Russia to temporarily withdraw from Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe

[The Vagabond]

Anyway, "stalinist" is a huge overstatement. Just vilifying the magazine actually. Calling for its being ignored a priori.

[The Vagabond]

Won't answer today. Have to go now.

[Ecthy]

'Cold war' is just a term to describe certain type of relations between the states. The (geo)political phenomenon described by this term really exists in nature. So if you don't want to use the term 'cold war', you have to invent another term (to name it differently). But I just don't see why to do that. One can always make a distinction between that great Cold War of the past, and a new cold war.

I'm fine with that. But I see people using the term Cold War and bringing up the comparison to make a point by the comparison itself.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Anyway, "stalinist" is a huge overstatement. Just vilifying the magazine actually. Calling for its being ignored a priori.

i never said it should be ignored. I was just trying to help ecthy, who seemed to think it was some off the wall flaky source, when its been the mainstream voice of the American far-left since my grandparents time.

[Ecthy]

I didn't think it was an off the wall source, I was responding to his own estimate of what the source was - something non-mainstream, when in reality it wasn't.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Noteworthy article on what is really going on in Russian-American relations. By Stephen F. Cohen. In fact, it contains many things said out here on Poly in Russia's defense. If you strictly adhere to the Washington Post line on the issue, skip the reading. But if you really want to understand something beyond what your mainstream media instil in you, this is just for you.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen

This article is indeed much like defence of Russia here in this forum: idiotic.

Cold War started regionally statement is dumb; conflicts in Berlin, Germany as a whole were ordered and supported by Moscow. Moscow wanted to take over all Germany, or at least entire Berlin.

What must be done, however, is clear enough. Because the new cold war began in Washington, steps toward ending it also have to begin in Washington. Two are especially urgent, for reasons also explained in the article: A US recognition that post-Soviet Russia is not a defeated supplicant or American client state, as seems to have been the prevailing view since 1991, but a fully sovereign nation at home with legitimate national interests abroad equal to our own; and an immediate end to the reckless expansion of NATO around Russia's borders.

How does Washington treat Russia as a client state? How did Washington start this cold war? By its negotiations with souvereign states? Mr Cohen claims that Russia is fully souvereign with legitimate national interests abroad, equal to American.
But mr Cohen is dumb or evil enough not to recognise that Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine or Georgia as souvereign nations with legitimate national interests AT HOME not to mention abroad.
So it is Russia's right to meddle in other states' affairs, but it is not America's right to have interests where Russia wants to have them, and when it comes to the states in interest, according to mr Cohen they should not even be able to chose their own allies.

Russia may become dangerous, says Cohen - but according to him, nations around it should not seek safety, but keep quiet not to make Russia angry at them. Another briliant idea.

Mr Cohen still thinks of former soviet republics, and of former socialist "democracies" as russian sphere of influence. US presence there annoys Russia - BUT IT IS ONLY HER PROBLEM. Why should Russia have zone of influence? Why internal politics of one, fallen state be more important than independance of dozens of others, especially having more population, and more economic strenght than Russia, if put together?

Cohen also fails to notice that it is not "promotion" of Russia-friendly gouverment that was a problem in Ukraine, but election frauds and such. I guess mr Cohen doesn't mind that.

As a leftist, mr Cohen is angry at America for guiding Russia to capitalism. Indeed, it is a horrible crime if an old capitalist state shares its experience in building capitalism with someone in need of it.

Mr Cohen considers "color revolutions" "carried out" by US. His pro-russian mind fails to notice that perhaps the people had enough of dictators, corruption and such.

Mr Cohen minds that end of Cold War is portrayed as american voctory and russian defeat, instead of mutual agreement. Again he's contradicting himself. USSR splitted, he himself claims Russia collapsed in any way, but no, Russia (he sees USSR as Russia)
is undoubtly equally victorious as US. After all, as mr Cohen claims, US is not the only superpower, but "self-styled only superpower"

One may wonder why he claims USSR is in fact Russia. Bah, he calls it "Soviet Russia". The answer is clear: because, supporting Putin's case, he claims that US agreements with non-existing USSR concerning expansion of NATO are still valid...

US is teh evil, because it imposed sanctions against Belarus. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Lukashenka being a tyrant opressing opposition and national minorities etc.

The use of "s is interesting in this article. Like the use of "Soviet Russia" (for USSR, not Russian republic of it) was used in a specific place to mislead, so "s are used in a way to mislead:
Mr Cohen writes:
>>to denounce the Kremlin and make clear it is not "a strategic partner and a trusted friend,"<< or >>telling Yeltsin "here's some more **** for your face"<<
which may suggest to uncareful or biased reader that something like this was indeed said, while these are just used expressions.


Mr Cohen also denies US the right to claim if russian elections were democratic according to it, or not.

"Russia may become even more hostile to the West than USSR" - as if it was possible.

"Russia will oppose democratic changes in former SU republics even more" - indeed, not to let Russia support tyrants "even more" US should not support democracy.
Briliant Cohen logic.

Cohen claims that the American-Russian conflict is ideological. He is wrong. He does not distinguish between totalitarism and authoritarism - indeed, very comfy for a lefty, and doesn't notice that, unlike communism, You can not export Russian Nationalism abroad, except to russian minorities.

He writes: >>as Gorbachev recently put it, is so consensual that even an outspoken critic of US policy inexplicably ends an article, "Of course, Russia has been largely to blame." <<
My God, what are the people thinking. Only and solely US is to be blamed, but of course.

Someone is still fighting the cold war, and it isn't Russia - indeed, it is "Nation" and mr Cohen. He can't get free from the notion of bipolar world.

He claims Russia should be allowed Monroe doctrine of its own. Indeed, USA is just like european colonial power, or USSR.


To sum up: mr Cohen is a typical US-loathing, Russia-ass-licking leftie. He is a profesor of russian studies, and it is typical for such kind of specialists - arabists too - to care more about Russian/Arab/whatever feelings than his own culture's. He looks on the world through Russia. For him, SU is "Soviet Russia". For him, Russian neighbours are not independent states, but "Russian Near Abroad". Iran is still Russia's "neighbour" for mr Cohen. I do not think low of his knowledge of geography. It seems for mr Cohen either Caucasus, or Central Asia, or both, are still russian territory. Taken that into account, it is not suprising that for him, Russia that doesn't have vassals is a vassal itself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Heresson
To sum up: mr Cohen is a typical US-loathing, Russia-ass-licking leftie. He is a profesor of russian studies, and it is typical for such kind of specialists - arabists too - to care more about Russian/Arab/whatever feelings than his own culture's. He looks on the world through Russia. For him, SU is "Soviet Russia". For him, Russian neighbours are not independent states, but "Russian Near Abroad". Iran is still Russia's "neighbour" for mr Cohen. I do not think low of his knowledge of geography. It seems for mr Cohen either Caucasus, or Central Asia, or both, are still russian territory. Taken that into account, it is not suprising that for him, Russia that doesn't have vassals is a vassal itself.

I bet it sucks to be Cuba. The 800 lb. gorilla has a lot of say on who does what with whom.

The writer is pointing out that Russia is not a 98 lb. weakling and treating her as such could have unfortunate consequences.

Although she may not be a rival on an equal footing with the United States, Russia is still the only other power in the world that could initiate widespread global destruction. She could also seek allies and friends in quarters other than the West, and that would be our loss.

On defence, the US missile shield may well give the US the ability to 'win' a first strike, at least in the wet dreams of some, but a destabilised and hostile Russia may be far more likely to launch such an adventure than any previous or current US or Russian regime.

Forgetting about armageddons, a Russia hostile to the West and looking for friends in the East would be very much detrimental to Europe from an energy POV.

These are not unreasonable observations on the part of the writer.

[Heresson]

Claiming US is completely to blame for bad US-Russia relationship

Claiming US treats Russia as a client state

Claiming USSR didn't lose cold war

Claiming cold war started regionally

Claiming pacts with USSR are still binding

Claiming USA and Russian engagement in Ukraine and elsewhere is just the same

Claiming color revolutions are just work of USA

etc

are unreasonable observations.

Indeed, You can solve all problems two ways:
preparing for them, or doing nothing and hoping they will go away. Mr Cohen prefers the second way.
As I've pointed, he claims USA should not support democracy in former SU republics, because it will make Russia support the tyrants "even more". In another words, Cohen doesn't mind millions of people living under opressive russian - backed gouverments, as long as it keeps Russia satisfied. Also, he does seem to think it'd be better for them to become democratic - but he prefers to leave it to Russia. Hoping for what? That it will make them democratic against its (short-sighted) interest?
Also, I know he claims (I've written that) that he thinks Russia would be more hostile if it had no its Near Abroad. Of course, but that way:

- the attack / agressive politics may happen anyway
- (especially since) it will be taken as a sign of weakness
- it will make Near Abroad population hate US as much as Russia
- it will violate the principles of equality between nations
- it will make Russia, still potentially dangerous, stronger
- it will make US, the West etc more vulnerable to attack
- it will convince Russia that neo-imperialist politics is not only OK, but also pays off.
- it will be a hypocrisy

[notyoueither]

That's all very well and good, my fine friend Heresson, but I feel you are missing the point. Of course he is throwing facts at the canvas to paint his picture, but what is the picture?

Russia may be less powerful than the SU, fine. However, Russia still has the capability to launch a war from which there is no recovery.

Russia is less stable now than the SU was then, and the risk of a leadership being in, or coming into, power that could use Russia's ability to start the unthinkable is larger now than at any time in the past.

As far as economics are concerned, it is seldom a wise idea to piss off your major energy supplier. That bit applies to Europe.

Throw all that into the mix with an attitude in Washington that never gave up on the Cold War, and you have a recipe for disaster.

He isn't saying a thing about how Poland, or Canada, should deal with Russia. He is saying that attitudes in the United States could take a turn towards a more productive relationship with Russia for the long term.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As far as economics are concerned, it is seldom a wise idea to piss off your major energy supplier. That bit applies to Europe.

It more or less applies solely to Poland. To a less extent maybe to the Czechs, but majorly the Poles. All other European countries try to have a healthy relationship to Russia, at least in a state of "agree to disagree".

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


It more or less applies solely to Poland. To a less extent maybe to the Czechs, but majorly the Poles. All other European countries try to have a healthy relationship to Russia, at least in a state of "agree to disagree".

All the other Europeans but the ones in the East are cowards and conformists. We have bad relationship with Russia now, because

1) we wanted to be in NATO and EU - a horrible crime
2) we supported Ukrainians that wanted to be in NATO and EU.

In another words, we wanted to be independant and wanted others to be independant. Most EU countries would rather sacrifice other countries than pay higher oil prices, true.

He isn't saying a thing about how Poland, or Canada, should deal with Russia. He is saying that attitudes in the United States could take a turn towards a more productive relationship with Russia for the long term.

By abandoning souvereignity, promesses to and wishes of dozens of other states to russian interest.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Heresson
All the other Europeans but the ones in the East are cowards and conformists. We have bad relationship with Russia now, because

1) we wanted to be in NATO and EU - a horrible crime
2) we supported Ukrainians that wanted to be in NATO and EU.

In another words, we wanted to be independant and wanted others to be independant. Most EU countries would rather sacrifice other countries than pay higher oil prices, true.

There is a difference between disagreeing and behaving like a jerk. It's called politics. Your twins may know how to steal the moon, but they don't have the slightest grip of realpolitik. Throwing a tantrum and shouting "respect us, fear us!" and biting the hand that feeds you (or at least helps you) has nothing to do with it, to say the least. Good thing there's a broad consensus in Europe about this.

The Kaczynskis should try and learn a bit from Bismarck, even though he was an evil German.

[Patroklos]

Throwing a tantrum and shouting "respect us, fear us!" and biting the hand that feeds you (or at least helps you)

Looks like you have summed up the Russian position/attitude nicely

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


There is a difference between disagreeing and behaving like a jerk. It's called politics. Your twins may know how to steal the moon, but they don't have the slightest grip of realpolitik. Throwing a tantrum and shouting "respect us, fear us!" and biting the hand that feeds you (or at least helps you) has nothing to do with it, to say the least. Good thing there's a broad consensus in Europe about this.

The Kaczynskis should try and learn a bit from Bismarck, even though he was an evil German.

But I agree. Kaczynskis don't know anything about politics and definitely won't do Poland any good.

Patroklos is right, btw

[Harovan]

About their reaction to the incident with the monument in Estonia certainly. Their concerns about the missile defense are valid, however (perhaps unfounded, but still valid, as a weapon remains a potential threat even if it's not directed at you).