"The world Salafists' ultimate wish is to see the two infidel superpowers at odds with each other again; and that is happening"

"Hence, while Americans are as anti-terrorist as Russia is when it comes to the al-Qaeda Salafi threat, Russians are still feeding anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Hence there is a difference between Russian discomfort with NATO growth around the CIS and US concerns about Russia's protection of Iranian-Syrian efforts in the region. Moscow is backing a party at war with the US Coalition while Americans aren't assisting parties at War with Russia."

However, by the United States backing Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states, could it not be said the United States is assisting parties at war with Russia? Those Arab states are funding the wars in Chechnya, and with many other states around the world.

Although I disagree with Russia, and how it has handled the whole Georgian crisis, I do have sympathy for them. The American, and European governments have treated the Russians as if they are unintelligent savages who just crawled out of a hole. We supported several conflicts in the Balkans over their objections. It has been well known the Russians would trade “Kosovo for Iran”, or we stop pushing for an independent Kosovo, they would stop helping Iran, and perhaps Syria, but as usual we wanted it all. Now the Russians are using the same arguments against us, and to a great effect I might add.

I will make this simple for anyone who reads this: We have no right to complain about what the Russians do, or don’t do, until we do something about our support for Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states, and until we get out of the Arabian oil trade business. The sick truth is we support the greatest jihadist state on the planet, and if we add Pakistan to that list, we support two of the three worst jihadist states on the planet. We are like an alcoholic who won’t admit they have a problem, refuses to get help, and without hesitation points to another drunk guy (Russia in this case), and screams….”Look at that drunk!”.

Here's my prediction:

We will get another Cold War and possible hot one with Russia and it will destroy us.

The thing is uniformed lunatics and Conservatives would love another Cold War and massive arms build up. They've been egging the Russians on for years by surrounding them with bases and military personnel.

We have bases in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland.

Hell we have over a thousand troops(a lot are Special Ops) in Georgia doing god knows what to whom ever since 9/11. And more on their way thanks to Bush ordering the use of Naval and Air assets to deliver supposed humanitarian aid.

If the Russians are smart they'll stay in Georgia and make the Europeans sweat and encourage Bush to close down that Spec Ops facility in Georgia.

i have a different take on this, Russia has always been an expanist country, and Putin's had said he felt the breakup of the former Soviet Union was the most important loss, not all the millions killed by Stalin, Hitler, it was the breakup of of the Soviet Union! Billions poured in to help Russia to aid their country to demcoracy, but only to keep poking the WEst by supporting the iranian mullahs, syrian and iraq's dictators. Russian gov't was never a friend of the west. So when the EU sees how Russia can still try to take over smaller countries who were formerly part of the Soviet Union, perhaps they will get closer to the US, and allow countrys like Georgia become NATO allies. Also there are oil pipelines running through Georgia and with their pro WEst, and pro US gov't, Russia will not be able to control them if allowed into NATO.

Regions should be able to succeed if there is a clear majority and a clear democratic question. Nationalists may disagree, however human beings have self-determination and if part of Georgia wanted to join Russia, they should have been allowed to do so.

Some are saying this is about control of oil. If this is true then it is additional motivation for humanity to find an alternative to oil. It would destroy the Middle East economically and it would make for a cleaner and more peaceful world.

Let's find an alternative to oil.

I have commented more than once about Russian anger over Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia, and more than once my comments have met disbelief.

Thank you Billy Jeff Clinton.

It's the old 'split the camp of the infidels' game.

Infiltrate: then confuse and divide. Tell lies to each side (or sides) about the other. Push hard on existing divisions; create new divisions where none previously existed.

The last thing the Mohammedans want is for ALL the kafir to ally with each other: for Christians to completely abandon antisemitism, say, and support Israel; for Eastern and Western Christians to kiss and make up; for Hindus and Christians in India to recognise that Muslims are a clear and present danger to them both; for the US and India to realize that Islam is a danger to them both, and start co-operating bigtime. Europe, the UK and the USA are - civilisationally, right at bottom - natural allies; at present they have been very neatly divided from one another, I think Bat Yeor describes that in Eurabia.

Bottom line.

Non-Muslims should forget altogether about 'building bridges' with Muslims. We should concentrate on building bridges with each other; settling our disputes; and be very, very wary and suspicious every time a split appears between two groups of kafir that, viewed objectively, provides an opening wedge for the Jihad.

All kafir nations that have any commonsense should be backing out of dead-end relationships with Muslim countries, and building relationships with other non-Muslims, prioritising those that have decent or halfway decent regimes.

I approved heartily of my Prime Minister strengthening Australia's relationships with Singapore and South Korea; I was *disgusted* by talk of 'interfaith dialogue' with Indonesia, I would much rather see us ratcheting DOWN any aid to Indonesia and redirecting same to much more deserving kafir objects in our neighbourhood.

Instead of consolidating a Western-Russian entente against both Salafists and Khomeinists, Russia and the US are confronting the Wahabis separately and in most cases unsuccessfully while the Russians have befriended the Khomeinists who are harassing the Americans.
-from the article

What makes this guy think Russia will EVER join us against our common enemy? Chechnya didn't make them see the light? All of the stans on their border don't give them pause?
None of the countries on Russia's western border have territorial designs on Russian territory. None of them seek the overthrow of the Russian government. Russia, on the other hand, seeks to regain its lost empire.
The Russians appear to behave exactly as the jihadists: sweetness and light when they are in a bad spot ($10 a barrel oil) but the Russian bear comes out when they feel they have the upper hand.
This looks like 1938 all over again, and Georgia is the Sudetenland and France and Germany are acting out the parts of France and Britain.
Sarkozy was just missing the piece of paper. At least he didn't proclaim "peace in our time".

"The American, and European governments have treated the Russians as if they are unintelligent savages who just crawled out of a hole."

That's ridiculous. The West has catered to Russia's sense of its own grandeur and done everything it could to soothe Russia's bruised ego. It was allowed to join the G-7 when it had no business being there. It still doesn't. The group should be disbanded. At the very least, the US should withdraw. The Russians could help themselves if they didn't act like imperious bullies. We can only help ourselves if the next president doesn't don the rose-colored glasses Bush must have been wearing when he peered into Putin's eyes. He saw something that wasn't there.

The President of Georgia was very much concerned about Kosovo for the reasons stated above.

I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, they pump such much money into propaganda and mosques that create the swamps from which jihadists become activated.

However, on a government to government level, Iran threatens to nuke other countries and the Saudi's do not.

Our support of Saudi Arabia (while reprehensible) does NOT create the same dangers for Russia that Russian support of Iran creates for both Russia and Iran.

Russian and Chinese support for Iran is based on an irrational desire to just take the US downa peg or two. What neither understands is that without the US, the global markets bringing prosperity to China and Russia would cease to function.

China would have empty factories. Global energy demand would plummet, and the Russian economy would go back to third world levels.

Russia's policies are all about pride and emotion, not reason.

I meant danger for Russia and the US not Russia and Iran.

Any analysis of Russian policies that fails to admit the pride/emotion factor is missing the boat.

This article is excellent. It makes some very important points that I have considered in light of Russia's actions.

We definitely do not need a war with Russia right now at this point. We need to focus on defeating Islamic Jihad. To do that, it would be best if all non-Muslims could ally together to ensure success.

greatcometof1577, your comment is great... I definitely agree with what you said. One thing I hadn't considered is Russia's support for Iran. I never realised that they were supporting Iran in retaliation for our support to Kosovo. If that is indeed true, it just makes our support for Kosovo that much more stupid and shortsighted.

"Russia's policies are all about pride and emotion, not reason. " -from JSobieski's comment.

That's one problem I have with Vladimir Putin: he seems to make his decisions based too much on emotion. I've found that leaders who make their decisions based solely or mostly on emotion often don't make the best decisions.

Don't worry we'll get that hot war with Russia the way things are going.

Conservatives already having group orgasms over this fracas.

Notice how the news media never did a back story on Ossetia and the political dynamics involved there?

Its the build up to Iraq war all over again. They are going pump the American people for another war.

Then there are the threats from Gates to take military action against Russia. They are implied but they are there.

We already have a spec ops Army base with a airfield in Georgia so it wouldn't be hard for us to say move the 82nd Airborne in there in short order followed later by a Division of Marines.

A mass call up of the inactive reserves shouldn't be far behind at that point. Grab 300-500,000 men who just got out and put them back in uniform.

Bush could do it all with a exec order and have a half million men reporting for duty in 24 hours. Congress doesn't matter in this so they are irrelevant. War making resides totally in the hands of the president.

PMK

Wow! The Great 8, or 7 or 7 1/2 or 4+4..

I view that like I view the UN, and all the rest of those kind of organizations….as useless country clubs. So what!

In the mean time here is what we have done to irk Russia…

(1) We supported the expansion of NATO (another useless organization) to surround their borders with the direct goal to weaken them.

How would the USA feel if Russia was mucking around with Canada and Mexico, forming a coalition against the USA, with the goal to weaken us?

(2) We supported Kosovo independence; we supported anything that would weaken Serbia.

How would the USA feel if we watched Russia supporting an Islamic takeover of Great Britain. Russia has a natural affection for their fellow Slavs in the same way we have affection for our fellow English speaking peoples.

(3) We support Islamic nations that support Chechnya. Where do you think the guys who pulled off the Beslan massacre got their money, and training from? An American ally called Saudi Arabia (and other “pro-American” gulf states).

How would we feel, if Russia supported and continued to support, a nation that was involved in giving money, and support to those who did 9-11.

In conclusion…PMK….

Of course I wish the Russians would stop acting like bullies, but so do we! We bullied the Serbs did we not, forced them to give up their lands to Muslims, so why are you complaining about the Russians playing geo-political games. The point is every action has consequences. If we had not supported Kosovo, if we had not put pressure on Russia to go easy on Chechnya (pre 9-11), if we had put real pressure on Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic nations to stop supporting Islamic separatist movements in Russia, maybe we could have worked out a deal with Russia on Iran, and on other issues. I don’t think the Russians are victims, and they have acted stupidly, but I get sick in tired of listening to some of my fellow Americans (and Europeans) get themselves all worked up over Russia, with this self righteous attitude that Russia is always wrong, and we Americans are always right. That only we Americans have the right break up countries, or unite them, and that only we Americans can have a “Monroe Doctrine”…

The Russians are calling us out as hypocrites, and you know they might be right.

Natalie

I have heard about the Kosovo-Iran deal talked about for several years now. It poped back up again in this article (That is why I remebered it):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?ref=asia

(Yes I know it is the "New Duranty Times")

It stated: "One United Nations diplomat joked on Saturday that “if someone went to the Russians and said, ‘OK, Kosovo for Iran,’ we’d have a deal."

I really don't know (like the unnamed UN diplomat) if that is the exact reason why Russia supports Iran, but I am sure the Russians would take this deal in heartbeat (as the rumors suggest). Remember the Russians throughout their history have not had good relations with Iran/Persia, so this act of semi-support with Iran, is only because they want something from us.

Sometimes you stroke their ego...to get what you want. My guess is Georgia will now become a pawn in this game as well. I am not saying Russia is right, or always correct either (esp. with Georgia), but you could see this coming.

Thanks for that article, greatcometof1577. Talk about mismanaging relations with Russia. We really ought to have closer relations with them. Sure, Russia isn't always right, but they are an important country that we ought to ally with.

Part of the problem is we never really had good relations with Russia since the Cold War. As you said, there are quite a bit of Americans who go around all sanctimoniously as if America can do no wrong and Russia can do no right. Of course I love America, but we've done some really wrong things: just look at the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

waltc, I don't think conservatives are necessarily pushing for a war with Russia. Loads of Americans are angry at Russia, but I don't think conservatives as a whole want a war with them.

JSobieski

You won't hold that opinion when some Sunni Muslims set off a nuclear weapon in some harbor in the USA or Europe, using a nuclear weapon that will no doubt be from Pakistan (not officially of course), and will be financed by some Arabian prince (with his wealth obtained from oil money), who thinks he is the second coming of Khalid bin Walid.

Anyway, the greatest danger to the USA is the demographic take over of those countries by Muslims in Europe (including Russia). Saudi Arabia (and other gulf states) are the main source of $ for that demographic take over.

The point is this: make a deal with Russia over Kosovo, and NATO expansion, in return for Iran, Syria, (and a few other places). That is what is in the best interest of the USA. It is not in the best interest to go out of our way to poke the Bear, unless the Bear is eating in the wrong trash can…I prefer to keep their eyes pointed south and southeast…not west if you get my drift.

An article put up more than two years ago, on the question of "Who Lost Russia?":

The loss of Russia, or rather the recapture of Russia by bolshevisant and naturally despotic rulers, was not inevitable. The United States is often blamed for things for which it does not deserve the blame. But successive American governments did fail, from Clinton on, to properly deal with Russia, to take into account what 70 years of Bolshevism had done.

Self-promoters and world-conquerors such as Jeffery Sachs showed up in Russia to fix everything, push their way into Russia and, without any knowledge of Russian history or of the mental makeup of those who had lived in the Soviet system, proceed to inflict all kinds of ill-thought-out instantaneous "reforms." In Sachs's case, and those who think like him, the great thing in the world, the only thing, is economics. Man is homo economicus, and only that. And free-market fundamentalism, the supposed need for being thrust at once into the cold bath of capitalism, showed a complete miscomprehension of Russia. Sachs's experience with Poland, a very different country with a much more limited experience of Communism, showed that he and those of his ilk could not stop to be bothered with little things like detailed and specific knowledge of Russia and the former Soviet republics. He had no idea that, for example, it was inevitable that former managers of state enterprises would know exactly what things were worth, and know how to take advantage of the new situation to privatize most of the country's former state-owned assets into their own portfolio. Nor did all those bright Americans think much about those Russians on fixed incomes -- those teachers, those professors, many of them too old to be transformed into biznesmeny and biznesmenky, and besides, why should they? The damage to Russian education and culture, a result of the sudden collapse of the economic wellbeing of so many in this vast group, may be irreparable.

And the Americans never thought about how their actions elsewhere would play into the conspiracy theories, about diabolical Americans wishing to weaken Rus', to not merely destroy Communism, but to humiliate Mother Russia. Of course it was all nonsense. It was Yeltsin, in a drunken stupor, who gave away much of the Soviet Union when there was no need to do so. Those "diabolical Americans" had nothing to do with it. Nor was there, as even many educated Russians seem to think, all kinds of celebrating in Washington over the weakening of Russia and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not at all. It was something worse: ignorance and indifference.

Clinton liked to reward his friends, those he had met at Yale or at Oxford, as we all know. Robert Reich never did much to stand up to the globalization mania of Rubin and others in the Administration, but he did parlay his time as Secretary of Labor into a later career as instant pundit (gravely worried about that same "globalization") and professor and extraordinarily well-paid lecturer as the Man Who Feels the Pain of the Poor and the Middle Class. Before moving from Cambridge to Berkeley, he sold his house off Brattle Street for $12.5 million. “Clinton has been very good to me.”

And then there is Strobe Talbott, former Time journalist who, because he knew some Russian -- likely about as much as Condoleeza Rice (why, he even wrote his senior thesis at Yale on Tiutchev), was presented as an "expert" on Russia. Not Igor Birman, not Anders Aslund, not all kinds of economists. Not the Russians who knew what would or could happen, given the history of Russia and the way people had learned to behave – such people as Garry Kasparov and Yelena Bonner, or for that matter Kasianov the politician (or his brother the physicist), and others who are now part of the opposition to Putin.

But a great part of the problem was the American bombing of the Serbs. In Russia, the effect then, and even more since, has been terrible. It was seen as an attack on a historic ally of Russia, and the whole thing becomes mixed up with memories of the Bulgarian Wars in 1876-1878, and South Slavs, and seeming American indifference to Russian desires, Russian needs. America was taking the side of Muslims against Slavs. Of course it wasn’t, and of course Clinton and Albright and others had no conception of how this might affect Russian popular attitudes, attitudes of suspicion about American motives and desires. And to reply that there was no other way of dealing with Milosevic – is that true? Was there no other way? And should not the Americans, had they realized how this would naturally be used by those already inclined, in Russia, to conspiracy theories about American attentions, have insisted that other powers – England, France, anybody – do whatever bombing was deemed minimally necessary?

Condoleeza Rice’s meeting with a Muslim with known terrorist sympathies in Washington, helping perhaps to prepare the ground for a further loss of territory by Serbs, is wrong and stupid. But it is even more unusually stupid and wrong when one considers the effect on Russia.

In its foreign policy, what is it Americans wish from the Russian government? We would wish that it would be adamant in demanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran stop its nuclear project, and that it would do so because it finally realizes that it is not Chechnya alone that is at stake, but all of the Caucasus, and indeed all of Russia (when one considers the relative growth of the Muslim and non-Muslim populations). If we are to appeal to this, to urge Russia to worry about Islam, and hence about Iran or any other Muslim state acquiring such weaponry, it does not make sense to appear to support, in any way, Muslims who wish to take away territory dear to the Serbs -- long after it has become clear that all over Bosnia there are Arabs promoting Jihad and a much more fanatical brand of Islam than the one that had, since Ottoman power receded, been forced to develop as a way of adjusting to now-powerful Christians or, under Tito, to non-Muslim Communist rule.

And what would the American government like most in Russia today? Certainly it would prefer to see the liberals, those who met recently, as best they could, to protest the Putin regime, gain power. But part of the problem is that the conspiracy theories about the United States prevent the Americans from offering, and those liberals from accepting, support. Any meeting of Rice with a Muslim from Kosovo, with the kind of background that this man has, will be used to inflame Russian sentiment.

Does any of this matter? Are there people in the State Department who will explain the connection between American inattention to Serbian needs, and the widespread and still growing hostility towards, and suspicion of, the United States, even among otherwise sensible Russians?

Why should the Americans give any sign whatsoever of favoring the enlargement of Muslim-controlled territory in Europe? This is crazy. This makes no sense – or rather, it makes sense if those making policy still do not understand that the Jihad is a permanent duty, and not merely some recent, anomalous expression of a supposed sense of “humiliation” felt by Muslims.

The “humiliation” is manufactured and phony; Muslims may claim they feel “humiliated” whenever they are asked to simply stop waging war against non-Muslims. No doubt the Muslims in Indonesia, attacking Christians and destroying thousands of churches over the last few years, feel “humiliated” by the fact that Christians dare live and practice Christianity openly, and no doubt the Muslims in Sudan for two decades felt “humiliated” by the refusal of the non-Muslims in the south to submit, and no doubt the Muslims in Denmark feel “humiliated” that the Danes continued imperturbably to practice, and not merely regard as a theoretical possibility, their right of free speech, and no doubt the Buddhist monks and schoolteachers murdered in southern Thailand owe their deaths to some “humiliation” that the local Muslims feel in not having their demands met, and the same “humiliation” (not being given an independent territory) explains the behavior of Muslims in the southern Philippines. And so on. “Humiliation.”

We should be proving to the Russian public that we are on the side of the Serbs, not the Muslims. We should ask them to do the same with Iran – prove that they are on the side of the Infidels, and not the Muslims.

This, perhaps, is beyond this Administration, as it was beyond that of Clinton.

No one talks about “Who Lost Russia?” the way they once talked about “Who Lost China?” Of course, those who lamented the loss of China then proceeded, idiotically, to blame Owen Lattimore when it was Chiang Kai-shek, and the whole history of modern China, that helped to “lose China.” In the case of Russia, the American inability to figure out how not to supply ammunition to the conspiracy theorists in Russia, continues to astonish.

[Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2006]

The Homo Sociopathus specie that have stealthily taken over the governments and elites of the United States and EUrabia have a severe schizophrenical condition: they are pathologically cowardly toward Iran/Hezbollah and equally pathologically bellicose toward Serbia, Russia and, to a lesser degree, China. The impression is, they court a confrontation with Russia so that they have an excuse for not acting against Iran. Why else would they install the radar and missle-interceptors in Czech and Poland, after Russia gave full freedom to those countries and retreated so far, far East? The Czechs and the Poles are as staunchly pro-Western as ever, but even they see through the crude Bush and Rice lies that those installations are "against Iran": to defend from Iran, you don't stick a missle against Russia's rib; you go at Iran and take it out. This, Kosovo, now South Ossetia. Instead of using Georgia to provoke Russia and then set it up as a beat-up dummy, couldn't they let Israel use it to launch an air-strike on Iran? Because the Big American Coward won't.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989. Meanwhile the Russian population of Russia has gone down. There are now 25 million Muslims in Russia. And the Central and East European Affairs editor of The Economist has suggested in print that by 2015, 40% of the Russian army may be Muslim.

What do the Russians intend to do about this? Anything? Nothing?

And what do the Americans intend to do in their conversations with the Russians -- not mention this, not try to emphasize that common ground should be found against a common threat, and that whatever the Russian government does to deal with a potential Muslim threat will get no quarrel from us, because we are much more fearful of a Russian military under Muslim control -- by 2040, 2050? -- than one under the Russians themselves, who are rational actors , though far too given to conspiracy theories about the West and especially about America (which has hardly been paying the kind of attention to "encircling Russia" that many Russians apparently are convinced it has), actors.

Critical observations on Putin and the current attacks on the wrong target, by a noted Russian political analyst, which is posted here for what is undoubtedly a small, but still important, group of visitors:

"Совершенно прав был главный редактор "Эха Москвы" Алексей Венедиктов, когда сказал, что моральное право осуждать Михаила Саакашвили за штурм Цхинвали имеют только те, кто осуждал российское руководство за его методы "восстановления конституционного порядка" в Чечне, за штурм Грозного, превративший его в Дрезден 1945 года.

В 1999 году, да и в последующие годы всеобщему восторгу по поводу "возрождения российской армии в Чечне" противостояли (так же, как после вторжения в Чехословакию в 1968-м) буквально единицы, естественно, немедленно названные предателями. Г-на Венедиктова, кстати, среди них не помню.

Значительный публицист такого интеллектуального и нравственного масштаба, обладавший к тому же серьезным информационным ресурсом, смог бы, наверное, возвысив свой голос, оказать гораздо большее воздействие на умы оболваненных доренками, леонтьевыми, сванидзе соотечественников, чем та незначительная женщина, чья смерть "принесла нам больше вреда, чем вся ее жизнь".

Но то, что он сегодня искренне полагает, что выступал тогда против развязанной властями в качестве инструмента избирательной кампании бойни, говорит о нем очень хорошо. У человека абсолютно верные нравственные ориентиры.Нельзя было убивать мирных жителей в Чечне. Нельзя было грузинам убивать мирных жителей в Цхинвали. Нельзя нам убивать их сегодня в Гори и Поти.

"Боевые самолеты, вызвавшие все эти разрушения, выбрали своей целью военные казармы, построенные на окраинах Гори. Они промахнулись. В базу попала только одна бомба. По меньшей мере две другие упали на дома, от пяти из которых моментально остались лишь одни черные каркасы. Третья бомба попала в небольшое здание школы, превратившееся в груду камней и скрученных балок. Из-под завалов зданий начали выбираться выжившие, некоторые хромали, другие истекали кровью от ранений, полученных шрапнелью и осколками стекла. Люди были покрыты сажей и пылью. Затем они стали вытаскивать раненых. Напротив ряда гаражей на земле лежал труп, укрытый прозрачной пленкой. Седая женщина, стоя на коленях у тела своего сына Яно, строителя средних лет, проклинает русских, а потом Бога. Затем она просит у него прощения и снова проклинает русских. "Вы отняли у меня сына, вы свиньи, преступники, — говорит она низким голосом, потом поворачивает лицо к своему мертвому сыну и нежно гладит его волосы" (GZT.RU, 10.08.2008).

Почти дословное воспроизведение XVII главы повести русского артиллерийского офицера 1850-х годов, участника этой вечной кавказской войны. Бесчисленное количество подобных историй успела рассказать о последней чеченской войне обреченная на смерть и знавшая об этом Незначительная.

Как справедливо заметил наш Национальный Лидер, "Россия веками играла в этом регионе мира, на Кавказе в целом, весьма позитивную, стабилизирующую роль, была гарантом безопасности, сотрудничества и прогресса в этом регионе".

Чего же добиваемся мы сегодня, отказываясь от прекращения огня и продолжая авиаудары по территории Грузии? Мы знаем, что обязательно будут жертвы среди мирных жителей. Это и есть то самое Возмездие, о котором так громко говорили наши лидеры? Мы что, собираемся ужаснуть грузин этими смертями, чтобы они отказались от человека, отдавшего приказ штурмовать Цхинвали? Мы что, исповедуем гитлеровский принцип коллективной ответственности?

Да - ответят ведомые своими пастырями телевизионные миллионы. Да - почти открыто отвечают наши дипломаты. Но если это так, то чем мы все - от нашего Верховного Главнокомандующего до нашего Верховного Правозащитника - лучше того человека, которого мы так дружно требуем предать суду международного трибунала?

А во имя каких чаяний братского абхазского народа мы собираемся бросать десантников на штурм высот в Кодорском ущелье? Там нет никаких абхазов. Там сваны веками живут. Кто эти маленькие жуковы, которым накануне окончания маленькой победоносной войны понадобились свои маленькие Зееловские высоты?

Наш Национальный Лидер сегодня снова в великолепной форме. Нет и следа той некоторой растерянности и грусти, которые явно чувствовались во время инаугурации "наследника" и некоторое время после нее. В стихии войны он чувствует себя как рыба в воде. Он формулирует азартно, ярко, с оттяжечкой, привычно поигрывая фирменными желвачками. В том, что он говорит - о гибели мирных жителей в Цхинвали, о двойных стандартах Запада, о том, что после того, что произошло, примирение грузин и осетин скорее всего невозможно, - много справедливого, и он убедителен. Эту правду ему говорить легко и приятно. А о другом его не спрашивают и нескоро спросят. (Например, правда ли, что Саакашвили заманили в ловушку Цхинвали так же, как в свое время Басаева в Дагестан?)

В эти дни как-то сама собой и без чьих либо видимых усилий под залпы "Градов" и взрывы авиабомб органично разрешилась наконец мучавшая его и всю "политическую элиту" проблема третьего, то есть пожизненного срока. У Собирателя Земель Русских, какой бы формальный пост он ни занимал, долгая, вымощенная лучшими намерениями благородная миссия. Никому и в голову не придет ограничивать ее какими-то искусственными псевдоконституционными временными рамками. В этом и заключается самый главный внутриполитический итог его Второй Маленькой Победоносной.

12.08.2008 11:23

Андрей Пионтковский

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hMdjnNBVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7uDoBfzhLM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoRjh-pf5C0&feature=related

The article is very off base and short sighted when it comes to the actions of Russia and makes the very common mistake of viewing every single event that happens as being reactionary to American foreign policy.

The facts are that Russia was in bed with Iran long before any American civ had ever even heard the name Kosovo. This is complete and total propaganda.

Don't forget Russia's own role in its Chechen problem. The Chechen Jihadists are Russia's own al Qaeda, its own Taliban. For decades now the majority of the low rank and file of the Russian military have been young Muslim males, whom were marginalized in civvy life. The Chechens, those that fight for the Russians are absolutely infamous throughout the Caucuses. They are the Russian bully boys. The Chechens are simply biting the hands of their erstwhile masters, who gave them the power to do so in the first place, not the Saudis. There were issues with Chechen secularist rebels, fighting over conflicts on ethnic levels and over the disproportionate distribution of revenues from Chechen oil, in Russian cities as opposed to ethnic Chechens. It is also not as if the Chechens are alone in hating their Russian masters. This includes many non-Muslims.

Don't forget the role of Iranian Communists in the Revolution that saw installment of their Mullahcracy. Like so many other political demagogues, they sought the jihadists as allies, but could not control the beast they had let off of its leash.

Don't forget that Hamas, and many other of the more organized Jihadist entities are that way because of Russia, long before Kosovo. Prior to becoming "Islamist" groups, or that is transferring their leadership and recruiting base to 'salafists', they were largely all Islam-flavored Communistic Pan-Arabist movements (not too dissimilar from Ba'ath), propped up by the USSR.

Russia doesn't see a true threat from these groups in the way the Western world does, because should the time come that their own pitbull Iran, bites the hand that feeds it, it can easily become another Chechnya, or any other -stan under Soviet control. Bombed into the stone age, ethnically cleansed, occupied and religiously/ideologically oppressed. Something no Western nation would ever do, for right or wrong.

As another poster pointed out, the Russian power elite never saw the error of their ways, in the gulags, in the ethnic cleansing of other Slavic groups in Georgia, in Ukraine, etc. In the same way that the Arab/Islamic world never saw error with slavery and had its daylight, broader application ended at the point of bayonet, Russia too only ended their most egregious abuses of their fellow humans when the power to abuse slipped between their fingers. They still follow an ideology, such as the 'class struggle theory' of Communism forwards, that you can kill enough people that disagree with you that eventually no one will be left alive to further disagree, no matter how objectively wrong you are.

Finally, the entire issue isn't Communism anymore. There isn't a unified, underlying ideology guiding Russia that is codified. In truth, their actions are extremely pragmatic and in line with Putin's plan for years now. Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are natural allies. Russia is simply posturing to be OPEC 2, and they are fostering relationships with those other thugs sitting on loads of oil.

This has nothing to do with Kosovo, and nothing to do with the Russian's "love" of Serbs. Just see their love for the Ukrainians. The people of Georgia, Ukraine, and all those other Slavic people that Russia 'loves' still remember the forced immigration of ethnic Russians into non-Russian lands, the starvation and other atrocities laid at the Soviet's feet that were enacted in order to make Ukraine less Ukrainian and more Russian, therefor more appealing. The same goes for other non-Russian ethnic territory.

As far as Cold War 2 goes, the first one never ended. We have done endless damage by lowering our guard to not only Russia, but the horrible, lasting effects of KGB psy-ops around the world, in Korea (in case you have never been there, Koreans essentially uniformly hate Americans and the American government), in Europe (where is that poll showing something like 45% of Scandinavian college students have never even heard of 'gulag' and think that Communism was overall a positive influence on the world? How many Europeans have YOU met that say they aren't sure that things wouldn't be better if America had lost in WW2 and now either Nazi Germany or Communist Russia were the world's sole superpowers? A lot for me), and most importantly the many Marxists, whose ideology demands moral relativism, as culture and religion are not even second fiddle there, still alive and well in America and Europe wreaking havoc on us all.

Don't give Russia any slack for its action. Fact of the matter is, that Russia is, and was never going to 'trade' Kosovo for Iran. This was never going to happen. They play the same game as they have always played. They would continue to deal, out in the open with anything Iran wants, and simply deny that they were doing it. A big part of diplomacy is mutual trust, and you can't trust this "ex-KGB" run Russian State. Time and again, giving in to Russia's grandiose posturing for the sake of diplomacy has proven as futile as giving into the demands of the Jihadists. Once an offer is made good on by any Western power, it cannot realistically be reneged upon regardless if the other side upholds its end of the bargain or not.

Iran is an oil producing nation, and friendly to Russia, hostile to the US-Europe. Even European 'allies' are hostile to US-Europe. Once Russia consolidates control over European oil supplies, you have either Russian friendly or Western hostile entities controlling virtually all exports worldwide. Russia sacrificing its ability to engage in energy extortion, sacrificing its ability to turn off the lights, and turn off the heat to Europe and its unruly 'Eastern Bloc' neighbors with ease. Iran was never on the table to be offered up for slaughter. Not to mention the simple fact that Iran generates revenue for Russia as its client and Kosovo cost money to its supporters because it really has nothing to offer except street cred with Muslims. The motives, and the benefits of the two relationships are completely different and not to be compared.

Andrei is, typically Slavic, too emotional. Good thing about Putin is that he is very pragmatic. He knows how to play the Game by the rules and he is a very good player. Fact is that the USA set precendent which Russia is now using and western leaders can only issue strong statements, but can't do anyhing else. Now it is completely legitimate to engage in "humanitarian war" against someone inferior, to protect minorities against "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", to give these minorities "special protection" and aat the end "independent" state. These rules are set by the USA and EU in Kosovo.

I have no doubt that Putin will deal with jihadi threat in Russia better than western leaders in their countries. But then we will see reactions from the west...

"Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are natural allies."
-- from a posting above

No, they are not, even if short-sighted Russian leaders may think they are. Any country that relies on oil for its main source of wealth has a stake in disruption of oil supplies elsewhere. Russia should not wish Iran or Saudi Arabia well. Not as an economic competitor, supplying the same goods (oil and natural gas in the case of Iran, oil in the case of Saudi Arabia).

Furthermore, the Russians should be worried far more than they seem to be about demographic changes, and the possiblity of Muslims taking over parts of the military in a decade or two or three. They appear as heedless of this problem as the American government has appeared heedless of the texts and tenets of Islam, and remains convinced that the "best way" to deal with the situation is to pour money and men and materiel into Iraq or, for some (choose your poison), into Afghanistan, when the desired results will never come, because the nature of Islam, and the threat of Islam, has not been understood.

Many Russians, so consumed with conspiracy theories about America (and the maladroit American presentation of those policies, and seeming inability to explain them in a way that Russians would find palatable, or even to explain that Russia and America share the same potential threats and need to collaborate, rather than cling to or reassert hostile attitudes), assume that Muslims in Russia will continue to be "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims just like those their parents grew up with. They somehow think that "our" (nashi) Muslmis are "different." (The same complacent thought is often uttered by Americans: Muslims in America are "quite different" -- better educated, more prosperous -- we are constantly told, and therefore "not a threat" as are Muslims in Western Europe. Whistling in the dark.

The Russians are not factoring in the renewed appeal me of Islam for some Muslims in Russia, especially in the Caucasus but also in Moscow itself, and the effect of audi-financed mosques and propaganda all over the place. The effects of the anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, and the crushing of the revolt by Central Asian Muslims opposed to this policy in the 1930s, are held by some Russians to represent a permanent end to the internal Muslim threat. They are wrong. And they are betting a lot, too much, on that notion.

Oil isn't strictly about revenue. Russia could make more money with less export coming from other nations, but they want the kind of political power that OPEC has.

OPEC is willing to take a hit to their pocketbook in order to quell their clients into submission.

If it was all about oil revenue, it would still be all BP in Russia, not Gazprom.

Just as the OIC and Russia are 'allies' in the UN when it comes to all of those 'Human Rights' issues despite ideological differences, Gazprom and OPEC will be 'allies' when it comes to extorting Western nations, even when it costs them a buck or two.

As far as their military being subsumed by Muslims, this is exactly where the Chechen problem came from. Their backyard Jihadists are Russian trained, many still wearing their army jackets along with a stylish kafiyah.

The demographic issue, as it is in Europe, is too painful to face. That is the elephant in the room. The fact that soon, their people might be like the Jews, with only a 'handful' to speak of.

I'm not disagreeing that Russia is on the wrong path in regards to facing the threat of Jihad, as is the West, but fact of the matter is that Russia is a lot more likely to wind up as allies with nations like Iran than they are any Western power and it has a lot more to do with their desire for power than it does with conspiracy theories and paranoia.

Iran will not balk over any power and land grabs Russia takes, while everyone in the EU, etc will. Iran will likely never take action against Russia for anything, on any front, with sanctions, or economic policy, etc. We will not turn a blind eye to a resurrected Imperial Russia, or any neo-colonial activities as we have with China for the sake of their status as a 'devoloping nation'.

What Russia and apparently many Russians want, the West cannot offer it, while the OIC et al, can.

I would love for Russian assistance in the war against Jihad, but I don't think Russia is going to join any team that the US on it

NATO expansion is NOT a threat to Russia. Does anyone think Poland or Georgia is going to make territory demands on Russia? As it is NATO is really just a mutual protection pact with the US. Is NATO capable of even defending itself? Sadly, no. The idea that Russia is afraid of NATO is laughable. More like Russia knows NATO is a means by which Russia is prevented from dominated its neighbors.

Making Russia and the US into false moral equivalents over Kosovo/Georgia is not going to persuade any sound mind. Saying we should jetison freedom loving people to the Russian Bear in appeasement for imaginary cooperation against Jihad is short sighted. Letting purposely Western-seeking people like Georgia dangle in the wind is not in the long term interests of the West.

Not saying we need to make Russia an enemy, but I have argued repeatedly on this site that Russia is no friend and is not situated to be a friend. Russia should be made into a rival we can deal with (a la China).

I am 1st generation American, and I have lots of friends who are immigrants or first generation Americans from places like Russia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. Even the Russians who I otherwise like and trust very much often cannot come to terms with a simple fact of history:

Russia was the most consistently beligerent nation state of the past 100 years. Siding with the bear now is just going to makethe bear hungry.

Lets keep the bear contained, and get back to trying to stop global jihad.

Putin bemoans the demise of the USSR. Think about that. Showing deference to someone who wants to bring back the USSR if he could is no more sensible that showing deference to Fatah because its not HAMAS.

Focus on the core principle: protection and hopefully growth of Western civilization.

I fear the next big question in global history will be whether or not the Russians are willing to shoot themselves in the foot just to spite the US. I think its a 50/50 proposition.

greatcometof1577:

Russians are eating out of the wrong garbage can--Georgians treasure Western civilization in a way that puts a lot of Americans to shame.

Russia and China are going to play countries like Iran against us no matter how much we cozy up to them. We need to understand that and act accordingly. We don't need to pick fights, but the only we can satisfy China or Russia is to become an autocratic state that will no longer be an example of a better way of life. Of course, were that to happen, a US with Russian expansionist atitudes would be a dark dark time for the history of civilization.

Anyway, I agree that sunnis are just as deadly as Shiites. However, the government of Saudi Arabia is playing the slow Jihad game, and the government of Iran is playin the fast Jihad game. Both are dangerous, but Iran will come to a head first.

The Iranian mullahs are true believers. In contrast, the Saudi's want to live and enjoy their blond haired blue eyed concubines.

Iran is currently the critical front in the Jihad war from a nation-state perspective. Iran needs to be dealt with before it becomes impossible to do so.

JSobieski

The point I hope I was making (Hugh did a better job making the point above, I should have differentiated between the people and the government of Russia) is that by alienating the Russian people we are playing into the hands of people like Putin. He can go to the Russian people, and say that the west hates you, because they side with Muslims in places like Kosovo, and Bosnia, they side with Arab Muslims, who send their jihadist into Russia to kill our people, and they expand NATO to weaken, and fence in Russia both economically and militarily. Just look at how they treat you…as barbarians, a Slavic peoples crawling out of the gutter.

I want to make nice with Russia for several reasons.

(1) The Russian People: I still have hope for the average Russian. I don’t view them as an enemy, and I view them as a civilized people. I want to project an America that is at worst neutral to Russia and at best helpful. This may give Putin (and people like him) a short term victory, but with American culture being what it is, with the internet as it is, with communications as they are, the average Russian I feel will overtime push for more reforms within Russia. We need to take Russia slowly, by cultural conquest, not by driving the people of Russia into the enemy camp. We need to take away issues that could be used against us, avoid frontal confrontations unless it is absolutely necessary. (same with the Chinese BTW)

(2) Russian-Chinese Relationship: People act like only Russia, and China can play people against each other, yet we cannot. By being friendly with Russia, China will get nervous, and thus want a better relationship with us, and so on, and back and forth. People have to remember the USA is on the other side of the earth, but China and Russia are right next to each other. They have some “serious issues” to workout if they are ever to be close. Issues like oil, land disputes, ethnic issues, and just the general nature of both countries means they will not be really close anytime soon, no matter how many half-baked joint military exercises they have with each other. If they could not be close when they were both communist, why do people think they will be allies now? The U.S. is still in the cat bird seat if it plays its cards right, and at the same time continue a cultural invasion of both countries.

(3) Islam and the Cold War: The best part is Jihadist are attacking both countries. We have something common to talk about. We have an avenue to strengthen ties. With that said, Islam right now is the greatest threat to world peace. Islam is also the greatest threat to the West right now. If we don’t get our act together, it won’t matter what Russia, or China does, because Europe will fall to Islamic demographic conquest. It is possible Russia might fall as well. That would be a disaster for the USA. We cannot afford another cold war right now with Russia, or China. We cannot let the Islamic world use this conflict like they used the last cold war...which is why we are in the mess we are in today.

With all this said, if we got out of the Arabian oil trade (I don’t care how), it would free us to do whatever we liked. It is critical for the USA to become energy independent. If you want to be the superpower who leads the world into the future, you cannot have your energy supplies depending on the whims of someone else.

Bush could do it all with a exec order and have a half million men reporting for duty in 24 hours. Congress doesn't matter in this so they are irrelevant. War making resides totally in the hands of the president.

Posted by: waltc

The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but war making is not totally in his hands. But more important, paying for war IS totally in the hands of Congress: a simple vote to stop funding the war means the end of the war. Remember what Congress did to South Viet Nam in 1974-75. The U.S. had withdrawn virtually all its forces, but the Ford administration wanted massive aid to SVM to support its fight with the North. Ford was practically pleading with Congress, but Congress refused to vote one cent. Shortly thereafter came the infamous scene of Navy helicopters lifting the last embassy personnel from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon, as the NVM army poured into the city. This was followed by the deaths of several hundred thousand Vietnamese in prison camps, and the flight of a million more to other countries, and then the murder of over a million people in the "killing fields" of Cambodia. Congress can stop the President in his tracks. IF it wants to.

Scion9

Here is perhaps the simplest way to put this:

We can either fight a cold war with Russia, or we can fight a cold war with Islam. We cannot do both at the same time. So people need to make their choice, because we only have one lifetime.

If we are going to fight the Russians in another cold war, expect to see us cozy up the Islamic world even more, and expect the Russians to do the same.

If you want to fight the cold war against the Islamic world, we will have to try to be friends with the Russians, and they will have to find a way to get along with the USA.

Russia would have been belligerent to America even if Kosovo had never come up. Putin within months of coming to power in 2000 was making deals with Iran, making excuses for North Korea and talking down to the Baltic states, Poland and others. I will repeat here what I've posted elsewhere and that is that George Kennan (one of the chief authors of the containment doctrine) was correct back in the 1940s when he asserted that Russia has always looked upon its neighbors as either vassals or enemies.

Yes, Kosovo gave Putin a better excuse to act like a turd, but he would have found plenty more in any case. The Russians are retarded where freedom is concerned and act like all of life is one gigantic con game. If you conciliate the Russians they look upon that as weakness and are aggressive. If you oppose the Russians they look upon that as a threat to Holy Mother Russia and are aggressive. The problem lies deep within the Russian soul, which can be very tedious at times.

Meanwhile, many Eastern European peoples yearn for freedom and the greatest ally they could ever have, America. I for one would oblige them and if Russia doesn't like it (and it won't), too damn bad. That's why I found it wonderful to read today that Poland has concluded a deal with the US to install inceptor missiles in its country. Kudos to Poland. Take that, Russia. Learn about freedom or forever be the clumsy, paranoid, xenophobic giant you've always been.

GreatComet:

We don't disagree on Kosovo/Serbia and I agree with Hugh's persuasive analysis as well.

My point however is still fundamentally the premise of Western civilization: You don't throw freedom under the bus to further the goal of freedom.

I am for not antagonizing Russia as much as anyone. However, if the price for that is non-support of a Western-looking nation of people who were very recently subjugateed people, well then, our paths diverge.

Freedom requires nurturing. Georgia has been a remarkable place over the past 15 years. Any analysis of this situation which treats Georgia as a mere pawn, is not an analysis I will subscribe to.

Whatever our errors in Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, Saudi Arabia, et al--the Georgians deserve our support.

If you agree with that statement, I agree that we shouldn't "antagonize" Russia. However, much like the Muslim world, Russia is easily insulted.

One factor not addressed in Hugh's piece is that Russia's historical empire has left it feeling insulted by non-dhimmified behavior in its former subjects.

Just as we cannot appease Jihadists, we cannot appease Putin.

By the way, who said anything about fighting Russia or starting a new Cold War?

At worse, Russia is a rival. If left unchecked, Russia could become an enemy, but it is not an enemy now and is unlikely to become one so long as we don't allow their appetite to increase.

Our "friendship" with Russia was always exagerated and the events in Georgia are leading to hyperbole in the opposite direction. This current dispute, while quite serious is hardly a restart of the Cold War.

Russia has a big part to play in war on Jihad, although whether that role is for good or fore ill is not clear.

Russia is clearly helping Iran to a degree that appears unwise. Whether it is based solely on creating a big headache for us (something a friend would never do on purpose, unless they were French) or whether its just being unable to say to a chance to make a couple of billion dollars, its hard to say,

By all means, lets try to build a bridge with the Russian people. However, there are limits to the intellectual cartwheels we should make.

If I said that we should make nice with some "moderate" Muslims despite their refusal to disavow Sharia law as a public policy goal, you would chastise me. Well, what if the average Russian can't see the difference between the freedoms of the West and Russia's autocratic government. They buy into the same crap that leftists here buy into--that the US is a fascist state, or at best, is no better that Russia.

Well, that is a lie an untruth upon which no amount of pretend can get past. We can no more reach out to that person in any meaningful long-term way than we can reach out to someone who won't renounce Sharia law.

By the way, who said anything about fighting Russia or starting a new Cold War?

At worse, Russia is a rival. If left unchecked, Russia could become an enemy, but it is not an enemy now and is unlikely to become one so long as we don't allow their appetite to increase.

Our "friendship" with Russia was always exagerated and the events in Georgia are leading to hyperbole in the opposite direction. This current dispute, while quite serious is hardly a restart of the Cold War.

Russia has a big part to play in war on Jihad, although whether that role is for good or fore ill is not clear.

Russia is clearly helping Iran to a degree that appears unwise. Whether it is based solely on creating a big headache for us (something a friend would never do on purpose, unless they were French) or whether its just being unable to say to a chance to make a couple of billion dollars, its hard to say,

By all means, lets try to build a bridge with the Russian people. However, there are limits to the intellectual cartwheels we should make.

If I said that we should make nice with some "moderate" Muslims despite their refusal to disavow Sharia law as a public policy goal, you would chastise me. Well, what if the average Russian can't see the difference between the freedoms of the West and Russia's autocratic government. They buy into the same crap that leftists here buy into--that the US is a fascist state, or at best, is no better that Russia.

Well, that is a lie an untruth upon which no amount of pretend can get past. We can no more reach out to that person in any meaningful long-term way than we can reach out to someone who won't renounce Sharia law.

One correction:

Please remove the word "not" before "addressed" with respect to the "humiliation" of Russia.

Hugh's comments SPECIFICALLY made the comparison between "humiliated" Muslims and "humiliated" Russians--I promise to do a better job editing my comments in the future

Hugh, my specific and direct apologies.

The 40% increase in Russia's Mohammedan population ought to be put in perspective. The country's total population is 150m, of which 25m are Mohammedans. A 40% increase means the population was previously 17m. While the increases are cause for concern, it does not imply that Russia will go Islamic anytime soon. Besides, there is a conscious effort on the part of Russian Christians do improve on population, and such moves generally work only too well.

I agree with Greatcomet for much of this thread - that Russian (people's) support ought to be earned, regardless of what we may think of the regime in the Kremlin. That said, I agree with Jan Sobieski and Wellington that Georgia doesn't deserve to be abandoned by us, and does deserve our support, unlike Kosovo and Bosnia that haven't, and are unlikely to be our allies despite what we did for them.

However, one major disagreement I have with both is the argument that we can't sacrifice our support for freedom in the name of defending it. I'll grant you that point in both Georgia and Ukraine (which scion9 uses to make a good case that Russia doesn't care much for other Slavs, although I think an argument can be made that Russia doesn't see Serbia as a parasite that contains Russian citizens in its historic terretory, the way Ukraine does in Crimea and Kharkov). However, Western governments have also used that argument in opposing other dictatorships, like the one in Uzbekistan.

Just as it was idiotic of Dhimmi Carter to withdraw support to the Pahlevis in Iran, it's just as assinine of the US not to support the regime in Tashkent, since it's very likely that if democracy comes to this country that reveres the 14th century Jihadi Tamerlane the way Mongols revere Chengiz Khan or Russians revere Tsar Peter the Great, it's more likely than not to 'elect' the Islamic Party of Turkestan to power, and then create a situation where a new Jihadi empire from the Caspian Sea to Xinxiang will be created. The positive - it could destabilize China by inspiring the Uighurs. The negative - it could inspire the Uighurs.

You are right on Georgia, but please don't adapt the Sharansky principle with countries that have Mohammedan majorities: we'll all regret it.

One small side note - Phares should stop putting the blame on just 'Salafists' - it's a lot more than that which threatens Russia.

Since when did does the word "freedom" mean "democracy"? In particular, how did the grand word "freedom" imply to you the worst kind of shallow "democracy" in a place such as Pakistan? These are sad days. If even the word "freedom" has become debased, we truly are unworthy of our ancestors.

How about I use the phrase "Western Rule of Law" with all that that entails? To me, that is what freedom is, rule of law in the Western sense (e.g. minority rights, judicial process, separation of powers, and hopefully some federalism)

I am no fan of getting a bunch of thugs to vote, or for government whereby people are limited to voting for thugs (Iran and Russia fall into this category--vote, but for whom? Villain A or Villain B).

The whole "Democracy Project" was doomed even by its name.

Hong Kong was very free while under British rule. It was not a democracy until the very end of British Rule, and of course, Hong Kong went back to China which is another story.

Hong Kong under British Rule was free, and it is by that context that I use the word freedom. Even under China, Hong Kong is far freer than Pakistan, even though Pakstanis vote in national elections.

Freedom is not about democracy, it is about rule of law and limited government. With the exception of slavery (which is a big Exception), Americans were more free in 1820 before non-property owners could vote, then they are now.

When thinking about Russia, Vladmir Putin, and a re-emerging Russia, think back to the famous "Lord Of The Rings" books and movie's antagonist charactor named Golan, the one who wanted the ring so badly. Put this charactor and Vladmir Putin side-by-side and Golan together. For Vladmir, a KGB operative, he wants the "ring" of a new Russian empire.

There can be no doubt that our actions, pushing NATO eastward - how can Russians view this as anything other than being directed against them - belittling Russia's legitmate concerns with its own jihadists, and, above all, Clinton's disgraceful and criminal war with Serbia, are a major factor in the current crisis. However, Russia's actions must be responded to. (They have now invaded a "brother" Orthodox nation; this is similar to the internecine warfare between the Christians in the Balkans which paved the way for the Ottoman invasion of Europe.) I suggest that our response be clever; we cannot engage Russia in war. We should up the ante by using the present furor over Georgia as cover and do what we have been threatening to do for a while. Now is the time to take out Iran's nuclear capability, industrial base and infrastructure. And we should do so, a la Clinton, solely through the use of our superior air power. This will up the ante and present Putin with new "facts on the ground". We should, however, follow up with an olive branch and offer to reform our misguided policies toward Russia and Serbia. This is a game of global chess and we have to play it cleverly.

Walid Phares is a good scholar and a genius analyzer of events. He can read stories in multiple layers of angles i.e. when most of us read a story we get the most obvious message behind the story. The same story read by Walid Phares reveals other angles, intended and unintended consequences, short and long term implications, hidden agenda, hidden propaganda as well as biases and spins designed to influence the reader.

JSobieski, Wellington

Here is all I am saying, we cannot afford to fight around with Russia over every last border squabble they have, if we plan to defeat Islam. More important we must live in the real world, as it is, not as we would wish it.

Two examples:

(1) I don’t mind spending billions of dollars to modernize the Polish military. I don’t mind strengthening military ties, but do we really need a missile shield in Poland? What other purpose (and please don’t use the Iranian example, the Iranians will be really lucky if they can hit Israel) is there for having one in Poland, except as a shield against Russian missiles (nukes)? Yet still, if we must put a missile shield there, at least be honest about why we are doing it. The Polish just wanted to upgrade their military, but we pushed that they allow us to put our missile shield in Poland as part of the deal. Poland would still be protected with U.S. military forces stationed there, and their military being upgraded. If Russia gets upset over that, ok Russia is over doing the drama queen act, but at least find out first by not putting the missile sheild in, and just the upgrades etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/15/poland.us.shield/?iref=mpstoryview

(2) We should not give promises that we cannot back up. The Georgian situation was caused because we inflated Georgian self-confidence in their military abilities, and what we would do to protect them. We acted like we would protect their territorial integrity (or at least they figured we would). Both sides have been sniping at each other for years. Let us not forget in all the love feast for Georgian Democracy, that they have only been truly democratic for a couple of years now (and that is questionable). They were ruled by Russia (or the Soviet Union) for the most part, for the last 200 plus years (a few small breaks here and there). We only became really involved with Georgia, when we found out that they had a hord of Jihadist in their country (Chechens) who were using Georgia (mostly in the Pankisi area) as a base to hide from the Russians. The Russians asked to be allowed to bomb that area, but the Georgians refused, because they did not want to anger the Chechens, and they feared the Russians, and the USA backed them up, because we feared Russia would improve their influence in the area.

From 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2253792.stm

From 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3655412.stm

From 2005

http://www.stratfor.com/georgia_pankisi_gorge_militant_haven

I am not saying Russia is right, but it would be foolish to completely trust the Georgians either. Remember they are just like the Russians in many ways, and that Josef Stalin was a Georgian, born and bread in Gori. They are just as responsible for the Soviet Union, and its worst days as anyone. Do we really want to get into a conflict with Russia over Georgia? Is this the place to make a stand, and can we make a stand there even if we wanted to based on the current situation? Getting all misty eyed over their new found love of freedom, and questionable democracy is not going to get it done. Is it really a democracy these people are fighting over, or is pure nationalism that guides Georgian actions?

I find it amazing how people are calling the Russians an “emotional people” prone to “conspiracy theories”, yet so are the Georgians, and appears so are we. Look at what some people are saying about Russia. Look how emotional we Americans get when some nation claims to be a democracy, and how quick we are to get involved, ignoring all other factors as if only the word democracy is enough to send us into a wild froth? Some of it is true, but god help me some of it is off the wall insanity. Some of us want the Russians to play the bad guy. Some of us really do hate the Russians.

My feelings are no different than a former U.S. President on this…

“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them…..Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” George Washington, 1796

In other words, make alliances if critical to the USA, and for real emergencies, don’t make promises you can’t keep, or won’t keep, and most important of all know your limitations.

greatcometof1577: Just a couple of comments. I believe we're putting something like ten interceptor missiles in Poland. Russia has thousands of nukes and so it's not credible to maintain that this installation functions as a threat to Russia. The missiles are there as a warning to rouge states who might develop more sophisticated delivery systems in the future. Also, Russia is still thinking in terms of "spheres of influence," a Cold War relic by demanding what Poland can and cannot do. It has no interest in treating the Poles as equals. I would call Russia's bluff here were I President Bush and say that should Canada or Mexico want a dozen Russian inceptor missiles or so, then fine. How would that be a threat to America? Russia's just being paranoid yet again.

George Washington's Farewell Address was made at a time when America was a fledgling state and not a world power. The last hundred years of mankind's history has changed a lot of things, including America's status worldwide. I don't think Washington was thinking in terms of world wars, cold wars, WMDs and such, though I agree with you that we should not make any committments that are superfluous.

This is brilliant analysis:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Modern Georgia is nothing like Modern Russia in ANY meaningful way. No offense, but the comparison is nuts, borderline offensive.

Is Jihad the greater threat at the moment? Yes. However, we can and MUST walk and chem gum at the same time.

You are projecting all sorts of hopes on Russia as some type of champion against Jihad. Maybe because Russia is capable of being quite ruthless? Your hopes in error if one looks to history, and to the very words of Putin. Russia is not a team player unless Russia owns the team. If giving Iran nukes makes the US shrink so that Russia can expand, then Russia will give Iran nukes.

As stated above, Russian "humiliation" and "anger" is as justified as Jihadist "humiliation" and "anger."

I stand with the West, every time against every threat.

No moral equivalence.

Georgia is just like Russia is as accurate as Christian theology has a much violence in it as Islamic theology.

False. False.

LazarOfSerbia: Thanks for that article. It's an interesting study in geopolitical chess. I would only add that it is too damn bad that the Russians coudln't look upon NATO and America the way Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians and many others do----as allies for freedom and prosperity. Russia seeing NATO as a threat speaks volumes about the Russian mentality. I had hoped a decade ago or so tht one day a free, democratic, prosperous Russia would join NATO and stand side by side with America against the tyrants of the world. That this didn't happen is almost entirely Russia's and Putin's fault. Russia is reverting to form yet again.

But, Lazar, as I've written before, I do believe supporting an independent Kosovo was a mistake America and certain European countries should not have made. It has played right into Russia's hands and have given them some cover. It also unnecessarily angered the Serbs, understandably so.

JSobieski, Wellington

I did not say we should take it easy on Russia, but it is insane to think we can do a dam thing about Georgia. We can complain, we can scream, and we go on and on, and won't prevent Russia from regaining influence in that region. Like it or not, Russia has a population of 140 million, and Georgia has how many…4 million. Do the math. They are the local power, and by that right alone they can influence the locals. We are not miracle workers. We can defend, and support Western Europe, we can defend, and support most of the old Warsaw pact countries (like Poland), but I will be dammed if we can extend that all over the Russian border. People act like America has endless resources just to throw around. We don’t, and I don’t think most European countries are willing to do any heavy lifting either (except for a few cases when it is clear that something is in it for them).

This gets me back to my point about, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all these handouts we keep giving out. We are not the Santa Claus of the world. There are consequences to getting involved in long wars and wasting money. The Russians took advantage of Georgian stupidity, I can’t help it. Now the Georgians are rushing to the west and screaming “save us!!!!!”. Well, I hate to tell you this, but the Euros won’t do a dam thing, because they get oil from Russia. We won’t do a dam thing, because we are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have to defend Western Europe from possible Russian and Islamic aggression, because god knows they won’t do it, we have defend South Korea from Chinese and North Korean aggression, we have to defend Taiwan and Japan from Chinese aggression, we have to defend the Arabians so they can keep screwing us over at the pump, and kill our people and invade the west through immigration, we have spend billions upon billions of dollars to defend the oil lanes around the world, so the world can get their oil, and keep the world economy going, we have to keep handing out money and gifts, to what appears to be everyone on this planet (even to the countries we don’t like for “humanitarian reasons”), add to that the money and resources we blow in the UN, and yet after all this, we must defend the United States, as well and keep our economy going…and people wonder why there is no security on the Mexican border, why our education system is falling apart, why our infrastructure is falling apart.

God…we cannot have it all. At some point we need to cut something, change the rules of the game, anything. The Russians know this, and they are not stupid. It is better to engage the Russians now, to work out some temporary deal in which they get something to soothe their ego, until we can put ourselves in a better position to confront them. We need to play the game with the Russians, because we cannot confront them all over their borders. They are in a position of strength at least in places like Georgia.

So what do you folks want to cut??? I vote for cutting the Iraqi Democracy Project, become energy independent of Arabian oil so we can dump them as “allies”, stop defending the worlds oil lanes, except for ourselves (unless we get help, or the world pays us for our services), stop handing out cash to every “beggar” who shows up at the White House…

If we can do all that…I have no problem with confronting Russia all over the place. Hopefully, we won’t have to, and they will change on their own….

See the excellent link above presented by "LazarOfSerbia", it will confirm what I have said.

greatcometof1577: I never averred that we could do anything about Georgia (except try and play the PR game better than Russia and help the poor sods out with some humanitarian relief). Russia's now going to rape that country again and again. But we can hurt Russia in other ways. No more G-8. Back to the G-7. No entry into the WTO. Things like this. And more deals like the one yesterday with Poland with other Eastern European nations, almost all of whom look to America with hope and admiration and look to Russia with dread and scorn.

Energy independence? All for it. But the rubes in Congress remain clueless. Become far more isolationist? All for this too, because I think America is too good for almost all the rest of the world, but I'm not as sanguine as you are about our ability to do this in an increasingly interconnected world. Also, unlike you (and I acknowledge you could be right here and I wrong), I think it's just possible that there can be a handful of Muslim countries that marginalize Islam to a fair extent, have some democratic features and which work in alliance with us. But I think we're in agreement that much of the world is a stupid place and America must take care of America first and foremost.

greatcometof1577: Almost forgot. For an interesting account of how America can hurt Russia militarily if Georgians are willing to keep fighting, see Stuart Koehl's article, "The Pain Game" at www.weeklystandard.com. Worth a look.

Who said anything about militarily taking on Russia? There are plenty of things between appeasement and Defcon 5.

The Polish treaty was a good start.
Quicken the entry of Ukrain into NATO a good follow-up.
Booting Russia out of the G8 and keeping Russia out of the WTO are all good ideas.

Expanding the training of Georgian military personnel and otherwise enhancing ties with Georgia area all very workable.

Strong unequivical words expressing solidarity with Georgia is nice.

The USSR was defeated without firing a shot. Russia now is weaker than the USSR was then, and it is more integrated into to the global economy.

Even if we through Georgia under the bus, Russia is still going to help Iran.

I don't understand why people are so anxious to let freedom loving people who have proven they intentions to build a Western style government be crushed by the Russian bear, and how mere commentors on blogs are somehow going to blow the War against Jihad by turning off Russia.

Russia is no fan of freedom. Their leader wants to re-enact the USSR. At some point of movement in that area, Russia would then become a greater threat than Jihad (as it as in 1979 despite Iran et al).

There are many threats to Western civilization. It doesn't make sense to give Russians a free pass to fight the Nazis, to give the Jihadists a free pass to fight the Russians, or now to give the Russians a free pass to fight the Jihadists.

The West will not benefit by selling out Western ideas. As Robert has said quite persuasively on this site in different contexts, we can't defeat Jihad using ways that change what it means to be a Western Civilization.

GreatComet:

We agree on 99% of the things you mention. We have serious problems. However, purposely letting the Georgians sink without any signs of support from us are not going to fix the problems you mention. In fact, it will make many problems worse, as fence sitters always choose the stronger horse.

One additional thought:

Is not the underlying problem the inability of Western civilization to value itself? Moral equivalence is all we hear about, whether it is Iran, Russia, China, etc.

We do not need to be the world's policeman, but if we lose our ability to distinguish right from wrong or good from evil, we are in mortal danger. be that danger comes form Jihad or some other force.

We need to believe in our values, and to be confident in expressing and applying those values to the world around us.

What I am hearing about Russia-Georgia, and how its the US's fault, and how we push people around, etc. I perceive the PC self-loathing that in my view is the underlying threat.

Without PC self-loathing to aid in its efforts, what can Islam do to the West?

Another article on Russia and Georgia and the Caucasus, this by Yulia Latynina:

Кавказ в душе Саакашвили

Самое безнравственное на войне – это потерпеть поражение. С точки зрения поставленных целей – то есть возвратить территориальную целостность Грузии – президент Саакашвили потерпел полное поражение. Премьер Путин, опять-таки с точки зрения поставленных целей, то есть укрепления личной власти и удовлетворения личной ненависти к президенту Саакашвили, одержал полную победу. Да-да, все осудили Россию, а доллар из-за вывода денег инвесторами подрос на 6%, но ведь, простите, целью этой войны увеличение притока иностранных инвестиций не ставилось.

В России было модно не любить Саакашвили. Государственники не любили его потому, что так велел Кремль, российская интеллигенция не любила его потому, что его не любила грузинская интеллигенция. И не зря – традиционной, советской интеллигенции в той Грузии, которую строил Саакашвили, было не место.

В Грузии патрульные полицейские, заменившие ГАИ, действительно не брали взятки. В Грузии собственность действительно продавали на открытых тендерах. Чиновников увольняли не пачками, а министерствами, налоги снижали, пошлины отменяли, и одно из самых сильных моих впечатлений от Грузии, – это даже не таксисты, которые хвастаются патрульной полицией, – а премьер Аджарии, который водит меня по набережной Батуми и говорит: «Это здание МВД. Мы его продали. Это здание прокуратуры – мы его продали. Это дом правительства – мы его продали».

Вот Батуми – это был бы Дубай через пять лет. Все участки на набережной уже раскупили «Хилтоны» и «Шератоны». Правительство выехало из зоны элитной курортной недвижимости. Грузия – это был невиданный эксперимент по преобразованию самой структуры жизни народа, – вроде предпринятого Петром Первым в России или Пиночетом в Чили. Это государство минимизировало налоги, бюрократию и «социалку», и тратило деньги на дороги, полицию и армию.

Какой там теперь к черту Дубай. Гуманитарная помощь – это пожалуйста.

Думаю, что именно это и обусловило личное отношение Путина к Саакашвили. Не донос о том, что Саакашвили якобы назвал его «лилипутиным», не боязнь «оранжевых революций», а именно вот эта предельная несовместимость двух государственных моделей. Грузии, которую жестко ломали по западным образцам, и того, что Путин делает с Россией.

У этого сверкающего, с иголочки, государства был только один изъян: махровый реваншизм.

На стенах МВД Грузии висели карты Абхазии, как грузинского Иерусалима; любой таксист начинал рассуждать о том, что «двумстам тысячам беженцев надо вернуться», да и, простите, власти Южной Осетии могли сколько угодно пользоваться своим народом в корыстных целях, но этот народ хотел жить в Грузии не больше, чем палестинцы – в Израиле, и «Градом» их трудно убедить в противном.

В этом смысле Грузия оставалась не Европой, – можете себе представить Германию, помешанную на идее возвращения Кенигсберга? – не Сербией даже, которая забыла, скрепя сердце, о Косове ради Евросоюза, а самым махровым, классическим Кавказом, где помнят, кто где жил в XI веке, и каждая нация помнит в свою пользу.

Спору нет. Саакашвили провоцировали. В мае в Абхазии чуть не разразилась война. Южная Осетия под управлением Кокойты вообще превратилась в совместное предприятие чекистов и властей по освоению денег на борьбу с Грузией. Я не знаю, что бы делала Россия, если бы, к примеру, чеченские сепаратисты сидели у себя в непризнанной республике, обстреливали Краснодар, и любой ответный огонь называли бы «провокацией». И при этом граница этой непризнанной Чечни проходила бы в 80 км от Москвы.

Но вот проблема: в мае, когда Россия собиралась вот-вот начать операцию «абхазских партизан» в Верхнем Кодори, Саакашвили приложил все усилия к тому, чтобы ее сорвать. Мэтью Брайза летал, как челнок, туда обратно, Буш звонил Медведеву, ООН обсуждало сбитый беспилотник, - и войну предотвратили. Было видно, что Саакашвили действительно не хочет воевать.

В Южной Осетии Саакашвили мог бы сделать тоже самое. Но на этот раз никакого Брайза он не звал. Он расставлял вокруг Цхинвали «Град».

То, что Саакашвили решил начать войну в этих условиях – необъяснимо. Среди древа стратегических решений должен он был учесть и тот вариант, что Россия ни перед чем не остановится, или, точнее, что российские войска закончат боевое развертывание раньше, чем грузины выйдут к Рокскому тоннелю. Если бы он продолжал молчать, то имел бы на руках все козыри. «Не поддавайтесь на провокации», – сказала ему в июле Кондолиза Райс.

Это не было необдуманное решение в стиле «бесноватого фюрера», как уверяет нас ОРТ. Это не была глупость, это не были эмоции. Это был – Кавказ. Вот этот самый тысячелетний, древний, архаичный, бесконечно дорогой мне Кавказ, с его культурой мачо, с его «честью дороже жизни», особенно чужой жизни, - которые пробивались, как трава сквозь асфальт, через сверкающее, с иголочки, новехонькое здание грузинской государственности. Кавказ в душе самого Саакашвили.

Россия провоцировала Саакашвили. И в какой-то момент он забыл, что он не грузинский князь, стоящий на коленях перед османским пашой, не Байсангур, который вырывается из Гуниба, привязанный к коню, не чеченский полевой командир в окруженном Грозном, – что он президент свободной, рыночной, демократической страны, который должен победить Кавказ не только в своей полиции, не только в своей экономике, но и в себе самом.

То, что случилось – это трагедия исторических масштабов. Это как если бы Израиль проиграл арабо-израильскую войну.

Даст бог – все зарастет. Но не думаю, что грузинский президент рад утешительному призу – сочувствию и поддержке Запада. Этот бы предпочел, чтобы его осуждали, как победителя, а не сочувствовали, как побежденному.

"I had hoped a decade ago or so tht one day a free, democratic, prosperous Russia would join NATO and stand side by side with America against the tyrants of the world."

Wellington, but who will stand against American and NATO tyrants then?

Lazar of Serbia: America can do wrong but no political entity in history has shed the blood of its young men to liberate so many other nations. Everywhere people are free today, America had a hand in it. Whether in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, France, Britain, Norway, Poland or wherever. As for NATO, as I've written before, it is the greatest military alliance in history for the protection and promotion of freedom. I understand full well that Serbs would think otherwise, but they would be in the distinct minority of peoples in Eastern Europe. Put another way, if America and NATO are tyrants, every country with responsibilities and every military alliance in history have been tyrannical. America and NATO are as good as you get. Not perfect, but ahead of everyone and everything else.

That's exactly how communists described themselves.

LazarOfSerbia: You didn't provide me with an argument but rather an ill-considered analogy. Do you really want to compare America and NATO to those who implemented the malicious nonsense which is Marxism?

I think you idealize things too much and that’s what I am trying to tell you. America is built on great principles, but when it comes to international relations "freedom" and "justice" are just empty phrases used to whitewash political interests. Thinking that any nation is somehow "predestinated" to spread "freedoms" to the whole world is very dangerous. Doctrines of Marxism were not the problem (in fact, some of them are very good), but the idea that it should spread its understanding of "freedom" to the whole world by any means. That was their problem and is the problem of some people today.

Americans should enjoy their freedoms and prosperity, but you can't "export" your historical experience to someone else. Every nation has to find its way to freedom. If someone is not historically prepared for something, you can't force them to be something else.

LazarOfSerbia: Abraham Lincoln had a simple idealism about the greatness of America. He said that "America is the last, best hope of mankind." I have always been inspired by this assessment of our greatest President. Moreover, I think it's true. You can dismiss my idealism, but are you willing to dismiss Lincoln's?

As dark as the last hundred years of mankind's history has been, it would have been far darker without America. As Mark Steyn has observed, a world without America is a world that would be subject to the tyrants of the earth. As for freedom and justice being empty words to cover political designs, I find this assessment of yours rooted in an old-world cynicism that is antithetical to the constructive idealism of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and many other great Americans. I go back to what I wrote before and that is that no political entity in history has shed the blood of its young men for the liberty of others anywhere near to the extent that America has.

If you wish to see cynical, manipulative motives as to why America came into WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the present war we're in in Iraq, go ahead, but I will dismiss such skepticism as way too easy and indicative of an incapacity to understand what America is about. When John Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961 that America will pay any price, bear any burden, to carry forth the torch of liberty, he meant it.

As for not being able to export democracy and the rule of law to other countries, I'd say we did a damn good job of it in Germany and Japan and we're on the verge of achieving that in Iraq, where liberty has never been known. We may fail there as we did in Vietnam, but to see only self-serving interest by America in endeavors like these is to go overboard in guarding against idealism. Take Taiwan as another example. What self-serving, Machiavellian interests does America have in supporting freedom in that small island? America has always been driven by ideals, more than any nation in fact, and, as Paul Johnson, an Englishman, has written, Americans have manifested a passion for justice no nation has ever matched.

Too idealistic? Nope. Just right. And noble. Again, Abraham Lincoln is my guide. You have a quarrel with me, you have a quarrel with him. Honestly, Lazar, I believe you're a good guy but I don't think you understand America as much as you think you do.

The situation in Russia isn't likely to get better, I'm sorry.

Characterizing a divide between the Kremlin and ethnic Russians, in Russia is also a bad move. Like any other people their beliefs are going to be diverse, but Russia might as well still be the USSR in regards to certain items of interest, one such being their public education.

Their education of the masses is hardly better than Saudi Arabia's when it comes to the defamation of the Other and the exaltation of the State and its People. You just need to do the appropriate substitutions from Islamic to secular Nationalism.

The nonsense spouted about America and Europe, even by Russian elementary aged children is practically on par with the garbage you see by Arab children on Pali TV. I'm sure it isn't too far off from what you would hear from the mouths of young Germans in the 1930s either.

Russia isn't totally hopeless, but they are bad off right now, especially as allies against Jihad. Just look at the "Russian" irregulars they deploy that the media has no real interest in taking note of. They should look pretty familiar, with their 'scarves', dirty pajamas and long beards.

Not an ally against Jihad. Like most of the West, they have no true grasp on what it is, or why it should be opposed. Jihadists are just a beast, and as long as the Russians hold the whip everything is fine. Nevermind that it backfired in the past when their Chechen dogs (that they still use) bit them, or when the America's Saudi dogs bit them on 9/11 and that the whole strategy of backing Mujahideen in return for loyalty will never work.

Russian ruthlessness is a point against them in fighting the Jihad, not for them. The ex-KGB led government and military aren't going to look at Jihadi barbarism and balk at it. They never have. They utilize those very barbarians as their vanguard and shock troopers. So, are their Muslim shock troopers, the most ruthless among them going to be complicit in fighting the Jihad? The majority of their overall rank and file grunts that are also at least nominally Muslim? Good luck with that one. Maybe the officers can do it all themselves without an army. Again, good luck.

Until the ex-KGB, so skilled at devoting all of their effort at doing practically nothing but keeping themselves in power during the Soviet era, are gone and Russian people want to actually get along with their neighbors rather than rule them, especially on the grounds of being racially or culturally superior, Russia is on a bad course.

Cold War 2 isn't going to happen, because Russia isn't capable of it any more. They also don't have the ideological crutch of Communism that the leftists in Europe and America will swoon over and facilitate propaganda as they used to. They might side against their own government, which they almost always do, but they will quickly fall out of love with the devoutly religious, ethnocentric, nationalistic, unilateral, corporate Russian political machine. Their friends on the left will get over the love affair fast. Russia isn't equipped to inflict the damage in a cold war that the USSR was; period.

They are a local power, but given time and free reign to consolidate energy resources, and align with OPEC or create their own version of it, they certainly will do more with their oil wealth than build thousands of solid golden palaces. They have the potential to rebuild an empire, and the knowledge of how to use that money as a weapon a lot more effectively than the Saudis do, and they seem pretty willing to tutor Iran on it as well. That is if we just roll over and let them do it, and play Chamberlain-esque appeasement games.

You still don't understand what I am saying. I agree with you and Lincoln, but he would be dissapointed to see how far today's American leaders are from his ideals. More than that, in some cases they have abused these noble ideas to achieve selfish political interests. American people should recognize that and revoke their support for politicians who are acting contrary to Lincoln's ideas.

For example, I am sure that Lincoln would not be "politically correct" about Islam, but would confront the evil directly. I see Robert Spencer as a genuine American who follows Lincoln's steps, but I don't see Bill Clinton in that light.

LazarOfSerbia: I think Lincoln would see the current President in a very positive light, finding his quest to bring freedom and prosperity to the Iraqi people (though the eventual success of this remains to be seen) as being in keeping with the best of American ideals. I also think Lincoln would admire George Bush's character. As for Lincoln himself, were he here, taking on Islam directly, I don't know. My guess is that he would accord it the same kind of deference that virtually all other Western politicians do. Lincoln was a very careful and shrewd man and was not given to denunciations very easily. Many anti-slavery folk thought Lincoln too moderate on the issue of slavery and severely criticized him for it. And don't forget that it was Lincoln who said that one can hate the sin without hating the sinner. But you raise an interesting question and one that we'll never for certain know the answer to.

I'll close here by stating that I do understand what you are saying. I'm just not in accord with your assessment. And don't forget, Lincoln represents the very best of the American political structure. In his time, most in politics were the same self-serving individuals they are now. This has never changed and never will.

Oh, something else, Lazar. Your comment that Lincoln would have openly denounced Islam (which, as I wrote above, I don't think he would have) did make me wonder after posting the above communication which American President would have been the most likely to have criticized Islam directly. My choice would be our 6th President, John Quincy Adams. He was brilliant, erudite, as prickly as a porcupine and didn't give a damn what people thought of him. Yeah, I'd have to go with Quincy Adams. Thanks for making me reflect on this. Hadn't really thought of it before.

Well, that would be really interesting to explore how leaders from the past would react in our situation today. As far as I know, Lincoln was not so vocal about slavery, but he made sure it will be defeated. I do not expect our leaders today to talk too much, but to do what needs to be done.

I made my choice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_of_Serbia

LazarOfSerbia: A fine choice. I have no doubt this fourteenth century Lazar would be very vocal in his assessment of Islam. And I join you in wishing that Western leaders today were far more effective than they are in combatting Islamic supremacism, especially in the area of Muslim immigration to Western countries. Little or no good will come of this.

Hugh, with all due respect:

Andrey Piontkovsky whom you extensively quote does not represent even a tiny fraction of the Russian people who are fed up with clueless pro-Western liberals whom they have nicknamed "DemoSchizy" ("Democracy" & "Schizophrenia"). And one can see why from his commentary that you hav posted here. He makes moral equivalency between the Russian suppression of the Islamic Jihad in Chechnya and Saakashvili's attack on Ossetian Christians. Do you? I appreciate the moving songs by the great Russian bard Bulat Okudzhava you've posted here. It so happens that he was an ethic Abkhaz. What do you think would his reaction be to the Russian Army's saving his Abkhaz people from the horrible fate of the Serbs of Krajina and Western Slavonia in 1995, and the Serbs of Kosovo in 1999? Whould he protest it, saying: "You the Russians were cruel to the Chechens, so you have no moral right to resist or even criticize the Georgians for doing the same thing to my people"? Somehow, I doubt that.
And, Scion9: Do you mean to hold Russia responsible for what happened under the Tzars and Commissars? And are you forgetting the 8 years of Yeltsyn who was so very, very needy to be friends with the West? And his totally pro-Western Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev whom Western diplomats had contemptiously nicknamed "Kozy" because he was a total yes-man to them. Instead of working with Russia on Iran, the West butchered, and butchered and butchered Russia's Serb brothers and sisters, actually mocking and making fun of Yeltsyn's pitiful impotent, whiny complaints. And what about Russia's grandiose retreat eastward, freeing all those countries whom America betrayed to Stalin in 1945. You dismiss it all as just "grandiose posturing"? With this attitude, what is there for the Russians to even talk with you about? Who lost Russia? The West lost Russia. The blame lays entirely with the West.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Hugh: Enragedsince1999 has laid down the gauntlet. I say he has a lot things wrong, not the least of which is that the West didn't lose Russia but exactly the opposite. Funny how Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and so many other Eastern European nations (Serbia excepted) see America and NATO in a positive light, but disdain the Russian bear to this day. I say Russia had a great chance to side with the West and freedom and blew it because it sees neighbors as serfs or antagonists, is clueless about freedom and is deeply, I mean profoundly, ignorant of what America is all about. Putin is a disaster for everyone, including Russians, and Russia thus is regressing yet again and Enragedsince1999 is oblivious of this. What do you say? Would be very interested to be sure.

Well, I would not be so sure that whole populations of mentioned Eastern European nations necessarily share the opinion with their governments about NATO and the West in general. Even current Serbian government is pro-western, because it is installed against the will of the people. Serbian Radical party won the elections, but then under huge pressure from the West an unholy alliance was formed by ultra-pro-western Democrats and - unbelievable! - Socialsts of Slobodan Miloshevic. This is not democracy.

Almost similar situation is in Georgia where an idiot president is installed by the USA just because he is "pro-american". If America is what you said - world leader in freedom and prosperity - I would suggest that: either idiots can not be "pro-american" or what you said is not completely true.

The nabi (pbum) notices that mohametan Chechen troops from the Yamadaev clan have been used in this operation against the Georgians. Notice the words Chechnya and Yamadaev written on the side of the tank.

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/643/img9611bf2.jpg

More pix here...Hat tip yermami.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551

These mohametans fight for Putin. It will be difficult to convince him that the jihad threatens Russia when Chechen troops are his crack loyal troops. Something is not quite right with that narative.

nabi ZK (pbum)

It it crazy to think that someone who had problems with non muslims and with those who are not people of color would want to see Russia and the US destoy each other in a global war?

What if they grew up in such a way that this prospect was seen as a very good thing?
But then again, who might have such views And Also a fairly good chance to have the power to make this happen?

It's probably crazy to believe that anyone would really be that radical. NO WAY, right?