Shame on Russia
By Sean at 11 July, 2008, 5:09 pm
Maybe it’s some kind of gangster code. All gangsters, of whatever stripes, stick together.
Russia and China took a steaming dump on the Zimbabwean opposition and much of the world by vetoing a UN Security Council Resolution that would place sanctions on Robert Mugabe and 13 members of his gang. Nine countries backed the proposal, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Italy and Panama. Five opposed it: Russia, China, South Africa, and Vietnam. China and Russia carry the big veto stick.
The sanctions would have imposed a travel ban and frozen Mugabe and his thug’s assets.
In recent weeks, Mugabe has unleashed a chistka on the opposition throughout Zimbabwe. The latest report is that 133 supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change have been killed in political violence. Reports the AFP,
Among the most recent victims was a polling agent, Gift Mutsvungunu, whose body was found in a suburb of Harare on Thursday after he was reported missing last week, the MDC said in a statement.
“His body shows signs of intense torture, his eyes were gouged out and his backside suffered serious burns before his abductors killed him,” it added.
“There is reasonable suspicion that state security agents killed him, as his injuries are consistent with those of other deceased persons who were abducted and later killed by state security agents.”
Alas, the Russians couldn’t do the right thing. It seemed that Russia was on board two days ago. The Financial Times reported,
Robert Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe last night faced a growing likelihood of global sanctions after world leaders, including Russia, backed international action to resolve the crisis provoked by June’s flawed elections.
It seems that the G8 leaders figured that Medvedev was making an about face by signing his name to a statement calling for action against Mugabe. Nope. That was a press opportunity. Going along with the crowd. Plus Russia’s vote is a good middle finger to Britain and America.
I guess Russia is thinking, why they should do the Anglos any favors? US wants missiles in the Czech Republic. The US is already talking to Poland about missiles. Now they want Russia to play a long. Not gonna happen.
It’s no surprise that many neighboring African leaders want the UN to stay out. Seven of them said as much at the G8. “Robert Mugabe may retire in a few years time,” was their view. I also get why the Africans don’t want interfere simply on principle. It has never brought them any good.
Still, I can’t help but also speculate that Russia, China, the Africans, and Vietnamese don’t want to set any precedents. The last thing they want is for the UN get in the business of poking its nose in a state’s right to use terror. After all, you never know when it might come in handy.
Then again, its also not that simple. And of course you have to wonder what sanctions will do anyway. Okay so Mugabe and his people can’t leave Zimbabwe and their asserts are frozen. And that’s going to do what exactly? It’s really just a gesture when you think of it.
However, it’s not like the Russians are providing much in way of a solution. Russian senior G8 negotiator Alexander Pankin told the press, “Threatening sanctions is not the best way to settle the issue. We believe there should be negotiations between the parties involved with the participation of African leaders.” Well that is nice. The opposition shows up to the negotiations and gets slaughtered. That sounds just as idealistic as thinking sanctions will make a difference.
But at least sanctions are something. Sometimes such gestures are important. It also sounds like these are precise. If they were general sanctions on the country as a whole, a la Cuba, Iraq, or North Korea, then forget it. There is no reason why the Zimbabweans have to suffer more than they already do.
Plus, hitting Mugabe in his pocketbook might at least annoy him. Or even better get him in trouble with his young wife. As seven million Zimbabweans starve, Mugabe’s beloved Grace bounces around Europe buying $50,000 diamond encrusted Rolexes and staying in $20,000 a night, 33 room hotel suites. She zips around in Hef’s old jet. She’s known in Zimbabwe as the First Shopper. I hope that travel ban also included her. Cutting off her access to Ferragamo shoes, which can run in the few thousand a pair, might be the best way to send a message to Mugabe. “I have very narrow feet, so I wear only Ferragamo,” she says.
Shame on Russia.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Zimbabwe is a hell-hole which England allowed to fester. America places radar/anti-missle defences on Russia’s doorstep and Russia has the audacity to complain? I would bitch slap George W as well.
”Still, I can’t help but also speculate that Russia, China, the Africans, and Vietnamese don’t want to set any precedents. The last thing they want is for the UN get in the business of poking its nose in a state’s right to use terror. After all, you never know when it might come in handy.”
Just saw on BBC News 24 that the Russians have said that voting for the sanctions would set a ‘dangerous precedent for involvement in another country’s internal affairs’.
No suprise there then. God forbid if anyone at the UN started talking about Russia’s treatment of the opposition -might get a bit embarrassing if the Russians had voted to deal with Zimbabwe beforehand!:-)
Still I can help be horrified really. Russia had a chance not to behave like animals and they didnt take it. I really find that utterly depressing.
Surprisingly, this dangerous precedent for involvement in another country’s internal affairs won’t be applied to Abkhazia or South Ossetia. It will be applied to Chechnya, Dagestan, Tibet, etc.
Yeah, it’s the gangsta code and leverage any new CFE and ABMs in Poland, etc. It should be clear that we are pretty much back in the tit-for-tat mode of the Cold War era.
Link to the UN report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=27358&Cr=Zimbabwe&Cr1=
I’m somewhat circumspect about the “Do something” crowd. As you have pointed out, what real difference would it actually make to those on the ground?
Remember that there was an official EU travel ban placed on Mugabe and his entourage yet he came to Italy this year (under the auspicies of the UN), attended the EU-Africa summit last year in Lisbon . Quite embarassing (and hypocritical) for Europe isn’t it?
The Russians may not be providing ‘much of a solution’, but does anyone honestly think that a travel ban and whatever is condusive to finding a solution or simply a punishment?
The UK and USA have imposed financial sanctions on Zimbabwe since 2001 (de facto hitting all Zimbabweans), cutting it off from most money lending sources, something that has hardly ‘helped’ the situation in the last 7 years.
Sean, I also notice your absence of addressing the role of South Africa, the regional ’super power’ and the struggle between Mbeki and the ANC, not to mention that SA borders Zimbabwe and has taken a lot of refugees in and actually have to pick up the tab and live in the neighborhood. Shouldn’t SA have a say?
I’m also a bit dissapointed about your use of the word ’slaughter’ which is clearly an emotional response rather than accurately describing events on the ground.
I don’t think it really is a shame on Russia. They are certainly not the only ones to hold the position that these sanctions are essentially useless (SA for example), and they are embroiled in a tit-for-tat with the UK (who set off the most recent round with the famous BBC expose that said more or less that the Russian state whacked Litvinenko).
They were just practising realpolitik. Russia knows that whatever they do, it is very neigh on impossible to get any positive headlines about themselves considering the sizeable russophobic media that is prevalent in the West.
Of couse we could always bomb them. That always works!
I think I made it clear above that I think sanctions on Mugabe would only be symbolic. I happen to think whatever efforts the US and Britain attempt to do are in the end cynical and more in their interests (whatever those might be). And you’re right, sanctions aren’t a solution. They pretty much never are. But at least the UN can make a symbolic gesture and not be party to Mugabe and his money. The Russians could at least go along with that, though I completely understand why they wouldn’t feel inclined to do the US and Britain any favors.
As for as not saying anything about South Africa, I just don’t know enough to say. But given their proximity they should have a say in the matter.
Sean, you have too much faith in politicians! Foreign policy is a particular beast of its own. I wonder how well Britain’s offer of ‘military aid’ to Nigeria in the Delta will go down….
Why no ‘boots on ground’? Wouldn’t that really mean something?
The ANC has just announced that they support continued talks to find a solution but that they do not rule out supporting future UNSC resolutions against the Mugabe regime.
This is what I posted on the tail-end of the poisionmania thread:
http://seansrussiablog.org/2008/07/08/poisonmania/#comment-61178
“I don’t believe that relieving responsiblity from the Africans for their neighborhood is very helpful at all, that’s so 20th century! They’ve done a brillant job in getting the nascent African Union up and running, despite all the problems it still faces. If they require support, then it should be given, not foisted.
How does ‘our’ help benefit the development of these nations? Why should nations and their neighbors bother to sort out their own problems when they know all they have to do is sit back and the west will come riding to the rescue, if it is cheap enough, near enough, our economic/political interests are strongly enough reperesented? It is not like western interventions since 1989 have been stunningly successful or anything.
Is the west forever to send troops on ‘foreign adventures’ around the world and the taxpayer to always pick up the tab? If anything, it is an excuse to maintain excessively high defense budgets, i.e. if you don’t use it (all those nice aircraft carriers and troop ships) how to you justify it?…”
“I think I made it clear above that I think sanctions on Mugabe would only be symbolic.”
Then why bother?
Wow, Sean had a moral qualms seizure! Who knew there were remnants of hypocritical bourgeois morality under this radical marxist veneer?
While you are at it, why not go the whole hog and say a kind word for that idiot Bush for doing the right thing this time?
“Russia knows that whatever they do, it is very neigh on impossible to get any positive headlines…”
That’s right, just look at Bush. The man has done more for Africans than all previous US Presidents combined, but did he get any credit (besides from that U2 guy)?
Sean,
This is my first time on your excellent blog, and I’m sorry to begin with a negative comment. But as we all know, negative emotions are much better motivator
First, the UN SC resolutions are supposed to deal with events that represent a grave threat to the world’s security. A good half elections in Africa are at least as horrible as the one held in Zimbabwe, and many of them are accompanied by violence as well. What is then so special about Zimbabwe?
Second, the South Africans did have a say in the matter: they voted AGAINST the resolution. Do you really believe that they understand the situation on the ground — or care about their neighbors — less than the defenders of all opressed in the world in DC, London and Paris?
Third, Russia signed the G8 statement condemning the election in Zimbabwe and threatening further “consequences.” (BTW, the word “sanctions” was omitted from the G8 resolution at the request of African countries present at the G8 summit). But Medvedev made it very clear that Russia against the UN SC taking up this issue, and on Tuesday, Churkin promised Russian veto. Nevertheless, two days later, the US and UK advanced the resolution anyway. Which part of Churkin’s response did they not understand?
In summary, the Russian veto was part of a complex sequence of events. Taking arbitrary one element of the whole chain and call it “shame” isn’t the optimal way to clarify matters.
Best Regards,
Eugene Ivanov
“What is then so special about Zimbabwe?”
Mugabe dispossessed white people.
Sean, this is my 50 koppeek
Should I understand you right that “whatever efforts the US and Britain attempt to do are in the end cynical and more in their interests” was an act of being proud whilst same efforts of Russia and China were shame?
And sorry but who are these puppets to say ANYTHING about Zimbabve – Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia? Political, military, financial powers? Or zeros?
Five opposed – Russia, China, South Africa, and Viet Nam? It’s four! Vietnam is ONE country not two
)
And with real fifth “shamer” – Libya – they simply outnumbering “prouders” (Indonesia didn’t say yes or no – in practical term they say NO to USA/GB).
Let’s look at US.
“Mr. Khalilzad said there is “no doubt” that the situation in Zimbabwe impacts peace and security in the region.”
Really? Not long ago there was no doubt about WMD threat by Saddam?
What about Britain?
“The United Kingdom …. emphasized that the resolution was not “an attempt to undermine ongoing mediation efforts,” Ambassador John Sawers said. “Precisely the opposite.””
When Britain politicians say “precisely the opposite” – only moron would take their words for granted
Aleks, could you clarify who should bomb whom?
“Of couse we could always bomb them. That always works!”
“Should I understand you right that “whatever efforts the US and Britain attempt to do are in the end cynical and more in their interests” was an act of being proud whilst same efforts of Russia and China were shame?”
Good point!
“All gangsters, of whatever stripes, stick together.”
This claim is, by the way, totally false.
Eugene,
Maybe you should actually read the G8 statement on Zimbabwe, it is rather more specific and explicit than you think:
… We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence.
I fail to see the word “sanction.”
И?
# W. Shedd on July 12, 2008 5:58 am
It should be clear that we are pretty much back in the tit-for-tat mode of the Cold War era.
—————————————
Frankly, it never ended… I mean Cold War. And for Britain it had started in XIX century (and was a real war in Crimea).
The lack of “tit-for-tat” could be explained not by the desire of GB/US to end Cold War but by their assumption that Russia/China were not capable of neither tit nor tat.
That’s why I understand their frustration over Zimbabwe’s “crisis of democracy”.
PS. In numbers it was 1.6 billion against just over 0.5 billion (in population). And if someone wants to say that China’s government doesn’t represent people of China – well I could say same about government of the USA
“db on July 13, 2008 6:51 am
И?”
db.
In other thread we already came to the conclusion that G8 was boring and irrelevant. So I don’t see how “we will take other actions” means (for Russia) “we will vote for anything you bring on the table”. And keeping in mind that China is not the member of this irrelevant club (been number ONE in many, many fields de facto).
I also won’t tell you a big secret that main work done behind close door anyway. So I’m 100% sure that US/UK were aware that their proposal wouldn’t be accepted by Russia/China. So their only purpose was to to stir the flames of Cold War.
PS. Обещать – не значит жениться (с)
This thread provides a textbook example how liberal mind works.
Just few days ago Sean made another groundless and cheap Bush slander, saying that Medvedev and/or anybody looks ’smart’ next to Bush. Soon after that the vote on Zimbabve came down, with Russia siding with the Mugabe regime.
Sean’s first reaction was straight from the gut: he shrieked in anger and summarily called Russian and Zimbabvian rulers ‘gangsters’. But he started back-pedaling almost immediately, trying to find ‘explanations’ and to ‘understand’ Russian actions. And, quite prdictably, the more he was trying to ‘understand’, the more it became ‘Anglos’ fault.
Granted, Bush hatred is an article of faith on the Left. Even when Bono and Geldoff utter limited praise for Bush efforts to help African people, they carefully start by saying, “You might think I’m off my trolley, but…” Bush is doing good things in Africa. Sean couldn’t go even that far. He didn’t offer a single kind word to Bush for doing exactly what Sean wants against Mugabe. Sean basically takes all Bush good works for granted, castigating him for any smallest mistake and calling him names for no reason at all.
Sean, it’s very simple: As long as you take Bush for granted, Putin, Medvedev and Mugabe will take You for granted. Is that clear enough?
But I’m afraid it’s no use. Liberals are fascinated by crfuel and abusive force. In few days Sean will forget all his moral qualms and go back to mindlessly dissing Bush and respectfully analyzing Putin and Medvedev actions. Like an abused woman or beaten dog, Liberals always come back for more abuse and neglect at the hands of political ‘gangsters’.
There is nothing more amusing than when one’s thought inspires a diagnosis.
As one Russian poet said long time ago,
“Всё это было бы смешно, когда бы не было так грустно.”
It is slightly comic to see the totally unelected British Prime minister blathering on about Zimbabwe, the ex British colony where zero Africans were allowed to vote.
As has been pointed out by African leaders there is no panic, Mugabe is old and will soon oblige everyone by kicking the bucket.
“As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire“
“Granted, Bush hatred is an article of faith on the Left.”
And the Right, and the Center. What’s his approval rating now, 25%?
And the Right, and the Center. What’s his approval rating now, 25%?
Clearly this is proof of how infectious the Liberal Mind can be. Even the good and otherwise sensible people of the Right and Center have scummed to its insanity and amoral baseness. Indeed, it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
I wonder if the Conservative Mind comes in pill form.
“Aleks, could you clarify who should bomb whom?”
Ivanov,
My tongue was firmly planted in (my) cheek when I wrote that! Bombing is certainly no answer to resolving problems, but it is one of the arrows that the ‘do something crowd’ often pull out of their quiver when they can’t string together a logcial, clear and intelligent solution.
I’ve also just heard on the world’s best propaganda station (BBC) that the Zimbabwe opposition MDC does not either support sanctions at this point. One wonders who the US and UK have been talking to before their attempted UNSC resolution.
Many things have gone to hell since 1989. The UN may not have been a stunningly successful organization, but it has its place and role. Unfortunately without the Soviet Union to balance the West, it seems that since then the UN is now seen as detrimental to western interests (whether it be in the former Yugo, Iraq, Somalia etc.) hence the reinterpretation of UNSC resolution in the West’s favor (1244) or the out right ignoring of UN resolutions (no authorization to go to war with over Kosovo/Iraq) and gratuitous lying about the ‘threat to regional peace and stability’.
In 1995, the US and UK waited until UNSG Boutrosx2 Ghali was on holiday and his deputy was temporarily responsible (Annan) to turn the UN key of the dual-key (NATO+UN) policy to authorize airstrikes in Bosnia. The US vetoed a further term for Boutrosx2 (because he stuck to firm UNPROFOR independence in the former Yug) and supported…Annan for UNSG. Annan tried to redeem his role in he history books by becoming less helpful to the US only in his second and final term.
To be fair to Sean, it is fairly clear (uncharacteristic spelling mistakes, use of particular language) from the main post that he felt/feels quite emotional about this and wrote it in haste. We have all at some point had bursts of emotion in response to distressing stuff (which the media always manages to provide in a timely manner). Cool heads are not always a given…
To be fair to Sean, it is fairly clear (uncharacteristic spelling mistakes, use of particular language) from the main post that he felt/feels quite emotional about this and wrote it in haste. We have all at some point had bursts of emotion in response to distressing stuff (which the media always manages to provide in a timely manner). Cool heads are not always a given…
I’ll admit to this. For some reason, I was shocked. As for the spelling . . . there is something wrong with my spellchecker. I am a horrible speller by nature. I blame it on my Cajun peasant family.
Oh god. There were a lot of really bad spelling mistakes. How embarrassing . . .
It means you are still human. Isn’t this something that is still worth a small celebration?
“Clearly this is proof of how infectious the Liberal Mind can be. Even the good and otherwise sensible people of the Right and Center have scummed to its insanity and amoral baseness.”
Isn’t Bush’s support nowadays pretty much confined to evangelical Christians who will support him no matter what because of abortion and Israel?
Nobody can argue that Bush less popular in the US than Mugabe is in Zimbabwe or Putin/Medvedev are in Russia.
It is also a demonstrated habit of liberal mind to try escape into statistics when confronted with moral dilemma.
”Nobody can argue that Bush less popular in the US than Mugabe is in Zimbabwe or Putin/Medvedev are in Russia.”
? Mugabe, maybe, but are you trying to say that Putin/Medvedev are possibly less popular in Russia than Bush is in the US? I’m no Putin fan, but he is genuinely popular in Russia, or at least his policies are, and irrespective of the wholesale propoganda on ORT he or Medvedev would be elected without any bother at all. Doesnt Bush have a 20% rating or something like that at the moment?
”It is also a demonstrated habit of liberal mind to try escape into statistics when confronted with moral dilemma.”
Funny, that. A 20-25% approval rating only a ’statistic’? Really? Would you say then that a football statistic, like, say, Czechoslovakia – 6, USA – 1(this was the score from a game at World Cup Italia ‘90) is simply an irrelevant stat and that the US actually won that game?
No Candide, methinks you are confused. Stats and numbers are everything, they always have been. At 25% I think its fair to say that both Bush and his policies are unpopular, and mentioning them is not refuge for liberals, its merely stating a fact.
”…he shrieked in anger and summarily called Russian and Zimbabvian rulers ‘gangsters’.”
Tut, tut, tut, shouldnt that be ‘Zimbabwean’? Get it right my friend, or the ‘dyevs’ will be ‘booming’ after you
”Isn’t Bush’s support nowadays pretty much confined to evangelical Christians who will support him no matter what because of abortion and Israel?”
Are there that many -25%-evangelical Christians in the US???!! I find it hilarious and sad that what was once the world’s greatest country has such a dense population of people who spend much of their time quoting an ancient book, dancing with snakes and trying to make life miserable for gays. Dreadful stuff.
”Should I understand you right that “whatever efforts the US and Britain attempt to do are in the end cynical and more in their interests” was an act of being proud whilst same efforts of Russia and China were shame?
And sorry but who are these puppets to say ANYTHING about Zimbabve – Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia? Political, military, financial powers? Or zeros?
Five opposed – Russia, China, South Africa, and Viet Nam? It’s four! Vietnam is ONE country not two
)
And with real fifth “shamer” – Libya – they simply outnumbering “prouders” (Indonesia didn’t say yes or no – in practical term they say NO to USA/GB).”
ivanov/Aleks/Maximus – I have no doubt that the UK/US motivation in pressing for sanctions may indeed have had nefarious roots and motivations. But the simple point is that, no matter what the motivation, the sanctions were aimed at making life difficult for a dictator who has utterly ruined the country and pressed millions into starvation. Whatever the motivation was, the UK/US were right to try and do this. And I find it a great pity that Russia did not see this simple fact.
“Whatever the motivation was, the UK/US were right to try and do this. And I find it a great pity that Russia did not see this simple fact.”
So motivation is irrelevant?
And motivation of US/UK is better than Russian motivation just for granted?
And as such – US/UK are right (just for granted)?
These are rhetorical questions and I’m sure you know the answers
Candide wrote:
“Soon after that the vote on Zimbabve came down, with Russia siding with the Mugabe regime.”
Sorry but you twisted the facts.
))
Russia was not siding with Mugabe but with UN Charter. No matter whether Mugabe is evil or angel – he is elected president and not a threat to world security.
Otherwise UN should ban Gordon Brown from travel outside UK (as non-elected dictator) and try to catch bLair (as threat to world security)
And Russia (as well as 4 other “shamers”) was siding with its own interest whether someone likes it or not. Sorry. But welcome to real world.
Candide, have you ever thought that there should have been something really-really wrong with US/UK proposal? Two permanent members of SC, two African “super-powers” were against. I guess US and UK should be ashamed of pushing this dead “project” through UN just for political marketing… Well it’s silly to apply moral to marketing, isn’t it?
“Cool heads are not always a given…
I’ll admit to this. For some reason, I was shocked.”
I’m shocked that you were shocked.
Well I’m not sure why Mugabe was appoined for the position of “world’s evil” as definitely he is not the worst bastard on the planet.
Easy target? Or Condy doesn’t like his face? Or WHAT?
”These are rhetorical questions and I’m sure you know the answers”
ivanov I do genuinely appreciate what you are saying. But to me this is simply about right and wrong. Mugabe has most of his nation starving and has brutalised large portions of the population there. This was a simple case of hurting someone who has hurt so may so needlessly – a genuine tyrant. And whilst I know the UNSC is not there for dealing with a country’s internal political situation, the act of what the US/UK were trying to do was right, even if their hearts were likely in the wrong place. Nobody is suggesting for a second that the US/UK are good guys. But they were right on this one.
”Sorry. But welcome to real world.”
I’m sure the Zimbabweans share that worldview at the moment.
“Nobody can argue that Bush less popular in the US than Mugabe is in Zimbabwe or Putin/Medvedev are in Russia.”
Much like nobody can argue that water is wet and the moon is in the sky. It’s a fact. Well, about Putin/Medvedev anyway. I don’t know nuthin’ about Mugabe. For the obvious reason that the Bush years are a long history of failure, while the Putin years are a long history of success (interspersed with the occasional failure).
Actually, Bush’s only foreign policy success is — his friendship with Putin!
I haven’t spoken with an American who liked Bush since 2002.
“I’m sure the Zimbabweans share that worldview at the moment.”
Don’t be so sure…
“Are there that many -25%-evangelical Christians in the US???!! ”
Probably more.
“But to me this is simply about right and wrong.”
There are no such things as pure right and wrong. It’s always right for someone and wrong for others. Like eating dogs in Ireland is wrong but it’s Ok in Asia.
“Mugabe has most of his nation starving and has brutalised large portions of the population there.”
How do you KNOW that? You’ve heard it from TV, haven’t you? And how do you know that new “dermocratic leader” wouldn’t run country into bigger disaster and civil war? Just look around – Sudan, Somalia etc…
“This was a simple case of hurting someone who has hurt so may so needlessly – a genuine tyrant.”
Com’on! I would have no objections if US/UK wrote in the resolution “We want to panish this bastard cause we don’t like him cause he doesn’t listen to us anymore and he is not democrat” But they claimed he was the threat to security of the world and this is bullshit. I think it would be stupid to let UN to support bullshit.
“And whilst I know the UNSC is not there for dealing with a country’s internal political situation, the act of what the US/UK were trying to do was right, even if their hearts were likely in the wrong place.”
Good joke indeed. So it’s against the rules/law and hearts but they were right? Recently they – US and UK – already “punished” Saddam (remember this simple case?).
“Nobody is suggesting for a second that the US/UK are good guys. But they were right on this one.”
Who told you this? Could you count when UK/US were right/wrong in international matters in last decade? I think this ratio won’t give good grounds to think they were right on that one.
“”Sorry. But welcome to real world.”
I’m sure the Zimbabweans share that worldview at the moment.”
I have no idea about “world view”. I even don’t know what you are talking about
PS. Above said doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate what you are saying.
The really funny thing is, when Bush was enjoying Putin-like popularity around the start of Iraq invasion, the Libs were besides themselves, screaming about the onset of Fascism in ‘Amerikkka’. And now they are complaining that Bush is not popular enough!
Well? what would you say about us – neo-konservativnyh kommunistah?
The simple point is that popular support is not necessarily good sign.
Political ‘gangsters’ Putin&Medvedev have great popular support and it’s not a good sign.
Political ‘gangster’ Mugabe has considerable popular support and it’s not a good sign.
Why, back in 2003 when Bush had close to 80% approval rating, Liberals kept telling us that this is definitely a Very Bad sign.
So stop picking and choosing statistics. Shame on you, indeed.
SHAME! SHAME! Hang your heads in shame and excoriate your bodies!
By the way, did you ever get those books, Sean?
Haven’t heard from him yet.
Shame on my so-called friend Clay! Shame!
~ Good post, and one I’m inclined to agree with. Which I’m sure is a sign of the implicit weakness of my liberal mind… sigh…
~ The American evangelicals I know have jumped ship and are now Obamamaniacs. Who is supporting Bush? I’m guessing the beneficiaries of his tax cuts, disaster capitalists and others who have benefited from his regime. I know, that’s just my crazy liberal mind spouting nonsense again. So embarassing. Apologies.
~ The eXile’s back, and in Panama or something. Or so I’m told.
In the perfect world, nobody would support a President. Yeltsin almost managed to lead Russians there, but they lost their nerve.
“In the perfect world, nobody would support a President. Yeltsin almost managed to lead Russians there, but they lost their nerve.”
Not really, since nobody did support Yeltsin.
I suggest a re-read.
“Liberals are fascinated by crfuel and abusive force”
It’s funny how blogs about Russia attract the weirdos on crusades. Averko, Zigfield, and now Candide.
I think it’s kind of cool the way the same guy who thinks Liberals (capital L) are really fascinated by cruel force also thinks Bush’s positive role in history is assured because he murdered someone.
Not someone, but Saddam.
Is not is just as I predicted? The thread that was started by Sean with pinpoint accuracy, quickly degenerated into meaningless statistics and ’someones-not-to-be-named’.
”Is not is just as I predicted? The thread that was started by Sean with pinpoint accuracy, quickly degenerated into meaningless statistics and ’someones-not-to-be-named’.”
Do you mean the stats such as Bush’s 25% popularity rating or Putin’s 80% rating? I guess if you ignore those statisics then your argument that Putin is less popular than Bush stands.
I love stats -SDs, RSDs and my personal favourite, %RSD, otherwise known to chemists as precision. Almost immediately the application of stats to results from analyses will give a pretty clear picture of how good an analytical method is and whether or not, and where, the system is failing if it is.
As I said earlier I am no fan of Putin (though i do admire his achievements in stabilising the country) but Russians are free to vote for whom they want and if they genuinely didnt want Putin/Medvedev they would be gone.
Bush on the other hand is ending up possibly the most reviled leader in the history of the US. The stats dont lie Candide, and ignoring them to suit a point of view is, well…!
Just as a point of interest, is a Conservative a person who doesnt like mathematics? Seeing as Liberals seem to cling to them? Is that perhaps why the US national debt is now through the roof?
Shame on mathematics! SHAME!
”Shame on mathematics! SHAME!”
And shame on you for shaming the shame of the…..uh….shame of shaming mathematics!
Shame on you!
And shame on MI5!
”Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But remote-controlled rocks will never hurt me”!
“Bush is really popular! I see four lights! FOUR LIGHTS!”
“Do you mean the stats such as Bush’s 25% popularity rating or Putin’s 80% rating? I guess if you ignore those statisics then your argument that Putin is less popular than Bush stands.”
This reminds of an exchange with Wally a few months ago about “democracy” in Russia and how Russian “democrats” usually don’t have a clue about what democracy is. Basically, while you and I probably think of a democracy as being a form of government that is reponsive to its citizens and serves their needs, the RD thinks of it as a Government that Serves a Noble Cause (that the RD agrees with). So, while you and I might see a bit of a problem with a leader of a democratic country having an approval rating of 25% (Bush) or 3% (Yeltsin), the RD does not. For him or her, this indicates only the regrettable backwardness of the people, who are not worthy of their Great Leader and His Noble Cause.
The only true measure of a democratic mandate is a tally of election votes. The rest is hot gas, generated by interest groups. And the only free election is the one the state doesn’t interfere with. So tell me, if political ‘gangsters’ like Putin/Medvedev and Mugabe are so much more popular than Bush, why do they have to cheat so much during elections?
By “Election votes” do you mean electoral votes? Because the popular vote went to Gore in 2000. As you put it, Bush “saved” America from Gore, in this case, saving America despite the wishes of most Americans. Is that democracy?
”So, while you and I might see a bit of a problem with a leader of a democratic country having an approval rating of 25% (Bush) or 3% (Yeltsin), the RD does not. For him or her, this indicates only the regrettable backwardness of the people, who are not worthy of their Great Leader and His Noble Cause.”
I’d have to agree. No attempt whatsoever was made in either of the last elections by RDs to please the populace, and they really are Holier Than Thou. That is one lesson they havent learnt from the west. It seems to me sometimes that academics always fail in either getting or staying elected, and seem to forget that the majority of the electorate are not swayed by academic argument. This is not unique to Russia by any means. Take Gordon Brown for example. Grumpy, smart, hardworking – popularity near single digits. Blair -full of bullshit, wins 3 elections.
”So tell me, if political ‘gangsters’ like Putin/Medvedev and Mugabe are so much more popular than Bush, why do they have to cheat so much during elections?”
Candide you simply cannot put Mugabe and Putin in the same scentence. Its ridiculous and frankly disingenuous. Putin is rough as nuts I know but Mugabe is up there with Kim or Saddam. But about Putin, I have no doubt there was electoral fraud in Russia, but its nowhere near Zimababwe scale and only done to embellish the result, not win the election. Even without the shenanigans Putin/Medvedev would win in the first round easily with at least 60% of the vote. There is no way – I repeat no way – you can say that Bush is more popular Putin. You’re reading too many of the Moscow Times opinion articles.
Well the electoral college elects the president, it’s election law. Popular vote doesn’t mean anything. One can agree or disagree with the wisdom behind the electoral college, but Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. It should be noted that Bush won all the unofficial Flordia recounts conducted after the SCOTUS decision as well, and the SCOTUS decision was required because the Florida supreme court was ignoring pre-existing election laws and allowing endless recounts until enough hanging chads could be found to give the election to Gore.
Still, if you want to believe Bush “stole” the election, whatever, go ahead if it allows you to sleep better at night.
Candide, I have found that when people get on a role twisting logic, time and space to show that the West and especially the US is ultimately the bad guy, no matter what the circumstances, you just got to let it go. It is an article of faith that the US can’t be good or have pure motives for good. If it did, why then that would mean that all these third world shitholes are shitholes precisely because they are populated by a majority of corrupt, ignorant and/or weak people. Surely this can not be, third world people are automatically saints because they are poor, so it must be the richy rich Americans pulling the strings behind the curtain.
I would guess Bush’s meager support comes from the neocon types who are not so interested in social and fiscal conservatism. Bush is still relatively solid on the democracy evangelism front. From this conservative’s point of view, Bush is still pretty radical on foriegn policy issues, which I still find refreshing after years of realpolitick, etc. The middle east has needed a good shaking up since forever, and we might as well get it on now, instead of later when they have nukes.
Finally, if Russia wants to stick it to the US over the missle sheild, there are better and more direct ways than screwing over the opposition in Zimbabwe.
“It is an article of faith that the US can’t be good or have pure motives for good. If it did, why then that would mean that all these third world shitholes are shitholes precisely because they are populated by a majority of corrupt, ignorant and/or weak people.”
Talk about a leap of logic.
Yeah. I didn’t say that Bush stole the election, I just question how democratic the system actually is. Shaking up the Middle East may sound like a good idea, unless you don’t give a flying fuck about the lives of people that are directly affected by the bombs dropped and chaos created by war. And if you’re willing to risk the whole country turning into a Islamic theocracy/terrorist training camp when the US finally cuts its losses and pulls out
unless=if
daut,
In case you forget, US political system is not absolutely democratic. Officially, the US is a Republic, with Electoral College being one of the non-democratic institutions. That’s what they teach starting in elementary.
But good luck trying to avoid the question, that was, if political ‘gangsters’ like Putin/Medvedev and Mugabe are so much more popular than Bush, why do they have to cheat so much during elections?
If you are popular, why fix elections? Isn’t it like saying, “I’m an honest man, even if I have to lie and steal to stay honest”?
“There is no way – I repeat no way – you can say that Bush is more popular Putin. You’re reading too many of the Moscow Times opinion articles.”
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Bush 30% popularity is like solid gold, and Putin’s 80% is not worth a plugged nickel (гроша ломаного не стоит).
And I don’t read Moscow Times at all.
“It is an article of faith that the US can’t be good or have pure motives for good. If it did, why then that would mean that all these third world shitholes are shitholes precisely because they are populated by a majority of corrupt, ignorant and/or weak people. Surely this can not be, third world people are automatically saints because they are poor, so it must be the richy rich Americans pulling the strings behind the curtain.”
Western colonialism and/or foreign policy mistakes are to blame for many of the worlds dictators; Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, Iran, and Mugabe, the Taliban to name a few. If you want to sugarcoat history and believe the West is blameless, go ahead if it allows you to sleep better at night.
I’m sorry Candide, I didn’t know the question was posed to me, so I didn’t answer it because I don’t care. Politicians cheat and steal. Stop the presses. And if the US isn’t all that democratic to begin with, maybe it should stop trying to export democracy.
“That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Bush 30% popularity is like solid gold, and Putin’s 80% is not worth a plugged nickel (гроша ломаного не стоит).”
Translation: Bush is a Great Leader with a Vision, and the only people whose opinions matter are the 30% who support the Great Vision, who for some reason stand at the vanguard of humanity despite the fact that they tend to believe the world was created in 7 days and the Last Judgment is eminent.
“Finally, if Russia wants to stick it to the US over the missle sheild, there are better and more direct ways than screwing over the opposition in Zimbabwe.”
Jason.
Do you WANT TO KNOW what your problem is? You sincerely believe that only the USA has a POSITION. All other either agree with USA position or be “in opposition”.
But welcome to REAL world – positions of Russia, China, South Africa and Vietnam are enough to place the USA in opposition
Whether you like it or not.
“n case you forget, US political system is not absolutely democratic. Officially, the US is a Republic, with Electoral College being one of the non-democratic institutions. That’s what they teach starting in elementary.”
Candid. Could you call Bush and tell him this, please. The world is F^%^& tired of him teaching “dermocracy” all over the world
))
”That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Bush 30% popularity is like solid gold, and Putin’s 80% is not worth a plugged nickel (гроша ломаного не стоит).”
But Candide Putin’s real popularity is AT LEAST 60%, if not more. The added few percent from dodgy practices makes little difference in the greater scheme of things. If anything I am underestimating how popular Putin is. By the way I’m not condoning electoral fraud, it is a total disgrace and totally unnecessary in Russia. On the other hand Bush won the first election in, to say the very least, ‘controversial’ circumstances, and his 2nd win was on the fraudulent basis that half the Muslim world was out to get the US and Bush was protecting them from that. Bush’s economic achievements? Watch half an hour of Bloomberg, not Fox News.
I myself think that Bush isnt as thick as he is portrayed. But the problem with Bush is, like a bad sports coach, he sent out a team with a bad plan that every fan in the stands and terraces knew was going to go to shit. And he stuck with it, regardless. The fact that he’s a conservative is actually neither here nor there; he simply fucked up. Big time. I dont see how you cant understand that, and why Putin is much more popular than he is.
Chrisius Maximus,
Winning elections by cheating is a theft, pure and simple. That’s what political ‘gangsters’ like Putin/Medvedev and Mugabe do: they steal elections.
Now, you being a good Marxian, would understand that stealing is bad. I bet you think it’s wrong when ‘evil Capitalists’ ’steal’ and ‘hoard’ wealth. You wouldn’t approve of any Capitalist simply because he has a lot of ’stolen’ money.
So why do you approve of Putin stealing votes?
“Now, you being a good Marxian, would understand that stealing is bad. I bet you think it’s wrong when ‘evil Capitalists’ ’steal’ and ‘hoard’ wealth. You wouldn’t approve of any Capitalist simply because he has a lot of ’stolen’ money.”
I realize you like sticking people into categories so you can let your ideology do the pseudothinking for you, but as I am not a Marxian, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“I dont see how you cant understand that,”
Because it would require facing reality?
This is what the stuff about the evil Liberals is really about. It’s skin to blaming the Trotskyist wreckers for everything that goes wrong. Bush is Good, and his plans are Good. Therefore, if things get fucked up, it must be because of some outside force, external enemies or an internal fifth column, not because the plans and the reality conflict.
I’m curious what Candide thinks about Yeltsin’s electoral shenanigins in 1996. Not that I think I don’t already know — let me guess: Yeltsin was a Great Leader with a Vision and his opponent was a Commie, so that was OK.
I think of “Yeltsin’s electoral shenanigins in 1996″ as ’shenanigans’. Shameful thing, to be sure, and quite deplorable. No, I don’t think that “Yeltsin was a Great Leader with a Vision”, but I know that Putin thinks he was. I do agree, by and large, that “his opponent was a Commie, so that was OK”.
But I do like the fact that Yeltsin was held in low esteem by general population. That seemed like a sign of Russian people becoming politically mature. Alas, it was a mirage.
‘I do agree, by and large, that “his opponent was a Commie, so that was OK”.’
“I realize you like sticking people into categories so you can let your ideology do the pseudothinking for you…”
Er, who was it who decided that I am a “dirty hippy?” …
Hippies are the exception. The long hair, beads, interminable guitar solos, thick cloud of body odor… brrr I get the chills just thinking about them dirty hippies. I have to make the holy “Hippy Begone” sign.
Sigh… I respect your angst and all, but it’s directed at the wrong person. I am not a hippie.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/5/7/174116/7021
A hippy AND a sell-out! What would Allen Ginsberg say?
Seriously, I really like your diary.
Good. I hope we’ve put to rest this hippie nonsense…
No way. I am going to hold onto this with all the tenacity of a hammerhead shark fighting over a side of beef.
OMG You are unbelievably annoying. Like, Mike Averko annoying…
much worse…
much…much worse…
You have both wounded me to the very depths of my soul. I had no idea you could be so cruel. So heartless. So not so Chrisius Maximus friendly. I am crying inside, crying I tell you!
For the last few years, much of Russia’s foreign policy has been a two step process:
1) See what the US is doing.
2) Do the opposite.
Aside from the above, Russia holds no consistent position on foreign policy whatsoever.
One of the things I find indicative of Russia’s rather weak position in the world, regardless of all the hype and despite being a lot stronger than what it was, is the manner in which it usually defines itself using the US as a reference.
”One of the things I find indicative of Russia’s rather weak position in the world, regardless of all the hype and despite being a lot stronger than what it was, is the manner in which it usually defines itself using the US as a reference.”
One of the things I find indicative of Russia’s position, or rather alignment in the world, is when it votes the same way as China and Vietnam on human rights/election issues. And one of the sadest things about that is that you’ll find 90% of Russians are probably in favour of this, simply cos its ‘two fingers’ to the US and Britain. How utterly pathetic.
Speaking of Vietnam, their Prime Minister was here in Ireland 6 months ago thanking us for the enormous cash handouts we give them in Overseas Development Aid. I dunno why we are doing this, as we have enough of our own who are short cash, especially now, but I think we shouldnt be giving them anything anymore after the vote last week. If they want to act like thugs, f**k them.
I think it might have something to do with the close proximity of both Russia and Vietnam to China and China’s great and rapidly growing importance for both countries (and the world in general).
http://www.vesti-moscow.ru/photo.html?type=rnews&doc_id=34230
who is this lovely Russkaya?:-) She’d brighten your ecological situation thats for sure.
“I think it might have something to do with the close proximity of both Russia and Vietnam to China”
Most likely it have something to do with having own foreign policy/interests and ability to protect them. No matter whether US/UK like it or not.
ivanov,
Why do you put your own words in quotation marks? Here is, again, the exact quote:
… We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence.
What do you, ivanov, think this is supposed to mean?
Doesn’t look very Russkaya to me, Irishman.
Seems to be a lot of Persian genes there.
I’m not Ivanov, but I would assume that “We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence,” means “We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence,” which does not mean “we will vote for anything you bring on the table.”
You haven’t seen “Ы”, what do you know?
db.
Why don’t you put ALL words in quotation marks?
“We will <b<continue to monitor the situation and work together with SADC, the AU, the UN and other relevant organizations for a prompt resolution of the crisis. We recommend the appointment of a special envoy of the UN Secretary-General to report on the political, humanitarian, human rights and security situation and to support regional efforts to take forward mediation between political parties. We will take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence.”
1. They only ACTIONS mentioned – “continue to monitor” and “recommend to appoint”…
2. G8 is not UN. G8 in fact is nothing. As well as all their “declarations”.
3. Only …well let’s say … naive person might think that us/uk are “concerned” about people in Africa.
PS. I have to admit the whole play – Good guys vs Bad guys – was well staged.
”Doesn’t look very Russkaya to me, Irishman.
Seems to be a lot of Persian genes there.”
True Candide. She’s really good-looking. And the hair and eyes are certainly very dark, its true, she doesnt look Russian at all. Just gorgeous.
“Western colonialism and/or foreign policy mistakes are to blame for many of the worlds dictators; Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, Iran, and Mugabe, the Taliban to name a few. If you want to sugarcoat history and believe the West is blameless, go ahead if it allows you to sleep better at night.”
Says Chomsky and Zinn. My knowledge of history does not agree with the above claim. Now leftists (the stalinist kind) could be considered responsible for creation of most the above regimes, but not capitalists. None of those regimes were free-market, pluralistic, capitalist regimes.
Shaking up the middle east means getting it to have its own Enlightenment. The west is killing a lot of people over there, but they are mostly the jihadi types. The majority of the innocents killed are by the jihadi types, not collateral damage from the US. I know you think I am deluded for thinking such, and no amount of listing of numbers is going to change that, so I won’t bother.
”3. Only …well let’s say … naive person might think that us/uk are “concerned” about people in Africa.”
Thats just too easy ivanov, way to easy. At that rate any intervention of any kind by anyone can be written off as a cynical exercise. We’ve had around 1,000 years of aggravation with the Brits and even I dont think this was solely motivated by politics. It was simply the right thing to do.
But then again it suits the Russians to believe every action by the US/UK or indeed any country that stands up to the Russians on a regular basis to have a nefarious purpose. And the saddest thing of all is that Russia’s vote in the UN would be quite popular with ordinary Russians. If our government was on the SC and did the same thing there’d be a massive public outcry.
“But then again it suits the Russians to believe every action by the US/UK or indeed any country that stands up to the Russians on a regular basis to have a nefarious purpose.”
That’s what most people think about countries that are considered hostile or “bad.” People are doing it with China in this very thread.
“Shaking up the middle east means getting it to have its own Enlightenment.”
Yes, we must spread our own historically contingent, arbitrary, and emphemeral ideology to the infidels. Where have I heard this before.
No, obviously there is also the third ACTION: the introduction of “financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence.”
That’s not quite what I asked.
db
“We will take further steps” refers to G8, not to Security Council.
It’s funny to see those who claim that they are governed by the law ignoring the law – the Charter of UN – when it suits their marketing department…oops, State Department
“It was simply the right thing to do.”
Irishman.
Could you give a simple method to sort out right and wrong? The problem is that you think – and I respect your opinion – this was simply wrong. And I think – and I also respect my opinion – it was right.
So we need a kind of simple “scale” to find out who is simply wrong – you or me (or both).
“If our government was on the SC and did the same thing there’d be a massive public outcry.”
Don’t want to disappoint you but there is “public” outcry. As you know there is “public” in Russia that believe in this nonsense – no matter what US is doing it’s doing for good. The problem is that more people think otherwise.
No, ivanov, “we” refers to “G8 Leaders”. So I’ll amplify my question a bit: in your opinion, what “further steps” did Medvedev have in mind when signing this statement?
Chris: Sorry you provoked me to the point I had to break out the ammo. Until the day that you start spamming me with your weird articles and then start spamming me with your weird emotional issues when I politely suggest maybe you should ask people before randomly adding them to your weird listserve, you will remain somewhat less annoying than Averko. Hope that makes you stop crying inside. haha.
Please explain the difference between “G8″ and “G8 leaders”.
I’ll ask him when we meet, I promise. For now I can say that he had different from Bush/Brown ideas. For sure
So I see no reason to be ashamed of (as a person who voted for for Putin/Medvedev).
You’re already on my listserve Poemless.
I am still crying. You think that’s a thunderstorm outside here in Moscow? No, that is my tears. My sadness is so immense that it could not be contained within my mere mortal body. Nay, nature itself is crying for me. It’s sort of a Greek mythology thing.
As I said – he is much…much worse
Et tu, Ivanov?
Just as a frozen Icelandic glacier imposes its icey grip upon the land beneath it, so your cruel words cast an oppressive pale upon my soul. Snorrison wrote about this in the Eddas.
The G8 is a forum for the G8 leaders, what’s so difficult here?
Still don’t understand the question do you, ivanov? Again, what, IN YOUR OPINION, could those “different ideas” possibly be?
Most likely it have something to do with having own foreign policy/interests and ability to protect them.
I disagree completely. My point was that Russia had no foreign policy interest in Zimbabwe, until the momment when the US had one, at which point the Russian interest became that which was the exact opposite of that of the US.
Where are the records of Russian politicians discussing the situation in Zimbabwe for the past 5 years? Where is the evidence that anyone in Russia knew who Robert Mugabe was or where Zimbabwe is located on the map? The whole thing – as with practically everything else – was a non-issue for Russia until it became an issue for the US, then Russia developed its policy by following the two steps I described earlier.
It was the same when Russia agreed to open unilateral talks with Hamas when they were being pressued by the US and EU. Russia had had a decade to talk about funding Hamas, but in truth most Russians probably didn’t know who they were until the day the US started putting financial pressure on them, at which point the Russians quickly step in to help them out – even if only symbolically, as things turned out.
I have no objection to a strong, independent Russian foreign policy, in fact I wish they’d hurry up and develop one. But at the moment their foreign policy is utterly dependent on that of the US, and if any of the two former adversaries can be accused of being stuck in a reactionary Cold War mentality, it isn’t the US.
“Still don’t understand the question do you, ivanov? Again, what, IN YOUR OPINION, could those “different ideas” possibly be?”
db.
It is irrelevant. As long as they are different.
Well the whole G8 forum of G8 leaders is irrelevant and boring….
Irrespective to who has and who hasn’t foreign policy…could you, Tim, explain why everything US does is always good without question? And everyone who doesn’t agree with that – is guilty by default?
Looks like someone is still deeply frozen
PS. What are US interest in Zimbabwe?
Eg lika, Chris
”Irishman.
Could you give a simple method to sort out right and wrong? The problem is that you think – and I respect your opinion – this was simply wrong. And I think – and I also respect my opinion – it was right.
So we need a kind of simple “scale” to find out who is simply wrong – you or me (or both).”
ivanov in fairness I do respect your opinion as well. But a question like ‘could you give a simple method to sort out right and wrong?’ – obviously I cant, but it doesnt really have relevance to this discussion, because the right and wrong is very clear here – the US/UK wanted to make life some little bit difficult for an utter tyrant and Russia voted against that simply to piss off the US/UK. The basis of your argument appears to be that Russia was right to vote no because the US/UK may have ulteriour motives in bringing the resolution to the table in the first place. I dont see what those motives could possibly have been, but at that rate ivanov whats the point in any country trying to do anything at all at the UN? Should everything be written off -even trying to do the right thing -simply cos there may be an ulteriour motive? No, happened here is Russia behaved – to use an eloquent Irish term -as a ‘cranky, contrary old bollocks’.
They voted against simply cos the US/UK voted for. If it wasnt so serious it would actually be pathetic.
”Don’t want to disappoint you but there is “public” outcry. As you know there is “public” in Russia that believe in this nonsense – no matter what US is doing it’s doing for good. The problem is that more people think otherwise.”
How many people, ten? Twenty? Russians actually caring about the misfortune of other countries -when did this enormous event occur?:-) Someone record it quick!
”My point was that Russia had no foreign policy interest in Zimbabwe”
WTF? I thought they must have some few billion roubles given to Mugabe and wanted to get them back safely. So Russia literally voted against just cos the Yanks/Brits voted for. God Help Us All in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese.
”Looks like someone is still deeply frozen ”
I was watching ‘Gladiator’ on Irish tv
Okay, okay.
This explains everything.
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048752844.jpg
”Okay, okay.
This explains everything.
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048752844.jpg”
Ржунимагу….
SHAME ON YOU, G. Britain!
In 1994, during the Premiership of John Major, Mugabe was bestowed an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by the Queen. It entitles him to use the letters KCB, but not to use the title “Sir.”
PS. Never heard about this knight been called kamrade….
“could you, Tim, explain why everything US does is always good without question? And everyone who doesn’t agree with that – is guilty by default?”
Ivanov, considering that Tim never wrote or implied that “everything US does is always good without question”, your question is irrelevant.
Irrespective to who has and who hasn’t foreign policy…could you, Tim, explain why everything US does is always good without question? And everyone who doesn’t agree with that – is guilty by default?
A nice row of straw men there. Are you after an agricultural subsidy?
What are US interest in Zimbabwe?
You don’t know? Yet you support Russia’s opposition to whatever they are. My point exactly.
Jason, if you can make a convincing argument that the Khmer Rouge didn’t come to power because of the war in Vietnam and bombing of Cambodia, or that Iranian anti-Americanism isn’t due to years of meddling in their internal politics and the support of the Shah, you should write a book. I bet World Net Daily would be glad to publish it. You might even be able to get Ann Coulter to write the introduction. Your argument wouldn’t even have to be that convincing, and you’d be a hit on the Fox news circuit.
That’s petitio principii: you need to demonstrate first that those “different from Bush/Brown ideas” actually existed at the time of the G8 summit. And that’s exactly what I keep asking: what, in your opinion, could those “different ideas” possibly be?
db.
Do you need translation assistance with the text on picture I posted link to?
PS. No, I don’t need to demonstrate. It was your bold assumption that Medvedev promised to Bush/Brown “Guys, I’ll sign ANYTHING you bring to the table. Even a blank sheet”.
No ivanov, all this “anything you bring to the table” rubbish is a straw man of your own making, I’ve never said nor assumed anything like that.
You, on the other hand, did write, and I quote, “I can say that he [Medvedev] had different from Bush/Brown ideas. For sure.” Hence the question I’m asking you again and again and again: what did you mean by that? What could those “different ideas” possibly be?
Russians actually caring about the misfortune of other countries -when did this enormous event occur?
Ger, don’t be so critical! The Russian government has shown the utmost concern for the misfortune of at least one country I can think of and for any number of “countries” – take Serbia, for example, or Abkhazia (concern for the territory’s railways – concern of an entirely selfless nature, of course – not to mention for the population’s spiritual well-being), Pridnestrovie, and South Ossetia. It’s quite heartwarming, actually, that this concern for others’ misfortune is being officially promoted among the country’s politically active youth. No doubt we have ahead of us decades of such concern.
”Ger, don’t be so critical! The Russian government has shown the utmost concern for the misfortune of at least one country I can think of and for any number of “countries” -”
Gosh, I’m sorry Lyndon. You know I do give Russia too hard a time sometimes, and forget the good and selfless work you have mentioned in Abkhazia and the PMR, and with the poor misfortune of a nation that is Serbia. And it goes way back too -helping those enslaved people in Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the 1950s, sending in their tanks to help when nobody else would. Thank you for showing me the Light Lyndon.
In short, I need to take a hard look at myself in the mirror (not too long, it aint pretty!) and realise that Russia, is, well…the Mother Teresa of would-be superpowers. And after all, to quote the Grand Poobah himself, ‘Russia and Serbia have always been great allies of the West’.
“Russians actually caring about the misfortune of other countries -when did this enormous event occur?”
Hasn’t it occurred to you guys yet that Russia’s noninterference policy is a reaction to 70 years of aggressive internationalism and throwing money away at places like Cuba? Do you want a new version of the Brezhnev Doctrine? You see, if Russia (or the US, or China, or any other powerful country) advocates interference in another country, that’s Evil Imperialism. If they don’t, then it’s them being heartless bastards. They can’t win.
Personally, being a fan of the Treaty of Westphalia, I don’t give a fuck what Mugabe does. That’s for Zimbabweans and other Africans to worry about, not jabbering, self-righteous foreigners who know nothing about the country but what they see on CNN. Who here actually knows anything about Africa? I don’t. I don’t think anybody else does either. Therefore, I suggest we all shut the fuck up.
“And it goes way back too -helping those enslaved people in Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the 1950s, sending in their tanks to help when nobody else would.”
Exactly as you would have them do now in Zimbabwe!
By the way, I would like to note something. Back in the day, it was the Soviets who were pushing the anti-apartheid movement. At that time, huge numbers of Africans were in favor of sanctions against South Africa. However, that kept getting blocked by the US and Britain. Nowadays, it’s reversed, with the US and Britain insisting on sanctions on Zimbabwe, at least rhetorically, despite the fact that huge numbers of Africans are against them. The main thing both situations have in common is that the US and Britain don’t really care what Africans think.
I would also like to point out that the only reason Mugabe is in the news — unlike the sham elections in Somalia and Ethiopia, which were not much different, or for that matter the elections in Egypt — is that he dispossessed white people.
Let’s put the records straight first of all.
Russia and China vetoed “resolution” not because of Mugabe, dermocracy, human rights and other bullshit.
But because proposed bullshit… sorry – resolution didn’t fit UN’s Charter. Security Council deals with threats for peace security not with Knights of Her Majesty. If Mugabe fucked up his country – this is not good. But this question is OUTSIDE Security Council matters. Period!
PS. Irishman. Hungary – 1956. Czechoslovakia – 1968. And western heartless cowards didn’t move a finger to save poor souls…
I assumed that writers of this blog know beyond of mASS media information “fast food” and capable of making their own conclusions. I admit – I was wrong *getting ashamed*.
Mugabe has being ruling (and ruining) the country for more than 20 years. By all these years he’s being getting all kind of support from the “west” – money, knight awards, honorable titles from universities etc. And you, db, didn’t give a shit about it. Until – until! – mASS media has started “crying” about “destroyed dermocracy” over there. HA-HA dva raza (two times). There hasn’t been any “democracy” in Africa. There is constant fight among clans and tribes. In the old days some guys named themselves “friends of the West” and others – “socialists” etc. These were the rules of the game – to get weapons and money from “western camp” and “socialist camp” respectively (and for free). These days – when remains of “socialist camp” are no longer in the game – smarter guys found out that to get military and financial support you should name yourself “democratic opposition”, “western oriented leader” etc.
So all this fuss about Mugabe The Terrible – creation of mASS media (same as Saddam’s weapons of mass *brains* destruction). He is neither better not worse of his colleagues.
Now let look at marketing departments in DC and on Downing Street. I don’t know who got this idea first (and whether it came before or after G8 boring and irrelevant declarations). But it was simple – to “propose” resolution that won’t be accepted (unless Russia and China are so stupid to allow UN to decide who should win country’s election). Security Council is not the place where one could make sudden proposal. Not saying about proposal that for sure will be vetoed (as all texts discussed beforehand). Unless this is the purpose – to nail other member(s) of Security Council.
Whether Bush/Brown really think they are doing something good or are fully aware of game – doesn’t matter (I doubt they could show Zimbabwe on the map).
Now let’s look what goody doers were suggesting. Maybe something worth of ignoring this irrelevant UN Charter?
Oh! It was travel ban…And accounts freeze.
Why did NOT A SINGLE STORE in Europe shut up doors in front of Mugabe’s wife. NOT A SINGLE country recalls its ambassador. Maybe you should again call for Coalition of Good?
No. US/UK just arranged nice political show (I admitted it before).
And Medveded/Putin know all that. The only thing they could do in such “fair friends” game – took the firm position.
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048752844.jpg
What really surprise me – Sean’s reaction.
On the other hand I might be fooling myself by expecting too much from the people of the Utopian Surreal Absentminded places
Batman rulez!
Spider Man – mazdai!
Straw men and red herrings all over the place, petitio principii, and now an argumentum verbosium to boot.
“If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.” (c) Hegel
ivanov, which part of your essay actually answers my question?
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048752844.jpg
PS. Baffling in Latin doesn’t make you arguments brighter, db.
I would also like to point out that the only reason Mugabe is in the news — unlike the sham elections in Somalia and Ethiopia, which were not much different, or for that matter the elections in Egypt — is that he dispossessed white people.
I would like to point out that this is nonsense. The reason Mugabe is in the news is that his policies have turned what was Africa’s greatest success story into a run-of-the-mill African basket case which is good for absolutely nobody, and in the long run the west will probably end up paying for.
Note that the government in Sudan is also in the news a lot, mostly for their dispossession – and mass murder – of black people. Note also the British intervention in Sierra Leone in 2001, with not a white person in sight. So much for the assertion that the UK only takes interest if white folk are involved.
Arguments? What arguments? I merely keep asking you a concrete question: what, as you put it, “different from Bush/Brown ideas” could Medvedev possibly have in mind when he pledged to “take further steps, inter alia introducing financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for violence”?
Despite numerous attempts, you have been unable to come up with anything remotely resembling an answer. Try again, please.
Just a little newsflash to cure some of you from your delusions:
“”Zimbabwe’s ruling party and opposition are due to sign a deal outlining a framework for talks on the country’s political crisis, both sides say.
Haile Menkerios, the UN’s envoy to Zimbabwe, said the deal would be signed by President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki has gone to Harare to witness the deal.”"
Uhhhmmm… Didn’t Russia vote WITH South Africa? Who cares about voting for sanctions, when you can vote for diplomacy? Perhaps neo-neanderthalers who believe diplomacy is a sign of weakness?
Anyone wishes to change sides? We’ll forgive you. We’re after all the good guys.
Voting for diplomacy does not allow one to feel the delicious quiver of self-righteous indigination. Shame on the Netherlands! SHAME!
“Anyone wishes to change sides? We’ll forgive you. We’re after all the good guys.”
That’s typical political ‘gangster’ talk.
President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai have signed a deal….
Mr Mugabe praised South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who helped broker the deal, but insisted that it would be Zimbabweans who resolved the crisis – without the influence of Europe or the US.
He has previously accused Mr Tsvangirai of being a puppet of Western powers – particularly the UK, Zimbabwe’s former colonial master.
A US state department spokesman said it supported any talks that would lead to a result reflecting the “will of the Zimbabwean people”.
From BBC with love.
“…Note that the government in Sudan is also in the news a lot, mostly for their dispossession – and mass murder – of black people….”
Maybe that should be – ..”mass murder – of black non-arab african people….”
Lest us not forget that north sudan is predominantly arab and moslem and south sudan/rebels aren’t arab or moslem (christian/animist).
Many thanks to the colonial Brits for creating the Sudan with such a peaceful mix!
Colonialism, it’s the present that keeps on giving and giving and giving and giving and giving i.t.d.
Not bad for a novice:
Latest developments in Zimbabwe confirm Russia’s stance was right -Medvedev
BARVIKHA (Moscow region). July 22 (Interfax) – Russia remains opposed to the imposition of sanctions by the U.N. Security Council on Zimbabwe, and the latest developments in that country confirm that this stance is right, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said.
“We discussed the issue at the G8 summit. But we did not agree to impose any sanctions through the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, at my insistence the mention of the U.N. Security Council was dropped from the draft resolution of the G8 summit in Japan,” he said responding to a question from Interfax after talks with the Venezuelan president on Tuesday.
“I continue to believe that the U.N. Security Council should be dealing with somewhat different issues, in line with the U.N. Charter,” Medvedev said
He said he insisted on “giving our African partners a chance to thrash out this problem-ridden subject in cooperation with the authorities and opposition in Zimbabwe.” “In other words I spoke for giving them [the conflicting sides in Zimbabwe] an opportunity to hold consultations,” he said.
“The latest developments indicate that this approach was absolutely correct,” Medvedev said.
“From the very start our stance was consistent and the current consultations involving President Mugabe and the opposition leader mediated by South African President Mbeki confirm that it was justified,” he said.
He said attempts to interpret Russia’s stance are senseless. “It has been consistent from the very start,” he said.
Medvedev voiced hope that consultations on Zimbabwe, which Russia had favored, will result in key decisions on the settlement, in particular an understanding on how to overcome differences, hopefully establishing civic peace and possibly distributing powers.
The subject of Zimbabwe “has been quite acute lately,” Medvedev said. The declaration adopted at the G8 summit expressed the concern of G8 leaders about the current processes in Zimbabwe, in particular the way the elections were held, he said. “That was our common approach but we did not agree to impose any sanctions through the U.N. Security Council,” he said.
“Lest us not forget that north sudan is predominantly arab and moslem and south sudan/rebels aren’t arab or moslem (christian/animist).”
I think the fact that the perpetrators are Arabs and Muslims is probably a factor in the media coverage.
One day earlier, at G8 summit Russia and the US have made a deal that Russia will support the US resolution on Zimbabwe and in return the US will not promise NATO membership to Georgia. The next day the US has violated the agreement and Russia responded by voting against the resolution. Shame on whom?
Behold the miracle of diplomacy: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24138182-5005961,00.html