USSR, U.S. and Russia: Opportunities Lost [Archive]

View Full Version : USSR, U.S. and Russia: Opportunities Lost

redfox0035

02-03-2007, 02:30 PM

http://www.washprofile.org/files/washprof_logo.gif (http://www.washprofile.org/en)

An interview with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University and author of several books, including Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia.

http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/5814

Washington Profile: There have been several prominent theories proposed as to why the Soviet Union collapsed. In your extensive research on the subject, what is the conclusion that you have reached?

Stephen Cohen: It is fresh in my mind because I just published a little book in Moscow in Russian on this question. I call this book: “Why did the Soviet Union end?” The publisher called it: “Vopros voprosov, pochemu ne stalo Sovetskogo Soiuza.” I don't use the word collapse because I think that prejudges an explanation. If you say collapse, it implies an analogy with the end of tsarism in 1917, because we always say tsarism collapsed. And it suggests that the system collapsed because of some internal and irreparable, inevitable factors or defects. So I simply ask, ‘Why did it end?’ And as I went through the literature, I was astonished to discover that there are somewhere, depending on how you define them, six to10 rather different explanations of why the Soviet Union ended. You find this many in both the Western scholarly literature and the Russian serious literature, scholarly or journalistic. I go through, in this little book of mine, each of the six which I believe to be the most prominent. In order to explain the end of the Soviet Union, as historians will be trying to do not only on this fifteenth anniversary, but probably for the next 100 or 200 years, you need to take into account three factors.

The precipitating factor was Gorbachev’s political and economic reforms that began in 1985 and reached their peak at about 1990 in a form of a rather extensive democratization of the former Communist system. Essentially by 1990 Gorbachev had dismantled the communist political system, what used to be called the totalitarian system (I didn’t use that word, but we know what we mean by it). He had loosened state control of the economy. That made possible other factors to come into play. Some people, for example, say the Soviet Union ended because of nationalism or the Soviet Union ended because of popular unrest. But none of these factors would have come into play, probably not even today, had it not been for Gorbachev’s reforms. Then came the second factor, and that was the emergence of Boris Yeltsin by about 1989, 1990. Now you had something rather unusual in history, but not unusual in Russian history where leaders have played special roles: you had a conflict between two Russian leaders, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between two men of extraordinary political will. I define it as Gorbachev’s extraordinary will to reform and Yeltsin’s extraordinary will for power. This conflict created the possibility that Yeltsin could go to Belovezh Forest on December 8 and abolish the Soviet Union in order to be rid completely of Gorbachev, and to beat him completely by abolishing his presidency and his country. But then that leaves a third question and a third factor. Yeltsin didn’t control an army, he didn’t even have a political party. How would he be able to abolish what was still a nuclear super power of what was still nearly 300 million people, in the face of the Soviet elite, particularly the state nomenklatura, not necessarily the party, that had based its position on this state. Why did they permit Yeltsin to do this? And here I think would be the third factor, that, the high nomenklatura that might have stopped Yeltsin had been too busy privatizing the wealth of the state to care about defending it. The struggle over property did not actually begin after the end of the Soviet Union, but early on in the late 1980s. But by 1990 and 1991, main members of the high elite, ministerial elite, even the army elite, certainly the party elite, were seizing state property for themselves, so while they were stripping the state’s assets, they had no interest in defending it, so they simply stepped aside and allowed the political struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev to unfold, and it unfolded in the end of the Soviet Union.

WP: If those circumstances hadn’t come together the way they did, and the Soviet Union had remained in tact, what, in your view, would “the post-Soviet space” have looked like today?

Cohen: Well, it would have depended on a central question. Gorbachev set into process a Soviet reformation. He called it perestroika, but putting it into the context of history, and not just Russian history, we would call it an attempted reformation. Had that reformation continued, with or without Gorbachev, because by 1989-1990 it no longer required Gorbachev’s leadership; his historic role was to put it into motion… After all, there was a moment in the struggle between Gorbachev and Yeltsin in 1990 and 1991 when Yeltsin’s intent had not been to abolish the Soviet Union, but to become president of the Soviet Union and displace Gorbachev. The question is, would there have continued to be a reforming Soviet Union, or would something like the failed putsch of August 1991 happened again and stopped the reformation? If the Soviet Union had continued to reform, it would have meant the reform of the Union Treaty, and therefore the Soviet Union certainly would have been smaller. Three Baltic countries would have certainly gone, it’s possible that Georgia would have gone. It’s not clear about Ukraine because that was a very unusual situation, driven more by elite politics then public opinion. But if a reforming Soviet Union had continued to exist, I think the outcome would have been a smaller Soviet Union, maybe eight, nine, 10 republics, but still the bulk of Soviet territory, people, and resources. In so far as, say, the Central Asian republics had remained under the political influence of Moscow, they would have had to continue to democratize. The democratization of Central Asia ended with the end of the Soviet Union. The only reason they began democratization in the Central Asian republics was because they were compelled to do so by Moscow’s leadership. Once free of that, they reverted to authoritarianism. In the economy you would have gotten some unstable but functioning mix of a state economy and a private economy, something like what Putin is probably trying to recreate today. You would have had a Soviet Union, I see no reason why you wouldn’t have, but it would have been a different Soviet Union. On the other hand, had the reformation been ended, and it only could have been ended by force, and you can’t rule that out, then you would have had a very nasty looking dictatorship. Remember, when the coup makers sought to overthrow Gorbachev in August of 1991 and imposed martial law in Moscow by bringing troops into the center of Moscow, almost all of the republic leaders, who until then had been acting as though they were sovereign or independent, immediately either fell silent or collaborated with the coup makers. In other words, they were afraid of Moscow. It is only when Moscow under Yeltsin said, “We no longer want you, clear your own way, we are no longer going to subsidize you,” they went away, ran away. But had that not happened, had Moscow not driven them away, or really, disowned them, because remember, the Soviet Union was abolished by the three Slavic republics. The others would have still been there, certainly Kazakhstan would have been there; Nazarbaev wanted to preserve the Union. The others were afraid of Moscow, they would have stayed. So it all depends on whether this reformation would have continued, and had it done so, I think the Soviet Union would not have looked bad today. Had it not done so, it would have been pretty terrible.

WP: With the war in Iraq and the focus on anti-terrorism, Russia is by far not the main foreign policy concern for the United States. How would you characterize the U.S. “Russia policy”? What are its goals and what have been its results?

Cohen: I think American policy toward Russia today actually began in the 1990s, particularly during the Clinton administration. My view is that not all, but a large part of the negative content of American-Russian relations today -- and that relationship is very, very negative, as bad as it has been in many years -- is the result, primarily but not only, of the Clinton administration’s decision to treat Russia as a defeated nation in the Cold War. When the Cold War ended -- it was officially said to have ended in Malta in December 1989-- the first President Bush and Gorbachev announced that the Cold War was over. In announcing that the Cold War was over, both said there are no winners, there are no losers. We have agreed to end the Cold War, and in that sense, we are both winners. That tone changed after December 1991, when the Soviet Union ended and the first President Bush began to say, not as a matter of policy but more as a matter of getting himself reelected, that the United States had won the Cold War, but it didn’t have much consequence then. The Clinton administration embraced this view and drew an analogy between the defeat of Russia in the Cold War and the defeat of Germany and Japan in WWII, that we were the victor nation, they were the defeated nation, and therefore they should be supplicant and subordinate to the United States. That was a terrible mistake, and some of us warned against it at the time. What we said was, that’s not what happened, without Gorbachev the Cold War would not have ended, so Russia deserves as much credit as the United States, and secondly, Russia is weak now, and you can get away with using and abusing Russia, as we did when it was ruled by Yeltsin, but, we warned, that’s not going to last. And if you treat Russia like this now, you are going to regret it. Because when Russia rises to its knees, it’s going to be resentful about how it was treated. And that’s what’s happened. Because the Clinton administration did two things: first, it tried to control Russia’s post-communist transition by telling Russia what to do and not to do. To a degree, we were sending legions of advisors there to write their legislation. Americans were sitting in Russian ministries, writing legislation about privatization, textbooks, all sorts of intimate matters involving a nation that no foreign nation has any right to meddle with. There was bound to be a backlash against this, particularly when economic and social catastrophe came upon Russia in the 1990s.

The second thing we did which was equally bad, and this is often forgotten, that in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and I’ll quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch to the east.” That was a solemn promise. Now in Russia, it is said that Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing as a treaty. But when it came to the United States, Gorbachev was a little naive. He was smitten with his own ideas of the new thinking, a common European home of human values. He thought that we ascribe to those values, that the United States saw eye to eye to him about that and about how great powers should treat each other. But Clinton during the 1990s violated that solemn promise and began to expand NATO eastward toward Russia, and that continues today. That expansion of NATO and the violation of that promise that has driven the conflicts with Russia over both Ukraine and Georgia, and so long as NATO continues to take those former Soviet republics in, that conflict will continue to exist…After all [NATO is] a military alliance right on Russia’s borders. The former Baltic republics are already in NATO, NATO is knocking on Ukraine’s door, and there are U.S. bases already in Central Asia. Russia sees itself as being encircled, and so long as that is happening, so long as Russia has that view, there will be no good or stable relations between Russia and the West. Now let me say that Yeltsin went along with all this for reasons that don’t have to concern us today; I think they were partly economic and partly psychological; it was partly Yeltsin’s sense that he had done something illegitimate, that he abolished the Soviet Union and he gave the wealth of the state to the oligarchs and he needed somebody who passionately supported him, as Clinton did, because certainly nobody at home of any repute much supported him by the mid 1990s. But once Yeltsin was gone, Putin was clearly a different cat altogether, although he may have been put there by Yeltsin to protect Yeltsin and the oligarchs, but the United States began to realize this in about 2001, 2002, 2003. There were different episodes, there was the so-called NTV episode, there was the Khodorkovsky affair, there was Ukraine, there were various episodes. But a good deal of the animosity toward Putin grew out of the growing awareness of the American political class that he wasn’t Yeltsin, that he wasn’t going to play the supplicant role that Yeltsin had played. Now once that became a factor, the Russian political elite under Putin didn’t handle it very well. They did a lot of stupid things to make the matter worse. But I think as we were proactive, they were reactive. They were responding to us, to the way we treated them in the 1990s, to the expansion of NATO, and had they been clever people about international affairs, they could have responded in a way that might have changed American foreign policy in some way, but they didn’t. But as Reagan liked to say, now we have two tangoing. And we really are back in a cold war. You can call it whatever you want, but it is a cold war whose frontiers, whose epicenter has moved from Germany to Ukraine and Georgia, and it’s very dangerous. A new arms race is under way. Both sides are building nuclear weapons. If you look at the Litvinenko affair, that’s worse than anything that has happened in the Cold War. I don't recall anybody ever accusing Brezhnev of killing anybody abroad.

WP: How would you say average Americans view Russia today? In what ways does the U.S. media shape that image?

Cohen: It is a very good question, and the short answer is I don’t know. .. I don’t know what the polls show about public opinion, but I believe that to the extent that the United States and Russia lost a historic opportunity to end the Cold War after 1991, it was lost, and in my judgment, it was primarily the United States that caused it to be lost, but ordinary people had nothing to do with it; it was the political elites of the two countries who messed everything up. And in those political elites you have to include the mainstream press, which during the 1990s eulogized Yeltsin’s so-called reforms, called them wonderful, called them democracy, called them the transition to a free market society at the very moment that about 80 percent of the Russian people were being plunged by those so-called reforms into poverty. That was one reason why hostility among ordinary Russians grew into a kind of obratnaya reaktsiya, a resentment against the United States during the 1990s.

I will give you a contemporary example. Not along ago, Tom Lantos, who will be the new head of the House International Relations Committee, gave an interview to Izvestia, published in Russian, where he said Russians had been better off during Yelstin… For an American congressman, to say that in a Russian newspaper, and that was widely reported on Russian television after he said it... I don’t know what he was thinking.

So the mainstream media has played a very negative role in the relationship both in misleading rank and file Americans, who don’t have time or the access to acquire information on their own about what’s going on in Russia, and by projecting into Russia, because these newspapers are reported there, a very bad image of America. And we see it again in a more dramatic way in the Litvinenko case, where we have a scandalous moment in the history of American journalism, which hasn’t abided by its own canons in two respects. First, it never seriously considered the possibility that Litvinenko’s death was not murder, but an accident of a smuggling operation, a black market dealing of polonium. All of the evidence is circumstantial and is equally consistent with or compatible with, if not more so, a smuggling operation gone bad. The American press never even raised that possibility even at the hypothetical level and at the same time being sure that it was murder -- and it may have been murder -- but in treating it only as murder, it has repeatedly and consistently pointed its finger at Putin. The Washington Post began by saying, well if Putin didn’t order it personally, he is responsible because he has created the situation in Russia. What situation are they talking about? That would be like saying that somebody assassinated in Latin America is Bush’s responsibility because of the situation he has created in Iraq. What’s the connection? And they have pointed the finger and said, well he has probably killed Politkovskaya, too. A detective would always ask this question: who had motive? Only Putin had no motive. He is the one who has taken the fall, he is the one who has suffered the PR catastrophe, he is the one whose European policy has been disrupted by this, so he is a victim of this death of Litvinenko, whoever killed him, or whether or not it was an accident, and yet the media blithely goes on in its cartoons, in its editorials, in its reporting, pointing the finger at Putin without a shred of evidence, of course. That’s not consistent with what are supposed to be the virtues and practices of American journalism.

WP: How do you see Russia 10-15 years from now?

Cohen: My teacher about Russia was Robert C. Tucker. Professor Tucker is retired, but he is in Princeton, working on the third volume of his biography of Stalin, and I consider him to be the greatest Russian expert of his generation. Married to a Russian woman and having lived in Russia during World War II, after the war, he used to tell his students the following: “When it comes to Russia, never say never.” I think when you ask about how you see Russia evolving, you don’t rule out anything. Who would have said in 1982 that three or four years later Russia would be in the throes of democratization? Nobody I know of. Some of us saw reform coming, and it coming from Gorbachev, but we didn’t see it leading to actual democratization. That said, I think there are a lot of factors shaping Russia’s future today. There is a profound debate in Russia among the intelligentsia and the political class about where Russia belongs: with the East or the West, or by itself. It’s an old debate in Russia, but it’s more acute today. More and more, Russia is turning away from the West. That may not be the worst thing that happens to the West or Russia as long as it turns away in a friendly manner. But that debate is very, very important. There is the condition of the Russian economy, which I believe is less stable than the petrodollars make Russia seem. There is the future of the education system, which at the moment is privileging the privileged. One thing about Soviet education, whatever you think of it, is that it was truly universal. What kind of education is the generation going to school since the end of perestroika going to get? What is the future of this quasi-fascist movement that is unfolding in Russia among young people but with some support from the political class and middle class people, too, “Russia is for Russians”? That was never the case under the Soviet Union, this is something new. I am not convinced that that is the future of Russia, but it is a factor that has to be taken into account. So there are many such factors, there is the question of who is going to be the next leader. Leaders are always important, even weak leaders, in Russia. If there is even going to be a next leader – Putin may remain the leader in a different form. I think American foreign policy is a factor. If we keep pushing at Russia with NATO, bad things are going to happen. If we “chill out”, as my kids would say, and back off a little, I think we would create some space for some good things to happen.

So there are all these factors, but I believe the single most important factor is property. Every poll taken in Russia tells us that, overwhelmingly, 70-80 percent continue to deeply resent the fact that the wealth of the Soviet Russian state was given to a small, rapacious band of men who have brought perhaps 300 billion dollars of their profits abroad, who flaunt this wealth with their excessive consumption and their lavish homes and their soccer teams abroad, who flaunt their wealth in Russia as well. It has never happened, I mean there were rich people in the Soviet system, but they kept it secret, there is going to be a reckoning over this property, about that I am convinced. What I don’t know is how that reckoning, which Russians call social justice, and we have to remember that for Russians, social justice is still a very virtuous concept, and that concept, that ancient concept of Russia, social justice, with this profound sense of injustice having been created in the 1990s the property was turned over to a few and the great majority fell into poverty – that is a time bomb ticking inside the Russian political-economic system today. Now Putin has diffused it a bit in two ways: first, by restoring state control over part of the assets that were given away by Yeltsin, and of course we protested that. It was wildly applauded in Russia, and we seem to be tone deaf about that. By the way, most countries that have large quantities of oil and natural gas keep them under state control. Only in the U.S. and England are they significantly under control of private companies, so Russia is not doing anything that violates world practice here. Putin has eased or diminished this problem of resentment a bit …and by being lucky enough to be the recipient of all these petro and gas dollars, some of which, though not a lot of which, have trickled down to the people who are most resentful – the 50 percent or more who still live in something close to poverty. But the problem remains, and so to me it is a question of how this problem of property and resentment and poverty is solved. If it’s not solved by legislation, and there are all sorts of proposals in Russia, a major tax, a renegotiation between the oligarchs and the state, some kind of negotiated settlement, then it will be settled in an older Russian way: by force. That of course will be very bad for the political future of Russia. To me, this is the ticking bomb, and until it is diffused wisely, or God forbid, unwisely, we won’t know the direction that Russia is going to take, but it is the single most important determinant of Russia’s future. And it’s an issue of course completely missed in the United States where we go on blathering about the virtues of private property, even if it was stolen. [Regarding] Khodorkovsky – I knew Khodorkovsky, I met him several times, I liked him, the treatment he got was not just or fair, but we have turned this into a Sakharov issue. It is not a Sakharov issue, nor is Berezovsky Sakharov, nor is Litvinenko Sakharov, this is idiocy. A wise American policy understands the ordinary Russian’s attitude towards social justice and its former state property and we stop telling them that every time they assert some state control over that property, that they are committing an evil. But we won’t stop, we are victims of our own ideology and myopia.

WP: In light of all this, how do you see U.S.-Russian relations evolving in the near term?

Cohen: It’s going to get worse. It’s going to get worse for a lot of reasons. But one reason is that first of all, the resentment in Russia about the United States is growing. They are just fed up with us, with our lecturing, our double standards: We can meddle in Ukraine but they can’t; Georgia is ours now, it’s not theirs; we can reward our friends with subsidized prices and foreign aid but they can’t reward their friends with subsidized oil and gas; we tell them to get with the market system, but when they raise prices of their natural resources for the former Soviet states we say they are being neo-imperialist with their energy. It’s all preposterous, and they hear it and they think we are either crazy or we are living by a neo-imperial double standard of our own. So things have gotten bad.

Now we have a new factor, and there are going to be new presidents soon in 2008, unless Putin stays. But we don’t know what these new presidents are going to think or do, but the signs are not good in the United States because every one of the leading candidates for the presidency, both the Democratic and Republican party, are advocating a much harder line against Russia. They are attacking Bush for having been soft on Putin, they want Russia expelled from the G8, they want tougher measures, God knows what they think they can do, but everybody who has uttered the words “I’d like to be president” or “I am thinking about it” has advocated a much harsher, that is, a much more cold war policy toward Russia. No one has come forward and said, let’s rethink our policy toward Russia since the 1990s, maybe we are partly at fault, maybe we need to make some changes. Nobody has either thought to say it, or dared say it. I’ve tried to persuade some of them to say it, but they just look at me like I’m nuts.

-- 01/31/2007

Flamming_Python

02-03-2007, 03:40 PM

It’s going to get worse. It’s going to get worse for a lot of reasons. But one reason is that first of all, the resentment in Russia about the United States is growing. They are just fed up with us, with our lecturing, our double standards: We can meddle in Ukraine but they can’t; Georgia is ours now, it’s not theirs; we can reward our friends with subsidized prices and foreign aid but they can’t reward their friends with subsidized oil and gas; we tell them to get with the market system, but when they raise prices of their natural resources for the former Soviet states we say they are being neo-imperialist with their energy. It’s all preposterous, and they hear it and they think we are either crazy or we are living by a neo-imperial double standard of our own. So things have gotten bad.
-- 01/31/2007

:D

Nice article.

Switek

02-03-2007, 03:54 PM

OMG! It's all your fault America. :cantbeli:

Mr Cohen maybe you know something about Russia but you obviously missed classes about Eastern and Middle European history :roll:

DarthJesus

02-03-2007, 04:28 PM

And why would you say that?

Switek

02-03-2007, 04:31 PM

In 1991 or 1992 Yeltsin made an initiative that commonly NATO and Russia should guarantee safety for Middle Europe. This why we speeded our application to NATO

DarthJesus

02-03-2007, 05:00 PM

That doesn't mean the US should have accepted. Do you really think Russia would have invaded if Poland wasn't in NATO?

Switek

02-03-2007, 05:04 PM

That doesn't mean the US should have accepted. Do you really think Russia would have invaded if Poland wasn't in NATO?

in nearest future no... But I can't be sure for more than 15 years perspective.

This no on,y matter of "invasion". You do need to invade a country to be very influential in it. Threat is a key word ... :|

DarthJesus

02-03-2007, 05:13 PM

The US could still guarantee Poland's security without it being in NATO. Or the EU could. Or the UN. Or there could have been a whole bunch of options where Poland could secure its safety from Russia without joing a military alliance that was specifically formed to fight the Russians.

And what happened to the promise not to expand NATO? What has the US gained by including all these poor, weak European countries in NATO? What can countries like Estonia and Lithuania contribute to a NATO military action? Moral support?

Switek

02-03-2007, 05:22 PM

It was their choice... Like it was ours. Don't post here any bull**** about international guaranties above those who are really interested about their own safety. And do not underestimate, my dear friend, small nations who suffered so much under Soviet domination... We aren't subject of somebody's else actions.

You should know more about history of this region.

DarthJesus

02-03-2007, 06:22 PM

Well thats great and I can understand why Poland would want to enter NATO but Im asking what has this gained the US? Why did we have to expand NATO? It was entirely possible to ensure that the Russians could no longer dominate Eastern Europe without expanding NATO and without enraging the Russians by breaking our promise not to expand NATO.

But we didn't. And here we are today with a NATO composed of 26 countries that cant contribute more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan even though its called a "critical contribution to international security". Thats not even 1500 troops per nation. We've expanded NATO and continously meddled in countries bordering Russia, infurating them, but at the same time we've done nothing to weaken or subdue them. I doubt someone could invent a worse strategy if they tried.

NicNZ

02-03-2007, 08:27 PM

in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and I’ll quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch to the east.” That was a solemn promise.

Politics and history are interesting, arent they?

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-03-2007, 09:59 PM

Politics and history are interesting, arent they?

Interestingly though people still claim that NATO is not led by U.S. even though President of the United States speaks for whole NATO.

AT-T

02-03-2007, 10:24 PM

Well thats great and I can understand why Poland would want to enter NATO but Im asking what has this gained the US? Why did we have to expand NATO?

Because NATO was founded to fight Russia/Sovietunion and never stopped to do it. NATO used Gorbatchovs naivety and his faith in an ended Cold War and a common future to break their promises. And now it expand even to Ukraine and Georgia. From NATO's point of view it's logical. It was founded to fight Russia and it does. And since 1991 it`s extremely successful at that.

There are many countries in the world which would be happy to join NATO to make themselves invulnerable against any foreign aggression. But NATO offers membership only to those which are at russian perimeter. NATO didn't invite India to protect it from Pakistan and it never offered membership to Laos and Kambodia to protect it from Vietnam. It don't invite Lebanon to protect it from Hezbollah or Syria or Israel. But it sponsors and supports any georgian and ukrainian politician who declared the slightest desire to join NATO and oppose those who are against it. Obviously it's not a plain choice of a possible member like Switek claims, it's NATO which invites certain countries to join and others not.
Will georgian army be able to contribute much to future NATO-missions? Hardly, it will be even a costly burden with NATO being involved in it's two separatism conflicts. Obviously the real value for NATO is the geographical position of this country.

And now we even ABM is placed at russian defense perimeter. We can only congratulate James Baker for being clever enough to make his promises only verbally und deceive that dewy-eyed idiot who believed in end of cold war.

Flamming_Python

02-03-2007, 10:39 PM

OMG! It's all your fault America. :cantbeli:

Mr Cohen maybe you know something about Russia but you obviously missed classes about Eastern and Middle European history :roll:

This thread is about Russia.

Switek

02-04-2007, 02:09 AM

This thread is about Russia.

O really?....

...that in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and I’ll quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch to the east.” That was a solemn promise. Now in Russia, it is said that Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing as a treaty. But when it came to the United States, Gorbachev was a little naive. He was smitten with his own ideas of the new thinking, a common European home of human values. He thought that we ascribe to those values, that the United States saw eye to eye to him about that and about how great powers should treat each other. But Clinton during the 1990s violated that solemn promise and began to expand NATO eastward toward Russia, and that continues today. That expansion of NATO and the violation of that promise that has driven the conflicts with Russia over both Ukraine and Georgia, and so long as NATO continues to take those former Soviet republics in, that conflict will continue to exist…

Switek

02-04-2007, 02:41 AM

Because NATO was founded to fight Russia/Sovietunion and never stopped to do it. NATO used Gorbatchovs naivety and his faith in an ended Cold War and a common future to break their promises. And now it expand even to Ukraine and Georgia. From NATO's point of view it's logical. It was founded to fight Russia and it does. And since 1991 it`s extremely successful at that.

There are many countries in the world which would be happy to join NATO to make themselves invulnerable against any foreign aggression. But NATO offers membership only to those which are at russian perimeter. NATO didn't invite India to protect it from Pakistan and it never offered membership to Laos and Kambodia to protect it from Vietnam. It don't invite Lebanon to protect it from Hezbollah or Syria or Israel. But it sponsors and supports any georgian and ukrainian politician who declared the slightest desire to join NATO and oppose those who are against it. Obviously it's not a plain choice of a possible member like Switek claims, it's NATO which invites certain countries to join and others not.
Will georgian army be able to contribute much to future NATO-missions? Hardly, it will be even a costly burden with NATO being involved in it's two separatism conflicts. Obviously the real value for NATO is the geographical position of this country.

And now we even ABM is placed at russian defense perimeter. We can only congratulate James Baker for being clever enough to make his promises only verbally und deceive that dewy-eyed idiot who believed in end of cold war.

NATO was founded to defend Western Europe against possible soviet invasion. True. There are not only military but also political criteria to fulfil to become NATO member. For many Europeans but som other post soviet nations belonging to the club assure not only external safety but also stabilize internal situation.

If you read some threads you should notice that many NATO members are reforming their armed forces to be much more light, capable to operate worldwide. Unstable Russia is recognized as a threat but among many others ant't isn't its amin enemy. Your propaganda machine must work inertial force...couse you still believe that Nato is pure evil aimed toward your country. No, it has changed. NATO proved that is efficient military alliance with all its own weaknesses.

The fact that so many post soviet nations/states have been applying to NATO is inter alia, result of soviet, Russian unfriendly attitude (mainly in historical context) to them. The leson is simple. If you'd like to gain as far independence from Russian influence as possible - join NATO and UE.

themacedonian

02-04-2007, 05:23 AM

Switek

02-04-2007, 05:59 AM

NATO blew its cover as a peaceful organisation with its action in Yugoslavia (i.e. Kosovo) where NATO was part of the conflict (bombing Serbia) then as part of a peace deal insisted on being the peacekeeping force and STRONGLY objected (almost shooting started at Pristina airport) when Russia decided to jump in on peacekeeping in Kosovo.

Russia does not have any illusions about NATO. A few of new NATO members wanto to join simply to protect them selves from NATO :).

NATO is what it is. A military organisation that the policy makers in Brussel use it strategically to provide a muscle when their aggressive negotiations fail.

http://eng.plakaty.ru/i/plakats/medium/1116.jpg
«Fraught with war, and nothing more, that`s the NATO soul and core»
Kukryniksy, 1978

http://eng.plakaty.ru/i/plakats/medium/1128.jpg
«Creators of the NATO»
Kukryniksy, 1980

;)

AT-T

02-04-2007, 07:46 AM

NATO was founded to defend Western Europe against possible soviet invasion. True. There are not only military but also political criteria to fulfil to become NATO member. For many Europeans but som other post soviet nations belonging to the club assure not only external safety but also stabilize internal situation.

If you read some threads you should notice that many NATO members are reforming their armed forces to be much more light, capable to operate worldwide. Unstable Russia is recognized as a threat but among many others ant't isn't its amin enemy. Your propaganda machine must work inertial force...couse you still believe that Nato is pure evil aimed toward your country. No, it has changed. NATO proved that is efficient military alliance with all its own weaknesses.

The fact that so many post soviet nations/states have been applying to NATO is inter alia, result of soviet, Russian unfriendly attitude (mainly in historical context) to them. The leson is simple. If you'd like to gain as far independence from Russian influence as possible - join NATO and UE.

LOL. NATO as internal stabilizer? Why not immediatly invite Sudan? Would save countless lifes?

Yeah, protection of "unstable russia"-neighbours by NATO-membership had higher priority then neighbours of Iran, Irak and Korea. Kuwait wasn't offered NATO-membership even with Saddam's Irak at it's borders, nor before nor after first war. But every country which moved NATO closer to Russia was. How to explain that apart from Russia being the main geostrategical enemy? Do you have an answer?

And after demonstration of such an attitude NATO expects Russia to believe their "ABM not against russia"-promises. Exactly like the "not an inch east"-promise. LOL
Poland would have never been invited to join NATO if it was a South American country.

Switek

02-04-2007, 07:54 AM

LOL. NATO as internal stabilizer? Why not immediatly invite Sudan? Would save countless lifes?

Yeah, protection of "unstable russia"-neighbours by NATO-membership had higher priority then neighbours of Iran, Irak and Korea. Kuwait wasn't offered NATO-membership even with Saddam's Irak at it's borders, nor before nor after first war. But every country which moved NATO closer to Russia was. How to explain that apart from Russia being the main geostrategical enemy? Do you have an answer?

And after demonstration of such an attitude NATO expects Russia to believe their "ABM not against russia"-promises. Exactly like the "not an inch east"-promise. LOL
Poland would have never been invited to join NATO if it was a South American country.

The only reply I can make for you, is my post #18. :roll:

AT-T

02-04-2007, 08:06 AM

The only reply I can make for you, is my post #18. :roll:

Now you admit that you have no reply.

What is the only common qualification of the states offered NATO-membership in the last 15 years and other states don't have? That's the decisive question.

In Taiwan NATO-membership would obviously gather much more public support considering chinese threats. But not a single NATO-politician ever mentioned inviting Taiwan. There is only one tendency visible when looking on the list of invited countries: NATO expands towards Russia. And only towards Russia. Not China, not Syria, not "Axis of Evil", none of their neighbours was invited.
If you don't agree, answer the question above.

Switek

02-04-2007, 08:16 AM

Now you admit that you have no reply.

What is the only common qualification of the states offered NATO-membership in the last 15 years and other states don't have? That's the decisive question.

In Taiwan NATO-membership would obviously gather much more public support considering chinese threats. But not a single NATO-politician ever mentioned inviting Taiwan. There is only one tendency visible when looking on the list of invited countries: NATO expands towards Russia. And only towards Russia. Not China, not Syria, not "Axis of Evil", none of their neighbours was invited.
If you don't agree, answer the question above.

Take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) and here (http://www.nato.int/)

Russia has a problem with itself and biased attitude toward the rest of the world (esp. so callet "the west"). Only Russians can solve it...

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 08:35 AM

Take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) and here (http://www.nato.int/)

Russia has a problem with itself and biased attitude toward the rest of the world (esp. so callet "the west"). Only Russians can solve it...

Rubbish.

Russians never violated any promises. We never invaded any other countries since we collapsed (Chechnya was more an internal issue). Personally I don't think NATO is that bad itself as an defensive organisation, I just fear it's gradual transformation to 'pre-emptive strikes', etc...

What happenened is that Eastern Europe decided that joining the West would give them more benefits, and they decided to join NATO (quite possibly because they felt Russia posed a future threat), by convincing their population that Russia is being aggressive and threatening NOW. Of course now that they have joined NATO there are going to be tensions between them and Russia anyway. What the hell did they think was going to happen? Yet they still have the audacity to call it an 'attitude' on our part.

I don't understand what we have to do to please you Switek??? You keep saying vague details such as "stop being aggressive" or "change attitude", but I don't actually EVER hear any details.

Switek

02-04-2007, 08:43 AM

Rubbish.

Russians never violated any promises. We never invaded any other countries since we collapsed (Chechnya was more an internal issue). Personally I don't think NATO is that bad itself as an defensive organisation, I just fear it's gradual transformation to 'pre-emptive strikes', etc...

What happenened is that Eastern Europe decided that joining the West would give them more benefits, and they decided to join NATO (quite possibly because they felt Russia posed a future threat), by convincing their population that Russia is being aggressive and threatening NOW. Of course now that they have joined NATO there are going to be tensions between them and Russia anyway. What the hell did they think was going to happen? Yet they still have the audacity to call it an 'attitude' on our part.

I don't understand what we have to do to please you Switek??? You keep saying vague details such as "stop being aggressive" or "change attitude", but I don't actually EVER hear any details.

You should talk with each other:

Now you admit that you have no reply.

What is the only common qualification of the states offered NATO-membership in the last 15 years and other states don't have? That's the decisive question.

In Taiwan NATO-membership would obviously gather much more public support considering chinese threats. But not a single NATO-politician ever mentioned inviting Taiwan. There is only one tendency visible when looking on the list of invited countries: NATO expands towards Russia. And only towards Russia. Not China, not Syria, not "Axis of Evil", none of their neighbours was invited.
If you don't agree, answer the question above.

:|

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 08:58 AM

You should talk with each other:

:|

I don't get it. We were talking about something different. Me about Eastern European NATO politics, him about the rest of the world in its relation to NATO.

Anyway I think we deviated off the topic, which was that quite possibly there wouldn't have been any need to be threatened by Russia if things had gone more smoothly over the past 15 years. And yes Switek you can keep singing the song about how joining NATO saved Poland from Russia, but all I think such politics did was make an unsafer world (and now even more with the ABM missiles), even though I don't blame the Poles for wanting to join.

Switek

02-04-2007, 09:07 AM

I don't get it. We were talking about something different. Me about Eastern European NATO politics, him about the rest of the world in its relation to NATO.

Anyway I think we deviated off the topic, which was that quite possibly there wouldn't have been any need to be threatened by Russia if things had gone more smoothly over the past 15 years. And yes Switek you can keep singing the song about how joining NATO saved Poland from Russia, but all I think such politics did was make an unsafer world (and now even more with the ABM missiles), even though I don't blame the Poles for wanting to join.

Between 1795 - 1989 Poland was really independent for about 20 years (1918-39). Russia had a huge contribution to that. All our hostile nieghbours transformed into truly democratic and reliable partners. All, except Russia...

AT-T

02-04-2007, 09:27 AM

:|

Nothing to say? Didn't found a common qualification apart from the obvious?

That answers anything. And it also answers the thread "Who can Europe-based missiles threaten?". NATO joining invitation list speaks for itself.

Poor Taiwan. Poor Sudan. Can only dream of NATO-protection.

Switek

02-04-2007, 09:34 AM

Nothing to say? Didn't found a common qualification apart from the obvious?

That answers anything. And it also answers the thread "Who can Europe-based missiles threaten?". NATO joining invitation list speaks for itself.

Poor Taiwan. Poor Sudan. Can only dream of NATO-protection.

You worry about Sudan and Taiwan what a nice... ;)

I don't see any sense to talk with you becouse we look at the same but we draw contrary conclusions...

AT-T

02-04-2007, 10:10 AM

You worry about Sudan and Taiwan what a nice... ;)

I don't see any sense to talk with you becouse we look at the same but we draw contrary conclusions...

Of course you don't want to talk, since you can't deny the obvious.
I asked "What is the only common qualification of the states offered NATO-membership in the last 15 years and other states don't have?" and you know the answer, but avoid to admit it.
You know why NATO isn't interested in taking binding obligations to protect democratic Taiwan, a loyal western ally which is directly threated by it's neighbour, but is eager to get involved in two separatism conflicts by making Georgia a full member, a country with 96% "democracy" (when Lukasheko was elected with 84% western media claimed such results are impossible in a democracy, but when a pro-NATO regime comes to power nothing is impossible and same media proclaimed Saakaschwili a prototype of democracy). Nor political nor "united europe"-argumentation can be used in this case, both countries are asian and Taiwan is more democratical.
The answer is pure geostrategy against NATO's only enemy. And it's not China, not Syria, not Hezbollah, not Sudanese militants, not even the "Axis of Evil". NATO expands towards Russia alone and didn't deviate from this agenda even when Yelzin and Clinton were hugging each other.
And it's OK. NATO knows it, Russia knows it. You don't need to deny it. My question was indeed rhetorical.

Switek

02-04-2007, 10:24 AM

Of course you don't want to talk, since you can't deny the obvious.
I asked "What is the only common qualification of the states offered NATO-membership in the last 15 years and other states don't have?" and you know the answer, but avoid to admit it.
You know why NATO isn't interested in taking binding obligations to protect democratic Taiwan, a loyal western ally which is directly threated by it's neighbour, but is eager to get involved in two separatism conflicts by making Georgia a full member, a country with 96% "democracy" (when Lukasheko was elected with 84% western media claimed such results are impossible in a democracy, but when a pro-NATO regime comes to power nothing is impossible and same media proclaimed Saakaschwili a prototype of democracy). Nor political nor "united europe"-argumentation can be used in this case, both countries are asian and Taiwan is more democratical.
The answer is pure geostrategy against NATO's only enemy. And it's not China, not Syria, not Hezbollah, not Sudanese militants, not even the "Axis of Evil". NATO expands towards Russia alone and didn't deviate from this agenda even when Yelzin and Clinton were hugging each other.
And it's OK. NATO knows it, Russia knows it. You don't need to deny it. My question was indeed rhetorical.

Didn't make a homework?

The North Atlantic Treaty (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

What else I have to prove that Pamela Anderson isn't a camel? No she is a human... ;)

AT-T

02-04-2007, 10:44 AM

Switek

02-04-2007, 10:54 AM

Georgia an european state? Repeat your geography homework

Turkey is already an asian state and is member since 1952 but they have a small piece of territory on european soil. Georgia is absolutely not "any other European State".

I knew you raised this question. Do you expect me to answer becouse you have your own interptetation? Waste of time...

Anyway again your fault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Location-Europe-UNsubregions.png) IMHO... :|

lightfire

02-04-2007, 11:12 AM

Concerning this part:

What has the US gained by including all these poor, weak European countries in NATO? What can countries like Estonia and Lithuania contribute to a NATO military action? Moral support?
first, they aren't so weak and poor as you claim. Trully, not the richiest, but if generally compare standarts of living, all you need to do is to cross the border.
about contribution,
contribution to NATO does not neceserrally mean thousands of tanks, troops, aircraft etc. Iceland does not have an army at all, well they do contribute quite well. Countries like Estonia and Lithuania have armies. Small, but reforming and proffesional. Their contribution to NATO isin't neither big nor small-in time of need both a ready to deploy a full brigade each+extra. At the moment, they contribute in deploying troops in NATO missions abroad (small contingents,from 30 to 120 nowdays, unit battalion size formation in the close future - yet vital),+deploying troops in NATO countermining opp. (ships), Lithuania deploys SF detachmnt to NATO NRF, so that's quite more than just moral support.

besides, good read, though there's nothing new in it or smth that cannot be predicted in the close future.

Amerikosskiy_xyu

02-04-2007, 11:57 AM

switek = pwned, time to leave the stage.

AT-T

02-04-2007, 12:40 PM

I knew you raised this question. Do you expect me to answer becouse you have your own interptetation? Waste of time...

Anyway again your fault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Location-Europe-UNsubregions.png) IMHO... :|

LOL, Wikipedia is an open-source knowledge base with amateur articles, here's a serious source from professionals: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gg.html

Location:
Southwestern Asia, bordering the Black Sea, between Turkey and Russia

So Georgia is not a european country.
That's europe;
http://www.travelnotes.org/Europe/images/europe2.gif

And you refuse to answer the question for the third time what proves you still have nothing to answer against such obvious facts. And you won't ever answer since the only logical possibility contradicts your agenda.

Switek

02-04-2007, 12:54 PM

LOL, Wikipedia is an open-source knowledge base with amateur articles, here's a serious source from professionals: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gg.html

So Georgia is not a european country.
That's europe;

And you refuse to answer the question for the third time what proves you still have nothing to answer against such obvious facts. And you won't ever answer since the only logical possibility contradicts your agenda.

I admire your stubbornness. Really :)

Believe me, It's much more easy to prove that Georgia or Turkey are European contries (becouse of many definitions what Europe is, not only geographically) than Taiwan or Sudan. The boundaries are purely contractual. If you ask Georgians who they are Asian or European you'll get only one answer.

According to art. 10 of The North Atlantic Treaty Turkey is regarded as European contry. The same casus can be used for Georgia.

What does it mean? That NATO is running any secret plot against Russia? It's just absurd!

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 01:04 PM

I admire your stubbornness. Really :)

Believe me, It's much more easy to prove that Georgia or Turkey are European contries (becouse of many definitions what Europe is, not only geographically) than Taiwan or Sudan. The boundaries are purely contractual. If you ask Georgians who they are Asian or European you'll get only one answer.

According to art. 10 of The North Atlantic Treaty Turkey is regarded as European contry. The same casus can be used for Georgia.

What does it mean? That NATO is running any secret plot against Russia? It's just absurd!

The biggest threat today is supposedly world terrorism. NATO has already entered Afghanistan. If that is so, than what is the point of keeping an obselete defense organisation that is only valid in the North Atlantic region, a place where there was supposed to be no more threat after the cold war in the 90's, much less expanding that organisation?

I cannot imagine who NATO expansion could possibly be aimed at apart from Russia. That's all well and good, and you could easily say that it's for Poland's security, etc... Yet the article that we are discussing in this thread points to the Soviets themselves (or rather the leader Gorbachev) as responsible for de-constructing their own empire. Therefore Russians could say even more convincingly, that we were prepared to end the cold war on mutual grounds, but instead we are now left more under threat than we ever were for the last 60 years.

I am really getting sick and tired of you trying to paint us as agressors, based on complete speculation and your own interpretation of how Putin raising the price of gas and oil for neighbouring countries consitutes a threat to Western civilization. To me it sounds more like maximising profit, you know, the same things businesses in our countries do. You should read the article again, there is a particular paragraph that I liked and quoted.

Switek

02-04-2007, 01:44 PM

The biggest threat today is supposedly world terrorism. NATO has already entered Afghanistan. If that is so, than what is the point of keeping an obselete defense organisation that is only valid in the North Atlantic region, a place where there was supposed to be no more threat after the cold war in the 90's, much less expanding that organisation?

I cannot imagine who NATO expansion could possibly be aimed at apart from Russia. That's all well and good, and you could easily say that it's for Poland's security, etc... Yet the article that we are discussing in this thread points to the Soviets themselves (or rather the leader Gorbachev) as responsible for de-constructing their own empire. Therefore Russians could say even more convincingly, that we were prepared to end the cold war on mutual grounds, but instead we are now left more under threat than we ever were for the last 60 years.

I am really getting sick and tired of you trying to paint us as agressors, based on complete speculation and your own interpretation of how Putin raising the price of gas and oil for neighbouring countries consitutes a threat to Western civilization. To me it sounds more like maximising profit, you know, the same things businesses in our countries do. You should read the article again, there is a particular paragraph that I liked and quoted.

NATO becouse of its undoubtful efectivness and capacities is an only international military pact able to face current threats.

The article didn't say anything why so many countrues were so willing to join NATO. I'm getting sick to repeat myself and point how Russia worked for its unpleasant image. The leader who denies ( or rather forgets p-) ) dark part of his own country history couses that many his decisions are recognized as a ambiguous (to put it mildly). Before you remove all rubbish you can't say that you home is clean. Don't say me such guff that "Therefore Russians could say even more convincingly, that we were prepared to end the cold war on mutual grounds, but instead we are now left more under threat than we ever were for the last 60 years." Are you trying to false history? :cantbeli:

sferrin

02-04-2007, 01:46 PM

I think a US/Russia partnership was doomed from the get go as neither would settle for being back seat. They could have done a better job of handling it though I suppose. You don't kick a guy when he's down. On the other hand , after 40 years of Cold War you don't want to take the chance of helping him up lest he stab you in the back either.

AT-T

02-04-2007, 01:51 PM

Switek

02-04-2007, 01:58 PM

AT-T, our discussion is pointless. I respect your point but fully disagree with you. There is no way to convince each other.

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 03:09 PM

NATO becouse of its undoubtful efectivness and capacities is an only international military pact able to face current threats.

The article didn't say anything why so many countrues were so willing to join NATO. I'm getting sick to repeat myself and point how Russia worked for its unpleasant image. The leader who denies ( or rather forgets p-) ) dark part of his own country history couses that many his decisions are recognized as a ambiguous (to put it mildly). Before you remove all rubbish you can't say that you home is clean. Don't say me such guff that "Therefore Russians could say even more convincingly, that we were prepared to end the cold war on mutual grounds, but instead we are now left more under threat than we ever were for the last 60 years." Are you trying to false history? :cantbeli:

Dark part of history? Ukraine, Belarus and yes even little ol' Georgia all shared in the same history. You are making the same mistake that so many others make, associating the Russian Federation and only the Russian Federation with the USSR.

Now that you've done that, and failed to realise that its a completely different country with a completely different political system, economic system and demographics, it becomes a lot easier to say "Well we better teach these ruskies a lesson that they'll never recover from", while accepting Ukraine, Georgia, etc... with open arms on account that they'll help you fight the evil Russian Empire which as we all know was responsible for Stalin, WW2, etc...

But even if that were true (and there is some truth in it, in that Russians were the most numerous ethinticity of the USSR), it is simply stupid to base politics and particularly foreign policy on emotion, on account that emotion will simply be used by people with more brains as a way of seizing power and making excuses for certain actions. Pragmatism is a much more sensible way of doing things, and the pragmatic decisions left to NATO at the end of the cold war were as follows:

1. Abide by past agreements, leave Russia to do its thing, and don't expand membership which could create tensions later on.

2. Immediately mobolize all possible non-military forces for the destruction of Russia by financing seperatist groups, imposing trade embargos, and invading newly indepenent countries to stop all possible re-enforcements.

NATO choose a third option, which admitedly was not guided by emotion, but by a sense of confidence. They felt that they were the victors, and that no-one existed to challange their rule. Now although I have complained about Poland, etc... joining NATO, I would not actually be that bothered about it, if I felt that it truly was a benevolent organisation that saves lives and defends against terrorism in Europe.

But with the increasing Western hostility towards Russia for seemingly no other reason than the fact that it has taken control of its huge natural resources and starts charging world prices for them, as well as the recent proposal of an ABM shield, I am becoming more than suspicious of certain groups that I see as wanting to re-start the cold war.

Switek

02-04-2007, 03:23 PM

...

But with the increasing Western hostility towards Russia for seemingly no other reason than the fact that it has taken control of its huge natural resources and starts charging world prices for them, as well as the recent proposal of an ABM shield, I am becoming more than suspicious of certain groups that I see as wanting to re-start the cold war.

You can be becoming but that's a way to nowhere... Like actual drift of Russia. Putin is good leader. he made a lot of good things for Russia and Russians. I can't blame him to infinity. He as best as he could is solving current internal problems of its own country (ok some methods are questionable) but further (for more than 10 years from now) stability and development of Russia is one big http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif.

MichaelF

02-04-2007, 03:29 PM

Antagonising Russia has gained America nothing and cost us a potential ally in the GWOT.

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 03:46 PM

You can be becoming but that's a way to nowhere... Like actual drift of Russia. Putin is good leader. he made a lot of good things for Russia and Russians. I can't blame him to infinity. He as best as he could is solving current internal problems of its own country (ok some methods are questionable) but further (for more than 10 years from now) stability and development of Russia is one big http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif.

Finally one thing we agree on Switek. :)

To me Putin is not the problem (although he has made some mistakes). It's the opposition to him (rising amount of Nationalists and Skin-Heads) that are the biggest danger.

But 'pre-empting' the danger and putting a tougher policy towards Russia will only make the Nationalist movement stronger, not weaker, especially if such a policy convinces Russians that Putin is failing, or the West is naturally hostile and impossible to do business with.

Switek

02-04-2007, 03:52 PM

Finally one thing we agree on Switek. :)

To me Putin is not the problem (although he has made some mistakes). It's the opposition to him (rising amount of Nationalists and Skin-Heads) that are the biggest danger.

But 'pre-empting' the danger and putting a tougher policy towards Russia will only make the nationalist movement stronger, not weaker. You keep considering us an enemy, and then unfortunetly we may become one.

If you ask me if I were Russian I would vote for Putin than for anyone from the bunch of ultra-right or post commies...

paku

02-04-2007, 04:13 PM

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 04:49 PM

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”

Remember who said that?
What i'm wondering of is, was that statement's intention only to get some populistic applause, or is this actually a part of broader way of thinking about the past by today's Russian political elite. I mean a way of omitting and leaving unsaid bad things of Soviet empire, while glorifying it's few questionably positive sides.

Soviet Union's collapse was a blessing for everybody involved, for some the positive effects came immidiately, for others they are coming in a longer perspective. Saying something opposite can serve only as a short term political interest and, purposefuly or not, unfortunately rooting into Russian society the sentiment for that evil state. You can sense that kind of apologetic tone in that interviev too. Cohen clearly leaves out of his rhetoric the moral part of the historical justice done to many formerly enslaved nations of SU. That makes him a non-credible authority on this subject in my eyes.

There is absolutely neither glorification nor critisism in what Putin said. If you disagree, look up what "geo-political" actually means.

Well think what you want in regards to your second and third paragraph. Most of the ex-Soviet republics are either extremely poor, extremely dictatorial, or both. What would your attitude be to the USSR had Gorbachev's reforms succeeded, is an interesting question.

BTW, Cohen was discussing why the USSR collapsed. How does any of the stuff you are saying fit into that?

AT-T

02-04-2007, 05:06 PM

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”

Remember who said that?
What i'm wondering of is, was that statement's intention only to get some populistic applause, or is this actually a part of broader way of thinking about the past by today's Russian political elite. I mean a way of omitting and leaving unsaid bad things of Soviet empire, while glorifying it's few questionably positive sides.

That's how the vast majority of russians think and a putin's task is to represent the majority of russians.

Soviet Union's collapse was a blessing for everybody involved, for some the positive effects came immidiately, for others they are coming in a longer perspective.

Apparently you don't know anything about the last 15 years in GUS, not just Russia. It was a wonderful blessing for turkmens which ended up in a feudal monarchy, and a blessing for thousands armenians, abchasians, azeris and georgians who died in ethnical wars. And of course they are all happy to have less income, higher crime, mortality etc then in SU. If you don't know statistics and even the most simple facts take some history courses first.

Saying something opposite can serve only as a short term political interest and, purposefuly or not, unfortunately rooting into Russian society the sentiment for that evil state. You can sense that kind of apologetic tone in that interviev too. Cohen clearly leaves out of his rhetoric the moral part of the historical justice done to many formerly enslaved nations of SU. That makes him a non-credible authority on this subject in my eyes.

Enslaved nations of SU? Again you know nothing about SU and what happened during the 90s.? 1991 98% of GUS-population woke up in even more authoritarian states then SU of 80s was or pure anarchies.

paku

02-04-2007, 05:13 PM

There is absolutely neither glorification nor critisism in what Putin said. If you disagree, look up what "geo-political" actually means.

I know what geopolitical means, do you?

The study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/geopolitical

While Putin doesn't glorify in straight words the SU, saying that some event was a cathastrophy does imply, that state of things preceeding the cathastrophy was "good". Or would you disagree?

BTW, Cohen was discussing why the USSR collapsed. How does any of the stuff you are saying fit into that?

The second thing we did which was equally bad, and this is often forgotten, that in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and I’ll quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch to the east.” That was a solemn promise. Now in Russia, it is said that Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing as a treaty. But when it came to the United States, Gorbachev was a little naive. He was smitten with his own ideas of the new thinking, a common European home of human values. He thought that we ascribe to those values, that the United States saw eye to eye to him about that and about how great powers should treat each other. But Clinton during the 1990s violated that solemn promise and began to expand NATO eastward toward Russia, and that continues today.

This is the part i'm referring to.

DarthJesus

02-04-2007, 05:16 PM

Concerning this part:

first, they aren't so weak and poor as you claim. Trully, not the richiest, but if generally compare standarts of living, all you need to do is to cross the border.
about contribution,
contribution to NATO does not neceserrally mean thousands of tanks, troops, aircraft etc. Iceland does not have an army at all, well they do contribute quite well. Countries like Estonia and Lithuania have armies. Small, but reforming and proffesional. Their contribution to NATO isin't neither big nor small-in time of need both a ready to deploy a full brigade each+extra. At the moment, they contribute in deploying troops in NATO missions abroad (small contingents,from 30 to 120 nowdays, unit battalion size formation in the close future - yet vital),+deploying troops in NATO countermining opp. (ships), Lithuania deploys SF detachmnt to NATO NRF, so that's quite more than just moral support.

A brigade each? Where do you get this info? Keep in mind that to me a brigade is at least 3000 troops. If they can do this why aren't they being deployed to Afghanistan? Iceland was important because of its location.

So they can deploy a couple ships and a couple hundred troops. This justifies the time and resources the US expends to admit a new member into NATO? Not to mention all the military aid we're giving to countries like Georgia, who's commitment to Iraq consists of a small battalion of medics. (I actually met some of them when I was there.) Why can't the US spend that money on it's own forces?

And what if there is a conflict with Russia in the future? How would NATO defend the Baltic countries? They're tiny countries squeezed between the ocean and Russia, without the infrastructure to support a large build-up of troops.

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 05:18 PM

Apparently you don't know anything about the last 15 years in GUS, not just Russia. It was a wonderful blessing for turkmens which ended up in a feudal monarchy, and a blessing for thousands armenians, abchasians, azeris and georgians who died in ethnical wars. And of course they are all happy to have less income, higher crime, mortality etc then in SU. If you don't know statistics and even the most simple facts take some history courses first.

Let's not forget Tazhiks, Uzbeks, Russians, Ossetians, Chechens and Dagestani's all of whom as well collapsed into warfare with each other.

While Putin doesn't glorify in straight words the SU, saying that some event was a cathastrophy does imply, that state of things preceeding the cathastrophy was "good". Or would you disagree?

It was a geo-political catastrophy regardless of whether you think the Soviet Union was a socialist paradise or the greatest evil to threaten mankind. It happened so quickly and suddenly that nearly everyone's standard of living, income and stability collapsed, as well as causing no less than 4 wars to erupt in the first few years alone.

In terms of foreign policy, it created a more unstable and uncertain world with many conflicts waiting to break out any secound. It also allowed NATO and America to start pursuing more agressive policies, which has only worsened the situation unfortunetly.

This is the part i'm referring to.

We're not talking about Warsaw pact. Rather about the USSR and the internal peoples.

paku

02-04-2007, 05:37 PM

Apparently you don't know anything about the last 15 years in GUS, not just Russia. It was a wonderful blessing for turkmens which ended up in a feudal monarchy, and a blessing for thousands armenians, abchasians, azeris and georgians who died in ethnical wars. And of course they are all happy to have less income, higher crime, mortality etc then in SU. If you don't know statistics and even the most simple facts take some history courses first.

All of these things are bad side-effects obviously, they had to happen, before it will get better. After all, these countries were held under the rule of one of the most inhumane ideology in history of human kind. Nobody said that the transition is going to be a piece of cake.
However, now the nationals of these countries can at least say that, their country is sovereign in it's decisions, more or less. No more foreign domination by force. Perhaps economical domination prevails, but Russian foreign policy is to blame for that, nothing else.

Enslaved nations of SU? Again you know nothing about SU and what happened during the 90s.? 1991 98% of GUS-population woke up in even more authoritarian states then SU of 80s was or pure anarchies.

Well, I don't deny that. But if I was presented a choice to be ruled by a foreign autocrat or domestic, I wouldn't have to think twice. And I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 05:47 PM

However, now the nationals of these countries can at least say that, their country is sovereign in it's decisions, more or less. No more foreign domination by force. Perhaps economical domination prevails, but Russian foreign policy is to blame for that, nothing else.

Who dominated them? The Soviets or the Russians? Not the same thing.

Well, I don't deny that. But if I was presented a choice to be ruled by a foreign autocrat or domestic, I wouldn't have to think twice. And I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Most people and ethinticites (Russians, Kazakhs, etc...) in the ex-Soviet union wanted the Union to be preseved (if not neccesserily the communist party that controlled it). The reason is they viewed it as the same country. However, that didn't apply so much to some populations with stronger national identities like the Estonians, Georgians, etc...

paku

02-04-2007, 05:55 PM

It was a geo-political catastrophy regardless of whether you think the Soviet Union was a socialist paradise or the greatest evil to threaten mankind. It happened so quickly and suddenly that nearly everyone's standard of living, income and stability collapsed, as well as causing no less than 4 wars to erupt in the first few years alone.

In terms of foreign policy, it created a more unstable and uncertain world with many conflicts waiting to break out any secound. It also allowed NATO and America to start pursuing more agressive policies, which has only worsened the situation unfortunetly.

It's obvious that big states would prefere to maintain status quo geopolitically, as "one more nation, one more problem" - you could probably hear in Oval Office or in Kremlin. You could say that as long, as you have the comfort of living in a sovereign country, whereas a member of enslaved nation would definately disagree with you. In a way you both are right, it's just a conflict of interest. And for some reason I'm in favour for the opressed ones p-)

paku

02-04-2007, 06:05 PM

Who dominated them? The Soviets or the Russians? Not the same thing.

Ekhm... do I have to remind you of this?

In addition to modern Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), prior to 1917 the Russian Empire included most of present-day Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine), (Dnieper Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Ukraine) and Crimea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea)), Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus), Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova) (Bessarabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessarabia)), Finland (Grand Duchy of Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland)), Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia), Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29), the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan), Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan), Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan), Turkmenistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan) and Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) (Russian Turkestan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Turkestan)), most of Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania), Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) and Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia) (Baltic provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_provinces)), as well as a significant portions of Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) (Kingdom of Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Poland)) and Ardahan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardahan_Province), Artvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artvin_Province), Iğdır (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province), and Kars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars_Province) from Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey).

None of abovementioned territories joined Russia voluntarily and after revolution they were incorporated into SU without asking their consent.
I see a clear continuity.

AT-T

02-04-2007, 06:27 PM

All of these things are bad side-effects obviously, they had to happen, before it will get better. After all, these countries were held under the rule of one of the most inhumane ideology in history of human kind. Nobody said that the transition is going to be a piece of cake.
However, now the nationals of these countries can at least say that, their country is sovereign in it's decisions, more or less. No more foreign domination by force. Perhaps economical domination prevails, but Russian foreign policy is to blame for that, nothing else.

So it's better to loose his job, have less to eat, have relatives died in ethnic conflicts, have the soviet free health abolished and no money to pay even for basic medical treatment, have the schools and free universities closed and no chance for affordable education, just to feel souvereign? And in case of asiatic GUS-states to exchange the rule of communist party for the rule of a crazy stalinist dictators who steal people's money to erect golden statues of themselves?

Apparently you confuse SU of Stalin times with SU of the 80s. Compared to SU of the 80s the 90s were a giant step back, not only in terms of average income, life expectancy etc but also even in terms of political freedom. The only who gained freedom were the criminal elements and this freedom was to steal all soviet-built assets from the people.
Sovietunion managed to reach pre-WW2 economy level with 5 years after the war. Apart from baltic countries non of ex-SU republics reached pre-1991 economy and life standard level even 16 years after this, yes, catastrophe. That's not a transition period. Infact the term "transition period" was used by the oligarchs to justify their criminal plunder of population.

Well, I don't deny that. But if I was presented a choice to be ruled by a foreign autocrat or domestic, I wouldn't have to think twice. And I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Then how do you explain the result of referendum May 1991 where in 12 of 15 soviet republics the majority voted to keep SU?

A fall of a multinational state is always a catastrophe. Just look at Yugoslavia. They were one of the most prosperous east european states under Tito. And what they gone through during the 90s? And it happened in southern GUS states either.
Nothing can justify death of thousands in wars and starving of millions elder people which weren't paid pensions for months and lost their savings and couldn't afford formerly free medical treatment. It was a catastrophe and a personal tragedy for most of Soviet citizens. And most of these countries still suffer the consequences and have no perspective to reach the pre-1991 economy level in near future.

AT-T

02-04-2007, 06:31 PM

None of abovementioned territories joined Russia voluntarily and after revolution they were incorporated into SU without asking their consent.
I see a clear continuity.

You forgot that several of those countries decided joined russia to get protection like Armenia and Georgia which feared osmanian kingdom. And 1922 it was Ukraine, Belarussia and RSFSR which signed the agreement to establish SU. Or do you believe communism was limited only to Russia. There weren't percentually less communists among ukrainians or belarussians. And they all fought together in russian civil war to prevent Tzarists returning to power.

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 07:59 PM

Ekhm... do I have to remind you of this?

None of abovementioned territories joined Russia voluntarily and after revolution they were incorporated into SU without asking their consent.
I see a clear continuity.

Communists came from all over, particularly from minority ethnic groups. Ethnic Russians are Christian Orthodox and come from the Volga region of Eastern Europe. Therefore many ethnic Russians had loyalties to their Orthodox Tsar, or to the Russian Republic under Kerensky which was established after the 2nd revolution. This didn't apply as much to the minorities, so you had a high proportion of Letts, Jews, etc... making up the ranks of the Bolshevik party and other revolutionary orders, although Russians were of course very numerous, as there were so many of them anyway.

Take a look if you don't believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_Bolsheviks

As for the Civil War... The revolution began as an internal movement, hence the name revolution. Most cities in the empire had revolutinary Bolshevik movements that rose up within very quick succession of each other, whether they were mostly ethnically Russian or not.

And finally, in regards to the leadership (USSR leaders in Bold)...

Vladimir Lenin: Mixed Russian, German, Swedish, Jewish and Kalmyk Mongol (or possibly Chuvash), born in Russia
Leon Trotsky: Jewish, born in Ukraine
Joseph Stalin: Georgian, born in Georgia
Lavrentiy Beria: Megrelian Georgian, born in Abkhazia
Georgy Malenkov: Macedonian, born in Russia
Nikita Krushchev: Ukrainian, born in Ukraine (nowadays Russia)
Leonid Brezhnev: Ukrainian, born in Ukraine
Yuri Andropov: Russian (maybe Ukrainian), born in Russia
Konstantin Cherenko: Russian (although some Ukrainian heritage), born in Russia
Mikhail Gorbachev: Mixed Russian and Ukrainian, born in Russia

So you were saying...?

lightfire

02-04-2007, 08:59 PM

A brigade each? Where do you get this info? Keep in mind that to me a brigade is at least 3000 troops. If they can do this why aren't they being deployed to Afghanistan? Iceland was important because of its location.

So they can deploy a couple ships and a couple hundred troops. This justifies the time and resources the US expends to admit a new member into NATO? Not to mention all the military aid we're giving to countries like Georgia, who's commitment to Iraq consists of a small battalion of medics. (I actually met some of them when I was there.) Why can't the US spend that money on it's own forces?

And what if there is a conflict with Russia in the future? How would NATO defend the Baltic countries? They're tiny countries squeezed between the ocean and Russia, without the infrastructure to support a large build-up of troops.

a rapid reaction brigade each as an integrated part of NATO forces, that should be opperational from 2008. That does not mean, any of thsoe countries would deploy a brigade size formation overseas, it says, that such a brigade, first off all IS a compositive part of NATO forces(means could be used at any time, if necesarry),secondly can without any problems (logistical, comunicational etc.) act toogehter with other NATO units/formations.

You gave an example of Georgia, which is way behind and not even the NATO member. Besides such contribution, each NATO country specializes in certain areas, for ex. czechs specializes in nuclear-biolog-chemical warfare sphere+rapid reaction force, smaller countries specializes in other areas, I do not know about estonia, but Lithuania specializes in SF role+medics, sapper, water cleaning units. face the fact, that not all countries are as large and powerfull as USA, and can't project carrier fleet force like..But they still are members of NATO,you like it or not, and support, even a small in numbers to compare with large countries, but maybe in some vital parts,spheres-someone has to do the job.

The resources spent (first, they aren't so large, as you could imagine-dailly the US is spending more in Iraq, than to those countries per year) on new NATO members military are hugelly not only investments, rather than unrequited support, but aslo a part of US policy making-make friendlies where you can, tie them up with your offers and you win. Besides, US is foolishlly spending much more resources inside, in certain parts of the world, rather in those "tiny countries".

Now concerning the conflict with Russia in the future, well-off cource, you never know, there might be many IFs in history, but it seems so unlikelly and Cold Warish era...Just plain stupid. Even if that happens, first it would be a blow to ecconomies, and second-NATO members are defended by each other, any means possible, again-you like it or not..
And if you ask how, well, that's probably again a legacy of the cold war, if you talk about Russia again, but..the task of the armies of Baltic republics would be stop the enemy, resist it, fight both conventional and guerilla war, inflicting as many casualties as possible, wait for the relief/support (which might end as well in some nice ol'nuke exchange-that's why the scenario of the "Russia attacks" is unrealistic). There are both logistical and material capabilities to meet the support, of which you are unnaware, as I see (well, you know..Baltic sea is not an ocean yet..)-Poland, seaports, airbases... Yet all thios BS about "Russia attacks" is fruitless, today much of the work is done through gas,oil, shadow money for certain politics, masmedia etc. not through "tank punches"p-)

GazB

02-04-2007, 09:04 PM

On the other hand , after 40 years of Cold War you don't want to take the chance of helping him up lest he stab you in the back either.

Like Germany and Japan stabbed the West in the back... oops, no they didn't. Despite being staunch enemies that actually came to blows the west not only completely rebuilt both countries but actually treated them with some respect and they turned into reasonable allies.
Of course you could have simply repeated the mistakes of WWI and treated the loser as the sole purpetrator of all the bad things that occured during the period of war, and as the aggressor that started everything... Gee... after reading the article in the first post of this thread I am feeling a bit of Deja Vu...

Dark part of history? Ukraine, Belarus and yes even little ol' Georgia all shared in the same history. You are making the same mistake that so many others make, associating the Russian Federation and only the Russian Federation with the USSR.

Of course it is all the fault of Russia... the greatest killers in the woviet union bar none were Stalin, who was Russian wasn't he... Oops, no he was Georgian... well head of the NKVD secret police Beria was Russian... Oops, no he was born in Georgia too... Gorbachav was Russian! ...and what a bstrd he was!!!

If you ask me if I were Russian I would vote for Putin than for anyone from the bunch of ultra-right or post commies...

Didn't you read the article? Most of those rich fat cats were the commies who have now embraced captialism because their power enabled them to gather wealth and priviledge they never could have flaunted under communism. Most of the pro communists now just want those fat cats stripped of their ill gotten gains and a bit of law and order restored.

Soviet Union's collapse was a blessing for everybody involved, for some the positive effects came immidiately, for others they are coming in a longer perspective.

Yes, of course... getting and education, bringing up a family where everyone get employment are guaranteed as was healthcare is a terrible way to live and bring up families. Much better now that mafia bosses control everything and you can get killed for looking at a mafia bosses girlfriend the wrong way... Amusing that some think happiness revolves around getting to vote once every 4-5 year...

While Putin doesn't glorify in straight words the SU, saying that some event was a cathastrophy does imply, that state of things preceeding the cathastrophy was "good". Or would you disagree?

Hmmm. Long queues for bread, and then a change no bread... but it doesn't matter because after the collapse you haven't been paid so you have no money anyway.
Yeah, in comparison the queues sound good in comparison.

After all, these countries were held under the rule of one of the most inhumane ideology in history of human kind. Nobody said that the transition is going to be a piece of cake.

Yes... the agony of the transition from a communist government to a democratic government was plain to see in the Czech Republic. The transition from a communist controlled market, to a capitalist market is almost crippling the Chinese COMMUNIST government. :rolleyes:

None of abovementioned territories joined Russia voluntarily and after revolution they were incorporated into SU without asking their consent.
I see a clear continuity.

So I guess you hate Britain, and France, and Spain, and the Netherlands, and Germany, and Belgium, and the US, and even Australia and New Zealand... we all have or have had our own colonies that we treat as our own without referendum or popular vote...

Flamming_Python

02-04-2007, 09:40 PM

Then how do you explain the result of referendum May 1991 where in 12 of 15 soviet republics the majority voted to keep SU?

A fall of a multinational state is always a catastrophe. Just look at Yugoslavia. They were one of the most prosperous east european states under Tito. And what they gone through during the 90s? And it happened in southern GUS states either.
Nothing can justify death of thousands in wars and starving of millions elder people which weren't paid pensions for months and lost their savings and couldn't afford formerly free medical treatment. It was a catastrophe and a personal tragedy for most of Soviet citizens. And most of these countries still suffer the consequences and have no perspective to reach the pre-1991 economy level in near future.

To be fair, the Baltic States, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia boycotted that referendum. In each of the 9 other states, the majority supported the retention of the Soviet Union.

However, then Ukraine had another referendum in December, whereby the vast majority favoured independence. Weird situation that the support for the USSR turned around completely in 9 months, as Cohen mentions.

INAT

02-04-2007, 09:53 PM

NATO blew its cover as a peaceful organisation with its action in Yugoslavia (i.e. Kosovo) where NATO was part of the conflict (bombing Serbia) then as part of a peace deal insisted on being the peacekeeping force and STRONGLY objected (almost shooting started at Pristina airport) when Russia decided to jump in on peacekeeping in Kosovo.

Russia does not have any illusions about NATO. A few of new NATO members wanto to join simply to protect them selves from NATO :).

NATO is what it is. A military organisation that the policy makers in Brussel use it strategically to provide a muscle when their aggressive negotiations fail.

I agree.NATO killed Serbia and now it is like common mafia extortion other countries saw what happened to Serbia and said we better pay these guys to protect us from these guys.When a new country in East Europe joins NATO they have to meet"standards" new policies,and most important new military hardware sold by who? Thats right the NATO(US mainly).I do not mean to sound anti American but people in East Europe understand that the Kosovo war was not about protecting Albanians it was for geostrategic gain.This is my personal view that is all.

sferrin

02-04-2007, 09:53 PM

Like Germany and Japan stabbed the West in the back... oops, no they didn't. Despite being staunch enemies that actually came to blows the west not only completely rebuilt both countries but actually treated them with some respect and they turned into reasonable allies.
Of course you could have simply repeated the mistakes of WWI and treated the loser as the sole purpetrator of all the bad things that occured during the period of war, and as the aggressor that started everything... Gee... after reading the article in the first post of this thread I am feeling a bit of Deja Vu.

Hmmm, as I recall we pretty much dictated "this is how things will be" to both countries. Somehow I don't see the USSR, CIS, Russia, whatever agreeing to that :roll:

GazB

02-04-2007, 11:05 PM

Hmmm, as I recall we pretty much dictated "this is how things will be" to both countries. Somehow I don't see the USSR, CIS, Russia, whatever agreeing to that

Obviously the treatment couldn't be the same... Germany and Japan were defeated in combat and were largely destroyed economically, politically, and militarily. The Soviets were economically and politically in a shambles.
The point is after they dropped communism they might have expected, if not a reward, at least some support for the changes they were trying to make. All they got were complaints that they weren't recreating America.
Most American journalists and politicians never seemed happy about any measure they introduced... it was never enough. You kinda got the feeling that until the Russians adopted US law and a US constitution and started imposing US values in every facet of their political, economic, and military thinking that the US would feel they weren't acting properly.
Little things like a limitation upon how long a leader can lead a country... two terms in office only. Where did that come from? America.
Last time I looked New Zealand was a democracy too yet we have no law prohibiting voters from voting for a leader they want to elect.

sir-chimp

02-05-2007, 01:02 AM

Obviously the treatment couldn't be the same... Germany and Japan were defeated in combat and were largely destroyed economically, politically, and militarily. The Soviets were economically and politically in a shambles.
The point is after they dropped communism they might have expected, if not a reward, at least some support for the changes they were trying to make. All they got were complaints that they weren't recreating America.
Most American journalists and politicians never seemed happy about any measure they introduced... it was never enough. You kinda got the feeling that until the Russians adopted US law and a US constitution and started imposing US values in every facet of their political, economic, and military thinking that the US would feel they weren't acting properly.
Little things like a limitation upon how long a leader can lead a country... two terms in office only. Where did that come from? America.
Last time I looked New Zealand was a democracy too yet we have no law prohibiting voters from voting for a leader they want to elect.

dude seriously cry me a river

I mean really

I will hold you and pat you on the back, just let it all out.

asch

02-05-2007, 03:38 AM

...and here heavy Ot&H artillery comes bitchin' as usual

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 03:47 AM

In 1991 or 1992 Yeltsin made an initiative that commonly NATO and Russia should guarantee safety for Middle Europe. This why we speeded our application to NATO

Your statement seems to contain some inner contradiction.

Accepting guarantees of safety from both powers is better safety-wise than only from one power.

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 03:48 AM

Switek

02-05-2007, 03:51 AM

Your statement seems to contain some inner contradiction.

Accepting guarantees of safety from both powers is better safety-wise than only from one power.

After about 200 years of Russian domination over Poland any safety guarantee mad by Russia seems ridiculous. Besides Russia's future is uncertain, but of course this country is more stable and reliable than in 1992.

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 03:55 AM

If you ask me if I were Russian I would vote for Putin than for anyone from the bunch of ultra-right or post commies...

Thank God, you are not. We've got enough putin-worshippers of our own p-)

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 04:00 AM

After about 200 years of Russian domination over Poland any safety guarantee mad by Russia seems ridiculous. Besides Russia's future is uncertain, but of course this country is more stable and reliable than in 1992.

Why is it "ridiculous"? On the contrary, It is after 200 years of domination that safety guarantee gains an incredible worth. If I'm not mistaken, one of the many promises Germany was forced to make (you all like to compare nazi Germany to USSR, so why not this time?) was to respect austrian sovereignity and guarantee its independence from Germany. Besides, accepting guarantees only from one side automatically ruins your relations with the other side safety-wise.

In other words, if Poland really cared about SAFETY and really wanted to be SECURE, not to act as an opponent of Russia, it would have been one of the most active proponents of the idea of joint US-Russian guarantee on Middle and East European independence, since it would effectively make any conflict in Europe impossible even in theory.

Switek

02-05-2007, 04:05 AM

Why is it "ridiculous"? On the contrary, It is after 200 years of domination that safety guarantee gains an incredible worth. If I'm not mistaken, one of the many promises Germany was forced to make (you all like to compare nazi Germany to USSR, so why not this time?) was to respect austrian sovereignity and guarantee its independence from Germany. Besides, accepting guarantees only from one side automatically ruins your relations with the other side safety-wise.

In other words, if Poland really cared about SAFETY and really wanted to be SECURE, not to act as an opponent of Russia, it would have been one of the most active proponents of the idea of joint US-Russian guarantee on Middle and East European independence, since it would effectively make any conflict in Europe impossible even in theory.

Austria never had bad experience with hostile domination what was experienced by Poland. SU never treated Austria like his backyard... this a difference.

I'm surprised that you say that Polant acts as an opponent of Russia. Poland acts to secure its own interests.

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 04:21 AM

Austria never had bad experience with hostile domination what was experienced by Poland. SU never treated Austria like his backyard... this a difference.

Nah, it doesn't make any difference politically. Insuring security is insuring security. Joint US-Russian guarantees would in no way damage Polish security, on the contrary.

That means Poland didn't want to be really secure from possible Russian threat in some distant future. It chose to constantly play the Russian threat tune on world arena and for its own population instead.

I'm surprised that you say that Polant acts as an opponent of Russia. Poland acts to secure its own interests.

And these interests are...? I'm yet to hear any reasonable explanation what Polish interests in Europe and in the World are.

According to contemporary politics, they seem to be understood by current government in a way so that they are opposite to all of what Russia does, so that is merely semantics.

Switek

02-05-2007, 04:31 AM

Doublethinker

02-05-2007, 04:38 AM

Our main goals we achieved. Poland is EU and NATO Member. So politicaly and military we are feel safe for current times. We need to intensify our relations paralelly with NATO, EU and US. that's all. Russians can't guarantee anything about ou safety. We experienced this.

Poland wants to have a good relations with democratic neighbours.

So, should I understand it that Poland wants bad relations with non-democratic neighbours?

And I still am yet to hear any arguement how Russian-US joint agreement on East European security could be a bad thing, if Poland's primary goal was security, as you keep saying.

Flamming_Python

02-05-2007, 04:39 AM

Our main goals we achieved. Poland is EU and NATO Member. So politicaly and military we are feel safe for current times. We need to intensify our relations paralelly with NATO, EU and US. that's all. Russians can't guarantee anything about ou safety. We experienced this.

Poland wants to have a good relations with democratic neighbours.

Polish-Russian mistrust STRONG!!!

I can see your point. But best thing to do is to build business relations with Russia. More business, less war.

Ignoring the interests of a large neighbour completely is only setting yourself up for future tensions.

Switek

02-05-2007, 05:18 AM

shadowsrider

02-05-2007, 07:16 PM

Polish-Russian mistrust STRONG!!!

I can see your point. But best thing to do is to build business relations with Russia. More business, less war.

Ignoring the interests of a large neighbour completely is only setting yourself up for future tensions.

Poland was a subject of numerous international treaties and received many guarantees before. In 1918 Lenin said that each country has right for its indepencence and Poland shold be indepented state. In 1920 Tuchatschevsky's armies were at the gates of Warsaw.
Then Poland had several "friendship and nonaggression" agreements with Germany and USSR. In 1939 USSR arrested Polish diplomats in Warsaw because they belonged to "illegal Polish authorities"... funny thing was that they were released after German ambassador intervention while Wehrmacht was overrunning Poland. Not to mention 1 million visitors from USSR in 1939 plus 1,5 million from Germany.
The guarantee from UK and France and plans of offensive that never happened when Germany attacked.
Then came agreements and guarantees in 1944 and 45 when completely new Polish territory was created by USA-UK and USSR and Poles were not even informed about this.
Then the guarantee of democratic rule in Poland after 1945 which fiction immediatelly ceased to exist.

I count this just to show that we had reasons not to believe any diplomatic guarantees and papers.

NATO was perceived as real thing:real military pact so this was obvious choice of the whole Eastern Europe fearing that idependence was a suprising gift that can be taken immediatelly.

And now some economy: the whole Central and Eastern Europe has national product comparable to Russia. The capital invested in those countries is being repaid with great percent while in Russia there were some billions lost during Yeltsin's rule.

Smersh

02-05-2007, 08:37 PM

Soviet Union's collapse was a blessing for everybody involved Whats this based on? where did you get this from? your head? For millions and millions of people, I would say the majority of the former Soviet Union's population, the "end" of the USSR was a terrible event. Poverty, family breakup, bankruptcy, loss of jobs and savings, chronic unemployment, hunger, brain-drain, dramatic population loss, lowering standard of living, collapse of health system, collapse of life expectancy, infrastructure collapse, tiny relative GDP, "un-development",national conflict, ***-trade, dramatic rise in crime and re-rise of mafia, etc. etc. etc.

A statement like this really shows me that you have absolutely no idea about conditions after the end of the Soviet Union.

Now, I'm going to continue reading this threadn (I'm on page 4), I'm suprised to see Kilgor and company haven't jumped in and yelled about Stalin and GULAGs. I really don't want another discussion about the end of the Soviet Union, very tired of them, I know what they always lead too. I want to continue reading and see where this goes then comment on the current situation and NATO expansion. But, if someone is going to continue making unbacked vague, fairly tale comments I'm going to responde.

Smersh

02-05-2007, 09:01 PM

In 1920 Tuchatschevsky's armies were at the gates of Warsaw. I'm going to consider stupid comments like this as attempts to start flame-war dicussions.

read your history: In 1919-20 during the Russian civil war, the newly created Poland invaded Belarus and Ukraine, at a failed bid of expansionism. Even an example of polish agressive expansionism is turned around to make Poland the victim. and I'm not debating this switek, I know where you stand.

Kilgor

02-05-2007, 09:04 PM

Now, I'm going to continue reading this threadn (I'm on page 4), I'm suprised to see Kilgor and company haven't jumped in and yelled about Stalin and GULAGs. .

If it was relevant, it would be mentioned.

All I can see here is more Russian victimhood mentality.

Why not start a support group?

Smersh

02-05-2007, 09:11 PM

I don't see any 'Russian victimhood' in anything I wrote. I don't see the relevance in that at all. you mention the same things in all threads, regardless of relevance.

I'm not in the mood for jokes today.

Flamming_Python

02-05-2007, 09:58 PM

Come on Smersh and Kilgor don't even start...

Of course i'm not a moderator or anything, but I would hate to see a civil discussion de-railed and mutilated by yet another silly arguement.

Smersh

02-05-2007, 10:02 PM

thats exactly what I don't want. I said that a few times in my posts. But I can't exactly ignore some comments. well, that's enough about this, people should talk about the topics not moderating (and making jokes)

Kitsune

02-05-2007, 10:09 PM

GazB wrote:
Like Germany and Japan stabbed the West in the back... oops, no they didn't. Despite being staunch enemies that actually came to blows the west not only completely rebuilt both countries but actually treated them with some respect and they turned into reasonable allies.

Man, you are telling some rubbish here.

1) I can't remember that we "stabbed the West in the back". Perhaps Pearl Harbor qualifies for that, but nothing what Germany did.

2) When did "the West" rebuild these states? There was the Marshall Plan, ok, but that went to all of Europe with Germany only receiving a part of it. Yes, it did help the revive the economies. But I am pretty sure that it did not even come close to cover the value of the technology that was transfered from Germany to the victors. In any case the actual rebuilding work was entirely done by Germans. If I recall it correctly, only very, very few Americans came over here and helped to clean away the rubble. And even less French and English. With Japan, it wasn't entirely different either. I really wonder where you get your ideas from.

3) In some regards Japan after WWII was indeed somewhat lucky. Still, after the war it became a protectorate of the USA (the US-Japanese security treaty is one-sided: the US defends Japan, not the other way round, this arrangement is seen as somewhat humiliating by many Japanese) and had to eschew the use of nuclear weapons (which ensures the Japanese dependancy on the US). Germany was not so lucky. It lost...again after WWI...huge part of its territory, after the war 15 million Germans were forcibly expelled from their homelands of which 1 to 2 million died. What was left of Germany was divided into various zones of which only the three western ones were allowed to unite again. They formed West Germany, the Soviet controlled zone formed East Germany and, from the early 60ties on, both were divided by a wall and barbwire. Until Reunification, neither of the two German states were really sovereign. Even West Germany didn't have authority over its own airspace and the Intelligence Services of the USA, Britain and France could tap the phones of any German entirely legally. Like Japan, Germany more or less had to sign treaties banning the possession of nuclear weapons (making Germany, like Japan, a protectorate of the US). Neither Japan nor Germany do have a permanent UN Security council seat with Veto Power to this very day.

In short: Russia wouldn't really like to be treated like Japan was after WWII and even much less like to receive the treatment Germany was given. Believe me.

I must admit, the Russian attitude in the early 90ties always strikes me as somewhat odd. Russia earnestly seemed to expect that the West would generously support its former Cold War enemy and at the same time accept the idea that Russia would be some "indispensable nation" that had a decisive voice in all proceedings of global policy. The West supports Russia with crutches but respects it as a power that is on eye level with the USA. Amazingly naive expectations all in all. Especially from Russia, a nation that really should know better after all it experienced. And after all it did itself. Perhaps the only explanation is the arrogance of the powerful. Possibly it is thus that they lose the ability to imagine how it is to be without that power - and when the day comes on which they fall from grace they become delusional.

GazB

02-06-2007, 12:42 AM

Man, you are telling some rubbish here.

1) I can't remember that we "stabbed the West in the back".

Some reading assitance is required perhaps?

GazB wrote:
Quote:
Like Germany and Japan stabbed the West in the back... oops, no they didn't.

When did "the West" rebuild these states?

Their economies were in ruins. Where did the food the Japanese and Germans ate every day and the medicines come from? The west went in and basically recreated new laws and government structures, and more importantly they didn't economically isolate them. Western investment allowed sustained real growth. Or do you think the difference between North Korea and South Korea is that South Korea gets to vote for their leaders? No country can function normally while isolated from the world either because the world rejects them or because they reject the world. Look at North Korea and Albania. Both communist and both isolated. Both basket cases. China on the other hand is communist too... sure they allow a near market economy but the difference is nothing to do with mineral wealth or political system... it is the relationship with the economic group with most of the money... the west.

Russia earnestly seemed to expect that the West would generously support its former Cold War enemy and at the same time accept the idea that Russia would be some "indispensable nation" that had a decisive voice in all proceedings of global policy.

Yeah... go figure. After spending trillions in countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan to save various foreigners from communism you'd have thought they would have welcomed Russia back into the world community when its experiment with communism failed. Didn't happen. Perhaps if they had a better understanding of what was going to happen (ask the Afghans about US generosity after the Soviets left they might have foreseen what was to come...).

sir-chimp

02-06-2007, 12:46 AM

If it was relevant, it would be mentioned.

All I can see here is more Russian victimhood mentality.

Why not start a support group?

Im afraid to live in the clusterf_uck of my parents homeland, but Russia STRONG111111 - On todays Oprah

GazB

02-06-2007, 01:00 AM

Just saw an american program about WWII and it described the british going in after the Japs agreed to surrender to take back control of all the former european colonies. Because they lacked the numbers needed (colonies were maintained not by foreigners but by sympathetic locals who formed an elite class of priviledge... japanese occupation wiped out that elite class so to take back control the Brits had to use Japanese soldiers to control the local populations...hardly their finest hour...

Kilgor

02-06-2007, 01:58 AM

Smersh

02-06-2007, 02:08 AM

When and how did their behavior change?

I don't understand this comparison, the Cold War was not a shooting war, and Russia did not submit to "unconditional surrender" and suffer occupation like Germany and Japan. This is what Cohen talked about, The USA thinks of itself as the victor, like it was at the end of the 2nd World War. So this means it can treat Russia as the loser, and dictate policies, like it did during the 90s, with disastrous results. Instead of cooperation after a "war" with no winner or losser (the loser was the Soviet people :( ). But this is covering what Cohen said in the interveiw on the first page, no point in me repeating it.

edit: there was some argument before, that some nations shouldn't/can't be in NATO because their not European Nations like Taiwan and others, but aren't you guys forgeting the USA is not a European nation.

GazB

02-06-2007, 02:22 AM

Germany and Japan's behavior changed and they were rehabilitated into respectable nations, maybe this is why ?

you seem to live outside reality at times garry.

I live too far from the front line perhaps... it gives me a different perspective of things... but don't give me credit for thinking different to you for a real reason. I must only think differently because I am stupid or mad.

So the Cold war was all about the behaviour of the Soviets... the west includes the worst offenders regarding colonialism in the history of the world.
So it wasn't about communism at all? What was Vietnam? Or Korea?
Funny... I laughed at the US for mistaking Korea and Vietnam and Cuba for communism when at the root it was really all about nationalism, but you have set me straight... The US didn't get involved in Korea and Vietnam and Cuba to stop the spread of communism, they did it because the Soviets weren't well behaved... I guess the 58 thousand Americans died in Vietnam really taught the Soviets a lesson. Perhaps the real lesson was afghanistan because when they left in 89 the cold war seemed to end. Perhaps the lesson was that the Soviets didn't kill enough foreigners and tended to kill their own more often than they killed outsiders. The US led the lesson by bombing the heck out of vietnam and laos and lots of other places when the bombers got lost, and so in 1979 the Soviets followed their lead and learned how to carpet bomb. When they finished their lesson the cold war ended...

Switek

02-06-2007, 03:58 AM

The title if this thread suould be tittled: "Russia: Opportunities Lost" but this time I don wanna blame Russians nor Americans or other westernes...

Russians (and other ex-sioviet nations) weren't prepared nor intellectually nor mentally for dismantle of Soviet Union, thats's obvious true.
As far as I observe current Russia I can see a amazing blend of soviet and imperial and western infuences... And this all doesn't work well all together.

The future of Russia is is uclear, among others, becouse of it's soviet heritage and no will (or just may be it's impossible, now) to close its past and make historical and legitimate debate what Soviet Union was... This reckonig the past up must be done only by Russians and other post soviet nations Only by them. There is impossible to make new society new nation without this painful process. I can not tel you when it's good moment to make ut. But you can not get you trousers dry when you keep one leg in the water...

As long as is running as it is now makes Russia and its leaders ambigous in the eyes of many foreigners. There is no miraculous second way to acheive it. Russia can have gas, oil, gold and titanium, weapons ... etc. Can make deals wit many partners and be reliable in economy but it desn't guarantee to be reconized reliable at all.

Japan And Germany cleared its past and now they are part of international community. There is continious debate about domination of US and it's policy. No one denies what happened. This is a big difference. Many foreigners can participate in critizing US. Of course always is aproblem in what way..

shadowsrider

02-06-2007, 04:14 AM

I'm going to consider stupid comments like this as attempts to start flame-war dicussions.

read your history: In 1919-20 during the Russian civil war, the newly created Poland invaded Belarus and Ukraine, at a failed bid of expansionism. Even an example of polish agressive expansionism is turned around to make Poland the victim. and I'm not debating this switek, I know where you stand.

I am sorry that giving a clear fact you perceive as a flame war.
Why do you recommend me to read history? I do... do you?

The war 1919-20 ignition is complex matter. On the Bolshevik side after winning with the White army the idea of bringing the Revolution on bayonets to the West was winning: the workers in Germany started to create local soviets so it was just weak Poland to overrun and join with German workers.
On the other side Poland first supported the Reds because the Whites denied Poland's right to exist. Although there were no clear borders in Belarus and many Poles believed that Polish borders from 1772 (first partition of Poland by Russia, Prussia and Austria) should be restored the fights started.

The other idea in Poland those days was so called "buffer politics" which finally won.
Poland after gaining indepenence wanted to create the buffer of independed states to protect eastern borders. That is why new born Poland united with Ukraine's Petlura army and made an offensive to Kiev in 1920: to create Ukraine state.
The fights in Belarus started because there were no borders and both sides claimed this is their territory.
The only expansionist action during those times was annexation of Vilnus to Polish territory which became reason of mistrust between Poland and Lithuania for many years.

I think I have elaborated enough on this topic. So discuss on the matter and do not accuse me of flame wars.

AT-T

02-06-2007, 07:42 AM

edit: there was some argument before, that some nations shouldn't/can't be in NATO because their not European Nations like Taiwan and others, but aren't you guys forgeting the USA is not a European nation.

It's about the mentioned article of the NATO-treaty which invites other european states AFTER the foundation of NATO (Kanada and USA were already among those who founded NATO), but nor Turkey (joined 1952) nor Georgia are european states. Therefore there's no reason for NATO not to invite Taiwan, Lebanon or any other protection-seeking country. But the only countries they invite are those in the proximity of Russia and not a single which don't fullfills that criteria.

AT-T

02-06-2007, 07:45 AM

The other idea in Poland those days was so called "buffer politics" which finally won.
Poland after gaining indepenence wanted to create the buffer of independed states to protect eastern borders. That is why new born Poland united with Ukraine's Petlura army and made an offensive to Kiev in 1920: to create Ukraine state.

But Petlyuras west-ukrainian republic was destroyed by Pilsudski immediatly after it's founding and it's territory added to Poland. 20 years later UPA murdered all poles on this territory.

Switek

02-06-2007, 07:50 AM

Kitsune

02-06-2007, 09:00 AM

@GaZB:

Their economies were in ruins. Where did the food the Japanese and Germans ate every day and the medicines come from?
As for Germany, except for some care packages, the food came from Germany. As for the laws, they had to be accepted by the Allies of course (like everything else) but they were made by Germans (our constitution is largely based on Weimarian one and the one of 1848). As for allowing sustained growth, you are only right in the sense that Germany wasn't constantly ripped off or deliberately plundered all the time. But, as said, they took many of our scientists and engineers as well. They also deliberately shattered those parts of our industry they saw as threat. It is true that we could have been treated worse - but that is a far cry from "rebuilding" someone, as I understand the word.

But have it your way. Let Russia get a Marshallplan and care packages, let us allow sustained growth and supervise all the laws they make, for whatever that is worth. But they should be prepared to hand over all the territories they still hold from other nations - starting with the chunks of Poland, Germany and Japan they still have. The rest of Russia then is divided among the victors. And their armed forces are disbanded for the time being, Russia isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons from now on, they lose all sovereignity at first, air sovereignity for decades, their top scientists and engineers go to the west and their children will from now on learn in school that their grandfathers are criminals and that their whole nation is actually only a big problem of sorts. Prepare for a sound program of decommunisation. Ah yes, important party members of the communist party, the Soviet military and the intelligence community will have to face charges before the international court for what the Soviet Union did, of course. And forget the UN Security Council seat, naturally that is gone as well. As are any other important positions in international organisations - you may perhaps gain some of them back some day if you behave.
For that we promise a very close supervision of any internal proceedings in Russia. And provide a certain stability which may or not may result in sustained growth, depending on what the Russians make of it.
Deal? Sign here.

For your question about the difference between North and South Korea...that is the same as the difference between West and East Germany. One has a closed off communist system in which everyone is run by the state. The other has not. One of these seem to work a bit better than the other. That is the difference. You now may of course ask why Russia didn't start to boom once communism was abolished. What is keeping it? Good question. Germany for example was an ecomomically successful country before each worldwar and managed to bounce back each time (but then it never had a communist system before either of those worldwars - not even the Nazis controlled everyhing in the economy as tightly as the commies want to). Russia on the other hand...well Russia was actually never very successful economicwise, wasn't it? Not under the Tsar, not under the Communists. Perhaps it has yet to find a way how to do it. Since it would be a premiere, you may have to give it time.

Look, I actually don't disagree that the instant liberalisation of Russia was a mistake and that the West wasn't very helpful. But what did they expect? One thing is certain, though: the whining that Russia wasn't treated as generous as Germany or Japan is nonsense. That "generorisity" is much overstated. Both were treated like vanquished and humiliated to the bone and even today, more than six decades after WWII endedm one can clearly see who lost that war. As for Germany, we just were incredibly lucky that the Soviet Union had their lapse, if not for it, we would still be a divided nation with limited sovereignity, counting out the time until the two superpowers use us as a battlefield in a war that has started on a writing desk in either Moscow or Washington.

shadowsrider

02-06-2007, 11:59 AM

But Petlyuras west-ukrainian republic was destroyed by Pilsudski immediatly after it's founding and it's territory added to Poland. 20 years later UPA murdered all poles on this territory.

This is true: first Petlura was an enemy, the war started of Polish-Ukrainian fights for the Lvov city. This was tragic war: nations living for hundreds years together stood against each other. Cities were Polish and Jewish and countryside was populated by Ukrainians.
Then Pilsudski united with Petlura and decided to create Ukraine state but in what borders I do not know
After heavy war with USSR seeking any good treaty Petlura was left on his own by Pilsudski and was defeated by Bolsheviks. This is not nice of Pilsudski but he was careing of safety of newly created state and populated by both Ukrainians (some 70%) and Polish territories were added to Poland.
Poles those days rather did not recognize Ukraine as a separate state but were looking at the reality in the old Commonwealth manners: that all nations will live in it peacefully. It was not true because national identity matured in Ukraininan, Lithuanian (and perhaps Belarussian) nations.
But it was not typical "expansionism": it was perceived that Poland should exist in old borders. How it ended we all know... but it is not the main topic.

cinoeye

02-06-2007, 01:23 PM

I agree.NATO killed Serbia and now it is like common mafia extortion other countries saw what happened to Serbia and said we better pay these guys to protect us from these guys.When a new country in East Europe joins NATO they have to meet"standards" new policies,and most important new military hardware sold by who? Thats right the NATO(US mainly).I do not mean to sound anti American but people in East Europe understand that the Kosovo war was not about protecting Albanians it was for geostrategic gain.This is my personal view that is all.

Ai agree 100% but(I love this) Serbia is not in East Europe. ;)

Smersh

02-06-2007, 02:25 PM

How do you think NATO would responde to a central asian country expressing desire to join , some time in the future. If NATO is only a american-european military alliance who is it aimed at?

No military alliance has existed without a defined enemy, its created to oppose.

shadow rider, then you do seem to know more than just, the red army attacked poland in 1920.

I don't see where this thread is going, seems to be random russian/soviet/europe/USA issues.

Switek

02-06-2007, 04:02 PM

How do you think NATO would responde to a central asian country expressing desire to join , some time in the future. If NATO is only a american-european military alliance who is it aimed at?

No military alliance has existed without a defined enemy, its created to oppose.

They'll be associated, not members.

Don't be jealous but Russia is no target... there are many others threats in current world... Cold war is over :)

Smersh

02-06-2007, 05:13 PM

you've apparantly forgotten the discussion about NATO on this thread.

zg18

02-06-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by INAT http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2284803#post2284803)
I agree.NATO killed Serbia and now it is like common mafia extortion other countries saw what happened to Serbia and said we better pay these guys to protect us from these guys.When a new country in East Europe joins NATO they have to meet"standards" new policies,and most important new military hardware sold by who? Thats right the NATO(US mainly).I do not mean to sound anti American but people in East Europe understand that the Kosovo war was not about protecting Albanians it was for geostrategic gain.This is my personal view that is all.

Your view is apsolutely correct.America is trying to get it`s pocket in Balkans,Albanians are perfect puppets,unlike Serbs...although i don`t like this aprouch,it will couse trouble in the long run.

AT-T

02-06-2007, 06:35 PM

AT-T

02-06-2007, 06:51 PM

Don't be jealous but Russia is no target... there are many others threats in current world... Cold war is over :)

What? Cold war is over and russia can be sure being no target anymore?

Somebody asked the following question at the beginning of the thread:

That doesn't mean the US should have accepted. Do you really think Russia would have invaded if Poland wasn't in NATO?

And a certain person answered?

in nearest future no... But I can't be sure for more than 15 years perspective.

This no on,y matter of "invasion". You do need to invade a country to be very influential in it. Threat is a key word ... :|

This person is apparently worried about Poland being a possible target for Russia despite the cold war is over. And now somebody with an identical name claims Russia shouldn't worry about being a target for NATO.
What a coincidence......

Switek

02-07-2007, 01:46 AM

What? Cold war is over and russia can be sure being no target anymore?

Somebody asked the following question at the beginning of the thread:

And a certain person answered?

This person is apparently worried about Poland being a possible target for Russia despite the cold war is over. And now somebody with an identical name claims Russia shouldn't worry about being a target for NATO.
What a coincidence......

Too much attention for my humble person... :)

As I stated several times. The main world conflicts will be focused on Asia. There is a key for future peace. Look at Central Asia where is a big (peaceful, so far) struggle for oil resources. There are crosing counter interests of Russia, China, USA.

NATO countries are modernisig their warfare. They reduce most of heavy unist (a base of self defence during cold war) and transform armed frorces for more light and mobile which can operate worldwide to prevent some crisises and assure stabilisation in hot zones. The truth is that NATO as an only alliance can do this and is welcomed by many governments for help.

So far Europe is quiet and there is rather some kind of economical struggle. But as for Poland, it was Putin who labeled Poland his "enemy on duty", troubelmaker.

GazB

02-07-2007, 02:01 AM

It is true that we could have been treated worse - but that is a far cry from "rebuilding" someone, as I understand the word.

I didn't mean rebuilding as is constructed... like Dr Frankenstein constructed his monster from parts. I meant that they helped and supported the rebuilding and contributed where they could to ensure it happened... like an olympic trainer assists an athlete to get into condition to do well at the event.

But have it your way. Let Russia get a Marshallplan and care packages, let us allow sustained growth and supervise all the laws they make, for whatever that is worth.

No, I am not suggesting the same treatment at all. All I am saying is that if Germany as a whole and Japan as a whole had continued to be treated as criminal states held accountable for all of their so called crimes and reminded of their darker deeds at every opportunity the way the west treats the Russians and has done for pretty much as long as it has existed, then Germany and Japan would be very different today than what they are.

As far as I observe current Russia I can see a amazing blend of soviet and imperial and western infuences... And this all doesn't work well all together.

That is the wests problem. Communism was the enemy, but instead of Russia finding its own solution for democracy the west wants to make Russia something it is not. It wants to make it the US... politically anyway... it certainly doesn't want to see it with any sort of power.
The problem is that Russia has never been a democratic country. How could it possibly become the US overnight? It is like trying to force a size ten shoe... not on a size twelve foot but on someones head.

They were told all those years they were the enemy because they were commies. They stopped being commies and they were still treated like the enemy... what do you expect from that sort of head game?

There is impossible to make new society new nation without this painful process.

You are again making the same mistake... they are not making a new society, they will still be Russia at the end of the process. They are just changing from one type of economy to another. The Chinese have made a transition from collectivisation to a market economy... the Czechs did too... what agony did they go through?

On the Bolshevik side after winning with the White army the idea of bringing the Revolution on bayonets to the West was winning: the workers in Germany started to create local soviets so it was just weak Poland to overrun and join with German workers.

Gee, what bastards... I mean the west had done nothing to the bolsheviks... except actively support their enemies in the civil war...

Look, I actually don't disagree that the instant liberalisation of Russia was a mistake and that the West wasn't very helpful. But what did they expect?

Probably like Shia arabs in southern iraq told by bush snr to rise up against saddam just after iraqi forces were kicked out of kuwaite... and then left with no support and hung out to dry.

One thing is certain, though: the whining that Russia wasn't treated as generous as Germany or Japan is nonsense. That "generorisity" is much overstated. Both were treated like vanquished and humiliated to the bone and even today, more than six decades after WWII endedm one can clearly see who lost that war

But isn't that actually justified in a way because they really did lose the war... a real fighting war where trillions of dollars were wasted and tens of millions of lives lost. Russia in comparison happened to be a part of the Soviet Union which only lost an economic war with the west. Compare the western treatment of the various states and you'd think Russia was the Soviet Union and every other state was a helpless victim...

As for Germany, we just were incredibly lucky that the Soviet Union had their lapse, if not for it, we would still be a divided nation with limited sovereignity, counting out the time until the two superpowers use us as a battlefield in a war that has started on a writing desk in either Moscow or Washington.

Indeed... it was a time to be happy and take advantage of the situation by creating some real ties between the countries involved to make sure nothing as stupid as the cold war happened again. Missed opportunity... Cold war ii?

But it was not typical "expansionism": it was perceived that Poland should exist in old borders. How it ended we all know... but it is not the main topic.

Expansionism is often justified as just wanting to reestablish old borders... to start with.

Switek

02-07-2007, 02:12 AM

...
That is the wests problem. Communism was the enemy, but instead of Russia finding its own solution for democracy the west wants to make Russia something it is not. It wants to make it the US... politically anyway... it certainly doesn't want to see it with any sort of power.
The problem is that Russia has never been a democratic country. How could it possibly become the US overnight? It is like trying to force a size ten shoe... not on a size twelve foot but on someones head.

They were told all those years they were the enemy because they were commies. They stopped being commies and they were still treated like the enemy... what do you expect from that sort of head game?
...

No, this is Russia's problem... your leaders play dangerous game insisting Russians that they are surroundend by enemies. This called sociotechnics. If you'd like to keep peple together, when you can not solve their current problems, find common enemy ... This how communists tried to keep soviet nations in grasp.

The main problem and threath is soviet mentality (old school) of Russians leaders... They warning Russians how hostile is external world but not giving them anything in return...

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 02:22 AM

So far Europe is quiet and there is rather some kind of economical struggle. But as for Poland, it was Putin who labeled Poland his "enemy on duty", troubelmaker.

I must have missed something...p-)

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 02:26 AM

No this Russia's problem... your leaders play dangerous game insisting Russians that they are surroundend by enemies. This called sociotechnics. If you'd like to keep peple together, when you can not solve their current problems, find common enemy ... This how communists tried to keep soviet nations in grasp.

Isn't this exactly how Kachinski brothers came into power, playing on the anti-Russian feelings? ;)

Switek

02-07-2007, 02:38 AM

Isn't this exactly how Kachinski brothers came into power, playing on the anti-Russian feelings? ;)

Good point! Well they played worse... anyway Putin gave them some arguments. IMHO Kaczyński twins are something worse than one Putin... :) Anyway they will not spoil too much, I hope

asch

02-07-2007, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Switek http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2290086#post2290086)
it was Putin who labeled Poland his "enemy on duty", troubelmaker.
no ****? news for me.

Switek

02-07-2007, 03:31 AM

I must have missed something...p-)

no ****? news for me.

Oh come on... ;)

asch

02-07-2007, 03:38 AM

Oh come on... ;)

so, tell us.

Switek

02-07-2007, 04:01 AM

Some actions against Poland proves it. He obviously didn't tell it but:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=104441&page=4

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/8b87a178-6993-48f7-b7e3-f7b9701b49fc.html

http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35869

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/11/8a6a3819-aa77-4119-ac7e-6ddd1a464ddd.html

http://www.polishfalcons.org/otherinformation/ourmaninwarsaw/thaw.html

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 04:55 AM

Switek,

So the relations aren't without their problems - that's not news to anyone. But saying that Putin regards Poland as archnemesis, enemy on duty, etc. looks more like a Polish, rather than Russian take on the Russian attitude towards Poland. I've noticed on this forum that poles for some reason seem to overestimate their importance in Russian foreign politics, for some reason - probably, because Polish government is so obsessed with Eastern Europe politics and Russia, many poles think that Russia is also obsessed with Poland.

But I'm yet to hear at least a single speech of Putin where he would at least condemn Polish government.

Besides,Europe is only one of many important directions of Russian politics. And Poland is only one of many factors in European politics - not the most important one, I dare say (don't meant to offend anyone, but its true).

Switek

02-07-2007, 05:12 AM

Doublethinker.

Mutual mistrust... that's the problem but Poles are sensitive of the style of making policy. It's not obsession but deeply adopted results of our history and current cold relations.

This interview (http://www.msz.gov.pl/Wywiad,dla,The,Polish,Voice,-,19.02.2006,r.,4823.html) is interesting and this document (http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/REGIONAL/ECE/vol5no3/ruspol.pdf).

shadowsrider

02-07-2007, 05:30 AM

because Polish government is so obsessed with Eastern Europe politics and Russia, many poles think that Russia is also obsessed with Poland.

I agree.
Anyway Putin makes small gestures to show Poland the hostility. Denial of meeting for several years! Avoiding Polish leaders (including former president Kwasniewski) on official meetings. Inviting to Moscow general Jaruzelski and honouring him while not meeting with read government. Diplomacy is a language of small gestures and those are more than readable.

paku

02-07-2007, 06:13 AM

Switek

02-07-2007, 06:23 AM

Maybe we Poles feel overwhelmed with the attention that is attached to us in instances like establishing by Putin such national holidays as Day of People’s Unity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_People%27s_Unity).

We were hit by rebound. The real aim was Revolution Day currently known as Day of Accord and Reconciliation p-)

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 07:35 AM

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 07:38 AM

I agree.
Anyway Putin makes small gestures to show Poland the hostility. Denial of meeting for several years! Avoiding Polish leaders (including former president Kwasniewski) on official meetings. Inviting to Moscow general Jaruzelski and honouring him while not meeting with read government. Diplomacy is a language of small gestures and those are more than readable.

Hm. Never knew there were any problems until the anniversary of Victory in WWII when the uproar about Polish soldiers not mentioned by Putin shook Poland.

Russian gestures were never meant for public eye, I think, more like for silent diplomacy. And Poles seem to have brazen it out instead of working quietly on solving problems, thus escalated them to a national level - what for, I don't know.

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 07:41 AM

Maybe we Poles feel overwhelmed with the attention that is attached to us in instances like establishing by Putin such national holidays as Day of People’s Unity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_People%27s_Unity).

What, you REALLY think this has anything to do with current relations withPoland? Russia needed SOMETHING to replace the October revolution with - the only event close enough to it date-wise and which had enough importance to be considered one of landmarks in Russian history was the liberation of Kremlin from poles.

Too bad not many people know nowadays about that war, so it looks very much like a failed project. Its just too distant past for people to care.

AT-T

02-07-2007, 08:30 AM

Some actions against Poland proves it. He obviously didn't tell it but:

Deja-vu. Again the same coincidence. NATO also obviously didn't tell Russia being the enemy but the actions against Polan... Russia proves ist.

LOL, just exchange two names and your argumentation is identical to Russia's regarding NATO.

AT-T

02-07-2007, 08:40 AM

What, you REALLY think this has anything to do with current relations withPoland? Russia needed SOMETHING to replace the October revolution with - the only event close enough to it date-wise and which had enough importance to be considered one of landmarks in Russian history was the liberation of Kremlin from poles.

Too bad not many people know nowadays about that war, so it looks very much like a failed project. Its just too distant past for people to care.

It is a failed project. One of the most stupid initiatives in the last years. Celebrating some poles leaving Kremlin is surely not in the league to replace the revolution, not even nearly a type of event being worth to be celebrated in a national holiday. Where's the holiday for Napoleon, Mongols, German Order Knights, Berezovsky :-D etc. leaving Russia?

Such "end-of occupation"-celebrations are the level of Baltic states, and Russia sinking as low to believe an middle-age victory over "over mighty, invincible Poles STRONG!!!" is a celebrateable event is a more a sign of today's Russia's weakness then a dignified holiday.

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 09:41 AM

AT-T,

Just this time, I agree with you. Not with the wording, but with the meaning.

shadowsrider

02-07-2007, 10:54 AM

German Order Knights.

Do you mean those in Prussia defeated under Tannenberg or those in Inflants?

shadowsrider

02-07-2007, 11:01 AM

Interesting interview. Too bad such well-weighed interviews are too rare, judging from what I've read in Rceczpospolitaya (spelling?).

Rzeczpospolita is one of the most balanced newspapers in Poland.
But for Kaczynski brothers it also sometimes belong to The Plot Forces.

Historical question: the time when Poles were in Moscow - there was Russia or Muscovy?

Napoelon invasion is much better - it is widely present in consiousness. As for Polish invasion of Moscow it is such unimportant episode in our history that even some people do not know it. Perhaps if you are victim you pay more attention to the event than if you are aggressor.
Politically it was expedition with very little political, military and supply support doomed already when it began. Sizure of Moscow was a mix of luck, good command and quality of the military.

Doublethinker

02-07-2007, 11:21 AM

Rzeczpospolita is one of the most balanced newspapers in Poland.
But for Kaczynski brothers it also sometimes belong to The Plot Forces.

Historical question: the time when Poles were in Moscow - there was Russia or Muscovy?

It was Rus'. The invasion took place after death of mentally and physically ill Ivan the Terrible's son, Fedor I, during the Time of Troubles (XVIIth century)caused by interruption of the Rurik dynasty.

Napoelon invasion is much better - it is widely present in consiousness. As for Polish invasion of Moscow it is such unimportant episode in our history that even some people do not know it. Perhaps if you are victim you pay more attention to the event than if you are aggressor.

Well, it remained forever in the cultural history of the Russian people thanks to the legend about Ivan Susanin, who sacrificed himself by luring poles into the depth of the woods, instrad of leading them to Moscow.

Politically it was expedition with very little political, military and supply support doomed already when it began. Sizure of Moscow was a mix of luck, good command and quality of the military.

The main reason why it was successful was a complete political chaos in Russia during that period.

Flamming_Python

02-07-2007, 01:34 PM

It is a failed project. One of the most stupid initiatives in the last years. Celebrating some poles leaving Kremlin is surely not in the league to replace the revolution, not even nearly a type of event being worth to be celebrated in a national holiday. Where's the holiday for Napoleon, Mongols, German Order Knights, Berezovsky :-D etc. leaving Russia?

Such "end-of occupation"-celebrations are the level of Baltic states, and Russia sinking as low to believe an middle-age victory over "over mighty, invincible Poles STRONG!!!" is a celebrateable event is a more a sign of today's Russia's weakness then a dignified holiday.

Completely agree.

I vote for the holiday of when Berezovsky left Russia :D

Switek

02-07-2007, 04:08 PM

Interesting interview. Too bad such well-weighed interviews are too rare, judging from what I've read in Rceczpospolitaya (spelling?).

Rzeczpospolita. ;)

Switek

02-07-2007, 04:11 PM

Deja-vu. Again the same coincidence. NATO also obviously didn't tell Russia being the enemy but the actions against Polan... Russia proves ist.

LOL, just exchange two names and your argumentation is identical to Russia's regarding NATO.

AT-T, we are making progress in mutual underestanding :)

Smersh

02-07-2007, 05:23 PM

Xtoisè

02-07-2007, 11:32 PM

It is a failed project. One of the most stupid initiatives in the last years. Celebrating some poles leaving Kremlin is surely not in the league to replace the revolution, not even nearly a type of event being worth to be celebrated in a national holiday. Where's the holiday for Napoleon, Mongols, German Order Knights, Berezovsky :-D etc. leaving Russia?

Such "end-of occupation"-celebrations are the level of Baltic states, and Russia sinking as low to believe an middle-age victory over "over mighty, invincible Poles STRONG!!!" is a celebrateable event is a more a sign of today's Russia's weakness then a dignified holiday.

It wasnt meant to signify liberty from poles, but to be used as symbol for unity of the nation with no significant background of the symbol, which leads to its eventual failure.

shadowsrider

02-08-2007, 05:43 AM

Very good text by Peter Cheremushin from Moscow State University you posted Doublethinker. Both Russians and Poles should read it.

Doublethinker

02-08-2007, 06:07 AM

Very good text by Peter Cheremushin from Moscow State University you posted Doublethinker. Both Russians and Poles should read it.

Wasn't me. Thank Switek.

Switek

02-08-2007, 06:22 AM

The message does matter. The messenger is not important in this case ;)

Kap2406

02-08-2007, 08:44 PM

Gates Says Cost of Defending Nation High, but Worth It

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007 – The president’s fiscal 2008 defense budget request may be high, but the expenditure is necessary, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the House Armed Services Committee today. http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2007-02/070207-F-0193C-011.JPG (http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2007-02/070207-F-0193C-011.JPG)
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates testifies to the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 7. Photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, USAF '(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image (http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2007-02/hires_070207-F-0193C-011.JPG) available.“The costs of defending the nation are high,” Gates said in testimony before the committee. “The only thing costlier, ultimately, would be to fail to commit the resources necessary to defend our interests around the world and to fail to prepare for the inevitable threats of the future.”

Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace testified on the president’s fiscal 2008 defense budget request and the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental request. The 2008 request is for $481.4 billion, and the supplemental 2007 request is for $93.4 billion. The president also requested $141.7 billion for operational costs.

The defense budget requests make the strategic investments necessary to modernize and recapitalize military capabilities, Gates said.

He also said the two requests will reduce stress on the military and help sustain the all-volunteer force. Servicemembers’ needs are reflected in the significant money dedicated to quality-of-life improvements, Gates said.

One large aspect of the budget request will increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Conditions in the world mandate that increase, Gates said.

“I think that we need the full range of military capabilities,” Pace said. “We need both the ability for regular force-on-force conflicts because we don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere.

He said the military also needs more special operations forces. “An increase in the Special Forces is provided for in this budget to deal with situations such as we're encountering in Afghanistan and … the Philippines and various other places around the world.”

The increase in the number of troops and the number of units will give troops the time at home station they need to recuperate and train up for the next deployment, Gates said.

American forces are stationed around the world. Those requirements do not end simply because there is a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he added. “One of the results of that plus the war in Iraq is that our active force is now down to a year at home and then a year deployed,” Gates said. “In fact, our policy is that it be a year deployed and two years at home. Same way with the Guard -- … a year deployed and five years (at home). Because the forces are stretched so thinly in a variety of places, … especially Iraq, we've had to break that commitment.”

Pace agreed that ground forces needed to increase. He also said that the budget needs to address equipment and training.

About 40 percent of U.S. forces’ equipment is either in a combat zone or being repaired, he said. Units stationed in the United States have less than a full complement of equipment, Pace said.

Units that should train on up-armored Humvees cannot because all of those vehicles are deployed, the chairman said. Units make do and have ‘workarounds’ to make up for shortfalls in equipment, he said. Money in the 2008 request and the 2007 supplemental will address equipment shortfalls for units worldwide, the said.

Training is another consideration in forming the budget and increasing the size of the force. “With one year out and one year back, during the time that they're back, after they take a little bit of leave and get to know their family, the troops are being retrained for the mission to go back into Iraq or Afghanistan,” Pace said.

“Instead of having the two years at home that we'd like them to have and have that time available to train to both the mission they're going to go to but also the unexpected missions of combined arms operations and the like, we are not able to train them fully to the missions that they may have to go to in addition to being able to train them for the mission they're going to,” he continued.

The Army and Marine Corps are slated to grow by 92,000 troops through fiscal 2012. The change will enable the Army to field 48 brigade combat teams up from 42, and the Marines to fill out a third Marine expeditionary force.

I guess it answers the question whether US considers Russia as a potential military threat... I mean listing Russia (and China) with countries like Iran and N.Korea, who US consider "Axis of Evil".

Kap2406

02-08-2007, 08:53 PM

However, could also be the way of just getting more money for defense budget by listing as many threats (even if they are not) as possible.

Smersh

02-09-2007, 12:51 AM

However, could also be the way of just getting more money for defense budget by listing as many threats (even if they are not) as possible.

without any regard for what it implies.

GazB

02-09-2007, 02:25 AM

However, could also be the way of just getting more money for defense budget by listing as many threats (even if they are not) as possible.

Problem is that with any propaganda, you say it often enough and people who don't think about it will think it is true. The reality is that the US doesn't know what the future of any country could be like so saying they need to spend more because they don't know what Russia will be like in 20 years time they could easily say they don't know what Mexico will be like in 20 years time, or the UK, or the EU for that matter.

Doublethinker

02-09-2007, 02:33 AM

American foreign politics is the continuation of domestic politics. It has never been independent and is usually but a tool to achieve domestic aims for senators and ministers.