It's all in the Pravda, Gym Bitch. This one is interesting: it's today's editorial - http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/21-08-2008/106156-Russia_NATO-0
------
Russia has informed Norway of its intention to completely cut back its military cooperation with NATO. The statement was made the next day after the emergency meeting of NATO ministers on the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia. The ministers agreed not to end their ties with Russia, although the future cooperation would depend on Russia's pullout from Georgia. NATO members did not decline their cooperation with Russia despite USA?s appeals.
A top official spokesperson for Russia's Defense Ministry called the Embassy of Norway in Moscow and said that Moscow was planning to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and its allies, Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian ministry said.
Eide told The AP that Russia would soon send a written note of its decision to Norway soon. Norwegian diplomats were going to meet their Russian counterparts Thursday to clear out the situation.
"It is our understanding that other NATO countries will receive similar notes," Eide said. The ministry said the Russian official is known to the embassy, but Norway declined to provide a name or any further identifying information.
Neither Kremlin officials, nor Russia?s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, made any comments on the report.
US officials described Russia?s decision as unfortunate.
"If this indeed is the case, it would be unfortunate. We need to work with Russia on a range of security issues, but we are obviously very concerned about Russian behavior in Georgia," U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.
Under a 2002 agreement that set up the NATO-Russia Council, the former Cold War foes began several cooperation projects. They include occasional participation of Russian warships in NATO counterterrorism patrols in the Mediterranean Sea, sharing expertise to combat heroin trafficking out of Afghanistan and developing battlefield anti-missile technology.
Last week, Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned the Western alliance against cutting off cooperation, saying it would hurt both sides, the AP reports.
The military cooperation between Russia and NATO ended de-facto upon the initiative of the latter. A Russia-NATO naval exercise FRUKUS became the first on the list. The event was supposed to take place in the Pacific Ocean with the participation of the USA, Britain, France and Russia.
Afterwards, the USA barred Russia from a joint anti-terrorist operation Active Endeavor. Russia?s sea patrol ship Ladny had to return back to its base in Sevastopol.
The USA decided to cancel US-Russian anti-terrorist exercise slated to take place on August 28-30.
Moscow responded similarly. On Tuesday Moscow pulled out of Open Spirit 2008 annual exercise.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
So the source is a Russian site... ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Mir@cle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So the source is a Russian site... ;-)[/QUOTE]
Yeah! :o) Russian newspaper (it's translated in portuguese, by the way!). I always read it. Look at this one, I found it particularly interesting. I ask you to take a look at the...fifth paragraph: does it remember a Queen song? "Pigheaded rules..." ;-))
Now, seriously, I think it's interesting to take a look at this because I guess it's possible that an article like the one below expresses pretty much the feelings of many people in Russia - Russian Queenzoners could tell us more about it. So, what I think I'm trying to say is that the stalemate, so to say, is much more serious than people might have thought. It has been generating in Russia and other parts of the world even more hatred towards the U.S and the NATO, I guess. And that's not good news in the world we live today when such countries wield so much power...(I hate wars, I'm all for peace in domestic and international affairs).
"Bush, Cheney and Rice; Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels"
With what moral authority do these mainstays of the neoconservative, corporate elitist, greedy, self-interested Washington regime speak, when in their own closet there are skeletons labelled Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, mass murder, war crimes, illegal invasion, torture, illegal detention, disrespect for international law, denial of due process, rape...?
That Bush and Rice are wholly incompetent to hold their jobs has been patently obvious from the beginning, when Rice started off by making insulting and derogatory remarks whenever she mentioned Russia, yet while as National Security Advisor prior to 9/11 failed to provide any national security whatsoever. Talk about being downright abrasive and rude, hardly the behaviour required for a lady diplomat, but then again, nobody ever expected any better because she is not a diplomat, never was, never will be. She is a cheap, dimwitted guttersnipe, an apology for a lady and a human being and wholly unfit to hold the office and serve her country, both of which her very presence insults.
As regards Bush, well, one has only to go to the Bushisms website and the man comes across as a vapid and abject joke. True, he looks pretty good holding a plastic turkey and does appear to have the ability to improvise with kids on the White House lawn when left alone with them, appearing to be on the same intellectual level. Kind of like a retarded uncle who hangs around the ranch saying inanities but who nobody ever takes seriously.
As for Cheney, this eminence grise learned a long time ago to shut the f. up and do his evil deeds behind closed doors. Nice man. After all, here is the man with all the contacts among his neocon friends, the corporate elitists whose policies dictate what Washington does and how many people its foreign policies kill. Nice man. Rumour has it that not even his own family speak to him. And how clever he was when all those contracts were allocated without tender after the US military forces targeted civilian structures in Iraq. Nice man.
If this pig-headed trio of crypto-fascists was to focus on its own country?s deeds, then nobody would have anything to say. It is, after all, up to the people of the USA to vote for whoever they wish to lead them, deceive them, act against their interests, get the country hated in the international community, screw up its economy...whatever turns you on.
However, the constant intrusion into Russia?s sphere of interests, the barrage of lies they sell to the corporate media parading them as the truth, and the stream of insults and provocations that come from these legions of Baal cannot and will not go unanswered.
Just who do Bush and Rice think they are, considering they can tell Russia when to take its troops out of Georgia? Has the USA taken its troops from Iraq? Has Russia got concentration camps like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay? Did Russia go after Saakashvili and hang him? Have Georgian soldiers been forced into human pyramids, had dogs set upon them, been raped, water-boarded, their food peed into or forced to eat disgusting things which go against their culture?
Did Saakashvili not declare a ceasefire and while he was doing so mass his troops, savagely attack Tskhinvali, destroy 85% of the city's structures with military hardware and slaughter 2.000 civilians on 7/8 August?
In their failure to mention the cause of the current conflict once, Bush, Rice and the entire odious regime give their tacit approval to Georgia?s war crimes, just as they gave their tacit approval to the war crimes perpetrated in Iraq and elsewhere (CIA torture flights and ships, and Guantanamo Bay concentration camp).
Just how involved were the US military adviors that night when Georgian peacekeeping troops fired on their Russian colleagues and when the barrage of bombs and missiles killed 2.000 civilians, when Georgian tanks ran down old ladies, when Georgian US-trained troops threw grenades into basements full of huddled and terrified women and children? Was this what the US forces trained them for? And if yes, would anyone be surprised?
So, here it is, loud and clear, for Bush, Cheney and Rice to understand. If they think that like Goebbels, they can repeat the same lie time and time again until it becomes the truth, they are wholly wrong, as wrong as the miscalculated act of aggression against Russia, which led to the military forces they support being thrashed.
If they think that like Himmler, they can win hearts and minds through concentration camps and torture, history taught the Soviet Union (which lost 26 million of its sons and daughters freeing Europe from Fascist tyrrany) and the rest of the world a solemn lesson which forced the enlightened among us to vow never to allow the story to be repeated again.
Yet like Hitler, these three try. And they do not give up. And they keep on provoking time and time and time again.
Russia made a limited response to an act of provocation, its right under international law, in which 2.000 of its citizens were killed by US-trained Georgian troops in one night. Quite what this trio were thinking they would achieve that night, only they know. What they lost must have been big, given the soreness and arrogance in their voices today, and the attempts at self-justification.
And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece. What a sorry-looking business card.
The female is sooooooooo 1980s...
For two weeks now, they have been telling Russia what to do. Two weeks on, Russia is doing what it understands it must do and will leave Georgia as and when it sees fit. If Bush and Rice want to continue making fools of themselves by repeating the same thing over and over, it just proves their utter impotence to gain anything from yet another failed Washington policy. Has there ever been a successful one?"
Yeah! :o) Russian newspaper (it's translated in portuguese, by the way!). I always read it. Look at this one, I found it particularly interesting. I ask you to take a look at the...fifth paragraph: does it remember a Queen song? "Pigheaded rules..." ;-))
Now, seriously, I think it's interesting to take a look at this because I guess it's possible that an article like the one below expresses pretty much the feelings of many people in Russia - Russian Queenzoners could tell us more about it. So, what I think I'm trying to say is that the stalemate, so to say, is much more serious than people might have thought. It has been generating in Russia and other parts of the world even more hatred towards the U.S and the NATO, I guess. And that's not good news in the world we live today when such countries wield so much power...(I hate wars, I'm all for peace in domestic and international affairs).
"Bush, Cheney and Rice; Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels"
With what moral authority do these mainstays of the neoconservative, corporate elitist, greedy, self-interested Washington regime speak, when in their own closet there are skeletons labelled Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, mass murder, war crimes, illegal invasion, torture, illegal detention, disrespect for international law, denial of due process, rape...?
That Bush and Rice are wholly incompetent to hold their jobs has been patently obvious from the beginning, when Rice started off by making insulting and derogatory remarks whenever she mentioned Russia, yet while as National Security Advisor prior to 9/11 failed to provide any national security whatsoever. Talk about being downright abrasive and rude, hardly the behaviour required for a lady diplomat, but then again, nobody ever expected any better because she is not a diplomat, never was, never will be. She is a cheap, dimwitted guttersnipe, an apology for a lady and a human being and wholly unfit to hold the office and serve her country, both of which her very presence insults.
As regards Bush, well, one has only to go to the Bushisms website and the man comes across as a vapid and abject joke. True, he looks pretty good holding a plastic turkey and does appear to have the ability to improvise with kids on the White House lawn when left alone with them, appearing to be on the same intellectual level. Kind of like a retarded uncle who hangs around the ranch saying inanities but who nobody ever takes seriously.
As for Cheney, this eminence grise learned a long time ago to shut the f. up and do his evil deeds behind closed doors. Nice man. After all, here is the man with all the contacts among his neocon friends, the corporate elitists whose policies dictate what Washington does and how many people its foreign policies kill. Nice man. Rumour has it that not even his own family speak to him. And how clever he was when all those contracts were allocated without tender after the US military forces targeted civilian structures in Iraq. Nice man.
If this pig-headed trio of crypto-fascists was to focus on its own country?s deeds, then nobody would have anything to say. It is, after all, up to the people of the USA to vote for whoever they wish to lead them, deceive them, act against their interests, get the country hated in the international community, screw up its economy...whatever turns you on.
However, the constant intrusion into Russia?s sphere of interests, the barrage of lies they sell to the corporate media parading them as the truth, and the stream of insults and provocations that come from these legions of Baal cannot and will not go unanswered.
Just who do Bush and Rice think they are, considering they can tell Russia when to take its troops out of Georgia? Has the USA taken its troops from Iraq? Has Russia got concentration camps like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay? Did Russia go after Saakashvili and hang him? Have Georgian soldiers been forced into human pyramids, had dogs set upon them, been raped, water-boarded, their food peed into or forced to eat disgusting things which go against their culture?
Did Saakashvili not declare a ceasefire and while he was doing so mass his troops, savagely attack Tskhinvali, destroy 85% of the city's structures with military hardware and slaughter 2.000 civilians on 7/8 August?
In their failure to mention the cause of the current conflict once, Bush, Rice and the entire odious regime give their tacit approval to Georgia?s war crimes, just as they gave their tacit approval to the war crimes perpetrated in Iraq and elsewhere (CIA torture flights and ships, and Guantanamo Bay concentration camp).
Just how involved were the US military adviors that night when Georgian peacekeeping troops fired on their Russian colleagues and when the barrage of bombs and missiles killed 2.000 civilians, when Georgian tanks ran down old ladies, when Georgian US-trained troops threw grenades into basements full of huddled and terrified women and children? Was this what the US forces trained them for? And if yes, would anyone be surprised?
So, here it is, loud and clear, for Bush, Cheney and Rice to understand. If they think that like Goebbels, they can repeat the same lie time and time again until it becomes the truth, they are wholly wrong, as wrong as the miscalculated act of aggression against Russia, which led to the military forces they support being thrashed.
If they think that like Himmler, they can win hearts and minds through concentration camps and torture, history taught the Soviet Union (which lost 26 million of its sons and daughters freeing Europe from Fascist tyrrany) and the rest of the world a solemn lesson which forced the enlightened among us to vow never to allow the story to be repeated again.
Yet like Hitler, these three try. And they do not give up. And they keep on provoking time and time and time again.
Russia made a limited response to an act of provocation, its right under international law, in which 2.000 of its citizens were killed by US-trained Georgian troops in one night. Quite what this trio were thinking they would achieve that night, only they know. What they lost must have been big, given the soreness and arrogance in their voices today, and the attempts at self-justification.
And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece. What a sorry-looking business card.
The female is sooooooooo 1980s...
For two weeks now, they have been telling Russia what to do. Two weeks on, Russia is doing what it understands it must do and will leave Georgia as and when it sees fit. If Bush and Rice want to continue making fools of themselves by repeating the same thing over and over, it just proves their utter impotence to gain anything from yet another failed Washington policy. Has there ever been a successful one?"
I have to say I definitely see a Cold War brewing again here in this situation. But it's not neccessarily something that can be prevented. Believe me I know Russia's history, and none of us are in any position to dictate to them; but neither are we in a position to be dictated to. (I mean "we" as in Western European/UN/US...not just the US)
Putin, who is obviously still in control of the whole situation, is determined to push this into a conflict. He's the one making the Cold War posturing, making the result inevitable. If we don't let him get what he wants, then the Cold War is back and its "our" fault for pushing him. If we hold off and assume he's bluffing, then as Tijn points out he just keeps going. He wants a war; he wants conflict. Nothing we do is going to stop that. He is the only one who could stop this.
Putin, who is obviously still in control of the whole situation, is determined to push this into a conflict. He's the one making the Cold War posturing, making the result inevitable. If we don't let him get what he wants, then the Cold War is back and its "our" fault for pushing him. If we hold off and assume he's bluffing, then as Tijn points out he just keeps going. He wants a war; he wants conflict. Nothing we do is going to stop that. He is the only one who could stop this.
Why does Putin want a war? This war would not be in another part of the world, it would be in Russia. Why would he want that?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why does Putin want a war? This war would not be in another part of the world, it would be in Russia. Why would he want that?[/QUOTE]
Not a war. But, yet, I'm worried...like, he may not want a war - I guess he doesn't - but he may be interested in further stress among Russia and NATO countries. I mean, this kind of situation, not war, but this climate is sometimes good for leaders to push their own domestic and international agendas - they can get the people united, they can do things which would be unacceptable before under the pretext that they're under threat and so on, well, I think it's, it's sad to say, but I think it's an interesting situation to many politicians.
What I'm saying doesn't apply to Putin only, by the way, I think it applies generally - this atmosphere is helpful for leaders to push more radical agendas, both domestically and internationally.
I have to say I'm sad with all this. Like...again? The world is already stage of so much violence, and now all this tension between two major powers building up...again?
It's quite dispiriting.
Not a war. But, yet, I'm worried...like, he may not want a war - I guess he doesn't - but he may be interested in further stress among Russia and NATO countries. I mean, this kind of situation, not war, but this climate is sometimes good for leaders to push their own domestic and international agendas - they can get the people united, they can do things which would be unacceptable before under the pretext that they're under threat and so on, well, I think it's, it's sad to say, but I think it's an interesting situation to many politicians.
What I'm saying doesn't apply to Putin only, by the way, I think it applies generally - this atmosphere is helpful for leaders to push more radical agendas, both domestically and internationally.
I have to say I'm sad with all this. Like...again? The world is already stage of so much violence, and now all this tension between two major powers building up...again?
It's quite dispiriting.
"this atmosphere is helpful for leaders to push more radical agendas, both domestically and internationally."
Yes, that is very true. In Europe, however, a war would not be somewhere else - whoever starts a war here risks to blow up his own country. Huge amounts of nuclear weapons are still stationed all over the continent ready to bomb us back into stone age. Nobody, including Russia, can have an interest in heating up this conflict. Putin is not that crazy, he made his point in Georgia and hopefully, things return to normal.
Yes, that is very true. In Europe, however, a war would not be somewhere else - whoever starts a war here risks to blow up his own country. Huge amounts of nuclear weapons are still stationed all over the continent ready to bomb us back into stone age. Nobody, including Russia, can have an interest in heating up this conflict. Putin is not that crazy, he made his point in Georgia and hopefully, things return to normal.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece. [/QUOTE]
Well, you thrown me. I thought you had something, earlier, Yara, but you seem to be all about name calling. Instead of fighting back, though, I think it's time you were clued in on something.
Russia never ruled the roost. And now the facts have come out about the Cold War, we all know that Russia really wasn't in a race at all. Nothing worked in Russia. Not a lot really does today.
And if you've forgotten the Genocide scoreboard, it still has Stalin way ahead of any US President... combined. We're talking about the Hitler class. I noticed you left him out of your little tirade. Plus remember your old way of getting rid of Tsars? Bullets. Even the kids. Nice.
And if Russia stands for piece, how come all the Nuclear Plants in Iran and North Korea have "C.C.C.P." written on them somewhere? There's always two sides to propaganda.
Well, you thrown me. I thought you had something, earlier, Yara, but you seem to be all about name calling. Instead of fighting back, though, I think it's time you were clued in on something.
Russia never ruled the roost. And now the facts have come out about the Cold War, we all know that Russia really wasn't in a race at all. Nothing worked in Russia. Not a lot really does today.
And if you've forgotten the Genocide scoreboard, it still has Stalin way ahead of any US President... combined. We're talking about the Hitler class. I noticed you left him out of your little tirade. Plus remember your old way of getting rid of Tsars? Bullets. Even the kids. Nice.
And if Russia stands for piece, how come all the Nuclear Plants in Iran and North Korea have "C.C.C.P." written on them somewhere? There's always two sides to propaganda.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece. [/QUOTE]
Well, you thrown me. I thought you had something, earlier, Yara, but you seem to be all about name calling. Instead of fighting back, though, I think it's time you were clued in on something.
Russia never ruled the roost. And now the facts have come out about the Cold War, we all know that Russia really wasn't in a race at all. Nothing worked in Russia. Not a lot really does today.
And if you've forgotten the Genocide scoreboard, it still has Stalin way ahead of any US President... combined. We're talking about the Hitler class. I noticed you left him out of your little tirade. Plus remember your old way of getting rid of Tsars? Bullets. Even the kids. Nice.
And if Russia stands for piece, how come all the Nuclear Plants in Iran and North Korea have "C.C.C.P." written on them somewhere? There's always two sides to propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Dear Microwave,
Those are not my words!!! lol I was just pasting an article published in a Russian newspaper to try to convey the stress prevailing among Russians with regards to the U.S and NATO.
It's an article by Timothy, and then a complicated name.
No!!!
I don't agree with the article. It's obviouslly propagandistic and nationalistic and I don't approve this kind of language when it comes to such delicate affairs either. It's not helpful.
But I thought to myself: to what extent does this article above, comparing pretty much everyone who's in Russia's way to Hitler, reflect the feelings of great part of the Russian people and politicians in general?
I ask myself that.
Because this tension isn't good. It's just not. I mean, I agree with YourValentine that Putin would have to be absolutely crazy to lead his country to a war - I agree. But nations are not only who rules them - it's also the people, and the Russian people, at least great part of it, seems to be very defensive and feel very threatened by the U.S and NATO.
Under fear and feelings of pervasive threat, leaders can push all kinds of radical agendas.
That's what I fear.
And of course I fear another war, as unlikely as it may seem. I mean...I think we've had enough of wars already.
So, no offense intended to you or your country, my dear, I was just pasting an article which I think is very likely representative of many people's thoughts.
That's it.
Take care! :)
Well, you thrown me. I thought you had something, earlier, Yara, but you seem to be all about name calling. Instead of fighting back, though, I think it's time you were clued in on something.
Russia never ruled the roost. And now the facts have come out about the Cold War, we all know that Russia really wasn't in a race at all. Nothing worked in Russia. Not a lot really does today.
And if you've forgotten the Genocide scoreboard, it still has Stalin way ahead of any US President... combined. We're talking about the Hitler class. I noticed you left him out of your little tirade. Plus remember your old way of getting rid of Tsars? Bullets. Even the kids. Nice.
And if Russia stands for piece, how come all the Nuclear Plants in Iran and North Korea have "C.C.C.P." written on them somewhere? There's always two sides to propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Dear Microwave,
Those are not my words!!! lol I was just pasting an article published in a Russian newspaper to try to convey the stress prevailing among Russians with regards to the U.S and NATO.
It's an article by Timothy, and then a complicated name.
No!!!
I don't agree with the article. It's obviouslly propagandistic and nationalistic and I don't approve this kind of language when it comes to such delicate affairs either. It's not helpful.
But I thought to myself: to what extent does this article above, comparing pretty much everyone who's in Russia's way to Hitler, reflect the feelings of great part of the Russian people and politicians in general?
I ask myself that.
Because this tension isn't good. It's just not. I mean, I agree with YourValentine that Putin would have to be absolutely crazy to lead his country to a war - I agree. But nations are not only who rules them - it's also the people, and the Russian people, at least great part of it, seems to be very defensive and feel very threatened by the U.S and NATO.
Under fear and feelings of pervasive threat, leaders can push all kinds of radical agendas.
That's what I fear.
And of course I fear another war, as unlikely as it may seem. I mean...I think we've had enough of wars already.
So, no offense intended to you or your country, my dear, I was just pasting an article which I think is very likely representative of many people's thoughts.
That's it.
Take care! :)
It's known that the Russian government still controll all the media, so like you said.. it's propaganda.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Mir@cle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's known that the Russian government still controll all the media, so like you said.. it's propaganda.[/QUOTE]
So the government wants to stir up hatred and angry nationalism among its people?
Because that's the kind of feelings an article like that brings up! Hatred everywhere: take a look at the language!
I'm sad.
I mean, more hatred, more violence, and that never ends.
So the government wants to stir up hatred and angry nationalism among its people?
Because that's the kind of feelings an article like that brings up! Hatred everywhere: take a look at the language!
I'm sad.
I mean, more hatred, more violence, and that never ends.
Barb, I have no idea why Putin would want war. It's possible he doesn't want war per say, only the benefits that come from winning one.
One benefit to war (I know, an oxymoron) is that it makes the economy boom. It's common knowledge that Russia's economy has been in the toilet for the last twenty years. It's gotten tons better under Putin, but maybe he wants to make it better faster; or he feels the economic growth has stalled and wants to bring it back up again. War would do that.
I think most of his problem is what I've seen some philosophers refer to as "unhappy transference"; he wants to go back to the old glory days when Russia ruled the world (remember that this was never true, but in Russian media and propaganda it was, and perception is reality). He wants to go back to when Russia was strong and nationalistic. You are right about the war being in his backyard, but if he wants it bad enough he won't care. When you become drunk with the vision of glory, no price is too high.
One benefit to war (I know, an oxymoron) is that it makes the economy boom. It's common knowledge that Russia's economy has been in the toilet for the last twenty years. It's gotten tons better under Putin, but maybe he wants to make it better faster; or he feels the economic growth has stalled and wants to bring it back up again. War would do that.
I think most of his problem is what I've seen some philosophers refer to as "unhappy transference"; he wants to go back to the old glory days when Russia ruled the world (remember that this was never true, but in Russian media and propaganda it was, and perception is reality). He wants to go back to when Russia was strong and nationalistic. You are right about the war being in his backyard, but if he wants it bad enough he won't care. When you become drunk with the vision of glory, no price is too high.
Maggie - the war already is in Russia's back yard. Any escalation would mean WW3. It was Russians who were killed first, nobody can debate that fact away. It's up to the NATO not to let this escalate any further and to be honest: seeing Sakaaschwili on CNN yesterday in front of the Georgian and US flags, framed by high ranking US miltary speaking English and not his own language does not add much to ease any fear in Russia and beyond. After all, the record of the Bush administration is not that of a government that handles a crisis with diplomacy and caution.
I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership.
About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.
I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership.
About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.
Has anyone here even mentioned Dimitri Medvedev? Everyone here seems to 100% believe that Putin still controls the country. Which I'm sure he does to a certain extent, but anyway I'd like to at least believe that their democratically elected president is the one calling the shots on issues such as war and peace.
I think Medvedev's reputation among his own people would have totally been destroyed, if they had not reacted the way they did to the Georgian/Ossetian situation. From what I've read there are some serious hardliners in Russia and they'd immediately label Medvedev as "soft" and inept if there would have not been a military reaction to the situation in Ossetia. And let's not forget the failure of Putin's regime to support their allie Serbia in the Kosovo question, which as an issue surely was held highly by the more anti-west nationalistic political elements in Russia.
Putin's era began to restore Russians status as a geopolitical superpower, Medvedev is the natural continuation to such politics. I'm sure from a western point of view, these two men are quite reasonable and pro-Europe compared to what the dreaded alternatives might be. I mean, would someone seriously rather have a person like Vladimir Zhirinovsky leading Russia? Say hello to WW3...
I think Medvedev's reputation among his own people would have totally been destroyed, if they had not reacted the way they did to the Georgian/Ossetian situation. From what I've read there are some serious hardliners in Russia and they'd immediately label Medvedev as "soft" and inept if there would have not been a military reaction to the situation in Ossetia. And let's not forget the failure of Putin's regime to support their allie Serbia in the Kosovo question, which as an issue surely was held highly by the more anti-west nationalistic political elements in Russia.
Putin's era began to restore Russians status as a geopolitical superpower, Medvedev is the natural continuation to such politics. I'm sure from a western point of view, these two men are quite reasonable and pro-Europe compared to what the dreaded alternatives might be. I mean, would someone seriously rather have a person like Vladimir Zhirinovsky leading Russia? Say hello to WW3...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Maggie - the war already is in Russia's back yard. Any escalation would mean WW3. It was Russians who were killed first, nobody can debate that fact away. It's up to the NATO not to let this escalate any further and to be honest: seeing Sakaaschwili on CNN yesterday in front of the Georgian and US flags, framed by high ranking US miltary speaking English and not his own language does not add much to ease any fear in Russia and beyond. After all, the record of the Bush administration is not that of a government that handles a crisis with diplomacy and caution.
I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership.
About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.[/QUOTE]
Again you're talking about what Russia did 20 years ago and that we should give them space because of that. Germany isn't still being judged about what they did 60 years ago, is it?
I don't know exactly what Russia's up to, but they aren't looking for diplomatic solutions this time. By bombing South Ossetia, Georgia might have been the trigger for all this violence. But the way Russia responded is out of proportion. Far from being diplomatic if you ask me. Like I said before... aren't they trying to gain more power in the areas which got independent but are from statically importance for Russia (oil\access to Black Sea\important gateways for transfering gas)? What makes you sure that they don't have an agenda in that way?
I agree that the Bush administration is known for the tackiness. But we're still far away from a WWIII, believe me. Both Russia and "the West" knows the consequences of such a war. That's exactly the reason why - and the tension was huge at that time - the cold war never really escalated.
I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership.
About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.[/QUOTE]
Again you're talking about what Russia did 20 years ago and that we should give them space because of that. Germany isn't still being judged about what they did 60 years ago, is it?
I don't know exactly what Russia's up to, but they aren't looking for diplomatic solutions this time. By bombing South Ossetia, Georgia might have been the trigger for all this violence. But the way Russia responded is out of proportion. Far from being diplomatic if you ask me. Like I said before... aren't they trying to gain more power in the areas which got independent but are from statically importance for Russia (oil\access to Black Sea\important gateways for transfering gas)? What makes you sure that they don't have an agenda in that way?
I agree that the Bush administration is known for the tackiness. But we're still far away from a WWIII, believe me. Both Russia and "the West" knows the consequences of such a war. That's exactly the reason why - and the tension was huge at that time - the cold war never really escalated.