Welcome Back, Russia

[Drunken Master]

Thanks in part to the foreign policy sophistries of the War on Terror and an opportunist leader like Putin, Russia is slowly and all but surely moving back to a pre-1989 state of affairs. And until the current Ukraine debacle, there has barely been a peep out the the US. Remember when Kerry tried to bring up the topic of Putin during one of the debates and all he received in answer from the President and the American public was a blank stare?

Could it be that the so-called victory declared by the West in the Cold War was premature? That the Old Guard, the apparatchiks within the Soviet monster discovered the best way to survive was to receed into the shadows and wait for a gullible US President and a suitable international cause to re-emerge and begin recreating the old corrupt - but stable - Russian empire?

[papasmerf]

Did anyone actualy expect things to move so close to a free democracy that old values would not re-emerge?

[assoholic]

..the Great Game never stops, it is continual. Seperate moralitry from how you view the world. It only knows power. US, Russia, China, they all have their "interests". That is all that matters. The Ukraine is rich in minerals with I believe 20 million Russians living there. Whether Iraq, Afghanistan , Ukraine exct it all relates to the ongoing friction between the two or three. Like Glaciers continually rubbing up against each other. The newer Twist, I think is the TransNational Corporations, how do they change the
picture ?

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by assoholic
..the Great Game never stops, it is continual. Seperate moralitry from how you view the world. It only knows power. US, Russia, China, they all have their "interests". That is all that matters. The Ukraine is rich in minerals with I believe 20 million Russians living there. Whether Iraq, Afghanistan , Ukraine exct it all relates to the ongoing friction between the two or three. Like Glaciers continually rubbing up against each other. The newer Twist, I think is the TransNational Corporations, how do they change the
picture ?

Damn sounds like I agree

but where does thisd leave the west?

[assoholic]

..I dont know that much about the situation, other then the Russians have certainly leant a helping hand in trying to keep their guy in power. As usual with their Intelligence agencies, actually poisining the opposition candidate.It may turn out pretty messy, like I mentioned a good chunk of the population are ethnic Russians. You have to remembwer that in WW2 , the Ukraines wheat was a big prize. The Russians will do whatever they can to try and keep it in the fold. The West will probabaly try and fan the Democratic flame, knowing most ethnic Ukranians favour closer relations with the west. I think the Ukraine is the new" boundary", the new line the Russians will not accept being crossed.
In the Great game they were forced to make a retreat , out of Eastern Europe exct. They will try and make their stand in the Ukraine, its too important to let go easily. The next week will be tense to see if the Ukranian Government cracks down, it will tell us a good deal of what the world will look like the next little while, how much is left of Russian strength.

[Peeping Tom]

The Ukraine has been independant since 1991. Russia doesn't own it anymore and thus can't draw any lines around it. Of course, anyone crazy enough to march towards Russia would find themselves in a nuclear shambles.

The evil empire didn't suffer a setback. It immolated itself, not even requiring one kick to smash the rotten door down. It failed in the most absolute sense of the word. It failed because feudalism on crack wasn't a viable socio-economic relationship. It failed because an equal lack of opportunity forced it to fall farther and farther behind the west with each passing day. Its fight with the west was fought, to the most extreme extent imaginable, upon the backs of the slaves, of which it murdered some 60 millions. It failed, most utterly and absolutely, when the slaves revolted and in the course of this magnificent standard of failure, it couldn't bring itself to fire even a shot. Once the failure was complete, a band of renegades attempted a putsch, which was promptly smashed by the army. It was this military which announced to the world that the cold war was over.

The lesson of failure was that Russia has to play the modern game. Its major concern is that it is several hundred years behind at learning the rules of this game. One of the most important rules of this game is that you cooperate with other States, in oppsition to the past game of assimilating and enslaving them. And the present Russian political system knows this to be true.

[assoholic]

..Russia pulled out of Esatern Europe because its Economy crashed. Because it entrenched power in the hands of a few.
Communism's great failing.
As for Co-operation, you mean like the US in Iraq ?
Bull, these countries behind the scenes are constantly at each others throats. Occassionally like in Afghanistan Iraq it bubbles to the surface.

[Peeping Tom]

Since you mention Iraq, good, as it is indeed relevant to this discussion. Iraq was a vestige of this cold war, one of the dirty elements employed by the western side. After the cold war this rabid dog had to be put down. The only shame here is that it took so long to do so, to the great distress of the Iraqi people.

Iraq will shortly be free to play the game or suffer the consequences, consequences which this time will be their own doing. Finally they are free to set their own course.

[assoholic]

..you seem to believe in some dream world. Sorry its not the world I see or read about.

[Peeping Tom]

Yet you can't counter my point, which should be easy to do if reason is on your side.

[assoholic]

..you made no point, you shouted a slogan.Iraq is a broken country , after 10 years of sanctions and now this War.They will have to fight hard to remain a soveriegn country. Again, you just seem to see a different World.

[Ranger68]

I think, overall, it might be more accurate to say that BOTH the US and Russia, for different reasons perhaps, are sliding back to the bad old days of Empire.

The world has become a much more dangerous place recently.

[Drunken Master]

Oh, and has anybody else noticed irony in the fact that the Bush admin is suddenly very concerned about somebody else stealing an election? ;)

[Ranger68]

Precisely.
LOL

[Big Sleazy]

This is the scenario that is going to have people looking back ten years from now saying geez, maybe things would have been different if Canada had a way to defend itself. Why would anyone believe the Cold War was over ? War never ends, it just shuffles the deck every so often. And the worst part is when everyone wakes up and realizes that a sovereign country can't be svereign without a capable military, it will be too late.

BS

[Ranger68]

Yep.

[assoholic]

..well well well, look who shows up on the scene Lech Walessa, Polish Solidarity guy, to stroke the fires. Looks like another Supreme Court is about to step into the spotlight. Coincidence or the way things are done now.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Oh, and has anybody else noticed irony in the fact that the Bush admin is suddenly very concerned about somebody else stealing an election? ;)

I just love this, the left holding on to the fiction of W stealing an election. There is a group offering 200k to anyone who can prove vote fraud in Ohio - very funny. Come on down and collect if you're so sure.... This lack of a grasp on reality is why the left keeps losing elections down here - we couldn't have lost it must have been stolen. LOL

OTB

[Ranger68]

Or perhaps it was ironic due to the US' propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years.
;)

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Or perhaps it was ironic due to the US' propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years.
;)

Like yours?

Just kidding.

Just start a "I hate US Foreign Policy" thread, it will be a hit.

OTB

[Ranger68]

Not interested, thanks.
Who said I hate US foreign policy? Just Bush.
That doesn't take away from the irony of that statement.
LOL

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Not interested, thanks.
Who said I hate US foreign policy? Just Bush.
That doesn't take away from the irony of that statement.
LOL

You can't say that Bush is the only POTUS to " propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years" that would be the work of many POTUSs.

OTB

[Ranger68]

I don't. Never said he was. Of course, ANY American President making those statements would be very ironic.
He is the WORST in terms of shredding the concept of multi-lateralism, and his invasion of Iraq is one of the most dangerous decisions taken in the last fifty years, setting the precedent for "preventive" war.
Terrible.
Most previous American President's have *mostly* had reasonable foreign policy goals. Sometimes, foreign policy comes down to the lesser of two evils. I find it curious that Bush Sr. spoke STEADFASTLY against invading Iraq, precisely because there was no UN mandate for it. I guess Jr.'s just smarter.

[americanson]

Ranger68 I agree with the last part of your post. Just remember that most of our tough decisions did come during the cold war. You know when Russia was threatening world domination? Not all our allies were gonna be like Winston Churchill or even DeGaulle's France so you get the point. Need I remind the naysayers that just before the U.S. got involved in WW2 that the allies (including Canada) signed on with sicko Stalin to help their own cause. This was of course after they fought against hiom for two years.

[americanson]

A few points B.B. 1) Quit being so darn sensitive for God's sake. I was not attacking Canada for "signing up" with Stalin. You wanna word it as getting involved fine.

2) Yes the U.S. supplied weapons to Russia when they were on the side of the allies. Not when Stalin was allied with Hitler

3) Juveneile name-calling is not the best way to give your arguments credibility. Also, Truman was the THIRD V.P. for F.D.R.
(1933-1939 was John Garner) and from 41-45 was a man named Henry Wallace. Truman meanwhile was elected in November of 1944, took power on Jan.20 1945 and took over after only 83 days in office on April 12 after F.D.R. unexpectedly died.

4) Whose blaming Canada? I'm just trying to draw an analogy.

5) Part of Truman's ulterior motive in dropping the A-bomb twice was clearly to send the Soviets a message. By that time Stalin made it clear that the Yalta conference was nothing but a hoax.

6) F.D.R. wasn't on Churchill's side or Canada's for that matter? Please explain the lend-lease agreement then as well as the odgensberg agreement.

P.S. I'm not against free speech in any way so I don't know where that came from. BTW B.B. it's jerks like you that only reconfirm Canada's sick obsessive anti-americanism. Don't say otherwise (i.e. We hate Bush) Piss off Canada we need the parking space.

[Ranger68]

I'm not sure what triggered any of this, but my point was that Americans, and lots of other countries, have had meddlesome hands in MANY elections in places all over the world, for a long time.
This is not, in and of itself, a criticism. It merely makes the US criticism of meddling in the Ukrainian election ironic - well, hypocritical, at least. ;)

[Cinema Face]

Originally posted by Drunken Master

... the best way to survive was to receed into the shadows and wait for a gullible US President and a suitable international cause to re-emerge and begin recreating the old corrupt - but stable - Russian empire?


When was the Russian government ever not corrupt?

Anyway, it's too bad Kerry didn't win, then he would've solved all of Russia's problems.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
OK lets re-write history Americanson - the allies didn't sign up with Stalin - they only became involved with Russia at Roosevelt's insistance after Russia was invaded by it's German buddie. It was the US that insisted on suppling Russia so that it didn't fall to Germany. While I agree 100% with Roosevelt and the US position - because it was the only sensible policy at the time once again you show how stuck in such extreme right wing view that you can't possibly acknowledge that the US may have supported those pinko commies in the former Soviet Union. Geez your getting real old Americanson. One last piece of history you dimwit, it was Roosevelt and Truman that ignorned Churchill's warnings about the USSR and allowed the Soviet's to maintain their conquest of Eastern Europe. You can't resist in blaming Canada, once again when the reality is that our then PM Mackenzie King was on Churchills side in our foriegn policy regarding that sicko Stalin. One last point, DeGaulle took great pleasure in being on the opposite point of view of Churchill so your point about him being an original cold warrior is not believable. Do you make this shit up on the fly? It's jerks like you that give free speech a bad name.


bbk

It was a real shame that neither Churchill or Roosevelt was at the peace table at the end of WWII - Churchill was dead on in predicting WWII and the subsequent cold war (Iron Curtin was his term I believe). Stalin pursued a land grab at the end of WWII (which Churchill and Ike perceived) but the US didn't want to fight the USSR over it. Had Roosevelt been at the top of his game as WWII ended he may have saved us all a lot of trouble.

OTB

[Ranger68]

I'm not sure I agree with the revisionism that would have had some of the Allies turn against the USSR at the end of WWII.
BOTH sides pursued land grabs at the end of WWII, because they *all* foresaw the coming confrontation, and in any case that's what nations did (do) at the conclusion of wars ended in such a manner. Of course, Roosevelt also would have *caused* a lot of trouble by smashing his armies into the Soviets, too - not sure I'd define that as "the top of his game".
Millions more would have died.

[ocean976124]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Or perhaps it was ironic due to the US' propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years.
;)
Yes, but the US had to at the time.

[ocean976124]

Originally posted by Cinema Face
When was the Russian government ever not corrupt?

Anyway, it's too bad Kerry didn't win, then he would've solved all of Russia's problems. LOL, yes Kerry would have helped solve Russia problems before he didn't help solve their problems... :)

[danmand]

Originally posted by bbking
It's jerks like you that give free speech a bad name.


I would call it a draw between him and you.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by ocean976124
Yes, but the US had to at the time.

In the same way and to the same extent that I'm sure Russia thinks they had to try to affect the Ukrainian election.

(Of course, I'd argue how much anyone "has to" interfere in the internal affairs of other nations .......)

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I'm not sure I agree with the revisionism that would have had some of the Allies turn against the USSR at the end of WWII.
BOTH sides pursued land grabs at the end of WWII, because they *all* foresaw the coming confrontation, and in any case that's what nations did (do) at the conclusion of wars ended in such a manner. Of course, Roosevelt also would have *caused* a lot of trouble by smashing his armies into the Soviets, too - not sure I'd define that as "the top of his game".
Millions more would have died.

There were those who argued that the Western allies should have continued to plow ahead instead of waiting for the USSR to meet them in some areas, the Iron curtain was well foretold by Churchill. I don't think anyone of consequence suggested fighting the USSR, just rushing to meet it, thus saving millions from the Communist European experience they endured.

OTB

[Ranger68]

Yes, I am aware that this was a sentiment of the time, and that it became more popular.
The Allies DID rush to meet it, but it was clear that they were only going to get so far. Ike's broad front strategy practically guaranteed that.

[Ranger68]

No, neither side held up at all. Although the generalized stopping positions had been settled upon months before.
Hitler didn't commit suicide until the Battle for Berlin was almost over - Soviet troops were within a hundred yards or so of his bunker.
You're right when you say that the Allies didn't have much choice in where the Soviets stopped. The only thing that might have altered that would have been the development of a peripheral strategy - one involving the Balkans - that Churchill was pushing for. The Americans would have none of it and constantly pushed for the opening of the front in northern France. Of course, the Americans could have still ended the war sooner, and gotten the western Allies farther on themselves, had Ike not been such a stickler for the broad front strategy, but this argument has been going on for sixty years and won't ever be resolved.

[Ranger68]

I don't know - do YOU have anything better to do??
????
Geez.
"but I thought it was the Soviets that held up to allow the allies to advance closer to Berlin"
Just thought I'd point out that this sentence was *false*.

Sorry to "split hairs".
:rolleyes:

[Necromancer]

Just saw a documentary on Discovery channel that says that the Soviets raced to Berlin in order to gain exclusive access to the nuclear bomb program in Germany. After seeing what the Soviet went through to get the Germans out of Russia, its a wonder they could muster an army at all.

But this is why history is so much fun...it keeps getting rewritten.

[assoholic]

..both sides were after the German Technology. All kinds of it. Which was far ahead of the Allies. With enough oil, right up to almost the end of the war, those German Jets may have turned the tide. It was Air Power that won WW2. Its why the Germans had their early success, that combination of air and ground attack. With the Stukas providing ground support, devasting.

The Germans had even built and tested on one voyage a bomber that flew to New York City and back.
Most of the major decisions of WW2 revolved around Oil. Things like that are not forgotten.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Just saw a documentary on Discovery channel that says that the Soviets raced to Berlin in order to gain exclusive access to the nuclear bomb program in Germany. After seeing what the Soviet went through to get the Germans out of Russia, its a wonder they could muster an army at all.

But this is why history is so much fun...it keeps getting rewritten.

What's been "rewritten" by this, though? That the Soviets raced to Berlin? No. About the nuclear bomb race? I've heard it before, but I doubt it was a huge incentive. The Soviets were going to beat the Western allies there anyway.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by assoholic
..both sides were after the German Technology. All kinds of it. Which was far ahead of the Allies. With enough oil, right up to almost the end of the war, those German Jets may have turned the tide. It was Air Power that won WW2. Its why the Germans had their early success, that combination of air and ground attack. With the Stukas providing ground support, devasting.

The Germans had even built and tested on one voyage a bomber that flew to New York City and back.
Most of the major decisions of WW2 revolved around Oil. Things like that are not forgotten.

It was *economic* power that won WW2.

[assoholic]

..I was talking on the battlefield, but Ya it was American Industrial strength that was the deciding factor.

[Ranger68]

It was *economic* strength. The German economy was going to have a hard time against the *Soviet* economy, let alone the western allies.
From 1942 on, the Soviets were producing about ten times as many tanks as the Germans. That kind of difference was going to be hard for even the Luftwaffe to offset.

[Ranger68]

A terrible oversimplification, to the point that it's not only imprecise, it's inaccurate. LOTS of things go into how strong an economy is, not just oil. Even if the Germans had captured the Middle Eastern oilfields, and those of the Caucasus, their economy would not have overtaken the Allied economies. It also has to do with manpower, brainpower, technology, and access to *all kinds* of raw materials.

[danmand]

Originally posted by bbking
If the pro-western candidate is elected, the West should be reluctant to grant EU or Nato status to this Country as it will directly threaten Putin's position in his own Country and may cause him to do something we will all regret.


The TERB forums are widely read in the capitals of Europe.

[danmand]

Just allowing you to make a fool of yourself.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
The TERB forums are widely read in the capitals of Europe.

LOL

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Just allowing you to make a fool of yourself.

He doesn't need the help, danmand.
;)

[Ranger68]

LOL
Very indicative post.
;)

[danmand]

LOL