When any topic strikes such a resonant emotional chord in so many people, there are presumably deeper issues at work. Russia (or the idea of Russia) is simply standing in for a set of unresolved internal political conflicts in the West. We project our ideas onto Russia in the form of stylized caricatures which may bear only a passing resemblance to reality. In our projections, the great nation of Russia wears either an angel’s or a devil’s face, depending on the predilection of the projector.
As in so many cases of projection, the truth is presumably quite different. Russia is neither totally evil nor totally good. It is neither the savior nor the nemesis of the West. It is simply a huge and badly damaged nation which is attempting to reconstruct itself. When Russians act in their own interests, they may be mistaken, or they may be correct, but expecting them to act on our interests, and not their own, is foolish and misguided.
Understanding Russia’s actions — avoiding both the extremes of idolization and demonization — is imperative. Russia is a flawed colossus that can be dangerous to both Europe and the United States, but it is not inherently evil, and the current state of affairs is not permanent.
Above all, it’s important to realize that a huge amount of questionable information about Russia has become entrenched in the world’s media. Seventy-five years of Soviet disinformation has blinded us to the fact that just as much disinformation can come from other sources. Parties with an interest in damaging Russia have floated numerous bogus stories, and the media, all too eager to believe anything bad about Russia, have swallowed them hook, line, and sinker. It was true during the Bosnian conflict, during the war against Serbia, and also during the war in Georgia.
I posted two news articles here recently that reflect badly on Russia, but there are other articles that reflect badly on Russia’s enemies. Georgia is not a brave and noble little democracy fighting against the evil Russian bear. The story is more complicated than that, and much of the material about the war in the Caucasus is of questionable provenance.
I know too little about these issues to venture more of an opinion than that. However, no less an authority than The Guardian — a venerable organ of the establishment Left if ever there was one — has woken up to the fact that it and the rest of the Western media have been lied to about Georgia, and not just by Russia:
The truth about South Ossetia- - - - - - - - -
After the west heaped blame on Russia for the conflict, it ignores new evidence of Georgia’s crimes of aggression
So now they tell us. Two months after the brief but bloody war in the Caucasus which was overwhelmingly blamed on Russia by western politicians and media at the time, a serious investigation by the BBC has uncovered a very different story.
Not only does the report by Tim Whewell — aired this week on Newsnight and on Radio 4’s File on Four — find strong evidence confirming western-backed Georgia as the aggressor on the night of August 7. It also assembles powerful testimony of wide-ranging war crimes carried out by the Georgian army in its attack on the contested region of South Ossetia.
They include the targeting of apartment block basements — where civilians were taking refuge — with tank shells and Grad rockets, the indiscriminate bombardment of residential districts and the deliberate killing of civilians, including those fleeing the South Ossetian capital of Tskinvali.
The carefully balanced report — which also details evidence of ethnic cleansing by South Ossetian paramilitaries — cuts the ground from beneath later Georgian claims that its attack on South Ossetia followed the start of a Russian invasion the previous night.
At the time, the Georgian government said its assault on Tskinvali was intended to “restore constitutional order” in an area it has never ruled, as well as to counter South Ossetian paramilitary provocations. Georgian intelligence subsequently claimed to have found the tape of an intercepted phone call backing up its Russian invasion story — but even Georgia’s allies balk at a claim transparently intended to bolster its shaky international legal position.
Naturally the man who ordered the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, president Mikheil Saakashvili, denies the war crimes accusations. But what of his Anglo-American sponsors, who insisted at the time that “Russian aggression must not go unanswered”?
British foreign secretary David Miliband now accepts Georgia was “reckless” and says he treats the war crimes allegations “extremely seriously”. US assistant secretary of state, Daniel Fried, meanwhile concedes Georgia’s attack on Tskhinvali was “wrong on several levels”, but feels that discussion of its war crimes is “not terribly useful”.
[…]
At the start of the August conflict, western media reporting was relatively even-handed, but rapidly switched into full-blown cold war revival mode as Russia turned the tables on the US’s Georgian client regime and Nato expansion in the region. Clear initial evidence of who started the war and Georgian troops’ killing spree in Tskhinvali was buried or even denied in a highly effective PR operation from Tbilisi.
Within a week, the former Foreign Office special adviser David Clark was for example accusing me on Comment is free of making an “important error of fact” by stating that “several hundreds civilians” had been killed by Georgian forces in Tskhinvali.
I based that on several reports, including in the Observer. Clark insisted there was “no independent support for this claim”. But, as reported by the BBC this week, Human Rights Watch now regards the figure of 300-400 civilian dead in Tskhinvali as a “useful starting point”.
Meanwhile, with the exception of a small item in the Independent, Whewell’s significant new evidence about what actually took place in a conflict likely to have far-reaching strategic consequences has been simply ignored by the rest of the mainstream media.
So the Western media have been snookered again — surprise! — by canny operators with an axe to grind.
It’s long past time to withdraw our projections. Russia is neither a noble knight on a shining white steed, nor an evil ogre bent on devouring us. The truth, as I said before, is more complicated than that.
Despite Russia’s manifestly illiberal political system (or perhaps because of it), Russians express popular support for the regime at a level that is beyond the wildest dreams of any Western leader. The reason for this is not hard to fathom: Russian leaders look after Russia. They are not in thrall to any trans-national ideologies. They don’t bend over backwards catering to their country’s enemies. They do what they think will serve the interests of their nation, and their people reward them accordingly.
Whatever you or I may think of their methods is irrelevant. Our policy towards Russia should be pragmatic, based on the cold reality of the circumstances of any given situation:
- Where it is dangerous to us, thwart it.
- Where it is useful to us, ally with it.
- Where it is neither, leave it alone.
Prudence and common sense seem to have departed our foreign policy. Why are so few of us willing to stand up and assert what is in our own best interests?
It’s not necessary to give up your idealism to be a pragmatist — after all, how can you act according to your ideals when your nation is on the verge of destruction? Idealism can only function in a space cleared and tamed by ruthless pragmatists, those rough men whom the idealists will later despise.
Russia’s leaders are acting in what they perceive as their nation’s best interests — which is more than I can say for most of the leaders of the West.
94 comments:
And now imagine an average Russians, how can I counter their "misguided Totalitarian Views" and try to promote "the enlightened" western model, when they dont see the west as their friend or ally. For instance what happend in Serbia they would never accept as misguided mistake on the part of US and Europe, but rather a direct atack on Russias interests that caused great damage to Serbs.
Greetings:
Samuel Huntington has a very interesting analysis of Russia as the "core" state of the (Eastern) Orthodox civilization in his "The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order". Writing in 1996, Huntington addresses many of the reasons for Russia's seemingly imperialistic actions especially vis a vis Ukraine and other new and "torn" states in Russia's near abroad.
Worth a look.
The Russian government is a very complicated enemy, to the west, and it's own people. It's cleptocrats are doing nicely, though.
Of the many accounts of the conflict in Georgia, it seems the Guardian didn't bother to mention the coordinated cyber attacks from Russia, with the physical one.
This article could well be an attempt at misinformation.
Now, I am not nearly as familiar with Russian history or sociology or any number of other things as I am with their East Asian equivalents. Just using that as a baseline. Nevertheless, it seems to me, that despite (and in spite of) all their numerous flaws - the Georgia thing was a very disappointing resurgence for me in this way of thinking - they ought to prove an infinitely more reliable and respectable "ally" than any of our current "allies" in the middle east (excepting Israel).
Both for energy and other economic reasons, I see Russia (and China) as potentially far more useful and secure allies - and worth aligning with - than the current oil producers in the ME. Of course, as much as I would like to "dream" in some cases, it doesn't always make it true. I think we have far more in common in a shared western-eastern Christian heritage than obviously the other candidates, but not knowing as much about the historical precedents for authoritarianism (which the current citizens don't seem to mind as much) isn't helping my analysis.
I agree that pragmatism is the word of the day however. Nobody is ever perfect (look at our "special relationship" with the UK and how rocky that gets from time to time - but I think strategically and economically, it would be far more beneficial for the US and Europe to work with Russia than against it. The fact of the matter however, is that Russia needs to play their side as well with regards to non-interference with business (and international affairs), not cracking down on the media, etc.
By the same token, we and western europe never established the same historical "ties" that much of Eastern Europe experienced under the USSR and hence have more difficulty understanding their hesitation for some of our efforts at engagement - which is also understandable.
Now, I see what you're posting about Georgia, but I will continue to contend that there is far more than is EVER going to come out in the media (or at least for many years) - and all that I have seen - even in the Russian media - indicates a predicated, planned, calculated action (which of course includes influencing the actions of a known targeted individual(s) in other governments).
When Russians act in their own interests, they may be mistaken, or they may be correct, but expecting them to act on our interests, and not their own, is foolish and misguided.
While I may not be so deluded to think that Russia might act in America's interests, Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest. Facilitating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons in no way qualifies with respect to such aims.
With disturbing frequency, Russia simply sits on the sidelines during major disasters and lets Western nations do all the heavy lifting. When it does see fit to act, too often it is in underhanded and counterproductive ways. This is why Russia and communist China will continue to be perceived as the enemy of free nations.
This is also what categorizes Russia’s “own interests” as “mistaken” and damns Putin’s type of “leadership” as strong horse, dictatorial-style authoritarianism that differs insufficiently from its preceding Soviet mould for it to be rewarded with any recognition as progressive or productive in terms of global interests.
Furthermore, it is precisely this counterproductive aspect of Russian statecraft that renders Putin as a betrayer of the Russian people. However much Russia might ostensibly gain from its brand of unilateral foreign policy, it just as frequently loses because free countries rightfully designate it as adversarial. Ergo, any progress that Russia makes will be seen as being at the expense of less hostile nations and thereby denied the fruits of truly productive interaction within the global community.
Through its arming and assistance of terrorist sponsoring Islamic regimes, Russia continues the Soviet era policy of triangulating against both Western and global interests. As more countries climb out of the poverty well by exercising free market economics, fewer of them will favorably regard these triangulatory antics. Such maneuvers are specifically designed to financially bleed the West as it attempts to set right the intentionally jumbled blocks of international diplomacy and governance.
This sort of misdirection and willful malfeasance can no longer be tolerated. The malaise of Islamic terrorism is now recognized as having a stagnating global impact and any facilitating of this retrograde influence will necessarily be deemed as hostile to world interests. In this way, Putin’s policies isolate and condemn Russia to an arm’s length relationship in a world where only close cooperation bears any real fruit.
Too much of Russia’s foreign endeavors continue to follow the dictates of Soviet era Zero Sum politics. This favorite socialist formula has long ago been exposed for the propagandistic and hollow-core economic dead end that decades of communist rule made all too apparent. Constantly making its own success dependent upon the exploitation and setback of others makes Russia the pariah that it is today.
If there is one simple proof of how Russia continues to manifest as a negative influence upon the world stage, it is in immigration figures. While people from all nations continue flocking to the West, few come knocking upon Russia’s door for admittance. This dearth of influx is reflected in foreign investment as well. The oligarchic structure of its economy makes Russia an iffy proposition for investors of all stripes. Such economic starvation can hardly be said to benefit the Russian people. There is a solid reason for this lack of popularity and Putin—along with his mafia cronies—must be made to answer for it.
no2liberals,
I totally disagree that Russia is an enemy of the West. They are a competitor. There is a big difference between being an enemy and a competitor. There is no reason for Russia to be the West's enemy. It's a European Christian country. They have no irreconcilable differences with the West. I completely agree with Baron's assessment: "Russia (or the idea of Russia) is simply standing in for a set of unresolved internal political conflicts in the West."
Part of this article is based on information obtained from a journalist that works for the BBC,one of the most lefties and corrupted agencies now a days,so,i have some problems believing the whole story.
saludos
Zonka: "Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest."
I agree, it's terrible that they are cozying up to Iran, but let's not forget that the U.S. have also done some insane and irresponsible things as part of their Middle East policies. I don't think they come out looking better. If anything, Russia is re-acting, while the U.S. was acting.
"While people from all nations continue flocking to the West, few come knocking upon Russia’s door for admittance. "
There are a lot of immigrants from the former republics. A LOT. I don't have the figures now, but I hear that Moscow is less than 50% Russian now.
One other thing that is a little hard to understand - Russia has had some very violent issues with Islamic extremists previously - but now that Chechnya is essentially pacified - what's up with pandering to different ones (ie. Iran) when they already know how the game is played?
If it's simply a game of "how much can we bug the US - and by extension the west" it seems extremely childish and not at all in keeping with Russia's historic significance and cultural and regional dominance.
Part of this article is based on information obtained from a journalist that works for the BBC,one of the most lefties and corrupted agencies now a days,so,i have some problems believing the whole story.
Did you have similar trouble believing the BBC in August when it was clearly taking an anti-Russian line? What about CNN and the rest of America's left wing media all of whom have virtually reported US government positions on the Georgia conflict?
now that Chechnya is essentially pacified - what's up with pandering to different ones (ie. Iran) when they already know how the game is played?
Do you have any idea how pro-American the Putin administration was after 9/11? It went well out of its way to show friendship to the US but the neocons with their deep seated hatred of Russia kept on kicking sand in Russia's face. The Bush administration has alienated Russia when it did not have to. Russia's cozying up to Iran is a consequence of American policy.
Felicie
Zonka: "Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest."
That would Zenster and not Zonka.
There are a lot of immigrants from the former republics. A LOT. I don't have the figures now, but I hear that Moscow is less than 50% Russian now.
At the risking of seeming to over-Sovietize Russia (as I have been accused of), such internal immigration does not disprove my larger point about how the world's immigrants and venture capitalists continue to treat Russia as a non-destination.
I would also suggest that the internal immigration to Russia from previous communist bloc satellite nations is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that Soviet era mismanagement so bankrupted these peripheral coutries that even Russia's dysfuntional economy is alluring by comparison.
Avery Bullard: Russia's cozying up to Iran is a consequence of American policy.
Horseradish! Russia has consistently displayed its usual triangulatiion against Western interests. While post-9-11 America may have had Russia's temporary sympathy, it was just that: Temporary.
Putin's KGB roots go way to deep to ever believe that he will cheerfully create a truly functional democracy in Russia. Given that, it will continue to be at odds with the free world. Exactly as it currently is. Trying to blame justifiably suspicious conservatives for Russia's self-imposed status as world pariah doesn't wash.
felicie
I disagree. Using the term competitor is, to me, semantics.
Why have the Russians been violating sovereign nations air space, for the past several years, including the U.S.? I don't think it is competing for air.
Disrupting the oil and gas flow to nations that say or do anything the government doesn't like, is provocative, and not the actions of a friend.
avery,
Russia has been cozying up to Iran, since it helped to remove the Shah, by funding those who were rioting. The coziness has gotten even stronger with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Their involvement with Iraq, during the sanctions, and now with Cuba, Libya, and Venezuela, isn't about opening new markets, it's about a shared desire to undermine the U.S.
The Russian people, they wanted a constitution and a representative government, at one time. They are not served well by their government.
"The reason for this is not hard to fathom: Russian leaders look after Russia."
Damn it man, if that becames fashionable, Russia is our saviour.
Russia is our saviour because it may as well remain the only European Nation with great power.
Honestly Baron, I don't think Russians will liberate "us". I think Russians will work against the European Union and NATO because those are their interests, once more, they are saving us (I am all for NATO, though).
I really don't see those crazy Russophiles. I see the crazy and irrational Russophobes in this blog. And the scary thing is that they are all clever people, they just refuse to look to Russia as another thing other than a Communist Asiatic power with nuclear weapons, like a big North Korea.
Who are the Russophiles? Me, Conservative Swede, and one or other two guys, like, I believe, Armance. We are not Russophiles, we are simply neutral and with no dogmas. And by the way Baron, you are a damned big Russophile for that matter. You try to hide it but you can't. You look to things without dogmas...
"The reason for this is not hard to fathom: Russian leaders look after Russia."
Damn it man, if that becames fashionable, Russia is our saviour.
Russia is our saviour because it may as well remain the only European Nation with great power.
Honestly Baron, I don't think Russians will liberate "us". I think Russians will work against the European Union and NATO because those are their interests, once more, they are saving us (I am all for NATO, though).
I really don't see those crazy Russophiles. I see the crazy and irrational Russophobes in this blog. And the scary thing is that they are all clever people, they just refuse to look to Russia as another thing other than a Communist Asiatic power with nuclear weapons, like a big North Korea.
Who are the Russophiles? Me, Conservative Swede, and one or other two guys, like, I believe, Armance. We are not Russophiles, we are simply neutral and with no dogmas. And by the way Baron, you are a damned big Russophile for that matter. You try to hide it but you can't. You look to things without dogmas...
Avery Bullard said: "Russia's cozying up to Iran is a consequence of American policy."
Personally, I agree. American foreign policy has done nothing but alienate Russia. I know and realise that Russia is not a perfect country, but I think a lot of our actions regarding Russia are based too much on out-of-date Cold War sentiments.
Zenster said: "While I may not be so deluded to think that Russia might act in America's interests, Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest. Facilitating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons in no way qualifies with respect to such aims."
Zenster, I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. Doesn't every country have the obligation to act in their own interest above all others' interests? That's what I've always thought--not that I have actually given all that much thought to this topic, to be honest. But when reading your comment, that one paragraph I quoted above struck me as quite interesting.
Afonso:
What about me? Do you think I'm a Russophile?
On another note: seriously, how can you be pro-NATO?? As far as I'm concerned, NATO is a criminal organisation that should be disbanded and have to answer for its crimes against the Serbian people.
Well said, Baron. I do not wish to damn you with my praise, but seriously I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with all of what you wrote completely.
It's not easy to discuss Russia. There are so many emotions in play. It is completely as discussing America with European leftist (and centrists and ..). If you point out to them that one of their favorite arguments is a bogus story, they go mad and accuse you of being fanatically pro-American (I get this all the time). Same thing when discussing Russia...
As far as I'm concerned, NATO is a criminal organisation that should be disbanded and have to answer for its crimes against the Serbian people.
Hear hear!
I love you Natalie, you are the best!
Zenster,
I hope you to be happy forever with Obama... Afterall, he's acting in the global interest... and probabily he will be very productive when compared to Czar Putin the first. And of course, there will be lots of freedom...
"While people from all nations continue flocking to the West, few come knocking upon Russia’s door for admittance."
Yeah, forget the millions of Central Asians, Caucasians and Chinese crossing the borders. Or the Latin Americans and Africans and a growing number of Europeans going there to study.
After all, immigration enrich us all. But the muslim one, that is evil.
What's the biggest city in Europe?
Try not to be so American-centred.
"If it's simply a game of "how much can we bug the US - and by extension the west" it seems extremely childish and not at all in keeping with Russia's historic significance and cultural and regional dominance."
Look, an American talking!
(And no, I don't care if you're not American. Let the irony flows... )
:) No heart-feelings?
"I would also suggest that the internal immigration to Russia from previous communist bloc satellite nations is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that Soviet era mismanagement so bankrupted these peripheral coutries that even Russia's dysfuntional economy is alluring by comparison."
Yes Zenster, yes, Central Asia and the Caucasus were always prosperous areas. Kazahistan's industries were there do to the Turks actions. The Slavs had nothing to do with that...
Zenster --
Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest.
This is where I part company with you. There is no such thing as “the global interest”. That road leads to transnationalism, the EU, the NAU, and the UN.
There is only the national interest, one per nation. The US has one, and the Russians have one. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they diverge.
Russian foreign policy may be misguided and counterproductive from a Russian point of view, but that is not ours to decide. We deal with them when their actions impinge upon us. If they act against our interests, we should respond in an appropriate way to discourage it.
And we should do our best not to act in ways which they experience as provocative, unless we have a compelling national interest that requires it. That’s why attempting to put a NATO naval base in the Crimea is such a monumental strategic blunder — any advantage it might give us is far, far outweighed by the fact that it forces the Russians to act aggressively against us. Any moron should be able to see that. We can’t possibly project the kind of force into the Black Sea to counter a determined Russian response, so why are we doing this?
Our foreign policy is being conducted by arrogant and ignorant people. They are not acting in the best interests of our country.
Baron
I like you weighted approach. However, there is one point which you don't consider, but which is important. It explains a lot in Russian behavior. The question for Russians is not only Empire, greatness and hostility to the West. You say that Russia may be dangerous to the West. To some extent, it is correct. But the point is that NATO is really dangerous for Russia. It is not a humanitarian organization ho feed the poor, but a military alliance designated for war against USSR/Russia. Got it?
Dear Natalie,
"What about me? Do you think I'm a Russophile?"
For an American? Sure!!!
But honestly, I first would like to know your stance in Ukraine. Do you favour Russian expansion to other States who are traditionally Russian territory and whose people favour integration within Russia (or some sort of it)? But taking into account you previous Russiophobe view, it's normal. An old women here told me once: "I like people like you, who doubt so that they can trust, and continue to doubt even if trusting. I like people who change slowly but steadily, whether for good or bad. It's only a proof of character above all. The rest depends on God."
I think the same could be said of you(?).
"seriously, how can you be pro-NATO?? As far as I'm concerned, NATO is a criminal organisation that should be disbanded and have to answer for its crimes against the Serbian people."
Not criminal. Military. Yes it acted badly but that's the fault of their leaders, not of the organisation. In contrast to the European Union, it can be easily reformulated.
Also, I am against the European Union. I believe NATO did prevented war in Europe, not the E.U.. And, well... when I look to my Traditional allies, I have no security. I fear Spain, I fear France and North Africa is just to close. If Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia unite, they will double the population of Portugal and Spain, and we can see North Africa from continental Southern Spain.
I fear that, if there is no Organisational Alliance in Europe, it can awake tyranic impulses in Spain, France, Turkey, even Russia will abuse the Baltic States. Also, I bet everybody would make alliances like before the First World War. Also, with NATO, Portugal is a power everywhere; without it it is nothing. I'd say that Portugal and Australia alone created East Timor, for instance.
P.S. - By the way, don't listen to Conservative Swede. He's a Swede, he is an outsider and as such does not have to opinate about NATO. He lives in a no-army-neutral-peace-loving country (or almost) and as such, he can't see why the hell there is a need for NATO. Also, he's country is a great power. It is in a corner of Europe and surrounded by similar friendly countries, just much smaller. That means that if there is no NATO, those countries will gravitate towards Sweden, especially because tensions will arise between Britain and Germany and Sweden will look like a friendly lumb.
In few words: He's against NATO due to Swedish Nationalism.
Conservative Swede: You outsider clever Swedish wolf!
-------------------------------
Thank you Baron, it seems like this is my "blood, blood, blood!".
Oh and I forgot! Zenster, have you noticed that the “the global interest” is the interest of North America and the European Union only? And that, even if it goes against those Nations.
Funny...
I can confirm from a recent short visit to Russia that a lot of people have come recently to work, study or have business there, from the former states of the Soviet Union (many from Ukraine, both the Eastern and Western parts) and China. Most of them would love to have the Russian citizenship or just the permit to stay there for a longer time, but it's difficult as hell to get the citizenship, unlike in Western Europe. In their country, the Russians definitely have the mentality of an Empire and cultural strength - which, in my opinion, are qualities. I guess more people would go there, but it's also very difficult to get the Russian visa (and the clerks working at their embassies and consulates are real bastards - but this is happening often when they deal with foreigners, they care more about their own people, which I find natural. For example, the Romanian consulate employees seem to care about everybody, except the Romanians. At least the Russians humiliate other states' citizens).
Of course, former Soviet citizens and Chinese might not seem such a big deal compared to those who want to immigrate in the West, but let's take into account the point where Russia started in the early 90s, when people, especially the retired, were starving. 9 years ago I was in Sankt Petersburg and some apartments didn't have heat during the winter; but recently I haven't encountered or heard anything about such things. When we compare Russian and Western standards of living, we have to remember how Russia used to be in the Yeltsin years - many things have changed for the better, through their own efforts and not with foreign aid.
Ypp --
Yes, I quite agree that NATO is perceived as a danger to Russia. How could it be any other way? But that is not America’s concern: if NATO is in our interest, then we should maintain it. And if Russia determines that NATO is a danger to Russia, it should act accordingly. That’s what nations do.
But NATO is not in America’s interest anymore. I agree with Natalie, but for slightly different reasons. NATO is now a sort of social welfare program that benefits Europeans, as well as a club that everyone but Russia is invited to join. It makes no sense.
If we (the USA, that is) had sane leaders, we would sit down with the Russians and assess where our common interests lay, and coordinate our policies accordingly. But we lack sane, intelligent leaders, and Russia is needlessly alienated.
This does not mean that I disagree with Bela about the abominable and brutal behavior of Russians in the past. He’s right about all that.
But if we can dance with Pervez Musharraf and the thuggish princes of Saudi Arabia, surely a waltz or two with Putin won’t do us any grave moral harm.
The Russians are saints when compared with the House of Saud.
Armance,
many things have changed for the better, through their own efforts and not with foreign aid.
Actually Sweden (ding dong) sends foreign aid to Russia. Help a tiny bit of course now when Russia bought Iceland.
But honestly, I first would like to know your stance in Ukraine. Do you favour Russian expansion to other States who are traditionally Russian territory and whose people favour integration within Russia (or some sort of it)?
Afonso, lay off! There's no such thing even close to the table regarding Ukraine. Russia is not expanding its territory any more than USA is. What is does, quite as USA, is to maintain and expand it's sphere of influence.
But yes it did in the past. As pointed out in another thread, this makes Russia the same sort of ethnic patchwork as Spain. How come, btw, that you don't approve of this same principle when it comes to Spain?
Natalie: I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. Doesn't every country have the obligation to act in their own interest above all others' interests?
Baron: This is where I part company with you. There is no such thing as “the global interest”. That road leads to transnationalism, the EU, the NAU, and the UN.
Anyone who has read even a fraction of my comments knows very well how low my opinion is of transnationalism and multinationalism. That does not change how this world's various nations have certain global obligations.
A prime example of this is how Islam is almost single-handedly responsible for a resurgence of polio. Another instance of this would be the extensive and unabated pollution being caused by China. While Global Warmening may be a huge scam, the fact that Chinese air pollution negatively impacts the USA and many other countries is something the Politburo must answer for. Another fine example of this is China's construction of a series of dams on the uppermost reaches of the Mekong River. An excerpt:
China is harnessing the power of water to satisfy its growing demand for energy. But some conservationists warn that China's quest is damaging one of the world's longest and most resource-rich rivers, the Mekong.
Some 60 million people along the Mekong's 4,800 kilometer path depend on the river for transportation and food. The Mekong originates on the high Tibetan plateau, winding through China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam before reaching the South China Sea.
Recently, water levels in several parts have dropped to record lows and the fish catch has fallen.
The findings are causing controversy about the causes, with many conservationists saying the damage is due to hydroelectric dams, especially China's two huge dams in the upper part of the Mekong.
Marc Goichot, coordinator of the Mekong river project of the conservation group World Wildlife Fund in Cambodia, explains that upstream dams can change the main qualities of the river, such as its temperature, rate of flow, and the amount of oxygen in the water. It also affects the migration of fish.
"The reservoir is trapping the sediment and the sediment is very important for the stability dynamics of the river downstream. If the water has less sediment, it is more erosive," says Mr. Goichot. "So the shape of the riverbed downstream will be affected."
China’s hydroelectric projects are posing a threat to Southeast Asia’s main riverine artery. The fate of millions of people hinges upon the immense potential damage posed by these dams. None of this even addresses the consequences of China withholding or diverting a significant portion of the Mekong's flow with the ensuing drought, famine and economic catastrophe that would follow. In contrast, the Three Gorges dam only threatens Chinese citizens and—despite its catastrophic damage to the environment and precious archaeological sites—represents a more valid example of where China has only itself to answer to.
A country that insists upon acting unilaterally to the immense deficit of its neighbors is essentially tyrannous and thereby forfeits all sovereign rights. As a hypothetical construct: Can any country reasonably expect lack of retaliation or intervention for—be it through neglect or intention—incubating an outbreak of the bubonic plague?
By inflicting global terrorism upon our world, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all fall into this same category as well. The economic millstone of fighting terrorism that these terrorist sponsoring entities have purposefully placed around the world’s neck merits them only the swiftest dismantling at the hands of peaceful nations.
The Social Contract extends across every border and ocean. While it might be argued that no nation is obliged to honor the Social Contract, neither is any other nation or group of them required to tolerate such aggressive and hostile conduct.
By purposefully facilitating terrorism, enabling Islam’s comprehensive violation of human rights and continuing its own campaign of economic blackmail and cyber-attacks, Russia firmly places itself in the same court of Western enemies as communist China and the vast majority of Islamic nations.
Afonso Henriques: Oh and I forgot! Zenster, have you noticed that the “the global interest” is the interest of North America and the European Union only?
Then please explain why America spends untold millions of dollars to assist even our most hostile enemies in their times of dire need. Bam, Aceh, Pakistan and scores of other virulently anti-American locales receive our help during times of natural disaster and catastrophes. Please explain how that makes our global interest that of "North America and the European Union only".
I love you too, Conservative Swede.
Zenster: Anyone who has read even a fraction of my comments knows very well how low my opinion is of transnationalism and multinationalism.
I am quite aware of this, having read many of your excellent comments, which is why I'm still a bit surprised about that part of your comment that the Baron and I took exception to. I still disagree, and I'm honestly still not entirely sure what you're trying to say. What would be a global obligation of the United States in your view, for example?
Zenster --
I don't argue with the validity of your issues, just with the vector used to realize them.
Any of these issues -- polio or anything else -- must be addressed through the prism of our national interest. If the "global interest" contradicts American interest at any point, American interest trumps it. That's "taking care of our own".
I expect the same behavior from Russia or any other nation. That's what nations should do. And when it is in their mutual interest, they ally with each other against other nations whose interests are opposed to theirs.
This is not rocket science -- it's Diplomacy 101 -- but most of our current leaders have forgotten it in their zeal for transnational idealism.
Russia's behavior is often obstructionist and downright dangerous, but you seem to be ignoring the enormous errors we ourselves have made, actions which seem dangerously aggressive to the Russians. A base in the Black Sea. Kosovo. Georgia. The blanket invitation for everyone on Russia's borders to join NATO.
If I were a Russian leader, I'd feel threatened by this behavior, and act aggressively to counter it. That's what's going on right now.
To refuse to see this -- to refuse to own the consequences of our own actions towards Russia -- is a dangerous error. We have at best years of Russian saber-rattling ahead of us, even if we back off a little bit and start acting prudently right now.
The bottom line is this: we can't back up the promises we are making to most of our new friends in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Even McCain can't honor that blank check. We're blowing smoke, and the Russians aren't stupid; they know this is true.
Our policy is folly at so many levels that it staggers the mind. You would do well to jump off your high horse for a minute and look at the facts on the ground.
You could be completely right -- your moral case is unassailable -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
We can't project enough force into Russia's near abroad to back up our promises and enforce our idea of what's right. We simply can't do it.
Unless we use nuclear weapons, that is. Is that what you want?
Whatever else one thinks, there's no question that, as others have pointed out, Russia acts for Russia's interests. And the chief interest of a state is (or should be) defense of their borders and citizens.
Russia has no natural barriers like the US does, for instance. As most of the readers here are aware (I hope) Russia has twice been invaded from the west, and both times, while they won, the cost was horrifying. As such, they want buffer zones around Russia proper to help absorb an invasion.
Which is perfectly normal and acceptable.
As for their relationship with Iran, they're playing both sides. On the one hand, they are tweaking the US by helping Iran and favoring them, but in the end they rarely deliver anything that they promise. It's just a useful lever to use against the US and the West. I suspect that somebody who plays the game of international relations as well as Putin does is well aware that a nuclear Iran is a major threat to Russia- perhaps more of a threat to them than to the US (guess which country borders Iran?)
No, Russia is not perfect, not by a long shot. But they have a history of despotism and totalitarianism. Also one of war and invasion by neighbors east and west. So in the end, the leaders protect their citizens as much as possible (at least from outsiders). After all, even Stalin defeated the Nazis, who were coming in and murdering people on a scale which I guess is only appropriate for Russians themselves.
Baron: Any of these issues -- polio or anything else -- must be addressed through the prism of our national interest.
Nowhere do I argue against this. Please recognize that “our national interest” is diametrically opposed to the national interests of hostile regimes. This is why America’s national interests so often include such ham-fisted blunders as Serbia or having enabled an anti-Christian Islamist government such as that of Iraq.
If the "global interest" contradicts American interest at any point, American interest trumps it.
Where’s the problem with that?!?
“American interest[s]” so often involve the spread of individual freedom, free market capitalism and constitutional democracy that there is little reason to oppose its expansion. A pluperfect example of this lies in the end result of America’s wartime interventions.
If the USA had anything remotely resembling Russia’s intentions, we would NEVER have relenquished possession of Japan, the Philippines, sections of Europe and a host of other minor principalities that were conquered by us in the course of two World Wars.
Instead, America surrendered any claim to these conquered lands and encouraged them—in the best possible ways—to participate in the global free market economy. None of which opposes (in a properly rational sense), any “American interest” or the betterment of this world’s condition.
And when it is in their mutual interest, they ally with each other against other nations whose interests are opposed to theirs.
Which is exactly what Russia is not doing. By supporting Islam’s attempts to crush all freedom of expression, Russia has allied itself with forces that threaten to extinguish its own citizenry. How can that be construed as any sort of self interest?
This is not rocket science -- it's Diplomacy 101 -- but most of our current leaders have forgotten it in their zeal for transnational idealism.
That “transnational idealism” which you mention is so bereft of fundamental liberty and free market economics that our current leaders automatically qualify for membership among the traitor elite.
If I were a Russian leader, I'd feel threatened by this behavior, and act aggressively to counter it. That's what's going on right now.
Bah! How does Putin’s actions explain the obvious threat to the free expression of Russia's Orthodox Christian population? Or are they all still “Godless Commies”? (In all earnestnest, you don't really deserve that swipe.)
We have at best years of Russian saber-rattling ahead of us, even if we back off a little bit and start acting prudently right now.
I’m confident that Obama will reverse all of this in mere seconds after taking office. The ramifications of which will militate against America’s best interests for decades to come.
You could be completely right -- your moral case is unassailable -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Then, please tell me, which of our moral imperatives should we jettison first? I realize quite well what you are alluding to. I just happen to think that such questionable allies as Russia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not worth the immense moral baggage that each of them freight us with.
I’d sooner see America expend the lives of our military recruits in an effort to make such lesser terrorist lights as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan bite the Big Burrito rather than endure their continued perfidy. As to Russia, we need to do exactly as we did with the Soviet Union. (And here I find myself in astonishing congruence with Ronald Reagan). Namely, sit back and wait for this exact same pile of crap to compost itself. Sadly, Russia will most likely continue its enablement of everything anti-Western to such a point where crushing its worthless @ss will most likely prove necessary.
In case any of this is unclear, I have no grudge with the Russian people. There is little doubt that Russia’s government has nothing to do with the will of its people. Whether America can meet or beat that particular equation is something for which our nation should be deeply ashamed of.
Baron, the first five paragraphs of your article on Russia have unusual insight. Russia's relationship to the West would be much better today if your thinking was the norm in the 1990's.
Zenster, you are being unusually obtuse this evening.
Bah! How does Putin’s actions explain the obvious threat to the free expression of Russia’s Orthodox Christian population?
I make no arguments on behalf of Putin or his repression of his own people. I don’t condone, excuse, or justify it.
But that is not our problem. That’s the Russians’ problem. Once again, you are confusing our interests with the interests of the Russian people.
We do the hokey-pokey with China — which is at least as repressive as Russia — because it is in our interest to do so. If our interest is in spreading freedom, as you say, then we are failing miserably with China.
If we can do business with China, or Hosni Mubarak, or all those little despots in the ’stans, then we can do it with Russia.
Our obligations are to our own people. We hope we can help the people of other nations at the margin, if possible. But expending blood and treasure to try to bring freedom to another nation, as we did in Iraq, usually turns out to be a mistake.
Yes, I know we did it for Japan and Germany. But there were two major differences:
1. Both of those countries declared war on us, and
2. Both were overwhelmingly defeated militarily and surrendered unconditionally.
Unless we are willing to reproduce those conditions with Russia, or China, or any other despotic regime, we will not bring freedom to them. We will bring down misery and suffering on millions, especially on ourselves, if we try.
This is not morally satisfying, and it doesn’t realize our ideals. But it is the cold hard truth of the world, and we are stuck with it.
And when they turn the gas off to Eastern European nations we should all understand that Russia is doing this in the best interest of their nation...
And when they invade their neighbor country of Georgia, destroy their ports, blockade their roads and bring their economy to a standstill, we should all understand that MAYBE the Georgians brought it upon themselves by trying to bring under control PART OF THEIR OWN SOVERIGN NATION while spewing vitriol against Russia.
Jesus Baron, you surprise me sometimes... Do you have one shred of evidence that Georgia ever intruded upon Russian territory or, do you consider the areas of S.O. as disputed territory?
Do you consider a couple hundred dead, no matter who killed them which is widely disputed, as genocide and reasonable for a neighboring country to invade and destroy the infrastructure of another country?
Hell, we here in the U.S. are still engaged in the taking out of Saddham and he killed over 300,000people. I guess the bar has been lowered to include less than 200 dead as reason to invade and destroy... Not to mention that there is a reasonable argument against your position by the gov't of Georgia which, BTW, was supported by several other leaders of countries that are in close proximity to the nation.
When Russia goes for the Ukraine, will you then have another story to tell us? I await it, especially if the O is elected in the U.S. Oh yes, quite a few people living in the Ukraine are actually RUSSIAN! Stand by for news at 11...
Baron: "Zenster --
"Moscow does have the obligation—as with every nation—to act in the global interest."
This is where I part company with you. There is no such thing as “the global interest”. That road leads to transnationalism, the EU, the NAU, and the UN.
There is only the national interest, one per nation. The US has one, and the Russians have one. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they diverge."
This is an interesting issue. I am with Zenster here, although I disagree with his anti-Russian stance. It's an abstract philosophical question as to whether there is such a thing as objective justice or there are only subjective interests. I get you worry, Baron, in that you connect the question of global interest to things that most of us on this board hate, such as globalism and transnationalism. But I don't think it's about that, in this case. It's about the existence of some objectivity vs. the view of politics that is completely adversarial. My view is somewhere in the middle. I allow that each country has its legitimate interests that it must defend. But, at the same time, there has to be some higher justice, some bird's view perspective on the issues at hand. If I didn't believe that, I would view politics as completely amoral. But I do believe that political issues must have a moral aspect too. Believing otherwise is too cynical a view for my taste.
Just one example - the recent Kosovo issue. From the adversarial perspective, both Serbs and Albanians have an equally valid claim. But from the perspective of higher justice, the claim of Serbs is clearly stronger from the historical perspective.
Moscow does have the obligation — as with every nation — to act in the global interest.
Nah. The so-called 'Global Interest' - a nice cover for a global government, resistance-not-permitted, is false.
Sure, the Global Warming freaks are trying something different. I'd just appease them by requesting more nuclear power plants to be built, but not permit them to grab global political power.
The primary purpose of a nation-state is to act in the interest of its citizens. Not cow-tow to some abstract 'Greater Good'. Actually, Russia tried that for some 70+ years. Didn't work well.
Zenster: "As to Russia, we need to do exactly as we did with the Soviet Union. (And here I find myself in astonishing congruence with Ronald Reagan). Namely, sit back and wait for this exact same pile of crap to compost itself. "
These are pretty strong words - calling Russia a "pile of crap." What are they based on? Have you lived in Russia? Do you know its culture and people? Remember, Russia is not the Soviet Union. It's not communist, and the fact that Putin is a former KGB is irrelevant. The regime in Russia is no longer communist. I rarely defend Russia on this blog. I myself have a critical view of it. But my criticism has to do with corruption, the culture of alcoholism, lack of civic culture, lack of respect for human dignity. At the same time, I can see a slow change, a resurgence of Christianity, a rise political consciousness. And I am really hoping that civic consciousness will rise next. I don't think that Russia is a hopeless case. And it's certainly not an evil empire, as you portray it. And I'll say one more positive thing about it. I see a lot of vigorous political discussion taking place in Russian Internet. There is an attempt to re-think and understand what went wrong with the fall of the Soviet Union, and it generates a lot of original thought. Compared to that, people on Western forums, with rare exceptions, such as this blog, seem to re-hash old banalities and think within stale paradigms.
I'd like to see political and social consciousness rising as well. Unfortunately large parts of it seem directly stimulated by the Kremlin (ie. Nashi) - although most of those are really only in urban areas.
Then as soon as an independent, reliable media starts to emerge, it gets beat down - over and over and over with lethal force.
I don't mind putting corrupt businesspeople in jail for tax evasion - but that BS about not getting parole because you walked to your hearing with your hands not behind your back or didn't take part in a sewing class is total crap. As is the fact that most of the oligarchs currently out of jail are completely supported by the Kremlin (ie. those guys buying up 1/2 the aluminum reserves on the planet).
Potentially things could improve a little further East further outside Moscow's direct influence, but then you have the oligarchs trying to make things better - don't remember the one oil magnate's name - but now I think he's in the Far East region running for mayor and working to rebuild some parts of the region (no links on hand).
Zenster, looking at who is leading Russia and who seems to get to lead the US soon, I'm afraid the US is heading for much more trouble than Russia is.
The Putin regime, though strongly authoritarian, is widely considered legitimate and has strong public support. What's the rating of president Bush? Of Congress? What about Obama - how can he even become elected?
Russia, while a messy country with many problems, has the upper hand in several vital issues, including the economy and energy independence. The Christian resurgence, in particular, is something I expect to bring good results.
Interesting about those debates in Russia. Sounds good.
One thing we've largely lost in the West is the philosophical level in political discourse. There is little variety in political ideas, and even very limited use of the great thinkers of the past, who had the greater view of things and saw them in context.
A lot of our current policies are directed by expediency and guesswork, not by a fundamental understanding of how things work. Avoiding depth may make for an easier sell in a 30-second advertising spot, but without the roots of a solid philosophical understanding, the lasting value is limited.
"Then as soon as an independent, reliable media starts to emerge, it gets beat down - over and over and over with lethal force."
We in the West are no longer in the position to chide someone for their lack of "independent, reliable media," unfortunately.
Then as soon as an independent, reliable media starts to emerge, it gets beat down - over and over and over with lethal force.
If it wasn't for 'lethal', I'd wonder if that was significantly different from the situation here, where MSM are subverted by money, political pressure etc., to report with bias or not at all.
Or is it simply that people in the West are too distracted by Olympics and other mindless sports events to even bother understanding important issues?
Felicie: I am with Zenster here, although I disagree with his anti-Russian stance.
To clarify, I am not "anti-Russian". There a lot of commendable aspects to Russian culture. Sadly, their seeming preference for "strong horse" style leadership is not one of them.
These are pretty strong words - calling Russia a "pile of crap." What are they based on?
For one thing, they are based upon the Russian government's willing assistance of this world's terrorist regimes. Despite any legitimacy conferred by its electorate, the levels of government-condoned corruption make Russia into a vast criminal emterprise, much like communist China. Similarly, Russia's ongoing betrayal of its people contributes to this perception as well.
It's about the existence of some objectivity vs. the view of politics that is completely adversarial. My view is somewhere in the middle. I allow that each country has its legitimate interests that it must defend. But, at the same time, there has to be some higher justice, some bird's view perspective on the issues at hand. If I didn't believe that, I would view politics as completely amoral. But I do believe that political issues must have a moral aspect too.
I agree and appreciate that you are willing to understand the core of my argument. Just like with capitalism, there has to be a moral component to politics for them to be valid and utile in the cause of civilization. Nowhere have I argued against enlightened self-interest but there is no good reason to tolerate the naked excercise of military or political dominance that Russia continues to project in its post-Soviet incarnation.
Henrik R Clausen: A lot of our current policies are directed by expediency and guesswork, not by a fundamental understanding of how things work. Avoiding depth may make for an easier sell in a 30-second advertising spot, but without the roots of a solid philosophical understanding, the lasting value is limited.
I could not agree with you more. The average American's fruit-fly attention span has just about crippled any chance of knowledge-based leadership in favor of Hollywood style charismatic popularity. Politics has become a beauty contest and Obama epitomizes this as a pinnacle example of style's triumph over substance.
gun_totin_wacko,
As most of the readers here are aware (I hope) Russia has twice been invaded from the west, and both times, while they won, the cost was horrifying.
Russia has been invaded from the west more than twice:
Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)
Zenster:
Then as soon as an independent, reliable media starts to emerge, it gets beat down - over and over and over with lethal force.
Henrik:
If it wasn't for 'lethal'
The chain of association here seems to be Politkovskaya, and then "Putin did it". But that's just another one of those bogus stories.
CS, we do not know who did it. That is a problem unto itself. Since the Russian authorities are notably reluctant in figuring it out, any relevant association is valid and passable. It's just an association, not a claim.
Reporters Without Borders writes:
Several journalists were murdered during the year, notably Anna Politkovskaya, as a result of spreading social violence and failure to punish the killers of journalists. More takeovers of media outlets continue to seriously threaten news diversity and freedom of expression.
Three journalists were murdered in 2006, bringing to 21 the number killed doing their job since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000.
Here's from their 2008 Report:
Reporters Without Borders today accused public officials around the world of “impotence, cowardice and duplicity” in defending freedom of expression.
“The spinelessness of some Western countries and major international bodies is harming press freedom,” secretary-general Robert Ménard said in the organisation’s annual press freedom report, out today (13 February) and available at www.rsf.org. “The lack of determination by democratic countries in defending the values they supposedly stand for is alarming.”
He charged that the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva had caved in to pressure from countries such as Iran and Uzbekistan and expressed concern at the softness of the European Union towards dictators who did not flinch at the threat of European sanctions.
The report’s introduction listed problems expected in the coming year, especially physical attacks on journalists during key elections in Pakistan (18 February), Russia (2 March), Iran (14 March) and Zimbabwe (29 March).
Con Swede, when you cite:
Then as soon as an independent, reliable media starts to emerge, it gets beat down - over and over and over with lethal force.
... you are quoting Tuan Jim, not me.
For a more informed view on Putin as a leader, the media situation in Russia, etc., I recommend this article by Peter Lavelle (from 2005):
Vladimir Putin is no angel - he is a reformer
Unlike what people, mentally stuck "Back in the USSR", thinks, Putin does not control everything that happens in Russia. Very far from it.
And quite to the contrary fantasies of the typical Westerner, media is alive and well in Russia, with plenty of room for critical voices. The same typical Westerner of course considers also Berlusconi as having authoritarian control of all media in Italy. People believe in such lies because it makes them feel yummy in the tummy.
The same about "government-condoned corruption". There is much corruption in Russia, much of it a legacy from the "crazy '90s". And the oligarchs have incredible power and influence. But that this is "government-condoned" is another yummy-in-the-tummy-fantasy. It's precisely the opposite, Putin and Medvedev are fighting against the corruption. But then when they prosecute a criminal oligarch, who's also got a TV channel, the West will describe this as Vladimir "KGB" Putin cracking down on "free media".
islam o' phobe,
Russia has been invaded from the west more than twice:
Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)
Well four times then:
Swedish invasion of Russia, 1707 - 1709
"began as the Russian army was broken after the battle of Narva between swedes and russians, The swedes prepared a march into Russia with good chances to conquer them. Peter I of Russia was concerned, and military tactics discussed how they would defend themselves. They concluded they wouldn't have any chance, other than destroying and ruin the land of the Swedish marching routs, making it hard for the swedes to collect food and provisions and putting up shelters, as the same time as sending small squads making raids on the them, never letting them to rest and tiring them out. They lay waste before the Swedish troops, even burnt villages and emptied others on food and supplies."
And the scorched earth tactic was born.
"A very weakened, hungry and tired army with broken a confidence reached the little Ukrainian city of Poltava, were a great battle was fought between the Swedes and Russians, the battle of Poltava. The hungry and tired Swedish army of 20,000 men had to stand against the fresh and prepared Russian army of 45,000 men. The victory for Russia meant the start of Russian empire."
Actually there is much more to that story, and Sweden would have won that battle if it hadn't been for a long chain of bad luck. But this time everything was against the Swedes, and the Swedish army was destroyed.
Conservative Swede: But that this is "government-condoned" is another yummy-in-the-tummy-fantasy. It's precisely the opposite, Putin and Medvedev are fighting against the corruption.
The following analysis does not bear out your assertion.
The optimism of analysts like Schiffer and Markov seems based on the assumption that when making his regional-executive appointments, Putin will clean house, removing corrupt or ineffective members of the current crew of governors.
Interestingly, the governors themselves do not seem to be worrying about this possibility. Almost without exception they have publicly embraced Putin's proposal, and according to "Nezavisimaya gazeta" on 19 October, they have been meeting with Putin in droves seeking the renewal of their current "contracts." Center for Political Technologies Deputy General Director Aleksei Markarkin told the daily that "each [regional leader] wants a solid guarantee from the Kremlin that he will remain in power, or at the very least will be able to name his successor."
Putin's track record in past gubernatorial elections undoubtedly contributes to the governors' sense of ease. In those gubernatorial races in which the presidential administration expressed a preference, loyalty -- often measured in terms of the ability to deliver local votes for the pro-Kremlin Unified Russia party in the State Duma elections -- seems to have been the only requirement. In 2000, Putin showed some sign of wanting to install his own people in the regions. However, by the time the 2003 State Duma elections rolled around, pragmatism prevailed. The Kremlin backed for reelection, for example, the authoritarian president of Bashkortostan, Murtaza Rakhimov, head of a republic where there is little political or economic pluralism. Like former President Boris Yeltsin, Putin has placed the highest value on loyalty.
Perhaps for this reason, few of Russia's leading experts on both corruption and elections have rushed to embrace Putin's plan. Georgii Satarov, head of the INDEM Foundation and author of many studies of corruption, has condemned Putin's plan to cancel regional elections. In remarks published in "Izvestiya" on 16 September, Satarov said, "when viewed as a whole, the measures proposed by the president indicate the intention to create a simulation of politics, a simulation of activity, a simulation of civic oversight." Commenting on Putin's proposed Public Chamber, Saratov noted that "Putin has already created a body that was supposed to oversee lawmaking: the Anticorruption Council. And the only thing this council ever did was elect [then Prime Minister] Mikhail Kasyanov as its chairman. In my view, civic oversight is not a matter for state bodies created from the top down."
Putin's proposal also attracted criticism from the usually loyal Central Election Commission Chairman Aleksandr Veshnyakov. While on a trip to Vologda last week, Veshnyakov said that among the possible negative consequences of appointing regional governors could be increased opportunities for corruption, "Novye izvestiya" reported on 15 October. He noted that once elections are abolished, the fate of each regional leader will be decided by an increasingly small number of people -- no more than 200 -- who work in the presidential administration and regional legislatures. "There might be a temptation," Veshnyakov said, "to make some incorrect decisions, in connection with personal or financial relations." And this was not Veshnyakov's first mention of corruption in connection with the election reforms. In an interview with "Rossiiskaya gazeta" on 15 September, Veshnyakov recommended that "it would make sense to retain the four-year election cycle for regional leaders and introduce a number of measures to deter the spread of corruption during the process of electing regional leaders." [emphasis added]
Fact is that Russia can hardly be democratic in the Western sense of the word, for a long time to come, the same as China, though not to the same extent. They will always have a more or less authoritarian form of government, given the immensity of their countries, the variety of the population, the tendency to form oligarchic cliques, the lack of traditions regarding individual freedom, the religious and cultural background. The Russians cannot be transformed by night into Dutch or the Orthodox into Protestants. Putin or the current Chinese Communist Party fit well the societies and circumstances in which they live - unlike the majority of the Western leaders.
Armance: Fact is that Russia can hardly be democratic in the Western sense of the word, for a long time to come, the same as China, though not to the same extent.
While I must reluctantly concur, none of that relieves either regime of the responsibility to vigorously oppose Islamic terrorism. Something neither of them are doing in any sort of convincing manner.
Hm, the reality might be that press freedom is greater in Russia than Reporters Without Borders stipulate.
Somehow, focusing exclusively on the big press gives a distorted picture. Like, if the press in the West was merely MSM, the real press freedom would not be impressive.
Russia has an authoritarian regime, but hardly a totalitarian one. The actual freedom, on a lower level, probably is quite good.
I'd have to be able to read Russian in order to find out for sure...
There are certain features of the current US election that doesn't look like healthy democracy, either.
While I must reluctantly concur, none of that relieves either regime of the responsibility to vigorously oppose Islamic terrorism. Something neither of them are doing in any sort of convincing manner.
My impression is that they are doing this more convincingly at least on their soil, which is the most important aspect. None of them promote religious freedom to the point of turning a blind eye to extremist preaching, letting organizations such as CAIR to propagandize in their countries, allowing Saudis to buy properties, forming destructive organizations like the Euro-Mediterranean Union, humiliating themselves in front of the Muslims with Sharia courts, halal food in factories with non-Muslim majorities or separate swimming pools for men and women. Equally, none of these countries glorified Islamic belief as such, calling it the religion of peace - at best, their leaders speak about cooperations or economic ties.
Islam'o'phobe and Con Swede:
I concede your points. I was a tad hesitant to say they were invaded "twice", as I knew it was overly simplistic, and overlooked other attacks. My point was that there were two major, catastrophic invasions that threatened to completely destroy the Russian State.
Your corrections merely prove my point more emphatically. Any state which gets invaded that frequently is lacking border security, and will want a way to preserve those borders. Thus, the Russian paranoia we hear so much about. And also much aggression against one's neighbors. And fear of alliances getting too close.
Remember, Germany almost destroyed Russia, and was defeated only at the cost of 20 million dead. (not to mention causing the overthrow of the Czar and importing Lenin in during another invasion).
Adding the US, Britain, France, and all the rest to Germany in a huge alliance and taking that alliance to the proverbial doorstep of Russia's heartland scares the hell out of the Kremlin. That's why Stalin offered, in 1949 I think, to allow Germany to reunify and have free elections, as long as Germany wasn't allowed to join NATO.
Of course, his sincerity could be questioned, being Stalin. But the point is, they wanted to keep NATO as far away as possible.
Again, it all comes down to national security. The Russians have been burned too often to trust their neighbors. The US hasn't learned that keeping major powers away is only step one; to be followed by real border security.
Henrik said: There are certain features of the current US election that doesn't look like healthy democracy, either.
You've got that right.
Armance,
Fact is that Russia can hardly be democratic in the Western sense of the word, for a long time to come, the same as China, though not to the same extent.
No we won't see post-1968 style "liberal democracy" in Russia. But unlike China, Russia is European and carrying the best and uncorrupted legacy of European liberty, from the Romans and the Greeks. Russia will never score well in Rousseau style ideologized and tyrannical democracy, but they score extremely well today in terms of popular support for their leadership. And if there is any good side of democracy, that will be it.
They will always have a more or less authoritarian form of government
They will always look for strong leaders, which doesn't automatically translate into "authoritarian". When the West was successful, we also looked for strong leaders.
Putin or the current Chinese Communist Party fit well the societies and circumstances in which they live - unlike the majority of the Western leaders.
Yes that's correct. However, the Russians are nevertheless closer to us than to the Chinese. They fit their circumstances, but their circumstances are very different.
gun-totin-wacko,
Any state which gets invaded that frequently is lacking border security, and will want a way to preserve those borders. Thus, the Russian paranoia we hear so much about.
Actually the same applies for e.g. Poland and Germany, and arguably even more (especially for Poland which was literally dismembered).
However, in the current geopolitical world order this does not apply, since they have "outsourced" their military defence to America/NATO.
But this does not change your general point of course. There no other responsible way for Russia to act regarding its national security then how they act today. And Russia act wholly defensively in all this. It's NATO that is pushing things aggressively, forcing Russia to react.
Avery Bullard,you said the following..
"Did you have similar trouble believing the BBC in August when it was clearly taking an anti-Russian line? What about CNN and the rest of America's left wing media all of whom have virtually reported US government positions on the Georgia conflict"..
I stopped watching and listening BBC tv and radio broadcast long time ago because it's biased and unbalanced news and documentaries...
About CNN and most of the lefty media in USA,remember,we are in an election period now and when the war started,and because most of the lefty media,including CNN,are in the tank for Hussein Obama,and this candidate made comments against the russian invasion,and the lefty media followed up and they become an echo of "the messiah",i mean,Hussein Obama,we have an idea of the russian being the guilty ones not the victims..
I need more info about the issue from other outlets and media,to believe that Russia is a "victim"..
saludos
"It's precisely the opposite, Putin and Medvedev are fighting against the corruption."
Simple interpretation:
Everybody is corrupt 1) because it is the local tradition going back to the Mongols 2) because most of these people were active part of the bolshevik regime or at least their relatives 3) because without corruption you cannot do business or win a law-suit 4) because there are no clear rules for the fair play
In such surroundings you can sweep anybody into a rubbish bin claiming "fighting corruption". Those who fit to your power clan you simply do not persecute or reduce persecution to minimum. You can also convert the culprits into your clan-belief (KGB methods).
It does not matter whether you are russophile or russophobe. The only thing which matters is whether you understand all these things or not.
Likewise it does matter very little whether I am antiamerican or proamerican, anti-israeli or antiisraeli.
The only thing which matters is the real knowledge, experience and capacity to work with the facts - which must be on the table first.
Your capacity of thinking can be fabulous, but knowing very little you have simply no chance at all to come to any valid conclusion.
Comparing islam to Russia I must say it is easier to follow something with very distinct nature from the scratch (most of us have done a very good job) than understanding something which might be somehow "similar" but never is in the way expected.
We corrupt Russia further and incite her to do more evil by showing her we are ready to be fooled, we never learn. If you can show Russia you know how it works her power will diminish...and maybe starts considering having democracy as a viable way to the prestige and power.
You can clearly heal Russias inferiority problem by debasing yourself to a lower level - showing your taste for violence, treason and corruption. That would be a solution...
If you "love" Russia, corrupt yourself to show them they are the model to be accepted and praised.
To show them you take them seriously...
I tend to be skeptical of the Russian apologists and weary of some of the Georgian detractors. However, I can (if the evidence supports it) accept the analysis of Russia’s faults and Georgia’s righteousness while still believing that our government (here in the USA) should stay out of this matter completely. It is not in our interest nor are we bound by honor to rush halfway around the world and defend every tiny enclave.
I appreciate why one should worry about Russia’s western flank. That’s a European problem. (Incidentally, I believe our presence in NATO is counter productive for some of the same reasons given by the Baron.) But I fail to see why we should worry about Russian’s southern flank! What might they do? Invade Afghanistan? Please, let them have it! Of course they have a few other “stans” to reabsorb before they reach Kabul.
Russia’s border with the Islamic world is longer than any other nation's by an order of magnitude. Are we to protect the Islamic world from an imagined threat from the north? This is a double absurdity: both the view of who is a threat and who we should help. This is insanity!!!
I am not going to justify current Russian policy, but only want to say that part of the guilt is on the West. During 30 years, from Gorbachev to early Putin, Russia was friendly to the West and looked for some western friendship in turn. But Western policy towards Russia was hostile. Although some words were said about cooperation, ther real policy was always towards desintegration of Russia and expansion of NATO. All in the name of democracy, of course. Now, there is no democracy but is alienated Russia.
As regarding Ukraine and other countries supposedly captured by Russia, I should remind that Ukraine was part of Russia as long back as 10th century, but current devision was made by Bolsheviks in 1920. Of course, such specialists in history like Bela are not supposed to know it.
Pappas
"Russia’s border with the Islamic world is longer than any other nation's by an order of magnitude"
Not true. Read some muslim comments about Kazakhs/Kazakhstan. They do not care about islam. The muslims accuse them of being "Russians". Rivers of vodka flow through this country and few Pakistani students get beaten being declared "wahabis". Some traditional Kazachs are still shamans.
Henrik,
Regarding Russian media, very good discussion. I appreciate it.
Reporters Without Borders writes:
Three journalists were murdered in 2006, bringing to 21 the number killed doing their job since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000.
This is truly staggering figures. But we have to be careful in our analysis here. If Putin is so powerful, omnipotent, as many Westerns suggest, then he wouldn't kill journalists. He would simply put them in jail or in a mental institution. So for those who suggest that Putin is ordering killing of journalists, they will have to agree that Putin is not the autocrat that some want to suggest. Then he would rather be the most powerful among many oligarchs.
But people who are anti-Russian or anti-American do not care much about logic. They want to have the cake, and eat it, over and over again. And even sensible people, when surrounded by this kind, forget about logic.
I had many discussions with the typical European during the Iraq war. It was a good example of this.
They said: Why invade Iraq, why not North Korea? I ask: So you want them to invade North Korea. Answer: No, no!
They said: America is bad for invading now, and bad for not invading in the first Gulf War. I ask: So you would have wanted them to invade during the first Gulf War? Answer. No, no!
Reminds me of Astrid Lindgren's "Rasmus på luffen". His mother asking: Have you done your homework? Rasmus: Yes I have already done it, and anyway we didn't have homework for tomorrow. And in either case I will find time to do it first thing in the morning just before breakfast.
I know you recognize this pattern.
You wrote:
Since the Russian authorities are notably reluctant in figuring it out, any relevant association is valid and passable.
There are several cases here. I have spent time investigating a couple of them (I intend to present my investigations later on). So far my impression is not that Russia is reluctant to figure out what happened.
Prior to the events of August Georgians generally cared more about relations with Russia than with the US:
Gallup Poll
Czechmade, it is true the Kazakhs are Muslim in name only. I work with a Kazakh who is Russian in ancestry. She tells me Russians have been largely driven out but it isn’t caused by the religious belief of the Kazakh people. However, ethnic identity often has a way of rediscovering traditional thought. How the Kazakh culture evolves is still to be determined.
A century ago Muslims in many parts of the world were pro-secular. Ataturk abolished the Caliphate. Places like Algeria were French in culture. Driven by anti-French hysteria and a desire to return to “authentic” cultural ways, Algerians imported devout Islamic teachers from the east resulting in a vicious civil war that has killed over 100,000.
I’m just glad that many of these unstable nations are next to Russia instead of in our backyard. It’s Russia's problem. We should keep out of it.
Pappas,
The Kazakhs might be well keeping all in balance as now the heavy Chinese influence is there, limiting/balancing Russian and Turkish influence as well.
Afonso complains about Ukrainian language getting a status, but the Kazachs do the same with their large population speaking only Russian. Many Kazachs have to learn their language from the scratch and it gets heavily promoted by the state.
For the people in Ukraine to master the newly established language is like for me to learn Polish. A matter of few months listening to it in some Polish environment. In case of the Kazakh it is a harder job. The Kazachs are almost identical with the Kyrgyz who have a written document of their preislamic past: the Epic Manas (20times the size of Ilias/Ulysses, translated into English 1995). The best thing to do is to promote this in the West as their true identity and keeping focussed as a neutre party plus checking our big companies do not wreck some delicate balance.
Azerbayjan also keeps nicely out of the islamic influences, even backing us in Iraq with troops.
I miss any study how does it play in Iranian Azerbayjan. A way of "re-westernization" from the North to the South?
Azeri TV stations show Western movies in a less puritanical way than US for ex.. We should be fully aware of these differences because it is the way to support them in itself without any power projection.
The really bad thing is islamizing Uzbek influence in Central Asia.
This is their enemy within.
We should also study the Russians disconnected from the Moscow centralistic project in other regions. Maybe they create a subculture here and there which is much more benign and open.
From the atricle:
It also assembles powerful testimony of wide-ranging war crimes carried out by the Georgian army in its attack on the contested region of South Ossetia.
They include the targeting of apartment block basements — where civilians were taking refuge — with tank shells and Grad rockets, the indiscriminate bombardment of residential districts and the deliberate killing of civilians, including those fleeing the South Ossetian capital of Tskinvali.
Here is a video from these events:
Georgian tanks rush Tskhinval
"Invading Saakashvili's troops enjoy shooting civilian objects as georgian tank division enters the resedential areas of Tskhinvali. In order to "liberate" the ossetian city "heroes" burn down houses, smash ambulance cars, eliminate women and children. 08.08.08 georgian agression."
The guy in the tank is having a hell of good time, screaming YEEHA! all the time while shooting at civilian objects.
CS you enter a media propaganda war. For ex. next video says:
"Brave Georgians makes fun while shooting at civilian in Tskhinvali"Грузины на городском кладбище Цхинвала
But in Russian it says "Georgians on the city cemetary of Tschinvali"
Other accounts say the Osset. civilians were avacuated in buses before clearly planned invasion through the tunnel. If we do not side with either party, the evidence is scarce and no Westerners are allowed in to ask more.
Czechmade,
Well, I think it is you, and not me, who have entered a media propaganda war. We all already know you are a propaganda machine in your own right, with your favourite expression "Saudi style Russia". Which tells us: i) your anti-Russian attitude shows no limits, ii) you do not care the least about being realistic when attacking Russia. You prepared to go into any sort of pathological absurdity, if it just makes Russia sound worse. Quite as anti-American leftists.
If we do not side with either party, the evidence is scarce and no Westerners are allowed in to ask more.
Well, what's the last resort for a propaganda spin of a staunch anti-Russian in a situation where the evidence is overwhelming against his position?
Yes, you guessed it right: "Oh, but we cannot really know anything..."
"Brave Georgians makes fun while shooting at civilian in Tskhinvali"
Sure, have a look at that video too.
Speaking about media propaganda: today, on the home page of the CNN site, the visitors are welcomed with a big title: "Americans line up to make history" and an equally big photo which shows Obama voting in Chicago. It's hard to find something more shameless since the times of "Pravda". Putin's favorable media looks like a little baby compared to this crap.
As a "propaganda machine" I would support Saakashvili/Soros. I have never done it though I had to bear with such a smear with no excusez-moi from some readers.
I found all TV news about Russia versus Georgia propaganda and did not give in to apologists such as
Michael Totten, who was widely applauded in his blog.
As for example above it is a clear example how to produce propaganda. It took me 2 minutes. How you can shoot at civilians for fun at the local cemetery seeing none is clearly cheap propaganda. It is not mentioned in English. It is tailored to your Western consumption.
The Georgians were hunted and chicaned in Russia for the last two years with no response in the Western media. Russian media preceded their invasion by a Soviet/nazi style vilification of the Georgians and Georgia.
Google Joshua Kucera´s report from Ossetia 1.5 years ago. It was a Soviet scanzen with everybody scared, no photo taking allowed even in the only hotel, the top of it was a military or police observation post etc. etc. This is not a place liberated. No life, no economy, no self esteem.
Russia is clearly Saudi Arabia in the economic sense, in the sense "we are not obliged by any rules". They have no production except weapons. One more reason not to allow any democracy when mostly everything is based on redistribution of their easily acquired wealth. One more reason to squander this undeserved wealth on propaganda, bashing, subversion. Can you imagine that they learnt from Iran more than we think? To see you seriously
pondering on creating an alliance is quite disturbing. You people do not fall for islam, Obama, leftist rubbish, so much work done just to be able to fall for Haider or Russia? Amazing. You keep your dignity for so long to abandone it to sell it so cheap?
Do not sell your dignity - it makes me sick. Application of the word russophobe by many is as outrageous as the application of the word islamophobe. You have courage when you oppose islam, no way to be a phobe. He?
Czechmade,
As for example above it is a clear example how to produce propaganda. It took me 2 minutes. How you can shoot at civilians for fun at the local cemetery seeing none is clearly cheap propaganda. It is not mentioned in English. It is tailored to your Western consumption.
I haven't even looked at the video you mention. People put up all sorts of things on the Internet. Such is the Internet. Why is this at all interesting.
The video I linked was much discussed in several blogs. It's a a serious clip. And you can clearly see how the Georgian in the tank is shooting at apartment buildings and civilian objects (and nothing else as far as I can see). But you didn't like to admit that, so you decided to discuss a completely different video. A video that is of no importance.
PS. I never called you a Russophobe.
PPS. If you are against Soros it is truly strange the high degree to which you accept his premises.
Application of the word russophobe by many is as outrageous as the application of the word islamophobe. You have courage when you oppose islam, no way to be a phobe. He?
I'm not sure if it is as cut and dried as that. One can simultaneously feel a mixture of fear, loathing and defiance towards Muslims as I do.
The main propaganda value of the -phobia suffix is to cast all opposition to Islam, homosexuality etc. as a form of mental illness.
Conservative Swede,
I must thank you for your support,
It looks like our Viking relatives support us more then the slavic ones except for Serbs a suppose. I hope that other slavs will be friendlier one day for the good of slavs and all europeans.
personally I am not 100% sure whats going on in Russia. Russia is an injured entity which is trying to survive. I love many aspects of Russia culture and I want it to exist. There fore I will support developments that make Russia and Russian people stronger.
As I said before I dont like islamic culture like the majority of Russian population. I would like to think that a real aliance can be made between western and christian people. I as a russian find many aspects of western culture acceptable to me, I think that many westerners will find the same about Russia, except for the corruption. Things dont change overnight.
About Putin, What do you people think would have happend to my country if not for Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great? Russia would have been another Balkans on one hand dominated by the poles or germans, on the other by Turks. They have revitalised the society and set on the current path.
I trully believe that what happend in western europe (what you call liberal democracy) was european coming of old age. They finished with their temper and fastiness. they basicly got costrated in order to live in peace with themselfes. There are theories that suggest that civilisations die just like people die, they are born, they mature, prosper, they age and they die. The young civilisation is aggresive, the old is what europe is.
By the way china is a new civilisation, different from the original, Russia is new, different from Rus, emperial Russia, and communist Russia. I only hope that its got time to mature.
Islamic civilisation is fighting to revitalise itself through their fundamentalism.
About Kazakhstan,
I as some one who married to a Kazakh can provide some insite...
First of all I will describe who the poor people are, the ones who speak Russian with strong accent. Many aspects of their life is nomadic, they still eat the traditional diet. They still have the love for their culture and music (limited that it is). They are not really islamic, patriarchal yes, and they call themselfs muslims but as somebody who is well versed in islam I can say that they have a long way to go before you give the a title of a muslim. This people have a love-hate relationship with turks. On one hand they like turkish music, on the other when they encounter turks, they find them erogant. Ingeneral even the poor rural Kazakhs get on with Russians and russian speaking Europeans better then with other muslims.
Now the educated city kazakhs, my wife being one, are much closer to westerners then many of you can imagine. They really do look towards western model rather then muslim one. As a Russian I didnt have a culture shock when I came to Kazakhstan and met my wifes family. They are well versed in european literature and classical music for example, they enjoy balley and opera. Their aproach to religion is completely retualistic, meaning that they only pay lip service to prayer and other traditions, and they ignore all that Halal rubish all together.
The main difference is ofcourse the mentality regarding relationship between men and women. The man can expect that he would be taken care of by the woman, meaning that when he comes home woman will savishly feed him, clean after him, etc. They have certain hirarchy when it comes to family gatherings, the wifes of the sons of the family serve every body. Normally the women sit in a less comfortable place, the head of the family sits in the head of the table as well as the guest. It was very interesting and strange for me. In that respect the russian household is much more liberal without any hirarchy, and russian woman is probably closer to a fasty black woman, would never take any crap from her husband.
In all other regards Kazakhs very similar to russians.
It didnt take me very long to get my wife to renounce Islam, and become a fierce supporter of western civilisation, but then again she is trained in classical music, and loves greek and german philosophy, and many other aspects of western culture. I wouldnt know about other kazakhs who didnt have as much exposure to western thought and culture.
Russkiy
Thanks for your comments. Keep them coming!
It looks like our Viking relatives support us more...
Unfortunately you cannot count on the other Vikings, I'm pretty exceptional in my view, in Sweden as well as in Scandinavia.
CS,
As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that for Europe to survive it needs to become young again. I mean something like what happend to rome, rome was a great civilisation that got replaced at its old age by western europe. Unfortunately this seems to imply that the young europe would consist of non-western emigrants may be mixed with europeans.
Hopefully this wouldnt mean the same Islam like in Saudi but some kind of a hybrid. I wouldnt bet on it though.
Sorry for such negative post.
Russkiy:
There are theories that suggest that civilisations die just like people die, they are born, they mature, prosper, they age and they die. The young civilisation is aggresive, the old is what europe is.
Well, Russkiy. Your ideas are far from alien to me. In fact I described it as a main theme for my blog when I started it last year, in this post (the second part of it):
"A theme of my blog will be the following. An ideology/religion/culture is not eternal and constant, but evolves organically. It will go from bud to flower, and then to fruit, that will mature and eventually become over-ripe. Certain things of this process will be encoded already into the seed, but might not become manifest until very late in the process, some of it not until the very end. In fact, to some degree, the time horizon for the end and how it will happen, will be encoded already in the seed.
[...]
Liberalism is best understood as a branch of the Christian tree, as I see it. Could the outgrowth of this branch be predicted already from the Christian seed? The liberalism branch is over-ripe and rottening. Is the same true for the whole Christian tree? Looking at e.g. the Catholic Church and Vatican II it certainly seems so. If Christianity is over-ripe, within this model, there's no way to see how it could be restored back into a mature fruit, no more than liberalism.
A continuation of this allegory is to consider how over-ripe fruits that are about to rot, will spread many new seeds, and thereby continue to live in new forms. Just take the over-ripe fruit of the Roman empire that spread so many many seeds, before it rot and died, that makes us still have Roman cultural DNA within us and around us in so many places. All these organic entities have many beautiful sides while they are flowers and mature fruits: the Roman empire, Christianity, liberalism, the British empire, modern democracy, American hegemony, etc. But they also have differently long life cycles, and some of them are dangerously short."
I have also written:
"We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant it is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die."
http://conswede.blogspot.com/2007/08/im-island.html
Russkiy,
Unfortunately this seems to imply that the young europe would consist of non-western emigrants may be mixed with europeans.
I don't think so. You forget how many nations in history that have been based on ethnic cleansing. Some recent examples: USA, Israel, Turkey.
No matter how things go in Europe, we can be sure that there will be quite some ethnic cleansing. A lot will leave voluntarily, when it's made clear they are not welcome, or for being payed to leave. But there will also be ethnic conflicts.
CS,
In your understanding what would be the place of islam in all this? Do you think it will consume everything, or would it mutate absorbing cultural traditions of europe. I know what happend to places like Pakistan where people dont have anyother Identity other then Islam, this the main threat as far as I am concerned, Islam is very thick its going to suffocate everything else.
We will win the fight against Islamization, but we will lose almost everything else in the process. There won't be any mutating. It's either/or in every single place. Europe might look like a chessboard for a period of this century. Muslims accumulating in e.g. France, while Europeans escaping, and vice versa in e.g. Poland, etc. There will be a lot of migrations, of all kinds, during this century, I expect.
Also: The only way to get a mutated Islam is when Europeans invade Muslim land (after a century or more). But when Islam is invading you will always get hardcore brutal Islam 100%.
Chechmad: "The Georgians were hunted and chicaned in Russia for the last two years with no response in the Western media."
This is absolutely not true. Georgians have always been well-liked in Russia. These have historically been two friendly nations. Russian aristocracy has often and willingly married their sons and daughters to Georgian aristocracy. Georgia entered te Russian empire voluntarily and willingly, because they seeked a protection from Muslim neighbors.
I have various first hand reports from Moscow. No media involved.
1)There was special focus on Georgians.
2)Then there is general focus on Caucasian looking people (police extorting bribes, skinheads)
3)Next you never display or mention you are a Jew publically (my Jewish US friend quote).
4) Central Asians - keeping little businesses - were driven out which led to a dramatic increase in price
of fruits and vegetables and lower quality - no real interest in these petty businesses with Russians, most of them moved en masse to Kazachstan, disturbing local fragile social balance
5) The Georgian-Russian history is full of treason and Russian supremacy - tens of hours learning from a Georgian dissident who never accepted Soviet citizenship and got azylum in Hungary his friend being shot under Shevarnadze.
Little nations are a disturbing element probably in grand geopolitics, we should keep quiet as Chirac said recently. Where did you get your myth? Do you want to discover new PC territories?
Russkiy, you have too many identities in Pakistan
:
It is about Punjabi supremacy. Pashtuns disdain them however, because they were the tool and masters in islamization process, they have ongoing troubles with Baluchis and the South - Sindhis are less islamic, lot of shia (Benazir Bhutto was from the South and shia for ex.)
They trusted (if I remeber) Baluchis or Sindhis? them so little that they imported police from Punjab). Ahmadiyas - very persecuted defined as non islamic heretics. Kashmiris - jihadi focus - not really "Indian" ethnicity - Dardic languages. Tribal areas near Silk road - Burushaski for ex. are still non-islamic, linguistically an enigma etc. etc.
Pakistan can easily disppear from the map.
@CS
It's interesting, for me personally, to see you write these things. I'm going to stray into the supernatural for just a second. Several years ago my mother, bless her, received a vision. It was very brief. It consisted of the words "The church as you know it is dead."
Now maybe she was just highly astute and able to pick up on trends. Whatever. The point is, you may be right, but I suspect you're right for the wrong reasons. The church, as we know it, is old and dying. The idea that christianity as a faith will die strikes me as less likely.
You see, what you do is confuse the faith with the physical manifestations of that faith. The organisation, "the church", is not the faith and never was. What many people assume is faith in God is actually faith in The Church, the organisation. Modern multiculturalism is born out of belief in the organisation, which is obvious if you examine it. It's entire raison d'etre is organisational and administrative. It lives to create new organisations and groupings that can be administered and managed and catalogued and quantified.
SO you're right that multiculturalism is born from the church, but it isn't christian as such. Like Ishmael it was born from an adulterous relationship with a servant (and like Ishmael's progeny it threatens everything we stand for). The church, that is, the body of christians, making their faith to the organisation instead of the god it was ostensibly created to serve.
Hm, for multiculturalism read "liberalism". Yays. You see my point though?
Graham,
SO you're right that multiculturalism is born from the church, but it isn't christian as such
It's a logical conclusion from Christian ethics. Church, God and Christ are not of significant importance here.
Post a Comment