re Nuke deterence; yup mutually assured destruction worked for us all re cold war; and I guess kept things in check; but don’t forget the U.S. and the USSR fought each other indirectly thru the likes of … El Salvador, Angola, Vietnam, Korea etc. So – not so good.

I’ll conclude by saying I think Putin is a stand up guy with character (lots of) and good intentions for his country (pride, nationalism, economic resurgence etc) BUT his view of democracy (media repression, nationalized industries) seems a different model, yes?

On the other hand – Putin’s foreign policy is in direct conflict to Bush’s. Both Putin and Bush shall be leaving office soon (officially for Putin, anyway) – I do HOPE the replacements will offer a clearer, less rigid and more tolerant means of solving their nation’s issues.

I’d be FAR more interested in a reformed U.N., removed security council, … one nation, one vote influence with a corrupt-free world body (U.N.) to solve nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and ‘naughty’ nations.

Yes – no more nation building. it does not work.

Best!
Richard

Yep – we all certainly need to focus on the inadequacies of our nations (US, Russia, UK)

[btw, I'm a Brit - living in Chicago - so perhaps too rosy view of US and too perturbed by UK these days]

BUT your reading recommendation re whatdoesitmean lost its balance when it concludes with this paragraph:

“Fears for the American people are further raised in these reports due the United States Militaries preparing to open their vast concentration camps in the American Southwest regions, and which reports from America show the preparations being made for the American, British and Germany troops being raised to guard these camps:”

Concentration camps!? How the heck did this work into his logic? These ‘vast concentration camps’ ? does he mean the military bases? The U.S. has realized its armed forces are way too few for the insane allocations Bush is making of it across and around the world. Robert Gates and prior to him – Rummy – want (NEED) to enlarge the military recruitment by a large percentage. These bases are to be exlarged, expanded and the necessary logistics for that enlargement is what the author of your post is mistakenly referrring as concentration camps.
Yikes! Bad mistake I fear.

Again – I’m no fan of Bush and his foreign policy. I’m dubious of the recent North Korean ‘progress’ (which has stalled already) BUT at least the State Dept’s attempts at diplomacy with ‘rogue nations’ looks to be working.

btw – wish i could find the URL but post 9/11 a story quietly posted that the Iranians eagerly helped US remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and quiet relations between the U.S. and Iran looked positive. The Cheney/Rummy/Rove morons screwed the pooch and antagonized the Irans and blew any attempts to build better relations with the Ayathollah when Bush was told to use ‘Axis of Evil’ as term for Iran. The State Dept were beyond pissed off.
SO – there is always two sides to any effort and hopefully the Cheney/Rove days have past.

Don’t forget Bush leaves ’soon’. I for one … will breath a sigh of relief.

R

p.s. thanks for your post(s)

> and the other – you don’t hear but see on weapons / defense media sites
Of course I did hear. But what do you mean by “for everyone”? According to Putin, the bad guys today is the United States. He didn’t sell weapons to the bad guys, did he?

BTW, short for Vladimir is Volodya, Vova for close friends. I don’t really mind, call me Vlad if you’re used to, but this is purely foreign invention

Rogue states (from the US perspective) are basically states that do not kow-tow to Washinton and US business interests. Pure and simple.
Freedom, democracy is double-speak for US corporate interests.

This is why other nations get armed. Because without a nuclear bomb, the USA will not accept NO as an answer. It is as simple as that.

Most of this “war on terror” is fabricated. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at some point. It’s possible he still is.

Watched 911PressForTruth ?
It’s on google.
How did Al Queda sneak out of Afganistan ?

Putin’s hypocrisy is as bad as Bush’s hypocrisy.
Nearly every weapon producing country sells arms to just about anybody.
It all stinks. All of it.
Even here in the UK, there’s a big pile of shit around Parliament.

Just the other month, Blair stopped a fraud investigation into BAE giving back handers to some Saudi’s related to a big weapon’s contract.

Is Saudi Arabia a democracy ?
Is is ‘free’ like the US ?
Is it a radical state ?
(try visiting Mecca, let me know how you get on).
Does it materially support Sunni insurgents in Iraq that kill US and UK troops ?

No. No. Yes. Yes, probably.

But the “free” press likes to stick to the Iran agenda.
Why ?
Because Saudi Arabia is a US client state and kow-tows but Iran does not.
And the “free” press in the US have their own corporate agenda that aligns with Washington.

And you think “Ahmadinejad & Chavez & Il Jung need to be controlled beyond the means of the UN”. Why ? What are you scared off ?

When has Venuzuela, Iran or North Korea threatened to invade the USA ? Did they ?
Will they ?
Do you think it’s wise for Venuzuela, Iran or North Korea
to threaten to invade the USA ?

They won’t do what the US would like, so they are “rogues” ?

“Bush does not have much longer in office and the country (and the world) will not take more crazy adventurers with flawed (being generous here) intelligence.”

But the US has been having lots of “crazy adventures” since WWII and historically it looks like the US won’t stop
having them.

Yes the UK, Russia and just about everybody else has had “crazy adventures” around the world. The point is for all of us to try to stop all of them.
US, UK or Russian or whoever.

I take it you vote in the USA, I vote in the UK and Vladamir in Russia.
Seems we each have our own little bit of homework to do then.

BTW have you ever read “Manufacturing Consent” ?
Good background on “free” press and US “crazy adventures”. I recommend it.

(as an aside, Russian Intelligence also concurred in ‘01 that Saddam had WMD)

Russia already possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal so moot point BUT Russia arming OTHER nations – including rogue nations IS the point.

But yes – it is proven in history again and again (so I do agree with u!) that unchecked superpowers eventually abuse their status or get carried away and lose a grip on reality.

I hope historians in 50 years (if we’re still here) are generous with Bush because the facts as they stand do not look good at the moment.

But without trying to contradict myself too much here – whilst I dislike Bush with intensity – I do believe Ahmadinejad & Chavez & Il Jung need to be controlled beyond the means of the UN (a corrupt paper tiger in need of massive reform [including scrapping the security council perhaps]).

Not sure sanctions are the answer. I suppose getting off our arses and finally finding an alternative to fossil fuels will be the ultimate solution?

Cheers for the post and the visit to the blog.

R

Fact is that Putin did make valid points: The US are trying to achieve global control: they ignore global treaties, they act without authorisation of the UN and they force their ways and beliefs onto other countries.

This, and here he is correct again, is by no means democracy. The nature of a superpower is that it has to supress other cultures to remain in power. Rome did it, Germany did it, the US are doing it now.

What we need is an equilibrium in the world. Because surely nobody wants the US to be a second German Reich or Roman Empire. The only thing Putin says is that we need other superpowers to step up and keep the US in rein.

I like the idea of Russia (or China or anybody else) arming up as little as anybody else. But the fact is that the US with their nuclear weapons and their current ideology are a danger to the world. Just imagine what would happen if George Bush (or the next president) turned out only half as mad as Adolf Hitler. George Bush’s finger is hovering over a button that could eliminate millions of people within seconds. As long as that button is available to him we certainly need other countries to be able to stand up to that power. If that means arming up then that’s what needs to happen.

Preferably I would say: arm down the US. Why do they have the right to have nuclear weapons, and nobody else does? Who makes George Bush a more responsible person than Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

AND I must again reaffirm – I’m NO fan of Bush. I vigorously state my sincere disappointment with his handling of Iraq (the U.S. military are doing a stellar job but wrong mission, wrong plan, wrongly marketed, wrongly time, wrong place!)

I agree the U.S.’s reputation on the world stage is almost irrectifiably damaged and will take years to fix – BUT again – nuclear weapon proliferation is the answer to standing up to U.S. ‘aggression’ ? That is insanity, sorry.

Putin took two faces to the Munich conference. One for the strongman diplomat that is seen as a unifier / straight talking against U.S. hegemony … and the other – you don’t hear but see on weapons / defense media sites … the rosoborenexports (nationalized weapons exporters) brochures he stuffed in his suitcase for anyone and EVERYONE – regardless of dangerous intent.

THEN he has the balls to state the U.S. is destablilizing the world he is busily arming?

Hmm. Nice debate Vlad! I DO truly appreciate your opinions and thoughts! I’d love to stay in touch – incase you ever point me in the ‘right’ direction re your Russian perspectives.

richard . buchanan @ opinionist . com

Best,
R

Look, for example, at the present situation. Here in Russia I’ve seen plenty of different opinions on the president’s speech in the central newspapers, ranging from extremly critical to quite supportive.
But look at the major US media. There’s only one point of view, only one tone, in which the articles are written. “Putin is a hypocrite; US is doing all right; we’re liberating the world, while they’re dark scary nation led by a former KGB agent”. Nobody even tries to answer the questions Putin has asked. Why bother, it’s pretty much easier just to use cliches and remind of some made-up-for-housewives stories (like Politkovskaya’s or Litvienko’s murders) instead of trying to think of contrarguments.

I do know what my government is doing in Chechnya. I do know more than that: I know what it DID in past, and that is even worse. But imagine US had their state going against them and organizing a bloody rebellion, killing peaceful citizens – and all that on a state scale; don’t you think things would go the same way? Next, look at what US done in Iraq. Don’t you think it’s even worse to kill people saying you’re freeing them, than to sincerely agree that you’re fighting them?

And that’s the flawed logic when you say “Putin is arming the very people that encourage Bush that his ‘war on terror’ is needed”. Why Bush decides, whom to arm and whom to do not? Why do you think the countries Bush said to be bad should be treated different way than the ones Bush approves?

From my point of view, having nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-armed ally today is almost the only way to be free from the constant fear of americans coming to liberate you. I agree, that the nuclear development in the third-world countries is an extremly bad thing, but I also agree that there are no other choices. It’s USA, who forces other countries to develop nuclear weapons. Cause when you see your friend beaten down by a bunch of deliquents, and you’re their next target, and you’re no match for them – you will get a bat. You will get a stone. You will use anything you find to protect yourself. So what’s so bad in helping some countries to protect themselves?

Pardon for size of the answers and a bad english. It’s really hard to stay short when you write in other language

As Putin’s official Presidential term of office nears its conclusion – with elections set for March of 2008 – it appears the pressures of diplomatic double-speak and the shackles of friendly innuendo have been released. President Putin took the relax…

Thanks (really!) for the comment – and I’m NO fan of Bush – but Putin is a (dangerous) hypocrite and needs to be recognized as such.
R

Did USA not bullied, for example, Iraq?
Do you really believe they did it because of that overused cheap “freedom” concept of theirs?
Don’t you think they just wanted to control oil and to test their weapons?
Do you really think it’s OK?

I don’t know, how people can live in a country, that brings death and terror everywhere it goes, and seriously consider themselves democratic and honest nation. The truth is, USA are generally disliked almost in every other country on the globe. Nobody likes them, and everybody understands, what are they doing. But the most pissing part of it is that all nation leaders are too afraid to argue. Nobody wants to be banned from the trading with USA. Nobody wants to be their next target.

That’s why, while I am generally not the fan of Putin, here I can only applause. He said exactly the words you will hear from almost every citizen in Russia. He said what most of us thinks.
And I guess in other countries the situation is the same.