What's Russia's game plan?

[paigetheoracle]

George Bush is the fly in the ointment here. I'm not saying Putin is anymore wonderful than Saddam Hussein was (murdering a soviet dissident in the UK for one thing) but GW is putting him under pressure with the Polish shield idea and support in Georgia. Putin and George are both equally paranoid, pushing Russia back into heavy handed communism and turning America into a fifties communist state, through homeland (mother Russia!) security measures and the other mentioned points: This is guy is a child and somebody should take his toys away (The USA) before he breaks them. Look at what Cesar Millan says about mad dogs and the need for discipline - without barriers they turn into petty tyrants; in other words they should both retreat back into their own kennels and sort them out, rather than go sticking their noses into other countries businesses: Back off and cool down is the message tht needs to be sent (Putin threatened Poland with nukes because he felt threatened by American intervention).

As for China - trade with the West is giving it a new lease of life and poverty struck Russia should learn from this (Too many gangsters spoil the broth as America and prohibition proved). Look at the Olympic games. China's treatment of dissidents is probably worse than Russia's but they showed that they could pull together as a nation and get on with it, which Russia in its present condition couldn't.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by michael

Didn't Catherine the Great really do a lot to bring Russia into the modern world?
I read her biography. That and Stalingrad are the only two books I have read on Russia
Was she before or after Peter?

Close, but no game
Catherine (assuming you mean Catherine II) came after Peter, while she did do a fair amout to closen Russia to Europe, yes closen is a word i just made up, but its when one side builds up to an extent that the other side would want to be closer to them be the new "it".

Peter, however, did a whole lot more with this, there is a good book out there on Peter, and i have posted a couple of papers i've written on the topic here

German soldiers respected russian soldiers a lot, for the life of them, they could not understand, how, people that are not trained, and going towards their certain deaths, could prove to be so resillient, how russian soldier, being sent out to war with no weapons, ammo, rations, clothes nor mode of transportation, could be an effective fighting machine, as my great grandmother used to say; your great grandfather, returned from the Russo-Finish war, spent about 6 months at home, and got a telegram, that said something along the lines of:
"You are required to defend the motherland, please pack up and head in the direction of the front. On your way there, you should be able to pick up some weapons and ammo. For the motherland!"

gonna run home, more, later

[Michaelangelica]

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power,

Nice speech Buffy
Are you STILL Republican???
Some of the problems Clinton mentions are not unique to USA

Middle class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline.

Perhaps more due to globalisation and "corporatisation"?
Our last conservative government was leading us down the same path. Hopefully Rudd will turn things around. Six months in and it is still early days but the noises are promising. Certainly the last Oz Government was Evil (I just saw the play/musical "Keating" last night.- a potted musical history of Australia over the last 20 years)

EDIT
I just sent the Clinton Quote to a less idealistic, more cynical (lawyer friend) with a link to the speech.
He came back immediately with

And so what do we learn from his example? Move over Monica

[paigetheoracle]

Dictators are bad news for any country (Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Stalin etc). Even Rudi Giulliani who started off well became one I understand.

What every country needs is independent individuals, working for their own and everyone else's benefit, not slaves to the will of one man. Dictators ruin their own economy by suppressing the needs of their own people for creative expression as Mugabe is doing with Zimbabwe, GW is doing with America and presumably Putin is doing with Russia but we don't get much news out of there to be sure. It is distrust of the people (In God we trust -phoey!) and their suppression for personal gain (wealth/ power/ prestige) as opposed to free expression. Saddam was bad news for Iraq but outside interference by The West has only made the situation was by destabilizing the region. Whatever 'coat' dictators wear (democrat, communist, straightforward tyrant), they are opportunistic gangsters, stirring up trouble for their own benefit. Peace is good for a country, war never is - whether it is external conflict or internal revolution. As Gandhi said 'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, the homeless - whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?' or Churchill much more simply "Jaw,jaw,jaw is better than war,war,war". Idealism hides a multitude of sins (lies) as Iago would be the first to point out, if he wasn't so guilty of such a crime himself - hypocrites rule but only if you don't know it.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by michael

Are you STILL Republican???

i vote for Buffy's new party... buffublican

Originally Posted by paig

Dictators ruin their own economy

Putin's a bad example, the economy has thrived under him, debts are being paid, and there is more and more uninvested money circulating in Russia...

heavy handed communism

you clearly need to read up on Russia, a bit...
Russia never had communism, because communism eliminates the need for a government, and Russia was always governed. what you are referring to is Marxism-Lenninism, which is closer to an advanced form of socialism then communism... Putin was also not pushing for socialism, he called it democracy, but since Democracy does not fit in every situation, such as Russia, it was a russified form of that.

But let me expand on that.

The western world was founded on principals of democracy, though it is hardly that today, american people have a deep burning desire to spread democracy everywhere in the world, whatever millitary action it may take, shoving democracy up the ...... well you know where that thought was going, let's make this one at least PG 18. Problem is, americracy, or americanized version of democracy, is sometimes not a very good fit for a country, any given country, and what government has seemed to work out over the past, most of the time, very long history of the nation, is what is best suited for that country, and by americans may or may not be considered the right choice. And don't argue about americracy, the government has long not stood for the people, they have long represented their own opinions. It has been long since the people decided who gets elected, the democracy has been long transformed, thus don't deny it, simply follow the thought.
But this gets me to what Buffy had said, as well as paig, Russia is not a democratic country, democracy would simply not work in Russia; main reason for that is what russian people want to do, and have done to them. Russian people have always had election processes, even in the old times it was who people chose to rule their city-state, not who was appointed to the office by the tzar. Russian people say they want democracy, what they really want is to be able to choose who governs them, and sometimes get to vote on issues that may seem big to them, but in all reality aren't. At that point, tell them what to do, and as long as there is faith in the person who is governing, they will do as they believe is the best for the country. In essence, what Russia needs is a russified version of americracy, take 7 parts americracy, and dilute it with 3 parts of sovietism, with one party in the house, and less bureaucracy in the gov-t branches, and more gov-t control over businesses, and you know what, Putin has established a pretty darn good model for the people, because in 6 years, he has gotten a country out of an almost critical hole, that was about to collapse onto itself, into what now is a nation that is beginning to prosper and establish its global role, that it once had, and that is why he is still in control. Also call Koba (Joseph Dzhugashvilli) what you want, but there aren't that many leaders that can in so few years turn a country on the brink of poverty after war, into a prospering fully industrialized cold war machine... (i know at what price, but case and point remains)

[Michaelangelica]

paigetheoracle
Mostly I would agree but there have been a few notable exceptions recently and I am sure you would find some benign Royalties/dictatorships in history.
I, for example ,would make an excellent dictator. So much more efficient than democracy
The notable one in my patch is lee Kung Lew (sp?) in Singapore and the now the Singapore government. Singapore would have twice as many rules that would put you in jail than Russia.
Perhaps also the Dali Lama and the Ghandi family in India.?

The western world was founded on principals of democracy,

Was it?
I would have thought it would have taken the Brits close to 1,000 years to develop parliamentary democracy.
They have now transplanted it to places like almost-stone age New Guinea where it is having trouble surviving.
Is Spain democratic? Well, maybe, since 1978.

I think the USA was founded on ideas of religions freedom. This slowly developed into other freedoms for its peoples (When did slavery stop? or are the wetbacks keeping the tradition alive?)
Twenty years ago, when I travelled in Southern USA, many told me that the "USA should NUKE USSR" because it was "ungodly" not because it was communist- as you rightly point out a word often used incorrectly.
'Pure' communism has more affinity with the teachings of Jesus Christ than anything else.
Of course, in real life, both philosophies become corporations and the message is buggered.
The Israeli Kibbutz was probably the closest practical, real thing we have ever seen to communism.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by alexander

i vote for Buffy's new party... buffublican


Putin's a bad example, the economy has thrived under him, debts are being paid, and there is more and more uninvested money circulating in Russia...


you clearly need to read up on Russia, a bit...
Russia never had communism, because communism eliminates the need for a government, and Russia was always governed. what you are referring to is Marxism-Lenninism, which is closer to an advanced form of socialism then communism... Putin was also not pushing for socialism, he called it democracy, but since Democracy does not fit in every situation, such as Russia, it was a russified form of that.

But let me expand on that.

The western world was founded on principals of democracy, though it is hardly that today, american people have a deep burning desire to spread democracy everywhere in the world, whatever millitary action it may take, shoving democracy up the ...... well you know where that thought was going, let's make this one at least PG 18. Problem is, americracy, or americanized version of democracy, is sometimes not a very good fit for a country, any given country, and what government has seemed to work out over the past, most of the time, very long history of the nation, is what is best suited for that country, and by americans may or may not be considered the right choice. And don't argue about americracy, the government has long not stood for the people, they have long represented their own opinions. It has been long since the people decided who gets elected, the democracy has been long transformed, thus don't deny it, simply follow the thought.
But this gets me to what Buffy had said, as well as paig, Russia is not a democratic country, democracy would simply not work in Russia; main reason for that is what russian people want to do, and have done to them. Russian people have always had election processes, even in the old times it was who people chose to rule their city-state, not who was appointed to the office by the tzar. Russian people say they want democracy, what they really want is to be able to choose who governs them, and sometimes get to vote on issues that may seem big to them, but in all reality aren't. At that point, tell them what to do, and as long as there is faith in the person who is governing, they will do as they believe is the best for the country. In essence, what Russia needs is a russified version of americracy, take 7 parts americracy, and dilute it with 3 parts of sovietism, with one party in the house, and less bureaucracy in the gov-t branches, and more gov-t control over businesses, and you know what, Putin has established a pretty darn good model for the people, because in 6 years, he has gotten a country out of an almost critical hole, that was about to collapse onto itself, into what now is a nation that is beginning to prosper and establish its global role, that it once had, and that is why he is still in control. Also call Koba (Joseph Dzhugashvilli) what you want, but there aren't that many leaders that can in so few years turn a country on the brink of poverty after war, into a prospering fully industrialized cold war machine... (i know at what price, but case and point remains)

As I said, I don't know much about Putin's rule - sounds more like he is what they call a 'benign dictator' as was Rudi Giulliani with New York. As for what you say about Stalin, he pushed the country into what it became and China seems to be doing the same, whereas Britain took its time becoming industrialized as you'd expect, being first and having to experiment as it grew.

As for what America 'is' and what Russia 'was' supposed to be, no matter what the name of the branch, it is the fruit of the tree that shows whether it is growing or shrinking in prosperity, compared to how it was as well as other countries (Linear time, upwards or horizontally, sideways): Every country goes through boom and bust as part of its history as does every empire but post war socialist countries like Russia, are not working together as a unit in the same way China is, so I personally believe it is showing the way forward, not Russia.

As for what you say about Russians voting for who rules their city states - sounds like America to me too! (Not a real country either, unlike European countries in the West or possibly other nations - maybe it's the size of the areas controlled?

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

paigetheoracle
Mostly I would agree but there have been a few notable exceptions recently and I am sure you would find some benign Royalties/dictatorships in history.
I, for example ,would make an excellent dictator. So much more efficient than democracy
The notable one in my patch is lee Kung Lew (sp?) in Singapore and the now the Singapore government. Singapore would have twice as many rules that would put you in jail than Russia.
Perhaps also the Dali Lama and the Ghandi family in India.?


Was it?
I would have thought it would have taken the Brits close to 1,000 years to develop parliamentary democracy.
They have now transplanted it to places like almost-stone age New Guinea where it is having trouble surviving.
Is Spain democratic? Well, maybe, since 1978.

I think the USA was founded on ideas of religions freedom. This slowly developed into other freedoms for its peoples (When did slavery stop? or are the wetbacks keeping the tradition alive?)
Twenty years ago, when I travelled in Southern USA, many told me that the "USA should NUKE USSR" because it was "ungodly" not because it was communist- as you rightly point out a word often used incorrectly.
'Pure' communism has more affinity with the teachings of Jesus Christ than anything else.
Of course, in real life, both philosophies become corporations and the message is buggered.
The Israeli Kibbutz was probably the closest practical, real thing we have ever seen to communism.

I do so agree - it is really not one political format against another but religion versus greed (true politics). The American Indians, communism as originally dreamed up and Christianity, plus Gnosticism before it - all perverted by negativity and lust for personal power (Wolves in sheeps clothing versus genuine sheepish people, who just want to get on with their lives, without 'outside inter-fear-ence' (leave 'well' alone - Don't fix it if it isn't broken)

[alexander]

Originally Posted by Michael

Singapore would have twice as many rules that would put you in jail than Russia.

You silly, rules don't put you in jail in Russia, people that don't like you do. For every two criminals convicted for a fair reason, one is convicted because there were no other people to convict, even though they didn't do it, and the detective is wrong, and one more is convicted because it is either beneficial to someone else, who has higher ties, or because you were in a wrong place blocking something or someone, or just because they don't like you, or you or the other guy made a mistake, but once again, have high ranking friends... And Russian jails are hard to rival in the severity of life in them, and survivalness... Though no other country beats US in the amount of criminals incarcerated per capita.

I think the USA was founded on ideas of religions freedom.

Certainly not without that, but it still fits under the principals of democracy, some democratic principals, not all of them though, and some do include "freedom" of religion, though that freedom has been long gone, there is freedom of religion, there is still little freedom from religion... and we all have Truman to thank for that... and Eisenhower too...

Originally Posted by paig

As for what you say about Russians voting for who rules their city states

you realize that Russia united in like 1500ds, right, when the notion of city-state was gone, and tzars assumed ultimate control... by 1530s, Ivan's time, if you did not follow tzar's word, in your city, you better kill yourself, it would be less painful... And no, the voting system in city-states was not what US will later use, people assembled on a square, and disputed who they wanted to rule, then the Boyars and influential men voted, and decided who rules...

he pushed the country into what it became

What, a prospering nation with a 6.1% annual economic growth, annual growth in export of, grain, metallurgy, machinery, chemical products; building first factories, and getting production process prices down so much that it cost 1/2 as much to make weapons in 1944, as it did in 1941, centralizing farming, building transportation systems, investing heavily into science, education and research centers... Don't believe people that never studied history, just because they say that "communism" ruined Russia, it does not mean that such is the case, think for yourself, don't let others tell you what you should think...

As I said, I don't know much about Putin's rule - sounds more like he is what they call a 'benign dictator' as was Rudi Giulliani with New York.

Think of him now more as of Cheney, that smart guy behind the scenes that is the true puppeteer... well sort of...

[Michaelangelica]

Putin smells a US rat in Georgia crisis

Clifford Levy in Moscow
August 30, 2008
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Other related coverage

* Putin blames US for war
* Russia recognises rebel regions as independent
* West increases pressure on Russia
* Russian troop pull-back
* Fears grow of a new Cold War



AS RUSSIA struggled to rally international support for its military action in Georgia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has lashed out at the US, contending that the White House may have orchestrated the conflict to benefit one of the candidates in the presidential election.

Putin smells a US rat in Georgia crisis - World - smh.com.au

Crimean peninsula could be the next South Ossetia

By Askold Krushelnycky in Sevastopol, Ukraine
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Related Articles

* Georgians stuck in limbo begin to lash out at Saakashvili
* Russia isolated as allies withhold support
* EU considering Russia sanctions
* Joint statement 'deplores' Russian foreign policy
* The West pledges its support for Ukraine - up to a point
* Adrian Hamilton: We need an old approach for the new global politics
* Leading article: Both sides should cool the Cold War rhetoric




Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, could be the next flashpoint in the new Cold War. And any violent disturbance in Crimea could provide the political seismic shock to split Ukraine itself along its existing fault lines of ethnicity, language and religion.

The Crimean peninsula is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians are in a majority. Many of them are deeply resentful about being part of Ukraine and openly call for annexation by Russia. Moscow has fostered pro-annexation groups for years.

Crimean peninsula could be the next South Ossetia - Europe, World - The Independent