Russia sez: Choose: us or them.

[muskokaandtahoe]

Very interesting posts.

Let me ask a question.

Does Russia, have anymore "territorial ambitions"?

In a word, YES.

What they refer to as "The Near Abroad" is the territory once held by the Soviet Union. They want the more interesting parts BACK and to intimidate the rest into being mindless sheep.

Anybody that thinks Russia is just another ordinary country has no notion of history. It is an imperialst state today, yesterday, and for the last 500 years.

So were the western Europeans... but they got over it. Russia has not. So think about that.

[rpicardi1]

More then ever, as the Balkin States are going to learn this winter with the loss of their newly found freedom or they will all freeze to death, is the need to become energy independent. Russia now has control of all pipelines that deliver 50% of Eastern Europe's energy needs. They will use that threat to take control of those countries that broke away from the former Soviet empire.

With 70% of our oil being imported, much of it from countries that would just as soon see our destruction, we could be next. This threat alone makes the upcoming elections more important then ever.

[Dan1]

The term 'near abroad' predates the Soviet Union.

If your argument were true and Russia were after the 'interesting' bits then why on earth is it bothering with Georgia (main export wine) rather than the oil rich states of Central Asia such as Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan? Why is Russia so interested in Ingushetia or Chechnya? While the cliches about 'Russia as an imperialist state' are very easy to make they don't stack up with the actions on the ground.

The reason why Russia has been anti-Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia is because Moscow considers the leadership of all three states to be hostile to Russia.

[chucksc]

I was not calling Russia Nazi Germany, I was just making a comparison to the land grabbing.

The problem is, that Russia is paranoid, much like the Soviet Union before it, the hostility is sees, is largely of its own making.

But to be fair, Russia, has a long history, of wanna be conquerers, trying to take it over.

I think the correct term is actually xenophobic?

[chucksc]

The term 'near abroad' predates the Soviet Union.

If your argument were true and Russia were after the 'interesting' bits then why on earth is it bothering with Georgia (main export wine) rather than the oil rich states of Central Asia such as Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan? Why is Russia so interested in Ingushetia or Chechnya? While the cliches about 'Russia as an imperialist state' are very easy to make they don't stack up with the actions on the ground.

The reason why Russia has been anti-Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia is because Moscow considers the leadership of all three states to be hostile to Russia.

Small point of order..
Georga contains the primary pipeline for oil and gas from the former Soviet near east to Turkey and Europe..

As I recall that is the same area the Germans were driving to until they made a slight pit stop in Stalingrad, eh?

[Dan1]

No, xenophobia is 'an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.'

While, the pipeline flows through Georgia - the oil comes from Turkmenistan. If Russia were motivated to control the oil then it would make more sense to control the source no?

The point that should be made is that South Ossetia is one of a number of lukewarm conflicts - Kaliningrad has still not been resolved, nor has Transnistria two name two border issues in European Russia.

[chucksc]

No, xenophobia is 'an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.'

While, the pipeline flows through Georgia - the oil comes from Turkmenistan. If Russia were motivated to control the oil then it would make more sense to control the source no?

Just keep apologizing for them Dan....

Maybe they will shoot you last, eh?

[mjs2101]

Well, with NATO expansion and the US "defensive shield" (LOL), what do you expect Russia to do? Sit idly by and watch as the west surrounds them and try to force change down their throat? I don't see that happening.

Mykel

[Dan1]

Chuck do grow up and stop being such a baby. Having a different point of view to yours does not make someone an apologist, nor have I condoned Russia's actions.

Unlike others who view it as the start of a revanchist Imperial Russia, I view it as part one of a number of conflicts which have their roots in the failure to resolve the borders of the USSR at the end of 1992.

[chucksc]

Chuck do grow up and stop being such a baby. Having a different point of view to yours does not make someone an apologist, nor have I condoned Russia's actions.

Unlike others who view it as the start of a revanchist Imperial Russia, I view it as part one of a number of conflicts which have their roots in the failure to resolve the borders of the USSR at the end of 1992.

I still think you are apologizing for them...

I agree with you on the roots of the conflicts steming from the fall of the USSR - however the Russians are historically xenophobic....

And this presents them with the perfect opportunity to "influence" europe by controlling their energy supply....

Something (influencing europe) they have been trying to do since Peter the Great...

[chucksc]

Well, with NATO expansion and the US "defensive shield" (LOL), what do you expect Russia to do? Sit idly by and watch as the west surrounds them and try to force change down their throat? I don't see that happening.

Mykel

Mykel why would you be sympathetic to them now? where were you when they were threatening to charge through the Fulda Gap and march to the coast of France????

[Dan1]

As I say - just because I choose to disagree does not make me an apologist. This is not a black and white issue of 'good' and 'bad'.

I would say where was the condemnation when Chechnya was being levelled? Where were was the criticism when Putin was busy seizing control of the Russian media? The Putin regime is authoritarian, intolerant, nationalistic, populist and corrupt. On the otherhand, it is easy to see why Russia considers Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia (and the west) to be hostile to it. At the same time these states do not exactly help themselves by pursuing anti-Russian domestic policies such as language laws that exclude 1/3 of the population and erecting statues to the SS who attacked Russia during WW2.

The west has hamstrung itself by its support for Kosovo which was also separated from a new democracy by force.

Russia is no more historically xenophobic than any other state.

If they were seeking to control energy into Europe it would make more sense to control the resources at their starting point than to control a pipeline.

[mjs2101]

Mykel why would you be sympathetic to them now?

I have not said that I am or am not sympathetic to them, I am merely offering an argument contrary to what seems to be the general consensus towards Russia and the current situation. However, I do believe that if the West were truly interested in moving Russia towards democracy and freedom, they could have done a better job! There have been two chances so far with little success, wonder if there will be third?

Mykel

[rdamurphy]

The Putin regime is authoritarian, intolerant, nationalistic, populist and corrupt...

Sounds like they've got the Western Democracy thing down pat then!

Robert

[muskokaandtahoe]

Unlike others who view it as the start of a revanchist Imperial Russia, I view it as part one of a number of conflicts which have their roots in the failure to resolve the borders of the USSR at the end of 1992.

Dan, that's one and the same thing.