The Myth of Russian Humiliation

[AC]

Russia cannot hold Crimea.  Ukraine will seize Crimea by force or by concession within five years or sooner.  Military strength is illusory that is why one must be wise in its application.  Russia has not been wise.

Crimea is lost and Ukraine is better off right now without it.  5 years is highly unlikely.

[JayH]

Crimea is lost and Ukraine is better off right now without it.  5 years is highly unlikely.

It will not take 5 years--it will happen long before that  time is up--but --right now if I had a guarantee on 5-I would take it!!
Worth  noting-- on NYE the celebrations on Kyiv time were far larger than at the Russian invaders time!!

Also of note-- I posted today(&AC) on the overwhelming % of Ukrainians who want to be Ukrainian-- and I can only see that growing as Ukraine becomes a better and fairer place to live-- and democratic.


Chaly: Ukraine won’t get Crimea, Donbas back unless people there want it

02.01.2015 | 11:35

Ukraine will never regain control of Crimea and the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that have been taken over by armed gangs unless the people who live there want this, the deputy head of the presidential administration of Ukraine, Valeriy Chaly, has said on Radio Liberty.
"To be honest, without the willingness of the people in Crimea and in Donbas to live in a united country, to share the same values and share responsibility, it will not happen," said Chaly.

REUTERS
REUTERS
He said that in the New Year Kyiv will continue to fight for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country, defending its position, including in the international courts.

"The fact that we will fight for [Ukraine’s] sovereignty and territorial integrity is obvious,” Chaly said.

“The fact that, unfortunately, the question of Crimea will not be solved immediately is also obvious. But this year will be very serious in terms of the struggle in the international courts to establish positions. And it is obvious that the way to [regain] Crimea is to show the attractiveness of development in the new context of integration with the European Union, and the way to [win back] the Donbas is to do the daily job of taking the situation under control."

Chaly said that the state will not leave Ukrainian citizens in the occupied territories without help, adding that Ukraine has sent humanitarian aid to the Donbas.
Read more on UNIAN: http://www.unian.info/society/1028520-chaly-ukraine-wont-get-crimea-donbas-back-unless-people-there-want-it.html

[mendeleyev]

You have a profound love for a Russia, its history, its people, its language and its destiny.

Yes, I do.

I have a profound love for Ukraine, too.

Perhaps you've forgotten that my first trip to the CCCP was with a group of journalists headed to Kyiv. About a half hour on the approach to Borispil (KBP) attendants came to our group and rounded up cameras, recorders, writing notebooks, pens, etc, as a precaution in case any of us was there to spy and diagram the airport which at the time was primarily a Soviet air base. At that time passenger traffic was just a small percentage of the facility.

I remember thinking to myself that Gary Francis Powers and other U-2 pilots had already taken some fairly good photos of the area, so any photos we took would have been redundant. Although he was much older, Powers and I were born in the same county, about 40 minutes apart. I attended the same high school as Homer Hickman, NASA engineer during the US-Soviet space race, and upon whom the movie "October Sky" was based. Those two were much more talented fellows in competition with the Soviets--neither myself or the other journalists on that day were a threat to the CCCP.

The attendants pulled the window shades down so that none of the passengers could observe the airport upon landing. That seemed a tad odd as international flight rules generally dictate that shades be open both for takeoffs and landings. Aircrews have about 90 seconds to evacuate a plane in an emergency, and having shades up for visibility is important, as landing and takeoffs are two of the most critical points for potential flight emergencies.

We figured it best to comply and not cause issues that might place us under even more scrutiny. Smoking was still allowed in certain sections on planes, and as a nonsmoker I had found that part of the long trip to be near unbearable and just wanted to land and breath in some fresh air. We landed without the incredible views of Kyiv and were whisked onto a bus waiting on the tarmac. Of course there were curtains on the bus, and those curtains were closed, so we didn't really get to see anything until boarding the bus that met our group.

I fell in love with the city, the country, the people, and the rich heritage of Ukraine. The Lavra, the churches, and the history stole my heart. Several times later I was assigned to Kyiv and then also to Moscow. In 1992, Roger McMurrin and his wife Diane, individuals held in high esteem by my parents, traveled to Kyiv and soon thereafter Roger became the conductor of the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra. The Symphony was a regular feature on Ukrainian and Russian radio/TV in those early years, and I was instrumental in putting the English version of those weekly broadcasts on NBC Radio (my employer at the time).

I coordinated the English broadcasts for several years, and became very acquainted with the charity arm of the Symphony which at one time helped operate two local state orphanages, a youth orchestra open and free to any child inclined towards music, a summer camp program for Ukrainian children with emotional, mental and physical hardships, a nurses training program in local state hospitals, and a very needed food for pensioners program that thrives to this day.

One of the many reasons why I accepted additional permanent postings to Moscow included the ease of travel to Kyiv. By the way, I like Alexei Navalny too. Pete Cato of Moscow FM105.2 and I took the opportunity to defend his reputation in a Russian setting recently (that is all that I will say). Both of us are knowledgeable on the subject. The station is owned by the City of Moscow, and thus ties to the Kremlin. It is the English language music radio voice for Moscow with independent announcers, but RT produces the news, and so you can imagine that anything Pete does or says is usually noticed.

[lordtiberius]

My old lady watches TV programs all in Russian made in Russia.  Nobody wants this war especially me.  But for peace to happen, Russia has to give up its hold on these territories.  Conceding the maintainence of stolen property on practical grounds is not far from holding it in defiance of moral order.

[calmissile]

Mendy,

Rarely do I disagree with anything you have posted.  You recently stated (in so many words) that it is unwise or unproductive to humiliate Putin or the Russian people.  I disagree with that statement and would like you to analyze my thoughts.

The German people were supportive of Germany's expansion and Hitlers leadership, much like the Russian people are currently supportive of Putin's expansionist actions.

Based upon Putin's response to the world view that Russian is in violation of numerous international laws in addition to common decency, he has lied about nearly everything that comes out of his mouth and is supported by a very high percentage of the Russian people.  Few would argue that historically, Russia responds only to military force to curb it's aggressive actions.

It took Germany losing two world wars to bring them to their knees and humbling them.  As far as I know Germany has not since become an aggressive world power bent on invading other countries.

I am beginning to think that the same medicine will be necessary for Russia to become humbled (not only the current leader) but it's population as well.  The USA and Russia had a decent relationship for the years after the Soviet Union breakup and were making great progress on joint projects and business ventures.  In addition there were a lot of foreign students and vacationers that visited the US and Russia during the period. There seemed to be no animosity toward the two nations during this peaceful time. 

I can understand the leadership changing the policies of domination and worldwide expansion, but I cannot accept that the population in general are a bunch of sheeple that wish to destroy the gains made over the past 20 years because a present leader wishes to make such radical changes to the relationship.

In my mind, there is something very fishy about this whole attitude toward the USA by Russia(ns).  Now that we have met several Russian and Ukraine families in the USA, we have yet to meet anyone with an anti-USA attitude (other than our frequent forum poster).

One of the Kremlin lies that has continued is that Russia needs a large military and nukes to defend itself against it's enemies.  I have yet to read any credible reports on exactly WHO has any interest in invading Russia (to justify the defense expenditures).  It has always been Russia that is a threat to the rest of the world (militarily).

I will admit that the USA has made several stupid foreign policy decisions (including wars) to support the ideals of freedom to countries that we should never have gotten into.  I think many Americans have rethought these policies and are more inclined to stay home unless there is a clear invasion of a freedom seeking country that is being invaded.  Nevertheless, if America had not entered WWII, much of Europe would be speaking German had we not made that effort to join the allies (including Russia).

Please help me understand the dynamics of why Russians are anti-USA when we helped them in WWII and had a decent relationship over the past 20 years.

[mendeleyev]

Please help me understand the dynamics of why Russians are anti-USA when we helped them in WWII and had a decent relationship over the past 20 years.

Thank you, Doug for your thoughtful reply.

I do see some similarities as you mention. However, as neither of us were around during that war, or at least adults as I don't know your age, it is difficult to make an accurate comparison beyond the leadership level.

In Russia today it is difficult to discern the truth. Laws passed, and ownership of media, have squeezed out most competing voices. The vast majority of Russians get their news on TV and Russian news spews a constant diet of extremely anti-west stories. Earlier this morning there was a talk show on a station that normally plays smooth jazz music, and that show host and the guest took an hour to replay all the supposed evils of Western morals and then concluded that democracy was to blame.

When one walks on the street, listens to radio, or reads any publications, the theme is a constant pounding of "we are being attacked, or about to be attacked, and we must be ready to resist the USA and NATO who are going to blast our children to kingdom come, and likely soon." It is nonstop, one lie or half truth after another.  This incessant indoctrination, and that is what it is, is much like torture--is designed to control the mind and emotions.

As to us helping win the war, most certainly. Stalin begged and begged the West for help and we gave it, then entered the war too. However, most Russians have been taught from childhood that the West was about to go under and only the intervention of Russia saved Europe from Nazi domination. Most Russians really have no idea how countries like England, Canada, the USA and others sacrificed. They look at 28-30 million lives lost, compare our causality figures, and dismiss our efforts. They have no frame of reference to understand how Stalin mismanaged the war, even according to his own generals, and how many lives were lost because of his wartime policies.

Now that is not to take away from those lives lost, or from those who fought to save the Motherland, but a Russian is raised from childhood with the belief that the West had little to do with the war.

This is programming of the mind that would make L Ron Hubbard jealous. The Soviets had decades to perfect it, and with the KGB really in control, it is truly a miracle that 100 percent of the population hasn't fallen in line. I remember during the Crimea crisis that almost every Russian media outlet, including billboards, went into a theme of victory over the Nazis (Germany). Soon thereafter the theme was adjusted slightly to victory of the Nazis (Ukraine), and the next phase was protecting the homeland from NATO.

But change is coming. I don't know when, but I can feel it. It may be years, or months for all I know, but at some point the dam will break. The last thing the West needs is an angry and humiliated populace that will react by following the next ultra nationalist mad man.

This problem took a long time coming. It has been fermenting since Moldova and Georgia, and the West deserves some blame for not stepping up then. Now there is a lot of water under the bridge, and as I love to mix metaphors, we cannot expect change on a dime as the expression goes.

[Изумруд]

Thank you, Doug for your thoughtful reply.

I do see some similarities as you mention. However, as neither of us were around during that war, or at least adults as I don't know your age, it is difficult to make an accurate comparison beyond the leadership level.

In Russia today it is difficult to discern the truth. Laws passed, and ownership of media, have squeezed out most competing voices. The vast majority of Russians get their news on TV and Russian news spews a constant diet of extremely anti-west stories. Earlier this morning there was a talk show on a station that normally plays smooth jazz music, and that show host and the guest took an hour to replay all the supposed evils of Western morals and then concluded that democracy was to blame.

When one walks on the street, listens to radio, or reads any publications, the theme is a constant pounding of "we are being attacked, or about to be attacked, and we must be ready to resist the USA and NATO who are going to blast our children to kingdom come, and likely soon." It is nonstop, one lie or half truth after another.  This incessant indoctrination, and that is what it is, is much like torture--is designed to control the mind and emotions.

As to us helping win the war, most certainly. Stalin begged and begged the West for help and we gave it, then entered the war too. However, most Russians have been taught from childhood that the West was about to go under and only the intervention of Russia saved Europe from Nazi domination. Most Russians really have no idea how countries like England, Canada, the USA and others sacrificed. They look at 28-30 million lives lost, compare our causality figures, and dismiss our efforts. They have no frame of reference to understand how Stalin mismanaged the war, even according to his own generals, and how many lives were lost because of his wartime policies.

Now that is not to take away from those lives lost, or from those who fought to save the Motherland, but a Russian is raised from childhood with the belief that the West had little to do with the war.

This is programming of the mind that would make L Ron Hubbard jealous. The Soviets had decades to perfect it, and with the KGB really in control, it is truly a miracle that 100 percent of the population hasn't fallen in line. I remember during the Crimea crisis that almost every Russian media outlet, including billboards, went into a theme of victory over the Nazis (Germany). Soon thereafter the theme was adjusted slightly to victory of the Nazis (Ukraine), and the next phase was protecting the homeland from NATO.

But change is coming. I don't know when, but I can feel it. It may be years, or months for all I know, but at some point the dam will break. The last thing the West needs is an angry and humiliated populace that will react by following the next ultra nationalist mad man.

This problem took a long time coming. It has been fermenting since Moldova and Georgia, and the West deserves some blame for not stepping up then. Now there is a lot of water under the bridge, and as I love to mix metaphors, we cannot expect change on a dime as the expression goes.

Nice explanation Mendy.  Only someone who has lived Russia for a long period of time could understand that.  The vast majority of Russians do not recognise the role played by the West in WW2; certainly not America's, and that is because their history books teach them so.

The propaganda has been so effective, as it has skillfully played upon people's fears, and awoken a deep suspicion of the West and especially NATO.  I've been amazed how many smart  people I knowt so seamlessly start to believe what they are being told; it's depressing if I'm honest.  I do remeber last year on Ren TV, they presented a section of the programme on Ukraine with the accusation of American special forces operating there; they even had a guy dressed in the said uniform.  Meanwhile, not a single soldier from the west has been found dead serving with the Ukrainian army, but how many Russian soldiers have died now?  This has been completely denied by the government, to the point where journalists have been badly beaten researching the deaths of paratroopers.

One thing I will mention, is that you will never forcibly change a Russian's mind.  They are the most obstinate [ Russian word упрямые is a better description] people if you try;  this is both a great strength and a weakness. No, in my experience the only way they change their mind is through their own self-realisation, and anyone with a Russian wife or fiancee may be familiar with this.   In the future, this self-realisation may come or it may not I don't know, but I believe Mendy is right: humiliation of the Russian people is not the way forward, and would leave the way open in the future for even greater nationalism.

[lordtiberius]

Gentlemen, you have made reasoned arguments but we are well passed the point of no return.  The humiliation of the Russian people is coming.  The only person who can avert it is Navalny.  If he should fail, and the next President of Russia is still Vladimirovich or Strelkov, then we have to think about a nuclear first strike.  We are not doing this again.  We are not going to live through another Cold War.  Hopefully the ruble devaluation and a North Korean posture to Russia will bring these people to this self realization.  Quite frankly, I am sick of it.


"Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe."
- Mitt Romney

[Belvis]

When one walks on the street, listens to radio, or reads any publications, the theme is a constant pounding of "we are being attacked, or about to be attacked, and we must be ready to resist the USA and NATO who are going to blast our children to kingdom come, and likely soon." It is nonstop, one lie or half truth after another.  This incessant indoctrination, and that is what it is, is much like torture--is designed to control the mind and emotions.

Mendy, you've painted too gloomy picture.  Likely because you're the part of info world and pay much attention to Russian propaganda. Contr-propaganda in form of west culture is pretty effective too, lots of american movies, Internet and so on.
However Russian propaganda has solid basis created by US politics.  For example the attitude towards Sochi Olimpiad, we've noted how west media covered it. Deployment of  Ballistic Missile Defense  system near Russian borders doesn't  strengthen the trust between countries.  I can find more hot spots but the truth is that Russians are more interested in TV serials than international politics.

However, most Russians have been taught from childhood that the West was about to go under and only the intervention of Russia saved Europe from Nazi domination. Most Russians really have no idea how countries like England, Canada, the USA and others sacrificed. They look at 28-30 million lives lost, compare our causality figures, and dismiss our efforts. They have no frame of reference to understand how Stalin mismanaged the war, even according to his own generals, and how many lives were lost because of his wartime policies.

Everybody know about Second Front in WWII. We don't dismiss the efforts of  Allies, we dismiss the overestimation of their contribution in our common victory as well the underestimation of SU contribution. How should we react knowing the key numbers:
Germany lost 8.6 mlns soldiers at East front and 0.54 mlns at West front (before capitulation).  Do you see in US media the acknowedgements that SU has crushed Nazis  with great help from West powers? Or they show rather the opposite picture, that US have crushed Hitler saving Russia?

Gentlemen, you have made reasoned arguments but we are well passed the point of no return.  The humiliation of the Russian people is coming.  The only person who can avert it is Navalny.  If he should fail, and the next President of Russia is still Vladimirovich or Strelkov, then we have to think about a nuclear first strike.  We are not doing this again.  We are not going to live through another Cold War.  Hopefully the ruble devaluation and a North Korean posture to Russia will bring these people to this self realization.  Quite frankly, I am sick of it.

Looks like paranoia. More optimism, LT, everything will be fine, and without Navalny

[AkMike]

No one's going to play with nukes yet alone a first strike.

 Let us know when you wander back into earth's orbit. 

[lordtiberius]

Lest we forget. . .
Russian TV: Russia Will Easily Turn The US Into R…:

Belvis, thank you for opining.  Your words made my case more effectively than I did.  Thanks dude.

[Gylden]

http://whattomakeofit.com/?page_id=54


"The Soviet Union’s actions at the outset and for the duration of World War II were based on opportunism and a desire to spread communism in every direction possible. The Soviet Union’s tyrannical dictator, Joseph Stalin, was a political opportunist that shaped the bulk of Soviet foreign and domestic policy during this time. By remaining neutral in the earliest stages of the war, the Soviet Union acquired new territory and avoided war with Hitler until such a conflict was no longer avoidable.  Making use of their national strengths, the Soviets withstood the German onslaught and eventually pushed back all the way to the German capital of Berlin. The Soviet Union under Stalin was able to realize its goal of spreading communism and expanding its territory through the exploitation of Germany’s defeat and by making use of their national strengths."

"Initially, in the time before the war was completely underway, the Soviet Union attempted to make territorial gains through their non-aggression pact signed with Hitler in 1939. Hitler had promised Stalin parts of eastern Poland in return for not interfering with Germany’s aggressive expansion. The Soviet Union saw the pact as a perfect opportunity to acquire new territory and put distance between itself and the rest of Europe. In June of 1940, the Soviet Union annexed Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and then part of Romania."

The only reason the Soviet Union got involved in fighting against Germany was that Germany broke the pact with the Soviet Union and invaded.

[lordtiberius]

 

The Finns disagree.  Good to know the Comintern is still kicking.

[Chelseaboy]

Belvis,

         The Russians shouldn't take it as a personal affront that the USA media/movies try to claim it was the USA that won World War 2

The UK'S efforts in that war are largely ignored by the USA media/movie industry as well.

It's just the American way.

[fathertime]

Gentlemen, you have made reasoned arguments but we are well passed the point of no return.  The humiliation of the Russian people is coming.  The only person who can avert it is Navalny.  If he should fail, and the next President of Russia is still Vladimirovich or Strelkov, then we have to think about a nuclear first strike.  We are not doing this again.  We are not going to live through another Cold War.  Hopefully the ruble devaluation and a North Korean posture to Russia will bring these people to this self realization. Quite frankly, I am sick of it.


"Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe."
- Mitt Romney

I'd say that just because you are sick of something is no reason to talk of turning the world into a nuclear wasteland.  If there were another cold war, why would we not just live through it?  Why does the entire planet have to suffer over a relatively minor event in the scheme of things?


  There can be various ways to solve this without going overboard to try to 'humiliate' the Russians...by the way you actually write, it seems to me humiliation/annihilation has always been your top priority rather than creating a solution.  Your solutions are too extreme. The types of solutions Mendeleyev stated are imperfect but can move us past the current issue.  I hold that this is the wrong place to challenge Russia in such an aggressive way. 


Fathertime!   

[jone]

I have friends on this board who will call me a traitor with what I'm about to say:

1.  Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of Ukrainian land in exchange for Ukraine giving up her nukes

2.  Ukraine, in seeking a Western style economy free of graft and corruption has alienated Russia to the extent that the Ukrainian government has now rescinded its neutral status in favor of seeking membership in NATO.

3.  Russia broke the treaty by assisting in the takeover of Crimea.

4.  Ukraine's best option is to join NATO and receive substantial support, i.e. a Marshall Plan for Ukraine.  Under the agreements in place, prior to the takeover of Crimea, Ukraine could not join NATO because a non-member country (Russia) had a base in Crimea.

5.  Russia's only business in Eastern Ukraine is the de-stabilization of the Ukrainian economy and nation.

The ultimate solution would be for a treaty to be signed which would assign Crimea to Russia and for Russian support to be removed from Eastern Ukraine, i.e. stabilizing Ukraine's government.  Ultimately, the big winner here is Ukraine and the big loser is Russia.  Quite honestly, Crimea, while desirable as a tourist destination, has no substantial value unless there are substantial oil reserves off the shore, in the Black Sea.  This has never been proven.  It is more likely fracking will develop in the area just west of Kharkiv.

The above solution will be unworkable to both countries.  That is why it is probably the fair solution.

[jone]

Belvis,

         The Russians shouldn't take it as a personal affront that the USA media/movies try to claim it was the USA that won World War 2

The UK'S efforts in that war are largely ignored by the USA media/movie industry as well.

It's just the American way.

There were Brits in WWII?  I must have missed that.

[AkMike]

Lest we forget. . .
Russian TV: Russia Will Easily Turn The US Into R

 And you actually can believe anything that is shown on Muskovi news? LOL...

 

[Gator]

Everybody know about Second Front in WWII. We don't dismiss the efforts of  Allies, we dismiss the overestimation of their contribution in our common victory as well the underestimation of SU contribution. How should we react knowing the key numbers:
Germany lost 8.6 mlns soldiers at East front and 0.54 mlns at West front (before capitulation).  Do you see in US media the acknowedgements that SU has crushed Nazis  with great help from West powers? Or they show rather the opposite picture, that US have crushed Hitler saving Russia?
 

No one in the West today talks about WWII.  Not even my war, Vietnam.  A few of us old fossils know the history of WW II, so I will give you my opinion:

I wonder what would have happened if the Nazis had not invaded the USSR in 1941 and instead consolidated their conquered European territory.  Germany in 3-4 years could have developed atomic weapons (Germany had uranium mines), rockets, jet aircraft, etc. and overhauled the European factories to produce them in high numbers.   Such is idle chatter as Hitler did not wait, thinking the communist system would crumble. 

I am certain that if Operation Barbarossa had achieved a quick victory, all of Europe would be speaking German today (and perhaps the US too dependent upon who first developed the atomic bomb and delivery methods).  So the West is deeply indebted to the Soviets. Please accept that the Soviets did this for themselves and not for the West. 

It took two years but the Soviets stopped the Nazi war machine and then pushed it all the way back  to Berlin.  D-Day came three years after Operation Barbarossa.  Thus, for three years the Russian front received 90% of Hitler's attention.  Accordingly,  the casualties were naturally higher, increased to incredible numbers due to Stalin's strategy, tactics and mismanagement. 

The Soviet casualties would have been even higher, and possibly even a Soviet defeat, if not the threat of a second front and the African campaign.  So in a way the Soviets should be thankful to Britain for not capitulating or otherwise the entire Nazi war machine would have been directed at the Eastern Front [are you reading this Chelseaboy].  And do not forget the material support from the West to the Soviets.

Regarding casualties, the US balked at invading Japan fearing the invasion could amount to as much as a half million combat deaths  before victory.  A half million is small in Soviet terms, yet too much for the US, hence, the atomic bomb. 


So what am I missing from a Russian perspective?

Before closing this discussion, it is revealing to consider what happened after the Nazis were defeated.  The US and UK did not take control of any countries (occupation of Germany is not control).  What did the Soviets do [read Glyden's post].  The US/UK returned all German prisoners.  What did the Soviets do?   So please do not toot your horn loudly. 

[Hammer2722]

  "So the West is deeply indebted to the Soviets. Please accept that the Soviets did this for themselves and not for the West.  It took two years but the Soviets stopped the Nazi war machine and then pushed it all the way back  to Berlin.  D-Day came three years after Operation Barbarossa.  Thus, for three years the Russian front received 90% of Hitler's attention.  Accordingly,  the casualties were naturally higher, increased to incredible numbers due to Stalin's strategy, tactics and mismanagement. "

The Soviets would not have been able to do this without the initial help of the US (Lend-Lease Program). The billions in arms aid helped the soviets to hold off the Germans long enough to re-locate their arms factories farther East of the German advance.

[Boethius]

For example the attitude towards Sochi Olimpiad, we've noted how west media covered it.

I must have missed that.  During the Olympics, everything I saw or read was positive, other than a few articles at the beginning about problems with hotel rooms.  However, I've seen similar things reported at every Olympics. 

There were articles before and after the Olympics that reported on cost overruns, but that, too, has occurred with every Olympics I can think of.  The Canadian media was still reporting on Montreal's Olympic cost overrurns two decades after the fact.

[Gator]

I must have missed that.  During the Olympics, everything I saw or read was positive, other than a few articles at the beginning about problems with hotel rooms.  However, I've seen similar things reported at every Olympics. 

There were articles before and after the Olympics that reported on cost overruns, but that, too, has occurred with every Olympics I can think of.  The Canadian media was reporting on Montreal's Olympics two decades after the fact.

I guess everything in the Russian media was 100% peachy.  While in the US the media raved about Sochi Olympiad yet had the audacity to report on page three the high costs.  Belvis, please think about what was spent on the road to the snow,  and also who personally benefitted from the construction projects. 

[lordtiberius]

Belvis,

         The Russians shouldn't take it as a personal affront that the USA media/movies try to claim it was the USA that won World War 2

The UK'S efforts in that war are largely ignored by the USA media/movie industry as well.

It's just the American way.

That's true.  The Brits can claim like the Poles that they lost the war twice.  Of course, the Poles unlike the British weren't invited to Yalta.

[calmissile]

Mendy,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.  As I read your explanation, it is all about the Russian propaganda machine.  Since I have not been in Russia over the past 20 years, and you have, I am still left with a question.  As viewed from those of us in the USA, over the past 20 years, the cooperation of our respective governments as well as the large amount of travel in both directions led me and many Americans to believe that we were becoming friends.  The Russians I have met in public, in stores, and in social settings led me to believe that Russians no longer held the animosity toward Americans that held true during the cold war.

So, the question is..... did these attitudes not get fed back to the Russian population in general, or has the recent propaganda machine reversed these attitudes of so many people?  It is hard for me to believe that people that have spent time in other countries and formed opinions for themselves could be so easily brainwashed by a new propaganda wave.

Gylden,

Nice summary.  It is consistent with many documentaries I have watched over the years.

The question still remains, what is the best solution for the West to contain the aggression of the Russians?  While hoping and waiting for a new Russian leader with more peaceful policies is a nice, pleasant answer, but is it realistic?

It certainly did not work for Germany.  They had to beat into submission in two world wars before learning their lesson.  What about Saddam Hussein?  It was only an overwhelming military force that put an end to his aggression.  How many more countries will be invaded and gobbled up while the West sits back and hopes for a peaceful change in the Russian mentality?

There seems to be a change in American mentality as well.  Having fought in so many foreign wars to defend freedom and democracies, the Americans are getting tired of fighting other nations battles.  There is certainly some merit to this thinking.  As I recall, the American public was told that we would benefit from 'free oil' for our part in the gulf war.  No one seems to remember getting any free gas at the pumps.  Seems our own propaganda did not work out so well for the US citizens either.   

The mood change could have devastating consequences for Europe if it continues to its logical conclusion.  If the USA and Canada decide to stop fighting for democracy and freedom in Europe, it may result in Europe collapsing on itself.  For the most part, Europe has depended on the strength of the Western military(s) to defend their nations. The pitiful budgets Europe spends on its own military(s) does not come close to what is necessary to defend themselves from a major power such as Russia.  From what we have seen recently by the EU and NATO, it is questionable if an alliance could find agreement to do the job themselves (not to mention the coordination and logistics necessary to have a combined force to be effective).

Europe might want to think twice about their attitude toward the USA.  Until such time that Europe has the military power to defend themselves,  they will surely be begging for US support if the need arises.  Of course they can also surrender to their invader(s) and live under the rule of the aggressor.  It seems some Europeans think this is a better solution than defending their country.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Gylden]

Hi Doug,

Well IMO today's world is more interconnected, especially from an economic standpoint.
Political differences between more developed countries is no longer played out on the physical battlefield.
It will be accomplished by economic/political pressures.

What Putin is trying is "old school" soviet style. I just don't think it will work out for him in the longer term, as Russia (just like the rest of the world) are totally dependent on the rest of the world.


Patience is our friend here.