Russia vs West

[GRG55]

Re: Russia vs West

The Great Game continues. And just like a game of chess, the loss of one small piece does not mean the loss of the game itself. The USA is a very, very long way from being checkmated. The antics of a bunch of Georgian and Russian thugs shooting at each other in the Caucasus is being ascribed a significance far beyond what it deserves.

Europe demonstrated that it is completely incapable of dealing with problems in its own back yard during the most recent Balkan conflict. Nothing whatsoever has changed since. Europe's interests and the interests of the USA align far more often than they diverge. That Europe remains militarily dependent on the USA is the more important issue. The former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe [such as Poland] understand and acknowledge this reality. Western Europe, including the UK, also understands this, but prefers to avoid discussing it in polite company.

Given the recent events in Georgia, do you think that Europe is now likely to become more, or less, supportive of US interests and foreign policy in the next phase of the Great Game?

This is exactly what I mean:

I know, we in the Czech Republic have own experience with Russian invasion. 40th anniversary is next week...
Thatīs why I welcome radar in our country.

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

You might be skeptical but that what I found looking across. Polish pilot refused to flight in Tbilisi because Vanga predicted assassination attempt in 2008 for 4 presidents.

I think most of you do not who is Baba Vanga. But she is well known in Eastern Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga
She helped people for personal lives and did some predictions for future global events.

Examples:
Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing (1989).
It is easy to recognize "bush" and all these "wolves". And we see a lot of blood after that.

Then she predicted sunk of Kursk submarine and more.

I looked on future predictions and picked some interesting:

In 2018 she predicted we would stop mining oil and trains will be powered from sol. (1960)

She predicted that two will shake hands and then after long time the final peace will be signed when eight come. (Two is referenced to Gorbachev and Reagan, some believe 8 means G8 or 2008).

Many officials visited her including Hitler.

I found the prediction that WW3 will be due to conflict in Indostan in 2008 and will start in 2010. But can not verify if it is real her words or fake.

[Guest]

Re: Russia vs West

I found the prediction that WW3 will be due to conflict in Indostan in 2008 and will start in 2010. But can not verify if it is real her words or fake.

Very interesting stuff VIT. As regards "WW III" and "Industan", it's easy to see what it is. Pakistan will fall to a Taliban virus, and the secular military that has tried to keep Pakistan a secular nation (just like the military traditions of Kemal Ataturk of Turkey) will dsintegrate. The the Pakistan state disintegrates and you have one of the world's notable nuclear arsenals and technology stores falling into the hands of Taliban inspired government. They will consume either Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or both, and this will be the spark for the big war.

BTW, contrary to all the vapid posturing about democracy coming out of the EU club in the past few years, artfully directed at Turkey's application for EU membership, the violation of human rights and precarious democracy they seek to highlight in Turkey is only half the story - some idiot EU parliamentarians in Brussels from multiple countries are pointing to the Turkish military as the villains in Turkey's precarious democracy, as they have been several military coups in Turkey.

This is why one does not ever want to fall into the trap of being DOGMATIC about democracy. Because if you look carefully you see that the Turkish State, heir to the Ottoman Empire, actually had a very strong cornerstone set for secularism by Kemal Ataturk. He had a vision of a modern Muslim state founded constitutionally on secularism - and he was indeed a visionary for the modernity of his country. The Turkish army's one consistent principle for the last 30-40 years has been to act as the bulwark of secularism and they have only ever stepped in to defend secularism because Ataturk was from the military, and was at the core of their traditions. Then you look closer, you note that every time they took over from a civilian government (military coup) Turkey was sliding towards either growing multi-factional paralysis, or it was a clear slide to usurping constitutional safeguards to secularism.

These idiotic EU minister paper shufflers in Brussels couldn't lift their noses far enough out of their textbooks to understand that the Military in Turkey were handing back government to the Civilians EVERY LAST TIME, to let the civilian government have yet another go at a modern secular state. Despite all the ugly trappings oF a one-party Caudillo-style government, the Pakistan military bore at least some of the same characteristics and preoccupations for secularism as Kemal Atatur's tradition bound Turkish Army. Is this an excuse for dumping true Parliamentary Democracy?

Of course not. But in dysfunctional environments where you have theocratic bigots so densely on the ladnscape as to apper to overrun even 19th Century notions of Parliamentary Government, who want to take over and scrap whatever vestige of a secular state exists, where the replacement will be a "Mullah, who gets to be the "vision-inspired supreme decider", any Military with a track record of maintaining secularism are in fact at least in broad lines conducive to modernity. To become stupidly simplistic scapegoat of textbook following Brussels functionaries is potentially a determining event for our future unfolding history.

This concept is unbelievably difficult for people fixated on an ideologically inspired view of the world to grasp, let alone stomach. Meantime, the EU parliamentarians are stupid beyond belief in stonewalling Turkey on EU membership. There is a massive fracture between Islam and the European Christian world looming, with impossibly porous borders and impossibly close proximity, and yet they don't realise that the successfull incorporation of a secular Islamic Republic, TURKEY, (who was the head of the Muslim Caliphate for Centuries, seat of Constantinople and a focal point of 25oo years of geo-political history) into the EU, fully alongside NATO, would be the most powerful counterpunch to the increasing tension with the Middle East.

Turkey successfully integrated into the EU would be a massive push back against the increasingly religion-polarised problems in the middle east, and a showcase for EU eclecticism and tighter integration of NATO with EU. Turkey's EU membership would extend EU influence out through the Caucasus to the Turkmen Republics. But these idiots in Bruxelles don't see it. Lost in the increasingly polarised dumbed down political hysteria about the "US fostering puppet client-police states" (secular Musharraf is toxic for Pakistan's continuing secularism?) is the elementary insight that Pakistan is nuclear, has a highly professional Army that is trying to keep the country secular, and is thoroughly infiltrated by the same Taliban virus as Afghanistan.

Taliban are toxic to the entyire world. The military in Pakistan may not be of sufficient democratic credentials to some spoiled Westerners effete and softened expectations, but they are at least in some part, like Turkey's army, of wholly scrupulous credentials for defending SECULARISM. Meanwhile in the US we have posturing idiots seeking to cast themselves as "champions of democracy" who in this myopia devoid of any scrap of pragmatism are comparable to the Bruxelles beauraucrats, who ardently believe that if we sweep away all Pakistan military influence on their incredibly volatile, Taliban compromised and fragmented political situation well all be able to pat ourselves on the back for having saved democracy for Pakistan.

We have much greater likelihood of having the disintegration of a nuclear armed state first and foremost in Pakistan. Jim Sinclair has been reiterating this is the source of the future "big problems" - for years. He keeps posting these updates on what is developing in Pakistan on his website, and you can see the trend unfolding, like a gargantuan traffic accident where the tractor trailer loaded with highly flammable acetylene gets torched at the end of the movie - filmed in slow motion. In this world, I would greatly value multi-ethnic yet secular India for a friend and ally. And pragmatists everywhere are infintely preferable to ideologues of very stripe.

[GRG55]

Re: Russia vs West

Very interesting stuff VIT. As regards "WW III" and "Industan", it's easy to see what it is. Pakistan will fall to a Taliban virus, and the secular military that has tried to keep Pakistan a secular nation (just like the military traditions of Kemal Ataturk of Turkey) will dsintegrate. The the Pakistan state disintegrates and you have one of the world's notable nuclear arsenals and technology stores falling into the hands of Taliban inspired government. They will consume either Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or both, and this will be the spark for the big war.

BTW, contrary to all the vapid posturing about democracy coming out of the EU club in the past few years, artfully directed at Turkey's application for EU membership, the violation of human rights and precarious democracy they seek to highlight in Turkey is only half the story - some idiot EU parliamentarians in Brussels from multiple countries are pointing to the Turkish military as the villains in Turkey's precarious democracy, as they have been several military coups in Turkey.

This is why one does not ever want to fall into the trap of being DOGMATIC about democracy. Because if you look carefully you see that the Turkish State, heir to the Ottoman Emipire, actually had a very strong cornerstone set for secularism by Kemal Ataturk. He had a vision of a modern Muslim state founded constyitutionally on secularism - and he was indeed a visionary for the progress of his country. The Turkish army's one consistent principle for the last 30-40 years has been to act as the bulwark of secularism and they have only ever stepped in to defend secularism because Ataturk was from the military, and they seek to uphold his vision of secularism. Then you look closer, and you note that every time they took over from a civilian government Turkey was sliding towards eithe rsever governmental (multi-factional) paralysis, or it was an urgent issue of the Muslim religious segmeny seeking to usurp constitutional safeguards to secularism.

These idiotic EU minister papershufflers in Brussels couldn't lift ther hnoses far enough out of their law-ledgers to understand that the Military in Tiurkey were handing back government to the Civilians EVERY TIME after they took over, and standing back in professional neutrality to let the civilian government have yet another go at a modern secular state. Despite all the ugly trappings og a one party Caudillo style government, the Pakistan military bore some of the same characteristics. Is this an excuse for dumping true Parliamentary Democracy? Of course not. But in dysfunctional environments where you have theocratic bigots who want to take over and scrap whatever vestige of a secular state exists, where the replacement will be a "Mullah, who gets to be the "vision-inspired supreme decider", any Military with an exttemely coherent, secular-republic-inspired tradition are in fact (counterintuitively) an ally rather than a stupidly ideological scapegoat.

This concept is unbelievably difficult for people fixated on an ideologically inspired view of the world to grasp, let alone stomach. Meantime, the EU parliamentarians are stupid beyond belief in stonewalling Turkey on EU membership. There is a massive fracture between Islam and the European Christian world looming, with impossibly porous borders and impossibly close proximity, and yet they don't realise that the successfull incorporation of a secular Islamic Republic, TURKEY, (who was the head of the Muslim Caliphate for Centuries, seat of Constantinople and a focal point of 25oo years of geo-political history) into the EU, fully alongside NATO, would be the most powerful counterpunch to the increasing tension with the Middle East.

Turkey successfully integrated into the EU would be a massive push back against the increasingly religion-polarised problems in the middle east, and a showcase for EU eclecticism and tighter integration of NATO with EU. Turkey's EU membership would extend EU influence out through the Caucasus to the Turkmen Republics. But these idiots in Bruxelles don't see it. Lost in the increasingly polarised dumbed down political hysteria about the "US fostering puppet client-police states" (secular Musharraf is toxic for Pakistan's continuing secularism?) is the elementary insight that Pakistan is nuclear, has a highly professional Army that is trying to keep the country secular, and is thoroughly infiltrated by the same Taliban virus as Afghanistan.

Taliban are toxic to the entyire world. The military in Pakistan may not be of sufficient democratic credentials to some spoiled Westerners effete and softened expectations, but they are at least in some part, like Turkey's army, of wholly scrupulous credentials for defending SECULARISM. Meanwhile in the US we have posturing idiots seeking to cast themselves as "champions of democracy" who in this myopia devoid of any scrap of pragmatism are comparable to the Bruxelles beauraucrats, who ardently believe that if we sweep away all Pakistan military influence on their incredibly volatile, Taliban compromised and fragmented political situation well all be able to pat ourselves on the back for having saved democracy for Pakistan.

We have much greater likelihood of having the disintegration of a nuclear armed state first and foremost in Pakistan. Jim Sinclair has been reiterating this is the source of the future "big problems" - for years. He keeps posting these updates on what is developing in Pakistan on his website, and you can see the trend unfolding, like a gargantuan traffic accident where the tractor trailer loaded with highly flammable acetylene gets torched at the end of the movie - filmed in slow motion. In this world, I would greatly value multi-ethnic yet secular India for a friend and ally. And pragmatists everywhere are infintely preferable to ideologues of very stripe.

One of the underlying dynamics is that the very idea of "separation of Church and State" is anathema to Islam. As an ever growing portion of the world's Muslim population becomes more conservative [in the manner in which they apply the teachings of Islam to their daily lives], influenced in part by the 1979 Iran revolution and the aftermath of the first Gulf War, maintaining any "secular Muslim nation", in the vision of Ataturk, becomes increasingly untenable. It also becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile these norms of behaviour within a secular society with Christian traditions; the French being among the most recent to discover this challenge. The differences are numerous, manifest and the Christian principle of separation of Church and State dates back to a time before Mohamed (peace be upon him)..."And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." (Mark 12:17).

In fact the very idea of a secular Muslim Pakistan is an oxymoron. The nation (then East and West Pakistan) was carved out of India specifically to create a Muslim "homeland", with a completely different social order than majority Hindu India. My grandfather was an officer in the British India Army and served on the border during Partition. The stories he told about that time are every bit as gruesome as the present day "ethnic cleansing" that periodically sprouts in one or another part of our presumably civilized planet.

I agree completely with your sentiment that the EU should embrace Turkey and bring it into the union. However, I suspect that the reasons [fears, actually] that prevent that from occurring expeditiously are deeper than mere bureaucratic incompetence in Brussels.

Just for the record neither myself nor my ancestors are Christian or Muslim. I am just an interested observer of the human condition...

[Chris Coles]

Re: Russia vs West

To Chris Coles:
" That is not to deny them respect (Russian army), simply to acknowledge that they have a much more fundamental attitude to war."

Do you know how it is called what are you saying ???

It is the same as we remember Germans for Nazis atrocities, Britans for opium wars, even not mention what US is doing today around the world. Nobody is saying that American are cruel (in fact they are not) because of CIA prisons Abhu Grade etc. So please try to avoid accuse nations for what their leaders are doing.

Good morning Vitaly,

You have misunderstood my meaning. Indeed, it is such misunderstandings that lie at the heart of this debate. I was, perhaps not clearly, trying to shake out a difference between what I call the "Professional soldier" utterly dedicated to strong principles; aligned to the defence of all, while totally professional about the job of defending their nation - AND - what I called the "more fundamental attitude to war". By that I mean they are trained from the outset to treat with everyone in a very simple way; that their job is to destroy any capability to present a threat against themselves. I meant that in a more, "rural" manner of thinking where the strong man has to destroy totally to show their strength, when such a display might not be necessary.

I have had the honour to have made friends with several professional soldiers, one who had a not insignificant part in the action at Arnhem, others of a more recent generation. To a man, I find them to be absolutely scrupulous about their power to inflict utter destruction upon the enemy. Yet, at the same time to be honest and open as individuals. Their professionalism demands the same respect as that which we give an honest accountant or design engineer. They would no more start a "political" action, than such an accountant would sign off on dud accounts or a designer would sell a design that endangered the final user, the general public.

http://www.responsiblecharge.com/new/engineerscreed.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o...esult#PPA65,M1

The underlying ethics of these individuals is one of total respect for their power. They know they must exercise that power to conform with clear rules that are openly laid down.

Another example is the SeaBee monument outside Arlington Cemetery in Virginia, just outside Washington DC. It shows a soldier in Battle Fatigues standing, leaning froward to hold the hand of a child.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo0pwz/7...war2/id17.html

Anyone who believes that shows weakness is a fool.

A good example of why I respect the professional soldier is Iran. It is my certain belief that without the influence of such professionals in the United States Armed Forces, the White House would have nuked Iran at least a year ago. My analysis is that the professionals stood up to be counted and told the leadership of the US that they would not support such action. Yes, perhaps, a Russian General may say that shows weakness; I say that shows great strength, moral strength.

What I mean by saying the Russian army is more fundamental is that they seem to not hold the same respect for civilian populations. They seem to fight a total war always when the overall aims of the action could just as easily be upheld with a display of arms and the authority to command.

And, yes, I have been as fierce a critic of the United States in the recent past.

There is one last point and before I make it I am not directing this as any form of criticism of anyone else on this forum.

You will see that I use my correct full name and my address, certainly enough for anyone on the planet to identify where I live. (I have had someone once ring me up from Switzerland to concur with a point I made in The Times, London, about the lack of industrial investment here in the UK). I have an opinion and I express it. Yes, often others disagree with me, occasionally fiercely. Sometimes I make my point and get my own thinking across, other times, I learn something instead that without the process I would not have learned. That is the real power of an open debate. No one has all the answers. All of us have things we can learn from others around us. But the principle is the same. Debate is the best solution to any problem. To debate, openly, as I do, does indeed bring the potential for my destruction by someone that so disagrees with my point of view that they feel I must be, for want of a better word, terminated. That is a potential that I recognise.

I believe in the power of debate to the extent that I also believe that, if I have something to say, I should take that risk and stand up to say it. That is not to disrespect anyone that also has something to say and, for whatever reason, decides to remain anonymous. I respect that also.

Chris.

[Shakespear]

Re: Russia vs West

I am still unconvinced of your argument - if for no other reason than we haven't seen a real prolonged oil shortage. No lines, no rationing, no diddly squat in the way of concrete evidence of not enough oil to go around. It is still all straight line projections - right up there with Malthus and Ehrlich.

Yes, the issue of Peak Oil is a tough nut to crack for most. For those interested though, looking in at theoildrum.com may give them access to information that they may not find in MSM.

Francis Fukuyama thought that history ended and we could forget about it (The End of History). Being an engineer I thought that we could ignore it if we would just look at the facts and think rationally. With time I think I became wiser. Now I see that it is as impossible to imagine that a Russian can wipe out the influence of Ivan the Terrible or Stalin from their world view as the same could be said about an American and their influence by mythology of John Wayne or Rambo.

One way or the other we all lug the "historical baggage" on our backs whether we like it or not. The problem that I see is that we are not aware of this "baggage" and influence its content has on us.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Russia vs West

Russia seems by implication to threaten Europe with the potential to block our supply of energy. Or, to put it another way, we seem to be focused upon that particular consequence of the problems in Georgia.

But surely a potential Russian energy blockade can be countered. We need to remember the relief of Berlin way back in the 1940's. My thinking is that we should turn their perceived threat back upon them. So, turn off the energy pipelines from our own side and bear the consequences. Find every means to supply what we need without Russia. Find every means to reduce the price of energy. Get the market to work against them. Bring the price of oil down to, say, $20 per barrel until they back off.

If you believe in your power to control the damage, then anything is possible. There is no need for any military threat. Use the free market against them to our long term advantage and show that their threats have no value. Hit them right where it will hurt the most, in their wallets.

But that will require leadership. Europe must learn to lead.

[Guest]

Re: Russia vs West

moved down

[Guest]

Re: Russia vs West

Good morning Vitaly, You have misunderstood my meaning.

You're a stand-up guy Chris. I'll gladly buy you a beer any time.

I prefer bitters myself, but if you chance to be over here on that occasion it will be one of our "gnats-piss-Budweiser-specials" - the secret we have with this beer is to chill it so thoroughly that the taste is erased out of it entirely. Zap the taste buds with an instant freeze and your hapless American beer drinker wouldn't know if he was drinking radiator fluid instead. Or maybe formaldehyde.

Anyway, from an American "I'd buy ya a beer anytime" is an unqualified endorsement, so you'll have to just overlook the quality of the suds, which is a minor detail among our many other glorious cultural achievements.

Same goes for Vitaly. I'll buy him a Budweiser anytime too (whereupon Vitaly attempts fearfully to hide from view under his desk to avoid that invitation). Actually I'm thinking both of you guys would turn up your noses at having to "actually drink a Budweiser" but hey, we Americans "are what we are" (gives a big toothy grin). America is all about that wonderful rayon and polyester ethic. If you don't like it, go buy yer button-down drip dry shirts someplace else guys. What? You don't own a button-down drip dry poly-cotton blend shirt yet?

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

To Chris Coles:

Ok, now I have got your point. I can explain what you said about Russian Army much shorter what is well known for centuries: In Russia human life is cheap. It regards to soldiers, civilians, invaders, everybody. So its not like only civilians or enemies lives are cheap, all these lives always has been treated as cheap.

Again Russia and USSR are not exactly the same entities. So it is confusing when we select history from these two pieces. Just to remind you it was a civil war to establish Bolsheviks power. Unfortunately Russia quickly forgive the soviet history remembering good things and excuse bad.

Think about this: Yeltsin was truly Russian spirit - just after Communists were thrown away. One of the slogan during his election was "Vote by Heart". Don't you find it is interesting :rolleyes: Putin is truly Soviet type of mentality. It will take some time and generation change to understand where really Russia is heading to.

[metalman]

Re: Russia vs West

To Chris Coles:

Ok, now I have got your point. I can explain what you said about Russian Army much shorter what is well known for centuries: In Russia human life is cheap. It regards to soldiers, civilians, invaders, everybody. So its not like only civilians or enemies lives are cheap, all these lives always has been treated as cheap.

Again Russia and USSR are not exactly the same entities. So it is confusing when we select history from these two pieces. Just to remind you it was a civil war to establish Bolsheviks power. Unfortunately Russia quickly forgive the soviet history remembering good things and excuse bad.

Think about this: Yeltsin was truly Russian spirit - just after Communists were thrown away. One of the slogan during his election was "Vote by Heart". Don't you find it is interesting :rolleyes: Putin is truly Soviet type of mentality. It will take some time and generation change to understand where really Russia is heading to.

what's your take on this analysis of putin? someone posted it here before and i bookmarked it...

Don Putin

To understand today's Russia, read "The Godfather."

by GARRY KASPAROV
Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
When Vladimir Putin took power in Russia in 2000, the burning question was: "Who is Putin?" It has now changed to: "What is the nature of Putin's Russia?" This regime has been remarkably consistent in its behavior, yet foreign leaders and the Western press still act surprised at Mr. Putin's total disregard for their opinions.

Again and again we hear cries of: "Doesn't Putin know how bad this looks?" When another prominent Russian journalist is murdered, when a businessman not friendly to the Kremlin is jailed, when a foreign company is pushed out of its Russian investment, when pro-democracy marchers are beaten by police, when gas and oil supplies are used as weapons, or when Russian weapons and missile technology are sold to terrorist sponsor states like Iran and Syria, what needs to be asked is what sort of government would continue such behavior. This Kremlin regime operates within a value system entirely different from that of the Western nations struggling to understand what is happening behind the medieval red walls.

Mr. Putin's government is unique in history. This Kremlin is part oligarchy, with a small, tightly connected gang of wealthy rulers. It is partly a feudal system, broken down into semi-autonomous fiefdoms in which payments are collected from the serfs, who have no rights. Over this there is a democratic coat of paint, just thick enough to gain entry into the G-8 and keep the oligarchy's money safe in Western banks. more

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

But surely a potential Russian energy blockade can be countered. We need to remember the relief of Berlin way back in the 1940's. My thinking is that we should turn their perceived threat back upon them. So, turn off the energy pipelines from our own side and bear the consequences. Find every means to supply what we need without Russia. Find every means to reduce the price of energy. Get the market to work against them. Bring the price of oil down to, say, $20 per barrel until they back off.

If you believe in your power to control the damage, then anything is possible. There is no need for any military threat. Use the free market against them to our long term advantage and show that their threats have no value. Hit them right where it will hurt the most, in their wallets.

But that will require leadership. Europe must learn to lead.

Many people in Russia would love to see oil prices go down. This will help the real development. What is scared me your mode: this seems to be a war mode. Again instead of mutual cooperation which would help ALL people we are trying to decide how to fight each other: military, financial, energy etc.

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

what's your take on this analysis of putin? someone posted it here before and i bookmarked it...

We need to look on the facts, not on explanations.

Example: "when pro-democracy marchers are beaten by police, when gas and oil supplies are used as weapons, or when Russian weapons and missile technology are sold to terrorist sponsor states like Iran and Syria, when businessman not friendly to the Kremlin is jailed"

He does not think they are truly democratic, he thinks they are sponsored by West and representing their interests. Iran and Syria - if you ask somebody from the middle east they might call them fighters for freedom
Businessmen - he thinks many of them are thefts.

Oligarchs, corruption, non-free media - it is all true.

My personal position to Putin - overall he did his "mission" well, now it is time to him to retire. Again it is not about support - do not support, like or not. It is just about objectives and realities. I do not like his methods but can appreciate some results he achieved by strong leadership. Now Russia needs strong leadership to get rid off all siloviks Putin created.

[metalman]

Re: Russia vs West

We need to look on the facts, not on explanations.

Example: "when pro-democracy marchers are beaten by police, when gas and oil supplies are used as weapons, or when Russian weapons and missile technology are sold to terrorist sponsor states like Iran and Syria, when businessman not friendly to the Kremlin is jailed"

He does not think they are truly democratic, he thinks they are sponsored by West and representing their interests. Iran and Syria - if you ask somebody from the middle east they might call them fighters for freedom
Businessmen - he thinks many of them are thefts.

Oligarchs, corruption, non-free media - it is all true.

My personal position to Putin - overall he did his "mission" well, now it is time to him to retire. Again it is not about support - do not support, like or not. It is just about objectives and realities. I do not like his methods but can appreciate some results he achieved by strong leadership. Now Russia needs strong leadership to get rid off all siloviks Putin created.

thanks. you think the new president is the guy to do it?

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

thanks. you think the new president is the guy to do it?

No, I do not think so . As I said before we will see the struggle between siloviki and liberals. The best I can hope that Medvedev will dissolve their power by liberating the capital from their hands. If West proceed to push Russia and/or oil prices keep going up siloviki will take the lead and it will end up with revolution/disaster. I wish evolution development until new generation not binded by soviet/corrupt mentality will come to elites.

BTW, new president program is steady development for next 20 years. But as usual it is easier to say then do. Russia is still more like Monarch by internal behavior.