Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson


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

All right. At least you understand this point.

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.

Independence of these nations is one thing, but their turning into Western whores hostile to Russia is quite another thing.

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.

Independence is one thing, but undermining the established strategic balance is another thing.

For instance, can Cuba as an independent country allow Russian missiles in its territory?

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?

It doesn't even matter whether someone wants to destroy Russia or not. What counts is whether he has a possibility to do so unpunished.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Independence of these nations is one thing, but their turning into Western whores hostile to Russia is quite another thing.

They have 100% right to do it. And clumsy and arrogant russian politics are making them do so. If Russia wants them to turn to her, she has to offer them something. If the West is more attractive, and Russia can only threaten and cause internal turmoil, well, what do You expect?

Independence is one thing, but undermining the established strategic balance is another thing.

For instance, can Cuba as an independent country allow Russian missiles in its territory?

It should be able. I personally find it silly that Cuba wasn't allowed to have them then, but now, when Cold War is over, denying them the right to do what they wish on their own territory would be even dumber, and the only excuse would perhaps be that it is a dictatorship, and not a democracy, but even that would be a weak one.

It doesn't even matter whether someone wants to destroy Russia or not. What counts is whether he has a possibility to do so unpunished.

Well, the same Poland and Baltic States could claim Russia could reduce its military strenght to the point it would be not able to harm them...

[Barnabas]

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Barnabas

Very odd stamp. Who know's why did they decide to commemorate 50th anniversary with a T-26 of all things.

[The Vagabond]

Back then, they were not yet aware of such a thing as homosexuality.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson


They have 100% right to do it. And clumsy and arrogant russian politics are making them do so. If Russia wants them to turn to her, she has to offer them something. If the West is more attractive, and Russia can only threaten and cause internal turmoil, well, what do You expect?

The opposite is also true: the arrogant Western policy of grabbing as many satellites as possible while time is ripe provokes Russia on those arrogant and clumsy moves. It's a vicious circle.

It should be able. I personally find it silly that Cuba wasn't allowed to have them then, but now, when Cold War is over, denying them the right to do what they wish on their own territory would be even dumber, and the only excuse would perhaps be that it is a dictatorship, and not a democracy, but even that would be a weak one.

"You personally" is one thing. But what do you personally think would be the reaction of the US if someone tried to place missiles in Cuba?

Well, the same Poland and Baltic States could claim Russia could reduce its military strenght to the point it would be not able to harm them...

Poland and the Baltic republics are not independent top-level strategic players. The US is, Russia is, China is, the West as a whole is. But you are not, sorry. Even the EU as a whole is not, because it is under the US.

[Heresson]

Yeah, they thought it is just innocent fun

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The opposite is also true: the arrogant Western policy of grabbing as many satellites as possible while time is ripe provokes Russia on those arrogant and clumsy moves. It's a vicious circle.

EU is not forcing anyone into its circle... and do not support tyrants and oligarchs like Russia does. It does have some rules, while Russia would support anyone to get some attention, to show it can still have some influence...

"You personally" is one thing. But what do you personally think would be the reaction of the US if someone tried to place missiles in Cuba?

I know that, and I condemn that. Yet, we're not talking about defensive infrastructure, and ment to protect Europe and USA from threats other than Russia. What's the threat to Moscow from american direction but USA?

Poland and the Baltic republics are not independent top-level strategic players. The US is, Russia is, China is, the West as a whole is. But you are not, sorry. Even the EU as a whole is not, because it is under the US.

Russia is having independant policy, just like Venezuela, Lybia etc has... You don't have to be strong to have that, You just have to be self-confident and insane enough. Anyway, what You mean is "we are strong, dammit, so we have the right to force our interest onto others". Neanderthal, post-soviet politics, Americans do it as well sometimes. But Russia is not 50's USSR anymore. It is not a superpower. It is hardly more than another oil country, except for that it's much poorer, but has nukes. It gets better treatment partly because of tradition, and partly because the West is afraid it will do something insane if it is not taken seriously. It's a strategy of a spoilt child, terrorising parents with screaming and destroying stuff.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson


EU is not forcing anyone into its circle... and do not support tyrants and oligarchs like Russia does. It does have some rules, while Russia would support anyone to get some attention, to show it can still have some influence...

Too bad NATO is not as scrupulous as the EU.

I know that, and I condemn that. Yet, we're not talking about defensive infrastructure, and ment to protect Europe and USA from threats other than Russia. What's the threat to Moscow from american direction but USA?

If the US and Europe get well protected by this shield, Russia will get vulnerable to a first strike.

Russia is having independant policy, just like Venezuela, Lybia etc has... You don't have to be strong to have that, You just have to be self-confident and insane enough.

But you have to be strong enough in order to be able to conduct an independent policy without being declared a rogue state or becoming a pariah of the international community (that is of the United States). Russia is strong enough for that. Venezuela and Libia are not.

Anyway, what You mean is "we are strong, dammit, so we have the right to force our interest onto others". Neanderthal, post-soviet politics, Americans do it as well sometimes. But Russia is not 50's USSR anymore. It is not a superpower. It is hardly more than another oil country, except for that it's much poorer, but has nukes. It gets better treatment partly because of tradition, and partly because the West is afraid it will do something insane if it is not taken seriously. It's a strategy of a spoilt child, terrorising parents with screaming and destroying stuff.

Russia is not the superpower it used to be, but it is strong enough (whatever particular factors behind that may be) and civilized enough. And the West knows that.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Too bad NATO is not as scrupulous as the EU.

I don't think it's evil.

If the US and Europe get well protected by this shield, Russia will get vulnerable to a first strike.

Build your own shield

But you have to be strong enough in order to be able to conduct an independent policy without being declared a rogue state or becoming a pariah of the international community (that is of the United States). Russia is strong enough for that. Venezuela and Libia are not.

Again, I attribute it to a custom. Russia indeed should be declared a rogue state and marginalised
There are just three factors that prevent it:
- tradition
- oil
- nukes
Without tradition of greatness and nukes, Russia would be at best Iran of the North, perhaps less. Without oil and nukes, Russia would be a bigger Belarus.

Russia is not the superpower it used to be, but it is strong enough (whatever particular factors behind that may be) and civilized enough. And the West knows that.

What are and what should be the aims of russian policy?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson


I don't think it's evil.

I wish NATO were as picky as the EU. But not a chance. NATO is already ready to grab Ukraine and Georgia and perhaps even more.

Build your own shield

Too expensive. But Putin promised an asymmetric response which is much cheaper.

At least I am glad you are starting to recognize that this shield is a threat to Russia.

Again, I attribute it to a custom. Russia indeed should be declared a rogue state and marginalised
There are just three factors that prevent it:
- tradition
- oil
- nukes
Without tradition of greatness and nukes, Russia would be at best Iran of the North, perhaps less. Without oil and nukes, Russia would be a bigger Belarus.

What is the most important here is that there are factors (solid and sound) that prevent it. What these factors are is a different matter.

I could similarly claim that the US would implode at the speed of sound should its high-tech sector be taken away from it.

What are and what should be the aims of russian policy?

Ensuring the optimal functioning of Mother Russia, of course. What else can it be?

[Geronimo]

Re: Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

Putin may have made some excellent points but I found implications of two portions of his responses troubling:

Originally posted by VLADIMIR PUTIN
And now about the request itself. I have very mixed feelings about this request. If the people who sent this request did not know that the Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there. And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both options are bad.

Ok so since it is obviously impossible for Russia to extradite a citizen those requesting the extradition are either incompetent or their statements are pure politics that can be ignored. I can accept such reasoning.

If NATO were involved this would not fundamentally change anything because we know how decisions are made in NATO. They were made in the same way in the Warsaw Pact. There was a joke in East Germany: How can you tell which of the telephones on Honecker’s desk is the direct line to Moscow? Do you know this joke?

DER SPIEGEL: No.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The answer is: it’s the one with only a receiver and no mouthpiece. (Laughter).

The same goes for NATO, except that the telephone line goes not to Moscow in this case but to Washington, and so it would make no difference to us if NATO were heading this project.

If Putin is not aware that the US was unable to involve NATO in the invasion of Iraq (ie. Washington cannot make NATO countries do what it wants) then he is either incompetent or his statements are pure politics that should be ignored.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] 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.

I agree, but you were the one who introduced the question of Kosovo into what had been a discussion of missile defenses.

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.

My understanding is that Rambouillet was a response to what the Serbs were doing in Kosovo, the very same ections that led, apparently deliberately, to the flight of refugees.

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.

I would disagree that what Serbia did in Kosovo was merely "clamping down with some harsh measures". In fact the govt of Spain HAS applied harsh measures against ETA, without the consequences in Kosovo.

Its very difficult to discuss the legal precedent established if there is disagreement on the facts.

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

Do Russia, Spain, etc agree that IF there was incontrovertible evidence of a state organized campaign of ethnic cleansing, that WOULD have justified the NATO intervention? Would they be willing to put that into international law? Are they really staking their position on Kosovo on a disagreement over the facts of the case?

[Arrian]

If Putin is not aware that the US was unable to involve NATO in the invasion of Iraq (ie. Washington cannot make NATO countries do what it wants) then he is either incompetent or his statements are pure politics that should be ignored.

Seriously. Putin's little joke was funny, but not the way he meant it. Anybody who cares to review the history of NATO will quickly learn that the US doesn't have NEARLY that sort of control.

But I'm sure that's just my imagination, fed by the Western Media conspiracy

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

But you have to be strong enough in order to be able to conduct an independent policy without being declared a rogue state or becoming a pariah of the international community (that is of the United States). Russia is strong enough for that. Venezuela and Libia are not.

Venzuala is hardly a pariah.

Libya was, for some excellent reasons.