I see no threat from USA

[Bruce]

Rvr, too much Wacky tobaccy in your US invasion by 2010 to 2012. Key to rhetoric with Russia will be who is in the whitehouse and Russia's policies toward the Arabs. I can not see much more than rhetoric with any administration. The US military establishment / State department still has alot of cold war hold over career diplomats and government workers. These guys are rapidly dieing out.

China, yeah lots of cockaroaches at the border, sort of like what is happening with the USA southern border. Russia needs to tighten the noose for the illegals at the Chinese border, landmine the whole thing, that'll stop them along with tight controls of the "legal" entry system via roads, ports etc. - and Russia I would hope is smart enough to do it, unlike the US at the Mexican border.

[ronin308]

Actually the problem with the Russian/Chinese border is that while the Chinese military continues to build up, the Russian military gets weaker as outlined by the article.  Eventually the natural resources in Siberia will become a target for the Chinese who have the potential to invade Russia but only for parts of Siberia and simply negotiate a "truce" stripping Russia of the natural resources.

What's interesting is that at least the author seems to think that the US would invade Russia to prevent that from happening.  Maybe the cold war isn't completely over from them and after seeing our "friendship" towards Iraq I can't blame them.

My biggest fear is that Russia will be invaded by the Chinese, not see the US offer for help as what it is but what they fear it will be and they will end up without those resources which will really turn their economy down in a not so good way.  In the end Russia becomes a powerful as Ukraine and is bypassed for all times.

My big question to the Russians is that if we are really interested in seizing territory how come we didn't just keep Kuwait after removing Saddam?  How come when we invaded Panama to oust Noriega we didn't keep it as well? 

[Lysander]

My guess is the Russians would nuke their own oil fields rather than  let an invader have them. Slash and burn has always been their policy  when attacked. I also suspect the Chinese know this already and so  would likely just buy Russian oil....much cheaper than a nuclear  exchange, which is the only other alternative.

[Turboguy]

Go in any store like WalMart and look at almost anything in their inventory to see where it is made.  You will find the overwhelming percentage of things are made in China.   My former fiancee was looking for "American" souvineers in WalMart.  Even the American Flags they sell are made in China.

If China invaded Russia it would be viewed as aggesive enought that  I am sure all goods from China would be banned even if we did not aid the Russians in their military efforts.   The Chinesse economy would be destroyed.   I think they would rather defeat thier enemies in the marketplace.

[wxman]

I don't see China invading Russia, US invading Russia or anything like that. There is this fear that this is going to happen but it is further from reality. Nobody is going to invade Russia. If China wanted the oil, they would never get it, as stated earlier, the Russians would destroy first or more likely just nuke China. Same if the US would invade Russia. In the end it's all about money. China is not a socialist state anymore. It is a one party capitalistic state, just like Russia. They're in love with greed just like the rest of the world. Attacking another country such as Russia would eliminate it's source of that black gold that is feeding their greed. Instead, China will just buy up control of these fields, like they are now doing elsewhere around the world. War costs money, too much money. The cost for the US war in Iraq is now $200 billion over a 3 year period vs a podunk country. Can you imagine the cost to invade Russia, and then most likely not get what you came for? China has more immediate problems on their hands. The possible 27% tarriff slapped on their goods by US if they don't allow their yuan to freely float. That would be a real hit on their economy. The greater fear the world should have is the threat of terrorist getting their hands on some sort of nuclear device whether it is a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb. How long before the terrorists turn on the next economic super power (China)? China is now buying up control of vasts amounts of oil from the former soviet states, and now moving into the middle east. How long before the people of the oil producing countries get upset with China because they do not see any sharing of the wealth and think China is raping them just as the US is perceived?  China is walking around with blinders on, just like the US did 40 years ago when the west basically had control of the oil in the middle east. China may still be perceived as a good guy to most of the world, but how long will that last when they start buying up these oil producing countries to feed their greed?

[ronin308]

While I'd disagree with the China invasion thing, what I feel is more important is the various reporting you see from Russian sources, either those rvr has provided or quotes that I've now seen in the local news about the Russian-Iranian nuke connection shows me many people in the USSR are still thinking like they are our cold war adversaries.

I think our position in Iraq is partially responsible for this stance as it has altered our perception in the world (for good or bad but it has).  I also think that many people still have the cold war "habits" ingrained in them from the various media on down.

[BC]

Ronin,

I kind of agree with your line of thought..  I remember the first time I boarded a flight to RU and the image I had in my head at the time.  It was quite a surprise to find that I really knew almost nothing of fact...

That's why I tend to disregard anything said by someone who hasn't spent time among the common folk.

Re:  China, thought this was quite funny and so true..
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31049

[andrewfi]

Ronin ~ I think you are looking at matters from a very US centric, hegemonic stance. Few outside the US think in bi-polar terms as Americans seem to do as a matter of course (usually these days in the framework of 'Us against the world') Of course, as a matter of fact, the USSR no longer exists and use, even by accident or ignorance, of the term, tends to suggest a particular viewpoint.

Russia is finding its way to an accommodation with the rest of the world and of course it has national interests. Those interests are not always coincident with the US. There are very good reasons why Russia would not support the US stance on Iranian nuclear issues, apart from the very practical one, that Iran is a state surrounded by nuclear powers, powers that have either used their weapons, or promised to do so.

Increasingly, the US is seen as a rival in Russia's back yard, and with good reason. It is no secret that the US has been actively meddling in the politics and economies of Russia's neighbours, the US has instelled a military presence in neighbouring countries and has made no secret of its ambitions in the region. To make the thought process easy, try this one on for size...

How would US citizens and government feel if Canada were to accept Russian troops and materiel on its soil, in order to protect Canada against US incursions?

How would US citizens and government feel if Mexico's US friendly government was overthrown as a result of a 'Purple Revolution' directly funded by Russian NGOs and foisting a corrupt government onthe country, one that preferred to see Russia's interests rather than US interests?

How would US citizens and government feel if working within your country were organisations funded by Russian interests, government and private, that consistently criticised the elected government, agitated for change toward governemnt stance and policy that suited Russian interests and that allowed Russian businessmen to take economic advantage of the US and its citizens?

I think I know the answers...

[Bruno]

How would US citizens and government feel if Canada were to accept Russian troops and materiel on its soil, in order to protect Canada against US incursions?

Simply remember the case of Cuba...

[ronin308]

Actually andrew, I'm trying to understand why the Russians think they way they do.   I tend to interchange USSR and Russia sometimes by mistake, you are correct my thinking will be just as influenced by prior history as I feel the Russian point of view is. 

I do agree about the concerns of the US intruding on Russia's backyard and personally I think that we should cut our meddling.  I will take issue with the comments about installing a corrupt government.  At least in the Ukraine's case the previous government was as corrupt or more corrupt than the current one, so to clarify it was replacing a corrupt government with another one albiet friendlier to US interests.   

I'm still trying to figure out why Russian media would include statements about the US invading their country, of course that's US Centric because it specifically deals with the US and of course it's bi-polar, I can't find a shade of gray in a statement claiming that we are going to attack Russia in 2010-2012 to steal their oil.  I've also heard similiar fears voiced by Elen as well. 

After all it's one thing to claim the US is trying to force a change in government and increase it's influence in that sphere to us actually sending in troops.

 

[BC]

Ronin,

Most folks will agree that history tends to repeat itself.  The example Bruno brought forth is a good one that might help explain concerns in the news articles you mentioned.  If we had only known back then what we know today..

[andrewfi]

I deliberately chose to let others raise Cuba. It makes the point well.

There are already considerable numbers of US troops and 'advisors' in countries neighbouring Russia, protecting and promoting US interests. I am sure that Russians are no less concerned about this kind of activity that Americans were in 1962.

What you see in the posts that RVR gives you is but a small part of the huge amount of media in Russia covering all points of view. I have previously provided links to sources that might give a better digest of Rusian media output. But given the current bellicose foreign policy of the US, there is no nation on earth that does not have reason to include US military intereference as a part of its strategic planning.

As to the situation in Ukraine, the economy is racing backards as a result of the new government's actions. One group the same as the other? A very nieve interpretation. The previous government was presiding over a very rapid economic growth and modernisation program, the current incumbents are rapidly dismantling the previous good work. Balancing the strong vested interests and movng forward was not an easy task, but one being well managed. Tymoshenko was the biggest thief in Ukraine, her lover and mentor is in a US gaol and it is only US political expediency that placed Tymoshenko where she is now. Yushchenko is married to an American who is, reputedly, shall we say, 'connected'. Their meeting and marriage was almost certainly planned in a foreign capital, it is almsot certainly true that Yushchenko is a puppet - There are differences.

[Bruno]

The Cuban Missile Crisis started with the Soviet Union installing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. In response, the United States put up a blockade in international waters. This is generally believed to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear war. The Soviet Union backed down, agreeing to remove the missiles in exchange for United States promises to remove similar nuclear missiles in Turkey and to never invade Cuba again.

So, it seem that Cuba was the "excuse" used by USSR and push American to remove US nuclear weapons from they border country.... it seem that now, we are in a similar situation... Russian fear the new NATO based in the surrounding country... Why do you think that Russia react agressively when Ukraine is thinking join the NATO...

All these American base outside US are considered like a threat by several country... and this is feed the anti-american ism in the world... it is called "fear"... showing a smile is a better method to make friend that showing your gun...

[andrewfi]

The Cuba issue, just as in Europe now, is more complex than most understand, but the point is that in 1962, Russia moved missiles to Cuba and the US felt VERY threatened. The US felt so threatened that they contemplated going to war over the issue and yes, in the end, they ended up moving missiles away from Russian border areas. Thing is, that at the time, almost no Americans would have been aware of the back story, just as they are not now. The US was threatening Russia, the Russians played chicken and the US blinked.

The reason why Cuba is relevant, although I did not mention it, is that it does display, in a very practical way, the effect that such actions have on the Americans and by thinking of situations that are relevant to ourselves, we can, perhaps, understand how others feel and think. Empathy, I believe they call it. The current US foreign policy stance does not give sufficient weighting to consideration of what others think and feel. I know, from personal experience, that on the ground many operatives of all kinds are working to negate the impact of what Washington and the State Department are doing, but they have an impossible task, much as I applaud their efforts!

[Admin]

Please remember to refrain from posting on highly-charged political issues unrelated to the FSU. While historical reflections on the missile crisis of the 60's may be ever so slightly related - extrapolations which are mere supposition to today's situations are not - particularly those which cast one country's position in a negative light.

This board is NOT the place to air political issues, complaints or even strong opinions. Do a Google search and you will find plenty of internet venues better-suited and receptive to such topics.

- Dan

[Rvrwind]

The only threat I see from the US is McDonalds!!!!:puke:

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner

[wxman]

Even though US meddled in the Ukrainian election 16 months ago (so did Russia and EU), the most positive result of Yuschenko getting elected is that this round of elections will be the first truly free and open elections. Yuschenko may be a lousy leader, but this will be the first election in Ukraine that will be truly free because Yuschenko values freedom more than he does having his party remain in power which it will not after the elections on sunday.  There are over 45 parties running for parliment, and even the opposition has admitted that they have not been hassled by the government, rounded up and arrested, beaten, and so on like in past elections. Yanukovich who was of the old repressive regime, is now going to be the main beneficiary of the free elections and will likely become primer minister. In the end, the legacy of the orange revolution and Yuschenko will not be his election to president, but the birth of democracy, and that by allowing democracy to flourish in this election, they also are allowing their orange revolution and political parties to lose power and control. Let's hope that after sunday when Yanukovich and his party regain power, they will also value democracy over power, thus insuring freedom will grow in Ukraine.

[wxman]

Another interesting fact about the Ukrainian election is the misperception that Yanukovich is making a great comeback. In the presidential elections 16 months ago, he received 39% of the vote. Now in this election his party is expected to receive between 30 and 37% of the vote. Yet the press is making it sound like his party is going to make great strides and take control, when in actuality he is not helping his party at all. Yuschencho's party and Tymoshenko's parties (which made up the orange revolution) will combine to get close to 40% of the vote. So in essence, after this election the amount of seats in parliment that each party controls will have changed little.

[andrewfi]

I have not seen the latest news but whatever happens a coalition of some form is going to be necessary. Yanukovich may not have much more support then hitherto, but his position is crucial Yushchenko and Tymoshenko are not allies in any sense of the word and it is quite likley that Yushchenko will see that a coalition with Yanukovich is the best path for the country. In any case, Yushchenko is a spent force. It was a mistake for his puppet masters to have pumped him up so hard. Yanukovich, or one of his peers will likely be running the country after the next presidential election. Tymoshenko would simply be too much bad news for a beleagered Ukraine - the biggest thief with the most old fashioned view of the world presented with patriotic and heritage windowdressing.

[wxman]

A lot will probably change between now and the next presidential election 4 years from now. Who knows where Ukraine will be. I agree a coalition government will be needed. I was just reading the latest exit polls since the closing of the polling stations, and Yanukovich has 30%, Tymoshenko bloc 22.7 and Yushencho around 14%. The shock is that Tymoshenko has passed Yuschenko by that much.  Yanukovich has no more clout than he did in the last presidential election. If Yanukovich and Yuschenko form a coalition, Tymoshenko will be a thorn in their side and if things continue to go bad economically after the coalition, I'm sure the coalition will falter possibly forcing another round of elections in a year or two and who knows Tymoshenko may end up PM in a few years. Being president really does not mean much anymore other than for foreign policy. The real power lies in the PM position, and that's what Yanukovich and Tymoshenko want. Yanukovich and Yuschenko forming a coalition may work in the short term, but the parties are so different, that many in Yuschenko's party may evetually jump ship and join Tymoshenko's party, leaving Yuschenko with nothing, and  Tymoshenko with all the power as she has always wanted. It's not Yanukovich that is the rising star, but it may very well be Tymoshenko in the long run if her party finishes in second.

[Oosik]

What is the deal with parlimentary democracies anyway? Why on earth  would a country choose a system where months after the election they  still may not have a government? We let the UN talk us into it in Iraq,  and Ukraine chose it after the USSR. How many of the FSU countries  chose the more stable Republic form of government?

What is really important now in US/Russian relations is the evidence  that Russia actively aided Saddam after the bullets started flying.  Things could really sour.