Russia opposition candidate shot

A true Democracy comes from the bottom up. If the people of Russia do not care then I don't either. If they like living under a dictatorship then let them.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Stay tuned on this election folks, I get the feeling this isn't the end of it.

The West seems to have already shunned and discredited this election, by withdrawing its election analysts so far ahead of time. It think that was done on purpose, to underline that whatever the result will be (and we all know what it will be), they disagree with it.

To the West it seems unthinkable that a leader and his party can legitimatelly have 70% of the public support. I have a feeling that the West will not be acceptable of the next Russian President, if he maintains Putin's policies.

maloy... so far reading your comments I had the impression that you are an intelligent, although strongly Russia supporting individual. I can respect a different point of view on world matters.. you are the national of your own country after all. But how can you in all seriousness say that Putin and his party have HONESTLY earned a 70% support of the people?

Putin is extremely strongly playing the nationalistic cards while showing the west as the enemy from his power-position. He is hindering the activities of free press and the opposition. Are you really denying this?

And the pro-kremlin state-sponsored youth-movements night-watch, nashi etc. - these youths are taught to idolize him. Future voters. Kasparov in prison anyone?

EDIT: After reading some more of your replies you mention some of the same issues I raised - however they seem to directly contradict your statement of legitimately owning 70% of the votes. How do you comment on that?

And I know I am slightly Russiaphobic, no need to point that out. I am from a Baltic state and you, our nice eastern neighbour hav made it perfectly clear you would not mind raiding us for resources and slaves

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Alphard]

Originally posted by Alphard
But how can you in all seriousness say that Putin and his party have HONESTLY earned a 70% support of the people?

Actually this number is not disputed, not even by the U.S. The support figures oscillated between 60% and 80% during his last term. From all indications and general opinions it does seem like this is true. Even those who do not like Putin centralizing power, agree that his policies benefited the economy and the standard of living. After Yeltsin, Putin is exactly what many people in Russia wanted to see. I have not seen any publication, even in the West that disputed these numbers, so I don't really know what you are trying to say.

Maybe such support figures are unthinkable in the U.S., but they are very real for Russia. Hell - Yeltsin's public support numbers are known to have oscillated between 10% and 90% at times. It relates alot to the times the country is going through, and very high support is possible at times of trouble. Look at Bush after 9/11.

And many support Putin, because honestly there is no one else to support. At least Putin has proved himself in improving the economy, while all other Russian politicians are viewed more or less as clowns or dreamers.

Originally posted by Alphard
Putin is extremely strongly playing the nationalistic cards while showing the west as the enemy from his power-position.

Putin is only a "nationalist" in that he puts the nation in front of other priorities, as opposed to what Yeltsin did. He is not a nationalist in Western terms of understanding - as say extreme-right-wing nationalists in Germany or France. The youth organization "NASHI" that seems to echo his party's views, are nationalists however, as well as psychoes. But he does not control them and has nothing to do with them - they are controlled by certain members of the party who at times disagree with Putin. Putin's "Nasha Rossiya" party is now a political vehicle for any opportunist to climb to power.

As for the West - I do not think he considers anyone in the West his enemy. He is simply talking like that as a form of propaganda, and this is nothing rare or isolated to Russia. U.S. is doing much the same, except their boogeyman is the terrorists. Every leader needs to keep his population scared or at least concerned to take the pressure of his own policies, and it has been working for Putin. Many Russians see it for what it is - empty talk. Don't forget - many Russians lived in the Soviet Union, and they know better than to believe every word that comes from the authorities.

Originally posted by Alphard
He is hindering the activities of free press and the opposition. Are you really denying this?

No. But he is doing what what always done in Russia. There was never really free press in Russia, so there is really nothing to compare Putin's administration to. Why does he have to be compared with the U.S. - compare him to other countries that have seen the amount of revolutions, overthrows, economic collapses, wars, and power struggles as Russia has in the last century - for example China. During Yeltsin's administration reporters were murdered by oligarchs and organized crime units run by the oligarchs, who in turn also ran Kremlin. Nothing changed, except who is in power.

Yeah Putin is to blame. But only because he has the ability and power to improve the free press situation, and yet he is failing to do so. But what leader would conscienciously improve the very mechanism that is responsible for bringing out the worst in him and making it public? The problem is the undeveloped system of Russian democracy, that was left unfinished mid-way through its creation in early 90's. And guess who left it in this state - the oligarchs and Yeltsin - the very people U.S. closely supported at the time. Then U.S. didn't give a crap about Russian democracy, and only cared about weaking Russia militarily, and securing oil contracts.

Originally posted by Alphard
And the pro-kremlin state-sponsored youth-movements night-watch, nashi etc. - these youths are taught to idolize him. Future voters.

As I said their organization is neither run or organized by Putin. I am sure he despises them just as much as the rest of Russia, and they are a very small minority of the Russian population - alas very visible minority. They are organized by certain individuals in the DUMA, or Russian parliament. These individuals are in Putin's party, but they have their own agenda.

Most of these youths are not exactly the brightest or the most well educated portion of the population. They are the kids who 10 years ago would be begging for change on the streets to buy heroin. Certain powers that be are at least putting them to political use, even if this is exploitation. But I doubt it is Putin that is "sponsoring" this. He just plays along.

Originally posted by Alphard
Kasparov in prison anyone?

Kasparov is pawn, used by opposition politicians, and very possibly by Western interests to antagonize Putin. He stands no chance in politics, especially being not an ethnic Russian. Maybe he has good intentions, but some of his political allies, like Limonov, are much much worse than Putin. Everytime this group starts protests, their intention is to get arrested, and they deliberately break the law by protesting in placed without prior approval.

He will be released in a week - and will get arrested again for breaking thw law, and then released again... He is being exploited just like Nashi, only by the opposite side.

Originally posted by Alphard
EDIT: After reading some more of your replies you mention some of the same issues I raised - however they seem to directly contradict your statement of legitimately owning 70% of the votes. How do you comment on that?

As I said, many Russians recognize the same faults with Putin as you and I. But there is no better alternative. The political situation is very poor. Putin is the lesser of the evils. Sure we got the pro-U.S., pro- free-speech, pro Democratic reforms politicians. But after they held power in the DUMA in the 90's, they lost all trust. Not only were they not able to carry out any democratic reforms, they stompted the economy into the ground.

When people have little money to buy food let alone any consumer goods, and no free speech - you can bet that their priority will be money to sustain their families, and not free speech.

Originally posted by Alphard
And I know I am slightly Russiaphobic, no need to point that out. I am from a Baltic state and you, our nice eastern neighbour hav made it perfectly clear you would not mind raiding us for resources and slaves

Hey why not raid you. Everyone in Eastern Europe already believes that this our intention, and blames us for it. So what do we got to lose if we raid a little into the Baltics, maybe even Poland and Romania. Maybe we will even inspire the "Putinists" to rise to power throughout Eastern Europe, and create the new Warsaw pact.

Thanks for the long answers.

I basically agree with your assessment that Putin was the right thing for Russia after Yeltsin. For his first year in power I was actually happy he got the position... or was it two years. It was chaos in Russia back then. Unlike you however I believe very firmly though that by now he is already causing too much harm to the country and is a danger to the world. Not much more than Bush though.

Optimistically though I do not think you mean it all that seriously what you wrote about your neighboring countries. You are the closest thing I have seen to a rational Russian, truly. And if Russia were to invade with you possibly enlisted.. well.. it would be a real shame if I'd have to pop you

Originally posted by Alphard
Unlike you however I believe very firmly though that by now he is already causing too much harm to the country and is a danger to the world.

Too much harm? Possibly. But then how can he harm something that does not exist - I am talking about Russia's freedom of speech and "democracy"? The only harm he is doing, is that he is delaying progress in these fields by standing in the way. And the longer he stands in the way, the harder it will be to resume progress later on - so yes in this respect I agree with you. But he is not backtracking on anything in terms of "democracy" because there is nothing to backtrack on.

And how is he a danger to the world? What has his administration done to worsen world peace or stability? Everyone keeps talking about it here, but no one has been able to give me concrete examples of how he is a danger to the world, and specifically why he is worse than Yeltsin or Gorbachev - since those are the only two leaders you can compare him to.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by maloy]

Originally posted by maloy
But he is not backtracking on anything in terms of "democracy" because there is nothing to backtrack on.

I agree with you there. Russian people have always had to live under a strict authoritarian leadership and the brief years under Yeltsin only gave them a bad taste about 'democracy' and I doubt they are in any eager to try that again. A sad by-product of this is that out of centuries-long habit they tend to recognize force as the normal form of authority and preferred form of diplomacy.

Originally posted by maloy
And how is he a danger to the world? What has his administration done to worsen world peace or stability? Everyone keeps talking about it here, but no one has been able to give me concrete examples of how he is a danger to the world, and specifically why he is worse than Yeltsin or Gorbachev - since those are the only two leaders you can compare him to.

Well, as for Gorbachev, I believe he did the world a great favor by allowing the USSR to be cut to bits and allowed all the Warsaw Pact countries to move in their own directions. Sure it was not such a great thing for the people of Russia, who lost their empire, but the rest of the world was much better off without the Cold War I believe Gorbachev was actually a very honest and strong minded communist whose only flaws were optimism and possibly disillusionment about what the 'Soviet People' want.

As for Yeltsin... well, my country has had a good share of his kind and the only thing he can be credited for is showing the world how to NOT create a free-market economy and build up a democracy.

Now about Putin himself. Lets put up a list first of all:
- Pointing nukes at the rest of the world and threatening to use them (how can you not call this destabilizing?)
- Using gas and oil prizes to pressure neighbors to policy changes
- Keeping military forces in other independent countries and refusing to move them, using them as leverage despite previous agreements (Yeah I know, I am not a fan of USA either and I doubt many people would say that the middle east situation is stabilizing the world either)
- Aggressive use of military assets - violating borders, in some cases even dropping bombs
- Financing anti-government groups in other countries
- Pushing an aggressive political and news-press smear campaign against neighbors

I know you can argue about most points that Putin is only considering what is best for Russia (+ to a lesser degree its people) and its the natural thing to do. Although this might be true, in this modern world there are things like dialogue and compromise. Putin is not acting as a partner to the West but more like the Cold-War era USSR party leader, making threats right and left.

The thing that worries me most about Russia is not their current behavior however. The worst damage Putin is doing is what is happening inside of Russia itself. The nationalistic buildup is extremely dangerous. There will be an entire generation that will be grown up feeling extremely patriotic, yet deprived of their true place in the world. They will be xenophobic, angry and taught to follow the leader. It is 1930s Germany all over again. The same psychological modifiers are in play and I fear very much that the result will be the same. And the Hitler Jugend....

I do not buy your story about Putin not being connected with the youth organizations and being ashamed of them. It is well-known that he has both visited the youths' camps, the organizations receive funding from the state and that they are to a large degree controlled by Kremlin. If you want to deny these obvious links, go ahead, but please don't lie to yourself out of habit and political orientation if you know better in you heart.

PS. I am no fan of USA foreign policy either and saying that 'someone else does it also' is no excuse. Everyone can make sure that there is at least one good man in the world

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Alphard]

Originally posted by Alphard
A sad by-product of this is that out of centuries-long habit they tend to recognize force as the normal form of authority and preferred form of diplomacy.

What do you mean by force? Russia hardly used any military force or heavy handed approaches recently.

Originally posted by Alphard
Well, as for Gorbachev, I believe he did the world a great favor by allowing the USSR to be cut to bits and allowed all the Warsaw Pact countries to move in their own directions.

It is difficult to judge his actions so quickly. Fall of USSR resulted in dozens of regional conflicts, violent political struggles, and ethnical conflicts throughout the member countries. Look at Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia, Coup attempts in Moscow in 1991, violent parliamentary dissolution in Moscow in 1994. The way the disessembly of USSR was handled in was very unfortunate and reckless. He created a very dangerous situation, and it is a miracle that larger civil conflicts. In retrospect one can see many mistakes that Gorbachev made. It seems as if he were doing a favor for the U.S. and NATO.

And does the world really gain that much by having one superpower instead of two? Where are the checks and balances? U.S. can do pretty much anything, and get away with it.

Originally posted by Alphard
As for Yeltsin... well, my country has had a good share of his kind and the only thing he can be credited for is showing the world how to NOT create a free-market economy and build up a democracy.

Yeltsin knew the problems and plagues of his administration, but could do little with them, in part because he didn't really want to or feel like taking powerful oligarchs on. But he did know who to put as his successor, and many Russians credit him for this decision.

Originally posted by Alphard
Now about Putin himself. Lets put up a list first of all:
- Pointing nukes at the rest of the world and threatening to use them (how can you not call this destabilizing?)

Russia has always pointed nukes at the rest of the world. Name one nuclear power that doesn't have their nukes pointed at somebody, but has them safely stored somewhere in the attic.

As for threatening to use them in any way other than retaliatory - I don't recall this.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Using gas and oil prizes to pressure neighbors to policy changes

He didn't pressure the neighbors to do anything. He simply ended generous energy subsidies to countries no longer considered Russian allies - it is as simple as that. How the West interpreted this is completely irrelevent, because interpretation is but a propaganda tool.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Keeping military forces in other independent countries and refusing to move them

For example?

It was under Putin that Russia withdrew forces from many countries, like Georgia. Wherever Russian forces remain, is based on an existing contract (for example Crimea), or by the agreement with the country's leadership (for example Armenia). Other than that there are peacekeepers in Abkhazia and several other regions.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Aggressive use of military assets - violating borders, in some cases even dropping bombs

I am assuming you are talking about Georgia. It is a long an complicated issue, that has been talked about on these forums endlessly. It'll summarize to say that:

1. Georgia is not exactly known for its honesty in reporting attacks by Russia
2. Georgia is well known for fabricating such attacks
3. Georgia is a puppet state funded by the US
4. Current Georgian leadership has its days numbered because local population is demanding its ousting.

Other than Georgia, I fail to see other relevant examples.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Financing anti-government groups in other countries

Any and every government with money and a will to have world influence finances opposition groups in countries to which is it ideologically opposed. This was pioneered by the U.S., and not surprisingly is still widely utilized by U.S. - more so than anyone else could ever hope to.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Pushing an aggressive political and news-press smear campaign against neighbors

Or in other words propaganda, which few Russians care to pay any attention to. Hardly aggressive, but very common and dirty political tactic used around the world. Russia's neighbors are known to do the same to Russia. Thankfully they are just throwing feces at each other, and nothing more.

Originally posted by Alphard
in this modern world there are things like dialogue and compromise. Putin is not acting as a partner to the West

He is only acting to the West, as the West is (and was since the fall of USSR) acting towards Russia.

Originally posted by Alphard
There will be an entire generation that will be grown up feeling extremely patriotic, yet deprived of their true place in the world.

Not nearly an entire population. Nashi are a minority, and usually not the smartest of best educated youth in Russia. They will hardly be running Russia, od the same reason (comprehensive abilities and education) in the future, and meanwhile they just found themselves somewhere they can belong. I do not think this will be lasting.

Originally posted by Alphard
It is well-known that he has both visited the youths' camps, the organizations receive funding from the state and that they are to a large degree controlled by Kremlin.

I do not deny this. Putin is doing what United Russia wants him to do, and he understands that his future stands with United Russia.

Russia is not run by one man. There are many political individuals who have far more to do with Nashi than Putin. They are the ones who organized and founded the movement, not Putin. These individuals are as much a threat to him as they are to Russia.

Right now I wouldn't judge his visits to Nashi as anything but role playing. See what happens when he gains a seat in Parliament, and United Russia get reorganized - then judge.

Originally posted by Alphard
PS. I am no fan of USA foreign policy either and saying that 'someone else does it also' is no excuse. Everyone can make sure that there is at least one good man in the world.

Everyone also wants to make sure that they are not the odd man out in this dog eat dog political free-for-all.

Originally posted by maloy
Fall of USSR resulted in dozens of regional conflicts, violent political struggles, and ethnical conflicts throughout the member countries. Look at Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia, Coup attempts in Moscow in 1991, violent parliamentary dissolution in Moscow in 1994.

The regions that became conflict zones inherited their problems from USSR and earlier Tzarish times. Blaming these on Gorbachev is just silly.

Besides some regions you mention are just examples of Russian involvement in places where they did not want to let go of 'their' land. The first Chechen war was a war of independence against Russian oppressors. The fact that an oppressed region want to break free from under your dominance does not make the event negative. It means people are trying to get self-government... the right to run their own country and thats a good thing unless you are the parasite who is leeching off them.

The independence of the millions of people of the Warsaw Pact countries and liberation from under the puppet governments is certainly a positive outcome. As is the independence of the USSR countries who in fact wanted independence. Any removal of injustice is good for the world.

However Gorbachev cannot be credited for all of that of-course... he probably never intended to break up the USSR until it was too late already.

Originally posted by maloy
And does the world really gain that much by having one superpower instead of two? Where are the checks and balances? U.S. can do pretty much anything, and get away with it.

As I said, I do not approve of US foreign policy. However it was a positive 15 years without the threat of an imminent nuclear showdown.

Originally posted by maloy
Russia has always pointed nukes at the rest of the world. Name one nuclear power that doesn't have their nukes pointed at somebody, but has them safely stored somewhere in the attic.

As for threatening to use them in any way other than retaliatory - I don't recall this.

No, nukes do not have to be targeted at someone at all times. eg. the 1992 January 27 unilateral initiative from Yeltsin to de-target nukes from former cold war opponents. Sure re-targeting may take just minutes, but it is important in connection with accidental launches and an important symbol.
As for threats - threatening to target European cities if a missile shield is built counts as a threat just fine. Or would you call 'Do as we want or I point a gun at your head' a friendly and stabilizing act?

Originally posted by maloy
He didn't pressure the neighbors to do anything. He simply ended generous energy subsidies to countries no longer considered Russian allies - it is as simple as that. How the West interpreted this is completely irrelevent, because interpretation is but a propaganda tool.

So... He removes subsidies overnight after elections as he does not see the particular country as an ally no longer. And he keeps or sets subsidies to countries with pro-Moscow views? And we are to believe that this is not a pressure mechanism? It is a very simple way of bringing economic pain to the people who decide they do not want to follow Russia's line. If you cannot see this or if you choose to deny this.. well.. there is not much point continuing the discussion. Denial.

Originally posted by maloy
It was under Putin that Russia withdrew forces from many countries, like Georgia.

While constantly threatening to not move them out whenever someone said or did anything that he did not like. You make it sound so innocent, but the way these things are achieved play at least as big a part as the action itself. You can say about successful kidnappers that 'the hostage finally got home unharmed'... but it says nothing about if the ransom was paid or if the perpetrator was actually forced to give up.

Originally posted by maloy
I am assuming you are talking about Georgia. It is a long an complicated issue, that has been talked about on these forums endlessly.
...
Other than Georgia, I fail to see other relevant examples.

The claim was not made only by Georgian military commanders but later confirmed by foreign experts.

I also refer to the frequent violations of Finnish and Baltic airspace by Russian airforce. There are records available where a Russian military plain was contacted by a Russian side civilian landcrew (alerting the fighter to the fact it was entering foreign airspace) only to receive a reply on the open channel in the spirit 'Shut up, its none of your business, I fly wherever the damn I am ordered to fly'.

I also refer to the 'cage-rattling' by Russia's long-range bomber force. Not friendly.

Originally posted by maloy
Any and every government with money and a will to have world influence finances opposition groups in countries to which is it ideologically opposed. This was pioneered by the U.S., and not surprisingly is still widely utilized by U.S. - more so than anyone else could ever hope to.

Would you say they are all increasing world stability? The question you asked me was 'What has his administration done to worsen world peace or stability?'. I am just answering.

Originally posted by maloy
Hardly aggressive, but very common and dirty political tactic used around the world. Russia's neighbors are known to do the same to Russia. Thankfully they are just throwing feces at each other, and nothing more.

I would agree if it was not so frequent and so nationalistic. As Russians are told every day by numerous sources that their neighbors are after their skin, the xenophobia is still increased.

Originally posted by maloy
He is only acting to the West, as the West is (and was since the fall of USSR) acting towards Russia.

What do you mean by 'the west is acting'? The west did not start this new cold war, Russia did with their statements that were made for domestic consumption but alienated the international community with their content and tone.

Originally posted by maloy
Not nearly an entire population. Nashi are a minority, and usually not the smartest of best educated youth in Russia.

Still makes them a dangerous tool. A tool pro-Kremlin forces keep using in domestic and foreign policy. Btw Hitlerjugend did not make up a vast majority of the German nation either.


In connection with the OP post however I quite believe you it could have been separatists who eliminated that politician. Does not mean that Kremlin will tolerate honest elections though.

Originally posted by Alphard
The regions that became conflict zones inherited their problems from USSR and earlier Tzarish times. Blaming these on Gorbachev is just silly.

He is not to blame for their origin, but Gorbachev left alot of things usettled, and left it up to the new countries to settle them - when it was obvious they couldn't. In retrospect many people now think that it would have been better to disassemble USSR step by step, in a period of say 10 years.

Originally posted by Alphard
The first Chechen war was a war of independence against Russian oppressors.

That is a long and complex subject. But it will suffice to say that Chechnya was never a country at any point in history, it had no justification to separate from the Russian Federation, and Russia actually allowed it to function as an independent country from 1992 to 1994. During that time, all Chechyna produced was a bunch of warlords and Chechnya's sole business was kidnapping, organized crime, and raids on civilians of non Chechen ethnicity. Read the history of it from 1992 to 1994. Russia knew it had to take matters into its hands to insure security for the surrounding region. Of course how Russia went about doing this is worthy of criticism - mostly for Yeltsin - but Russia's reasoning behind the war is justified.

Originally posted by Alphard
the right to run their own country

In this respect almost any village in the world has a right to separate from their country, and become independent. Tell it to the North Irish and the Basque for example.

Originally posted by Alphard
As I said, I do not approve of US foreign policy. However it was a positive 15 years without the threat of an imminent nuclear showdown.

The threat is always there. I am not convinced that those who held on to Russia's nukes in the 90's (think corrupt military officials willing to sell anything for money) were better than communists.

Originally posted by Alphard
As for threats - threatening to target European cities if a missile shield is built counts as a threat just fine.

Its not about whether the shield is defensive or offensive. It is the fact that U.S. is actively positioning its military assets on Russia's borders. The first step - to gain a foothold, even if defensive - is the hardest. Next steps are much easier, and where is the guarantee that U.S. won't supplement this "shield" with something more offensive in the near future. So if one is going to host U.S. military assets of any kind, one will have to accept that they would be involved in a potential conflict if the big guys go at it.

And actually everyone in Russia and East Europe knew beforehand, 2 years ago, that if U.S. places missiles there Russia will target them. I stated it in the very first topic concerning the missile shield on these boards, which I started before people were even concerned about. Everyone here dismissed my forecast at that time.

Originally posted by Alphard
And we are to believe that this is not a pressure mechanism?

Sure its pressure. The same pressure almost every powerful country exerts on certain other countries. Look at how Bush ended oil subsidies by U.S. for North Korea as soon as he came to power, thus plunging North Korea into economic problems. And what do you know - North Korea immediately started working on nuclear technology. Using your resources to influence others is nothing more than capitalism. Call it international lobbying if you will. There are no humanitarians in international politics, only lobbyists.

Originally posted by Alphard
If you cannot see this or if you choose to deny this

I see this, and I recognize it as something humanity will always continue to do, as long as nations and opposing interests exists. It may be inherently unfair and mean, but then so is the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Alphard
While constantly threatening to not move them out whenever someone said or did anything that he did not like.

Georgia and Russia go back a long way in history. Georgia was one of few countries which joined the Russian Empire willingly, along with Armenia - to protect themselves from the Turks. An agreement was made that Georgia would be more or less a part of Russia. Certain interests in both Russia and Georgia wanted them to separate after the Cold War, while certain other interests in both wanted them to remain together. What happened in Georgia in the 90's was a conflict between interests within Georgia - and of course Russia had reasons to get involved. It is too complicated to summarize, but to an extent Russia treated Georgia unfair from 1990 to about 1997, when Georgia faced much unrest. And after that Russia took little participation in Georgia's affairs, and left Georgia to be run by Shevarnadze.

Originally posted by Alphard
The claim was not made only by Georgian military commanders but later confirmed by foreign experts.

What was confirmed is that a metalic object fell from the sky, and the evidence was quickly "blown up" by Georgia to reportedly insure the safety of the 5 goats that were in the vicinity of the bomb. Who dropped the bomb - Russia or Georgia or a UFO - was not determined.

Originally posted by Alphard
I also refer to the frequent violations of Finnish and Baltic airspace by Russian airforce.

That did happen. You should blame the arrogance of the Russian military commanders of those years. I doubt Kremlin gave them orders to test the neighbors' airspace.

Originally posted by Alphard
I also refer to the 'cage-rattling' by Russia's long-range bomber force. Not friendly.

The bombers do not violate airspace during training missions. Arrogant and useless? Yes. Threatening? Hardly. And U.S. does much the same thing around the world - only everyone got used to it.

Originally posted by Alphard
Would you say they are all increasing world stability? The question you asked me was 'What has his administration done to worsen world peace or stability?'. I am just answering.

It hardly worsened anything, just introduced another side to it. World stability is so messed up that no one needs to contribute to it's deterioration anymore, everyone just needs to keep the fire burning. Russia, along with pretty much everyone else has been doing this of course.

Originally posted by Alphard
I would agree if it was not so frequent and so nationalistic. As Russians are told every day by numerous sources that their neighbors are after their skin, the xenophobia is still increased.

Seems to me the same is happened in Eastern Europe in regard to Russia. Who is more responsible for this? I don't know.

Originally posted by Alphard
The west did not start this new cold war, Russia did with their statements that were made for domestic consumption but alienated the international community with their content and tone.

There is no evidence that this is a Cold War yet. It might just be a temporary relations cycle. From Russia it appears that much of the West is allienating it too, deliberately. And I am not talking about Russian media, I am talking about general feelings of the more accurately informed portion of Russia's population. Again it is not clear if it was Putin or Bush that started this.

Originally posted by Alphard
Still makes them a dangerous tool. A tool pro-Kremlin forces keep using in domestic and foreign policy.

They will fall apart as quick as they got together. They are oriented around Putin. And since Putin will be out of the picture (most likely), they will have little reason to continue their existance. They are very poorly organized regardless of how it seems.

I guess we will just have to agree that we have somewhat different views on several events in Russia's history. Even though our evaluation of these events is different, it is great seeing that your arguments actually have a background in reason and logic. The difference comes from our individual values.

I must admit that both Western and Russian press like showing the Russian citizens as aggressive, west-hating nationalists who do and accept anything their government tells them. At least thats the impression I have received from Western media and Russian TV that we see here. According to you it is not true and I am only happy to hear that.

Will never agree with several of your other evaluations though

Even though our evaluation of these events is different, it is great seeing that your arguments actually have a background in reason and logic. The difference comes from our individual values.

No, the difference comes from just what you've mentioned - when the arguments have logic and reason and when they haven't. Your point of view is mostly an absorption of views on Russia from western journalists and I must admit it very rarely reflects the reality.

I'll give you a fresh example of how it's done, have a look.

www.cnn.com...

The title of the upcoming show says:
CZAR PUTIN

Give me a break...What czar are they going to talk about ? As far as I'm informed last Czar of Russia died at the beginning of XX century. So what does President Putin have to do with the status of a Czar ? Somebody has to read up some history of Russia or change their brains. The title implicitly, but very clearly says that this isn't going to be a Russia-friendly TV-show but another
biased and rather aggressive production of the US-government controlled media, made precisely by the day of the Parliamentary elections in Russia.
I guess the reason for it is to discredit and weaken Putin and Russia in a whole.. why do they do this ? This question is rather complex.

It’s a place where some say voicing your criticism could cost you your life.

What do they mean by this ? I have absolutely no idea as to how they ran into this nonsense. But fear mongering has become quite popular across the world and it seems this method is safe to use among undereducated Westerners, as they form the most part of the population. They don't need much to believe, really. Every third British citizen thinks the highest mountain in the world (Everest) is located either in Great Britain or in the Alps and more than a half doesn't even know what the longest river is. This is quite telling.

Instead of "risking their lives" investigating the "dark corners of Russia" American journalists would better spend some time investigating, for example, the death of Dr. David Kelly. It would make much more sense to the world society.



[edit on 29-11-2007 by Leevi]