Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why the Russians are acting like Soviets. And why it will be difficult to stop them

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:42 AM
Original message
Why the Russians are acting like Soviets. And why it will be difficult to stop them
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/66383-Georgia-on-your-mind/

So much for the Republican Party’s long-standing boast that Ronald Reagan neutered the Soviet Union.


Russia’s brutal Soviet-style invasion of the relatively small and decidedly democratic nation of Georgia this past week may not have been enough to provoke a “better-dead-than-red” backlash here in the United States. But the Russian tanks that rumbled toward the Black Sea must have made former Soviet citizens (such as the independent people of the Ukraine) and former Soviet clients (say, in Poland and the Czech Republic) more than a bit nervous. snip

Now, thanks to the corrupt and anti-democratic leadership of Vladimir Putin, together with a multi-billion surge in treasure from oil and natural gas, Russia is again flexing its muscles.

Putin, having squelched Chechnyan rebels in two multi-year rounds of bloody fighting, was emboldened to deal with the Georgians, who Russians traditionally consider to be obstreperous upstarts. The Kremlin likes its neighbors tame.

Georgia, with 4.6 million people (a bit more than half the population of New York City), is — or was — perhaps the most pro-American of the former Soviet Republics: witness the 2000 troops that nation committed to President Bush’s Iraq War. snip

Take Georgia’s great and good friend President Bush. Once again, he is made to look the hollow man, promoting liberty and independence elsewhere, as is the American tradition, but refusing — or failing — to provide muscle when needed. snip

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain was operating within that same petulant tradition when he declared that “We are all Georgians.” Noble words, for sure. But, in the current context, they are ultimately meaningless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grannie4peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. because their moral standing is higher than ours
now that is a sad fact... but when i see the small amount of information that we get, i cannot fault putin at all. he is taking care of his country....unlike schrub who was partying hardy in china.... the us has been bullying russia for the past couple of years by baiting georgia & pufffing up the american educated puppet president of georgia...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Our moral standing is lower than it has ever been, but how is Russia's any higher?
What have they done to enhance their moral standing? True they have plenty of oil and gas which increases their economic and political power, but that does not necessarily affect their moral standing.

How is Putin taking care of his country by invading Georgia? As far as I know Georgia has done nothing to Russia, other than perhaps not being as pro-Russian in its policies as Russia would like. That is hardly a justification to invade Georgia, anymore than we have the right to invade Cuba because it is not pro-American enough.

Russia is responsible for its actions, just like we are responsible for ours. Our invasion of Iraq cannot be justified by saying we were baited or scared or anything else. Neither can Russia's invasion.

When a large nation with a huge military invades a small country with a tiny military, then says the small country (be that Iraq or Georgia) baited them into doing it, well that would be almost laughable. If the administration used the same rationale against Cuba, all of us would recognize it as the most outlandish load of BS that Bush had ever dished out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
35. Russia isn't committing genocide in Iraq, for starters.
Murdering civilians in Afghanistan by the bombload.

I'm getting bored. Do I need to continue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. No, but Russia is not doing those things currently, but they did commit genocide in Checnya
(essentially destroying their capital city in the process) and, of course, they murdered civilians by the bomb load in Afghanistan long before we did.

Doesn't give us the moral high ground, but they certainly don't deserve it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdab1973 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. You've got your facts wrong
Go read the history of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. I'm in Iraq now, and I work with Iraqis. I'm not aware of any operations designed to sweep people out of their homes and murder them in cold blood, which is genocide. In Afghanistan, there have been mistakes in targeting, but the way we strike targets is quite different from the way the Russians do...

In our Afghan war, we use GPS guided weapons on a regular basis. Typically only errors cause civilian deaths.

When the Russians were in Afghanistan, their methods were much more brutal. If a town was noted for hosting enemy fighters, the Russians would literally raze the village to the ground, and generally kill nearly every living thing in it. There's a reason why ordinary Afghans would never side with the Russians. If you think that what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is "genocide" and that somehow the Russians are nice guys that do the right thing...you are very wrong.

Russia has a history of making war using brute force and violence, whereas American military strategy is based on accuracy and precision to take out certain key elements. We target communications and command and control nodes, and they simply wipe cities off the Earth.

Take your uninformed opinions somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. So you are participating in what is going on in Iraq.
Very interesting. And I guess you didn't know about the torture either? The torture and murder of innocent Iraqis taken into military custody? What about the Iraqi children and juveniles who were taken by the U.S. and tortured -- you don't know anything about any of that either, right?

Do you know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed? How many were bombed into oblivion during shock and awe? Are you here to tell me that they were all accidental?

What about the systematic destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure and the resulting deaths -- I guess you are here to tell us you haven't seen anything about any of it?

Finally, what about the weapons of mass destruction -- have you seen any of the tons of sarin that were supposed to be lying around there? No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Threedifferentones Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Yes you do stranger
Russians have been responsible for just as much innocent bloodshed in the past several decades as Americans. This cannot really be denied, and you can bet there are innocent Georgians suffering atrocities and violence in this conflict, though not as many as in Iraq. Russia has no more moral standing than we do. In fact few if any nations do, as societies and wealth have been based on violence throughout history.

So actually I change my mind. No, you do not need to continue, because you cannot justify the claim that Russia cares more for human life than America, which seemed basically what you were implying by moral standing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. We may have been behaving like idiots for 8 years, but Russia has never had moral standing
On anything. Ever.

Honestly, can anyone name a time in that nation's history when their government had done the RIGHT thing, let alone the moral thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The Right thing? Overthrowing the fascist Tsar Nicholas. Defeating Nazi Germany.
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 07:54 AM by Postman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Defeating Nazi Germany only after being 1. Betrayed on a gangster deal with them
2. Raping and pillaging all of Eastern Europe in achieving victory and
3. Subsequently betraying their allies once achieving victory.

Very moral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. You're statement has been refuted.
Honestly, can anyone name a time in that nation's history when their government had done the RIGHT thing, let alone the moral thing?


Overthrowing right-wing authoritarian rule in 1917. Defeating Nazi Germany.

Now if you have a problem with HOW they did it, that's a different question. How "moral" was it to drop nukes on civilians to demonstrate the ruthlessness of American bloodlust?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Oh...well since I've been refuted...I'll move along
How can a government overthrow itself?

Just asking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. The question was directed at Russia's actions, not the U.S.
Overthrowing a bloody-handed oppressive feudal imperial government?
Substituting a bloody-handed oppressive communistic imperial government.

Defeating Nazi Germany?
Fighting for their imperial lives after being betrayed by their partners in crime.
Picking up the Baltic states and most of eastern Europe as their prize.
(But getting their frozen asses kicked by little Finland.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Russia was provoked by Georgia/US and they hit back.
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 09:11 AM by Postman
I know it sucks when others don't put up with the phony NATO excuse.

You're defending Bush/Neocon actions here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdab1973 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. So what's going to be your reactionz
...when Obama has to deal with this? Is your tune suddenly going to change? Or do you think that Obama will simply sell out Poland and Georgia because Russia somehow had the right to invade Georgia?

Georgian troops were not threatening Russia's border. Call them what you like, but the people in South Ossetia were legally in the country of Georgia. Russia invading to "protect Russian citizens" is much like Germany invading Czechoslovakia to "protect German citizens". The world gave Hitler a pass back then, and some would even go so far as saying the Czechs brought it upon themselves. But history proves otherwise.

Even then, Russia decided to "help" Abkhazia start another war front in Georgia, and pushed well beyond either of the wanna-be provinces, and bombed cities all throughout Georgia. Tell me, what was the point of leveling the city of Gori, a city outside of South Ossetia, with SU-25 attack aircraft dropping cluster munitions on apartment complexes (confirmed by Human Rights Watch)? Nearly every photo I've seen of the bombing targets have been apartment flats and houses. No industry, no military bases. Homes, businesses. What's the point of that?

The point of it all is to send a clear message that Russia will not tolerate western-friendly nations on it's doorstep. Nevermind that these nations, theoretically, should be able to decide for themselves (self-determination) what style of government it chooses to ally itself with. Russia essentially wants these nations to be what they used to be back in the days of the Iron Curtain...puppet regimes friendly to the Russians.

Do you REALLY think that the 10 (holy crap that's a lot...not) interceptor missiles will pose any threat to the thousands of nuclear warheads Russia possess? I'm in the military and have studied military strategy, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 10 missiles aren't intended to ward off Russia's nuclear arsenal. That's always been an excuse the Russians have used to beat their chest and justify an arms race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. The issue was Russia's so-called "moral high ground."
Your hint that challenging your ignorance is the same as supporting Bush is stupid and childish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. And they showed the tsar', didn't they?
Ripped him off the throne and killed him and his family.

The right thing.

Except that the Bolsheviks didn't rip him off the throne. He'd abdicated months before, and the Russians, having something for a few months that could have become a democracy, went with the Bol'sheviks instead. Snatching a crucial defeat--in liberal terms--from the jaws of something akin to victory.

But the Bol'sheviks were pissed: Out of their victory came losses. Budennyj didn't keep Poland. The Baltics were lost. So was Georgia. They nearly lost the Ukraine, Siberia, parts of Central Asia. In the interests of the proletariat and anti-imperialism, the empire could not be lost. But some was. Still, Lenin managed to work out a deal to invade and occupy a free Georgia. Stalin had to cut a deal with Hitler, both protecting his ass (so that Hitler could focus on the West) and getting a chunk of Poland back. Stalin also managed to get military bases in the Baltics before WWII, by threatening them--the Balts knew the West would force them to capitulate, so they beat the rush. Then in 1940 the USSR invaded and occupied the Baltic states to "protect them" before Hitler opened an Eastern front.

Putin and the siloviki are descendants of the Bol'sheviks, but smarter, like China's smarter now. You control private enterprise indirectly, you control the media through winks and nudges (and raids and assassinations), you rouse support through jingoism and nationalism, seeking to restore lost pride that took the form of imperialism and oppression of others, glroy through conquest. But you still hate the idea of the stupid sheep having power, and believe that you not only need to control the country, but control access to the sheep lest they smarten up--and that means governing beyond your borders, and intimidating those who might not just invade you, but show you to not be the strong, true, good, and proper rulers.

And again, with things improving late in El'tsyn's tenure, corruption being controlled, inflation down, the economy improving, Russia again--this time, under the siloviki--managed to snatch a crucial defeat from the jaws of something akin to victory. But they had lost Poland, and more. The Baltics were lost. They've lost the Ukraine, and almost lost parts of Siberia. They lost Central Asia. And Georgia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. Not everyone knows history
Some drank a truck load of kool-aid and don't know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's A Nice Broad Brush Job
Typical American myopia in action. Seems like few have bothered to look at what's happened with Russia and its former Republics since 1991. While politically independent, most of these states still were getting all types of important services and goods from the Russians. Just like the Monroe Doctrine more or less gave the US dominance in this part of the world, the Russians maintained a similar structure in their former Republics...piss off Moscow and your country could lose valuable food shipments or power or even oil. Standing alone, these countries don't stand a chance...they were not only in the Russian political sphere, but the economic one as well.

Trying to resurrect the Cold War is a strawman game the GOOP would love. Remember, they need enemies...real or invented...to scare voters...and if the scary "Islamofacist" won't work, then why not try to resurrect the big ugly Russian Bear.

What we've seen in action is the complete failure of our own educational systems and media to present the world as it is, not as our politicians want us to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. While Bush and Cheney were doing everything in their power to
enrich themselves and their oil buddies by running up the price of oil, they also enriched Russia, Venezuela and Iran. The Soviet Union disbanded due to bankruptcy. News flash Mr. Bush, you have
made the Russians rich enough to be able to take back some of the territory that they recently lost.

Good job dubya.

And unless we are willing to either start a nuclear war over this or even a conventional war in the Georgian theater, we might as well shut up because there aren't any effective options otherwise.

Note that after five years, thousands of American casualties, over a million Iraqi deaths and more than a trillion dollars we haven't effectively gotten Iraq back to a level of governmental function that it was prior to the invasion. Imagine how difficult it would be to defeat a Country that actually has a massive military potential.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. As Long As The Oil Stays In The Ground
Now don't think the BFEE hasn't profited from Russian oil...why else does boooshie "stare" into Pootie's eyes? It's cause they've both profited from their wars for oil and power.

The endgame for this regime is not the oil that's coming up, but the stuff they can keep in the ground. Iraq was invaded cause Saddam threatened to flood the market that would have driven the prices to next to nothing. Now that oil is still mostly in the ground and the turbulence in the area will limit how much gets out for years to come. Iran also is restricted in what they can sell and where...and the real goal behind crashcart's bloodlust to bomb them is to knock out their oil production capability as well. Now we have three pipelines from Baku (which is in Ajerbaijan) that have been shut that will keep Caspian Sea oil off the market...hurting the small republics of the region and assure both Pootie and the boooshies will see big profits for years to come.

As they say...no honor among theives. And all those lost American lives? Who said they were lost, crashcart's Halliburton and oil stocks sure didn't lose in the past 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Good post. I agree with all of your assertions.
At this point, the most feasible route out of the oil monopoly mess is to move as rapidly as possible toward renewable energy sources. If renewables could reach the point of reducing the global demand for oil by 15 or 20%, it would be enough to force a drop in the oil prices.

That percentage is very feasible. The only reason it hasn't already been done is due to effective resistance by the oil, coal and nuclear interests.

By the way, back to your post about keeping the oil in the ground: that's what all the demand for more offshore drilling is about. They want to tie up all of what is left so that can make sure that not too much is drilled too soon causing a drop in oil price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Follow The Money...
There's no "magic bullet" for future energy needs. I see several options that the marketplace should decide. Transportation has one set of needs, power generation another, home heating is a third...and different, long-term answers rest with what technology is the most effective. The good thing, IMHO, that we have learned from all these years of being held hostage to oil is to never let one source be THE source again. The oil companies saw this in the 70s and used their money and influence to delay and throttle the day of reckoning, but it's finally here and their speculation is a sign of desperation (if you can call making large profits "desperate) cause they see their monopolies starting to play out and going for a big killing before this regime leaves town. It's geting while the getting is good.

In some ways, I see Obama playing footsie with off-shore drilling as there's little time for any energy bill to really come to light before the election...and by playing the "drill card", it took the steam out of one of the GOOP's few issues they thought they could save their asses on. A lot rides on who wins in November...and I suspect that if Obama does prevail...and the GOOP loses big, the drill, drill, drill crap will be blamed as a cause. Stay tuned...

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. So far, the "marketplace" has done a very poor job of deciding.
I think visionary people who have interests beyond profit should be the "deciders". But, those decisions should and must be based on a sound financial basis.

I didn't suggest any "magic bullets", only that enough alternate energy sources are brought online to weaken the grip of the oil and gas monopolies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I'm Firmly WIth You...
Others are suggesting magic bullets. Look at how many here almost bought into the T. Boner Pickens scam. They were ready to let an oil man figure out the "answer" to the problem. I think it'll take a combination of government and private industry working together if we're able to get the oil monkey off our backs.

My concern is that we knee-jerk our way from one mess into another.

Thank you sharing your thoughts...

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ForrestGump Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. I do NOT agree with all of those assertions!


I only agree with the South Assertions.






:hide:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. bush/cheney have been a failure at everything they've touched
except'n of course filling their own pockets with our money and pissing the whole world off. That they've been good at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
39. Partly true. When it made sense.
Part of the problem was the centralization in the Soviet economy. You couldn't easily go from Talinn to Riga without going through Russia. Building that infrastructure takes time.

Some is where the raw materials were located. Easier to get oil from Russia--the infrastructure was there--than from Indonesia.

But Georgia was blockaded by Russia from what, '93? E. Europe's trade looks West, not East, apart from the Ukraine. Easier to get Chinese goods in Romania than Russian goods.

But ultimately, the "supply" issue as a basis for a Monroe Doctrine means that Italy and Switzerland are now properly subject to Russian hegemony. Like that idea?

And if the Georgian pipeline is under Russian control or untoward influence, then it means that Russian hegemony over Europe, per your logic, is all but guaranteed. Can't have BP controlling it, that would be evil, they're loyal to no country; so have a foreign country with its own national interests, those opposed to Europe's and who view NATO--hence Europe--as a sort of natural enemy, control it. Smart.

Piss off the Russians these days, you don't miss a food shipment (eh, big deal) or have the gas pipeline shut down for "maintenance," or even find out that a huge percentage of Russian rolling stock is mysteriously and suddenly pulled out of service for inspections. No, you get threatened with tanks.

And those who would decry the US's asserting the Monroe Doctrine find this acceptable and natural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ass backwards and a-historical.
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 07:11 AM by Warren Stupidity
The Soviet Union acted like Russia. Russia continues to act like Russia. Democracy has little or nothing to do with the behavior of great powers with respect to what they view as their sphere of influence.

The hypocrisy of US foreign policy analysts with their teeth gnashing and hair wrenching they are exhibiting over Russian behavior in Georgia is stunning. We do not promote Democracy anywhere, we promote our economic interests under the banner of neoliberalism. When we can wrap that in fine sentiments of democratic virtues, we do so, otherwise not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Excellent point except I wouldn't use the word "our". It's not "our" interests.
They are Private interests couched in the terms of being "ours" in order to get you to sacrifice your son for Exxon/Mobil in the name of the USA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. "We do not promote Democracy anywhere...
we promote our economic interests under the banner of neoliberalism..."

Zactly.

:thumbsup:

It should be noted for some of the more devoted Clinton followers that this was the case during the Clinton years as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. Great post
I am shocked at the success of the corporate media with regard to brainwashing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. the russians/soviets never ended the cold war
their enemies was and still is is--nato,the usa,and china. nothing has changed but the name on the door. the neo-cons had no idea what they were doing when they decided to try their power play in the caspian sea region.

the neo-conservative and neo-liberal policies over the years have cost our country trillions of wasted dollars and corrupted or destroyed the people that they were supposed to "help".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. They were just taking a "bankruptcy break". Now, thanks to
the Bush/Cheney energy policies, Russia is rich enough to grab the former soviet territories back.

Good job Dubya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. Disheartening in this thread how none of you indicate you know the actual situation...
I can imagine some of you celebrated the break-up of Yugoslavia and "liberation" of Kosovo. I can imagine some of you said the people killed in Belgrade (very far from Kosovo) by NATO bombs had it coming for their sins against the Kosovar Albanians (they didn't!).

When the Russians act in the same way as NATO (actually with greater justification, though I'm not for it in either case) with regard to the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia (more Russian than Georgian, more than 90 percent voted to join Russia)... in fact, when Russia intervenes *after* Georgia brutally attacked South Ossetia (thus Georgia took on the "Serbian" role) ... none of you seem to have any clue wtf is going on. You reach for the cliches about the nasty Russian bear. (It is nasty, of course, but it helps to know what's going on, no?)

Am I an expert, by the way? NO! You can spend a couple of hours researching the basics in a DIY fashion and actually know wtf you're talking about. (Americans!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. I'm with you. The lie that this whole thing is ALL Russia's fault continues to spread. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. It's not all Russia's fault, but we simply can't allow Russia to become expansionist
Georgia stumbled their way into a war they can't win. And it's leading to disastrous results for the West.

But anything that encourages Russian expansionism is bad for the West.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
36. But, the Russians are reacting to NATO expansionism...
NATO lost its official purpose when the Cold War ended. But, it got a new purpose - to rip away as much of the former USSR as it could from Russia. And that's what its been doing, by fair means or foul for 15 years.

Is it too much to point out that Stalin came from this region? This has been Russian territory for a hundred years or more (my history is a little fuzzy). Since when is defending yourself on what was historically your territory become "expansionism"? Its not like the Russians haven't been signalling like mad that they won't take any more NATO expansionism. The hot-headed Poles will pay for their acceptance of a missile defense system - which has only one purpose: to defend against RUSSIAN attacks.

I reject your underlying assumption that this is about Russian, as opposed to NATO, expansionism.

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
46. It is NOT about Russian expansion
Russia isn't expanding and even if it was it doesn't need the dirt poor Georgia. If it wanted to expand it would do it in the Caspian Stans where there are valuable resources, oil and gas. And yes, DUers are displaying acute ignorance of world affairs. It took me about a couple hours last weekend to get up to speed on this area of the world that I knew little about. And let me say the that invasion of Osettia in a sneak attack was very likely a gambit by by bush/cheney/mcinsain to help mcinsain get elected. Mcsains top foreign policy adviser was a highly paid consultant to Georgia up until a few months ago. Thousands of civilians, mostly Osettians, have died to help promote mcinsains campaign. Try that on for size. Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. You're exactly right...the parallels with Kosovo are EXACT
Of course, even many members of this board are so gaga over nationalist propaganda (and their blind devotion to Clintonism) that they view the Kosovo affair as some miracle of humanitarian intervention against the "evil" Serbs. It's a charade for morons.

Just to be clear:

Milosevic was a murderous ass.
The Kosovar Albanian militants (the KLA) were marauding asses.
Saakashvili is a monumental jackass and certainly invaded S. Ossetia in the same way Milosevic invaded Kosovo.
The S. Ossetian militants are marauding, murderous asses.
Putin is a murderous genius.
Clinton is a....

You fill in the blank.

Here's a clue for the devoted and the kids: There are NO good guys. There is only power and money, all the way down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. Looks like Kosovo.
Only this time the U.S. is backing the Serbs (Georgia) and Russia is not to my knowledge bombing bridges or crushing Belgrade (Tblisi).

The intellectual dishonesty is appalling and getting worse. Bushco, media. Jerome Corsi has a Ph.D. from Harvard?! Help!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. "The Kremlin likes its neighbors tame"
Yeah, they're not the only ones.

:rofl:

The US media establishment is just now grokking the fact that the Bush admin has NEVER been able to play more than one ball at a time, foreign policy-wise. When they focused on China in 2001, they missed terrorism. When they focused on terrorism, they missed everything else, like the brilliant way Putin de facto RE-nationalized the energy industry and made Russian energy exports the lifeblood of Western Europe. This means two things:

1) Russia is rich, and getting richer
2) There's not a damn thing you can do about the Russians when they supply 70-80% of Germany's energy needs (clue to non-historical morons: this is why Hitler was desperate to take Russia, and particularly the Caucasus.

The Bushies are NOT good multi-taskers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
27. It will be hard to stop them
Especially while the US and its NATO buds are acting like neocon, hegemony imposing assholes. Russia is right to view US politicians and diplomats as liars and backstabbers (see snips below), which, reading the comments by DUers on numerous topics, is pretty much how many of their own people see them (the politicians anyway).


The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
MAP - The Russian Periphery

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power



Putin’s Censored Press Conference:

The transcript you weren’t supposed to see


By Mike Whitney

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared in a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize Putin) the press conference has been scrubbed from the public record. It never happened. (Read the entire press conference archived http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17855.htm">here )

Putin’s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main issues.

The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to present. Since September 11, the Bush administration has carried out an aggressive strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles on its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed “pro-democracy” groups. These openly hostile actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners that the administration is going forward with the neocon plan for “regime change” in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation. Putin’s testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably right.

The Bush administration’s belligerent foreign policy has backed the Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures. He has no other choice.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm


Snip from recent Paul Craig Roberts article:

The Bush Regime, having established a puppet, Mikhail Saakashvili, as president of Georgia, tried to bring Georgia into NATO.

For readers too young to know, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a military alliance between the US and Western European countries to resist any Soviet move into Western Europe . There has been no reason for NATO since the Soviet Union’s internal political collapse almost two decades ago. The neocons turned NATO into another tool, like the NED, for US world hegemony. Subsequent US administrations violated the understandings that President Reagan had reached with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, and have incorporated former parts of the Soviet empire into NATO. The neocon goal of ringing Russia with a hostile military alliance has been proclaimed many times.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
30. Bill Clinton-Bill Clinton-Bill Clinton-Bill Clinton-Bill Clinton-Bill Clinton-BillClinton
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 08:44 AM by JHB
You ***know*** who they'll blame for their failure.

"Who didn't criticize Yeltsin for sheling the Duma back in '93. The fault is clear..."
/elephantspeak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Well, Kosovo is the model here
That is looking more and more like a giant miscalculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
45. Bush has lost any credibility and has no moral standing here or abroad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC