Originally Posted by Justin '77

As for the article you posted.

The same old line you hear from the West's opinion-making organs. Fortunately, the Russians who are actually building their resurgent economy -- with whom I am delighted to be associated -- don't pay this kind of tripe too much mind. They've already seen, over the course of the loot-em '90s just how much the West's opinion-makers are worth...

You repeat the same tripe on this forum. Look, Putin's a douchebag. It's not so hard to admit it, no matter how well he pays.

Here's some more tripe ...

Putin's pursuit of global legitimacy
NDTV NDTV
Posted by Manoj Kewalramani on 8.6.2007

If Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers ever really wanted to lend a political hue to their 1992 classic Makin Some Noise, then considering the current state of international affairs, Russian President Vladimir Putin would probably be the most ideal protagonist.

Putin's pronouncements since Munich in February 2007 have aimed at delivering one clear message: Russia is once again ready to suit up in great power armory and tango at the global stage - a goal that he had articulated the moment he took over the Presidency from Boris Yeltsin in 2000.

"For Russia a strong state is a guarantee of order, the initiator and main driving force for change," Vladimir Putin (2000).

The particular timing of these proclamations, however, is premised upon a unique mix of Russia's strengthening internal stability and economic growth along with international structural changes that have assisted the unfolding of a foreign policy design, which has sneaked under the radar of several analysts.

Petrodollars and revival

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, through the 1990s, suffered a period that many have likened to the historic "Time of Troubles" - as its regional and international clout diminished, instituting economic reform and battling financial crunches required frequent and ignominious bailouts from the West and international institutions and it underwent painful social upheavals and political restructuring.

However, for the last seven years Putin's strong leadership, controversial but effective "managed democracy" and steady economic growth (at around 6 per cent on average) all buoyed by growing oil and gas revenues owing to high prices have not only ensured social stability but also a financial boom.

Perched atop the petrodollar windfall, Russia's gold and foreign currency reserves stand at $386.3 billion (as of May 11, 2007), making them the third largest in the world; its estimated budget surplus in the first quarter of 2007 is at $18.2 billion; and the Stabilization Fund stands at $108.02 billion as of April 1, 2007.

Another factor that not only implies economic prudence and burgeoning confidence but also symbolically rids the Russian state of its historical Soviet baggage is the fact that it has paid off its sovereign debt to the Paris Club of lenders ahead of time.

In fact, Russia is now actively pursuing membership of the influential OECD and the WTO.

The economic recovery and consistent popular support for the Putin regime (with approval ratings at around 80 per cent) have provided a stable platform for the Russian President to vociferously enunciate his broader agenda for restoring the "pride of the Fatherland" - a theme close to the heart of a generation of Russian citizens who bore the brunt of the 1990s.

A strategic stroke

If one considers this vision of Russia seeking to pursue its global interests while attempting to restore its status as a leader in international affairs, for which moral legitimacy is quintessential, as the centerpiece of the Putin doctrine, it reveals a strategic consistency in Russian policy towards the US.

After the September 11th attacks on the US, Putin and Bush saw eye-to-eye on terrorism as the new age's threat to the international order, deepening cooperation on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

In the spirit of the new "strategic partnership," the Russian President shared an "open" and "frank" dialogue with President Bush on bilateral and international issues in the "relaxed" and "tranquil" environment at Camp David.

"The spirit and the basic principles of our (US-Russian) relationship have remained the same: mutual confidence, openness, predictability and consideration and respect of interests of each other," declared Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference then.

This served Russia well for quelling the insurgency in Chechnya, strengthening state control and even pursuing an expansionist policy in Central Asia while assuming the mantle of a responsible international partner.

In contrast, the US had earlier in December 2001 withdrawn from the ABM Treaty without extensive consideration about the impact that it will have on the Arms Control Regime and there was growing global discontent against the invasion of Iraq.

The fruits of American decline

The Iraq war saw the Americans capriciously assert its unilateral will to pursue its goals with minimal concern about the interests and opinions of partners.

However, the fact that the conflict has dragged on into a bloody insurgency and led to the erosion of the legitimacy of the US's global leadership has added new vigour to dissenting opinions.

For instance, the Abu Ghraib scandal led many backroom diplomatic voices to question America's moral authority on human rights considerations around the world.

Analysts argue that this decline in US "soft power" has been leveraged by the Russians by promoting their interests through the UN environment, for instance in Sudan, while building a "hyper-sovereign" state that is able to pursue expansionist policies and keep any internal unrest at bay.

Another fallout of the Iraq quagmire, the American position on the Iranian nuclear dispute and continuing tensions in the Middle East has been the economic benefit that oil and gas rich nations have enjoyed owing to high prices.

Besides this, Moscow has also seized upon the diplomatic opportunities and courted nations, such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela, that have been at odds with the US and others that seek a multipolar order such as India, China and Brazil.

For instance, Russia, much to the angst of Washington, recently entered a significant - nearly $3 billion worth - weapons deal with Caracas.

Similarly it has been opposed to American strong-arm tactics on the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme while urging to continue working through a cumbersome, yet legitimate, UN process.

Meanwhile, it has continued to build the nuclear reactor at Bushehr and cherish the fruits of the periodic, yet managed, escalation in tensions.

Also, while Western leaders have been questioning Putin's democratic credentials, the Russian leader has been quick counter the rhetoric by raising the specter of "foreign interference" in a sovereign nation's affairs (Incidentally, the US Congress' "Governing Justly and Democratically" initiative earmarked funding of $43.4 million for Financial Year 2006 for "Civil Society" and "Human Rights" in Russia).

Moreover, another display that augments the Russian leader's support for democracy and peace was his invitation to Hamas leaders to visit Moscow - a move that irked the West which has imposed crippling sanctions on Palestine ever since the militant group was elected to power.

Thus, Russia's policy in the Mideast has been a heady combine of pursuing its interests while building legitimacy through "responsible internationalism."

Claiming the periphery

While Moscow has frowned upon, yet tactically benefited from the US approach in the Mideast, the American policies in the "Near Abroad" have been the most irksome for the Putin regime.

The eastward expansion of NATO that resulted in the membership of the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - and talks with a number of CIS countries along with the not so transparent US backing of "Colour Revolutions" has frustrated the Kremlin, which considers it as blatant interference in its sphere of influence.

In fact, Moscow has, in recent times, adopted a heavy-handed approach to the Westward-leaning nations in its periphery; a clear example has been the 2006 spy row with Georgia and the recent troubles with Estonia over the removal of a Soviet memorial.

It is within this context that the Russians have vehemently opposed the proposed US plan to place antimissile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, despite the willingness of those countries along with others like Lithuania, which has welcomed the idea of anti-missile shield.

The Russians have accused the Americans of institutionalizing asymmetry by undermining the weapons regime and threatening an arms race (incidentally Russia test-fired a multiple warhead ballistic missile on May 30, 2007).

Another sticking point has been the Western-backed plan by UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari for the independence of Kosovo.

In fact, in a bitter exchange of barbs in recent times, the Russians, who back close ally Serbia, have argued that independence for Kosovo would destabilize the region by adding to ethnic tensions in the Balkans and fueling secessionist movements in regions like Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia.

Once again the language of discontent has been cloaked in a tone that marks concern for international protocol and regional security, thereby maintaining consistency with a policy of acting as a responsible global leader.

Transformation from unipolarity

However, for analysts who claim with whimsical nostalgia that the current rhetoric is tantamount to the revival of the Cold War antagonism, they fail to realize that the global power structure and economic order is far different from what it was after the Second World War.

For instance, convergence on issues like terrorism and growing economic interdependence with the US (American firms like Boeing, Exxon-Mobil, General Motors, IBM, Microsoft have high stakes in Russia) and the EU have made a return to Cold War divisions impracticable.

Rather what we are witnessing is an age of a historic global transformation from unipolarity, as nations joust for the legitimacy of their narrative, their actions and interests in an effort to reshape the world order.

At such a juncture, semantics and language are the key to politics. Accordingly, the strategic nuance of the Russian approach has been less about opposition toward the US and more about building its authority while pursuing its interests.

Russia's heavy handed approach in Estonia had the opposite effect. It renewed faith in the ruling coalition, and weakened the populist Russia-backed opposition party. If the election were held again today, the rightwing parties would get even more votes.

In Georgia it had the same effect. And the new leadership in Georgia -- Saakashvili, Burjanadze, Baramidze -- most of them are under 40. I don't see how you are going to reverse that one. Banning wine imports (or meat imports for that matter) isn't really a way to convince your neighbors of your goodwill and legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Uzi

You repeat the same tripe on this forum. Look, Putin's a douchebag. It's not so hard to admit it, no matter how well he pays.

Ah. It wasn't the Putin part I was referring to, but the baseless line of, "Sure, things in Russia look good, but really their economy isn't so great..."

Douche is a pretty good word for him if you're going to limit yourself to English...

Originally Posted by mattzs

I thought they called it "privatization"!

"Privatization" was the name offered by the US' team of economic advisers -- and gleefully accepted by the communist bosses and other well-connected or at least capable-of-brutality crooks -- to describe the wholesale looting of whatever was left after the USSR was ended.

The 'privatization' of those times took the form of a factory commissar being passing out a pile of 'shares' in the enterprise to its workers, diverting several months worth of their pay into his own pocket, and then offering to buy back from them the 'worthless pieces of paper' for what effectively amounted to their own stolen wages. All the while stripping out equipment, furniture, down to wiring and I-beams to sell on the side.

After such times, it's no wonder that when the West speaks of democracy and privatization, the more polite Russians restrain themselves to simply rolling their eyes...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

"Privatization" was the name offered by the US' team of economic advisers -- and gleefully accepted by the communist bosses and other well-connected or at least capable-of-brutality crooks -- to describe the wholesale looting of whatever was left after the USSR was ended.

The 'privatization' of those times took the form of a factory commissar being passing out a pile of 'shares' in the enterprise to its workers, diverting several months worth of their pay into his own pocket, and then offering to buy back from them the 'worthless pieces of paper' for what effectively amounted to their own stolen wages. All the while stripping out equipment, furniture, down to wiring and I-beams to sell on the side.

After such times, it's no wonder that when the West speaks of democracy and privatization, the more polite Russians restrain themselves to simply rolling their eyes...

I actually worked for a private company that did something similar. Quite a few folks lost their pension due to the company going under. (fraud) (i bailed after working for them for a year)
http://www.ag.state.il.us/environment/tywalk.html

You can add the companies being taken private to the list, just another excuse to pillage and then dump them back on the market in a few years.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah. It wasn't the Putin part I was referring to, but the baseless line of, "Sure, things in Russia look good, but really their economy isn't so great..."

Douche is a pretty good word for him if you're going to limit yourself to English...

I am tired of the "Russia's back" stories. Russia has been meddling in Georgia and Ukraine and Poland and Latvia since ... forever. And yes, during the early 1990s too there were gas cutoffs to Estonia and Ukraine. Russia even financed violent separatist movements in Georgia in the 1990s that took thousands of lives and created tens of thousands of refugees.

So we're supposed to quivver over the deportation of Georgians from Moscow and the ban of wines? This is supposed to somehow firm up my belief that Russia is back?

I am also tired of the booming economy bit. Yes, Russia's economy is going strong. But so is Croatia's and so is Poland's and so is Latvia's. So why would Russia be an exception? I already knew this, so how is it news? China's economy and India's economy are also growing. It doesn't seem to be solely Russia that is undergoing this experience.

So why is the media trying to build Russia into something it already has been for a long time -- a regional bully -- or remark on something that is basically happening in all developing countries -- large economic expansion? Are they just bored? Are we that desperate for a partner on Iran that we need to "reinvent" Russia as a formidable partner that we must honor so we can get our way anyway?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

After such times, it's no wonder that when the West speaks of democracy and privatization, the more polite Russians restrain themselves to simply rolling their eyes...

The wealthy middle class ones or the poor ones still living the Soviet life in the countryside?

Originally Posted by Uzi

The wealthy middle class ones or the poor ones still living the Soviet life in the countryside?

So far as the ones I've met in both groups, yes to both. In fact, in the provinces you're likely to get even less sympathy for the Western sloganeering. After all, the days when those words were on everyone's lips here were the ones that culminated in the biggest increase in suffering in the provinces since WW2. The cities can point to the benefits they've realized in the past half-decade and attribute them to at least some of the changes since the fall of the USSR. In the countryside, people are still in many places just now getting back to the status quo quality of life that held back in the 80s.

Please understand, in the village in which we're building our house -- though near enough the Peter-LenOblast border to be just now starting to see some spill-over -- most of the middle-older residents are people who didn't even have factory jobs back in Soviet times. It's not the provinces, but the bulk of Pokrovskaya residents are hardly the middle class. They've still got no city water nor sewer, no telephone nor gas lines, and only in the last ten years even had electricity strung up. We do get a bit more than a monoculture perspective...

Since I've made it clear that I can accept the fact that the current crop of bosses in Russia is made up of bad guys who have little to any interest in doing their people any more good than they absolutely must, can't you accept the contention that the Russian people's fucking over by the USSR was followed-up by a fucking-over by their enemies in the West (and at the time there were many in the US who still viewed themselves that way...) and then a capping fucking-over by the people their enemies in the West empowered in the name of Democracy? That, on whole it is only in the last few year -- which unfortunately coincide with the term of the aforementioned douche -- that they've really been able to start realizing the better life that everyone aims for?

Originally Posted by Uzi

So why is the media trying to build Russia into something it already has been for a long time -- a regional bully -- or remark on something that is basically happening in all developing countries -- large economic expansion? Are they just bored? Are we that desperate for a partner on Iran that we need to "reinvent" Russia as a formidable partner that we must honor so we can get our way anyway?

Heh heh. That last one might actually be a good part of the truth -- though maybe you could say 'China' instead of 'Iran', the way people were talking back in the 2000-2001 pre-9/11, looked-into-Putin's-soul days.

It's more than a bit ironic the way they've had to back-pedal since then what with the whole SCO and the whole Natanz reactor thing (one thing even his enemies will say on his behalf, Putin's no British poodle...). I suspect a big part of the new Russia-the-enemy narrative is coming as a sort of blowback on the first story they tried to push.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Since I've made it clear that I can accept the fact that the current crop of bosses in Russia is made up of bad guys who have little to any interest in doing their people any more good than they absolutely must, can't you accept the contention that the Russian people's fucking over by the USSR was followed-up by a fucking-over by their enemies in the West (and at the time there were many in the US who still viewed themselves that way...) and then a capping fucking-over by the people their enemies in the West empowered in the name of Democracy? That, on whole it is only in the last few year -- which unfortunately coincide with the term of the aforementioned douche -- that they've really been able to start realizing the better life that everyone aims for?

But maybe it had to happen so that Russia could be where it is today? (just a thought)

I think pensioners got fucked over in all post-communist countries. But I don't think here, say in Estonia, they see it as "betrayal by the West". In Estonia they think of themselves as the West and instead blame their local politicians for filling their pockets at their expense. In this way they are no different from pensioners anywhere.

I met an old lady recently who pulled me aside and told me that "the Russians were here for 50 years" (it's never the Soviets, always the Russians), "now we have nothing and the politicians are filling their pockets." I assuaged her by telling her that politicians are the same everywhere and that, no, her condition is not unique as crappy as it is.

But as the rightwing gurus in government correctly put it, they can't hand out plush pension packages when the state is still pretty damn poor. I mean Communism was a bitter failure. Even the block houses that were put up in the Brezhnev era are falling down. People credit Ronald Reagan -- I say credit Communism for being so awful. This country had basically turned into one big slum by the time the capital started flowing in. You drive through the countryside and you can see the skeletons of the collective farms rotting away. Was that Ronald Reagan or was that just the spontaneous combustion of a ludicrous economic system?

So whose fault is it really? Is it all America's fault? Or could it also be Russia's fault? Could they too have some responsibility for their future and past? Or is that just too much to handle?

I admit the stormy predictions for Russia and East Europe seem far off the mark. It's hard to think about war when your cities never looked better, your roads are getting paved, everyone is --like you and I -- doing home construction and renovation, and the supermarkets are flush with goods.

I do understand though that all of this prosperity is linked to factors beyond the control of the happy post-commy middle class. In Estonia life is dependent on the Nordic economies. If Sweden and Finland are in the shitter then we are as well. 70 percent of our economy basically is their economy, which is why Estonia is the "only post-communist Nordic country" -- unlike Latvia where investment is shared between the Germans and Russians, and Lithuania where there is also a strong Polish influence.

In Russia too it's linked up to factors beyond our control like the price of a barrell of oil and the ability of Gazprom to deliver on all the deals its inked. And no place freaks me out more than the United States and what would happen if an economic crisis occurred there.

I mean there are so many babies being born here this year that it's hard to imagine that they would have to live through hard times. But if the blasted authors behind this forum are right, it very well might be the case.

And that, quite simply, sucks.

Originally Posted by Uzi

But maybe it had to happen so that Russia could be where it is today? (just a thought)

Not a thought that would get you much sympathy -- it's just too fresh here, and too many of the villains are still being celebrated by their enablers overseas. But nevertheless probably more than a little bit true.

I think pensioners got fucked over in all post-communist countries. But I don't think here, say in Estonia, they see it as "betrayal by the West".

The major difference being that the looters in Estonia (I presume) are seen pretty universally as crooks; while the looters of Russia were and still are treated as heroic, their wrongdoings praised as virtues, and their bringing-to-justice (what small measure of justice meted out against the small number being the only justice Russians are likely to ever see over the whole affair) being bemoaned as a great evil.

You could see how that might color the locals' impression of things.

I met an old lady recently who pulled me aside and told me that "the Russians were here for 50 years" (it's never the Soviets, always the Russians), "now we have nothing and the politicians are filling their pockets." I assuaged her by telling her that politicians are the same everywhere and that, no, her condition is not unique as crappy as it is.

Whereas I try to point out to my colleagues that the opposition politicians they support are likely to be no better than the current crop they so oppose if every they get hold of the levers of power -- but that this shouldn't stop them from seeking to overturn the leadership from time to time.

Even the block houses that were put up in the Brezhnev era are falling down. People credit Ronald Reagan -- I say credit Communism for being so awful. This country had basically turned into one big slum by the time the capital started flowing in. You drive through the countryside and you can see the skeletons of the collective farms rotting away. Was that Ronald Reagan or was that just the spontaneous combustion of a ludicrous economic system?

Funny how difficult that thought is to get across in the US. Whereas the actual people who actually brought the reign of communism to an end find the idea that Reagan was at all significant rather absurd.

In Russia too it's linked up to factors beyond our control like the price of a barrell of oil and the ability of Gazprom to deliver on all the deals its inked. And no place freaks me out more than the United States and what would happen if an economic crisis occurred there.

Amen to that. At least people in the post-communist countries understand about self-reliance and taking care of themselves and each other through hard times. If/when they come, there'll be a lot less to fear among such sturdy, capable folk.

You won't find it anywhere else
The full text of Putin's press interview at the G8 conference.

-short excerpt-

I would start with the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). We have not just stated that we are ready to comply with the treaty, like certain others have done. We really are implementing it: we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.

What should we do in these circumstances? Of course we have declared a moratorium.

This applies to the missile defence system. But not just the missile defence system itself. Since if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the U.S. nuclear capability.

I draw your attention and that of your readers to the fact that, for the first time in history -- and I want to emphasize this -- there are elements of the U.S. nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security. That is the second thing.

Finally, thirdly, how do they justify this? By the need to defend themselves against Iranian missiles. But there are no such missiles. Iran has no missiles with a range of 5,000 to 8,000 kilometres. In other words, we are being told that this missile defence system is there to defend against something that doesn’t exist. Do you not think that this is even a little bit funny? But it would only be funny if it were not so sad. We are not satisfied with the explanations that we are hearing. There is no justification whatsoever for installing a missile defence system in Europe. Our military experts certainly believe that this system affects the territory of the Russian Federation in front of the Ural mountains. And of course we have to respond to that.

And now I would like to give a definite answer to your question: what do we want? First of all, we want to be heard. We want our position to be understood. We do not exclude that our American partners might reconsider their decision. We are not imposing anything on anyone. But we are proceeding from common sense and think that everyone else could also use their common sense. But if this does not take place then we will absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our retaliatory steps because we are not initiating what is certainly growing into a new arms race in Europe. And we want everybody to understand very clearly that we are not going to bear responsibility for this arms race. For example, when they try to shift this responsibility to us in connection with our efforts to improve our strategic nuclear weapons. We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defence system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

I am speaking purely theoretically -- this has no personal dimension. It is destroying the strategic equilibrium in the world. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defence system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defence, and this is what we are doing now.

At that point our partners said: “there’s nothing wrong, we are not enemies, we are not going to work against one another”. We would point out that we are simply answering them: “we warned you, we talked about this, you answered us a certain way. So we are going to do what we said we would”. And if they put a missile defence system in Europe -- and we are warning this today -- there will be retaliatory measures. We need to ensure our security. And we are not the proponents of this process.

And, finally, the last thing. Again I would not want you to suffer from the illusion that we have fallen out of love with anyone. But I sometimes think to myself: why are they doing all this? Why are our American partners trying so obstinately to deploy a missile defence system in Europe when -- and this is perfectly obvious -- it is not needed to defend against Iranian or -- even more obvious -- North Korean missiles? (We all know where North Korea is and the kind of range these missiles would need to have to be able to reach Europe.) So it is clearly not against them and it is clearly not against us because it is obvious to everyone that Russia is not preparing to attack anybody. Then why? Is it perhaps to ensure that we carry out these retaliatory measures? And to prevent a further rapprochement between Russian and Europe? If this is the case (and I am not claiming so, but it is a possibility), then I believe that this would be yet another mistake because that is not the way to improve international peace and security.

Here's the question.

Why does it matter what Russia thinks about what Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US have already agreed to?

Are Poland or the Czech Republic under any jurisdiction of Russia? For that matter, due to their proximity to some other countries, what is Egypt's take on the ABM installation? How do the Saudis feel about it? Are the Ukrainians ok with the idea? How about the Libyans? It's the same distance from Prague to Moscow as it is from Prague to Tripoli? Do the Libyans feel threatened? Should Qaddafi restart his WMD program in response?

You could say that I am being a bit obtuse here, but in reality I am not. Russia is a power in the world, but it's not the power in the world, let alone in Europe.

In terms of European countries, Russia trails behind the UK, Germany, France, and Italy -- Italy! -- in terms of GDP.

So if I were the Czechs and the Poles, or even the Americans, I wouldn't be listening to Mr. Putin as closely as I would be listening to Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, or Nicolas Sarkozy have to say about what needs to be done to protect Europe from potential threats.

Ultimately it's up to Europe to decide on how it handles its own security. Mr. Putin can try and intimidate the Europeans into not accepting those missiles, but ultimately it's up to the EU to sink or swim on this issue. The EU wants to have a common foreign and security policy. This is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Uzi

People credit Ronald Reagan -- I say credit Communism for being so awful. This country had basically turned into one big slum by the time the capital started flowing in. You drive through the countryside and you can see the skeletons of the collective farms rotting away. Was that Ronald Reagan or was that just the spontaneous combustion of a ludicrous economic system?

Funny how difficult that thought is to get across in the US. Whereas the actual people who actually brought the reign of communism to an end find the idea that Reagan was at all significant rather absurd.

Reagan, along with Thachter, the Pope, Deng, and (yes boys and girls, Dr. Evil himself) Osama bin Laden, simply prevented the sparks and debris from that combustion from spreading very far beyond the bounds of the Warsaw Pact. That's something, to be sure, but they didn't cause the destruction of Communism. (Notice the parallel! Bin Laden also takes credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. He has as much claim as Reagan, i.e., none.) George Keenan and Dean Acheson and Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower killed the Soviet Union by setting up containment back in the 1950's. Non-productive empires grow or die: the Aztecs, Napoleon's Empire, the Third Reich. Once they have nothing left to cannibalize, the inner rot finally shows and the whole thing falls apart rather rapidly. (Exercise for the student: does the European Union fall into this category as well?)

The truth was that Communism did not release the power of human creativity and productivity. It was doomed from the start even if it didn't devolve into tyranny. The only question was how much of the world it would devastate in the process.

Productive empires, in case you're wondering, don't implode but (if they disappear at all) fission. The British Empire is gone, but almost all of its successor states are doing right well thank you very much. The Roman Empire went nonproductive in its last couple of centuries -- yet nearly every nation of Europe rose strong and hale after the Dark and Middle Ages on the heritage of Rome. Alexander's Macedonian Empire left three states in its wake that lasted centuries themselves. When China split, as happened several times in its history, there were successor kingdoms that built on the imperial heritage. And so on...

Originally Posted by Uzi

Here's the question.

Why does it matter what Russia thinks about what Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US have already agreed to?... In terms of European countries, Russia trails behind the UK, Germany, France, and Italy -- Italy! -- in terms of GDP.

Russia has two, and only two, cards left; it's finnessing the heck out of both of them. They are:

1) Natural Resources
2) Nuclear Weapons

In terms of ability to deliver shrecklichkeit, Russia is ahead of everyone you listed combined. And in terms of delivering fossil fuels, minerals, timber, you name it, they also come out head-and-shoulders above the rest of Europe.

In any sort of sensible world, this would lead to Russia becoming the European frontier. But Russians see that as invasion and attack and so are pissing off the very people that would do them the most good. Peter the Great is powering a dynamo...

Originally Posted by Uzi

Here's the question.

Why does it matter what Russia thinks about what Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US have already agreed to?

Are Poland or the Czech Republic under any jurisdiction of Russia? For that matter, due to their proximity to some other countries, what is Egypt's take on the ABM installation? How do the Saudis feel about it? Are the Ukrainians ok with the idea? How about the Libyans? It's the same distance from Prague to Moscow as it is from Prague to Tripoli? Do the Libyans feel threatened? Should Qaddafi restart his WMD program in response?

Would you feel the same way about Chinese armament-bases going up in Mexico and Haiti?

And -- for chrissakes -- the Chinese haven't invaded anyone for a long, long time...

Why fight so hard against seeing this from the other guy's perspective?

(by the way, the Czech public is actually pretty well opposed to the US plan. And the leaderships of both countries sure sounded really happy to hear Putin's offer to share the Azeri base instead...)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Russia has two, and only two, cards left; it's finnessing the heck out of both of them.

Um. You've got to admit, military capability and economic strength are some pretty good cards. Just saying...

In any sort of sensible world, this would lead to Russia becoming the European frontier. But Russians see that as invasion and attack and so are pissing off the very people that would do them the most good.

If, by "European frontier", you mean in the investment sense, I'm not sure how you don't see this happening. Between 2004-2006, capital flows moved from a net outflow of 8 billion dollars to a net inflow of 41.6 billion dollars And they're up to 40 billion in the black from the first half of 2007 alone. I'd say European investment here is kicking along pretty nicely.
Plus you should consider all the Asian investment -- the most visible-to-me component of which is the construction of an enormous number of light vehicle factories in Russia to meet the local demand.

Really, the whole 'investment-as-invasion' thing isn't the Russian style at all. You're channeling, I bet, the whole 80's-US-Japanese-investment thing. Suffice to say, when a foreign investor starts edging out or taking over an old Russian firm, the reaction of the people tends to be, "good; now we'll be able to get even more quality stuff instead of that old soviet crap." No one (except the bosses who skim money off it) sheds any tears over the slipping market share of KaMAZ or ZiL.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Would you feel the same way about Chinese armament-bases going up in Mexico and Haiti?

These would be ten ABMs to protect Mexico from Venezuela, right? I guess Guatemala would be ticked though because they wouldn't protect Guatemala from the Venezuelan threat.

And -- for chrissakes -- the Chinese haven't invaded anyone for a long, long time...

I guess since Tibet in 1959. Anybody got some facts on that one?

Why fight so hard against seeing this from the other guy's perspective?

This is an issue that has as much to do with perception as it does with content. Putin has to look solid and resolute against the barbarians at the gate, the evil West, which, like Nazi Germany, is conspiring to turn Russia into a colony of fast-food chains and designer clothing boutiques. Oh wait, that already happened.

It's all politics. Bush would do the same thing. And it would be the same thing.

(by the way, the Czech public is actually pretty well opposed to the US plan. And the leaderships of both countries sure sounded really happy to hear Putin's offer to share the Azeri base instead...)

It's up to the Europeans to decide how they plan to respond to threats. The Ukrainian president had this to say about the deal:

“The recent events, I think, show to everyone that we have quite a creaky security balance. This really triggers some concerns and could be really painful.

“It's becoming more and more apparent that the best response to all the challenges regarding defence and security policy can only be given through a collective system of defence.

“Our defence and security doctrine is formally determined in law. And a key aspect of this doctrine is to provide Ukraine's accession to the European Union and the North Atlantic bloc.”

He said this the day after he met with Putin in St. Petersburg.

Originally Posted by Uzi

These would be ten ABMs to protect Mexico from Venezuela, right? I guess Guatemala would be ticked though because they wouldn't protect Guatemala from the Venezuelan threat.

Yeah. Just those ten ABMs that they are going to just put in a cabinet somewhere (or maybe rent out a room for them in a local hotel) so they don't cause a traffic hazard.

Get serious. The '10 rockets' line is a load of pure crap, and really not the biggest problem. Of course once the first rockets are in place -- with the massive support system and security infrastructure that will need to accompany them -- the US has effectively established an offensive military missile base right on Russia's doorstep. Literally more than 90% of the population of Russia (that is, the ones who live on this side of the Urals) would fall under the shadow of that base.
And given the recent belligerent turn in America's tone over the past couple years (maybe someone in the Kremlin had read T4T and has some idea of what's coming from the US in the next decade) a Russian leader would be criminally negligent not to add that base to his list of 'places to take out in the event of war'.

It's a big part of the reason why the Azeri base is preferable to the Russians, as well as why it will never be accepted by the powers-that-be in the USA.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course once the first rockets are in place -- with the massive support system and security infrastructure that will need to accompany them -- the US has effectively established an offensive military missile base right on Russia's doorstep. Literally more than 90% of the population of Russia (that is, the ones who live on this side of the Urals) would fall under the shadow of that base.

As would the French, although, despite the freedom fries and other whinging of a few years ago, they don't seem to be concerned about their security, although they might fear the Russian reaction to that base.

So, sadly, Europe doesn't get to decide for itself. It either has to go with the US' choice or the Russian choice. The Russians are upset because the Europeans might choose to protect themselves from possible threats in ways that could protect them also from Russia. Or exacerbate the Western-Russian relationship.

Either way, I understand both why the Czech government supports this AND why the public is against it.

And given the recent belligerent turn in America's tone over the past couple years (maybe someone in the Kremlin had read T4T and has some idea of what's coming from the US in the next decade) a Russian leader would be criminally negligent not to add that base to his list of 'places to take out in the event of war'.

But what do the Europeans think? I believe that they are at a cross-roads between being 'Finlandized' by Russian energy dominance or putting up some other bulwark -- the Nabucco pipeline, missile defense shield -- to keep the land of managed democracy at bay.

I think the NATO allies themselves are questioning the purpose of this installation and the benefits and just how they arrive at these kinds of decisions. But in the end they must do what is best for them. Not what is best for the United States, and certainly not what is best for Russia.

As for the Azeri base, that would be a coup for Russia. Russia wants to stop Turkmenistan from directly exporting its natural resources to Europe. Russian military presence in Azerbaijan would enable the Russians to end that idea.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If, by "European frontier", you mean in the investment sense, I'm not sure how you don't see this happening. Between 2004-2006, capital flows moved from a net outflow of 8 billion dollars to a net inflow of 41.6 billion dollars And they're up to 40 billion in the black from the first half of 2007 alone. I'd say European investment here is kicking along pretty nicely.
Plus you should consider all the Asian investment -- the most visible-to-me component of which is the construction of an enormous number of light vehicle factories in Russia to meet the local demand.

Really, the whole 'investment-as-invasion' thing isn't the Russian style at all. You're channeling, I bet, the whole 80's-US-Japanese-investment thing. Suffice to say, when a foreign investor starts edging out or taking over an old Russian firm, the reaction of the people tends to be, "good; now we'll be able to get even more quality stuff instead of that old soviet crap." No one (except the bosses who skim money off it) sheds any tears over the slipping market share of KaMAZ or ZiL.

Glad to hear it -- my sources for finance news tend not to detail much about deals with no American participation and with no direct security effects. But the massive flow of European money into Russia seems to have had no effect on Russia's foreign policy as yet...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course once the first rockets are in place -- with the massive support system and security infrastructure that will need to accompany them -- the US has effectively established an offensive military missile base right on Russia's doorstep.

Well, I still think the idea that America will instigate a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis is crazy, simply because of the memory of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That said, I agree with you that it is the base infrastructure, not the ten missiles, that is bothering Russia. We could put anything we want there once a fully functional base is there. Like tank divisions, for instance; although, again, why anyone sane would seek to invade Russia from the west is beyond me. It worked real well the last three times it was tried, eh?

On the other hand, recent American behaviors are not prone to making anyone calm and comfortable anymore..

Originally Posted by catfishncod

But the massive flow of European money into Russia seems to have had no effect on Russia's foreign policy as yet...

I'm not sure what effect you'd be looking for. Maybe it has happened... If I knew what it was that I'm looking for I could give you some idea of whether or not I'm seeing it.

I mean, Russia has been working very closely over the last decade to accommodate European automobile manufacturers -- changing transport regulations to be more in line with European ones for the cross-border trade, and in many cases simply re-writing things to accept ECE-standard as just as valid as local standard when it comes to safety, quality, emissions, and so forth.

There's also the deal with Germany to build a direct-to-them pipeline to prevent relations with middlemen (a la the Byelorus deal a couple months back) from spilling over into relations with the rest of Europe as a whole.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Well, I still think the idea that America will instigate a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis is crazy...

Why do you say that? That's exactly what Bush is doing.

I mean, the idea is crazy in the sense that you would figure only a lunatic would do it, but it's certainly not outside the realm of the possible/likely.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

We could put anything we want there once a fully functional base is there. Like tank divisions, for instance; although, again, why anyone sane would seek to invade Russia from the west is beyond me. It worked real well the last three times it was tried, eh?

But think like the Poles do. Poland was invaded from the West on September 3, 1939. On September 17, 1939 the other half of Poland was invaded from the East. The two invading parties held a joint parade in Brest-Litovsk that month.

In the Polish mindset a hypothetical invasion from the East is just as much justification for some kind of missile defense as in Russia's mindset it isn't as such an installation would create similarly feelings of paranoia.

But Poland is our ally and Russia is not. So who do we listen to? Furthermore, if there was an invasion from the East how would we counter it? And don't tell me its preposterous. About as preposterous as us attacking Russia