The real threat is thinking that the projected threat is the real one.

I definitely agree with Type941 there, though I'd add that the Western dislike of Russia goes to well before World War II - just that the global influence of the country hadn't been very tangible until that the time. That said, I'm perfectly convinced that there hasn't been a time in history when the West actually trusted Russia.

In many ways, Russia has been very slowly sliding back towards old habits. Witness the military sales to rogue regimes, the creeping control of the Russian government favorites in politics, business and media, etc.

Personally, if the trend continues, Russia will find itself to be its own worst enemy.

Pravda Ru is close to Putin and Kreml, their version of the incident. Next Putin will sign the law to ban non-governmental organizations in Russia..

• http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/...81_spying.html

Interesting article about why US foreign minister interferes to Russias "internal affairs". :doh:

• http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/...ndoleezza.html

And make a good effort to prove that a man that attacked a synagogue wasnt a anti-semite, it was the reason of a video game :roll:

• http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/16738_Jews.html

This is the type of agenda that Putin (dictator) represents. And they get it out very well as they have allmost total control on the media.

And if you dont know what they are trying, i can tell you. Russia wants to prevent a more unified EU. EU as a one entity with its own foreign and security policy is seen as a threat, a potential superpower and eurasian rival (they love geopolitics). Their method is, to make Europe so dependent as possible from their oil, gas and other resources. To establish bilateral relations to the EU member countries, especially the big ones. Thus undermining the goal for one foreign policy for the EU. Finland has protested about these relations especially to Germany and Italy. They have both created a strong dependency for Russia and have had very personal relations to Putin. (Schröder went to Cristmas church with him, adopted a doughter from russia, Putin has spend holidays with Berlusconi..) They use these relations to have Europeans look the other way when it comes to their what they feel are their spheres of influence. Bellorussia (they have a union) , Ukraine (they extort and try to destabilise this country) and the Caucasus (use the war on terror as an excuse) are clearly seen to be strategically important. The joining of the Baltic countries to NATO was a bigger blow to the russians than people in the west generally understand. Finland borders over 1600km of common border with Russia. But look at the map, Kola peninsula (most of their nukes) and St. Petersburg (biggest military manufacturing area) are a just of the border. In the long run they want to emerge again as a competitor with US like USSR was. So they play these games with China (wich they hate) , Iran , North Korea or anyone to weaken and disperse United States. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! (shoot it) WAKE UP PEOPLE!

ah, the russian hater Happy Times. What good are you for a non-biased discussion? :huh: :rotfl:

Yeah, it's been much more than 70 years that the west hates russia and all that land.

It dates back to roman empire really - a disgusting, barbaric nation that was decayed to the core (ROME) with its gladiatorial games, it's bare arse army and absolutely corrupt government. It was beaten by these 'barbarians'. That's when it all started really. the 'holy roman empire' and the split with the east, all that great stuff. It wouldn't hurt to know that before the mongol invasion, Kiev Russ was known as land of cities, and many monastries in russia were producers of all sorts of weaponry for the western europe (gun powder units). It also wouldn't hurt to know that Ivan the Terrible was not the monster he's portrayed but actually introduced these to russia (before the well known Peter the Great legends tell us):
- introduced the jury to the court system
- free elementary education (in churches and monasteries)
- medical quarantine on borders
- first regular russian army and one of the first war uniform in the world (Strelec)
- stopped the tatar skirmishes for good
- made the society more or less equal (there was no tie to land in the sense it existed in europe at the time where - and peasant's children were free to do what they want)
- forbid slavery work
- expanded country's territory in 30 times
- had a few 1000 percent growth in wealth of population
- noone was killed without trial and the number of actually 'repressed' was about 5000 people

This is 1500s by the way...

all of those are documented in many sources, i'm just not putting them down as the word 'Sudebnik Ivano Groznogo' would tell jack to majority here.

And now here's the fun part - you won't believe any of this just because you don't think it's possible and you still treat russia as this dumb, naive, drunk nation of beggars and theives, ruled by a spy dictator. That bit about Ivan the terrible is one of the things people aren't familiar with - to many, his just a moron who went mad and slaughtered thousands of his own people (must be the name!).


Have fun with the history. Have at least an open mind, otherwise you'll end up hating everyone who dares to say differently (like Happy Times = an ironic nickname really). :roll:

NGOs (one of which involved in the scandal is Moscow Helsinki Group.. :stare: )... Well, Britain will shut up about those now, that's why this scandal is coming out now. Britain criticized russia for it - and now Russia shows Britain sponsoring these that potentially are against the russian government. Democracy is fantastic for the stupid oppressed people because it's very easy to wave infront of them and convince them that life will get better. Just doesn't work that way. Look at Georgia with an idiot for a leader, and Ukraine with a guy whose wife is american - what kind of country loyalty can he hace? :) He didn't even dare to get out yesterday to that same square where he was elected president 1 year ago - the people might get 'angry'. ;)

And than think of what the US is doing in South America. it's kind of secluded from us in Europe, but the way US is doing its business there is most fascinating...

Umm Type 941 I find your posts interesting but you are reaching A LOT when talking about Ancient Rome being beat by I assume you think Russians or the their ancestors then jumping forward to the 1500s??? These ancient states are different from the modern ones. Furthermore, the Kievan Rus was strongly influenced by the Eastern Roman Empire (ie. Byzantine Empire) from which they received Christianity among other things. "The West" as we know it today and "Russia" were unknown then. Otherwise don't forget people from Finland probably think the same about Russia as say Nicaragua thinks of the USA too?

That said I agree with the consistent anti-Russian bias here, if Russian against did what those Brits did we would never hear the end of it. :know:

Personally I think most Americans think of Russia as a friend...with the work Regan did and the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the old Soviet leadership I think ALOT of Americans think that everything just became hunky dory between America and Russia.Why...? As much as I hate to think it I beleive it is mostly because of skin color....white.As crappy as that sounds I believe that is a major reason for the automatic acceptance of Russia....many people in America never have thought badly about the Russian people...just the villified government of them...probably alot like what Americas government is made out to be now....We all know alot of wars are fought over such non-sense....Maybe Skybird with his background in human behavior can elaborate on this.....all I am trying to say here is Americans "I think" welcome Russia with open arms...maybe some cause of economic reasons..maybe some cause of racial reasons...maybe some cause of blind belief in what the media puts out....

just my 2cents....personally I have nothing against anyone or country that follows the basic "Human" nature laws...don't kill your neighbor,,,don't steal from him...etc etc....Love thy Neighbor....or as Josey Wales put it to Ten Bears...


Peace...

I think Type941 didn't come through entirely clear, but I can actually see a very good connection to times that go that far back. I think a good argument could be made that the dreaded East-West divisions go at least as far back as the split between the Orthodox and Catholic churches a thousand years ago. In many ways, Russia is the heir to the Byzanthine empire.

And as much as I don't want to bring out a nationalist rhethoric which I myself resent, I think anti-slav sentiments, even in residue, are still rooted somewhere in the Western consciousness.

Also,
Actually, this has already been the case for the last several hundred years at least. :dead:

Ivan the Terrible allso established the laws restricting the mobility of the peasants, which would eventually lead to serfdom :roll: He founded Ohrana (that killed thousands) , direct prededicessor to NKVD, KGB and FSB :nope: You are laughing at democracy, i find it disturbing but im not suprised.But some of us have actually made it work. :doh: So Russia doesnt like Georgia and Ukraine and they cut the gas to undermine their leaders. Hoping they will come back to the bosom of mother russia, rodina. Or you could just try to kill them http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...334263427.html

As a westerner who has lived in Russia and studied the country I do agree that there does seem to be not so much an anti-Russian hatred in the western press but a more negatively critical attitude under teh surface.

It's as if it had become ingrained during the cold war and both sides are still living up to it.

Thing is the way teh Soviet Union collapsed didn't help.

In some ways Russia has been criticised by the west whichever path she has taken since the fall of the USSR.

IE, when Yeltsin was president the west chided Russia over its economic policies not being stable and having to do this for a loan and that for a loan etc.

Now under Putin real GDP has increased. Real wealth and I mean per capita has seen real growth too. The govt is more fiscally responsible and measures were taken to protect the economy from any shocks, eg the big reserve built up. Now although I do agree that in terms of press freedoms things have slipped back, with Putin taking tight control I believe that Russia is more stable economically. Compare 2006 Russia with 1996 Russia, big difference. However Putin is now being hounded about going back to the bad old ways etc..Is their evidence for it, well for state control of media maybe (Radio and TV yes) for Industries, well the heavy ones yes. I get the feeling though that Putin's plan is to allow medium to small enterprises to remain private but the big heavy strategic industries are to be taken back in to state control, even if they are managed in a market way.

However my point is Russias empire collapsed over night, and the Georgians, Ukrainians et al find it easy to blame Russia for everything that is wrong in their countries. Regardless of the good things that Russia as the Soviet Union might have brought.

About Ukraine and all the former republics, it seems their pro-democratic politicians seem to have forgotten that they were more than likely good members of the communist party and they benefitted from the break up due to them getting to the right positions so they could take what they could get. EG Tymoshenko, she didn't become a millionaire through hard graft and business brains..hmmmm

So I agree with CCIP there does seem to be residue left over...it will take decades to settle out. West was bloody naive to think it would be all hunky dory.

What do you know about this subject? What do you know about geopolitical foreign relations from the past 500 years in South America, can you tell me how many twists Venezuela-US relations had? Can you tell me how the relations between Brazil and USA developed in the past 50 years? How do you classify the relations between Roosevelt-Vargas, Lyndon Johnson-Costa e Silva, Nixon-Médici, Reagan-Figueiredo/Sarney, Bush father-Collor, Clinton-FHC, Bush son-Lula? Or is the history not important? What do you know about inter-South American relations? Do you understand the Kirchner-Morales-Lula-Chavez Axis? Do you know anything at all about the "Foro de Sao Paulo" and did you ever read the transcripts from the "Forum Social Mundial"? Do you even know South America is a large continent with 11 countries, each with their own peculiarities and their own special (unique) relations towards the US?

The fact you ignore the unique bilaterality of each country is even more fascinating, because you claim the West doesn't understand Russia, but you seem not to understand South Ameria-USA relations, do you even investigate the causes and reasons for the American foreign policy or you take the comfortable ideological stance and assume without evidence whatever the USA does must be wrong and is bad?

Mr. Type941, you seem to fall victim to the very monster you dislike.

But if history has any value to you, maybe you'd like to see what was found out when a Brazilian journalist researched the USSR-South America relations archives for the first time, you will find the the way USSR done its business there was most fascinating...though you may be dissapointed, today the US doesn't get even close.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/857...books&v=glance

If anything, perhaps he's fallen victim to generalization, but I don't think he's completely off-point. On a general level, it's hard to ignore the Monroe doctrine and how it's continued to have an effect on South America.

All bad though? Considering the geographical situation and economical importance of the US in regard to this area of the world, it wouldn't be valid to say it's all bad or all simple. :hmm:

He wasn't very specific so it's hard to imagine what he's talking about.

Still, my point remains, it is understood that each former [U]SSR has a different relation towards Russia, Georgia is a particular case different from Estonia which is different from Belarus.

So, if we accept this fact, if we recognize these differences, it would be silly not to do the same with most other regions in the globe.

I assume we should take from that, that American interest concerning it's demands of what the EU and NATO should look like, are only well-meant and in Europe's best interests, then... :lol: WAKE UP PEOPLE! Don't trust both.

-----

The major center of interest for intel today is economical spying, and here all Western countries fight against all other Western countries, and neither the US nor the British intel services nor the German ones are any exception in this. Nations never built friendships, never. Spying on economical targets has drastically increased since end of the cold war. When it comes to economical interests, comanies are not alone with themselves but can count on massive supoport by their government's intel services. And that is valid for ALL Western nations.

US interests in South America are far from beeing in these country's best interests as well. US, russia: the goals are the same, the tools getting used are slightly different - at first glance.

Awful lot of accidents happening to these pipelines :-?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4654632.stm