Russia on the march - again - Page 18

braindead · 07-30-2007, 16:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFirst

What a bullscrap.

I had to wait a whole day for your comment

.

marklv · 07-30-2007, 18:51 PM

"The comparison is preposterous. A strong argument can be made that by ending the war quickly, the atom bombs saved countless lives. "

********. Japan would have surrendered in weeks regardless of the bomb. In anycase, conventional bombing was destroying Japan quite well. Truman dropped the bomb to impress the Russians and 'persuade' them not to make any further moves in East Asia. He gave Jack S about the fact that 200,000 Japs would die, and neither did any of the top brass in the Pentagon.

Kansas Bear · 07-31-2007, 00:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marklv

"The comparison is preposterous. A strong argument can be made that by ending the war quickly, the atom bombs saved countless lives. "

********. Japan would have surrendered in weeks regardless of the bomb. In anycase, conventional bombing was destroying Japan quite well. Truman dropped the bomb to impress the Russians and 'persuade' them not to make any further moves in East Asia. He gave Jack S about the fact that 200,000 Japs would die, and neither did any of the top brass in the Pentagon.

Since you need some help with your history....
Potsdam Proclamation--summarily dismissed by the Japanese government
Aug 6, 1945 -- Hiroshima was bombed
The devastation caused by the bomb brought no response to the demand for unconditional surrender.

Aug 9, 1945 -- Nagasaki was bombed

Even after the second atomic bomb attack, disagreement raged within the Japanese government between peace advocates and those who urged continued resistance. Shortly after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito was convinced that further resistance was futile and took an unprecedented step in modern Japanese history by intervening to bring about the surrender of his nation to save the lives of his people from additional attacks and the bloody land invasion that was sure to come.

An attempted coup by militant extremists failed and on 14 August 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. In a break with tradition, Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender in a recorded radio message. Japan accepted the terms of the July 26th Potsdam Declaration calling for unconditional surrender, terms which the Japanese had rejected previously. This was the first time the Japanese people had ever heard their emperor's voice, and some Japanese officers committed suicide upon hearing his decision.

If it wasn't for the Emperor the Japanese government wouldn't have surrendered. Even when the Emperor announced it over the radio, what was the result? An attempted military coup and some Japanese officers committed suicide. Doesn't sound like they were willing to surrender, to me.

Feanor · 08-01-2007, 02:41 AM

Many high-ranking Japanese generals were certainly willing to fight to the death. It's quite possible that had there been no A-bomb developed by the U.S. the Japanese determination fight on and the massive casualties from an invasion of Japan would have given them more honorable peace terms.

Ray · 08-19-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Nothing's Free in Dealing with Putin

By Robert E. Hunter
This opinion article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 1, 2001. At the Genoa G-8 summit, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin gave President Bush a priceless going-away present: implicit acceptance that Moscow will not let the Antiballistic Missile Treaty stand in the way of building a missile defense shield around the United States. But little in this world is free, especially in dealing with the Russians. Putin expects to be paid. And, within limits, Bush should do so.

Unlike his predecessor, Boris N. Yeltsin, Putin seems to know what he wants for Russia and, as an old KGB operative, has a good sense of tactics in dealing with the West. Blocking all U.S. work on national missile defense is not high on his wish list. Why should it be? Following the May visit to Moscow of a high-level Washington team to describe the U.S. program, Putin obviously concluded that, as of yet, "there is no there there"--that the U.S. is technically incapable of deploying a robust defense system that could seriously affect the Russian offensive nuclear arsenal for a decade or more.

So Putin surely asked himself, should I continue playing the role of "bad cop," thus letting old Cold Warriors in the U.S. use Russian obduracy to quiet the opposition to missile defenses? Indeed, by embracing joint U.S.-Russia discussion of both offensive and defense nuclear arms, he cedes leadership in questioning the U.S. antimissile program to the allies, the Chinese and members of Congress. And now the price. That derives from what Putin really wants to achieve as Russian president, about which he has made no secret.

He wants to keep the Russian Federation together and to convince the West, especially the U.S., to do no more about Moscow's war in Chechnya--an "object lesson" to other minorities in Russia thinking about independence--than to hector him from time to time. He wants to re-centralize as much authority as possible in Moscow and in himself as a latter-day czar, and he is making significant progress. He wants to set the Russian economy firmly on an upward path--the prerequisite for his other goals and his own political survival. And, for good measure, he would like Russia to be seen as a significant player on the world scene, when today it is, at best, a medium-sized power.

Putin gains such added stature simply by the United States paying court to him over the ABM Treaty. But why does it do so? After all, the administration has a point: With today's relatively benign U.S.-Russia relationship, nobody would think of negotiating such a treaty afresh. Further, there is almost nothing Russia could do if the U.S. simply walked away from the ABM Treaty. Yet doing so would cause a rumpus with most of the civilized world. Thus the Bush administration has chosen to negotiate with Putin, and he is playing it for all it's worth. He will, no doubt, also try to gain slackening of U.S. interest in inviting the three Baltic states to join NATO at the November 2002 Prague summit.

What the Russian leader really wants from the U.S. and the West is support for Russia's still-flagging economy. It has had a bump with today's high world oil prices, but oligarchs, including those in charge of natural resources, continue to wield inordinate power. Economic problems are not Russia's only ones: Disease, notably once-defunct killers like tuberculosis, is on the rise; and Russia is the only non-African country that is depopulating, at a rapid clip.

It was no accident that Putin first showed Bush some flexibility on the ABM Treaty at their June meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and in exchange the U.S. president endorsed Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization; or that the only tangible bilateral agreement at Genoa was to start a Russian-U.S. business dialogue.

Given that U.S. missile defenses are a long way off--and probably even then no real strategic challenge to Russia--it was not rocket science for Putin to trade flexibility on the ABM Treaty for economic benefits. Even so, he can be expected to bargain hard on the details, to remind the European allies about his concerns over NATO's expansion and role in the Balkans and to get as much as he can of the benefits of trade, investment and inclusion in the global economy.

Likewise, given that the U.S. does want the Russian economy to succeed, paying just this part of Putin's price is not a bad deal for Bush. What would remain is for the U.S. to decide whether it really wants national missile defenses and at what cost in money and relations with countries besides Russia. Robert E. Hunter, a senior advisor at the RAND Corp., was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998.

RAND ON RUSSIA

A commentary worth note!

indus creed · 08-20-2007, 19:58 PM

...and the politics get murkier!

Syria: Damascus' View of Russia's Mediterranean Ambitions

Summary

Talk of Russia making a grand return to the Mediterranean by developing a naval base off the Syrian coast has given Syria a unique opportunity to play off a resurrection of Cold War tensions between Washington and Moscow. Though a Russian naval presence in Syrian territory would give Damascus a stronger deterrence against external aggression, the Syrian regime is not willing to sell its national security to the Russians just yet. For now, Syria's focus will remain on using the Iraq negotiations to break out of its diplomatic isolation.

Analysis

Speculation is arising over the seriousness of Russia's plan to resurrect its naval presence on the Mediterranean. So far, Syria has gone out of its way to deny that any such plan exists, insisting that all talk of Russia using Syrian port facilities in Tartus and Latakia is a figment of Israel's propaganda machine.

But beyond the statements, Syria is facing a very interesting political decision. Russia sees a window of opportunity in which the United States' attention is absorbed in Iraq and in its intensely delicate negotiations with Iran. Though the thought of Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean could have provoked a strong U.S. response a decade ago, it is no secret that the U.S. military's bandwidth is greatly constrained and there is room for other major powers -- like Russia -- to start playing in the Middle Eastern sandbox again.

A Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast could allow Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime to better inoculate itself against a potential attack by the United States or Israel. Damascus is nervously watching for any movement in the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq. Like the Russians, the Syrians enjoy the fact that U.S. military forces have their hands too full to seriously think about engaging them in a round of forceful behavior modification. With or without a solid political resolution in Baghdad, the U.S. military position in Iraq is not going to last forever, and Syria will not be able to stay under the radar as easily as it has over the past six years. Without a strong defensive missile shield of its own, the Syrians could look to their Russian guests at Tartus and Latakia to get the Israelis, Americans or even the Turks to think twice about threatening Syria militarily.

At most, a Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast would complicate plans to strike Syria. The Russians have pledged to set up sophisticated air defenses around the Latakia and Tartus naval bases that will also provide an air umbrella for the entire Syrian coast and parts of the hinterland. Syria has formally depended on Russia for military supplies and training since the Cold War. While the supplies are nice, Damascus still does not view Russia as a reliable military ally should things come to a head. Al Assad likely remembers well his father's distrust of Kremlin support during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union worked to ensure the war ended in a stalemate. Syria has also watched how the Russians have strung along the Iranians over the construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor (now running a decade behind schedule), and has not enjoyed having to grovel for arms sales, particularly during Russian President Vladimir Putin's reign.

Though trust is very much an issue, a Russian naval fleet would still serve a clear purpose in Syria's view. The United States would unlikely be prepared to risk engaging in a military confrontation with Russia (which could very well lead to a crisis with Washington's European allies) on any level for the sake of targeting the Syrian regime. Furthermore, Israel would be troubled by -- among other things -- the potential concurrent deployment of land-based air defense assets, like late-model S300 batteries, to a Russian facility. These are highly capable air defense assets that Syria has been trying to acquire for a decade. Though Damascus could not rely on them to actually defend Syrian interests, their mere presence would change the threat environment for Israel and make things like low-level flights over al Assad's summer home in Latakia a bit riskier. In short, the Russians would be offering an attractive insurance policy for the Syrians.

But Syria is also looking at another window of opportunity in Iraq, where it sees the United States desperate for a political resolution. Syria is in the process of demonstrating in any way possible that it can play a key role in suppressing the Iraq insurgency and getting Iraq's former Baathists on board with a political deal. The Iraq negotiations would then serve as an avenue for Syria to extract political concessions in Lebanon and break out of its diplomatic isolation by normalizing relations with the United States, moving al Assad a huge step ahead in his quest for national security. The Syrian regime is also well aware that Israel and the United States privately prefer keeping the al Assad regime intact for lack of a better, non-Islamist alternative. As long as al Assad faces no immediate threat of regime change, he has ample room to negotiate his way to Washington's good side while the Iraq talks are in play.

Moreover, the Syrians cannot expect the Russians to show up on their doorstep anytime soon. While Russia could park a handful of surface combatants from the Black Sea Fleet in Tartus or Latakia tomorrow, the construction of more meaningful naval facilities takes time and considerable investment. There is no clear indication that Russia has a genuine interest in making such an investment now, though Moscow has much to gain by talking about it and playing up the threat of Russia's expansionist desires.

The Syrians likely will keep the Russian naval option on the table, but for now al Assad's focus is on exploiting the Iraq talks to gain U.S. recognition. So far, this plan is progressing, with Syria just having wrapped up a two-day international security conference -- attended by the United States -- aimed at stabilizing Iraq. The United States is also looking into different ways to work with the Syrians while appearing to keep its guard up, including channeling messages through the Canadians to the Syrian regime.

Damascus will publicly downplay any talk of the Russian naval fleet to avoid rocking the boat with Washington while the Iraq negotiations are in progress. But should Syria feel the United States is not willing to play ball over Iraq, the Russian naval base option gives Damascus a most useful bargaining chip to play both sides of the U.S.-Russian divide.

gunnut · 08-20-2007, 20:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marklv

"The comparison is preposterous. A strong argument can be made that by ending the war quickly, the atom bombs saved countless lives. "

********. Japan would have surrendered in weeks regardless of the bomb. In anycase, conventional bombing was destroying Japan quite well. Truman dropped the bomb to impress the Russians and 'persuade' them not to make any further moves in East Asia. He gave Jack S about the fact that 200,000 Japs would die, and neither did any of the top brass in the Pentagon.

Great...another revisionist.

Japan bought the bluff that we had dozens of A-bombs and weren't afraid of wiping Japan off the map with them.

Hirohito made the sensible decision to save his people by surrendering.

Without the immense power of the A-bombs, Japan was quite content on fighting a conventional war to the death. A-bombs shocked the Japanese leadership, at least the sane ones, into contemplating the destruction of the Japanese people and culture could really happen.

braindead · 08-21-2007, 05:58 AM

Some thoughts translated from an article by Est.Parliament member M.Mihkelson. Former journalist , has lived in Moscow over 10 years .

Nashism - Russias new ideology

´Russia is in the grip of Enemy . Only way to avoid war with constantly power-hungry America is to serve in Rus.Army!´ This is one of Nashi´s clarion calls . And followers are not so small in numbers . Because it´s hip and cool to be a nashist . Because the future of Rus. will be made by them .
Created only by couple of years ago , Nashi has become one of the Russsias most dynamic and influencial movements and are often called Kremlin watchdog or even ´Putinjugend´. But more important is to guess how important the nashism could become in Rus. society .
The name alredy spells notional conflict . Russia´s often occuring tendency to separate friends from enemies and ´ours´ from ´theirs´ is temptingly rich soil to cultivate patriotism . Therefore even the name (´Nashi´ - ´ours´, ´us´- BD) creates strong sense of identity .
Actually ´nashism´ is suitable to explain the feelings (and prejudices) that are dominating in today´s Russia . And not only amongst servile youth , but nashism seems to become the Putin-era´s Russias engrossing ideology .
-----
Putin´s Russias centra pillar of identity is glorification of the win of WW2 and vigorous compensation of 20-th centurys biggest catastrophy - the collapse of Sov.Union
Of course has modern Russian society many other visions of themselves , but these two seem to be present in very different internal and foréign political combinations . Both themes are participating in Rus. foreign policy , especially with their neighbours .
The win of WW2 is understandably a source of pride to Russia . Alas the glorification of it follows the tried brezhnevist path , where there is no valueing of Man in his destiny or tragedy , but instead strength of the State and it´s the genius of the Leader (that would be Stalin).
This is the reason why the youth of Russia , not to mention older people , have rather positive views over Stalin . According to latest polls most youth would choose Stalin , if they only had the chance (have not heard it in such context - BD)
Sarah Mendelsohn , an US sociologe , who has studied the phenomenon thoroughly , is convinced that failure of development of democratic institutions in 1990-s together with it´s confusing cognition of it´s history has left Russia democracy-wise uneducated , dismissive on Stalin´s crimes and dangerously fly-high on laying down it´s role in the world .
Russian ideology has had messianistic view of it´s role in world through the times . Belief of ´Third Rome´ has carried over to today´s public opinion polls where 74% of russians think that Russia should do it ´Their Way´ .
It has become clear that Putin´s Russias ´way´ is producing anti-westernism through Czarist/Soviet mixed identity . Because it was the West that broke up Sov.Union and who with it´s constant ´export of democracy´ threatens stability of Russias ´sovreign development´
Anti-westernism suits well Russias ´silovikis´ internal and external ambitions because people living with controlled media are easily manipulated and are quick and easy to accept brezhnevist ´happy times´.

Malformation of the State
This means that the bad ones are the USA and NATO . That democracy is a terrible USA weapon to achieve it´s international ambitions and control . That coloured revolutions are terrible excresenceses on Russias borders and are to be fought with determination . That one and only democrat is V.Putin . And that Russia will become force to be respected ( = feared) through the world .
It is not imprtant to Kremlin in it´s mass manipulations that the real strategic competitor is not in West but in East . As biggest part of population lives in European-part and recent past is more connected to Cold War , it is understandably the basis for consolidation of society .
Russias ´silovik´ elite´s rise of confidence is of course connected to current prices of raw materials . Big hopes are built on it it is one of the reasons why nashism is doing so well . But the fall of the empire without real internal rebirth has created opportunity for malformation .

Lilija Shevtsova , analyisist foir Moscow´s Carnegie Center said recently very clearly - Russia is back . Back in the past .
The only question is which and when the next point of break will occur . It´s clear that nashism is not sustainable system . Just as every totalitarian system .

entropy · 08-21-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Great...another revisionist.

Japan bought the bluff that we had dozens of A-bombs and weren't afraid of wiping Japan off the map with them.

Hirohito made the sensible decision to save his people by surrendering.

Without the immense power of the A-bombs, Japan was quite content on fighting a conventional war to the death. A-bombs shocked the Japanese leadership, at least the sane ones, into contemplating the destruction of the Japanese people and culture could really happen.

Yep, the Japanese were not afraid to die, they were afraid to die an dishonorable death. Being disintegrated without the smallest ability to fight back isn't very Bushido.

Ray · 08-23-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Russia steps up military expansion

Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday August 22, 2007
The Guardia

Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to revive Russia's military power and restore its role as the world's leading producer of military aircraft yesterday.

Speaking at the opening of the largest airshow in Russia's post-Soviet history, the president said he was determined to make aircraft manufacture a national priority after decades of lagging behind the west........

Analysts, however, took issue with Mr Putin's claim that Russia was already the leading producer of military aircraft. However, they acknowledged that Russia had developed some impressive "technologies".

These include a new S-400 missile and aircraft interceptor system, similar but better than the US Patriot, and a lethal new supersonic cruise missile, the Meteorit-A.

"They have some very good kit," one industry observer said.

Russia also used yesterday's airshow - held at Zhukovsky, a former Soviet airbase on the leafy outskirts of Moscow - to show off its latest generation of jet fighters.

These include an upgraded Sukhoi jet, the SU-35, which has a new engines and a new radar system, and a revamped "vector thrust" MIG, the MIG 29-OVT. "They are good aircraft. The MIG can do a very lovely flip," the industry observer added.

One analyst said Mr Putin did not want confrontation with the west but was determined to restore Russia's strategic parity with the US.................

Mr Putin is now determined to make Russia the world's third-largest manufacturer of passenger jets - after the United States, with Boeing, and the European Union, with Airbus.....................

Last week Russian officials said they planned to build 4,500 civilian aircraft by 2025, while the Kremlin has pledged £125bn to boost the civilian industry.

As part of the plan to boost significantly Russia's civilian aircraft industry, a new state-controlled organisation, the United Aircraft Corporation, has been created.........

More at:

Russia Ups the Ante

Russia seems to be attempting desperately to regain its lost prestige as a world beater!

One wonders if the Russian economy has the resilience to absorb the ambition.

Feanor · 08-24-2007, 18:40 PM

Maybe the question should be whether Russian economy has the oil to absorb the ambition?

texacali · 08-24-2007, 20:52 PM

Let us hope the passengers on Russian airliners fare better than their Soviet counterparts in safety statistics. Or is it maintenance, the lack of which gives so many problems, making their airplanes fall out of the sky?

Ray · 08-25-2007, 02:42 AM

Russia is a changed nation.

No longer the old creaky crap.

Here is something that would astound most, but not in Russia!

Quote:

B-52? Pack me one

A B-52 bomber: Astounding offer

Moscow, Aug. 24 (Reuters): A wealthy Russian tried to buy a US B-52 bomber from a group of shocked American pilots at an airshow near Moscow, a Russian newspaper reported today.

The unidentified Russian, wearing sunglasses and surrounded by bodyguards, approached the US delegation and asked to buy the bomber, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper said.

An astounded member of the US delegation said the bomber was not for sale but that it would cost at least $500 million if it were to be sold on the spot.

“That is no problem. It is such a cool machine,” the Russian was quoted as saying by the newspaper, which said its reporter overheard the conversation. The bomber was not sold.

Russia’s new rich, who built fantastic fortunes trading commodities and contacts after the fall of the Soviet Union, have made a name for themselves as ostentatious purchasers of everything from British football clubs to Faberge eggs.
The Telegraph - Calcutta : International

So, one must drop the Cold War stereotypes and observe the new Russia, and take note with pragmatism, what it can, or, cannot do!

One should not take Putin's flexing his muscles lightly. There is method to his madness.

Better sure than sorry!

Ray · 08-25-2007, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Maybe the question should be whether Russian economy has the oil to absorb the ambition?

Be it oil, be it dung, the Russian economy seems to be capable to doing things that shock!

The world must Take note and Prepare!

We are slowly drifting into the bad old days!

Feanor · 08-25-2007, 07:11 AM

The one thing that would shock me about my countries economy is if it managed to provide for us Russians. Everything else is nothing to be surprised at.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Armenian Genocide	Ironduke	The World Wars	72	12-29-2007 01:12 AM
For all those stuck in the Cold War..	rickusn	International Defense Topics	2	02-11-2007 02:05 AM
Israel works on Iran N-strike	Ray	Political Discussions	30	01-14-2007 15:54 PM
America's Pathetic Putin-Envy	VovaLee	Political Discussions	44	12-19-2006 17:34 PM
Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard	Gio	The Western Alliance	0	12-04-2004 23:20 PM

07-30-2007, 18:51 PM	#257 (permalink)
marklv Banished Join Date: 11-18-05 Location: Reading, UK Posts: 100 Country:	"The comparison is preposterous. A strong argument can be made that by ending the war quickly, the atom bombs saved countless lives. " ********. Japan would have surrendered in weeks regardless of the bomb. In anycase, conventional bombing was destroying Japan quite well. Truman dropped the bomb to impress the Russians and 'persuade' them not to make any further moves in East Asia. He gave Jack S about the fact that 200,000 Japs would die, and neither did any of the top brass in the Pentagon.

08-01-2007, 02:41 AM	#259 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Many high-ranking Japanese generals were certainly willing to fight to the death. It's quite possible that had there been no A-bomb developed by the U.S. the Japanese determination fight on and the massive casualties from an invasion of Japan would have given them more honorable peace terms.

08-20-2007, 19:58 PM	#261 (permalink)
indus creed Regular Join Date: 08-08-07 Location: North America Posts: 53 Country:	...and the politics get murkier! Syria: Damascus' View of Russia's Mediterranean Ambitions Summary Talk of Russia making a grand return to the Mediterranean by developing a naval base off the Syrian coast has given Syria a unique opportunity to play off a resurrection of Cold War tensions between Washington and Moscow. Though a Russian naval presence in Syrian territory would give Damascus a stronger deterrence against external aggression, the Syrian regime is not willing to sell its national security to the Russians just yet. For now, Syria's focus will remain on using the Iraq negotiations to break out of its diplomatic isolation. Analysis Speculation is arising over the seriousness of Russia's plan to resurrect its naval presence on the Mediterranean. So far, Syria has gone out of its way to deny that any such plan exists, insisting that all talk of Russia using Syrian port facilities in Tartus and Latakia is a figment of Israel's propaganda machine. But beyond the statements, Syria is facing a very interesting political decision. Russia sees a window of opportunity in which the United States' attention is absorbed in Iraq and in its intensely delicate negotiations with Iran. Though the thought of Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean could have provoked a strong U.S. response a decade ago, it is no secret that the U.S. military's bandwidth is greatly constrained and there is room for other major powers -- like Russia -- to start playing in the Middle Eastern sandbox again. A Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast could allow Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime to better inoculate itself against a potential attack by the United States or Israel. Damascus is nervously watching for any movement in the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq. Like the Russians, the Syrians enjoy the fact that U.S. military forces have their hands too full to seriously think about engaging them in a round of forceful behavior modification. With or without a solid political resolution in Baghdad, the U.S. military position in Iraq is not going to last forever, and Syria will not be able to stay under the radar as easily as it has over the past six years. Without a strong defensive missile shield of its own, the Syrians could look to their Russian guests at Tartus and Latakia to get the Israelis, Americans or even the Turks to think twice about threatening Syria militarily. At most, a Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast would complicate plans to strike Syria. The Russians have pledged to set up sophisticated air defenses around the Latakia and Tartus naval bases that will also provide an air umbrella for the entire Syrian coast and parts of the hinterland. Syria has formally depended on Russia for military supplies and training since the Cold War. While the supplies are nice, Damascus still does not view Russia as a reliable military ally should things come to a head. Al Assad likely remembers well his father's distrust of Kremlin support during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union worked to ensure the war ended in a stalemate. Syria has also watched how the Russians have strung along the Iranians over the construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor (now running a decade behind schedule), and has not enjoyed having to grovel for arms sales, particularly during Russian President Vladimir Putin's reign. Though trust is very much an issue, a Russian naval fleet would still serve a clear purpose in Syria's view. The United States would unlikely be prepared to risk engaging in a military confrontation with Russia (which could very well lead to a crisis with Washington's European allies) on any level for the sake of targeting the Syrian regime. Furthermore, Israel would be troubled by -- among other things -- the potential concurrent deployment of land-based air defense assets, like late-model S300 batteries, to a Russian facility. These are highly capable air defense assets that Syria has been trying to acquire for a decade. Though Damascus could not rely on them to actually defend Syrian interests, their mere presence would change the threat environment for Israel and make things like low-level flights over al Assad's summer home in Latakia a bit riskier. In short, the Russians would be offering an attractive insurance policy for the Syrians. But Syria is also looking at another window of opportunity in Iraq, where it sees the United States desperate for a political resolution. Syria is in the process of demonstrating in any way possible that it can play a key role in suppressing the Iraq insurgency and getting Iraq's former Baathists on board with a political deal. The Iraq negotiations would then serve as an avenue for Syria to extract political concessions in Lebanon and break out of its diplomatic isolation by normalizing relations with the United States, moving al Assad a huge step ahead in his quest for national security. The Syrian regime is also well aware that Israel and the United States privately prefer keeping the al Assad regime intact for lack of a better, non-Islamist alternative. As long as al Assad faces no immediate threat of regime change, he has ample room to negotiate his way to Washington's good side while the Iraq talks are in play. Moreover, the Syrians cannot expect the Russians to show up on their doorstep anytime soon. While Russia could park a handful of surface combatants from the Black Sea Fleet in Tartus or Latakia tomorrow, the construction of more meaningful naval facilities takes time and considerable investment. There is no clear indication that Russia has a genuine interest in making such an investment now, though Moscow has much to gain by talking about it and playing up the threat of Russia's expansionist desires. The Syrians likely will keep the Russian naval option on the table, but for now al Assad's focus is on exploiting the Iraq talks to gain U.S. recognition. So far, this plan is progressing, with Syria just having wrapped up a two-day international security conference -- attended by the United States -- aimed at stabilizing Iraq. The United States is also looking into different ways to work with the Syrians while appearing to keep its guard up, including channeling messages through the Canadians to the Syrian regime. Damascus will publicly downplay any talk of the Russian naval fleet to avoid rocking the boat with Washington while the Iraq negotiations are in progress. But should Syria feel the United States is not willing to play ball over Iraq, the Russian naval base option gives Damascus a most useful bargaining chip to play both sides of the U.S.-Russian divide.

08-21-2007, 05:58 AM	#263 (permalink)
braindead Lost in Translation *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-30-06 Location: estonia Posts: 1,389 Country:	Some thoughts translated from an article by Est.Parliament member M.Mihkelson. Former journalist , has lived in Moscow over 10 years . Nashism - Russias new ideology ´Russia is in the grip of Enemy . Only way to avoid war with constantly power-hungry America is to serve in Rus.Army!´ This is one of Nashi´s clarion calls . And followers are not so small in numbers . Because it´s hip and cool to be a nashist . Because the future of Rus. will be made by them . Created only by couple of years ago , Nashi has become one of the Russsias most dynamic and influencial movements and are often called Kremlin watchdog or even ´Putinjugend´. But more important is to guess how important the nashism could become in Rus. society . The name alredy spells notional conflict . Russia´s often occuring tendency to separate friends from enemies and ´ours´ from ´theirs´ is temptingly rich soil to cultivate patriotism . Therefore even the name (´Nashi´ - ´ours´, ´us´- BD) creates strong sense of identity . Actually ´nashism´ is suitable to explain the feelings (and prejudices) that are dominating in today´s Russia . And not only amongst servile youth , but nashism seems to become the Putin-era´s Russias engrossing ideology . ----- Putin´s Russias centra pillar of identity is glorification of the win of WW2 and vigorous compensation of 20-th centurys biggest catastrophy - the collapse of Sov.Union Of course has modern Russian society many other visions of themselves , but these two seem to be present in very different internal and foréign political combinations . Both themes are participating in Rus. foreign policy , especially with their neighbours . The win of WW2 is understandably a source of pride to Russia . Alas the glorification of it follows the tried brezhnevist path , where there is no valueing of Man in his destiny or tragedy , but instead strength of the State and it´s the genius of the Leader (that would be Stalin). This is the reason why the youth of Russia , not to mention older people , have rather positive views over Stalin . According to latest polls most youth would choose Stalin , if they only had the chance (have not heard it in such context - BD) Sarah Mendelsohn , an US sociologe , who has studied the phenomenon thoroughly , is convinced that failure of development of democratic institutions in 1990-s together with it´s confusing cognition of it´s history has left Russia democracy-wise uneducated , dismissive on Stalin´s crimes and dangerously fly-high on laying down it´s role in the world . Russian ideology has had messianistic view of it´s role in world through the times . Belief of ´Third Rome´ has carried over to today´s public opinion polls where 74% of russians think that Russia should do it ´Their Way´ . It has become clear that Putin´s Russias ´way´ is producing anti-westernism through Czarist/Soviet mixed identity . Because it was the West that broke up Sov.Union and who with it´s constant ´export of democracy´ threatens stability of Russias ´sovreign development´ Anti-westernism suits well Russias ´silovikis´ internal and external ambitions because people living with controlled media are easily manipulated and are quick and easy to accept brezhnevist ´happy times´. Malformation of the State This means that the bad ones are the USA and NATO . That democracy is a terrible USA weapon to achieve it´s international ambitions and control . That coloured revolutions are terrible excresenceses on Russias borders and are to be fought with determination . That one and only democrat is V.Putin . And that Russia will become force to be respected ( = feared) through the world . It is not imprtant to Kremlin in it´s mass manipulations that the real strategic competitor is not in West but in East . As biggest part of population lives in European-part and recent past is more connected to Cold War , it is understandably the basis for consolidation of society . Russias ´silovik´ elite´s rise of confidence is of course connected to current prices of raw materials . Big hopes are built on it it is one of the reasons why nashism is doing so well . But the fall of the empire without real internal rebirth has created opportunity for malformation . Lilija Shevtsova , analyisist foir Moscow´s Carnegie Center said recently very clearly - Russia is back . Back in the past . The only question is which and when the next point of break will occur . It´s clear that nashism is not sustainable system . Just as every totalitarian system .

08-24-2007, 18:40 PM	#266 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Maybe the question should be whether Russian economy has the oil to absorb the ambition?

08-24-2007, 20:52 PM	#267 (permalink)
texacali Regular Join Date: 06-19-07 Location: breckenridge, texas Posts: 117 Country:	Let us hope the passengers on Russian airliners fare better than their Soviet counterparts in safety statistics. Or is it maintenance, the lack of which gives so many problems, making their airplanes fall out of the sky?

08-25-2007, 07:11 AM	#270 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	The one thing that would shock me about my countries economy is if it managed to provide for us Russians. Everything else is nothing to be surprised at.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)