I am very pleased that mainstream media actually took the time to watch or read the text of President Dimity Medvedev’s address to the Federation Council on November 12. To date, the mainstream media has lazily focused on any comment coming from a Russian leader that portrays Russia as “authoritarian.”
Maybe this is now changing – it would appear a new Russian narrative is in play. I call it “Medvedev as our kind of guy.” The mainstream media will be disappointed, I am afraid. Medvedev is not the antithesis of Vladimir Putin; he is part of the natural evolution of Putin’s vision for Russia.
Like many I was very impressed with the address, though at the same time I did not sense in anyway that Medvedev said anything significantly different from what he has said before. He is the same Medvedev that we watched as a presidential candidate and now as president. His ideas about Russia’s economy, civil society and foreign policy have not fundamentally evolved. That said, I would agree that his expression of his ideas are now becoming more nuanced. This is as it should be.
Medvedev was very blunt at times. He made it clear he had no illusions about the state of Russia’s economy and social spheres. Medvedev has been applauded for his openness in the Western media. However, Putin , too – as president – was just as open about his country’s flaws and challenges. But that is not the Putin the Western mainstream wishes to remember. If Western media would for a few moments remove their ideologically tinted glasses, they would realize that just about every thing Medvedev said about reform in Russia started under Putin.
Medvedev said that state shares in large companies should be reduced. Putin said the same. Unfortunately, the financial crisis forced the state to become more involved in the country that it would have liked (which mirrors state interventions in the West).
Medvedev spoke about badly needed legal reforms. But he didn’t start this process -- Putin did.
Medvedev said that Russia’s foreign policy should be pragmatic and devoid of ideology. During eight years of the Putin presidency, we heard the same. (The problem is the US and the rest of the Western world rarely took this seriously).
In terms of political reforms, again Medvedev’s ideas are not unique. Putin demanded a political system that created order out of chaos. With order now present, it is time to again to consider adjustments that allow more democratic feedback from the grassroots. Medvedev’s ideas about democratic reform and party development don’t necessarily make him into Russia’s Thomas Jefferson. Medvedev made it clear that those in Russia who desire to use democracy to return to political chaos will not be tolerated. At the end of the day, Medvedev only confirms the notion that he is Putin’s genuine successor when it comes to Russia’s democracy project.
Medvedev’s message is clearly about evolution. He certainly does present himself as being very different than Putin. Why should anyone be surprised by this? They are two different people, from different generations, and with different backgrounds. But one thing is clear to me: both want the same for Russia -- that Russia is strong, modern and in a state that reflects the hopes and attitudes of the people.
Is Medvedev “our kind of guy?” He certainly seems so. He speaks a language that the West can understand. And for a change it would seem that Medvedev has the unique ability to speak to his own people and the outside world at the same time. This can only be a plus for Russia’s image in the world and advancement of the country’s “soft power.”
However, let’s be clear about something: Medvedev in no way, shape or form is a repudiation of Putin’s legacy. My sense is that Putin is proud of his protégé. Medvedev is taking Russia in the direction that Putin has always intended. Ask yourself the following question: If Putin is so all-powerful and "autocratic," would he “allow” Medvedev to make such an address? Surely not.
Medvedev is the Putin that we can all understand. Medvedev’s Russia is a continuation of Putin’s. The Western mainstream focuses too much attention on the messenger and style. In reality, we have heard Medvedev’s message before.
Over the past 10 months I considered myself as a holdout. I said we must give the new American administration a chance to demonstrate that Washington had shed its neocon convictions and policies. Well, I have to say I have had enough. The verdict is in – it is “business as usual” in Washington. America’s foreign policy is not about change when it comes to substance – only the tone is different.
I like to think I am a patient person (most people who know me would probably disagree). I had hoped for a new American approach toward Russia. It hasn’t really happened. Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed. When Hillary Clinton was in Moscow she couldn’t refrain from the usual Washington lecturing on how it was a pity Russians aren’t like Americans – as if America is a beacon of human rights with Gitmo still open and “processing” suspects.
Nonetheless, Russian-US relations are slowly on the mend. Moscow is helping Washington to understand something called pragmatism. Washington needs Russia’s help when dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, non-proliferation of nuclear technologies and a host of other issues. But please tell me – when, how and where does Russia lecture the US about foreign policy? It doesn’t – Russia is only interested resolving global problems and not lecturing anyone. The Obama administration is still in need of a hearing aid!
While visiting the Middle East, Clinton said Israel’s “new” stance regarding the building of settlements in the West Bank was “unprecedented.” Seriously, I lost my lunch all over my keyboard when reading these words. The fact is Obama has again caved in, and caved in badly. Obama, for a very short interval, had the chance to say and do something very different from traditional American foreign policy in the Middle East. Instead the new president folded and what could have been a meaningful peace process folded as well. Israel needs only a few more months to complete its colonization of the West Bank to make the possibility of a Palestinian state a very real impossibility. Clinton’s words will have horrific consequences.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is now Washington’s man by default – this is more than a pity, it is a catastrophe. The main opposition candidate in the run-off election after the tainted first round in August, Abdullah Abdullah, has pulled out. It has always been a fool’s errand to make Afghanistan into a democracy of any sort. Abdullah Abdullah is no saint, mind you. He too wants to court Washington using the democracy card, and again with no thought about what the Afghan people think. The Taliban and their Pakistani friends must be having a great laugh. Washington continues to fight a war it can never win and everyone involved except the Americans and NATO know this.
I find all this quite amusing in a bizarre way. The Pakistanis say they are fighting the “bad” Taliban in Pakistan, while making deals with their “good” Taliban. (The “good” Taliban are groups that Islamabad supports in the hope of dominating Afghanistan).
On the Afghan side, the US appears only want to fight Al Qaeda and not the Afghan Taliban. Well, isn’t that convenient. The “bad” Pakistani Taliban can go to Afghanistan for rest and recreation without worrying about the Americans and NATO (which has no stomach for a fight anyway). All of this would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerously wrongheaded.
It is obvious that the Obama administration has not learned from the Bush people. America’s global empire, I guess, has nothing to do with the party of power in Washington. Obama’s words are only words and will do nothing to stop the utter decline of the empire. Obama is not leading on anything on the world stage, it is only playing out a lost cause. I suppose it was naive to think otherwise.
12 November, 2009, 16:03
Listened to Medvedev's speech...
It is good for Russia that it has a young, smart, honest, vigorous, and ambitious leader. I hope, Medvedev would be able to change something and make the country being more attractive place to live and work. But, oh, boy -- how many times I have already heard similar speeches. How many times such inspirational voices blasted from the Kremlin, echoed across the country and then... peacefully died never being turned to the long term actions and not producing any long lasting results...
Though, -- comparing Medvedev and Obama -- I think, that the situation is little bit better for Medvedev. Firstly, Medvedev has a more coherent country -- the environment where he could find more support from the vast majority of Russians. Secondly, the goals are more clear (though, not easy to achieve). I would reiterate them in the simple way -- to catch up with US. At least, this is how I derived them from the speech. So, if Medvedev sets up prover forces, then he may have good chances to succeed. Partially. Though, that would require an incredible efforts from all Russians. Probably, comparable with those made by the young Soviet Russia.
Obama, from the other hand, is being kicked from all direction. And the line of kickers getting longer. (I guess, Peter, has recently joined that line as well. :-)). This is Obama's first problem. Second problem -- it is much more difficult for the US to set up the goals. Being on frontiers of human civilization, you have to determine your next move by yourself. There is no one around to copy it from. And as such, there is a big chance what you may miscalculate your steps and fail. Like the Soviet Union did. The country made a great effort to move the humanity to the next step of the social and technological progress, influenced the whole world and reshaped it. But, being ahead of others it exhausted itself, lost, and, finally, bitten the dust. And never was accordingly credited and appreciated by those who currently uses those principles and ideas born during that dramatic Communist experiment.
10 November, 2009, 13:53
Peter,
I am tired. Much older than my years.
Gene
10 November, 2009, 01:58
While I tend to agree somewhat with Robert Walters and Kierkegaard, I must say that Peter's Crosstalk show is very well done. I watch all that I can and the discussion is usually on a high level and covers some topics that I don't hear in the USA, or don't get the same perspective. Yes, you can tell his opinions on most subjects, but so what. The Crosstalk program is on a higher level that his blog... that tends to bait people to bring out USA bashing.
09 November, 2009, 18:58
Getting back to Peter's blog. In which way this blog departs from the Russian point of view, or author's percieved Russian interests? This is, clearly, an oppinion. But it is not about US, but about Russia's perception of how US change/lack thereof in foreign policy might impact Russia's national interests. Hence, RTV.
Such views, and the resulting free and uncensored discussion, are valuable to all those that seek to learn and understand. Knowing full well that there is no single springwell of "truth", and that there are many springwells of interests.
If we cannot appreciate such different points of view, then we are all in the need of a hearing aid.
09 November, 2009, 10:52
I have to laugh when I scan through some of the comments - and indeed the more recent main articles on this blog. Of course it is good to get an "alternative" view of US foreign policy, US/Russia relations, etc, , off the wall though it might be. But kierkegaard is absolutely right: those of us who look to RT for enlightenment or even debate about Russia are often disappointed. But it is hardly surprising: RT's mission statement is unashamedly to advance a positive image of Russia to the west. And there is nothing wrong with that per se. Unfortunately part of that positive image would include being more open about the problems that the country faces, and less deferential to the monolithic enigma that is Russia's ruling elite.
Frankly, America bores me. Russia is a far more interesting country in my opinion, and it would be nice occasionally to have a forum for debate which didn't reflect everything back onto the good old US of A.
Please??
09 November, 2009, 08:50
@ Aleksandar Hranov
Exactly, the Opel thing is another example of USA's cold war mentality. They cannot afford Opel anymore, the workers don't want GM anymore, but they will run Opel to the ground before they sell it to those Russians. Obama has failed period.
09 November, 2009, 07:44
Hi Peter,
Your comment:
"I had hoped for a new American approach toward Russia. It hasn’t really happened. Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed. When Hillary Clinton was in Moscow she couldn’t refrain from the usual Washington lecturing on how it was a pity Russians aren’t like Americans – as if America is a beacon of human rights with Gitmo still open and “processing” suspects".
America as well as Britian are still practising the CNN Effect. This Deplomacy, Freedom of the Press, Human Rights, The American way of doing things is part of " Devide and Conquer" strategy.
Why Clinton and the British are allowed into Russia is beyond my comprehention. Remember Mr Putin saying "Russia is Russia - Leave us alone and we will leave you alone" but they do not listen.
Also and this may sound off the wall, Kentucky and MacDonnalds are not fast food outlets, they are part of the American Indoctrination process.
09 November, 2009, 07:18
Hi Robert@ Robert Walters,
I agree,
"I think RT is one of the best forums available, try BBC, CNN or Aljazeera"
BBC, SKY, CNN and Aljszeera are American and British "Disinformation and Propoganda" networks. From what I see, they are controlled by the CIA and the MI5.
Peter's comments are factual.
07 November, 2009, 10:13
@ Robert Walters
I think RT is one of the best forums available, try BBC, CNN or Aljazeera forums and move beyond the engineered hate speech to real probing questions, it doesn’t get onto the forum, its so censored I couldn’t be bothered with them anymore, they present a single face, and don’t allow deviation, its simply not real news.
I read RT because it does allow for debate.
Peter has just started cross talk, give him a break, besides I like RT’s style, the reporter is allowed to ask that dumb question (that we were all thinking anyway) and its not this safe reading from a pre-prepared “marketing a cause” script you see on CNN.
@ kierkegaard
Bianca is one incredibly knowledgeable person and sometimes I think she is Leon Panetta’s boss, what she seems to know, I’ve never read anywhere.
But yes I agree with you, its hard to buy the Russia versus USA stuff when every country in the world seems to be divided, even the face of RT is half American, so one does get a sense that what is really going down is “beyond sovereignty”.
I get a real sense that there are two power poles battling it out and that both Russia and the USA are merely jokers in the pack of cards.
I think the only difference is that Russia is strategically situated and is open to attack from either power pole, not to beat evil Russians as depicted by CNN, but to win at a bigger game, which makes Russian governance ever more challenging.
I think the USA is in survival mode and swinging between the poles, it can’t seem to decide which side it is on.
I’m not sure if a new order is taking out some tyrants, or the old order tyrants are just rearranging the world, like you, I wish someone would whisper in my ear.
If it’s the first case, then I’m an eager soldier, if it’s the second case, I want to build a space rocket and take the good people left, to another planet, this one is poisoned.
I think intelligent people in general are becoming apathetic because they have realized as JohnX always says that this is really a proxy war, and the real poles of power are clandestine.
I think lethargy is setting in with normal people like myself because it doesn’t feel like my war, after all, I cant even figure out who the good guys are, if any.
Bianca is up in the strategic stratosphere, but what everyone is asking is “why”.
It’s a good question, Peters article seems to indicate that the USA is swinging between the power poles again, selling out, and my question is just what does happen exactly when “patience runs out”.
07 November, 2009, 08:22
kierkegaard wrote (about foreign policy makers): " In, say, the US, you know the cast of characters". Or, do you? You know only tip of the iceberg -- the "representatives". And, by the way, those representatives may have very little in common with those whom they represent and who put them at front line. Most probably they are used just as decoration or avatars or those "fat and ugly" who are really in charge. Just to fool you. And to cover their dirty games by destructing your attention from them.
I hardly believe that you know well those in the US who are cooking policies and determine the course of the American political ship. For that matter, I really do not understand why people in the US are so paranoid about Putin. He is not a superman. He doesn't control Russia. He is also a representative. So, Medvedev. They were put in the Office by the same group of "black Cardinals". Bankers. So, kierkegaard, if you, really, want to understand who is running the country and the country's political mechanics, the last place you should be focused on -- the Kremlin itself. Read Russian financial news and bulletins of jail/prison traffic. And learn to read news between the lines. The primary information is in there. Learn to distinguish important stuff from masquerading.
-------
Holmes and Watson went camping. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up his friend and asks: "Tell me, Watson, what does this starry sky tells you?" -- "Well, it tells me that the weather is going to be nice in the morning" -- "And to me it tells that someone has stolen our bloody tent!".
06 November, 2009, 20:26
@Kierkegaard,
I see what you mean now. In fact, come to think of it, I see a lots more of Russian movers and shakers and policy people being interviewed on RTV, but I do not always see them on the web site! This may explain why I did not think of it. I'll do some more checking of the website for those interviews.
06 November, 2009, 19:14
“Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed.”
I say ‘nothing has changed at all’ Peter.
How do you like the Opel story that just came out?
Yes, the cold war is so over..
When I was playing football (“soccer” dear Americans) I was told to look at the ball, and to ingore the oponent’s legs and body language. I think the same can be applied to politics, or put otherwise:
“Actions speak louder than words.”
Now, do I believe a real change (not the Obama type) can happen? Yes, I do. I know, must be this naive Eastern gene, but I actually think there is a slight chance. How?
One way is that somebody who speaks what he thinks gets elected in the US. Somebody honest to be more exact: somebody like Ron Paul.. let’s say in 2012. It promises to be interesting.
The other way is that we’re faced with “some outside, universal threat.. .” Or was Reagan just too old and talking nonsence?..
And that “..universal threat..” does not have to be necessarily an exotic one. We have a few very real, very earthly, very urgent and quite unavoidable ones it seems: for example ‘global climate change.’ Yes, the term has gradually replaced the more friendly ‘global warming’, but in fact to reflect reality it has to be ‘global climate nightmare.’
Time will show.
It’s just too bad we need to suffer in order to become human.
BR
Aleks
06 November, 2009, 14:49
JohnX and Bianca,
Good points, but my critique is that I am not getting enough news about Russia. It's nice that Peter is willing to critique his own country, about which I am sure he knows a great deal. But I would like to know who the major decision makers are when it comes to Russian foreign policy. That's the only reason why I might read a Russia-focused news site. In, say, the US, you know the cast of characters. But Russia? Who are the policy makers in Russia? Has Peter, or anyone else on this site, produced critical commentary of Russian foreign policy debates?
You see, we are talking about Clinton and Obama. But what about Lavrov and Putin and Medvedev? JohnX provides good analysis of the Western "Illuminati," but who are the key players in the Russian "Illuminati." Or should we just believe that Putin controls everything because he is just so wise (and in great shape!)
06 November, 2009, 10:03
Obama's failure has never been so clear as it was yesterday. The Palestinian President, Abbas will not run for re-election even though he would have won by a large margin with Hamas not participating. The Palestinians had placed all their faith and hope in Obama and he has left them frustrated, disillusioned and at a total loss. I blame Abbas for this, he must know that the international community cannot help. South Africa freed herself, and Palestine must also free herself. You cannot rely on America, they will never change their foreign policies.
05 November, 2009, 23:21
In regards to Obama goes things have gotten tens time worse under his administration with a push in western backed terrorism into Eurasia sphere Russia, Central Asia and China, more bases and NATO military presence in Europe against Russia which they are rehearsing war strategy and Afghanistan which they are using as a front with the excuse of fighting the Taliban against Russia as well as studying Russian army capacity in Britain and the US and increase in military budget.
Points of which I referenced Eugenes Friendly Fire blog.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/About_Us/Blogs/Friendly_Fire/agent-provocateur.html
@Kierkegaard
What about Russia's foreign policy as I can tell apart from a defensive US/NATO proxy war against Georgian satellite state Medvedev although he should have done it sooner in my opinion has been negotiating oil and gas and trade deals with Africa, Latin America Central Asia and China unlike or Islamic terrorist sponsoring/organised crime, colonial war driven British foreign policy which is just the same as EU, NATO and the US because they and controlled by that special 2% minority.
05 November, 2009, 22:40
@Robert Walters.
I have not seen the interview, but on the strenght of your comments, I would really like to know what is it that you find so appaling. For example, what were in your oppinion the most appalling misrepresentations of facts, or absence of facts? Why did it sound so lacking in objectivity to you? I am aware of the lack of information on the subject in the West, but your comments lead me to believe that you are well informed, and that in your oppinion, facts were misrepresented. I would really appreciate any information you can offer.
(In the meantime, I will try to find the program)
05 November, 2009, 20:25
Kierkegaard,
I have not yet seen a US TV Channel that featurs an honest to goodness critique of US foreign policy. Any "critique" that I see (and I have to put it in quotes), is really a wishy-washy analysis that tends to obscure the facts, rather then enlighten the viewer with information. Typically, data that "does not fit" is not ever mentioned. Available data is so twisted, that it is hard to separate fact from the wishfull thinking.
I am not suggesting that I have no criticism on RTVs journalism and the quality of analytical work. On occassions, I have sent scolding remarks when the inadequacy of an interviewer botches up a potentially good interview. I have criticized some analysist for jumping to conclusions, behaving as if they are talking from the first hand knowledge, and generally lacking the data. In today's world, when information is available from reputable sources worldwide --- especially reputable analysts and commentators with longstanding careers in their fields of endeavor --- there is no excuse being unprepared.
But these are mistakes I can forgive. This is just a question of time, and better adjustment to RTV core mission. At times, the enertainment value is given more weight then is warranted. There is perhaps too much emphasis on youth, making some of the interviewers look not just inadequate, but a certifyable airheads!
One can have many a criticism. But, it is still the most open media when it comes to getting the news. There is no "filtering" of news, such as I see in Western TV and print media. World news that goes contrary to the US mantra, is many times not reported at all, or if it is, briefly, erroneously and in a ridiculous context. How many times have I seen that?
Straight forward commenting, as here on this web site --- is rare.
I have to defend Peter's style. He is a professional with a well honed skills that provoke discussion. You will probably like his style --- or dislike --- but you will not remain indifferent.
But what I detect in RTV is something that entirely lacks in US and other Western media. It is optimism. No matter how complicated the relationships are, no matter how ridiculous the cold war mentality still permeates the thinking in the West, Russian media as a whole exudes optimism. Evan when there is so little to be positive about --- one feels that the doors are always open. Even amidst the hostility towards Russian anything, and even when downcast and despondent --- Russian thinking seem to always search for the rainbow.
What bothers me in mainstream Western media? Smuggness. There is always an air of condescending tone, phrase or the choice of word. It is almost as if their word is the last, the supreme knowledge and judgement upon any form of life on this planet.
That is called Hubris. And it is not Russia nor any other country, religion or creed that will bring the inevitable Nemesis to stalk the land. Because Hubris generates its own Nemesis, out of the thousands and thousands of big and small self-deceptions.
However, outside of mainstream media, there is an ever increasing pool of high-quality analysis, research and reporting. Their influence is unfortunatelly marginal in the US. It is more then ironic to find out about these authors in mostly foreign, non-Western media.
05 November, 2009, 16:20
Sorry Peter I can not agree that Russia-US relations are better. Russia is making to many concessions and getting nothing in return. There is much publicity, and praise given to Obama concerning the withdrawal of the planned missile shield, However Russia is ignoring at its peril the fact that Poland is hosting a Patriot surface-to-air missiles, which the United States claimed would be a dummy varietiey, Poland has stated the missiles will be combat-ready. Poland is now having US troops stationed in Poland to "re-train" its army. Also lets not forget the SM-3 mobile missile system, which is to be placed in Poland, Czech Republic "may be" in Ukraine, no doubt will also be in Afghanistan as US will remain there for decades, and despite denials at present also Georgia, and lets not forget Balric States. Russia will find itself surrounded. One can not dismiss the feeling that the CIA with its Polish allies will invent an excuse to strike
05 November, 2009, 11:47
I saw your interview regarding the trial of the Bosnian Serb leader and was appalled at the lack of objectivity both from you and the majority of speakers. I consider your interviewing techniques thoroughly unprofessional, biased and totally lacking in objectivity. The panel selected espouse extreme opinions, the content of your questions show a lack of knowledge or are blatant misrepresentations of the facts. You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.
04 November, 2009, 16:30
Peter,
I don't know where you stand on gay rights. I was saddened by the vote in the U.S. state of Maine yesterday. I am a proud gay man (not a sissy). 53% voted down gay rights and 47% voted yes. VIVA the 47%. Our time will come.
Gene H., San Francisco
Old habits always die hard. During her first visit to Moscow in office, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not resist lecturing Russian politicians, not to mention students, on the kind of society they should live in.
The reversion to old habits was not confined to civil society issues - it also included how the Russia-US relationship should move forward. What we saw was Washington's "new" foreign policy: ‘Pax Americana' with President Barack Obama's human face, plus an unearned Nobel Peace Prize, no less.
I was supremely disappointed with Clinton's visit. Her news conference with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was a disaster.
Clinton gushed, while Lavrov stayed with the facts. Clinton wanted us to believe that problems in the bilateral relationship could be fixed by motivational speaking.
Lavrov revealed the true state of affairs during the ensuing Q&A session, pointing out that little has been accomplished in "hitting the reset button".
Western media and much of Washington's chattering classes were awash with the notion that the Clinton visit would finally get the Russians on board against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
President Dmitry Medvedev's earlier comment that sanctions against Iran, under certain circumstances, were inevitable was interpreted that Moscow had folded. Not surprisingly, Lavrov reiterated Russia's position that sanctions rarely work and that diplomacy with Tehran was far from exhausted.
Then the issue of new US plans for anti-missile defense arose.
Russia has reacted positively to Obama's announcement that he would scrap the Bush-era plans, but this week there was no sense that reciprocity was needed from Russia. And why should there be? Washington needlessly threatened Russia's security when it claimed the real aim of the anti-missile was a possible threat from Iran.
In fact, Moscow has no intention of rewarding Washington just yet, since the Pentagon has said it has ideas about new anti-missile defense.
Rhetorically, Russia has been told it could be invited to participate in the new plan. However, Lavrov made it clear there are no specifics on what that cooperation could mean.
Again, Clinton was getting ahead of herself - another bad habit of US foreign policy when trying to con a so-called friend. And believe me, the Russians aren't amused.
Desperate to show relations have really been reset, Clinton made reference to Russia's help for NATO over Afghanistan. Russia did the right thing long before the motivational speaking of the Obama administration - it agreed to an enhanced air corridor over Russian territory to supply US-led forces in Afghanistan. This kind of support is critical to avoid a complete and humiliating defeat at the hands of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and drug lords.
Russia's help for NATO didn't get it a Nobel Peace Prize, but it does demonstrate that Moscow is acutely aware of the fragility of the current international system and how to deal with the already-failed state of Afghanistan.
When it comes to another problem state, Georgia, Russia's political elite and people see President Mikhail Saakashvili as a thug due to his actions in starting the South Ossetia conflict in August 2008.
But Obama's administration sides with a country whose leader committed war crimes and refuses to accept the legitimate claims of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be free and independent.
Clinton said that the US and Russia remain at odds over this issue, but now it is Washington's problem. Moscow's position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia is clear and will not change. Saakashvili is one of Washington's creations, so now it has to consider if he is worth spoiling relations with Moscow.
Addressing students at Moscow State University, Clinton did what many US politicians have done here before: share what they think are sacred truths about modernity - the whole civil and human rights 10-step program to make the rest of the world just like America. It all sounded quite hollow.
Few in Russia - even critics of the current government here - see America as practicing its own self-proclaimed values.
Clinton's motivational speaking didn't convert anyone in Moscow. The Russians, like the rest of the world, are still waiting for meaningful decisions and actions from the Obama administration.
The clock is ticking and patience is running out.
First published at the Moscow News
15 November, 2009, 16:19
@ Bianca,
I completely agree and hope that the world will become a better place.
31 October, 2009, 15:55
Okay Peter,
I have been given WAY too much air time on your blog. It is time for johnx or Bianca to chime in. I will shut up for the rest of the day. Our creator gave us one mouth, and TWO EARS. To me that means listen more than you talk.
Your friend,
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 15:42
Peter,
Now the American press is talking about "Power Sharing" before the Afghanistan election. What a FARCE. Let's get the HELL out of that country. How long will it take for the United States to learn from Russia's lesson?...THAT COUNTRY CANNOT BE OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER. Let them work it out themselves.
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 13:01
Peter,
George Bush and Dick Cheney stole the election from the American people in 2000 and 2004. They tried to turn the United States into a NAZI regime. They failed, but they came VERY close to succeeding. Believe me, I am watching this new administration closely. I think Obama is a good guy. So is Medvedev. (In my humble opinion)
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 12:00
Peter,
I am not afraid to confront the police. I was arrested FIVE times in2005, taken away in handcuffs. One time, I was stripped naked and thrown on the floor of a Police station. No charges were ever filed against me. Hilariously, that was during the Bush/Cheney regime. They did not know who they were messing with. I love the transparency of Obama.
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 11:41
Peter,
You are a friend. But I will say to johnx, come to my country, come to San Francisco. You will be ridiculed, you will be made fun of, you will be called a "San Francisco Liberal" as an insult. I love it. Bring it on you Republican narrow minded beeoches. It takes a man to stand up to the power. Boris Yeltsin is one of my true original heroes.
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 10:40
Hi Peter,
Here is an example of how we do Halloween in San Francisco.
I got off the "underground" train yesterday. I confronted three cops. I said, "Great outfits! They almost look real.". They laughed and one of them said, "You are the FIRST one all day who had the balls to say that". We all laugh at each other on Halloween.
Gene H., San Francisco
31 October, 2009, 09:40
Opie Taylor Lives (From the Andy Griffith Show)
I was walking the WILD AND CRAZY streets of San Francisco tonight. I asked people what they thought of my "Opie Taylor" Halloween costume. They said "Dude, that is righteous, great costume". Funny thing was, I just went out like myself.
31 October, 2009, 06:42
Peter,
Why does johnx get more air time than me on your blog? He is obviously very smart. However, I am no dummy. He is the Yin and I am the Yang. PRINT THIS IF YOU DARE!!! HAPPY HALLOWEEN FROM THE USA.
Gene H., San Francisco
G
30 October, 2009, 23:25
@Peacekeepertwo
It’s worse than that the international Islamic forces fighting in Iraq were diverted from networks created by the CIA/MI6/BND, etc to fight in Chechnya
Just like the September the 11th hijackers, fighters were diverted to Zarqawi networks in Iraq the most famous being the UN headquarters bombing hence why they had the Nord Ost and Beslan terror attacks to bring a quick end before there network unravels by closing them down so the do not fight US lead forces in Iraq.
Nord Ost was definitely organised by MI6 and the moderate leadership as there is financial and video tape evident by Maskadov, the guy who lead the attack and Basyeav in a video date 6 months prior planning the assault and there is strong evidence that Beslan was rehearsed and organised in Bosnia under the supervision of MI6 agents and UN representative Paddy Ashdown as there was a video discovered of militants training through a known Islamic front NGO linked to Chechen terrorism of militants in the spring of 2004 in a terrorist training camp practicing setting up explosives and rehearsing hostage taking in a school gym.
“Cybercast News Service has also obtained a video that terrorism analysts say depicts an active jihad training camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region previously described by analysts as an ideal gateway for terror missions into Europe.
The video, which is over four minutes in length, shows outdoor maneuvers, explosives training and training inside what appears to be a school gym. Exercises in hostage-taking are also shown.”
http://www.aina.org/news/20050817121245.htm
The original article on the CNSnews site with the link to the video (which I have) has been removed
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm
US might have had foreknowledge of the attack as documents where discovered in Iraq before the assault of photos of schools in the US.
Did they also have links to the Beslan cell?
Zarwaqi himself was a Jordanian/Chechen terrorist trained in Chechen camp in Afghanistan to fight in Chechnya his cousin were a senior member of the Islamic council of Dagestan in 93.
@Kierkegaard
But Kosovo was not meant to be an independent state it was not engineered that way its purpose is essentially to be a transit point for organised crime and terrorism from Europe into Eurasia for western geo-politics not surprising that Soros and Brezinski were at the forefront of supporting policy in the Balkans
Of course the two Georgian regions were/are never truly independent either being part of Russia or Georgia/US
But there is not much risk of destabilisation coming from the two Georgian regions spreading to other parts of the Caucasus or around the world like what is happening with the Panski gorge unlike Kosovo where terrorist camps and terrorist cells and crime gangs have spread over the border into neighbouring Southern Serbia in it’s 10% Muslim population area and Macedonia as well as being the base for organised crime networks throughout Europe dominating 90% of the sex trade in London and being the prominent in Afghan drug distribution into Europe.
There is only a few countries truly independent due to there size, geographic location, population, military capacity and financial resources.
@Bogdanov
I haven’t actually read the book or even know about the author just read the article.
30 October, 2009, 11:17
Hillary was upset that Mr. Putin didn't bother to meet her. Even the South African President didn't want to meet her, she had to chase him around the country.
She needs to act her age, very immature woman.
29 October, 2009, 15:42
johnx.
I am not very familiar with the work of V.Erofeyev. I heard about him before, read little bit. He is definitely good, but Russia has plenty of other pretty talented writers. I think this is the Russian language which gives this opportunity for many Russians. As Erofeyev himself wrote: "I cannot understand those writers who left the country. Russia -- the paradise for writers. But, I have hard time to understand those readers who decided to stay here. Russia -- the hell for readers".
Anyway, I read your post and decided to learn little bit more about the guy and his work. Specifically, I read "Encyclopedia of the Russian Soul". I think it is fine writing. And I couldn't find anything there which would show Erofeyev as being anti-Russian. Yes, he is very critical of Russia and its inhabitants. Russia and Russians are presented in the satirical and often exaggerated (generalized) way. But, he is far from being alone in this genre. Many famous Russian writers did the same. Including Pushkin, L.Tolstoy, Gogol. It seems, Erofeyev himself was influenced pretty much by very famous F. Dostoevsky.
Actually, I found that this his writing is pretty funny in many places. Though, you should read it in Russian, know the author's biography (why he is writing in certain way), and the context (space-time of Russian reality) very well. By the way, the context is always very important in any Russian literature. And take in account, that he generalizes Russian character from his local point of view. Otherwise, the whole thing may look disturbing and ugly. And misunderstood.
There is a difference in the relationship between the word and the cultures, say, in the USA and Russia. This difference -- the level of trust to the press in the respective countries. There are certain definite newspapers and magazines in the United States that people trust. Russians, from the other hand, get used to avoid taking written and spoken words too literally.
Relationships between Russia and Russians, who had chance to live abroad for some time (like Erofeyev) are pretty complex. Russians are like sailors. They could not stay on land for a long time -- the sea calls them. But, once they are on the ship, they start dreaming about the land. So, they never have internal piece. Or as Erofeyev says about immigrants: "Russia cannot be forgotten. Everything is wrong there. And not just wrong, but miraculously wrong... But, Russian immigration never fits in other country's reality. Everybody complains. Nostalgia is killing them. But, they afraid to death their mother-Russia".
Interestingly enough, but people like Erofeyev (whom I consider as truly Russian patriots) always inspired me personally for actions in my life -- to break the cage of Russian stereotypes and be free from it. They help me to look at myself and my relationships with the world in different way and see those problems which restrain me from moving forward.
28 October, 2009, 23:26
Hi Peter,
Afghanistan is quickly becoming an absolute disaster for the United States. Today's revelation that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Hamid Karzai (President? of Afghanistan) has been on the CIA's payroll for years, is disgusting. I have added an excerpt about this news.
Here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33500863/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
Gene H., San Francisco
By Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen
updated 6:18 p.m. PT, Tues., Oct . 27, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan - Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.
The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.
The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.
28 October, 2009, 19:11
@Alann;
Thank you for kind words.
I do think at times if it is worth taking time to talk about issues that general press just skips over. Partially, many a complex issue is swept under a few, well rehearsed phrases due to the intent to deceive. More often, it is journalistic need for expediency, for reducing complexity to something they can put in a sentence. Either way, public gets a distorted view. I am starting from a premise that most readers are more then willing to learn something new. And in today's graphics driven media, information is in short supply.
In Kosovo, the deception goes much deeper then the denial of its Serbian identity. The most recent history has only put the finishing touches to a process lasting many centuries. It is just that Serbs, weakened by the Ottoman rule and the demographic and economic catastrophies of WWI, WWII and the communist rule, did not comprehend the insidious nature of their cultural erradication.
Unlike South Ossetian or Abkhazian cases that were never part of Georgia until Stalin's generosity to his native Georgia, Kosovo has always been Serbian. Under nearly five hundred years of Ottoman rule, and various war-time occupations, Serbian majority population has never been in question. And in the same time, Methohija is a significan Serbian heretage, as these were endownments of Serbian rulers and aristocracy to the Serbian Orthodox Church. Methohija, literally means "church lands". The demographic picture started to change dramatically only in WWII, as Hitler favored Albanian quzlings, against the Serbs. However, while such wartime alliances are damaging, that was nothing compared to the communist rule. For some, still not quite known reasons, communists were eager to prove that their brand of communism was better then the austere communism of Albania. All sorts of propaganda was unleashed accross the border, attracting Albanians from Albania to come over the mountains to the "promised land". And indeed, at that time, it was a land of plenty. In Kosovo, Albanians had the freedom of religion, economic advantages, generous social services and health care, not to mention that Yugoslav passport at that time allowed the holder to travel visa free to Europe! The immigration overwhelmed Serbian population. The new immigrants had little patience for Serbian complaints. Serbian churches, monasteries, farms, graveyards --- all became target under the very communist noses. They scratched their heads, wondering what happened! The trickle of Serbian exodus turned into a stream. NATO entry under the UN flag, resulted in the open ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbs. Over 300,000 fled the violence that NATO purposefully unleashed on Serbian population to curry the favor with the Albanians.
The point that I have raised here is simple: is the mankind moving in the direction of the rule of the law, or is regressing to the laws of the jungle? One can always say that the international law has been implemented in a very spotty manner. I agree. However, there are aspects of international law that are well observed -- especially in issues of trade and transport. On the other hand, other international laws have been respected only by the weak, but not by the strong.
The history of mankind has shown a remarkable progress in the development of the rule of the law. It has never been a steady, ascending path. There were setbacks and centuries of backslide. But the progress is undeniable. The trouble is that today the countries with the most developed societal structures based on the rule of the law, are backsliding in a spectaclular way. Internally, the populace has arrogantly thrown away centuries of gains by allowing cuts in liberties at home, and gross violations of laws abrad. When the world leading countries show such disrespect of the laws --- their own or international agrements --- that bodes ill for the advancement of the culture of the rule of the law. US policy makers made a serious mistake at the end of the cold war. Instead of seizing the day to establish stronger rule of the law accross the world, they sqandered it on the assumption that by pressing their economic and military advantages, US would be better served. That is history, and cannot be reversed. With all the push by Obama administration to try to recover US leading position, it will take a miracle. Trust has been broken.
Backsliding in global affairs is where we are at. In one and only body where a semblance of consensus can be found, UN Security Council, the arrogance of the West is still the coin of the realm. But the pride comes before the fall, and the pridefull never even see their fall until well down that slide.
The question is, what will happen as the part of the word that was most instrumental in building the rule of the law in human relations, falters and looses its economic and military might? The rest of the world that was always weak on the rule of the law in their own cultures, will be left with picking up the pieces. But how will this be done, will determine the fate of mankind. If the world proceeds in the direction of fighting for the pieces of imperial hubris, we will enter a dark phase, indeed. But if the wisdom prevails, international law and order may become stronger and more credible. That would require that the international law is extended from the realm of trade and transport, into other burning issues, such as a seccession.
We can all sit and cry that the world is the way it is. But let us remember that not that long time ago, little feudal estates also fought each other over many misunderstanding, from the rights of hunt to the fate of fair maidens. Yet, many a nation overcame that state of affairs, with universal laws applicable to the nation as a whole. There is nothing to prevent the same process applying to the world as a whole. The tighter economic interdependence may force the process along.
It is very possible that the strongest nations may see this as infrigement on their freedom to do what they please. And it may well be up to others to forge a more equitable legal environment, in spite of the non-conforming nations. That may as well become a natural evolution following the crash of post-cold war order.
28 October, 2009, 13:17
Peter,
As a fighter and soldier- I admit as manipulated one- you and I are equal. Has money destroyed you, like me or are there other obstacles, which for me are irreverent. In a way I want to down grade you to my level, which is human. In the beginning of you carrier at RT I thought I met my double. What the hell has happened during the time past? I have written numerous articles in my country as Lieber Putin! What the hell is going on in the horse trading RT? Do you have a problem to voice your opinion? I’m one of those believers who want believe the gossip. Peter, I’m a media connoisseur and can evaluate your worth for RT. And therefore you are only a valuable soldier. Welcome in my world.
26 October, 2009, 19:36
@Bianca,
As always you are a real pleasure to read. The ease with which you put all things straight is mesmerising. Thank you again for it!
As for trying to explain the differences to some people on this blog between the Kosovo and Metohija and South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues, I am afraid it is pointless as it is "throwing pearls to pigs".
By the way, Kosovo in Albanian does not mean a thing, nor do the toponyms in Kosovo have their meaning in Albanian but only in Serbian. One more crucial proof that Kosovo and Metohija (the real name of Kosovo is Kosovo and Metohija) has always been and will be Serbian land regardless of the current "elephant in a china store" called the U.S. of A. and its henchmen.
26 October, 2009, 14:33
When I learned of the most recent Bombing in Baghdad Iraq, I ask who benefits from this event. I am an American, and it is painful for me to ask this question, Could the US army be Paying Insurgents to do this? There are Always people who will disregard the Human life, to increase profits. We have been lied to so many times, to us locked into never ending war. I hope the American people will wakeup. I am so discouraged by the Power large Corporations have on our Defense Dept.
26 October, 2009, 07:48
Until the parent state accepts the independence of its former territories, they will never really be legitimate, independent entities.
I believe this is true in Kosovo as much as in Abkhazia. Moscow can get a few friends to recognize their independence, and the West can do the same for Kosovo, but without Tbilisi or Belgrade's blessing, each territory has a big question mark over it.
They will remain 'disputed territories' until such status is changed. And I don't see any legitimate Georgian government (or Serbian one for that matter) changing their policy for years and years to come.
Peter and others here can call them independent states. But they are not. As independent, at the most, as Freetown Christiania.
So, let's drink to the disputed territories of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Kosovo. The stillborn states of the multi-polar world.
26 October, 2009, 07:41
Bianca,
The Matrix? You must be joking.
Søren
26 October, 2009, 01:33
Interesting to hear about the South Stream project I heard the US through companies and front organisations where financing the opposition to derail the South stream project going through Bulgaria.
Since the Mid 70's this has been US lead foreign policy objective to control the world oil and gas and there key transit routes. Look at where these Islamic insurgent wars are and the proximity to natural oil and gas and strategist transit routes that benefit the US.
The only person to notice this apart from myself is Webster Tarpley, Sidel Edmonds and F. William Engdahl.
And it looks like there using there Islamic proxies to destabilise Xinjing (East Turkmenistan) in China to try and create a confrontation between Russia and China classic Brezinski divide and conquer strategy.
Some good articles concerning NATO and the “reset” which means away from the Mid East and towards Russia. War that is not co-operation.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=region®ionId=6
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15824
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14945
Also I didn't mean to post the same comment twice but due to the long delay from when I originally posted it I thought it did not get posted.
22 November, 2009, 10:35
Pauline writes, “The Dalai Lama left Tibet because the government freed the feudal serfs. I know something about serfdom, because both my grandfathers, whom I knew well, were sharecroppers in Texas.” I don’t think that’s why the Dalai Lama left, Pauline.
I respect your family’s experience of latter-day feudalism, and I esteem your family for the suffering that they undoubtedly experienced through it. You know something about serfdom; I know something about Communist tyranny, because my parents, my brothers, my uncles, aunts, cousins and grandmother, along with thousands of other ordinary Estonians, had to flee for their lives from Soviet oppressors and killers. Because of this, I feel much sympathy for those Tibetans whom Communist occupation caused to flee from their homeland into a life of exile, and for those Tibetans who stayed behind to suffer the ongoing oppression and humiliation that is the lot of all occupied peoples.
22 November, 2009, 10:34
To Vyacheslav Bezusov who writes, “He (Reagan) knew the difference between Russians as a people, and the Soviet Communist system, something which you refuse to acknowledge.” You don’t know me very well if that’s what you think.
Over the time I have posted on RT, I have made many positive comments about Russian people and Russian culture, and have often expressed positive hopes for Russia’s future. I have also expressed sympathy for the suffering that Russians have experienced, have expressed admiration for their ability to bear such suffering, and have expressed gratitude for the part that Russians played in helping to overthrow Nazi tyranny. I have also referred to the passivity of the Russian temperament, which character trait their President has also publicly noted, and have pointed out that because of that character flaw, Russians seem to take no responsibility for any aspect Soviet atrocities and crimes against humanity, and feel no personal responsibility to steer Russia away from any potential new totalitarian abyss. I also point out that, based on the direct experience of Russia’s neighbours who suffered Soviet occupation, the Soviet Union was the creation, the expression and the instrument of Russian chauvinism. Which is why post-Soviet Russia is also so hyper-sensitive to any and every criticism of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is technically supposed to be a different country to Russia. Yet for Russians both then and now, the two are emotionally indivisible. Sing the words of the first couple of lines of the old Soviet anthem to yourself some time if you doubt that – to the same tune that is still Russia’s anthem today. Russia cannot free itself from the Soviet Union’s odious legacy until they finally acknowledge this.
22 November, 2009, 10:31
To Bogdanov: yes, I appreciate your posts too because you, the person, shine through the words you write. Even if I may not agree with every one of your views, I like you as a person, and I think we would get on well together. This illustrates that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, an art which does not appear to be in over-supply in the world.
Having said that, let me move on to the subject of Tibetans. Of course most aren’t on the internet. But those who are, are likely to be in contact with their people back in Tibet, and they carry within them the same general values and understandings which their compatriots embrace.
A comparison with the Soviet-era Estonian diaspora comes to mind. For years, Estonians in the West had no contact at all with their relatives and friends back in Estonia – Stalin’s paranoia saw to the complete cut-off of communications even by mail. And if an Estonian somehow was to receive mail from the West, this would immediately make him a target of the Soviet secret police. In the 60s and 70s Soviet paranoia eased little, to where some mail communication was possible. But all parties knew that such mail was read by censors, and so nothing of any significance could be discussed – letters had to be bland nothings, whose sole purpose was to indicate that the senders and recipients were still alive. And yet despite these completely separate and geographically remote circumstances, when closer communication was again re-established in the 1980s, Estonians at home and abroad found they held, and had always held, exactly the same views about their country’s past, present and future, and exactly the same views about the Soviet occupants. I am convinced that Tibetans' love for their country and their anguish over its sufferings produce a similar unity of views and purpose, whether at home or abroad.
22 November, 2009, 10:28
The point I made regarding neo-conservatism, which subsequent contributors have overlooked, is that simply mentioning the word, “neocon” is enough in some people’s mind to dismiss out of hand a particular argument for which they apparently have no answer, and to demonize the proponent of that argument. Others use the word, “Jew” to similar effect, and yet others the word, “Nazi”. I suppose that in all cases, those who use such tactics of obfuscation feel that they have made a valid point, or that they have said something meaningful and substantial. They haven’t. They have merely avoided the topic, and run for cover behind a smokescreen. Like Bianca, in the post that prompted my original comments.
I have had the honour to be called all three over time – a Jew, a Nazi and a neocon (even a mad neocon, it turns out) – by Forum participants who could not be bothered to deal with facts I present. At least the first epithet I consider a badge of honour, the second is an insult and the third is just a laugh.
22 November, 2009, 04:58
I don't know why Russia and Putin/Medvedev put so much emphasis on co-operation with Europe yet totally neglect development and trade with Asian states like Japan and South Korea like they recently did with China where they could develop joint companies and Asian expertise in IT and high tech industrial development even business practices in exchange for selling Japan and other Asian states oil and gas creating joint companies like US does with Saudi Arabia instead of transporting Siberian oil and gas to Europe.
Of course Russia will have to give back Japan the Kuril Island’s with some provisions like no military presence on the islands like they gave territory to China but that should not be a big deal as Russia has no long historical connections to the Islands and it does not border its territory.
Just have to make it clear to China they are not creating an anti-Chinese axis.
Yet Medvedev see’s Russia’s development with future co-operation and increased influence in European/US dominate institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Why?
After the disastrous Soros/Harvard “shock therapy” of the 90’s, destruction of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo war, colour revolutions, the Georgia conflict and rapidly increasing expansion of military bases in Europe and upsurge in Islamic militancy in Central Asia, China and Russia over the past year with increased US/NATO military presence in Afghanistan and the likely destabilisation of Uzbekistan doe’s he not get that the EU and US since the fall of the USSR have been making geo-political manoeuvres against Russia.
Why further integrate into this IMF/World Bank system instead of developing an independent economic regional alliance free from the dictates of Washington and Brussels and there agents like George Soros.
22 November, 2009, 02:29
Marzipan, the Dalai Lama was willingly removed from Tibet by the CIA, and has been in their control ever since. The Dalai Lama left Tibet because the government freed the fuedal serfs. I know something about serfdom, because both my grandfathers, whom I knew well, were sharecroppers in Texas.
Furthermore, the Portala Palace was initially built by a Chinese princess, who married a Tibetan King; the Emperor of China designated the Dalai Lamas. There is a massive historical record linking Tibet and China.
Tibet has been part of China for over 1000 years.
Furthermore, practically speaking, the Dalai Lama seeks to subject his own people to war and suffering when he puts Tibet into a contest between the west and China, because there is no way China will ever allow anyone to steal Tibet from them except by force of arms; THAT is obejctively what you and the Dalai Lama wish for the Tibetan people, war.
It is too bad the Dalai Lama is not human enough to give up and go back to his homeland and live a quiet life for the sake of his people, who are enjoying an 11% increase in GDP and a narrowing gap between themselves and higher incomes in the rest of China, which is a very diverse place. Afterall, they do not want the British back enforcing the "power" of the Dalai Lama, because it was not the Dalai Lama who freed them from serfdom when he could have, it was the "Godless Communists" who did that, while the Dalai Lama ran away to be rich in the west.
Marzipan, you speak OPINIONS and EMOTIONS, but you do not speak facts, or if you assert them, they are most often incorrect.
22 November, 2009, 02:14
Marzipan6.
Not everybody who criticizes Russia and Communism (no matter how harsh they do this) falls in the category of neocons. At least, this is how I understand the meaning of this word and how I use it in my comments. For example, I would not consider you being member of this "club". I think, Bianca, very well described this notion. And I agree with that definition. Though, on this blog, I, normally, narrow it down. Firstly, I apply it primarily to American politicians with power or those who can influence those with power. Secondly, and most importantly, the criteria to be called "neocon" -- you have to exhibit paranoid desire for world domination, putting yourself above international laws, being hypocritical, arrogant, and ignorant, and pushing others by any means to follow your path. Shortly, being like a nasty kid (strong, aggressive, and uncontrolled) who has difficult childhood, mentally disturbed, and seeking for any opportunity to poke or humiliate other kids and show them who is the boss. Because, he can do it and nobody will punish him for that.... Surprisingly, America is full of such "spoiled child" politicians.
And, you are right -- neo-conservatism is not a party. It is lifestyle. The same as there are no parties of killers or rapers, there are no parties of terrorists or gangsters. But such people exist physically and others sometimes feel their presence. And what makes neocons being especially dangerous -- they are not exposing themselves very explicitly (this is why hypocrisy is one of their key features). They are hiding themselves behind the masks and trying to fool others. They are like daemons of darkness snooping around creating fears in minds of Americans (being attacked by others) and people around the globe (being attacked by Americans). Though, sometimes some of them surface and we know their names. Like, say, the biggest scumbag on this planet for the entire history of humanity -- John Bolton. Though, he is not the most famous and not the nastiest among neocons...
Regarding Tibet.... You said: "And Tibetans’ voice is fairly consistent on this subject. For a general sense of what that voice says, Google “Tibet Online.”". But, Marzipan6, the actual Tibetians (not those who represents them in the West) not even have access to Internet. I am not even sure that Tibetians in Tibet have electricity in their houses (if they have houses at all). So, they cannot be online. And that, I guess, was Bianca's point... By the way, accidentally, once I had chance to see the demonstration in support of Tibetians in San Francisco (during the visit one of the high-rank Chinese politicians). Looking at that crowd I had this feeling that entire show was phony and created specifically for TV cameras. So, my point, -- I don't trust those "fighters for human rights in Tibet" here in America. I believe many of them either don't know the real situation in Tibet or well paid to be "clowns" and "cheer leaders". Especially, these day, when California alone has almost 2.5 millions jobless people.
In fact, Marzipan6. The more references you bring, the more problems they, seem, create for you. I like you (even though you often give me hard time) and I don't want you to sink completely. So, I would prefer if you speak from your own experience. I trust it more...
jonhx.
You are asking: "...why is this issue of western terrorism and organised crime not taken seriously by Russians?". In fact, Russians take Western terrorism (of different kind) so seriously that, it may seem, that Russia is paranoid and obsessed with the West. Remember on the previous Peter's blog entry some guys (sevodnya_net, kierkegaard, G.Walters) complained that this site focuses too much on the West and not providing information about Russia. What they don't know, probably, that focusing on the West is a part of Russia. It was always a big part of life in the USSR and, at least, for the first ten years in the post-USSR Russia. I cannot say for sure about current time. But, I assume nothing changed dramatically. I think, Russia still spends a lot of time trying to overcome problems created by the West systematically. Actually, I will be more specific -- probelms created by neocons and their "trained dogs".
21 November, 2009, 23:47
@Marzipan6,
Absolutely wrong! The "neo-conservative' movement is a distinct wing of the American political thought. Anyone following US politics knows this. It doesn't have to be made up of "card-carrying" members. (Most conservatives in the US don't belong to the Conservative Party, for example.) Irving Kristol and his comrades, originally Trotskyites, became disillusioned with socialism and came full circle, but were (and are) different from traditional American conservatives and so-called "paleo-conservatives." Have you ever heard of Pat Buchanan? He is a very renowned and influential conservative political figure in the US who frequently criticizes the neo-cons. Buchanan was a senior advisor to American presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and was an original host on CNN's Crossfire. He also has criticized the expansion of NATO, as had the late preeminent American diplomat concerning the USSR and Russia, George Kennan. Neo-cons like to claim "descendance" from Ronald Reagan, but this is patently false. Reagan was anti-Soviet, but never anti-Russia. He knew the difference between Russians as a people, and the Soviet Communist system, something which you refuse to acknowledge, therefore earning you the neo-con label. I rejoiced when the Berlin Wall fell, and when Russians showed the world their true sympathies during 19-21 August 1991. But I also remember remarking, "I hope the US gets it right regarding Russia." Despite the advice of Kennan, Ambassador Jack Matlock, and others who knew and understood Russia, US policy under Clinton, and then Bush2, was hijacked by the unscrupulous neo-cons. I have been the strongest of anti-Communist and anti-Soviet Reagan Conservative Republicans my entire life, to include military service in combat zones and putting my life on the line for what I believed (1980s). However, once the 90s came around, and Clinton and Bush2, under neo-con influence, started behaving like the Soviets used to (bombing innocent Serbs in 1999, who already were getting rid of Miloshevich; trying to force an alien system on other peoples, under the false guise of "democracy,"), I became thoroughly disgusted. How could I support the US doing the same thing the Soviet Communists used to? On the other hand, in Russia, the power of the Communists was thrown off, and although still suffering from the Soviet legacy and still not perfect, Russia is becoming more and more the beacon of hope that the US used to be! Having lived in Russia for several years, and having known and visited the USSR during the evil Brezhnev days, I can compare myself how so much has changed. Churches are full and growing. There is almost total harmony between Muslim Tatars and Christian Russians, for example (it's not for nothing that Hillary Clinton recently visited Kazan). Life is not the best, but overall it is good, and a lot better than it was by far than during the 70s under Brezhnev. So my conclusions have come from a lifetime of study, and from personal experience. I am ashamed of the neo-con direction the US has taken, and am also afraid that all of these shenanigans have initiated the ruin of my native country, the country I love and was brought up to love and respect and defend, the USA. But unfortunately, the US seems to be very much on the decline, and the domestic policies of Barack Obama just seem to be accelerating this demise. Too bad the US doesn't have such sterling leaders like Medvedev and Putin. It is my dream that the diehard cold warriors in both the US and Russia will bury the hatchet and make way for a new generation of bold leaders, not afraid to form a US-Russia alliance. Putin and Medevedev have it right, but there is no one in the US leadership yet who can meet the challenge. And remember folks, it was the realistic and idealistic (and conservative and anti-communist) Nixon and Reagan who made the most striking advances toward world peace with China and the USSR, strategic arms limitation and reduction treaties, etc.
I do not see Obama as that man. He has too many neo-cons and russophobes advising him, starting with his own VP, Joe Biden!
21 November, 2009, 20:15
I just watched a TV report on the BBC about the 100,000 Somali's, yes, 100,000 that were brought to Minnesota to "start" a new life. Well,the end of the story came and about 30,000 nice Somali's(young men and women) have taken up covert action to bring down the USA and KILL all her people! Nice people these Africans! What a country! The USA needs to be taken over by Putin!
21 November, 2009, 15:24
john
I agree with John.It does indeed look as if under Medvedev Russia is becoming a US satellite state. I also agree he does not understands or see, the greater picture and danger to Russia. Medvedev is making the same mistake as Gorbachov in accepting at face value what the US tells him. Did not the US Secretary of State James Baker 111 tell Gorbachov that the former Warsaw Pact countries would not become members of NATO? Like many non- Russian citizens we looked for a person who would be a counter balance to the US "world domination",polocies, at one time we could rely on France, But now the French President seems to be vying with the British Prime Minister to see who can be the most faithful puupy to the US. With Mr Putin as Russian President we did have that counter balnce. Now we do not. Perhaps when all the mobile SS Missile systems are in place in Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Ukraine and other locations, Medvedev will realise the errors he made in appeasing the US, but by then it will be to late. The failure of Russia to honour its contracts with Iran are also not a good sign
21 November, 2009, 11:27
Bianca chooses to view this discussion exclusively through the lens of “neo-conservatism” (“neocons”). According to her, this explains my views, the views of certain writers whom I have quoted, the views of the Dalai Lama and a large number of other unnamed people, indeed the views of anyone who has something negative to report about Russia and Communism. According to Bianca, the neocon label both explains the reason for those views, and is the primary and only evidence needed to comprehensively dismiss those views. So by way of response, I will briefly discuss neo-conservatism, then my own position in regard to it, and thirdly some specific points from Bianca’s post.
First, neo-conservatism. There is no neocon party, organisation, society, company, or what have you. In this regard, neo-conservatism is quite different from, say, the Communist Party, the Masonic Lodge, the Nazi Party or the Dog and Goat Society. Neo-conservatism is a descriptive term which lacks coherent definition and coherent structure or any coherent membership even, and is increasingly used as a catch-all pejorative term for those who take issue with the abuses committed by Communism generally, the Soviet Union specifically, and Russia as the heir of both. As such, it is a label that is useful as a ploy to avoid analytically considering and logically discussing specific issues which are uncomfortable to some people, and for demonising, at a stroke, both those views and the holders of them. Using the label, “neocon” does not distill understanding, but obscures it.
Secondly, as to myself, I do not apply any labels to me or my views. I believe people and their views are more complex than simplistic labelling can convey. Before the time of neo-conservatism I never considered my self as an “archeo-conservative”, as I had many disagreements with conservative views. Nor did I consider myself a “liberal” for the same reason. I distilled my views from what I experienced, from what I saw, from what I knew, and as I have not fundamentally changed those views over the years, I cannot be a "neo-” anything, either. I present facts as I am aware of them, welcome factual discussion of them on the basis of verifiable factual evidence, and eschew labelling. If you want to pin any label on me at all, then pin the anti-label label.
Thirdly, some specific points from Bianca’s post.
(1) “Neocon world view is based on mad thinking … they are driven by madness.” Undoubtedly some to whom Bianca imputes neo-conservatism are mad, and undoubtedly some aren’t. The same may also be said for the rest of the human population. Inducting someone into the ranks of neocons, imputing a world view to all neocons (whatever “neocons” are) and calling both them and their world view mad neatly absolves one of the need to analyse specific arguments of specific people. Or does it?
(2) “They keep on repeating the same tales, tirelessly.” I guess Galileo also kept repeating tirelessly that Earth orbits the sun. The truth of Galileo’s assertion had little to do with either his tirelessness or with his tiresomeness, but on the underlying facts upon which he based his view. Same with those of the amorphous grouping whom Bianca calls neocons.
(3) “In their grand schema, Russia is the grand target.” I guess some might have alleged that in Galileo’s grand schema, the pope was the target of his heliocentric persuasion; but if they thought that, they would have been just as mistaken as Bianca. If certain realities are evoked, certain conclusions follow on from them. If the underlying realities are correct, then so are the conclusions, and vice versa. Beginning by imputing the motive of demonising Russia, and working backwards from there to the tirelessness of the proponents of some views, is like looking the wrong way through a telescope – to evoke another Galilean figure.
(4) The relative economic status of Russia, China, Europe and America may or may not be a problem to the alleged insane thinking of the supposed madmen whom Bianca conjures up for us. But more importantly, it is reality. And not only are the surface layers of those countries’ situations real – so are the deeper layers all the way to the core, and all of this reality will determine eventual outcomes because reality – all of it – is real. Now whether I and my thinking are as insane as Bianca suggests I do not know – after all, insane people are probably badly placed to judge their own sanity because their instrument of judgment is what is broken. But for my part, I would love to see a secure, democratic, prosperous, stable and content Russia that enjoys a relationship based on genuine friendship and genuine respect with all its neighbours. Such a Russia, and such a neighbourhood, would deliver the best quality of life for all concerned.
(5) As for how China is destroying Tibetan culture, for self-evident reasons Tibetans’ voice has to be accorded much, much more weight in any such discussion than China’s. And Tibetans’ voice is fairly consistent on this subject. For a general sense of what that voice says, Google “Tibet Online.”
21 November, 2009, 02:51
I Just have to say GO Medvedev, Putin and RUSSIA, you are doing very well ,and President Medvedev has just made a knock out to the western media. Wish you the best from Guatemala.
20 November, 2009, 20:55
Marzipan6,
your last post has finally convinced me that your worldview is shaped by the neoconservative narrative. All the stock phrases, all the definitions, all the "evidence" for their world view seems to be reflected in your writings. The choice of authors had me finally convinced. Anne Applebaum? I follow her regularly. She can be decorated and honored, but she is a neocon in a different garb. One gets chills reading her not so subtle aggressive posturing.
What makes a good writer? Sure, both Lucas and Applebaum can spin a sentence really good. But their bias is vile. The reason most people get a nauseating gag reflex reading such authors, is that most of us have some residual sense of conscience. And that prevents us from spinning a tale to my own liking, while distorting the reallity. And doing it in great style of a great writer. Frankly, this is what disgusts me.
Neocon world view is based on the mad thinking. It assumes that a world domination is possible, and they see themselves lording over it. Had Europeans had enough presence of mind, they could have stopped Hitler's rise to power early. They did not sense the madness that the elite of German society bought into, and then hoisted their deranged thinking onto the empoverished population.
I see neocons in the same light. They are driven by madness. I sincerly hope you can see through their "reputable" garb, and grasp the real message behind their fanciful intelectualism. And please do not think The Economist can be held up as a standard. I read it daily, and I see their pattern. They still do not get it: the colonial talk-down to the rest of the world is over. They are hopelessly behind times, stuck in the ideology and the vocabulary that belong to the high flying neocon era that began in nineties. Those were the days. When the "humanitarian" neocons ruled through Clinton's sleeze machine to continue lording over the Bush's clueless appointees.
Neocons know full well that the public opinion around the world has seen through their narrative. But they are not giving up. They keep on repeating the same tales, tirelessly. Who knows. Perhaps their buddies in the Federal Reserve can punish all those that dare not to see their greatness.
In their grand schema, Russia is the grand target. Just the thought of one country possessing this nuclear power is sufficient to drive them over the edge. The power hugry neocons understand only power. They cannot concieve of the world where nations coexist with all of their differences, for as long as everyone respects the international law. And why would they? They feel that the their will has to be imposed upon others. Their phylosophy can be summed up as follows: The only way to demonstrate power is to make someone do what they do not want to do.
This has been neocon credo for the longest time. Much of the US foreign policy has been based on "demonstrating power", not securing national interests. Neocons do not think like most people. They do not believe that superpower should be held back by international law. That is only for the weak to hide behind, and for the strong to prove that hiding behind the international law would not save you from the ire of the empire should you choose defiance.
But the problem has occured for neocons. Slowly but surely, the economic power has shifted to the East, while "Putin's" Russia was not crushed by the financial crisis. China has emerged much stronger. Other regional powers are moving in to fill the vacuum, economically and politically. Brazil in Latin America and Turkey on the Medditeranean. Iran's emergence as a regional power is being resisted by whatever means, while the much weakened Japan looks to China as a saviour in its most desparate financial hour. The special relationship with India is lately being tested. The traffic between Delhi and Moscow has become very heavy lately. In the last six months, India's president, Prime Minister (twice), Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister have visited Moscow. India has found itself in a predicament embracing too closely US positions.
Europe may find itself having more freedom. What will Europe do with it, is never certain. European moral code has never been reliable.
Neocons pushing this and all previous governments are getting desparate. They cannot impose their will on their former puppet in Afghanistan, so are now reduced to badmouthing him.
Most of the journalists and media people today still mimic the neocon narrative. And for good reason. Neocons dominate think tanks, newswires, commentaries and other news generating outlets. Then there are "serious" writers, bloggers, and "serious" media that echoe their message.
But the message is getting hollow. One needs to read only few lines from such writers to quickly pick up the narrative line.
They have their favorite lines. The ones about "Putin" or "Chechya" are already so hollow and boring, that one just wants to tell those people to get a life.
The standard line about Tibet is very interesting. China is "destroying" Tibetan culture. But nobody can actually say how exactly? What has been China doing all these years since 1959 when the rule of the slave-owners ended that clearly demonstrates that China is "destroying" Tibetan culture? How exactly? Usually, the answers are clever side-steps that avoid any meaningfull discussion. For example, China is bringing in Chinese to Tibet! And that proves what? That the trade has increased, and the standard of living is lifting in desparately poor Tibet. But the neocon thinking does not think that economic improvements are important (well, not for Tibet), something else is. What is that something else? Nobody can say. Nobody can say that China is prohibiting Tibetans from practicing their religion, their customs, or engaging in earning livelihoods. Just as many Chinese have taken advantage of the new railroad to Tibet, so are many Tibetans going to China for better work.
Nobody can say that China did not spend a mint renovating the dilapidated monasteries. The wealthy ex-feudal lords who stashed their money in the West, did not help their breathern and donate to fix the monasteries. Oh, no. They would have preferred to see them crumble so that the world will have the evidence of China's "destruction" of Tibetan culture. Well, this set up did not work.
All that Dalai Lama is trying to do is to restore some form of feudal priviledges in Tibet for his elite followers, even if this means under Chinese rule. China does not want a Trojan horse back. So that is where we are at.
In India accross the border from Tibet, the exiled Tibetans are in the quandry. The older generation loves Dalai Lama, and eschews the economic progress on Tibetan plateau. This is not the case with the young. They see the life under Indian Government where nothing has changed in the last fifty years, no improvements no progress. And they realize that life is moving on accross the mountains on Tibetan plateau.
20 November, 2009, 20:44
It looks like Misha (Suckasshvili) has been a bad boy or in US/Britain and EU’s case a very good one with the Georgian interior minister holding private meeting with Basayeav in 2004 and actively supporting Chechen terrorism.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22498
Which is not a surprise as I have been documenting and writing about for years how starting from 89 and 91/92 how western intelligence has been sponsoring terrorism in the Balkans, Russia, Eurasia and around the world.
Seriously Bogandov and others why is this issue of western terrorism and organised crime not taken seriously by Russians?
@Marzipan6
I had a more detailed post with links but at least half the comment got published including the real history and situation in Tibet although I cited references to works but other authors and professors like Kevin MacDonald and former AFP reporter Michael Hoffman II about who Stalin’s hangmen actually were.
I am guessing in Mr Rayfield works he does not cite US senate investigation that lists the financiers of Communism in Russia or the Encyclopaedia Khazaria which they themselves list who the top leaders of Communism were or the fact that all the pre-revolutionary Marxist Socialist groups were created by non-Russians including the group that killed Czar Alexander II and the first “Russian” Marxist Nicholas Utin.
Mr Lucas is a propagandist for Rothschild from some of the main points of his book and his assertion that the Kremlin did it can be debunked.
Litvenenko case were all the evidence points to the fact that he was involved smuggling plutonium for Berezovsky/MI6. The official story/narrative is a lie which the evidence proves.
Politkovskaya (daughter of Soviet elites in New York) murder where even her son does not think the Kremlin killed her and why would they suddenly in 2006 when all the major Chechen warlords were killed and on Putin’s birthday (o’gee you wouldn’t be trying to indirectly implicate the Kremlin) perhaps he would like to comment of Berezovsky critic and Putin supporter Paul Klebnikov murder in Moscow in 2004.
Changes in regional elections after the Beslan massacre in the region to combat terrorism which are aligned with regional leaders and criminal gangs which proved successful of course that was painted as being un-democratic.
Central Bank murder were there has been a trail and conviction
Arrest of Khoderkovsky Rothschilds man in Russia fails to mention his arrest was because he was about to sign a contract with Exxon-Mobile signing over Yukos oil and gas transit pipeline rights to the US abroad essentially outsourcing the bulk of the Russian economy.
And there is probably other examples I could list if I knew more of the content of his book.
And what exactly critical things does he or Mr Mr Rayfield say about the Soros/CIA installed regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.
In my original post I had a description of the situation in Ukraine how the Orange coup regime has plunged the country into poverty and debt and like in 91/92 the foreign investment 80% worth is going straight into the banks.
Perhaps these two clowns would like to comment on that situation.
@Bogdanov
This issue and Russia's total failure to debunk this propaganda is what especially when the exact same thing happened to the Serbs in the Balkans wars during the 90's.
Not just in Russia but Bosnia, Kosovo Central Asia, Pakistan, Algeria, Afghanistan (fought with the Taliban) and Iraq.
Have you read Paul Murphy's excellent book Wolves of Islam?
19 November, 2009, 16:04
johnx. Good post.
Regarding Chechnya I may just add, that while the West was outraged by "Russian military invasion" to this Russian territory, the neocons were quiet about the fact that that at the dusk of the USSR and initial years of the post-Soviet Russia some Chechen's radical groups were running slave (literally) camps on their territory. They kidnapped people around the country, brought them in Chechnya, and nobody ever saw them again. Using the weakness of the Soviet/Russian system of that time, the Chechen extremists and separatists unrolled the full-fledged genocide, basically, returning this part of the USSR/Russia back to the dark ages. And they were cruel as animals. And not only on their territory. The groups of terrorists periodically (and quite often) run to the neighboring Russian districts. At the time while I was living in that region, there was a case, then the terrorists caught Russian family, cut them on pieces, and hanged the body parts on the tree. And numerous cases of just "regular" killing and kidnapping.
And I have serious doubts that neocons didn't know about it. Because, those Chechen guerrillas were trained in the mojahedin camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sponsored and financed by them. But, the Western media (with the help of "journalists" like Lucas) twisted everything -- victims became bad guys, and terrorists became victims. And not many people in the West know the truth -- that the war in Chechnya started to clean that territory from animals in the "human uniform". This war became a disaster for Russia later, when Russian oligarchs and high-rank criminals realized that they could use this war for money laundry. And as such they were interested to prolong this was as much as possible. In the expense of all those people who lived in those regions (not only Chechnya, but also the neighboring territories) and whose live they turned to hell...
I think, Putin did pretty good job to heal those wounds and return live there back to normal. But, again, people in the West don't know that. Because, this piece of information "conveniently" was not put into the "pipe" which feeds them.
19 November, 2009, 09:19
Bogdanov, if you Google “Donald Rayfield” or the titles of some of his books that I named in my original post, you will come across a very large number of on-line entries about him. While most of these may not provide an analysis of the man himself, together they demonstrate the fact that he is a serious scholar, and reflect the credibility in which he is generally held.
As for Edward Lucas, you will also find a fair bit of information about him on the web. He is likewise respected in his own field, which is that of journalism and writing – The Economist is not a radical publication and does not employ extremists. His comments about Russia are informed by the fact that he has had at least 20 years of direct personal experience of Eastern Europe, having lived and worked in many countries there, including Estonia and Russia, and this experience enables him to drill down to facts without suffering from either Western preconceptions or Russian propaganda. As you will appreciate, I know Estonia fairly well. So does Lucas, and he writes a fair bit about the country, not all of it flattering, I might add. However I have never known the information he has written about the country to contradict my own first-hand knowledge of the place. Nor have I ever known him to write anything about Russia that contradicts what I know to be Estonians’ first-hand experience of Russia.
His book, “The New Cold War”, actually makes chilling reading, and places the few sentences that I quoted from it firmly into context. Anne Applebaum, 2004 Pulitzer prize-winning author of “Gulag: a History” (which I have also read and recommend) makes the following comment on Lucas’ book: “Edward Lucas is one of the best-informed, best-connected and most perceptive journalists writing about Putin’s Russia. ‘The New Cold War’ is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what is happening in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union today.”
As for your comments about traditions not always being something positive, I already agreed with that point from Bianca’s post. But setting aside some negative traditions is not justification for eventually destroying a whole culture.
19 November, 2009, 00:32
Marzipan6. After I read your original post where you mentioned names Rayfield and Lucas, I spent some time trying to find out who they are. I couldn't find much information about Rayfield, but Lucas is more or less exposed... Interestingly enough, but my first impression about him is exactly the same like Bianca's -- Lucas cannot be considered as legitimate source of information about Russia. As I see it, he created that image of "ugly Russia" in his head and devoted his life to prove it (I guess, paid well for this by neocons). He has been studying Russia and Russians as animals in the zoo -- outside the cage and with attitude of superiority. He, seems, one of those parasites who keeps the regular Western people in darkness and creates problems between nations. I may be wrong, though. But, as I said, this is my impression after studying his biography and spending some time on his blog...
He is my point with this introduction. Similar to Bianca, I think, Lucas was bad choice of yours to support the view you presented. Because, normally, I consider your words as legitimate ones assuming that they come from your own experience or things you know for sure. I know little bit about Chechnya and Caucasus, I used to live among Muslims in Russia. The nonsense and russophobic garbage which Lucas poring to the media doesn't match what I know for sure. Or, as a minimum, his view is shamelessly unbiased and one-sided. So, now, after this simple reality check fails -- I have to dismiss your words as well. Because, they come from Lucas...
Another thing where I support Bianca -- maintaining traditions is not necessarily a good thing. For example, before Soviet system was brought to Central Asia, it was a place full of traditions. The traditions, where women existed only to serve men. Where vast majority of the population had only one choice -- to spend all their life looking after flocks of sheep. Where several super-rich from the ruling cast had unlimited power and full control of their half-slaves. The worst part -- their primary tradition was to keeps things as they are. The Soviets brought civilization there. Many of those natives, who would never had chance even to erect themselves from that eternal bows, were able to improve the quality of their lives significantly. So, I would, personally, very welcome to crash to dust those traditions which maintain the society in the state where relationships between humans mimic those from the animal kingdom.
Bianca. You said: "I understand that many in the west would prefer to see Tibet stay frozen in time". I think, that the West doesn't care about Tibet per se. The neocons care about Tibet as long as it allows them to mess with China. I am quite sure, that if relationships between the US and China will become a complete "brotherhood", the "problem" with Tibet will go away by itself. Without any changes in the current relationships between China and Tibet.
18 November, 2009, 22:44
Great article John, love your show.
marzipan6, you keep on saying soviet Russia, wasn’t it the Soviet Union or to be exact the USSR? Or maybe you think that USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Russia, well sorry to tell you that USSR stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
What I understood is you would want Putin or Medvedev to apologize for the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) atrocities during Stalin’s era? Why don’t you ask Saakashvili to apologize? If you didn’t know Stalin was Georgian. The prime minster of Australia apologized for the atrocities that Australia committed. I don’t think that Putin or Medvedev (who are Russian and are the leaders of Russia, not Soviet Russia or USSR or any other made up country you conjure ) should apologize for USSR’S (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) ethnically Georgian leader (Stalin) atrocities.
I think that marzipan6 is trying to heat up the debate.
18 November, 2009, 21:14
@Marzipan6
Who created and ran the GULAG system?
Who trained, financed and installed Communism in Russia?
I am glad you posted those quotes as it exposes the dismal state of our media and academia especially in regards to Russia and foreign affairs which acts as a propaganda outlet refute you're remarks and the sources you quote especially on the issue of the bogus "genocide" of the Chechens and social and economic decline of Russia of IMF imposed economic agenda with the sorry state of affairs which constitutes or mass media The only ones being genocided in Chechnya were the ethnic Russian population first rapes, kidnapping, murders by the first presidents militias and purges of ethnic Russians from the local government and ethnically cleansed the entire Russia and non Russian population of Russia 200,000+ from there region bombed out of there villages by warlords who moved Chechen families into there villages.
You could also add to there path of destruction Bosnia, Russia’s neighboring Republics and across Russia, Central Asia, China, Kosovo, Waziristan and Iraq.
Miraculously the ethnic Chechen population has more than doubled by 2002 a time where they said a impossible 150,000 more people were killed in a 2 year period which you also have to take into account by their own words that half the population immigrated abroad after the first war, killed in the civil war (why Russia entered the region in the first place), killed in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan fighting US and British forces in Iraq and Pakistan, those killed by foreign Jihadists/organized crime, etc while the ethnic Russia’s population has declined by nearly 4 million.
By 1998 4 million Russian children had died due to preventable diseases.
As for the depopulation of groups in the Arctic the period he cites is when the Oligarchs in 96 heavily financed and promoted with there control of the media put Yeltsin into power for a second term and as well as other institutions like OSCE help rig the election to bring Yeltsin into powers where these western/Israeli Russian oligarchs and had total control of the government appointed there people into power and the worst part with Berezovsky who appointed himself the head of security in Russia secretly aiding and abetting Chechen militants.
In 98 these thieving Oligarchs had the audacity to star in a real life series for Israeli TV called The Oligarchs boost about there exploits and
In that year Soros orchestrated the 98 Asia financial crash that severely damaged the Russia economy even further.
And everyone admits that Russia’s disastrous post Soviet decline was due to Soros/Harvard economists “shock therapy” that dismantled the industrial center, caused hyper-inflation were foreign currency pumped into western banks in rigged auction run by Khodorkovsky with money forwarded by
Maybe if Mr Donald Rayfield contacted actual experts on the region who have been reporting there the entire time and interviewed them which consists of about 5 people which includes people like Robert Bruce Ware and former CIA counter terrorism official in Russia Paul Murphy who runs Russian Eurasian Terror Watch Analysis
If he is so concerned about Russia then perhaps he can speak to Berezovsky who resides in London and petition these other Oligarchs that laundered $1 trillion into offshore accounts. .
So it was when the Oligarchs came to power the Arctics regions population declined only when Putin came to power and abandoned IMF imposed economic policy did standards improve and population grows start. We will see if 2010 census shows an increase in there population.
So it is not Russia that it is committing genocide it is Britain, US and the EU.
As for Mr Lucas he is the chief propagandist for the Rothschild owned Economist newspaper the same Lord Rothschild who owned the Yukos oil company who through the Menatep bank help launder billions of dollars to an offshore account in the Isle of Man and his frontman George Soros engineered the economic collapse of post-Soviet Russia
And he admits that his book The New Cold War he did not research it himself he was commissioned to write the book which he wrote in a think about 2 months (not completely sure on that one) and his publishers sent him all the relevant information.
I have not read his book which I hear is basically a rehash of western media coverage of Russia over an 8 year period with the easily debunked threat being the main thesis of his book.
The truly genocidal mafia regime in Kosovo KLA who have tortured, massacred and ethnically cleansed almost the entire Serb populations and is the premier mafia, drug and sex capital of Europe who run terrorist training camps have hired the Economist to run propaganda for their regime paying them 5.7 million euros (drug and sex slavery money because that is the economy).
“As part of the campaign for changing Kosovo image in the world, Kosovo separatist authorities engaged the renowned London weekly paper The Economist to spread propaganda that separatist run province is not a mafia-ran entity.
Separatists are to pay 200,000 euros so that several texts favorable of Kosovo separatist can appear in 5,000 copies.
Eminent European journalists, particularly from the countries with large communities of Albanian immigrants, describe Kosovo as mafia state and a territory safe for criminals and drug smugglers, with weak institutions governed by corrupt family networks, and in some cases as the European Columbia, which portrays the presumed role of Kosovo as the great European drug supplier, the media in Pristina reported on Wednesday.
However, three introductory pages of the new issue of The Economist magazine have been added to the usual in order to claim that what prominent journalists say is not true.
The expanded addition of The Economist will also run by 5,000 more copies from its regular 1.3 million circulation.
All this is in part with the agreement The Economist made with the separatists that hold grip on power in Kosovo.
Kosovo separatists have hired the Israeli company Saatchi & Saatchi to make media believe that Kosovo is a good place.
Separatists have allocated 5.7 million euros for such propaganda activities.
Kosovo is a Serbian province whose Albanian violent separatists have illegally declared independence in 2008 after ethnically cleansing over two thirds of the Serbian population while NATO troops, there since 1999, claim they are there to keep peace. The remaining Serbs are exposed to daily attacks of various sorts. Some states have extended a diplomatic recognition to these separatists claiming the province is a “unique” case”
There not automatically branded extremist if they are it is because western backed Islamic terrorist have recruited and set up terror cells in Tatarstan and other regions.
The CIA through Turkey and Saudia Arabian finance Fetullah Gulen Universities and schools have spent millions of dollars in Russia and Central Asia to promote radical jihadism.
That’s just a lie about minority groups because Russia has spent millions in restoration of different minority groups regions they even have Duma representation for the minority black population in Russia.
Hypocritical for him to talk about minorities when Britain is involved in secret rendition flights across the world of Muslims who I might add the top terrorists leaders and recruiters like Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza were in the pay or worked with MI5/MI6 recruiting terrorists to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya and Central Asia or the above mentioned Kosovo where the regime launches pogroms and terrorist attacks against the Serb minority population destroying over 100%+ churches and Iraq where 1,500 intellectuals and academia have been killed by 2006 and how the US was training death squads for there appointed leader.
Did he have any serous criticism towards the Oligarchs in Russia during their reign in the 90’s?
Perhaps he would like to comment on the situation in Ukraine
18 November, 2009, 12:20
To John, who has heard that children were removed from Britain and sent to institutions in Australia for some decades of the last century, and that many Aboriginal children were also taken from their families and placed into institutions. I wonder has he also heard that the Australian Prime Minister and the entire Australian federal parliament has deeply apologized for both of these events, and that these two separate apologies were broadcast live around the nation and cheered by people everywhere as they heard it?
John hasn’t heard that?
That’s all right, I haven’t heard that Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev or the Duma has offered equivalent apologies, either, to Russians and their neighbors, or that these apologies were broadcast live throughout Russia and cheered by the people.