Who Restarted the Cold War?

[marcinmoka]

Dr. Brzezinski all too often gets a bad rap, apparently responsible for everything from Al-Qaeda to the rise of the Neocons to being the godfather of Russian nationalism.

That is far too simplistic a view. He was bent on destroying the Soviet empire, and rightfully initiated policies which sped up it's downfall, but the fact that Russia is facing a rising tide of nationalism is of no surprise.

While I have always been skeptical of Russia and its concept of pan-slavic nationalism, I have never seen a culture so proud of its heritage both through thick and especially thin.

The humiliation they faced in the Yeltsin years only sped up this nationalism, but the true cause was cultural.

[Argus]

Ahh yes, the usual name calling by the same old offenders... *sigh* some things never change around here.

Sorry, Argus but Putin can't hold a candle to the destruction that the US under the Bush regime has wrought.

Willful ignorance noted.

Considering the bloody mess Putin inherited I think he's done VERY well indeed.

Cheerful respect for brutal, evil, mass murderers noted.

I only wish our own government had the same sense of nationalism for Canada - instead we just sell ourselves out to the lowest bidder it seems.

Maybe we could persuade Harper to murder a few tens of thousands of people. I suppose you'd be an eager Conservative then.

WRT poisoning - got any proof of your allegations? Cuz as far as I know the jury is still out on both the Yushenko (sp) and the other poisoning... IOW it is uncertain as to who actually did it.

As far as the hypocrites of the left are concerned, no amount of proof is ever enough to suggest their heroes have done wrong, and yet even a completely unsupported allegation is more than sufficient as "proof" against Israel, Bush, or anyone they consider "right wing".

[MMT]

Dr. Brzezinski all too often gets a bad rap, apparently responsible for everything from Al-Qaeda to the rise of the Neocons to being the godfather of Russian nationalism.

That is far too simplistic a view. He was bent on destroying the Soviet empire, and rightfully initiated policies which sped up it's downfall, but the fact that Russia is facing a rising tide of nationalism is of no surprise.

While I have always been skeptical of Russia and its concept of pan-slavic nationalism, I have never seen a culture so proud of its heritage both through thick and especially thin.

The humiliation they faced in the Yeltsin years only sped up this nationalism, but the true cause was cultural.

I agree that in general Russians are proud to be Russians. I don't know about true cause of rising the new Russian nationalism (Yeltsinism or cultural roots), but few things seems to be important - they outline big difference between Russia and Russians (actually, they proclaim that Russia as a state always humiliated Russian people!) and they are going too far comparing with Dr.Brzezinski ideas. Quote - <<the “new Russian nationalists†not just followed prof.Brzezinski but probably already went too far ahead, because they now offer not just ideas of what to be done, but also a

detailed plan of how it has to be done. Approximately a year ago they got new program called NORNA (which is latin abbreviation of National Liberation of Russian People). See http://www.nordrus.org/tactics/ for details if you are interested in.

Also, it needed to be said that “new Russian nationalists†are not inviting Russian people to join the dying West (as the author of the article tried to present it). On the contrary, they lead Russians to the renewed West, which they are eager to build in place of Russian empire – so called Bright Rus. Quote: “we (the Northern Brotherhood) are more Westerners than the modern West itself, we bring the best years of the Western era; we are its Renaissance. We are a westerner’s hope to bring the West back to its legendary joyful youth.>>

So it's true, comparing them with Brzezinski is quite simple to pay attention. But if all said in the article was true, then we might see a final defit of the Russian empire and new "Golden Age" for the revived West!

[mzaseka]

Allright, speaking of balkanization of Russia, what would you say about this material - "Is Z.Brzezinski really a Godfather of New Russian Nationalists?" http://www.vdesyatku.com/NewRusianNationalists.html

It links Dr.Brzezinski strategy of "Russian Empire" destruction with so called "new Russian nationalists" who consider that Russia's collapse would be a blessing for Russian people. Any thought?

New Russian Nationalists were reading Z.Brzezinski very well. Although not everybody likes him in US, his role in splitting the USSR is tremendous. He is definitely the Grand Chess Master in Empire destruction process. Considering the fact that Putin is reviving the Evil Empire and trying to build new Soviet Union, New Russian Nationalists are allies of the West.

[mzaseka]

Allright, speaking of balkanization of Russia, what would you say about this material - "Is Z.Brzezinski really a Godfather of New Russian Nationalists?" http://www.vdesyatku.com/NewRusianNationalists.html

It links Dr.Brzezinski strategy of "Russian Empire" destruction with so called "new Russian nationalists" who consider that Russia's collapse would be a blessing for Russian people. Any thought?

Russians have always been the cement of the empire. The products of the Empire were available to all nations in Tsar's Russia or in the USSR, but not to Russians themselves. They were developing Asia, Caucas, Baltic Republics, but they always were the poorest nation in the Empire. Today budgets of Caucas Republics are 90% sponsored by the state money. I assume that Russia's collapse would be to the advantage of Russian people!

[August1991]

Why bother? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

I look at this idiotic thread, populated by bitter yankee haters and I see fools yearning for a resurgence of the Soviet Union because they all preferred it to the United States. Regardless of what level of brutality and mass murder the Communists engaged in, western lefties still admired them and despised the Americans.

Putin is a murdering, thieving demagogue who is leading the world's most despotic kleptocracy, and using the same tactics as Hitler did to gain popularity - blaming other people for all that ails the nation. While you lefties snivel about Guantanamo Bay you utterly ignore the mass murder and torture the Russians have engaged in in Chechnya, and the preposterous justification Putin used to restart that war and murder so many people.

There are still "useful idiots" in the West, and none of you has gotten any brighter since the Soviet Union faded away.

As usual Argus, I agree and disagree.

First, this thread has nothing to do with a Cold War or even Putin. IME, what passes for a discussion of Foreign Affairs in (English) North America is usually just a discussion of the USA. North Americans are narcissists and they can't stop looking at themselves in the mirror. Some like the image they see, and others dislike it. IOW, some like the US and some don't. Whatever side you take, the discussion is still about the USA.

The US and Europe have been bending over backwards to try not to provoke the Russians. But Putin needs a fight to justify his stepped up anti-democratic efforts and military build-up. Like Hitler, Putin is seeking "enemies" to focus the herd's anger on so they will support him in whatever he does. Having his security people blow up a few apartment buildings in Moscow gave him an excuse to start a new war in Chechnya, but that's over now, and he needs another enemy. That's why he's been doing his best to provoke the west, making wild accusations, and cozying up to the world's other despots. Meanwhile he's using oil and gas to blackmail and bully neighboring countries into submission.

Second, I agree that Putin is doing this mostly to shore up his support in Russia. He knows that standing up to the West (and Americans in particular) plays well at home. He is also arriving at a critical juncture in Russian history, and his own mandate. He must maintain his authority until the end but somehow give it up to someone else. Yeltsin had the advantage of surprise. Putin doesn't have that advantage. The Americans now use the term "lame duck" without realizing its true meaning.

----

There is no Cold War as there was in the past. The Soviet Union is no more. The FSB is nothing like the KGB. This doesn't mean that Russia is a civilized society.

And Argus, no one knows who exactly blew up those Moscow apartment buildings. No one has been arrested. But it's clear who took several hundred people hostage in theatre in Moscow. And it's also clear who killed the schoolchildren in Beslan.

To suggest that Putin arranged these apartment buildings somehow falls into the same 911 Conspiracy theory trap. I reckon that it's a form of denial of a more terrifying truth. (If radical Islamists committed these horrific crimes, then what does it portend for the future?)

IMV, Putin didn't have to arrange the killing of innocent Muscovites to justify the war in Chechnya. (BTW, the blasts occurred when Yeltsin was president.) Putin has always made it very clear that his first priority is the integrity of the Russian federal government and of the Russian territory. All things considered, Russia has been well served both by Yeltsin and Putin.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[myata]

Among the emerging powers, Russia with maybe India, seem to be the most likely potential partners (and maybe, in (much) more distant future, allies) of the democratic West.

Following this future though (as opposed to antagonizing them with unrealistic self centered demands) would require dropping "me first" attitude and working in a genuine multilateral environment. We'll see if the next US administration will be up to the challenge. The complexity is obviously way beyond the present one, which mostly thinks in the "axes" categories.

[bush_cheney2004]

...We'll see if the next US administration will be up to the challenge. The complexity is obviously way beyond the present one, which mostly thinks in the "axes" categories.

Which is absolutely consistent with many past US administrations, including the ones that had to deal with a Russia/India alliance, or Sino-Soviets, etc. The names may change, but it is still the same game, and the Americans play to win, having "emerged" quite nicely already.

[myata]

Which is absolutely consistent with many past US administrations, including the ones that had to deal with a Russia/India alliance, or Sino-Soviets, etc. The names may change, but it is still the same game, and the Americans play to win, having "emerged" quite nicely already.

Which might have been sheer luck - Cuba crisis came pretty close to a disaster, but of course there's always next time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which might have been sheer luck - Cuba crisis came pretty close to a disaster, but of course there's always next time.

No, 'twasn't luck at all. The historical record makes it clear that the Soviets had a weaker poker hand. America's Jupiter missiles had to leave Turkey, but we know how the longer story ultimately ended.

[ScottSA]

Among the emerging powers, Russia with maybe India, seem to be the most likely potential partners (and maybe, in (much) more distant future, allies) of the democratic West.

Following this future though (as opposed to antagonizing them with unrealistic self centered demands) would require dropping "me first" attitude and working in a genuine multilateral environment. We'll see if the next US administration will be up to the challenge. The complexity is obviously way beyond the present one, which mostly thinks in the "axes" categories.

The "democratic west," or at least Europe, is becoming less democratic and less western by the moment, and it's highly unlikely to partner with Russia at this juncture of history. The tidbit about "self-centeredness" can only be another self-flagellating anti-western slogan, since all countries everywhere and always are self-centered, and they'd be foolish not to be. I really don't know where this silly notion came from that the US is somehow the only country around with its own interests front and center...is it because it's the only country with the ability to act on them? What you call "mulilateral" is more accurately described as "mob mentality," judging by the behaviouir of the UN general assembly. Fortunately it has no power, or we'd all be in a world of hurt.

[myata]

Even here and now the US cannot act as their (or rather their current administration) heart desires (i.e blast into Iran). There's not a single chance it could happen in this post Iraq world.

Now take 15-20 years on, when China and India and maybe Russia too, will catch up economically. Will they be able to take on the world? Will Europe stick around to help?

I think giving up some of their macho attitudes and working out a way to a (genuine) dialogue is a lot safer option.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think giving up some of their macho attitudes and working out a way to a (genuine) dialogue is a lot safer option.

Sure...look how well it works in the Middle East. The US didn't get to be global hegemon by playing it safe. Safer is boring, and often fruitless.

[myata]

..US didn't get to be global hegemon by playing it safe ...

Sure... quite a hegemon indeed - in their own dreams. Look how we're stuck in Iraq - and it was supposed to be a piece of cake. Vietnam too. Now think how far we'd get with any real opponent (other than on their own soil that is, as hegemons do).

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure... quite a hegemon indeed - in their own dreams. Look how we're stuck in Iraq - and it was supposed to be a piece of cake. Vietnam too. Now think how far we'd get with any real opponent (other than on their own soil that is, as hegemons do).

You have sacked your own argument...the US remains the unquestioned political and economic hegemon despite Vietnam and Iraq. It can pursue such policies with near impunity in the face of so called "emerging" powers...win or lose.

The longer term occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan now join over 50 years of military power projection (and occupation) in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. What part of "Yankee Go Home" is missing here?

[myata]

Er..., China? India? Russia? No, why not just go and liberate the whole Middle East, as the plan has been? British have done it, and the Rome before them, as many other hegemons, in other parts of the world. Why not try, may even get a kick out of it.

[MMT]

The "democratic west," or at least Europe, is becoming less democratic and less western by the moment, and it's highly unlikely to partner with Russia at this juncture of history. The tidbit about "self-centeredness" can only be another self-flagellating anti-western slogan, since all countries everywhere and always are self-centered, and they'd be foolish not to be. I really don't know where this silly notion came from that the US is somehow the only country around with its own interests front and center...is it because it's the only country with the ability to act on them? What you call "mulilateral" is more accurately described as "mob mentality," judging by the behaviouir of the UN general assembly. Fortunately it has no power, or we'd all be in a world of hurt.

Russian empire will never be a honest partner with really democtatic west (with or without India). Only national Russian state will be.

[bush_cheney2004]

Er..., China? India? Russia? No, why not just go and liberate the whole Middle East, as the plan has been? British have done it, and the Rome before them, as many other hegemons, in other parts of the world. Why not try, may even get a kick out of it.

I'm sorry...I thought you were seriously engaging the topic. But to play along, I would direct your attention to Kuwait, UAE, Dubai, Qatar, and Bahrain. The shopping malls in these nations would be opulent but not much different than those found in North America. Ditto the "discreet" American military bases.

[myata]

No, seriously addressing topic. This administration was so keen on the liberation mission - and you know, seriously, they were after the big fish, like Iraq, Iran, Syria, not Dubai / Kuwait (for the lack of a better example?).

And what? Lo and behold, the first stop, which was supposed to fall like a card house and embrace democracy on first sight, we're stuck so tight, we don't even know how to get out of there. Forget about other evil axes (of course we'll keep the talk going just to appear serious, but hardly anybody can be fooled anyways).

Our initiatives like climate of eight? are an open laughing stock, and we're on par with our arch enemies with respect to international justice and general credibility (see the poll posted somewhere on this board). Some "hegemon".

[bush_cheney2004]

...Our initiatives like climate of eight? are an open laughing stock, and we're on par with our arch enemies with respect to international justice and general credibility (see the poll posted somewhere on this board). Some "hegemon".

So what...where is it written that a hegemon must satisfy all that is wholesome and good....in fact, that is a quick recipe for zero success in such an arena. Nobody here is talking about the "emergence" of America...it is already a given.

Justice sips from a fountain of power.

[kuzadd]

Sure. So, if tomorrow Russia negitiates to install MD shields in Cuba and Venecuela, to protect itself from intercontinental attacks from Chechen terrorists hiding in the jungles of Amazon, they 'll be met with complete and absolute understanding from US administrations? Like last time?

Yup!!!

actually Putin was postulating that. The "missile shields" being equal to the Cuban missile crisis, and that made the US so pleased.

But hey Putin is "bad" for being against that?

[kuzadd]

It sounds NOTHING like the what the US is doing. Or have you forgotten the Russians cutting off the gas supply for half of Europe last winter?

I don't know what NED is. Most likely some dumbass leftie conspiracy whine. But so far as I know the US hasn't attempted to poison any foreign leaders recently, as the Russians did to the Ukrainian President, nor has it sent spies to nuke a defector in another country.

The US hasn't tried to asassinate any foreign leaders?????

Oh boy!

[myata]

So what...where is it written that a hegemon must satisfy all that is wholesome and good....

You're quite right, nowhere. But (real) hegemons usually can achieve their stated objectives (at least for the limited time when they reign). Which this particular "hegemon" has obvious problems with.

Actually, not being a usual hard power hegemon (through lack of trying, on principle or otherwise) is something that I still like about the US. It's really a shame that this administration has done so much to destroy the positive chance that had come about after the end of cold war.

[M.Dancer]

Where as the US has been trying to develop a missile defense, the Ex Soviets have developed some serious weaponry of their own.

Two serious developments are the Shkval supercavitating torpedo which is basically an under water rocket that can travel under water at speeds in excess of 250 knots carrying a tactical nuclear warhead. In effect, a launch against one ship in a battle group will destroy or seriously damage many ships in a battle group.

This alone represents a serious shifty in the balance of sea power as no defence or counter measure are in place against it.

As well and more ominous are claims that the Ex Soviets have developed a course correcting inter continental ballistic missile. This mean that the Ex Soviets could launch a MIRV and the re-entry payloads could change course to counter any defence.

I should state that all of these weapons have been in development for decades and are not a responce to any recent US policy.

[ScottSA]

Even here and now the US cannot act as their (or rather their current administration) heart desires (i.e blast into Iran). There's not a single chance it could happen in this post Iraq world.

Now take 15-20 years on, when China and India and maybe Russia too, will catch up economically. Will they be able to take on the world? Will Europe stick around to help?

I think giving up some of their macho attitudes and working out a way to a (genuine) dialogue is a lot safer option.

You are so offbase on every single point that this is almost not worth replying to. The US could tapdance Iran's head, destroy it's army and airforce, and occupy Tehran within 3 weeks. China and India MIGHT "catch up" to the US in 150 - 200 years, but certainly not even come close in 15 - 20 years, and Russia will probably never be in the same ballpark. I don't even know what you think about Europe, and I'm afraid to ask...