Neo-Eurasianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Eurasianism
Aleksandr Dugin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

You have to wonder what is the interest of Russian embassy in Finland, to sponsor Dugin in Finland to lecture for young Russian imigrants.
He didnt get a visa though.:p

Russia needs money, trade, and investment. Without these, they have nothing in terms of leverage or relevance. The west can realign their own energy supplies if they need to, but at great cost. Other than that, Russia holds no cards at all. Iran certainly is no card for them to play at this point. It was a card for them until they screwed it up.

Note the bolded. It is a lose lose for the West to play it that way, so if they are smart they'll try something else.

At this point, they may be smart enough to break even. We'll see if they've got the smarts to save face or not.

True. There is a large shift towards NATO. But now even more so. I have a hard time thinking how people can't see the Russian actions have accelerated the move in this direction by pushing some of these states further away from it. And are on the path to increased isolation in other regards. Trying to show Russia as a winner here simply doesn't work once you look at the true tally. They screwed the pooch bad.

A very stupid move as it turned out.

It's none of Russia's business as they are all sovereign nations able to make decisions as to their own security, and make decisions that sovereign nations are able to make regarding their own interests. It's a shame you seriously cannot see that. These candidate nations owe Russia nothing. But are free to make their own decisions.

Russia is on the verge of increased economic isolation. That worked real well for them during the Cold War, right? In addition they have assured an enlarged NATO is not only a reality, but on an increased timetable. In addition to that, here comes missile defense (Thanks to an irritated Poland and potentially Ukraine) whether they like it or not. This hasn't given Russia anything to their benefit. Actually quite a bit was done and will be done punitively. All indicators point to that.

I agree to a certain extent that Russia and the West would both reap benefits with a more friendly outlook to one another. Trade normalizations between both sides would be very beneficial to both sides indeed. But you may want to convince Mr. Putin of this reality. I don't think he gets it. Let's see if he actually learns the lesson here. I think the man is full of too much stubborn pride myself.

Russia will fall the hardest since that's all they got. You can bet the bank on it.;) Hopefully Russia will see that they actually have more to lose against this alliance of many, many nations. Most of these being fully economically developed and still on the highest edges of R & D and capital investment. I gotta spell it out for you I see.

SB this is sloppy writing and I figured you were beyond that. Peters actually called Putin brilliant, but you need to listen to the context of it.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,ev...69/summary.asp#


The entire panel event video is on the right side of the page, the link itself is a very brief summary of the entire presentation. A lot better then the yellow journalism from der spiegel.....

This is proof of how stupid and analytically incapable people (I don't refer to you 1480, I refer to those who think Putin is brilliant for his move against Georgia)have truly become. Putin is an idiot. He has put his country in a position against a major alliance, have pushed some nations he wanted control of directly into NATO's sphere of influence, has destroyed his influence on the Iranian situation, and has put the missile defense he so opposes on the fast track. And he's put himself into a corner of potential loss of face if he concedes. Either way, it's no good for him. At best Putin is a fool.

You need to check out the video. Just the first five minutes of Peters' panel and you'll understand what I mean, and you'll ask yourself, why isn't he the third choice for our next president. I understood what you are saying though, his is only 13 minutes but very compelling.

Well, Peters has an interesting viewpoint for sure. I'd love to ask Peters if he views the losses Russia has incurred (currently occuring, potential and otherwise) will make it all worth it to them. In the end, Russia lost more than they gained. And still stand to lose more. The reverse is true for the USA and the NATO alliance. They got more than they bargained for. Albeit, not the way they wanted it to be done. Unfortunately, Georgia seems to be the hurt pawn in this whole game.

In the q&a he calls what russia did a terrorist act. Infer from it what you will:rock:

So yes, he agrees with you. Excellent points you make.

The "fully economically" states also happen to be vitally dependent on energy, for one thing, so Russia, at least in the short-mid term, holds a large key to that.

You seem enormously reluctant to consider the possibility that, at the end of the consideration, they will come to the very logical conclusion that sanctions are not really worth it. At best they lose an arm to Russia's two (and how many in a Western democracy would happily do this for uh, Georgia?), or at worst it is them that can't hold the turn in the energy shortage and be forced to concede even more coming out of the turn.

While you are at it, Demon, you might as well say that if US or NATO do serious military intervention against Russia, the Russians will almost certainly take a drubbing, so they have more to lose. But you don't claim this into account, because the gain/risk dictates that such a move is not worth it and thus the chance of such a move being taken is near zero. And IMO, the sanctions, judged by gain/loss, is close to this. While they may indeed hurt Russia more than themselves, it would still be a stupid decision on their part!

Since they haven't decided yes or no yet, Demon, permit me to ask: If we assume that the Russians guessed right, and the West won't push serious sanctions (maybe a slap-on-the-wrist sanction), how would you re-assess the gain/loss ledger for the Russians?

You say this as if he could do something else and NATO would actually be friendly to Russia.
I don't understand why you assign such a high score to this, when at worst he slightly accelerated what would have happened had he done nothing. If Putin managed to play a move that delayed this progression by say one year, will you call it a huge victory for him?
The setup is such that relative to where they are now, Russia's actions could go only -1 (slightly accelerating the imminent NATOization of their border) on one hand, and +10 on the other (putting a stop to NATOization).

One move (the "Play Nice" move you recommend) gives access to at most +1 (slightly delaying the progression) to 0, while the other is -1 to +10. Given this, even if he winds up failing, I don't think this whole sphere thing is a good reason to call him a fool. It is a logical move that just didn't work.
A possible loss, but you'll have to amplify this one for me a bit before I can decide.
See point 2.

It's quite unfortunate that the Euro's put themselves in this position. But realistically speaking energy realignment is alot easier for them than Russia's potential fallout from this. The Euro's (and American Democrats) need to learn that we don't need to be at the mercy of hostile regimes for our energy supplies. We indeed have our own. So do the Euro's. Russia ultimately has much more to lose if totally isolated in the long term.

No, we are not looking at UN sanctions. We are looking at Russia being put out to pasture regarding nominal trade, G8 agreements, and future capital investments. This is something they cannot afford. And nothing that will stop enlarging NATO or deploying a missile defense. Russia's pretty much pushing this whole thing. And so far, almost every repercussion has been against Russian interests and counterproductive to Russia's influence. Blame the West, count it as a Russian victory, call Putin a genius, or ignore the consequences......doesn't change the true dynamics in any way.

It's pretty clear that there wil be punitive action. And to date they screwed up by pushing former client states closer into the NATO basket. And missile defense is going forward very strongly. Big slap to Putin there. Don't act like these things are wonderful for Russia or Putin smells like a rose.....he doesn't.

And while we're at it KS, did Putin have a UN agreement in place authorizing his action against Georgia? Did any Russian legislative body vote for it or was it a "Unilateral" move by Putin/Medvedev not granted by the UN. I wonder why this hasn't been brought up by the peanut gallery idiots of both Europe and America. :hmm:

NATO has never threatened Russia as far as I know. Point to me where NATO forces have threatened a strike against Russia...please. NATO has gone as far as giving Russia a seat at the table to listen, an now you can be sure Russia will lose that access due to Putin's stupidity.

You have no idea what would happen. You're guessing. But you're right about one thing. It's going to happen, and now, Putin's actions have only served to strongly align these nations against Russian interests. Not smart in any way. If the inevitibility is there, wouldn't it be alot smarter to try and ease the situation in a way to leverage NATO's attitude for you....not against you?

With the current losses incurred up North, does he seek more problems by continuing to build Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities....further eroding relations with the USA/NATO? Does anybody on our side truly take Putin seriously if he chooses to speak out against us if we choose to attack Iranian weapons sites? Especially since he unilaterally engaged Georgia without UN approval? I know the idiot apologists in the West don't care. But their point of view simply doesn't matter anymore.

As far as the missile defense.....what can he truly do about it? Nuke the sites? Nope. We know he can't do that without himself being annihilated. And now he's just PO'd the ones who are setting it up. And looking for a way to humiliate him.

Eventually, I'll grant. But not right now. Which is what any sanctions posted right NOW will have to deal with. Or do you really think they can do nothing to Russia, slowly prepare all those alternate energy sources, then three years later hit with sanctions?
I did not limit things to UN sanctions did I? I'll assume that they are currently doing "nominal trade", G8 agreements and investments because it is economically advantageous to them, energy or no energy. Why do you think the West will want to give up on its own economic advantage?
Your basis for this? It is to no one's advantage.
They aren't great signs, but again, it is very early in the new game, and it is unrealistic to expect all of them to be completely moved into neutrality with one battle. In fact, it is almost predictable they'll start sucking up to NATO, desperately trying to increase their value coefficient and the probability NATO would save them if push comes to shove.
However, NATO has not seriously responded to this one. As such cases increase, the doubt will inevitably increasingly plant itself in Russia's neighbors. Yet the balance of strength in terms of interest level simply makes it very difficult for NATO to react seriously.
For example, take Yushchenko. He just poked the Russians. Let's say the Russians cut off his gas, or just charge Ukraine the correct price for gas (so the West has less of a moral leg to hang on). Does he go on? He would go on if he's sure the West would back him, of course. But thanks to Georgia he's less sure. The West will be unhappy, but they aren't going to save him. He cuts a deal with Russia. The West is perceived to have done nothing ... again.
Eventually, the two lines will cross, and Russia's neighbors realize NATO (dominated by the richer Western members) are not really all that interested in backing them against Russia. What would they do? Get neutral.
Well, considering it was supposed to be an emergency move in response to the Georgians, it is probably defensible for Putin and Medvedev to move the troops in under the President's Commander-in-Chief authority and so on.
As for the UN, yes, but here's where the US kind of kicked itself with that whole Iraq thing. Remember, they couldn't even find the WMD in the end... By extension, it is all right for Russia to claim to be stopping a genocide, go in, and find none...
In the meantime, they just continue to chew up the buffer zone, improve the COF and total frontier area (invasion avenues) against Russia. I bet the German ambassador was not threatening Molotov, even as they prepare for Operation Barbarossa. I think I can forgive the Russians for valuing actions over words.
As for the seat, a seat w/o a say is of extremely limited value.
Just as you don't about the sanctions.
They weren't before?
Such a question is like asking whether unconditional surrender is good given that you have absolutely zip options left.
Try this: If you believe you have a faint chance to avoid unconditional surrender, will you take it, even though it might somewhat (not a lot) worsen your position if you fail and are forced to take the surrender?
Try and convince one nation not to go along, by hook or crook? Heck, if he gets only the Ukraine it'll still be worth a lot.

Says somebody who was driven by illusions abiut Iraq, claims moral superiuroirty for his side that it already had betrayed, and who makes arguments that are no arguments at all: becasue the shift towards NAO in Eatserneuropean nations already was there, for they almost irrationally hate Russia for historic reasons - no matter what Russia does or does not (we German can sing a song of that regarding Poland's nationalistic camp as well), and the missile shield would have been established anyway, with opr woithout Russia going into Georgia. And you reaction shows that the Russians saw it tiotally correct when they always claimed it is a project that is also directed against the, and a valid military threat. What NATO has gotten here is - a self-fulfilling prohecy.

NATO is meeting today. We will see a demonstration of tough words and helpless weak deeds or more symboli than practical value. Putin is not so stupid a man thta he has not calculated the possibility of the meetings with NATO or WTO talks being put on ice, and obviously he sees their damage value as very limited. That is, as the long essay alraeyd said, because the West totally overestimates the value Russia sees in these (Western) tools, for the West had hoped to bring russia under greater influence and control that way. But it's attractiveness to russia is limited. That Rice today already argued from a position of moral superiority, is rich - that moral authority the Us claims lies in shatters since the attack on Iraq. the US failed in the same way as it claims the russians does - more precisely, it even set the precedent by which the Russians follow, regarding Iraq as well as Kosovo. Okay, today'S evening news will pepper us with tough word that will acchieve nothing. I laugh about it not becaue i find th erusians so wonderful. I laugh about it becasue the Western display of double standards and bigottery is so very much black-humoured amusing. Lots of babbling there will be. but nopthing that could impress the russians. the Us needs them far more than they need the US., europe needs their energy much more, than they need europe. No american supeiroity to be seen. No Western glory, and certainly no west-doiminated century. Welcome to reality. As long as you people stick to your illusions that brought you to where oyu are - a major strategic defeat - you cannot hope that the next round you will not be outplayed again like this time. Obviously some of you prefer the taste of defeat as long as only you can march to the sound of your tough but misleading paroles. Okay, happy marching then. I shall find your mental distortions most amusing. :lol: