Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia and US Will Never be Good Friends

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wow, a completely new level of Russian paranoia on these boards has been reached. Andrey, you can consider yourself quite sensible compared to this gibberish. Is this straight out of Stalinist propaganda playbook or what! I guess next you claim that Americans never reached the moon and Putin is Stalin reborn to save Russia!

    One thing is true though. Western intellectuals and communist sympathisers did manage to shut their eyes to the reality of Bolsheviks, Soviet Union and communists for an amazingly long period. Some of them are still holding their eyes shut!

    Comment


    • Wow, gotta agree with you on this post by "Fareasterner" pp(est), sounds like the guy was brought up reading every conspiracy theory ever written. Wonder if he will post his sources.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pp(est) View Post
        Wow, a completely new level of Russian paranoia on these boards has been reached. Andrey, you can consider yourself quite sensible compared to this gibberish. Is this straight out of Stalinist propaganda playbook or what! I guess next you claim that Americans never reached the moon and Putin is Stalin reborn to save Russia!

        One thing is true though. Western intellectuals and communist sympathisers did manage to shut their eyes to the reality of Bolsheviks, Soviet Union and communists for an amazingly long period. Some of them are still holding their eyes shut!
        Oh, you shurely exagerrate. Do not know standards for paranoia here, but have seen neocons's terminal cases, they left me far, far behind.
        Well, here is one source: Vasili Molodyakov "Russia and Japan: railways are droning" (19891-1945) ISSBN 5-17-038977-9 (AST Publishing) He is specialist in Japan history, lives in Japan since 1995.
        Another book: "Russishe Roulette. Das deutsche Geld und die Octoberrevolution" Gerhard Shisser ISBN 3-360-00850-2 Das Neue Berlin Verlagsgesellshaft mbH, 1998
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
        Bolsheviks in USA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novy_Mir_(New_York)
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Volodarsky
        Have no time to find somethin else.
        No, Stalin will not be reborn, so Russia has no future. Putin saves mostly oligarhs money. I am thinkin sometime, Bush is his agent

        Can you please inform me, where are remnants of those tens and hundreds millions, killed by Stalin? All the time I see only discussion about that Katyn place with 20 000 killed Polens, and immediatly after that they make somehow 100 millions killed , without naming single place, where it was. Even tsar's family grave was found, despite attempts to hide it, but where are others?
        From 1914 to 1959 annual growth of population in Russia/USSR was about 0,60%, England - 0,46%, Germany and France - 0,41

        Reality of Cristianity where not always pleasant, and Hitler's soldiers have had belt buckles with words "Gott mit Uns", so what, forbid Bible?

        Comment


        • Several points.

          1. In response to the following quote:

          In closing there are other ways for Russia to contribute to the fight against world-wide terrorism.
          1)By not supporting Nations that fund State-sponsored terrorism.
          2)By identifying and agreeing to abide by the principles of "by the people" choices of government..
          3)It doesn't have to inculde the use of troops; the transfer of money; or the trade of I support you there if you stay out of things here! in the old former Soviet states etc ..
          Re: #1 - factual dissonance. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are still U.S. "allies", as I recall.
          Re: #2 - factual dissonance. Russia still has parliamentary and presidential elections, and last I checked for all of Putin's "dictatorial tendencies" his approval rating is still above 50%, suggesting that anything he does _is_ the "will of the people". [One may not like what the people in Country A want - but that is a secondary consideration.]
          Re: #3 - conceptual dissonance. Are you suggesting that Russia can "support" the efforts vs. state-sponsored terrorism by not "meddling" in the states directly on its borders? This presupposes that a) said states support terrorism and b) said states would not have supported terrorism or could have been controlled if Russia had "stayed out". Both are...incorrect assumptions. If you are trying to assert something completely different, please clarify.

          2. Re: the article that set off this thread.

          Before we proceed, two comments about the source.

          First, the article had been published in 2004. Surely there had been more recent analyses published (e.g. in the WSJ op-ed pages - subscription-protected, unfortunately, so I cannot post any links).

          Second, the article was published on the website of a U.S.-based think tank. These institutions are almost universally politicized, and the CDI is no exception. As such, they will strive to present particular views while excluding any facts that somehow do not fit their thesis. The CDI in particular seems to be of the "pro-military-from-the-left" crowd based on its website contents and its list of experts/commentators (e.g. Gen. Zinni). Thus, anything - _anything_ - on their website ought be taken with a grain of salt and cross-referenced. [It does not help their objectivity that they link directly to what appears to be an anti-Kremlin slash pro-Kasparov newsletter.]

          Now, the article's contents.

          First - I find it curious that much of it is spent discussing the "neo-Reagan" sentiment in the U.S., and only in the last paragraph does the author address his starting claim (Russia and the U.S. cannot be friends) - by repeating it!

          Second - stepping back from Russia and the U.S. In any international system where you have Powerful States A, B, C, D, and E (or, perhaps F, G, H,...), whenever the economic and security interests of these Powerful States intersect, conflict may arise. This need not be a military conflict. A simple example is if State A and State B both wish to exploit Resource X, and State A has 90% of Resource X available in the world. State B would seek to somehow improve its share of Resource X through political, economic or military means. Hence - the race for colonies at the turn of the 20th century and the conflicts between industrialized powers that resulted.

          The example need not be resource-related. If State A is capable of destroying State B, the leadership of State B will seek to improve its security situation by somehow neutralizing State A - better weapons, military alliances, weakening State A via covert action or by involving it in some costly adventure.

          This is theory in a vacuum. Now let us transfer it to the actual world. Russia and the U.S. have been competing both from an economic resource and from a security standpoint for a long time. We have things like nuclear security considerations; the competition for Europe (which is aligned with the U.S. but economically dependent on, from an energy perspective, and militarily vulnerable to Russia); the competition for the former Soviet republics (both economic and security perspectives); Russia's potential alliances with unfriendly states (Iran, China); competition for markets for technology goods (e.g. military exports); etc. etc.

          And this goes on for many decades. Thus, in addition to the normal intra-state rivalries entailed in the international system, we have decades of social and cultural animosity. Let us not forget that during the Cold War terms such as "Asiatic Hordes" and "Capitalist Aggressors" were quite common even in official documents, and that many of the political and military leaders at the top today had formed their perceptions of the world during the Cold War.

          All this is a longer way of saying that, within the framework of international relations given the world we have today, the U.S. and Russia should remain competitors - if not open rivals - for the visible future. Is this a good thing? Of course not. Rivalries lead to tensions which erupt in economic or military conflicts; decades of animosity permeate the ruling elites and create a culture of enmity which cannot be shaken (see Senator McCain's views on Russia, which are anachronistic at best). And let us not forget that Russia will likely become more assertive in the near and intermediate terms due to its better positioning on the energy issue (it has oil - the U.S. doesn't), and due to its resurgent economic and military power. But - this is all we have, and the question becomes whether a) the elites in both states can eventually settle on a detente, b) one or both states eventually loses a great amount of power (e.g. Russia's collapse in the early 1990s, America's vulnerability in the 1930s and the mid/late 1970s), leading to a detente or to a less-violent confrontation, c) things escalate but not too much (proxy wars, alliances, hostile economic policies, a new "ideological war"), basically eventually leading to (b) (it helps speed things up if another Powerful State enters the picture - e.g. China), or d) things escalate until the situation erupts into open war.

          So.

          In the meanwhile, people on both sides (especially in the popular press) will be free to scream bloody murder about Leader A and Event B to their hearts' content. Not to say that such yelling is necessarily lacking in facts - just that it often is. What concerns me in this regard is that there is such a thing as repeating a lie often enough to begin to believe it. Which can lead to unfortunate results.
          А трубу от германского крейсера не надо?!..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
            There was a letter of Spiridon Merculov, head of Amur Temporary Government in March, 1919, were he wrote that only protection of Japans saved local russian population from total extermination by USA army. He described actions of American army very negatively for they support bolsheviks gangs and other deeds.
            In 1905 American banker Jacob Shiff gave 200 000 000 dollars to Japan for war with Russia. This same Shiff subsidized Bronshtein (Trozky) in 1917 for perpetrating October revolution. Trozky came not only with money from NYC, but with full shipload of weapons, handed to him by owners of markets Macy (or Mesy - not shure for spelling), so they emblem became emblem of Red Army - red pentacl. And about 300 New York thugs came with him on board of this ship. So Trozky created Red Army. And Cheka-NKVD. "Russian bolsheviks" were emigrants from USA and Europe. Many of them did not even could speak Russian. This fact was known on the West. In Soviet films about Revolution and Civil War bolsheviks and CheKa comissars where clad in black leather coats and weaponed with guns, produced in USA. It was their trademark. John Clarke in his article "Armand Hammer" marked, that in newspaper " New York Times" in 1918-1930 there where absolutely no critics of USSR and bolshevism. Armand Hammer represented interests of Amerian bankers in USSR, and always was accepted here according to protocol for president of sovereign state. J. Stalin in 30-th replaced all bolsheviks and related with them "trozkists" with other people, more often georgians. Bolsheviks did not survived purges. Stalin restored some realities of Tsarists Russia - organisation and uniform of Army, Orthodox Church. (BTW, he was buried according canons of Ortodox Cristianity.) And relations with West sufficiently worsened.
            The most of this is a FULL nonsense.

            During WWII Hitler acquired about 40% of oil supply from Venesuela with help of American companies.
            Yes, Hitler got some of his fuel by such way (I don't know the exact number to agree to 40%)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
              The most of this is a FULL nonsense.
              Is it all your argumentation?
              You must remember from abridged course of USSR Communist Party History, that Bolsheviks were obsessed with idea of export of revolution, and if you think, that it was their own invention, then it is a mistake. USA had practiced it successfully much earlier, even O’Henry described it.
              Will you deny, that Marx was western philosopher, Herzen and Plekhanov, Lenin’s teacher, lived in London? I have no written consent by European philanthropist Rotshild about his sponsorship of this people and other Russian revolutionaries, only once have seen such information, but from where was money for their very expensive activity? Never heard about their profitable business. May be Gelfand-Parvus, but who would be poor revolutionary odessit, if not his friend Warburg, another European philanthropist with big money and influence, and as they say, Shiff’s son in a law.
              Revolutionary terrorists have killed Russian tsar, members of his family, PM and high rank officials, they killed about 17 thousands people before October revolution. After 1905 Russian police suppressed their activity, and in Europe they have found bread and shelter, they did not worked, and had enough money for living and continuation of revolutionary activity. Summits of party take much money, especially if conducted in London. Revolutionary newspapers were printed in Europe too. I just wonder, what a scream would on the West, if Russia today sponsored and sheltered Bin Laden and other terrorists?
              If you are acquainted with history of Civil war, you know, that Whites and contra-revolutionary conspirers were supported by Western powers with weapon and ammunition –Yudenich, Krasnov,Denikin, Wrangel, Savinkov. Kolchak’s army and government were based on tsarist gold supply and Czech legion. Explain me please, how Bolsheviks managed to wage war for 5 years against numerous enemies with no industry and without support from abroad?
              Bolsheviks did not identified themselves as Russians, but as internationalists. After their victory they introduced strange words and abbreviation, not characteristic for Russian cultural environment, whereas it was and is widely used in USA, as for example, word “activist”. Lenin in his articles often expressed hatred to Russia and Russian ways and habits, especially he hated Russian peasants for they were not very useful material for proletarian revolution. All Bolshevik leaders came directly from abroad in 1917, excluding rare exceptions, and it is widely known fact. You still cannot see, that Bolsheviks with their revolution were Western gift to Russia? Now West blames Russia for Bolshevism.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fareasterner View Post
                Is it all your argumentation?
                You must remember from abridged course of USSR Communist Party History, that Bolsheviks were obsessed with idea of export of revolution, and if you think, that it was their own invention, then it is a mistake. USA had practiced it successfully much earlier, even O’Henry described it.
                Will you deny, that Marx was western philosopher, Herzen and Plekhanov, Lenin’s teacher, lived in London? I have no written consent by European philanthropist Rotshild about his sponsorship of this people and other Russian revolutionaries, only once have seen such information, but from where was money for their very expensive activity? Never heard about their profitable business. May be Gelfand-Parvus, but who would be poor revolutionary odessit, if not his friend Warburg, another European philanthropist with big money and influence, and as they say, Shiff’s son in a law.
                Revolutionary terrorists have killed Russian tsar, members of his family, PM and high rank officials, they killed about 17 thousands people before October revolution. After 1905 Russian police suppressed their activity, and in Europe they have found bread and shelter, they did not worked, and had enough money for living and continuation of revolutionary activity. Summits of party take much money, especially if conducted in London. Revolutionary newspapers were printed in Europe too. I just wonder, what a scream would on the West, if Russia today sponsored and sheltered Bin Laden and other terrorists?
                If you are acquainted with history of Civil war, you know, that Whites and contra-revolutionary conspirers were supported by Western powers with weapon and ammunition –Yudenich, Krasnov,Denikin, Wrangel, Savinkov. Kolchak’s army and government were based on tsarist gold supply and Czech legion. Explain me please, how Bolsheviks managed to wage war for 5 years against numerous enemies with no industry and without support from abroad?
                Bolsheviks did not identified themselves as Russians, but as internationalists. After their victory they introduced strange words and abbreviation, not characteristic for Russian cultural environment, whereas it was and is widely used in USA, as for example, word “activist”. Lenin in his articles often expressed hatred to Russia and Russian ways and habits, especially he hated Russian peasants for they were not very useful material for proletarian revolution. All Bolshevik leaders came directly from abroad in 1917, excluding rare exceptions, and it is widely known fact. You still cannot see, that Bolsheviks with their revolution were Western gift to Russia? Now West blames Russia for Bolshevism.
                Don't want to discuss it here.

                If you want say your opinion in WWI section.
                Last edited by Andrey; 24 Jan 07, 11:03.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X