Russia to the West... is it a Threat or Hope?

[MMT]

I wanted to share with you new article "Russia to the West - is it a Threat or Hope?" by Peter Khomyakov. Will the Gazprom's broken commitments to the gas consumers be a natural cause of the Putin's regime death? I wonder if Canada and other western countries could benefit out of badly developed situation in Russia, or a "falling apart monster" could pull the rest of the world down to the hell?

The article itself is here - http://www.vdesyatku.com/RussiaToTheWest.html

Here's some quotes:

"The West is pretty much satisfied by the modern Russia 's role as just an oil & natural gas suppler for the well developed world economies. And the West understands that the Putin's Russia can not change this status quo by any political measures."

Then author briefly explains why Russia couldn't even hold such a role and concludes:

"So the simplest math allows us to make a statement that RF will either fail its gas export commitments already in the year 2010, or it will sufficiently cut the gas supply to the local consumers, which would lead to a social explosion and the regime collapse. Because of in Russia they could tolerate a hunger and social degradation, but not homes without heating."

Then he's asking "...Are there in Russia at least ideological factions (we even do not speak of the real forces) which stand for the full shape integration of Russia into the Western world?"

and answers "...such groups exist. But they are absolutely not known in the West. That's partly for the reasons of a political competition in the opposition field. But that's also partly because of not very professional job done by some of the analysts. "

And finally something for a dessert - "First. This movement sets a project of full integration of Russia into the Western world. But it denies such integration methods, which were used by the classic liberals in Russia in the 1990s...

Second. This ideological trend is ready to give a "green light" to the western capital for the access to the natural gas fields, which Russia could not develop on its own. And not just gas. Few people are aware that there are two new oil field regions in Russia, which are not being exploited yet simply because of lack of the capacity and know how...

Third. It is no secret that the ideological trend, being characterized here, has a sharp anti-Muslim vector. And in case of its political success it's ready to contribute actively to the West in solving the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan and so on...

Yes, these ideological formations are marginal. But the Bolsheviks (the communists) were marginal in the winter of 1916-1917. And through just 10 months they became the rulers of Russia . Perhaps then many in the West deeply regretted that they timely didn't pay attention to this marginal group. Who knows, the history of the twentieth century could take a different path then."

What do you think of all of that?

Edited November 11, 2007 by MMT

[mzaseka]

What do you think of all of that?

If West wants to have Russia on its side then it should pay more attention to what is described in the article. American analysts must look closer and start supporting those who are eager to cooperate with West, not losers.

Edited November 7, 2007 by mzaseka

[leo]

... new article "Russia to the West - is it a Threat or Hope?" by Peter Khomyakov. I wonder if Canada and other western countries could benefit out of badly developed situation in Russia, or a "falling apart monster" could pull the rest of the world down to the hell?

The answer is simple. This Russia is a definite threat to the West. And we should vote for another Russia, which is our hope. If the West will stand firmly against Mr.Putin's Russia's Buggeration, we should see that other different Russia soon. And we will welcome the difference!

[Sulaco]

The answer is simple. This Russia is a definite threat to the West. And we should vote for another Russia, which is our hope. If the West will stand firmly against Mr.Putin's Russia's Buggeration, we should see that other different Russia soon. And we will welcome the difference!

Oh I don't really think so. The Russians who could present political opposition are generally moving to the west. What you have left is your standard Russian, an imperialist xenophobe with a pessimist outlook on the future and human nature. A prime candidate to support whatever strongman offers at least stability. A bad cultural psyche of there ever was one. Call it Russian exceptionalism.

[leo]

A successful revolution is launched by a few passionate people, not by a mass. You must be right about the majority of population, but they would just follow a shepherd. Remember, the communists were represented by a small group of people in 1917, and took the power. And you are right again about move active Russians driving to the West, I believe so. But again most of the communist activists came to Russia from the West in 1917

[Higgly]

A successful revolution is launched by a few passionate people, not by a mass. You must be right about the majority of population, but they would just follow a shepherd. Remember, the communists were represented by a small group of people in 1917, and took the power. And you are right again about move active Russians driving to the West, I believe so. But again most of the communist activists came to Russia from the West in 1917

Sure, but the mass had lived under the Czar for many years. The Czar had become a bureacratic enterprise run by hard men who really didn't give a rat's ass for the Russian people.

Sound familiar?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Higgly

[Sulaco]

Sure, but the mass had lived under the Czar for many years. The Czar had become a bureacratic enterprise run by hard men who really didn't give a rat's ass for the Russian people.

Sound familiar?

Well - since I do not believe the Czar first faced re-election, and upon winning that faced term limits I imagine you're not talking about one or the other of your favorite whipping boys. So tell us - to whom are you analogizing?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Sulaco

[MMT]

Sure, but the mass had lived under the Czar for many years. The Czar had become a bureacratic enterprise run by hard men who really didn't give a rat's ass for the Russian people.

Sound familiar?

Oh, absolutely! The "Czar" didn't go away, it is still the Russian empire up there, just keep changing the names... Russian people keep dying, a population is shrinking by over a million a year. And who gives a shit?!

[mzaseka]

Oh I don't really think so. The Russians who could present political opposition are generally moving to the west. What you have left is your standard Russian, an imperialist xenophobe with a pessimist outlook on the future and human nature. A prime candidate to support whatever strongman offers at least stability. A bad cultural psyche of there ever was one. Call it Russian exceptionalism.

Leo! You mentioned "imperialist xenophobes". There is no such a thing. Some people position themselves as either Imperialists or Xenophobes, but not both together. I will try to explaine why. Imperialists represent Orthodox Church and Kremlin. They are all for multinational society. They do not let Caucasus go, they press down all kinds of Russian national movements. They do not let Russians to have their own national country. Russians are not represented in the Constitution of RF. There is not even a word about nationality that is around 80% of the population. What kind of xenophobes did you find in these groups? Putin's main enemy is Russian nationalism. He keeps saying that there are no Russians, only citizens of RF.

Xenophobic waves exist in RF like in any other country. But it has nothing to do with Imperialism.

[leo]

Leo! You mentioned "imperialist xenophobes". There is no such a thing. Some people position themselves as either Imperialists or Xenophobes, but not both together.

Actually, I didn't write about the "imperialist xenophobes". It was Sulaco, who wrote this

But that's OK. I think I understand what you're trying to say. I'd add to it a little - in my mind a skillful "imperialist" could maninulate a "xenophobes", so that it's even easier to "divide and rule" when people hate each other. Of course, the permanent fire should be always under control. But that's where the firefighters prove their skillset

[Sulaco]

Actually, I didn't write about the "imperialist xenophobes". It was Sulaco, who wrote this

But that's OK. I think I understand what you're trying to say. I'd add to it a little - in my mind a skillful "imperialist" could maninulate a "xenophobes", so that it's even easier to "divide and rule" when people hate each other. Of course, the permanent fire should be always under control. But that's where the firefighters prove their skillset

I disagree. Theoretically one can be imperialist and a xenophobe. The gaining of rmpire through paranoia is a phenomenon that is not alien to history. Some historians assign Rome's expansion, especially initially, as security drive. Rulling over the "barbaric hordes" does not imply that one must be welcoming of them at home.

That's the Russians for you.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Sulaco

[marcinmoka]

Rulling over the "barbaric hordes" does not imply that one must be welcoming of them at home

But what good is expanding your territory if one knows you will face constant conflict, and thus never be able to adequately rule over the territory one gains. Even with the mightiest of swords, won't help if you have some level of complacency.

Xenophobes look inward, Imperialists look outward.

[Sulaco]

Perhaps we are having a semantic disagreement. Xenophobia is not a synonym for isolationism.

Definitionally xenophobes look both inward and outward. Aliens are to be eliminated from one's homeland but they are also to be fear abroad. Now the xenophobe is presented with several ways of defending. build walls or attack, subjugate and control. I think both paths are open and the thing about Russians is they have consistently chosen the latter.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Sulaco

[M.Dancer]

build walls or attack, subjugate and control. I think both paths are open and the thing about Russians is they ahve consistently chose the latter.

Actually I would say they have done both.

[leo]

Perhaps we are having a semantic disagreement. Xenophobia is not a synonym for isolationism.

Agreed. It's kinda terminological debate. And it seems that everybody agreed so far that we consider Russia as definite threat to the West. It never was our true friend and it is not now.

Do we want Russians on our side? I think we do. But not the state of Russia as we know it now.

Should we help them to convert their country into something better (for us and for them)? I think we should. And I believe we could do it.

[mzaseka]

I disagree. Theoretically one can be imperialist and a xenophobe. The gaining of rmpire through paranoia is a phenomenon that is not alien to history. Some historians assign Rome's expansion, especially initially, as security drive. Rulling over the "barbaric hordes" does not imply that one must be welcoming of them at home.

That's the Russians for you.

But Kremlin is not a Rome and it welcomes the "barbaric hordes" at home. Moscow is not a Russian city anymore. It's all in crime, corruption and multinationalism. Moreover, they give other nationalities green light, but they physically destroy Russian nationalism.

So, in theory - may be, but not in Kremlin's practice.

[mzaseka]

Actually I would say they have done both.

They did both things. Just one detail. Neither Lenin nor Stalin were Russians. Russians (Slavic) lost about 100,000,000 people due to those politics of nonRussian leaders. Today, i know for sure, there are Russians who want to finish this Empire. They are shouting about help. What would you prefer? To drop a nuke and destroy Russia or to give a hand to those Russians who are ready to demolish the Empire from inside once and forever? To those who realize that Russian Empire is a threat to Russians first of all.

Edited November 9, 2007 by mzaseka

[mzaseka]

Agreed. It's kinda terminological debate. And it seems that everybody agreed so far that we consider Russia as definite threat to the West. It never was our true friend and it is not now.

Do we want Russians on our side? I think we do. But not the state of Russia as we know it now.

Should we help them to convert their country into something better (for us and for them)? I think we should. And I believe we could do it.

I even know how to make Russia an ally of the West forever just for $1 million. Compare with $100 billions spent on Iraq

[M.Dancer]

But Kremlin is not a Rome and it welcomes the "barbaric hordes" at home.

So all those neo nazis hounding "blacks" ( Chechans, etc) are the welcoming party?

[leo]

I even know how to make Russia an ally of the West forever just for $1 million. Compare with $100 billions spent on Iraq

Tell us your secret. How to make Russia our best friend for a 1 mil?

[mzaseka]

Tell us your secret. How to make Russia our best friend for a 1 mil?

There is a political group inside Russia, which is willing and able to demolish Putin's Empire Russian Federation forever. They got the fire prepaired, they needs to buy matches. $1 million will do the job. They are so called New Russian Nationalists http://www.vdesyatku.com/NewRusianNationalists.html

They hate Empire and are open to the West, ready to cooperate and willing to burry Historical Empire. They will let Caucas go and will embrace freedom and democracy values. But they need to buy matches.

[mzaseka]

So all those neo nazis hounding "blacks" ( Chechans, etc) are the welcoming party?

I know that New Russian Nationalists want to separate Caucas and leave it alone. As for Neo Nazis, i do not think NRN have anything to do with them. They condemn Nazism, that i know for sure. Neo Nazis need to be burried.

[MMT]

... But they need to buy matches.

Matches, eh? I'd probably think twice before selling an explosive to somebody who could set my neighbour's house on fire! Where's a guarantee that my own house won't be burnt by an accident or even on purpose? What would my insurance say???

Edited November 9, 2007 by MMT

[mzaseka]

Matches, eh? I'd probably think twice before selling an explosive to somebody who could set my neighbour's house on fire! Where's a guarantee that my own house won't be burnt by an accident or even on purpose? What would my insurance say???

Of course "buying the matches" was a figural expression. NORNA doesn't really assume the revolt, but expects that the regime will fall apart itself, after a little help (to shake it up). And NRN will just pickup the felt power (like communists in 1917).

[leo]

Of course "buying the matches" was a figural expression. NORNA doesn't really assume the revolt, but expects that the regime will fall apart itself, after a little help (to shake it up). And NRN will just pickup the felt power (like communists in 1917).

And whois NORNA? NRN?