Obama and nuclear syndrome
When it comes to Russia and America, nuclear weapons are old footage. They seem to belong in another time, when the old guard would stand atop Lenin's Mausoleum and watch SS20s trundling through Red Square. Or fresh-faced soldiers in their midwestern silos practising their dual-key launches. It was an era of Doctor Strangelove and MAD - mutually assured destruction. Presidents - we were often reminded - travelled with the nuclear codes.
I remember, as a Canadian correspondent, reporting from the Minot Air Force base in North Dakota, watching the B52s - those mammoths of the sky - mount their daily patrols. At the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Cheyenne Mountain they ran a simulated attack with a mission-control voice announcing "multiple missiles inbound towards continental North America". Even with that voice wiped of any emotion it was possible to contemplate nuclear annihilation.
And then as the Cold War faded those images seemed to belong to the past. They lost their potency. War with Russia was unthinkable, let alone a nuclear exchange. The demonstrations in favour of nuclear disarmament ebbed away too. It was easier to protest against America than North Korea or Iran. And Russian leaders like Vladimir Putin were men you could do business with - so judged George W Bush.
Yet for all the lowering of rhetoric and the flowering of co-operation, reducing nuclear arsenals has proved surprisingly difficult. When President Obama and President Medvedev sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in Prague this week it will be the most comprehensive arms reduction in nearly two decades.
And it was hard grind. There were ten rounds of talks between Russia and the United States. The presidents had at least 14 phone calls. Time and again when a deal seemed struck a late objection or an added line threatened to derail the entire effort.
We have not yet seen the entire text, but deployed strategic warheads are to be capped at 1,550. That is down from 2,200. The number of deployed launchers are to be limited to 800 - that's half the number permitted at present. There will be 18 inspections a year. Monitoring and verification are the big winners.
There is plenty the new treaty doesn't cover. Russia and the United States can still wipe each other out many times over. The deal does not cover thousands of tactical weapons and neither does it address the stockpiles that are not deployed. And conservatives in both countries could still block ratification.
Yet this is much more than about numbers. President Obama is rewriting the nuclear doctrine. He has renounced the development of new atomic weapons. They will only be considered for use in "extreme circumstances". President Bush wanted a new generation of atomic warheads, but Congress would not go along with him.
Potential targets will be fewer. Nukes will not be used against non-nuclear countries even if they use chemical or biological attack. (That assurance does not extend to those countries which refuse to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - such as North Korea and Iran.)
Part of all this is aimed at shaping world opinion as the United States presses for further sanctions against Iran. It is easier to argue against Iran acquiring such weapons when America is scaling back.
Soon after he was elected I recall President Obama promising to hit the "reset" button with Russia. He has now done that. Moscow says the signing this week is a huge international event. It makes it more likely that Russia will support further sanctions against Iran.
It also paves the way for a nuclear summit which will be held in Washington next week. The Chinese leader Hu Jintao is attending. The momentum could just build towards restoring the battered and much defied NPT.
A year ago a new American president came to Prague with a dream that Nobel prizes are made of. "The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War," said President Obama. "As a nuclear power, and as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the US has a moral responsibility to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
That ambition will not be realised during Barack Obama's presidency nor any we can forsee. It may never be realised. The United States will never give up its arsenal while other countries have weapons of mass destruction. And even if no weapons existed nuclear knowledge cannot be unlearnt. But in the view of the White House it strengthens the president's hand in building up international pressure on Iran, in what President Sarkozy calls its "mad race" towards nuclear power status.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mr. Hewitt,
You have mentioned the United States of America, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the leader of China and the President of France.
Chances are the comments will reflect little of this. They will almost certainly concentrate on a democratic republic located on the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea.
You want odds?
>8-D
Complain about this comment
Gavin, we in the East of Europe were living with the hope that the big war with the West would never happen. However, the people of my generation remember well the Suez crisis of 1956, the Caribbean crisis of 1962, the invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968. It was not a joke at all…
It was in the summer of 1958. I remember that several hundreds of MiG 17s, coming from Russia, landed in the neighbour military airport. I was still 10 and watched with my elder brother how they overflew us, three jets, followed by other three, etc., for nearly three hours. It was an amazing sight. My brother explained that the Russians were going to attack Turkey in case that Turkey attacks Syria. The next week I saw in the centre of the capital several soviet pilots dressed in white jackets, blue trousers and boots. They had scars on the faces and looked as if they were coming right from the front line /I guess they were vets from the Korean war/…
Each time when the American president and the Russian General secretary would meet for some reason, there was some kind of general relief as if the fate of all of us did depend from that couple of men who hardly new each other…
Sofia, April 7th 2010
Complain about this comment
Naaaahhhh... Generalisimo... you Bulgarians would simply attack your favourite target... us Greeks! Haha! We always highly esteem a fight with Bulgarians anyway. Turks, when they find themselves in a difficult situation (i.e. when say Greeks are more than 1000 and Turks are less than 10,000), they lose cohesion, break ranks and ran away quickly. They are like Romans to Obelix. Bulgarians are like the Normands to Obelix, he loved them cos Normands last longer! I am much more weary in a war with Bulgarians rather than a war with Turks. So it is very welcomed that Bulgraria joined the EU!
Ok joking... war between US and Russia is not to be ruled out - it just happened last year in Georgia if you remember!!! There will be other points of friction too, and not only in Georgia. It is just that the armies of the two countries will not meet up directly and certainly not by means of heavy weapons.
One need to to study for example the battle of the two largest cities of the Mediterranean back in the classical age in antiquity: Syracuses and Carthage. Most often these cities were in war in and around Sicily not directly but through puppet regimes in allied, captured cities. Then from times to times a huge clash would occur. Well today the two powers will be clashing but it is of no interest to both to clash on an "endgame" style.
Nuclear reductions are mostly done to reduce costs. No country is actually reducing its real potential. Needless to say that the "strategic missiles" is a term that is hardly any real term (as any missile can be strategic given its location & use).
However, as a move it can only be seen as positive for both countries as well as the rest of the world... unless all that is just a preparation for a war with Iran in which case Europe should start drilling its own oil (eg. in Greece...) or... switching to biofuels cos the bulk of production will be disrupted to the point that we will have hunger here. I hope they will not be mad enought to think that way.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back after Easter Gavin and thanks for the update on nuclear decommissioning. This is a good thing which I hope will continue. Although the USA and Russia probably still retain far too many nuclear weapons.
However I would like to agree with Scotch-git about Greece. I have just read an intriguing and rather devasting review of Europe's involvement in Greece's financial troubles on the notayesmanseconomics web blog and wonder what the BBC view is. As Greek ten-year bond yields have risen above 7% it does not seem to be much of a rescue plan now does it? For those interested the address is http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt,
while you'll watching the process and monitoring news :o) for all of us, remember to be interested in the two "additional" ? statements? declarations? , that are supposed to be voiced / made known, immeddiately after the agreement is signed.
As I understood all the things Russia and the USA did NOT agree about, we kind of took out of the main document, because hopeless to agree upon :o)))))
And the elegant solution found was that we agree not to agree, how to say, and each country , post signing the reduction agreement, then voices out its declaration, where explains when and how it is going not to mind that agreement at all :o))))))))))
So it will be the Agreement, and two immediate disagreements :o)))) tied to it, immediately after, within seconds of signing "the Agreement".
Overall, as I understood the lay-out, we agree to take obligations to cut and scrape and etc. this and that, during the period from - till.
Then Russia says by separate declaration in 5 min. time, when the applause settles down :o))) that it won't do anything of the kind if the USA continues to spread anti-missile gear across Europe "to the degree that Russia defines as threatening its national security".
And then the USA declare their decision to continue to spread it :o)))), in spite of anything :o))))), because they are like are set on it and God be with us and all :o)))))
Then the plan is all perplexed audiences go to lunch, in various degrees of confusion :o)))) but still more or less settle it's alright, better than nothing, and that's it.
Complain about this comment
@ 3 Nik
Our most favourite target now is any Thessaloniki traditional restaurant, where we descend on each occasion to sip ouzo and white wine, to eat fried Lavrak & Tzipura fish /well dressed with lemon juice and olive oil/, …and to dance the cirthakki with our orthodox brothers, the Greeks. The army of Bulgarian folks /not tourists, like the Americans!/ which is invading Greece each year is really impressive /just see your statistics!/.
Cheers Nikolay! If everything goes well, I shall invite /on my expense/ Alice of St.Peterfsburg and we shall pay to you a friendly visit. It will be a good occasion to remember how Russia became the banner of the whole Orthodoxy after the Ottomans invaded and conquered our lands…
Complain about this comment
What a bunch of propaganda. Every Western news organisation is falling over themselves to praise Obama. I still have yet to find one news organisation who has not continuously talked about "Obama's vision for a nuclear-free world". Every president since Eisenhauer has made a similar statement, yet no one talks about Bush's or Ford's vision for a nuclear-free world.
Rhetoric and action are 2 completely different things. The US has over 20 nuclear weapons stationed in Germany alone (not to mention Turkey, Belgium, Greece and numerous other countries) and the current German government has repeatedly asked for them to be removed. Obama has refused everytime. Sounds like he is really working towards a nuclear-free world to me! Why don't any of the news organisations report things like this?
And this new statement about limitation of use of nuclear weapons. Is everyone so stupid that they can't read between the lines? America will not use nuclear weapons on friendly states or non-nuclear states who comply with international treaties which the US does not follow. What is so new and revolutionary about this? It sounds like the same old policy the US has had since the 1970s but under a different name. Calling something a new name doesn't change the fact that Obama's nuclear-free world is all show for the press.
Complain about this comment
Look, MA; like I said; big and heavy, difficult to steal. The only sure way :o))))), known to us :o)))), to prevent theft.
You were worrying ab some terrorists, pick-pocketing it.
Complain about this comment
And check out the brooms :o))), leaned over, onto the Topol I think, or whatever, on the left side. Made from twigs and a nandful of thin trees.
To whipe the platz. No broom shop nearby granted, for 500 km around :o))) And no any other shop either :o))))
Complain about this comment
The above article inc orrectly states the following: "That assurance does not extend to those countries which refuse to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - such as North Korea and Iran."
It would be good if the BBC would check the facts behind articles it publishes before publishing it...! Iran IS a signatory to NPT, which is the reason why it is being subjected to so many UN sanctions and constant inspections by the IAEA for reasons only known to those handful of countries that pursue sanctions.
Would it not be nice if for once, these countries pursued Israel for non-compliance with all the Human Rights activities and that it made to follow the letter of the international law rather than allowing them to do what they do???
Double standards will not bring credibility to those who conduct themselves in this way. The same law and rules must apply to all with no exception to the rules. Until such time, the credibility of those countries who tell other countries what to do is at risk.
Complain about this comment
Re6: ... and it should ever be like this Generalissimo! I drink to that... and to your choice of fish. Lavraki: evolution's greatest sea-life creation. Hehe!
Complain about this comment
Russia is mostly worried about NATO ability to go across UN decisions, as we can't do absolutely anything in such cases :o)))) Un-influence-able, by us. Hard nut.
But this was impossible to manage to build into the Agreement.
No 2, about which the talks were stumbling over, for a long time, was American idea to sign the Agreement on weapons of attack exclusively, cutting them.
While we wanted weapons of attack and weapons of defence to be cut both, within the same Agreement, and viewed together, when comparing USA-Russia nuclear parity.
Because one day it's a weapon of attack :o)))) the other day - weapon of defense :o)))), really, how to say, easily re-equippable.
On point 2 we managed to have our way a bit, but a very invisible little bit.
Complain about this comment
It's great to live in a world where these things are unlikely to be unused. I still remember how it was to live in the constant knowledge that there were hundreds of them pointed at this small island, just 6 minutes flying time away.
A physicist friend of mine says it takes 70 years for an idea that wins the Nobel Prize for Physics to become part of the standard High School curriculum. 65 years after Hiroshima we have every half-crazed head of state trying to make these things, and when they are successful, as North Korea has been, the rogue-state achieves invulnerability. The tin-pot dictator is suddenly put on the same level as the combined Great Powers of the UN Security Council, who are nominally charged with bending any aggressor rogue-state into compliance. And so we de-facto regress to a League of Nations scenario where rogue-states exist in a state of nature and international life once again threatens to become nasty, brutish and short. Armed with a nuclear deterrent the tin-pot dictator achieves invulnerability at home too, and all prospect of internal advancement towards a democratic (and therefore peaceful) nation-state becomes improbable.
So what can be done to keep humanity on track towards a world of peaceful nation-states. Nothing can be expected from self-aggrandizing international organisations like the EU who are themselves the principle danger to democracy that exists in the world today. Nothing can be expected from the UN when China, Russia and France trade their UNSC veto in exchange for access to the rogue-state's natural resources. And nothing is to be expected of the USA and UK grown weary by the torrent of abuse thrown the way of any nation that would take the future security of the world seriously and act as its policeman. So while a cut-back in US and Russian arsenals is a cause of celebration, it cannot disguise the bigger picture of a dysfunctional global security system seemingly incapable of responding to nuclear proliferation.
Complain about this comment
I hope no "damn hippies" use this as an excuse to reduce our own arsenal. Every nuke that America and Russia get rid of makes each one of ours proportionally more important.
Complain about this comment
The big revelation came on Tuesday: Mr. Obama’s Nuclear Plan.
The U.S. won’t launch a nuclear attack against any country that
a) signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty and
b) abides by it (which of course leaves North Korea and Iran outside in the cold).
Mr. Obama hedges (as usually does on his so-called “decisions”) when it comes to the use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed states.
He says because of the proliferation of biological weapons and bio-technology, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in accordance with the biological weapons threat. What does this mean? If a country develops with biological weapons (like anthrax) and the US gets wind of it, the Obama Administration has the option to strike first.
So, Russia and the United States reduce nuclear weaponry to 1,550 each. Is this a big deal? Has much changed? Has anything changed?
The United States is standing fast to remain the dominating (domineering) force when it comes to military power over other countries.
Where is the statement that deals with
- monitoring US by Russia and Russia by US
- Israel not signing the non-proliferation treaty and of course the clause that allows inspection of Israeli nuclear weapons
- countries buying and selling, protecting and maintaining nuclear weaponry so that their "rotting" doesn't lead to a tragic, but devastating "mistake".
Unless there are another 1,000 pages to this great "nuclear" decision-making, the thing is not worth the paper that it is written on.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, with all respect, Russia is not interested in the natural resources of others - to the degree to veto a UN council security decision, because of that.
Interested, in joint projects, but, how to say, that's not a deciding factor when we get disagreeable in the UN Security council.
Such cases are more due to having other set of friends in the world, than the US, as it formed up historically previously. From "two camps" time, Cold war time memorabilia.
And, how to say, simply protecting "your own old camp", by intertia.
New friends were not quick to materialise :o)))), I would not.
So, for the lack of "better company" :o))))) - we keep our old company.
Besides, when these countries in question, - didn't do us any harm personally - why to surrender "old friends".
Because of the "international opinion"?
We've got own facts - did not do us anything bad. So, Russia speaks for itself - and bans resolutions for itself. It is our voice, not some "international opinion" voice, that we are casting.
You may view this mode as speaking for itself, and counting own experience only :o))) as egoistic. Which perhaps it is.
But it is also fair, why to sell old friends down the river, because of some vague "int'l opinion".
Complain about this comment
We are talking about a truly vast amount of tax revenue which is pushed towards secret projects which will NEVER be evaluated on the actual practicality. (on account of if they work well the world ends: if they don't, the world ends anyway)
And those billions are pushed that way every year. Families have been running businesses in the nuclear arms trade for decades now.
Total nuclear annihilation might be a second rate practical strategy, but as far as a justification for spending untold billions in secret, on projects which just "sit there"........ there has never been anything like the nuclear weapons industry. Politicians from the dominant parties have been able to hand out staggering sums of money to those privately owned firms who have met the government specifications. I mean, we are talking about so much money that the families involved could go into banking if they weren't already in it.
Complain about this comment
OK, not "friends". But no enemy either! as didn't attack us. And don't plan to.
Complain about this comment
They are just, how to say, countries. Nobody's. There are heaps of such in the world atlas. Even if these ones in question look seriously mad, I mean. bad, of course. But may be it is their business, to be mad.
To improve any one in the world Russia won't dare to :o)))), I am afraid.
Recognising own deficiencies :o)))) we certainly won't teach others.
Complain about this comment
@13 Freeborn John
"65 years after Hiroshima we have every half-crazed head of state trying to make these things, and when they are successful, as North Korea has been, the rogue-state achieves invulnerability. The tin-pot dictator is suddenly put on the same level as the combined Great Powers of the UN Security Council, who are nominally charged with bending any aggressor rogue-state into compliance."
NK's nuclear capabilities are vastly overexagerated. They have enough Fissile material for 6-8 nuclear devices, a third/quarter of which they have wasted on two less than successful tests. That aside, they still need to research a way to put the devices into warheads that can be mounted onto missiles, and create missiles that aren't absolutely pathetic.
Assuming they managed all that, the US can mount a missile shield system on warships or on allied territory and place them near NK and blow anything they fired out of the sky.
A launch via. Bomber would never work, I don't think they have a bomber capable and even if they did China alone could destroy the ancient crap they pass off as an airforce, and I doubt NK could or would try smuggling a crude device overland/via. ship.
Basically the whole thing is for propoganda/extortion, and its worked amazingly well.
(sorry for how unclear the numbers are up there, I read they have enough material for 6 devices, but can't remember if that was before or after the tests.)
Complain about this comment
Hmmm... the only positive side of this agreement I can see is (Russian mostly) nuclear missiles (that are already) retrofited for civilian use in satellite missions and the recycling of nuclear material in nuclear energy plants.
This reduction is done to cut some expenditures for both countries. From day 4000 missiles they will cut to 2000 (say...), but that means little to their nuclear potential as even 1000 are enough to do the job multiple times.
As WA correctly said, it is not only the attack but also the defensive ones that should be cut. The nuclear deterrent balance is an addition substraction of offensive and defensive power. And there we see that US is anything but co-operative, in fact it gets more and more aggressive.
The whole issue about North Korea and Iran getting the bomb is just plain ridiculous. For God's shake Pakistan has the bomb... Paaaaaaakiiiiistan! A country with people in regions almost dying of hunger, with fanatics being sent all over the world, with boom demographics, with illiteracy exploding, with its liberties and civic rights imploding, ranging from dictatorship to anarchy... yet Americans and the last of the faithfull to them, have absolutely no problem with it. I am sorry but I feel much more safe with Iran having the bomb than Pakistan, an aggressive country that has made aggressive wars more than once attacking a country 10 times bigger than itself (let alone it hesitating attacking smaller countries).
What is the problem with North Koreans getting the bomb? Whom they will attack? None. They have no interests in attacking anyone. They are shut to themselves. Now if any of you suggests "mad dictators" and such, let him first make a visit to Pakistan first before speaking about North Korea. Even South Korea would not be afraid as North Korea bombing South Korea would be like bombing itself. It would have to drop such a small bomb to avoid harming itself that at the end, it would cost less and would do more work to send conventional missiles.
Nuclear missiles is world safety through deterrent. It is like those little Texan cities where everyone is armed so everyone local or foreigner is extra gentle to each other, ending up in near 0 crime rates in relation to what happens elsewhere.
The justification of protection from Iran is just plain ridiculous. Iran cannot develop alone a modern intercontinental missile to threaten US. The will of US to "protect" Europe is very moving indeed, what an altruism!, but no it convinces no-one.
The whole whole issue is about Russian intercontinental missiles still having a slight advantage over the US ones, and US trying to counterbalance with having missiles on European soil for both attack and defense - now it wants to install a new system for early interception - its only hope of intercepting the Russian missiles on Russian soil (cos the star wars initiative in the 1980s did not give much result). They stepped back from Poland but sadly Romanians came out to support the idea of this as-if shield - how ridiculous... I really feel sorry for them becoming a boxing bag.
Generalissimo, I heard about Bulgarian PM saying he would think about it, is it true?
PS: Hmmm in me7: Jpp799 mentioned various countries where US has installed nuclear missiles. Turkey would not surprise me, cos it is in the first like, I am sure there in the borders with Georgian US has long ago installed thingies, but Greece? If they have installed there, they have done it secretly (with the secret ok of some greek government of course), and that should be in Souda bay, Crete. There is a common knowledge that US throws radioactive waste there provoking a huge environmental problem, but having missiles there, I have never heard of it. Given that this is against the will of the 99,999% of Greeks (of any political colour), they should pack it and leave as it is. Or we should add the coordinates of the base on our S300 missiles (if we ever deployed this superb Cyprus-bought missile system... even that is not certain...) .... just in case, you never know.
I remember know, there was a huge question between the (at least initially) US-backed dictatorship of Papadopoulos of 1967-1973. In '68 US had asked him to use more actively the base in Crete (but we ignore for what reason) and Papadopoulos said no, so US put a cross on him and when the time case, they prepared themselves the leftish as-if rebellion (mostly a bunch of rich kids, anything but leftish, guiding the anger of people... that was not to be seen of course for the previous 6 years.. quite weird...), they deposed Papadopoulos and placed their dog, Ioannidis, they perfect US-yesman. It is Ioannidis that sold Cyprus to US (that gave it half to Turks so that the British bases remain there...), so I can only imagine what else Ioanidis agreed to do with the Americans in Crete.
Note: Ioannidis was jailed for life but given the amounts of "medical exits" he got, makes people think that he was enterring in jail only to show he is jailed, he might as well had spent most of his term in Seychelles or something.
Complain about this comment
"Nukes will not be used against non-nuclear countries even if they use chemical or biological attack. (That assurance does not extend to those countries which refuse to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - such as North Korea and Iran.)"
As pointed out earlier, this is factually false. It is also outrageous propaganda, insofar as it tries to imply something which is simply a bare faced lie.
Iran is a member of the NPT, and in any case it doesn't have any weapons.
Israel, by stark contrast, has 80 nuclear warheads and is NOT a member of the NPT. That is what makes this whole article, and the agreement itself, pure propaganda.
Hewitt, I don't know how you made your notes on this piece, but is seems like you got the CIA and the Israeli foreign office to do it for you. You should stand up for yourself, and write your own notes.
The bare face lie I referred to earlier is simply this: Obama and the USA have any intention of controlling the use of nukes against defenseless enemies. That is just a lie.
Israel is the proof, and this is why Hewitt has ventured into the realms of outright government written propaganda with this statement, above.
Israel is not a member of the NPT, and does not intend to become one. It routinely threatens other states with its massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. No matter what Obama and his CIA press folks says to the media, every state in the middle east and beyond knows that Israel exists. Everyone knows that if the US don't want to strike you directly, they can do it through Israel.
Israel cannot exist without hundreds of billions of US financial support. The state cannot exist, the weapons it sells cannot exist, the nuclear threat it poses to many nations cannot exist. All are 100% totally dependent on support from washington.
If Obama was serious on the nuclear issue.... if Hewitt was serious on the nuclear issue.... if ANYONE is serious about the nuclear issue, then the only state which captures the imagination is Israel.
It has 80 or more strategic warheads. It is a theocratic apartheid "state". It is not a member of the NPT (unlike Iran). It has hostile relations with pretty much any nation that deals with it in the region, and most which don't.
But most of all.... and this is the key here... most of all Israel has no choice in this matter. If the US change their policy on Israeli nukes, Israel must comply. Israel is gone without US money. It can't sustain itself, it can't defend itself without US weapons, and it cannot threaten other states without US nukes.
It is the same as the settlement issue. Everybody knows that if the US wanted to, they could force Israel to obey the international law. All the US has to do is stop sponsoring Israel with hundreds of billions of dollars.
But they don't. Because it is all just hot air. Obama doesn't care about the settlements, and he doesn't care about nuclear threats from non NPT states.
It is just a big farcical song and dance, designed to entertain a public saturated by idiotic and senseless propaganda. The russians will simply say "Whatever, Mr Obama. Send us the script for your new production, and we'll learn our lines. Glad to play a part ion the big show. Hope you win your next election for your party."
Complain about this comment
Re15: Hehehe... does not worth the paper it is written... ehehehe.... well it is all about managing aging material on both countries. Of course nothing has changed. Pay attention also to the vagueness of the definition of what is "strategic" and "tactical"... here we talk about reducing the "strategic" missiles but then today "tactical" are increasingly "strategic" so really all that is funny!
Complain about this comment
13. At 1:01pm on 07 Apr 2010, Freeborn John wrote:
" ...
A physicist friend of mine says it takes 70 years for an idea that wins the Nobel Prize for Physics to become part of the standard High School curriculum."
EUpris: I did GCE Nuclear Physics in 1964.
Complain about this comment
WA;
The fear is not the theft of the missile, it is the theft of the warheads. Smuggled by terrorists into a country and detonated by them, it is just as effective as had it arrived lauched by a missile and its source may be impossible to discover. No finger prints, no blip on a radar screeen, no clue where it came from.
How small are they? America's most advanced (but not largest) remaining nuclear weapon is a cone less than 6 feet long, 22 inches in diameter at its base, and weights less than 800 pounds. The yield of a W88 is 475 kilotons, the equal of about 30 to 40 Hiroshima bombs. 11 of them can be carried by each Trident missile although by treaty the limit is 8, each one aimed at a different target. Smaller bombs can weigh aroud 100 to 200 pounds and are not much larger than a trash can. I'm not aware of any suitcase or backpack nukes just yet.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W88.html
A single detonation of one of these would destroy any major city in the world, Saint Petersburg included.
Due to the safety features built in, it is extremely difficult to arm and detonate an American nuclear weapon unless you know exactly what you are doing. Even so you only get one chance. We are not so sure about the security built into weapons designed by other countries. They may be far easier for terrorists to figure out. We are also not so sure about the security of the fissile materials other nations like Russia have. Obtaining these materials is considered the biggest obstacle to building nuclear weapons. That is the problem Iran is working on now, the technology to produce this material. If they succeed, it is expected it is only a matter of a short time before they have the ability to make weapons from it.
There are no photos of the W88 but here are some photos of the similar 300 kiloton W76 warheads for the MX missile;
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W87.html
There is good reason to be very worried. We don't think Russia has tight control over much of this material and there may be those who have access to it and would sell it to anyone who offered them a nice enough bribe. There is definitely a well funded underground market for it. Who knows if it isn't already too late.
Complain about this comment
Russian nuclear weapons are a threat to the UK.
The "EU" is more than a threat. The "EU" is damaging us every day.
Is it £43millions per day? Something like that.
Complain about this comment
Notice how none of the news reports mention any involvement or even response from the other, smaller nuclear countries. Until Russia and the US agree to completely give up their nukes, the non-western nuclear weapon countries won't think of doing anything but continue to increase theirs.
What's needed (and soon) is a grand bargain with Russia & the US taking the lead but also involving the other P-5 members with an agreement to give up their nukes IF the remaining nuke countries do likewise. HOWEVER, the P-5 won't do this unless there is also true verification, transparency (i.e. snap inspections anywhere), limits on missile ranges, sufficient conventional firepower, a mechanism for an essentially unilateral attack on any country attempting a rapid reinstitution of their ICBMs, and maybe ABM systems to buy time against the latter.
Complain about this comment
@22 DT
"Iran is a member of the NPT, and in any case it doesn't have any weapons."
They've signed it, but they don't abide by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran
Complain about this comment
@ 21 Nik
"Generalissimo, I heard about Bulgarian PM saying he would think about it, is it true?"
The chairman of our Parliament, when being asked by her Russian colleagues in Moscow three weeks ago, said that the deployment of whatever elements of the anti-missile shield in Bulgaria was not even discussed here.
I think that the final decision will be taken by the NATO institutions. If our folks will be given the opportunity, the majority will say NO. We know that the shield is intended to counteract the Russian offensive systems, not the Iranian ones...
Complain about this comment
GUYS, Listen to this
Some people ask
" Why should USA have nuclear weapons and ask others not to have?"
I have a real simple answer
USA invented the nuclear weapons therefore it is their natural right to own them if they want to.
In USA, the President is subjected to the will of the people. Running the country is not a family or one party business as in the case with many so called Democratic countries like Russia, Turkey , France - remember Sarkozy's son? etc
People also ask this
" Why should USA police the world"
The ideals of human rights and Freedom and the creation of International Institutions were American Invention to a great extend
The Europeans don't have the guts to fight the Terrorist or take on any country that will attack them
But USA has the guts to punch them on the face
THINK ABOUT THIS
The only military or Space Agency that has contributed to our welfare is the Pentagon and NASA
Think about the Internet we are using now and other technologies
Most of them are American Dream
If USA is dead, our freedom and our technological improvements will die and stop the clock of progress in the world
EU is a nonsense. They are planning to change the name of the British Channel
Politicians in UK and the world will do anything for power and money but the politicians in the USA don't
This is the great difference between USA and the world
People say George W.Bush was a dictator. But time will tell who was really a dictator
Complain about this comment
IRAN IS A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE.
I though Europeans were not religious nuts but there are many European intellect that support the religious Iranian Government.
People ask me why should Israel have nukes not Iran
The simple answer is this
Iran is ruled by a religious nut who think that he is the one chosen by God to usher in the Mehdi, the Islamic Messiah.
In order to do so, he thinks that it is a necessity to wipe out Israel and USA and Europe because most of them are Christians.
And converts all of humanity to Islam and bring in the rule of Islamic Peace.
The sole power of Iran lies in the hands of the religious establishment particularly the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Iran is a Vatican with Nuclear Technology and Ballistic Missile
Think about the Pope having Nuclear Technology and Missile
What would be our reaction to him?
We hate Christianity but we love the religious nuts in Iran
This is plain Hypocrisy
WAKE UP Freedom Fighters
It is our time to defend our heartlands from the raging tide of soon coming opression that will tore our brains and crush our souls
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Besides, when these countries in question, - didn't do us any harm personally - why to surrender "old friends"."
What is Russia's expectation of what will happen, what is its plan to avoid the worst? Surely Russia expects that Iran's secrecy and other behavior strongly suggests that it is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. That's what most political leaders and experts around the world believe. Will sanctions prevent or deter it? I don't think so. A pawn wants to become a king. Sanctions won't stop it. Last week Hu Jintao said the same after talking with Iranian leaders.
What if Iran does become a nuclear power? Will Isreal sit still for it waiting to be "erased from the map?" Or will it launch a pre-emptive strike of its own? Will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other states who are Sunni and fear a Shia dominated Middle East, a return to a Persian Caliphate Empire of over a millenium ago which is Iran's dream sit still for it and hope the US prevents it with military force or will they want nuclear weapons of their own? Will the US, the great satan Iran wants a world without sit still for it? What if war comes, does Russia think it will escape the consequences? What if it is a nuclear war? And what about China, the same questions could be asked of it.
Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Is it in Russia's interest to block any and all attempts to stop Iran short of war? That appears to be the alternative and even with sanctions it may end up that way anyhow. Just what is Russia's game? What is its gambit? Or is it just stupid trying to exploit the tensions of the moment and taunt the US and Israel, two nations it wanted to destroy in its own insane desire for world dominance when it piloted the USSR? Does it act in revenge for that effort having been defeated and Russia treated as a third rate power by its former adversary? Is Putin crazy enough to think he can rebuild the USSR by challenging America? He has said that the breakup of the USSR was the greatst tragedy in the world. In fact it may have avoided a third world war in which nobody would be left alive.
How many nuclear weapons does Israel have? Those who knows aren't talking, those who are talking don't know. Here's a 13 year old guesstimate of their capabilities.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
About 200 then, surely many more by now. Fusion boosted weapons then, almost certainly full thermonuclear weapons today. Those weapons are the only insurance policy they have for their survival, the implied threat that they will be used in Israel's ultimate defense the only effective deterrent they've got to avert their demise by overwhelming enemy armies. Why would they give them up? If I were them I'd warn that any effort by anyone including the US to eliminate them would result in their immediate use. It's a world ending prospect. Triffling with them is a dangerous game, that pawn is already a king. If you win against them, everyone everywhere loses and dies.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, the Nuclear bomb has proven to be the only peaceful weapon in the entire history of military conflict. Aside from the only time nuclear weapons were ssdly used against Japanese people (without the americans or anyone else realising the destructive power of those weapons), nuclear bombs in Europe, Pakistan and India have guaranteed peace in two different ways -
- they deter nations that do not have nuclear weapons from starting conflicts
- the fact that multiple countries have weapons like that stops the owners of those weapons from ever using them, as using any of those weapons at any point would entail the distruction of your own country, since the whole world would retaliate.
Therefore, I am in favour of keeping nuclear weapons in Europe and I very much favour building as many anti-missile facilities as possible in the countries that used to be coerced into being members of the Warsaw Pact. Nuclear weapons and the weapons that were built to defend countries against them have been the most important guarantors of peace since 1945. They have contained the aggressive ambitions of irredentist powers and, without killing a single person, have often ended more military conflicts than any soldier carrying a sword a rifle ever will.
Complain about this comment
marcus @ 25 "We are also not so sure about the security of the fissile materials other nations like Russia have"......"We don't think Russia has tight control over much of this material....Who knows if it isn't already too late"
Too right. But I thought the US had a long established program (can't recall its name) initiated after the fall of the USSR to help the Russians secure their material and to find jobs for Russian nuclear scientists. I hope this program is still in place.
Complain about this comment
marcus wrote:
"There is good reason to be very worried. We don't think Russia has tight control over much of this material and there may be those who have access to it and would sell it to anyone who offered them a nice enough bribe. There is definitely a well funded underground market for it. Who knows if it isn't already too late."
Marcus, how would you know if there was a "well funded underground market" for rogue nukes? Given that nobody has ever sold one to that market, as far as anybody knows?
Your hysteria is extremely curious. You have what I call the patriots' focused fear. You tremble and fear at the thought of people buying and selling nukes. But you also... this is where the whole thing gets very weird, as far as I am concerned, you also write with obvious pride about the glorious nukes the US develops, builds and sells.
Or does the USA simply gift the nukes to Israel, the non NPT member? I think there is the pretext of a sale, isn't there? So Israel can pretend to be a real state?
Regardless, how can speak of US nukes with such pride and glory, and then switch to a knee trembling little boy when talking about Russian nukes? I mean, sure, Russians are stupid and careless and that is why they were the first in space and invented the nuclear power reactor and so on. We all know how inferior the russians are in every way.
But even so, why do fear russian nukes being sold? Isn't that the American way? Build it, sell it, make a killing?
A rogue nuke is nothing to be frightened of. Myself, I am hoping we get one detonate sooner rather than later.
My reasoning is this: One rogue nuke will only take out one city. The radioactive fallout will be manageable. And then, finally, I believe the world might get serious about the military industrial complex, and nukes themselves.
The real fear is not a rogue nuke, but rather an American or Israeli preemptive nuke strike against a defenseless enemy like Iran. Then you have something much worse than a rogue nuke: you have a rogue nuclear power.
It sounds weird to hear Americans talking about their fear of nuclear strike from the muslim world. Without any shadow of a doubt, the greatest danger of a nuclear strike comes from the USA, and directed against muslims. I mean, by a factor of about a billion times. Israel and the USA actually plan to do it. They have the capacity, and they have the plans. They have intent. All that remains is the political scenario being right, like a forest ready to burn in summer waiting for a match to be dropped.
Anyway, the whole debate is absolutely insane. And childish. We have no leadership by example, and no respect being shown for international law.
Until the USA and thus Israel start to show respect for international law, there will never be any real security from nukes. As long as the USA sees itself as the perfect nation of good in an christian vision of an evil world, we all have only one real thing to fear.
Complain about this comment
This is sad day in history of 21th century that the country which used Nuke in previous century has threatened to use it again in this century which can lead to death of millions of innocent people in Iran or North Korea. I wonder why world powers are not standing queue to condemn this barbaric, inhuman and indiscriminate threat of mass destruction! BBC reaction is quite lame as it didn't dedicate a specific news for it and you needed to read it between the lines. If there is any person with single cell of humanity, he would say that use of Nuke is unjustified under any circumstances.
Complain about this comment
I believe the direction we are headed is the right one,cheers to Obama doctrine.
www.latehopper.com
Complain about this comment
@Benefactor
""Iran is a member of the NPT, and in any case it doesn't have any weapons."
They've signed it, but they don't abide by it. "
Abiding by NPT doesn't require suspension of uranium enrichment as expected by Obama so I advice you to read it once more before claiming such a thing. Besides, why should Iran abide by NPT while NPT was already violated since 1970s against Iran. Nuclear countries were supposed to help signatories of NPT to build peaceful nuclear power plants but they never did that for Iran, instead they helped non-signatory members. So why should one side abide an agreement while the other side violate it?
Complain about this comment
"Nukes will not be used against non-nuclear countries even if they use chemical or biological attack"
This assurance alone, abandoning decades old strategy of not taking any option off the table, ever, demonstrates clearly that Barack Husein Obama, a labor lawyer who couldn't tell the barrel of the rifle from its butt even if latter hit him on his head - should not be allowed to be our Commander-in-Chief.
Scary, absolutely scary.
And to think that some people wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for merely lying about his sexual infidelities.
Complain about this comment
WA (16): Well Russia seemed quite interested in the UN 'Oil for Food' program...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Russia
Benefactor (20): What Western politician would gamble that not one of even 6-8 North Korean nukes would not get through? The UK government is today attempting to sell the remaining stock of 120 million swine flu jabs (only 6m of which were used). I think governments so risk-averse as to massively over-react to swine flu are not going to play nuclear Russian roulette with Pyongyang.
If you let children play with fireworks you can expect some of them to get burnt. If you have no gun control in the USA you should not be surprised about the unusually large number of American gunshot victims. And if you let the unelected generals and clerics who control Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc., etc. develop nuclear weapons you should not be surprised if some of them get used sooner or later.
Complain about this comment
To Chris Thomas (30):
You said:
"In USA, the President is subjected to the will of the people. Running the country is not a family or one party business as in the case with many so called Democratic countries like Russia, Turkey , France - remember Sarkozy's son? etc"
Dude!!! You got to stop kidding. Remember such US Presidents as George Bush Senior and George Walker Bush?
Complain about this comment
If you're going to call a fairly tame article like this 'propaganda' then you lose all credibility. You can bet that the only sort of article which would be praised by the sort that call this propaganda would be a rant about how all Western nations and Israel should hand over all their nuclear weapons to Iran and submit to them because westerners are ethnically inferior and deserve to be dominated.
@Chris Thomas,
Learn some basic history concerning the Manhattan Project (based on British research), the foundation of liberalism (based on European enlightenment ideals from philosophers such as Locke, Mill and Rousseau) and American political corruption (Watergate anyone?) before spouting your 'Americurrr is teh perfect and all other countries are EBIL' nonsense. The ignorant jingoism of yourself and your countrymen is only fuelling the undeservedly bad reputation of the US.
Complain about this comment
Chris Thomas 30, 31 and 33.
Dr Strangelove is alive and well and living on this blog.
Complain about this comment
Chris Thomas @ 30
"USA invented the nuclear weapons therefore it is their natural right to own them if they want to"
Are you for real? Other countries will plausibly argue they invented them separate from the US and that it's their natural right as well.
"....Russia, Turkey , France"
Huh? US democracy is also flawed. Ever hear of gerrymandering, K Street, etc.
"The ideals of human rights and Freedom and the creation of International Institutions were American Invention to a great extend"
Once again, Huh? Re Human Rights, The French would rightly take issue with this (here's a clue: Declaration of the Rights of Man). Re International Institutions, you mean, like, the UN? Yeah, the US record with that internation institution is clear and runs all the way from withholding dues, vetoing legitimate resolutions, to doing an end-run around it in Iraq 2003.
" Politicians in UK and the world will do anything for power and money but the politicians in the USA don't"
Naive: 1) Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless. 2) Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment
Now, how old are you? Do your parents know you are using the Internet?
Complain about this comment
@26 EUPrisoner
I roughly work it to £23'661'270 a day. (at 60 million people in the UK that would make it .39p a day per person, i.e. more expensive to send it a letter than to be in it)
Complain about this comment
So what happen to these 'de-commissioned' nukes/warheads? Where does the stuff go? In the sea? Do they convert them into something else and stick a new label on them?
Where does the poison of this go?
Complain about this comment
Benefactor wrote:
"@22 DT
"Iran is a member of the NPT, and in any case it doesn't have any weapons."
They've signed it, but they don't abide by it. "
Please. Be real. Nobody "abides" by it, least of all the states who aren't even members of the treaty.
Do you even know what the NTP is?
For a start, it has three articles. The first requires established nuke states such as the USA and Russia never to sell and distribute weapons or weapons tech to third party states. Like Iran and Israel.
Well, that first point was the main reason for the treaty. It was designed to stop the cold war spreading nuclear weapons tech all over creation.
OK? OK. Now given that the USA has created the state of Israel with its nukes, I'd say it is pretty obvious that the major point of the treaty is TOTALLY RUINED by the USA.
But ok, lets talk about iran. Iran is supposedly in breach of article three. Actually, it isn't. It is supposedly in breach of some draft agreement that is supposed to "safeguard" article three. Article 3 gives states the right to develop nuke tech for peaceful purposes.
So that makes Iran some grave threat to world peace. Meanwhile the USA has ridiculed the whole purpose of the treaty by creating Israel nuke weapon capacity, israel not even being a party to the treaty.
Anyway, the discussion, like the Obama media stunt, is pointless. If you find yourself even talking about Iran as some kind of threat to world peace, you've already entered the babbling insane zone of half baked propaganda and infantile ideas.
I'll bet you Hewitt does not correct his factual error, and replace the word "Iran" with "Israel". He will just pretend he hasn't noticed.
That is how it is in the free west. You say what you are supposed to say, and mistakes are made, but everyone has free speech.
I grow tired of the way the media has become desensitized to violence, however. I saw a video of US soldiers and airman cheering as they butchered children today, and that was cheerfully described as a "mistake" by the smiling reporter. I was then informed that the leak would be investigated by the government.
Because that is the important thing, isn't it? Plug those leaks. Can't have free speech in a society which already has it, now can we?
So we need to plug those leaks, and never mind the gleeful butchering of unarmed children. That sort of thing a merely a "mistake". The serious crime is the leaked information.
Complain about this comment
33. At 4:08pm on 07 Apr 2010, Chris Camp wrote:
" ... e nuclear weapons were ssdly used against Japanese people (without the americans or anyone else realising the destructive power of those weapons)"
EUpris: I think you are wrong on that point since they had tried at least one of them out in the desert in the USA.
Complain about this comment
@ Chris Thomas.. we aren't all that naive. He's obviously indoctrinated by Fox News.
One point to remember though. While I'd love for Barrack Obama to be able to be able to completely disarm the entire world and no one live in fear of any military against them. I can't help but see this as at very least a step in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm social unrest in Kyrgistan, clashes, and 17 deaths. What next? An Orangina, Fanta, Sprite, Pepsi government? What next? Kyrgistan will feel too threatened by Iran's alledged nuclear weapons? What next...
Actually it seems that the opposition leader was arrested after returning from a trip to Moscow... so whow knows, perhaps Moscow woke up and tried to play the same game. Apparently the current government plays both sides and has both Russian and US bases - panik!
.... ehhehe sorry but it has been long since I stopped taking such events seriously (i.e. as-if they are locally organised)...
In a few words, disarming a few missiles here and there, and beating each other blue via... Kyrgiz representatives! Tragic!
Complain about this comment
freebornjohn:
"The UK government is today attempting to sell the remaining stock of 120 million swine flu jabs (only 6m of which were used). I think governments so risk-averse as to massively over-react to swine flu are not going to play nuclear Russian roulette with Pyongyang. "
So let me get this straight: The medical industry creates a huge panic about a mysterious doomsday illness that doesn't in fact exist and then government, who are sponsored by the pharma and medical industries, buys 120 million flu shots it doesn't need from the same people who are going on television talking ceaselessly about the end of the world by swine flu...... and you think the government cares about you.
That is so sweet, John.
It makes me angry that the corporate world treats such a sweet man in the way that it does.
Complain about this comment
Notice how Chris puts a capital "F" at the start of the word freedom. He makes it a proper noun, as if changing the caps is going to somehow change the nature of the underlying concept.
That has got to be my favourite thing about americans.
They really believe in magic.
Complain about this comment
@democracythreat
Far be it from me to take the same side as 'Anyone-who-isn't-American-is-subhuman' Marcus, but I think the prospect of the US pre-emptively nuking a country like Iran is miniscule. Even if you take the extremely cynical view that no one in the US government has any kind of moral compass, which would be pretty bigoted in itself, it makes little sense from the perspective of national self interest. The internal public outcry would be overwhelming and force the government to enact martial law to stay in power. Even if they managed that, they'd face diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions at the very least from all the major powers with the exception of Israel. And all for what? Fear? Spite? Glory?
I think it's far more likely that a country with a more subserviant and, in their eyes, expendable population where the government are more ideologically motivated and care little for the consequences would use a nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive measure. You know, somewhere like Iran?
Complain about this comment
dt;
"Marcus, how would you know if there was a "well funded underground market" for rogue nukes? Given that nobody has ever sold one to that market, as far as anybody knows?"
Because we occasionally hear news reports that federal agents posing as buyers or sellers have made arrests of people arranging to buy or sell this material. There is no doubt that al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea would be very interested in acquiring fissile material. There is also little doubt that there are people in places like Russia who would sell anything for money.
"Or does the USA simply gift the nukes to Israel"
They don't need to. Many of the people who were instrumental in developing the atomic and hydrogen bombs were Jews. That culture has a history of producing a disproportionate number of outstanding nuclear physicists.
Complain about this comment
These nuclear weapons are terrifying... Is human hatred so bitter and brutish?
Complain about this comment
The USA will never get rid of all of our nuclear weapons. Ever. The USA citizens and Congress won't allow it. Nuclear weapons are what keeps us and our allies safe. If a country/countries tried to invade and take over us and/or our allies, we could wipe their country/countries out. The reason why we have our large supply of nuclear weapons is for one reason only- fate. It is our fate that we received them and it is our fate and responsibility to keep us and our allies safe in the future with nuclear weapons just as our past ancestors have done. (hopefully not ever having to use them, but having them available.)
They are especially needed in today's day and age, with countries like Iran and North Korea, who have both threatened us and our allies.
Also, in the future, China is going to rise and the only thing that will keep peace between USA and China is nuclear weapons. Because we have them, China won't attack us. They saw what happened to Japan after Japan attacked us mercilessly at Pearl Harbor. They got what they deserved for starting a war with us. We won't attack China because we have no desire to. The only way USA would ever attack China would only be if China attacked us first.
I have respect for the Chinese and Russians. USA does not want to fight with these countries. We never would, unless they started it.
Used in the right way, nuclear weapons bring about peace.
But it doesn't matter anyway, because they are out there. What's done is done. Fate is fate.
Complain about this comment
Ali;
"This is sad day in history of 21th century that the country which used Nuke in previous century has threatened to use it again in this century which can lead to death of millions of innocent people in Iran or North Korea."
What is sad on this day in history is that North Korea and Iran would have leaders so provocative and aggressive that anyone would find it necessary to consider the option of using them even as a last resort to stop their aggression. Those millions of innocent people who would die are being held hostage by their leaders as pawns in a most vicious and cynical political game. We can see how they treat their own people by the way the protestors of the election in Iran were treated last year, imprisoned, tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered by their own government while North Korea's government is starving its population to death.
Meanwhile these governments not only have acquired nuclear weapons or are trying to, they have vast arsenals of conventional weapons including chemical and biological weapons even though neither of them is directly theatened militarily. Clearly these aresenals are not intended for defense or deterrent purposes.
The US government has not threatened to use nuclear weapons nor to attack with conventional weapons either of these countries. That is pure speculation on the part of the media and private citizens.
Complain about this comment
Laenis;
"I think the prospect of the US pre-emptively nuking a country like Iran is miniscule. Even if you take the extremely cynical view that no one in the US government has any kind of moral compass, which would be pretty bigoted in itself, it makes little sense from the perspective of national self interest. The internal public outcry would be overwhelming and force the government to enact martial law to stay in power. Even if they managed that, they'd face diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions at the very least from all the major powers with the exception of Israel. And all for what? Fear? Spite? Glory?"
I wouldn't be so sure of that. If the US government feels that its citizens lives are in jeopardy by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, it will do whatever is necessary to stop it. That is what is meant by not taking anything off the table. In fact the President of the United States who is also the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces has sworn to it when he took the oath of office.
It doesn't matter what the consequences would be but I don't think your expectations are realistic. Most Americans would probably welcome it. And despite the public uproar, many governments around the world including those on the Arabian Peninsula and of countries like Britain and France would probably privately breathe a big sigh of relief.
Complain about this comment
@21 Nik: As a citizen of this planet, I don't see why anyone would reject the development of many many more anti-nuclear weapons. I personally think that getting nuked would not be all that fun. Right now it is not likely that the US and Russia would nuke each other; our leaders know the consequences. But people in, say North Korea might not know the true terror of nuclear weapons. Having a global defensive shield to protect everyone is just plain smart. Be glad that we in the US are paying for your protection.
@48 EUprisoner: Blowing one up in the desert and mathematically knowing its potential is hugely different from blowing one up in a city and emotionally seeing its potential.
@47 Democracythreat: Israel was actually more brought into existence by Britain, which had a colonial claim over Palestine, than the US, and the US wasn't a close ally of Israel until after 1967. Israel had decent relations with the USSR and so they were kept at arms length by the US, getting only moderate food and development aid. In fact, France was the biggest arms supplier to Israel before then. After the war in 1967, the USSR sided against Israel and so in typical cold war manner the US sided with Israel. Israel, for all its hawkish faults, is a very academically adept state with world class science universities. As a physicist myself, I can tell you that making a nuclear weapon is easy if given money and support and that most of the basic blueprints can be lifted from a textbook. All that's left is to interpret and do some math. To insinuate that the US would GIVE Israel nukes is absurd (we didn't even give the UK nukes after WWII, and for all our bluster, the UK is a closer friend than Israel) and to suggest that well educated Israeli scientists couldn't figure something out that others in France, the UK, the US and Russia did decades easier is frankly insulting to them. Israel is wrong for making nuclear weapons, but they have done nothing worse than Iran, Pakistan, or India has already done (Pakistan actually stole their nuclear material from France, so you could say that they are the worst of the lot) But once a country has them the main goal of the international community should be to prevent them from using them, not punishing them retroactively. If Iran gets a nuke, look for less in terms of sanctions and sticks and more in terms of rewards for opening up to inspections and entering treaties. Similar to the rewards recently given to NPT violator India and carrots offered to North Korea.
Complain about this comment
To democracy threat,
USA does not trust where Russia could send their nukes to, because Russia has such "good" friends as Venezuela and Iran. Iran has threatened to wipe out other countries and every day in Venezuela it seems there is another rights violation being publicized about by demonstraters. Russia is lining itself up with dictators. So, no, of course, we do not trust their intentions. But we know why they are doing this- because Russia is jealous and threatened by the USA. They shouldn't be. Russia has a lot of awesome things going on for it, things that are unique to them. USA has no desire to invade Russia. This would only happen if Russia attacked us and/or our allies.
There is a weird parallel between Russia and USA- we have some similarities, including being the two largest nuclear powers. They put the first man in space, we put the first man on the moon, ect. I would call both of those achievements great.
Unlike Russia, though, USA is only friends with people who are not dictators.
And no, we are not a dictator. If we were, we would have taken over the world a la Hitler. We could have. But we don't want to. Hitler and people like him are wrong. We know this. Only our enemies fear us, because they know they are in the wrong.
USA is loved, because we stand up for freedom and love. We have more friends than enemies. But most of this is due to our higher education, democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and to our Hollywood bonanza.
We are not perfect. USA just wants to be the best we can be.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John #40: '"If you have no gun control in the USA you should not be surprised about the unusually large number of American gunshot victims."
I understand, and agree with the point you're making regarding nuclear weapons. But we do have gun control laws here. Some states are stricter than others, and unfortunately it looks like they are being more relaxed not strengthened. But they do exist. Please don't scare more people away from visiting here than have already been, whether it be because of George Bush, Guantanamo Bay, the ample negative stereotypes of the average American etc. Please? I may have a career in international relations, and should I work with people from other countries, before meeting me, I want someone thinking '"I hope we get a lot done" as aposed to "I hope she lets me speak and listens to me."
Complain about this comment
I highly support USA blowing up Iran's nuclear weapons facilities and the facilities of their Rev. Guard, but not the towns where the people live. I do not know what we are waiting for.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat #52: '"Notice how Chris puts a capital "F" at the start of the word freedom. He makes it a proper noun, as if changing the caps is going to somehow change the nature of the underlying concept. That has got to be my favourite thing about americans. They really believe in magic."
Here's another American song for you, tweacked with my substituted words. '"Generaliser general general generaliser you're a generaliser. Oh generaliser oh you're a generaliser baby. You you you are, you you you are, generaliser generaliser generaliser generaliser." (to the tune of Britney Spears's '"Womaniser")
In all sincerety though. First, not all Americans believe that by changing the spelling of a word one can change it's definition. Secondly we don't all believe in magic, and thirdly, I'm willing to bet you that if you looked hard enough, you would find a non-American who believes those things too.
Chris at #30, while in my opinion having expressed a few far too little observed and/or remembered in international debate fair-minded and valid points, is clearly and blatantly biased toward the extreme right with a fairly narrow mind. Any objective rational person can see that. But please don't use him as the yardstick against which to measure all Americans.
Complain about this comment
Gavin: '"The demonstrations in favour of nuclear disarmament ebbed away too. It was easier to protest against America than North Korea or Iran."
Does anyone know why this is? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or smugly rude; I'm totally serious. I'm having difficulty understanding why this was/is so in the minds of rational, fair-minded people without an ax to grind. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Re #41
Yes, I recall both Bush Presidencies.
Do you?
George Bush Snr was elected by democratic vote and during his Presidency oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union influence in East Europe (considerably freeing up among many others, Finnish politics, in the process). Later he organised the United Nations supported and eminently successful multi-national military campaign to eject Saddam Hussein's armed forces from occupied Kuweit.
Unfortunately, 'feint hearts' (& I would lay odds You were one) across the World decided just as it would have been the ideal moment to really oust the villainous Dictator from Baghdad that a halt should be called to the UN sanctioned campaign.
Despite these notable achievements Bush Snr then lost in another entirely legitimate democratic vote to William Clinton.
Now of course, we all know President Dubya Bush Jnr came along 8 years later - - his foreign & domestic policies are still very much open to debate - - suffice to say many would appear to have been disastrously inopportune at best and catastrophic especially for Iraqis who might have been spared so much but for 'feint hearts' some years earlier.
Bush Jnr was elected twice by normal democratic means & whilst his first election may well have been open to doubt due to the Florida ballot he was re-elected after 4 years for a second term.
Now J_R: All "..kidding.." aside what 'dude' was it You had in mind about the view of those elected Presidents and the idea of 'family'?
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius! (I read up to No 35 only but it's enough :o)))))
Give me a break, worrying about safety of our nuclear war-heads.
1. Ours are at home; - YOU travel the world with yours. 150 bases worldwide or hell knows what. Air-plane delivering, ship delivering, re-delivering or hell knows what. Your operational system, logistsics, is complex a 100 times more!
2. Sure you control :o)))) your officers well in all the nuclear locations, going into towns, dining at cafes (un-imaginable thing for Russian garrisons), socialising etc.
Ours don't meet a live person for years. But a squirrel. Or a bear :o)))
In those forests.
Even ordinary units, non-nuclear garrisons, when they want to go shopping and plan and nag for it for months :o)))), and finally get their way (un-approved as a practice) - they get to the nearest town by tanks! as there are no roads.
I haven't seen a uniform in a street never in my life.
With 3 exceptions - Revolution day parade (before), V-day parade (always), Paratrooper's Day, Navy Day.
and cadets-teenagers on leave to the city on Sunday several day-time hours. In post-offices, they only have time to call mum or post a letter.
Here gone to the army read lost.
Well. One flight home a year is allowed.
(As we heard - German soldiers even "service" in the day and return home for the night! :o))))
3. We are not mad and never were - because don't have to be PC. Well, we more or less approve of being PC but army doesn't. Caucasus doesn't serve in "strategic" units. Never did.
(Chechnens in USSR could become career military but were not part of the draft. Army service exempt nation by definition, only if himself desires very much - then processed through cadet school, academy, etc, the full road.) (Even this full road gave us 2 first "Republic of Ichkeria "presidents", at the end, and a handful of their troops' commanders.)(Now in London, as wanted for terrorism at home) (the ones who didn't blow up yet)
YOU are PC. And I thought I saw a photo in BBC not far back ago, 33 yellow lonely boots. On small kind of pedestals, the whole unit.
Where someone who won't be deemed fit for the army, even theoretically, here - exactly turned mad.
Worry for own safety, I would say.
4. I didn't notice anyone here "selling the motherland" even when un-paid for 7 years throughout in perestroyka. Committed people, you know :o))))).
Apart from upper echelons, of course. Not army, government, who sold national defense to the USA down the river post "perestroyka".
"Whoever's cow would moo - yours is to shut up". as the saying goes :o))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
And YOU are into the compact stuff, exactly as I heard. We can transport what we need by train, in the own country, not across any borders.
No need to work towards being "portable".
Why do you do it, for that matter?
Complain about this comment
John Hunt, @27
"Notice how none of the news reports mention any involvement or even response from the other, smaller nuclear countries.
Exactly!
When we cut, we havve to take into account A./ that nobody else but us and the USA do, which DIMINISHES our security, in relation to all the rest of nuclear countries. They won't even wink. Especially China - who is our dear neighbour, hungry for us, not for the USA. The US is safely on another continent, from Chinese invasion.
B./ We are alone on our "Russian nuclear block".
USA can cut - and rely upon Israel. Rely upon the UK. Rely upon nuclear stuff of other NATO members.
It is simply bizarre to require of Russia to dis-arm parallel with the USA, while US allies, bound in a defense deal together with them - don't.
When you are talking serious, you cut both sides.
Otherwise it is just funny plans, personal ambitions, and bla-bla-bla allover.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Hewitt,
I've been around a long time. My youth was spent participating in duck and cover exercises, hiding under my desk in hopes that should I be at ground-zero, my flimsy desk would protect me from nuclear destruction. We all knew that the Soviet Union was full of evil, crazy people, who were determined to destroy our way of life at any cost. Looking back, I suspect they had the same thoughts about us.
We've been through this before, and I can tell you with certainty that this treaty is simply grandstanding by both sides and means absolutely nothing. If the world heaves a collective sigh of relief, then shame on them. When nations start negotiating nuclear treaties, we should all sleep with both eyes open.
I can't believe that during thousands of years of civilization we've neglected to learn one simple fact: Politicians always lie. Today we call it spinning, but it's a lie just the same.
Complain about this comment
It's easy to convince Russia, to cut. Old friend-enemy :o)))) after all, long standing nuclear acquaintance :o)))), and it's not the first cut. Not even the second. The fourth? I think. Approximately.
Try to convince China. And Israel. Try to "convince" anyone else but bears - on Earth!
Complain about this comment
IRAN NOT A THREAT
Iran does not have, never has had, and never will have, a nuclear weapons program. I know this because Iran is a theocratic state, and nuclear weapons are against their religion. Khomeini, the founding Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, declared nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic and the grounds that they kill mainly non-combatants, which is forbiden in Islam. Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, has issued a fatwa (religious ruling) against the development or use of nuclear weapons. In the Iranian system, this means that if anyone were involved in such a development it would be both a sin and a crime.
Furthermore, Iran has been a member and strong supporter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty since the time of the Shah, and thorough inspections by the IAEA have never found any evidence of nuclear weapons development.
Iran did make a technical violation of the NPT in 2003 when it did not reveal its nuclear enrichment activities as soon as it should have done according to the treaty (for understandable reasons: they knew the Americans would try to stop them). When this was discovered, they voluntarily suspended the enrichment program, and only restarted it in 2006. This was not a violation of the NPT, which gives member states an 'inalienable right' to a civilian nuclear power program.
President Obama has recently said that that the evidence available to him suggests that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. He is lying. The National Intelligence Estimate of the USA, the fruit of the best minds in the CIA and 15 other agencies, says there is no such program.
In modern times, Iran has never attacked or threatened another nation. Ahmadinejad did not threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map'. As many Persian experts have pointed out, the phrase so translated did not contain the words 'wipe', 'Israel' or 'map'. He said 'the regime occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time'. It was a prediction of the end of Zionism, which he explicitly compared with the collapse of Soviet Communism. Iran believes that the area of Israel/Palestine should be a single democratic state. There is no threat in that, except to the apartheid system created by the brutal and illegal occupation and colonial settlement of land inhabited by Palestinian Arabs.
Ironically, any map which currently shows Israel is fictitious, because the borders of Israel have never been defined by agreement with its neighbours, or even unilaterally.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @47
and two Reuters' journalists
Complain about this comment
Chrisentia
Re #71 & "IRAN NOT A THREAT"
Unfortunately for You the Ayatollah Khomeini may have declared a lot of things, but there is precious little evidence his successors are bothering to keep them in the forefront of their thoughts as they lead Iran in the 21st Century.
Khomeini was opposed to 'torture' but Iranians are tortured.
Khomeini was opposed to 'imprisonment without tiral' but Iranians are imprisoned without trial.
Khomeini was opposed to people demonstrating against a Government being beaten & shot by State forces but Iranian people are being beaten & shot by State forces.
Khomeini was opposed to Iran making an enemy of Israel but Iran's President Ahkminejad has declared Israel an enemy he wants wiped out.
Khomeini was opposed to Nuclear Weapons but....
Now, I admire Your conviction that a Theocratic State could not take up Nuclear Weaponry, but I have to ask You if you can still claim Iran is genuinely a Theocracy because all the evidence suggests otherwise!?
Complain about this comment
Re71... Crisentia... Iranians' huge moral sin is .... wanting to sell their oil. Even worse, wanting to sell their oil to Europe, India and China in currencies other than the ficticious petrodollar, i.e. the main reason Saddam was attacked afterall.
I do not believe the link of religion and nuclear weapons since any modern regime is anything but god-respecting. But I would feel much more comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons rather than the much more unstable Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove wrote:
Gavin: '"The demonstrations in favour of nuclear disarmament ebbed away too. It was easier to protest against America than North Korea or Iran."
"Does anyone know why this is? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or smugly rude; I'm totally serious. I'm having difficulty understanding why this was/is so in the minds of rational, fair-minded people without an ax to grind. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks."
It is hard to know what you are asking. Gavins' statement is a bit odd, which doesn't help either. Do you want to know why the nuke disarmament movement stopped being a media spectacle, or why people started protesting against the USA instead of Iran and NK?
My view on the first issue of why the nuke issue became background noise is simply that people got bored. And the cold war ended, so if you actually believed it was ever really about anything more than politicians on both sides whipping the masses into a delirious frenzy whilst they picked their pockets, I guess folks thought the causa belli had gone.
If you are asking why people started protesting against the USA and not Iran and NK then I would offer the view that this was because people correctly understood that the USA was a real and present danger to world peace. It was a large country with a massive military industrial complex where vested interests controlled the government via corporate sponsorship, and where war was simply one more profitable industry in a range of profitable schemes. The USA has military bases all over the world, and the US military has butchered more civilians in more parts of the world than any other nation over the past fifty years.
Not only that, the USA supports rogue terrorist states with nukes, in clear violation of the NPT (Article 1), and under Bush it invaded Iraq when it did not need to do so because they posed no threat.
In short, people protest against the USA because it is a very real, very brutal obstacle to world peace. I am not talking about the possibility, but rather the reality. The USA spills blood for the profit of its elite, both the blood of its own children and the blood of women and children in foreign lands. The US public celebrate this fact, and call it "freedom". The public of the USA are indoctrinated to believe that they invented freedom and that their state goes to war in order to spread it to other, lessor states.
Iran and NK pose comparatively no threat whatsoever to anyone whatsoever. They are both very small and poor states. Their great crime was to have had American installed governments, and then to have rejected these via popular revolutions. These states are therefore the military bases which might have been, but which got away.
It is not merely ignorant to speak of Iran as a significant threat to world peace, but also willfully idiotic. The cold war was real. Both the USA and the soviet union had the capacity for large scale war.
But in the modern world, it is the military industrial complex of the USA which is the primary major obstacle to world peace. It continues to occupy foreign states and seeks to spread its global military footprint. It sponsors war from Georgia to Bosnia, from Afghanistan to Columbia.
Complain about this comment
exiled alaskan:
"To insinuate that the US would GIVE Israel nukes is absurd (we didn't even give the UK nukes after WWII, and for all our bluster, the UK is a closer friend than Israel) and to suggest that well educated Israeli scientists couldn't figure something out that others in France, the UK, the US and Russia did decades easier is frankly insulting to them."
Israel is a tiny little place with a tiny population. It cannot realistically have developed nuclear tech on its own.
I believe (but am not sure) that the US first sent scientists from french nuke plants to establish the first nuclear plants in israel. From these plants, which were dependent on french technology supplied by the USA, Israel obtained its plutonium and weapons designs.
Israeli scientists did not and could not have built their own nuclear weapons for a whole raft of good practical reasons, which if you are really a physicist you will discover if you research the issue at all.
Indeed, this is perhaps the grave flaw of the NPT. Article 3 gives states the right to peaceful nuclear tech development, but it is precisely the waste product of peaceful reactors which provides the materials most useful for manufacturing nuclear weapons: plutonium.
And it prevents NWS from giving military tech, but not from giving "peaceful" nuclear tech that makes weapons tech infinitely easier to pursue.
And that in turn brings us to the very crux of this whole nuclear issue: we are trying, or rather the US administration is trying, to dictate not only material reality but also conceptual reality. The aim is to keep people ignorant of tech. It is as if the USA seriously thinks it can control not only all that moves in the material world, but also all that moves in the minds of all people. It is ambitious, if you want to be polite. If you want the bare truth, it is utterly pathetic stupidity with a large dash of insane megalomania thrown in for good measure.
We can see on this thread that members of the US public want war. They think Iran should be invaded. Iranians should be killed.
Iran doesn't even have nukes. Even if it did, so what? Lots of places have nukes. The USA and Israel have nukes. But Iran doesn't even have them, and yet the US public has been made willing and ready to invade.
Read the views of americans on this thread. They alone believe that it is fair enough to go around invading and bombing small states that pose no threat. No other nationalist is so indoctrinated, and so willing to come right out and tell the rest of the world that suffering the use of military force is the alternative to obedience to US foreign policy.
Read this thread. American housewives not only accept war, they think it is a good thing. American housewives want to attack countries which pose them no danger at all.
That is why the USA must be considered the largest and most extreme threat to world peace and humanity, of all states. It is a warlike state. Its' people are warlike. They want war. They already have two wars, now they want more. They think it is glorious. They think they are doing great deeds by spreading the grand concept of "freedom" to other lands.
Of course Obama wants to be known as a man of peace, as well. And why not? He got a noble peace prize the same month he escalated two wars against civilians in occupied lands. Why shouldn't he aspire to be a man of peace?
It's all just entertainment, as far as the world is concerned.
Complain about this comment
LucyIllinois wrote:
To democracy threat,
"Unlike Russia, though, USA is only friends with people who are not dictators."
Lucy, your general knowledge of world affairs and history is acutely embarrassing. You really need to read more widely if you wish to take part in these sorts of discussions.
I'm not trying to put you down. You seem like a nice person. But to write this sentence, ..... it is beyond merely misinformed. It means you are entirely ignorant of US foreign policy. It means you don't know anything at all about US history outside the US borders.
Complain about this comment
MA. how to put it PC. We were posessed, in the 20th century, but then you became more attractive, so now you are hi-jacked instead. Totally absorbed. While we are still kicking. a bit. :o(
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland wrote:
democracythreat @47
"and two Reuters' journalists"
After the way the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have been reported in the corporate media of the west, I have lost all respect or caring for corporate journalists in war zones. As far as I am concerned, they are just there for the money and the thrill. They are no better than army media officers. Worse, in fact, because they do as required and give the invasion force the pretense of having an objective media present who are critical of what they do.
It is the children I care about, and the animals, and the conscripts who never hurt anybody and who never wanted the glory.
I would trade the life of every self serving journalist in Iraq to save a single local child.
The media haven't reported on these wars of invasion. They have assisted in them. They have taken their pay cheques, tended their careers, and done as they have been told to do by their superiors.
The footage of war crimes we are discussing was not reported in the media. It was leaked anonymously on a website and became viral. Now that source is being shut down.
And what do the media think? They don't. They tend their careers, and do as they are told. Maybe privately they have the odd opinion, but mostly the cruise the wire and pass vacuous comments on the entertaining events of the day.
There is no serious morality in western journalism. It is corporate generated entertainment. The journalists are merely corporate drones.
Complain about this comment
as a side note, have you seen news of Kirgiz revolution? wow. At-a -boys! how to say, our Kirgiz! Very glad for them.
Complain about this comment
dt;
"That is why the USA must be considered the largest and most extreme threat to world peace and humanity, of all states. It is a warlike state. Its' people are warlike. They want war."
Our nation was born out of war. It fought a war to win its independence from Britain and then a few years later fought another war with Britain to assert its sovereignty when the British tried to usurp it. Barely a generation after France helped Americans secure their independence from Britain, America nearly went to war with France.
When at peace America is without doubt the most constructive force in the world, it can work seeming miracles when it wants to. But when provoked or attacked it can be the most destructive force when it has to. We don't know if or when Iran will have nuclear weapons. We aren't going to wait around to find out. If and when it is perceived that Iran will imminently beocme a threat to American security and interests by virtue of having nuclear weapons or the capability to make them, America will act and no Nobel Peace Prize can bribe an American President or deter the American spirit of defiance that lives in all Americans, Barack Obama included. If you are America's enemy, America could become your worst nightmare. Japan and Germany found out the hard way, the USSR was cracked open like a raw egg. Iraq was ripped apart. Afghanistan was deTalabanized in short order. Only restraint and foolish misjudgement kept Americans from hunting the Taleban and al Qaeda down and eliminating them when it should have. Some nonsense about Pakistan sovereignty just like we heard about Cambodian sovereignty during Vietnam. Why do we keep playing these childish pretend games abuout international law when there is no such thing?
Complain about this comment
To: LucyIllinois,
Right or wrong, don't let democracythreat stop you from expressing your opinion. Notice that he has no real references to back up what he writes, so he is expressing an opinion as well. The more you participate, the better your arguments become. Keep trying...
Complain about this comment
PoL (61): Apologies for the poor choice of wording. You are of course correct that there is gun control in the US all be it somewhat 'light touch' compared to the UK. I only intended this as an anology to illustrate my point about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and no more intended to insult Americans than to insult children by saying they should not be given free reign to play with fireworks.
As to your question (64) of why seemingly rationale people prefer to demonstate against the USA than Iran or North Korea i think there are two inter-related answers.
1. The 'top dog' nation inevitably attracts the jelousies of others which it can only mitigate by going the extra mile in its foreign policy to demonstrate it is a force for good in the world capable of acting in mankind's interest and not simply its its own national interest (as less powerful nations can get away with). GWB neglected this duty, arousing previously latent international jelsousies that have been expressed in anti-American demonstrations and sentiment.
2. Many people in less powerful nations (Germany, France, Belgium etc) know that were Iran or North Korea to launch an attack it would be against South Korea, Israel, the USA or Uk but almost certainly not against them. From there it is a short mental jump to believing that a threat not primarilly targetted at yourself is no threat at all. Once you have adopted this Ostrich position you can concentrate on selling these rogue states your BMWs and Chocolates rather than demonstrate against them. (And indulge your jelousy too by lampooning Uncle Sam for not being so smart as you in sticking his head in the Sand). Except that not everyone can be irresponsible when it comes to the security of the world. Somebody, somewhere, has to give a damm if the world is not to go downhill like a bad neighbourhood. And this represents the opportunity (see 1) the 'top dog' nation needs to demonstrate its power is a force for good of all mankind and not something for other countries to resent.
The differences between the foreign policies of the USA and almost all Continental countries are determined by these two factors. If Germany were top-dog it could never be so irresponsible about global security issues as now. If France were top-dog it could never pursue so narrow a self-interested foreign policy as now. If the 'special relationship' has any meaning it is that the UK, as a former top-dog, at least has some understanding of the obligations of a role that only the USA can play today.
Complain about this comment
The USSR was not "cracked open" by the USA, Marcus. The wonderful intelligence goons didn't even know it was going to happen. They were planning for perpetual cold war. The USSR evolved beyond the socialist reformation. That is all that happened.
And just so, the USA was not born a warlike nation. It was born as a nation of freedom and human rights. The USA was the first nation based upon reason and philosophy. It is, at its core, a deeply intellectual nation.
The US constitution, which you have cited here before, is a profoundly important historical document. It is arguably the first document to set out a whole raft of humanist ideas. These ideas may have been developed by social philosophers in Europe, but America was the first nation to found itself on such advanced philosophical principles.
And it was precisely the benefits of these advanced ideas which create the isolationist policies and free market which made the USA a colossus and superpower in the world. It was not military conquest which made America powerful. It was liberty and ideas, and the reason and literacy of common men and women.
And this is why I am deeply sorry that this great nation should have decayed and become rotten with old world market corruption and imperialism. It is also why I am hopeful that further evolution of the human condition will come from the American people. If the American people can rediscover what made them great, and defeat the corporate caste system of the old world which has make a farce of their laws and eats away at their economic power, the world will be a much better place.
This military ethos you speak of, it is of the old world. It is the rule of the fist, combined with tradition over time. Americans do not have a military tradition of obedient service to the state. They have the exact opposite. they have the right to bear arms, as private citizens. Think how profoundly opposite that concept is to those in Europe who groom themselves as lords of their regions, and who police their people with an ancient monopoly on weapons.
Anyway, to Lucy:
Oldguy is quite right. You are entitled to contribute and my views are no better than anybody elses. It is all just chatter at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
oldguy10, you are right about lucy, of course. that was clumsy of me, and unkind.
However, consider the bare statement. Lucy believes that statement. She and other americans also believe they are in real danger from Iranians.
To my mind, this truly does go beyond ignorance, and enters the realm of hard core political indoctrination.
I mean, Lucy is not ignorant. She is rather hideously misinformed. She knows what a dictator is. She isn't ignorant. Indoctrinated is a better word.
But she really believes that the USA goes around the world making war for grand principles. She has been indoctrinated into believing that war is a good thing.
I find that chilling. I think we need to take that sort of world view far more seriously than we currently do.
Is it possible that a society which promotes the glory of war to its people can be described as modern, or desirable?
I believe the US (and UK) doctrine of preemptive strikes against states which might, one day in the future, pose some kind of threat, has made America and its allies the real rogue states of the world. It is these societies which will go to war because they feel like it, not because they must.
Watching the americans discuss iran is like watching a group of seven foot tall footballers discussing the murder of a kindergarten boy because one day he might grow up to threaten them. I mean, what they say is right. The little kindergarten boy may well grow up to be a threat. But that doesn't mean you can go and end his life.
Animals behave like that. Lions kill cubs which belong to other lions. They eradicate potential competition with no regard for life, nor their own species.
As human beings, we are supposed to control our fear and learn to get along. American, and the UK, have become nations where fear is a legitimate reason to use force and abandon reason altogether, and abandon law as well.
We have become rogue states, and we are a very serious threat to world peace. Other nations are petrified of us and our insane justifications for the butchery of tens of thousands of women and children.
The worst thing is, we are learning to do our killing by remote. We are learning nothing about the suffering we create. We kill some kids in a far away town, cheer, give each other the high five, then go to MacDonalds for lunch. Then we watch a football game and a war movie. On the news, we feel vicarious pride in our glorious soldiers. More entertainment.
That, to my taste, is out of control. That only has one end scenario.
We either learn to control ourselves, or the very real fear of the rest of the world will turn against us.
I don't share Marcus's faith in western military supremacy. I think we have set ourselves on a course to become targets of nuke strikes. I can see six nukes going off at once, in London, Tel Aviv, NY, Washington, LA and Detroit. then nothing. Other states just waiting for a response, waiting for the war which they feel they will suffer anyway.
Combat is not glorious. You stake out you target, watch him, and strike a crippling blow when he is vulnerable. then you fade into the shadows again.
I feel we must learn to obey law, and interact with the world, or we will make ourselves the targets of just such a strike, on a nuclear level.
I don't think we can bully our way out of this situation as marcus does. We either stand down our war machines, or we will be crippled and neutralized. We have become threats to peace, and enemies of civilized mankind. We are the most serious problem states in the world.
I think we change, or suffer a war we cannot win, where we are the strike target. And to change, we must rid ourselves of war for profit. That means the corporate control of representative government and the media must end. We must evolve beyond fascism. Representation will not protect us from the war machine and its consequences.
Complain about this comment
To Lucy and oldguy - substituting opinions for facts is a dangerous and not very intelligent trend. I assume democracythreat who "has no real references to back up what he writes" implied that you can google up these things yourself - it is about facts, not opinions. Here is just the first example which comes to mind - perhaps familiar to you, too. There are dousains of others "sons of a b..., but our sons of a b..." as one US high ranking official once eloquently put it - google it up if you care!
Citing Wikipedia:
(Iraq's) "Department of General Intelligence (Mukhabarat) was the most notorious arm of the state security system, feared for its use of torture and assassination. It was commanded by Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's younger half-brother. Since 1982, foreign observers believed that this department operated both at home and abroad in their mission to seek out and eliminate Saddam's perceived opponents.[32]"
"The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also gave Saddam billions of dollars to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets.[41] Saddam's Iraq became "the third-largest recipient of US assistance.[42]"
Complain about this comment
#1 Scotch-git
Israel is a Theocratic State.
No orthodox Israeli woman can get a divorce without the husband agreeing to it. If he does not agree all children she bears with another man, and their offspring, are considered Bastards in perpetuity.
Source: Today NPR radio.
#71 Chrisentia
Not all citizens of Israel or Jews agree with the Kahane type of settler Fascism. Many of the ´stated facts ´conveniently forget that without original Jewish thought, we would not have had Communism. Nor the´Traitors´ who gave nuclear secrets to the Soviets or the Kibbutzim who proudly put their ideas of a fair society into practice.
It has also been reported today (unconfirmed) that an Israeli soldier is being held for divulging that extra-judicial killings of Palestinian local leaders has occurred.
MarcusAurellis
Do you really think that Nuclear Warmongering and tirades in any way help Jewish communities around the world ?
Or is your intention the opposite ?
Complain about this comment
dt;
You live in a world of your own illusions and delusions.
"The USSR was not "cracked open" by the USA, Marcus. The wonderful intelligence goons didn't even know it was going to happen. They were planning for perpetual cold war. The USSR evolved beyond the socialist reformation. That is all that happened."
The USSR died because it went bankrupt. It was that simple. WA will tell you. Throttling up the nuclear arms race frightened the Soviet generals to demand that their entire economy be devoted to producing military weapons and gathering intelligence about ours. By the time it was over they couldn't afford to keep Eastern Europe occupied, subsidize Cuba, and the worst of it was when they taxed vodka. Sobering up people who live a life of pure hopeless drudgery is the last thing you'd want to do to them. It robs them of the only escape they have from it. Peristroyka was also an illusion, an attempt to make the USSR into a 1968 Prague spring, smiley faced socialism. It couldn't work. The entire Soviet system was so thoroughly incompetent, so inefficient, so misdirected, and so obsolete and out of touch with the rest of the world that it was hopeless for Gorbachev. He never stood a chance only he didn't know it. To this day he is a died in the wool Communist. Even the modest reforms and Glasnost or openig up was more than the Party regulars would stand for. That is why the putsch. At that moment, the end came. The rest of the world would not even recognize the legitimacy of that government. It was over. Were it not for gas and oil, Russia would have nothing to sell to the world. It's a banana republic, its banana happens to be fossil fuel energy. That is being discovered all over the world now, vast quantities off the east cost of South America and in Venezuela (twice the known reserves of Saudi Arabia in one field in Venezuela alone) and now vast quantities of shale gas in Poland which will be extracted using American technology. It does not bode well for economies that are not diversified and depend on energy exports to sustain themselves. In the short run they will do well though.
"And just so, the USA was not born a warlike nation."
First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen. That's what was said about George Washington. What is the longest period in American history when it was not in some major war? Maybe from about 1814 to around 1855?
"It was born as a nation of freedom and human rights."
At first if you did not own property you could not vote. Only white males could vote. America still had slavery. Women still had few rights. They could not vote either.
"The USA was the first nation based upon reason and philosophy. It is, at its core, a deeply intellectual nation."
The USA was based on the intellectual integrity to admit that it is basic human nature to be greedy for money and power and corrupt. Its genius lies in harnassing this greed and and structuring it in such a way that the ambitions of some men are in direct opposition to those of others. The system of checks and balances keeps any of them from "winning" and forming a dictatorship. It hopes for the best in people but it is prepared for and expects the worst in them...and often it is not disappointed in that regard. Study early American history and you will see that visciousness in politics and corruption has a long established tradition in the US. So does violence.
Complain about this comment
bornintheussr,
I appreciate the support, but i think oldguy's intention was point out that I had been careless and needlessly insensitive. And he is right. Lucy came here to discuss, not to be lectured, and I was ungracious in my tone and treatment of her perfectly reasonable language.
So, sorry lucy. Keep posting, and fight your corner.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius @81, what nonsense.
(a verbal communication or written text that is spoken or written in a human language or other symbolic system but lacks any coherent meaning :o)))))
You are simply boasting again and winding up yourself.
"When at peace America is without doubt the most constructive force in the world, it can work seeming miracles when it wants to."
And when is it, "in peace"? Even the old-timers don't remember!
"But when provoked or attacked it can be the most destructive force when it has to."
When un-provoked and un-attacked.
Iraq? Iran? Nay. That's far quarters for me. I've got a closer example on hands now - Southern Caucasus.
Does Russia provoke and attack you?
Does Turkey provoke and attack you?
Does Armenia provoke and attack you?
Does Azerbajan provoke and attack you?
Lucy! Tell me. Have you heard anything, on your TV, of these four being lately a trouble for the US security? Planning to attack you, provoking you for an attack - any of the four countries above?
And still USA plays its hand there - now - it's in work. Simply wait a bit, and you will hear how nasty either of the four above are or all together combined. It's simply not yet channelled to the population.
Russia wants status quo in the region. It suits us as it is now. Armenian enclave Karabakh under full Armenian control, and with 100% Armenian population - but part of Azerbajan technically.
Turkey wants status quo, absolutely the same approach.
USA was winding up Azerbajan for years, curators working there, on the ground, that the Armenian enclave should become Azerbajan, it has all the rights for it. If not yet power to take it. But America will help.
Azerbajanee livened up. With America - granted, they'll get the land back.
Now the USA decided to wind up Armenia. Same country reps - are saying a diametrically opposite thing in Armenia, that Karabakh is rightly theirs, and that they should take it out from Azerbajan. Hinting that America is all for, again, and will help.
How sweet it is that the USA have been thinking about it, thinking, took them a century being in no hurry whatsoever - and finally decided it is time and place to recognise Turkish genoside of Armenians.
By itself such recognition is not a bad idea. Because it's true. But the time and place is a marvel. Armenia, in the result, walks around says "Russians will fight for us in Karabakh and Americans in Armenia main-land".
Interesting ideas they cherish.
You set these two, at the throats of each other. Formal Karabakh recognition is impossible at this stage, any single change in the status quo - and Azerbajanee kicked out of their houses in Karabakh - will return back, to their either Armenian or Azerbajanee "Karabakh".
And the two will start cut-throating one another.
And the USA will sit and watch on the side.
The head-ache will be Russian and Turkish.
To Russia you are always eager to arrange fun on the borders. We will be dragged in quicker than Georgia - because we are bound with a mutual help agreement with Armenia. And because our troops are stationed there.
Turkey you are eager to revenge for slipping out of your hands - in direct view. Because they do. Even that the news about ambassadors' scandal of the USA and Turkey was quickly taken out of air, and survives in the blogs only - Turkey did send USA to hell. Exactly for messing up in the Armenoa-Azerbajan border regulation.
Turkey belive it or not - wants the two to agree peacefully. Mediates.
Russia mediates.
For Armenia the most profitable way is to drag indefinitely this status quo. They HAVE their Karabakh, if not by letter - than in reality. Azerbajanee are totally pushed out of the region, not a single one. It is in Armenia's interest to prolong this situation as long as possible, until better times.
But you have mis-placed their brains, like you did with Georgia, and Armenia will shortly go for the military way to solve its territorial problem - like Georgia did.
We with Turkey will have to take sides.
The military take-over of their Karabakh for Armenia will be suicide, they will simply stop existing as a country.
No one of us 4 is going to profit from Azerbanan-Armenbian war.
You use Turkish genoside of Armenians like a coin in the game. You don't care the hell who genosided who a century ago. You simply pour benzine onto the old wound - to have fun, seeing how Russia and Turkey struggle with the situation.
"provoked". "attacked" tell it to your babushka.
You failed with Georgia and now mess up with Armenia instead.
____________________________
oj oj oj "cracked like an egg". dt already told you.
"Germany found the hard way". Oh yeah. when running to surrender to your friendly embrace, off away from scary Russians.
"de-Talibanised" . Aha. I thought Karzay Afghani pres. has just revolted again, yesterday. The previous being told off by Clinton effect lasted exactly 2 days.
From what I remember he said is that he plans to join Taliban himself, so much annoyed he is with "American invasion".
"de-talibinised" indeed, to the degree that your puppet governemnt openly say they are side Taliban.
To Freeborn-John getting very traditionally classic I would say British will simply note that Britain makes its living on politics, and that's all there is, about "top dogs" responsibility, burden of the white man, and other stuff.
Complain about this comment
Very correct note, though, "twice the world in one field in venezuella alone"
And we have that field.
Mavrelius, you can console yourself with Poland :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Oil and gas, FYI, have nothing to do with Russia. It's 30% of our yearly turnover only, and stolen anyway pumped into foreign banks direct. Can't care less, fossil world, un-fossil world. Our nuclear stuff will stay in the ground in either scenario, whether we are rich or whether we are poor. It doesn't require investment.
You've mentioned above that "there are lots of people in Russia who will sell anything for money". Aha.
Life here is more costly that in the US. Food and housing, as minimum. Russian professional army is though "going to work" every day at soldier salary, on a contract, of 7,500 roubles a month. 200 dollars plus. Career military, for years.
For comparison, working as a security at any boutique doors doormen, or taking shifts as a security in any single office, 1 day 24 hr work three days at home - 1 day, etc. is paid 30,000 roubles.
Still, people follow what they think is right.
I would like to know how long your army will "function" if it gets a decrease from 3,000 dollars a month a soldier currently. To, say, 2,000 instead. Where will be their patriotism versus income.
How long MA will you maintain defense , comparable with Russia, on your army at 200 dollars a month? Three days? A week?
We always lived poor and are used to it.
You never did; minus thousand dollars in any one American salary will cause on your side such a trouble, that minus 99% of any Russian salary will never do.
Complain about this comment
I'm a reasonable person, and I like to read opinions, but I take them all with a grain of salt… mine included. After all, it's possible that references picked up on the net are true, reliable, compromised, fake, or just hot air. This topic is just one example of a vast array of fact, opinion, mis-information and rather cool ideas. Facts are rare.
Wikipedia is an asset. I don't really consider Wikipedia a reliable source, only a source that provides links to more reliable sources. Google is not a source either. It's only a list of topics that respond to a search entry -- some are true, some are false, some are funny, and some are serious. It's obvious that democracythreat has formed a valid argument and has some interesting ideas, but he's not really representing those ideas as facts… only opinions and concerns. So, borninthe USSR, these are the things that change opinions and foster new ideas, not dangerous trends. As I see it, democracythreat, Lucy, and I are throwing things out there for you to consider, and not for you to interpret as fact or take as gospel. We want you to make up your own mind.
There are only a select few people that are privy to the thoughts and truths of this nuclear treaty, the true number of weapons available to the parties involved, and the people behind them. I would venture to say that this circle of select few doesn't include the people writing these comments -- me included. Therefore, all we can offer are opinions. Opinions are like good-old American campaign promises… interesting, but unreliable.
Complain about this comment
2dt@89:
Well, being gent is great. Is there, however, any point in discussing opinions which substitute for facts instead of reflecting upon them? Is there a value to an opinion which results from the lack of factual knowledge? How ignorance of factual material could be justified? While harshly and perhaps unintentionally, you made a very valid point - which I had tried to further substantiate.
Returning to the original discussion point - nuclear arms reduction - and the demise of the USSR, which was mentioned by some, it is interesting to look at the year-by-year nuclear arms chart in 1950-1990, which was actually posted by BBC last year (formerly was available at the fas dot org). By 1975, a parity in strategic nucs was achieved (incidentally, this is exactly as it was oficially declared by the USSR's government - they were factualy correct).
By 1985, USSR had significant advantage in the first strike capability - about factor 1.5-2. However, this was achieved by dedicating disproportionately large chunk of the nation's economy to military production. This, of course, was in line with the war-time way of thinking of the old ruling elite - "military superiority at any cost" (remember, majority of those old guys actually fought in WW2 and had real military ranks).
The problem, which Gorbachev and the younger USSR leadership coming to power confronted was this: the wartime goal - superiority in strategic weaponry and the first strike capability is achieved. What now? Use it? Of course, even those pre-Gorbachev old morons did not really intend on using it. They seem to have just been stupid not realizing that they do not need to build such an overhwelming military/nuclear capability, whose maintenance and reproduction consumed more than half of the national industrial capability. In 1985 it became clear that this has to be reduced. Half of the economy had to be restructured. Gorbachev's government decided to undertake such an attempt. And economy fell apart - can one restructure half of the country's industrial capacity "on the go"?
The bottom line: the smaller part of the nation's economy is dedicated to maintaining and reproducing the nuclear capability - the better it is for the nation (both US and Russia). 30% reduction in the required military-industrial capability is not negligible at all.
Complain about this comment
To bornintheUSSR,
"The bottom line: the smaller part of the nation's economy is dedicated to maintaining and reproducing the nuclear capability - the better it is for the nation (both US and Russia). 30% reduction in the required military-industrial capability is not negligible at all. "
Agreed! But, you'll pardon me if I'm just a little suspicious of both governments. I'm all out of trust. Have you ever thought that treaty rejection might just be the ultimate bargaining point that each can hold out or take away as the mood takes them? Do you seriously think the Military Industrial lobby would let 30% slip out of their hands?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John #83. . .
Thanks for responding. Regarding the nuclear weapons annalogy, I know what you were trying to do. It's just that I've found that many foreigners are already at least uneasy when it comes to America and Americans and at worst utterly terrifyed because of what they've seen in Hollywood movies etc, and I just don't want them to have anymore reason to be so. I would really like for any false negative stereotypes they may hold of us to be disregarded in favor of factual ones (negative or positive,) but I have to start somewhere, right? And you're also right; our gun laws are more lax because of that damned second amendment. Oh if I were a founding father...
Thank you, as well, for that very intelligent and thoughtful answer to my question in #64. But surely you know that anti-Americanism, whether it is born out of jealousy, legitimit anger at careless, selfish, and short-sighted policies, or whatever else, does sadly still exist despite the fact that we are making some sort of an effort to go that extra mile and work for the betterment of all mankind. Why do you think that is? If this very characteristic, this air of responsibility is, as you say, the only thing that will mitigate this ill feeling toward us, then why hasn't it? I know that it must be at least in part due to the fact that Obama's presidency is still relletavely young and that he has a lot of damage control to do from the previous administration. But something tells me that when his time is up, we'll still be disliked in some quarters of the world. Why?
"If the 'special relationship' has any meaning it is that the UK, as a former top-dog, at least has some understanding of the obligations of a role that only the USA can play today."
It's nice to know that you think it has meaning. But you don't think that it's meaning could perhaps incompus working in pursuit of mutual interests in defense of, and on the basis of shared values while maintaining a historical pressedent of relyability in tough international crises?
Complain about this comment
pursuit of love wrote:
"But something tells me that when his time is up, we'll still be disliked in some quarters of the world. Why?"
hint:
"..we are making some sort of an effort to go that extra mile and work for the betterment of all mankind."
Just because you believe that your great nation has the capacity to work for the betterment of all mankind, has it not occurred to you that "all mankind" might take pride in its own work?
It is not the business of the American people to better all mankind outside their own borders. When you take that crusading tone, people are frankly outraged at your incredible lack of respect for others.
Americans seem to think they can walk into any country and any culture and do as they see fit, because they are working "for the betterment of all mankind". It is insane, it is massively rude, and it violates fundamental laws, such as trespass.
You cannot go around telling all people how to live, not unless your object is total world domination.
A lot of people do not want to be like americans. A lot of people think America is full of poor people and only a few rich people, and that the majority of americans have unhappy lives full of violence, greed and fear.
Now those people might be wrong. All americans might be rich and happy and not at all fearful. But that is not the point. The point is the crusading tone you adopt. You think it is your business to show everyone else the way forward, to pursue the betterment of all mankind.
Why can't you just better yourselves, and be content? Why the crusade to foreign lands?
Is it because your political system rewards the elite owners of military and media corporations with massive tax revenue by going to war and nation building abroad? Is it because by setting up military bases and only allowing puppet governments which give US corporations access to the natural resources of the invaded state to rule is also profitable for the US elite?
No, it can't be that. Because the USA only does what it does because it is for the betterment of all mankind.
You paint the USA as a nation of philanthropists, POL, but we can see what you people are all about. You seek money, you seek money, and you believe some really outrageous fantasies, ranging from Scientology to Creationism. And then you seek money.
The US is perhaps not the worst state in the world, but it is the most dangerous to all the others. The culture is despised for very good reasons.
Let me put in in simple terms for you, POL.
Americans butcher children with their expensive weapons. Then they cheer about it and they give each other the high fives. Then they say it was a mistake. Then they say they are improving all mankind. Then they do it again.
The world American improvement for all mankind. We'd really like it if you could concentrate on your own problems first.
Maybe we could make an agreement. First you get a few cities in the "ten most livable cities" list, and THEN you get to improve mankind by going around and shooting kids out of helicopters.
Your dreamy vision of what America gives to the world is abhorrent, POL. It is conceited, it is self serving, and it is a denial of the war crimes you try to pass off as good works.
If you really want people to stop hating americans, stop invading their countries, butchering their children and stealing their resources. That might be a start.
It worked for the brits. Since they stopped, the became less hated. But then they teamed up with you lot and went at it again.
Complain about this comment
bornintheUSSR wrote:
"2dt@89:
Well, being gent is great. Is there, however, any point in discussing opinions which substitute for facts instead of reflecting upon them? Is there a value to an opinion which results from the lack of factual knowledge?"
For sure. that is the reality. It is useful to be exposed to it. You can see what you are dealing with.
And being conscious of the human capacity for delusion and error gives a good motivation to be more careful with our own thoughts and arguments.
For example, I often meet Swiss people who have not been to the US, and don't know any americans. These sorts of Swiss nearly always come into conflict with americans when they meet them. Discussions turn into fierce arguments, which is distressing for the swiss because americans are generally bigger, more aggressive and much better at cursing and fighting.
My advice to the swiss is "Listen. Listen to these people. Listen to the way they discuss the world. Understand, they really believe their nation is the best thing god ever made. They are not taught geography at school, they are taught that America is the perfect nation. They don't learn history, they only learn American history. If it happened outside america, it was useless and bad. You cannot criticize america like you and I criticize the Swiss state. these people love their nation with a mad passion, and they will reject any criticism of it if you are not an american. Listen to the way they talk about the world, and learn how to talk to americans."
Complain about this comment
Re "These nuclear weapons are terrifying"
Not so much if you compare them with biological weapons surrepticiously developped by some countries.
[No, US or UK are not among them]
Complain about this comment
Actually,
DemocracyThreat,
I...think...I've been assured that you are, in fact, sane, and not likely to issue a Fatwa against anyone who disagrees with you, or disparages your "given facts,"
BUT,
If someone were to get on your very last nerve on a bad day when you have had ENOUGH of American Grotesque Nationalism or ENOUGH of someone in particular who is not necessarily American,
you Might Just Retaliate with Very Harsh Language?
And after that happens, all opinions you then issue are obviously True Propaganda (with no one daring to challenge them as just base opinions, AND poorly explained?)
This IS again obviously very very true propaganda and very very deep. Not everyone will understand this, though (I mean, as much as you will understand), I predict.
Complain about this comment
#87
Yourself included, eight contributors to this thread have made reference to the State of Israel. I am not one of them. (see #4)
Complain about this comment
For a poster from Russia who somehow hasn't noticed.
1.Turkey has been a staunch U.S. ally and a NATO member for almost 60 years. And as such a thorn in the side of Russia which tried to destabilize it by, among others, funding and arming for decades communist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) terrorists.
And socialist Baath party thugs in Iraq and Syria.
2.Ankara's plans to create a confederation of Turkic states (incl. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) send shivers down the Sov...er...Russian leaders.
3. US has NOT recognized any 'Turkish genocide'.
[There was an attempt in US Congress to do so, but it failed]
4. Re Poland...
It was hard not to notice that Mr. Putin only yesterday admitted that it was Russians not Nazis who murdered 26 thousand Polish officers [Katyn] when USSR was a III Reich's staunch and helpful ally (till June of 1941).
[Yes, EU has yet to recognize this crime as a genocide.]
5. It's not US (or the West) which is responsible for freedom-seeeking nations of Caucasus (Balkars, Chechens, Dagestanis, Ingushes, etc.)
taking the fight to their century old enemy's heartland.
Nor does it give the separatists any support.
6. It was not U.S. who invaded Georgia merely a year ago under false pretences and occupied part of its territory.
[Just like it wasn't U.S. which invaded Finland 70 years ago under false pretences and still occupies part of its territory].
7. What is this Soviet-style V-day Parade in Moscow on May 9th?
Nazi Germany capitualted officially on May 8th,
and the WWII ended only in September of 1945.
[no, there are no US military goose-step parades to mark that anniversary]
8. If Russia fears losing any territory it should not look to the West for an imagined invader, but to the east.
For otherwise in 20-30 years it will have to say goodbye to Manchuria, which Moscow calls Primorski and Khabarovski Krai.
[ I won't even mention the fact that Russia till this very day doesn't have a peace treaty with Japan, whose Sakhalin and Kuril Islands it still occupies]
Complain about this comment
@AliceInWonderLand
Alice, I think you have already scored many points over MA. It's time to have a rest...
I still love you. Just have a rest.
Complain about this comment
Folks who claim that U.S. is "stealing other countries resources" better come up with specifics including goods, figures, companies involved, etc.
For otherwise they might be taken for liers.
Repeating lying lies. Ad nauseam.
Complain about this comment
@ 102 Powermeerkat
"2.Ankara's plans to create a confederation of Turkic states (incl. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) send shivers down the Sov...er...Russian leaders."
If the US is assessing correctly what is going on in Turkey, it should shiver also...
I mean, that the secular society in Turkey is in danger and that the US sooner or later will have to face another reality including an eventual Turkish-Iranian pact that will misbalance the present status quo...
To-day, April 8th 2010, two men will meet in Prague and will shake hands. I pray our Lord Jesus to back up that union, 'cause I do not see other possible alternative for the peace in Europe, our blessed Christian home...
Complain about this comment
Mr.Hewitt, i am sure you are well informed about nuclear issues and facts surrounding them, therefore please correct the mistake in your article which states that Iran is not a signatory to the NPT. As you are well aware, Iran has been signatory to the NPT since 1968 and has ratified it. There is no concrete evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon so please stop demonizing that country and also it is allowed under article three of the NPT to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and not enrich uranium at weapons grade, which it has not.
However you fail to bring attention to Israel and its arsenal of nukes and the fact that it is NOT a signatory to the NPT. How do you call yourself balanced and a journalist and not mention these facts?
You are an editor of news, who is editing your work? Be braze and be honest and state the facts.
Complain about this comment
Speaking about detente:
If you go to the website of Le Figaro, you can see a picture of V. Putin kneeling before the monument for the murdered of the Katyn woods (Poland).
The Poles have some troubles in guessing why the Russian leadership is changing its tone, but whatever the reason it is long overdue that the Russians apologize for the massacre.
It is also a precondition for a change in the relation between Russia and the EU that we get it behind us, and therefore the initiative of the Russian leadership must be greeted, not only by Poles but by Europeans in general.
Complain about this comment
PoL (96): Regrettably, no matter what the US does (short of self-destruction), it will not be able to eliminate anti-Americanism. There are just too many people around the world, bent out of shape by the tough lives they lead, for whom the top-dog is simply too convenient a scape-goat for all their ills. All that can be done is to minimise their number by going that ‘extra mile’.
As regards so-called UK-US ‘special relationship’, I am sure it will endure but not on a backwards-looking narrative alone of inherited values and former common struggles. To me it seems to endure by default, in that few (if any) other countries seem prepared to step up from a narrow-pursuit of national interest to global responsibility. Also it cannot be a Franco-German style relationship of systemically prioritising one another’s interests over all other countries. Any such club of which the top-dog nation is a member would only attract even more resentment than the top-dog alone. So even when the UK is acting reasonably and in a cause which it might expect Americans to be sympathetic towards (for example the right of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders) the UK should not expect support of the ‘either you are with us or against us’ kind from the USA when this would feed anti-American resentments in Latin America. Similarly the US should not expect ‘blind loyalty’ from the UK but rather support in going that ‘extra mile’ for the good of all mankind, for example in patching up global sores like the failed state of Afghanistan.
In the case of a rolling campaign against nuclear proliferation i am quite sure the UK would be happy to follow up on this US-Russia initiative. For example with a cut in its own nuclear weapons if this could be echoed by others like France, China, India, etc.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Powermeerkat: you asked for it...in your very amusing mes102:
--------------------------------------------------------------
or a poster from Russia who somehow hasn't noticed.
1.Turkey has been a staunch U.S. ally and a NATO member….. Russia which tried to destabilize it…..(PKK) terrorists. And socialist Baath party thugs in Iraq and Syria.
I say:
Whatever. Soviet involvement with the PKK has been minimal. Kurds were never any more armed than the kalasnikof and we are talking about the arm the most successful and most produced in the world, Kurds did/do not source it directly from the Soviet / Russian federation. You should pay attention as to whom you call terrorists, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. How about the US funding the Afgani mujahedins? Remember? Back then it was all about Rambo friends, freedom fighters, dedicated to the brave people of Afganistan and such…
2.Ankara's plans to create a confederation of Turkic states (incl. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) send shivers down the Sov...er...Russian leaders.
I say:
That was the idea back in the early 90s. However, Turkey was overjealous on that but no other country apart Azerbaijan has been particularly hot over that. Frankly said, 20 years later (and it is 20 years, not 5-6….), we have seen little of that famous confederation and as time elapses there will be less and less dreaming about this… First of all, apart Azeris (who are Iran Turkish speaking Iranian people), countries like Turkmenista, Kyrgistan, Ouzbekistan do not relate themselves at all with Turkey. Apart some linguistic connection that is often less than Spanish and Portuguese, there is absolutely nothing else that binds these regions that had never been in any common state with Turks. The only thing they recognise in Turks is their will to approach them for their oil and gas reserves but these countries keep Turkey at bay and maintain discussion strictly to business. Imagine that the closest country, Turkmenistan, has already sold the largest part of its gas to Russia blowing up the whole Nabucco comedy-project so that can be a nice example of how successful Turkey has been in representing US interests in the area.
3. US has NOT recognized any 'Turkish genocide'.
[There was an attempt in US Congress to do so, but it failed]
So? Are you trying to tell us that there are a few self-respecting US politicians that know the truth about the genocide of 3 million Christians (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrochaldeans) and the ethnic cleansing of more than 4 million other? There is nothing to be happy about.
4. Re Poland...
It was hard not to notice that Mr. Putin only yesterday admitted that it was Russians not Nazis who murdered 26 thousand Polish officers [Katyn] when USSR was a III Reich's staunch and helpful ally (till June of 1941).
[Yes, EU has yet to recognize this crime as a genocide.]
I say:
So? Are you trying to tell us that Russians are getting honest? That is positive.
Now go back to point 3 please. If you think that the murder of a some thousands of Polish soldiers is more important than the genocidal slaughter of 3 million civilians you have a serious problem.
5. It's not US (or the West) which is responsible for freedom-seeeking nations of Caucasus (Balkars, Chechens, Dagestanis, Ingushes, etc.) taking the fight to their century old enemy's heartland.
I say:
Serbians had a state of their own and were chopped up 60 years ago, yet I did not see you support with such fervour their will to be independent from the artificial protectorate-state of Bosnia. The tribes you mention are miniscule, never had any country of their own.
Now go to 1. How about the nearly 20 million Kurds inside Turkey? Eh?
If you supported with the same fervour the will of Serbians ot break off Bosnia, the will of Kurds to break away from Turkey, I would take you seriously perhaps…
6. It was not U.S. who invaded Georgia merely a year ago under false pretences and occupied part of its territory.
Eeeeee or was it Russia that bombed Yugoslavia and invaded in its ex-territories?
You are really funny you know…
[Just like it wasn't U.S. which invaded Finland 70 years ago under false pretencesand still occupies part of its territory]
Like US occupies huge Mexican territories you know, Texas, California and the rest in between…
7. What is this Soviet-style V-day Parade in Moscow on May 9th?
Nazi Germany capitualted officially on May 8th,
and the WWII ended only in September of 1945.
[no, there are no US military goose-step parades to mark that anniversary]
Perhaps because US does not need to parade its army at home, they are too busy parading around the world…
8. If Russia fears losing any territory it should not look to the West for an imagined invader, but to the east. For otherwise in 20-30 years it will have to say goodbye to Manchuria, which Moscow calls Primorski and Khabarovski Krai.
Manchuria was never any historic part of the Chinese nation apart being the Mongol nation that conquered them. Normally it should be Mongolia that should be more interested in it. If China is interested in that territory for business it will simply make deals with Russians for easening business. However China not now not even in 20 years is prepared to ask more from Russians, they depend increasingly on their resources – and they will soon depend to a tragic extense, too much to be in position to ask more from Russians. China in war with Russia will be able to do nothing, it will eat 10-20 missiles (not necessarily nuclear…) and go back to pre-revolution state.
[ I won't even mention the fact that Russia till this very day doesn't have a peace treaty with Japan, whose Sakhalin and Kuril Islands it still occupies]
Who said its Japanese? Till 100 years ago Japanese considered the islands pretty much as colonies treating locals as parias. Perhaps Philippines are Japanese too? Why not give Indonesia too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being endoctrinated is one thing, being endoctrinated and loving it is another powermeerkat...
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat... some of your yesterday's and today's messages have been one of the best texts I read the last weeks on the seb... Do not know your age or backround (not asking here of course...), but you have a hindsight, which unfortunately is rarely seen among westerners nowadays...
Complain about this comment
Stumpy;
"MarcusAurellis
Do you really think that Nuclear Warmongering and tirades in any way help Jewish communities around the world ?
Or is your intention the opposite ?"
Now why should I care one iota if what I post helps or hurts Jewish communities around the world? But to suggest it does I think confers a lot more power to my postings than they deserve. Like you I post the facts as I see them and my opinions and that's it. I'm not their advocate either paid or unpaid. What you haven't seen are my negative posteings about them that the moderators deleted because they broke the house rules. I'm glad I'm not a cartoonist or I might have been the one to publish those insulting cartoons some Danes drew. Now those had power. So are you suggesting that my postings have turned you into an anti-semite? Interesting. What a weak mind to be so easily persuaded. Let's see who else I can get you to have a negative attitude towards. Perhaps yourself.
WA;
I hate to break it to you because your Communist teachers and mentors who formed your opinion of the world by telling you what they wanted you to hear and severely restricting your access to what they didn't want you to hear have created your views of how history went down but had the US not entered the War and not sent vast quantities of arms and other materials to the USSR and the others fighting the Nazis, the Nazis would surely have won. American inductrial might as much as military might was the decisive factor in defeating both the Germans and the Japanese. The USSR's function was to tie down as much of the German Wermacht as it could for as long as it could while the US with the help of Britain, Canada, and a few others bombed German cities and industries flat (much industry was underground), sunk their navy, wiped out their air force, destroyed their access to resources like oil, and opened up two more fronts, one in the South and then one in the West. The USSR played its role by throwing an endless stream of human bodies at them, not by any particular vallant fighting. The Russian winter did the rest just as it did to Napoleon. Russians delude themselves to think that they were valliant fighters. They were actually for the most part people forced to fight to survive. The army knew it might get killed by the Germans if it marched forward, would certainly be killed by the KGB from behind under orders from Stalin if it didn't. Naturally it played the best odds it had, slim as they were. The USSR was able to march West to retake Eastern Europe and then invade Germany only when the US with some help from Britain wiped out Germany's industrial capacity to fight the war and diverted sufficient resources West. Have you seen the photos of the bombed out cities that were what was left of the German Reich by the end of the war after the US air force and RAF got through with them? That was not done by the Soviet Air Force. Don't kid yourself. What seems like the largest strongest table will collapse once its legs are sawed off or eaten away from below. The Germans sent most of their troops East because they had already conquered all of Western and Southern continental Europe. I'm still not sure why Eisenhower decided to stop 200 miles short of Berlin and let the USSR capture it. The US could have been there first had it wanted to.
Does Russia threaten America? Not anymore, at least not directly. As the USSR it was a dire threat to the entire world. However, it should stop playing games with the US with its destructive actions in Iran and Venezuela. By sending a billion dollars worth of arms to Venezuela, it does not provide protection to Venezuela in the very unlikely scenario that the US would attack or invade, that wouldn't slow down America for five minutes if it had a mind to invade. However, much of those weapons will find their way to the hands of the FARQ Columbian Communist rebels who want to destabalize the government of Columbia. Russia's assistance in providing the means to build nuclear weapons and air defenses to protect those means does not avert war, it provokes it. As I posted above, there are many reasons to take the most extreme measures necessary to prevent Iran from developing the capacity to create nuclear weapons. There are no international laws, arguments for fairness that can deflect the dire necessity to prevent it.
Complain about this comment
Re107: You may say it was long overdue but hey wait a minute? Who will apologise to 40 million Russians (out of more than 50 million) killed by USSR? They will apologise to themselves or something?
This is a constant problem: what USSR did, it did not as Russians but as communists. And no communist leader was ever any Russian, all of them had been other nationalities. For the Katyn massacre as well as above all for the millions of dead Russians, Georgia should apologise for having given Stalin.
Russians apologise now simply being the successor state of the USSR Empire. Note that inside their state, they had not clearly decided till well into mid-2000s of how to treat the USSR history, finally it was decided to treat it as an integral part of Russian history, and see the Russian federation as a continuation and not as a new state continuing from where Tcharist Russia had stopped. Under that light, Russians started thinking that "if we do adopt the USSR as an integral part of our history and not a regime imposed upon us, we do apologise as well to all people that ask us to do so".
But it was not any dated apology. Quite quick I would say. Fair-enough, 20 thousand Poles... how about Tukey and the 3 million genocides and 4 million ethnically cleansed? Do you think we will see an apology in our lifetimes?
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the poles will apologize for invading russia (and the baltic states) during the 1920's, and killing 50 thousand more russians than soldiers they lost themselves?
I suspect not.
Complain about this comment
@110 Nik
Bravo! You scored a point.
Complain about this comment
The madness of these weapons was once the sole insanity of major powers but we have seen the world change. What was once considered a deterient to wars has now become a dragon that must be kept in a box because small independent political and relgious groups would surely use such a weapon if having the opportunity and the threat is to everyone as these groups consider everyone guilty of some failure to adpot some set of beliefs they have established.
Weapons, global finance and environmental destruction...mankinds assessment of its own abilities falls well short of the realities.
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo, I took your advice to take it cool :o)
But you see what kasha (porridge) is in Mavrelius's head :o)))))))), at 112 :o)))))))
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, take a glass of water and try to come back to senses.
You didn't bomb nil in Germany, in spite of USSR pleading and asking you and moaning on all corners When or When will be the 2nd front opened.
For that matter, you still don't know what is "THE SECOND FRONT".
The second it's not the first. The first front for Britain was anywhere but Germany.
The first front for the USA was anywhere but Germany.
Britain looked for Hitler in her colonies, USA looked for Hitler in the Pacific, it was absolutely useless to repeat to either of you for 4 years the address is Berlin.
We asked and pleaded for 4 years that both of you open "the second front" - Europe. That's where the den was, in case you still didn't figure it out.
And some geographical discoveries downed on you only when Red Army finished with nazi Germany on own ground and crossed into Europe hell-bent on chasing the retreating Germans all the way to the den.
The only thing USA has provided is an elegant solution to the German problem - to who to surrender :o)))))))))
Germany's "industrial might" stayed alright, throughout the whole war.
You wouldn't undermine it for the life of you, as they were fighting USSR.
You went into bombings only from end of 1944, with Red Army already there.
And, among other heroic deeds, very nicely bombed us bridges on approach to Drezden, so that we won't be able to cross over, right in front of our nose.
Very nicely bombed out Romania, nick-named "the German fuel station", where German army tanks were fuelling from, the whole war throughout.
Because USSR tanks would fuel from it, in their advance.
Bombed Berlin to such a rubble that we couldn't enter but on foot, on streets blocked in piles of house chunks.
Ah, what to say.
"The task of Russia was..."
Oh great 2nd WW "organisers and planners , the USA"! It's a laugh.
Complain about this comment
Re #107
Katyn is not in Poland.
And no, Mr. Putin has NOT apologised. He simply admitted that it was Russians not Nazis who murdered 26 000 Polish officers in 1940.
Something certain underappreciated Mikhail Gorbatchev has done 20 years earlier. And certain Mr. Yeltsin after that.
BTW. KGB gen. Putin still refuses to open his mother-institution's archives and release documents pertaining to his genocide. [Check]
Complain about this comment
Re115: Generalissimo, really I do praise Powermeerkat for having developed his points 1 by 1 to aid discussion - it is very positive from his side (it is the way I like it). However, the reply to his points was really too obvious not to be added there (!), so i wonder why Powermeerkat did not think of it himself in the first place.
I mean when you support the breaking up of Yugoslavia, then subsequently Serbia (a real country) while refusing to accept the breeking up of Bosnia (an artificial country)... you should not have the "moral battery" to go around accusing Russia of breaking up Georgia. At the end of the day Russia's moral position is much higher since it went in to protect the lifes of its own citizens, citizens that kept their Russian passports since Georgia refuse to give them Georgian ones for... not speaking Georgian and not abiding to the Georgian national doctrine.
It is exactly like Erdogan of Turkey accusing Israel of "genocide" when Palestinians no matter if terribly attacked, still have 3 to 4 times the population they had in the 1950s while out of the 7 million christians of Minor Asia (back in 1910, the 40% of the population!!!!) there is none and while even quite recently after a single Turkish invasion there was not even 1 single Greek that was left in the occupied part... (let alone the murder of 3,000 Greek prisoners(soldiers & civilians alike)... how about that? Speak of Srebrenica, anyone?).
When we hear people having such a nerve we have to crush-land them to reality instantly.
Complain about this comment
Re #110
There are historical Moscow lackeys.
Then there are 'useful idiots', and merely 'fellow travellers'.
[Not to mention pool-side pinkos]
This meerkat, (who knows Turkic republics who are going to supply both oil and gas to China, not GAZPROM, quite well and first hand) - can tell a difference between those dinosaurs.
Just as he can easily spot Web-Brigade members on the Net. :)
Complain about this comment
democracythreat #97: '"Just because you believe that your great nation has the capacity to work for the betterment of all mankind, has it not occurred to you that "all mankind" might take pride in its own work?"
Many times over. Rest assured, that I am the complete polar opposit of those Americans who believe that foreign inventions, discoveries, and displays of generosity either don't count as real inventions, discoveries and/or acts of kindness because said acts were not committed by an American, nor worth acknowledging at all because the fact that they were foreign-born renders them somehow less positively impactful on the human race. And if it were up to me, sometimes I think I would lean toward the isolationist, stay out of everyone's way, to hell with the rest of the world and how well it prospers worldview because I don't want the US to be seen as you see it; as a greedy imperialist exploiter, but then again, doing so would probably result in far more people thinking we're selfish, inhumane, incompassionate world neglectors. So, you see, it's sort of a catch 22 situation.
"It is not the business of the American people to better all mankind outside their own borders. When you take that crusading tone, people are frankly outraged at your incredible lack of respect for others."
I don't believe it is either. At least not in the way you do; through unnecessary wars designed to impose our version of democracy on others because we know what's best for them and because "every man, woman, and child yearns to breathe free." I was thinking more along the lines of less contravercial methods, such as international aid to build schools and feed the impoverished. But again, as stated above, going isolationist will not make the criticism stop. So what do you suggest we do?
Complain about this comment
"This is a constant problem: what USSR did, it did not as Russians but as communists. And no communist leader was ever any Russian, all of them had been other nationalities."
Ahh!
So Lenin was not Russian? Khrushchev (who personally supervised artifically created Great Famine in Ukraine) was not Russian?
Andropov (who drowned Hungary in blood and ordered the assassination of the 'Polish Pope') was not Russian?
Brezhnev was not Russian?
Talking about 'state of denial' well described in psychiatric manuals...
P.S. I admit, so called Catherine the Great was not Russian; merely a Prussian sex fiend from Stettin. :)
Complain about this comment
Re112: Marcus why do you do this, you sound like a 15-year old boy bragging about his country's weaponry. Back in WWII, Germans had already lost when US soldiers had not even set up foot to Britain, let alone organise their Normandy landing. Everyone knows that the landing was decided "to save Europe from communism". Let alone that the millions of western allies faced there some 300,000 Germans, the strings, the aristocrats, the playboys and 1-2 rocket scientists while Russians faced the most massive army ever to be sent in a campaign: 2,5 million soldiers the best that Germany had to show in WWII.
Given that the German playboys in France had resisted so well to Americans I can only imagine what would had happened if Germans had sent there 2,5 million, their real soldiers there.
Either you like it or not, up to date there is not a single war in which US showed any real effective military - they win out of sheer numbers, just like Persians and Romans did.
Nontheless US and Britain had aided a lot USSR from the back-door: USSR had excellent weaponry (the Katiousha missiles - ancestor of all modern missile systems, some of the best planes and tanks, the best soldier clothing equipment etc.) but bad logistics - US & British aid was all those train wagons and trucks that were being sent there, painted with a star and letting Bolshevik soldiers wonder why their "Russian-made car" had a counter in miles and not kilometers... hehehe...
Complain about this comment
Several notes on Russian apologies to Poland.
1. Tusc (The President of Poland) didn't come. And Putin wanted the Polish president for commemorative joint events for 2 years already. They had a standing invitation, and he visited several times, but like a private individual, not a state visit.
This time again, 3 days before, he still couldn't confirm whether will attend or not, and finally said "No".
Polish PMs always did, on formal state visits.
And this time again we had Polish PM only. Well, this time it can be because Tusc , how to say, doesn't exactly like his PM, they have mutual sympathy :o)))), so where one goes the other never does.
2. There is a museum and a commemorative monument to the fallen in Katyn since Perestroyka. Four small churches pray there for their people night and day. The Catholic church there prays for 5 thousand Poles.
The Russian Orthodox - for 16 thousand Russians.
That "26 thousand" are "Polish citizens" in Katyn - mind it, powermeerkat and whoever, that's citizens of Poland period 1921-1939.
5 thousand Polish, and 16 thousand Russians, plus Lithuanians and Jewish, murdered there.
That's how the Katyn massacra amount grew up, from 5 thousand Polish officers post war - to "26 thousand Polish citizens" by 2010.
Namely, Beria exterminated the "politically incorrect" in the region that USSR took from Poland pre 2nd WW.
Own Russian empire region, consisting of Belarus, Lithuania and Western Ukraine.
The "politically incorrect" people, killed in Katyn, were as usual, how to say, with our Gulag system - majority own Russians, and just 5 thousand Poles. Within that "26 thousand".
The Poles in Katyn massacre ground are not in majority, to put it softly.
With the same confidence you can re-name Katyn into "massacre ground of Russians", "massacre ground of Ukrainians".
3. Poland knew their 5,000 are murdered, by USSR, in Katyn, since 1964.
When Stalin died a Polish commission came to Khruschev demanding answers. For these people fate was unknown to Poles, theoretically - "still in the USSR Gulag system". Mind it, in 1964 Poland didn't enquire about "26 thousand". They came to get the answer where are the Poles.
And Khruschev broke the news to the Polish admin., that they are not "in Gulag system", will never be "released home", that they were killed. Showed them the Beria's doc on it, "having analysed ...in view of that ...we find it necessary to physically destroy the contr-revolutionary elements in the areas we acquired in .. etc."
With a large Stalin's signature accross the first page of the "analytical note" - "AGREED. STALIN"
The document I think is still on display in the Katyn museum, and certainly is google-able in the internet.
That Polish admin in 1964 preferred not to break the news to the general public, but kept it to themselves - well, I won't blame them for that exactly. We were one political block, and certainly such news won't ease the stress of living together.
USSR in perestroyka didn't open up any Pandora box, simply broke away Polish made it finally known to own people.
4. The German trace is still hanging over the matter, firstly because it was convenient for perestroyka time USSR-Russia in transition to blame it on Germany, because the time of the execution is not defined yet, can be only recovered.
Nobody boasted on the Russian side of Katyn either, it's like a Gulag, one of a hundred. Normal people here simply don't know, when was it, it drowned among a hundred of ither disasters.
For a while this Katyn territory was USSR, when taken from Poland, then it was under German occupation for years. It's Smolensk, Katyn is a village by Smolensk.
The Polish commission, who first went to the ground post Stalin's death, in 1964 - and the British historians were there, I think, and Swiss - what they digged out is that absolutely all there are shot by German bullets, and their hands are tied behind by Germn made rope.
And no one found there yet a single USSR-made bullet, to this day.
Can be of course that Beria was covering himself up, made the order to shoot using German gear exclusively. Though how he would know in 1940 that we will be invaded by Germany after is unknown.
It's a murky business.
The only fact is the bodies in the ground, in immense quantities, the Beria's application to Stalin, his approval over it, and 4 churches parying on the ground for their folk.
Complain about this comment
Re118: WA, do you know that the massive US-British bombing of German cities in had as a result the destruction of only the 5% of the German industrial capacity? That means that Germany in 1945 had a better industrial capacity than in 1939*. It was done on purpose.
* I have written an essay for a student 7 years back. I wrote it in a modular approach on the basis of some references he gave me along with my own approach, so that the student could retire some suggestions I hade made point after point (as it is not easy to go out tell the truth just like that). But he liked the mathematical approach I presented, cold and neutral as PH 5,5. He got 80% for it, and was acclaimed by his (quite difficult) professor as the best undergraduate text he had written in his entire career... Perhaps because I am an engineer. 1+1=2
Complain about this comment
... the above essay was for a student in a British university, the professor was English so do not imagine anyone particularly keen to "rewrite history his own way" or such...
Anyway it is not to play the smart guy. But when we take things mathematically they are themselves self-revealing. When US-Britain bombs and misses at a 95% rate I cannot avoid deducing they did not want to bomb any industrial facility and that the 5% was actually collateral damage. Their military target was the city infrastructure (houses and roads). Huge industrial capacity and no infrastructure is a rare, unatural event, and is the best condition for a country's economy.
Complain about this comment
It's silly to call this the New START treaty. They should call it the END treaty since there will be no further talks. It's just more "politics" and doesn't really change anything. Perhaps it shows that the Russians are finally convinced the US "nuclear umbrella" is a joke and that plenty of their missiles would get past it!
With the development of deep penetration "bunker buster" conventional weapons, the role of the small tactical nuke is reduced. So, Obama saying that we will use only "conventional" weapons doesn't mean much given the onus of any nuke.
No, it's just the sort of rubbish you would expect from Obama. A shiny lie, just like his Nobel Peace Prize.
Complain about this comment
meerkat, if you look under your bed, you might find some reds.
Complain about this comment
Re121: What is your point exactly? Somehow from a point-by-point approach you become ainigmatic:
----
There are historical Moscow lackeys.
Then there are 'useful idiots', and merely 'fellow travellers'.
[Not to mention pool-side pinkos]
----
These are general aphorisms. To what exactly do you refer here?
----------
This meerkat, (who knows Turkic republics who are going to supply both oil and gas to China, not GAZPROM, quite well and first hand) - can tell a difference between those dinosaurs.
----------
China is already buying hugely from GAZPROM. It is seeking to enlarge its provision by the central Asian republics, mainly the (large enough to have an opinion but always pro-Russian) Kazakstan but then other countries too. Problem is that GAZPROM is already there bying quantities so question is what there will be left for "others"?
----------
Just as he can easily spot Web-Brigade members on the Net. :)
----------
Google searched the "web-brigade", still did not get the point.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Putin and his alma mater still refuse to open full Katyn archives.
May be there aren't any, but that one Beria-Stalin document known, may be there are. Nobody knows.
I don't think that's critical for Poland, though. They enquired of the lives of their people, and got the answer twice - in 1964, in 1991: Killed. All. In Katyn'.
Polish researches and historians have free hand on the site post 1991. All they wanted to excavate they excavated.
And people are re-buried, from mass graves, into separate coffins, all there were.
There can be reasons why FSB refuses to open the archive.
May be they don't have it, and don't want to admit.
May be it lists some additional torture, done to the people who were killed after. Though I hope not.
May be it involves someone else, and Russia opted to shut it up.
Anyway we haven't heard of other countries opening their secret service archives in full to the public. Do Germany, Britain, the USA and France plan to give us some interesting read?
Complain about this comment
WA;
The US did not have the means to open a second front against Germany. Any premature attempt before sufficient sufficient military force and equipment were available in theater would have met with certain defeat. As it was, America's initial efforts against the Nazis in North Africa were defeats. America did not initially have the capacity to send the equipment Stalin wanted. It had not been on a wartime footing before Pearl Harbor. It was not able to instantly turn itself around. The first priority once America entered the war was to keep Britain from falling to the Nazis. Accounts of the Battle of the Atlantic showed initially it was very difficult just to get enough food and other supplies to Britian. Many American and British ships fell prey to the Nazi Wolf Packs of U-boats.
Stalin's demands and anger could not change those facts. The US sent nothing to the USSR because it had nothing to send. Stalin refused to accept that.
"USA looked for Hitler in the Pacific"
The US had been attacked by Japan, not Germany. The US felt extremely vulnerable to Japanese attack and invasion. Even so, Churchill persuaded Roosevelt to concentrate on the war in Europe. America was fighting in effect two world wars at once. The British were also fighting in East Asia. They lost there just as they were losing in Europe. Initially the US was losing that war too. MacArthur had to retreat from the Phillipines and famously said "I shall return." The turnaround took awhile. The US had to reinvent itself to sustain the war effort. Ingenious methods were devised to produce the 8000 ton Liberty Ships to carry supplies across the largest oceans of the world. The US ramped up to produce 4 per day. The US also converted its civilian industry to produce large numbers of military aircraft, warships, tanks and personnel carriers quickly. The US learned a lesson from Pearl Harbor. It will always maintain a military industry to remain prepared to defend itself.
Complain about this comment
The nuclear arms race was caused by the USSR's refusal to accept any workable plan to prevent it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan
The first attempt was made by the US right after WWII. The USSR was hell bent on dominating the world through subversion of legitimate governments, initiating revolutions, and military conquest. For nearly 40 years, the United States was the only force that stood in its way, much to the anger of Communists and Communist sympathizers all over the world but most despicably in Europe.
Complain about this comment
# 121. At 3:20pm on 08 Apr 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
" ...
Just as he can easily spot Web-Brigade members on the Net. :) "
EUpris:Please explain to this simple peasant lad
1) Web-Brigade members
and
2) :)
Thank you!
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat,
Nazi Germany capitulated officially on May 8th, 10.45 pm Central European time.
Which happened to be 00:45 am in the morning Moscow time, May 9th.
Look up UN resolution, strongly advising all there are in the world, to mark the memory of fallen in the 2nd world war in 34? 32? can look up countries "on May 8th, May 9th or both".
Complain about this comment
POL:
"So what do you suggest we do?"
Adopt direct democracy and end the corporate control of representation.
Complain about this comment
The war against Germany was won due to two important factors.
1.) Russia was willing to co-operate with Hitler. Poland had already fallen victim to brutal German-Russian aggression and the fact that Polish people today have a hard time deciding which of the two regimes was worse is testament to the many similarities between the two regimes. The problem was that both regimes were aggressively expansive and hell-bent on stealing as much territory from other countries as possible. Russia's behaviour after the war is a very clear example of this. Sooner or later, the two regimes were going to run out of defenseless countries to invade, plunder, murder and brutalise, so they were going to have at each other. The question was not if, the question was when. Germany took the first step, thus opening up the Eastern front and sealing its own fate. Britain had by then been at war with Germany for a long time. I have to admit that a principled Britain would have declared war at Germany AND Russia for invading Poland, but Churchill was realistic enough to realise that he was not going to win against both regimes. At the time the two twin regimes, National Socialist Germany and Stalinist Socialist Russia (after a lengthy period of friendship) started going at each other, Britain had been the only country that had been making some kind of a stand for freedom and justice in some way. America was likely more anti-fascist than pro-fascist but it also wanted to seize the opportunity of a weakened British Empire to take over from it after the war, so it stayed out of the conflict for as long as possible. The carpet-bombing of German cities was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, and Russia would have lost the war against Germany, had it not been for the continuous anglo-American disruption and destruction of German infrastructure.
2.) When America entered World War 2, it entered a world of European depravity and brutality not seen at any point in American history. There were the British, who had enslaved half the planet for nearly 300 years and were now claiming moral superiority because for once throughout Britain's existence, it had been another country committing crimes against other nations. Then there were the two twin aggressors, Germany and Russia. Germany, defeated, morally bankrupt and despised around the world and therefore willing to co-operate and change its ways. Russia, undefeated, yet badly damaged and equally morally bankrupt, despised around the world and therefore a very real danger to freedom and democracy. With those three players in the picture, western Europe did not have any choice but to turn to America for assistance and cultural inspiration. Europe was finished. It had lost all its credibility and reputation of being a civilised continent.
America won world war 2, not only because "they entered the war late" as some British people never seem to get tired of repeating. That was a calculated move. America wanted the old, evil empires to have at each other for a few years on their own, to make sure America would be the undisputed ruler of the post-war era. The plan almost worked out, with the exception of Russia, which stubbornly clung to its imperialist ambitions and therefore "forgot" to give the countries it was occupying back to the nations it had "liberated" from the Germans. Of course, Russia came crashing down after just a few decades in the second half of the 20th century, having lost the battle of ethics, morals, ideas and economics with the Americans. It never recovered from its attempt to re-instate the old imperialism after world war 2. Today, it is a sham democracy, run by ex-KGB goons, which routinely blackmail the leaders of neighbouring states and order the odious Russian army to invade them if they fail to co-operate. Vast parts of the Russian population live in abject poverty and a plutocratic elite sells gas to western Europe and buys (and ruins) English football clubs.
Complain about this comment
MAII wonders: " I'm still not sure why Eisenhower decided to stop 200 miles short of Berlin and let the USSR capture it."
And stopping Patton in Sudetenland by denying him fuel.
Why?
A Yalta Agreement signed by a sick and senile FDR.
That's why presidential terms' number was limited to 2 afterwards.
No wonder.
[Not that Truman dismissing McArthur was a glorious day for the U.S.]
Complain about this comment
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2008/unisinf260.html
Complain about this comment
POL
"Rest assured, that I am the complete polar opposit of those Americans who believe that foreign inventions, discoveries, and displays of generosity either don't count as real inventions, discoveries and/or acts of kindness because said acts were not committed by an American,"
For better or worse, Americans invented the modern world as we know it. Modern democracy, the modern industrial corporation, modern theories of management, mass production, quality control, and of course much of the technology. When both public and private contributions are taken into consideration, Americans are by far the most generous people on earth on both and absolute and per capita basis. Much of that aid from America comes from voluntary private contributions, almost none of it from other countries. That Americans don't respond with knee jerk reactions making pledges for enormous amounts of aid at the first sign of foreign disaster, pledges that are never even close to being fulfilled the way for example other governmenents responded to the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean means nothing. In the long run after assessment of the disaster and what is required to deal with it, American send the most aid and the most effective aid. For example, America has sent more aid to Africa to deal with the AIDS pandemic than the rest of the world combined.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
POL;
Europeans show their attitude and real lack of open generousity in examples like the crop failures and looming famine in Zambia several years ago. Europeans told the Zambian government that if it accepted donations of American grown food, the same food Americans eat, Europe would not permit them to export food when they could produce it again to Europe because it might be "contaminated" with genetically engineered agricultural products. The Europeans did not offer to donate substitute food instead. Europe in effect told Zambians, starve now or starve later and in effect told Americans if you want to help Zambia, don't give them food you already have in surplus, buy European food with American taxpayer dollars and send that to them instead. It is easy for me to detest Europe. They give me so many good reasons.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John #108: '"As regards so-called UK-US ‘special relationship’, I am sure it will endure but not on a backwards-looking narrative alone of inherited values and former common struggles."
Naturally. After all, it is current events that shape the future, not past ones. But as I said in #96, these inherited values are not, or at least should not be temporary things. They are not something that were once, long ago, a commonality between us but now exist no more.
They are the basis on which all current decisions, whether domestic or international, are made. Our respective national interests are derivatives of those values, because if someone values something, chances are they'll work toward a goal that will reflect that value. And our common historical struggles? Though they certainly are no indicator of whether our interests will converge from crisis to crisis, they provide the mutual foundation for at the very least sympathy for one another's cause. As you so eloquently said, "few (if any) other countries seem prepared to step up from a narrow-pursuit of national interest to global responsibility."
"Also it cannot be a Franco-German style relationship of systemically prioritising one another’s interests over all other countries. Any such club of which the top-dog nation is a member would only attract even more resentment than the top-dog alone."
How is this so, I wonder? I mean lets be frank here for a second. It's not as if the other countries think well of this relationship; in fact, they see it in the same way that many Britons saw it during the Bush-Blair years. With the UK as the US's unfailingly loyal slave, with no say of it's own whatsoever. So I should think that a Franco-German style relationship would be beneficial for us in two ways. First, it would go some way toward convincing the British that they are respected and listened to, and second, it would show the rest of the world that if the US can put the UK's interests first (or at least not far behind it's own,) then perhaps it isn't the selfish, arrogant, presumptuous bully they thought it was.
Complain about this comment
I am thinking may be the time of Katyn massacre is shifted.
I can't imagine Beria knowing of German occupation of Smolensk in advance, and using German bullets to cover him up. We didn't know of the invasion in advance.
One thing is when Stalin "Ok-ed" it, another thing - when actually done.
Besides, it may be NOT THE ONLY Stalin's and Beria's idea and document on the "theme" what to do with the collection of "contr-revolutionaries", collected in freshly acquired USSR lands.
They certainly didn't shoot all up at once, as it would simply take time, to collect from such various lands - Lithuania, Western Ukraine, those "contr-revolutionaries" - and transport them into Smolensk. Only Belorussia is near to Smolensk.
They were gathering them together, into one Gulag, for quite a time, I would think. Had accummulated. And then had to decided what to do with them, use as ordinary "Gulag-ians", for hard labour, or to kill them.
Shot-ups of Gulags were not a practice, mind it. Stalin preferred to "use" the prizon slaves, not to shoot them.
When would they do it, shoot up a whole Gulag, in a hurry?
When Germany is advancing already, into Russia, having crossed the border. Scared that if these are left to Germans - they will be released and will join the nazi side.
That's the most reasonablle explanation of it, the haste, the shooting one after another.
Another bad idea can be that the shooting up of that Gulag took place not pre-war, not when the Germans just crossed the border, in a hurry, not during the war (during the war - Smolensk wasn't ours), but POST war.
The researches all there were unanimously found the bodies too fresh, how to say, to be dating back to 1940.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII, you are referring to the Souther African famine of 2002 and 2003, which coincided with stricter European GM crops regulations. I am sure it is difficult for anyone to fathom. What's very easy on the other hand is finding things to "hate" Europeans/Americans for. Games like that can be played at nauseam. Europeans have been allowing Chernobyl children to take respite within their families for 24 years. Where is the American contribution? Isn't that a reason to hate America? France was the only country willing to help the people in Ivory Coast in 2003 while the U.S. stood back twiddling its thumbs. Is that not a reason to hate the U.S.?
There are several reasons to hate anything or anyone. And every new reason is as good or as bad as the last one.
Complain about this comment
There is a book I am waiting for from Amazon which I think sounds extremely interesting. It is called "American sovereigns: the people and America's constitutional tradition before the Civil War."
It's written by a guy called Christian Fritz, a lawyer historian from the University of New mexico. He examines the "right of revolution" which was a founding principle of the American independence movement. Without this right, the entire foundation of the American state is unjustified, and the founding fathers behaved illegally.
The idea of the right of revolution is that the people have the inherent right to change the laws under which they live. If this right is indeed a fundamental human right, and therefore a legitimate one, we need to look at systems of representation and ask whether they allow people to change the laws under which they live.
To my mind, a system of representation that allows people to vote for representatives, but not to alter the laws under which they live, is not sufficient to uphold the right of revolution. And thus sham elections in communist one party states do not secure this fundamental right, and nor do states where the preselection of representatives available for election is largely controlled by large parties and large media corporations.
I haven't read the book yet, but everything I have read on the subject points me towards it.
I continue to believe that the USA is the state in the west which has the most ingredients of direct democracy inherent within its constitutional DNA. Beyond Switzerland, of course, which already meets the requirements of a state where the people have the power to change the laws under which they live, and can therefore claim to uphold the people's right to revolution. That is why I hope America comes through for the modern world once more, and leads the way.
On this point, I was curious to find a quote from Ms Roza Isakovna Otunbayeva. Who as everybody knows is the possible leader of the new government in Kyrgystan.
"The deformed democracy that exists in our country is deforming our conscience"
So maybe the same movement towards real democracy might be found within the DNA of the ex-soviet states, also.
Ms Roza is an interesting lady indeed. She is a professor of Philosophy from Moscow State Uni, and was formally secretary of the Lenin Council for Bishkek (Frunze as it then was). After independence, she then went on the act as ambassador to the US and other places, and beforehand was the Soviet chair of the UNESCO delegation in Paris.
She is clearly moscows lady in central asia, but she is also smart as a whip and a humanist. I'm hoping for great things from her.
Complain about this comment
Re137: Chris, I thought you were supporting the idea of un-national Empires so what is your problem with USSR?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat,
no, Lenin was not Russian. Or - same Russian as Poles and Chechens and 112 others were. Russian Empire citizen, though.
He was a tatar, check up what Kazan is. Tatarstan, ever heard the name of? The khannaate, our heritage from the mongol-tatar invasion.
That m-me Clinton visited last year, "interested in the organisation behind the peaceful religious co-existence", admiring how muslims and Russians go nicely together. She praised Tatarstan as the world example of religious tolerance co-habitance.
(what I think about this tolerance is in reality :o)))), as well as the true purpose of her visit :o))))) I will keep to myself )
And of course Lenin was partly Jewsih, if you go into smaller sub-fractions of the fractions within the Russian Empire.
No, Stalin was not Russian. Or :o)))) - the subject of the Russian Empire, like Poles and Lithuanians and chukcha-s and whoever :o)))) - read the above.
No, Khruschev was not Russian. (How un-educated you are.) He was a Ukrainian, born in Ukraine, speaking with a horrible accent, and giving Ukraine half of Russia as a present during his rule.
No, Brezhnev was not Russian. Born on the Russian side, though. In a Ukrainian family. Spoke with a horrible accent and etc :o))) read the above. Another slave! In the "prizon of nations"! as Mavrelius likes to describe Russia.
Why didn't anyone liberate poor Tatar Lenin, poor Ossetian Stalin, poor Ukrainians Khruschev and Brezhnev? You need to work on it, liberate them from us post mortem.
Complain about this comment
... anyway your vision of the WWII is quite funny... having being won by USA and Britain against 300,000 playboys, sons of aristocrats and a couple of useless rockets' scientists... whatever... I guess you consider the 2,5 millions of Germans&their allies in Russia as "local militia" or something. US & Britain indeed contribued to the WWII but mainly in providing logistics for Russians. From there on, their 2nd contribution is "saving" Europe from communism. Oh... and it was not Russia, it was USSR. There a huge difference there. Stalin was Georgian. Most of his men had been anything but Russians. In fact no top communist had ever been Russian. Blame Georgians for all that...
Complain about this comment
CC;
The outbreak of hoof and mouth disease (which Brits call foot and mouth disease) that resulted in several European countries including Britain having to destroy their entire herd of livestock proved they had much more to fear in the way of contamination from each other than from American agricultural products. Had they followed American practice instead of the careless filthy and dangerous practices they used, neither the hoof and mouth disease nor the mad cow disease outbreaks would have occurred. At the time, there hadn't been a hoof and mouth case in the US for over 70 years.
Personally I'm waiting for American scientists to develop a species which is a cross between a fish and a potato so that it can be marketed to Britain as fish and chips in one package :-)
France created the conditions for the mess in the Ivory Coast just as much of the world's problems are the echoes of the European Imperial Empires of many decades ago and how they just walked away from them when they couldn't sustain them anymore. The roots of Africa's current woes are a museum of past European crimes. The US can't do everything. Besides, Ivory Coast speaks French, who better to send the required personnel to deal with it than France? Europe's immigration problems of both legal and illegal migrants is also the result of its past crimes. Who taught so many in the countries these people come from to speak French, German, English, Spanish? The sins of the father are being repaid by their grandchildren, great grandchildren, and down through the generations. What an irony of history, it is nothing short of poetic.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp, you will excuse me I am sure I skip your posts :o))))),
I have enough trouble with mavrelius and powermeerkat as it is.
And we have already established with you all there can be said on the matter in the "stop cooking the books" thread. If you still persist in your obsession to cook - who am I to object :o)))))).
Complain about this comment
moderators :o), how can the text of a UN resolution break BBC House Rules?
Complain about this comment
Re146: I do also believe (surprise Marcus), that US political organisation is one of the most democratic ones. One should look not so much to federal politics but to internal state politics. The voice of the citizen can indeed be heard much more than other countries.
Complain about this comment
WA;
How ironic that the subjects of the prisoners that were captives of "The Prisonhouse of Nations" as Russia was known should be the rulers of an Empire that slaughtered so many Russians. Payback!
What is the problem with the USSR? That it wanted to control the entire world and force everyone to live under its Communist religion ruled from Moscow. It was no different from al Qaeda except for the details. It's vulnerability, that it did not believe in an afterlife where there would be a reward for dying for "the cause." That is why it would not launch WWIII. Al Qaeda would have no such reservations if it had the means.
Complain about this comment
About Andropov, LOL, better don't even ask. Jewish mum from Finland and Ukrainian father.
Complain about this comment
Anyway, powermeerkat, if it consoles you in any way, we view them all as Russians. And Jewish-Tatar Lenin, and Polish founder of KGB Felix Edmoundovich Dzerzhnsky :o))))), and Khrsuch-Khruschev (that's a bug, in Ukrainian, who eats cabbage :o))))), and comrade Dzugashvili, and Laurenty Beria :o))))) and Jewish Jagoda.
We don't have a problem with that - all are "Russian".
It's others who seem to have a problem with it, tying a single 20th century leader to anything "Russian Russian". Hard task, indeed :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Catherine the Great - 100% German princess. Imported as a wife for a Russian tsar, at the age of 15.
With one servant, one mother, 1 carriage and two spare dresses in the trunk of belongings.
Was taught Russian and manners, educated to become a more or less suitable wife, converted into Russian Orthodoxy ASAP, supervised by Elizabeth the II, the ruling Empress, daughter of Peter the 1st.
Catherine was madly scared of her mother in law :o)))))
When Elizabeth died (kidney stones build up for years), Catherine was not yet Great, simply a wife of her husband.
Then she arranged a coup, killed him, became an Empress.
Was a very talented girl by all means :o)))))))
And I dare say she liked it in Russia, Winter Palace built by Elizabeth the II she found a huuuuge difference to her lousy quarters in whenever it were "in Germany", some tiny tsardom hell knows where, on bread and water and no even servants, they became poor and nearly extinct at home.
And 2,500 dresses, made for her by Elizabeth on arrival - a difference to her famous "two in the trunk".
Later on she enlarged the wardrobe collection, and it is still popular with Hermitage visitors, I myself absolutely admire her ball silk slippers wall.
Well, in fact this year it is touring in Holland I think, a Hermitage branch there. Highly recommend to anyone interested in fashions of that time.
Our idea is Catherine liked it in Russia and a lot, how to say.
Became a total russophile, quickly converted and by own desire :o))))))
Complain about this comment
Romanovs started as a 100% Russian dynasty, but expired, in the course of time.
One cat just leads to another :o))), one German princess just leads to another :o)))))
The sad habit to marry German girls, over the course of the time, resulted in full Romanov Germanisation. Alexander II still had 1/32 of Russian blood, and was considered more or less alright :o))), given our pathetic standards :o)))).
After him :o))))) we stopped even counting :o)))))
What was Nicolas II is , eh, can be found only under a microscope. Or by genetic studies.
And as every new arrivving German pulled over onto this side all house, friends and acquaintance, the whole family and half of a German tiny thank God whatever ? whatever they had. small tsardoms - who all took lucrative positions at the Court and in all the Ministries, I mean we had Berger-s all over and fully German upper tiers.
I even think that's why no one heard of Germany for a long time in Europe - they were all busy in Russia! for crying out loud :o))))))
This Germanisation resulted in the bang of 1917. The fiasco, of Romanovs. There is a limit, how much German Russia can become.
Complain about this comment
I think it will also be sweet, if Chechens apologised for 50,000 Russians to who they cut throats in Grozny in Perestroyka.
For there strangely lived 1 million Russians. In and around the cossack settlement Grozny /Thunderstormy. At home, how to say.
Won't say that from times of Noe's boat :o)))), but 200 years , how to say, they got used to the idea they are at home. Especially having built the very city.
When Yeltsin said "take all independence as much as you can swallow", he not only said it, but took Soviet troops out of everywhere and into the USSR's "Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia".
Out of Chechnnya as well.
The first thing that happy Chechens did is exterminated 50,000 Russians in the republic. That's the fashion in which Chechnya started its "independence", drowing the city in blood.
Before any fights with "Federals", before any "Chechen war -1", "Chechen war -2" , Russian assault on Grozny, before the whole jazz.
Good beginning, how to say, of a new state. Good beginning - is half the battle. We are for freedom and democracy :o))))) Joking. sorry. they didn't say anything of the kind. Just massacred their neighbours a house after a house. On nationality basis - fascists.
Simply interesting; if other "newly independent", Baltics, Poland, Kazakhstan, no lack of names in the list, began their "independence from the USSR and Russia" in the same cheerful mode as Chechnya opted to - would those be able to separate.
Complain about this comment
How about "democractic election" :o)))), "a referendum" :o)))), in Chechnya in Perestroyka "do we, as a Republic, want to separate from Russia elsewhere?"
An annoying thing was of course Russians in Chenchnya were a majority of population. And didn't plan, LOL, "to separate from Russia elsewhere" :o))))
Do, "democratic solution" was out. :o))))
The Chechens figured out that the only good way to hold "a referendum" is to first exterminate all those who won't agree with its results.
The majority, in their case.
And they drowned the Republic in blood.
After which all Russians there were - ran.
Federal army returned back, though.
I've seen an Easter service bit broadcast from a Russian Orthodox church in Grozny. An old church, must say, and quite a big one.
Well, definitely an improvement to the service of 2006, for example.
When absolutely all men who were there at the service wore rifles and guns. And, what seemed to me, kind of nervously glanced around :o)))))
Now it's peace and quiet :o))), no arms no guns no pistols. Not a single Russian from Chechnya attending either :o))))))
There are none left. From a million there was in the Republic before Perestroyka.
Driven away all or killed.
Just couple of dozens of Russians who specially came back for the Easter service home, from adjacent republics, to Chechnya, as they explained, from Dagestan and Cuban and Krasnodar, to remember old places and visit family graves, in one package with Easter.
One boy was very courageous :o))) On entering the church, he took out, from the rope, hidden previously under his shirt, an orthodox cross, hanging on that rope. And put it over his shirt.
This is un-usual, normally we don't wear crosses in the open view. So a journalist who was covering that "news" from Grozny asked him - why do you do it? It's against the custom.
To which the boy said - "And let them see!"
Who, "them", stayed unknown.
Complain about this comment
The way the reporting has changed on the Kyrgish revolution over the past 24 hrs is extremely instructive of western media influence from government.
At first, when reporters had only the wire to follow, the uprising was reported as a "people's revolution". Reports focused on the huge numbers of people taking part in demonstrations, and quoted the people they randomly selected from the streets, all of whom were extremely angry with the ruling regime.
But less than 24hrs later, the tone has changed 100%. Now we see alarming pictures of violence and destruction. We hear about looting, and are told that shop owners are terrified and have had their lives ruined. We have opinion pieces from carefully selected Kyrgs who are fearful of the future.
What a profound and swift change in tone. Do you folks suppose it has anything to to do with the government briefing on the subject, prepared specifically for the corporate media, and the official foreign policy in central Asia?
Without a doubt, Roza is moscows lady in the Kyrg state. She always has been. Will she close the US base? It is very likely. China does not want it open, Russia does not want it open. The ordinary Kyrgs likely do not want it open, for they would be terrified of their homes becoming the theatre for proxy war between great powers.
But will Obama be able to survive the hawk onslaught if he is seen to be pushed out of central asia, and will the democrats allow the prospect of doing nothing in retaliation?
I watch Kyrgystan with some trepidation. This is, without a shadow of a doubt, a carefully orchestrated middle finger to the USA in central Asia, from both China and Russia.
The US military will now be making the obvious point that supply into afghanistan is best secured via the persian gulf, and that means either ejecting China from Pakistani affairs and taking over the deep water port of Gada, or invading Iran to use those ports.
Ejecting China from Pakistan is clearly not an option unless the US wants to ignite the entire Asian subcontinent. China built Gada from scratch. It is theirs, as is much of Pakistans infrastructure and political sympathy. And, of course, the average pakistani hates America for making war against their people.
So the Big O is now faced with an interesting choice. He can prepare to remove him nation from central Asia, or he can prepare to invade Iran.
I think he will invade Iran. The american people have been primed for that, it would take only a few days to get them foaming at the mouth and demanding it. And then Obama can be the great military leader as well as all the other things he has been in the media.
Fancy being Iranian, hey? Now you will likely watch your children die and your property destroyed so that great powers can provide something for their military industries to do, and something for their media corporations to report.
And the western media will do its duty. It will, to a man and to a woman, report of the grave threat we face from Iran. Then our heros will do their duty, and the frightened housewives will thrill to stories of heroism and sacrifice for the greater good of all mankind.
Complain about this comment
Alice:
"Well, in fact this year it is touring in Holland I think, a Hermitage branch there. Highly recommend to anyone interested in fashions of that time. "
Link much?
Complain about this comment
Marcus, 'For better or worse, Americans invented the modern world as we know it' (140)
Can you also explain to the international community here what the concept of a trailer park is? :)
Complain about this comment
O, Putin already called Rosa (she says) and enquired "How are you over there? Do you need any help?" :o)))))))
Russian TV showed Bakiev, Kirgiz president. He is sitting in the South of Kirgizstan (because it's uprising of the North, this time) (the prev. "tulip" revolution was South, so now it's North feudal clans).
Poor Bakiev looks very sad and depressed :o)
I'd be, in his place! :o))))) Grabatising Russia's 2 bln handoever, and then making a twist and leaving Manas US base in , still!
:o))))))))
Complain about this comment
161. d_t
"I think he will invade Iran. The american people have been primed for that, it would take only a few days to get them foaming at the mouth and demanding it. And then Obama can be the great military leader as well as all the other things he has been in the media."
Clearly you are having an affair with the tooth fairy. The truth is the American people are tired of you and yours.
Complain about this comment
Kirgizstan is lately a China place.
(It is total funny what powermeerkat wrote that they wish to be part of a new Turkish ottomanka :o)))) (an ottoman, Turkish seat/bed. in Russian.)
China is though less open than we are traditionally and haven't greeted our Rosa Luxembourg yet :o)))))))))
Complain about this comment
The war was won because many people died. Don't think that great planning and superior military and political leadership provided for the results. Many bad decisions costing many lives, untold costs to civilians, who for the first time became targets, and generally advantage to the side making the fewest mistakes. The end on both fronts was about revenge and not strategy. The final decisions were who would control markets.
As J. M. Keynes said: Captialism is the astonishing belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the good of everybody.
US steel and oil interest were lobbying to keep selling to the Japanese until the embargo of Aug 1941, although Japan had invaded China in 1937. After the war the number of Chinese dead were not even associated with the final count.
Histories are written by the victors and therefore are hardly ever reliant on the truth. Usually patriotic nonsense. You may wish to view the current problems in the Arab world with the decisions for dividing up those lands after the war and the development of resources rather than the people.
Complain about this comment
oj, our darling Bulava rocket got under this new Obama-Medved Treaty.
How will we live without it? :o)))))))))))))))))))))))
It was so handy for fire-works over Norway :o(
Complain about this comment
#119
Yes, Polish news today that Putin has not apologized.
It is clearly a very difficult theme for the Russians.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Then she arranged a coup, killed him, became an Empress.
Was a very talented girl by all means :o)))))))"
I hope she used poison. That would prove she had adopted Russia and was a Russophile. Poisoning is so very Russian. No radioactive polonium in those days, no dioxin either. Maybe carbolic acid, cyanide, or arsenic? I'm sure WA that with your knowledge of Russian history you know all the details. BTW, what ever became of Mr. Wonderfulland? :-)
Complain about this comment
extremely interesting discussions in Russian blogs re Kirgizstan
- Rosa Isaakovna Otunbaeva - our people are everywhere!
- What a viper you are; why Rosa former Kirgiz Foreigh Affairs Minister doesn't please you? You sit on a salary and spew hate in ink over this blog, like a mad dog. Not disgusted with yourself?
- Liberal revolution in all its beauty.
- Our powers might even start thinking, looking at all this: to keep on stealing, or may be to give a bit to the people, after all?
- First thing the North will nationalise all that the South hasn't. Then there will appear the pillars of our economy - Deripaska, Vekselberg, Abramovich. To help the young democracy, with investitions. And Manas we can give to Americans; after Medvedev signed with Obama SNV-2 we don't have any enemies left, only one enemy, internal: we don't know how to rest. Always on the go, in travel, in business trips :o)))))))
- What's curious is that in Kirgizstan and the power and the opposition are in very warm relations with Moscow, and to their neighbours they refer with suspicion.
- O, Moscow tsar has called her!
- O, now people will finally breathe in full breast freely and wake up rich. Fighters for freedom and democracy as usually robbed all shopping malls and business centres. I hate revolutions. And in view of this, can't but be happy that a yet another revolution is wiped away by contr-revolution.
Though, objectively, for us Bakiev from the glorious centre of narco-traffic city of Osh is not the best partner...
- Hold on, Kirgiz! For the sake of your economy and tariffs for apartment bills - we will raise up own Russian tariffs to the population. There will be money, don't worry!
- And I think such expenses for a friendly neighbour are always justified. Even if in the long run.
-Sure, such investments into neighbour countries justify the investment. If your surname is in the Forbes' list.
- Between Norh and South, it's again between North and South. In Kazakhstan will be even worse, just wait, see. When Nazarbaev goes - he has no successor. The clans will fight in Kazakhstan as well, separation into clans was always there, even during USSR, medieval relations. Russians who are still there - pack up your suit-cases, leave! It's civil war.
- In Kazakhstan they won't forgive Nazarbaev the transfer of the capital.
The capital will be eventually back, to Almaty. The clans there will fight much worse than in Kirgizstan. The civil war there will be with real front lines.
- In Bishkek there are already calls to pour together with Russia!
- And to pour together with the neighbours from People's China - nobody wants there?
- My aunt returned from there just told us, that their taxi refused to takethem from Narum to the airport in Bishkek. So they took a lift, and the driver was talking all the way on his mobile phone with someone, in Kirgiz, and it sounded as "I am already carrying the CV. Yes, will correct. We need 10 now and 100 overall. There is a variant in the Justice Ministry and a Variant in the Defense Ministry. We need to hurry up or others will take it.
- 10 of what? thousand dollars? euros? local money?
- Are you bargaining? :o)
- In sheep I think. :o))))))
- To replace old bed-bugs there came new bed-bugs.
- Well, ours won't be charmed there. There isn't no oil nor gas.
- Wow, news! Are we supporting now a bandit way of change of power? That's something new. I didn't give my consent for that, when voting. I thought I live in a democratic country, not the one who supports looters and bandits.
- And did you think that only Americans are able to?
- Powers - separately, people - separately. When will that end, nobody thinks about the ordinary people. And this breach is growing, with every new change of power in Kirgistan. I so much pity them, and us, what for all these revolutions.
- No
-
Complain about this comment
@ 121
"There are historical Moscow lackeys."
Can you name them?
If the US still sticks to its solelly declared values, it should be very cautious when supporting the present Turkish leadership.
Complain about this comment
Kyrgyzstan has one thing Moscow would like very much: Control over the water flow through both Southern Kazakstahn and also through Uzbekistan.
For the past few years moscow has been planning huge hydro projects which will allow the Kyrgs to generate large amounts of clean power, but the other thing the projects allow is for irrigation waters to be denied to those downstream.
Kyrg policy is the leverage Russia has over the other states in the region. And of course, they don't want anyone else to have that leverage.
Complain about this comment
Putin is an ex-KGB thug with no ethics, morals or principles. He could not have been expected to apologise for the Katyn atrocities, but that's alright. An apology from such an utterly depraved individual would have been worthless, anyway.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #121;
"There are historical Moscow lackeys."
IMO Jack Matlock, Reagan's ambassador to the USSR and author of the book "Superpower Illusions" is one of them, probably was and still is. The KGB could hardly have gotten a better advocate or lackey.
You can watch his interview with Dmitri Simes who is now the President of the Nixon Institute and judge for yourself.
If the link I've listed below is broken, you can google Jack Matlock > booktv
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11426/After+Words+Jack+Matlock+Superpower+Illusions+interviewed+by+Dimitri+Simes.aspx
Here's the address after www dot
booktv.org/Watch/11426/After+Words+Jack+Matlock+Superpower+Illusions+interviewed+by+Dimitri+Simes.aspx
Complain about this comment
"moscow lackeys" !
Well, we have been around on the block somewhat longer than the "top dog". Time allowing co-continentals to make up their minds, what to expect of Russia. And what not :o))))))
Come back in 750 years - and care to present a party to the discussion, who is still in the same opinion of you as it were in 2010.
You are not in the league yet to comment on the thousand year connections; grow up first.
Complain about this comment
young democracy. kh!
Complain about this comment
To the discussion about the massacre in Katyn, I shall just add this:
The position Putin takes up on the picture, while being saluted by a Polish soldier and being observed by Lech Walensa, is quite humble to say the least, and Le Figaro wrote in its article that Putin condemned the massacre in Katyn.
Russia is taking a diplomatic step in the matter, but not a full step.
Complain about this comment
To Kremlin apologists and Web-Brigade members:
If you really can't get any other education merely read 'Katyn massacre' and 'Vitaly Blokhin' entries in Wikipedia.
That's merely a tip of an iceberg, but it would be at least a starting point for genocide deniers.
Who incidentally, should be treated by law just as Holocaust deniers are:
Liers intentionally promulgating lying lies. Ad nauseam.
Complain about this comment
interesting interview, thanks for the link marcus.
so what is your view of his thesis that russia ought to have been brought into europe as a partner after the cold war, just as germany was brought into western europe as a partner after ww2?
I'm curious to understand how you think the russians should be dealt with, marcus.
Should they be negotiated with and convinced to partner in our western vision of a better world, or should we keep lecturing them and eventually put an end to their inherently evil culture, once and for all?
Complain about this comment
Re #137
Chris Camp. Your point is well taken.
Not only re USSR and III Reich being staunch allies till June of 1941, with Moscow assisting Berlin's military effort with raw materials, fuel, etc., but, more importantly, that Russian Socialism and German National Socialism were merely two sides of the same murderous totalitarian coin.
As for FSB mafia basically running today "new, improved, democratic Russia" and murdering every invastigative journalist who dares to shed some light on its nefarious schemes and massive human rights violations - it's been so patently evident and so well documented by now that it doesn't make much sense to state the obvious.
Obvious to everyone, that is, except Kremlin and Lubyanka apologists.
Complain about this comment
Re #169 per 119
Mathiasen, more significantly, and ominously in the documents filed in Strasbourg almost at the same time, Mr. Putin hasn't even refered to Katyn as a 'crime' (let alone mass murder or genocide) but as a 'event'!
BTW. Katyn is merely a symbolic site. Thousands of other Polish officers (including many reserve ones: doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, etc., in their normal lives) policemen and boarderguards were killed at other locations, such as Kharkov, Mednoye, etc.
In Smolensk itself, they were butchered, appropriately, in a local slaughterhouse [sic].
Complain about this comment
Re #174 "Putin is an ex-KGB thug with no ethics, morals or principles. He could not have been expected to apologise for the Katyn atrocities, but that's alright. An apology from such an utterly depraved individual would have been worthless, anyway."
A small correction, if I may:
Pres. Putin who, incidentally, has established an FSB holiday called "CHEKIST Day" [sic] has pointed out himself that
"there is no such thing as a former KGB agent".
Complain about this comment
cheer up, meerkat. The evil russians did not have all the glory to themselves. The number of women and children killed in hiroshima and nagasaki alone more than establish the USA's reputation as a force to be reckoned with. For good, i mean. Only for good.
And Putin might look tough, but water board him for an hour or two and he'll tell you anything you want him to. Some of it might even be true.
The important thing to remember is that good people come from where you are, and that evil people come from where they are. In his mysterious wisdom, the lord did not see fit to give them black hats to wear, and not all our fellows have been issued with white hats, either. But god did go out of his way to let us know who the bad men are by forcing them to speak russian. The good guys speak english, which makes it pretty easy to understand the grand plan.
So I think we should go around the world asking people, in English, "Do you understand me?"
If we don't understand the answer, then we bayonet them in the face for being evil.
It's the only real way to stop terror and reduce violence. Most probably the liberals will smoke pot and object, and suggest "talking", but what did that ever achieve?
You can't talk with evil. You have to smash it, and kill its children. then the good guys win.
Complain about this comment
dt;
"I'm curious to understand how you think the russians should be dealt with, marcus."
According to a book by a recent KGB defector (can't remember his name) the KGB has never accepted that the USSR lost the cold war and continues to fight on. Paraphrasing the old cliche' "diplomacy is war by other means." According to this defector, the KGB sees Russia's enemies as #1 The USA, #2 NATO and #3 China. There is little doubt the KGB still runs Russia. With the breakup of the USSR, the oligarchs were allowed to acquire presonal wealth on the tacit understandig that they would not enter politics. People like Khordakovsky violated that understanding and paid the price. Now the state which is the KGB owns the one asset of value to the country, the energy sector. But it does not have the technology to fully exploit it and has deterred foreign investment by private oil and gas companies that do by expropriating their property before they could realize the expected profits in it. They won the battle but lost the war. The importance of those assets will diminish anyway over time because major new energy resources are being discovered around the world.
The signing of the nuclear arms reduction treaty yesterday was a political document, not a military one. There is no change in the balance of power or ultimate potential for destructiveness of the two nuclear arsenals. Either will remain far more than capable of bringing an end to human life on earth.
Russia should be regarded with suspicion and as an adversary whose geopolitical interests as they see them do not usually coincide with America's. Nor with Europe's whose interests often no longer coincide with America's either. Russia is not the threat to dominate the world that they USSR was. Stripped of its false doctrine of salvation of humanity through Communism it is no more than just another nationalistic government looking for power and influence. But it is in a position to wreak hovoc through it misguided short sighted self absorbed self interest. The sale of 1 billion dollars of arms to Venezuela is a example, the assistance it has given Iran in development of nuclear technology is another, its sale of air defense systems to Iran to protect its nuclear weapons development facilities from attack a very ominous and dangerous step. Rather than deter a military attack on those facilities, the prospect of it could provoke one.
Russia remains a weak, primitive, backwards nation filled with internal strife, a declining population in poor health and badly in need of improved medical and other services, a declining population, and a major waster of fossil fuel energy. Its GNI in the links I have given which is several years old now shows it to be around 250 billion which is around 1/40 of the USA with half the USA's population. Putin has played a weak hand well but dangerously. The long term outlook for Russia is ominous. False friendship is a political tactic it commonly used in the past and still uses. Russia is not to be trusted. Not unless and until there are drastic changes to it.
Complain about this comment
OK.
Leaving the mysterious KGB guy to one side, because you can't remember his name, what are "American interests"?
Is that a euphemism for smaller nations resources, or are we talking about freedom and warm puppies and predator drones and so forth?
I get awfully confused you know. I just don't know who to hate or who to fear these days.
Complain about this comment
PoL (143): I don’t wish to minimise the shared values that link the English-speaking peoples. Indeed i strongly believe these exist and shape our perceived national interests as you describe. But it is precisely these Anglophone values which preclude a Franco-German style relationship between the USA and UK. The American president should not prioritise the interests of the British people ahead of the Americans who vote for him/her; The British government should not (as Blair was unfortunately inclined to do) put the interests of politicians from other countries ahead of those of his own electorate. All that happens in this case is that the voters lose control and the politician’s personal interest is substituted for the real national interest.
The value that lies behind the Franco-German relationship is power. They each feel they do not have enough of it and that by acting together they will be better able to bend others to their will. (The political edifice in Brussels and its rules have been built to this end.) Now the English-speaking countries are not completely immune to the love of power, but it is lower down in our scheme of things. It simply happens that by prioritising other values, in particular a good deal of liberty (i.e. a tolerance for letting the other guy do what he feels is in his best interest, while we get on with what we believe to be in our best interest) we waste less of our energies trying to stop other people doing what they think best, and put it into more constructive pursuits instead, with the long-term result that we end up having more power to shape the destiny of the planet (for good or ill) that those who desperately crave that power directly.
You say the US-UK relationship was baldy perceived during the Bush-Blair years, but i believe this was precisely because it was too much like the Franco-German relationship. It combined Tony Blair’s flaw in subordinating the interests of his voters to that of other politicians, with GWB’s ‘Un-American’ desire to bend others to his will. It simply ended up being even more unpopular than the Paris-Berlin Axis because of its far greater collective power. Better that our governments re-discover a tolerance for allowing other countries the freedom even to make mistakes, and only intervene internationally when those mistakes amount to a real danger to ourselves directly, or to innocent defenceless 3rd countries.
Complain about this comment
MAII reports:
"KGB sees Russia's enemies as #1 The USA, #2 NATO and #3 China."
I'm not a betting man, but I would safely bet than in 10 years top a country of 140 million will place the country of 1400 million in a #1 slot.
No matter what it's official propaganda says even then.
P.S. Russia's rarely populated Far East is depopulating at a ever faster rate. Pretty soon we may see a veritable "Manchurian Candidate" there. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOBODY HAS EVER DEFEATED DEMOGRAPHY.
Complain about this comment
To those who egg USA on to invade Islamic Republic of Uran[ium].
No invasion or even a nuclear obliteration of that medieval state is necessary to take care of a potential nuclear threat to countries who don't want to become part of a global Sharia-based caliphate.
Merely a dozen of very small (less than 0.5 MT) bunkerbusters will make sure that places like Busher, Ishfahan, Natanz, Qum and couple of others (yes, there are more, and we know it)) can be used from then on only as huge parking lots.
Hopefully not for Toyotas. [I honestly don't wish Persians ill.
Particularly harshly persecuted Bahaists and Zoroastrians]]
P.S. What is this about Saddam killing Iranians with WMDs?
I remember precisely that US and UK were harshly criticized for invading Iraq under false pretenses, because "Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction".
So which is it, 'comrades'?
And if you can't add 1 and 1, can you acquire some weapons of math instruction?
Complain about this comment
dt;
Here's the mysterious KGB guy;
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18538787
Sergei Tretyakov, a former KGB operative.
I think there's an interview you can listen to on that link.
What are America's interests? Security for itself and its allies. Fair and open markets to sell its products and buy what it wants and needs, peace and stability throughout the world which is consistent with the above. Safety and fair and just treatment of its citizens when they travel abroad, fair and equal protection of their foreign investments and overseas possessiions. I'm sure there are others and these are open to interpretation but it's a good start.
Complain about this comment
Re #190
Gen. Putin may not want to open NKVD/KGB archives, but thankfully, we in the West still have Mitrokhin Archives.
And Oleg Gordiyevski's numerous reports.
Our Russian posters here are obviously unfamiliar with.:)
Complain about this comment
Power meer, bon appetit.
I am sure the predators are made of qualilty material benefitial to your health. Sometimes they come with polonium sometimes with selling the spy network, you never know. Take you chances.
What can we do if both the USA and UK are hell bent on collecting our junk.
Complain about this comment
1. Democracythreat -> 5+. But do they get it? As one has eloquently put it in something like "the world IS as we see it". Wizard of Oz is laughing out loud.
2. > Stripped of its false doctrine of salvation of humanity through Communism
Would not it be nice if other national governments were finally stripped of their false doctrines of salvation of humanity through: democracy, theocracy, revolutions (colored, flowered and others), - you name it...
3. Russia's main national interest is to hold on to the natural riches it possesses, and deploy these as much as it can for its own benefit. In fact, Putin's and then Medvedev's governments did pretty impressive job on this - compare for example to those "beacons of democracy" that were running Ukraine, or Georgia - just trace and compare World Bank or CIA GNI/capita data for the last 5-10 years - and you'll see what I mean.
4. In view of the #3 above and explicit sentiments of many in the "west" (like Ms. Madeleine Albright) that all those natural riches belong to Russia unfairly, it seems quite natural that the cornerstone of Russia's military doctrine would be assured deterrence of any potential aggressor by the means of its nuclear capability. The "Agressor's assured destruction" doctrine. In this case, the nuclear arsenal is really a defensive capability. It is quite pathetic to read comments calling missile defence measures "defensive" - does anybody believes that Russia's nucs are intended to provide agression capability? Russians do barely have enough population to hold on to what they have - no russians to be "coming", sleep well!
Complain about this comment
Re185: "... it does not have the technology to fully exploit it and has deterred foreign investment by private oil and gas companies that do by expropriating their property before they could realize the expected profits in it. They won the battle but lost the war. The importance of those assets will diminish anyway over time because major new energy resources are being discovered around the world. "
... yes in North Pole. And Russia owns the 3/4ths of it...
Complain about this comment
Russia put a flag on the North Pole because it could. That does not mean it's entitled to three quarters of the North Pole. Colonial times are over and the world is getting tired of Russia arrogating territory that does not belong to Russia.
Complain about this comment
the world of Britain, Germany and Turkey got tired arrogating territories indeed. (not sure ab Turkey, Nik will correct me :o)))
We - haven't ! :o))))) And what we are "entitled to" - paper has been applied to the UN to figure out. They are working on it :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Speaking of "primitive" soviet technology - I am always fascinated seeing clips of howitzer-launched "Dnepr" (SS-18 Satan) putting up another satellite - this time BBC showed it carrying the European Cryosat. Watch it while the video is still there - and you will readily join me in not wanting Satans with nuclear warheads. So reductions treaty does indeed benefit all potential target countries. And everybody else. Being responsible realists, Obama and his negotiators have to and do show respect where it is due. Unlike many on this discussion board.
Complain about this comment
I am not saying that Russia is tired of expansion - how would it get tired of it? It is the only thing it has been very successful at in the last 300 years. The problem is the country is running out of people willing to humour thugs like Putin or Medvedev and their last-century approach to geo-politics.
Russia is in terminal decline - that's its downfall. The population is decreasing and the nation's completely one-dimensional approach to foreign policy, geared exclusively towards territorial expansion with hardly any internal development or progress to ethically back it up with, the Russian state model is a thing of the past. There was a window of opportunity in 1990 when Russia could have switched gears and tried to be more inward-looking and less aggressive towards its neighbours. But that ship has sailed. Even if Russia changes its tune now, the population decline has gained such momentum that I do not think the country will remain stable in its current form. The Russians are in danger of becoming an extinct nation and the nationalities in the south of Russia, especially those belonging to the Muslim faith are the only ones whose populations are growing. Most high-achievers are emigrating from Russia and seek a better life in America or Western Europe because they are smart enough to realise that in a society geared towards territorial expansion and vegetating in tower blocks and nuclear reactors, there is no future for the highly gifted.
As to your question about Turkish ambitions - there is indeed a political movement in Turkey that seeks to unite all nations in the world seen as "Turkish" in one way or another. Under extreme circumstances, this would involve large portions of Kazakhstan. The Caucasian region, traditionally the border between the Turkish world and the Russian world, is an area of great political upheaval and social unrest. Georgia was only the most obvious example of how the people in the region are getting sick of Russia's shameless imperialism. But there are also the Chechens, Ingushetians, Cherkessians. There is the region of Dagestan and the Adygea enclave. Russia will seek to annex the whole region and there are two countries that will seek to stop that - Turkey and the U.S.. It is likely that Turkey would win the hearts and minds of the people living in the region, as given the choice between highly developed, prosperous Turkey and a life in impoverished squalor, it is not difficult to guess whose side they are going to pick. So the detested Russian army would have to operate in hostile territory and garrison is very aggressively. This, in turn would compromise the territorial ambitions Russia has in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. One of the key players to stop Russian irredentism will be Poland, which might seek a closer political unity with the Baltic states, particularly Lithuania. When Russian society finally melts down and the country becomes impossible to stabilise from within, Poland might very well be one of the countries having to take direct action, alongside the United States.
Turkey's pan-Turkish Empire, these days seen as a mere pipe dream, might become a very real prospect at this point.
Either way, Russia has reached the end-game. Whether it can carry on existing in a different form is impossible to predict. Its 300-year old strategy of constantly expanding and turning the stolen territory into a wasteland is not sustainable anymore in this day and age.
Complain about this comment
"When Russian society finally melts down and the country becomes impossible to stabilise from within, Poland might very well be one of the countries having to take direct action, alongside the United States."
You mean, rascals will "have to go", peck at dead meat?
"There is indeed a political movement in Turkey that seeks to unite all nations in the world seen as "Turkish" in one way or another.
...large portions of Kazakhstan.... The Caucasian region.... traditionally .. ...Georgia ...there are also the Chechens, Ingushetians, Cherkessians....the region of Dagestan and the Adygea."
I understand all: Poland wants its borders and past glory of 1500; Turkey wants scattered feudal times' khanaates;
one thing I don't understand - having written all that - how do you arrive to the conclusion that "Russia is the aggressor"? :o))))))))))))
Chris Camp, fix some connections in your head, the short-cuts, first. The way they are forged, it doesn't matter the body of the texts you write, you can skip the body entirely :o)))), for that matter.
Since you always arrive to the same conclusion - Karthagen should be destroyed. :o)))))))))
Complain about this comment
I am not talking about "should" - the end of a nation is always a tragedy. Every nation has a right to exist - be it one with a very glorious past (Britain, the United States, France) or one with a very checkered past (Germany, Russia, North Korea). What I wrote here was not what I would like to happen but what I think is going to happen. I find it very sad indeed that Russia did not manage to transform itself into a force for good. Now it is too late and a whole world of opportunities has been lost.
Complain about this comment
Yes WA, I will correct you about Turkey: Turkey since its creation in 1923 has been constantly an aggressive state whose smallest crime is the refusal of the genocide of 3 million people and the violent expulsion (under horrific conditions) of another 4 million people. They are into expansion, they are into ethnic cleansing and they can easily be again into genocide. Their whole nation is wired up to to repeat genocide from illiterate workers to university professors. You have to go there to listen to it with your own ears. I am tired of listening to cheerful Turks saying how much their country has done to belong to the west and this and that, and for all these people, "west" means driving a Mercedes and moving their behinds in a nightclub without wearing the chador. But tease them a bit with "what about Kurds", "what about Cyprus"... and soon they jump into "You say so cos you hate us so we are going to kill you all to teach you a lesson" and such other lovely stories... and these are the literate ones!
I have told you: once I was in a company of several Turks, boys and girls, all graduate and postgraduate and jokingly I said that "If you ever think that everything is alright and afterall we have been both as bad to each other as you say, I hope one day you will treat us as we treated you and we will treat you as you treated us. There was silence. Deep silence, girls with the heads down or their eyes open wide, boys with their mouths open, then a couple of them started speaking first softly then loudly in Turkish fighting with the rest. I was laughing with all that...
... thing is they know very well what they have done and the thing is clear for them: as long as US and other countries support their violence, aggressiveness and expansionism they will keep playing likewise.
What is the most interesting, is that since in our days kemalism cannot offer expansionist dreams to Turkey anymore (as it cannot reach with Kemalism to other countries) Turkey in a step by step approach gets re-islamised. It is not accidental that US has absolutely no problem with it - in fact it is in the plan.
Chris. Yes Russia is in terminal decline and other such funny stories... Dream on. A Russian can beat you in chess even after having drunk 2 bottles of votka inside his hospital room where he dies from liver cancer, while he plays 1 minute game and you a full 2 hour game... Get it?
Complain about this comment
Re195: Chris, you do not understand that the last country that needs to colonise anyone is Russia. They already have a huge part of the planet. They have the worlds' 1/4th of ressources.
Your hatred towards Russians is so much that you are so blind to see that if Russians isolate themselves from the world, they can do just fine, even better. If USA isolates themselves from the world they are faked (and change orthography in that). So there is no question who is under pressure and who is the aggressor.
Get over your hatred for Russia. Start learning to analyse things as they are.
I am not defending any Russians here, they do not need me to do so. I am just calling the apple apple and the orange orange. You Chris you have shown unable to present a single standing argument anywhere. But I do wish you stay here with us and develop this ability. I do not ask you to start liking Russians and such, but at least start developing your own capacity to analysis:
Tell me Chris, who is the biggest threat to international security? Russia? or US? Tell me.
Complain about this comment
How do you imagine, "a force for good"?
Don't give me intentions, a country must be able to finance itself without annoying others.
There isn't a well-off European country who doesn't have a colonial past.
We don't have that behind as a back-up.
Well, Switzerland.
Like the USA? Do you suggest we start awarding the world, what :o)))), roubles? :o)))))
Making money by war?
By exploiting China?
Well, I suppose we can take Norway for orientation, they have similar to us sources of existence.
But then they are in charge of a far smaller chunk of place, kind of easier, and less people.
Be happy we don't ask anyone for money and don't start wars.
I don't think these days realistically one can wish for more from a neighbour :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Good question... force for good. Superpowers are there to rule by force. And US tries to be a superpower, thus it has to rule by force. For people that benefit from its works, they are a force for good. For all the rest, they are the axis of evil personified. I guess, everything is a bit of balance. Back in the 1950s a very large part of the world no matter if pro-US or neutral believed that at least US protects the world from a genocidal USSR inhuman regime. Thus US had to be back then a force for good. Today, even the last faithfull ones, like the British, are doing their critiscism while the bulk of the world calls US to stay a bit more low and recollect its armies/forces that are on a rampage around the world so I guess today they are seen more as a force of evil.
WA I do not consider Russia as any more ethical as a state. I only consider Russians as a deeper culture than Americans. Nothign to do with Macdonalts and Coca-cola culture, Russians are no better with their mafia kitch chiefs & their turbo-folk. It has to do with the fact that Russian culture is 1000 years older, it has produced more major scientists on its own and really deeper culture as 1 Tolstoi and 1 Dostoyefski make for 10 Hemingways and 20 Steinbecks. And I take anytime Tchaikofsky over Motzart which I find very royalo-provincial.
But I repeat it, I really do not consider Russia as anymore ethical than US. They are one superpower and they have to remain so in their own terms. What I am more ok with Russia is that it calls for the creation of a multi-polar world where each big player playes at hope and competes and/or collaborates on equal terms with other big players. China, India and Brazil are ok with that vision as the 80% of the rest of the world. It is the US along with some other 10% of the world that do not agree and want to apply... the Pareto chart on the world.
Complain about this comment
@ Nik - I do understand fully that Russia is the last country that needs to colonise other nations. It has a territory much larger than those of some of the world's largest and most successful economies. So why that constant and insatiable craving for expansion and irredentism, last seen in Georgia?
Well, it is the make-up of Russian statehood and nationhood in the last 300 years at the very least - the principle is simple, logical and yet utterly self-defeating. It goes along these lines: steal as much territory as possible from all neighbouring states. Reduce all stolen territory to wastelands and deserts so that surviving nations of Russian aggression will not have any wish to claim it back. What happened to the once-glorious Polish town of Lwow? What happened to the Kaliningrad, once a glorious German town of philosophers and inventors? The problem is that this extreme focus on foreign policies, war and annexation denies all possibility of Russia ever developing internally. It never had a democracy, it has always been run by Tsars, KGB thugs and ex-KGB thugs. Its contribution to music, philosophy and art has been there, sort of - but absolutely negligible if compared to the huge contributions a tiny country like the Netherlands was able to make to western civilisation. The population in Russia is reduced to living in a state of alcoholism and cultural-intellectual stasis. A country of similar geographical proportions, like the United States, has had a huge cultural influence in the world, simply by dint of being a society made up of immigrants. When is the last time the world was inspired by anything Russian? By the way, your comments about Hemmingway, Dostoevsky, Tolstoi, Mozart and Tchaikovsky suggest to me that you are not into literature and you do not appreciate classical music at all. You do not put artists and thinkers on a scale and say, "he/she is ten times the value of him/her". In fine arts, it simply doesn't work like that. And this comment about Russia having a "deeper" culture than the U.S. is nothing but an old European cliché, typically regurgitated by those who do not know anything about either of the two, the United States or Russia.
About the other silly comments -
The U.S. is not exploiting China.
Almost every successful economy in Europe does not have a colonial past. It is the successful economies WITH a colonial past that are the exception.
The Norway example is good, but the argument "but they are smaller than us and therefore have an easier time managing their country" proves my point entirely. If Russia had spent a little less time stealing and ruining foreign territory and a little more time developing internally, then perhaps it might have turned into a prosperous nation. Now, it is in terminal decline and the question of whether or not Russia can be maintained in its current form is a very real and very serious one.
Complain about this comment
Chris, you accuse Russia of aggression. Which aggression do you talk about? The expansion in Siberia? I am sorry, as far as I know the 99,9% was a region that no state had claimed for itself while there were much less native people per km² than in US. Yet, today Siberia has thriving native people that are fully integrated in Russian society: there are 100s of ethnic groups.
Compare this to the westwards expansion of US? Hmmmm... Not only they wiped out the 99% of the natives but also they stole lands of Mexicom an official foreign state.
The bulk of the evil Russian things you accuse on Russians Chris I am afraid are of the communist era. Learn to distinguish these two. Under the USSR regime there were many more Russians that suffered and died than the addition of all the other nationalities together. So it has to be Russians first to protest against the regime. The fact that for facilitation reasons modern Russia admits it as an integral part of its history does not change the fact that
1) Foreign western bankers paid for the Bolshevik revolution
2) ALL communist leaders were non-Russians and had a particular hatred towards Russian patriots who were punished exemplary, criminal Stalin was a Georgian for example (it is irrelevant if the bulk of the country were Russians and thus sooner or later they had to be based on Russians to have any effective rule; the USSR system had been a vertical one and decision making was made above by few the few were non Russians...).
3) More Russians died than any other nationality. Perhaps 5 times more Russians than all the others together.
Crimes of Russians prior to USSR, seem minor events in relation to what was going on in western Europea and US.
What happened in Georgia is anything but Russias fault. Georgia had been warned since years not to do any move against Russia. Instead a little fascist pseudo-president Saakasvilli had invited all the US army there ot establish bases, to arm and train his army and to receive all the US funds that he could receive so as to move on with the Nabucco project (but then from behind we have the development of the US anti-Russian missile umbrella). Russians cannot permit a little Georgia to sacrifice their own sovereignty. And at the end of the day, Russia could invade Georgia right from the first moment, however, it did continue for years the path of dialogue. However, Georgians perceived it as a sign of impotency and as a sign that US support could let them do anything they wanted, and thus they went on an effort to kick out or massacre all the non-Georgian entities from their country. One has to note that Ossetians and Abkhasians are important minorities that both account for more than the 30% of the Georgian population and who have a right to exist there. Wether these were georgian lands or Ossetian and Abkhasian that is a thing for historians, what is certain is that Georgians have no right to call their country democratic when they refused the Georgian citizenship
to these people (leaving them no option but to take the Russian citizenship) for not knowing Georgian language (i.e. for not being Georgian). And certainly they are fascist state for wanting to rid them even by killing them. What Russia did, was to finally intervene and protect the lifes of its own citizens in Georgia.
I guess Chris you would love to see those Abkhasians and Ossetians being massacred and cleared out of Georgia. Nice views you have there.
Russians did the right thing. They did not attack for their own interests in the area. They had chosen the dialogue path. However, when their people were being killed in the streets they had no option but to attack. Georgians brought that on their face. They should know better, especially after what had happened in Kosovo (where Serbians were the first attacked by the local Albanian mafias anyway, unlike Georgians who were the aggressors!). They were warned, they were called on the table but they estimed that the magical US support would aid them. Funny thing is that there was indeed US support even in the form of "private" troops, but they were cleared in the matter of 2 hours after what was deemed by Russians themselves as a rather slow and insufficient attack (albeit in 2 hours they had cleared the Georgian- national and "allied private" US-armed, US-trained armies). What Russians should do now? Leave the Ossetians and Akbkhasians to the mercy of Georgians? Are you serious? No. Georgians brought that to themselves. They lost it. They will have to take white paper sit down and talk again with Russians and propose a new plan of how to manage the situation and that will imply not only giving full autonomy to these regions and forget about pressing them and then forget about having US bases in their country and arming to face imaginary enemies.
Chris, if Russia wanted to invade Georgian it would not had left it independent in the first place. Money or no money, Russia had the means to keep down every little state that now dances around it. I simply cannot imagine US doing the same to a Texas and a California demanding independence!!!! I am seeing more bombs and chemicals being dropped and police-^paramilitaries killing people in the streets. A single Katrina had hit New Orleans and paramilitaries and the army were shooting more than helping what else do you want to know about it?
On your comment on "colonial past" and economy, it is largely indicisive. Britain is a rich nation. If it borrowed a lot of money that is down to its oligarchy's greed, not any basic disfunction of its state. France, the same - not to mention that as a state it is perhaps the most balanced in the world in many sectors, apart its current fiscal balance, which is something it still has the capacity to correct. Holland I guess is doing very well. It is Spain that has not done the huge comeback that everyone expected and Portugal which due to its size and position cannot offer any competitive advantage, but that has nothing to do with its colonial past.
Norway does good cos there up there in their corner having to deal with absolutely nobody other than US and Russia (unless Swedish threaten them with war?!?!? tell me such to laugh...). Like West Germany Norway had become a US boy, it received ample support to develop its industry based on the country's ressources which is permitted to almost fully exploit unlike other countries like Greece which are threatened with war and total destruction if daring going on extracting their ressources. If Scandinavians developed there is nothing magical about it, it was because they were let to do so. Correct me if I am wrong but Sweden, Norway and Finland were in worse financial condition than Greece back in the 1920s facing even famines and such while not having faced anything close to what Greece went through in a continuous manner from 1900 to 1923 which reveals that if these countries were ptohibited to exploit their ressources for any reason, they would not have any different future other than borrow money and remain content with that "borrowed development".
Complain about this comment
What happened to the once-glorious Polish town of Lwow?
When was it last time glorious, remind me. In the 15th century?
In USSR it was a very lively and popular place, booming with tourists, because of the cultural mix.
A charming town of cafe-s, a tiny place - but with a strong appeal.
What happened to it now - perhaps, "happened" - Ukraine?
- "What happened to the Kaliningrad, once a glorious German town of philosophers and inventors?"
To Kenigsberg "happened" world war.
Complain about this comment
And no, we didn't notice there many "philosphers", by the storming of the Keningsberg fortress time. Rather - artillery fire, and a fire-ball of swirl. The fight for the city lasted I don't know, weeks.
I rather think Keningsberg "philosophers and writers" expired in the previous centuries.
But if you worry for Kant - his grave is maintaned well. Thousands of tourists have visited it - in Kaliningrad - since the war. There is a museum, and Kenigsberg history museum - maintained in both Russian and German, interactive video played in boxes on all corners of Kenigsberg, the whole town is turned into a museum under open sky, with bi-linguial guides, taking people on the tour of the "medieval German city".
I don't know if Germany itself has had the leisure to keep old small towns as live museums to this date.
Perhaps I may ask you what happened to Yasnaya Polyana, a quite a "writers" place, Tolstoy estate?
Razed by culture-adoring Germans to the ground, smashing by all they could Tolstoy's whole house furniture, with immense pleasure, smashing and breaking to pieces every little tiny thing there was - in spite of the museum workers, standing on knees in front of them, and shot.
Excrementing in all the rooms' of the estate, for fun, and stealing the library?
Perhaps you will answer me how Germany is minded to "restore" and "maintain" - Russian cultural heritage?
For what I remember the Drezden gallery exists to this day exclusively because of the Hermitage effort to restore it, piece by piece.
Get lost with teaching Russia how to maintain cultural heritage of others - perhaps - we can teach a lesson ourselves, to many around.
Complain about this comment
"Perhaps" the Amber Room, stolen by Germans from Catherine Palace is also still in the Keningsberg shafts?
As minimu, German historians are still looking for it there underground.
Perhaps you know that the Catherine Palace, visited by millions of tourists every year, was built by us from scratch anew, after the war?
Since Germans blew it up, on departure.
Complain about this comment
Russia has been aggressive and expansive for at least 300 years. Catherine the Great collaborated with Frederic the Great of Prussia in the brutalisation and theft of all of Poland, resulting in what Polish people refer to as the "stolen century".
I do not understand your repeated objection that "the majority of Russian crimes where committed during Soviet times". Are Russians not responsible in for those years? Are Germans not responsible for Nazi crimes, because the Nazi regime was a dictatorship? The excuse that Stalin was Georgian is equally lame. Reminds me of Germans who say that Hitler was an Austrian "therefore we are not responsible".
Russia's been planning to annex territory from Russia for years. I have been watching the neo-Stalinist propaganda channel "Russia Today" for several years now and the "journalists" on there have been referring to Souther Ossetia and Abkhazia as "breakaway republics" for many years. The method of giving non-Georgians in Georgia Russian passports to justify the aggression was a calculated move toward annex territory from Georgia. According to international law, it is impermessible to transfer populations to foreign territory with a view to having a reason to annex territory from it.
Nik, I am only going to say this once. I am not willing to take seriously assertions like "I guess Chris you would love to see those Abkhasians and Ossetians being massacred and cleared out of Georgia." from a user who considers more than 150 Russian journalists assassinated since 1989 "not a big deal". I am not taking lessons in ethics and morality from someone who would seek to justify Russian aggression against Poland by claiming that "Russia was probably more civilised than Poland" (without giving any reason for this claim to boot). Try something new, Nik (something new from you would be a well thought-out argument, for instance). You can leave your assertions of me endorsing the slaughter of innocent people where they belong, as unlike you, I have not sided with Stalinist or fascists on these boards yet.
You have a romantic idea of Russia that simply does not hold true in the light of day. I have been to Russia. Around two years ago, I escorted a German/Swiss delegation of young people who were taking hospital equipment to a hospital in Murmansk. On my way there, I kept thinking to myself "why do they need freebies from Swiss and German people? Should it not be the other way around? Should a country as rich in resources not be giving alms to Germans and Swiss people?" I got my answer when we crossed the Finnish/Russian border. Finnish territory, stolen by Russia, neglected underdeveloped, made desolate. I could not have imagined a stronger contrast between the rich and beautiful nation of Finland and this dilapidated wasteland. Then we proceded towards Murmask, which is Russia proper. It was even worse there. Awful sanitary and hygiene standards in town and its architecture an absolute eyesore. For the residents a life in poverty and despair. The hospital an insult to anyone who believes in the inalienability of human life. No person, rich or poor, sick or healthy, should be made to vegetate under those conditions. Many of the rooms had damp spots in the wallpaper and plastering was crumbling off everywhere.
And that armpit of a country is more civilised than Poland?
Complain about this comment
"The population in Russia is reduced to living in a state of alcoholism and cultural-intellectual stasis".
Well, I didn't notice much of it in myself, but who knows :o)))))
A glass of champaign twice a year, on New Year and birthday :o))) - may be a vicious beginning :o))))))
I remember I was always surprised in Britain, seeing a bottle of wine always in a household, like they offer you a drink :o))), right on entry literally :o))) I would say. And keep wine just in case, how to say? like salt, in a house. Even drink wine together with normal dinner! no parties or birthdays ....:o))))
Read somewhere that we actually drink less, than a handful of brilliant countries other... more focused on beer strangely, than vodka...
But a hype is a mighty thing.
Complain about this comment
Though my grandfather, indeed, was drinking half a litre - to a litre of vodka - per day! After he retired. And moved from St.Petersburg city flat to the village.
Awful ruinous habit for health :o( , he lasted in this mode, on pension, for only 30 years :o((
:o)))))))))))
No doubt the whole family kept telling him how bad, real real bad, absolutely wrong he lives :o(.
Sure alcoholic end guaranteed any next coming day. :o(
That his health is in jeopardy, as well as his mental condition.
Kept saying about 12 to 16 people, coming to live in the house that he has built in his alcoholic paranoja :o)))), in the rooms and verandah-s
he was adding :o)))), as well as the second house for guests -not family,
swinging in his hammocks, bathing in the pond he had dug, eating apples and berries from his 30-apple tree garden and enormous kitchen garden - all, all, promised him sure death from his wrong life style (while eating his jam and pickles :o)))) and driving his car to the beach :o)))))
:o)))))))))
Grandma once even called in a doctor (hired to scare granddad silly), and he had worked for his money well, longly listened to his chest, turned him around and issued scary un-recognisable sounds, and wrote long long recepies, while looking threaten-engly at the poor granddad.
In other words the doc did all he could.
Then went out to us, waiting in the second room and said "Can't do anything. Heart - like with a 24-year old boxer!" :o)))))))
Complain about this comment
Nabokov, I think, if he were alive - would also say couple of kind words in this blog. Regarding how dirty Russia should look up to the civilised nations - :o))))))))))))))))))))))), in terms of preservation of cultural heritage of others.
He happened to never buy himself a house when abroad (and he spent abroad a good 70% time of his life). Never even RENT a house.
He was on personal strike. Nothing in the world would compare to his dacha by St. Petersburg. Rozhdestveno estate.
Germans. :o(
Occupied. :o(
But don't worry - we restored.
Complain about this comment
Nik (#206) "Compare this to the westwards expansion of US? Hmmmm... Not only they wiped out the 99% of the natives but also they stole lands of Mexico an official foreign state."
In fact, Mexico opened hostilities with the United States by sending its army into Texas, which had recently joined the United States a few years after becoming independent of Mexico. Mexico was thrashed in the resulting war, and the boundary between the US and Mexico was subsequently set by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
That is not my idea of "stolen" territory.
Here is a link to a short summary of the Mexican-American war:
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/muzzey.html
Complain about this comment
@ WebAliceinwonderland, we have established before that you have an "imaginative" approache to facts, figures and data. In a previous discussion, you gave a number of victims of German crimes during world war 2 that by far exceeded the number of victims of world war 2 in total. Hilariously, you claimed to know the precise body count, down to the last person. Of course, you were not able to back up your claim.
Because of your uneasy relationship with the truth, I am going to take your claims about Lwow and Kaliningrad ("millions of tourists" - what Kaliningrad is like Paris or London?" with a fistful of salt.
Complain about this comment
"Many of the rooms had damp spots in the wallpaper and plastering was crumbling off everywhere.
And that armpit of a country is more civilised than Poland? "
"arm-pit of a country".
Chris Camp,
what if you will see a good man, not scary, in a white robe, or a blue one, or a green one, one of these spring days?
Tell him you've been watching, eh "I have been watching the neo-Stalinist propaganda channel "Russia Today" for several years now and"
and he will help you.
It's a dire condition when one doesn't feel normal unless he puts others down. Urgent hospitalisation is prescribed, in my view.
May be you are already there?!!?
Did you ran away from the Murmansk ones? ! :o))))))))))))))))))))
Then sorry, sorry, take it easy. It's going to be alright.
It's quite scary and maniacy, in my view, not being able to feel alright and happy "until Russia is there".
Ask the doc for a "anti-Russian pill" :o)))))))
:o))) And no, I am not going to compare Poland with Russia :o))))))
I wish them all the best.
Russia is absolutely in no need to put others down.
It shines as it is, in its "terminal decline" :o))))), for quite some time already :o))))) Our permanent condition, one would say :o)))))
Which reminds me - wallpaper under the window sill, on the Western wall - aj jaj jai. DAMP SPOTS. O!
And the dacha ceiling, in the main room..... oj oj oj.
Should I commit suicide over it now..... or may be it can wait several days.....?
:o))))))))))))
(poor Kant. just to remember conditions in HIS house - NO civilisation whatsoever. How did he dare to be civilised?!!! Close the museum ASAP.
He should have lived in a kind of Sainsbury's, between mops and plastic buckets, that row. Clean, hygienic, light, excellent tiles. Now THAT is what we call a civilisation. A super-market civilisation.
Bronze plaque on the entrance "Civilisation All Right Reserved named after C. Camp (who watched Russia Today :o))) here from... till...
Complain about this comment
A minor detail, re South Osetia and Abkhasia.
These two darlings had the same right to get out of the USSR as separate own entities as all the rest incl. Georgia. Absolutely on par.
By USSR Constitution - applied once :o), thank God :o) - every so-called "Autonomous Republic" could declare independence any next day.
Abkhasia was one such. Don't remember ab Osetia, won't tell until check it.
Abkhasia - 100% - at the point of "emerging" out of the USSR - was 100% on par with Georgia - same "Autonomous Republic status".
And that's what Abkhasia did, in 1991, mind it - declared independence. Announced itself a country. Like, welcome a new country on the map.
Nobody cared. But Georgia - who went at it with war. In 1991.
That's how Abkhasians got fond of Russian passports. Georgian ones they haven't had. They had only USSR passports.
Post-perestroyka it became somewhat difficult to go around with USSR Soviet red passports. Foreign embassies didn't understand the joke :o))))
Now, the 30% of Russians living in Abkhasia - apllied for Russia's passports first. And got them, naturally. The Abkhasians joined Russians, with time, and also got themselves Russian passports.
I wonder why didn't they aplly for the Georgia's ones :o))))
Why not for the French ones :o))))))
For the American passports, after all :o))))))
I think no one was exacly eager to award these USSR passport holders with own country passports. Because you pay pensions, having done that, all social security, mum's payments, children up-keep, sick lists, one's country passport holders are entitled for the rules of the country, in this case - FOC education for children and FOC higher education, in Rusia's universities. And medical treatment. A passport - you kknow - it's not only for travel abroad. Though This Abkhasians found important as well. All the ex-USSR went to see what is the world, after the Iron Fence times - why couldn't they? Sit with the USSR passport, forver, and listen to what "CHRIS CAMP" would recommend them to do?
Complain about this comment
As a side note :o), since we remembered about dear Saakashvili :o))))
He has awarded Kachinsky yesterday "The Hero of Georgia" Order, post mortem.
The decree is
"In recognition of the Polish President fallen in the battle field for Georgia".
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp, you can fix it, with SO and Abkhasian passports.
Swap your own one, with any of them, for their old USSR one.
Deeds speak louder than words.
Campaign in your country of being, Germany, for issueing German passports to South Osetia and Abkhasia residents.
Russia wouldn't mind. We allow double and triple citizenships - as many as Russian citizens would love to and be able :o)))) to obtain.
I think it'll be great if Abkhasians will hold own Abkhaz ones, Russian ones and German ones :o)))))
Easier, with the social payments, unemployment payments :o)))), pensions, medical service :o)))), and all :o)))))
Complain about this comment
"we have established before that you have an "imaginative" approache to facts, figures and data. In a previous discussion, you gave a number of victims of German crimes during world war 2 that by far exceeded the number of victims of world war 2 in total. Hilariously, you claimed to know the precise body count, down to the last person. Of course, you were not able to back up your claim."
We, by God's Will Emperor of I don't know what" have established with you absolutely nothing.
You are establishing something in your head, and the process is unclear to me.
Complain about this comment
Er, I do not demoand profound medical expertise, but I think it's a given that damp spots are undesirable in hospitals? Dangerous to the life and limb of patients and staff?
Complain about this comment
and ,before wrong numbers stuck in your head again -
"Perhaps you know that THE CATHERINE PALACE, visited by millions of tourists every year, was built by us from scratch anew, after the war?"
____
"Because of your uneasy relationship with the truth, I am going to take your claims about Lwow and Kaliningrad ("millions of tourists" - what Kaliningrad is like Paris or London?" with a fistful of salt."
Complain about this comment
Throne Room of the Catherine Palace, as left for us by nazi.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=726
Complain about this comment
Restored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Catherine_Palace_ballroom.jpg
Complain about this comment
Tolstoy's study.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=444
Tolstoy's coachman wonders.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=616
Peterhof palace.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=958
Tchaikovsky estate.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=621
Pushkin estate.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=624
It's monotonous, how to say.
Complain about this comment
Lvov? That's Lvov.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=754
You really think we should have left it to the civilised German management?
Or, say, Kiev. The main Kiev monastery, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.
Ukrainians have surrendered the city. Germans blew up Lavra.
Why Russians bothered?
May be because we thought it doesn't look well.
Something, you know, unusual, about the second Russia's capital.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=447
Complain about this comment
O. Ossetia.
Imagine, first from Persia. Then from Turkey. Then from Germany. Then from Georgia.
and after that you wonder why Russians think they vaguely have something to do with the place.
http://victory.rusarchives.ru/index.php?p=31&photo_id=1226
Complain about this comment
And don't worry so much for Kaliningrad.
First of all, they are the free-est Russians around, as have only local police when they get minded to protest and demand something :o)))), and local police (Russian habit :o) doesn't like to offend own locals (all know each other too well :o)))))
Second, they have an excellent patron-saint :o))))) for requests and lobbying at far away central quarters. I would say the best one can get equipped these days :o)))) Putin's wife is a local Keningsbergian.
Third, we are planning to re-name it back into Kenigsberg, because what to fool around, all call it "Kenig" anyway. Like "Peter", for St. Petersburg.
One problem is the Kenigsberg itself is very tiny small old town, while around it is big Kaliningrad. But after all can be Kenigsberg, part of Kaliningrad region.
Complain about this comment
When we had house bills, tariffs, raised up across whole Federation this January - only two places managed to protest them out back :o))), to where they were.
Kenig-Kaliningrad went out to the streets to protest - next day 1/2 Kremlin flew there to console them and promise they won't, anymore :o))))
And Moscow - even without protesting. They've got such a city mayor that whole Russia wants to be muscovites. He said he will cover back the raise in the tariffs from the city budget, or will figure it out somehow, but his muscovites won't sufffer from nasty federals :o)))
He likes to be a big daddy. An absolutely incredible thing - pays muscovites second pension, from the Moscow city budget.
All get 1 pension, state, federal one. And muscovites when they retire - get 2. Federal, and Moscow city one.
Complain about this comment
By the time of retirement all Russians try to become muscovites :o)))
Complain about this comment
Carzy, of course. But that's why whole USSR is in Moscow :o))))))
Complain about this comment
"You really think we should have left it to the civilised German management?"
No I am saying that neither the "civilised "Germans nor the "civilised" Russians had any title to Lwow and neither the Russians nor the Germans had the right to ethnically cleanse the entire region in and around the area of Lwow of all Poles.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
I love Russia, there, I said it.
blush...
...
Sputter sputter
Its cuz of the Cold War mentality still way back in my mind.
Also, its the yin-yang ness of USA and Russia, except now the real "yin-yang", China, rises..oh well
Bi bi (ICKK, sounds like Netanyahu's first name, therefore,)
Bye-bye for now:)
Complain about this comment
Re230: Moscow city is one of the richest cities in the world with all those billionaires there. Thus it is a very expensive city. So to enable mid/lower class Moscovites survive there, the city had to give these added benefits.... I guess someone has to be there to do the jobs, you know, maintain the offices, clean the houses etc.
However, it is all a stupid (and downright corrupt) way to develop. People will just become Moscovites, get the extra benefit then go stay in another relatively nearby cheaper city. Thus people will earn extra money for nothing.
Funnily this money is not out of nowhere, it is money taken by all Russians including you WA that does not live in Moscow. Very unfair. What would be right is to raise the overall salary level on all Russians so as to enable them living in Moscow. However as Moscow will be more expensive, people will have the incentive to go earn the same money elsewhere where they can buy whole hectars of land for them to built their dream life.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Moscow is abnormal. And, unfortunately for us, many in our government think that Russia is limited by "the Moscow Garden Ring".
Russia consists of 2 parts: "witin the Moscow Garden Ring" and elsewhere.
On the other hand, Moscow is also representative, all are there, all republics. Muscovites (the ones born there) feel they are hi-jacked by newcomers.
It came up to the degrees that you ask your way in Moscow and nobody can answer, in the street, 9 people in a row, you can virtually spend half an hour standing silly - and NO ONE knows where is what. They are all recent arrivals, don't have a clue.
All South is there - I sympathise with muscovites in that - for we are more lucky in this respect in St.Petersburg - the difference in climate saves us, Southerners find us to too cold to seriously live in.
Well, several million :o)))) newcomers St. Petersburg has had of course, during the past 20 years, when all went central, to survive, but still our couple of new millions are pea-nuts compared with the invasion on Moscow. It's a mad house. One big hotel or a railway station, that feeling, and all are running busy-body in all directions.
Here it feels provincial, compared to them.
Certainly we need a new capital and beyond Urals, but all got used to press buttons and lobby and formed so tight connections, in a ball, rolled up in Moscow, that you can't carve bosses out of there for no money. They want to rule from where they are, and don't fancy re-locating.
The only thing that with enormous difficulty, of Federal importance, that Putin managed to carve out of Moscow - and not far, at that - re-locate to St. Petersburg - was the Constitutional Court, the highest law authority, the final appeal place, in Russia. But they had to be gold-plated in that relocation, with salaries and packages and whole family provisions and a whole separate living block built for them on an island here, and what not - garages, and medical clinic, and dry-cleaning and washing complexes! kindergartens special for their children, it is absolutely mad how buttered up the Constitutional Court had to be to be able to extract them out of Moscow and re-locate.
And one would think what the hell for? If the judges don't want to move - then lose your jobs , stay in Moscow, and that's it! Certainly, Constitution matters can be solved by less spoiled judges, there wouldn't be no lack of applications, from any other region of the Federation, plain eager to go live in St. petersburg, and not to demand perks and salary hike "for the inconvenience".
To say nothing a new set would be closer to the ground and people and ordinary Russia, than the spoiled set re-located from Moscow.
Now we are into Navy HQ re-location but the process stumbles and freezes and the road is bumpy - dear generals don't want to get out of Moscow either!
Where there isn't a single sea, ship-yard, port - or anything! They don't want, the sea-men :o)))), to get closer to water :o)))) - at all!
Complain about this comment
And imagine pulling someone kicking and screaming out into Novosibirsk, any Ministry.
That's a wrong re-location approach taken, definitely, the spoiled judges set a wrong precedent and style.
Complain about this comment
One would think, what do the judges, who spent their lives within the Garden Ring, understand in the Russian Constitution?
The only noticeable decision they took after re-location to St. Petersburg is they abolished death penalty in Russia, having figured out the idea is against the Constitution.
While absolutely no one else in the country :o)))), must say :o)))) shares their approach.
Complain about this comment
Make Kiev your capital and just "watch what happens." lololol
Or a city in the Crimean peninsula...why just do the simple thing? How boringly practical:)
Propose a free trade agreement with Bulgaria...Greece is tied up at the moment:)
Complain about this comment
Re238: Haha David, yes we are. We like Russians but we are wary of them. Afterall they are Slavs. We are not. We have been at war with my friend Generalissimo there... and if you know Bulgarians, you do not want to be at war with them - they are tough tough tough... Bulgarians and Serbians can be of the best fighters you get in Europe, of course after us (of course!). By all means Bulgaria and Greece, last thing they need is to make war - in fact even back then they needed not make war; Greece would just take its coastal regions, Bulgaria would occupy all the lands in the noth and the two make a nice agreement for giving low cost access to Bulgaria for the very simple reason that Bulgaria could do the same for Greeks in the Black Sea (Greeks lived in Bulgarian coastline in large numbers). I.e. the animosity between the two was not a fatality. But it passed by the Russian plans - Russians who in the late 19th century felt they lost Greeks to British so they created all that panslavic movement and tried to get access to Mediterranean that way. The whole talk about Greeks and Slavs was based on that.
Here, Chris Camp things I am a blind follower of Russians. No I am not. I just call an apple apple, an orange orange. Russia can benefit Greece since it was since antiquity one of the 2 major geographical places Greeks traded. If we have this trade we go well. In the 18th century Greeks inside Ottoman Empire had established this trade and that is why the got rich enough to do their revolutions.
But Russia's plans can easily turn the tables around and destory Greece too as Russia will not hesitate to jumps sides. They have done it repeatedly in the past. In the 18th century in 1770 they pushed for a Greek revolution to serve in their Russo-ottoman (Orloff's) war, we did it, we liberated large chunks of Greece, then Russians pressed by the British they signed a cheap deal for their own and let the Greeks that had opened themselves much according to Russian plans, to get massacred
by the Ottomans (who sent in the Albanians who killed only in Peloponesus more than 100,000 Greeks). Again in 1827 they came down to Constantinople, remained 40 km outside the unprotected city and they could destory yet another time the Ottoman Empire saving the place from future catastrophes of the 20th century, however they stepped back since British were threatening them. Again it had a catastrophic effect for Greek since British then enterred and controlled the Greek revolution as the main pumps - put an "i" there and led things so that only a minor little Greek state is created, one which would not threat British interests.
Anyway, in a few words, it is understandable that Russians were and are always under a lot of pressure from the Anglosaxons. And it is for that reason that while we want to co-operate we would like to know first if they are capable of taking up the whole deal or they are just playing and will flee at the first bad moment. In Georgia they did not, but then that was just too easy. But elsewhere, their capacity is yet to be seen.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS