2 Student
I am Russian and I am happy. And I don't give a damn what you think. Because aren't you those stereotypical brainwashed poor arrogant Americans as they protrait you. Let's see what we have here: 1. Mr dumb brainwashed, 2. Mr reasonable brainwashed, and 3. Mr Polish (no other description is needed)
-----
I'm Russian too, and I'm happy.Student, i agree with u.
2 Bill Devers : Ur really not right.
Consider this: Tiny Georgia managed to rattle the Russian bear by arresting a few Russian spies. In retaliation Russia started an economic war, closing the borders for Georgian products, and Russian exports of gas and oil. Georgians in Russia were arrested and deported, etc. By doing all this, did the Russians force Georgia to get back in line wioth Moscow? No. Georgia thumped it's nose to Russia, changed it's energy supplier (now they're getting their gas from Azerbeidjan), diversified it's economy, and now Russia realised it simply lost it's grip on tiny Georgia.
A few years ago Russia tried to decide who would win the elections in the Ukraine. Result: the anti-Russian and pro-Western candidate won. And so it goes on and on. Russia not only lost it's influence in the former Warsaw-pact countries, it not only lost a huge territory that was once part of the Russian empire, it is also losing it's grip on all these new states in the Caucasus, central Asia and Eastern Europe.
No wonder why they are pushing up the prices for gas and oil in all those countries. Why should they do the favour of delivering cheap energy when their political influence is diminishing or even no longer existing. What a world player are you when you can't even throw around your weight in your own backyard.
And even when they are putting up the prices to a country like Belarus, they can't even get 100% what they want. Look at the deal that was made, Belarus got off on the cheap, sharing the ownership of their pipelines for prices that are way below the market price. Reason? Russia couldn't afford to stop pumping up oil for a few days, it would cost them too much.
Russia's influence on the world stage? Did North Korea care to inform the Russians when they were testing new rockets? They were informing the Chinese of course, but their other neighbour, Russia? Why should they even bother. Do the US care when Russia protests against missile defense systems in Central Europe? No, they take notice odf the protest and don't bother for the rest. What is Russia's influence in the Middle East for the moment? Russia received Hamas leaders recently in Moscow. Did the world notice? Hardly.
Russia's econonmy is grew last year with 6%. Amazing? The Ukrainian economy grew with 7%, several Eastern European countries have the same growth rates. Only, they are doing that without selling oil or gas. Take away high oil prices and Russia's growth rate goes down. A healthy economy? Forget it, they are just like Middle Eastern countries. Rich with their oil, but for the rest no econmy to speak of. Just look at the widespread poverty all over the country.
Russia's military? Apart from their nuclear weapons, it hardly maaters. They are spending as much on defense and weaponry as that other military giant, Germany. If Germany and Russia would decide to have a war, both their armies probably would be stuck somewhere halfway Poland, unable to go much further.
The greatest thread to Russia is their demographic situation. Russians simply are dying off. A few years ago they were with 148 million, now they are with 143 million, over a few years it's projected that they will be with less than 140 million. Not any country on earth is losing it's population as fast as Russia. On top of that, they are bordering the most populous country on earth, with a trhiving economy growing much faster than Russia's with a growth not based on selling off it's natural resources. How on earth are the Russians planning to stop the Chinese influence in Russia's far east. How are they going to prevent an economic and demographic take over of Siberia by the Chinese.
Russia a growing power in the world? Don't make me laugh.
Well, I think you are right regarding the dictators of the world. Not all dictators, however, commit genocide. Clinton, who did a reasonable job as President said his biggest regret was his lack of action in the Sudan. He was also responsible for ending the genocide in Bosnia.
Each dictator needs to be evaluated and actions, including sanctions, need to be applied. Intervention (as in a peace-keeping force) might be necessary. This has been the case for Zimbabwe and the Sudan, only, China has undermined sanctions and a military equipment boycott in both countries. Some kind of intervention is required in the Sudan, as over 2 million people have been killed in the last fifteen years including 200,000 (+) in Darfur.
We cannot dispose of all dictators, but the worst need to be dealt with by intervention if necessary. Of course, it would be nice if we received strong support from countries in Europe, and elsewhere (India, for example).
How was Iraq and, for that matter, Iran different? Both are located in the Middle East which is the world-wide leader in terrorism, recruitment of terrorist, funding of terrorist, and harboring of terrorist. Both countries have funded and supported terrorist organizations and, in addition, Iraq invaded two countries. What distinguished Saddam, however, is that he sought and USED WMDs. Iran is seeking nuclear energy (weapons) and has a President that has threatened to annihilate Israel (You might feel safe in Virginia, but the people of Israel have a right to be concerned).
The seventeen resolutions were not passed by the security council for weapons of CONVENTIONAL destruction, but weapons of MASS destruction. He was and would have been a continual threat to reconstitute his program of WMDs (including nuclear if he had access). Saddam was ambitious and clearly a threat to his neighbors and regional stability (Ok, I know what you are going to say...). He was also a threat to the US if he did, and don't forget who would assume power to continue his policies in the event of his death (his sons).
For those reasons, in my opinion, in conjunction with 911, the US disposed of Saddam and tried to install a democracy to the benefit of the Iraqi people. Early cooperation by Saddam could have ended sanctions and the deaths of so many people, and could have kept him in power.
The UN can pass 17000 resolutions but they will not be affective, unless they are enforced. Clearly, the UN and the west lost the will to enforce the conditions for the cease fire which Saddam signed (res. 687), thus the sanctions and bombing(s) were rendered useless. Only after 911, the UN and Saddam realized we were serious (again) and Saddam re-welcomed the inspectors back into Iraq. To late.
OK, Bob, then lets look at the other wars.
Did you support the war in Bosnia which was really a humanitarian mission?
Did you support the war in Kuwait?
Finally, I know you (and I) supported the war in Afghanistan. We disposed of a government for harboring the terrorist that were responsible for 911. So, if Iraq had never happened, would you have supported attacking eastern Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda (Bin Laden)?
It took Saddam 20 years to kill 3 million people. At the rate Bush is going he'd catch him in 10.
Remember now, this genocidal maniac you're talking about we supported. We didn't care he gassed the Iranians until we were looking for a reason to hate him so we could blow up his country.
And, you are right. Everything since 9/11 has changed. You only left out it has changed for the worse. America just happened to be unlucky enough to have Bush/Cheney in power. All they've done is abuse a bad situation.
Also, no one I know is arguing Saddam should have ever been named humanitarian of the year. Quite the contrary. He was a ruthless dictator. We all agree on this. Where we differ is what should the United States do about ruthless dictators. Let's examine this. You can really only have 3 types. First, they are no threat to us. Second, they are a thorn in our side. Third, they are either guilty of committing an act of war against us or are about to commit and act of war against us.
Since there's probably 50 ruthless regimes in the world we have to apply some standard in which ones we're going to blow up. We obviously don't have the time, troops & munitions to blow them all up. So obviously the standard on who we blow up has to be higher then they are ruthless dictators. Hence, being a ruthless dictator by itself doesn't rise to the level of a pre-emptive war. Nope, we need more then that.
So what was there about Saddam that rose to a higher level or standard? Ah, that's the real question isn't it? All you have left here is he thumbed his nose at the 17,000 UN resolutions that the US pushed through. Hence, almost a million people are dead, the country is in the midst of a civil war and we'll spend a minimum of 2 trillion dollars because Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN? Now there's logic I want to teach my children!
"...Saddam was a bad man to his own people and that in and of itself does not rise to the level of invasion...."
Bob, "bad" is when a cat pees in your living room (I love your analogies, Bob). Saddam was a brutal, genocidal dictator responsible for over 3 million deaths, and many were not his own people e.g., Iran and Kuwait.
Saddam was responsible for his own (deserved) fate. Period. Had he cooperated with the inspectors, we wouldn't be having this conversation today, e.g. Libya, Iran(?).
September 11, 2001 changed everything and is the reason that the three years that Iraq went without inspections was so important. The fact, which you want to dismiss, that no WMD's were found is irrelevant, albeit, embarrassing to the intelligence community.
I see a lot of references to "men of KGB in power". First of all, there is not KGB for long years. Now it is FSB, so be correct in terms, please. Second, no everybody in power is from so called "KGB". And finally, what is wrong with it?
"KGB" man means that he/she has a good education, good health, a person has a clear file, his/her parents were not alcogol or drug-addicted, he/she is work-efficient, responsible, loyal. I see no bad in that. Gee, I would like to have such an emploee at my company.
This diffrent then by Student. but also Russian opinion.
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR VLADIMIR SOROKIN
"Russia Is Slipping Back into an Authoritarian Empire"
Russian author Vladimir Sorokin disscusses waning freedom of opinion in his country, the lack of opposition against President Vladimir Putin and dangerous Western ambivalence that is enabling the Kremlin's growing authoritarian tendencies to take root.
DPA
The Russian intelligence agency FSB's headquarters in Moscow
SPIEGEL: Mr. Sorokin, in your new novel "Day of the Oprichnik," you portray an authoritarian Russia ruled by a group of members of the secret police. The story is set in the future, but this future is similar to the past under Ivan the Terrible. Aren't you really drawing parallels to today's Russia?
Sorokin: Of course it's a book about the present. Unfortunately, the only way one can describe it is by using the tools of satire. We still live in a country that was established by Ivan the Terrible.
SPIEGEL: His reign was in the 16th century. The czardom was followed by the Soviet Union, then democracy under (former President Boris) Yeltsin and (current President Vladimir) Putin. Has Russia not yet completed its break with the past?
Sorokin: Nothing has changed when it comes to the divide between the people and the state. The state demands a sacred willingness to make sacrifices from the people.
SPIEGEL: The absolute ruler in your book bears some resemblance to President Vladimir Putin ...
Sorokin: ... which was not my intention. Coming up with a Putin satire wouldn't be very thrilling. I'm an artist, not a journalist. And a novel is not a documentary. In my book, I am searching for an answer to the question of what distinguishes Russia from true democracies.
SPIEGEL: What explanation have you found?
VLADIMIR SOROKIN
Oleg Klimov / Panos PicturesVladimir Sorokin is one of the best- known contemporary authors in Russia. He established his literary reputation in the West with his novels "The Queue," and "Ice." In his latest book, "Day of the Oprichnik," he describes Russia in the year 2028 as a nationalist country ruled with an iron fist that has shut itself off from the West by building a wall. Sorokin: Germans, Frenchmen and Englishmen can say of themselves: "I am the state." I cannot say that. In Russia only the people in the Kremlin can say that. All other citizens are nothing more than human material with which they can do all kinds of things.
SPIEGEL: In old Russian, the word "oprichnik" means "a special one." Do you feel that the divide between the top and the bottom in Russia today can no longer be bridged?
Sorokin: In our country there are special people who are permitted to do anything. They are the sacrificial priests of power. Anyone who is not a member of this group has no clout with the state. One can be as pure as can be -- just as magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky was -- and still lose everything in a flash and end up in prison. The Khodorkovsky case is typical of the "oprichnina" -- the system of oppression I describe.
SPIEGEL: Does a character like Khodorkovsky appear in your book?
Sorokin: Such a parallel didn't occur to me. However, my book does begin with an attack on a rich man. This is almost a daily occurrence nowadays. It has always been that way in Russia. Only those who are loyal to the people in power can become wealthy.
SPIEGEL: How is the elite reacting to the literary images you paint?
Sorokin: The reaction to my book has been tumultuous. But I had no other choice than to put all this on paper. I have been carrying around this wish for a long time, and so it took me only three months to write it.
SPIEGEL: Why did you suddenly feel the need to write this book?
Sorokin: The citizen lives in each of us. In the days of Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, I was constantly trying to suppress the responsible citizen in me. I told myself that I was, after all, an artist. As a storyteller I was influenced by the Moscow underground, where it was common to be apolitical. This was one of our favorite anecdotes: As German troops marched into Paris, Picasso sat there and drew an apple. That was our attitude -- you must sit there and draw your apple, no matter what happens around you. I held fast to that principle until I was 50. Now the citizen in me has come to life.
SPIEGEL: Some of your novels are filled with violence. In "Ice," for example, human beings are mistreated with hammers made of ice. Why is Russian society still so preoccupied with violence?
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication. Sorokin: As a child I perceived violence as a sort of natural law. In the totalitarian Soviet Union, oppression held everything together. It was the sinister energy of our country. I had that sense by as early as kindergarten and grade school. Later on I wanted to understand why human beings are unable to do without violence. It's a mystery I haven't solved to this day. Yes, violence is my main theme.
SPIEGEL: How is this sinister energy reflected in Russia today?
Sorokin: It is alive in every bureaucrat. Whenever you encounter a minor official, he lets you know that he is above you and that you depend on him. It is reflected in the superpower mentality that nourishes the Kremlin. An empire always demands sacrifices from its people.
SPIEGEL: Criminal proceedings were launched against you five years ago for supposedly pornographic passages in your novel "Blue Bacon Fat." Is censorship about to be reintroduced in Russia?
Sorokin: What happened at the time was an attempt to test writers' steadfastness and the public's willingness to accept open censorship. It didn't work.
SPIEGEL: Did the pressure that was applied to you intimidate other writers?
Sorokin: Certainly. I have Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to thank that a Russian writer can not only write anything he wants today, but also publish it. I don't know what will happen in the future. The media -- television, newspapers and magazines -- are already controlled by the state today.
SPIEGEL: One of the characters in your book brags "that not just one diplomat was expelled from Moscow, not just one journalist was thrown from the television tower and not just one whistleblower was drowned in the river." When you wrote this you knew nothing about the murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
Sorokin: I just imagined what would happen to Russia if it isolated itself completely from the Western world -- that is, if it erected a new Iron Curtain. There is much talk about Russia being a fortress. Orthodox churches, autocracy and national traditions are supposed to form a new national ideology. This would mean that Russia would be overtaken by its past, and our past would be our future.
SPIEGEL: How realistic is such a relapse in a globalized world?
AFP
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "The West should be even more vocal in insisting that the Russians respect human rights."
Sorokin: Putin likes to quote a sentence from Czar Alexander III, who said that Russian has only two allies -- the army and the navy. As a citizen, this makes me sit up and take notice. This is a concept of self-imposed isolation, a defense strategy that sees Russia surrounded by enemies. When I turn on the TV I see a general calmly claiming that our missiles are ahead of the latest American models by three five-year plans. It's a nightmare. We are creating a concept of the enemy, just as they did in the Soviet era. This is a giant step backward.
SPIEGEL: You have no confidence in the current Kremlin administration?
Sorokin: This is their fault, not mine. My television teaches me that everything was wonderful in the Soviet Union. According to the programs I watch, the KGB and apparatchiks were angels, and the Stalin era was so festive that the heroes of the day must still be celebrated today.
SPIEGEL: Why is there no opposition from Russia's legendary intelligentsia?
Sorokin: It's astonishing. I can't help but gain the impression that our champions of the freedom of opinion -- writers, emigrants and civil rights activists -- had only one goal in mind: the collapse of the Soviet Union, started by Alexander Solzhenitzyn. And now they are all silent.
SPIEGEL: How do you feel about the former chess world champion, Garry Kasparov, who is trying to build an opposition movement?
Sorokin: I have respect for him and other members of the opposition movement, like former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and (politician) Irina Khakamada. But these politicians do not exist for most people. About the only place you will find them is on the Internet. If a state-owned station were to report tomorrow that Kasyanov was visiting Russian cities and talking to the people, the manager of that station would be looking for a new job the next day.
SPIEGEL: What can be done?
Sorokin: It's pointless to expect change to be ordered from above. The bureaucracy has grown such powerful roots, and corruption is so widespread, that these people have no interest in changing anything.
SPIEGEL: In other words, everything is hopeless?
Sorokin: Everyone must awaken the citizen within himself. The Russian philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev once said that Russia has many ideas and few goods. It was that way throughout the entire 20th century. Only in the last 15 years have the Russians managed to dress up and eat their fill. However, people with full bellies tend become drowsy. This explains, for example, the disinterest among students. In no other country are they as apathetic as they are here.
SPIEGEL: With so much pessimism, do you even like your fellow Russian people?
Sorokin: The word "people" is unpleasant to me. The phrase "Soviet people" was drummed into us from childhood on. I love concrete people, enlightened people who live conscious lives and do not simply sit there and vegetate. To love the people you have to be the general secretary of the Communist Party or an absolute dictator. The poet Josef Brodsky once said: The trees are more important to me than the forest.
SPIEGEL: In your book you describe a wall with which Russia isolates itself from the West. Why is this wall built?
DPA
Mikhail Khodorkovsky: "An empire always demands sacrifices of its people."
Sorokin: After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, former party officials burned their party books and traded in their black Volga limousines for black German-made sedans. That was it. We had no purifying revolution. Neither Communist Party officials nor KGB generals were forced to give up the reins of power. In August 1991, I was in the crowd standing in front of the Lubyanka KGB building when the monument to KGB founder Felix Dzerzhinsky was toppled. It seemed as if a new era was about to begin. But we underestimated the power of the Soviet Union. It became ingrained in people's consciousness over the course of seven decades. After German reunification, West Germany became a mirror for former East German citizens. We didn't have that.
SPIEGEL: You hold a degree in petroleum engineering. Was the latest confrontation with Belarus over natural gas and oil an expression of Moscow's power politics?
Sorokin: Our government hasn't become accustomed to the fact yet that Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Baltic states -- in fact, the entire former Soviet Union -- are now independent countries. Incidentally, I wrote my thesis on the development of dampers for oil pipelines.
SPIEGEL: Did this expertise come in handy in your book?
Sorokin: Yes, there is a sentence in it that reads: "We shut the damper, as the czar ordered."
SPIEGEL: How should German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, behave in dealing with the Russian government?
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
Sorokin: The West should be even more vocal in insisting that the Russians respect human rights. All compromise aside, I ask myself whether Russia is moving in the direction of democracy. I don't believe it is! Bit by bit, Russia is slipping back into an authoritarian empire. The worst thing that can happen to us is indifference in the West -- that is, if it were interested in nothing but oil and gas. I am always surprised when I watch the weather report on German television. First they show the map of Europe and then the camera moves to the right. Then comes Kiev, then Moscow and then everything stops. This seems to be the West's view of us -- of a wild Russia that begins past Moscow, a place one prefers not to see. This is a big mistake. The West must pay closer attention.
SPIEGEL: Does the West understand Russia?
Sorokin: Yes and no. In Russia no one is surprised when an official accepts a bribe while at the same time portraying the state as some sacred entity to which the bourgeois should pay homage. This all sounds absurd to you. But for Russians it is completely normal.
SPIEGEL: There used to be a similar attitude toward the state in Germany. But that changed after the Nazi dictatorship. Nowadays the state plays a more modest role in society, just as it does in America.
Sorokin: That just happens to be democracy. The Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov once said: In a Democracy, portraits of a nation's leader should never exceed the size of a postage stamp. That won't happen so quickly in our country.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Sorokin, we thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Martin Doerry and Matthias Schepp.
Sorry, I forgot to sign my previous post. However, you knew who it was.
Anyway, see I told you we wouldn't agree.
I simply fail to see this "threat" of Islamic Terrorists blowing up the world (or us)
Our involvment with Israel has been bad enough for our relations with the Islamic world. By invading and occupying Iraq we've only heightened an already strained relationship. These are not Judo-Christian Western Cultures. They don't even like us. They think we're the unclean and the unwashed. They tolerate us only in the sense they need us economically. Other then that they don't want anything to do with us. They surely don't want our unholy boots on their land.
Our invasion of Iraq has only reinforced their opinion of us. We are creating more terrorists via our actions then we're killing. We're making the world a more dangerous place and that's just plain stupid. So, if you feel safer because we invaded and have occupied Iraq I'm happy for you. I don't. Nor do I buy all the crap about UN resolutions as justification for an invasion. Bush sold this war based on WMD's. He didn't sell it on UN Sanctions. There were no WMD's. Zilch. Nada. Oh, I know. How could Bush have known with all the contradictory intelligence (or lack thereof) floating around at the time? Exactly my point. He didn't have sufficient information to commit US forces to an invasion.
As far as what Saddam did to his own country that's an internal country issue. We have the right to disagree with a country's actions against it's own citizens and apply sanctions, but we do not have the right or the responsibility to shed more blood. If this was the case let's pack up the troops and go blow up Sudan. Oh, I forgot, we don't have any more troops left. Let's draft a few more army groups and send them to Sudan to get ourselves mired down in another winless situation.
At some point you have to face the facts that what Bush has done has been just plain ignorant. I don't care if he had the best motives in the world. An appropriate political cartoon would have Bush sitting behind his desk in the oval office with a dunce cap on with the word Iraq inscribed on it.
Virtually, everything Bush said leading up to the invasion of Iraq has been wrong.
"They have weapons of mass destruction." They didn't.
"They'll open their arms and treat us as liberators." They haven't
"I'm not into nation building." We are
"Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda." He didn't
"Saddam was trying to buy nuclear materials." He wasn't.
"We're not talking about an expensive war." It will be at least 2 trillion before it's over with and that assumes a good outcome.
Every stinking major point has been wrong. The only thing that has turned out to be correct is the UN passed 17,000 Sanctions and resolutions and outside of a few republicans nobody else cares. Hence, if I was you I'd hold on real tight to those resolutions because without them all you'd have left is Saddam was a bad man to his own people and that in and of itself does not rise to the level of invasion.
"...I know the Tom Wonacott's of the world really believe we're doing something noble in Iraq. We're protecting America by attacking the evil forces who would bring our society down and challenge our way of life. You know this is a crock and so do I, but they really believe this crap..."
After six months of discussing the issues, and, finally, we disagree.
The conditions that led to war in Iraq:
Iraq was unwilling to conform to a UN mandate (res. 687-Saddam to disarm). Saddam played hide and seek with the inspectors, and did not taking the mandate seriously. Seventeen UN resolutions were passed in all to get Saddam to conform to the ceasefire that he signed. Sanctions resulted in 1,500,000 deaths, 567,000 of which were children. That, all in itself, was a humanitarian crisis, and you and I know that the fault lies on the shoulders of Saddam, who, because he refused to disarm and cooperate with the inspectors, allowed the deaths of so many people. You like to refer to him as a “bad man”, but he was way beyond bad. He was a power hungry, brutal mass murderer deserving to be hung (without a fair trial).
In 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq for Saddam's lack of cooperation and then, INEXPLICABLY, allowed Saddam to keep out inspectors for the last two years of his Presidency. So Bob, tell me, why did he bomb Iraq in the first place?
The humanitarian oil for food program came in to existence in 1996(?) because the world recognized that Saddam was doing fine, only the Iraqi people (mostly Shia) were suffering. The oil for food program deteriorated to the "oil for food scandal" which, in a few years time, had canceled the affect of the sanctions. So when Bush took office, there were no inspections, probably no resolve to have inspections and rampant scandals associated with the UN oil for food program.
Saddam was given the impression (rightly) that the West (especially the US under Clinton) and the UN did not have the resolve to enforce their own mandate. After 10 years, no one knew, for sure, what the state of Saddam’s weapons program was. Clinton did a good job from 1993-1998 containing Iraq, but totally screwed up his last two years. So, in effect, he passed the whole mess to President Bush to solve. What are friends for?
Between the UN scandal, and the West’s lack of resolve, and, thus a failure of peaceful (diplomatic) means to disarm Saddam, the conditions for a war were put in place. That is the price of diplomatic failure. Saddam would, inevitably, be a threat to his neighbors, and a threat to regional stability had we allowed him to continue unwatched. He also attempted to assassinate Bush senor and had given millions to terrorist groups, so he could have been a threat to US security in the future.
Fully 70% of the American people were behind the invasion of Iraq. Although I have said this a dozen times, it bears repeating. Even after discovering there were no WMD's, Bush was re-elected in 2004. Most Americans believed that the installation of Democracy in the heart of the birthplace of modern terrorism, and the overthrow of a brutal, non cooperative dictator was the right course of action.
I fully believe that the decision to invade was moral and right, however, even supporters of the war have seen a strategic (regional) nightmare unfold, thus one of the main reasons, I believe, as do most sane people, that we cannot just up and leave, is the regional problems that the war could cause.
Now, you would bring the troops home tomorrow regardless of how many people died because of a civil war, or because of a regional war because your whole goal is to punish US policy. In my opinion, there is nothing that you want to see more than for the US to fail in Iraq, not because you are anti American, Bob, but because you are against this kind of US policy. This must be true for the US undertakings in Bosnia (humanitarian) and Kuwait, as well, because neither met your definition of when a war is necessary. Both wars must have been gut twisting to you since they were successful.
If the goal is to reduce the possibility of war, then the (similar) circumstances which led to war in Iraq must be addressed regarding Iran. Iran is developing nuclear energy (weapons) and is ignoring UN mandates and sanctions. Only a strong, unified stance by the world, can lead to a diplomatic solution. Without it, then the conditions for more Middle East conflicts will be present.
"...We could be investing in our futures and showing the world through example the good qualities of a democracy..."
Speak about a crock. Weren't we the largest supplier of food and other humanitarian goods to the people of Afghanistan before 911? What an example.
"...It's really time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them..."
This statement makes no sense to me unless you think we should embrace terrorism and brutal dictators, and, as far as I know, neither is a culture. The US and the rest of the democratic world need to stand up to dictators who "embrace" murder and genocide as a means to "stabilize" their diverse populations such as in Iraq or the Sudan.
I really think that the world is still a very dangerous place especially as we see the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The conditions that led to WWII are not present today, but people have not changed and although we have a global economy, that's not comforting to the victims of politically motivated, civilian targeted terrorism (such as 911, or the bombings in Spain, or the bombings in India, etc.).
Fundamentalist, Islamic terrorism has reached world-wide, epidemic proportions, and, no, not due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks for the post, and sorry for the length of this response.
To anonymous from Daniel. You write "it's time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them". Embrace them with what anonymous? If there is nothing to embrace them with how can we keep from turning into so many of the troubled areas of the world? You also say we should act like adults and that we are now acting as children. But adults are stronger and more capable than children. How is your position one of greater strength? You speak of becoming more adult in other words and embracing other cultures, but it seems rather you expect us to become children and just rush into the arms of other cultures. You strike me as just another liberal that views all cultures as equivalent--a multiculturalist in other words...Of course if all cultures are equivalent then of course it matters little where the focal point of power is in the world--or even if there is a focal point at all. But the problem is all cultures are not the same and it does matter where the focal point of power is--especially in a world of rampant technological advance leading to environmental destruction not to mention WMD attack. I am not saying the U.S. should act unilaterally,--in fact I am saying the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India should align to prevent the chaos which will surely increase in a world of multipolarity...One must be sensible. Liberals are all too often naive. Of course things are easier if one believes man to be good rather than evil and that all cultures are the same...Why really bother with politics at all in such a situation, for that is essentially the definition of an easily self-correcting humanity, etc. That should be all to inspire a few basic reflections....
You are right that China was not a superpower in today's sense, however, it was the richest most advanced society on earth at about 1400-1500, with expeditions to Arctic Seas, Africa, armadas which the world did not see for another 2-300 years, etc.
You are correct the political class of the USA is the USA's citizens greatest enemy.
Daniel:
A country which owes the world more than its annual GDP and has a net balance of approx 7% of annual GDP is not a rich society, it is a society which puts its children in pawn shops for security.
"While it is true that there is a shortage of SUPERPOWERS re-estabglishing themselves in history, there is an exception: China - possibly the greatest power for 4-500 years til the opinum wars - Is arising yet again."
Ah, I beg to differ my friend. China was a regional power for thousands of years, but a super power it was not. China has more international influence today then at any point in their dynasties.
Strong dominating countries have come and gone over the history of civilization. Unfortunately, each and every one of them, including ourselves feel we're invincible. History has taught us no one is invincible and we're not the exception.
Currently, America's worst enemy is America. It's not the Iraqi's and it surely isn't the "Dreaded Terrorists."
As long as our nation is willing to fight useless conflicts and waste our resources doing it we will never be great. (we may be the last remaining superpower today, but without knowing how to use that power wisely greatness will never follow) Right now we're just a bully and we all know the bully hasn't been born who won't get their butt kicked sooner or later.
I know the Tom Wonacott's of the world really believe we're doing something noble in Iraq. We're protecting America by attacking the evil forces who would bring our society down and challenge our way of life. You know this is a crock and so do I, but they really believe this crap. Until a majority of Americans come to understand we can't go flying around the globe beating up on made up enemies we'll always be a second rate superpower at best. We're squandering our resources on death and destruction while we could be using our resources for assisting nations in need with medicine, food, education, etc. We could be investing in our futures and showing the world through example the good qualities of a democracy. Instead we're starting civil wars and occupying other nations. We're having torture debates. We're telling the world we don't have to live up to the Geneva Accords. We're setting up StarChambers to hold and convict people of crimes they can't even begin to defend themselves from because they can't confort their accusers or even look at the evidence. Rule of Law, what law? What a waste!
It's really time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them. Force should always be a last resort and should only be used if another group or country has committed an act of war against us or there is compelling evidence they are about to. (no, there was no compelling evidence in Iraq)
Basically, we need to grow up and start acting like adults.
When the largest circulation newspaper [in all major cities] is owned by a Zionist Jewish family, then the politician follows the line of said publisher/ owner. In Canada you do not need the internet to read AEI, or David Frum of "axis of evil fame" we get their convulted junk daily in our "NATIONAL".
Of course, the other reason is that Canadian Conservative politicians like to kiss the A** of your Decider, who is doing all in his power to destroy the USA's moral standing, army, and economy.
It does not matter who tries to and does buy your federal politicians, whether it is Mr. Soros, or friends of Sen Lieberman, be it EXXON, or BOEING, Halliburton it all comes down to the fact that the POLITICIAN IS PURCHASED TO REFLECT THE INTEREST OF THE PURCHASER.
If you did not have the obscene K-Street, perhaps your "democracy" would be closer to the notions expressed in the Federalist Papers, and would reflect the will of the majority -- which seems to be impossible both for your President and your Congress.
Finally there might be notional freedom of the press in the USA, however, to a large extent, the MSM reflects the wishes of the K-Street types [there are exceptions]. No doubt, it does not bother your billioners [or Congress, or President] that the EXTREME POVERTY LEVEL HAS RAISED in the last 20 years of USA, while the billioners and corporations were raking in the highest net income in history.
To Salamon from Daniel. Just as I expected, you are full of nonsense. Zoltan, you can join the club. The issue is the spread of liberty, opportunity, democracy, human rights, etc.--a worldwide government under such and brought under such by a minimum of violence.
You Salamon and Zoltan just keep railing at the U.S. and with no plan at all in mind for bringing the world under the above with a minimum of violence.
You either obviously think such will occur by some method other than the U.S. has been demonstrating or you really do not believe in such and are nothing but troublemakers.
Now I ask you, as I have always been asking you, what is your method toward the above universal world of democracy--show me the path to such with less violence.
But why not stop fooling ourselves? You have no method of such. You will just keep railing at the U.S. and with some sort of absurd belief that man will just be good if only powers like the U.S.--or in your case precisely the U.S.--perishes.
Salamon, you keep complaining how much the U.S. spends on its military and you keep telling us how our economy can be improved. A better analysis would be one which examines why it is our economy is so good regardless of how much we spend on the military and why it is over so much of the world economies are bad regardless of how little all those poor countries spend on the military.
I honestly have no idea why I waste time with you people--especially when this is probably no honest conversation and you are just Muslim troublemakers. According to your absurd worldview I sit here and plot war when in actuality I have been wrestling with a great many serious questions. Here are some of them: 1) Is it inevitable that civilizations rise and fall? 2) If the previous is true, how does this modify the concept of progress and will we in the future come to a point where we have countries willingly filming their decline as something of a medical examination to be passed on to succeeding civilizations? 3) How much of history must be made by man and how much should he just let happen because this "letting happening" is more formative? 4) What exactly is the nature of man? How good? How evil? What degree of law is necessary? Are some groups more evil than others, etc.?
When people like you Salamon and Zoltan become more serious about our problems, then we can have a conversation. At this point it is you that are the children. You demonstrate no serious reading, thinking or much of anything except simple hatred. But perhaps you can surprise me and demonstrate some intelligent thought...but I doubt it. And you want to know why? Because once again I believe you to be Muslims and precisely what you believe must be hidden so you can spread your propaganda. You are focused solely on diminishing the U.S. and nothing more. Or if you are Hungarians, I would like to know if this is typical Hungarian thinking. Perhaps you can give us an analysis of what would improve Hungary's condition...but I suppose that would mean reflecting on self and that is beyond the capacity of you two....
"When Europeans can and do look back at 2500 years of history, and Chinese 5000 years, Americans look at 200 years. We also see death and destruction, but we've faced our darkest ghosts. You didn't."
Oh, really?
Do you, as a European, remember someone whose name was Hitler? Do you remember who came to rescue Europe from his panzers? Do you know who gave Europe the resources to rebuild the continent after WW2? Do you know who has kept his young men in Europe for over six decades so that Europe remains peaceful? Do you remember who sent his young men to stop the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia?
And, going back to PG's question... Didn't you, eastern Europeans, learn anything from those decades under Soviet domination? Do you want to go back to those wonderful days?
Sorry to break your reverie, but Zoltan is Hungarian, and as such he does not represent an imperial power of the past. While Hungarians did do have some international forays, they all came to pass in 1526 on the Plains of Mohacs, when the Ottomans defeated Hungary. Since then it was Ottoman, Habsburg or USSR domination [the last courtsy of Churchill and Roosevelt] with minor breaks of independence 1918-1940 though the country lost 2/3 of area and 1/3 of population due to TReaty of Versailles] and since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
"...and worse, that before the white men came there were Indians, with their own culture. That you destroyed..."
By "you destroyed", I am assuming that you are looking in a mirror. A classic example of complete hypocrisy.
"...French colonialism: the total area of land under French sovereignty reached 12,898,000 km² (4,980,000 sq. miles) in the 1900s and 1930s, which is 8.6% of the world's land area..."
The French probably altered or destroyed more indegenous people than anyone else in the world (with the exception of Britain(?)).
Poor Daniel: "So how exactly can the U.S. remain the most powerful nation and follow your prescriptions? Or is the U.S. not to be the most powerful nation? But what then?"
You - personally, others probably also - don't seem able to think outside of "the US is the greatest country on Earth" and "this or that is a superpower". Apart from you, not many people care who is or is not a superpower. For most people know that this might or might not be the case today, but as ALL other civilizations know from their history, in 100 years from now the USA will certainly not be a superpower anymore.
So why care ?
Because you, the USA, have no history. Or rather, you consider that your country was founded 200 years ago. You willingly forget the 300 previous years of colonization, and worse, that before the white men came there were Indians, with their own culture. That you destroyed. As a counter example, look at Peru or New-Zealand: half their population is Indigene.
So I guess - free psychoanalysis - that the people of the USA can't look at their history because what they would see is death and destruction. When Europeans can and do look back at 2500 years of history, and Chinese 5000 years, Americans look at 200 years. We also see death and destruction, but we've faced our darkest ghosts. You didn't.
So, back to the parent child analogy, we are grown-up people who are not scared in the dark, and you are immature testosteroned frustrated wannabe-superpower adolescents.
Is Russia doing right things now. In some way yea, in other no. Russia so weak, addicted and drunken like Eltsin himself has been drunken recently. Majority of population is in a huge poverty, alcogolism, shovinism against other minorities and in the end with tremendous hate and jealousy to the prosperous, advanced nations. Is it Russia reduced to its normal size. Quite sure. May be it'is even better if it would be reduced to the sizes of the USA and China. Because just 150 million people live in the territory 17 million squar km, two times more than sizes of USA or China or India. And it cannot manage its land on the appropriate level. In that country from 500 million to 1 billion people should live now and not only russians. Why Russia doesnt promote diverse etnicity policy like USA. Moreover russians has been trying to discriminate, assimilate and push away other minorities now and before. Why. That's the question. If Russia wouldnt increase its population in accordance with its territory it is sure that Russia always would be attacked by other countries including western nations, china and muslims.
"...when a SUPERPOWER???? can be bogged down in Iraq, a country almost destroyed by 10+ years of US lead SANCTIONS AND BOMBING RAIDs, then that is not a superpower..."
If a murderous dictator like Saddam can keep the people of Iraq in line, then surely you must believe the US could use the same methods to restore order, that is, indiscriminate murder, torture, genocide and use of WMD's.
"...purchased on credit and lack of intelligence by self-motivated groups -- neo-con Zionists, War mongering Military industrial complex, various self-serving monied lobby groups]..."
Do you mean the same neocon Zionist that have penetrated the Canadian government - the first country to cutoff funding to the Palestinians after Hamas was elected.
The same war mongering industrial complex that booted Iraq out of Kuwait (with Canadian help) and stopped the genocide in Bosnia (with Canadian help)? You do believe the US has the right to defend herself from terrorist harbored in Afghanistan, don't you? Most normal Canadians do, and I presume that is why Canadian troops are currently there.
Do you mean self serving moneyed groups like the ones George Soros contributes to (Moveon.org, for example)?
"...MSM [with special abilities of FOX, National Standard, Washington Times, etc],..."
So you only believe in a media that only supports your (extreme left wing) point of view, now that's freedom of the press, Salamon.
"...US Supreme Court Judiciary -- which confuses 1st amendment [freedom of speech]..."
I support George Soros contributing $23,000,000 to try to influence the election. It didn't work, but I believe he should keep on trying. Maybe had he spent $46,000,000, Bush would have been defeated. Would you have objected? My only objection to the large amounts of money spent is that it could go to something much more useful, but if you want to throw money at the Presidential, Congressional...elections, go for it.
"...and enlarges the war to include the whole ME - forcing China, Japan, EU [all oil consumers] to get in the act [possible WWIII]..."
Don't forget American ally Canada, not only an oil consumer, but a major oil seller (especially to the US).
Salamon, you are consumed by the US (and Israel). I am surprised you just didn't use last week's line i.e., US citizens have no moral authority to comment on Russia.............
when a SUPERPOWER???? can be bogged down in Iraq, a country almost destroyed by 10+ years of US lead SANCTIONS AND BOMBING RAIDs, then that is not a superpower.
When a Country owes 110% of its GDP offshore, and increases this debt at a rate of 6-7% per annum, the state is selling its future. From the greatest creditor to the largest debtort in 20 easy steps [1986-2006] - a super power ere it falls is strong financially [check ROME, GREECE, EGYPT, CHINA [before the opium wars], SPAIN, ENGLAND etc] then draw your conclusion with respect to the negative wealth accumulation by your country.
I know that you, Daniel, love war -- if other people get killed and maimed, as long as it is not you, or your darling POLITICAL ELITE. Your neighbor with a crippled son or daughter might have a different view. In fact, 60 odd % of your country men have a view supported by the vast majority of the world's population that your government is on the wrong track, which makes you the minority.
To Salamon from Daniel. Thank you for your analysis of what is wrong with the U.S. Salamon and what must be done to correct matters. Now tell me why it is the U.S. is the greatest superpower and what exactly everyone else is doing wrong--and especially tell me Salamon which countries exactly are following the very prescriptions you suggest to the U.S. for success...Actually even if you name some countries we can see right off they are not as powerful as the U.S.--because the U.S. obviously is the most powerful nation...So how exactly can the U.S. remain the most powerful nation and follow your prescriptions? Or is the U.S. not to be the most powerful nation? But what then? Once again, and as always with you, we get right back to models of government and how to create a world order which is not dominated by the ideas emanating from the U.S. Well what is this world order Salamon? The problem I have exactly with you Salamon is you no doubt take me as an evil man, but for the life of me I keep asking you to make sense, to create a world order for me apart from U.S. attempts to have worldwide democracy, but you give me nothing. I find you a useless troublemaker--probably a Muslim making trouble although you deny it. Everything with you is the U.S. being a problem and how you can correct it. Nothing with you is a criticism of the rest of the world. AND ESPECIALLY WITH YOU SALAMON IS NO CONCEPTION OF HOW IF INDEED YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS ARE ADOPTED BY THE U.S. THESE PRESCRIPTIONS--INDEED YOUR "PERFECTED" U.S.--WILL SPREAD TO THE WORLD...OR IS THIS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN? Your criticism in the final analysis is trash Salamon and nothing we have not made ourselves. All you have to do Salamon is give me a list of nations which come up to your standards and then tell me how these models can take worldwide--especially without force, for that seems to be one of your main criticisms of the U.S. That should be all for now. I await your answer.
Russian people do not have any vengeance, we are just disappointed. We read most world newspapar's artical in Russian language (translated from French, Germany, and many others) in websites: inosmi.ru and inopress.ru. We know all about you and your opinion. Is is so sad.
your analysis above was mostly right. I do believe, however, that you erred in a couple of points:
1., While it is true that there is a shortage of SUPERPOWERS re-estabglishing themselves in history, there is an exception: China - possibly the greatest power for 4-500 years til the opinum wars - Is arising yet again.
2., there is a threat to the Well Being of the USA [aside from Russia in case of unforseen war], and that threat is your creation: The POWER ELITE OF WASHINGTON [purchased on credit and lack of intelligence by self-motivated groups -- neo-con Zionists, War mongering Military industrial complex, various self-serving monied lobby groups].
3., the major groups in this elite includes
a., MSM [with special abilities of FOX, National Standard, Washington Times, etc],
b., Think-tanks [by and large only analysing issues from USA/moneyed elite standpoint],
c., US Supreme Court Judiciary -- which confuses 1st amendment [freedom of speech] with election purchase [when elections need multi-million every 2, 4, or 6 years depending on office [FEDERAL Representative, Senator, President, or State: Governor, representative senator]
I would respectfully suggest that until there is a limitation on election finance [only citizens, say $100.00 max donation per cycle per office] there is no hope that the USA has any prospect of self-reform.
4., The USA is not down yet, but will decline extremely fast without renewal of internal political process [as above].
THERE IS ONE MORE POSSSIBILTY of extreme fast decline for USA, if the brain challenged present leadership decides that it can not loose in IRAQ/AFGANISTAN, and enlarges the war to include the whole ME - forcing China, Japan, EU [all oil consumers] to get in the act [possible WWIII].
Historically, all superpowers have erred badly enough to lose their status except one. Us. That is not to say if we don't learn from history and shelve our egos a little we can also lose our status. To date no country with world aspirations (and I'm not even sure we fall into that class) has ever come back. The Greeks didn't, the Romans didn't, the Arabs didn't, the Germans didn't, the British didn't, the Russians haven't.
62 years ago we came out of WWII virtually unscathed. Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Japan were either in ruins or defeated. We emerged as the most dominate force the world had ever seen in history. A mere 5 years latter we learned we couldn't beat back the Chinese without resorting to nuclear weapons (which we were rightly not willing to do). That didn't stop us from occupying Vietnam and finding out it's very difficult to use brute military force to impose your will over an indigenous people. A war of attrition will follow and people lose interest. We saw the same thing in Afghanistan when the Soviet's invaded. It's expensive in terms of resources and manpower.
None of this history stopped us from invading Iraq and now we're bogged down in a quagmire there with no good way out. Thank someone we have more money then sense. However, it still is squandering our resources on counter productive actions. We're not building anything, we're destroying property and life. I know Bush had aspirations of installing a democracy in Iraq and hoping that action would lead to increased stability in the ME. At the same time I wanted congress to pass a bill mandating all Eskimo's had to buy their snowballs from me, but that didn't happen either. (and it's not likely to happen)
The arms race with the former Soviet Union is over. China is holding 300+ billion in US Treasury Notes. We're building factories all through Indo-China and Asia. We're importing Hugo's oil. Past President's talk about how much they like illegal Cuban Cigars. The list goes on and on. The point is we are in a global economy and global society today and we need to learn how to deal with it. The antiquated ways of the past (military intervention) are or should be over except in extreme circumstances. Iraq was not an extreme circumstance.
Our power emminated from our abundance of natural resources, manufacturing capabilities, prime farm land, size, climate, political system and last, but not least, our people. All of these factors have come together to produce a rich and varied economy that dwarfs the second place economy on this planet. Our military, while not the largest on the planet, is surely the best equipped and is backed up by a nuclear weapons program second to none. (I'm not real proud of this)
Virtually, no country is a threat to our way of life today. The only one that has the capability is Russia (appx. equal number of nukes) and they haven't shown any interest in being a threat to us in quite some time. I do imagine Putin is enjoying watching Bush self implode in Iraq, but that's about it. Putin knows in less then 2 years Bush/Cheney will be gone and there is only a very, very small chance we'll get someone as dumb as Bush again.
Good job, STUDENT. Give'em hell! These dumb yank rednecks deserve a lesson. Long Live Hugo und Fidel and the new Russian military bases in S.America. Russia should protect the free dempcratic world from texan idiots.
BOBL-VA
I will conceed that the list of countries that are currently considered "threats" by the US is substantially longer than the list of countries they could ever realistically "fix". I think you are suggesting that, while many of these countries act or do things in an unsavory manner, the US really does not have that much to fear from many of these countries and we should engage them in a more positive way. I would argue that the US does do that currently with a lot of countries (i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) and gets duly criticized for that. For a superpower, its really a no-win situation.
The parent/child relationship (good analogy btw) works both ways and it does so because we are a superpower and most everyone else is not (at the moment). The fact of the matter is that people don't call upon the Kenyans or the Belgians to address world issues (the Israeli/Palestinian issue comes to mind here). For better or worse, they look to the US (as a child does a parent). Continuing the analogy, maybe the children should grow up and start working out some of the issues on their own. And yes, the US would need to learn to let go.
"Russia has been there before and it didn't work out to well." My concern is that if you were once a superpower with global aspirations and you experienced a setback, what would you want to do once you regained your strength? Should one not be wary of a country trying desperately to regain its Superpower status? Why did it not work out last time? Because they could not keep up with capitalism. Well they are working on fixing that. It could be that they have "learned" from their previous mistakes and would think they could do it "better" next time. But Superpowers never make major blunders like that, do they?
I know what NATO was set up for and I know it hasn't been used for that purpose for many years.
My point is we need more countries we're not going to engage in conflicts. It's this whacko view that all of these countries are threats that we really need to address. North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, China, most of the rest of the ME (tenuous), etc., etc., etc. We treat the world as a parent/child dynamic. We're the good parents and they're all bad children that need our discipline. It's sick. It's bad foreign policy and it leads to our invading and blowing up other countries. Right now we're nothing more then an irrational parent with the world's biggest paddle so it's no wonder most countries view us as more dangerous then anyone else.
As for this question the answer is simple. Russia's neighbors have nothing to worry about from Russia. Russia has been there before and it didn't work out to well. It would be very difficult to go back at this point in time. Currently, the Russian economy is just squeaking by and the cost of military conflicts of any size would bankrupt Putin.
Happy that Russia is back? Yes. Ordinarily I would not be overjoyful however someoneone has to keep the current US President shackled as his desire to tell everyone what to do and bomb or invade anyone that doesn't needs some attention.
Some here need reminding that prior to his arrival everthing was looking better. Nuclear stockpiles were decreasing, missiles were aimed at empty oceans, and a lack of missile defences meant no one was going to shoot at anyone. Then came George! I'm not sure if baby Bush was ever told "no" as a child but that is what it looks like.
My advice to Putin is to build as many large nuclear warheads as possible, preferably 50-100 megatons as the US military are scared of these, and the missiles to launch them. Rip up Salt1, 2 and 3 (not as if the US has ratified them anyway) and tell Mr bush "Bring em on"!
A good nuclear war and the resulting nuclear winter will have a beneficial effect in cooling the climate change that we shall shortly have to endure.
Just a short note. The US President is not elected in a true democratic vote. Al Gore "won" in 2000 but lost on "chads".
ATHEIST, I have two news for you. The bad news is that your brain is dead. The good news is that you could make a good WP columnist.
By the way, you should know that there is no such thing as Kremlin operative in Russia. Everyone knows that there are only two groups of people in Russia: KGB and mafia. Whichever group you join you must have lots of sex with nice Russian girls. This is a part of the job contract. We also use bears to hunt down independent journalists and American tourists. This is our old tradition. I think after the crash course you fully qualify to work for WP.
(I am somewhat puzzled with the Indian part of the speech. Could you elaborate?)
Kremlin operative: "May be there is a problem with democracy in Russia may be there is not. I have to see yet a serious discussion of the topic."
The discussion has already been conducted in all nations in the G-7: Canada, USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The unanimous opinion is that Russia does not qualify as a democracy.
The biggest problem is the Kremlin's continued use of politically motivated imprisonment and politically motivated assassination to eliminate critics of the government.
To "compensate", the Kremlin also creates political movements and parties to cater to various segments of the Russian population. This sickening behavior does not bother most Russians. Washington would never create a 3rd political party to cater to people who do not align with the Democrats or the Republicans.
Only someone paid by the Russian government or someone who is utterly ignorant would suggest that Russia is a democracy. Even Western money managers, who are very pro-Russia in the sense of enjoying the opportunity to invest in the Russian economy, agree that Russia is not a democracy.
The people who bear the primary blame for the political situation in Russia is the Russian people. They created this kind of sickening society.
In the very same way that the Indians and the Iranians are 100% responsible for destroying India and Iran, the Russians are 100% responsible for wrecking the political system in Russia.
In the very same way that the Japanese are 100% responsible for creating their incredibly successful liberal democracy, the Russians are responsible for creating their KGB-dominated assassination-prone society that contradicts basic notions of democracy.
"The United States, like Germany, is a liberal democracy. The American people are firmly in control of the governmen, and their will is expressed once per two years at the ballot box."
If THAT is what being a democracy is about, then I understand why some people consider what we are attempting to sell the world as democracy "CRAP".
Voting every two years!... That is not a way for a people to be firmly in control of its government. No wonder Americans so little control their government(s).
the general population and especialy citizens affected by chyrnoble are more american minded than most people realize since so much of what we learn here comes from the media rather than personal relationships with the russian people.while working for a plumbing company a citizen of russia was able to be employed by my company.i had a personal work relationship with thisindividual.he was sickened by cancer from the fallout at chyrnoble where he worked for a long lenght of time.i will keep his name in anonomious.although he passed away several years ago from cancer due to radiation poisoning.he was just like any other good natured american.although he new he was dying his spirit was beautiful.he loved america and had relatives here of jewish decent and was true to his faith.he always dreamed of coming to america and was very educated about democracy.i never herd him say anything derogetory about anothers believes and never exspressed hatred.he was made at russia for the way he was treated and was not invavor of russia building nuclear power plants when thier was so much poverty.he was told the plant where he worked in russia was safe and would not harm him,he knew better but was helpless to act against the communist reqium out of fear for his loved ones.with all that he went through i was astouned at his demeaner and respect for the american way of life.his spiritualality got to your soul.however the communist russia was a different aspect.yes i do believe russia is trying to comeback and spread communism and is more dangerious now than ever before because the only way to spread communism is to reach agrrements with countries that are our enemies.and thier supplying iran with whatever is nessesary to make iran a nuclear power and start thier own union of allies which will give russia more room to go.however i feel china is the most dangerious threat to the u.s.and the rest of the freeworld.walmart should be put on the list of buisnesses that support terrorist nations.
"A legitimate question is the need for NATO - does the west really believe in a reformed friendly Russia or is there still reason enough to fear them? I think the jury is still out on that."
You've been always paranoic about Russia. So I would bet on guilty verdict. On the other hand, with the new friends you've got you are screwed anyway.
Student--In no way does your lack of good use of the English language detract from your perfectly inane arguments. Buy you may want to spell defense instead of defence. Of course, up to you. Now pout to the monitor.
"Calling yourself a student on one hand and calling democracy crap is somewhat perplexing."
You missed the whole point, which is not surprising. Let me put the emphasis: (this PRODUCT you TRY TO SELL so hard is crap).
The difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is that you had something to sell to Soviets and have absolutely nothing to sell to Russians. You still try but your credibility is zero. And when you start talking about democracy in Russia you just sound ridiculous.
There is clearly no problem with the concept of democracy. The concept of free market is much more controversial and still I believe many (if not most) Russians would choose the US idea of the free market rather than the European. May be there is a problem with democracy in Russia may be there is not. I have to see yet a serious discussion of the topic. I hope that you do not regard WP publications as such discussions. Because if you do, then your brain is dead and the best thing you can do for humanity is kill yourself.
Foreigner: "is this a - bad - joke ? Coming from an american ? Do you suggest that Cheney/Iraq/Guantanamo are the will of the american people ?"
The United States, like Germany, is a liberal democracy. The American people are firmly in control of the governmen, and their will is expressed once per two years at the ballot box.
At the same time, the American people occasionally express stupidity. You can see this stupidity in various failed foreign policies: an example is the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There is a substantial difference between Russian society and American society.
BOBL-VA
NATO was founded early in the Cold War with the express aim of defending western Europe against a military invasion by the Soviet Union. There is no reason to have NATO if you invite the Russians into it as it defeats the purpose. That would be like inviting known thiefs into your neighborhood watch program. A legitimate question is the need for NATO - does the west really believe in a reformed friendly Russia or is there still reason enough to fear them? I think the jury is still out on that.
Student
Your postings remind me of the following paraphrased Russian joke. An American and a Russian are talking and the American says, "In the US, we can walk up to President Bush and say to him 'I don't like the job you are doing'!". The Russian says "Well we can do that too!". "Really?" says the American. "Of course", says the Russian, "It's no problem to go into President Putin's office and say "I don't like the job that President Bush is doing!"
"Today your preying about the democracy has about zero value (this product you try to sell so hard is crap). Nobody understands what are you really selling and everyone suspects that you have some hidden agenda." Calling yourself a student on one hand and calling democracy crap is somewhat perplexing. I can understand the hesitation of trust, given the lack of support the US provided at the end of the USSR. But as a student, one would think that you would be a little more thoughtful on your ideas of the worthiness of democracy.
Enemies, enemies everywhere. Oh, the sky is falling. The world is such a dangerous place and it's up to the United States to set all these bad people right?
Not everyone is going to agree with us all the time and that doesn't make them bad. We normally don't agree with ourselves half the time and despite what Bish says we're not emboldening the "enemies".
I'm serious, invite Russia into NATO. It would be good to have differing views.
hi, in sports russia is regaining a prestigious position, much to the suprise of pundits who thought that russia would not be able to repeat the successes of the centrally-organized soviet sports system. russia's medal tally at the turin olympics increased dramatically from salt lake city and expectations are rising for beijing '08, especially in women's track and field. in tennis, russia is the dominant nation. cska moscow won the euroleague last year, and could repeat this year. sochi could and should be awareded the rights to host the '14 winter games (here are some pics of putin at some of the sochi sites: http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20070222/61098485.html).
in space, too, russia is doing well and their moon and mars plans are running ahead of nasa's, china's, and europes's, illogically really since russia's space budget for 2006 was $912.3M, europe's $3.8B, and nasa's $16.5B. for a short time after the discovery disaster, through russia was the sole way to the int'l space station. to everyone's suprise again, russia is back in a major way in space.
in international relations, strong ties with china, india, france, and germany, have more than offset declining relations with eastern/central europe and the u.s., who has lost a lot of legitimacy by waging an illegal war on false pretenses.
militarily: the best missiles in the business, a fifth generation fighter, new nuclear subs, and talks of undefendable scalar weaponary give russia more than enough leeway here.
economically: tremendous budget and trade surpluses have lifted russia from financial abyss. it is rich in natural resources and as plans to diversify the economy into highTech and services come to fruitition, mind you the russian populous is highly educated in math and science, russia will become an even more lethal economic powerhouse -- especially when the u.s.'s convient fiat dollar dominance is brought to an end.
==================
so, in all these spheres many counted russia out, but it's back in a major way. the parallels to napolean's invastion of russia are great. then, russia vacated its cities, fell back, and let the enemy weaken itself before going in for the kill and driving the enemy out.
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (95)
My favourite pharma supermarket
world-pharma.pillsfm.com
WBR,
Alex
March 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BdEeZn U cool ))
March 12, 2008 10:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
2 Student
I am Russian and I am happy. And I don't give a damn what you think. Because aren't you those stereotypical brainwashed poor arrogant Americans as they protrait you. Let's see what we have here: 1. Mr dumb brainwashed, 2. Mr reasonable brainwashed, and 3. Mr Polish (no other description is needed)
-----
I'm Russian too, and I'm happy.Student, i agree with u.
2 Bill Devers : Ur really not right.
December 19, 2007 5:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Is Russia really back?
Consider this: Tiny Georgia managed to rattle the Russian bear by arresting a few Russian spies. In retaliation Russia started an economic war, closing the borders for Georgian products, and Russian exports of gas and oil. Georgians in Russia were arrested and deported, etc. By doing all this, did the Russians force Georgia to get back in line wioth Moscow? No. Georgia thumped it's nose to Russia, changed it's energy supplier (now they're getting their gas from Azerbeidjan), diversified it's economy, and now Russia realised it simply lost it's grip on tiny Georgia.
A few years ago Russia tried to decide who would win the elections in the Ukraine. Result: the anti-Russian and pro-Western candidate won. And so it goes on and on. Russia not only lost it's influence in the former Warsaw-pact countries, it not only lost a huge territory that was once part of the Russian empire, it is also losing it's grip on all these new states in the Caucasus, central Asia and Eastern Europe.
No wonder why they are pushing up the prices for gas and oil in all those countries. Why should they do the favour of delivering cheap energy when their political influence is diminishing or even no longer existing. What a world player are you when you can't even throw around your weight in your own backyard.
And even when they are putting up the prices to a country like Belarus, they can't even get 100% what they want. Look at the deal that was made, Belarus got off on the cheap, sharing the ownership of their pipelines for prices that are way below the market price. Reason? Russia couldn't afford to stop pumping up oil for a few days, it would cost them too much.
Russia's influence on the world stage? Did North Korea care to inform the Russians when they were testing new rockets? They were informing the Chinese of course, but their other neighbour, Russia? Why should they even bother. Do the US care when Russia protests against missile defense systems in Central Europe? No, they take notice odf the protest and don't bother for the rest. What is Russia's influence in the Middle East for the moment? Russia received Hamas leaders recently in Moscow. Did the world notice? Hardly.
Russia's econonmy is grew last year with 6%. Amazing? The Ukrainian economy grew with 7%, several Eastern European countries have the same growth rates. Only, they are doing that without selling oil or gas. Take away high oil prices and Russia's growth rate goes down. A healthy economy? Forget it, they are just like Middle Eastern countries. Rich with their oil, but for the rest no econmy to speak of. Just look at the widespread poverty all over the country.
Russia's military? Apart from their nuclear weapons, it hardly maaters. They are spending as much on defense and weaponry as that other military giant, Germany. If Germany and Russia would decide to have a war, both their armies probably would be stuck somewhere halfway Poland, unable to go much further.
The greatest thread to Russia is their demographic situation. Russians simply are dying off. A few years ago they were with 148 million, now they are with 143 million, over a few years it's projected that they will be with less than 140 million. Not any country on earth is losing it's population as fast as Russia. On top of that, they are bordering the most populous country on earth, with a trhiving economy growing much faster than Russia's with a growth not based on selling off it's natural resources. How on earth are the Russians planning to stop the Chinese influence in Russia's far east. How are they going to prevent an economic and demographic take over of Siberia by the Chinese.
Russia a growing power in the world? Don't make me laugh.
March 2, 2007 8:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
Well, I think you are right regarding the dictators of the world. Not all dictators, however, commit genocide. Clinton, who did a reasonable job as President said his biggest regret was his lack of action in the Sudan. He was also responsible for ending the genocide in Bosnia.
Each dictator needs to be evaluated and actions, including sanctions, need to be applied. Intervention (as in a peace-keeping force) might be necessary. This has been the case for Zimbabwe and the Sudan, only, China has undermined sanctions and a military equipment boycott in both countries. Some kind of intervention is required in the Sudan, as over 2 million people have been killed in the last fifteen years including 200,000 (+) in Darfur.
We cannot dispose of all dictators, but the worst need to be dealt with by intervention if necessary. Of course, it would be nice if we received strong support from countries in Europe, and elsewhere (India, for example).
How was Iraq and, for that matter, Iran different? Both are located in the Middle East which is the world-wide leader in terrorism, recruitment of terrorist, funding of terrorist, and harboring of terrorist. Both countries have funded and supported terrorist organizations and, in addition, Iraq invaded two countries. What distinguished Saddam, however, is that he sought and USED WMDs. Iran is seeking nuclear energy (weapons) and has a President that has threatened to annihilate Israel (You might feel safe in Virginia, but the people of Israel have a right to be concerned).
The seventeen resolutions were not passed by the security council for weapons of CONVENTIONAL destruction, but weapons of MASS destruction. He was and would have been a continual threat to reconstitute his program of WMDs (including nuclear if he had access). Saddam was ambitious and clearly a threat to his neighbors and regional stability (Ok, I know what you are going to say...). He was also a threat to the US if he did, and don't forget who would assume power to continue his policies in the event of his death (his sons).
For those reasons, in my opinion, in conjunction with 911, the US disposed of Saddam and tried to install a democracy to the benefit of the Iraqi people. Early cooperation by Saddam could have ended sanctions and the deaths of so many people, and could have kept him in power.
The UN can pass 17000 resolutions but they will not be affective, unless they are enforced. Clearly, the UN and the west lost the will to enforce the conditions for the cease fire which Saddam signed (res. 687), thus the sanctions and bombing(s) were rendered useless. Only after 911, the UN and Saddam realized we were serious (again) and Saddam re-welcomed the inspectors back into Iraq. To late.
OK, Bob, then lets look at the other wars.
Did you support the war in Bosnia which was really a humanitarian mission?
Did you support the war in Kuwait?
Finally, I know you (and I) supported the war in Afghanistan. We disposed of a government for harboring the terrorist that were responsible for 911. So, if Iraq had never happened, would you have supported attacking eastern Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda (Bin Laden)?
March 2, 2007 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
It took Saddam 20 years to kill 3 million people. At the rate Bush is going he'd catch him in 10.
Remember now, this genocidal maniac you're talking about we supported. We didn't care he gassed the Iranians until we were looking for a reason to hate him so we could blow up his country.
And, you are right. Everything since 9/11 has changed. You only left out it has changed for the worse. America just happened to be unlucky enough to have Bush/Cheney in power. All they've done is abuse a bad situation.
Also, no one I know is arguing Saddam should have ever been named humanitarian of the year. Quite the contrary. He was a ruthless dictator. We all agree on this. Where we differ is what should the United States do about ruthless dictators. Let's examine this. You can really only have 3 types. First, they are no threat to us. Second, they are a thorn in our side. Third, they are either guilty of committing an act of war against us or are about to commit and act of war against us.
Since there's probably 50 ruthless regimes in the world we have to apply some standard in which ones we're going to blow up. We obviously don't have the time, troops & munitions to blow them all up. So obviously the standard on who we blow up has to be higher then they are ruthless dictators. Hence, being a ruthless dictator by itself doesn't rise to the level of a pre-emptive war. Nope, we need more then that.
So what was there about Saddam that rose to a higher level or standard? Ah, that's the real question isn't it? All you have left here is he thumbed his nose at the 17,000 UN resolutions that the US pushed through. Hence, almost a million people are dead, the country is in the midst of a civil war and we'll spend a minimum of 2 trillion dollars because Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN? Now there's logic I want to teach my children!
March 1, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
"...Saddam was a bad man to his own people and that in and of itself does not rise to the level of invasion...."
Bob, "bad" is when a cat pees in your living room (I love your analogies, Bob). Saddam was a brutal, genocidal dictator responsible for over 3 million deaths, and many were not his own people e.g., Iran and Kuwait.
Saddam was responsible for his own (deserved) fate. Period. Had he cooperated with the inspectors, we wouldn't be having this conversation today, e.g. Libya, Iran(?).
September 11, 2001 changed everything and is the reason that the three years that Iraq went without inspections was so important. The fact, which you want to dismiss, that no WMD's were found is irrelevant, albeit, embarrassing to the intelligence community.
March 1, 2007 9:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I see a lot of references to "men of KGB in power". First of all, there is not KGB for long years. Now it is FSB, so be correct in terms, please. Second, no everybody in power is from so called "KGB". And finally, what is wrong with it?
"KGB" man means that he/she has a good education, good health, a person has a clear file, his/her parents were not alcogol or drug-addicted, he/she is work-efficient, responsible, loyal. I see no bad in that. Gee, I would like to have such an emploee at my company.
March 1, 2007 12:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
This diffrent then by Student. but also Russian opinion.
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR VLADIMIR SOROKIN
"Russia Is Slipping Back into an Authoritarian Empire"
Russian author Vladimir Sorokin disscusses waning freedom of opinion in his country, the lack of opposition against President Vladimir Putin and dangerous Western ambivalence that is enabling the Kremlin's growing authoritarian tendencies to take root.
DPA
The Russian intelligence agency FSB's headquarters in Moscow
SPIEGEL: Mr. Sorokin, in your new novel "Day of the Oprichnik," you portray an authoritarian Russia ruled by a group of members of the secret police. The story is set in the future, but this future is similar to the past under Ivan the Terrible. Aren't you really drawing parallels to today's Russia?
Sorokin: Of course it's a book about the present. Unfortunately, the only way one can describe it is by using the tools of satire. We still live in a country that was established by Ivan the Terrible.
SPIEGEL: His reign was in the 16th century. The czardom was followed by the Soviet Union, then democracy under (former President Boris) Yeltsin and (current President Vladimir) Putin. Has Russia not yet completed its break with the past?
Sorokin: Nothing has changed when it comes to the divide between the people and the state. The state demands a sacred willingness to make sacrifices from the people.
SPIEGEL: The absolute ruler in your book bears some resemblance to President Vladimir Putin ...
Sorokin: ... which was not my intention. Coming up with a Putin satire wouldn't be very thrilling. I'm an artist, not a journalist. And a novel is not a documentary. In my book, I am searching for an answer to the question of what distinguishes Russia from true democracies.
SPIEGEL: What explanation have you found?
VLADIMIR SOROKIN
Oleg Klimov / Panos PicturesVladimir Sorokin is one of the best- known contemporary authors in Russia. He established his literary reputation in the West with his novels "The Queue," and "Ice." In his latest book, "Day of the Oprichnik," he describes Russia in the year 2028 as a nationalist country ruled with an iron fist that has shut itself off from the West by building a wall. Sorokin: Germans, Frenchmen and Englishmen can say of themselves: "I am the state." I cannot say that. In Russia only the people in the Kremlin can say that. All other citizens are nothing more than human material with which they can do all kinds of things.
SPIEGEL: In old Russian, the word "oprichnik" means "a special one." Do you feel that the divide between the top and the bottom in Russia today can no longer be bridged?
Sorokin: In our country there are special people who are permitted to do anything. They are the sacrificial priests of power. Anyone who is not a member of this group has no clout with the state. One can be as pure as can be -- just as magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky was -- and still lose everything in a flash and end up in prison. The Khodorkovsky case is typical of the "oprichnina" -- the system of oppression I describe.
SPIEGEL: Does a character like Khodorkovsky appear in your book?
Sorokin: Such a parallel didn't occur to me. However, my book does begin with an attack on a rich man. This is almost a daily occurrence nowadays. It has always been that way in Russia. Only those who are loyal to the people in power can become wealthy.
SPIEGEL: How is the elite reacting to the literary images you paint?
Sorokin: The reaction to my book has been tumultuous. But I had no other choice than to put all this on paper. I have been carrying around this wish for a long time, and so it took me only three months to write it.
SPIEGEL: Why did you suddenly feel the need to write this book?
Sorokin: The citizen lives in each of us. In the days of Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, I was constantly trying to suppress the responsible citizen in me. I told myself that I was, after all, an artist. As a storyteller I was influenced by the Moscow underground, where it was common to be apolitical. This was one of our favorite anecdotes: As German troops marched into Paris, Picasso sat there and drew an apple. That was our attitude -- you must sit there and draw your apple, no matter what happens around you. I held fast to that principle until I was 50. Now the citizen in me has come to life.
SPIEGEL: Some of your novels are filled with violence. In "Ice," for example, human beings are mistreated with hammers made of ice. Why is Russian society still so preoccupied with violence?
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication. Sorokin: As a child I perceived violence as a sort of natural law. In the totalitarian Soviet Union, oppression held everything together. It was the sinister energy of our country. I had that sense by as early as kindergarten and grade school. Later on I wanted to understand why human beings are unable to do without violence. It's a mystery I haven't solved to this day. Yes, violence is my main theme.
SPIEGEL: How is this sinister energy reflected in Russia today?
Sorokin: It is alive in every bureaucrat. Whenever you encounter a minor official, he lets you know that he is above you and that you depend on him. It is reflected in the superpower mentality that nourishes the Kremlin. An empire always demands sacrifices from its people.
SPIEGEL: Criminal proceedings were launched against you five years ago for supposedly pornographic passages in your novel "Blue Bacon Fat." Is censorship about to be reintroduced in Russia?
Sorokin: What happened at the time was an attempt to test writers' steadfastness and the public's willingness to accept open censorship. It didn't work.
SPIEGEL: Did the pressure that was applied to you intimidate other writers?
Sorokin: Certainly. I have Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to thank that a Russian writer can not only write anything he wants today, but also publish it. I don't know what will happen in the future. The media -- television, newspapers and magazines -- are already controlled by the state today.
SPIEGEL: One of the characters in your book brags "that not just one diplomat was expelled from Moscow, not just one journalist was thrown from the television tower and not just one whistleblower was drowned in the river." When you wrote this you knew nothing about the murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
Sorokin: I just imagined what would happen to Russia if it isolated itself completely from the Western world -- that is, if it erected a new Iron Curtain. There is much talk about Russia being a fortress. Orthodox churches, autocracy and national traditions are supposed to form a new national ideology. This would mean that Russia would be overtaken by its past, and our past would be our future.
SPIEGEL: How realistic is such a relapse in a globalized world?
AFP
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "The West should be even more vocal in insisting that the Russians respect human rights."
Sorokin: Putin likes to quote a sentence from Czar Alexander III, who said that Russian has only two allies -- the army and the navy. As a citizen, this makes me sit up and take notice. This is a concept of self-imposed isolation, a defense strategy that sees Russia surrounded by enemies. When I turn on the TV I see a general calmly claiming that our missiles are ahead of the latest American models by three five-year plans. It's a nightmare. We are creating a concept of the enemy, just as they did in the Soviet era. This is a giant step backward.
SPIEGEL: You have no confidence in the current Kremlin administration?
Sorokin: This is their fault, not mine. My television teaches me that everything was wonderful in the Soviet Union. According to the programs I watch, the KGB and apparatchiks were angels, and the Stalin era was so festive that the heroes of the day must still be celebrated today.
SPIEGEL: Why is there no opposition from Russia's legendary intelligentsia?
Sorokin: It's astonishing. I can't help but gain the impression that our champions of the freedom of opinion -- writers, emigrants and civil rights activists -- had only one goal in mind: the collapse of the Soviet Union, started by Alexander Solzhenitzyn. And now they are all silent.
SPIEGEL: How do you feel about the former chess world champion, Garry Kasparov, who is trying to build an opposition movement?
Sorokin: I have respect for him and other members of the opposition movement, like former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and (politician) Irina Khakamada. But these politicians do not exist for most people. About the only place you will find them is on the Internet. If a state-owned station were to report tomorrow that Kasyanov was visiting Russian cities and talking to the people, the manager of that station would be looking for a new job the next day.
SPIEGEL: What can be done?
Sorokin: It's pointless to expect change to be ordered from above. The bureaucracy has grown such powerful roots, and corruption is so widespread, that these people have no interest in changing anything.
SPIEGEL: In other words, everything is hopeless?
Sorokin: Everyone must awaken the citizen within himself. The Russian philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev once said that Russia has many ideas and few goods. It was that way throughout the entire 20th century. Only in the last 15 years have the Russians managed to dress up and eat their fill. However, people with full bellies tend become drowsy. This explains, for example, the disinterest among students. In no other country are they as apathetic as they are here.
SPIEGEL: With so much pessimism, do you even like your fellow Russian people?
Sorokin: The word "people" is unpleasant to me. The phrase "Soviet people" was drummed into us from childhood on. I love concrete people, enlightened people who live conscious lives and do not simply sit there and vegetate. To love the people you have to be the general secretary of the Communist Party or an absolute dictator. The poet Josef Brodsky once said: The trees are more important to me than the forest.
SPIEGEL: In your book you describe a wall with which Russia isolates itself from the West. Why is this wall built?
DPA
Mikhail Khodorkovsky: "An empire always demands sacrifices of its people."
Sorokin: After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, former party officials burned their party books and traded in their black Volga limousines for black German-made sedans. That was it. We had no purifying revolution. Neither Communist Party officials nor KGB generals were forced to give up the reins of power. In August 1991, I was in the crowd standing in front of the Lubyanka KGB building when the monument to KGB founder Felix Dzerzhinsky was toppled. It seemed as if a new era was about to begin. But we underestimated the power of the Soviet Union. It became ingrained in people's consciousness over the course of seven decades. After German reunification, West Germany became a mirror for former East German citizens. We didn't have that.
SPIEGEL: You hold a degree in petroleum engineering. Was the latest confrontation with Belarus over natural gas and oil an expression of Moscow's power politics?
Sorokin: Our government hasn't become accustomed to the fact yet that Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Baltic states -- in fact, the entire former Soviet Union -- are now independent countries. Incidentally, I wrote my thesis on the development of dampers for oil pipelines.
SPIEGEL: Did this expertise come in handy in your book?
Sorokin: Yes, there is a sentence in it that reads: "We shut the damper, as the czar ordered."
SPIEGEL: How should German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, behave in dealing with the Russian government?
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
Sorokin: The West should be even more vocal in insisting that the Russians respect human rights. All compromise aside, I ask myself whether Russia is moving in the direction of democracy. I don't believe it is! Bit by bit, Russia is slipping back into an authoritarian empire. The worst thing that can happen to us is indifference in the West -- that is, if it were interested in nothing but oil and gas. I am always surprised when I watch the weather report on German television. First they show the map of Europe and then the camera moves to the right. Then comes Kiev, then Moscow and then everything stops. This seems to be the West's view of us -- of a wild Russia that begins past Moscow, a place one prefers not to see. This is a big mistake. The West must pay closer attention.
SPIEGEL: Does the West understand Russia?
Sorokin: Yes and no. In Russia no one is surprised when an official accepts a bribe while at the same time portraying the state as some sacred entity to which the bourgeois should pay homage. This all sounds absurd to you. But for Russians it is completely normal.
SPIEGEL: There used to be a similar attitude toward the state in Germany. But that changed after the Nazi dictatorship. Nowadays the state plays a more modest role in society, just as it does in America.
Sorokin: That just happens to be democracy. The Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov once said: In a Democracy, portraits of a nation's leader should never exceed the size of a postage stamp. That won't happen so quickly in our country.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Sorokin, we thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Martin Doerry and Matthias Schepp.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.
February 28, 2007 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
Sorry, I forgot to sign my previous post. However, you knew who it was.
Anyway, see I told you we wouldn't agree.
I simply fail to see this "threat" of Islamic Terrorists blowing up the world (or us)
Our involvment with Israel has been bad enough for our relations with the Islamic world. By invading and occupying Iraq we've only heightened an already strained relationship. These are not Judo-Christian Western Cultures. They don't even like us. They think we're the unclean and the unwashed. They tolerate us only in the sense they need us economically. Other then that they don't want anything to do with us. They surely don't want our unholy boots on their land.
Our invasion of Iraq has only reinforced their opinion of us. We are creating more terrorists via our actions then we're killing. We're making the world a more dangerous place and that's just plain stupid. So, if you feel safer because we invaded and have occupied Iraq I'm happy for you. I don't. Nor do I buy all the crap about UN resolutions as justification for an invasion. Bush sold this war based on WMD's. He didn't sell it on UN Sanctions. There were no WMD's. Zilch. Nada. Oh, I know. How could Bush have known with all the contradictory intelligence (or lack thereof) floating around at the time? Exactly my point. He didn't have sufficient information to commit US forces to an invasion.
As far as what Saddam did to his own country that's an internal country issue. We have the right to disagree with a country's actions against it's own citizens and apply sanctions, but we do not have the right or the responsibility to shed more blood. If this was the case let's pack up the troops and go blow up Sudan. Oh, I forgot, we don't have any more troops left. Let's draft a few more army groups and send them to Sudan to get ourselves mired down in another winless situation.
At some point you have to face the facts that what Bush has done has been just plain ignorant. I don't care if he had the best motives in the world. An appropriate political cartoon would have Bush sitting behind his desk in the oval office with a dunce cap on with the word Iraq inscribed on it.
Virtually, everything Bush said leading up to the invasion of Iraq has been wrong.
"They have weapons of mass destruction." They didn't.
"They'll open their arms and treat us as liberators." They haven't
"I'm not into nation building." We are
"Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda." He didn't
"Saddam was trying to buy nuclear materials." He wasn't.
"We're not talking about an expensive war." It will be at least 2 trillion before it's over with and that assumes a good outcome.
Every stinking major point has been wrong. The only thing that has turned out to be correct is the UN passed 17,000 Sanctions and resolutions and outside of a few republicans nobody else cares. Hence, if I was you I'd hold on real tight to those resolutions because without them all you'd have left is Saddam was a bad man to his own people and that in and of itself does not rise to the level of invasion.
February 28, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
"...I know the Tom Wonacott's of the world really believe we're doing something noble in Iraq. We're protecting America by attacking the evil forces who would bring our society down and challenge our way of life. You know this is a crock and so do I, but they really believe this crap..."
After six months of discussing the issues, and, finally, we disagree.
The conditions that led to war in Iraq:
Iraq was unwilling to conform to a UN mandate (res. 687-Saddam to disarm). Saddam played hide and seek with the inspectors, and did not taking the mandate seriously. Seventeen UN resolutions were passed in all to get Saddam to conform to the ceasefire that he signed. Sanctions resulted in 1,500,000 deaths, 567,000 of which were children. That, all in itself, was a humanitarian crisis, and you and I know that the fault lies on the shoulders of Saddam, who, because he refused to disarm and cooperate with the inspectors, allowed the deaths of so many people. You like to refer to him as a “bad man”, but he was way beyond bad. He was a power hungry, brutal mass murderer deserving to be hung (without a fair trial).
In 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq for Saddam's lack of cooperation and then, INEXPLICABLY, allowed Saddam to keep out inspectors for the last two years of his Presidency. So Bob, tell me, why did he bomb Iraq in the first place?
The humanitarian oil for food program came in to existence in 1996(?) because the world recognized that Saddam was doing fine, only the Iraqi people (mostly Shia) were suffering. The oil for food program deteriorated to the "oil for food scandal" which, in a few years time, had canceled the affect of the sanctions. So when Bush took office, there were no inspections, probably no resolve to have inspections and rampant scandals associated with the UN oil for food program.
Saddam was given the impression (rightly) that the West (especially the US under Clinton) and the UN did not have the resolve to enforce their own mandate. After 10 years, no one knew, for sure, what the state of Saddam’s weapons program was. Clinton did a good job from 1993-1998 containing Iraq, but totally screwed up his last two years. So, in effect, he passed the whole mess to President Bush to solve. What are friends for?
Between the UN scandal, and the West’s lack of resolve, and, thus a failure of peaceful (diplomatic) means to disarm Saddam, the conditions for a war were put in place. That is the price of diplomatic failure. Saddam would, inevitably, be a threat to his neighbors, and a threat to regional stability had we allowed him to continue unwatched. He also attempted to assassinate Bush senor and had given millions to terrorist groups, so he could have been a threat to US security in the future.
Fully 70% of the American people were behind the invasion of Iraq. Although I have said this a dozen times, it bears repeating. Even after discovering there were no WMD's, Bush was re-elected in 2004. Most Americans believed that the installation of Democracy in the heart of the birthplace of modern terrorism, and the overthrow of a brutal, non cooperative dictator was the right course of action.
I fully believe that the decision to invade was moral and right, however, even supporters of the war have seen a strategic (regional) nightmare unfold, thus one of the main reasons, I believe, as do most sane people, that we cannot just up and leave, is the regional problems that the war could cause.
Now, you would bring the troops home tomorrow regardless of how many people died because of a civil war, or because of a regional war because your whole goal is to punish US policy. In my opinion, there is nothing that you want to see more than for the US to fail in Iraq, not because you are anti American, Bob, but because you are against this kind of US policy. This must be true for the US undertakings in Bosnia (humanitarian) and Kuwait, as well, because neither met your definition of when a war is necessary. Both wars must have been gut twisting to you since they were successful.
If the goal is to reduce the possibility of war, then the (similar) circumstances which led to war in Iraq must be addressed regarding Iran. Iran is developing nuclear energy (weapons) and is ignoring UN mandates and sanctions. Only a strong, unified stance by the world, can lead to a diplomatic solution. Without it, then the conditions for more Middle East conflicts will be present.
"...We could be investing in our futures and showing the world through example the good qualities of a democracy..."
Speak about a crock. Weren't we the largest supplier of food and other humanitarian goods to the people of Afghanistan before 911? What an example.
"...It's really time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them..."
This statement makes no sense to me unless you think we should embrace terrorism and brutal dictators, and, as far as I know, neither is a culture. The US and the rest of the democratic world need to stand up to dictators who "embrace" murder and genocide as a means to "stabilize" their diverse populations such as in Iraq or the Sudan.
I really think that the world is still a very dangerous place especially as we see the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The conditions that led to WWII are not present today, but people have not changed and although we have a global economy, that's not comforting to the victims of politically motivated, civilian targeted terrorism (such as 911, or the bombings in Spain, or the bombings in India, etc.).
Fundamentalist, Islamic terrorism has reached world-wide, epidemic proportions, and, no, not due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks for the post, and sorry for the length of this response.
February 28, 2007 8:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To anonymous from Daniel. You write "it's time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them". Embrace them with what anonymous? If there is nothing to embrace them with how can we keep from turning into so many of the troubled areas of the world? You also say we should act like adults and that we are now acting as children. But adults are stronger and more capable than children. How is your position one of greater strength? You speak of becoming more adult in other words and embracing other cultures, but it seems rather you expect us to become children and just rush into the arms of other cultures. You strike me as just another liberal that views all cultures as equivalent--a multiculturalist in other words...Of course if all cultures are equivalent then of course it matters little where the focal point of power is in the world--or even if there is a focal point at all. But the problem is all cultures are not the same and it does matter where the focal point of power is--especially in a world of rampant technological advance leading to environmental destruction not to mention WMD attack. I am not saying the U.S. should act unilaterally,--in fact I am saying the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India should align to prevent the chaos which will surely increase in a world of multipolarity...One must be sensible. Liberals are all too often naive. Of course things are easier if one believes man to be good rather than evil and that all cultures are the same...Why really bother with politics at all in such a situation, for that is essentially the definition of an easily self-correcting humanity, etc. That should be all to inspire a few basic reflections....
February 28, 2007 6:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Anonymus;
You are right that China was not a superpower in today's sense, however, it was the richest most advanced society on earth at about 1400-1500, with expeditions to Arctic Seas, Africa, armadas which the world did not see for another 2-300 years, etc.
You are correct the political class of the USA is the USA's citizens greatest enemy.
Daniel:
A country which owes the world more than its annual GDP and has a net balance of approx 7% of annual GDP is not a rich society, it is a society which puts its children in pawn shops for security.
February 27, 2007 8:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon,
You wrote,
"While it is true that there is a shortage of SUPERPOWERS re-estabglishing themselves in history, there is an exception: China - possibly the greatest power for 4-500 years til the opinum wars - Is arising yet again."
Ah, I beg to differ my friend. China was a regional power for thousands of years, but a super power it was not. China has more international influence today then at any point in their dynasties.
Strong dominating countries have come and gone over the history of civilization. Unfortunately, each and every one of them, including ourselves feel we're invincible. History has taught us no one is invincible and we're not the exception.
Currently, America's worst enemy is America. It's not the Iraqi's and it surely isn't the "Dreaded Terrorists."
As long as our nation is willing to fight useless conflicts and waste our resources doing it we will never be great. (we may be the last remaining superpower today, but without knowing how to use that power wisely greatness will never follow) Right now we're just a bully and we all know the bully hasn't been born who won't get their butt kicked sooner or later.
I know the Tom Wonacott's of the world really believe we're doing something noble in Iraq. We're protecting America by attacking the evil forces who would bring our society down and challenge our way of life. You know this is a crock and so do I, but they really believe this crap. Until a majority of Americans come to understand we can't go flying around the globe beating up on made up enemies we'll always be a second rate superpower at best. We're squandering our resources on death and destruction while we could be using our resources for assisting nations in need with medicine, food, education, etc. We could be investing in our futures and showing the world through example the good qualities of a democracy. Instead we're starting civil wars and occupying other nations. We're having torture debates. We're telling the world we don't have to live up to the Geneva Accords. We're setting up StarChambers to hold and convict people of crimes they can't even begin to defend themselves from because they can't confort their accusers or even look at the evidence. Rule of Law, what law? What a waste!
It's really time we started embracing other cultures instead of trying to change them. Force should always be a last resort and should only be used if another group or country has committed an act of war against us or there is compelling evidence they are about to. (no, there was no compelling evidence in Iraq)
Basically, we need to grow up and start acting like adults.
February 27, 2007 6:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM:
When the largest circulation newspaper [in all major cities] is owned by a Zionist Jewish family, then the politician follows the line of said publisher/ owner. In Canada you do not need the internet to read AEI, or David Frum of "axis of evil fame" we get their convulted junk daily in our "NATIONAL".
Of course, the other reason is that Canadian Conservative politicians like to kiss the A** of your Decider, who is doing all in his power to destroy the USA's moral standing, army, and economy.
It does not matter who tries to and does buy your federal politicians, whether it is Mr. Soros, or friends of Sen Lieberman, be it EXXON, or BOEING, Halliburton it all comes down to the fact that the POLITICIAN IS PURCHASED TO REFLECT THE INTEREST OF THE PURCHASER.
If you did not have the obscene K-Street, perhaps your "democracy" would be closer to the notions expressed in the Federalist Papers, and would reflect the will of the majority -- which seems to be impossible both for your President and your Congress.
Finally there might be notional freedom of the press in the USA, however, to a large extent, the MSM reflects the wishes of the K-Street types [there are exceptions]. No doubt, it does not bother your billioners [or Congress, or President] that the EXTREME POVERTY LEVEL HAS RAISED in the last 20 years of USA, while the billioners and corporations were raking in the highest net income in history.
February 27, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Salamon from Daniel. Just as I expected, you are full of nonsense. Zoltan, you can join the club. The issue is the spread of liberty, opportunity, democracy, human rights, etc.--a worldwide government under such and brought under such by a minimum of violence.
You Salamon and Zoltan just keep railing at the U.S. and with no plan at all in mind for bringing the world under the above with a minimum of violence.
You either obviously think such will occur by some method other than the U.S. has been demonstrating or you really do not believe in such and are nothing but troublemakers.
Now I ask you, as I have always been asking you, what is your method toward the above universal world of democracy--show me the path to such with less violence.
But why not stop fooling ourselves? You have no method of such. You will just keep railing at the U.S. and with some sort of absurd belief that man will just be good if only powers like the U.S.--or in your case precisely the U.S.--perishes.
Salamon, you keep complaining how much the U.S. spends on its military and you keep telling us how our economy can be improved. A better analysis would be one which examines why it is our economy is so good regardless of how much we spend on the military and why it is over so much of the world economies are bad regardless of how little all those poor countries spend on the military.
I honestly have no idea why I waste time with you people--especially when this is probably no honest conversation and you are just Muslim troublemakers. According to your absurd worldview I sit here and plot war when in actuality I have been wrestling with a great many serious questions. Here are some of them: 1) Is it inevitable that civilizations rise and fall? 2) If the previous is true, how does this modify the concept of progress and will we in the future come to a point where we have countries willingly filming their decline as something of a medical examination to be passed on to succeeding civilizations? 3) How much of history must be made by man and how much should he just let happen because this "letting happening" is more formative? 4) What exactly is the nature of man? How good? How evil? What degree of law is necessary? Are some groups more evil than others, etc.?
When people like you Salamon and Zoltan become more serious about our problems, then we can have a conversation. At this point it is you that are the children. You demonstrate no serious reading, thinking or much of anything except simple hatred. But perhaps you can surprise me and demonstrate some intelligent thought...but I doubt it. And you want to know why? Because once again I believe you to be Muslims and precisely what you believe must be hidden so you can spread your propaganda. You are focused solely on diminishing the U.S. and nothing more. Or if you are Hungarians, I would like to know if this is typical Hungarian thinking. Perhaps you can give us an analysis of what would improve Hungary's condition...but I suppose that would mean reflecting on self and that is beyond the capacity of you two....
February 27, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ZOLTAN:
"When Europeans can and do look back at 2500 years of history, and Chinese 5000 years, Americans look at 200 years. We also see death and destruction, but we've faced our darkest ghosts. You didn't."
Oh, really?
Do you, as a European, remember someone whose name was Hitler? Do you remember who came to rescue Europe from his panzers? Do you know who gave Europe the resources to rebuild the continent after WW2? Do you know who has kept his young men in Europe for over six decades so that Europe remains peaceful? Do you remember who sent his young men to stop the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia?
And, going back to PG's question... Didn't you, eastern Europeans, learn anything from those decades under Soviet domination? Do you want to go back to those wonderful days?
February 27, 2007 12:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM:
Sorry to break your reverie, but Zoltan is Hungarian, and as such he does not represent an imperial power of the past. While Hungarians did do have some international forays, they all came to pass in 1526 on the Plains of Mohacs, when the Ottomans defeated Hungary. Since then it was Ottoman, Habsburg or USSR domination [the last courtsy of Churchill and Roosevelt] with minor breaks of independence 1918-1940 though the country lost 2/3 of area and 1/3 of population due to TReaty of Versailles] and since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
February 27, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Zoltan
"...and worse, that before the white men came there were Indians, with their own culture. That you destroyed..."
By "you destroyed", I am assuming that you are looking in a mirror. A classic example of complete hypocrisy.
"...French colonialism: the total area of land under French sovereignty reached 12,898,000 km² (4,980,000 sq. miles) in the 1900s and 1930s, which is 8.6% of the world's land area..."
The French probably altered or destroyed more indegenous people than anyone else in the world (with the exception of Britain(?)).
February 27, 2007 9:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Poor Daniel: "So how exactly can the U.S. remain the most powerful nation and follow your prescriptions? Or is the U.S. not to be the most powerful nation? But what then?"
You - personally, others probably also - don't seem able to think outside of "the US is the greatest country on Earth" and "this or that is a superpower". Apart from you, not many people care who is or is not a superpower. For most people know that this might or might not be the case today, but as ALL other civilizations know from their history, in 100 years from now the USA will certainly not be a superpower anymore.
So why care ?
Because you, the USA, have no history. Or rather, you consider that your country was founded 200 years ago. You willingly forget the 300 previous years of colonization, and worse, that before the white men came there were Indians, with their own culture. That you destroyed. As a counter example, look at Peru or New-Zealand: half their population is Indigene.
So I guess - free psychoanalysis - that the people of the USA can't look at their history because what they would see is death and destruction. When Europeans can and do look back at 2500 years of history, and Chinese 5000 years, Americans look at 200 years. We also see death and destruction, but we've faced our darkest ghosts. You didn't.
So, back to the parent child analogy, we are grown-up people who are not scared in the dark, and you are immature testosteroned frustrated wannabe-superpower adolescents.
Perspectives are different.
February 27, 2007 4:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Is Russia doing right things now. In some way yea, in other no. Russia so weak, addicted and drunken like Eltsin himself has been drunken recently. Majority of population is in a huge poverty, alcogolism, shovinism against other minorities and in the end with tremendous hate and jealousy to the prosperous, advanced nations. Is it Russia reduced to its normal size. Quite sure. May be it'is even better if it would be reduced to the sizes of the USA and China. Because just 150 million people live in the territory 17 million squar km, two times more than sizes of USA or China or India. And it cannot manage its land on the appropriate level. In that country from 500 million to 1 billion people should live now and not only russians. Why Russia doesnt promote diverse etnicity policy like USA. Moreover russians has been trying to discriminate, assimilate and push away other minorities now and before. Why. That's the question. If Russia wouldnt increase its population in accordance with its territory it is sure that Russia always would be attacked by other countries including western nations, china and muslims.
February 27, 2007 2:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The Kremlin continues to station troops in countries which oppose their presence. Consider the Russian troops stationed on Georgian territory.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061002&articleId=3365
February 27, 2007 2:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
"...when a SUPERPOWER???? can be bogged down in Iraq, a country almost destroyed by 10+ years of US lead SANCTIONS AND BOMBING RAIDs, then that is not a superpower..."
If a murderous dictator like Saddam can keep the people of Iraq in line, then surely you must believe the US could use the same methods to restore order, that is, indiscriminate murder, torture, genocide and use of WMD's.
February 26, 2007 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
"...purchased on credit and lack of intelligence by self-motivated groups -- neo-con Zionists, War mongering Military industrial complex, various self-serving monied lobby groups]..."
Do you mean the same neocon Zionist that have penetrated the Canadian government - the first country to cutoff funding to the Palestinians after Hamas was elected.
The same war mongering industrial complex that booted Iraq out of Kuwait (with Canadian help) and stopped the genocide in Bosnia (with Canadian help)? You do believe the US has the right to defend herself from terrorist harbored in Afghanistan, don't you? Most normal Canadians do, and I presume that is why Canadian troops are currently there.
Do you mean self serving moneyed groups like the ones George Soros contributes to (Moveon.org, for example)?
"...MSM [with special abilities of FOX, National Standard, Washington Times, etc],..."
So you only believe in a media that only supports your (extreme left wing) point of view, now that's freedom of the press, Salamon.
"...US Supreme Court Judiciary -- which confuses 1st amendment [freedom of speech]..."
I support George Soros contributing $23,000,000 to try to influence the election. It didn't work, but I believe he should keep on trying. Maybe had he spent $46,000,000, Bush would have been defeated. Would you have objected? My only objection to the large amounts of money spent is that it could go to something much more useful, but if you want to throw money at the Presidential, Congressional...elections, go for it.
"...and enlarges the war to include the whole ME - forcing China, Japan, EU [all oil consumers] to get in the act [possible WWIII]..."
Don't forget American ally Canada, not only an oil consumer, but a major oil seller (especially to the US).
Salamon, you are consumed by the US (and Israel). I am surprised you just didn't use last week's line i.e., US citizens have no moral authority to comment on Russia.............
February 26, 2007 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
DANIEL
when a SUPERPOWER???? can be bogged down in Iraq, a country almost destroyed by 10+ years of US lead SANCTIONS AND BOMBING RAIDs, then that is not a superpower.
When a Country owes 110% of its GDP offshore, and increases this debt at a rate of 6-7% per annum, the state is selling its future. From the greatest creditor to the largest debtort in 20 easy steps [1986-2006] - a super power ere it falls is strong financially [check ROME, GREECE, EGYPT, CHINA [before the opium wars], SPAIN, ENGLAND etc] then draw your conclusion with respect to the negative wealth accumulation by your country.
I know that you, Daniel, love war -- if other people get killed and maimed, as long as it is not you, or your darling POLITICAL ELITE. Your neighbor with a crippled son or daughter might have a different view. In fact, 60 odd % of your country men have a view supported by the vast majority of the world's population that your government is on the wrong track, which makes you the minority.
February 26, 2007 8:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Salamon from Daniel. Thank you for your analysis of what is wrong with the U.S. Salamon and what must be done to correct matters. Now tell me why it is the U.S. is the greatest superpower and what exactly everyone else is doing wrong--and especially tell me Salamon which countries exactly are following the very prescriptions you suggest to the U.S. for success...Actually even if you name some countries we can see right off they are not as powerful as the U.S.--because the U.S. obviously is the most powerful nation...So how exactly can the U.S. remain the most powerful nation and follow your prescriptions? Or is the U.S. not to be the most powerful nation? But what then? Once again, and as always with you, we get right back to models of government and how to create a world order which is not dominated by the ideas emanating from the U.S. Well what is this world order Salamon? The problem I have exactly with you Salamon is you no doubt take me as an evil man, but for the life of me I keep asking you to make sense, to create a world order for me apart from U.S. attempts to have worldwide democracy, but you give me nothing. I find you a useless troublemaker--probably a Muslim making trouble although you deny it. Everything with you is the U.S. being a problem and how you can correct it. Nothing with you is a criticism of the rest of the world. AND ESPECIALLY WITH YOU SALAMON IS NO CONCEPTION OF HOW IF INDEED YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS ARE ADOPTED BY THE U.S. THESE PRESCRIPTIONS--INDEED YOUR "PERFECTED" U.S.--WILL SPREAD TO THE WORLD...OR IS THIS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN? Your criticism in the final analysis is trash Salamon and nothing we have not made ourselves. All you have to do Salamon is give me a list of nations which come up to your standards and then tell me how these models can take worldwide--especially without force, for that seems to be one of your main criticisms of the U.S. That should be all for now. I await your answer.
February 26, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Russian people do not have any vengeance, we are just disappointed. We read most world newspapar's artical in Russian language (translated from French, Germany, and many others) in websites: inosmi.ru and inopress.ru. We know all about you and your opinion. Is is so sad.
February 26, 2007 6:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL VA:
your analysis above was mostly right. I do believe, however, that you erred in a couple of points:
1., While it is true that there is a shortage of SUPERPOWERS re-estabglishing themselves in history, there is an exception: China - possibly the greatest power for 4-500 years til the opinum wars - Is arising yet again.
2., there is a threat to the Well Being of the USA [aside from Russia in case of unforseen war], and that threat is your creation: The POWER ELITE OF WASHINGTON [purchased on credit and lack of intelligence by self-motivated groups -- neo-con Zionists, War mongering Military industrial complex, various self-serving monied lobby groups].
3., the major groups in this elite includes
a., MSM [with special abilities of FOX, National Standard, Washington Times, etc],
b., Think-tanks [by and large only analysing issues from USA/moneyed elite standpoint],
c., US Supreme Court Judiciary -- which confuses 1st amendment [freedom of speech] with election purchase [when elections need multi-million every 2, 4, or 6 years depending on office [FEDERAL Representative, Senator, President, or State: Governor, representative senator]
I would respectfully suggest that until there is a limitation on election finance [only citizens, say $100.00 max donation per cycle per office] there is no hope that the USA has any prospect of self-reform.
4., The USA is not down yet, but will decline extremely fast without renewal of internal political process [as above].
THERE IS ONE MORE POSSSIBILTY of extreme fast decline for USA, if the brain challenged present leadership decides that it can not loose in IRAQ/AFGANISTAN, and enlarges the war to include the whole ME - forcing China, Japan, EU [all oil consumers] to get in the act [possible WWIII].
February 26, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave,
Historically, all superpowers have erred badly enough to lose their status except one. Us. That is not to say if we don't learn from history and shelve our egos a little we can also lose our status. To date no country with world aspirations (and I'm not even sure we fall into that class) has ever come back. The Greeks didn't, the Romans didn't, the Arabs didn't, the Germans didn't, the British didn't, the Russians haven't.
62 years ago we came out of WWII virtually unscathed. Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Japan were either in ruins or defeated. We emerged as the most dominate force the world had ever seen in history. A mere 5 years latter we learned we couldn't beat back the Chinese without resorting to nuclear weapons (which we were rightly not willing to do). That didn't stop us from occupying Vietnam and finding out it's very difficult to use brute military force to impose your will over an indigenous people. A war of attrition will follow and people lose interest. We saw the same thing in Afghanistan when the Soviet's invaded. It's expensive in terms of resources and manpower.
None of this history stopped us from invading Iraq and now we're bogged down in a quagmire there with no good way out. Thank someone we have more money then sense. However, it still is squandering our resources on counter productive actions. We're not building anything, we're destroying property and life. I know Bush had aspirations of installing a democracy in Iraq and hoping that action would lead to increased stability in the ME. At the same time I wanted congress to pass a bill mandating all Eskimo's had to buy their snowballs from me, but that didn't happen either. (and it's not likely to happen)
The arms race with the former Soviet Union is over. China is holding 300+ billion in US Treasury Notes. We're building factories all through Indo-China and Asia. We're importing Hugo's oil. Past President's talk about how much they like illegal Cuban Cigars. The list goes on and on. The point is we are in a global economy and global society today and we need to learn how to deal with it. The antiquated ways of the past (military intervention) are or should be over except in extreme circumstances. Iraq was not an extreme circumstance.
Our power emminated from our abundance of natural resources, manufacturing capabilities, prime farm land, size, climate, political system and last, but not least, our people. All of these factors have come together to produce a rich and varied economy that dwarfs the second place economy on this planet. Our military, while not the largest on the planet, is surely the best equipped and is backed up by a nuclear weapons program second to none. (I'm not real proud of this)
Virtually, no country is a threat to our way of life today. The only one that has the capability is Russia (appx. equal number of nukes) and they haven't shown any interest in being a threat to us in quite some time. I do imagine Putin is enjoying watching Bush self implode in Iraq, but that's about it. Putin knows in less then 2 years Bush/Cheney will be gone and there is only a very, very small chance we'll get someone as dumb as Bush again.
February 26, 2007 2:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Good job, STUDENT. Give'em hell! These dumb yank rednecks deserve a lesson. Long Live Hugo und Fidel and the new Russian military bases in S.America. Russia should protect the free dempcratic world from texan idiots.
February 26, 2007 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL-VA
I will conceed that the list of countries that are currently considered "threats" by the US is substantially longer than the list of countries they could ever realistically "fix". I think you are suggesting that, while many of these countries act or do things in an unsavory manner, the US really does not have that much to fear from many of these countries and we should engage them in a more positive way. I would argue that the US does do that currently with a lot of countries (i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) and gets duly criticized for that. For a superpower, its really a no-win situation.
The parent/child relationship (good analogy btw) works both ways and it does so because we are a superpower and most everyone else is not (at the moment). The fact of the matter is that people don't call upon the Kenyans or the Belgians to address world issues (the Israeli/Palestinian issue comes to mind here). For better or worse, they look to the US (as a child does a parent). Continuing the analogy, maybe the children should grow up and start working out some of the issues on their own. And yes, the US would need to learn to let go.
"Russia has been there before and it didn't work out to well." My concern is that if you were once a superpower with global aspirations and you experienced a setback, what would you want to do once you regained your strength? Should one not be wary of a country trying desperately to regain its Superpower status? Why did it not work out last time? Because they could not keep up with capitalism. Well they are working on fixing that. It could be that they have "learned" from their previous mistakes and would think they could do it "better" next time. But Superpowers never make major blunders like that, do they?
February 26, 2007 10:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave,
I know what NATO was set up for and I know it hasn't been used for that purpose for many years.
My point is we need more countries we're not going to engage in conflicts. It's this whacko view that all of these countries are threats that we really need to address. North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, China, most of the rest of the ME (tenuous), etc., etc., etc. We treat the world as a parent/child dynamic. We're the good parents and they're all bad children that need our discipline. It's sick. It's bad foreign policy and it leads to our invading and blowing up other countries. Right now we're nothing more then an irrational parent with the world's biggest paddle so it's no wonder most countries view us as more dangerous then anyone else.
As for this question the answer is simple. Russia's neighbors have nothing to worry about from Russia. Russia has been there before and it didn't work out to well. It would be very difficult to go back at this point in time. Currently, the Russian economy is just squeaking by and the cost of military conflicts of any size would bankrupt Putin.
February 26, 2007 8:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Happy that Russia is back? Yes. Ordinarily I would not be overjoyful however someoneone has to keep the current US President shackled as his desire to tell everyone what to do and bomb or invade anyone that doesn't needs some attention.
Some here need reminding that prior to his arrival everthing was looking better. Nuclear stockpiles were decreasing, missiles were aimed at empty oceans, and a lack of missile defences meant no one was going to shoot at anyone. Then came George! I'm not sure if baby Bush was ever told "no" as a child but that is what it looks like.
My advice to Putin is to build as many large nuclear warheads as possible, preferably 50-100 megatons as the US military are scared of these, and the missiles to launch them. Rip up Salt1, 2 and 3 (not as if the US has ratified them anyway) and tell Mr bush "Bring em on"!
A good nuclear war and the resulting nuclear winter will have a beneficial effect in cooling the climate change that we shall shortly have to endure.
Just a short note. The US President is not elected in a true democratic vote. Al Gore "won" in 2000 but lost on "chads".
February 26, 2007 12:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
ATHEIST, I have two news for you. The bad news is that your brain is dead. The good news is that you could make a good WP columnist.
By the way, you should know that there is no such thing as Kremlin operative in Russia. Everyone knows that there are only two groups of people in Russia: KGB and mafia. Whichever group you join you must have lots of sex with nice Russian girls. This is a part of the job contract. We also use bears to hunt down independent journalists and American tourists. This is our old tradition. I think after the crash course you fully qualify to work for WP.
(I am somewhat puzzled with the Indian part of the speech. Could you elaborate?)
February 25, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Kremlin operative: "May be there is a problem with democracy in Russia may be there is not. I have to see yet a serious discussion of the topic."
The discussion has already been conducted in all nations in the G-7: Canada, USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The unanimous opinion is that Russia does not qualify as a democracy.
The biggest problem is the Kremlin's continued use of politically motivated imprisonment and politically motivated assassination to eliminate critics of the government.
To "compensate", the Kremlin also creates political movements and parties to cater to various segments of the Russian population. This sickening behavior does not bother most Russians. Washington would never create a 3rd political party to cater to people who do not align with the Democrats or the Republicans.
Only someone paid by the Russian government or someone who is utterly ignorant would suggest that Russia is a democracy. Even Western money managers, who are very pro-Russia in the sense of enjoying the opportunity to invest in the Russian economy, agree that Russia is not a democracy.
The people who bear the primary blame for the political situation in Russia is the Russian people. They created this kind of sickening society.
In the very same way that the Indians and the Iranians are 100% responsible for destroying India and Iran, the Russians are 100% responsible for wrecking the political system in Russia.
In the very same way that the Japanese are 100% responsible for creating their incredibly successful liberal democracy, the Russians are responsible for creating their KGB-dominated assassination-prone society that contradicts basic notions of democracy.
February 25, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"The United States, like Germany, is a liberal democracy. The American people are firmly in control of the governmen, and their will is expressed once per two years at the ballot box."
If THAT is what being a democracy is about, then I understand why some people consider what we are attempting to sell the world as democracy "CRAP".
Voting every two years!... That is not a way for a people to be firmly in control of its government. No wonder Americans so little control their government(s).
February 25, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
the general population and especialy citizens affected by chyrnoble are more american minded than most people realize since so much of what we learn here comes from the media rather than personal relationships with the russian people.while working for a plumbing company a citizen of russia was able to be employed by my company.i had a personal work relationship with thisindividual.he was sickened by cancer from the fallout at chyrnoble where he worked for a long lenght of time.i will keep his name in anonomious.although he passed away several years ago from cancer due to radiation poisoning.he was just like any other good natured american.although he new he was dying his spirit was beautiful.he loved america and had relatives here of jewish decent and was true to his faith.he always dreamed of coming to america and was very educated about democracy.i never herd him say anything derogetory about anothers believes and never exspressed hatred.he was made at russia for the way he was treated and was not invavor of russia building nuclear power plants when thier was so much poverty.he was told the plant where he worked in russia was safe and would not harm him,he knew better but was helpless to act against the communist reqium out of fear for his loved ones.with all that he went through i was astouned at his demeaner and respect for the american way of life.his spiritualality got to your soul.however the communist russia was a different aspect.yes i do believe russia is trying to comeback and spread communism and is more dangerious now than ever before because the only way to spread communism is to reach agrrements with countries that are our enemies.and thier supplying iran with whatever is nessesary to make iran a nuclear power and start thier own union of allies which will give russia more room to go.however i feel china is the most dangerious threat to the u.s.and the rest of the freeworld.walmart should be put on the list of buisnesses that support terrorist nations.
February 25, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"A legitimate question is the need for NATO - does the west really believe in a reformed friendly Russia or is there still reason enough to fear them? I think the jury is still out on that."
You've been always paranoic about Russia. So I would bet on guilty verdict. On the other hand, with the new friends you've got you are screwed anyway.
February 25, 2007 3:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Student--In no way does your lack of good use of the English language detract from your perfectly inane arguments. Buy you may want to spell defense instead of defence. Of course, up to you. Now pout to the monitor.
February 25, 2007 3:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"Calling yourself a student on one hand and calling democracy crap is somewhat perplexing."
You missed the whole point, which is not surprising. Let me put the emphasis: (this PRODUCT you TRY TO SELL so hard is crap).
The difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is that you had something to sell to Soviets and have absolutely nothing to sell to Russians. You still try but your credibility is zero. And when you start talking about democracy in Russia you just sound ridiculous.
There is clearly no problem with the concept of democracy. The concept of free market is much more controversial and still I believe many (if not most) Russians would choose the US idea of the free market rather than the European. May be there is a problem with democracy in Russia may be there is not. I have to see yet a serious discussion of the topic. I hope that you do not regard WP publications as such discussions. Because if you do, then your brain is dead and the best thing you can do for humanity is kill yourself.
February 25, 2007 3:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Foreigner: "is this a - bad - joke ? Coming from an american ? Do you suggest that Cheney/Iraq/Guantanamo are the will of the american people ?"
The United States, like Germany, is a liberal democracy. The American people are firmly in control of the governmen, and their will is expressed once per two years at the ballot box.
At the same time, the American people occasionally express stupidity. You can see this stupidity in various failed foreign policies: an example is the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There is a substantial difference between Russian society and American society.
February 25, 2007 12:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL-VA
NATO was founded early in the Cold War with the express aim of defending western Europe against a military invasion by the Soviet Union. There is no reason to have NATO if you invite the Russians into it as it defeats the purpose. That would be like inviting known thiefs into your neighborhood watch program. A legitimate question is the need for NATO - does the west really believe in a reformed friendly Russia or is there still reason enough to fear them? I think the jury is still out on that.
Student
Your postings remind me of the following paraphrased Russian joke. An American and a Russian are talking and the American says, "In the US, we can walk up to President Bush and say to him 'I don't like the job you are doing'!". The Russian says "Well we can do that too!". "Really?" says the American. "Of course", says the Russian, "It's no problem to go into President Putin's office and say "I don't like the job that President Bush is doing!"
"Today your preying about the democracy has about zero value (this product you try to sell so hard is crap). Nobody understands what are you really selling and everyone suspects that you have some hidden agenda." Calling yourself a student on one hand and calling democracy crap is somewhat perplexing. I can understand the hesitation of trust, given the lack of support the US provided at the end of the USSR. But as a student, one would think that you would be a little more thoughtful on your ideas of the worthiness of democracy.
February 25, 2007 11:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Enemies, enemies everywhere. Oh, the sky is falling. The world is such a dangerous place and it's up to the United States to set all these bad people right?
Not everyone is going to agree with us all the time and that doesn't make them bad. We normally don't agree with ourselves half the time and despite what Bish says we're not emboldening the "enemies".
I'm serious, invite Russia into NATO. It would be good to have differing views.
February 25, 2007 9:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
hi, in sports russia is regaining a prestigious position, much to the suprise of pundits who thought that russia would not be able to repeat the successes of the centrally-organized soviet sports system. russia's medal tally at the turin olympics increased dramatically from salt lake city and expectations are rising for beijing '08, especially in women's track and field. in tennis, russia is the dominant nation. cska moscow won the euroleague last year, and could repeat this year. sochi could and should be awareded the rights to host the '14 winter games (here are some pics of putin at some of the sochi sites: http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20070222/61098485.html).
in space, too, russia is doing well and their moon and mars plans are running ahead of nasa's, china's, and europes's, illogically really since russia's space budget for 2006 was $912.3M, europe's $3.8B, and nasa's $16.5B. for a short time after the discovery disaster, through russia was the sole way to the int'l space station. to everyone's suprise again, russia is back in a major way in space.
in international relations, strong ties with china, india, france, and germany, have more than offset declining relations with eastern/central europe and the u.s., who has lost a lot of legitimacy by waging an illegal war on false pretenses.
militarily: the best missiles in the business, a fifth generation fighter, new nuclear subs, and talks of undefendable scalar weaponary give russia more than enough leeway here.
economically: tremendous budget and trade surpluses have lifted russia from financial abyss. it is rich in natural resources and as plans to diversify the economy into highTech and services come to fruitition, mind you the russian populous is highly educated in math and science, russia will become an even more lethal economic powerhouse -- especially when the u.s.'s convient fiat dollar dominance is brought to an end.
==================
so, in all these spheres many counted russia out, but it's back in a major way. the parallels to napolean's invastion of russia are great. then, russia vacated its cities, fell back, and let the enemy weaken itself before going in for the kill and driving the enemy out.
==================
db330.blogspot.com
February 25, 2007 9:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments