Russia and its inadequate foreign policy.

12 responses total.

Let me respond to myself. I have to explain what I mean by the term "inadequate
". All in all the position in which todays Russia finds itself is (inadeqate)
not proportional to the imperialistic and very rapacious foreign policy it 
leads. Mr. Boris with his little vicious friend Kozyrev try to play the game 
as if they are equal oponents to US specificly and NATO generaly. Unfortunately
for the whole free world, with Clinton in the White House they might succeed.
Thank God for his son of the name Jesse Helms, who is the bright ligtht in the
dark foreign affairs tunnel (GOP from Alabama, future head of FA Committee in
Congress). We do not have to look very far to convince ourselves of greediness
of Russia: 1.Russia's policy towards its former republics (Lithuania, Georgia
with Abhasia to name a few), 2.Russia's policy on its former Warsaw Pact 
*friends*(Russia opposed eastern European countries joining NATO argumenting it
by that admition being  a direct threat to Russia's security - can you belive i
t), 3.Kozyriev and Hussain buisness(Russia's secret deal with Iraq: Oil for In
fluence - item 39 by Mr.Other, highly recomended)
I hope you feel my pain .... please respond 
Thanx

WEll, for one, I would think you are happier (relatively) being
able to say stuff like that these days. Without looking at 
your .plan file, it sounds as if you have had some direct,
personal experience with Soviet hsotilities and/or some recent
experiences with Russian hostilities.
  
From this side of the puddle, whatever foreign policy the
New Russia is trying - it is trying +without+ their Red Army
running amok to accomplish it. 
  
There is a trememdous pent up frustration about a lot of
situations - but if it all busts loose at once, Russia 
will again experience the only manifestation of "change" that
their history has to offer - violent revolution.
  
The Soviet empire was an outgrowth of military expansionism
that began centuries ago. The only "change" those subjugated
people have ever known is revolution.
  
So, "change" is a very fearful situation. To some extent
the economic expansionism is a lesser-of-evils even as it
is not up to US standards.

Nice deduction Dr. Watson on the origin of my feelings towards Russia.
You are right about the violent "change" that Russia will undergo also.
The reason for the revolution as the solution is that Boris's "shock therapy"
forgot about the "therapy" part and all that was left was the "shock" with 
which russians are unlikely to cope. The question is: who will pick up the bato
n of power after "democratic" president goes in flames?
Comunists, fascists, or anarchists?

I think the Russian people will only be happy (comparatively) with leaders
who will spoon feed them their staple needs, yet offer them the opportunity
to explore their newfound freedom.  This combines socialistic institutions 
with capitalistic opportunities.  It sounds like exactly what Americans want
but approached from the other end of the spectrum.  And when I say Americans,
I refer to the vast, vacuous majority, not those who actually entertain their
own thoughts and ambitions.

Quite right, but do not forget that russian people are not as vacuous as some
americans (no offence, please). They possess numerous, profound feelings.
From patriotism to fascism to haughtyness. They are also extemely  proud of
themselves and above all their feelings are easily taken adventage of by people
like Zyrinowski.

When I speak of "the Russians" or "the Americans" in general, I refer to the
lowest common denominator, or the largest mass within the group.  I apologize
if it appears that I am pigeonholing the entire Russian population under the
category of the average.  It is not my intention to do so.

I know that you know that not all Russians are avg.But that is irrelevant.
If your assumption is true  (the lowest common denominator does not differ
greatly in both Russia and US) then those two countries ought to be more or
less similar (because it is  the majority that makes the difference at both
sides of the puddle:
1. Bolsheviks (the bigger part in rus.) in 1917 subverted Aliexiej.
just like
2. majority voted republican in your little revolution couple of weks ago)
If You Sir think it is naive; please do respond.
Therefore I conclude "lcd" are not equal. Maybe avg. Russian can not survive
on Budweiser and Monday Night Football?
Although "great Russia" will always feel great to them, they need some 
tangible effects of that (e.g. simple one : expanded borders).Only then 
with that condition unmet revolutions erupt (1. around 1550 with Ivan The 
Terrible Russia rose from a little kingdom tormented by Tatars to almost
today's size. 2. 1917 weak country in a trench grid lock war-result rev. 3.
the 1991 putsh of generals in Moscow.)

To touch the issue from the other side, cynic might say, America will not see
many revolutions during Superbowl day.

Please excuse my typing errors.
                                                Pawel.

Please do not worry about your English, Pawel, it is quite understandable.
We are glad to have your point of view in this conference.

From your name I suspect you are Polish, but regardless it is a very common
fear in Poland today - the fear of Russia expanding its borders again
after the inevitable demise of Boris Yeltsin.

I think the fear is understandable given the history of the Polish borders.
I wonder whether the fear is justifiable.
In 1956 I was only 11 and didn't really understand what was happening
in Hungary. My ancestors are Hungarian, though, and our family watched in
horror as Hungarians were murdered and our country did nothing.

In 1968 I was an adult, and I could not believe it was happening again.
Again no response from the west.

So the question is, if Russia changed its colors (again) and decided to 
conquer Poland in the 1990s, would the West stand by as we always have?
I don't know the answer, but I think that this time we would not.
Even though we have not permitted Poland to be NATO members.

A tougher question though would be to ask whether we would stop the
forcible return of Belarus and Ukraine to Russia. I would not rely on the West.
This may be moot as the governments of those countries drift closer
and closer to Russia.

Russia is an enigma. It is hard to talk about her implication in world politics
when Russia herself does not realize the trouble she is in. That evil
nationalism seems to be creeping up out of the economic mess that once
was called the soviet union. But Russia is not the blind bear that we 
think she is. Russia is slowly but surely trying to regain her republics.
Through assassasinations, bombing, election fixes the Russian gov't is
 trying to force the fromer republics back to her (great Nat Review arti
in February of '94- check it out) This week's activities in Czechnia 
only confirm this suspicion. Russia has no obstacles to check her power.
Ukraine is giving up her nukes, the republics dont have armies, and russia
controls the main army. Above this nationalism is lurking right behind
the corner waiting to prounce upon the west and asia itself. The U.S 
must get a clue and figure this situation out before Russia falls down
the slidemuch further.

  I suppose Stella's answer is to for all the Russians to immigrate (legally
or otherwise) to the U.S.

I think that if Russia were to go into Chechnia now with full force,
it would turn into a disaster for them. The Chechens hate the Russians,
and the Chechen fighters will go into the mountains. 
It would be like Afghanistan again.

 ... as we are seeing right this minute  ... unfortunatly.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss