Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
|
04-17-2007, 16:31 PM
|
#31 (permalink)
|
|
Lost in Translation
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 11-30-06
Location: estonia
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Ukraine and Georgia or for that matter Eastern Europe are countries which are in a hopeless state of confusion and a crisis of identity.
They live on Soviet dole and now they want to live on US dole.
|
????????????
I have no idea what you mean by that, Sir . Eastern Europe has very huge economical, political , legal, cultural, religios etc.etc. differencies . Such generalisations do not live up to the usual standards of your posts . ( Btw., if it is basically anybodys dole , it is the EU-s  )
__________________
....
|
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 17:57 PM
|
#32 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 01-02-07
Location: Empire of Evil
|
So, Ray hasn't noticed the very huge and dramatic differences between Estonia and Latvia.  That's horrible!!! |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 03:16 AM
|
#33 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFirst
The last one exactly goes in the Ray's line about English newspapers and thoughts in the western way, doesn't it?
|
OK.
Take the Russian view of the world!
Quote:
Apr. 17, 2007
Print | E-mail | Home
Insufferable Strategies
// US Lays Out Strategic Goals for Next Five Years, Slams Russia in Report
The State Department in Washington has revealed its "strategic plan" for foreign policy in 2007-2012. A significant portion of the document is dedicated to America's long-term diplomatic goals in the post-Soviet space, particularly with regard to Russia. For the first time since the Cold War, the US is openly saying that its top priority is to counter Russia's "negative behavior" in numerous areas, from weapons sales to unreliable regimes to pressure from Moscow on the former Soviet republics, whose future the US links with so-called "color revolutions." The new report promises to be yet another source of tensions between Moscow and Washington.
The State Department's Third Strike
The US State Department's new 68-page document, entitled Strategic Plan – Fiscal Years 2007-2012, is an explication of the course of American foreign policy over the next five years. The document lays out fundamental aims and priorities both for Condoleezza Rice's agency and the foreign aid arm of the American government, the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
"In today’s world, it is impossible to draw clear lines between our security interests, our development efforts, and our democratic ideals," says Secretary of State Rice in her introduction to the strategic plan. In her remarks, she names America's chief foreign policy goal on the global level as "advancing a future of freedom, security, and prosperity for the benefit of the American people and the entire world."
This is the third significant "roadmap" document that the State Department has released in a little over a month. The first was the department's annual report on international human rights, which appeared at the beginning of March. The second report, entitled "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: 2006," was published at the beginning of April. Both documents devote significant space to Russia and the countries of the CIS, and both feature unprecedentedly harsh criticism of the situation of democratic rights and freedoms in Russia. In addition, while in the March report the State Department contents itself with some hard-hitting assessments, the April report contains concrete indications that the US is planning to attempt to actively influence the situation in the post-Soviet space, particularly through the promotion of free elections in Russia and elsewhere.
Both reports touched a raw nerve in Russia, and the appearance of a third report, which continues the department's polemic with Moscow on the increasingly touchy issues of "Russian sovereignty" and "American meddling," does nothing to mitigate the situation. Ms. Rice's reference in the preamble of the 2007-2012 report to the impossibility of "[drawing] clear lines between our security interests, our development efforts, and our democratic ideals" is merely Washington's latest attempt to explain why it does not consider America's defense of democracy even thousands of kilometers away from its borders to be interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.
US Ambassador to Russia William Burns explained to Kommersant the rationale behind US efforts to support democratic institutions. Noting that "this issue provokes numerous disputes in today's Russia," Mr. Burns pointed out that American programs operating in Russia are "very limited in terms of dollars spent" and that they are "based on the understanding that we cannot impose our experience or our values on anyone." According to the ambassador, the philosophy behind Washington's actions is based on the desire to advance democracy in other countries by means of the example of America's accumulated experience in the creation of useful economic and political institutions.
The Fly in the Ointment
The decisive statements and assessments concerning Russia that are featured in the "strategic plan" are but the most recent confirmation that the US is settling in for the long haul when it comes to tackling Russian democracy, particularly since America's new five-year plan for foreign policy includes hints that Washington still holds out hope that Russia is not lost to America. According to the new doctrine, "the United States wants to see Russia become an open, democratic, and stable geopolitical partner," a goal that the State Department hopes to achieve through "a wide range of economic, social, scientific, and political ties."
According to the report, Washington has a "strong interest in reinforcing positive trends," including facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, its integration into the global economy, and the appearance of a Russian middle class that is "supportive of democratic institutions and the rule of law." Nevertheless, the report makes clear that the interest of advancing these and other cooperative aims in the current political climate will not oblige the US to turn a blind eye to the flaws in Russian democracy. "We will engage with Russia where we can do so productively, while continuing to stand firm - with the support of our European and other allies - for the values of democracy, human rights, and freedom and to push back on negative Russian behavior," promises the State Department's plan.
Judging from the report, Washington sees more evidence of "negative behavior" on the part of Russia today than at any other time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The laundry list of things that the Bush administration does not approve of includes "increasing centralization of power, pressure on NGOs and civil society, a growing government role in the economy, and restrictions on media freedom," all of which the report terms "clear and worrisome trends." Another "major concern" for Washington is "Russian weapon sales to such states as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela."
Perhaps the most unpalatable part of the report for Moscow is the apparent confirmation of future inevitable rivalry between America and Russia in the post-Soviet space. According to the document, "Russia’s policy toward its neighbors is another major challenge, especially Moscow’s support for separatist regions in Georgia and Moldova, its political and economic pressure against Georgia, and its monopolistic use of energy to pressure neighboring states and gain control of infrastructure and strategic assets." While accusing Moscow of employing energy levers to subjugate its neighbors in the CIS, the US makes no bones about the steps that it will be taking in the future to combat Moscow's reach and "bolster regional energy security": namely, "diversifying energy sources, increasing transparency, and improving the efficiency of energy usage."
Long Live the Color Revolutions!
Insufferable Strategies - Kommersant Moscow
|
__________________
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 03:21 AM
|
#34 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by braindead
????????????
I have no idea what you mean by that, Sir . Eastern Europe has very huge economical, political , legal, cultural, religios etc.etc. differencies . Such generalisations do not live up to the usual standards of your posts . ( Btw., if it is basically anybodys dole , it is the EU-s ) |
EU to a great extent is the extension of the US philosophy!
East Europe will not survive for one minute without the US' benevolence and moral support in all its ramifications!
As it is Russia is slowly putting the squeeze.
Estonia is making the international scene on its own? Do elaborate as to which country of Eastern Europe does not require the US? |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 03:27 AM
|
#35 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country:
|
Quote:
Ukraine's latest revolt hews 'Blue'
Protesters have hit the streets this week amid a constitutional crisis that has caused political gridlock.
By Fred Weir | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Page 1 of 2
MOSCOW - The demonstrators camped out this week on Kiev's Independence Square are far fewer than the throngs of 2004's Orange Revolution – the two-week-long mass protest that overturned a rigged election, allowed the movement's leader, Viktor Yushchenko, to become president, and seemed to secure a democratic future for Ukraine.
This time, the tent city on Kiev's main street is festooned with the blue banners of the Orange Revolution's opponents, and the nightly rallies are filled with ringing denunciations of Mr. Yushchenko's "undemocratic" and "power-grubbing" behavior.
Despite the relative paucity of demonstrators compared with 2004, experts say this is Ukraine's most serious crisis yet. Even though the general population remains largely uninvolved, the threat of a national breakup looks increasingly real.
"This is a fight between the leaders and their most active supporters, but it has already gone too far," says Oleksandr Shushko, an expert with the independent Institute for Euro-Atlantic Integration in Kiev. "It's becoming clear that our current constitutional model is not workable at all."
Opinion polls suggest that two years of constitutional gridlock have left most Ukrainians exhausted and disillusioned with political leaders of every stripe who never seem to do anything but squabble. Yushchenko's early-April decree ordering the Blue-dominated parliament, the Supreme Rada, to disband and face new elections on May 27, is opposed by nearly 60 percent of Ukrainians, according to a recent survey by the independent Sofia Social Studies Center in Kiev. Yet that poll does not appear to reflect support for the Blue forces, led by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who have hunkered down in the Rada and refused to obey the president. Several polls released last week suggest that Mr. Yanukovich's Party of Regions, based in the Russified east, enjoys the backing of no more than 35 percent of voters – the same percentage with which it won in parliamentary polls a year ago.
Before the crisis erupted in early April, Yanukovich had been fortifying his parliamentary majority by inducing deputies from the two pro-democracy Orange parties to cross the floor. Yanukovich had bragged that by summer his coalition would have 300 members in the 450-seat Rada – the magic number required to override presidential vetoes. Yushchenko reacted to his depleting ranks on April 2, when he accused the Blue parties of bribing Orange lawmakers, dispersed the Rada, and ordered fresh elections.
"The key issue here is that the only democratic way of getting out of this deep crisis ... lies in new elections," Yushchenko said on Wednesday in an interview with Radio Free Europe.
The Constitutional Court has agreed to begin hearings on April 17, but that is also the legal deadline for all parties to register for the snap elections, meaning the immediate crisis is likely to go unresolved.
"For us, there is no way out but through the cancellation of the president's unconstitutional decree," says Vasyl Khara, head of the Party of Regions caucus in the embattled Rada. Otherwise, he says, the Blue coalition may refuse to take part in the May 27 polls.
In the past week, five judges of the 18-member Constitutional Court abruptly resigned, citing unspecified "threats" and "political pressure." Three more judges were checked into the hospital over the weekend with unspecified medical complaints. Experts say the court can continue to operate with a 10-member quorum, but that the episode raises worries that Ukraine's fledgling institutions may not be able to contain the escalating dispute.
"It will be very unfortunate if, after all this turmoil, we don't develop better checks and balances in our system," says Vira Nanivska, president of the official National Academy for Public Administration in Kiev.
At a Kiev rally last week, Yanukovich said that he would vacate the Rada only if Yushchenko agrees to face the voters, too. "If we hold early elections, they must be parliamentary and presidential, and held within the framework of current legislation," he said. That solution might also appeal to the ambitious Yulia Tymoshenko, who leads the Orange-hued All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland party and who has made little secret of her impatience with Yushchenko, her cautious ex-ally.
For his part, Yushchenko said in a speech last Thursday that he's not wedded to the May 27 date for new parliamentary polls and that he would allow deputies to reconvene in the Rada to decide on a fresh date.
But polls suggest that a new election may only reproduce the current stalemate. Experts warn that failure to find a compromise will lead to a permanent crisis and, in the worst case, even Ukraine's breakup. Deep divisions between the country's heavily industrialized, Russified east and its agricultural, Ukrainian-speaking, and pro-European west, seem certain to continue generating conflict over flash point issues like NATO membership, economic cooperation with Russia, and official status for the Russian language. Until Ukraine's Constitutional Court renders a decision or one of the antagonists blinks, the country's worst political crisis since the collapse of the USSR is likely to go rolling on.
"Our political competition is not between right and left, but between east and west, and this is a potential disaster," says Ms. Nanivska.
Ukraine's latest revolt hews 'Blue' | csmonitor.com
|
What do you all have to say of this?
Don't you think the Orange chaps have messed up the issue so badly that all the moral support that the US gave has gone down the drain!
Russia is not putting the squeeze? 
Last edited by Ray : 04-18-2007 at 03:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 06:00 AM
|
#36 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country:
|
Now here is what the western press states:
Quote:
A western-backed coup
The leaders of Ukraine's Orange Revolution now threaten the country's democratic future
Adam Swain in Donetsk
Tuesday April 17, 2007
The Guardian
The decree issued by Ukraine's president Viktor Yushchenko earlier this month to dissolve parliament and hold early elections is no less than an attempted coup d'etat, apparently aided and abetted by western powers.
Last year's elections brought Viktor Yanukovych - Yushchenko's nemesis during the rigged presidential elections of 2004 which led to the country's so-called Orange Revolution - to power as prime minister at the head of a coalition government. Yushchenko's party, Our Ukraine, meanwhile straddled government and opposition, while his close collaborator during the Orange Revolution, Yuliya Tymoshenko, went into opposition and campaigned for new elections. The complex power-sharing arrangement that emerged resulted in a power struggle between government and president, which the government, backed by the parliament, had been winning.
But while Russia welcomed the Russophile government's newly dominant position, elements in the west feared the strong parliament would undermine Yushchenko's pro-western foreign policy. For Yushchenko, the attempted coup is a means to recover some lost power from parliament. For his western backers, it is a way of irreversibly locking Ukraine into western geopolitical and geo-economic structures.
The president has resorted to such a high stakes gamble because of his domestic political weakness. Even if the constitutional court rules in his favour, early parliamentary elections will almost certainly result in his party winning fewer seats than they did last year. Our Ukraine, with its neoliberal and pro-western outlook, came a poor third place, drawing support mainly in the west and centre of the country.
Should new elections take place, the largest party is likely once again to be Yanukovych's Party of the Regions, a corporatist party which polled 32% last year, mainly in the Russian-speaking east and south of the country. Of the major parties only former prime minister Yuliya Tymoshenko's parliamentary bloc, with its pragmatic populism and strong pro-western outlook, can expect an increased share of the vote.
Since the Yanukovych government was formed last summer, Ukraine has begun to be the author of its own democratic future. The power struggle has been a contest for the right to consolidate the state bureaucracy and the political system to enable strong and effective government. This has been accompanied by a booming economy and a pragmatic foreign policy that combines cooperation with Russia with closer integration with the EU - but not with the unpopular Nato.
Consolidation of the state and political system is a necessary prerequisite, not only for further political and economic reform but also for Ukraine to withstand geopolitical pressure and economic competition from east and west. Russia wants to establish a consortium with Ukraine to jointly own and manage the pipeline network that takes Russian gas to the EU, while Russian business has been seeking to acquire large Ukrainian businesses. For its part, the west would like Ukraine to adopt neoliberal economic reform, join Nato and deepen its relationship with the EU as a bulwark against a reinvigorated Russia.
Should large parts of the political and economic elite, and the country at large, regard early elections as illegitimate and boycott them, Yushchenko and his renewed ally Tymoshenko would be unable to negotiate any form of political compromise, weakening Ukraine's ability to withstand external pressure. A combined political and legal solution preventing the need for early elections is more likely to emerge.
Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, who led the street protests during the Orange Revolution, have morphed into counter-revolutionaries, intent on crushing the parliament they ensured was elected in Ukraine's freest and fairest elections since independence. Their western backers, with their own geopolitical agenda, hope neither will emerge as Ukraine's equivalent of Boris Yeltsin and that the international community will not notice their improbable reincarnation.
Paradoxically Yushchenko has returned to the failed authoritarianism of the past, and jeopardised not only his but also his country's democratic future. In so doing he has renounced his right as heir to the Orange Revolution and transformed Yanukovych into an unlikely defender of Ukrainian democracy.
· Adam Swain is a lecturer in geography at the University of Nottingham. He is editor of Reconstructing the Post-Soviet Industrial Region: the Donbas in transition (Routledge)
swain@nottingham.ac.uk
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | A western-backed coup
|
You decide!
Who is paying whom?
Eastern Europe is no better.
The issues are not in the public forums. |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 06:05 AM
|
#37 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country:
|
It is only the naive and gullible who do not understand the money and 'moral' support that is being pushed into Eastern European countries to get them on their side.
It is not only the US and EU.
Russia is also in the great game.
It is only that the US and the EU have more to give!
Russia is no paragon of virtue with its KGB operative!
And the US' Freedom and Democracy is as bogus as the concept of Man on the Moon with Cheese!
It is all about survival and dominance! |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 13:55 PM
|
#38 (permalink)
|
|
Patron
Join Date: 11-15-06
Location: Washington State, USA
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
What about "by the people for the people"? You would entrust your country being ran by a "mafia"? instead of those who "would" have the countries peoples wishes followed? Wouldnt the "mafia" become richer and richer as the common man becomes poorer and poorer? |
Not really. Yes mafia becomes richer and richer but it becomes so anyway. During mafia rule people started to live a lot better then they did during Gorbachev's time (nothing changed at his time, it only become worst), when mafia came to rule people started to live better, now, when freaks are coming to rule again people are starting to live worst. I have family members and friends in Ukraine and all of them have that f***g gay Yuschenko now.
The reason why this dump dokey can't do anything is cause he is a total looser and once he crossed the "mafia's" way they are not giving him any money and are not investing the money into Ukraine while during Kuchma's time mafia were investing a huge amounts of money into Ukraine's business and economy. If that dumpie really wants Ukraine to become a contry with normal and stable economy he have to give up, resign and give the rulling seat to his opponents and go away or commit suicede (the last one will be the best).
Don't try to teach me how to organize the life in the country where I grew up and lived for long time and which's people I know and know how to organize them.
__________________
Наша жизнь как пианино: белая клавиша, черная клавиша и крышка
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 13:59 PM
|
#39 (permalink)
|
|
Patron
Join Date: 11-15-06
Location: Washington State, USA
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
The mafia in Ukraine is the bloke who organised the Orange Revolution?
??????????
Ukraine and Georgia or for that matter Eastern Europe are countries which are in a hopeless state of confusion and a crisis of identity.
They live on Soviet dole and now they want to live on US dole.
|
Mafia didn't organized the Orange Gay Revolution. And about Georgia - it was unneeded waight and part of the Soviet Union that were requiring huge amounts of money and were useless state. |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 15:54 PM
|
#40 (permalink)
|
|
Lost in Translation
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 11-30-06
Location: estonia
Country:
|
Ray , what I meant was that ´´East Europe´´ is such a vague term . On one hand there are Ukraine , Georgia - both members of CIS , then on other end there are places like Slovenia , where living standards are nearing EU-s lower third . In fact , Slovenia is a very good example - prospering , democratic etc., then nearby is Albania - well , less said , the better. Well Asia for example has some very different countries - as Singapore and Myanmar for example. To state that this whole Asia is an unbelievable clusterf**k is not a very good analysis.
As for the thought that Russia has less to give - well people have seen what they have to give , that´s exactly the point . I´m not SO gullible and a simpleton. I perfectly understand that there are no free lunches . It´s simply the fact that some lunches are MUCH MORE expensive than others .
Oh and BTW , many people think that EU was conceived as the counterbalance to US , not as it´s political lapdog.
But - quote - ´´Estonia is making the international scene on its own? Do elaborate as to which country of Eastern Europe does not require the US?´´ - point taken . Totally agree .
Last edited by braindead : 04-18-2007 at 15:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 15:59 PM
|
#41 (permalink)
|
|
Lost in Translation
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 11-30-06
Location: estonia
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFirst
So, Ray hasn't noticed the very huge and dramatic differences between Estonia and Latvia. That's horrible!!! |
Well , according to my wife , who is a Latvian , they are a world apart  |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 16:48 PM
|
#42 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 01-02-07
Location: Empire of Evil
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
It is only the naive and gullible who do not understand the money and 'moral' support that is being pushed into Eastern European countries to get them on their side.
It is not only the US and EU.
Russia is also in the great game.
|
I think this is an excessive simplifying of situation. Great game or something else but there is the own political life in East Europe. There are different political groups and movements, there are their own local issues and problems, there are different relations in different countries to common-European and World trends.
If there is the great game in reality, they also make field for this game and take a part. |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 17:01 PM
|
#43 (permalink)
|
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
Join Date: 08-20-03
Country:
|
Braindead,
Sorry about clubbing all under East Europe, but that is again a weakness developed from the Cold War complex, wherein while one knew that it constituted of many countries with distinct people etc, we for convenience clubbed it as one entity since it was under the Soviet way of functioning.
Even our Communist think they are under Russia and now China!
Our thinking is slightly tempered by the western way of thinking.
Maybe because of the long history with the British!
Last edited by Ray : 04-18-2007 at 17:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 17:06 PM
|
#44 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 01-02-07
Location: Empire of Evil
|
But certainly they take a part mostly as a field... That's true.
A kind of alive field, always changeable. |
|
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 17:31 PM
|
#45 (permalink)
|
|
Lost in Translation
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 11-30-06
Location: estonia
Country:
|
Well Ray , Sir , of course it is all quite confusing , especially to look from half the world away . Hell , maybe from distance it´s even more correct view .... The reason I post so obsessivly about Eastern Euurope is that (by default) it is probably the one subject here I could claim some knowledge. But I learn something here every day
Last edited by braindead : 04-18-2007 at 17:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 AM.
| | 
Similar Threads