Wednesday, November 05, 2008

It’s Starting Already, Part 2

The Russians, as expected, have taken the measure of the man, and found him a few inches shy of an adult shoe size.

According to The Financial Times:

Medvedev Throws Down a Gauntlet to Obama

Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday became the first world leader to throw down a gauntlet to US president-elect Barack Obama, declaring that the Kremlin would station missiles in the tiny Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland, in response to US plans for an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe.


[Post ends here]

125 comments:

Afonso Henriques said...

This, coming from me may shock you.

You see, Russia was positive if Americans were reasonable.
Obama will probaily abandon Eastern Europe to Russia. That or playing a dangerous game with the Russians. That may make the Russians feel too strong and to pose a real danger to Eastern Europe.
Let's hope Obama ends this madness with his over vallued pacifism. Let's just hope he will cease to put missiles all over Eastern Europe. Maybe - though I doubt it - the Russians could retreat a little.

Probabily what will happen is that we will see the end of a "thugerish" American/NATO position and start seeing a Russian one.

Henrik R Clausen said...

You see, Russia was positive if Americans were reasonable.

Agreed. We should have taken the Russian offer to deploy the missile shield to face Iran. Where we really need it...

Afonso Henriques said...

Henrik, I just think that Russia needs more that shield against Iran than "we" do...

spackle said...

Afonso-

"Let's hope Obama ends this madness with his over vallued pacifism. Let's just hope he will cease to put missiles all over Eastern Europe."

This may shock you. But I agree with you. But I wont hold my breath.

OT: A friend of mine is a tour guide in NYC. Yesterday he had a well heeled Swedish couple who came here specifically to witness Obama win the election and plan to return for the inauguration. You crazy Swedes you. : )

wildiris said...

Thankfully, I have a faith and believe that in the end, God works all things for good. For those who don't, I don't know how they are going to deal. Since the United States has been the economic engine that has driven the world's economies for the last few generations, a president like Obama, by punishing the producers in this country and bringing down America's economy, has the ability to bring down the economies of the rest of the western world, too. So expect to see the stock markets in other countries start tanking now, just as ours is going to start doing in the next few days/weeks. The world this day is poised at the same place Germany was at in the late 1920's and early 1930's, as the Weimar Republic began to catastrophically fail. Time for each of us to start building our Arks!

Armance said...

Obama - and the Democrats in general - are unpredictable. At least from the Republicans/neocons you know what to expect, they are usually in the war mood. But the Democrats can be pacifists today and intervene militarily tomorrow - alway using the argument of humanitarian intervention. It was a Democrat administration which pushed NATO to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999. I remember that the level of anti-Serbian and pro-Muslims declarations coming from the Democrat leaders, starting with Clinton, was mind-boggling.

Zenster said...

The Russians, as expected, have taken the measure of the man, and found him a few inches shy of an adult shoe size.

If the Russians are already scenting blood in the water, imagine what sort of flim-flamming Islam has in store for this greenhorn carpetbagger.

I'm of two minds about the missiles in Europe.

If Iran is allowed to proceed unfettered, then Europe needs the missiles. Of couse, they should damn well pay for them themselves but that's Blue Sky Thinking.

On the other hand, America almost needs to save itself the money and let Europe worry about themselves, its just that there's so much to lose through their likely inaction.

As to participating with Russia. Are you mad, Henrik? The advanced technology involved with a missile defense shield is pure state of the art and should be kept out of Russia's hands until they straighten up and fly right. And we all know that ain't happening anytime soon.

Afonso Henriques said...

Yes boys, Mr. Medvedev spoke to the Nation (I love when emperors speak to the Nation instead of the Empire) but maybe, with America occupied, we should think that he spoke to the whole fricking and demented European Civilisation:

"Concerning his internal policies, Dmitri Medvedev promised he would not walk the path of Nationalisations in the financlal system to fight the consequences of the global crisis's repercussions in Russia.
“The political liberty of the citizens as well as private property untouchable”, said Medvedev."

"The Russian President apeeled also to a more active development of the television and internet, considering it “the garantee of freedom of expression”"

"“Russia will not be throwned to an arms race, but the safety of its citizens will be well granted” (...) “In case it is necessary to neutralise the anti-missile shield, we will instal in the Kalininegrad region the Iskander missile systems”, Medvedev said.
This last part of his speach recieved strong "applause" (clapping-oh-hands) from the more than three thousand people who assisted Dmitri Medvedev's speach at the Kremlin."

This last paragrah made me somehow feel more secure that Russia is not that big beast at all. Time will tell. Also, sorry for my cheap english.

eatyourbeans said...

The time may come when American Conservatives will feel they have more in common with Orthodox Russia than with Obama's post-nationalism America.

babs said...

I'm with you Zenster. Europe should pay for their own defense, not the U.S.
But, I have never heard anything other than this missle defense shield was aimed at the Middle East. Even if it were aimed at Russia (which I have never heard that it was), it is a DEFENSE SHIELD, not an offensive weapon.
Why does Russia find this "anti-missle defense shield" such a threat?
Could it be that the shield is designed to ward off incoming from some of Russia's trading partners? Is that why they object?
Russia has been advertising their military weapons for several years now. I look on their overflights of northern Europe as no more than an advertising ploy. It wouldn't look good to potential buyers if they were not able to thwart an anti missle defense shield designed to take out the missles they are now selling... (Why should we buy when the Americans have neutered these weapons?)
Russia is not in jeopardy, their customers are.

Natalie said...

The time may come when American Conservatives will feel they have more in common with Orthodox Russia than with Obama's post-nationalism America.

Which is one of the many reasons why I find it useful to be learning the Russian language. No, I'm not planning on moving there now, but you never know what will happen in the future...

spackle said...

Natalie-

You might want to throw learning Chinese into the mix. Especially if you want to make $$$.

Afonso Henriques said...

Hi Babs!

"I have never heard anything other than this missle defense shield was aimed at the Middle East."

I am sure you wouldn't mind the Russians to have their own missile shield against Middle Eastern rouge states, right?
Now imagine they base that missile shield against Iran or Iraq in Canada and Mexico.
That's why they object.

"Why does Russia find this "anti-missle defense shield" such a threat?"

Imagine one is abducted. The raptors are not aggressive or strong enough to make you fear for your life (in normal conditions).
Now imagine those same raptors handcuf you in such a way that you are no threat to them whatsoever.
They are being defensive, however, because you cannot defend yourself it would be normal to fear for your life because they can do whatever they want to you. That is more or less why the Russians are not so found on "Da System".

Zenster said...

babs: Why does Russia find this "anti-missle defense shield" such a threat?

Any ability to negate another nation's first-strike capability gives military planners the heebie-jeebies. Since Russia continues to maintain an adversarial stance with respect to American interests, they fully realize that their vulnerablity might become an issue if blame was assigned to them over a nuclear terrorist attack inflicted by Russian-supported Iran (for instance).

Russia wants to eat its geopolitical cake and have it too. They think there shouldn't be any consequences for having enabled a terrorist nuclear regime and then balk when those most likely to suffer nuclear jihad take action to mitigate it.

My heart pumps piss.

Afonso Henriques said...

Natalie, any Chinese who can't speak English (or Italian, or French, or German, or Portuguese, or Spanish, or Russian) is not worth make a business with.

That's why I think people should know those first and only then Chinese. Don't forget the Latin ( or Greek, or Dutch) also.

:)

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: I am sure you wouldn't mind the Russians to have their own missile shield against Middle Eastern rouge states, right?
Now imagine they base that missile shield against Iran or Iraq in Canada and Mexico.


Bzzzzzt! False premise. Canada and Mexico have no proximity to terrorist states that are currently pursuing nuclear weapons.

Thank you for playing, please try again.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster, worried about Jihad?

That's why I think nuclear France poses a bigger threath in long term than non-nuclear Iran. And I am not kidding.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

"Bzzzzzt! False premise. Canada and Mexico have no proximity to terrorist states that are currently pursuing nuclear weapons."

I would accept it if you were to say that Mexico and Canada don't want nothing to due with Russia the way Poland behaves towards the USA. I don't understand how will you people punch Iran with your fist in Russia's face. So, you admit the shield is against Russia, right?

The mask has felt. And North Korea? Is not North Korea a threat or are they not muslims enough? Why can't we, NATO people just focus on Afghanistan?

Takekaze said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Homophobic Horse said...

"The Russian President apeeled also to a more active development of the television and internet, considering it “the garantee of freedom of expression”

And a healthy democracy as well, i.e. popular participation in governance. A good example of this would be Richard North of EuRef whose blogging on MOD weapons procurement has actually brought about a change of policy which will save the lives of British soldiers in Afghanistan. Which is more than can be said for the stupid hacks in the MSM.

The EU, as we know, plans to ban critical blogs and de-anonymize bloggers so that they are vulnerable to the Antifa Brownshirts.

Oh I love you Russia. I love you. I wish "our" politicians would say things like that, instead they "regulate" the internet i.e. censor it and continue committing genocide with insane immigration.

Russia is liberated now. It's black earth made holy with the blood of martyrs.

Takekaze said...

Nuclear Iran can threaten Israel easier than nuclear France. Nuclear Iran can hand a nuke over to Osama right now (if they had one). Nuclear France has yet to be fully overtaken by islam (though, considering that it's post DeGaulle France it won't take that long).

What about nuclear Britain? Dhimmitude there is even worse than in France.

One thing is scary, yet not unexpected. Obama isn't even in office and the Russians already move out of their corner making their first swing right at his head. Putin trained his lapdog Medvedev well.

Homophobic Horse, freedom of speech isn't really big in Russia either.

YminusX said...

Zenster,

Don't waste your time. I read this blog quite rarely, but always I find here the drivel of people like Henrik, Natalie and other russian admirers. How they escape the fact that Iran, Siria and paleoswinians are now what they are because of russians support and hardware, I don't know.

Eastern Europe will not fall under russians hands again, not without a fight. I hope Zerobama will do so much damage in his first year, that this idiots from US will not vote socialism again in 50 years - after that I really don't care.

Avery Bullard said...

zenster:Since Russia continues to maintain an adversarial stance with respect to American interests

Given that Americans think their interests involve removing all governments that are pro-Russian and encircling Russia is it really all that surprising that Russians would be hostile to your supposed interests? Do you seriously expect a nation with pride to just pathetically role over for the US elite like they did in the 90s after all the US has done since 1999 starting with the bombing of Serbia?

zenster:Bzzzzzt! False premise. Canada and Mexico have no proximity to terrorist states that are currently pursuing nuclear weapons.

National security involves more than just terrorist threats.

Avery Bullard said...

Here's what I said last night on another thread about all this talk about how Jews were foolish to vote for Obama:It is not the small Jewish vote that matters but their dominant role in all forms of media and the influential universities over the past 4 or 5 decades as well as influential civil rights groups, political lobbies and more. It may all come back to haunt them - wouldn't be the first time they'd been in the vanguard of change that later turned on them - but I really doubt it.

I predict Israel will do well enough with President Obama but white America and Europe will not be so fortunate.


The press is reporting that Rahm Emmanuel has been offered the position of chief-of-staff in an Obama administration.

Who is Rahm Emmanuel? From Wikipedia:

- Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group. His mother, Martha Smulevitz, worked as an X-ray technician; she was the daughter of a local union organizer,[1] and would herself become a civil rights activist

- When his family lived in Chicago, he attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish day school.

- During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel. Dual citizen presumably.

- Emanuel's wife Amy Rule, a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was non-practicing before converting to Orthodox Judaism around the same time as her wedding.[24] They are "active members of a modern Orthodox congregation, Anshe Shalom, in Chicago".[10] Amy is “heavily involved with the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago.”[10] They have three children, son Zacharias and daughters Ilana and Leah. The children attend "the Conservative Jewish day school, which Emanuel himself attended as a child". Rabbi Asher Lopatin of Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel Congregation, is quoted as saying: "It's a very involved Jewish family"; "Amy was one of the teachers for a class for children during the High Holidays two years ago."[10] Emanuel has said of his Judaism: "I am proud of my heritage and treasure the values it has taught me."

That Obama's first action is to offer a prominent position to such a committed Zionist tells me the black/Jewish alliance will survive Obama.

Emanuel is also a prominent supporter of open borders. For America. Not for Israel.

Zenster said...

Avery Bullard: Given that Americans think their interests involve removing all governments that are pro-Russian and encircling Russia is it really all that surprising that Russians would be hostile to your supposed interests?

Seeing as how Russia continues to openly support known terrorist regimes along with those that sponsor terrorism, is it any wonder that reducing Russia's sphere of influence is a major priority for America? Russia's woes are largely self-inflicted.

Do you seriously expect a nation with pride to just pathetically role over for the US elite like they did in the 90s after all the US has done since 1999 starting with the bombing of Serbia?

Can you honestly say that there should not be any repercussions for openly facilitating global terrorism? Or that national pride can be legitimately sustained by playing such a supportive role?

National security involves more than just terrorist threats.

Has anyone said otherwise? America just happens to be one of Islam's primary targets. Beyond that, GoV's major focus is upon Islamic terrorism. Please try not to be too mystified if discussion revolves around Russia's flagrant enablement of Muslim terrorists.

Armance said...

Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group. His mother, Martha Smulevitz, worked as an X-ray technician; she was the daughter of a local union organizer,[1] and would herself become a civil rights activist

The One's advisers are definitely not stupid, beginning with Axelrod. It's a well-known fact among them that some pro-Israeli American Jews distrust Obama and a gesture of courtship like this is a clever move.

Actually, honestly speaking, his campaign staff and strategists were bright compared to McCain's all the way - one of the reasons his victory was so categorical.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Dymphna, I have emailed you.=)

One of my commenters looks at this story and says it has nothing to do with Obama, it's all on Bush's watch.

I thought you'd enjoy that. If enjoy is the right world

Natalie said...

I'm going to be honest here: how amusing would it be to be the president or prime minister of Russia right now? If I were in either of those positions, I would so look forward to pushing Obama around. Heck, even as an American I look forward to seeing him pushed around--it'll be hilarious (except when it's at our great country's expense).

Czechmade said...

If you smoke Russia, you should pay some taxes. It is unjust towards tobacco and alcohol consumers.

Did you buy it legally?

Bela said...

There is an absolute misconception fluttering within the general public regarding the Jews, namely that they maintain a tribal solidarity among themselves.
It's not true. Diaspora Jews - those who are living with us - are for the most part Marxist ideologues, that is, multiculturalist, against nationalism and Nation-States, consequently anti-Zionist.

If you noticed, leftist, influential Jews like Chomsky, Judt, deplore the creation of Israel and Kissinger, along with other Clintonista Jewish politicians like Dennis Ross, Indyke etc. always worked against Israel's best interest - not to mention the Academic establishment.

There is word for it: Ghetto or Galut Jew who works at the behest of the gentile overlord something like "Uncle Tom" for Darkies. Kapo Jew is also a name for them.

Israel is a different story, so it's quite possible that Obama-Jews are simply leftist, opportunist, and anti-Zionist.

There are many anti-Israel, Communist Jewish organization in the US, like these:

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

jstreet
http://www.jstreetpac.org/pac/about_the_pac

Jewish Democrat
http://www.njdc.org/

Don't try to establish links between Obama Jews and Israelites because it could be either true or not.
My hunch is that Obama Jews are Marxist first and foremost and they would rather push Israel to surrender to the Arabs for the "World Peace".

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Seeing as how Russia continues to openly support known terrorist regimes along with those that sponsor terrorism

Your whole reasoning is based on this premise. You repeat this mantra many times in every comment.

But you are always unable to provide any evidence of it.

Name a trade relation that Russia has with Iran, that is not comparable to USA's trade relations with Saudi Arabia (i.e. something that would be more destabilizing to the Middle East than the festering brew that America is already creating).

Name Russian sponsoring of terrorism that is not from the USSR time.

I have asked before. But you have so far not given a single concrete example.

Homophobic Horse said...

"I'm going to be honest here: how amusing would it be to be the president or prime minister of Russia right now? If I were in either of those positions, I would so look forward to pushing Obama around. Heck, even as an American I look forward to seeing him pushed around--it'll be hilarious (except when it's at our great country's expense)."

Yes you're right. All America's enemies are just peeing themselves with laughter. Obama can't be Hawkish towards Russia/Causasus. Obama ran the closest thing to an anti-war campaign as we're likely to see in America. If becomes Hawkish he undermines himself. If he does nothing he emboldens America's enemies.

But dialectically speaking, if Obama is so bad that he gets America wrapped around a diplomatic lamp post he engenders a new and more realistic approach come the next election.

Russkiy said...

Just came back from reading BBC coments thread on Obama...

This is madness, not a single sane comment. The americans by enlarge are so proud and excited now, what about Brits? Maybe one sceptical comment.

The only reasuring comment I saw on that thread was from an American (wiht a Russian name) who lives in Moscow and who said that she wishes that Russians would evolve to accept people regardless of their race. I hope that this means over there people are still reserved about the Obama presidency.

On the other hand, the dont like Republicans because of their Hawkish atitude.

Conservative Swede said...

declaring that the Kremlin would station missiles in the tiny Russian enclave of Kaliningrad

This is a very calculated move. If McCain would have been elected they would not have made this move, since it is in McCain's character to react aggressively, not having any inhibitions about starting a open war with Russia. Obama however will react by gathering all parties (USA, NATO, Poland, Russia) in talks, lead by him, where he will come out as great peace broker, bringing people together. And missile systems on both sides will be removed.

However, had Obama not been pushed in this way, he would have been likely to continue with "spreading democracy and freedom".

The move was perfectly tailored for the situation, as far as I can see. The Russians are very good chess players.

Conservative Swede said...

Babs,

Why does Russia find this "anti-missle defense shield" such a threat?

Imagine the following situation. Two enemies are standing face to face to each other. Each hold a mighty battle axe in their hand. Battle axes so powerful that after a few blows to the head you are dead and destroyed. The fact that the weapons are so powerful is the main reason keeping them from pounding each other. Give the other one a blow, and you will get a lethal strike back immediately.

Now A manages to strike the weapon out of the hands of B. So now you are suggesting, Babs, that B has nothing to fear, since the move of A was a "defensive" one.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Seeing as how Russia continues to openly support known terrorist regimes along with those that sponsor terrorism, is it any wonder that reducing Russia's sphere of influence is a major priority for America?"

Honestly Zenster, do you think America is not worst than Russia?
How much terrorism has America created in Eastern Europe and Iraq only? Where did Russia did something like this?

I think that as the USSA are consolidated, more and more people will put their "hopes and dreams" in Russia.

-------------------------------

"I'm going to be honest here: how amusing would it be to be the president or prime minister of Russia right now? If I were in either of those positions, I would so look forward to pushing Obama around. Heck, even as an American I look forward to seeing him pushed around--it'll be hilarious (except when it's at our great country's expense)."

Right Natalie, I will love to see Obama running in front of Putin's baby tiger... I see America as a great State (I recently called it the diamond of colonialism) but that's not love - after all, I am not an American - and as such I will laugh without prejudice.

Will America survive Obama? I really don't think so. That's the sad thing

Afonso Henriques said...

Right Conservative Swede, that's what I tried to say. You said it way better than me.

Darrin said...

There has been a lot of wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes, etc in the last 24 hours including LGF suggesting that the conservatives throw out, well, conservatism. Australia, (parts of) Europe and America has already done this to some extent. Now you can vote little Liberal or Big Liberal.

For example in Australia at the next federal election we'll have a choice between a rich bastard that wants a republic and a rich bastard that wants a republic, there is a dangerous contraction of choice in the west.

I'd like to pose a question. If one strips away all the hype and bulldust surrounding the American presidential race, is there any reason to think that at the end of the day, Obama is just another product of the Democratic political machine and will be no worse or no better then any previous presidents?

Afonso Henriques said...

I was doing an on line research to figure out which countries helped the anti Communist white movement in early XX century Russia when I found this little poster at Wikipedia from that era. A poster of white propaganda that reveals how they saw Communism.
It's interesting that they saw it as a foreign domination. Look at the Jewish beast and the Mongol killers.

So, now that Russia was finally liberated, why can't we just try to accept them as normal Europeans, like a very big European Power?
You see, will Obama be the leader of the West?

I understand some people are emotonal about it, what I don't understand is that so many are Conservative Western Europeans.

no2liberals said...

So the U.S. wants an anti-missile system in Poland, and Poland wants it, too.
I think that's wonderful.
So our good, kind, beneficent, trustworthy, passive, and loving friends, the Russians want to install missile systems, in retaliation?
B-HO just got slapped, and doesn't even know it.
Welcome to a replay of the Carter years.
The good news is, things were so bad under Carter, it ushered in the era of Ronaldus Maximus Reagan.
Of course, Carter did a lot of damage we are still witnessing today, just ask the Iranian people, and B-HO can be even more destructive, if he really applies himself.
For those of you so opposed to "hawkish" behavior, bear in mind that peace is not a cause, it is an effect.

And as is my custom, when this topic comes up, ruck fussia.

Federale said...

Maybe the Isrealis can help us cause some "accidents" on these missles in Kaliningrad. Nothing like another Cherynobl to cause some fun.

latté island said...

Afonso, that Jewish beast on the wall looks like Trotsky. He's wearing a 5-pointed star. I wonder if that's a reference to satanism or some other occult practice, or if the cartoonist didn't realize the Star of David has 6 points.

Armance said...

So, now that Russia was finally liberated, why can't we just try to accept them as normal Europeans, like a very big European Power?
You see, will Obama be the leader of the West?


The first positive outcome of Obama's presidency is that probably the Eastern Europeans will be in the position to re-evaluate their sentiments and historical animosities towards Russia. I don't expect them to be Russia-friendly, but to have more realistic attitudes in the following years.
We can't rely anymore on America as a protector. Which doesn't mean that I wish a Russian protectorate, but probably the cooperation and diplomatic relations between us and Russia will strengthen and intensify.

eatyourbeans said...

Natalie,

I've always wanted to learn Russian, but had sadly concluded that it was destined to join the dead languages. Now I'm not so sure. If Master Obama makes things unpleasant enough, perhaps Russia would welcome an emigration of millions of conservative Americans. There aren't enough Russians to hold and occupy the vacant regions, and given our "Ameristan" we'd make loyal and productive citizens.

Queen said...

Well the stock market tanked yesterday and is currently tanking today. For those who voted for the Obamamessiah because you thought it would save your 401Ks -- maybe you want a "do-over"? PS this is only the beginning with Russia and China. They will literally run the table on Barry-O. Can you imagine our first Affirmative Action President sitting across the table from the likes of ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin? (I know I know, but Medvedev isn't really in control.) It's just laughable. Well Eastern Europe, hope you enjoyed your independence while it lasted. But at least your future is looking brighter than that of us Westerners.

Bela said...

armance

We can't rely anymore on America as a protector.

It's is true but what is going to happen to NATO? Officially it needs to be dissolved then, or else, there will be total chaos.

What is the positive in returning to Russian sphere? Which country gained EVER! by being a Russian vassal state?
Do you want to manufacture shoes again to Russia because they are unable to create anything useful for civilian life.

Remember the COMECON: Hungary delivers 10 tons of pork chops in exchange for 10 Kw electricity.

Same is today: oil and gas, minerals and NO Sausages. Only cabbages in large quantities.

Westerners never went to see the real life in Volgograd (Stalingrad) but their head is full romanticized Hot Air.

You just wasting your time arguing with people who have no REAL, first hand experiences on a subject: the less they know the more stubbornly stick to it.

Bela said...

queen:

You are clearly see the true picture: these idiots are living in a utopian "We are the children of the World" "End of Racism" "Flower Children" bubble which is the creation of their own immature imagination.

And they believe in it: Russia and China will devour all of them for breakfast.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Which country gained EVER! by being a Russian vassal state?"

I couldn't resist: OSSETIA!! ALANIA!! ABKHAZIA!

Ha ha! or Ah ah! or the classic nhanhanhanhanha!

Now seriously, look, we could speak of all the Caucasus and all South East Europe.
But I've seen this ungreatefull "view" of History from Eastern Europeans before.

I remember talking to a Romanian: "Ah and that, and Romania only exists because the Russians were kind enough to save you from the Turks. You only kicked the muslims from your land in the XIX century while he kicked them in the middle Ages. Romania sucks..."

We were kidding trying to show how the other boy's country was worst than our own. When, after this, and after he have said that the Portuguese only discovered the maritime route to India because of a sailor's gay party listening to a YMCA song sung by the Romanian group "Ozone", he answers shockingly serious to my provocation about Russia, he says:

"You know, the Russians were bastards. They almost enslaved us and after that gave us Communism..."

Don't matter what I said that the Russians were good and have saved them from the Turks, the Russians were almost as evil as the Turks to him.

Then I said:

"You see, after Napoleon had invaded and destroyed the country, the English came to help us and they stayed after that for pratically one century and they controled everything that was lucrative here. Even today, many Traditional products are controled by English and English descended people. But that is no reason for me to hate them, I am deeply thanked to them. You know, nobody gives something without winnig something about that."

I should also have said that all the Portuguese should be Anglophiles and that all the French-o-philes are indeed badily intended leftist or masons.

I don't know what else to say...

Irish Tory said...

That was something I noticed as well. I bet Medvedev would have had a more muted speech if McCain had won!

I think the best thing about an Obama presidency is that he will(hopefully) leave Russia alone and not seek to antagonise them.

Russia is the sole sane white nation left on this Earth. From now on we must look to the east for hope, the west is now ruled by the Marxist Mulatto. America's time has passed, Obama's rise to power is symbolic of America's fading relevance. Russia knows this and is using his rise to power to test what remains of America's resolve.

In 2012, America will be visibly less powerful, Russia will be visibly more powerful, perhaps the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan will have been reintegrated into the Motherland?

This is a momentus time, but not the way the Obamaniacs beleive it to be, it marks the ending of America.

Armance said...

It's is true but what is going to happen to NATO? Officially it needs to be dissolved then, or else, there will be total chaos.

What is the positive in returning to Russian sphere? Which country gained EVER! by being a Russian vassal state?


Bela,

I don't want my country to be a Russian satellite. I still love the US when America is at its best. If they had a president half as worthy as Ronald Reagan, I would be the most fanatical pro-American in town.

But tell me, what alternative do we have now, except Russia? What option is left? Because NATO is practically based on the American military power, without America NATO is just a gathering of wimps in uniforms presenting academic theories about the science of war.

In the latest 2 decades, the school curriculum in Eastern Europe, the education of our children was mainly shaped by the Eastern European intellectuals trained by the Soros's people through the Open Society Institute and Foundation. Now, with Obama, what's next? We still have Soros plus probably Bill Ayers. Which means Bill Ayers-inspired curriculum about the skills required to become a good community organizer. Jesus Christ, this is like teaching Bakunin to school children. Until now it's been poisonous, from now on it's going to be lethal.

I've come to the point to admit entirely that in the state of our current madness, Russia is the only country with a majority of white Europeans which still displays signs of sanity. We are a country of medium size and we need powerful allies to survive (besides many other problems, now we have two Muslim states in the neighborhood, courtesy of the US - both Clinton and Bush administration - and the EU).

Sorry, my idea is that we have to re-think our attitude towards Russia and to show some pragmatism before it's too late. The Cold War is over and B. Hussein is president in the land of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This is the brave world we have to deal with. Enough said.

We are appalled by Putin's past as a KGB officer. How does a man whose associate and mentor were Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright respectively look like in contrast? If it's capitalism that you support, Putin is more of a supporter of free market than Obama. If your concern is free speech, just look at the way the American media behaved before and after the elections and you'll see it's not the Russian media the one which should be ashamed of itself. And if you care about the Western civilization and values as a whole and the best way to defend them, compare and contrast the two leaders... The conclusions are too obvious to be commented.

no2liberals said...

irish tory,
Rather than try and respond to your comment, and it's many fallacies, I have a simple question.
Do you drink as much alcohol as it seems?
B-HO is histories flatulence. Or perhaps a better example would be a kidney stone.
This too shall pass.
Russia is a dying nation, due to it's own maladaptive nature. They are a current threat, though, until they are too weak to lash out any longer.
Russia's misadventure into Georgia, and the heavy losses they suffered there, remind me what one of Santa Anna's Generals once said, after SA's army suffered such heavy losses at the Alamo. SA said "the Alamo was but a minor affair."
The General wrote, many such victories will be our undoing.

Oh...and ruck fussia.

Homophobic Horse said...

Russia, unlike NATO and the EU is not genocidal and fostering Islamic Jihad. The choice between Russia and NATO is the choice between being cold, wet, and hungry or dead.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan will have been reintegrated into the Motherland?"

Not without reason would some of these people bitterly disagree. But at least they would be alive with Russia. Cultural Marxism is the cyanide of the soul.

Do you know the Brothers of Mount Athos are being forced by the EU to include women in their monastery? Can you believe the EU is persecuting the Orthodox church? That's what the Soviets did, yet moreover, because it isn't openly aggressive, and has a facade of reasonableness it's more likely to be accepted. It's outright nation and soul destroying cyanide. That's what non-discrimination and Cultural Marxism are.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Obama's rise to power is symbolic of America's fading relevance. Russia knows this and is using his rise to power to test what remains of America's resolve."

As I said, we may witness a "thugerish" reaction from Russia. I just read that in November Mr. Medvedev will be travelling along Socialist ATLANTIC States: What is already booked is Portugal and Venezuela but they say there are negotiations about visiting Cuba, Brazil and an "African Power"...

I am all for the Russians to visit us. Putin was kind enough to give us a whole month of Russian culture almost for free in Lisbon with "world class" Russian museums stationed in Lisbon (unfortunetly I did not go) and then he exposed a little of Portuguese culture in Moscow and Saint Petresburg, but... Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil...

Bela said...

armance:

Only 24 hours passed since the election so still too early to draw dramatic conclusions about the future.

Americans are rational people, I cannot imagine that half of the population will accept a Ceausescu type regime without rebelling.

There are many other players as well on the international scene and I don't think Americans are sheep like animals who will submit to a Chicagoan black street thug without a fight. Just wait a bit more, there will be huge repercussion in America: remember my projection in due time.

When Russia stops nuclear arming the Islamic Iran and other Muslims like Syria and Chavez and all the scum on earth, then please give me a call. But not before.

Conservative Swede said...

Irish Tory,

That was something I noticed as well. I bet Medvedev would have had a more muted speech if McCain had won!

I think the best thing about an Obama presidency is that he will(hopefully) leave Russia alone and not seek to antagonise them.


I would have preferred McCain actually. He would not only have destroyed America (and more spectacularly! having her dressed in uniform), he would have started a world war. The lesson of which would have been how bloodless and lacking of life-power, fighting spirit etc, the Protestants and Catholics across the world are. An important truth, which it is urgent that it becomes manifest, which is why I would have preferred this world war, which would have been an inevitable result of McCain's deranged aggressiveness towards Russia.

Conservative Swede said...

Armance,

Jesus Christ, this is like teaching Bakunin to school children. Until now it's been poisonous, from now on it's going to be lethal.

This is what it has come to. It's Bakunin vs. Solzhenitsyn.

If it's capitalism that you support, Putin is more of a supporter of free market than Obama. If your concern is free speech, just look at the way the American media behaved before and after the elections and you'll see it's not the Russian media the one which should be ashamed of itself.

Not only that, American elections have virtually degenerated into the same sort of charade as the elections in old DDR, where there were nominally different parties. In America today both parties candidates were representing the same organization. There was no way to cast your ballot without voting for Soros.

At the same time, in the next Russian election, we can expect a fight between Medvedev/Putin vs. Gorbachev. I can name a number of great Western leaders, but I cannot name a single example of a Western election (at least not the last 100 years) with two great leaders competing for the power. I think we'd need to go 200 years in American history to find such an example.

Conservative Swede said...

Bela:
What is the positive in returning to Russian sphere? Which country gained EVER! by being a Russian vassal state?
Do you want to manufacture shoes again to Russia because they are unable to create anything useful for civilian life.


Bela,

You turned your back to your native country, Hungary, and instead you wholeheartedly embraced America. However, now your dreams have been trampled on. You start realizing that you have sold your soul to the devil, and you have woken up to realize that you ended up on the side of "Bakunin".

The people who speak about Russia, are not speaking of embracing it as naively as you did America. You are projecting your own mistake upon others here. Actually the main point about speaking about Russia is to wean the suckers off of America as their pacifier. The people who embraced America, adapted it as their new home country and identity, didn't just adapt a new nationality but a whole ideological set of "prosperity theology". There's nothing of the kind in play among the people who's got their eyes opened towards Russia.

The Eastern European countries should not embrace Russia. They should end up in a situation where they are independent, and equally independent vis-a-vis America as well as Russia. The point is that they must wean themselves off of sucking on the American pacifier. And starting to look realistically on Russia is the best cure.

islam o' phobe said...

Armance,

Because NATO is practically based on the American military power, without America NATO is just a gathering of wimps in uniforms presenting academic theories about the science of war.

NATO = Need Americans To Operate

Bela said...

C.S.

I don't have the intellectual sensitivity to truly comprehend your turgid meandering...
I have an empirical approach to life and down to earth mentality and zero affinity to esoteric, abstract things.

Only Dr.Faust tried to sell his soul to the devil and not even he succeeded. You must be surrounded with mentally sick people because everywhere you suspect defective, agonizing people searching for the Russian salvation.

You love the Russians - you might have reason for it - I don't and I also have sound reason to dislike them; I don't proselytizing and I cannot care less about your and afonso h Russian fixation.

Since I explained my political background and history thus "prosperity theology" is not applicable: I am not an economical immigrant to the US.

I am unaware of my mistakes that - according to you - I am projecting to "others"; - I project nothing to anyone. These and similar sentences are called "running off at the mouth" stuff...words upon words telling common place slogans devoid of meaning.

As I said I don't dream therefore nobody trampled on it, not even Obama: for I am living in the Civil War South, far away from the Leftist North so I pay no attention and my interest is rather curiosity based.
There are no Muslims here either this is the Mississippi delta and the Bayou not Brussels or Malmö.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede, elsewhere you challenged me to explain how Russia's support of Iran was any different from America's participation with Saudi Arabia. Some immediate considerations sprang to mind.

A. You are being deliberately obtuse.

B. You are indulging in moral relativism.

C. You simply cannot see the difference due to some other intellectual shortcoming. I know it's not a matter of stupidity so I'll give this one last shot and then relegate you to the same divisive category that you have allocated Erich to.

While I have given you credit where credit is due, your attempts to ignore my consistent condemnation of Bush for his overly-cozy ties with the House of Saud impair your credibility. Nor do you bother to recognize that numerous Saudi princes are listed on my roster of prime terrorist movers. Most egregious is your inability to admit or comprehend how Russia's enabling of Iran’s nuclear aspirations represents a betrayal of the global community that exceeds all moral boundaries.

Nowhere do you bother to concede how I have largely agreed with your own policy that Mecca must be obliterated. The only issue that keeps me from full agreement is my adamant opposition to the first-use of nuclear weapons. Are you able to summon up the intellectual honesty to admit this? No.

First off, I suggest that you read “No Substitute for Victory”, by John Lewis.

Some excerpts:

The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since. Even Muslims at odds with Iran for sectarian reasons, such as many followers of Osama Bin Laden, draw inspiration from it as they engage in their own jihads against the West. Bin Laden’s most important effect in this regard has been to energize and empower radical Muslims to rise above the petty squabbles between Persian and Arab, and between Sunni and Shiite, to join Iran against the “Great Satan”: America. Hezbollah, Hamas, and company are dependent on Iran for ideological, political, and economic strength. It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Muslims against the West (for instance, through loyal clerics in Iraq); and it is Iran that has gained power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.


After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.
If it is true that the majority of Middle Eastern people want a decent free life for themselves—as the vast majority of Japanese did after August, 1945—then they will rejoice over the excision of Totalitarian Islam from their midst. They will cheer for the freedom to make their own decisions about their own lives. They will react as the Japanese did—by embracing a constitutional government that renounces war, by purging state religion from the schools, by excising militarism from the media, and by building corporations rather than suicide cults. But if they do not, the unconditional surrender of Islamic Totalitarianism must be taken to mean its political defeat: There will be no negotiations over the place of Islam in government, for it has no such place.

In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb—or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. As it was for Germany and Japan in the 1930s, so it is today: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.

While Saudi Arabia is at the core of terrorist indoctrination, Iran is the most clear and unmistakable nexus of “religious” Islam and political Islam. It is the most stark example of Islamic theocracy in action and for that reason is a primary target for dismantling.

At present, Saudi Arabia is not in open and direct pursuit of nuclear arms. That one fact alone pushes Iran—which currently is seeking to acquire atomic weapons—to the top of our Christmas list. Furthermore, Iran has openly stated its intention to commit genocide against Israel. The crushing of Iran—unlike that of any other Muslim state—would send an unmistakable message to the Islamic world that its avowed goal of Global Cultural Genocide™ is a non-starter.

That Russia openly and knowingly continues to abet Iran’s nuclear aspirations is nothing less than a War-By-Proxy upon the West. One that began with the Soviet Union’s indoctrination, training and arming of Islamic terrorists throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East) from the VERY BEGINNINGS of global terrorism.

The glaring continuity of Soviet and current Russian use of Islamic terrorists to wage war against Western interests around the globe is why Putin and his crew merit only the back of this world’s collective hand. That you cannot see how such bulk and overwhelming betrayal of the Russian people’s global reputation represents a nadir in poor leadership is just plain ghastly.

What’s more, the USA is not seeking to destroy Russia. The stationing of a missile defense shield in Europe—even one that could neutralize a Russian first strike—amounts to nothing without the clear intention of harming Russia. Instead, it is Russia that continues to inflict harm upon Europe, exacerbates regional instability in the MME and sides with the UN’s Islamic Bloc to perpetrate even greater impairment of human liberty around the world.

Compared to America’s naïve liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq such that they could immediately revert to fundamentalist Islamic regimes, Russia’s deeply cynical and intensely corrupt ideology of instigating global turmoil, which it seeks to capitalize upon, represents a form of low-intensity conflict little different from that sown by the Soviet Union during its entire existence.

That you refuse to concede the immense similarity of Putin’s modern strategy with that of his KGB predecessors comes across as little more than a mulish refusal to honor plain and simple logic.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

You are claiming that Russia helps Iran building a nuclear bomb. I have repeatedly ask you for CONCRETE evidence of this. But so far you have only provided sweeping formulations.

Most of what is said and written in the West about Russia seems to be lies. I say so based on the fact that in most of the cases when I have looked into any concrete case, it has been full of lies and deception.

This is why I ask you for CONCRETE evidence -- anything! With that as a starting point we could have a real discussion. Because now there's just you writing long poetry about your inner emotions. There's no content to it.

babs said...

CS,
I seem to recall about two years ago Russia halted a shipment of critical parts to Iran for their nuclear project because Iran's ability to pay for them came into doubt. I think this was fairly well covered at the time.
The conclusion drawn, based on this open evidence, was that Russia was aiding and abetting Iran's drive for nuclear weapons.
When push comes to shove, as it seems to happen on a fairly regular basis, those that want to deny the Russian/Iranian nuclear linkage cry "Iran's nuclear project is for peaceful energy production!"
That seems to be the last fall back position. I have yet to hear someone deny with any factual basis that Russia is aiding Iran in nuclear technology.
Iran is one of Russias largest trading partners, not the least of which is Russian made arms and nuclear parts. Hence, my conclusion that Russias real objection to a defense shield in Europe is because it cuts into their business in the Middle East.

babs said...

CS,
In addition I suggest you google "Russia Iran Nuclear." I just did it and a wealth of reports came up from media of all stripes.
Having put you in a difficult spot of attempting to prove a negative to support your argument, I only suggest you look at more information.

babs said...

You might also google "Russia Iran Arms Trade", the same inserting Syria for Iran.
It isn't all lies no matter how much one might wish it.

Conservative Swede said...

Well I could google "Vlaams Belang Nazis" too, and everybody already knows, so no evidence needed, etc.

Once again:

I'm asking for CONCRETE evidence. An event that has taken place in time and space, a delivery from Russia to Iran of something that: i) constitutes aiding in building a nuclear bomb, ii) is not regularly delivered by USA, France etc. around the Middle East.

The rather loud and long-winding talking as if such evidence existed, but never being able to present it, makes the whole harangues empty of content.

But it's easy for you to change that: just present CONCRETE evidence. Can you do that?

I want this concrete evidence in order to being able to properly investigate the matter, and take the temperature of all the talk. Without evidence it's obviously just hot air. Bring us the best that you have!

babs said...

I tried to be polite.
Clearly you need to wait until Iran declares they have a nuclear weapon. Hopefully, that declaration will not come with an explosion.
I now feel free to disregard your future arguments.
Thanks

Bela said...

babs, zenster:

Aren't you tired of arguing with maniacs who pursue simplemindedly Quixotic fantasies with medieval frenzy?
None of these Russian shill ever set foot in the Russian reality - may be as $$$$ spending tourist at most - but they incessantly spewing their hot air like obsessive maniacs and cannot be stopped only ignored.

A large segment of the W. European intelligentsia consist of similar Coffee shop dwelling prophets and wizards. They are high on weed and crack and blabbering about Mother Russia, the Savior of the West but they never read Solzhenitsyn's.

Conservative Swede said...

Bela,

It's funny how the less people has to say the louder they speak and with bigger words. When they have absolutely nothing to say, the words have turned mastodontic. As we say in Sweden: empty barrels make the most noise.

Aren't you tired of arguing with maniacs who pursue simplemindedly Quixotic fantasies with medieval frenzy?

Well, I'm not tired of arguing. But the argument has not even started. I'm still waiting for someone to provide concrete evidence. The whole thing starts looking ridiculous really. I'm hoping for Zenster though.

Conservative Swede said...

Babs:
I tried to be polite.
Clearly you need to wait until Iran declares they have a nuclear weapon. Hopefully, that declaration will not come with an explosion.
I now feel free to disregard your future arguments.


Babs,

The rules of intelligent debate are pretty simple and straight forward. Each side will have to provide substantive argument and then these can be penetrated and evaluated.

There is an accusation made against Russia here. So these accusations need to be backed up with evidence. And at the same time the accusation has to be made more specific and not so sweeping (but once the evidence comes this will come almost naturally).

I would love to penetrate such material. Unfortunately nobody is willing to provide it.

Think of it as a court case if you wish. If you are the prosecutor, but haven't yet a single piece of evidence to present, it would be a good idea to go out to find it, wouldn't it? To stay put and stick to personal attacks on the defense lawyer isn't a very good strategy; it will make you lose the case.

babs said...

The only concrete evidence you are going to get is an explosion...
Roll the dice Swede all the while shouting for someone to prove themselves!
You and I clearly have different points of view. The only problem with this (because I am more than willing to agree to disagree) is that your point of view could lead to horrible devastation.
I am not willing to gamble that.
So, forget it Swede, just write me and the Zenster off, pour yourself another coffee and revel in the fact that no one can convince you otherwise. NO ONE unless they have CONCRETE EVIDENCE. Even that, I suspect, would be subject to interpretation.
Once again, thank you for freeing me from your arguement.
Well, I should not have replied... I just took your bait and am the dirtier for it. Last time. End of comment from me on this subject.
I have no doubt that you will insist on the last word.

Conservative Swede said...

Sorry Babs, but I think you have not understood the discourse of intelligent debate, or what concrete evidence means.

It's really strange that this should be so difficult to understand.

Anyway, I put my hope in Zenster here, and that he will bring something up.

is that your point of view could lead to horrible devastation

According to Charles Johnson support of Vlaams Belang would lead to horrible devastation, and gas chambers and stuff. But he could never present any valid evidence. Just saying it does not account for much, capiche?

babs said...

Bringing up VB and CJ in this context is what one might call a "Red Herring."
Being Sweedish and all, I am sure you know what a "red herring" is...
You took the offense and demanded that everyone PROVE TO YOU their point of view. I let you off the hook by giving you a pass on proving a negative. I thought I was being polite but, no, you now feel the need to school me...
I would now like you to PROVE TO ME through published documents that Russia IS NOT supplying Iran with nuclear technology.
Pour another cup Sweede and ponder that... PROVE TO ME that this is not taking place in the face of media reports of all stripes that it is.
I bet you never did google any of my suggestions.
Intelligent debate; your definition of intelligent debate is to prove nothing and DEMAND that the other side prove their point of view to you, always subject to YOUR interpretation.
I feel sorry for you. When the big boom comes I just hope you and your loved ones are not downwind...
Gotta go now. I have the rest of my life to live.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The Eastern European countries should not embrace Russia. They should end up in a situation where they are independent, and equally independent vis-a-vis America as well as Russia."

Conservative Swede, I think Russia just HAS TO expand to Eastern Europe and to South (Ossetians; Russian Kazakhistan, etc.).
The problem of Russia is that it needs "new blood". It really needs to be Europeanised.
And there are of course some parts of Russia that must get independence (like the Central Asian Turkestan did) because that will not help Europeanisation, quiet the contrary.

You see, in the 60s America was 10% white Nation and we all know what happened... Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, etc. had only few or middle ethnic minorities and now...
Take the example of Canada, in 1985 Canada was 2% non white, in 2005 it was 20%.
Now imagine Russia that is an empire that has penetrated Asian lands, where Asian peoples have all the right to live...

I am not pushing for an annexation of Poland. But, if the border has always been with Poland, why not border Poland?

If Russia don't get an infusion of "new blood" it will become an Asian country and will not do much for European Civilisation.

If we during the Reconquista had not had an infusion of Christian Knightly Orders, then...

Armance said...

Conservative Swede, I think Russia just HAS TO expand to Eastern Europe and to South (Ossetians; Russian Kazakhistan, etc.).
The problem of Russia is that it needs "new blood". It really needs to be Europeanised.


Is this a suggestion of a Russian Lebensraum?

I consider the Russians to be European enough in their current form and state. Nobody became Europeanised through expansion, otherwise the Turks, who absorbed so much European "blood" expanding and incorporating in their nation white Europeans would be the most European country on the continent. Yet they are not, on the contrary, the Europeans were swallowed up by a nation which wasn't transformed culturally through their assimilation.

Afonso Henriques said...

Armance,

I was talking about "Russia".
what I mean is that for instance an eventual annexation of Belarus and Eastern Ukraine would cause a nice impact on the dynamics of Russia.

Just like the annexation of South Ossetia would do in the Caucasus.

Not a Lebensraum but a kind of Anchluss.

----------------------------

And I would say exactly the opposite, the whites in Anatolia were the one who absorded the Turkish blood :)
Unfortunetly, it was not only blood that they absorbed...

If I am correct, Russia is something like 85% white (like, 98% of that Eastern Slavs); with Eastern Ukraine and Belarus (who I believe would integrate perfectly or could even be a more dynamic population) in, the muslim and others "importance" in the whole equation would be very much limited.
Do you understand now what I tried to say?

--------------------------------

By the way Baron and Dymphna the animal of the blogger ate a comment of mine. What bothers me is that they ate the clever comment but let the dumb one be published.

Homophobic Horse said...

This conversation about blood is all a bit rubbish. Don't remember when we had the Croat Nazi show up and say something like "What's the problem with Kosovo independence? We all iz white Illyrian Celts in Albania etc etc".

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: You are claiming that Russia helps Iran building a nuclear bomb. I have repeatedly ask you for CONCRETE evidence of this. But so far you have only provided sweeping formulations.

Three words, Conservative Swede: DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGY.

dual-use

adjective


dual-purpose; specif., designating or of machinery, technology, etc. having both civilian and military applications

Got that? Now, what part of:

With the exception of Russia, China and North Korea, few countries sell Iran weapons or dual-use technology that could be used to make atomic, chemical or biological weapons.

or:

Even the unclassified and sanitized version of the latest report from the director of Central Intelligence to Congress paints a grim picture of a cash-strapped Russia selling dual-use technology to an increasingly dangerous Iran …

Some of the strongest language in the report was reserved for Russia, the only "entity" earning a specific recommendation:

· President Vladimir Putin in May 2000 amended the presidential decree on nuclear exports to allow Russia to export nuclear materials, technology, and equipment to countries that do not have full-scope IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.

· Russian entities during the reporting period continued to supply a variety of ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to countries such as Iran, India, and China.

· During 2001, Russian entities remained a significant source of dual-use biotechnology, chemicals, production technology, and equipment for Iran.


or:

Russian individuals and entities have reportedly assisted Iran's chemical and biological warfare programs. According to Tenet's February testimony, "Russian entities are a significant source of dual-use biotechnology, chemicals, production technology, and equipment for Iran. Russian biological and chemical expertise is sought by Iranians and others seeking information and training on BW- and CW-agent production processes."

For nearly a decade and a half, Iran has been trying to acquire materials and civilian nuclear fuel-cycle technologies that could be of use to a clandestine nuclear weapons program, including fuel fabrication and reprocessing capabilities from Argentina; research reactors from Argentina, India, China, and Russia; nuclear power plants from Russia and China; gas centrifuge technology from Switzerland and Germany and a gas centrifuge enrichment plant from Russia; a uranium conversion plant from China or Russia; and a laser isotope separator from Russia that can be used for enrichment.

In 1998, Iran reportedly acquired some tritium, which is used to build boosted weapons, from Russia


U.S. officials claim that Iran's interest in nuclear power is driven—in large part—by a desire to gain access to Russia's vast nuclear complex in order to facilitate the acquisition of know-how, technology, and materials for its clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Officials from Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy scoff at the idea that reactor-grade plutonium could be used to build a bomb, but in 1962 the United States successfully tested a bomb using reactor-grade plutonium to see if it could be done.

As Iran's sole supplier of nuclear technology, Russian assistance remains crucial to Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia could aid this process by transferring to Iran technologies used to produce fissile material or by unwittingly allowing Iranian agents the access needed to acquire fissile materials diverted from Russia's massive nuclear complex.

And in aiding Iran's civilian nuclear program, Russia is violating a broad international norm, as it is the only country in the world now engaged in open-ended nuclear cooperation with Iran.
[emphasis added]

(There is much more material, including a copy of the Russia – Iran Nuclear Cooperation Accord at the previous link. None of it is comforting in the least.)

or:

Russia and China not only provide Iran with diplomatic protection at the U.N. Security Council, where both enjoy veto power, but they also sell Tehran most of its modern military weapons—and they assist Iran’s nuclear power program, which masks Iran’s efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

Russia also has greatly aided Iran’s nuclear program. It is training Iranian nuclear technicians and is building Iran’s $1 billion nuclear reactor at Bushehr.


or:

Milhollin then turned to Russia, calling Moscow "Iran's other main nuclear supplier." He referred specifically to a 1995 Russian deal "to supply Iran two light water power reactors plus a string of 'sweeteners.'" Among these sweeteners were "a centrifuge plant to enrich uranium, a 30 - 50 megawatt research reactor, 2,000 tons of natural uranium, and training," he stated.

While the centrifuge plant was canceled and the training is going forward, "the status of the research reactor and the uranium is unclear," he noted.

"The enrichment plant would only serve to make nuclear weapons," he added, "and the same is true of the natural uranium. The research reactor would have been ideal, like the Chinese one, for making a bomb or two per year."


DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

I must also thank babs for standing up to your pathetic intellectual sophistry. Iran is an openly avowed and clearly belligerent nation who has already launched terrorist attacks against America, Israel and other Western interests. Continuing to ascribe peaceful intentions to such a hostile regime strains the limits of credibility.

If you honestly concede that Iran’s intentions are militarily aggressive, then your entire attempt to minimize Russian culpability with respect to enabling Iranian development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction simply falls to the ground.

Like babs, I now invite you to provide—if not proof—some logically connected evidence that Russia’s intentions regarding their arms and dual-use technology sales to Iran DO NOT have exceptionally deleterious implications for both MME (Muslim Middle East) regional crises and even global stability. Your pathetic charade of “prove it” has just been dashed to pieces by my foregoing links and you had better start delivering some substance to this argument or face future disregard.

babs has most eloquently challenged you to reconsider the moral implications of how you continue to downplay a well established pattern of events that promise only death and destruction on a catastrophic scale. You display an abhorrent degree of intellectual bankruptcy by ignoring such blatantly obvious evidence-at-hand. It is now your turn to present something even remotely approaching the “CONCRETE evidence” that you have so petulantly demanded.

Any failure to do so will permanently impair all further credibility you might once have had.

Zenster said...

I'll also ask that readers please note how Conservative Swede has been unable to admit that I have repeatedly condemned Bush's Saudi complicity, nor my insistence that Saudi Arabian royals are knee-deep in terrorism or that I largely concur with his own suggestion that Mecca be obliterated.

Instead, Conservative Swede has intentionally fostered an atmosphere of being at loggerheads in a community that normally displays a high degree of cohesion with respect to fighting Islamic terrorism and rejecting socialist or communist governmental models wherever they arise.

This is divisive and not conducive to beneficial exchange. It also constitutes a time dump for those of us with the stamina to protest such petty sophistry.

Afonso Henriques said...

"This conversation about blood is all a bit rubbish."

No Homofobic Horse, it's not.

If you can't understand the impact that Eastern Europe can have on Russia, then, you may also be not capable of understanding what has happening to the United States and Europe.
Have you already checked out who "won the elections" if it was to be decided by whites?
Well, we in Europe have fought so that Germans can not have a say on who the French want to be rulled by and then the French have to be dependent on the muslim vote?

But for my intire point concerning Russia you will have to accept one simple fact first: Can you tell a difference from a Belarussian or a Ukrainian, and from a Central Asian Turk, an muslim Azeri or a Siberian Native?

I continue. Russia have to expand to be Europeanised, otherwise it will be Asianised. And the better part is that the Belarussians and the Eastern Ukrainians wouldn't mind. You will see Belarus be swallowed still in Obama's term, if God permits.

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenste, great work!

But I continue supporting Russia and having the same idea of Iran: It may be bad, but please don't touch it!

I would however like to anser you something. Something that could easily change my preception of Russia if answered in a convincently way. The thing is:

"What would Russia win by arming Iran, knowing that Iran is so close to her underbelly?"

I'll be waiting, thank you.

babs said...

Profit and dependence Afonse.
Very simple.

Zenster said...

Afonso Henriques: "What would Russia win by arming Iran, knowing that Iran is so close to her underbelly?"

Besides bleeding America white by causing The World's Policeman to intercede in ongoing Islamic attempts to commit genocide against Israel and Global Cultural Genocide™ in general?

If you had taken the time to bother reading the actual links I provided, your question would already have been answered.

From the third of my previous links:

The occasional zigzags in Russian policy regarding arms and technology transfers to Iran may be due to a number of factors, including the twists and turns of politics in Moscow; delight in occasionally sticking a finger in Washington's eye; U.S. pressure and a desire not to imperil ties with Washington; Iranian counter-pressure and a desire not to imperil ties with Tehran; and the temptation to profit from its tremendous investment in its military-industrial complex while avoiding blatant violations of its various arms control commitments.

The most powerful explanation for these arms and technology transfers is that they serve a number of key Russian interests. They provide an income stream for the cash-starved military-industrial complex, avert Iranian meddling in Russia's domestic affairs and its near-abroad, and build up Iran as a limiting force on America's global power. These are arguments that both bureaucrats in Moscow and underpaid scientists employed by state-funded institutes can agree on. And they are powerful rationalizations for scientists who may independently sell their services to Iran. Certainly, the political and economic environment in Russia today is conducive to such activities.

To be sure, the policy of transferring arms and technology to Iran does not enjoy unanimous support in Moscow. Some fear that Iran's missile and WMD programs have the potential to someday threaten Russian interests—perhaps even Russia itself. But supporters of the policy apparently reason that arms and technology transfers may be the best way to forestall a deterioration in relations with Tehran; that Iranians are anyhow incapable of building long-range missiles and nuclear weapons; and that, even if they succeed, Russia would retain overwhelming strategic superiority that would be sufficient to deter threats from a distant, hostile Iran. Though Russia is hardly the first country to use arms and technology transfers as part of a policy of engagement vis-à-vis former adversaries, Moscow is playing a high-risk version of this game. It remains to be seen whether this gambit will succeed.


As with all idiotic communist regimes, their delusions of adequacy allow them to facilitate and enable exceptionally dangerous rogue nations just so long as they are fanatically anti-Western.

That these same rogue regimes may inflict grievous harm upon their own national psyches—as in Beslan—is deemed a small price to pay for advancing their own ruthless agendas.

This goes to the very core of why such vicious and mercenary leadership represents the abject betrayal of those they lead. It epitomizes people being sacrificed in order to serve the state and—aside from theocracy itself—is emblematic of everything that is so wrong and evil about socialism in its various incarnations.

For you to say:

"But I continue supporting Russia and having the same idea of Iran: It may be bad, but please don't touch it!"

... makes you nothing more or less than one of their most precious useful idiots. Your inability to outrightly condemn these manipulative and inhumane thugs essentially condones their misconduct and helps make the world a worse place to live. Congratulations upon freeing yourself from the bothersome vicisitudes of such crippling encumbrances as moral compunction.

Afonso Henriques said...

For now, all I can honestly say is thank you very much Zenster.

I've read it. I now understand you people (the so called Russophobes) much better. That is for sure, and I have to thank you also for that. Concerning the rest, I would not be honest to you if I were to say that I don't have symphaties for Russia any longer, nor would I be fair telling you that I continue to hold "exactly" the same views.
So, let me be 100% honest and say that all I can do for now is to digest the information.

I do not promise more but thank you anyway.

Zenster said...

Thank you for an honest and refreshingly straight-forward reply, Afonso. You have just experienced this web site's entire reason for being. All of us must do our best to ensure that the evil in this world is named for what it is. None of us can be unerring at all times but that in no way reduces the obligation we each have to fight evil wherever it rears its ugly little head.

no2liberals said...

Zenster,
Might I add...ruck fussia?
This is an informative, and long, article on the geopolitics of Iran.

On the subject of the Russian built and fueled Bushehr reactor, it is sitting directly on top of a well known fault line, in an earthquake prone area. One might question the judgment of the Iranian engineers involved in this, since they aren't known to consume large quantities of Vodka.
Here is the location of Bushehr.
If you aren't familiar with the Free Iran News website, it is very interesting. Found this page about earthquakes, using the search mode in their forum. If you scan through the thread, there is the mention of Russia stating they would send aid after an earthquake, but then reneged, and sent blankets instead.
Here is another excellent source on Iran.

That you produced such effective information to bolster your argument, is commendable.
That it was even necessary, is unfortunate.
I await with interest, any info that can be called a substantial rebuttal.

babs said...

Talk about a time dump... Jeeze Louise, I can't believe we had to go so far to prove the blatently obvious...
Thank you Zenster for linking everything. I read most of what you posted during my google search but was too lazy to do the cut, paste, link that you clearly were not.
Too bad "others"aren't willing to do the same.
Thanks again.

Zenster said...

no2liberals: That you produced such effective information to bolster your argument, is commendable.

Thank you for such a generous appraisal.

That it was even necessary, is unfortunate.

Not at all. I will continue to do my best and that includes changing this world’s viewpoint one mind at a time. I have done so with an adamant Russophile, Afonso, which can only be a deserved victory. Again, one mind at a time.

I await with interest, any info that can be called a substantial rebuttal.

So do I as well. The Eternal Optimist in me longs for such a reversal of otherwise cynical and exceptionally negative viewpoints. Instead, all I am confronted with is the most utterly corrupt and counter-productive mindsets since those produced by the Soviet Union itself. Here’s looking at you, Conservative Swede.

Zenster said...

babs: Thank you Zenster for linking everything. I read most of what you posted during my google search but was too lazy to do the cut, paste, link that you clearly were not.

Please do not consider yourself to be lazy, babs. Your own vociferous arguments against Conservative Swede's normally servicable positions inspired me to "hold the fort".

I cannot thank you enough for maintaining your vital moral stance vis "CONCRETE evidence" and the more important demand that Conservative Swede recognize how his attempts to excuse Russia's malfeasance amount to a free pass regarding much of the evil that currently besets our world.

Islamic cesspits like Iran would not have half the potency they seem to possess without the active encouragement and assistance being provided by such treacherous players, like Russia and communist China, who currently strut upon the global stage.

Removing these dishonest actors from the arena of world events is of paramount importance in neutralizing the puissance of dysfunctional socialistic façades like those of Russia, China and Europe's hive of elitist, oligarchic thugs.

Rest assured that America has been infected with its own burden of hive-minded scum. But nowhere do they manage to inflict the sort of destabilizing, retrograde and inhumanly cruel Taurine Fecal Matter claptrap that despotic, snot-gobbling tosspot wannabe dystopic socialist rutbags manage to inflict upon our unsuspecting world.

Again, thank you, babs, for getting up on your hind legs when it counted. I might otherwise have abandoned the fight against such discouraging and unseemly dilettantish sophistry that Conservative Swede imported into this discussion.

Conservative Swede said...

Afonso,

Conservative Swede, I think Russia just HAS TO expand to Eastern Europe and to South (Ossetians; Russian Kazakhistan, etc.).
The problem of Russia is that it needs "new blood". It really needs to be Europeanised.


Your view of Russia is as cartoonish as some of the worst Russophobes. Your position is as distant from mine as their's are.

I repeat what just said:
"The Eastern European countries should not embrace Russia. They should end up in a situation where they are independent, and equally independent vis-a-vis America as well as Russia."

Conservative Swede said...

Thanks Zenster for providing the information I asked for, and thereby making intelligent discussion possible. However, I do not understand why so much hostility is directed at me, from you and others, merely for requesting that your argument was substantiated. This overwrought hostility at such a request would appear as hostility to intelligent debate as such. I hope this is not the case, and let it continue here:

So is Putin's Russia helping Iran to build a nuclear bomb? That is the question. There are of course other questions, but let's focus on this one.

The general picture about nuclear proliferation has been the one of callous irresponsibility and short-sightedness. America has made nuclear deals e.g. with North Korea, and now with Saudi Arabia. France has done it with Iraq and Pakistan. Etc. etc. This is the general picture. One will have to do something seriously bad to single oneself out as the-especially-irresponsible-thug in this context.

The term dual use is brought up. At least there has been better awareness about this after Sept 11, 2001. But before that we find many such sales from the West to the Middle East, one of the most infamous examples being the Osirak reactor sold from France to Iraq.

Looking at the links provided from Zenster the bulk of them are several years old and refers to events happening before 9/11. Except for an article from 2006 about a Russian citizen who together with two German citizens... etc. And except for yet another article from 2006, which didn't contain any specifics.

What we find is that the deliveries of dual use nuclear technology was made by the Yeltsin regime back in the '90s. And I have made clear that this sort of pro-Western populists are not to be trusted. The term dual use often comes up in connection to them, as here regarding President Yushchenko of Ukraine.

If we speak of Iran, dual use and nuclear, then we are speaking of their centrifuges for uranium enrichment. It's dual use since low-enriched uranium is fuel for a nuclear plant. But if the enrichment process is taken further, high-enriched uranium is for making nuclear bombs. It would have been a much safer world if Iran didn't have this technology. However, not only Yeltsin's Russia sold this to Iran, but also Switzerland and Germany.

So many things were short-sighted and irresponsible under Yeltsin, so I'm not surprised to learn about this. The Yeltsin regime also signed the contract for the Bushehr reactor with Iran in 1995. And this brings us in to what relates to the Putin regime, since the Putin regime inherited this contract from the Yeltsin regime. But the point here is that the Bushehr reactor has never been completed. The Putin regime has forever delayed the completion of it.

Analysis from Stratfor:

Yes, the Russians are constructing the Bushehr facility and making a pretty penny for doing so; yes, they are contractually committed to supplying Bushehr with Russian-fabricated nuclear fuel; and yes, in order to protect these contracts and their political influence in Iran they have threatened to veto any U.N. resolution that enacts strict sanctions against the country, particularly if those sanctions mention the Bushehr project.

But that hardly means they are enthused about the idea of Iran possessing a robust nuclear program. Russia's interests are simply better served by keeping the project in limbo.

[...]

An operational Bushehr would drastically reduce Russia's options and influence, both with the West and with Iran. Once Bushehr goes online and the Russians collect their payment, the West will no longer see Russia as an integral player in the international conflict because Moscow's commercial obligations to Tehran will have been fulfilled. [...]

However, so long as Bushehr is not yet operational -- or even better, nearly operational -- the picture is starkly different. The West needs Russia to use its influence over Iran to bring the country to the nuclear negotiating table. Iran needs Russia to use its influence at the U.N. Security Council to shield it from sanctions. Should Bushehr become an operational reality, those needs, and the influence that goes with them, will disappear.

[...]

The only remaining question is: How long can Russia milk this?

The answer is: Longer than one might think. The original deal to build Bushehr dates back to 1995. The project was scheduled to be completed in 1999, and even the Russians have quietly admitted that the reactor core has been ready since late 2004. But because Russia has always based its decisions on politics rather than on reality, the reactor's unveiling might still be a long time coming.


So Putin's Russia hasn't delivered any dual use nuclear technology/material/facilities to Iran, at least not according to the sources provided by Zenster or anything else I found. The centrifuges were delivered by Yeltsin, and the Bushehr reactor (contract by Yeltsin) has been delayed a whopping 9 years by the Putin regime. Doesn't look to me as they intend to deliver it, but that it's part of a game (as pointed out by Stratfor).

Conservative Swede said...

Let's get some perspective by connecting back to the original blog post of this thread: Russia has declared that they will be placing missiles in Kaliningrad.

Hearing this in isolation one would conclude that Russia is being very aggressive, with the intention to attack Poland, Germany, Sweden within the near future. Knowing about the context though -- about NATO aggressively pushing its way into right under the skin of the Russian nation, declaration of missile systems in Poland and Czech republic etc. -- another picture emerges. The declaration about missiles in Kaliningrad is a move in a diplomatic game of chess. A game in which Russia is the weaker part, and therefore seeing itself forced to use a ruthless strategy.

Hearing about Russia being in the process of delivering a nuclear reactor to Iran, is the same sort of thing. When heard in isolation, without regard to the context, it will give one sort of impression. But knowing the context I provided in my previous comment, it becomes clear that it's once again a piece in a diplomatic game of chess. And we see that what Putin's Russia is in the process of doing (and has always been in the process of doing) is delaying the delivery of a nuclear reactor.

This is how the "chess piece" is being used:
Russia Swings Between the U.S. and Iran
Moscow has positioned itself neatly, siding with Iran on one hand and making itself Washington’s intermediary for Iran’s nuclear program on the other. By aligning with the Iranians, Russia has made itself the only practical conduit for pressuring Iran over its nuclear program. The United States needs that conduit, and also for the Russians to back away from Iran. To induce the Russians, the United States must make concessions in an area of fundamental interest to Russia — the regional conventional military balance. Now, it is speculative whether Washington actually has made any overtures in this area. We just don’t know. But if the reports of CFE concessions are correct, this is the only thing that would really interest Moscow.

In the meantime Bush is making a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, while holding hands with the King (at least Putin is not holding hands with Mad Jad).

But France must be the worst. First Osirak to Iraq, then Pakistan, and now this from Sarkozy: "The sharing of civilian nuclear [technology] will be one of the foundations of a pact of confidence which the West must forge with the Islamic world."

So where are we today in the game between Russia, USA and Iran? BBC reports how Russia ships nuclear fuel to Iran. This is non-dual use low-enriched uranium:

The UN has demanded that Iran halt uranium enrichment but has approved the Russian nuclear fuel deliveries.

US President George W Bush supported the move, but said it proved "the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich" uranium for themselves.


Russia calls on Iran to freeze uranium enrichment

[The Russian official] said the necessity for cooperation with the UN Security Council and compliance with recommendations from the IAEA Board of Governors would be reflected in a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran.

The five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany agreed at talks in Berlin on January 22 on a draft for a third sanctions resolution against Iran calling for travel ban, asset freeze and vigilance on all banks in the Islamic Republic.


As far as I can see Bush's America and Putin's Russia speak the same language, and approve of the same actions.

Conservative Swede said...

Regarding the "meta-debate".

I haven't been met with such massive hostility merely for asking questions since I started asking question about our immigration policy seven years ago in Swedish forums.

Apparently I'm considered evil just for asking questions, and as "being at loggerheads in a community that normally displays a high degree of cohesion". I know that many people would like me to shut up and join the choir. That's their idea of "freedom" and "democracy" I suppose. And to be lazy and consider the "party line" as "blatantly obvious" is being hailed and is considered as "holding the fort", while asking questions is seen as evil.

Zenster wrote:
I cannot thank you enough for maintaining your vital moral stance vis "CONCRETE evidence" and the more important demand that Conservative Swede recognize how his attempts to excuse Russia's malfeasance amount to a free pass regarding much of the evil that currently besets our world.

I truly love the formulation about keeping the moral stance against concrete evidence :-) Hold the fort! Don't let in any concrete evidence. Don't confuse us with facts!

And then I'm said to excuse Russia and to give a free pass to evil in the world. In intelligent debate the idea is to first present evidence, then penetrating them, then making a intelligent conclusion, and then take sides, and ONLY THEN judge people for the side they have taken (when we know what it means!). Zenster and the crowd does it the other way around. Anyone who just asks investigative questions is immediately and automatically judged as siding with evil.

It's the same old guilt-by-association routine as always. Vlaams Belang is accused of being neo-Nazis. Fjordman gives them the benefit of the doubt, so then he's also a neo-Nazi. The Robert Spencer gives Fjordman the benefit of the doubt, so then he's also a neo-Nazi, etc. ad infinitum. I have here given Russia the benefit of the doubt, and Russia is associated with Iran, and voilá so I'm said to be siding with evil. But what if the alleged connection between Russia and Iran is not there? Why so afraid of questions being asked about that?

In Scandinavian forums six years ago, it didn't take me long to see that while the Danes were waging an intelligent debate based on real evidence, the Swedes (to 99%)
were high-fiving each other in cheering their common hostility to such intelligent debate (quite as we see some Americans do in this thread). This was the moment when I sided with the Danes, and never turned back.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: Thanks Zenster for providing the information I asked for, and thereby making intelligent discussion possible.

You are welcome.

However, I do not understand why so much hostility is directed at me, from you and others, merely for requesting that your argument was substantiated.

Speaking only for myself, it is not so much “hostility” as it is sheer aggravation in being put through so many challenges to prove what is patently obvious. Your inability to grasp the underlying operatives of Russian foreign policy reveals an extensive blind spot in your worldview.

So is Putin's Russia helping Iran to build a nuclear bomb?

Yes, knowingly and purposefully. Be it only by supplying dual-use technology and no actual nuclear weapons knowhow, Russia is still guilty as charged. By supplying Iran with partially enriched uranium, Russia is speeding up Iran's "time to market" with nuclear weapons.

And please do not try to toss in how Iran is entitled to the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy. As a rogue regime and overt sponsor of global terrorism, Iran instantly forfeits all ostensible sovereign rights and even an iota of credibility. Iran, like Iraq and Syria have absolutely NO RIGHT to pursue nuclear technology more sophisticated than a hospital x-ray machine.

The notion that Iran would only be pursuing peaceful nuclear technology is so totally at odds with the number of gas centrifuges put into operation plus Iranian acquisition of other weapons development and testing materiel, that any other conclusion than one of nuclear arms R&D requires a total suspension of bisbelief.

One will have to do something seriously bad to single oneself out as the-especially-irresponsible-thug in this context.

Assisting Iran’s genocidal goals indubitably qualifies on that count.

Looking at the links provided from Zenster the bulk of them are several years old and refers to events happening before 9/11.

Here, feel free to read a recent analysis (09/08/2008) that largely confirms all of the other information I have posted.

So Putin's Russia hasn't delivered any dual use nuclear technology/material/facilities to Iran, at least not according to the sources provided by Zenster or anything else I found.

Can you honestly say that, by NOT more vigorously interceding in opposition to Iran’s nuclear quest, that Putin is innocent of facilitating this situation? Yes, Russia is milking the Iranian nuclear deal like the last cow on the farm. Still, that in no way relieves them of responsibility for what may easily prove the most serious destabilization of this entire world’s most politically volatile region. The fecklessness of Russia’s DIRECT role in this matter is culpable and flat-out criminal.

As far as I can see Bush's America and Putin's Russia speak the same language, and approve of the same actions.

Which is why Bush may well go down in history as one of the absolute worst presidents. You continue to ignore my own condemnation of Bush’s role in all of this.

Apparently I'm considered evil just for asking questions, and as "being at loggerheads in a community that normally displays a high degree of cohesion". I know that many people would like me to shut up and join the choir.

Again, speaking for myself, what I find so repugnant is your willingness to assign ostensibly benign motives to Russia when its overall policy continues to be exceptionally detrimental to global security.

I truly love the formulation about keeping the moral stance against concrete evidence :-) Hold the fort! Don't let in any concrete evidence. Don't confuse us with facts!

Nice strawman that you’ve assembled there, Swede. You’ve been resorting to such illegitimate tactics of late and it severely damages your reputation.

Zenster and the crowd does it the other way around. Anyone who just asks investigative questions is immediately and automatically judged as siding with evil.

Baloney! You have forced a rehash of well-known and clearly demonstrated facts and sucked down a lot of bandwidth doing it. To date, you have yet to provide—as babs has pointedly asked you to—any credible evidence that Russia IS NOT playing a deeply cynical and destabilizing role in world politics.

I have here given Russia the benefit of the doubt, and Russia is associated with Iran, and voilá so I'm said to be siding with evil.

You have yet to provide any of your favorite “CONCRETE evidence” that Russia is, in fact, a benign entity. Your refusal to do so is what damages your credibility. And, yes, IT IS “evil” to run around challenging well-established fact without providing any strong fact-based rebuttal. If you wish to cast doubt upon something, please do it without strawman tactics and blathering on about justifiably cast aspersions. Notice how little of your responding posts deal with actual facts of the matter. All you’ve presented is Stratfor’s nebulous assessment. None of which has yet to conclusively demonstrate Russia as a constructive or productive partner in the pursuit of global security.

In Scandinavian forums six years ago, it didn't take me long to see that while the Danes were waging an intelligent debate based on real evidence, the Swedes (to 99%) were high-fiving each other in cheering their common hostility to such intelligent debate (quite as we see some Americans do in this thread).

Again, lay off of the strawman tactics. You have yet to produce any conclusive evidence to support your own proposition that Russia is an honest player in global politics. Either they are or they aren’t and there is a boatload of clear facts that indicate they aren’t. You have yet to make any strong contribution to the “intelligent debate” that you so highly prize. Now get on with it.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

it is sheer aggravation in being put through so many challenges to prove what is patently obvious.

The question was repeated since you never came up with anything substantive. If you hold on to beliefs that you consider so "patently obvious" that no evidence is needed you are into mythology. I prefer a scientific approach. It's sad to see that you are so offended by a scientific approach.

Be it only by supplying dual-use technology and no actual nuclear weapons knowhow, Russia is still guilty as charged.

But as your own sources show, Putin's Russia has not delivered any dual-use nuclear technology to Iran. So your sentence "Russia is still guilty as charged" becomes nonsense.

Here, feel free to read a recent analysis (09/08/2008) that largely confirms all of the other information I have posted.

Russia is not mentioned at all, not even once. So this is another of your links supporting my point.

By supplying Iran with partially enriched uranium, Russia is speeding up Iran's "time to market" with nuclear weapons.

The idea of the deal is to deliver this so that Iran stays away from centrifuging high-enriched uranium, that bombs can be made of. The deal is backed by the whole UN security council including USA. I'm not suggesting that the deal is a particularly good way to tackle Iran, but the point is that it's not Russia operating here, it's the UN security council.

Furthermore, since the Putin regime have delayed the completion of the Bushehr reactor with an additional 9 years (the whole regime period actually! Putin never did anything but delaying, never delivered anything), Iran do not have any nuclear reactor, and thusly nothing to use this uranium with.

Also, has even the uranium been delivered?

CS:"One will have to do something seriously bad to single oneself out as the-especially-irresponsible-thug in this context."

Assisting Iran’s genocidal goals indubitably qualifies on that count.


The question relates to Russia. Arguably the UN, Bush etc. are acting recklessly, I agree. But you are emotionally singling out Putin's Russia as the bug bad thug in this, but factually you have not shown any way in which they have singled themselves out as the-especially-irresponsible-thug. Instead they act side by side with the USA and the UN security council.

And please do not try to toss in how Iran is entitled to the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy.

This comment exposes your mean-spirited approach to this whole discussion, and how hypocritical your many charges of "strawman" is. Above is the fattest strawman I have ever seen. Now you try to paint me as someone you would defend Iran's "right" to peaceful nuclear energy. You have truly lost you mind in all this, and gotten stuck in a simplistic black and white trench war. I'm just waiting to be painted as a fellow traveller of Communism too.

Again, speaking for myself, what I find so repugnant is your willingness to assign ostensibly benign motives to Russia when its overall policy continues to be exceptionally detrimental to global security.

I never said Russia have benign motives. My whole point is how Putin's Russia looks strictly at its self-interests and acts Machiavellian as well as rationally. And it's definitely not in Russia's interest that Iran has nuclear weapons. And that's why they are stalling the whole thing.

And, yes, IT IS “evil” to run around challenging well-established fact without providing any strong fact-based rebuttal.

OK, so you agree about and confirm the description I gave of you. Good. At least we agree about something then.

It's strange that you held on to these "well-established facts" so long and didn't want to share them. And then you complain about "so many challenges to prove". Why not just present it? Well, at last you did. But there wasn't much there...

Also you have misunderstood how a serious scientifically minded debate must take place. You have got the chronology reversed. It is NOT possible to present a "strong fact-based rebuttal" before any fact-based position has been presented. It's not possible to make a fact-based rebuttal of sweeping statements, and in every thread before this one you had only offered sweeping statements. And obviously you never intended do do anything else since you write at such length about how offended you are by my request of something fact-based from you, how rude this was of me, how evil this was of me.

babs said...

So, we had VB and CJ. Now we have "high fiving" 6 years ago to prove that this debate is not up to the Sweed's standard... HA!
In return we get one source that doesn't even prove the opposing point that the Sweede insisted all others prove to his satisfaction. You are pathetic and I resent your sucking up my time to defend myself from someone who clearly thought they could take advantage over me.
Is it my nic, clearly feminine, that made you think you had an opening to be condescending?
Give up while you are just a little bit behind.
Oh, and sorry about how surprised you are by being vilified by opposing commenters...
I tried to be polite. You seemed to think you could beat up on me and I would take it. Sorry, I don't take that kind of crap.

So, pour another cup Sweede and chant the mantra "but Stratfor... I found Stratfor to support me!"
Actually, Stratfor doesn't even come close to the evidence you demanded we supply you. In fact, if anything, we could use Stratfor for our argument.

Reread the thread Sweede, paying particular attention to the words you put in caps. Then try to tell me that you met or exceeded the standard you demanded of others. I don't think so.

In a moment of weakness, you might actually want to google the words I suggested. (Although the Zenster did most of the work for you.)

I know this debate has dragged on for too long. It is just that I DO NOT LIKE being condescended to. I am more than willing to engage in a polite debate and, I am willing to agree to disagree. But, don't school me and don't condescend. I am here at this site to learn, not engage in juvenile back and forth. I'll go to LGF if I want that.

And, what ever you do, don't use my sex as some type of a pass to dismiss me. That really makes me angry.
Maybe I should change my nic to "Big Snarly Boy Dog!" HA!!!

babs said...

Do I understand your last stance as:
By "playing along with Iran, Russia has actually delayed the production of a nuclear weapon?"

Is that what you are now claiming?
Russia is actually doing a solid for the world by dribbling parts and technology to Iran therefore delaying the production of a weapon???

You have to be kidding...

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: But as your own sources show, Putin's Russia has not delivered any dual-use nuclear technology to Iran. So your sentence "Russia is still guilty as charged" becomes nonsense.

The Bushehr reactor's construction (even if not completed) and Russia's training of Iranian nationals in nuclear science all constitute technology transfer that assists weapons proliferation.

Russia is not mentioned at all, not even once. So this is another of your links supporting my point.

You continue to ignore the simple fact that by selling Iran advanced military technology Russia helps to create a strategic umbrella beneath which this genocidal regime can shelter itself while continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. In criminal cases, this is called "aiding and abetting", in military jargon it is known as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Your abject refusal to admit that Russia continuously facilitates, indirectly and directly, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is pathetic.

But you are emotionally singling out Putin's Russia as the big bad thug in this, but factually you have not shown any way in which they have singled themselves out as the-especially-irresponsible-thug.

Close cooperation and military assistance to a known sponsor of global terrorism makes Russia a thug. America's relationship with Saudi Arabia runs a close second but, as I noted before, the Kingdom is not seeking to acquire nuclear arms.

This comment exposes your mean-spirited approach to this whole discussion, and how hypocritical your many charges of "strawman" is. Above is the fattest strawman I have ever seen. Now you try to paint me as someone you would defend Iran's "right" to peaceful nuclear energy.

Nowhere did I accuse you of advocating Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology. I merely sought to preempt any digression of this discussion into such a fruitless realm. I don't need strawmen to validate my stance. A device you yourself have not managed to forego.

I also fail to see how it is "mean spirited" to openly maintain that tyrannies have no sovereign rights. Iran's totalitarian theocratic regime is one massive human rights abuse and by dint of such reprehensible conduct, the nation and its leaders are stripped of all moral and legal authority.

I never said Russia have benign motives. My whole point is how Putin's Russia looks strictly at its self-interests and acts Machiavellian as well as rationally. And it's definitely not in Russia's interest that Iran has nuclear weapons. And that's why they are stalling the whole thing.

Then if Russia indeed does not have benign motives that makes it the thug, no? You have still failed to understand that Putin's "Machiavellian" pursuit of Russia's "self-interests" is turning his nation into an international pariah.

This in turn constricts the flow of foreign capital investment in Russia and only serves to retard its economic growth. Further, by refusing to take an active role in fighting global terrorism, Russia paints itself as a deeply cynical political entity.

Absolutely none of this constitutes quality leadership. It is tantamount to gangsterism and so closely resembles the preceding Soviet era ideology and strategy that Putin mantles his nation with the same shameful status as a negative influence upon global stability.

It's strange that you held on to these "well-established facts" so long and didn't want to share them.

You could have just as easily Googled them and gained an immediate understanding of what remains a particularly well-known international dispute.

You are now presented with the simple fact that Russia is facilitating Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. Whether directly or indirectly is of no consequence. Russia does this knowingly and intentionally seeks to jeapordize American efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis.

This constitutes counterproductive behavior and is most definitely culpable in nature.

I leave it to you to establish how the Russian people's best interests are served by Putin's willing assistance to terrorist Iran.

I also invite you to honestly address babs' last question. As she duly notes, you have yet to put forward any sort of functional explanation of your position and nowhere have remotely met the strict standards you set for others.

Baron Bodissey said...

Concerning Stratfor --

Sometimes it is an excellent resource, but it is not entirely reliable. Back at the beginning of the Iraq war, a friend recommended it highly, so we got a trial subscription.

I followed its analysis and predictions about would happen, and it turned out to be way off -- didn't come close to calling the situation correctly in many instances. So I quit reading it after that.

In other cases it does quite well, so it's a mixed bag. My recommendation is to read what you find there, and then check other sources and see if they are in accord with it.

Also, monitor its predictions and see how good a match they are with what eventually happens.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: Also, has even the uranium been delivered?

Yes, Russia has shipped Iran the first batch of reactor grade uranium.

Now, please tell me what is to prevent Iran from taking that purified uranium, dissolving it in hydrofluoric acid and gassifying it for processing in their many centrifuges?

Are you willing to maintain that Iran can be taken at its word that they won't?

Extracting and consolidating highly purified uranium represents one of the single most difficult hurdles that must be overcome in order to produce nuclear weapons.

There has been much speculation that Iran is building so many centrifuges specifically because they are unable to generate the high purities that would speed up the process.

Russia's shipment of the uranium being a known fact, I leave it to you to establish that Putin has put in place any sort of effective controls that prevent Iran from reprocessing the already pure uranium into fissile material.

Even at the very least, Iranian scientists can perform radiological isotopic analysis and uncover which impurities are predominant in the batch they have received. Such information would give them a significant head start in understanding which contaminants to focus upon in their own extraction processes.

After all, if Russia's well-established nuclear fuel processing facilities cannot remove these impurities, then Iran hardly stands a chance of doing so either.

This seemingly trivial bit of information could help Iran leap frog an extremely onerous scientific task with respect to which impurities should be targeted as easiest and most important to remove.

Terrorism sponsoring countries like Iran, Syria and Pakistan should be completely excluded from participation in the exchange of knowledge, technology and materials that facilitate the production of nuclear technology in any form.

Communist China is largely responsible for Pakistan's accession to nuclear weapons and the dilemma this has posed to the global community is tremendous. That Russia should blithely engage in the exact same pattern of enabling a known terrorist regime's quest for nuclear arms is unconscienceable.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Yes you are right, the uranium has been delivered:

Russia delivers next fuel shipment to Iran nuclear plant

Russia delivered on Tuesday the fifth fuel shipment to the Bushehr nuclear power plant it is building in southern Iran, the country's mass media said, citing Iranian nuclear officials.

[...]

United States President George W. Bush, who has led international calls for sanctions against Iran over its refusal to freeze its nuclear program, said last month that he supported the start of Russia's enriched uranium deliveries to the Islamic Republic, and that Tehran no longer has any excuse to develop its own enrichment capabilities.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

Yes, if you use Stratfor for predictions you are bound to end up disappointed. There is no place to find correct predictions. That's a holy grail...

The value of Stratfor, as I see it, is in its coolheaded analysis and interpretation of past events based on solid facts. Any fact-based discussion based becomes so much more interesting (even if of course the future can never be reliably predicted).

But Stratfor is of little significance to this discussion. The important thing is that even the links that Zenster provided shows no deliveries of nuclear technology from Putin's Russia to Iran. His last link, which was an extensive review of Iran's program for requiring nuclear weapons, did not mention Russia even once.

Regarding the UN security council deal to deliver low-enriched uranium to Iran in return for the their "promise" not to develop their own enrichment, it is clearly the sort of mistake made in an attempt to remedy old mistakes. And if this is truly so, Americans ought to turn their anger towards their own president. If President Bush and Russia together have failed to look after America's interests, it would be logical to hold Bush's failure as more grave. After all it is part of his job description to look after America's interests.

But there must be more to this story. I do not think that even Bush is so foolishly naive as to just feed the dragon.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Russia does this knowingly and intentionally seeks to jeapordize American efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis.

The only thing Russia has actually done is the delivery of low-enriched uranium. And this with the approval of both the UN security council and George Bush, and apparently as part of a bigger Bush-led package directed at Iran including a "resolution against Iran calling for travel ban, asset freeze and vigilance on all banks in the Islamic Republic."

So how come when Bush is approving of delivery of low-enriched uranium that it's an "effort to resolve the Middle East crisis", while when Russia is actually delivering it, they "jeopardize" Bush's efforts? They are actually delivering what Bush is wishing for.

So you would have to say that the Bush Administration jeopardize American efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis...

But what do we mean by America then? The Clinton Administration? Obama?

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: So how come when Bush is approving of delivery of low-enriched uranium that it's an "effort to resolve the Middle East crisis", while when Russia is actually delivering it, they "jeopardize" Bush's efforts? They are actually delivering what Bush is wishing for.

Nice try at diverting examination of your stated positions.

I have already made quite clear, with very little recognition upon your part, how Bush has facilitated the Iranian situation with his "Religion of Peace" bu!!sh!t and other even less effective countermeasures.

NONE of this changes how you have yet to admit that Russia has been the most duplicitous played in this entire farce.

America IS NOT shipping Iran purified uranium nor advanced military hardware.

Nowhere have you managed to present how such actions constitute any sort of valuable contribution to either global security or even the international reputation of the Russian people.

GET ON WITH IT!

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Nowhere have you managed to present how such actions constitute any sort of valuable contribution to either global security or even the international reputation of the Russian people.

But that hasn't been my point.

The point is that nowhere have you managed to present how this "jeapordize American efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis". And the reason is that Russia's actions has been in accordance with America's efforts.

NONE of this changes how you have yet to admit that Russia has been the most duplicitous played in this entire farce.

China and A.Q Khan have done most of the damage according to the summary you provided yourself. After that, several countries have "contributed". Yeltsin's Russia especially (we can probably rejoice in our condemnation of Yeltsin). However Putin's Russia hasn't done much, and what it has done it has done in accordance with "America's efforts".

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: But that hasn't been my point.

So, spit it out. What in Hell is your point, beside the complete and total absolution of Russia as a blatantly dishonest player on the stage of our world's global security?

If you object to my negative characterization of your oft repeated position, please be sure to annotate each and every instance of my mistaken perception.

Finally, without positing that GoV should become any sort of popularity contest (perish the thought), please note just how little outside support your campaign to paint Russia as a less-than-malignant influence has garnered.

I need not crow about how others have supported my own view of things. Merely that yours has gone entirely without accolade. And, no, I will not burden you with Afonso's approbation. At least you have had the brains to shrug off that dubious enjoinment with some degree of alacrity.

babs said...

CS said:
"The point is that nowhere have you managed to present how this "jeapordize American efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis". And the reason is that Russia's actions has been in accordance with America's efforts"

OK, this is your NEW POINT!
You now captulate that Russia is selling arms and nuclear technology to Iran but...this is now, in accordance with your "intelligent debate," what you ment to say all along in that it does not jeopardize American interests?
And yet, in the face of media reports of all stripes, you do not think this a bad thing.
So Russia is actually playing hand in glove with American interests?
I really hate to state the obvious but, what if Russia didn't do any of this? What if they didn't sell weapons to the Muslim Middle East? I know that Germany and France would probably take up the slack but at least Russia would be able to clense themselves of the stigma that they currently enjoy. Why is it that Russia continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?
Let me pre-empt the discussion of what is reasonable by saying I don't give a damn what you think is reasonable. If you want to continue to abuse women by selling them and raping them, I no longer feel I can do a lot about it. But, what I can do is foster an environment which encourages people to dye their fingers blue through the ballot box.
If we wanted to broaden this discussion, which we don't, I would also ponder why France, Germany and other EU countries continue to sell weapons to their own foes.
But, as this thread specifically engages Russia as it pertains to the proliferation of weapons,nuclear or otherwise in the Middle East, I think you have finally come around in that you now want to move the goal posts...
That is always a clear sign of capitulation...

Zenster said...

babs: Why is it that Russia continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?

Thank you, babs, for cutting so directly to the proverbial chase. In my potentially over-elaborate examination of the minutiae that Conservative Swede has so often thrown in this discussion's path, the desperately needed central focus that you so frequently provide has occasionally eluded my grasp.

So, let us now inquire as to "Why is it that Russia continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?"

It is difficult to summon forth a more concise, pertinent and cogent question to present in this debate. For that, I thank you.

Conservative Swede said...

Babs,

I know that Germany and France would probably take up the slack but at least Russia would be able to clense themselves of the stigma that they currently enjoy.

So the strong disappointment you express over Russia is because you expected them to live up to better standards than France, Germany and America? Fair enough. But you have had a strange way of expressing it. It's like if Russia do not live up to much higher standards than America and the rest of the West, then they are much eviler than them all. Just doesn't add up for me.

My simple view is that if they act equally irresponsibly they are all equally bad. I.e., I apply an equal standard to all these countries. And no, none of them live up to it.

Conservative Swede said...

Babs,

OK, this is your NEW POINT!

No, it's my very old and original point. You and Zenster have singled out Russia as being the-especially-irresponsible-thug. I have in previous threads and now in this thread asked for the evidence that would fulfill such a criterion. And there are two components to it, one is that something concretely has to be delivered, and the second that this must make Russia stick out significantly compared to America, France etc., i.e. that Russia delivered something the others wouldn't, or that Russia is obstructing America's stabilizing efforts, or something of the kind. I have posed this question many times, in different formulations. But always with these two components. Here's an example from early on in this thread:

I'm asking for CONCRETE evidence. An event that has taken place in time and space, a delivery from Russia to Iran of something that: i) constitutes aiding in building a nuclear bomb, ii) is not regularly delivered by USA, France etc. around the Middle East.

The thing that has come up is the delivery of low-enriched uranium earlier this year.

Is this something America wouldn't deliver? Not at all. Obviously America will deliver the same to Saudi Arabia as part of Bush nuclear deal with them.

Does it obstruct America's efforts in the Middle East? To the contrary, the delivery from Russia to Iran is supported by America. As far as I understand it was part of a larger Bush-led package vis-a-vis Iran. (I do not understand the point of this package, but that's a different discussion).

To back up your rhetoric we would have needed to find that Russia sticked out significantly. But now we have found that Russia does not stick out at all from the rest of the crowd.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

please note just how little outside support your campaign to paint Russia as a less-than-malignant influence has garnered.

In this particular thread there has not been any participation. The mobbish approach from your group, hostility to even asking questions, etc., will of course discourage people from entering the discussion. I'm sure however that many read it with interest.

However, in other threads and in general at GoV, the number of people who start seeing Russia as less-than-malignant are forever growing, as you may have noticed.

And as for the whole rest of the "meta-discussion". Most of the comments from you and Babs I simply ignore. They have reached such absurd levels. Quite as I ignore most of Bela's deranged comments. I just shrug them off. Live is too short...

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: I apply an equal standard to all these countries. And no, none of them live up to it.

So, in other words, America's well-intentioned but hamfisted attempts to combat Islamic terrorism are no better or worse than Russia actively abetting the nuclear aspirations of a genocidal regime that openly sponsors global terrorism.

Glad we got that straight.

Too bad you couldn't summon forth the decency to simply admit that you are engaging in Moral Relativism, as I accused you of ALMOST FIFTY COMMENTS AGO.

Instead, you kept moving the goal posts of this debate and nowhere gave in return the sort of "CONCRETE evidence" that you kept demanding of others.

Neither have you made any earnest attempt to answer some very reasonable questions that babs posed, such as:

Is that what you are now claiming?
Russia is actually doing a solid for the world by dribbling parts and technology to Iran therefore delaying the production of a weapon???


and,

Why is it that Russia continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?

Feel free to cough up a few simple answers to some very basic questions that you have sidestepped at every turn. It's about time that you met your own lofty standards of conduct for once, if that isn't too much to ask.

Conservative Swede said...

Why is it that Russia continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?

Russia does not have much influence over the outcome in the Middle East.

And nevertheless, Russia and America work in concert now e.g. vis-a-vis Iran.

Why is it that America continues to obstruct a reasonable outcome in the Middle East?

That should be a more important question to you, since: i) America actually has the power to make a difference, and ii) it's your country after all, your foreign policy, and you should care about it.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

So, in other words, America's well-intentioned but hamfisted attempts to combat Islamic terrorism are no better or worse than Russia actively abetting the nuclear aspirations of a genocidal regime that openly sponsors global terrorism.

OK, so here we see the double standard in action with Zenster:

When America helps Iran to build a nuclear bomb it's "well-intentioned but hamfisted". When Russia helps Iran building a nuclear bomb it's "actively abetting the nuclear aspirations...".

Interesting...

But the only thing we have is this delivery of low-enriched uranium. According to Zenster this is dual-use, and Iran is already centrifuging it into bomb material. So Bush (together with the UN and Russia) has been helping Iran to build a nuclear bomb, according to Zenster. So America is helping Iran to build a nuclear bomb, but according to Zenster this is just "well-intentioned but hamfisted".

However, I doubt that this amounts to helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I do see Bush etc. as very naive, but not that naive. I haven't penetrated the issue at depth, but I assume that there might be something that hinders Iran from making bomb material from this. Either that this uranium has to low quality for high-enrichment. Or that Iran simply does not have the machines and know-how at this point to centrifuge this specific delivery of uranium into bomb material. But at the same time I know too little, so I'm not excluding the worst possibility. But unlike Zenster I'm giving Bush etc. the benefit of the doubt here.

The big blunder in this deal, as I see it, and which is clear, is to expect a promise from Iran in return for this delivery. A promise from Iran is worth nothing. And they will just continue to develop their centrifuges, and centrifuge whatever they are able to centrifuge at this point.

But odd thing here is the strange focus on Russian guilt. But maybe Zenster's comment above show us why. One might get the impression that America could blow up the whole planet, and Zenster would call it (from an underground bunker I suppose) "well-intentioned but hamfisted".

babs said...

OK Sweede, I can't take it anymore. You are now chasing your own tail...

Hey Zenster, it's been real! Dig you on the next thread but, I'm outta here!

Big Snarly Boy Dog

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

I needed to revisit this quote:

please note just how little outside support your campaign to paint Russia as a less-than-malignant influence has garnered.

Actually in this very thread, and even before my so-called "campaign", the following people expressed precisely the view of Russia as less-than-malignant:

CS
Homphobic Horse
Avery Bullard
Armance
Afonso
Natalie
Russkiy
Eatyourbeans
Irish Tory
and yes, Henrik

In this thread alone!

And then we also have Spackle, who at least does not share your high-pitched take-no-prisoners rhetoric against Russia. And we can count Baron Bodissey among the ones with a balanced view as well.

PS. High-five, Babs!

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

Yes. As you know, I am no Russophile. But many commenters here seem to be unable to distinguish among America's interests, Russia's interests, and what is morally right or wrong.

America's interests and Russia's interests (surprise!) do not coincide. The behavior of both countries may or may not be morally right, but that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

The moral obligation of an American leader is to look after the wellbeing of the people of the United States. The moral obligation of a Russian leader is to look after the wellbeing of the people of Russia. A leader of either country who fails to do these things is acting immorally.

President Bush has acted immorally towards his own people.

It is arguable that Vladimir Putin has acted in a more moral fashion with respect to his own people than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton has with respect to Americans. This is because both American presidents placed "international law" ahead of the welfare of Americans.

Not to see this is to be obtuse.

It doesn't mean that Vladimir Putin is a good person. It doesn't mean that he hasn't acted cynically (and against American interests) in Iran and other places. It doesn't mean that he hasn't been brutal.

It means that he has taken care of his own.

George W. Bush has not taken care of his own. He has taken care of Mexicans, the UN, the OIC, the Saudis, the Shiites of Iraq, and the trans-national oil companies.

Not to see this is obtuse.

God help me, but Vladimir Putin has been a better leader of his own country than George W. Bush (or any president since Reagan) has been for the United States of America.

It's an ugly and unpalatable fact, but it is true.

Zenster said...

Baron: It doesn't mean that Vladimir Putin is a good person. It doesn't mean that he hasn't acted cynically (and against American interests) in Iran and other places. It doesn't mean that he hasn't been brutal.

While there can be no doubt that Clinton and Bush have both betrayed the citizens of America, Putin's track record is equally, if not far more, dismal.

As I noted before, by destabilizing global security, Putin has turned Russia into a pariah state. Additionally, he has inadequately addressed the endemic, oligarchic-based corruption that has seen Russia lose an additional several places in its world ranking with respect to Transparency International's well-known index.

The combined negative impact of these two distinct deficiencies has discouraged much-needed investment of foreign capital and had an overall retarding influence upon Russia's economic growth.

This, too, is a significant betrayal of the Russian people. Yes, being demographically displaced by illegal aliens who are given de facto citizenship by malfeasant politicians who hew to their own self-interest is a massive fraud.

However, FREEZING TO DEATH in the Russian winter because of a broken economy that its leadership refuses to fix is more than betrayal, it is outright murder.

One is the death of a thousand paper cuts, the other a simple knife in the back. It is far easier to turn back the tide of those diminutive paper cuts than survive a brutal stabbing.

Do not for one moment think that I am able to tolerate the multicultural fecal matter being thrust upon America by its transnational traitor elite. Eff knows the recent election has ratcheted up this erosive process by a huge increment.

One simple fact remains, people are flocking by the droves to America as compared to Russia. That one simple statistic conveys with it a major chunk of moral authority. That the USA's popularity cannot be utilized to its best interests in selecting and encouraging the arrival of assimilating immigrants is a crime that our leaders must answer for.

Putin's crimes are far more serious and pose the potential of igniting a nuclear war. That is unforgivable.

Homophobic Horse, thank you for the straw poll. I still find the points made by Conservative Swede's cohort to be dubious at best.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

From where I sit, you've missed the point. Russia's international behavior can be evaluated from either a Russian or an American perspective. Neither you nor I are qualified to judge his performance from a Russian perspective. Based on the evaluation of the Russian people themselves, however, he has done well.

From an American perspective, he has outwitted us repeatedly and outrageously. That is what I object to -- the persistent stupidity and intransigence of our own leaders.

See my new post for more.

islam o' phobe said...

Zenster,

One simple fact remains, people are flocking by the droves to America as compared to Russia. That one simple statistic conveys with it a major chunk of moral authority.

That makes no sense. Mexicans and Muslims may be flocking to America because they want to conquer it. Others may come for the generous welfare payments. Others still because they like the warm climate.

Zenster said...

Baron: From an American perspective, he has outwitted us repeatedly and outrageously. That is what I object to -- the persistent stupidity and intransigence of our own leaders.

Dear Baron, please understand how Putin's ostensible "street-smarts" might seem to qualify him as a better defender of Russia's people, while at the same time, enabling him to betray them on a scale that far exceeds that of America's lunatic leadership.

France's government managed to sit on the sidelines as how many thousands of her citizens perished during a single season's heat wave?

Similarly, Putin sits on the sidelines as Russia's corrupt oligarchy proceeds to rape out their nation's economy and its authentic global competitiveness. I predict the immediately impending death of far more Russian citizens than any of us who might perish at the hands of our political elite's importation of illegal immigrants.

Do you disagree? I realize that these figures are difficult to quantitify, but it is hard to imagine that far more Russians will not die, just like their socialistic French counterparts, in more immediate circumstances than those of us who have been betrayed in America.

Socialists simply have too much of a well-earned and well-justified reputation for slaughtering their own and other hapless bystanders whereby I am hard pressed to ascribe even a remotely equivalent degree of malign intent to Western leaders, no matter how treasonous their conduct may be.

Zenster said...

islam o' phobe: Mexicans and Muslims may be flocking to America because they want to conquer it. Others may come for the generous welfare payments. Others still because they like the warm climate.

None of which changes my assertion that America could be well-served if the USA's popularity were being used towards its best interests by, "selecting and encouraging the arrival of assimilating immigrants", which I still maintain, "is a crime that our leaders must answer for."

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

Whether I agree or disagree is not material.

Neither you nor I are equipped to judge Russia from an internal perspective. We do not know enough. Neither does Conservative Swede, for that matter.

But this is missing the point.

If the Russian people think that Putin and Medvedev are doing a good job — and so far Putin has a higher approval rating than Obama, and more than twice as high as Bush — then we have to take their word for it.

There then remains the question of whether what Russia is doing is dangerous to us. A lot of what it does is dangerous.

But the first order of business is not to rely on fantasy. We can’t project power into the Black Sea or the Caucasus on a sustained basis. We just can’t.

So arguing about whether Russia is bad or not is moot, and counterproductive. We have to deal with what is realistically possible.

So — just for the sake of argument — I’ll concede that Russia is Evil, Mean, Wicked, Bad, and Nasty.

Now what? Answer in specific terms of what America can relaistically do, and not just what you think we should do.

And remember: the outlines of what we can realistically do just got dramatically smaller, because we elected Obama.

Zenster said...

Baron: Now what? Answer in specific terms of what America can relaistically do, and not just what you think we should do.

Russia's actions upon the global stage need to undergo exceptional scrutiny. Putin's popularity has a direct correspondence to one of Russia's greatest flaws. Namely, its propensity for "strong horse" leadership. As can be seen throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East), South America, Africa and Asia (pretty much the rest of the world), such concentration of power has a tendency to go awry.

Even Europe is seeing this in the form of the EU's bureaucratic elite. In the case of Russia, Putin is establishing for himself some sort of pseudo-Tsarist legacy, especially so with the Confederation prime ministership he seems to acquired of late. This concentration of power, also extent during the Soviet era, tends to manifest as imperialism.

Much of this promises yet another era of expansionism, domineering statecraft and lopsided international relations. Especially ones that do not generate a greater degree of cohesion or security within the global community.

As to Obama's smaller diplomatic footprint, B-HO is a direct byproduct of the damage inflicted upon America by the Soviet Union. Anyone who has watched Yuri Bezmenov's video interview can instantly recognize Obama as a prime example of Marxism's propagandistic and demoralizing legacy. The litany of American government will become one monotonous apologia as B-HO takes his newly gotten stripes and flays America raw in an orgy of self-flagellation.

Putin and Russia in general need to be met at every turn with cynical skepticism. Motivations must be subjected to intense scrutiny and a general case needs to be made against the resurgence of Tsarist style government in Russia. I am not advocating any carrying on of the Cold Warrior animosity, just a healthy sense of doubt as to Russia's good will.

That, and bombing the living crap out of Iran's nuclear R&D facilities.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

Fair enough. The only point at which I take major exception is the definition of Russia as inherently expansionist. As other commenters have pointed out, it is not expansionist -- not with a steadily declining population.

It is, however, inherently paranoid, given the massive insecurity on its borders. If it can ever resolve those security issues (and it may be impossible for it do so), then it might become less dangerous to American interests.

Imagine if we had Iran and Venezuela on our northern border, and North Korea and China on our southern border. That's what life in Russia is like.