Obamamaniacs on Russia
By Sean at 22 July, 2008, 9:01 am
I usually don’t waste my time with babble but Daniel Silva’s “President Obama and a 3 am Phone Call about Russia” struck a cord. It’s just another example that Russia is one thing American liberals and conservatives can embrace over.
Silva’s argument is simple. “Russia is now a fascist country,” he writes. He hopes soon to be President Obama takes this assertion to heart and “uses his first meeting with Russia’s leader–whether it be Putin or the diminutive Dmitri Medvedev–to deliver a clear and sobering message. Russia can no longer have it both ways. If Russia wants to be a member of the club–that is to say, the civilized world–then it must act like a member of the club.” Oh, God.
I admit it. I read the HuffPost. I enjoy its entertainment reporting and links to newspaper articles. Plus, I kinda have a crush on political cougar Arriana Huffington. I rarely indulge in its political commentary, though. It’s Obama deification is downright annoying. So much so I sometimes feel my bowels struggling to keep my lunch down after even glancing at its gushing pro-Obama headlines. All the hoopla over the New Yorker Obama cover is just one example of how many liberals have forgotten how to laugh (if they ever knew how to) even when the joke is aimed at their political enemies. Get a clue people. This man is not the second coming. He’s not John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, MLK or any other American liberal folk hero. He’s a Democrat and history has shown that the Democrats are pretty damn good, some say even better than the Republicans, at managing American empire.
A telling sign of this is the fact that once again the American presidential debate is not about dismantling the empire but a contest over who will manage it better. Given how the HuffPost is flaunting Obama’s Mideast voyage and how Arab leaders are flocking to speak with the prez hopeful, you’d think that people actually believe all of the Bush Administration’s dirty deeds will simply vanish as soon as Obama sets the imperial crown on his head. I’m not one to make predictions, but I will stick my neck out and predict this: It’s not gonna happen. After all, its not like the Democrats have clean hands in all this. . .
I know, I know, I’m digressing. But I needed to say it, especially to those who might consider me an Obamamaniac.
As for Daniel Silva, he’s just kinda dumb and not even in a charming way. Silva, who is a novelist by trade, has a new book out called Moscow Rules, which according to a blurb on Amazon is an espionage novel and “searing cautionary tale about the new threats rising to the East.” If his storytelling skills are anything like his commentary, Moscow Rules will certainly be a fanciful tale chalk full of sneaky Russians hiding in shadowy alleys look to spring evil on unsuspecting defenders of the free world. I certainly won’t be running to the bookstore. I read enough pulp fiction about Russia from the academic presses.
So does Silva. Or so it seems. His main source of knowledge about Russian affairs comes from a recent “research” trip to Russia and Edward Lucas’ The New Cold War. As for the former, Silva clearly learned nothing. His impressions are sloppy regurgitations of often repeated Western commentary. Complete with observations like: The FSB/KGB “have infiltrated the top ranks of Russia’s government;” “the organization that oversaw the Great Terror, administered the Gulag Archipelago, and locked dissidents away in psychiatric hospitals, is now running Russia;” “Russia would like its empire back. Putin made that abundantly clear in 2005, when, in his state of the nation speech, he referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.” Russia is once more attempting to project power. It is using its new found energy muscle to bully and blackmail its weaker neighbors;” “The print media, lively during the Yeltsin years, has also been brought to heel;” and “Any Russian brave enough, or foolish enough, to confront the regime runs the risk of being arrested, beaten, or even killed.” You get the picture.
As for his second “source,” okay granted, I haven’t read Lucas’ book nor will I. His reporting in the Economist and elsewhere is far more bile than I can stomach. Silva apparently buys Lucas’ belief that danger is brewing in the East. Not the east-east, i.e. China, but the good old Cold War east, i.e. Russia. Perhaps even more scary is that Silva thinks that though Lucas’ “sky is falling” rants might be a bit premature, they nevertheless could serve as a Russia primer for Emperor Obama:
And though it would be alarmist for President Obama to start talking about a new Cold War, Edward Lucas, a reporter for the Economist, argues in a persuasive and passionate new book–titled, interestingly enough, The New Cold War–that Russia is already waging it. Lucas warns that the United States and Europe must set aside their differences over Iraq and resuscitate the old Atlantic alliance in order to confront the new threat rising in the East. The Kremlin will attempt to divide any such coalition with its oil and its money, Lucas predicts, but Western European countries must steadfastly resist the temptation to betray the alliance for thirty pieces of Russian silver. Good luck trying to sell that strategy to Russia’s special friends in Germany and Italy.
Ooooh! Good reference to the Axis Powers! All updated and repacked for a new generation! Germany-Italy-Russia! Where did you get that? The History Channel? I wonder if its in his book . . .
But that is not all. He concludes,
Better to challenge the bear now, while it is still a paper one. It might keep that White House telephone from ringing at three o’clock in the morning. And President Obama might be able to get some much-needed sleep.
What a boob. Well, Silva should be happy that Obama has Michael McFaul at his side to advise him in such affairs. His hopes just might come true.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Kinda makes sense though. Obama is all about Change, and Bush was practically sleeping with Putin, so it’s time for a break-up, no?
Speaking of the devil, isn’t the rise of ‘Evil Russia’ another Bush fault?
Very amusing piece – I suppose we can expect you to begin campaigning for McCain’s Russia policies soon? For as much as I know you don’t like to play nice with any of those Stanford folks or even Brzezinski, I think McFaul is one thing and Robert Kagan entirely something else.
Plus, I’m not sure I’d agree so generally that liberals and conservatives are in agreement on Russia now. Let’s not just look at the overlap of Kremlin critics in both parties, but also the overlap of Putin apologists. On the right, there will always be a big crowd that loves a good strong capitalist dictatorship, longing for the second coming of Pinochet. On the left, there is no shortage of those who value any rejection of Washington’s attempts to influence events abroad as being a sufficient license for democratic shortcomings.
I think unlike the Soviet Union, Putinist Russia is becoming a real conundrum for the traditionally limited and shallow political debate in the United States, and partisanship just creates yet another distortion. Neither party seems even close to understanding what is happening in Russia nor how to work with Moscow.
Wow, someone who agrees with Edward “A bit of a loon” Lucas!! Amazing.
What I want to see if whether La Russophobe can spin it hard enough to actually put an article from the Huffington Post on his blog. It will be funny to read how he justifies it.
My deep apologies for being way off topic. Very quick. I just saw this. Check it out before it goes down:
http://dragandabic.com/
I’m glad Karadzic was caught (even though I doubt very much he “masterminded” atrocities, as I heard it on the radio today), but he definitely had chutzpah.
I don’t get it, Kolya.
Excellent post.
But what’s to be done? I’ve personally read more of these Silva/Lucas/McFaul-esque diatribes than I’ve certainly ever wanted or needed to. The flow doesn’t seem to be ebbing very much, aside from that onslaught of op-eds in the IHT a few weeks ago, which were notable not so much for their genius as for their novelty. So many people writing articles and op-eds on Russia approach their work with a pre-existing set of outdated or misinformed expectations, with a “narrative.” They never question it; they simply look for a way to squeeze Russia into that narrative. Sometimes Russia makes it easy, but most of the time they’ll question the facts before they question their narrative and instead fill in all the holes and distract readers from blatant illogic by playing on innate fears about Russia. Americans over a certain age had a fear of Russia drilled into their psyches from an early age. It’s the devil they know.
But why Obama and Obama-maniacs? Are he and his followers even old enough to have residual Cold War logic present in their psyches? Ok, he is. But I’m fascinated by the fact that “liberal-minded people” are so quick to take the word of journalists when it comes to Russia. These are the same people who will carefully dissect and fact-check and critique everything else they read in the papers on the topic of policy. These are people who approach journalists with deep distrust and frustration. These are people who have sometimes completely eschewed all traditional media, cancelled their subscriptions, and now read only blogs and outlets like HuffPo. Yet it simply does not ever occur to them to question what they read in the mainstream about Russia. And in this case, the mainstream narrative is actually being embraced by one of these ostensibly “reality-based” sites. When I speak to my lefty friends, I think I must feel like they once felt talking to their nice but gullible Republican friends during the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Frustrated.
(I won’t make anyone guess where I stand on things: I fall off the left end of the economic axis, and am slightly libertarian socially.)
I’m quite active in politics & live in Chicago so I’m dealing with this 24-7. Interestingly, it’s always the banker husbands and academic wives of my political acquaintances who seem to have a clue about Russia, who are also very frustrated. The self-professed policy wonks are blissfully ignorant and are quite happy to remain so. Weird. The result is that I find myself thinking Pat Buchanan is the only person on TV with half a clue about Russia. Strange bedfellows indeed. Not helpful, as the last person Obamamaniacs are going to listen to is … Pat Buchanan. It should also be noted, that many Obama supporters and even folks on his campaign team are not nec. “Obamamaniacs,” see his faults quite clearly, but are driven by the possibility of reversing or reforming domestic and Iraq policy decisions made over the past 7+ years. They’ll complain all night about Obama’s FISA vote and get up at 3 am the next day and drive to Iowa to canvass for him. So, theoretically, they should be open to constructive criticism.
I should add, when I speak of media bias, I’m not implying Russia can do no wrong. Legitimate concerns about Russia’s shortcomings are not the problem. The problem is that we find explanations for them of a metaphysical or pulp-fiction nature (Putin has no soul, is reincarnation of Stalin, Russia is doomed to be/prefers to be oppressed, the KGB is killing everyone who speaks against the administration.) We might be on better footing if we looked for more, oh, reality-based explanations, starting off by trying to put ourselves in their position and seeing how the US would react to, oh, Russia building missile defense shields in Mexico and Canada.
Maybe we should send Obama to Moscow when he gets back from his current stint abroad. He appears to be a good listener and quick learner. Just in need of better teachers.
I’m really tring hard not to make a hippy joke.
When I was in the States recently, I didn’t encounter much hostility to Russia at all, and it was a major topic of conversation since I was after all visiting from there. But then I was only there for two weeks.
“Plus, I’m not sure I’d agree so generally that liberals and conservatives are in agreement on Russia now. Let’s not just look at the overlap of Kremlin critics in both parties, but also the overlap of Putin apologists.”
I think Russia bashing is in vogue on the US campaign trail. Headlines that connect Russia with Venezuala’s Chavez and Iran’s I’madinnerjacket (and even most recently bombers and Cuba) certainly don’t help. US voters have this general sense of anxiety over a “resurgent” Russia. Combined with a little saber-rattling by Russian government, it creates an atmosphere where both candidates have to look strong as regards the Russian bear.
Blah, blah, blah. At this point it is all rhetoric.
I think only after Diebold has selected our next president for us will we know what our future government policies towards Russia will be.
“Headlines that connect Russia with Venezuala’s Chavez”
I can’t quite figure out why Americans are scared of Chavez, outside of being personally offended by rhetoric (“oh noes! they don’t likes us!”)
Chris,
Dr. Dabic IS Karadzic.
Don’t give away his secret identity Kolya!
“Maybe we should send Obama to Moscow when he gets back from his current stint abroad. He appears to be a good listener and quick learner. Just in need of better teachers.”
Are you really saying that Obama needs to go study in Moscow?
He is a Marxist after all.
Chris: You’re slacking off. There was plenty of hippie joke material in there.
No, there really isn’t any active popular hostility towards Russia here. Why should there be? What has Russia done to America? Nothing in my lifetime. So, I don’t know why there should be any animosity. Other than that subconscious awareness that our days as the greatest superpower ever might be numbered, or at least everything is tanking at the moment. Meanwhile Russia’s rolling in the money and flexing some muscle and generally … acting like us. This was not the table we wanted turned on us.
Re: Chavez & Putin/Medvedev and why we don’t like them:
Chavez is a Commie! We don’t like Commies. And we suspect Putin is also a Commie. Or at least a Stalinist. Well, he’s KGB, that’s for sure. And Medvedev is just a Putin-puppet. So, we don’t like them. Also, they are nasty Commies sitting on significant oil and gas reserves. While freedom-loving Americans are forced by high gas prices to walk to work. Not fair…
No to study, but to do a bit of fact-finding.
I think Russia bashing is in vogue on the US campaign trail.
I happen to think a lot of the anti-Russia dick swinging is really displaced fear of China. But for some reason mouthing off at China like this is a no no. That is unless some Tibetans are in danger. But even then, they outcry is brief.
There isn’t a narrative about China like there is about Russia. Does anyone else find this strange?
Sean: The US has a much different relationship with China than with Russia, and one that has produced a lot more real resentment among average Americans and much more silence among American politicians. In closed rooms, when people drop the rhetoric and start discussing things seriously, it’s China and not Russia which they discuss. If America ever becomes dangerously heavily indebted to Russia or those American companies who line the pockets of politicians begin outsourcing jobs en masse to Russians who will work for a fraction of the pay, that could change.
I think Russia bashing is in vogue on the US campaign trail.
That’s not true – what’s in vogue is simply not even talking about Russia. Come to think of it, the U.S. is also doing a fine job ignoring Venezuela in policy terms.
But isn’t there a lot more diversity and disagreement about what kinds of concrete policies Washington should pursue with Russia?
What should be debated is the difference in what both Obama and McCain want to do with U.S.-Russia relations, even if they are united in recognizing some of the common problems. McCain says no G8 for Russia – but who really believes he would go through with it? Obama is loving this engagement stuff, and practically sees himself as a Reagan reaching out to Medvedev-as-Gorbachev, with the misplaced goal of achieving progress on Iran (which of course would help Russia get rid of those missile sites, except Moscow immensely enjoys Iran-U.S. tensions). Maybe not.
But no, somebody pulls the “anti-Russian” flag out, and the policy conversation grinds to a halt. There is such thin skin over the slightest jab at Russia or criticism of this or that (even when poorly argued or even ignorant like the Silva article), and this inability to take a punch and roll with it is annoying in and of itself. Russia is creating some real, legitimate problems for Washington out there, and this insistence on building relationships to protect other authoritarians (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) has even led the Sudanese janjaweed to ask for their expertise in fending off the ICC. That’s not just rhetoric and Cold War hangovers – those are real problems to talk about.
Yet I recall no shortage of hugs, kisses, and smiles during Putin’s earlier visit to the Bush family home at Kennebunkport – the only foreign leader to receive such an invitation. Can we stop complaining about this alleged lack of respect?
We have Kissinger calling on Washington to ease back on all other areas of criticism and simply work together on nuclear proliferation. We have Robert Kagan calling for a new league of democracies to fight this rising alliance of autocrats, which is another way of saying that McCain could look to undermine the UN. Then you even have Stephen Biegun, who as VP for Ford is not in any hurry to actually piss off Moscow. Zbigniew Brzezinski appears to be the only one keyed in on Russia’s energy game, yet is beginning to sharply differ with Obama on Afghanistan. Has nobody been reading Dmitri Simes? Nixon Center is pretty mainstream conservatism – yet even the lefties are picking up on his stuff to slam McFaul.
With all of this considered, I find it hard to believe that U.S. thinking on Russia is so monolithic and homogeneous. There are a lot of divergent views on how the relationship should be handled, and these perspectives are being pushed from the strangest places.
I’m not bored yet.
“There isn’t a narrative about China like there is about Russia. Does anyone else find this strange?”
I think you can figure out the reason for this by going into Walmart.
“McCain says no G8 for Russia – but who really believes he would go through with it?”
COULD he even do it? Doesn’t the US just get one vote?
James, I think first part of you conclusion is correct. But if so – second part is irrelevant. Anyway all you decisions would be based on false assumptions.
There isn’t a narrative about China like there is about Russia. Does anyone else find this strange?
Not at all. China is a far more important country for the US than Russia.
Most importantly, China and the US are each other’s biggest trading partner, and there is nothing Chinese and Americans like doing more than trading and making money. So nobody is going to want to upset that apple cart.
Also important is that America has committed itself one way or another to the defending of three of its biggest allies in the world – Taiwan, Japan, and S. Korea – all three of which are eyeing China with suspicion for various reasons both real and imagined. The most sensitive of these is Taiwan which 50 years ago the US unwisely committed itself to defending in the event of a Chinese attempt to reclaim the island, something which is stated Chinese policy (which fortunately, like oil and gas projects, doesn’t have a firm schedule). Taiwan has been the tail wagging the American dog several times in the past, and the US doesn’t want to encourage a repeat performance on the back of a stronger US stance on China.
In short, China is in a position to make life a lot harder for the US, albeit at a considerable cost to themselves. The US, quite sensibly, wants to avoid this. Russia, by contrast, can do little but voice toothless objections about missile shields, complain about Kosovo, and make an annoyance of itself in the UNSC. Russia, compared to China and umpteen other issues, is simply not very important to the US right now, so politicians are free to mouth off to their hearts’ consent without much fear of having to formulate a policy. This probably explains why no US politician has a clue about Russia, and – despite what the Russians will probably think – Russia will probably be Campaign Issue No. 137 for most Americans, slightly below that of federal funding for woodland conservation projects in South Dakota.
Country of cheap, low quality labor, ruled by commies and populated by poor people on bicycles?
Tim, I wish all other hear your words about toothless Russia and stop complaining about its “imperial ambitions” and “threats”
Well, Russia certainly COULD make things very difficult for the US if it really, really wanted to and lost all sense of sanity.
Because it’s been brought up a few times now…
I think it is important to distinguish between the private or photo-op relationship individuals appear to have with each other and the political relationship between two countries understood vis a vis foreign policy. Bush and Putin could be BFF, but ultimately, we only need care about them in their capacity as national leaders. So I don’t think it’s wise to assume that their gazing dreamily into each others’ eyes is a metaphor for political reality. It did not prevent the US from moving forward with their missile shields or Russia from voting against the US in the UN. They continue decide policy based on their own national self-interests, interests which are often odds with each other. And it’s these decisions, not the decision to go on fishing trips, which have repercussions such that much of the world feels invested in them. The rest is a distraction, though an entertaining one to be sure.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia are fabulous friends IRL. But it’s not reflected in their Supreme Court votes, and it’s their votes which impact my life, not their friendship.
“Russia, compared to China and umpteen other issues, is simply not very important to the US right now, so politicians are free to mouth off to their hearts’ consent without much fear of having to formulate a policy.”
Bingo.
I should add, when I speak of media bias, I’m not implying Russia can do no wrong. Legitimate concerns about Russia’s shortcomings are not the problem. The problem is that we find explanations for them of a metaphysical or pulp-fiction nature (Putin has no soul, is reincarnation of Stalin, Russia is doomed to be/prefers to be oppressed, the KGB is killing everyone who speaks against the administration.) We might be on better footing if we looked for more, oh, reality-based explanations, starting off by trying to put ourselves in their position and seeing how the US would react to, oh, Russia building missile defense shields in Mexico and Canada.
poemless, up until the last sentence this paragraph had me singing right along. the problem with the last sentence lies in the answer to the following question: is there a south or central american country which has threatened to nuke russia or one of its allies and has the missiles to do so?
ps i’m writing sans caps in solidarity with your hippie sensibilities.
Headlines that connect Russia with Venezuala’s Chavez and Iran’s I’madinnerjacket (and even most recently bombers and Cuba) certainly don’t help.
sorry, but how can you avoid these headlines when these countries cooperate militarily with each other in ways which almost seem designed (esp. in venezuela’s case) to attract american attention/concern?
Sean: The US has a much different relationship with China than with Russia, and one that has produced a lot more real resentment among average Americans and much more silence among American politicians. In closed rooms, when people drop the rhetoric and start discussing things seriously, it’s China and not Russia which they discuss. If America ever becomes dangerously heavily indebted to Russia or those American companies who line the pockets of politicians begin outsourcing jobs en masse to Russians who will work for a fraction of the pay, that could change.
well, there’s lots of criticism of chinese human rights policies, but that’s beside the point. americans have been quite resentful in the past of countries like japan (a foreign ally) when the offenses in question were things like buying up iconic american assets and occupying our markets. given that (per russia blog) russia now owns 10% of the u.s. steel industry, it may be only a matter of time.
Russia is creating some real, legitimate problems for Washington out there, and this insistence on building relationships to protect other authoritarians (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) has even led the Sudanese janjaweed to ask for their expertise in fending off the ICC. That’s not just rhetoric and Cold War hangovers – those are real problems to talk about.
james, thanks for your comments, they made me think; one of the things i like about this blog is that the comments here are better than posts at most other blogs.
Good comment, Tim. In addition, as I commented a few months ago, despite their seemingly cozy relationship, China, in the long term, will be much more of a problem for Russia than the US or the US/EU combo.
poemless, great comments! Some of the best I’ve seen in some time.
James, see below poemless’ comment which pretty accurately describes your approach over at the Robert Amsterdam blog:
“… So many people writing articles (blog posts) and op-eds on Russia approach their work with a pre-existing set of outdated or misinformed expectations, with a “narrative.” They never question it; they simply look for a way to squeeze Russia into that narrative. Sometimes Russia makes it easy, but most of the time they’ll question the facts before they question their narrative and instead fill in all the holes and distract readers from blatant illogic by playing on innate fears about Russia. Americans over a certain age had a fear of Russia drilled into their psyches from an early age. It’s the devil they know.”
James, that describes you perfectly on the Robert Amsterdam blog. At least Bob has some perspective and will, from time to time, acknowledge good things when they happen in Russia.
You also suggest that there’s balance in Western reporting on Russia. BS!
The WaPo, NYT, NPR, WSJ, and The Economist are all virulently anti-Russia. The blog with some of the highest page views is either a sophomoric college project by Robert Mayer from Bentley or some think tank BAB project.
Let’s just hope that this Silva article marks the low water point in the discussion concerning post-Soviet Russia.
Here’s a headline in today’s NYT:
Philadelphia Streets Unsafe for Manhole Covers
By IAN URBINA
In the past year thieves have stolen hundreds of covers and grates, which are increasingly valuable as scrap….
Can you imagine if this headline had been describing Saratov or Kazan?
People would extrapolate from one fact, in one location, something about Russia as a country.
Do we now believe that America is, as a country, so poor that its people must steal manhole covers to feed their families or feed their drug habits?
No, we don’t assume this about America and we should, therefore, not assume that since Davydenko may be throwing some tennis matches that all of Russia is immoral.
Headlines that connect Russia with Venezuala’s Chavez…
Like this one? It must be said that the headlines are not all hyperbole.
In addition, as I commented a few months ago, despite their seemingly cozy relationship, China, in the long term, will be much more of a problem for Russia than the US or the US/EU combo.
I think China is going to present huge problems for Russia in the future, and Russia is not going to find itself with many friends about to help deal with them.
I also think that Russia will allow Iran to go nuclear at their peril. Iran is a lot closer to Russia than the US, yet the Russians seem confident that any Iranian nuclear capability will not come back to bite them on the arse. They’d better hope they are right.
I highly doubt Russia wants Iran to get nukes, given their hostile positions during the Afghan War. If Russia wanted to, they could just give them nukes.
“which has threatened to nuke russia or one of its allies and has the missiles to do so?”
Iran has never threatened to nuke the United States, or, indeed, Israel.
I highly doubt Russia wants Iran to get nukes, given their hostile positions during the Afghan War. If Russia wanted to, they could just give them nukes.
Russia probably doesn’t want Iran to get nukes, but cannot bring themselves to do join in with the US and EU to try to get them to fulfill their obligations under the IAEA. As I have said already, Russia’s policy is to look at what the US is doing and automatically do the opposite. One day Russia might mature enough to realise that maybe they should have stepped in and put pressure on Iran to abandon its quest for access to the full nuclear cycle.
Iran has never threatened to nuke the United States, or, indeed, Israel.
Perhaps not, but they’ve threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” whilst parading long range missiles – albeit (as yet) not fitted with nuclear warheads – with death to Israel written across them. The distinction is probably a little too fine for most Israeli’s to live with comfortably. At the very least, these threats should not be simply ignored or excused as mere rhetoric.
“Russia’s policy is to look at what the US is doing and automatically do the opposite.”
Except for all those times when it doesn’t, as in the rather large cooperation in Afghanistan.
I think you may be reading more Americocentrism into Russia’s behavior than is actually there. For instance, I doubt that Russia’s position on Zimbabwe has been determined by that of the US, with that of China being the more important factor.
I also think that Russia is playing the role of double spoiler with regard to Iran’s (hypothetical) nuclear ambitions, rationally getting as much out of the squabble as it can.
“Perhaps not, but they’ve threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” whilst parading long range missiles – albeit (as yet) not fitted with nuclear warheads – with death to Israel written across them.”
The US and USSR did this for decades (with actual nuclear warheads, but minus the writing), and never actually intended to nuke each other.
lol
So when Russia sells Kalashnikov rifles to Venezuela – that is 2000 km from south point of Florida – it concerns the US.
When US installs components of its own strategic nuclear system just 1000 km from Moscow – you suggesting “Relax cousin nothing gonna happen” (c)?
Thanks but eat this bullshit by yourselves
Kolya, why – by your opinion – is Russia so China-friendly?
Who cares about US and EU when we have China next to us!
I wonder if this done by our guys in America or “native” Americans finally noticed this “gold mine”?
Any town or village in Russia.
see note above
What a poor judgement… It doesn’t matter how reach a country is. It’s a matter how poor/desperate the particular person is. He can cut $10.000 worth copper cable to exchange it for a bottle of vodka. Because vodka or drug dose have value for him. Covers, gates, cables etc – don’t.
Looks like I have to tell this story that must be taught at Harvard actually.
Comrade Gorbachyev is visiting some very important industrial plant. At the peak of anti-drinking campaign. He was shown every department, every corner of the plant, talked to all best workers and managers etc. But he noticed that his hosts didn’t show him some small back room. He demanded to show him what’s there. Director hesitated but … it was Comrade President. So they showed the room. Nothing special – just rather old metal-processing device and a man. But it was obvious that the man was…well a little drunk (in Russian scale).
Gorbachyev was shocked (as he always did when facing real life). “What’s this?” he asked.
“Well…this is our BEST specialist…he can do things no one can…but you see…he is..used to drink at least a bottle of vodka a day…but you understand…he is the best and the only…bla-bla-bla…”
“Ok, let me talk to him” Gorby said.
- “Comrade, why do you drink?”
- “I donknow…”
- “Ok. How much is your salary and what is the price of the bottle of vodka?”
- “I’m getting 100 rubles and the price is 5 rubles”
- “Aha! So you getting troubles to get a bottle every day!”
- “No. Not at all”
- “Hm-mmm. Strange… Well what if we make the price… 20 rubles. Would you stop drinking?”
- “No”
- “Okey…lets’s say 50 rubles!”
- “No”
- “One hundred!!!”
- “No. Why should I?”
- “But wait a minute! If you make 100 per month and one bottle cost 100 – how could you afford to drink every day? Have you thought about it?”
- “Comrade General Sec..resident. Look. See this small part I’m doing?”
- “Yes…and?”
- “I don’t care how much the bottle of vodka cost…cause this part I’m making will ALWAYS cost one bottle of vodka for them *pointing to director and managers* and for you, mister Secretar”…
А вот с этого места нельзя ли поподробнее?
db.
First you have to qualify for explanation, son
What is you rank? You should be at least старлей.
I for one think that papasha_mueller is embarrassingly unfunny.
The US officially says time and time again that Russia is no longer the enemy and that the Cold War is over. Yet, the installation of a missile shield is ostenstibly to prevent Iranian missiles from hitting Europe but a “nice little side benefit” is that NATO can now monitor a large swath of territory within Russia that it was previously unable to monitor.
This is precisely why Russia is ticked-off. Who can blame them? When your so-called friends still feel the need to monitor your actions it gives one pause.
I would suggest that Medvedev call the NATO’s bluff. Medvedev ought to simple repeat previous statements that Russia and the West are no longer enemies and therefore, Russia feels it would benefit everyone if a dialog were to begin to discuss full membership of Russia into NATO.
Medvedev should state that Russia is ready to be a full and responsible partner and NATO should evolve naturally to combat the new threats to world security. NATO can be renamed (another acronym) and new members can also join in the future.
This new NATO would be paired with the G8 (make it the G15) and much progress would be made on all fronts.
The key is that Russia take the rhetorical offensive and force America and NATO to justify there actions. Currently, the US in dictating the dialog and making Russia answer questions (i.e. why is it against the missile shield).
Timothy: “James, see below poemless’ comment which pretty accurately describes your approach over at the Robert Amsterdam blog:”
Please allow me to speak for myself. I am a huge fan of of Robert Amsterdam’s blog and James’ contributions! And I say that as quite possibly the very person James has in mind when he speaks of so-called Putin apologists on the left. So why do I appreciate RA & James? Because first off, RA is a lawyer representing the interests of an individual in a very high-profile case and doesn’t try to hide the fact. His primary obligation is to his clients and not to the public, afaiac. Furthermore, their blog overrunneth with information and resources. Furthermore, while I may disagree with them from time to time, I think that the arguments James and RA make are informed and intelligent. Also, they have a sense of humour. So, really, it is not them I had in mind writing that.
“The WaPo, NYT, NPR, WSJ, and The Economist are all virulently anti-Russia. The blog with some of the highest page views is either a sophomoric college project by Robert Mayer from Bentley or some think tank BAB project.”
That’s who I had in mind. And would add the BBC.
Lyndon: I am NOT a hippie. Chris is a propagandist. Ignore him.
“Lyndon: I am NOT a hippie. Chris is a propagandist. Ignore him.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XODRXWJJDYM
Never trust ‘em.
Thanks for the link, Kolya, to the good Dr Dabic’s webpage. Seems he was hiding in plain sight. I think McCain celebrated his 70th birthday party on a Russian Oligarch’s yacht, no doubt discussing various ways to bash Russia and further the Neo-Con agenda, at the same time. Putting missles on Russia’s front porch is a slap in the face. Russia has a long memory and will not forget such manners. Manhole covers are in demand, but so is copper wiring, here, in America. Lots of lamp posts go missing for the aluminum.
You are neither but so what?
The question was about your rank, son.
1. This is NOT NATO’s installation. At all.
2. It is not about monitoring. At all.
Otherwise – correct
Dear Richard – that Russian “oligarch” upon whose yacht McCain celebrated his birthday was Oleg Deripaska, who most everyone would comfortably describe as Putin’s best friend in the private sector. His campaign manager was also living off a pretty sweet $20,000 a month retainer to do some lobbying for Viktor Yanukovich’s Ukrainian opposition party (people argue of course how much of those funds came from the Kremlin). Add Biegun and his business automotive connections in, and I’d say that McCain is the presidential candidate of choice for the Putin camp.
“Medvedev ought to simple repeat previous statements that Russia and the West are no longer enemies and therefore, Russia feels it would benefit everyone if a dialog were to begin to discuss full membership of Russia into NATO.”
I agree with part of your idea; however, I think NATO membership works against Russia, particularly in regards to weapon sales and its defense industry. It is actually much more feasible for NATO to accept Russia as a member state, than for Russia to accept conformance to NATO military standards.
As some form of concession, NATO would have to agree to adopt certain Russian military hardware and vice versa. Defense industries on both sides (cuttent NATO member states and Russia) would feel they are losing out on something.
Logically, your argument is correct – incorporate Russia as a member into a military organization to dispense with the idea said military organization is against Russia. But I think defense sectors and nationalists within Russia would oppose membership, as would select defense sectors in NATO.
Ura! Behemoth is alive and well and now actually LIVING on Sadovaya!:-)
http://www.dombulgakova.ru/index.php?id=5
Timothy and poemless…
Not much I can say in response there … of course a lot of people severely disagree with some of the criticism we publish. You’ve made that well known.
But I like to think we keep up a certain level of decorum. We never personally attack other bloggers or journalists – only elected officials and certain corporate executives. That’s a level of basic respect for other viewpoints that you won’t find on either side of the extremist Russia bloggers, and I could also count out the laundry list of finer points where we don’t toe the line of the beltway think tanks.
Lastly, Bob is as Bob does. Who knows what that guy is going to do or say next?
Except for all those times when it doesn’t, as in the rather large cooperation in Afghanistan.
A decision made 7 years ago, cooperation of which is not “rather large” but instead consists of generally not getting in the way and graciously allowing the US to use the airbases of independent countries which happen to have once been governed from Moscow a decade previously.
The US and USSR did this for decades (with actual nuclear warheads, but minus the writing), and never actually intended to nuke each other.
Firstly, the jury is still out on whether Iran under its current government is a rational actor in the way in which the US and USSR were (meaning, they never intended to, nor did they, nuke each other). Russia is taking the gamble that they are.
Secondly, you’ll note that neither the US nor USSR ignored the other’s threats; in fact, they took significant steps to counter them.
I also think that Russia is playing the role of double spoiler with regard to Iran’s (hypothetical) nuclear ambitions, rationally getting as much out of the squabble as it can.
Encouraging nuclear squabbling in the Middle East, as I have said, poses far more of a risk to Russia than it does the US. Russia had better hope it knows what it’s doing.
MOSCOW. Sept 21 (Interfax) – The U.S. is skeptical about the idea to jointly use the Russian radar station in Azerbaijan because it does not enable them to screen Russian territory, acting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said…
”A decision made 7 years ago, cooperation of which is not “rather large” but instead consists of generally not getting in the way and graciously allowing the US to use the airbases of independent countries which happen to have once been governed from Moscow a decade previously”
There was enormous goodwill on the part of the Russians towards the Americans after 9/11, indeed before 9/11 Russian intelligence passed on the hazy info it had from Afghanistan that something very big was going to happen, after a major Mujahadeen leader was killed (cant remember his name) -they just didnt know what it was. I could be mistaken, but i think the Russians actually allowed the US to travel through Russian airspace, which would be a major concession for the Russians to make. However -whilst not excusing Russia’s howlers at the UNSC (Iran, Myanmar, North Korea etc) – in the period 2001-2003, inspite of the Russians giving the US tons of info and de facto ‘permission’ to use places like Uzbekistan, the Americans did everything possible to annoy the Russians. Almost immediately the US refused to start talks on a new nuclear arms reduction deal and repeatedly stonewalled Russian efforts to join the WTO. This was not lost on Lavrov, Ivanov and Putin, who saw this as a major snub (rightly so) and Russian goodwill evapourated. John Bolton in particular did his level best to piss the Russians off, and succeeded. I’m not sure this is entirely why Russia and the US dont seem to see eye-to-eye on anything now, but this stuff did happen and the Russians lost patience.
Ivanov wrote:
“Kolya, why – by your opinion – is Russia so China-friendly?
Who cares about US and EU when we have China next to us!”
Well, trade has a lot do with it, of course. Russia has a lot to gain from China (and viceversa) by having good trade relations. In addition, the old saying goes, “hold your friends close and hold your enemies even closer.” My concern, though, is that in the future a stronger China may well dictate to Russia some uncomfortable terms. Remember China’s demographic pressures, Russia’s underpopulated long border with China, and the fact that many Chinese (at least privately) still consider that much of that territory really belongs to China.
That’s one reason (but not the sole reason) why I think Russia is being shortsighted in reacting with antagonism toward the US and the EU. It may well end up being too isolated for its own good.
(There is always the chance that before becoming much more powerful China will implode because of internal pressures, but I would not count on it.)
“but i think the Russians actually allowed the US to travel through Russian airspace, which would be a major concession for the Russians to make.”
Not only that, according to Lavrov, Putin called Karimov personally and persuaded him to allow the US to use Uzbek territory.
Not only that, the Northern Alliance was to a large extent a Rusian proxy army using Russian weapons.
Not only that, the Russians gave the Americans huge amounts of intelligence.
In fact, Putin helped the Americans so much he was accused of being a traitor.
”A decision made 7 years ago, cooperation of which is not “rather large” but instead consists of generally not getting in the way and graciously allowing the US to use the airbases of independent countries which happen to have once been governed from Moscow a decade previously”
No, cooperation that is going on right now.
I’m kind of thinking that 9/11 must have been before you started following Russian events, because this stuff was all over the news in 2001, when the US was experiencing a bout of Putinmania. Even Piontkovsky experienced Putinophilia: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5586-4.cfm
“indeed before 9/11 Russian intelligence passed on the hazy info it had from Afghanistan that something very big was going to happen, after a major Mujahadeen leader was killed (cant remember his name)”
Shah Massoud
There was enormous goodwill on the part of the Russians towards the Americans after 9/11, indeed before 9/11 Russian intelligence passed on the hazy info it had from Afghanistan that something very big was going to happen, after a major Mujahadeen leader was killed (cant remember his name) -they just didnt know what it was.
He was killed on 9th September 2001 IIRC.
I know the Russians did show goodwill back in 2001, but I am talking about the past few years since, well, the oil price has risen. I have no doubt that idiotic behaviour on the part of the US has contributed to the current frosty relations, but I also think the Russians share the blame (e.g. preparing to sign a $30bn oil deal with Saddam Hussein mere weeks after voting to uphold the sanctions against him), and I also think that Russian foreign policy in the past few years has been all at sea with no rudder using whatever the US does as an anchor.
I see the current situation between Russia and the US as being 20% US goodwill, 30% US incompetence, 10% US hostility, and 40% Russian cluelessness. Khrushchev found himself hopelessly out of his depth on the world stage when he assumed power over the USSR. I don’t think Putin or Medvedev are intellectually out of their depth, but I do think that their grasp on world affairs is slight. After all, neither has more than 10 years of serious foreign policy experience and neither has had to deal with a serious international situation. Witness their impotence in the face of Kosovo independence, a seasoned international statesman should have been able to get the EU and US around a table years before independence and thrash out a deal somehow. Instead they issue dark warnings, feign surprise at Kosovo’s independence, and issue more dark warnings.
The mainstream US politicians are generally clueless, and God knows their foreign policy normally is as well. But the US has thousands of people with considerable experience in dealing with umpteen foreign policy matters which have arisen since the Cold War, and dim though people like to paint the US, they are not that thick. Despite all the US still has allies in Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Australia, and most of the EU, which is not bad going, even if they disagree on a lot of major issues. This is the result not of loudmouth political posturing but decades of quiet dimplomacy and assurances by individuals out of the political spotlight. This is what the US is extremely good at, and compensates hugely – and is probably more important than – misadventures in Iraq.
By contrast, I see Russia’s relations with other countries as being little more than a flash suit turning up somewhere and making grand announcements. Is Russia’s offer to buy Libyan gas really the result of a comprehensive study and a part of a genuinely long-term strategy? Is a Russian visit to Venezuela another step in a solid relationship built from the bottom up by state department workers beavering away behind the scenes, or simply a vehicle for Chavez to show everyone how important he is? I think Putin and Medvedev are smart, well presented, intelligent men and anyone would be pleased to host them and sign an agreement with Russia; but long-term partnerships and allies and foreign policy are built on much, much more than this, and I don’t think Putin or Medvedev really know how to begin, and I doubt there are many in Russia who do.
Not only that, the Northern Alliance was to a large extent a Rusian proxy army using Russian weapons.
I don’t think so. The Northern Alliance had vitrually no support, and most of what little support it did have came from Iran.
I’m kind of thinking that 9/11 must have been before you started following Russian events
I was following world affairs pretty closely before 9/11, although I admit I follow Russia much more closely after about 2003 than then. But I remember the approvals Putin got from Bush and everyone else, but as I have said, that was then and things have deteriorated since then. BTW, I followed world affairs closely enough that I remember the criticism Bush received for running on an isolationist ticket, especially when he threatened to close European bases and all the Europeans started howling; I knew who Osama bin Laden was since before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; and I followed the progress of the Northern Alliance to the extent that I knew that Rashid Dostum was an Uzbek warlord.
Not only that, the Northern Alliance was to a large extent a Rusian proxy army using Russian weapons.
Sorry, I should clarify: I do not disagree the Northern Alliance used Russian weapons. Seemingly every rag-tag army, resistance group, and bandit on the planet uses Russian weapons.
ivanov wrote:
So when Russia sells Kalashnikov rifles to Venezuela – that is 2000 km from south point of Florida – it concerns the US. [...]
Thanks but eat this bullshit by yourselves
RIA Novosti, “Putin wants closer military ties with Venezuela,” July 22, 2008:
[...]Venezuela has bought over 50 combat helicopters, 24 Su-30MK2 fighters, and 100,000 AK-103 rifles from Russia, and also holds a license for their production. The current contracts are worth about $4 billion.
Moscow plans to start supplying Venezuela with at least ten Mi-28N helicopters in the second half of 2009.
The two countries have also negotiated the delivery of three Russian Project 636 Kilo-class diesel submarines and at least 20 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Caracas. [...]
ivanov, before you accuse others of eating bullshit, you might want to smell what’s on your own plate.
Chrisius wrote:
Iran has never threatened to nuke the United States, or, indeed, Israel.
CM, if I’m not mistaken (and I may be), in distant past discussions here about Russian responses to being “encircled” by Western forces & allies, you and others have rightfully noted that militaries make plans on the basis of worst-case scenarios and generally disregard the public statements of alleged potential aggressors. Are you suggesting the US and its allies (bearing in mind that Iranian missiles can reach a number of countries with which the US has collective defense obligations) should be held to a different standard?
By the way, I tend to agree that the MD system in Eastern Europe is not a great idea (or at least is not worth all the political capital we’re having to spend on it), insofar as it is predicated at least in part on US abrogation of the ABM treaty and (more importantly in my view) is a white elephant that I don’t believe has been proven effective yet.
poemless wrote:
Lyndon: I am NOT a hippie.
Oh, I know. I was just looking for an excuse to type that comment without caps. Laziness. By the way, at the risk of going totally off-topic, I liked that diary entry of yours about shoes and standards of attire in general, and for some reason (I admit it’s tangential to your post, not to mention totally off-top on this one) feel the need to point out that dressing “nicely” for guys – i.e. coat & tie (or at least long sleeves & pants) is horrible for the environment, insofar as it requires places to be air-conditioned much more than a dress code of shorts and polos would.
Lyndon, Esq. I agree with what you wrote here:
“I tend to agree that the MD system in Eastern Europe is not a great idea (or at least is not worth all the political capital we’re having to spend on it), insofar as it is predicated at least in part on US abrogation of the ABM treaty and (more importantly in my view) is a white elephant that I don’t believe has been proven effective yet.”
And I admit that despite a law degree one of the reasons I chose not to practice law is that I hate to wear monkey suits.
“I don’t think so.”
You don’t think so, but you’re wrong.
I’m not not trying to be a dick, and you are a very smart guy, but we don’t all know everything, and here you are in error. It was Russia that was supporting the Northern Alliance through all those years, and it was Russia that kept telling the US throughout the 90s that it was wasting money and effort expanding NATO when the real enemy was Islamist militants, which the US laughed at as Russian propaganda and hysteria. (This was back when the Economist was writing about how Russian claims that there was an international Islamist presence in Chechnya were sheer fantasy.)
“Seemingly every rag-tag army, resistance group, and bandit on the planet uses Russian weapons.”
This is weak, man. The Russians (and Iranians, and Uzbeks and Tajiks, to the extent they could) were supporting, supplying, and financing the Northern Alliance for a long time, because the Taliban and their various guests were attempting to destabilize Central Asia and the Caucasus, for instance a place called Chechnya, while the US was hosting business conferences with them and playing the “it’s somebody else’s problem” card.
Yes he did…
But did you notice that Russia has never appointed Zhirinovsky to the same post as Bolton! That would have been real fun…
Should I also remind about Jackson-Venik shit?
But did you notice that Russia has never appointed Zhirinovsky to the same post as Bolton! That would have been real fun…
Um, Rogozin as Amb. to NATO is not dissimilar.
Agreed that Jackson-Vanik continuing in force all these years is a ridiculous, unjustifiable pozor.
Correct.
The irony of history – Akhmed Shakh Mossud was one of the worst enemy in the days of Soviet presence in Afganistan. And he was Russian …well not the best but the only friend there. And from what I know I wouldn’t be very much surprised if some guys in US knew about the plot to kill him….
I found this to be the best description of Afgan mystery (in Russian, by Mi-24 “crocodile” pilot)
click http://artofwar.ru/l/lisowoj_w_i/
and look for “Время”
“А там, за речкой, время продолжает свой бег по кругу. Там ничего не меняется.”
“I’m not not trying to be a dick”
Sorry, that should have been only one “not.”
There is no such post as Amb. to NATO (Rogozin just “represent” Russia there whatever it means).
Russia is not member of NATO (so can piss on it at will).
NATO was created (and exists) as the military block against “Soviet block” (Russia and Belorussia today).
So the whole idea to accept Russia into NATO is ridiculous. It’s like allowing bear to stay in horse stables
PS. BTW what is NATO protecting now?
About John Bolton, let’s remember that the Congress never approved his appointment (he was a recess appointment), his actions in the UN were highly criticized by many in the US, and he resigned when his term was going to expire and it was obvious that Congress would never approve him–even some Republicans were against him.
For what is worth, I doubt very very much that the US was happy about (or in any way condoned) Massoud’s killing.
“I’m not not trying to be a dick”
Оговорка по Фрейду?
Lyndon, relax. I know what Venezuela is buying. And I think Chavez is a crazy guy. Wasting money for nothing. But I’m happy that he buys “nothing” from Russia. Means that workers at Sukhoy plant will get well paid job for another year.
Otherwise Venezuela would buy something from US or France or UK…
Business as usual.
Theoretically Su-30 could reach Florida (to crash on its beaches). And U-boats could scare surfers there to death (if Chavez could be able to train his sailors to surface same number of times as diving).
But this is metal scrap (very expensive though) whilst US is installing components of it’s strategic weapons.
It was Russia that was supporting the Northern Alliance through all those years…
There are three reasons why I am still not convinced about this:
1. This is the first I’ve heard of it, whereas I followed the situation closely enough to know about the likes of Dostum, Shah, Shah’s brother (I forget his name), and the consequences of Shah’s assasination. All the contemporary sources I used to read, mainly current affairs magazines, cited Iran as being the main – albeit very limited – backer of the Northern Alliance.
2. The Northern Alliance were woefully under-equipped, and lacked even bullets for their heavy machine guns. If Russia was providing support, it had negligible impact.
3. In all of the reports that came out of the US cooperation with the Northern Alliance in the overthrow of the Taliban, not one that I have seen mentioned any influence or communications the Northern Alliance had with the Russians. And I personally know soldiers who fought with them.
it was Russia that kept telling the US throughout the 90s that it was wasting money and effort expanding NATO when the real enemy was Islamist militants, which the US laughed at as Russian propaganda and hysteria.
This sounds as though it is copied and pasted from a NYT op-ed. Osama bin Laden headed the FBI’s most wanted list since the mid-90s, and they knew he was based in Sudan at the time of the embassy bombings in 1998. The idea that the all-seeing, all-knowing Russians had tried to warn the ignorant, arrogant Americans about Islamic militants but got laughed is nonsense.
Kolya, I said “some guys”…
And I assume that by “US” we both mean “US authorities” not the country as a whole.
db. Is you military rank classified?
“monitoring” and “screening” might be good terms для блондинок.
But in technical and military terms the US system has another purpose.
I know. What’s your point?
what is your rank?
W. Shedd: I agree that certain factions within both the US and Russian military industries would have problems with Russia joining NATO. I understand that it’s a very very long shot. However, I am simply suggesting that Medvedev make the suggestion (assuming he would want to follow through should it actually ever happen) in an effort to flush-out (think quail not Chaney) the West’s position regarding Russia.
He should set-up the offer in such a way that if it’s rejected then the West has admitted that it views Russia as the enemy.
James: Agreed. Some people object strenuously to positions taken on the Robert Amsterdam blog. Nothing personal. I’m sure you’re a great guy. My problem is your seemingly unidimensional approach to current Russia affairs.
poemless: I wasn’t suggesting that you meant for your quote about journalists, in general, to refer specifically to James. No, I was simply using your general description of that type of journalistic approach to say that what I object to about James’ coverage of Russia.
OK, then, time to venture out into the hot Summer heat of Krasnodar.
It was the very ground of NATO creation. Or was it crated to protect its members from polar bears (hence the name – North Atlantic)?
Look at Finland. Not a NATO member, has the largest border with “the enemy” – and nothing happened…
As to missiles schit – this is not NATO business at all. Just a bilateral matters of USA and two small insignificant NATO members. Which really says everything about value of NATO.
It was the very ground of NATO creation.
This is true, and it’s also true that NATO hasn’t found a real “identity” in the past 20 years (though they’re trying hard in Afghanistan!) and that the one thing people have tried to promote it as – the “first step of EU membership” – is a flawed role for a military alliance (in general, the US has militarized its foreign policy to an alarming degree).
However, I think it’s worth noting that int’l organizations can evolve beyond the original purpose which existed at the moment of their formation. Perhaps that’s less true of military organizations, but still… anyway, perhaps it’s indeed a shame that NATO hasn’t gone the way of the Warsaw Pact. I blame bureaucratic inertia and powerful “special interests” for that, though, not a vast anti-Russian conspiracy.
Look at Finland. Not a NATO member, has the largest border with “the enemy” – and nothing happened…
Some Karelians might beg to differ (see also here – actually a very interesting and balanced article). But hey, it was a rightful part of Russia anyway, right?
“Some Karelians might beg to differ”
And some might not!
“I blame bureaucratic inertia and powerful “special interests” for that, though, not a vast anti-Russian conspiracy.”
You don’t need a vast anti-Russian conspiracy. You just need a small one.
I wish people (not you) would quit acting like events have single causes, unfolding according to a scheme worked by a central planner. The expansion of NATO had many causes, one of which was indeed bureaucractic inertia and one of which was indeed a desire to keep minimize Russia’s presence in Eastern Europe, brought about through interactions between and desires of thousands and thousands of people.
And some might not!
Too true.
I wish people (not you) would quit acting like events have single causes, unfolding according to a scheme worked by a central planner.
But it’s so much easier to explain things that way! Seriously, I agree with that whole paragraph.
A specter is haunting the SRB comments. The specter of people agreeing with each other. What will happen? We must fight to protect our petty and recurring disagreements from this evil specter of “harmony”!
My birthday is tomorrow, and I expect a good flamewar, dammit.
“I wish people (not you) would quit acting like events have single causes, unfolding according to a scheme worked by a central planner.”
You are so naive, Chris. Don’t you know about the Trilateral Commission? And I’m sure that many of its members are Freemasons.
I’m a Freemason, my pappy was a Freemason, afore me, and you can’t say that sort of thing about Freemasons!
(Flamewar? Please? Pretty-please?)
A specter is haunting the SRB comments. The specter of people agreeing with each other. What will happen? We must fight to protect our petty and recurring disagreements from this evil specter of “harmony”!
Maybe someone can convince Averko to come back just to put the universe back into balance.
Lyndon: Try linen.
Try linen.
Indeed, linen the only way I was able to wear pants in Uzbekistan in July. Then I found out that if you’re a tourist, they don’t really seem to care. So I reverted to “ugly American” cargo shorts. A suit, even a linen one, coupled with dress shoes (even those nutty ones with holes in them), is still damn hot in lots of places where one is expected to rock a suit (e.g., Hong Kong in the summer). Perhaps the solution is to avoid the suit-wearing professions entirely.
Interfax question — off topic
A couple of days ago Interfax reported that while in Moscow Chavez stated that he has nothing against having Russian military bases in Venezuela. Even many (but not all) Chavistas were taken aback by such a statement. A Venezuelan blogger informed me that now Chavez denies that he made any such statements and is blaming the Western media for spreading such a canard–even the reporting source was Interfax. The blogger asked me about Interfax and, since now I’m out of the loop, I’m turning to you for assistance.
I know all news agencies make mistakes and all that, but in present day (2008) Russia, how reliable is Interfax as a news agency? How close are they to the Kremlin? How independent are they? Do they toe the Kremlin line?
Chavez often runs off his mouth so I would not be surprised if he said something he regretted saying, but it seems he’s denying saying anything of the sort.
“I wish people (not you) would quit acting like events have single causes, unfolding according to a scheme worked by a central planner.”
Didn’t Medvedev make some comment about conspiracy theories recently … stating that in his experience, the truth behind events is usually much more ordinary, even mundane.
Russia is also denying the Cuban airbase story now. The Interfax report was pretty specific with some quotes from Chavez, with him stating that Venezuela’s sovereignty was threatened by the US and the only way to prevent that was a strong military alliance with Russia, etc.
Like you said, anything could have come out of the mouth of Chavez. He often seems to retract things that he reportedly had said earlier.
“As to missiles schit – this is not NATO business at all. Just a bilateral matters of USA and two small insignificant NATO members. Which really says everything about value of NATO.”
Bullshit about the ABM system not involving NATO. NATO has endorsed the system and France, Germany and the UK are all on record as citng the system as an important part of NATO’s European defense plans.
So while the US might have started this rolling without NATO … NATO has since jumped on board.
No “son”? Good, maybe you’re not so senile after all, papasha_ivanov. So I’ll repeat my question.
What’s so terribly bad about the Euro-BMD being located “just 1000 km from Moscow”? If monitoring is not an issue (and it sure isn’t), then what is? Do you seriously think that GBI missiles can be used to nuke Kremlin?
“A Venezuelan blogger informed me that now Chavez denies that he made any such statements”
Yeps. I was going to send a copy of the Venezuelan government statement (in Spanish), but I seem to have deleted it.
“I know all news agencies make mistakes and all that, but in present day (2008) Russia, how reliable is Interfax as a news agency? How close are they to the Kremlin? How independent are they? Do they toe the Kremlin line?”
It’s a wire service. Stuff happens too quickly for effective manipulation.
A suit, even a linen one, coupled with dress shoes (even those nutty ones with holes in them), is still damn hot in lots of places where one is expected to rock a suit (e.g., Hong Kong in the summer).
Hah! Spot the American!! We Brits proudly wear the same thick, woollen suits with a tie tight against the throat in any weather, including roasting heat, just like our forebears did in places like India and Burma. I used to infuriate the Americans when I worked in Dubai for the American Bureau of Shipping by continually wearing a full shirt and tie and walking to work in 50 degrees Celsius; they wanted me to wear “smart casual”, which to an American means dressing like a golfer. No thanks.
Indeed. In fact, I believe I was arguing that “casual” dress was a signifier of American hegemony, and that by dressing well, we subvert it. I was talking about women wearing heels, but men in suits is comparable. Keep up the good work, Tim!
Tim, I respect the Brits for their stiff upper lips and non-functioning sweat glands, which I observed firsthand on the (un-air-conditioned) Tube last summer. I couldn’t understand how the guys could wear dress shirts w/no undershirts and not sweat through them in 30 seconds flat in that sauna. Must be something about growing up British.
But (“spot the Brit”) no American ever calls it “smart casual,” everyone in the Lower 48 knows it’s “business casual.” “Smart casual” is a London adaptation which has no doubt made it to other places with a preponderance of British expats.
BTW, just so that no one concludes I’m a casual-dressing hegemon, I wore a suit and tie to the office every day (even Fridays) for the whole time I worked in Moscow (3 1/2 years) and wouldn’t have dressed any other way. But the weather there makes it easy.
Isn’t “American hegemony” totally, like, 2003?
Apparently, instead of going to do research in Moscow (as ‘poemless’ suggested), Obama went to give a lecture in Berlin. Why Berlin? Did he want to resurrect the ghosts of Cold War? Or did he decide it his mission to bury those ghosts (even before assuming Presidency)? What was he thinking? He called “people of the world” to tear down all walls that “divide us” (Pink Floyd was not there to provide background). Seriously, what was that all about?
Hey, it’s perfectly fine if a man wants to wear a tie and a suit or a woman wants to walk with high heels and make up. What I don’t understand (even though I’m 53), is why obligate other people to do it? Or why comfortable but clean casual attire should convey “lack of seriousness” or “disrespect” as some people claim? If anything, although I have plenty of friends who are comfortable with such attire, suits and ties are more of a symbol of conservative bourgeois conventionality.
And my dislike of suits and ties have nothing to do with being American. That’s a silly idea. I probably caught the anti-tie bug from my father and he lived in the US only during the last nine years of his life. Just the way he wanted, he was buried without a tie. He didn’t have a tie even during the open casket service inside a Russian Orthodox Church. In addition, although I have never been to Israel, judging from the pictures I’ve seen, most of the first generation of Israeli leaders did most of their state business without wearing those silly things around their necks.
“Apparently, instead of going to do research in Moscow (as ‘poemless’ suggested), Obama went to give a lecture in Berlin. Why Berlin?”
Because Karl Marx was German, and Obama is a Marxist.
BTW, is it really depressing that I’ve been spending the first few hours of my birthday drinking beer and watching old Squeeze videos on youtube?
Damn they were a good band. I wish I lived in Britain in 1970.
1979. Pardon for the misspell.
Chris.
And drinking expensive pivo would raise you selfesteem …
You promised to spend your x-day in Iceland! What’s up? It’s cool here
db.
What is your rank, son?
Private Chris says he has no money and so must spend his birthday watching old Squeeze and Public Image Limited videos.
PS is it a sign of age that I think that postpunk was the best musical genre ever, or is it just true?
Who cares what Chavez said?
he did it in Venezuelian anyway. Someone translated it to Russian then all the mess happened. Same classical story of Khruschev and “мы вас переживем”.
Chavez is the president and has the right to waste his country’s money as he wishes (as any other presidents, right?).
I understand that Germany would be happy to sell him 10 U-boats. But can’t. France would be happy to sell him 100 Mirages but can’t. So US could blame only its own stupidity that all money go to…Russia!
As to US missile schit in Europe – this is pure US matter. As French and UK nuclear forces are not part of NATO’s structure.
PS. US doesn’t have any problem to intercept Iranian missiles right now. Not saying that Iranians are not idiots to use them (as they know how toothless their “strategic missiles” are and will be for a long time).
I don’t have musical taste and bear stepped on my ears when I was kid – so I have no idea, private Chris. Dismissed.
Sorry…
Congratulation!!!!
*is it a sign of age that I’ve started to forget everything?*
PS. I’ll drink Icelandic cool pivo for you, private!
I blame Pugacheva.
Thank you, corporal Ivanov! I and my postpunk legions will be at your service!
Happy birthday, Chris!!
“Who cares what Chavez said?”
A lot of Venezuelans do.
“he did it in Venezuelian anyway.”
??
“Chavez is the president and has the right to waste his country’s money as he wishes (as any other presidents, right?)”
No, definitely not.
In any event, Chavez has been a disaster for Venezuela, but, to be fair, he’s not a tyrant. At least not yet. And maybe never. He made the presidency much stronger and extended the number of years and terms someone can be president, but so far he has not managed to become a dictator.
Don’t give in to hate, Chrisius Maximus. That leads to the Dark Side.
Kolya.
)) Or don’t they?
Everyone knows that in Venezuela they speak Venezuelian
Venezuelans elected Chavez – thus they gave him the right to spend their money. This is called democracy.
)
But do you think (as US citizen) that Russian weapons in Venezuelans hands are the threat to US?
PS. If you count very seriously everything Bush said – Chavez might look like philosopher.
No, Chavez’s weapon buying spree is not a threat to the US. In addition, the Venezuelan army being what it is, Colombia has nothing to worry about. It’s a waste of Venezuelan resources and, with all those Kalashnikovs, perhaps a threat to Venezuelan citizens.
Although Chavez is not a dictator, he would not have the free rein he has with all that oil money if Venezuela were to be a more or less normally functioning democracy (say, like the US, Canada, Western Europe, and even Chile and Argentina, among other nations.)
I couldn’t understand how the guys could wear dress shirts w/no undershirts and not sweat through them in 30 seconds flat in that sauna.
To be fair, I’ve taken to wearing an undershirt beneath an office shirt since I have lived in the Middle East. It is far cheaper sweating into and ruining undershirts than double-cuff Marks & Spencer cotton work shirts.
What I don’t understand (even though I’m 53), is why obligate other people to do it? Or why comfortable but clean casual attire should convey “lack of seriousness” or “disrespect” as some people claim?
I don’t understand why a bare-lipped British officer serving in Victoria’s armies would have been laughed out of the regiment, but the British have always judged people on their appearances. Which, incidentally, doesn’t stop the average Brit looking like a sack of shit tied about the middle.
Thank you, very much, James for enlightening me about that particular “Oligarch” and his relationship with both McCain and Putin. It is indeed a fascinating subject with many real life applications.
Tim Newman: “It is far cheaper sweating into and ruining undershirts than double-cuff Marks & Spencer cotton work shirts.”
Could somebody please explain to me how tank top undershirts work. It’s my pits that are sweating right now here in Krasnodar. How does a sleeveless undershirt help block the sweat from hitting my dressshirt (recently converted to short-sleeve at the local old lady tailor).
Somebody educate me please! (I’m only half joking here). Help please…….
BTW, I now wear linen exclusively on +90 days but I still need to spend some more time here before I go with the white patent leather perforated pointy-toed Adigeyan dress shoes.
Chrisius, put on a English Beat (Mirror in the bathroom) CD when you’re through with Squeeze.
“Chrisius, put on a English Beat (Mirror in the bathroom) CD when you’re through with Squeeze.”
Damn, Tim, I listened to the English Beat over and over when I was a teenager! How did you know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGi21-Bq9y0
Chris,
Happy Birth-yesterday, I hope the hangover is not too bad. How old are you by the way?
We are very close to personal harassment, guys.
What is your age?
What do you wear under?
There is no rules for democracy. Even in the Bible.
I know one country that has been wasting trillions for last 5 years. And in a very democratic way by the way
Happy Birthday Chris!! Hope you had a good one. Did you get out for a few drinks?
”What do you wear under?”
Mate of mine (male) wears thongs. His wife makes him!:-)
Happy Birthday Chris!
How old are you? Considering you think post punk is the best genre ever, I’m guessing you’re too young to be worrying about your age.
Hey, what do you think about the anti-emo legislation?
I am 20, um, 38.
Ooooh, more great music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylOCIP54PIQ
This kids today and their Radiohead! Harrumph.
anti-emo legislation?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/22/russian.emo
They should have done this with hippies.
OK, here’s my final bit of nostalgia-indulgence. God I love this song
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNh-IAXaB7I
Three cheers for New England!
Chrisius:
I’m 39 years old so I guess that answers our youthful musical tastes. Don’t forget “Talking Heads” Stop Making Sense and Little Creatures.
Anybody ever hear of some guy named Daniel Silva…. he wrote something about Russia but I forget what he said?
I saw a Komsomol document from 1985 in which the Talking Heads were described as spreading “a lie about the Soviet military threat.” I suppose they were talking about “Life During Wartime.”
Chrisius:
”I’m 39 years old so I guess that answers our youthful musical tastes. Don’t forget “Talking Heads” Stop Making Sense and Little Creatures.
Anybody ever hear of some guy named Daniel Silva…. he wrote something about Russia but I forget what he said?”
Yes and its starting to show lads. Pair of cranky old bastards already! Unlike the youthful Guillory, Newman, Lyndon, Kolya and myself! Cheer up lads. Mike Averko is 44, unless I’m mistaken.
“Anybody ever hear of some guy named Daniel Silva…. he wrote something about Russia but I forget what he said?”
Something about Zemphira, I think… mostly positive, but with some reservations.
Speaking of feeling old, we’ve got a 19-year-old British girl staying with us (get your minds out of the gutter, people). She never heard of the Smiths. I couldn’t frackin’ believe it. How is this possible?
She likes them though, and is copying my CD.
Sean, I believe that David Remnick was genuinely surprised about how easily people misinterpreted the satire behind the New Yorker cover with Obama in the Oval Office. At the same time, his surprise struck me as naive. I love spoofs and jokes, but in my own life, time and again I’ve seen how easily people misinterpret my own humor (even people who otherwise have a great sense of humor). But I’m not The New Yorker. My jokes (whether they are successful, fall flat, or are misinterpreted) only affect a tiny circle of people.
Here is a brief article from a cognitive scientist precisely on this very topic (the New Yorker cover and satire):
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i47/47b01301.htm