The democratic revolution marches on...

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Uh, yes he is. If we had gone straight from Andropov to Putin, no messsianic hopes around Gorbie and Yeltsin, we'd see him as an important reformer.

Undoubtedly. But give him a few years, and he'll turn nastier, or his successor will. My point is that tyranny-replaced-by-democracy is more than capable of sliding right back into plain ordinary tyranny at a moment's notice. And the USSR, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, had a relatively orderly transition.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
too soon to say.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
Hey Vagabond. Is Putin going to run for President again, as the constitution forbade?

No, he is not going.

On the other hand, your persistent export of "democratic revolutions" puts the real democracy in danger. Ironically, the very existence of democratic norms in a (vulnerable) country gives you a window of opportunity for stirring up a "democratic revolution". For instance, Putin's abiding by democratic principles in 2008 (by not running again) greatly facilitates your dirty endeavor. Open your eyes, Dan, and put the Washington Post aside.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Timoshenko IS COMPROMISING, not being the extremist you SAID you feared.

Actually, it's not what I meant.

I expect Timoshenko to be an orangeist extremist, i.e. a woman who cares overwhelmingly for the interests of the west. Though the experience of power will likely mellow her down, it is very probable that her unpopularity in the East remains, thus making one half of the country feeling alienated from their PM. Considering how deep is the rift between the two Ukraines, I continue to think that propping up such a controversial figure was a terrible idea.

I don't expect Timoshenko to be an economic extremist, simply because I don't know her economic platform. I expect her to defend the fortune she and her teammates acquired in the past. But I am surprised by that measure. Actually, the one who compromised was not Timoshenko but Yushchenko (It's Timo who spoke about "3,000" companies).

Maybe the professed aim of joining the EU will mean that the governing team is serious about tackling corrution, and will avoid making any significant dirty money duting this term. One could say that they're already rich enough to keep clean from now on, which is probably true. However, politics in a corrupt country involve rewarding loyal servants with corrupt money. If they are serious about tackling that, it's great. I'd love to be proven wrong about Yushchenko.

[The Vagabond]

Ironically, Timoshenko is from the East (Dnepropetrovsk, which is the home town of Kuchma too) and her mother's tongue is Russian. After her break with the Kuchma clan (she was even put to jail at one point on economic charges), she had no choice but to actively join the "orange" clan and become an "orange extremist". Interestingly enough, she is known as a "gas princess", as she made her fortune on stealing Russian gas transported from Russia to Europe through Ukraine.

[Dinner]

I knew a gas princess in grammar school but we called her that for an entirely different reason. (insert gas mask smilie here)

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ramo

Russia

Hey, we'll just nuke you if you try to fiddle with our sovereignty.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I knew a gas princess in grammar school but we called her that for an entirely different reason. (insert gas mask smilie here)

Timoshenko is much prettier than that though.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS


Well, I wouldn't describe it quite as "pure business", in that you can't really "buy" these revolutions. Soros spent a fortune trying to bring down Bush and it had little to no impact, for instance. However, as stated, a modest sum of money is helping to even the playing field with undemocratic governments.

I wouldn't accentuate the word 'undemocratic' here, but rather mention that a modest sum of money (by your standards!) is sufficient to manipulate vulnerable and troubled countries.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by PLATO
Let's see...

Elections in Afghanistan
Elections in Iraq
Libya gives up WMD's
Lebanon demonstrating in the street for democracy
Egypt Changing its constitution to be more democratic
Elections in Palestine.

Yep...Bush and his policies are idiotic.

The Bush policies are not idiotic from the viewpoint of realpolitik. But from the viewpoint of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan... just give me a break!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


No, he is not going.

On the other hand, your persistent export of "democratic revolutions" puts the real democracy in danger. Ironically, the very existence of democratic norms in a (vulnerable) country gives you a window of opportunity for stirring up a "democratic revolution". For instance, Putin's abiding by democratic principles in 2008 (by not running again) greatly facilitates your dirty endeavor. Open your eyes, Dan, and put the Washington Post aside.

I guess that when you write vulnerable, then you mean that other than the selected person has a chance to get elected ? I guess that noone think there are any military threats against Russia which they cannot handle.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, it's not what I meant.

I expect Timoshenko to be an orangeist extremist, i.e. a woman who cares overwhelmingly for the interests of the west. Though the experience of power will likely mellow her down, it is very probable that her unpopularity in the East remains, thus making one half of the country feeling alienated from their PM. Considering how deep is the rift between the two Ukraines, I continue to think that propping up such a controversial figure was a terrible idea.

I don't expect Timoshenko to be an economic extremist, simply because I don't know her economic platform. I expect her to defend the fortune she and her teammates acquired in the past. But I am surprised by that measure. Actually, the one who compromised was not Timoshenko but Yushchenko (It's Timo who spoke about "3,000" companies).

Maybe the professed aim of joining the EU will mean that the governing team is serious about tackling corrution, and will avoid making any significant dirty money duting this term. One could say that they're already rich enough to keep clean from now on, which is probably true. However, politics in a corrupt country involve rewarding loyal servants with corrupt money. If they are serious about tackling that, it's great. I'd love to be proven wrong about Yushchenko.

In the first election they may have those bad thoughts, but I think that the "Orange revolution" have scared them because I don't think they had any control over it.

If they have any real interest in joining the EU, then the are also aware of the fact that the usual business in old soviet states won't work. Therefore I think that they are sincere in getting a unificaition of those things that divide Ukraine and get the economy under strict legal control.

I don't expect this process to be finished in short terms - lets see what has happened five years in the future.

At least with the current government, they have a very serious chance to join the EU wich they wouldn't have had if the first election had been accepted.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Errrrrr.........That was Carter's policy as well, and the results were...

Neither Palestine, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon are out of the woods yet. If "democrtatic" changes have an undesired effect we may yet see a change in policy.

Yeah, but Carter was unwilling to do anything serious about undemocratic enemies, even when they took our diplomats hostage and made the US the laughingstock of the world. Perhaps Bush is more effective than Carter for a reason?

[Dinner]

Carter told the Iranians that he wanted a peaceful solution but if the hostages were harmed then he'd go to war. The mullahs have since said the one reason the hostages weren't killed was because they feared Carter would make good on his threat. Besides what to Reagan do to the Iranians that Carter didn't? He negotiated just like Carter and even promised to keep selling them weapons.

[Urban Ranger]

I merged the two threads, so the flow would be a bit odd.