Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

[Krill]

Lets be honest. He still owned the journalists.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Firstly, I contest the claim that the Albanian refugees who departed Kosovo well after the bombing campaign had started were ethnically cleansed. Maybe one day we could discuss this ad nauseam on another thread, but I don't think it should be here as it will take forever.

However, you seem to suggest that the start of the attack on Yugoslavia was in response to the refugee crisis, which of course it wasn't. The bombing started after an impossible-to-meet and non-negotiable Rambouillet ultimatum (which could have been inspired by the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum of 23rd July 1914) was inevitably rejected. In the same way that WMD suddenly became unimportant in Iraq compared to toppling Saddam, the reasons for war in Kosovo changed as events unfolded.

The logic, however, is inescapable - and this is the point which is central to the Russia debate of this thread. If the Basques can't follow Kosovo's lead because they're not under IC occupation, then they have to first achieve this. Following the KLA model, they have to start shooting policemen and civilians until the state clamps down with some harsh measures. This should escalate, until they can get massive external intervention and occupation - at which point they would be entitled to their independence.

This is the scenario feared by countries like Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus and of course Russia.

What?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What?

What what, EEvil aggressor estonia will occupy Rusia. Estonians are scary.

[The Vagabond]

To judge by your flag, they already occupied Lithuania.

[Heresson]

[The Vagabond]

Good article from The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article1896029.ece

Why is hostility to the West so popular in Russia? Let us try to look at the West through Russian eyes. Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and “strategic partner”, US and European behaviour has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally. Russia has been told it could never join Nato or the EU and Mr Putin’s invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War. On human rights and extrajudicial assassinations, Russia’s record may be deplorable, but its abuses pale in comparison with those of Western friends such as Saudi Arabia and China, not to mention President Bush’s “boil them in oil” ally, Uzbekistan.

But far more serious from the Russian standpoint than any diplomatic conflicts is what the West has done to their country’s territorial integrity. Ever since the first Bush Administration undermined Mikhail Gorbachev by denying him the financial assistance of the International Monetary Fund and then encouraged the dissolution of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin, the West has appeared, at least from Moscow’s standpoint, to seize every opportunity to weaken, isolate and encircle Russia.

Not only has Russia lost its Eastern European satellites, but the homeland itself has been dismembered. No reasonable Russian could object to the independence of Poland, Hungary and even the Baltic states, which were forcibly annexed into the Soviet Union after the Second World War. But the loss of the Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus and central Asia are a different matter. These areas – or at least large swaths of them – were integral parts of the Russian “motherland” long before Texas and California belonged to the United States. For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Welsh and Scottish independence would be to Britain or Catalonian and Basque secession would be to Spain.

While Westerners see Russian resentment about these territorial losses as a throwback to 19th-century imperialist thinking, consider how the process might look when viewed from the Russian side. What Russians see is a powerful and wealthy empire expanding steadily on their Western border and swallowing all the intervening countries, first into the EU’s economic and political arrangements and then into the Nato military structure. Consider from the Russian standpoint the EU’s explicit vocation to keep growing until it embraces every European country with the sole exception of Russia itself, and the almost automatic Nato membership now granted to EU countries. Is it so very unreasonable to view this EU-Nato juggernaut as the world’s last remaining expansionist empire, or even the natural successor to previous German and French expansions that were considerably less benign?

Western politicians may ridicule such fantasies as Russian nationalist paranoia. But why shouldn’t the Russians worry about Western armies and missiles on their borders, when these contribute to a process of territorial encroachment similar to what Napoleon and Hitler failed to achieve by cruder means?

America and Europe, regardless of their warm words about Russia, are treating it objectively as an enemy, taking every opportunity to cut it down to size. After 15 years of this experience, is it really surprising if the Russians, emboldened by their newfound oil wealth, now respond in kind? In other words, it is not Russia but America and Europe that have restarted the Cold War.

The West may well be right to treat Russia as a natural enemy – that is certainly the attitude in Estonia and Poland. But if we are going to treat the Russians as enemies, let us at least try to see the world from their point of view.

The last paragraph is very important. Indeed, it may well be that in the present-day world the West and Russia are natural adversaries. The situation may change in the future though as China, India and the Moslem World get stronger. But in the present-day world it is like it is. The word "natural" underscores the concept that such animosity (between the West and Russia) is not just an act of someone's evil will. On the contrary, the will of the politicians, consciously or subconsciously, follows what is natural in this world.

So guys, get your concepts straight. Adversaries, then so it be. Just don't overload your mind with false explanations and hypocrisy.

On the other hand, the latter are very natural of humans. IIRC, Freud referred to this mechanism as "rationalization".

[Heresson]

I don't care if Russians see Ukraine or Byelorus as homeland. They were part of lithuanian-polish homeland, together with most of Latvia, long before they became part of Russia. Should we deny them their independance, as Russia does when it comes not only to Russia, but all eastern block?
eastern Ukraine became part of Russia only in second half of XVII century, and as an autonomous region. Estonia, and part of Latvia became part of Russia only in XVIII century.
Western Ukraine, entire Byelorus, most of Latvia and other parts of Poland became part of Russia only by the end of XVIII century.
Also, USSR announced partages of Poland illegal, de facto stating that russian posession of these lands was illegal...
Caucasus, and central Asia are XIX century gains.
Ukraine was forced into USSR,
Galicia, Bukovina, Transcarpathis were never in the hands of Moscow until ww2.
Of course, Ukrainians and Byelorusians are closely related to Russians, but so they are to Poles, especially in the west.
This article is a bad and missed excuse for russian imperialism. A comparison with USA is silly - this is Europe and central Asia, lanbds with old, still existing, cultures, not America. At best You could compare USA territory to Syberia.

How on earth can establishment of defensive military infrastructure in Poland and Czech Republic be compared to a military assault at Moscow?

[Asmodean]

@ Cort Haus: I don't know where you get your ideas about the world, m8. Suffice it to say that they are not the same as mine.

@ The Vagabond: Good article. Yes, the west and Russia are enemies - or at least adversaries. And that will continue as long as Russia perpetuates it's blatant disregard for democratic development and basic human rights.

@ Krill: Putin did not own the journalists. He displayed precisely what a ruthless dictator and genuine threat to world peace that he is, and demonstrated why it is imperative that he be removed.

Asmodean

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson
I don't care if Russians see Ukraine or Byelorus as homeland. They were part of lithuanian-polish homeland, together with most of Latvia, long before they became part of Russia. Should we deny them their independance, as Russia does when it comes not only to Russia, but all eastern block?
eastern Ukraine became part of Russia only in second half of XVII century, and as an autonomous region. Estonia, and part of Latvia became part of Russia only in XVIII century.
Western Ukraine, entire Byelorus, most of Latvia and other parts of Poland became part of Russia only by the end of XVIII century.
Also, USSR announced partages of Poland illegal, de facto stating that russian posession of these lands was illegal...
Caucasus, and central Asia are XIX century gains.
Ukraine was forced into USSR,
Galicia, Bukovina, Transcarpathis were never in the hands of Moscow until ww2.
Of course, Ukrainians and Byelorusians are closely related to Russians, but so they are to Poles, especially in the west.
This article is a bad and missed excuse for russian imperialism. A comparison with USA is silly - this is Europe and central Asia, lanbds with old, still existing, cultures, not America. At best You could compare USA territory to Syberia.

Belarus to Russia = Scotland to Britain = Catalonia to Spain is the appropriate comparison (at least on the emotional level).

"Know thy enemy." Apparently you don't want to understand your enemy on a deeper level.

How on earth can establishment of defensive military infrastructure in Poland and Czech Republic be compared to a military assault at Moscow?

It destroys MAD (not right away, of course, but potentially in some near future).

[The Vagabond]

@ The Vagabond: Good article. Yes, the west and Russia are enemies - or at least adversaries. And that will continue as long as Russia perpetuates it's blatant disregard for democratic development and basic human rights.

I don't agree with the "as long as ..." part. I would say "as long as the situation on the world-wide chess board naturally favors their being adversaries". "Blatant disregard..." is just how you justify it to yourself (following your mainstream Western media).

[Asmodean]

Hmm - I think it is funny how everyone that favor Russia or Putin to some extent all point out how my opinion is based on western media.

I really doesn't take any media reports for me to recognise the fact that Putin does in fact blatantly disregard basic human rights and that he has reversed democratic development.

I don't know how you get the idea that us westerners are unable to form our own opinion on this issue. But perhaps it is due to russians being used to having their opinions dictated to them

Asmodean

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Belarus to Russia = Scotland to Britain = Catalonia to Spain is the appropriate comparison (at least on the emotional level).

On emotional level - perhaps. But emotions are always subjective and are no arguement.

"Know thy enemy." Apparently you don't want to understand your enemy on a deeper level.

I know Ukraine and Belarus may mean much to Russia - after all, Russia does consider itself heir of Kievan Ruthenia, and always claimed its right to these lands. Yet, sentiments are one thing, and reality is another. Russians have to acknowledge independance of these nations, not to mention the ones further west.
Lwow and Vilnius were as dear to Poland, and more important when it comes to polish culture and science, than Kiev to Russia. While I think it is not fair that they are not polish anymore, I have to acknowledge that. For polish culture, Belarus and Ukraine were more important than Lublin, Kielce or Lodz regions. These lands belonged to Poland (PLC) for a longer time than to Russia. If we accepted their loss, Russia can do it as well.
But what it has to do with the shield anyway? Why can't Russia accept that its neighbours are independent countries free to do whatever they wish to do? Do we complain about russian forces in Krolewiec/Kaliningrad or Smolensk? Do we deny Russia its right to have alliances with whomever it wishes? I think Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland have more right being afraid of Russia than Russia of them anyway.

It destroys MAD (not right away, of course, but potentially in some near future).

Are You aware no-one wants to destroy Russia? That Russia only causes negative sentiment because it messes in other countries' affairs? That it would lose a war against America anyway? Why should Russia have special treatment then any other country? Why doesn't any other country, including nuclear ones, have the same demands, fears and complexes as Russia has?

[Saras]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
To judge by your flag, they already occupied Lithuania.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Saras

Don't get sad. We'll help you out, this time again.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Hmm - I think it is funny how everyone that favor Russia or Putin to some extent all point out how my opinion is based on western media.

I really doesn't take any media reports for me to recognise the fact that Putin does in fact blatantly disregard basic human rights and that he has reversed democratic development.

I don't know how you get the idea that us westerners are unable to form our own opinion on this issue. But perhaps it is due to russians being used to having their opinions dictated to them

There is so harsh anti-Russian campaign in the media that it is hard to remain unaffected. Moreover, it falls on a fertile soil of preconceptions.