[EnergyUnlimited]

Call America the bad guy if you will, but we beat the Soviets and we're gradually winning the war against violent fundamentalist islam as well.

I cannot agree with that.
My impression is that you are making them (Islamic fundamentalists) stronger.

You have alienated population of Pakistan and turned common folk towards fundamentalists, you have made mess in Afghanistan and now you are about to withheld. Taliban only waits for that.
In Iraq there is also a mess left with pro Iranian Shia Muslims getting an upper hand
Meantime you are sponsoring Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia.
You have replaced religiously neutral dictator of Libya with a mess where fundamentalists are bound to forward large gains.

So you are actually breeding fundamentalism, not winning war on it.
You are actually uniting Third World nations and particularly those where Muslims are majority in hatred towards America.

[ralfy]

One book to read on the matter is Johnson's Blowback.

The Cold War was not some battle between good and evil but military powers preying on weak countries through various means, with realpolitik as the primary motive, and the main winners being multinational corporations and military forces. Citizens received a false sense of freedom based on debt and war costs or collateral damage.

And that war continues today.

[SeaGypsy]

That bypasses the point where 6's argument fails. his is an argument that Americanism is ethical and successful, based on it's moral high ground. It's a weird one, because it is mostly very true/ but there are glaring exceptions galore, all the way back through history. His argument is more good than bad gives license to stuff things right up, human style. Which would perhaps all be well and good, were we not talking about a nation where 90% believe they have a chunk of the True Lord in their hearts.

[dorlomin]

That's true, but the you seem to want to shift all blame on America.

"all"? No. Just pointing out that America has no particular right to claim moral superiority over the world and behave like a petulant child when other nations turn up with their own interests.

[gollum]

I think westerners often fail to take in to account how much the second world war still affects Russian thinking and how threatening western actions can seem to them.

[Sixstrings]

Vladimir Putin to snub London 2012 Olympics

Vladimir Putin will not be coming to the London Olympics, diplomatic sources have said, in an apparent signal of the Russian president's continuing displeasure and irritation with Britain.

Putin will not attend the London 2012 opening ceremony on 27 July, sources confirmed, despite the fact that Moscow will host the Winter Olympics in 2014 in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Instead, the Russian president is likely to dispatch his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, to London.

The snub follows Putin's controversial decision earlier this month to boycott the G8 summit hosted by the US president, Barack Obama. Putin claimed he was too busy forming his new government to attend, and sent Medvedev instead. He has accused the US of inciting street protests against him and is unhappy with Washington's missile defence plans in Europe.

Putin has a long list of grievances against Britain. As well as the unresolved Alexander Litvinenko affair – a source of smouldering tension – the Kremlin has been infuriated by calls to ban senior Russians accused of human rights abuses.

In March, a group of backbench MPs voted to refuse visas to officials implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in prison in 2009. The Foreign Office has so far ignored the non-binding vote and ruled out a Magnitsky ban.

Putin was inaugurated for a third time as president on 7 May. Soon afterwards, he announced that one of Moscow's top foreign policy priorities was to prevent government and other officials from being placed on visa blacklists abroad. Campaigners say visa bans are one of the few effective measures against bureaucrats who enjoy visiting London and other EU capitals and typically hold bank accounts in the west.

On Wednesday, Denis MacShane, the former Labour Europe minister, said he welcomed Putin's decision to avoid the Games. Earlier this year, the MP said Downing Street should make it clear Putin was not welcome at the Olympics.

The threat of Magnitsky sanctions has received "phenomenal coverage" in the Russian press, he said, probably contributing to the decision to stay away. "I think Putin doesn't want to come to Britain and face difficult questions," he said.

He went on: "This is further evidence of the turning inwards of Putin towards a more nationalistic authoritarianism and a rejection of western values. He doesn't want to come to a democratic country and realise how unpopular he now is, because of his refusal to uphold the rule of law and justice back in Russia."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/vladimir-putin-snub-london-olympics?intcmp=239

Russia continuing to turn inward.. toward "nationalistic authoritarianism" and away from western values (human rights, free speech, rule of law).

Putin has a long list of grievances against Britain.

He seems to have a long list of grievances against everybody.

[SeaGypsy]

Not going to the games is micro, pulling the team would be a serious statement. Putin is at heart a populist, playing his cards carefully. He has doubts some might say are justified about western interventionism, much of which is driven out of London and Washington, the true motives of which are so often blurred in subterfuge. Having the cops bash up a few dozen protesters is not really a big deal in the USA or Australia or most places in the developed world. I am yet to see his troops strafing crowds with machine guns or snipers. I have been reading a lot of world class political journalism coming out of Russia, without the authors having to hide their identity or live in exile.
It seems to me that Russia has pulled off almost a miracle since it's crash, largely under Putin's hand. It has huge natural resources of all kinds yet to exploit, a relatively benign, tolerant and hardworking population, desperate not to see a return to some of the darker episodes in history. For as long as Putin can remain the populist, he will remain in power and a thorn in the side of western powers. He is not about to nuke anyone or take over the world. He is playing the globalism game by the rules and winning, so far.

[sparky]

.
What is telling is the rivers of bile and vitriol against the guy
He did very well by his own country and gave a black eye to the neo cons in Georgia
The fox media keep telling he was a low ranking KGB observer posted in Dresden
nobody mention Georges Bush the first was head of the CIA ( and a good one )

Also a credible opponent is good for requiring advanced weapons ,
this terrorist gig was threadbare of big fat R&D defense contracts

Never fear , if the cold war is dead well get another one going
It's what made the U.S. great in the fifties , lets do it again
roll on red baiting

[gollum]

It's a shame that after the end of the cold war the west wasn't able to treat Russia with the same dignity we treated the Germans and Japanese with after WW2 and help them to their feet. They got there anyway, but they sure as hell will remember how poorly we treated them when they were down. I expect there's a good chance before I leave this world we'll see that role reversed.

[Sixstrings]

It's a shame that after the end of the cold war the west wasn't able to treat Russia with the same dignity we treated the Germans and Japanese with after WW2 and help them to their feet.

Er.. dignity? Japan and Germany were firebombed to smithereens. Japan got nuked -- twice.

Japan unconditionally surrendered to the US. American forces occupied and had 100% power. We wrote their constitution, carefully re-organized their society from the bottom up. And it worked out splendidly. I saw a documentary on this once, I forget the details now but whoever we had in charge of Japan post-war, we really did a good job over there.

Likewise, Germany unconditionally surrendered and was remade by the Western allies.

While the West won the cold war, the USSR never did "surrender." So comparisons to Japan and Germany don't fit. Having said that, Herbert Walker Bush was very very careful to not gloat or do anything to upset the Russians. We sent a lot of food aid. Did everything we could.. the West was very gracious.

Relations went south starting with Putin.

They got there anyway, but they sure as hell will remember how poorly we treated them when they were down. I expect there's a good chance before I leave this world we'll see that role reversed.

Whoah there cowboy.. not sure what you're talking about, Bush couldn't have been any more gracious. Many think he lost to Clinton precisely because he wouldn't tout the cold war victory.

You're just historically wrong on this point. Nobody did anything to antagonize the Russians, to the contrary. As I posted way upthread, America has saved Russia from famine not once but twice. Hoover saved them the first time.. probably at least half of Russians today are alive because American food relief saved their ancestors from starvation. Second time was in the Soviet collapse.

What more could the US do?

[EnergyUnlimited]

What more could the US do?

Winston Churchill have said:

"After exploring all other possibilities Americans will do the right and obvious thing at the end".

So it was mistake to help Russians with food aid at certain times.
Your victory was so close... and so cheap.
Why Hoover did not allow commies to fall into total mess?

You wasted such a wonderful opportunity to win.
...but a new one may never come.
Tough luck.
Again, the best idea is to take care of your own affairs and not meddle abroad too much.
Out of meddling abroad you can only get enemies.

[Sixstrings]

Not going to the games is micro, pulling the team would be a serious statement.

Fair point. Although.. WHY can't he mix with world leaders? It's odd. The Soviets were never afraid to. Real strength is in showing up.

He has doubts some might say are justified about western interventionism, much of which is driven out of London and Washington, the true motives of which are so often blurred in subterfuge.

Iraq isn't as mysterious as people think. Remember the state of affairs at the time.. years of neverending sanctions, Saddam wasn't going to ever bend. All those years of no-fly zone. Children were suffering from the sanctions. Either the West had to finally remove Saddam, or give up on it.

Anyhow what exactly ARE legitimate Russian interests in the middle east? US and Europe, we have real issues there, we need the oil or we'd collapse without it. Russia doesn't need the oil. Therefore, Russia's only interest there is to be a thorn in our side.

If you want there to be gas there when you go to fill up, you gotta remember which side you're on here.

Having the cops bash up a few dozen protesters is not really a big deal in the USA or Australia or most places in the developed world.

Yikes.. US is the bad guy, yet when it comes to Russia you enable them SG. What gives.

Wrong is wrong, even when Russians or Chinese do it. I'll grant you, it does appear that the mysterious journalist deaths have stopped, far as I know. But they still aren't free over there. People are free to protest Obama or your prime minister, that's not the case with Putin. Entire cafes are getting rounded up, everybody wearing a white ribbon of protest packed off to jail. All they do is wear a white ribbon, it's not even protesting as we think of it.

I am yet to see his troops strafing crowds with machine guns or snipers.

Well you can sure see that in Syria, and it's Russia that's blocking anything getting done about it.

It seems to me that Russia has pulled off almost a miracle since it's crash, largely under Putin's hand.

The exact same was said about Hitler. It was called "the German miracle," wow he really turned that country around got everyone working, economy booming, Germans had money again. It was all swell until he started cracking down on freedoms and then proceded to invade little countries on the pretense of protecting "ethnic Germans."

[radon]

What more could the US do?

Not to send the US interventionist forces to Russia that helped to the hunger to develop in the first place a year before Hoover's food assistance arrived?

[Sixstrings]

Putin blames the West for stirring up dissent against him:

Russia security chief says foreign sites foment protests

MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin's top security adviser said on Friday that foreign-based websites were being used to foment anti-Kremlin protests, a sign authorities are seeking means to hamper access to social media sites used by activists.

Opposition leaders and ordinary Russians used Facebook to organize a wave of winter rallies which attracted tens of thousands of people onto Moscow's streets to protest alleged fraud by Putin's ruling party in a Dec. 4 parliamentary election.

Since Putin's return to the Kremlin for a six-year presidential term on May 7, activists have relied on Twitter to defy riot police and coordinate sit-ins in the capital's parks.

Echoing Putin's accusation that the United States was backing his domestic opponents, his presidential Security Council secretary, Nikolai Patrushev, said the Internet was being used by unspecified external forces "interested in aggravating the socio-political situation."

"Making use of internet freedom in our country, foreign sites are spreading political speculation, calls to unauthorized protests," Patrushev, a longtime Putin ally who headed Russia's FSB security service during his 2000-2008 presidency, told the Interfax news agency.

"The Russian blogosphere is also subject to outside influence directed at creating and maintaining constant tensions within society," he said.

Critics say the Kremlin's worry over the role of such sites is apparent in a draft law the ruling party proposed last month that would impose fines for internet users who spread the word about rallies at which demonstrators then violate city rules.

Russia's vibrant blogosphere and new web-based media are often the only alternative to tightly controlled media, particularly in its far-flung provinces.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Russia+security+chief+says+foreign+sites+foment+protests/6714144/story.html

Jesus.. ok can everyone take their blinders off and finally admit what's going on here?

It's all the "foreign websites'" fault, mmkay.

Putin, the "dictator:"

Putin has emerged as a new czar, a dictator, whose goal ... is "above all else to preserve his power." Certainly, Putin has fueled these arguments. From the first, he did all he could to strengthen the "vertical of power," asserting more state control over the economy and the regions, bringing the media under almost complete control (especially television), reigning in NGOs and other independent civic organizations, and marginalizing the opposition (when not throwing critics into prison).

The symbolic embodiment of this political personality is a hypermasculine, tough-man persona, most visible in regular photo-ops with chest bared while engaged in vigorous physical activity, along with periodic use of vulgar language to denigrate his critics. A real man, his admirers say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-d-st ... 53829.html

Goodness, they don't even have free speech and free press over there.. there's nothing more to say here, without free speech and freedom to assemble and a free press then you have nothing, and the government doesn't speak for the people.

[Sixstrings]

Russia supplies Assad with weapons, blocks any attempt to get rid of him:

Hollande Clashes With Putin Over Ouster Of Syria’s Assad

French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin disagreed over Syria at a meeting in Paris, with Hollande saying more sanctions are needed to force President Bashar al-Assad from power and Putin saying added pressure on the regime may lead to civil war.

“We have disagreements over who is responsible for the violence and over the need for Assad to leave,” Hollande said at a joint press conference yesterday after a working dinner.

Putin said Russia, which supplies arms to Syria, “has no special military or economic ties” to the country and that Assad has visited Paris more than Moscow. The Syrian leader visited Paris twice while Nicolas Sarkozy was French president, in 2008 and 2009.
Hollande, who was sworn in May 15, said he wasn’t responsible for previous visits to Paris.

“The actions of the Syrian regime are intolerable,” Hollande said. “Any solution to the crisis requires the departure of Assad.”

France, Britain, and the U.S. accuse the Assad regime of undermining Annan’s peace effort with continued deadly military assaults against opponents of the regime. Russia and China have blocked UN Security Council resolutions pushing for stronger sanctions.

Putin said he doesn’t support either side in the Syrian conflict, and that it’s “counter-productive” to conclude that Annan’s mission has failed. Sanctions aren’t “efficient,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/hollande-clashes-with-putin-over-ouster-of-syria-s-assad.html

Yeah right, Russia is neutral, yet along with China blocks anything getting done about Syria. And Russia wants to keep selling Assad weapons, which Assad is using against his own people.

[SeaGypsy]

Russia and China don't want the UN to have a mandate for collective action against a regime over internal strife/ rebellion. The USA barely gives invasion of the homeland a thought. By the UN? That's funny...

[EnergyUnlimited]

Goodness, they don't even have free speech and free press over there.. there's nothing more to say here, without free speech and freedom to assemble and a free press then you have nothing, and the government doesn't speak for the people.

As if you do... watch your MSM

[Sixstrings]

Goodness, they don't even have free speech and free press over there.. there's nothing more to say here, without free speech and freedom to assemble and a free press then you have nothing, and the government doesn't speak for the people.

As if you do... watch your MSM

Our media isn't state-controlled though. Sounds like it is in Russia. There's a difference in media being lapdogs and actual direct control by government.

These things matter, it's important, a free press and free speech and freedom to assemble, it's all that protects your other rights.

I wish Russia luck on this.. I hope Putin doesn't crack down further. They SHOULD keep their internet free, they SHOULD keep their media free. Freedom means growth and progress, repression is never good. If Putin is worried about civil unrest then he needs to address whatever it is people are so upset about.

[radon]

Putin said he doesn’t support either side in the Syrian conflict, and that it’s “counter-productive” to conclude that Annan’s mission has failed. Sanctions aren’t “efficient,” he said.

Putin obviously said that the sanctions aren't "effective" (effective and efficient are the same word in Russian).

[gollum]

Russia supplies Assad with weapons, blocks any attempt to get rid of him:

Hollande Clashes With Putin Over Ouster Of Syria’s Assad

French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin disagreed over Syria at a meeting in Paris, with Hollande saying more sanctions are needed to force President Bashar al-Assad from power and Putin saying added pressure on the regime may lead to civil war.

“We have disagreements over who is responsible for the violence and over the need for Assad to leave,” Hollande said at a joint press conference yesterday after a working dinner.

Putin said Russia, which supplies arms to Syria, “has no special military or economic ties” to the country and that Assad has visited Paris more than Moscow. The Syrian leader visited Paris twice while Nicolas Sarkozy was French president, in 2008 and 2009.
Hollande, who was sworn in May 15, said he wasn’t responsible for previous visits to Paris.

“The actions of the Syrian regime are intolerable,” Hollande said. “Any solution to the crisis requires the departure of Assad.”

France, Britain, and the U.S. accuse the Assad regime of undermining Annan’s peace effort with continued deadly military assaults against opponents of the regime. Russia and China have blocked UN Security Council resolutions pushing for stronger sanctions.

Putin said he doesn’t support either side in the Syrian conflict, and that it’s “counter-productive” to conclude that Annan’s mission has failed. Sanctions aren’t “efficient,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/hollande-clashes-with-putin-over-ouster-of-syria-s-assad.html

Yeah right, Russia is neutral, yet along with China blocks anything getting done about Syria. And Russia wants to keep selling Assad weapons, which Assad is using against his own people.

Clearly the Syrian government is a piece of shit, but after two decades of involvement in the area I'd rather we mind our own business and let the other powers in the region deal with the situation.