud of, don't you think that helps the popularity too? I'm just curious.

Well Brains, you also have to factor in the facts that Putin has no credible opponents. SPS lost credibility due to their "reforms" that Putin had nothing to do with. I mean if it was Putin vs. FDR, it'd be less approval rating, but again, after Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin - Russians have a president they can be proud of, don't you think that helps the popularity too? I'm just curious.

One of the reasons he has no real opponents is that he's made it difficult for opposition groups to organize and operate. Russia is ranked as "not free" (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7475&year=2008) by Freedom House

Umm, ok, let me put this in terms you can understand: Al Qaeda is a World Threat, not a Regional Threat.
As if that matters? Are you saying that East Germany and by extension the KGB's support of the Red Faction Army is not bad? If so, state that it is bad. Otherwise you look like an apologist for the KGB backed radical communist terrorist organizations, simply because some of them weren't global.

The only World Threat in your qoute has the word "alledged" in front of it. PLO's goal is to get Jerusalem. Al Qaeda's goal is to get a nuke. See the difference? Good.
Let's look at it this.....

KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky said that "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."[57] He also claimed that "Airplane hijacking is my own invention".[57] In 1969 alone 82 planes were hijacked worldwide by the KGB-financed PLO.[57]

Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa also described operation "SIG" (“Zionist Governments”) that was devised in 1972, to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the United States.[57] According to him, KGB chairman Yury Andropov explained him that "a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States." Andropov also told him that "the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought."[57]

So not only were 82 planes hijacked worldwide in 1969 ALONE, backed by the KGB, but the KGB was also trying to some sort of holy war between the Muslims and Jews.

How the fuck is that anything but global?

Here, read up:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=


In addition, the Economist is #1 at revisionist history, revising their views on Russia after Putin legitimately kicked out Chevron.
The Economist is interested in economic, political and social freedom, all of which are regressing under Putin. It is within the interest of promoting freedom, that one must oppose Putin's rule.

I merely stated a fact, and facts be definition are not revesionist history. I realize that the facts I present, are those you don't like.
You are an apologist for Soviet sponsored terrorism......

However when you have an international thread based on a bullshit article, I will bring those facts in.
What about it is bullshit?

It's not a nicety contest between KGB and CIA, both had their fair share of evil deeds. However the greatest mistake was Al Qaeda, and I bring it up, in hopes of avoiding such mistakes in the future.
Supporting the Mujihadeem is not "Al Qaeda"....or do you not understand that?

A secret service should have the ability to go "ok these mofos are just to crazy for us to back". Let's hope in the future, they're smarter about it.
No. Supporting the Mujihadeem (not Al Qaeda) was the smart thing to do at the time. Who was a greater enemy to America and global security? Russia expanding into the Middle East or a bunch of Afghans living in the mountains?

By defeating the Russians in Afghanistan, we showed the world that the Soviet Empire, previously thought invincible, could be defeated. It was a strategic as well as symoblistic victory over the Soviet Union.

One of the reasons he has no real opponents is that he's made it difficult for opposition groups to organize and operate. Russia is ranked as "not free" (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7475&year=2008) by Freedom House

Freedom House ranks Estonia quite high, actually fourth I believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgFGkeC2HDE&NR=1

And yet that scene exist, so if after something like that Estonia's high, I just don't trust freedom house. The Demonstrations I've been to were a lot more peaceful.

The Economist is interested in economic, political and social freedom, all of which are regressing under Putin. It is within the interest of promoting freedom, that one must oppose Putin's rule.

You are an apologist for Soviet sponsored terrorism......

Supporting the Mujihadeem is not "Al Qaeda"....or do you not understand that?

No. Supporting the Mujihadeem (not Al Qaeda) was the smart thing to do at the time. Who was a greater enemy to America and global security? Russia expanding into the Middle East or a bunch of Afghans living in the mountains?

By defeating the Russians in Afghanistan, we showed the world that the Soviet Empire, previously thought invincible, could be defeated. It was a strategic as well as symoblistic victory over the Soviet Union.

I've actually said that neither CIA nor KGB were angellic, so please don't tell me that I'm try to justify either one's actions. I can tell which actions were better and which were worst, but to justify them, which is what you're trying to do, is quite silly. The Economist should focus on the US Economy and stop telling others to meddle in other countries; instead of predicting the US Recession, the Economist told everyone how bad Russia was. If your economy is bad, divert elsewhere, that's Yellow Journalism 101, and the Economist is stellar at it.

I'm not an apologist for any form of terrorism. But if your bombs fall on my house and I defend against you, I'm not a terrorist. You seem to confuse terrorism and insurgency, and I've already condemned terrorism, Soviet sponsored or not, please don't put lies into my mouth. As for insurgents - that's why you don't become the World's Policemen - duh!

Oh, and you took out the word "alledged", well done Comrade, Pravda would be proud.

Mujahedeen - enabled rise of Taliban - that enabled the rise of Al Qaeda. Can you count? Connect the dots? It's truly ELEMENTARY. If you are blind, find, but don't try to blind others with your ideology.

The USSR lost to the Taliban/Mujahedeen, because Brezhnev was a moron, who like Stalin didn't listend to Red Army Commanders and ordered the Rush to Kabul. If the Red Army was actually allowed to fight that war, without the intervention of Brezhnev and his cronies, it would have been quite different. Note how Putin allowed the Army to fight the Second Chechen War with minimal Government Meddling and won. You are giving yourself way too much credit.

Edit: I'd much rather have terrorist hijacking planes then nukes. You on the other hand, are quite different, so I wouldn't know. The best option is to not have terrorism at all - duh! - but if I had to choose....

Freedom House ranks Estonia quite high, actually fourth I believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgFGkeC2HDE&NR=1

And yet that scene exist, so if after something like that Estonia's high, I just don't trust freedom house. The Demonstrations I've been to were a lot more peaceful.

If you think one out of context Youtube video repudiates independent, nongovernmental research and analysis, then we can't have a rational discussion. First, all of the neutral observers reported looting and vandalism by pro-Russia protesters. Second, how does that prove anything about political freedom in Russia?

Mujahedeen - enabled rise of Taliban - that enabled the rise of Al Qaeda. Can you count? Connect the dots? It's truly ELEMENTARY. If you are blind, find, but don't try to blind others with your ideology.

The USSR lost to the Taliban/Mujahedeen, because Brezhnev was a moron, who like Stalin didn't listend to Red Army Commanders and ordered the Rush to Kabul. If the Red Army was actually allowed to fight that war, without the intervention of Brezhnev and his cronies, it would have been quite different. Note how Putin allowed the Army to fight the Second Chechen War with minimal Government Meddling and won. You are giving yourself way too much credit.So the US is responsible for the Mujahedeen...but they would have won anyway without our support?

And Chechnya is nothing like Afghanistan, and the Second Chechen War was nothing like the Soviet occupation of Aghanistan. Afghanistan is much larger, has thirty times the population, has decentralized power centers, etc. You think they would've won, except Brezhnev messed it up? Evidence please.

GnI answered the question, asking why anyone should really believe Putin blames his foreign policy on US provocation, with the example of the Cuba Crisis. That is such obvious, phenomenal bullshit, your wishy washy nonsense does not stop that from being so.

The USSR hadn't even placed active weapons in Cuba, and yet the US Government managed to create such pervasive fear that it stretched outside of the US and across Europe, and Kennedy almost brought the world to the bring of nuclear war... over non-live armaments.

If you honestly can't get from THERE to 'why would anyone believe Putin', then the weakness isn't in the example.

The USSR hadn't even placed active weapons in Cuba, and yet the US Government managed to create such pervasive fear that it stretched outside of the US and across Europe, and Kennedy almost brought the world to the bring of nuclear war... over non-live armaments.

If you honestly can't get from THERE to 'why would anyone believe Putin', then the weakness isn't in the example.

more like he implemented the blockade before the soviets finished getting the weapons live.

more like he implemented the blockade before the soviets finished getting the weapons live.

So we agree that the world was brought to the eve of war over an issue of weapons that weren't weapons?

You quibble about the most irrelevant details...

So we agree that the world was brought to the eve of war over an issue of weapons that weren't weapons?

You quibble about the most irrelevant details...

they were a week away at most from those being live weapons.
Its a bit silly to make a stink about something after they gain the advantage of nukes placed with 60 miles of Florida. You do it before so you can smile know you got Turkey.

they were a week away at most from those being live weapons.
Its a bit silly to make a stink about something after they gain the advantage of nukes placed with 60 miles of Florida. You do it before so you can smile know you got Turkey.

So, we agree that the world was brought to the eve of war over not-a-weapon weapons?

If you think one out of context Youtube video repudiates independent, nongovernmental research and analysis, then we can't have a rational discussion. First, all of the neutral observers reported looting and vandalism by pro-Russia protesters. Second, how does that prove anything about political freedom in Russia?

The clip I posted has nothing to do with political freedom in Russia. It does prove that Freedom House is biased. And I can find more clips like that one. Yes, there was looting and vandalism associated with the looting. However there were also mass beatings by the police. If a guy's handcuffed, you don't need to beat him down repeteadly. If a guy was trying to walk away, you don't need to arrest him. Also, if people are driven to these conditions (no Russians rioted in Lithuania for instance - identical conditions) then the government is doing something wrong. You don't start vandalising because you're living the Good Life.

The clip I posted has nothing to do with political freedom in Russia. It does prove that Freedom House is biased. And I can find more clips like that one. Yes, there was looting and vandalism associated with the looting. However there were also mass beatings by the police. If a guy's handcuffed, you don't need to beat him down repeteadly. If a guy was trying to walk away, you don't need to arrest him. Also, if people are driven to these conditions (no Russians rioted in Lithuania for instance - identical conditions) then the government is doing something wrong. You don't start vandalising because you're living the Good Life.

Right. So:
Russians rioted in Estonia --> Police responded, perhaps with excessive force --> Russians in Estonia are therefore not happy --> Therefore the government is doing something wrong --> Therefore Estonia is not politically free --> Therefore Freedom House's analysis must be biased --> Therefore we can ignore their ranking of Russia as "not free" --> Therefore you can say whatever you want about Russian politics and claim that Putin must have been elected fairly and democratically and thus must be a great leader.

Got it.

So the US is responsible for the Mujahedeen...but they would have won anyway without our support?

And Chechnya is nothing like Afghanistan, and the Second Chechen War was nothing like the Soviet occupation of Aghanistan. Afghanistan is much larger, has thirty times the population, has decentralized power centers, etc. You think they would've won, except Brezhnev messed it up? Evidence please.

It's a question of whether the Mujahedeen would have won without US support or not, and I cannot comment on that, because I don't know how extensive the support was. However, had the Red Army been allowed to fight to their fullest capacity (barring nukes) the Mujahedeen would've lost. The Red Army plan consisted of intially taking control of the border area, and then slowly moving in, after pacifying it. They envisioned a long and grueling march to Kabul, while keeping Red Army casualties low. Brezhnev wanted them to rush to Kabul. This ensured that there was no support from the populace gained, and that supply lines and reenforcements were constantly ambushed - which caused the bulk of Red Army casualties in Afghanistan.

But that's not all. The way that the Red Army envisioned it, was a fight between the Mujahedeen vs. the Red Army and Afhgan Army loyal to the USSR. With the rush, and conflicting orders, as well as KGB and the Russia Mafia (btw Brezhnev is the Godfather of the Russian Mafia) meddling, sometimes you had the Mafia fighting the Afghan Army, leaving the Red Army exposed (due to lack of support) to Mujahedeen counter-attacks.

Now as to your point: The Red Army wasn't exactly a lightweight either. They had the manpower to go into Afghanistan. You need a 1 to 100 ratio. With 32 million Afghanis, the Red Army could have easily placed 320,000 or even 640,000 men into Afghanistan. Brezhnev wouldn't even let the Red Army send in these reenforcements. In Chechnya the Russians had a 1 to 10 ratio. They slowly approached the capital. There was no rush in taking it. I don't know if Brezhnev personally failed, or if his advisors failed, but the way that the Soviet Government failed the Red Army in Afghanistan was absolute.

Right. So:
Russians rioted in Estonia --> Police responded, perhaps with excessive force --> Russians in Estonia are therefore not happy --> Therefore the government is doing something wrong --> Therefore Estonia is not politically free --> Therefore Freedom House's analysis must be biased --> Therefore we can ignore their ranking of Russia as "not free" --> Therefore you can say whatever you want about Russian politics and claim that Putin must have been elected fairly and democratically and thus must be a great leader.

Got it.

Nope. You went too far. My post only applied to "Freedom House". There are other sources that claim that Putin is biased. There's an actually independent newspaper that rails on Putin, but ironically was banned from Russia for being too vulgar and depressing, out of all things. I qoute it quite often. www.exiledonline.com I'm not saying that Putin's Democratic like FDR. I am saying that Putin is the most Democratic Leader Russia had. Under Yeltsin, instead of the government wacking you, the Mafia did it. But, my point there was merely to show that Estonia is not politically free and that Freedom House is biased. You can read about it from an EU gov't. member, Tatiana Zhdanok. Or the EU Green Party. Oh yeah, and Putin's more Democratic then Florida in 2,000 :D

It's a question of whether the Mujahedeen would have won without US support or not, and I cannot comment on that, because I don't know how extensive the support was. However, had the Red Army been allowed to fight to their fullest capacity (barring nukes) the Mujahedeen would've lost.
...

Hmm, that's interesting. However, it's likely that the Red Army would have encountered the same problems that the U.S. is encountering now. Afghanistan is a difficult country to occupy--centralized control requires occupying the cities, but the basis of power is the countryside. The point of U.S. support was to make the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as painful as possible, which would have been the case regardless of the Red Army's management. America and NATO have been fighting in Afghanistan for 6+ years, and have only might modest gains against the insurgents. Would the mujahideen won without U.S. support? Well, weapons don't materialize out of thin air, especially Stinger missiles. But it's without a doubt that U.S. (and Saudi, Pakistani, etc) support made the operation much, much more costly for the Soviets. Which was the point.

And if you'd like a glimpse into just one of many specific terrorist groups supported by the Eastern Block, just take a look at this group and what they did to, what was that Marx quote...hmm, "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new - revolutionary terror"......

http://www.johanneswilm.org/media/1/thumbnail_20070227-RAF.png
Heard of them?
They recieved financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the East German equievant of the KGB, who also reported to the KGB and was extremely loyal to Moscow.

So please, the next time you come into my thread, leave your pro-Soviet revisionist 'history' at the door.

A little bit of a historical point of order on the Red Army Faction.

The RAF was not just some brainchild of the KGB/Stasi. The RAF was born because of political repression by the West German government against the left. The KPD, which had fought against the Nazi's heroically, was banned, and left-wing groups were spied on and harrassed by the police. Everything culminated with the Grand Coalition between the SPD and the CDU, which resulted in a former Nazi Party member becoming Chancellor.

Laws were passed banning members of certain leftist groups from holding public sector jobs. With the repression of leftists and others under the Nazi regime still within living memory, a lot of people decided to not let that tragedy repeat itself. So they fought back this time.

The RAF was not uniformly Leninist in direction. It had diverse membership ranging from Western council communists and enraged social democrats, to some Leninists and some anarchists. Their acceptance of Soviet bloc aid was more practical than ideological. It's a situation very similar to the ANC in South Africa, as described by Mandela "Some people say the Communists were using us. But who's to say we weren't using them?"

As for Marx himself, Marx later repudiated the type of terror tactics that were appropriate fro opposing autocratic European monarchies, and fully embraced a democratic revolution.

Leave your historical revisionism at the door.

Hmm, that's interesting. However, it's likely that the Red Army would have encountered the same problems that the U.S. is encountering now. Afghanistan is a difficult country to occupy--centralized control requires occupying the cities, but the basis of power is the countryside. The point of U.S. support was to make the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan as painful as possible, which would have been the case regardless of the Red Army's management. America and NATO have been fighting in Afghanistan for 6+ years, and have only might modest gains against the insurgents. Would the mujahideen won without U.S. support? Well, weapons don't materialize out of thin air, especially Stinger missiles. But it's without a doubt that U.S. (and Saudi, Pakistani, etc) support made the operation much, much more costly for the Soviets. Which was the point.

True, but US/NATO don't have enough boots in Afghanistan. You need 320,000 or a 1 to 100 ratio. Plus now, thanks to the failure of the Neocons (who are more responsible for this then anyone else with their Iraq Campaign) the gearing up of Al Qaeda on the Pakistani-Afghanistan border makes this situation even tougher. And the Stingers were/are a pain. That I agree with you on, but do you think that Mujahedeen could've won vs. 620,000 Red Army men, and no vulnerable supply lines?

Nope. You went too far. My post only applied to "Freedom House". There are other sources that claim that Putin is biased. There's an actually independent newspaper that rails on Putin, but ironically was banned from Russia for being too vulgar and depressing, out of all things. I qoute it quite often. www.exiledonline.com I'm not saying that Putin's Democratic like FDR. I am saying that Putin is the most Democratic Leader Russia had. Under Yeltsin, instead of the government wacking you, the Mafia did it.Yeltsin doesn't exactly set the bar very high. But Putin is most probably the leader most likely to be elected were there a functioning democracy.

But, my point there was merely to show that Estonia is not politically free and that Freedom House is biased. You can read about it from an EU gov't. member, Tatiana Zhdanok. Or the EU Green Party.I probably rely too heavily on pro-Western sources. I read mainly CFR, which is the mouthpiece of the American foreign policy establishment, and the Economist, which I think you've already slammed.

Oh yeah, and Putin's more Democratic then Florida in 2,000 :D*sigh* Bush has made it increasingly hard to lecture other countries about democracy and human rights.

True, but US/NATO don't have enough boots in Afghanistan. You need 320,000 or a 1 to 100 ratio. Plus now, thanks to the failure of the Neocons (who are more responsible for this then anyone else with their Iraq Campaign) the gearing up of Al Qaeda on the Pakistani-Afghanistan border makes this situation even tougher. And the Stingers were/are a pain. That I agree with you on, but do you think that Mujahedeen could've won vs. 620,000 Red Army men, and no vulnerable supply lines?

I can't say with any authority. But the Red Army would have run into the same problem with the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Most of the material aid was being funneled in through Pakistan and the Pakistani intelligence services. Had the Soviets been forced to wage a protracted, low-intensity counterinsurgency with half a million troops, America would have counted it as a victory even if the mujahideen didn't prevail.

I don't think they're blameless, but I think there's a difference between being the antagonist, and reacting. I think Russia has largely been reacting.This clearly wasn't a reaction. Saying they'd aim nukes at Europe was their reaction. This is an act of Russian antagonism.

Because the current Russian Foreign Policy relies heavily on the Code of Hammurabbi, the essense of which is "we'll treat you how you treat us". It's not my wishy washy nonsense, it's Russia's Foreign Policy. Remember when Britain kicked out four Russian Diplomats, what did Russia do? Kicked out four British Diplomats. When US recognized Kosovo? Russia blocked their UN entry. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia, Russia turned the tables on Georgia. When US raised the price of Russian visas, to $31, Russia raised the price on US visas to $31. It is so easy to spot if you have an open mind about Russia, that it is ELIMENTARY my dear Watson. ELIMENTARY! But you still have to pretend that you don't get it, because then all of your nonsense about Russia is proven for what it is, nonsense.

And yet, hilariously, this still has nothing to do with the Cuba Crisis, just because the Cuba Crisis followed the same pattern, doesn't mean Putin gives a shit about it, and it doesn't mean that he would base his policy on anything to do with it. The Cuba Crisis was also not the dawn of Russia's alleged following of the 'Code of Hammurabbi', despite them hardly being faithful followers of it, regardless of your cherry picking.

Leave your historical revisionism at the door.
That's... a very, very rosy view of the KPD and RAF. One could go so far as to call it revisionist.

(The quote referred to my saying that Putin's approval rating was above 70%). Your hatred of Putin blinds you so much, that you just fail, epically:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/06/whyputinispopular

"Little wonder that, seven years into his presidency, Putin continues to score an approval rating of 70% plus, a figure that makes western leaders green with envy."


http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/321396.aspx

"This is an era in which Russia is getting stronger, reasserting itself internationally, becoming more stable at home and growing economically. And if it’s the image of a shirtless, machete-wielding president which best represents the man who can do all that and enjoy approval ratings at about 70 percent, maybe it’s not such a bad thing."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12411

"- Vladimir Putin maintains a high level of public support in Russia, according to a poll by the Yury Levada Analytical Center. 77 per cent of respondents approve of the president's performance, up one point since May."

Need more sources comrade? Because I'm lazy, but if you actually read, (with reading comprehension and without your blind hatred of Putin and Russia) actually read neutral to Russia sources, you'd find that Putin is wildly popular.

You're citing a two year old source.... from VCIOM (the source all those newspapers are using)... facepalm.jpg

The USSR hadn't even placed active weapons in Cuba

YET.


, and yet the US Government managed to create such pervasive fear that it stretched outside of the US and across Europe, and Kennedy almost brought the world to the bring of nuclear war... over non-live armaments.

If you honestly can't get from THERE to 'why would anyone believe Putin', then the weakness isn't in the example.

Yes it is, you cited an example, but failed to explain at all how Putin would actually base any of his foreign policy on that event in the slightest, or why he would even care enough to skew his foreign policy. And even if he does do that, that makes him a terrible and irrational person.

A little bit of a historical point of order on the Red Army Faction.

The RAF was not just some brainchild of the KGB/Stasi. The RAF was born because of political repression by the West German government against the left.

Al Qaeda was born out of political repression as well.

I am saying that Putin is the most Democratic Leader Russia had.

That's like saying 'this shit is the nicest smelling shit I've ever had'.

The Economist should focus on the US Economy and stop telling others to meddle in other countries; instead of predicting the US Recession

Have you even read a single article by them? They DID predict the recession, they even predicted the dot com bubble, a very highly unpopular prediction at the time.

If your economy is bad, divert elsewhere

The Economist is edited in LONDON, Jesus Christ.

So, we agree that the world was brought to the eve of war over not-a-weapon weapons?

You could just as easily say that Russia shipping shit loads of nukes secretly to Cuba brought the world to the eve of nuclear war, that was a very stupid and dangerous decision by the USSR also.

This clearly wasn't a reaction. Saying they'd aim nukes at Europe was their reaction. This is an act of Russian antagonism.

In what way?

Russian missile bases seems tailor-made as a reaction to the US missile shield.


Or - do you believe there's some kind of scale that international incidents have to follow? "Okay, we can kidnap 3 of their soldiers, but if we kidnap 4 it's not retaliation, it moves up a stage...

YET.


Captain States-the-obvious states the obvious.


Yes it is, you cited an example, but failed to explain at all how Putin would actually base any of his foreign policy on that event in the slightest...

...because I'm not saying Putin would base his foreign policy on that event...

You could just as easily say that Russia shipping shit loads of nukes secretly to Cuba brought the world to the eve of nuclear war, that was a very stupid and dangerous decision by the USSR also.

You've clearly forgotten what the point was.

...because I'm not saying Putin would base his foreign policy on that event...

Then I ask again, what is your point? Why does the Cuba Crisis mean we should believe that Putin blames his foreign policy on American provocation?

Then I ask again, what is your point? Why does the Cuba Crisis mean we should believe that Putin blames his foreign policy on American provocation?

Go back and read questions, and then the responses.

And yet, hilariously, this still has nothing to do with the Cuba Crisis, just because the Cuba Crisis followed the same pattern, doesn't mean Putin gives a shit about it, and it doesn't mean that he would base his policy on anything to do with it. The Cuba Crisis was also not the dawn of Russia's alleged following of the 'Code of Hammurabbi', despite them hardly being faithful followers of it, regardless of your cherry picking.

Are you trying to sound stupid? The Cuba Crisis was a RESPONSE to missiles in Turkey. Missiles in Kaliningrad are a RESPONSE to missiles in Poland. Now go and read the Code of Hammurabbi, and prove to me how Russia isn't following it, a single decision please. Thank you.

Go back and read questions, and then the responses.

Ok so I found this sentence:

"Why would anyone believe him... Why did anyone believe the US government during that Crisis?"

Still not sure what you're trying to say here, could you at least elaborate a little? It looks to me like you're trying to dodge the question by citing an equivalent scenario in the US.

You're citing a two year old source.... from VCIOM (the source all those newspapers are using)... facepalm.jpg

SO your argument goes from Putin never had 70%, and if you believe he did then you are biased and blind, to "well ok he did, but that was two years ago". You should facepalm yourself, and do it hard enough to wake up those cells of yours. Please don't ask me what cells, if you cannot figure that one out....