[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"We see Putin hand-picking his successor and creating a new title for himself because he's term limited out of office."
He's Prime Minister, there's nothing new in this title. And what's wrong that he's still 'in charge'? I've heard this arguement three times in this thread, what's the problem? That's okay for Mr Roosevelt to be the President for four terms, but no one else can be 'Roosevelt' for their countries? I know that weak Russia with Yeltsin was funny for the rest of the world, but we wanted something else for our country and Mr Putin gave us that 'something else'. You have to live here to see the changes.
It seems like only Cuba and Panama are brave enough to say that Georgian aggression towards Ossetia wasn't right, other countries still discuss about how evil Russians are. Toy given to the kids, kids are happy.[/QUOTE]
I never said it was OK for Roosevelt to have all of the time in office he did. At the time, we didn't have term limits for the presidency. After seeing how long he was in office, we created term limits because we recognized that leaving the option open for one man was opening the door for a dangerous situation. We were extraordinarily lucky that he was the kind of president he was and didn't seek to permanently establish himself in the government. True, there is nothing new in his (Putin's) title; what is new is the scope of power the title now holds.
I don't necessarily see a problem with Putin still being in power, if he didn't raise so many other red flags. What about the assassination attempts on the Ukrainian President and the successful assassination of the Russian dissident in London? He didn't even bother to attempt to realistically deny the government's hand in that, instead trying to paint the man as a criminal and treasonous, which doesn't deny the murders and looks a whole lot like Putin attempting some international spin. What about the loss of religious freedom in Russia has he moves to make Russian Orthodox THE religion in the country? What about the constant persecution of Garry Kasparov, of whom a former KGB general said, "I do not talk in details?people who knew them are all dead now because they were vocal, they were open. I am quiet. There is only one man who is vocal, and he may be in trouble: [former] world chess champion [Garry] Kasparov. He has been very outspoken in his attacks on Putin, and I believe that he is probably next on the list." (Source: Foreign Policy Journal Online, July 2007.) I'm the first to admit he's done some wonderful things for Russia; getting your economy running again, etc. etc. But many examples can be given of people who did good things for their country, only to turn around and become a threat to anyone who opposed their views and thereby dangerous.
And I never said Georgia's move in Ossetia was acceptable. We in the world are a long way past the days of empire, where you can just randomly acquire territory because you feel like it. Aggression towards them was unwarranted, and I fully admit that they should be reprimanded for that. But they have called for a cease fire, and Russia has not acknowledged it and continues to fight on, despite earlier calling for a truce and negotiations with the Georgian government. Tell me, Serry, what does that sound like from the outside?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The way it's looking right now;
Refugees from South Ossetia, Abchazia and surrounding regions spill out both across Russia and Georgia. Russian military activity is spreading, while they and the Georgians are busy accusing eachother of war-crimes. Strong words in the UN Security Council, with the US telling off Russia, and Russia saying democratically elected leaders "tend to get in the way". US airlifts Georgian troops out of Iraq; Russia considers this near to an act of war, and doesn't take it lightly. French foreign minister Kouchner came under a Russian airstrike. Saakashvili is calling for the US and the EU to intervene.
The way I see this, Saakashvili tries to provoke a revival of the Cold War to join the West, the former SU countries in Europe (like the Ukraine, Poland) tend to support this to spite Russia, the EU has interests in the pipeline through Georgia, so they don't tend to favor Russia, also due to Putin's autocratic ways, and George W. Bush doesn't mind reviving a cold war, because it makes for a nice diversion, and reminds him of the good 'ole days.
Refugees from South Ossetia, Abchazia and surrounding regions spill out both across Russia and Georgia. Russian military activity is spreading, while they and the Georgians are busy accusing eachother of war-crimes. Strong words in the UN Security Council, with the US telling off Russia, and Russia saying democratically elected leaders "tend to get in the way". US airlifts Georgian troops out of Iraq; Russia considers this near to an act of war, and doesn't take it lightly. French foreign minister Kouchner came under a Russian airstrike. Saakashvili is calling for the US and the EU to intervene.
The way I see this, Saakashvili tries to provoke a revival of the Cold War to join the West, the former SU countries in Europe (like the Ukraine, Poland) tend to support this to spite Russia, the EU has interests in the pipeline through Georgia, so they don't tend to favor Russia, also due to Putin's autocratic ways, and George W. Bush doesn't mind reviving a cold war, because it makes for a nice diversion, and reminds him of the good 'ole days.
I hope it ends as soon as possible.
=(
=(
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ms. Rebel wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I hope it ends as soon as possible.
=([/QUOTE]
Well, me too. All I can say.
=([/QUOTE]
Well, me too. All I can say.
"What about the assassination attempts on the Ukrainian President and the successful assassination of the Russian dissident in London? He didn't even bother to attempt to realistically deny the government's hand in that, instead trying to paint the man as a criminal and treasonous, which doesn't deny the murders and looks a whole lot like Putin attempting some international spin"
If you are referring to the
1. presumed dioxine poisoning of 2004 Ukraine election candidate Viktor Yushchenko: it was never proven he was poisoned, in fact his doctor in Vienna had severe doubts that there was any poisoning, he was fired from his job. There was a lot of evidence that he may have been poisoned but it was never proven that Russia was behind it. Yushchenko himselef always blamed it on his Ukranian opponents
2. the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London: Putin did deny that the Russian secret service was involved. In fact he said that if the Russian secret service had killed Litvinenko, nobody would have noticed it(!)
I am far from thinking that Putin is a good democrat or a role model in any way. I am sure Russia welcomed the invasion of South Ossetia to prove to the world that Georgia is not the "beacon of liberty" as labelled by President Bush. However, Saakashvili is not a saint, either. After all, he did not hesitate to invade South Ossetia and to kill thousands of innocent people. Right now it's hard to decide what is fact and what is propaganda, so it's good that at least the killing stopped.
If you are referring to the
1. presumed dioxine poisoning of 2004 Ukraine election candidate Viktor Yushchenko: it was never proven he was poisoned, in fact his doctor in Vienna had severe doubts that there was any poisoning, he was fired from his job. There was a lot of evidence that he may have been poisoned but it was never proven that Russia was behind it. Yushchenko himselef always blamed it on his Ukranian opponents
2. the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London: Putin did deny that the Russian secret service was involved. In fact he said that if the Russian secret service had killed Litvinenko, nobody would have noticed it(!)
I am far from thinking that Putin is a good democrat or a role model in any way. I am sure Russia welcomed the invasion of South Ossetia to prove to the world that Georgia is not the "beacon of liberty" as labelled by President Bush. However, Saakashvili is not a saint, either. After all, he did not hesitate to invade South Ossetia and to kill thousands of innocent people. Right now it's hard to decide what is fact and what is propaganda, so it's good that at least the killing stopped.
According to Georgia, it hasn't. We'll see, in the end, after many, many people have been killed.
[QUOTE]It's not in the interest of Europe to create new tensions with Russia.[/QUOTE]
Barbara, does that also mean we (Czech Republic) should listen to threats coming from Russia and refuse having a US (or US/NATO) defensive radar base here? We're also an independent country and yet Russia decided to tell us what exactly we can or can't do (just like they did during the cold war).
I definitely don't want to defend Georgia but I don't trust Russia at all, for me it's the most dangerous country in the world. Just like the USA, Russia can conquer almost any country, if they decide to. And UN won't be able to do anything about that.
Barbara, does that also mean we (Czech Republic) should listen to threats coming from Russia and refuse having a US (or US/NATO) defensive radar base here? We're also an independent country and yet Russia decided to tell us what exactly we can or can't do (just like they did during the cold war).
I definitely don't want to defend Georgia but I don't trust Russia at all, for me it's the most dangerous country in the world. Just like the USA, Russia can conquer almost any country, if they decide to. And UN won't be able to do anything about that.
I think it's very unlikely that Russia invades a EU country, Martin. I think that if they threatened your country (I confess complete ignorance here), all issues must be solved in a peaceful and civilized way. The cold war is over and it should stay that way. Yes, your country is an independent country but who decided about the US/NATO defense systems - does that strengthen your independence or will you depend on NATO and the USA? They did not help you last time the USSR invaded your country. From my view as a citizen of a long time NATO country I think we all should refrain from putting pressure on other nations. In Germany we lived at the border of the two "camps" for decades and all weapons in Europe were directed at Germany, friends and enemies. I can't say that it felt safe but we were lucky and the "balance of terror" worked.
I don't know if it's good for the Czech Republic to have NATO defense systems (who is in charge? Czechs or NATO?)in the country. I really believe very strongly that peace must be secured together with Russia to end all hostility and threats. If we are all in "the same boat" there won't be any reason for a war. I can imagine that you feel different because your country has a different history.
I don't know if it's good for the Czech Republic to have NATO defense systems (who is in charge? Czechs or NATO?)in the country. I really believe very strongly that peace must be secured together with Russia to end all hostility and threats. If we are all in "the same boat" there won't be any reason for a war. I can imagine that you feel different because your country has a different history.
Am I the only one who thinks that the USA is always looking for new ways to create conflicts in Europe? Just look at the Kosovo situation. It would never have happened without the USA.
And what's in it for them? Really? If they're looking to export their views and their freedom, then maybe they should take it somewhere where else, preferably where nobody lives.
Don't believe me? Ask the average Iraqi.
Honestly, though. George Bush is just as bad as any terrorist.
An Islamic fundamenalist fights in the name of God, while Bush fights for liberty (and probably God as well). In my eyes, they're both murderers.
And what's in it for them? Really? If they're looking to export their views and their freedom, then maybe they should take it somewhere where else, preferably where nobody lives.
Don't believe me? Ask the average Iraqi.
Honestly, though. George Bush is just as bad as any terrorist.
An Islamic fundamenalist fights in the name of God, while Bush fights for liberty (and probably God as well). In my eyes, they're both murderers.
Russia's leadership is not stupid enough to start an armed conflict with Europe at large. Though, I must say, if peace isn't achieved in Georgia soon, I think the Ukraine might join in...
What I *do* think they're after is a restarting of the Cold War. Why? First of all, Putin's personal affinity: it would greatly increase the work of the secret service (what used to be the KGB), which is still headed by Putin's closest friends. Second, as a means of rallying the nation: Russia is not unified, and this might help. Third: in the hopes that it will attract anti-US allies.
Bush would gladly accept a Cold War, if only because it's what he's used to, and Europe would probably not mind either, as we are lacking a sense of unity, too.
What I *do* think they're after is a restarting of the Cold War. Why? First of all, Putin's personal affinity: it would greatly increase the work of the secret service (what used to be the KGB), which is still headed by Putin's closest friends. Second, as a means of rallying the nation: Russia is not unified, and this might help. Third: in the hopes that it will attract anti-US allies.
Bush would gladly accept a Cold War, if only because it's what he's used to, and Europe would probably not mind either, as we are lacking a sense of unity, too.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
1. presumed dioxine poisoning of 2004 Ukraine election candidate Viktor Yushchenko: it was never proven he was poisoned, in fact his doctor in Vienna had severe doubts that there was any poisoning, he was fired from his job. There was a lot of evidence that he may have been poisoned but it was never proven that Russia was behind it. Yushchenko himselef always blamed it on his Ukranian opponents
2. the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London: Putin did deny that the Russian secret service was involved. In fact he said that if the Russian secret service had killed Litvinenko, nobody would have noticed it(!)[/QUOTE]
That there's no hard proof doesn't say that Russia hasn't got anything to do with it. Especially the Litvinenko case tells me that they were involved. What Putin said about it is not important to me... do you really think that he's gonna admit it?
I personally don't trust Russia either. With invading Georgia, Russia tries to show their power again. Georgia might have provoked Russia, Russia provokes the NATO now. Not only by the invasion, but also by shooting on journalists on purpose and by not getting their troops out of Georgia, as they promised.
1. presumed dioxine poisoning of 2004 Ukraine election candidate Viktor Yushchenko: it was never proven he was poisoned, in fact his doctor in Vienna had severe doubts that there was any poisoning, he was fired from his job. There was a lot of evidence that he may have been poisoned but it was never proven that Russia was behind it. Yushchenko himselef always blamed it on his Ukranian opponents
2. the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London: Putin did deny that the Russian secret service was involved. In fact he said that if the Russian secret service had killed Litvinenko, nobody would have noticed it(!)[/QUOTE]
That there's no hard proof doesn't say that Russia hasn't got anything to do with it. Especially the Litvinenko case tells me that they were involved. What Putin said about it is not important to me... do you really think that he's gonna admit it?
I personally don't trust Russia either. With invading Georgia, Russia tries to show their power again. Georgia might have provoked Russia, Russia provokes the NATO now. Not only by the invasion, but also by shooting on journalists on purpose and by not getting their troops out of Georgia, as they promised.
So, this region that wants to break away from Georgia, it's ethnically Russian, right?
Sort of hypocritical of Russia to support that since they don't support Kosovo.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
Sort of hypocritical of Russia to support that since they don't support Kosovo.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
Please read my message in context and quote it completely. I was answering masterhistorygirl who said that Putin did not even attempt to deny Russian involvement in the Litvinenko murder. The truth is that Putin did deny it on a press conference broadcasted on TV. He said that if the Russian secret service had been involved in the murder, nobody would have found any traces of the crime. Please notice that this was very cynical to say but maybe it was even true. You may know that the British police thinks they know the killer and asked Russia to extradite him which Russia denied - the Russian law does not allow to extradite a Russian citizen to another country (same in many other countries, btw). Russia asked England for evidence and proof and offered to put the person on trial themselves but England never sent anything. It would have been a chance to see if Russia is serious about law and international cooperation. If Russia was not involved in the murder we should be very worried about terrorists who have access to pollonium and the means to poison someone - a threat that surpasses any other terrorist threats we know about. Strangely, this was never much an issue in the media or in political debates, although our governments usually grab any chance to keep us frightened.
As to the provocation in Georgia/Russia: we should keep an open mind and not let us drag into this cold war attitude again. After the "iron curtain" fell, there was a very promising global wish to disarm and aim at peaceful cooperation between the former two camps. We should not turn around this development and start threatening Russia with new weapon systems in countries who are former Russian allies and we should not expand the NATO to a neighbour state of Russia. We should read about the Cuban missiles crisis in the 60s and learn how America responded when the USSR tried to install missiles in Cuba. Russia has the same right to ensure their own safety as the USA, don't they?
Of course it's all about the oil and gas pipelines, otherwise the West would not give a damn about Georgia.
As to the provocation in Georgia/Russia: we should keep an open mind and not let us drag into this cold war attitude again. After the "iron curtain" fell, there was a very promising global wish to disarm and aim at peaceful cooperation between the former two camps. We should not turn around this development and start threatening Russia with new weapon systems in countries who are former Russian allies and we should not expand the NATO to a neighbour state of Russia. We should read about the Cuban missiles crisis in the 60s and learn how America responded when the USSR tried to install missiles in Cuba. Russia has the same right to ensure their own safety as the USA, don't they?
Of course it's all about the oil and gas pipelines, otherwise the West would not give a damn about Georgia.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Please read my message in context and quote it completely. I was answering masterhistorygirl who said that Putin did not even attempt to deny Russian involvement in the Litvinenko murder. The truth is that Putin did deny it on a press conference broadcasted on TV. He said that if the Russian secret service had been involved in the murder, nobody would have found any traces of the crime. Please notice that this was very cynical to say but maybe it was even true. You may know that the British police thinks they know the killer and asked Russia to extradite him which Russia denied - the Russian law does not allow to extradite a Russian citizen to another country (same in many other countries, btw). Russia asked England for evidence and proof and offered to put the person on trial themselves but England never sent anything. It would have been a chance to see if Russia is serious about law and international cooperation. If Russia was not involved in the murder we should be very worried about terrorists who have access to pollonium and the means to poison someone - a threat that surpasses any other terrorist threats we know about. Strangely, this was never much an issue in the media or in political debates, although our governments usually grab any chance to keep us frightened.
As to the provocation in Georgia/Russia: we should keep an open mind and not let us drag into this cold war attitude again. After the "iron curtain" fell, there was a very promising global wish to disarm and aim at peaceful cooperation between the former two camps. We should not turn around this development and start threatening Russia with new weapon systems in countries who are former Russian allies and we should not expand the NATO to a neighbour state of Russia. We should read about the Cuban missiles crisis in the 60s and learn how America responded when the USSR tried to install missiles in Cuba. Russia has the same right to ensure their own safety as the USA, don't they?[/QUOTE]
What the US wants to build is a weapon shield, they're not trying to install missiles in countries who are former Russian allies... As much as we can use the word "allies" here. Those countries were more invaded and ruled by the Russians than they were actually allies.
And why shouldn't we not add neighbour countries of the US to the NATO? Just to keep them happy? I'm not saying that we should add Georgia, but if they actually add something to the NATO... then that country should be added. That it's a neighbour of Russia shouldn't have anything to do with that.
I agree with you about one thing... We shouldn't create a "cold war" situation again. But Russia's ecomony is growing, now they want to gain back power also. The US/NATO should keep things in a diplomatic way as far as possible, but at the same time we should keep a close eye on Russia.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Of course it's all about the oil and gas pipelines, otherwise the West would not give a damn about Georgia[/QUOTE]
It's not only the reason why the West is involved... that is also the reason why Russia invaded Georgia. Of course, the countries were in a conflict already. But Georgia is for Russia of stagetical importance also. And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?
As to the provocation in Georgia/Russia: we should keep an open mind and not let us drag into this cold war attitude again. After the "iron curtain" fell, there was a very promising global wish to disarm and aim at peaceful cooperation between the former two camps. We should not turn around this development and start threatening Russia with new weapon systems in countries who are former Russian allies and we should not expand the NATO to a neighbour state of Russia. We should read about the Cuban missiles crisis in the 60s and learn how America responded when the USSR tried to install missiles in Cuba. Russia has the same right to ensure their own safety as the USA, don't they?[/QUOTE]
What the US wants to build is a weapon shield, they're not trying to install missiles in countries who are former Russian allies... As much as we can use the word "allies" here. Those countries were more invaded and ruled by the Russians than they were actually allies.
And why shouldn't we not add neighbour countries of the US to the NATO? Just to keep them happy? I'm not saying that we should add Georgia, but if they actually add something to the NATO... then that country should be added. That it's a neighbour of Russia shouldn't have anything to do with that.
I agree with you about one thing... We shouldn't create a "cold war" situation again. But Russia's ecomony is growing, now they want to gain back power also. The US/NATO should keep things in a diplomatic way as far as possible, but at the same time we should keep a close eye on Russia.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Of course it's all about the oil and gas pipelines, otherwise the West would not give a damn about Georgia[/QUOTE]
It's not only the reason why the West is involved... that is also the reason why Russia invaded Georgia. Of course, the countries were in a conflict already. But Georgia is for Russia of stagetical importance also. And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?