Soon it will be a year since the South Ossetian conflict. To remind all of us of this tragic event there are a number of opportunists hoping to ignite another “media war” like the one that ensued after Saakashvili’s reckless adventurism. One such person is Svante Cornell of Johns Hopkins University and co-editor of the recently released “The Guns of August 2009: Russia’s War in Georgia.”
After having a look at the list of contributors to this book, I strongly suggest you avoid this tome. There is nothing new in it: just the same old prejudices and ideologically-driven affection for the “Mugabe of the Caucasus.” However, I do suggest you read Cornell’s ‘please buy book’ article “Russia shuts out the international community” printed by the Daily Telegraph. It is a wonderful example of how the neocon agenda never dies and never fades away.
I think Cornell should have been a poet or a fiction writer. In the first paragraph he exhorts us to be aware of evil in the world, and the greatest evil is of course Russia. This week Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution extending the 16-year-old UN mission monitoring Abkhazia. Russia’s veto was correct in every way. The resolution simply did not reflect new realities – Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi. These two new countries will never again be menaced by the descendents of Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
Cornell then goes on to repeat falsehoods at the start of the second paragraph – “Last August, Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed two of its provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” This sentence alone is the best reason to avoid Cornell’s book. This sentence is the premise on which the entire article is based, and thus invalidates the entire article (and book I would assume).
Allow me to rewrite Cornell’s sentence: “Last August, Saakashvili launched a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia which targeted civilians – primarily women and children – and recognized peacekeepers. Later, and because of Tbilisi’s aggression, Russia with great reluctance recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.” I have to assume that Cornell either lives under a rock or is willfully ignorant. Saakashvili has already publicly admitted he started the war. On top of this, leaks from an upcoming EU-related report support Saakashvili’s admission. What other evidence is needed for Cornell and his cabal of “blame Russia first” supporters to accept that the American-supported, -funded, and -trained Saakashvili regime is in the wrong?
I would comment on the rest of the Daily Telegraph article, but it is the same bluster and closed-mindedness we have heard and read in western mainstream media and from ideological diehards when it comes to Georgia’s so-called “western orientation.” Cornell and his ilk simply cannot admit that Washington’s Georgia project failed – thankfully it did and will continue to.
But I am not finished. There is something I think we all need to remember when reflecting on a conflict that should never have happened. People like Cornell like to think big and feel big, but what about the issue that really matters? He appears to have no interest in the fate and trials of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians. However, this is what the August conflict was all about – the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia was willing to live with the status quo before the aggression. Later, that stance changed. To avoid more ethnic cleansing of people who wanted to be free of Tbilisi, Russia agreed to their recognition as independent states for humanitarian reasons.
Please give the following a thought: South Ossetia and Abkhazia have since the early 90s wanted to be free of Tbilisi’s influence - neither wanted to be part of Georgia (let alone NATO). South Ossetia and Abkhazia have, since the end of the Soviet Union, looked to Russia for assistance and security from intensely hostile Georgian nationalism. But then again, that tragic story doesn’t fit into Cornell’s ideologically-driven narrative. That narrative avoids considering the hopes of oppressed people.
The neocon project is only about geopolitical ambitions - everything and everyone must conform to this thesis in advance. Any evidence that denies this thesis is discarded and so should Cornell’s book.
24 June, 2009, 18:38
Elictricity 24 hours a day - European Magic! How do they do that! Such innovation, such grasp of cutting edge technology, what will come next! can anyone see the future, maybe some device for seing pictures. Something, so I can talk to someone far away, oh stop! the contemplation is too enormous, the possibilities are boundless! But wait, I can see something, its large, its a Union, a new idea, the EU to be precise, I can see it clearly, it robs countries of their sovereignty, It installs a political master class, it puts its population into tax slavery, it ignores the rule of law, oh stop, what is this Frankensteins creation, that tries to suck the blood from its people, 65% tax, a huge mortgage, cerdit cards, delux coffee machines for Brussels beurocrats, huge expense accounts, quick cut the power, this is a monster. Good the lights are still on, hope they last 24 hours, its truly magic. Now a revolutionary thought, that countries could just be independent and not in blocks. All sitting within global security and finacial structures on equitabke terms. Sort of the way they were designed to be, nothing magic in that, can't be Europe!
24 June, 2009, 17:28
Peter I think this is part of Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard agenda rather than a Neocon one although the favours an Israeli centrist US foreign policy although the Neocon are heavily prevalent in foundations, think tanks, NGO’s and media pushing the GCB agenda.
@giustino
The post soviet Oligarchical system came to power due to IMF imposed economic policies implemented by George Soros through his Open Society foundation putting the economy in the hand s of a few western aligned oligarchs.
Lord Rothschild of London transferred billions of dollars to Khodorkovsky and others to influence Yeltsin to run auctions of state asset’s which they bought up at fire sale prices.
Khodorkovsky was on the verge of signing a contract handing over oil pipeline rights to Exxon mobile essentially out sourcing the Russian economy when Putin took action. In fact he was on the plane about to sign the contract when he was arrested.
It turned out that Lord Rothschild was the major shareholder of Yukos and Khoderkovsky was just the front man. Other senior shareholders include Henry Kissinger and Nevzlin.
The same pattern happened with the auctions in Ukraine.
Lukashenko saw the danger that it would have on the economy and kicked out the IMF policy makers when he was elected in 94 avoiding the economy suffering the same fate as Russia and Ukraine.
Shevardnadze was helped into the presidency by George Soros who set up shop in Georgia in 94 to oversee US pipeline deals which would go through Azerbaijan, Georgia, to Turkey and Israel
Ukraine’s economy started to grow in 2000 when he followed Putins lead and went against the IMF backed ruling Oligarchy.
He was removed from power when he began to negotiate pipeline deals with Gazprom and Russia. in a Soros sponsored coup by Saakashvili who worked for a Soros law firm in New York and was director of a CIA affiliated NGO USAID linked NGO ( actually I was going to post a link to the Asian Tribune article but it seems to have been removed).
Or Azerbaijanis western backed family ruling class system presidency handed down from father to son.
I could also cite US and Europe’s support for every Arab regime in the Md East Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. as well as the states they help create in Bosnia an Islamic hub in Europe and Kosovo where 75% of Afghan heroin runs through KLA networks in Europe.
Brezinski clearly states the US objective in regards to states in Eurasian’s sphere in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard:
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
As for Karimov in Uzbekistan he changes alliances between Russia and the US when he feels his position is threatened. Russia would favour him in power as the ISI/CIA created IMU in 92 would seize power and a hub and base for Islamic terrorism in the region which would destabilise the whole region which has millions of Russian civilians living in the region.
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
How is Putin/Medvedev government a neo-Brezhnevian regime?
Georgia was Russia’s only use of military force outside the country since the break-up of the USSR and only after it’s peacekeepers and South Ossetian capital were bombed by Grad rockets and an emergency UN security council meeting was called by Russia putting forth an emergency ceasefire resolution was vetoed by the US and Britain.
Contrast hat to the US and Britain and there wars across the world since the end of the Cold War. Days after the Georgian assault US forces in Iraq bombed villages in neighbouring Syria without informing them killing civilians claiming it was
I don’t think Putin is static I think you’re a victim of western propaganda that these oligarchs have put these money into financing media and think tanks, NGO’s like the Carnegie Endowment for Democracy, HRW, etc.
Putin has managed to reduce poverty by half, introduced a flat rate tax system, develop a nano-technology industry, paid of most of Russia’s foreign debt and taken measures to tackle Russia’s demographic decline.
Although he has still to tackle problems of corruption, large sections of the economy in the hands of certain individuals Oligarchs, court and army reform, etc which Medvedev has addressed. We will see how it develops.
24 June, 2009, 16:28
Too much vodka makes for confused thinking. The russian terrorists are to blame for what happened, not the cowardly tie-eater.
24 June, 2009, 13:41
Pauline,
I do live in Europe, a magical place where, in most places, one can count on electricity 24 hours a day. Many Georgians still cannot count on that. I am not sure if you still have running water and electricity in Michigan. I hope so.
It's like I said, if I was the leader of a small post-Soviet nation, looking for a good deal, Russia wouldn't really be on my shortlist of options. What are they going to give me? Some oligarch in power for life like in Belarus or Uzbekistan?
That's what Georgia had until 2003 and would still have today -- Shevardnadze.
Russia's neighborhood policy is ultimately unsustainable because it relies on static, personality- focused regimes (not unlike its own neo-Brezhnevian regime of Putin). But, eventually, local dictators will have to be replaced. The question is with what. If the West is no longer the answer, what is?
24 June, 2009, 07:53
Fully agree with Count Cash. There will always be an industry that gets its sustenance from the "Russia is wrong" take. It was there before the Russian revolution in 1917 - the British were locked in a struggle with Russia in the Great Game - and it continues long after the communists have tucked the red flags in the back of their drawers. The end of communism in Russia has exposed the hatemongers in London and New York who continue with their bear bating. I think it basically boils down to the clash of civilizations cliche. In this case the Anglo-American (English speak nations) versus the Orthodox Slavs. Living in Auckland, New Zealand, I know that many people here swallowed the American line in the war with Georgia (of course some thought the Russians had invaded the southern American state of Georgia and were wondering why WW III had not yet begun!). However, it's all going to matter little in the end. As the Hindu aphorism coined thousands of years ago in India goes: Truth Alone Wins.
24 June, 2009, 01:16
Guistino,you are very funny. You talk as if it were 1994 or something! You should see all the vacant stores in my neighborhood, which is among the best in the USA, actually. We have whole cities going into the ground, like Flint, Michigan or Detroit, Michigan. People are FARMING on the vacant land in the center of Detroit! We have 2 million people in prison, FAR MORE per capita than the USSR ever had in jail! China currently has only 1 million prisoners and 1.4 billion people! We have 61 million people without health insurance, and our industry cannot compete because of the employer based health care. Maybe you are talking about EUROPE, not the USA? I understand France, wth a social democratic system is doing pretty well about now?
23 June, 2009, 18:33
Saakashvilis miscalculated actions freed S Ossetia and Abkhazia form the eternal poverty in Georgia. It freed them from the exploitation that the western masters had planned for them, with their willing designated governor Saakassvili. However, the Georgians have to keep on suffering, until they can free themselves, also from the western puppet. The west considered Georgia and its people, like it does all countries, an animal to be devoured for its net worth, and then left discarded as a carcase on the side of the trail. Abkhazia and S Ossetia are luckier, they have moved on to freedom, thanks to Russia, free of the western exploitation that sadly the Georgians will have to suffer under the oppressive west, until they too can free themselves. They will though one day, like all the exploited countries, awaken and push back against the western empire. yes when they do, they will see a second wave, of western exploitation through invasion, torture and rape, the pattern is well known, but in the end they will free theselves of the western opression, and stand freely in a multipolar world created by Russia. The west just has suffering to offer, nothing else, it is disintegrating, due to internal pressure from its own people who are waking up to the media control they are continually subjected too. The western rotten exploitative regime will fall like a deck of cards, allowing the western people to also join a multipolar world. The institutional west is desperate, the world is developing without their control, and like all control freaks, they become violent, when they can't control.
23 June, 2009, 11:09
Saakashvili came to power because the post-1991 settlement in the successors of the USSR is not sustainable.
Eventually, all of the men who have been in power since that time -- Lukashenko in Belarus, Karimov in Uzbekistan -- will eventually have to be replaced, just as Georgia's leadership was in 2003.
Replaced by what? Russia would like to maintain the status quo -- friendly, anti-reform regimes tied to the center by financial interests. That is the regime that is in place in Russia anyway. They are the same kinds of oligarchs who are busy milking the country's natural resources. Of course, they put rival oligarchs into prison or exile. But they are not fundamentally different in attitude towards the state.
The problem is that people in places like Georgia, at least the ones I have met, are sick of substandard living conditions and will gladly back those who promise to lead them away from being post-Soviet.
Saakashvili is one of these politicians.
The reason that such a power vacuum exists and will continue to exist in these countries is that, at its heart, the Russian Federation is anti-reform. It has nothing to offer. It has nothing to export, except maybe gas or oil.
That's why some politicians in these countries look West. Given the choice between ex-Soviet countries and open economy held down by a Western security guarantee, you can see why people supported Saakashvili.
This is a problem that isn't going to go away. The post-1991 settlement is rotting, just like old Soviet housing tenements. Eventually, it will fall, just like those buildings will have to be demolished. But what will be built in its place?
Russia so far has nothing to offer.
23 June, 2009, 09:12
I'm wondering why there are still people willing to fight wars of the neocons. If neocons believe the case they put forward, they should put themselves forward to the frontlines of their wars. This is an easy way for everyone to see the difference between the plot and the true cause.
21 June, 2009, 21:16
Hi Peter,
I was walking down the street this past Sunday evening. I saw a black fellow about my age standing on the corner and he was smoking a cigarette. I went up to him asked if he had a spare one. He said, "no, but you can share this one with me". I mentioned to him that I had just called my 86 year old mom and made her laugh. I didn't mention that I had told mom that I dressed up as a drunk Polish woman named "Anita Brewski." He got tearful and pulled out a pamphlet from a church. It had a picture of his mom who had passed away the previous week. He said "I just buried her this last Tuesday. She told me to always be kind. Keep calling your mom". He said, "I am blessed to have met you". I said, "Don't make my cry dude. No I am blessed to have met you". This complete stranger and I hugged and parted ways. We both had a tear in our eye.
Perhaps I am biased, but I think that the recent events in Iran, though sad for human rights, are positive for world peace. The United States has no right to meddle in Iran's election or internal affairs. With the election of President Obama, we have had our own peaceful revolution. I understand that America still remains as an international bully of sorts, but things are changing for the better.
Gene H. from San Francisco
20 June, 2009, 20:05
When we see all the dirty tricks still fomented by US neocons and their NATO croonies; don't you think strange that the "messi" of freedom (a certain Obama) has so far done absolutly nothing to curb that anti-russian feeling (except when he needs).Beware of that man'sincerity! Sorry Future Generations
Jean-Claude Meslin
20 June, 2009, 11:10
I can strongly recommend Prof. George Hewitt's reply to Svante Cornell’s Daily Telegraph Article.
http://circassianworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/reply-to-svante-cornells-daily.html
19 June, 2009, 20:41
Peter, once again good comments, however, I question whether comments are needed at all. The western propaganda machine is well known, and will operate continually, regardless of any astute observations, Russia will always be portrayed as wrong, as it is the whole purpose of this propaganda machine to deliver according to that tune. The enlightened in the west know this, the Russians know it, so let's just have a chuckle at the likes of this, an the Daily Telegraph and concentrate on the real issues that matter, like building a stable Saakasvilli free zone for the Caucuses. We are too locked in a look west mentality. Let's glance west and look everywhere else, because a western obsession is pointless. The west has nothing to offer us in terms of moral or other values, it is the invader, the torturer, the raper, the controller; be aware of it, but don't waste too much time on it. There is a wider world out there developing in a free manner, a true multipolar world.
04 July, 2009, 15:12
It is the US and the media and political establishment that is stuck in Cold War with its constant terminology and statements with Cold War personalities involved in US think tanks, media pundits and government officials determining US foreign policy.
@Sasha
How is RT not a real news service?
CNN like the coverage so much of bombed out South Ossetia they took it and said it was Gori in Georgia.
Russia either Putin or Medvedev have never mentioned or referenced a sphere of influence this is a western media and political reference.
It seems the US sphere of influence is across the globe in Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Europe even telling the EU to accept Turkey.
It is the US and the EU that references a sphere of influence and makes an effort to destabilise countries that don’t suit there agenda through NGO’s and in some cases as the case of Russia, former Yugoslavia and Bolivia through separatism and terrorism.
It is Soros, the former Oligarchs, the CIA/MI6 and the EU outfits that are interfering in the internal affairs of countries bring about “colour revolutions” where western aligned media and investors by up the media and install anti-Russia regimes in Georgia and Ukraine. Used as a proxy to attack Russia just like they did Japan in 1904.
The same outfits run operations in Russia giving financial assistance, running alternative media and training groups in political activism to any and all opposition in Russia which is illegal under US law.
During the 90’s the entire economic, media and political system was controlled by ethnic minority and a mafia Oligarchy who were citizens of Israel and had no loyalty to the US.
It is US policy stated in think tanks, policy papers and books to treat Russia as an African colony where its resources are to be firmly under western control, no regional alliances can be form to offset US domination of Eurasia and that Russia is not a country but a series of states were separatism is to be supported as long as its located near energy corridors and natural resources and is pro US.
From Brezinskis book the Grand Chessboard
“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p. 40)
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
Russia has a rightful objection to have the largest military regime which supported Islamic terrorism and work with KLA terrorists in Kosovo creating vassal states where natural resources and energy corridors are firmly under US control and installing a missile system targeted towards her that can wipe out St Petersburg and Moscow in a matter of minutes and the agreements signed by Russia and US since the fall of the USSR on NATO expansion, ABM treaty as been broken by the US.
Obama is just a puppet of Brezinski where he appoints his staff members. I guess it’s just a coincidence that nearly all of Obama’s staff members were involved in supporting terrorism and the dismantlement of Yugoslavia and the Brezinski clan in senior positions in media, foreign policy in Europe towards Russia and overseeing Coloured revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Central Asia.
The US like other western countries media, political, financial and academic establishment is dominated by an ethnic minority who you have to seek approval before standing a chance of running for office.
The US is one of the lest politically representative countries in the world were 2 parties dominate the politics who agree more than disagree on topics like immigration, foreign policy, etc.
04 July, 2009, 13:53
Saša, what is the definition of the media? What about´Russian´ or ´Democratic´media? I know RT sometimes spins it because of lack of insight from some of them (even Peter sometimes) When there is a ´democratic´ spin, you cant see it- its realy big. Because how you wrote was entirely what western media want you to believe. RT also wants to be american user-friendly, so they dont write here what is ´politically incorrect´only sometimes. Under who´s influence is Belarus? It was always (western media told you that) a dictatorship with Russia controlling them. Now because the media want it, they dont mention Lukašenko as a dictator, because they want to appeal to him- and to the people. Ukraine because of Juščenko puppet and the strife inside is doing very badly. All the coloured revolutions brought only negatives, few controlling everything and very big majority barely having where to live and to eat. Why is there so many Ukrainians in Czech republic? Ukraine is quite big, but how the promised heaven on earth didnt come? How the crisis came? Wasnt it the da best US that made it? What about the new flu? Wasnt it Made in U.S.A. ? Or is it that I´m just Yankophobic?...
04 July, 2009, 13:04
A sphere of influence isn't the point. When the USSR and the Warsaw Pact dissolved why wasn't NATO? The US exploitation of the end of the USSR and then 9/11 which Condi Rice called the greatest opportunity since WW2, reflects the true lingering cold war mentatily.
Putin doesn't want Russia to be encircled by Nato bases and hostile governments helped into power through US financed revolutions. Is that unreasonable?
The US reaction to any country that runs up against it's own strategic and commercial interests is a lot more forceful than Putin's mildly expressed irritation - blockades, coups, assassinations, invasion and occupation. I thought Obama marked a real change in US attitudes but there's no evidence so far. It's pretty damning that he's done nothing about the blockade of Gaza. Most Americans dont even vote for their preselected leaders, and the rest of the world certainly don't vote for them to rule the planet.
04 July, 2009, 10:43
I would like to highlight what Peter said, "the US president never should have said the following in PUBLIC:..." This is a very true statement and Obama, opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it! Americans have a bad habit with doing that...
As an American living in Russia, I find that the old Soviet countries are a breath of fresh air.They are so much better to live in then the Western world.
The Western world has more material possessions but that is not what makes the world go round.
What makes the world go round is the people and the people of the old Soviet countries are night and day above the Western people...
Putin hit back at Obama. - Russians, he said, "stand solidly on their own two feet and always look into the future".
I agree as always: Russians play chess and American play Checkers!
Kyle
PS: "real media." I guess real media is CNN, Time, AP, Reuters?
Give me Russia Today it rocks....
04 July, 2009, 07:54
I have called the american administration: Earth unic devil's empire. I maintain what I said and refering to Obama lack of respect toward Mr Putin I don't understand that you did not print my comment.
Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin
04 July, 2009, 07:51
RT is Putin's propaganda machine! How delusional do people get, ones who harp on regarding post soviet influence, whilst exposing their own delusions and prejudices to the world. It is also noteworthy that these individuals never mention the montroe doctrine or that slight US sphere of influence in the middle east and asia with puppets sitting in residence. I have no issue with debating spheres of influence, but being selective with regard to Russia is plain bias and nonsence.
04 July, 2009, 06:01
I wished,Count Cash, that you were right -- it would make international and especially American politics an easy topic to follow and understand. Unfortunately, it is not.
The neighboring countries you mention were not manipulated into disliking Russia -- their deep distrust of Russia was basically a consequence of Russia's own policy towards them, both during Soviet times and afterwards.
Not a single country in Eastern Europe -- apparently now not even Belarus -- is happy with Russia the way it is. In the Caucasus, even 'well-behaved' countries like Armenia will often do things that are viewed as "anti-Russian" -- such as giving Saakashvili a medal. Even the Central Asian republics will also not always want to follow Russia's lead -- e.g. by not recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or, like Kyrgyzstan, by returning the Manas base to the US.
It is clear that the CSTO is not working -- Russia behaves as if the CSTO were to be for Russia's interests, with the other countries simply agreeing that what is good for Russia will eventually be good for the others.
Count Cash, I am married to a Russian, and my daughter is (among other things) also a Russian. I wish this country would grow and become important -- but not authoritarian, especially not with respect to its neighbors. I am sorry to say, but there was very little need of any foreign interference for all those old Soviet-sphere countries to want to distance themselves from Russia. Wrong, misguided, frankly imperialistic Russian foreign policy over the last 50 years was more than sufficient.
The feeling of 'encirclement' that this gives you -- i.e. the fact that pretty much every country (especially in Europe) that once was under Russian influence now wants out and actively seeks partnership with the opposite side (a typical behavior in post-colonial countries, by the way -- run away from the old colonizer as far as possible!) is, again, a result of misguided Russian politics.
I have said I like Russia, and I do. Which is why I say to Russia: please, please strech an open hand to all these countries. Please stop thinking in terms of "either-my-sphere-of-influence-or-nothing!" There are lots of ways to build mutual trust and mutual economic relations that don't depend on "being angry" at this or that country's desire to join this or that organization, for instance. Just as the US didn't complain when Russia sought links with South America (though choosing Venezuela... you could have done better) -- don't complain when previous Soviet sphere countries seek external alliances.
On the contrary, Russia -- seek these same alliances yourself. With your size and (potential) economic power, you'd certainly be an influence to reckon with within these organizations.
And also, and above all -- PLEASE, please work on diversifying your economy. Please! The Russian people has so many highly educated individuals, very skilled and capable technicians, some of the world's best scientists... Please make full use of them in diversifying the Russian economy, so that it may grow stronger and more influential! This is the path that China has followed, and with quite a lot of success.
If Russia becomes an economical success -- if Russians not only buy plasma TVs but actually make them, and better TVs than other countries -- then the economic attractiveness of Russia will increase and all the former neighboring countries that Russians are still so interested in will have positive feelings about developing ties with Russia.
Please, develop and grow! Stop complaining about others 'cheating' (especially without evidence) and start playing this game to win!
03 July, 2009, 21:44
I would like to highlight what Peter said, "the US president never should have said the following in PUBLIC:..." Perhaps this is true, he should not have said it in public, but his strategy was not to "divide" Medvedev and Putin. Everyone knows that Medvedev was "hand picked" by Putin to continue Putin's version of "guided democracy." I believe Obama's strategy was to say out loud what everyone has been too scared to say, that Putin has not completely broken the continuity of the soviet regime. This is quite evident in the fact that Putin/Medvedev still believe that Russia has the "right" of having a sphere of influence over the ex-soviet countries. It is funny how Russian politicians criticize NATO of being an archaic remnant of the past, when it is still stuck believing they have a "cold war" sphere of influence. I believe they go hand-in-hand, and if Russia would give up these preposterous beliefs, perhaps NATO would not have a reason to exist anymore. But, until then, NATO does have a purpose: to help ex-soviet states obtain democracy, prosperity and security. It is no secret that people west of Ukraine and Belarus live much better than people inside Russia's sphere of influence. I think it is criminal that Russia hinders the citizens in ex-soviet states from obtaining a better standard of living. If Russia does not want to care about its people, so be it (as the successor of the CCCP should behave); however, let the other countries break away from this succession.
If RT was not just a propaganda machine for Putin, it would post what I wrote above. I don't expect this, though, because this is not considered "real media."
03 July, 2009, 20:38
JK - I know you mean well, but Bear is right, we are serious people, so don't come here with clap trap nonsense, smoking a peace pipe. We know peace comes, not form a puppet dancing and trying to strangle us with his strings. We know peace comes from real honest motives and trust. The USA has shown no good deeds, it still tries to encirle us, it stills tries for first strike, it still tries underhanded political manipulation of our neighbours and agitators. This is not the activity of promoters of peace, it is the activities of an oportunist aggressor. Our military strength is our only guarantor of freedom, if we rest for even a moment, we will never wake up. If the US wants to be genuine, then stop with these underhanded activities and the mumbo jumbo division business. Its hardly a great opening line, hello Mr and Mrs, by the way your husband maybe cheating on you. Would you call that a sincere approach. We spot divide and conquer; come with it as an opener, and we will answer together, with a strength 20 times as strong, with a good slap across the face from her and a punch in the face from him. Then we will drink and laugh at you! but its what you deserved!
03 July, 2009, 20:16
Mr. Lavelle is screening the media stratum informing about governance, not controlling executive levels. This is why the situation deserves more elaborated comment.
President Obama would definitely make conclusion that his own opinion or one single tripping in the interview – is enough to radical cancelation of himself from the Russian side. Guess he harbors this responsibility for his limited assignment in Russia and had to tell it in advance. This is fair enough.
However, nobody relevant from the Russian political observers ever expected him to get endorsement for cashing foreign policy of USA on his individual charisma. The impression was – he might bring his individual creativity on the same way we – from this side of the planet – conceive lady Oprah. “Black is magic” – meaning the creative “black intelligence” is not manifested yet and therefore stays still “magic”; it is not turned out into political flash.
This expectancy failed. And he has to swallow this bitter pill before taking off to Russia. President Putin does not stay on his way and it is ridiculous that any welcoming black President declares one of his hosts unfit and not knowing where to put his two legs. This is about as asking Obama – does he sleep in black or white bed? Whatever he does – he remains responsible to the black mental asset of USA or he ends fighting pigments as Michel Jackson.
Whoever makes the stage – Russians expect you to step on it as you are.
Putin’s democracy is very tough and straight stuff we all have had difficulties to learn.
03 July, 2009, 18:27
In any serious conversation, if and as long one side keeps on following the "divide and conquer strategy" there can be no meaningful deal.
In fact Bush followed this strategy from the outset. Why should Obama continue with that if he wishes to improve the world we live in?
Each side should, to the best of its ability, examine its true motives prior to sitting down at the table, instead of just simply following its own selfish interests.
JK
03 July, 2009, 17:10
Ha ha I must say it made me laugh when I heard what Mr. Obama said. Mr. Obama obviously expects from Mr. Medvedev to behave like himself - to be a puppet who does not use his own head. But what Mr. Obambi's advisers didn't know is that Russia is a serious country having serious people (both President and Prime minister) leading it in serious times. What a poor move of a desperate USA! If they didn't manage to think something better they better don't come to Russia.
03 July, 2009, 15:43
@Ikenna Aduaka, I fear your comment about our president is correct. The American political "machine" selects the candidates, and nobody will be elected without a majority of their advisors coming from the "machine". I will look at whoever is near Obama's elbow when he arrives in Moscow. Those people will be involved in writing Obama's "talking points".
I still have hope that Obama will make some observations of his own and use his own words. Maybe by next year's Congressional elections, he will have decided which of his advisors to keep and which to "retire". That sometimes happens during a president's first term. Meanwhile, he has to be careful what he says and not stray too far from the party line. After all, we killed a president years ago for saying the wrong things.
03 July, 2009, 13:40
I think Obama is intimidated by Putin. Most world leaders are.
When does Obama start to show the "change we can believe in?"
03 July, 2009, 10:49
When ew talk about some leader being a Puppet, I can categorically say that Obama is simply a Puppet. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, I will give him or her facts.
Obama really dissapointed me. Putin is the greatest leader of our time, every country wants to have a Putin. It is a pity that Obama cannot be "American Putin"
03 July, 2009, 10:48
…just another brick in the wall…
He is not capable to grow.
03 July, 2009, 10:24
As time passes, slowly, Obama takes off his mask, revealing his real face. How democratic his comments really are ? What are his intentions ? He behaves very strange. I can't get it ...
03 July, 2009, 10:21
Mr Putin scare americans leaders, because they know that they cannot manipulate him.
Mr Medvedev, coming from the russian business communauty could be easely to manage. The two russian leaders must stick together, beware of the many US dirty tricks and speak firmly and frankly to Earth.
Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin
03 July, 2009, 10:21
It seems his advisors want to make an internal strife so they could create a situation like in Ukraine. Seems to me that was cheap attempt, as to make from mr. Medvedev another Juščenko-type puppet. To me hes no way an opportunist as neo´s would want to see him, thinking he´s inexperienced and able to be manipulated. Obama should get an answer that he has no right to do anything with any other country´s internal affairs, and in turn Russsia needs to press them instead of being always on the defensive. Defensive means they can lie about you and you trying to prove it is lies, while their dark side remains unattended to and spreading its power over the minds of simple people.
03 July, 2009, 10:10
I was just as shocked as you Peter, I wanted to hide! Obama says he has a very good relationship with Medvedev, is he aware that with 1 word from Putin, Medvedev will never speak to him again? Obama does not need new advisors, he needs to be a leader.