Comments on: Who Lost Russia?

By: EMete

EMete — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:23:34 +0000

I wonder, what would Patrick J. Buchanan do if he would ever be elected President of the United States? Being in the position that he is in now enables him to criticize any politician in office.
Russia-United States relationship has always been characterized by contradictions. And these contradictions are not dependent on the whims of this or that president, either in Russia or the United States. Look at history, the unerring guide, and you will understand the state of relations between the United States of America and Russia at present. Contradictions are inherent in the very nature of relations between countries, be they small or big. Every country tries to take advantage of the other, all the more so when the ruling cliques have set themselves the task of domination of other peoples and have brainwashed the populace for this purpose. Russia is a classic example. Putin is doing the same thing. He feels that Russia is now in a better bargaining position than in Yeltsin’s time.
What article writers should not do is blame individuals entirely for policies and situations that are out of their control. Individuals, be they presidents, have a part to play but not one that determines the course of history. To think otherwise is to be very superficial and very subjective, to fall into the trap of hero’s worship. The world is too big to be dependent on an individual no matter how smart or stupid he happens to be.
Putin’s behavior is tainted with Russian mentality that draws upon religion, racism and ultranationalism and imperialistic ambitions that Russia has inherited from its imperial past. Let us refer to one example only, Russia’s support for Serbia over Kosovo. Russians support the Serbs because they share the same Eastern Orthodox religion, a fact admitted by the author who says that “Orthodox Russia had long seen herself as protectress of the Balkan Slavs”. Serbs and Russians also belong to the Slavic race, the basis of Pan Slavism. By saying that “in 1999, the United States bombed Serbia 78 days to punish her for fighting to hold her cradle province of Kosovo, which Muslim Albanians were tearing away”, the author proves that he is biased, ignorant of history and a defender of Pan Slavism, in other words, he is against American interests though he sounds to be unaware of it. It was not the United States, but NATO that bombed Serbia for the atrocities in Kosova and the massacre and deportation of about one million Albanians to the neighboring countries. Kosova is, of course, “the cradle of Serbia” according to Serbian fairy tales and to those, like the author, who are as naive as to believe them. For more information, I would suggest Mr. Buchanan to read Noel Malcolm’s “Short history of Kosovo”. Reading the book would help him restrain himself from expressing such wrong opinions and be in touch with reality, past or present.
The author does not see that Russia is seeking to reassert itself after its post-Communist humiliation and find a place in the sun to challenge the position of the United States as the only superpower, which won the economic, political and military contest with the former Soviet Union. The United States is doing what a victorious power is supposed to do. What the author wants the United States to do is help Russian imperialism get back to its feet and claim the communist empire. If for one moment we would reverse the roles, we would witness a Russia way more aggressive and overbearing than the United States. American policies in the world today are being pursued in the name of democracy, human rights and peoples’ right to selfdetermination and national freedom. Russia’s policies would have nothing to do with such “slogans” as Putin describes them because, in his opinion, they do not suit the mindset of the Russian people who are used to seeing one person only at the helm, the helmsman, or the Fuhrer, if times had not changed.
His statements and Russian mentality are indication of how Russians would behave if Russia would have been the only superpower in the world with such a helmsman as Putin in command.

By: Sean Scallon

Sean Scallon — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:16:36 +0000

Viewed from the prisim of the average common joe who is not a foreign policy expert, they will ask why the U.S. is needlessly offending and turning into a foe a fellow Christian and European people that could be a valubale ally against Al Qaeda and other Isdlamic extremist terrorist group? This isn't about "going toe-to-toe with the Ruskies," any more. They will see through the necons BS and wonder why we are treating them like an enemy and why we care what form of government they have.

By: David Rolfe

David Rolfe — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:05:40 +0000

From what I've seen, most of the UK newspapers are taking an anti-Putin stance. However, a few dissident voices are being heard. In today's (London) Times, Anatole Kaletsky takes much the same line as Patrick Buchanan in pointing out that Russia has some legitimate grievances.

"Why is hostility to the West so popular in Russia? Let us try to look at the West through Russian eyes. Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and “strategic partner”, US and European behaviour has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally. Russia has been told it could never join Nato or the EU and Mr Putin’s invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War. On human rights and extrajudicial assassinations, Russia’s record may be deplorable, but its abuses pale in comparison with those of Western friends such as Saudi Arabia and China, not to mention President Bush’s “boil them in oil” ally, Uzbekistan.

But far more serious from the Russian standpoint than any diplomatic conflicts is what the West has done to their country’s territorial integrity. Ever since the first Bush Administration undermined Mikhail Gorbachev by denying him the financial assistance of the International Monetary Fund and then encouraged the dissolution of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin, the West has appeared, at least from Moscow’s standpoint, to seize every opportunity to weaken, isolate and encircle Russia.

Not only has Russia lost its Eastern European satellites, but the homeland itself has been dismembered. No reasonable Russian could object to the independence of Poland, Hungary and even the Baltic states, which were forcibly annexed into the Soviet Union after the Second World War. But the loss of the Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus and central Asia are a different matter. These areas – or at least large swaths of them – were integral parts of the Russian “motherland” long before Texas and California belonged to the United States. For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Welsh and Scottish independence would be to Britain or Catalonian and Basque secession would be to Spain."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article1896029.ece

By: Mickey Droney

Mickey Droney — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:19:59 +0000

In the late 80's/early90's, in order to avoid a complete internal collapse, the Russians agreed to “abandon” communism. While the old Soviet style of communism had proven untenable, the Russians were simply biding their time until they could re-work their old system into a new pseudo-communism molded in the likeness of the Chinese model. The Russians are just as dangerous today as they were during the Cold War and the Chinese, as most of us know, will succeed in using our greed and avarice to destroy us, if we do not stop our current practices.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:47:05 +0000

>And i’m much closer to Russia than Mr. Buchanan and from this
>article i may claim that he don’t really understand what initiates the
>actions of Putin.

I'm quite sure that Mr. Buchanan has had much more access to senior Russians during the Cold War years than you have. That you live closer to Russia does not inherently make you more knowledgeable on the topic.

>Current establishment of the Kremlin is
>not thinking in the categories that are used in this article.

And you know this how?

>Thay think in the way as the disadvantaged kids do.

Sounds like you're bitter. Buchanan makes a good case for the fact that the Russians, whatever their many faults (I'm Polish), do have good grounds for being suspicious of Western motives in Russia's backyard.

By: Mickey Droney

Mickey Droney — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:17:28 +0000

Russia was never ours to lose.

By: Frank B Lee

Frank B Lee — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:55:59 +0000

"they don’t understand what the concept of human rights is and why every nation has a right to choose whether they want a sovereign state or to be under influence of the others."

And America does?

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:20:08 +0000

I agree that Bush II is certifiable. But, he didn't pay for Czech radar nor for the Polish missiles out of his own pocket; our Congress did with our money. This is a beltway project.

By: Audrius

Audrius — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:35:56 +0000

I live in Lithuania. And i'm much closer to Russia than Mr. Buchanan and from this article i may claim that he don't really understand what initiates the actions of Putin. And i do believe that this is not actions of the USA. Current establishment of the Kremlin is not thinking in the categories that are used in this article. Thay think in the way as the disadvantaged kids do. Putin and his fellows grew in the Soviet Union and for them totalitarism is the good way of ruling the state also they don't understand what the concept of human rights is and why every nation has a right to choose whether they want a sovereing state or to be under influence of the others. I live in a small country and i understant that 3.5 million people are a very little number in the wolrd political arena, but we are not worse than any other in the earth and if we had chosen to have our own state Russia can't interfere with this, but it doe's. Russian Federation oficialy is spending huge amounts of money to bribe politicians in former soviet states like LIthuania and to put these countries back to the sphere of influence "neo-Soviet Russia". Russia is not spreading the values of respect for human life or other rights so i believe that the only way for future colabaration for Lithuania is only with the USA.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:49:45 +0000

Amen!

Trifkovic has suggested elsewhere that Russia and China play an important role by withstanding the attempted spread of American hegemony.

Ever wanted your home team to lose? That's how it feels with the neo-cons in power.