Russia poses 'existential' threat to US

[Sbiker]

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

Russia and US was the natural allies at most of history periods... Maybe we both over-ate spoils from EU at the end of WWII, and this different spoils, like poison, makes us both fighting for... really - for what? for which interests?

 

[Tehon]

hipeter924, You do realize that we are in the year 2015 and that the Soviet Union was dissolved 24 years ago, right. But this is boring, I am interested in your signature. Do you understand how a tyranny of plutocracy would manifest itself on the world stage?........Zombie.

How so? Russia invaded Finland and will never give the territory back, and likewise it invaded Japan and seized the Kuril Islands that it also refuses to give back, and it took territory from Poland and Germany. This is all in today.

You rage about the evils of 'American imperialism' yet ignore the imperialism of the nation-state you are defending. Russia is by no means an innocent bystander, whether you are talking about the Russian Empire of Catherine the Great, Soviet Russia, or Russia today.

Likewise Russia would like nothing more than to create distrust and civil disturbances in the Baltic's, Poland, and so on: Vladimir Putin wants to regain Finland for Russia adviser says - Europe - World - The Independent

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.

According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.

You are a useful idiot for Russia, if you believe that there is such a thing as a 'moral high ground' and that only Russia is on it. I pointed out how naive it is to claim that only America has engaged in imperialism in modern or earlier times, but obviously you have been too sucked in by the propaganda of one side to see that.

This is all nonsense. You are still citing WWII and Russian-American agents to build a non existent case against Putin with propaganda that is more than a year old and has never come to fruition. The propaganda that you present is the same as the propaganda that the OP presented. It is unsubstantiated allegations that crumble under the weight of truth and time. The intent of the propaganda is to instill in the minds of the uncritical Western reader a fear of Putin's Russia so the powers that be can continue their war unmolested by public opinion. It is you who lacks the integrity to question what your leaders are doing that represents the useful idiot.

It isn't propaganda, but what actually happened. Next are you going to claim that ww2 never happened, Hitler was just having a vacation; and to jump ahead that the US was in Vietnam to explore Vietnamese jungles and not support a dictatorship.

You think I 'hate Putin' and fear Russia, but you are wrong there. Russia is different in their economic, political, and social views.

I don't 'hate Putin' or 'fear Russia', as that would require me to believe in 'moral high ground' and that the US or Russia is in one.

Ultimately this thread is really about Ukraine, and US foreign policy in the middle east. Ukraine is a proxy war, so if you think the American government supports one side for 'moral reasons', think again, this is a classic cold war style proxy war where only the factions are different.

The Middle East, with or without the US would be a mess, as Sunnis and Shiites have been in a state of undeclared and declared holy war for long while now. We would be better off if we left them to knock each other off, and stopped deposing Assads and Ghadaffi's, when Tunisia is the only country in the Arab Spring able to support democracy.

I haven't found a single war or proxy war I haven't disagreed with or been opposed to the conduct of. So I don't create a fictional bubble of moral superiority.

Russia and the US have done evil things in past and present, and have supported not so great regimes. That's the way I view it, as just another period of history where great powers play a game with people's lives.

I saw in that little image with the grim reaper, 'Serbia', which makes it historical revisionist propaganda. In the Yugoslavia war, Serbia ethnic cleansed and mass murdered, as did some states on the 'western side', but this was after Europe messed up Serbia, not America.

Is it America's fault for Europeans letting Yugoslavia come to blows. America bombed and ended the war, if it hadn't the sides would have continued killing each other. Guess you wanted Serbia nationalists to have 'greater Serbia' on lots more dead bodies to show for it.

Keep up the propaganda, and maybe Russia Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or the US govt funded media stations will give you a desk job.

Silly that you actually believe that just because it is the '21st century' that any nation becomes more noble or moral, even though geopolitics is little different than in Catherine the Great's time.

I have yet to mention a moral high ground, that seems to be your concern.
I asked you about your signature, you know, the tyranny of plutocracy quote. You didn't answer but I will try again. Do you believe in it? Do you believe the US is ruled by plutocrats?

 

[hipeter924]

hipeter924, You do realize that we are in the year 2015 and that the Soviet Union was dissolved 24 years ago, right. But this is boring, I am interested in your signature. Do you understand how a tyranny of plutocracy would manifest itself on the world stage?........Zombie.

How so? Russia invaded Finland and will never give the territory back, and likewise it invaded Japan and seized the Kuril Islands that it also refuses to give back, and it took territory from Poland and Germany. This is all in today.

You rage about the evils of 'American imperialism' yet ignore the imperialism of the nation-state you are defending. Russia is by no means an innocent bystander, whether you are talking about the Russian Empire of Catherine the Great, Soviet Russia, or Russia today.

Likewise Russia would like nothing more than to create distrust and civil disturbances in the Baltic's, Poland, and so on: Vladimir Putin wants to regain Finland for Russia adviser says - Europe - World - The Independent

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.

According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.

You are a useful idiot for Russia, if you believe that there is such a thing as a 'moral high ground' and that only Russia is on it. I pointed out how naive it is to claim that only America has engaged in imperialism in modern or earlier times, but obviously you have been too sucked in by the propaganda of one side to see that.

This is all nonsense. You are still citing WWII and Russian-American agents to build a non existent case against Putin with propaganda that is more than a year old and has never come to fruition. The propaganda that you present is the same as the propaganda that the OP presented. It is unsubstantiated allegations that crumble under the weight of truth and time. The intent of the propaganda is to instill in the minds of the uncritical Western reader a fear of Putin's Russia so the powers that be can continue their war unmolested by public opinion. It is you who lacks the integrity to question what your leaders are doing that represents the useful idiot.

It isn't propaganda, but what actually happened. Next are you going to claim that ww2 never happened, Hitler was just having a vacation; and to jump ahead that the US was in Vietnam to explore Vietnamese jungles and not support a dictatorship.

You think I 'hate Putin' and fear Russia, but you are wrong there. Russia is different in their economic, political, and social views.

I don't 'hate Putin' or 'fear Russia', as that would require me to believe in 'moral high ground' and that the US or Russia is in one.

Ultimately this thread is really about Ukraine, and US foreign policy in the middle east. Ukraine is a proxy war, so if you think the American government supports one side for 'moral reasons', think again, this is a classic cold war style proxy war where only the factions are different.

The Middle East, with or without the US would be a mess, as Sunnis and Shiites have been in a state of undeclared and declared holy war for long while now. We would be better off if we left them to knock each other off, and stopped deposing Assads and Ghadaffi's, when Tunisia is the only country in the Arab Spring able to support democracy.

I haven't found a single war or proxy war I haven't disagreed with or been opposed to the conduct of. So I don't create a fictional bubble of moral superiority.

Russia and the US have done evil things in past and present, and have supported not so great regimes. That's the way I view it, as just another period of history where great powers play a game with people's lives.

I saw in that little image with the grim reaper, 'Serbia', which makes it historical revisionist propaganda. In the Yugoslavia war, Serbia ethnic cleansed and mass murdered, as did some states on the 'western side', but this was after Europe messed up Serbia, not America.

Is it America's fault for Europeans letting Yugoslavia come to blows. America bombed and ended the war, if it hadn't the sides would have continued killing each other. Guess you wanted Serbia nationalists to have 'greater Serbia' on lots more dead bodies to show for it.

Keep up the propaganda, and maybe Russia Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, or the US govt funded media stations will give you a desk job.

Silly that you actually believe that just because it is the '21st century' that any nation becomes more noble or moral, even though geopolitics is little different than in Catherine the Great's time.

I have yet to mention a moral high ground, that seems to be your concern.
I asked you about your signature, you know, the tyranny of plutocracy quote. You didn't answer but I will try again. Do you believe in it? Do you believe the US is ruled by plutocrats?

Sure it is, has been since its inception, but more so these days, with most global corporations buying up the politicians.

 

[Tehon]

After WWII the US dollar was given preferential treatment as the world's reserve currency. To which the US (read plutocrats) abused the privilege. Because of this Russia is working with China to decouple from the dollar. Do you see the problems this would create for America's plutocrats? Who controls the media in this country? The plutocrats. Why would you believe the media's distortions about world events? We are all being played.

 

[Stratford57]

Go Putin GO

Show the world what a stupid moron Barry from Honolulu is!

And that's what American "leader" should have done instead of destroying his country.

 

[hipeter924]

After WWII the US dollar was given preferential treatment as the world's reserve currency. To which the US (read plutocrats) abused the privilege. Because of this Russia is working with China to decouple from the dollar. Do you see the problems this would create for America's plutocrats? Who controls the media in this country? The plutocrats. Why would you believe the media's distortions about world events? We are all being played.

Just one major problem, China and Russia are both run by their own plutocrats. Why do you believe one group of plutocrats over another group?

 

[IronFist]

Just one major problem, China and Russia are both run by their own plutocrats. Why do you believe one group of plutocrats over another group?

I believe all countries are run but plutocrats. That's kinda strange that China claims to be a socialist country but in fact it's not. I bet there is not a single country in the world which isn't run by money.

 

[PK1]

Go Putin GO

Show the world what a stupid moron Barry from Honolulu is!

And that's what American "leader" should have done instead of destroying his country.

---
That Putin quote makes him look like the nationalistic asshole he really is.
Thanks for confirming that.

 

[Correll]

Russia is no threat to the US. It is a threat to it's nearby neighbors.

If the Europeans feel threatened they should spend more than 1% of their gnp on their military.

NATO expansion was a mistake.

We should pull out of NATO.

NATO isn't about protecting Georgia!

The US put the corrupt and authoritarian Yeltsin in power, so naturally it didn't like it when Putin created independent foreign policy and began to rebuild Russia.

Russia is not a threat to its neighbors any more than it was during the Russian Empire. There is a lot of rhetoric, and some in Russia would like the reclaim the glory days of the Russian Empire, but no more than in the US - where people dream of annexing Canada aka war of 1812.

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

We did not put Yeltsin in power. THat is crazy talk.

Russia is totally a threat to it's neighbors. They have many conflicting interests and populations that do NOT follow national borders.


No one in the US is dreaming of annexing Canada.

THe neo cons are not the only ones who are stuck in Cold War thinking.

 

[Tehon]

After WWII the US dollar was given preferential treatment as the world's reserve currency. To which the US (read plutocrats) abused the privilege. Because of this Russia is working with China to decouple from the dollar. Do you see the problems this would create for America's plutocrats? Who controls the media in this country? The plutocrats. Why would you believe the media's distortions about world events? We are all being played.

Just one major problem, China and Russia are both run by their own plutocrats. Why do you believe one group of plutocrats over another group?

I don't see a problem because I possess the ability to think critically. I don't believe one group over another, I believe the facts as they present themselves.

 

[hipeter924]

Russia is no threat to the US. It is a threat to it's nearby neighbors.

If the Europeans feel threatened they should spend more than 1% of their gnp on their military.

NATO expansion was a mistake.

We should pull out of NATO.

NATO isn't about protecting Georgia!

The US put the corrupt and authoritarian Yeltsin in power, so naturally it didn't like it when Putin created independent foreign policy and began to rebuild Russia.

Russia is not a threat to its neighbors any more than it was during the Russian Empire. There is a lot of rhetoric, and some in Russia would like the reclaim the glory days of the Russian Empire, but no more than in the US - where people dream of annexing Canada aka war of 1812.

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

We did not put Yeltsin in power. THat is crazy talk.

Russia is totally a threat to it's neighbors. They have many conflicting interests and populations that do NOT follow national borders.


No one in the US is dreaming of annexing Canada.

THe neo cons are not the only ones who are stuck in Cold War thinking.

No it isn't, then I don't expect you are the type to read anything by Naomi Klein (or anyone really that isn't in the pocket of 'free market' propagandists): Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin - OPINION - The Hindu

One reason why Yeltsin was the West’s darling — while Mr. Putin is the target of virulent attacks — was that his policies perfectly suited the Western agenda for Russia, a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state and a source of cheap energy and minerals. By contrast, Russia’s resurgence under Mr. Putin is seen as upsetting the global balance of power and threatening the U.S. unipolar model.

We tried a puppet regime that would do the IMFs/World Bank's/Western Governments bidding, encouraging Yeltsin to privatize everything and screw over his people, which he joyfully did, till Putin came to power and Russia's government stopped playing the game by western rules.

 

[hipeter924]

After WWII the US dollar was given preferential treatment as the world's reserve currency. To which the US (read plutocrats) abused the privilege. Because of this Russia is working with China to decouple from the dollar. Do you see the problems this would create for America's plutocrats? Who controls the media in this country? The plutocrats. Why would you believe the media's distortions about world events? We are all being played.

Just one major problem, China and Russia are both run by their own plutocrats. Why do you believe one group of plutocrats over another group?

I don't see a problem because I possess the ability to think critically. I don't believe one group over another, I believe the facts as they present themselves.

No you don't, you focus on just one major player in the global system, meaning America.

I don't see it that way, because when one major player leaves the game another just takes over.

- When Alexander the Great's Empire collapsed, the Roman Empire eventually took over from it.
- When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was replaced by the Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire.
- When those empires collapsed, Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany/Prussia, Spain,etc took over.
- When the Spanish Empire's power declined, the British Empire, Russian Empire, French Empire,etc took the limelight.
- When the British and French Empires went into decline, the 'American Empire' and Soviet Union took over their position of global dominance.
- When the 'American Empire' declines, its position will be taken over by China and India.

 

[Sbiker]

After WWII the US dollar was given preferential treatment as the world's reserve currency. To which the US (read plutocrats) abused the privilege. Because of this Russia is working with China to decouple from the dollar. Do you see the problems this would create for America's plutocrats? Who controls the media in this country? The plutocrats. Why would you believe the media's distortions about world events? We are all being played.

Just one major problem, China and Russia are both run by their own plutocrats. Why do you believe one group of plutocrats over another group?

Plutocracy - it's just a base of all governments. Some leaders and groups can operate above it by another interests, but need to play with plutocracy by it rules.

Curiously, in our world dictatorship is better for single country than democracy - because it there no any chances of dictator now to get support, except of their simple people - so, usually, he tries to make life of these people better, like Gaddafi... But for Russia and US both the best thing we could wait - economic and science competition without hot proxy wars - as it was during some times of cold war. But how to force politians to play, following peaceful rules - now most of them so stupid not to be afraid a nuclear war - what else can save us all instead of alien's invasion?

 

[Tehon]

No you don't, you focus on just one major player in the global system, meaning America.

Wrong, I focus on the truth, which is based in facts, if the facts point in one direction.....then so be it.

I don't see it that way, because when one major player leaves the game another just takes over.

- When Alexander the Great's Empire collapsed, the Roman Empire eventually took over from it.
- When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was replaced by the Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire.
- When those empires collapsed, Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany/Prussia, Spain,etc took over.
- When the Spanish Empire's power declined, the British Empire, Russian Empire, French Empire,etc took the limelight.
- When the British and French Empires went into decline, the 'American Empire' and Soviet Union took over their position of global dominance.
- When the 'American Empire' declines, its position will be taken over by China and India.

And this is what I am saying as well, you apparently do not understand my point though. The economic system that has been dominated by American capitalism is being challenged and the US is doing everything it can to prevent it from happening. This is why the US has started a war with Russia, not because Putin is trying to reclaim the USSR. That is propaganda directed at US and Western citizens to allow the US and Western elites to continue it's militarism unchallenged by public opinion.

 

[Correll]

Russia is no threat to the US. It is a threat to it's nearby neighbors.

If the Europeans feel threatened they should spend more than 1% of their gnp on their military.

NATO expansion was a mistake.

We should pull out of NATO.

NATO isn't about protecting Georgia!

The US put the corrupt and authoritarian Yeltsin in power, so naturally it didn't like it when Putin created independent foreign policy and began to rebuild Russia.

Russia is not a threat to its neighbors any more than it was during the Russian Empire. There is a lot of rhetoric, and some in Russia would like the reclaim the glory days of the Russian Empire, but no more than in the US - where people dream of annexing Canada aka war of 1812.

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

We did not put Yeltsin in power. THat is crazy talk.

Russia is totally a threat to it's neighbors. They have many conflicting interests and populations that do NOT follow national borders.


No one in the US is dreaming of annexing Canada.

THe neo cons are not the only ones who are stuck in Cold War thinking.

No it isn't, then I don't expect you are the type to read anything by Naomi Klein (or anyone really that isn't in the pocket of 'free market' propagandists): Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin - OPINION - The Hindu

One reason why Yeltsin was the West’s darling — while Mr. Putin is the target of virulent attacks — was that his policies perfectly suited the Western agenda for Russia, a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state and a source of cheap energy and minerals. By contrast, Russia’s resurgence under Mr. Putin is seen as upsetting the global balance of power and threatening the U.S. unipolar model.

We tried a puppet regime that would do the IMFs/World Bank's/Western Governments bidding, encouraging Yeltsin to privatize everything and screw over his people, which he joyfully did, till Putin came to power and Russia's government stopped playing the game by western rules.

You kind of moved the bar there, from "putting him in power" to just liking him.

Did you realize that your previous statement was ridiculous?

Sure, the West loved a leader that helped destroy the Soviet Union.

I can't speak for all Western Leaders. Russia was never going to be a client state. It is to large for that.

I personally wished and still do wish Russia well.

They do not have the power, or the attractive ideology to be a threat to US. So, whatever.

Russia is not the threat to the US dominance. INternal forces and China are.

 

[Stratford57]

Russia is no threat to the US. It is a threat to it's nearby neighbors.

If the Europeans feel threatened they should spend more than 1% of their gnp on their military.

NATO expansion was a mistake.

We should pull out of NATO.

NATO isn't about protecting Georgia!

The US put the corrupt and authoritarian Yeltsin in power, so naturally it didn't like it when Putin created independent foreign policy and began to rebuild Russia.

Russia is not a threat to its neighbors any more than it was during the Russian Empire. There is a lot of rhetoric, and some in Russia would like the reclaim the glory days of the Russian Empire, but no more than in the US - where people dream of annexing Canada aka war of 1812.

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

We did not put Yeltsin in power. THat is crazy talk.

Russia is totally a threat to it's neighbors. They have many conflicting interests and populations that do NOT follow national borders.


No one in the US is dreaming of annexing Canada.

THe neo cons are not the only ones who are stuck in Cold War thinking.

No it isn't, then I don't expect you are the type to read anything by Naomi Klein (or anyone really that isn't in the pocket of 'free market' propagandists): Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin - OPINION - The Hindu

One reason why Yeltsin was the West’s darling — while Mr. Putin is the target of virulent attacks — was that his policies perfectly suited the Western agenda for Russia, a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state and a source of cheap energy and minerals. By contrast, Russia’s resurgence under Mr. Putin is seen as upsetting the global balance of power and threatening the U.S. unipolar model.

We tried a puppet regime that would do the IMFs/World Bank's/Western Governments bidding, encouraging Yeltsin to privatize everything and screw over his people, which he joyfully did, till Putin came to power and Russia's government stopped playing the game by western rules.

You kind of moved the bar there, from "putting him in power" to just liking him.

Did you realize that your previous statement was ridiculous?

Sure, the West loved a leader that helped destroy the Soviet Union.

I can't speak for all Western Leaders. Russia was never going to be a client state. It is to large for that.

I personally wished and still do wish Russia well.

They do not have the power, or the attractive ideology to be a threat to US. So, whatever.

Russia is not the threat to the US dominance. INternal forces and China are.

Rethinking Russia: A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen
Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen Dan Kovalik

 

[Correll]

Russia is no threat to the US. It is a threat to it's nearby neighbors.

If the Europeans feel threatened they should spend more than 1% of their gnp on their military.

NATO expansion was a mistake.

We should pull out of NATO.

NATO isn't about protecting Georgia!

The US put the corrupt and authoritarian Yeltsin in power, so naturally it didn't like it when Putin created independent foreign policy and began to rebuild Russia.

Russia is not a threat to its neighbors any more than it was during the Russian Empire. There is a lot of rhetoric, and some in Russia would like the reclaim the glory days of the Russian Empire, but no more than in the US - where people dream of annexing Canada aka war of 1812.

There is a way out, as France and Great Britain found before WW1, which is supporting Russia, rather than threatening it. But disbanding NATO, forming a military relationship with Russia and trading arms, weapons and knowledge is heresy according to the neo cons, who believe the US needs to 'fight Russia' to maintain peace.

We did not put Yeltsin in power. THat is crazy talk.

Russia is totally a threat to it's neighbors. They have many conflicting interests and populations that do NOT follow national borders.


No one in the US is dreaming of annexing Canada.

THe neo cons are not the only ones who are stuck in Cold War thinking.

No it isn't, then I don't expect you are the type to read anything by Naomi Klein (or anyone really that isn't in the pocket of 'free market' propagandists): Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin - OPINION - The Hindu

One reason why Yeltsin was the West’s darling — while Mr. Putin is the target of virulent attacks — was that his policies perfectly suited the Western agenda for Russia, a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state and a source of cheap energy and minerals. By contrast, Russia’s resurgence under Mr. Putin is seen as upsetting the global balance of power and threatening the U.S. unipolar model.

We tried a puppet regime that would do the IMFs/World Bank's/Western Governments bidding, encouraging Yeltsin to privatize everything and screw over his people, which he joyfully did, till Putin came to power and Russia's government stopped playing the game by western rules.

You kind of moved the bar there, from "putting him in power" to just liking him.

Did you realize that your previous statement was ridiculous?

Sure, the West loved a leader that helped destroy the Soviet Union.

I can't speak for all Western Leaders. Russia was never going to be a client state. It is to large for that.

I personally wished and still do wish Russia well.

They do not have the power, or the attractive ideology to be a threat to US. So, whatever.

Russia is not the threat to the US dominance. INternal forces and China are.

Rethinking Russia: A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen
Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen Dan Kovalik

I don't know that Putin would be much of a partner in very much, but yes, this anti-PUtin, anti-RUssian stance makes no sense for America.

The Cold War is over. THe "new Cold War" is nonsense.

Threatening a world war to save West Germany made sense. Flipping West Germany would have led to Soviet domination of all of Europe and, at best a world very, very contrary to US interests.

GEORGIA? Not so much.

Nato expansion was a mistake that can only be fixed by leaving Nato.

 

[quorthon]

The government and military who are proud of themselves on bringing "democracy" (revolutions) should not whine when targeted regimes treat them like troublemakers. The US poses existential threat to Russia and many other countries that walk their own way, not vice versa.

 

[Correll]

The government and military who are proud of themselves on bringing "democracy" (revolutions) should not whine when targeted regimes treat them like troublemakers. The US poses existential threat to Russia and many other countries that walk their own way, not vice versa.

Russia is not quietly "walking their own way".

They have been bad neighbors to those with the misfortune to be next to them, especially if ethnic russians were left behind the receding tide of Empire.

Not that I feel the US should be involved, but it is not like PUtin is an innocent. Let's not exaggerate.

 

[paulitician]

Is Russia the new Boogeyman? How many we up to now? Oh well, gotta keep the Sheeple supporting Permanent War. Another day, another manufactured Boogeyman. When will the poor Sheeple wake up?

Russia is the same boogeyman it was in the USSR days, when they believed that Stalin wanted more than he gained at Yalta; besides Berlin perhaps - but the west sought to take all of North Korea (rather than just defend the South), which was a much larger infraction. Throughout the cold war Russia wanted peace in Europe, and the Warsaw Pact was formed only in response to NATO.

Good points. Russia is no threat to the U.S. But if this is another Cold War, it's fair to say the West started it. They've forced Russia into it.