Russia Warns of response to U.S. shield

reply to post by L.HAMILTON


Peace builder says: Moving on to the future, threats from all forces are real. Therefore all forces must become under One to establish lasting peace.

There is a rumor circulating that when Putin was rising to power he and his cohorts played nice with the alleged 5 oligarch ruling families in post soviet Russia that all according to the rumors were of a jewish origin and were instrumental in controling much of that nations wealth. When he achieved the Presidents position he allegedly took measures to strip those people from their wealth or powers, enabling the state to get a hold on those resources. The rumor explains that these families or centers were also influential for political decisions of the former USSR.

Is there any truth to this rumor? Is anyone familiar with this?

I am asking because I am interested to learn if the moves of both the former USSR policies and the US were pre-designed and pre-orchestrated from some mutualy aligned ruling oligarchs. If that was indeed the case then, we should not expect Russia to behave like the old USSR at all, at least not in their limits of aggressiveness in the future. We don't really know how much far they have gone or plan to go in means of deployable technology and or to which extend they have redesigned their dogmas, if a "limiting" factor that used to exist and supposedly was hindering their abilities is now long gone.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by spacebot]

The U.S. was looking for something to try and make Russia look bad. This was all started with Georgia attacking South Ossetia first. Trying to grab them up. Georgia wants South Ossetia and Abkhazia. With Georgia being a friend of the U.S., the U.S. turns a blind eye on the attack by Georgia. Russia definately does not want someone so friendly with the U.S on their borders. So Russia pushed them back into Georgia. Georgia's plan was foiled and they got spanked. Russia's navy is visiting Venezuela. If they become too chummy, Venezuela may let Russia set up some defense there, if things become to crazy. I don't know. With the imperialistic Bush, crazy man in Venezuela and a threatened Russia. Things could get really interesting.

Im European and id love to know why people always give America a bad time, she has a job to do and she is doing it well!
Just tell me who would you offer up to replace her as the foremost power in the world?
Just be glad that the power in charge shares the same values as you.

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
Im European and id love to know why people always give America a bad time, she has a job to do and she is doing it well!
Just tell me who would you offer up to replace her as the foremost power in the world?
Just be glad that the power in charge shares the same values as you.

Ahem, where do I start? Here's a doozy, a visual representation (the NYT's coverage of the atrocities in East Timor, which we, the States, are responsible for:

Originally posted by SectionEight

Originally posted by Truther
Wow, i wonder what there non diplomic action will be? Maybe an assault on tbilisi, Who knows. Even better again they might pop a nuclear missle up Bush's A hole.. lets wait and see..

So do you really want to see the US nuked or is it just satisfying to type Bush's name on a forum to make you cool amongst all the Bush haters?

Do you really think that Russia would be stupid enough to nuke us over shields deployed in Poland? And if they tried then you will see the real reason that we have deployed those shield in Poland. I hope it does not come down to that. I also don't understand why Russia is so upset over this unless they are planning some sort of strike of thier own somewhere down the road. My question would be what so they have to hide? Although the reasoning that we are deploying the shields in the first place to protect against attacks from Iran or other hostiles of that sort is rediculous, it seems we may be in for another cold war soon with the recovering Soviet Union.

Originally posted by pluckynoonez

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
Im European and id love to know why people always give America a bad time, she has a job to do and she is doing it well!
Just tell me who would you offer up to replace her as the foremost power in the world?
Just be glad that the power in charge shares the same values as you.

Ahem, where do I start? Here's a doozy, a visual representation (the NYT's coverage of the atrocities in East Timor, which we, the States, are responsible for:

And what about all the good its done, that youtube thing was basically press control, were there american troops killin in Timor? i dont think so.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Pro-genetic]

I really do not see how this missile shield is a threat at all to Russia. It was designed to shot down ICBMs launched by accident or from a "rogue state". It is not designed to shot down a full scale nuclear launch, thats pretty impossible.

If Russin launches a nuke, it not going be 1 or 2 or 7 missiles. Its going to be a huge amount. What would be the point of not using them all? Once you launch one you might as well fire them all, it wont matter anymore.

I just dont see the logic...... ?????????

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Sorry, Georgia's borders are recognized by the UN and NATO. South Ossetia is inside of Georgia. Russia simply declared the insurgents Russian's so they could invade.

South Ossetia have held elections that were monitored and they have just about as much right to independence from Georgia as Georgia has from Russia. If the Georgian president ( i wont accuse the people) does not have enough good sense to realise how he is being used by European powers Georgia is in for a great deal of trouble.

It is about oil, natural gas and Putin's desire to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.

Everyone is a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the former USSR. Isn't that funny?

My opinion? Putin knows we are getting close to winning in Iraq and pulling out; so he picked now to invade another country while we are compromised and he knows the rest of the world won't do much to stop him. He will get away with it too.

The US is no closer to winning the war in Iraq than it was in 2004, or for that matter in march 2003, and Putin did not have to wait for the US to engage in a war in Iraq to invade Georgia. There is nothing the US can do and nothing the US will do in any militarily overt way.

He threatened to nuke Poland! I'm sure he deserves the worlds adoration for that.

When? Source please? I think Putin's main consideration is what Russians think of him and on that score he seems to be doing as well as Bush which isn't after all that surprising as both Russians and Americans knows a dictator when they see one.

Those missiles pose no threat to Russia and are only useful to protect against missiles from Iran and other Terrorist States.

Such as who? The utterly fantastical notion that Iran or some such country will attack a member of the EU or NATO with a few ICBM's is so ludicrous that it shouldn't even be discussed in polite company. It's good then that this isn't so you can go right on spreading these fantasies.

Russia has been lying since day one. Do you see them withdrawing? No! Even when the whole thing is on film for the world to see, they lie with impunity. The old Russia is back folks.

The USSR , as pointed out by a good many, never left the scene and simply reformed itself to better manag it's citizenry and fool it's enemies into disarming far faster than the Russian federation did. As made abundantly clear by US foreign policy your citizens can have great freedoms while the government still gets away with a imperialist agenda's and invasion.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The missiles in Poland are no threat whatsoever to Russia.

But it might, in my opinion and knowledge, serve to negate in small part some of the Russian federations strategic superiority. Either way it provides a useful pretext to legitimately paint the US as aggressor state in the minds of those who do not know that the Russian federation deploys at least four to six hundred ABM launch systems with a thousand or more missiles ready to fire.

This is just what Putin chose as an excuse to occupy a Democracy with a leader elected by a 95% majority.

Countries have been invaded for doing far less aggressive things than bombing capitols of other de-facto independent states. The Georgian people seem to have clearly voted for him and i am sorry for them in that he chose a course of action probably believing that he would quick and overt outside support. Either way he misjudged and we will have to see what the Georgian people will have to say about him very nearly getting them into a war with a nation that can easily 'wipe them off the map' in a way that the mistranslated threats of the Iranian never could.

Not one inch of Georgian land belongs to Russia. Russia has invaded a sovereign nation and people are making excuses for them?

I am making excuses for Russia because their actions were far more legitimate than any of the recent wars of aggression the US staged. If i had remembered that you were as active in denouncing the US national security state as you are in denouncing the Russian one i wouldn't have had anything to do here. No inch of Georgia belongs to Russia any less than any Inch of South Ossetia belongs to Georgia.

Putin is an ex-KGB monster and he appears to want the old "Evil Empire" to return.

As my knowledge goes there is nothing monstrous about Putin's past ( at least not in actions he took himself) and if his monstrous it's about as well hidden as Bush's excesses. With respect to what he wants one man doth not make a evil empire and Putin is in my opinion no more the evil incarnate than Bush is. In fact Bush seems to be, in my opinion, more vicious and base but luckily Americans institutions and public action have managed to sometimes restrain him. As for the 'evil empire' Putin's backers might have such designs but they have not managed much as compared to the devastation resulting from America's imperially instituted exploitative economic globalization.

One of my fears is that young people, who have been taught rewritten history, will make bad decisions and not understand the beast behind this Russian aggression.

One of my fears is that young people will fear the Russians more than they do the US national security state that have been responsible for more casualties world wide than the Russians cared to conquer with all it's supposedly evil designs.

This is the real deal folks. Russia is Empire Building again.

And as it stands they will have to fight tooth and nail to get that empire from it's current US government backed corporate exploiters....

Stellar

[edit on 22-8-2008 by StellarX]

This new arms race is fascinating.

Russia has proven ( demolishing Georgia's new improved west trained Israeli equiped military in few days with 1% maybe of their forces) that thinking that they are weak is not more than funny. Quickly Russia arises as superpower again.

USA knows that and developing missile shield in eastern Europe is prime goal to show Russia missiles at its borders knowing that anything but nuclar war would go Russia's way.

Poland is happy with this because they've seen in Georgia's war with Russia what happens when you are on your own. hosting USA's shield means US protection,

I see it as just another opening of a new market. for long time there was lowering of quantity of missiles. now race for contracts begins. if war didn't started during real cold war... LAst thing Russia and China want is war. to whom would they sell all of their export if war begins?

P.S. for war mongers
first, i will always back US when confronting Russia (years living in communism makes me sick when i hear that word:barf

but when you want war with Russia so much and think US military is so powerfull attacking force everyone fears in nightmares, tell me what offensive war did you won on your own?
Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq???
Any full victories?
And you want offensive war with Russia?
Either you are maniac wanting all out nuclear war or you don't know what are you talking.

Originally posted by drock905
I really do not see how this missile shield is a threat at all to Russia. It was designed to shot down ICBMs launched by accident or from a "rogue state". It is not designed to shot down a full scale nuclear launch, thats pretty impossible.

It's designed to shoot down missiles. The operators decide who is a "rogue state" that day. And while it can't stop a full scale nuclear attack, it can limit the effectiveness of any Russian response.

If Russin launches a nuke, it not going be 1 or 2 or 7 missiles. Its going to be a huge amount. What would be the point of not using them all? Once you launch one you might as well fire them all, it wont matter anymore.

I just dont see the logic...... ?????????

Then I'm glad you're not a military strategist. If Russia was the victim of a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack, the primary targets would be it's known missile silos and launchers. And it would most likely be an orchestrated attack from the Continental US, US bases in the Middle East, US Naval Assets (submarines), US Air Force and NATO Allies in Europe and the Baltic States. I have no idea how many missiles Russia might have in unknown locations, but I bet the US Department of Defense has a pretty good guess and would divide that by the number of directions Russia would need to respond to.

If Russia has less than 100 hidden missiles, I think they would be toast in this situation. North America has a missile shield, the Carrier Groups have the Aegis missile defense, you can't nuke a submarine that's already left the area, you can't nuke a plane that's flying over your own airspace, and if we put a missile shield in Poland they can't strike back at the NATO countries. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the missile defenses we've installed in Israel could be used to protect the US bases in the Middle East just as easily.

It should be obvious that the events in Georgia were designed to provoke a response from Russia and scare the Polish public into accepting the missile shield, as well as making the smaller Baltic States rush to join NATO for their "protection". The US pounced on Poland within hours of the news breaking and did everything they could to entice them to sign the deal, even adding a sweetener - when it was well known the Russians opposed it and signing the deal right then would only add to the tension. Rice even made a bigger deal of signing that treaty than delivering Georgia's treaty, and I think if it wouldn't have looked so bad to the ignorant public, she would have done that first and made Georgia a side trip.

Is that the actions of a country that is supposedly trying to de-fuse the conflict between two of our allies (I shouldn't have to remind anybody but it seems that lots of people forget that Russia's been a strong ally of ours for as long as Georgia)? Or does it show us that the missile shield was never directed at Iran and Russia was the target all along?

I know which one I believe and I think that we may be seeing the real reason for the US push into the Middle East and the expansion of NATO toward Russia's borders now. The Russians have a right to be concerned.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
You must be very young and have had terrible teachers in history. There were no "freedom fighters". Only citizens defending themselves against a takeover by the Vietcong.

As long as you understand that the Vietcong was in fact the citizens and that the South Vietnamese government were at war with it's own people thus requiring the aid of foreign governments to suppress them.

The Vietcong were a communist insurgency attempting to take over Vietnam by force.

The Vietcong were a citizen liberation movement fighting to free their country from imperialist rule.

We were fighting on the side of the Vietnamese to prevent a communist takeover.

The US national security state were fighting Vietnamese peasants to prevent them from taking control of their country and running it as they saw fit. Ho Chi Minh were very much western in his thinking and did his absolute best to get the US to help Vietnamese to remove the French presence. Having fought empires before there were not interest in another devastating decades long war and Vietnamese took to this war with a such relish as American draftees did.

Calling them "freedom fighters" is a bald faced lie. The Vietcong were a monstrous bunch. We were honoring our treaty to protect the Vietnamese citizens.

Nonsense and you should know it. The Vietcong committed their small share of atrocities all of which could have easily been prevented had empires such as France and the US not intervened in their internal affairs. I am not aware of any treaties that made the US responsible for the protection of Vietnamese citizens and how you suppose the mass bombing and destruction of South Vietnam ( long before North Vietnam were attacked) 'helped' the South Vietnamese peasants that were rising up to get rid of local tyrants and their foreign allies i have absolutely no idea.

Maybe some reading is in order?

home.no.net...

www.mtholyoke.edu...

The Vietnam War was a mistake, but that does not justify rewriting history and lying about what occurred. The worst thing we did was pulling out and allowing the Vietcong to butcher millions.

The Vietnam war were no 'mistake' in the sense that the US government did not seek to get involved and to destroy the liberation movement there as they had in some many other countries. The only 'mistake' was that they failed in this instance not understanding the national spirit that had allowed Vietnam to stay independent from China. Ho Chi Minh have admitted his sorrow over at least some of the crimes that were committed in the name of national liberation

Stellar

Originally posted by spacebot
There is a rumor circulating that when Putin was rising to power he and his cohorts played nice with the alleged 5 oligarch ruling families in post soviet Russia that all according to the rumors were of a jewish origin and were instrumental in controling much of that nations wealth.

It is not a rumor - it is fairly well-known - but you present everything in a much-simplified version. There is a lot more to it that cannot be described in a single post or even thread.

Yes - when Putin was cooperating with the oligarchs during his first bid for Presidency. Yeltsin made him a First Deputy Prime Minister, likely knowing that he will leave power prematurely before the next election and thus hand off the Presidency to Putin. Since the oligarchs, with Berezovsky at their lead, filtered through most of Yeltsin's decisions at that time, they approved of Putin.

Putin would not have been able to become President if he hadn't cooperated with the oligarchs. And yes - most of them were Jewish - but most, including Berezovsky, were largely atheists and not Jewish by faith.

The oligarchs hoped they had enough political and economic power to hold on to power even if Putin didn't follow their line. But they lacked one key portion of power - the "siloviki" or national forces (police, GRU, FSB, military) were largely out of the oligarchs' sphere. The support of the "siloviki" (especially FSB) is what helped Putin reposition political power in his favor, and "oust" the oligarchs.

Originally posted by spacebot
When he achieved the Presidents position he allegedly took measures to strip those people from their wealth or powers, enabling the state to get a hold on those resources.

Again true - but largely simplified. The measures Putin took to strip them of their power were largely all legal, and have taken advantages of past loopholes (mostly tax laws) the oligarchs used in the past. The oligarchs were not much liked in Russia, and were largely considered to be "legal thieves" who used every available loophole to gain wealth at the expense of the country in the 90's.

But they were not really stripped of their wealth. Only Khadarkovsky was. Berezovsky and Abramovich remain very wealthy. In addition to this Putin's administration has made deals with some of the oligarchs, allowing them to keep their "stolen" wealth, but requiring them to relinquish political power. That is how Abramivich largely remained rich and untarnished.

Originally posted by spacebot
The rumor explains that these families or centers were also influential for political decisions of the former USSR.

False. The majority of the oligarchs and their families were small-time bosses and managers at local factories, mining operations, or governmental bureaus. This enabled them to exercise some control over the disposition of national assets during "privatization", which then led them to become oligarchs. But no oligarch was a major player in the Kremlin during the Soviet Era. The Kremlin players who truly help power before 1991, either became corrupt politicians, or were ousted from power after the failed communist coup against Gorbachev in 1991.

Sure some big Soviet political players become very rich and powerful individuals in the 90's (like Moscow mayor Luzhkov). But they weren't oligarchs.

Originally posted by spacebot
I am asking because I am interested to learn if the moves of both the former USSR policies and the US were pre-designed and pre-orchestrated from some mutualy aligned ruling oligarchs.

In the 90's Russia's political moves were pretty much aligned with those of the U.S./Western Europe - largely thanks to the oligarchs. But it was not because they were part of one large mutual group. The oligarchs were interested in having the West "exploit" Russia (mostly resources), and had developed many ties with the Western corporate elite and politicians (especially in Britain).

But since 2000, Russia has been heading in a diffirent direction. Putin created a whole new power-base, and all-new oligarchs - who now have different goals from the West.

To put it very simply - the current tensions are the result of Russia choosing a different path thanks to Putin. Russia is still being ruled by "siloviki" and the new oligarchs (think board members of Gazprom), but now they are "opposed" to the West and want the control of the country to remain internal, and the profits to go to the government.

Originally posted by spacebot
If that was indeed the case then, we should not expect Russia to behave like the old USSR at all, at least not in their limits of aggressiveness in the future.

USSR is long gone, and all thoughts of communism are abandoned - I can assure you of that. The communists that are left are being kept away from any political power with a long stick. The new Russia under Putin is capitalist country (alas the resources are partly nationalized) with highly centralized power. It is no real democracy, but this cannot be called communism or socialism in any sense.

As for aggressiveness, it has all to do with geopolitical influence. The newly centralized Russian government feels that having an increased geopolitical influence will help it stabilize the Russian economy and ensure that NATO's advances do no go unanswered.

People who say Putin wants to bring back the USSR or communism are utterly dillusional. Russia is not so much interested in colonizing any of its neighbors, as it is in being taken seriously when it warns NATO not to step on its toes in Eastern Europe. The sole-superpower world is highly destablizing, and Russia is finding it very difficult to go against the flow.

Originally posted by spacebot
We don't really know how much far they have gone or plan to go in means of deployable technology and or to which extend they have redesigned their dogmas, if a "limiting" factor that used to exist and supposedly was hindering their abilities is now long gone.

Post-Soviet Russia never really had any "dogmas". Untill Putin came to power there wasn't really a coherent goal which Russia was striving after. Different factions (oligarchs, people, politicians, "siloviki") were all striving after different things, and no one got what they wanted. Now all of Russia and all of its factions finally appear to be moving in one direction. That direction is to become something along the lines of the U.S. A powerful country with centralized government, capable military, extensive control over global resources, and extensive international political influence.

So it could very well be that Russia's new goal and dogma is that same as that of the U.S. - except it is meant to benefit Russia not U.S.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That fear was justified and lets not forget where the Vietcong got all their weapons and money. We were there for the right reasons, it was the leaders who bastardized it into the mess it became.

How is destroying a national liberation movement 'right' and how was that not the original intent of the American national security state?

Be careful not to mislead people into thinking the "Communism" you mention here had anything to do with the dictionary definition. This was a proxy war that had to do with way more than what was apparent on the surface. There was nothing truly communistic (?) about what was being called Communism in this case.

I agree. The Vietnamese were trying to get rid of the French occupiers and ended up fighting Americans , despite Ho Chi Minh's best efforts and attempted private correspondence with Roosevelt and others, when the French state could no longer even supply the warm bodies to effect a occupation while swimming in dollars.

As I type, Russian Troops are entrenched 30 miles from the Georgian Capitol. They have told lie after lie after lie over the last few days.

So have the western media? It's mostly lies no matter where you look with the ONLY known fact being that the Georgian military should not have followed the order to bomb the South Ossetian capitol thus inviting Russian reprisals.

They are destroying infrastructure and taking the war to civilians. How can anyone defend their actions??????

Two - three million dead Iraqi's ( over the last two decades) suggest to me that there are criminal states with far worse records with even fewer suitable excuses. In fact if the western world wants to save lives why not just send peace keepers by the hundreds of thousands to the DRC to stop the death and destruction?

The Congo is the world's largest producer of cobalt (as ore)[8], and a major producer of copper and industrial diamonds. It has significant deposits of tantalum, which is used in the fabrication of electronic components in computers and mobile phones. Katanga Mining Limited, a London based company, now owns the Luilu Metallurgical Plant, which has a capacity of 175,000 tonnes of copper and 8,000 tonnes of cobalt per year, making it the largest cobalt refinery in the world. After a major rehabilitation program, copper production was restarted in December 2007. Work on the cobalt circuit continues, with production expected by the end of Q1 2008[9].

According to a United Nations report smuggling and exportation of coltan, an ore which contains tantalum, helped fuel the war in the Congo, a crisis that has resulted in approximately 5.4 million deaths since 1998 – making it the world’s deadliest documented conflict since WW II.

en.wikipedia.org...

So frankly if we want to save lives lets get Americans out of Iraq and into the DRC and watch to see if the Russian occupation ( if that happens) of Georgia results in the same destruction of infrastructure and population that recent American excursions did. In fact there are plenty of criminal states without nukes we can act against so lets pretend to start there?

What right do they have to tell the Polish People who suffered so much at the hands of the Russians what they can and can not do?

What right does the US have to use Poland in it's strategic games when the Russians are still more than able to smash Poland and anyone in Europe who comes to their aid into oblivion? Isn't this EXACTLY what France and Britain did in 1939 using the Poles to provide them with the excuse to create the war they wanted?

If you believe those missiles are a threat to Russia I do have a bridge for sale. They threatened to nuke (destroy) them, not shoot spit-wads at them.

The missiles are not a threat but the infrastructure that will be built to support it will will provide the US with a breakout potential where they can expand the system to include many dozens or hundreds of missiles within many months or years after the initial few years. The Russians leadership just sees no reason to give up any of it's strategic aces and is acting to retain them.

Once again the world has its head buried in the sand. When have we seen this scenario before?

I agree. I wonder why the world puts up with illegal occupation of Iraq when Iraq never killed American 'peacekeepers'

In fact here is a nice article to reward you for your hypocrisy.

www.counterpunch.org...

Stellar

reply to post by maloy


(Rather off topic but I feel it should be brought up since I have found that the most common cause of conflict between two people of the same 'intellectual interest' is a lack of reciprocal understanding)

Very nice post Malloy.

The position of the 'Oligarchy' and the 'Kremlin' remain something of mystery in the west when it comes to the internal politics and economics of post-soviet Russia especially when it comes to something such as a "Russians perspective on the economic benefits of democratic globalisation"

A large proportion of people's perception comes from the image presented by the western main stream media and this, to a large degree, I feel is somewhat skewed by presumption and the lack of understanding of an alternate point of view.

A good example of this would be the attitude garnered towards Boris Berezovsky.

(whose understanding of those economic benefits as far as I can see mostly consist of "grab as much as you can, exploit the living hell out of everything and make yourself a bazillionaire").

For example: Berezovsky is continuously referred to as being in 'political asylum' with the implicit understanding of the reader that 'asylum' effectively means escape from persecution not justice.

In other words the implicit assumption is that Berezovsky's self imposed exile is unfair and due to the wording used many people will not question the circumstances of that situation and will instead go with the generic assumption of the readers understanding of the term asylum (seeking escape from persecution).

However the Russian state clearly does not view this situation in the same way.

Can you provide us with references and or source material which would explain the Russian perspective further?

Ideally, I would be very interested in reading the reasoning behind the Russian Administrations actions in conjunction with the opinion of the "Normal Russian on the street" and if possible, the analysis of the current socio-political situation from a Russian academic.
(Any of which would aid our understanding )

Thanks.

Absence.

P.s.
English would be nice too...

P.P.s.

StellarX

All Hail Counterpunch!!


[edit on 23-8-2008 by Absence of Self]

reply to post by SectionEight


Yes the treaty is not negotiable, but the problem is that Russia knows the US is weak right now, we have over extended our military and bogged it down in Iraq. We have nothing to respond with unless Bush or the next president plans to reenact the draft and soon. It is that reason I don't believe Russia will drop a nuke on Poland, if we were to defend Poland we would have to do so with a missile strike of our own, and lets not forget that right now Russia has all of Europe against it right now ...... they hold a lot of the cards but they don't have the best hand.

Originally posted by Absence of Self
Can you provide us with references and or source material which would explain the Russian perspective further?

I have no sources in English of the top of my head. Most of what I write regarding the oligarchy comes from my experience living in Russia in the 90's, from the news and rumors in Russia, and from poltical and economics professors in the universities I have attended. I could probably find some english internet sources if I took some time to gather them.

The Russian and English wiki articles on Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky are fairly lengthy and provide numerous sources.

Many of my sources also come from Russian-language websites, such as Echo of Moscow (an independent political-expert radio station and website).


As for Russian perspective - there isn't a single perspective. The government is hostile towards some old oligarchs, but caters to the new ones. The people have a negative opinion of all oligarchs - past and present.

And the Russian Oligarchy does not just extend to the few top players (like Berezovsky used to be, or like Deripaska, Fridman, and Miller are now). It includes an entire new class of "new-Russians", the so called new Aristocracy. Tens of thousands of multi-millionaires who have more money than they know what to do with. This class keeps a distance from regular Russians and shares little in common with them, and are seen as a completely different class of society.


The Russian people generally have negative feelings towards the oligarchy class. Not to a point of starting a revolution of course, but whenever an oligarch gets murdered or arrested - many Russians feel like justice has been served. That is why it was so easy for Putin to "take-care" of the ruling oligarchy. But the oligarchy isn't going anywhere soon. many are now used to the aristocratic class of Russian elites - their Bently's, Castle-like summer houses, golded toilets (no joke), vacation homes on the French Riviera, elitist Moscow flats. Their level of glutony is unsurpassed in the world of billionaires. The oligarchs are the product of the 90's, and even Putin does not have the power or the will to root them all out.

Originally posted by Absence of Self
Ideally, I would be very interested in reading the reasoning behind the Russian Administrations actions

Well the administrations action are fairly known. To put it rather bluntly, the "siloviki" - those who control the Russian forces and intelligence but not the money (like FSB, the court system, the military command) - decided to restore control of the country before it was too late. Many thought that 1999 when Putin ascended to power was already too late - Russian GDP was in ruins and Russia was bleeding resources without the government or the people seeing a penny of profits. Their main goal was renationalize the key Russian energy sector, to secure a source of economic and budgetary power for the government.

Putin did not do all this alone of course. No one could do this alone. He was supported by a team of political and "siloviki" elite, who also cooperated with but then broke away from the ruling oligarchy. His group termed the "St. Petersburg Lawyers", with a background in FSB and the court system, largely assisted him with rooting out and arresting the oligarchs and renationalizing the key indistries. This group soon became the foundation of his administration and party - and it included the current president Medvedev.


I plan to start a new thread sometime soon - describing Putin's power and what's really behind it. It is far too complex for one post however, and the discussion is guaranteed to derail with all the "Putin is the evil Soviet Communist overlord" comments coming from the ignorant hoard.

Originally posted by Absence of Self
in conjunction with the opinion of the "Normal Russian on the street"

The vast majority support Putin's reforms and actions against the oligarchs like Berezovsky (whom many Russians viewed as the godfather of the Russian corruption and crime). Much of the older population is very cautious if not outright critical about Putin's rapid centralization of power however and his actions against independent media outlets such as NTV.

Moreover Russians criticize him for not doing enough to fight corruption, and creating an economy which relies on export of natural resources rather than manufacturing industry and financing. Putin is in no way viewed as flawless or faultless. But the Russian political sphere offers very few credible alternatives. There is the pro-Western pro-Democratic liberal reform party, but their members are largely discredited by letting the country fall to waste during the Yeltsin years.

Originally posted by Absence of Self
and if possible, the analysis of the current socio-political situation from a Russian academic.

Again I'll try to touch on that in my new thread sometime soon.

Russian politics are not far better than they were in the 90's. The government is being run by a single huge party, while the other half-dozen parties have a loose alliance of idealogically-opposed leaders. While the tensions with the West remain high, democratic reform (many hoped Medvedev would introduce these) remains a distant priority. The government is highly unelastic and very centralized thanks to Putin's reforms - and as a result changing its structure (which is flawed) is now very easy. The constitution is not set in stone and is much debated. The elections are fair - but are of little interest anymore as some feel they no longer matter.

Arguably the situation now is better than it was in the late 90's - back then it was simply chaotic, now it's just sad if stable. But there is little hope for the future with current anti-Western tensions - which will help stabilize Putin's party in power even more. Medvedev is introducing many economic, jurisdictional and legal reforms - but he is not really furthering the "democracy".

The only improvement is in economy and the standard of life - but again not all of Russia has seen the oil/energy profits trinkle down. But for Russia any improvement is progress - so I guess there is progress with Putin. The question is where all of this is heading. Putin has turned Russia from a chaotic bankrupt state run by oligarchs, to a gorvernmentally restricted state run by a political elite composed of "siloviki" and energy oligarchs.



The thing that irratates me and many Russians the most - is that the West is busy laying the blame on Putin, while neglecting to see how they played a role in the formation of the Russian state and failing to understand why Russia and Putin are doing what they are doing. The miss-informed masses tend to rely on instincts and theorize about Putin bringing back the Soviet Union. That kind of prejudiced arrogance is in no way helpful in deciphering the current conflicts and the politics surrounding them.

The answer "why is Russia doing what it's doing" does not lie in Putin or in communism - it lies in the foundation of the modern Russian state in the 90's - and the circumstances surrounding it.




Sorry I can't provide much in the way of sources. Good English sources such as Diacritica and Sobaka have went off line, NTV network was taken over, and Echo of Moscow has no english version. I am sure there are good english sources, but there is just too much clutter and personal agendas to sift through.


Here are some sources with Russia's perspective:

Russian sources in English:

en.rian.ru...
www.itar-tass.com...

Sources in Russian:

lenta.ru...
www.rosbalt.ru...
www.echo.msk.ru...



As for sources featuring the Russian's view on the conflict (not the Russian media's) - these can mainly be found in countless online blogs and forums, including this one.

The issue is - it is very hard to find neutral views, almost impossible from official media sources.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by maloy]

Russian Political Analysis of Current Events (in English):


Is Georgia's NATO dream coming true?

Desperate to leave some meaningful legacy, George W. Bush has one aim - to cut the Russia of Putin and Medvedev to size for crushing small Georgia. Georgia's defense is the defense of a minor country and of democracy in general the world over. This is the recent refrain of many U.S. songs.

Georgia's official invitation to join NATO, if it takes place, will only confirm the validity of Russia's actions. Three Black Sea nations - Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania - are already NATO members; with Georgia and Ukraine making five, the Black Sea will turn into "Lake NATO." Even the Mediterranean has less NATO control. All post-Soviet division of influence was done in a state of political hangover, but there were still hopes for disputes. At this point, regional influence will be sealed, and Moscow will have to forget about any claims it believes it has on its neighbors.

The gist of the problem is that NATO and Russia are moving toward open confrontation. Russia has no problem with Ukraine's or Georgia's independence but it is concerned about their policies, and even more so, about those who direct their policies. These are Russia's next door neighbors. This is not strictly a Russian reaction, but rather the basics of any country's foreign policy.

en.rian.ru...



What the Russian papers say

Russian Newspaper Headlines:


Russia ready to begin recognition process for Abkhazia, South Ossetia

"Sergei Mironov, the speaker of the Russian parliament's upper house, said Russia was ready to heed the appeals of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to recognize them as independent countries. In fact, the two houses of parliament said they have even agreed on a potential date to do so, August 25."

"However, the two rebel republics' recognition by the international community might be a problem. "It is important that Russia think twice about who will support Abkhazia's independence and the de facto annexation of South Ossetia, rather than dream of a victory over Georgia. No Western nation will recognize Abkhazia, which will end up having a similar status to Northern Cyprus. It will also shatter the fragile balance established in the post-Cold War world," he said. "


Ending Russia-NATO cooperation will prove a mistake

"According to the analyst, Russia will in turn step up its global bomber patrols. "For the moment, patrols are flown as part of exercises. Aircraft are not always in the air," he said. "Perhaps if confrontation intensifies, patrols will become regular as in Soviet times, and their scope will be expanded."


Russia does not plan to supply Syria with offensive weapons

"A manager of a military-industrial company told Vedomosti that discussions would cover Russian arms supplies to Syria, including MiG-29 fighter planes, and fulfillment of existing contracts. No new contracts are expected to be signed.
Until now, Russia has been reserved in its arms supplies to Syria, says Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. On the request of the Israeli government, Moscow declined in the past to supply Damascus with Iskander theater missiles, and in place of S-300 long-range systems, it sent Pantsyr and Buk-M2 shorter-range systems. "

en.rian.ru...

More headlines:

Russia shouldn't recognize rebel republics unilaterally - analyst

"Russia should hold back from recognizing the rebel republics unilaterally. What Medvedev could do is apply to the UN, asking it to consider the two republics' status, because the UN cannot just wave him aside.

His request is most likely to be declined. Then, the next step could be to adopt a federal law regulating Russia's relations with Abkhazia. In that case, Abkhazia would obtain some security guarantees and economic independence. "

"Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky said: "Russia has much to gain by recognizing the two republics now. It would certainly be our greatest foreign-political victory over the past few years. However, one should bear in mind that this move could severely hit the Russian political elite's commercial interests in the West. That is why these people are lobbying against the move, and the process is therefore likely to get dragged out for years.""


Dmitry Medvedev increasingly seen as independent politician - survey

"President Dmitry Medvedev's first 100 days in office culminated in the military conflict in Georgia, which in fact sent his popularity up as well as strengthened Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's ratings.
The conclusions have been drawn by Russia's leading public opinion services from their ongoing monitoring of public sentiments."

"On the whole, the president has been the most important official for most Russians for the past 15 years, said Valery Fyodorov, general director of the VTsIOM pollster.
He said that had not changed when Medvedev took over as president. However, Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia. His name is cited most often (55%) when respondents are asked to name five or six politicians they like. Medvedev ranks second with 40%."

"In July, 36% said they were convinced that Putin had not really let go of the reins, but only 26% think so now. "

en.rian.ru...



'08 missile defenses: harking back to the 1980s?

"But whether there is a threat from Iran or not, the Russian military and political establishment is convinced that American anti-missiles in Poland are only part of a plan to build up a U.S. nuclear potential in Europe directed against Russia. Naturally, Moscow is considering retaliatory options.

Colonel General Viktor Yesin, first vice president of the Academy for Security, Defense and Law Enforcement, thinks that "in reply Russia could reinforce its air grouping in the Kaliningrad Region to neutralize missile silos in Poland."

Another general, Leonid Ivashov, who heads the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, believes that "in response Russia could site Iskander theater missile systems and high-precision cruise missiles in the Kaliningrad Region, western Russia, and Belarus."

...

On the other hand, such a buildup in areas bordering on Russia, which could tip the balance of strength in the West's favor, is well capable of burying the main instrument of European security - the 1987 Treaty on Shorter and Medium Range Missiles. The military, including former chief of the General Staff Yury Baluyevsky, has time and again paraded reasons for returning these missiles to Russia's arsenal.

en.rian.ru...

Looking back on this event, it seems to me that bringing Georgia into NATO faster may have been the reason for the whole thing. Losing the provinces was a given anyway. Solidifying NATO membership was more important.

This is the height of arrogance and puts the entire world in danger. Nuclear Deterrence is Dead.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by deltaboy

 

Oh please.. just go look at a map. A missile launched at the US from Iran would have to fly over Spain, about two and a half thousand miles away from Poland.

I suggest you actually look at a globe, not a map – there is a difference.

You will clearly see that a Missile going straight from Iran to the US would fly straight over Poland!

Mikey