View Full Version : New Cold War
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:05 PM
Cheney chides Russia on democracy
US Vice President Dick Cheney has accused Russia of backsliding on democracy and using its vast energy resources to blackmail its neighbours.
He said Moscow had a choice to make between pursuing democratic reforms and reversing the gains of the past decade.
Mr Cheney's comments - one of the sharpest US rebukes to Russia in years - came at an eastern European regional summit in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius.
Russia rejected Mr Cheney's remarks as "completely incomprehensible".
"The speech of Mr Cheney in our opinion is full of a subjective evaluation of us and of the processes that are going on in Russia," said presidential deputy spokesman Dmitri Peskov, quoted by Reuters news agency.
Cheney's warning
Addressing the Vilnius conference, Mr Cheney said Russia had "nothing to fear and everything to gain from strong stable democracies on its borders".
He warned that opponents of reforms in Russia "were seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade" by restricting democratic rights.
"In many areas of civil society - from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties - the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people," Mr Cheney said.
But he said "none of us believes that Russia is fated to become an enemy".
Mr Cheney also said that "other actions by the Russian government have been counter-productive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries.
"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation, or attempts to monopolise transportation," he added.
Russia drew international criticism after briefly turning off its gas taps to Ukraine in January, in a row that disrupted supplies to Europe.
A number of Russian politician have said that the US policy of promoting democracy in the republics of the former Soviet Union is really a tool to establish Washington as the dominant power in the region.
In Vilnius, Mr Cheney also condemned the Belarussian government, describing it as a dictatorship which forced its people to live in a climate of fear.
'Imperial nostalgia'
The conference is discussing how Nato and the European Union can support democratic and security reforms as they continue to expand eastwards into Russia's historical sphere of influence.
The presidents of Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are attending the conference, sharing their experience of building democracy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili accused Russian politicians of "imperial nostalgia".
"Political forces in Moscow actively work to undermine our economies, our sovereignty, and even our system of governance," he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4972464.stm
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:06 PM
Russian analysts, media see Cheney's speech as opening shot in new Cold War
Saturday, May 06, 2006
By Vladimir Isachenkov, The Associated Press
MOSCOW -- Russian media yesterday described Vice President Dick Cheney's harsh criticism of Russia and President Vladimir Putin as the start of a new Cold War.
Mr. Cheney's words Thursday at a conference in Lithuania drew a comparison to Winston Churchill's famed "Iron Curtain" speech and reflected the deepening distrust between Washington and a newly assertive Kremlin.
The official Russian response to Mr. Cheney's speech has been cautious. But angry reaction from politicians and pundits allied with the Kremlin reflects a chill between two presidents who seemed to have hit it off early in their relationship.
In his speech, Mr. Cheney accused Russia of cracking down on religious and political rights and of using its energy reserves as "tools of intimidation or blackmail." Opponents of reform in Russia, the vice president said, "are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade" after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet empire.
There was no public reaction from Mr. Putin or the government.
But the prominent business daily Kommersant said Mr. Cheney's comments marked "the beginning of a second Cold War" and harked back to Mr. Churchill's speech condemning Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe with the "Iron Curtain" label that defined the East-West divide for decades.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov refrained from criticizing Mr. Cheney but condemned the meeting in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, which brought together the pro-Western leaders of former Soviet republics on the Baltic and Black seas.
"Over the past years, many forums have been created that reflect the desire of the respective states ... to pool their efforts to achieve common benefits," Mr. Lavrov said. "But there are forums that create an impression ... that they are convened ... for the sake of uniting against someone."
Mr. Cheney's criticism -- some of Washington's toughest language -- came two months before President Bush is to join Mr. Putin in St. Petersburg for a summit of the Group of Eight industrial powers.
"The speech effectively eliminates the vestiges of strategic partnership between Russia and the United States. And if U.S. President George W. Bush confirms the stance, the idea can be buried," said pro-Kremlin political analyst Gleb Pavlovsky, the Interfax news agency reported.
Many Russian commentators said the venue for Mr. Cheney's speech -- Lithuania, a nation struggling to recover from a half-century of Soviet domination -- has made the blow more painful for Russia.
"By attending the forum, the United States has sent a message to Russia and those countries: 'We aren't leaving, we consider the region part of our sphere of interests,' " Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow office said.
"In a situation when Russia is trying to reclaim the role of a regional and global superpower, such a message has drawn a strong concern in Moscow."
Moscow complains that the United States and other Western countries are encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence, while the West accuses the Kremlin of bullying its neighbors, using energy as a weapon. Russia's state-controlled natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, has sharply increased prices for gas supplies to Ukraine, Georgia and other Westward-looking ex-Soviet nations in what is seen in the West as a political move.
A bitter price dispute with Ukraine led to a brief halt of Russian gas supplies to Western Europe. Gazprom's strong-arming of Ukraine combined with its push for a stake in gas distribution in Western European nations have encouraged fears of Russian domination and prompted the European Union to rethink its reliance on energy imports from Russia. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06126/687958-82.stm
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:19 PM
I was pleased to see that US goverment holds true to its values in a time when it has many things to consider in its foreign policy. Cheneys statement really was more about what is the right thing to do, and from that every US citizen should be proud of. :up:
That was from a few days ago :hmm:
Frankly, I hate to defend the Russian government (maybe I should even just say "I hate the Russian government" :roll: ), but Yuschenko and Saakashvili are full of it. Russia wants them to be more in line with it? Of course! You want cheap energy, you should probably expect that Russia will want you to be more friendly to them. I just fail to see what's wrong with it. Russia owes Georgia and Ukraine absolutely nothing. Nada. Zero. If they feel so mighty and independent, let them get their own energy. Otherwise, deal reasonably and don't try to politically stab a key economic partner.
It may be unfortunate, but this is what I call the fate of small nations. You either respect the larger powers around you, or you find alternatives. If they want to find alternatives, they better find them reasonably. American politicians talk well and give political support, but it's extremely naive of Ukraine or Georgia to assume they'll get bailed out by these guys economically. In fact, both the US and Europe have been very reluctant to make any concessions to either, and with their own economic problems to deal with - it's quite stupid to try and look to two powers in economic decline for salvation, when you have a growing Russian economy on your borders (growing wonderfully, in fact, partly thanks to mistakes the West has made, e.g. Iraq).
Frankly, I'm unimpressed with Saakashvili and Yuschenko to start with. Yuschenko sits atop a very questionable mandate, and can't be brought to face a massive division of interests within his country. It's very unfair to assume that there isn't a legitimate and rather democratic concern coming out of more "Russia-friendly" eastern Ukraine. Saakashvili has denied national claims of both Abkhazia and Adjaria, de-facto nations without real political rights that are formally still within Georgia, and has no right to point to Russia for nationalist ambitions because his aren't any less presumptions, and far more openly arrogant.
It's too early right now to talk about where Russia is headed since we have no idea who will be president in 2008. Not to say I expect a change of power, but it will be a good indication of where things are headed, and they're probably headed nowhere good.
That said, you have to give Putin's government credit for stabilizing the economy, and I've no doubt that his successor will be well-supported. Russians wouldn't take anyone else in these circumstances, simple as that - you can promise them democratic heavens and great political freedom, and they'll pelt you with rotten tomatoes if you don't offer them stability first. And noone has as yet.
As for Dick, well... Dick. :doh:
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:27 PM
It may be unfortunate, but this is what I call the fate of small nations. You either respect the larger powers around you, or you find alternatives. If they want to find alternatives, they better find them reasonably. It is just this mindset that brings Russias neighbours towards the EU and US. :doh:
Skybird
05-11-06, 05:32 PM
It's all chess, and improving strategic potentials for the future conflicts.
It may be unfortunate, but this is what I call the fate of small nations. You either respect the larger powers around you, or you find alternatives. If they want to find alternatives, they better find them reasonably. It is just this mindset that brings Russias neighbours towards the EU and US. :doh:
OK. That's not a mindset, that's a fact.
Note some of the additions I made above - and what are the EU and the US offering Ukraine and Georgia? Are you willing to pay your money, or perhaps even your jobs, to help put the average Ukrainian or Georgian on their feet?
The fact is that both Ukraine and Georgia are bad apples for the EU or the US to pick, and the US's one and only interest in them is as pointed sticks against Russia. Neither is particularly democratic, good on their human rights record, or anything but a financial disaster with a flag and anthem.
I've no doubt the Cold War is continuing in some sense, and I've no doubt Russians have ambitions. But my view is that, as with the last one, the West isn't any less responsible for causing it than the "East".
It's all chess, and improving strategic potentials for the future conflicts.
Precisely :hmm:
Skybird
05-11-06, 05:34 PM
It may be unfortunate, but this is what I call the fate of small nations. You either respect the larger powers around you, or you find alternatives. If they want to find alternatives, they better find them reasonably. It is just this mindset that brings Russias neighbours towards the EU and US. :doh:
Stay away from the EU. Well-meant advise from me. It has become worse than a mental asylum. We will need to pay a high rpice for that. No need that you join us in that. Your economical and educational policies are obviously superior to most of Europe's :up: Why compromise that?
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:53 PM
OK. That's not a mindset, that's a fact.
Note some of the additions I made above - and what are the EU and the US offering Ukraine and Georgia? Are you willing to pay your money, or perhaps even your jobs, to help put the average Ukrainian or Georgian on their feet?They are being offered the oportunity to become part of family of democracies, its all about peace and properity over nationalism and war. The EU has allready taken and is taking in every ex soviet satellite or colony, if it was only about money it wouldnt have happened. The fact is that both Ukraine and Georgia are bad apples for the EU or the US to pick, and the US's one and only interest in them is as pointed sticks against Russia.There are also other neighbour states that Russia has threatened or pressured, but what have these two did against Russia ? What do you ment by saying they are sticks pointed against Russia?
I've no doubt the Cold War is continuing in some sense, and I've no doubt Russians have ambitions. But my view is that, as with the last one, the West isn't any less responsible for causing it than the "East". You say Russia has ambitions, what kind? Territorial? Wonder how its Wests fault if these countries flock for cover..
Happy Times
05-11-06, 05:58 PM
It may be unfortunate, but this is what I call the fate of small nations. You either respect the larger powers around you, or you find alternatives. If they want to find alternatives, they better find them reasonably. It is just this mindset that brings Russias neighbours towards the EU and US. :doh:
Stay away from the EU. Well-meant advise from me. It has become worse than a mental asylum. We will need to pay a high rpice for that. No need that you join us in that. Your economical and educational policies are obviously superior to most of Europe's :up: Why compromise that? Hmmm, its too late. :rotfl: http://www.government.fi/eu/suomi-ja-eu/en.jsp
Skybird
05-11-06, 05:59 PM
Oh. :rotfl:
Sea Demon
05-11-06, 06:11 PM
I was pleased to see that US goverment holds true to its values in a time when it has many things to consider in its foreign policy. Cheneys statement really was more about what is the right thing to do, and from that every US citizen should be proud of. :up:
Well said. I was proud of this statement as well. Russia's buttons need to be pushed a little bit right now into doing the right things.
They are being offered the oportunity to become part of family of democracies, its all about peace and properity over nationalism and war. The EU has allready taken and is taking in every ex soviet satellite or colony, if it was only about money it wouldnt have happened.
Firstly, you have to distinguish between the Baltic states and the others. The Baltic states, fortunately, have a different history and are much better prepared for it.
Otherwise, the "family of democracies" sounds excellent. Except, as it is to most Russians, it's all empty words. As is "war", "prosperity", and the rest. This is not what this is about for most people. The average Ukranian wants a job. A good-paying job, at that. If the EU can't give him a job, what's democracy to this poor guy? And there's plenty of people without a job in the EU.
There are also other neighbour states that Russia has threatened or pressured, but what have these two did against Russia ? What do you ment by saying they are sticks pointed against Russia?
This is purely political. Much the same extends to the other states.
The fact is that Russia, while it exists, is going to be a big and ambitious state, and in the current circumstances it's again shaping up to be a significant economic power - and with economic power come other types of power.
Naturally, the West is eager to do what they can to put barriers to Russian power in the region. Now put yourself in Russia's position and ask "Why should I like this?". There's no reason, in fact.
You say Russia has ambitions, what kind? Territorial? Wonder how its Wests fault if these countries flock for cover..
No, territorial ambitions in the modern world come last. Economic ambitions are first, and Russia clearly wants room to manuever. A Ukraine and Georgia that DON'T ask for gas at prices of several times below market value would be a start for what Russia wants. Political ambitions come second. At the most extreme edge, Russia would be happy to be surrounded by states ruled by a bunch of Lukashenko clones. I'm not saying that's nice, but I am saying that's a satisfactory solution for Russia.
And so? The EU and the US ambitions are also economic and political in nature. And, quite rightly, they're seen as hostile to Russia by virtue of denying her ambitions in the same way as Russia denies the West's (in that region at least; and to Russia, you have to acknowledge that the region is more vital than to the other side). It's all a chess game, as Skybird said.
As for territorial ambitions, ask who eastern Ukraine voted for, and what his stance on Russia is, and you might be surprised. For all real purposes, eastern Ukraine - instead of being wonderfully raised to democratic prosperity - has been completely sidelined.
Bottom line: there are bigger and more real forces at play here than Western ideology of a "prosperous family of democratic states". Spare me the stock phraseology, and tell me how an unemployed guy in Kiev is supposed to feed his family on democracy. Because the EU or the US isn't going to pay for it.
Happy Times
05-11-06, 06:31 PM
:o :roll: :doh: Il have to take a breather before i comment...
:lol:
Just as a disclaimer, don't label me as a "commie" or even a supporter of the Russian government. As I said before, I'm not, that's why I'm here in the West and not there - because I detest the way they do things there. I'm merely analyzing the situation from a pragmatic standpoint, and using my sense of the Russian view on things.
The fact is that things are very bad for the average person, in Ukraine, Georgia and Russia alike. And the fact is that the West isn't getting at the root of the problem by sowing unrest in the region. I will say that the real fault of the West is not protecting its political interests now, but failing to do anything to encourage a better reconstruction in Russia when the time was right - and now it's past that time. I think this is because Russia as a nation is distrusted and disdained - and alas, it doesn't have to be.
The fact is that the US and the EU watched as Russia's "democracy" decayed in economic collapse (which killed real liberal democratic elements log ago), and chuckled seeing their old enemy lose their economic status. But now that collapse is gone, along with actual democracy, and look what happens. :hmm:
Deathblow
05-11-06, 06:41 PM
:o :roll: :doh: Il have to take a breather before i comment...
If only real arguments could go like that.... "wait a minute, I'm going to take a break and figure out how I want to verbally debate you "
One can only dream.
Happy Times
05-11-06, 07:17 PM
So you disclaimed these wiews and you detest the current Russian politics? Kinda made pointles to argue about that, nice still to have confirmation on my own wiews of what the general feelings in Russia are. So in that we agree :D But i wouldnt blame the current situation on the West, the real will to have a democratic properous Russia was there. Everybody knew what the price of failure would be, and it is realising itself through present developments. Why would have West wanted to keep Russia economically ruined? One would think the opposite would be best for profit :hmm: And the desire for freedom cannot be imported as the US is finding out in Iraq. But if countries come knocking for it, its impossible to shut the door in their faces. So il stand by Dick on this one :lol:
Well, I think the real problem is that people just can't get along.
I think Cheney raises some valid points, but doesn't address others. The problem is that this view escalates this possible "New Cold War", and I'm concerned what the cost of it will be. Russia already lost one cold war, and they found out the hard way what the consequences of this are. It's a vicious circle, but just as the escalation of the hard-line Cold War position by the Americans in the 50's may have prolonged the existence of the Soviet regime (and I mean the political buildup against it rather than the military one), I'm concerned that it will greatly prolong the existence of whatever is coming next for Russia. The more you isolate Russia, the greater the chance of it being a problem for a long time. And you have to acknowledge that there is no possible alternative to isolating it, if you want to be hostile to it. And cornering any Russian regime is a bad choice, as history shows.
My personal suggestion would be that Cheney's position is what will lead to the "New Cold War". Defusing the situation quickly is impossible, since the road to a better Russia lies through economic strengthening rather than weakening for the country, and its integration into the Western markets as an equal partner. This will let Russia to develop [among other things, a middle class] and possible for it to operate as a more or less democratic state.
Meanwhile, I think other countries will need to accept dealing with Russia on equal terms and respecting some political interests - and I don't mean they all have to turn to Lukashenkos. It makes about as much sense for them not to as it does for Mexico and Canada to reject amicable relations and respect for US interests.
Those who seek to isolate Russia will get exactly that. And it's exactly what will cause real problems and distance Russia from democracy. Which will be history repeating itself over and over again.
I agree with you CCIP in that the boat sailed right on by America and her allies in that they should have gotten more involved with the newborn countries over there. It is classical have and have nots, and wanting to be the richest, and liking to see the other guy fall. To bad we are all humans full of greed, lust, envy, strife, murder, and just plain rotten in nature...
I'm rambling....I had a point....lol....
The "individual" person is what I look at....you guys should watch the movie "Crash"... watched it the other nite and maybe made my point kinda. :)
funny how the comment of a man beaten by police has become "Immortal"...
Can't we all just get along....
:yep:
To neatly sum things up:
Russia's failure of democracy mostly has economic causes - both in the sense of an economic crisis killing off potential democratic politicians, and in the sense that Russia lacks a real middle class that is absolutely neccesary to make a democracy work. And now the econcomy has been salvaged in a way that is inherently unfriendly to democracy - it's fair to say that a liberal change now would likely cause another economic collapse, and the Russians wouldn't fall for it twice.
Similarly, I think the "Imperial ambitions" are more economic in character than anything else.
Any sort of attempt to isolate it again will lead to it turning its attention elsewhere - India, China come to mind as possible partners, especially in the energy market. I think that would be a real loss for the West in the end, and for Russia's democracy likewise.
Kapitan
05-12-06, 12:25 AM
Russia is doing better now than it ever was under yeltsin, yeltsin took russia direct to full democracy and the people couldnt take it nor the economy it did worse for the country not better, putin uses a step system which has worked alot better hence why he is still in power and russia hasnt crumbled.
America should but out at this point, trying to tell russia what they should do when they have done it and seen it fail isnt a good idea.
yeltsin took russia direct to full democracy
*ahem*
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7728/october93a016rh.jpg
I'll say :hmm:
:nope:
Skybird
05-12-06, 04:11 AM
Nice essays by you, CCIP! Well said. Agree. Some people talking about "family of democrcies" already fell victim to the same mindset that made them wanting to democratize the ME region by force, too. Russia is acting by solid and clear strategical and economical interests. The same kind of interests and acting that led the US into Iraq. This does not make Russia harmless, but maybe the US is not the best-suited to criticise them for something that it exessively practice itselves. I did not like the recent Russian threads towards the EU, too (that it wants the EU to accept Yukos' increasing it's market shares in europe, else it does business with other partners). All energy-producers in europe currently try to get access to the field of direct first-hand-disrtibution as well, why not Yukos. The function by the same economical logic and compete by the same rules like all others. I did not like their threatening tone, but I completely can understand the motives. A Russia doing weired things without the West being able to recognize the motives for that - now, that would really by a reason to be concerned.
And mind you, that previously the gas for the Ukraine has been sold for FAR BELOW MARKET PRICES. Which means nothing else than massive financial losses for Russia. In the west every company that tries no normalize it's prize level and adopt it to market standard would be regarded as doing the most normal thing. But when it is a regional power that has the potential to resists demands for global and unchallenged monopoles on power, then, of course, the scale we compare our economical acting to, all of a sudden is no longer valid!?
Intimidation is part of the political agenda in international diplomacy. They do it, we do it, and you do it, too. They also do not have any obligation to interprete "deomcoracy" the way it is done in the West and the US. They are no American colony. I personally think that such a country, of that size, in that shape, with so many regional centers of power, even cannot be run like the western dream-democracy. I do not fully trust Putin, but I also cannot name anything he has done that would characterize him to have ambiiton to become the next European tyrant. He acts for the best interests of his country, as he sees it. And when remembering what massive power factions (military, intel communtiy, old communists, regional opponents) he has to deal with and keep in check without bein overthrown himself, he really does not do a too bad job.
Another cold war with Russia, humbug I say what rot. I tell you this the next cold war will be with China. :smug: :yep:
Happy Times
05-12-06, 08:31 AM
Skybird, you cant compare Iraq to countries that have their own will to become democratic. Not to support this and leave them under some dictatorships "sphere of influence" is extreme cowardice. Should the people in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech rebublic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria been left in the Russian sphere of interest? Millions of people denied freedom? You truly believe EU should go and instead we should have everyone for itself and his interests? How long would it take before whole of Europe was in flames, again? Imperial nostalgy describes well the Russian wiew of the world, its living in the past while rest of Europe is looking ahead.
Happy Times
05-12-06, 08:35 AM
And if someone says freedom doesnt feed your stomach, as a defence for dictatorship. I can tell you a story about a small dirtpoor nation, full of free men, far away in the north that would have rather died as one than lost its freedom. But it could be a cultural thing, they have never had serfs, too stubborn to master.
Skybird
05-12-06, 09:04 AM
Skybird, you cant compare Iraq to countries that have their own will to become democratic. Not to support this and leave them under some dictatorships "sphere of influence" is extreme cowardice. Should the people in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech rebublic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria been left in the Russian sphere of interest? Millions of people denied freedom? You truly believe EU should go and instead we should have everyone for itself and his interests? How long would it take before whole of Europe was in flames, again? Imperial nostalgy describes well the Russian wiew of the world, its living in the past while rest of Europe is looking ahead.
Middle and South America. Africa. South-East-Asia. For decades, and still today, European nations and America have acted there like you describe with regard to Russia. where is your protest concerning them?
Cowardice? No: realism.
I did not comment at all on what the EU should do (IF it can do something, and that is very big an "if"). Sphere of interest does not automatzically mean supression, or conquest. Europe for example is an American sphere of interest. We are heavily influence by the US, yes, and not always for the good and our advanatges, but theirs. And such an arrangement it is that iot comes down to with regard to the Russian motives. They MUST seek a stronger position, being confronted with ongoing Chinese immigration into their fareastern territories, and an increasing challenge by Islam'S strengthening in it's southern provinces. Demographically they are fighting a battle of delayed retreat, like Europe. They are just more realistic in their evaluation on how to increase their chances to survive these challenges. Europe has decided for the way of weakness and containment towards Islam. Russia is seeking more stremngth, economically, militarily, financially, geographically. There is a term in German, referring to chess, I found no translation for it, it seesm to be unknown in English, but it is "lavieren". It means that in a position where direct open action currently is not possible, silent moves are made only, that are designed not to give up strategical potentials that already have been gained, and maybe even gain additional small potentials without making a mistake that the enemy can exploit. And that's what they do. One must respect Russia, do to it's size and potential power, but currently I see no need to be afraid of it. I will fear a Russia who's actions and motives I no longer can explain and understand.
And again, they must not copy American understanding of democracy, neither are they obligated to do so, nor would they be well-advised, corrupt and mafia-oijnfested as their economical structures are. Open it to wstern understanding of freedom would mean to open doors and windows for organiozed crime even further, encourage local unrest and ambitions for local independence, and destabilize the whole ocujntry. And this is a Russia that I definetly do not want. You cannot run that country in the same way like you run little small Germany, or Italy, or France. OMG, did I say Italy here...? :lol: Definetely not recommended to follow the italian example... :-j
i also doubt that the absolutely overwheliming majority of people in Russia would want it that way. Putin is extremely popular especially with the young. He pumpos money into the military, which pleases them, hes has reassighned ressources into the intel community, buying their loayalt as well, it seems. And I can't see a vast majority in russia'S middleclass being strictly against him. Nor do I see that in the group pof the old, although the changes of the last 15 years are mainly to their cost. Russians seem to like being led and ruled. Stalin is cult today, can you imagine? He is accepted to be used in contemporary arts and culture, they even have theatre plays about him, and they are in favour of his reputation.
Don't think of Russia as Western Europe, it is a different world, and a different mentality, I think. We have similiarities and a shared history with them, but Russia also means: far east, Kamchatka, Japanese sea. Is that any european at all?
I think the Russians know best how to run their country. If Putin rules with somewhat a hard grab on things, then maybe because he has realized that nothing else would work to the positive of russia...!?!? Aren't we allowing the same example with regard to countries like Egypt for example? And when America pressed for more "democracy" there - imemdiately an ultra-islamic oppositon won one fifth of parliamentary seats, making it much tougher for mubarak now to prevent Egypt from falling even deeper into the arms of Islamism. We did neither him nor us a favour with that demand. With reghard to the huge diversity in russias southern border provinces, we should be careful with our wishes for Russia's ways to deal with these things: demographic time bombs, and Islam.
I can understand your concerns, due to the historical events with Russia and Finland in the past. But it is no Stalin ruling in the Kremlin now. but a very cool-thinking strategist.
Maybe I could make him to play chess with me here on the board!? :lol: could be interesting to see how he handles it. I would expect a tough and well-camouflaged opponent.
Sometimes I miss the cold war. Serious. It was a far more secure and predictable world.
Happy Times
05-12-06, 09:21 AM
I will fear a Russia who's actions and motives I no longer can explain and understand.
USSRs actions and motives were easily explained and understood. Some were stupid and were afraid, like the time they visited Berlin, merry times, jokes on them. :rotfl: I can understand your concerns, due to the historical events with Russia and Finland in the past. But it is no Stalin ruling in the Kremlin now. but a very cool-thinking strategist. Stalin was a very cool-thinking strategist. He might be the only that could counter his moves. :hmm:
Happy Times
05-12-06, 09:31 AM
Middle and South America. Africa. South-East-Asia. For decades, and still today, European nations and America have acted there like you describe with regard to Russia. where is your protest concerning them?
Were in todays world are there countries that are democratic or wishing to become one being denied from it by some outside power? Cowardice? No: realism. Im all for realism in politics, the realism is that democratic countries dont wage war against each other. But i admit i have some values im ready do die for, silly me. :oops:
Type941
05-12-06, 11:30 AM
Ha, cold war is beginning. It never ended.
Anyway, Cheyney is a monster who pushed the war in Iraq so that Haliburton could make all the money, Hell would be chilly for that disgusting human being.
Putin ansered that sob in his speech very well. I'm glad Russia called things their own names, identified USA as agressor in the world and showed that they will not be intemidated.
Americans, Americans this, what about American people, what the f8ck about people in Iraq, Iran, Korea, and any other place the man in oval office subscirbed to death?
America is on a collision course with history. Unlike before 1991, there is no more ideology to fight against. People in Russia couldn't give a **** about 'AMERICAN democracy' because they tried it and saw it, it only aims at robbing russia, making it powerless and teethless.
Saakashvili will have a fate of Mussolini if he continues like he is. In Ukraine, Yushenko will soon run away with is wife back to US, because one more game with gas and people might give him another 'Maidan'.
I pity the US and its leadership. I pity its people who will have to pay for those double standards. Skybird, CCIP said some reasoned and good things, I'm speaking purely from the heart and how many russians feel about the US. I'm sick of their double standards, their murderous government, and them taking away MY freedom with their white gloves. I wish Putin all the luck to push his reform through, to modernise his country and demographic sitution, to strenghten the economy and to slap those hostile nations around them economically. Problem with Russia for US is it's very big and self sufficient in pretty much anything. Isolating it is difficult and with China and India being very strong partners already, American should think twice before starting to piss against the wind. They want Cold war all over again? They never stopped fighting it even though Russia had completely changed its direction since 1991. It doesnt want world domination, it doesnt want to spread ANY form of ideology around them (apparently they have this stupid notion that cultures are diffferent and should chose thier own way of democracy), and it DOESNT threaten other countries with military force. US does everything on that list. Why should I be afraid of Russia? I'm only suspicious of US, the new Roman Empire. US is the country with a real complex of superpower as they need to beat up countries like Iran and Kosovo to show they are so powerful. Too bad that Iran is not a pushover. I hope China and Russia stick behind it and doesnt let more US boots close to its borders.
Bush - to Hague!
:lurk:
Type941
05-12-06, 11:33 AM
From Financial Times
Russia hits out at 'dangerous' US nuclear warhead replacement plans
By Neil Buckley in Moscow and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: May 12 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 12 2006 03:00
Russia has expressed concern over US plans to replace nuclear warheads with conventional charges on some intercontinental missiles, warning it would be impossible to tell one from the other on launch.
A senior Kremlin official condemned the switch being discussed in the US as "irresponsible".
"You can imagine, a rocket is fired, especially from a submarine, and no one knows what kind of warhead it is carrying," the official said. "It is not written on the rocket whether it has a conventional or nuclear warhead."
He said the Pentagon's plans were "extremely dangerous" and the launch of such a missile could lead to an "inappropriate" response from other nuclear-armed states.
The comments came a day after President Vladimir Putin referred to the danger, in his annual state of the nation address, although he made no specific reference to the US. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads. The launch of such a missile could . . . provoke a full-scale counter-attack using strategic nuclear forces," said Mr Putin.
The Russian president's seventh state of the nation address placed heavy emphasis on the need to modernise the country's military forces, including its nuclear arsenal, to enable it to withstand external pressure.
Mr Putin also said Russia needed to "preserve the strategic balance of forces", noting that the US was spending 25 times as much as Russia on defence. He pledged not to repeat the mistakes of the cold war, when the Soviet Union spent so much on arms that it weakened its economy, but warned that the arms race was not over - an apparent reference to US plans to develop new types of nuclear weapons.
"What's more, the arms race has entered a new spiral today with the achievement of new levels of technology that raise the danger of the emergence of a whole arsenal of so-called destabilising weapons," he added.
"There are still no clear guarantees that weapons, including nuclear weapons, will not be deployed in outer space. There is the potential threat of the creation and proliferation of small capacity nuclear charges."
In February, the Pentagon unveiled its Quadrennial Defence Review - a major assessment of the capabilities needed by the US over the next 25 years - which called for the conversion of some ICBMs from nuclear warheads to conventional weapons.
While some military officers concede that problems exist regarding the difficulty for another country to detect the kind of warhead launched, they say the changes are needed to improve US strike capability.
Yesterday in Le Figaro, the French newspaper, Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, wrote: "On certain issues, Russia has not been very co-operative and has used its energy resources as a political weapon."
Earlier this year, at a Nato defence ministers conference in Italy, Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged the Pentagon had concerns about Russian military sales to Iran, but denied the US-Russian military relationship was deteriorating.
Type941
05-12-06, 11:34 AM
another FT Piece.
Putin stresses need to 'make our own house strong'
By Neil Buckley in Moscow
Published: May 11 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 11 2006 03:00
Russian president Vladimir Putin made a thinly veiled attack on the US over double standards on democracy yesterday, and warned that Russia needed to modernise its military forces to be able to resist external pressure.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Putin chose a theme of national renewal for his seventh state of the nation address, calling for investment in modernising the economy and pledging to reverse the steep decline in Russia's population - currently falling by 700,000 a year. But what Kremlinofficials had billed as a foreign policy speech was in fact largely devoted to domestic issues.
The Russian leader made reassuring noises on energy security, saying Russia could play a positive role in forming a "uniform energy strategy" for Europe. He added that Gazprom, the Russian gas giant - whose dizzying growth into the world's third largest company by market value Mr Putin celebrated - would "fully meet the demand" of traditional partners as well as developing new markets.
But Mr Putin allowed himself some barbed, if oblique, criticism of the rebuke of Russia's democracy and human rights record by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, in Vilnius last week. Mr Cheney had warned Moscow against using its energy might for "intimidation or blackmail" of its neighbours.
Mr Putin portrayed Washington as following an aggressive unilateral agenda, and noted that US military spending was now 25 times that of Russia - though he used some of the folksy language that has become his trademark.
"Their house is their fortress. Good for them," he said of the US. "But that means that we must make our own house strong and firm. Because we can see what is happening in the world. As they say, 'Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat'. He eats and doesn't listen to anyone. And judging by appearances, he has no intention of listening," Mr Putin added, to applause from Russian ministers and parliamentarians in the Kremlin.
Mr Putin said Russia need-ed to rebuild its military not just to deal with new and unpredictable threats such as terrorism, but to "preserve the strategic balance of forces".
"We should be able to respond to attempts to put foreign pressure on Russia . . . and it should be said frankly: the stronger our armed forces are, the less temptation there will be to put pressure on us."
But the president insisted Russia would not repeatthe mistakes of the coldwar when the Soviet Union spent so much on weapons that it undermined itseconomy.
Type941
05-12-06, 11:38 AM
more of FT.
The dangers of crying 'Comrade Wolf'
Published: May 11 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 11 2006 03:00
In two months' time the leaders of the US, Russia and other members of the Group of Eight will gather at theirSt Petersburg summit. This will give them a valuable opportunity to tackle jointly the incredibly thorny problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions and to address the question of energy security. On neither issue are Russia and the US diametrically opposed. Moscow has expressed alarm at Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme but wants to cap it diplomatically rather than decapitate it militarily, while the issue of gas contract sanctity, on which Vladimir Putin, provided assurance yesterday, is one that primarily worries its European partners.
Nonetheless, the Russian president worryingly used his annual "state of the union" speech to jab back at last week's hawkish critique of his policies by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, in a way that bodes ill for co-operative results coming out of St Petersburg. Gone is the language of partnership that both the White House and the Kremlin had used about each other.
Particularly graphic was Mr Putin's reference to America's more aggressive foreign policy of recent years. Having noted that US military spending was 25 times higher than Russia's, the Russian president went on to say the effect of this was that "Comrade Wolf knows whom to swallow, and he swallows without listening to anyone." Clearly referring to the talk in Washington about a military strike on Iran,Mr Putin warned that "the use of force . . . could be more disastrous than the initial threat" it was supposed to deal with. He also noted, probably with Mr Cheney in mind, the tendency to subordinate "all that pathos" about human rights and democratic issues whenever these clashed with US self-interest in currying favour with energy-rich allies. Piling it on, Mr Putin complained that Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organisation was being used as "a bargaining chip" on unrelated issues: the US is the last big WTO member holding out against Russian entry, and some of its senators tie this to the Iran issue.
Mr Putin's hawkish foreign policy rhetoric will have gone down well with the Russian public, all the more so for the generous social policy promises accompanying it. To tackle Russia's shocking population decline, Mr Putin promised French-style baby bonuses as well as more generous childcare and maternity allowances. His government can easily afford this out of oil revenues, which it has been hoarding.
As a result, Mr Putin may come to the St Petersburg summit with his domestic popularity as high as President George Bush's is low. There is nothing wrong with that: Mr Putin's demographic measures are long overdue and his warnings about precipitate action against Iran justified. But it will make him less susceptible to striking the necessary compromises with the US that are key to achieving results.
Stalin was a very cool-thinking strategist. He might be the only that could counter his moves. :hmm:
"Stalin" and "cool-headed" don't fit in the same sentence, it's a medical fact (I'm fairly sure) that he was paranoid.
I think you're naturally inclined of thinking that Russia is a threat directly to other countries more so than it actually is. It will take a massive re-alignment of the world for Russia to actually go and invade another country in Europe as a means for expansion. Yes, there will be continued political pressure, but so far as I'm concerned - they will remain self-determined.
Russia is tired of being the "bad guy" in world affairs, and there seems to be an effort to paint it as such again, by people like Cheney. But as long as Putin-style strategy is continued, Russia is not going to get their hands dirty and any accusations against it are likely to have an effect of making the average Russians more disdainful of the West. Again, I emphasize - this government is not stupid. It won't invade Finland, I can guarantee you that. It has little interest in a bad relationship with Europe, just as Europe should have little interest in a bad relationship with Russia.
In terms of democracy, Russia sort of is and sort of isn't. That is, Putin's government is very centralized and it's been getting increasingly heavy-handed. On the other hand, it's anything but undemocratic at the ballot boxes - I can safely say the majority of Russian voters support Putin. Because again, Putin has brought stability. There are, of course, some rather un-democratic things going on in other areas of politics, but the "government block" (basically, the same Yeltsin-then-Putin political coalition that has ruled Russia since 1991) stays in by playing their cards right. Cards which include the fear of communist return by some, the economy for others, the war in Chechnya (perhaps the dirtiest card), the disillusion with the West, and so on. The last 15 years in Russian history is really a textbook of how to exploit an essentially democratic system in a very tricky way.
scandium
05-12-06, 12:50 PM
Cheney looking to start a new cold war? What a surprise. A cold war is an extremely profitable war and his current gig in the Whitehouse is up in 3 years. Not that the "War on Terror" hasn't already been profitable for his big business pals but the US still isn't quite broke yet.
Kapitan
05-12-06, 01:10 PM
In my view the cold war has never ended americans still track and trail the russians the americans still moniter exercises but they are not 100% to blame norwiegens french german british just a few to name.
Cold war will probably now never go away theres just too much paranoia.
Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense
05-12-06, 01:15 PM
with the current rate of military buildup, both in the middle east and in the pacific... a HOT war is what you should really be worrying about...
there is no longer two monolithic sides to confront each other... at least there was a measure of control back then... introducing the military buildup of assets that we see happening today, plus the inflaming polarized ideologies into this new fragmented world situation, well eventaully a point will be reached where this has got to lead to an armed confrontation that will spiral out of control...
it will make mad of the 50s and 60s look like a church picnic...
make no plans past july 2014...
:cool:
--Mike
@ Skybird:
just out of curiosity, I didn't get the meaning of your comment on the italian democracy. Care to explain (maybe in PM since it's off topic) ?
XabbaRus
05-12-06, 02:13 PM
Hmmm I have been following this in the news and personally I think it all smacks of hypocrisy.
Russia is strong on the back of high oil prices, it's putting Russia in the position to strengthen its economy and its hand on the international stage. Suddenly Russia becomes the boogey man. She is just protecting her national interests like any other country who finds herself in a better position to do so.
As for democracy in Russia, the TV stations might all be owned by the government but the print media there are quite a few independents left and some quite critical. They are left alone. Also when you read some reports its as if just criticising the Kremlin (at work with colleagues, for example) is enough to get you thrown away.
In some ways I feel Russia has been just a little screwed over by Europe and the US. Again another example of lack of forward thinking. The USSR economy was screwed from teh 70's onwards but the west was so keen to have Russia embrace "democracy" no one seemed to think what the consequences would be.
I am not naieve to the faults of the Russian government but when I listen to Bush, Cheney and Blair harp on about democracy I want to be sick.
I don't know about Bush but I am pretty damn sure Blair would love to have the control Putin does and if he could take it he would. Just look at the way he is dodging questions about when he will step down in favour of Brown....
Besides democracy comes about once the economy is fully working, That is what Putins priority should be, sort out the corruption, make it easier for small and medium sized businesses to thrive as that is where most money and employment is going to be, then democracy can flourish.
I went back to Russia just after the 1998 crash and quite frankly I don't think Putin has done such a bad job stabilising the country. I feel sorry for Yeltsin due to the thankless task he had but at least now the country is on an evenish keel.
Georgia and the Ukraine, moaning minnies...you want cheap gas you play nicely....you want to go off and do your own thing, fine, but if you want to be truly independent then you pay the same price as everyone else.
with the current rate of military buildup, both in the middle east and in the pacific... a HOT war is what you should really be worrying about...
there is no longer two monolithic sides to confront each other... at least there was a measure of control back then... introducing the military buildup of assets that we see happening today, plus the inflaming polarized ideologies into this new fragmented world situation, well eventaully a point will be reached where this has got to lead to an armed confrontation that will spiral out of control...
it will make mad of the 50s and 60s look like a church picnic...
make no plans past july 2014...
:cool:
--Mike
a man who has eyes. :up: ...but what up with july 2014? Doh!
XabbaRus
05-12-06, 03:17 PM
Been reading again what CCIP has said.
Now the White House is trying to block Russia's entry to the WTO, bmainly due to concerns about "democracy" and human rights.
Then again look at China, ah but the US has a massive deficit with China so that should make sense.
The more Russia is backed into a corner the more belligerent she will become and come out fighting in one way or another. Also the more she will stick two fingers up to everyone else.
In some ways kind of like the kid at school who is shoved about, and made fun of who then works out and comes back and starts to throw his weight around.
Cheyney hasn't helped matters.....
Seriously we should get the world leaders in a room together and start banging heads....
Kapitan
05-12-06, 03:28 PM
Well dont tell bush but Putin is black belt in judo
Should be intresting seeing putin is same build as me lmao
Skybird
05-12-06, 03:38 PM
@ Skybird:
just out of curiosity, I didn't get the meaning of your comment on the italian democracy. Care to explain (maybe in PM since it's off topic) ?
Don't expect some deep intellectual comment here :lol: It just was an ironical stab at recent political events in italy - around berlusconi not willing to accept his defeat, and when he did, Prodi having extremely difficulties to see his candidates through election procedures in parliament, while Berlusconi's buddies voting with empty billets. also - how many governments have there been in italy since WWII? And how long do they usually survive, in mean? :-j
Skybird
05-12-06, 03:55 PM
China wants energy, India wants energy, iran wants nuclear energy and weapons - Iran has oil, Russia has oil and gas and nuke tech. Dear america or europe: piss the Russians - and guess whom they will do business with, then? :lol: Neither the US nor Europe has the means to put threatening pressure on Russia. Cheney is an idiot. What he will acchieve by that confronting course is only: Russian oil and gas to China, to India, russian nuke tech to Iran, Iranian oil to china and India, military aid from India and China and Russia to Iran...and even more resistance from China and Russia towards any action concerning Iran. Those three are a natural alliance, and their interests mutually fit. Try piss the Russian, and all three will hang a sign on their door: "Do not disturb".
Unique style, Dick! One stupid move of yours, and several objectives of your intended plans lost. You should be prevented from using fork and knife for dinner: you're probbaly hurting your table neighbours with it, and yourself.
No matter if Iran, or China, or Islam: to solve all these problems and crisis depends on the fulfillment of one and the same most essential and vital precondition: becoming independend from Islamic and Russian energy ressources. As long as this precodntion is not successfully fulfilled, all this diplomatic threatening, and sabre-rattling, is just meaningless babbling. The only one who are impressed are the ones who do the babbling.
Kapitan
05-12-06, 04:23 PM
The only thing they will achieve by boycotting Russia is a slap in the face litteraly, as skybird said if russia cant trade with america plenty of other people willing to pay that bit more so it boosts russia's economy and helps it grow and where will that leave europe and america up a creek without a paddel.
bradclark1
05-12-06, 11:23 PM
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
Apparently we can do no right in the eyes of the Europeans anyways, so maybe you're right.
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Type941
05-13-06, 07:55 AM
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
Apparently we can do no right in the eyes of the Europeans anyways, so maybe you're right.
make no mistake, against the people of america i have nothing at all, i like them. its your terrorist government that keeps killing people in middle east that i have problem with, and so do millions of people.. :down:
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Yeah, I recall what happened the last time you guys did that, Japan came out to play.
Type941
05-13-06, 08:33 AM
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Yeah, I recall what happened the last time you guys did that, Japan came out to play.
And then they nuked it. :dead:
Skybird
05-13-06, 09:20 AM
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
And your people would run your economy and drive all your big cars exclusively with oil from Alaska, exhausted Texas, heavily oil-depleted Mexican gulf and Canadian oil-sand? :lol: That's as unlikely as as tempo-limit on Germany's Autobahn! :-j
In one thing America and Europe are in the same boat: the need of gaining independence from foreign energy ressources, especially Muslim oil. This is key to a whole lot of security-, energy-, economy- and policy-problems. Fail in this, and all these fields will be screwed, completely. We must become independend from their damn oil, even if this means to deal brutally with those econimocal and poltical circles in our middles who made their wealth by cooperating with these outside factions and thus will set up a fight, will lie and betray to defend the status quo. We need to get rid of these "traitors" as well. We can't afford to tolerate this lobby anymore.
Takeda Shingen
05-13-06, 10:21 AM
In one thing America and Europe are in the same boat: the need of gaining independence from foreign energy ressources, especially Muslim oil. This is key to a whole lot of security-, energy-, economy- and policy-problems. Fail in this, and all these fields will be screwed, completely. We must become independend from their damn oil, even if this means to deal brutally with those econimocal and poltical circles in our middles who made their wealth by cooperating with these outside factions and thus will set up a fight, will lie and betray to defend the status quo. We need to get rid of these "traitors" as well. We can't afford to tolerate this lobby anymore.
This is correct. The only thing that will solve the West's problems with terrorism and the Middle East is to pull out of the area. The only thing keeping the West in there is oil, and it is a big thing. Energy independence is the only solution.
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Yeah, I recall what happened the last time you guys did that, Japan came out to play.
And then they nuked it. :dead:
No choice in the matter.
Type941
05-13-06, 11:32 AM
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Yeah, I recall what happened the last time you guys did that, Japan came out to play.
And then they nuked it. :dead:
No choice in the matter.
There is always a choice. ;)
-----
Putin in Sochi said today that he sees Russia peaceful and prosperous because he has no aim of declaing the world as its area of 'interest', no aim of starting inernational wars and no aim of spreading 'religion' around the world. Further more, he said he is not going to overreact to unfriendly gestures of American satelite countries.
I think Russia is not going to meddle into world politics in a way US does, but that it has enough natural and intellectual reserves to be self sufficient from either US or Europe.
Besides, in Europe, Germany and France and Italy are the ones who decided, and Finland perhaps too, and they are very friendly with Russia as they are all partners in gas trade and oil. As far as Germany is concerned, I think, POland and other countries making a stink about pipelines, etc, can just bugger off.
America should just protect it's borders and screw everyone else.
That's a true American speaking roll up the carpet and stuff the rest of the world. ;)
Yeah, I recall what happened the last time you guys did that, Japan came out to play.
And then they nuked it. :dead:
No choice in the matter.
There is always a choice. ;)
You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.
Type941
05-13-06, 12:31 PM
when you are an american, that's true and makes perfect sense. I'm sure those who got nuked understood that as well, then again this isn't about that over here. Just about a precident.
Kapitan
05-13-06, 12:37 PM
Conventional bombs would have done the trick better than a nuke, it may have taken longer but doing that to un armed civilians and childern as well as women is just not right if japan had won the war i would of liked to think they would have massacred all of american service men children.
I mean whats good for the goose is good for the gander isnt it? they did it to them why shouldnt they do it to you?
Type941
05-13-06, 12:44 PM
they did it to them why shouldnt they do it to you?
precisely why soviets waged the war they way they did agains nazi germany and her allies.
they did it to them why shouldnt they do it to you?
precisely why soviets waged the war they way they did agains nazi germany and her allies.
It's more to do with the Soviet Union did not sign some legal papers; I forget what they were called something to do with the League of Nations. Something about the conduct of war, Germany did sign the papers but Hitler took the attitude why should I honour the protocol as Russia did not sign them that explains why the Eastern Front was a bloodbath.
As for the Japan issue America must have been sicken by their war loses from the Island hopping campaign, I do agree on the first bomb but Japan should have been given more time to bring about the end of their war before dropping the second one.
XabbaRus
05-13-06, 02:16 PM
You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.
That's something that is hotly disputed.
You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.
That's something that is hotly disputed.
I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.
scandium
05-13-06, 07:37 PM
You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.
That's something that is hotly disputed.
I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.
That is hotly debated.
You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.
That's something that is hotly disputed.
I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.
That is hotly debated.
Yeah, debated without the need to make a decision quickly on the potential fate of two million of ones countrymen. Debated without the enormous pressure of thousands of ones countrymen dying every day in a massive world wide stuggle for survival against the forces of evil.
Like i said in Abes Invasion '43 thread, no modern debate of historical events is valid without taking into account the concerns of the times. Something 99% of todays debates arrogantly ignore.
Abraham
05-15-06, 02:07 AM
I have always been a fierce opponent of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, till last year, when a discussion in the - now lost - thread "august 6, 1945" on this forum made me change my mind. The historic facts presented in that discussion were totally convincing for me.
Yes, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is still hotly debated, but only by people who have not studied the complete historic picture. Japan would have never peacefully surrendered without an invasion of the main islands. That woulkd have costs probably more than a hundred thousand Allied lives and many more Japanese lives, in fact many more than two A-bombs caused...
But we're of topic.
We were talking about Cheney's remarks about perceived trends in the Russian policy. Is he right to speak out about that?
Of course!
The best way to deal with Russia is to tell it what you expect from it. Does that cause a new "Cold War"?
Of course not!
It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.
It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.
:up:
It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.
:yep: :up:
It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.
I hope you're not referring to me, otherwise I take offense :shifty:
A US vice president (arguably the most useless job on the planet) makes a couple of offhand comments regarding the Russian government, comments that are more or less correct, and people accuse him of singlehandedly attempting to restart the cold war, yet those same people think nothing about it when some tinpot dictator calls the US government far worse.
Hypocrites each and every one.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.