Russian Democracy Confronts Itself
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">We will bury you, Constitution?</div> <a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/08/world/main587372.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/08/...ain587372.shtml</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(CBS) Europe's top security and human rights watchdog has condemned recent elections in Russia as a retreat from the democratic reforms adopted after the fall of the Soviet Union. In this news analysis, CBS News' Beth Knobel explains why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia's political landscape looks radically different after Sunday's election for the lower house of parliament, the State Duma. The liberals are out. The nationalists are in. And the big winner was United Russia, the political party backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin isn't actually a member of any political bloc, but he openly campaigned for United Russia. And United Russia made no secret of its ties to Putin. Its campaign slogan was "Together with the President."
Candidates from other political parties in Russia's still-developing democratic system have accused United Russia of using strong-armed tactics to get its candidates elected.
Officials who run United Russia - including the national police chief, the Emergencies Minister, and the Mayor of Moscow - reportedly told millions of government workers to work for the party - or else. That kind of administrative power helped Putin's party overpower the competition.
"Clearly, the abuse of the democratic system which we're witnessing in this election is absolutely unparalleled in the modern history of Russia," said Boris Fyodorov, a former Russian finance minister running for Duma in Moscow.
Fyodorov is not a member of United Russia, and he said that because he was not part of the party of power, he had trouble mounting a campaign. Fyodorov said his campaign workers were harassed by the police daily.
Just moments after a CBS News crew went out with his campaign workers in Moscow last week, Fyodorov's campaigners were detained by a group of policemen who seized their campaign literature.
Because of United Russia's Putin connection, its candidates got positive coverage on national television, which is all state controlled. And its opponents got pounded - especially the Communist party.
Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader, called United Russia's tactics fascist, and blamed the Communists' poor showing on unfair press coverage.
Coverage for United Russia candidates dominated the airways in the weeks before the election. Even on election day, Russian television channels featured members of United Russia voting - and hardly anyone else.
Russian election law prohibited President Putin from giving any last-minute endorsements as he went to vote Sunday, but he did remind his countrymen that, "My preference is clear" - alluding to United Russia.
The liberals also suffered from United Russia's tactics. Mikhail Zadornov, a third-term congressman from the liberal Yabloko party, said he's never seen administrative resources used in this way by any Russian government to defeat its opponents.
"All the vertical channels of power, from the mayor to the street sweeper, are working to create a win for United Russia," he said.
When Zadornov arranged a meeting with constituents last week, the best space the local government would offer him as an opponent of United Russia was a half-lit auditorium that was so cold, people had to sit in their coats.
Almost every store, every kiosk, every bus stop in the Zadornov's Moscow district was pushing United Russia. Zadornov's aide showed CBS News how their ads were vandalized on an almost daily basis. Every time they put up a Zadornov poster, Vladimir Grishenko said that it would either be torn down, or covered up with ads for Zadornov's challenger from United Russia.
"They do this in a lot of places in this, our district," Grishenko said, peeling off United Russia ads on a bus shelter to reveal the ad for his boss below.
Zadornov sent over 200 observers to monitor the vote count. With the government pushing one party, he feared it might falsify try to the results.
International observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have concluded that the elections were free, but not fair, given the uneven playing field created by the government in favor of United Russia.
Zadornov won his seat, and will be one of only four members of the Yabloko party to sit in the next Duma. Other liberal parties like the Union of Right Forces will also be all but gone in the new legislature.
Only four parties will have a significant presence in the next Duma - United Russia, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democrats of extremist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and a new nationalist party called Motherland (Rodina). But given the dominance of United Russia, this election looks a lot like a return to the bad old days of one-party rule.
©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty interesting (and rather bad) stuff - are we seeing a true return to the bad old days? Do you think the people would stand for it, or are they welcoming it? Is it possible that the Soviet Union Part 2 is coming back, now under a veneer of freedom but with the same old same old? Let's not forget that, barring the last decade, Russia and its republics have never experienced democracy or even a vague imitation; it's been one dictatorship after another, under Mongols, Tatars, Romanovs, Stalins, etc.
I'd be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this. And try to use analogies rather than accusations - we're not talking about how questionable George Bush's election results were, that has been discussed to death, and based on his bottomed-out polls is probably a moot point come November regardless. Try and discuss the topic at hand, or be sent to the forum Gulag.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(CBS) Europe's top security and human rights watchdog has condemned recent elections in Russia as a retreat from the democratic reforms adopted after the fall of the Soviet Union. In this news analysis, CBS News' Beth Knobel explains why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia's political landscape looks radically different after Sunday's election for the lower house of parliament, the State Duma. The liberals are out. The nationalists are in. And the big winner was United Russia, the political party backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin isn't actually a member of any political bloc, but he openly campaigned for United Russia. And United Russia made no secret of its ties to Putin. Its campaign slogan was "Together with the President."
Candidates from other political parties in Russia's still-developing democratic system have accused United Russia of using strong-armed tactics to get its candidates elected.
Officials who run United Russia - including the national police chief, the Emergencies Minister, and the Mayor of Moscow - reportedly told millions of government workers to work for the party - or else. That kind of administrative power helped Putin's party overpower the competition.
"Clearly, the abuse of the democratic system which we're witnessing in this election is absolutely unparalleled in the modern history of Russia," said Boris Fyodorov, a former Russian finance minister running for Duma in Moscow.
Fyodorov is not a member of United Russia, and he said that because he was not part of the party of power, he had trouble mounting a campaign. Fyodorov said his campaign workers were harassed by the police daily.
Just moments after a CBS News crew went out with his campaign workers in Moscow last week, Fyodorov's campaigners were detained by a group of policemen who seized their campaign literature.
Because of United Russia's Putin connection, its candidates got positive coverage on national television, which is all state controlled. And its opponents got pounded - especially the Communist party.
Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader, called United Russia's tactics fascist, and blamed the Communists' poor showing on unfair press coverage.
Coverage for United Russia candidates dominated the airways in the weeks before the election. Even on election day, Russian television channels featured members of United Russia voting - and hardly anyone else.
Russian election law prohibited President Putin from giving any last-minute endorsements as he went to vote Sunday, but he did remind his countrymen that, "My preference is clear" - alluding to United Russia.
The liberals also suffered from United Russia's tactics. Mikhail Zadornov, a third-term congressman from the liberal Yabloko party, said he's never seen administrative resources used in this way by any Russian government to defeat its opponents.
"All the vertical channels of power, from the mayor to the street sweeper, are working to create a win for United Russia," he said.
When Zadornov arranged a meeting with constituents last week, the best space the local government would offer him as an opponent of United Russia was a half-lit auditorium that was so cold, people had to sit in their coats.
Almost every store, every kiosk, every bus stop in the Zadornov's Moscow district was pushing United Russia. Zadornov's aide showed CBS News how their ads were vandalized on an almost daily basis. Every time they put up a Zadornov poster, Vladimir Grishenko said that it would either be torn down, or covered up with ads for Zadornov's challenger from United Russia.
"They do this in a lot of places in this, our district," Grishenko said, peeling off United Russia ads on a bus shelter to reveal the ad for his boss below.
Zadornov sent over 200 observers to monitor the vote count. With the government pushing one party, he feared it might falsify try to the results.
International observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have concluded that the elections were free, but not fair, given the uneven playing field created by the government in favor of United Russia.
Zadornov won his seat, and will be one of only four members of the Yabloko party to sit in the next Duma. Other liberal parties like the Union of Right Forces will also be all but gone in the new legislature.
Only four parties will have a significant presence in the next Duma - United Russia, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democrats of extremist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and a new nationalist party called Motherland (Rodina). But given the dominance of United Russia, this election looks a lot like a return to the bad old days of one-party rule.
©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty interesting (and rather bad) stuff - are we seeing a true return to the bad old days? Do you think the people would stand for it, or are they welcoming it? Is it possible that the Soviet Union Part 2 is coming back, now under a veneer of freedom but with the same old same old? Let's not forget that, barring the last decade, Russia and its republics have never experienced democracy or even a vague imitation; it's been one dictatorship after another, under Mongols, Tatars, Romanovs, Stalins, etc.
I'd be interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this. And try to use analogies rather than accusations - we're not talking about how questionable George Bush's election results were, that has been discussed to death, and based on his bottomed-out polls is probably a moot point come November regardless. Try and discuss the topic at hand, or be sent to the forum Gulag.
Comments
What worries me more is how this will affect stability in Europe and Asia. We can live in wary peace as long as Russia seems occupied with whipping it's own peasants. But what if they grow powerhungry again? If there's no democractic system to keep mad hatters just slightly in check, and the government is run by everone's uncle and cousin - what will happen during the next 10 years I wonder. This doesn't bode well for the Russian economy either, which again is just another way to make extra sure that there will be no democracy there, either.
I hope we can tie strong enough bonds between the former East Bloc Europe and EU so that we at least won't see a return to former geopolitical terror times. But I do not count on EU to make any kind of coherent policy towards this. EU has shown itself unable to find a leg to stand on so many times now, at least when it comes to international politics. There's only near-consensus when it's about keeping agricultural subsizing in place.
I pretty much consider Russia a "lost case" regarding it turning into a proper, well oiled democracy. At least one that isn't a lot worse than what we see around the western hemisphere. After putin another powermonger will take seat - wasn't putin pretty much Jeltzin's appointed crown prince? I bet when ever Putin steps down, in some 20 years or when his third heart stroke has hit him, it will be HIS crown prince.
Does this mean a new Cold War? Depends how the West reacts. I don't think Putin would be interested in sparking off a new arms race when his country is in such poor shape, and the nuclear stockpiles on both sides will halt any chance of combat quickly. In any case it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- Forever"
Seems that Eurasia is only beggining to rise to power...
Books or the Intarweb?
Books or the Intarweb? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either or...books preferably.
And the fact that many(not majority but many) Russians still think that during Soviet Union people had more than they have now. I'm not sure if they are wrong either. At least back then there was less criminals, drug using street-kids and I don't think people were that much poorer either. I mean back then everyone was poor except the ruling class. Now there's a lot of really poor people, some middle class and the 'ruling neo-rich' people.
We'll see what happens but it looks really bad.
About half of them bothered to vote in the first place. Bothered/dared/could afford/knew there was an election at all.
You have to pay to vote in Russia?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsE+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsE)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->powerful oligarchs were arrested<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is bad?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the Iraq experiment is just starting (or rather, hasn't even started yet). Personally I think it has a very low chance of success; there are far too many differant ethnic and religious groups in Iraq, all of whom hate each other, for democracy to work. Rather like Russia actually, when you think about it...
In both Iraq and Russia, the status quo has been strong, centralised governments, usually totalitarian in nature, each ruling with ruthless power. Interestingly enough, both Russia and Iraq are polygots of differant cultures and ethnicities, held together by the central government. I would agrue that in both cases, the reason dictatorships have been the status quo is that no other form of government can work in such conditions. No other government has the power to hold all these little groups together to form a nation as a whole.
Thanks, I'll check this out <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
tbh, I think there's more myth in that than fact. From what I've read there isn't really that much ethnic and religious conflict in Iraq. The majority of the conflict is more ideological. And this takes many forms... The most obvious is that of those attacking US forces and Iraqis that help the US, but its really too soon to see what impact they will have on things in the long run. Then there are the "minor" ideological differences... Very similar to what we have in the US... Differences, disputes, arguments... Nothing violent or full of hatred. More just differences of opinions.
It was Saddam who tried to create/maintain ethnic and religious conflict. It made it easier for him to remain in power. But in reality, now that Saddam's regime is gone, the ethnic/religious conflict is almost nill. Its just not there. At least, no where near the level that the media tries to suggest at times ( but then again, you hardly hear anything about it now anymore ). :-/
It was Saddam who tried to create/maintain ethnic and religious conflict. It made it easier for him to remain in power. But in reality, now that Saddam's regime is gone, the ethnic/religious conflict is almost nill. Its just not there. At least, no where near the level that the media tries to suggest at times ( but then again, you hardly hear anything about it now anymore ). :-/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looking at three of the major groups in Iraq, you can see what I mean. The Sunni and Shi'te Muslims hate one another. Yeah, the differance is really minor and occured centuries ago. Still doesn't change the fact that these guys loathe the other faction with a passion. Then you have the Kurds, who generally hate everyone (with good reason, I mean everyone hates them <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). How can you reconcile these groups in a democratic system? Say a Shi'te is elected. The Sunnis will be up in arms. Say a Sunni is elected. The Shi'tes will complain. Say a non-Kurd is elected. The Kurds will be furious. Say a Kurd is elected. The rest of the country will be enraged.
See where we're going here?
There are differences with these groups... No one will deny that, but I do not think its going to cause the problems you're speaking of. At least, not in the long run. The groups are getting along relatively well... As I remember reading an Iraqi say once ( of course I'm paraphrasing too ): "We are all Iraqi's." That's the important thing. I think democracy has a chance in Iraq... We just cannot believe it is impossible before they have really had a chance to implement it.
And I thought I was the only one who never went to bed... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the Iraq experiment is just starting (or rather, hasn't even started yet). Personally I think it has a very low chance of success; there are far too many differant ethnic and religious groups in Iraq, all of whom hate each other, for democracy to work. Rather like Russia actually, when you think about it... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, which people does not want peace, prosperity and a safe place for their kids to grow up? Iraqis want that too. They're just not convinced that USA is capable of giving them that. I can't blame them. The problem with some ethnic group that we deem "hate each other" is probably not as much hate as the pure irrational emotion. Ask yourself why the hate came into being the first place. Ask yourself, if the haters get food, a nice place to live, freedom from oppression by their old tormentors - and new alike - why would they not want democracy? The problem is "burned by fire". They have no REASON to trust their old tormentors. Give them that.
Now that I think is the problem with Russia. Too many has been pummeled and stepped underfoot by the iron boots for too long. They don't think that the new autocrats of Kreml will do anything different than they used to. So why bother? Why vote? Why resist when all you risk is a bullet to the head? It's not the people, my dear friends, it's the mad hatters that "runs" the people we should concern ourselves with.
It was Saddam who tried to create/maintain ethnic and religious conflict. It made it easier for him to remain in power. But in reality, now that Saddam's regime is gone, the ethnic/religious conflict is almost nill. Its just not there. At least, no where near the level that the media tries to suggest at times ( but then again, you hardly hear anything about it now anymore ). :-/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looking at three of the major groups in Iraq, you can see what I mean. The Sunni and Shi'te Muslims hate one another. Yeah, the differance is really minor and occured centuries ago. Still doesn't change the fact that these guys loathe the other faction with a passion. Then you have the Kurds, who generally hate everyone (with good reason, I mean everyone hates them <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). How can you reconcile these groups in a democratic system? Say a Shi'te is elected. The Sunnis will be up in arms. Say a Sunni is elected. The Shi'tes will complain. Say a non-Kurd is elected. The Kurds will be furious. Say a Kurd is elected. The rest of the country will be enraged.
See where we're going here? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ryo, do yourself a favor and don't believe the AP for a pinch of salt, they are so baised in their reporting that you are only hurting yourself in the long run.
The AP press likes to exxaggerate things, not only does it help them buisiness wise, but it also pushes their 'progressive' agenda.
This is bad? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're arrested merely for being wealthy and powerful and a threat to the government because you support groups not in power, wouldn't you consider that bad? From what I can tell (the accurate reporting from the region gets thinner by the reading), Putin's main interest in toppling YUKOS was a personal dislike of its owner. That is dangerous stuff. Imagine if George Bush set out to remove the CEO's of all the companies that did not give him political contributions? There'd damn near be riots in the street and he'd be impeached within weeks.
As for life in Russia being worse or better now, from what I know (both my contract rep and my mother visited Russia before and after the communists, once every few years), economically things are better. Instead of there being 99.9999999% of the people living like rats and the party elite living like kings, there is now a (small) middle class. The problem is, these things take time. It was a long time between the industrial revolution started in the US and Britain, and when a really large strong middle class emerged. Close to a hundred years, actually. Russia never actually had an industrial revolution - they've had a political and economic feudal state from day one, and are only now beginning to come out from under it. My main worry is their own lack of patience, and rose-colored glasses memories of their 'baby boomer' generation that seems to have forgotten just how crap things were with Stalin/Beria/Krushchev/etc. running around 'disappearing' millions of people. Most people have annoyingly short memories and tiny self-deceptive brains - that's not a Russian distinction by any means, it's a human one.
And people, stop talking about Iraq and start talking about Russia. I am not interested in having the topic hijacked for your personal agendas- stay on target. They are not particularly analogous and there has not been anything like enough time spent in Iraq for you to have any way to judge things. In Russia, however, the democratization arguably started 15 years ago. The fact that its failing now is what we are discussing. If your teacher asks you to answer a math problem and you respond with why the French Revolution occured, your answer may be technically correct, but not for the topic at hand, and you still get an F.
This is bad? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're arrested merely for being wealthy and powerful and a threat to the government because you support groups not in power, wouldn't you consider that bad? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it's bad but voters like it.
<a href='http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/index2.html?/eng/2003/11/06russia.html' target='_blank'>Info-zor</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Khodorkovskii was arrested on charges relating to tax evasion and fraud, but the case has far wider implications for Russian society. When Putin came to power he promised to deal with the so-called 'Oligarchs', the men who had used their influence during Yeltsin's reign to become fabulously wealthy while the vast majority of the population was left struggling to survive below the poverty line. Putin made this pledge not out of any concern for justice or fairness in society but because the new Russian capitalist class saw the need to end the chaos and lawlessness of the Yeltsin era. Putin wanted to consolidate a more stable form of society in which capitalist economic relations would be regulated within a legal framework.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june03/russiatvs_06-23.html' target='_blank'>Newshour about the last TV station</a>
<a href='http://www.indexonline.org/indexindex/20020114_russia.shtml' target='_blank'>Same by indexonline</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The objective of the suit, say TV-6 staff, was to silence the last station owned by industrial magnate Boris Berezovsky, a bitter opponent of President Vladimir Putin and indirect owner of 75 percent of the station.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess that affects Russias democracy a bit too. I associate free media and working democracy and I don't think they can exist without each other.
And these voters do not appear to be intelligently exercising their franchise in the slightest. While Yeltsin's give-away of the state-controlled resources may not have been particularly fair, what else could he have done? The only people that could have afforded to purchase them at a profit at that point were foreign investors, and that would have given away the country. He had no choice, and Putin claiming that was wrong is just pandering.
I give Russia another 10 years before they are either fully totalitarian again, or another (probably more bloody) revolution occurs again. In either case, that country is going to be a hellhole for decades to come. The real question is, what are you Europeans going to do about it this time?
And these voters do not appear to be intelligently exercising their franchise in the slightest. While Yeltsin's give-away of the state-controlled resources may not have been particularly fair, what else could he have done? The only people that could have afforded to purchase them at a profit at that point were foreign investors, and that would have given away the country. He had no choice, and Putin claiming that was wrong is just pandering.
I give Russia another 10 years before they are either fully totalitarian again, or another (probably more bloody) revolution occurs again. In either case, that country is going to be a hellhole for decades to come. The real question is, what are you Europeans going to do about it this time? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we're not going to invade <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Three times failed and you'd think someone had learned their lessons! Probably not, but I'm afraid that Europe is doing little except to alienate Russia bit by bit by gobbling up their old "allies" (that is, subjugated fiefdoms). This proces, however, is inevitable. Those countries probably still look upon their fixed salary work-sweeping-the-mainstreet-for-everyone times through rose tinted glasses - but that's just untill old Uncy Russia comes and gives them a jestful bear paw slap over the head. "Oh yeah, thats why we left!".
They see a clear choice: Make ties with rich Western Europe and try to shimmy away from out under the shadow of the Bear. Because even without The Party ruling with an iron fist, Russia is probably on the bottom of everyones' list.
So this proces will make Russia even more grumpy. And meanwhile there will be no concerted effort by European politicians to do anything about it. They're too busy sorting out their internal mess, homogenizing laws and the northern part of EU continually trying to get the southern part to conform to their agendas, while the southern part fights to get the rest to march to the beat.
In a sarcastic mood: If Russia goes to hell in a handbasket, don't anyone come crying to the Europeans. They'll claim they had NOTHING to do with it, what so ever. For good or for worse. When EU is ready to play in the big game as a union, it will be half past Russia has gone to hell already. Too late.
That 'bit' part was le sarcasm. I thought the latter sentence gave it away "I associate free media and working democracy and I don't think they can exist without each other." <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The real question is, what are you Europeans going to do about it this time?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ask that question after European countries are united as one nation(according to you, never) and are capable of embargoing russia as one minded entity. Until that, start thinking what USA could do to Mexico, Cuba and whole S-Americas problems, as many of those are real hell holes. Yeah, it works both ways <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I never liked Putin from the first time I heard about him, Ex-KGB, removing CEO's because he has a personal dislike for them, hell he looks like some creepy evil bond villain. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Honestly I hope America stays as far away from the problem as it can, keep an eye on it, but leave it alone. Russia already isn't happy with our actions in Iraq, and I'm sure no matter what we do with NK (we all know were going to have to do something sooner or later) they won't like that ether. IMO its Europe?s problem, let them deal with it, it can be the EU's first real test....so start studying.
Ahh, sorry. You're always a tad too dry in your writing for my feeble brain to comprehend, Dread. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The real question is, what are you Europeans going to do about it this time?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ask that question after European countries are united as one nation(according to you, never) and are capable of embargoing russia as one minded entity. Until that, start thinking what USA could do to Mexico, Cuba and whole S-Americas problems, as many of those are real hell holes. Yeah, it works both ways <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not quite sure how analogous Mexico, the Carribean, South America and Canada are to Russia. None are nuclear powers (although for the brief month that Cuba was, we certainly did something about it). None have any meaningful force projection outside their own borders. None have particularly large populations. And in Canadian/Mexican terms, which are the only ones sharing a border, we have generally long peaceful histories (no wars involving Canada for 200 years, and Mexico for 140). So basically, it does not go both ways. Good effort though! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now quit yer dodgin' and answer the question - what is Europe going to do about it? The days of the USA having nothing better to do than run NATO and Germany and such are gone. This is all on you, and if Immac is to be believed, it's not going to be pretty.
Chances are that the world will ignore it for as long as possible. It's not ideal, but there's not much alternative, as far as I can see.
MonsE, if you can give us lowly non-americans the solution, we'd be very grateful. What do we know, after all?
If you're going to be so sensitive, you really shouldn't be in the Discussion forums. And honestly, what have I negatively said about Europeans above? Quote me. Go bash Immacolata, he basically called Western Europe spineless wankers. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
(ps: He's from Western Europe)
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What did the world do when Hitler scrounged his way to the Presidency? Nothing. Because they could do nothing, really. Sure, they could have invaded. But it's hard to impose your will on a country if they don't want it, and expensive, too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you're right, that's tricky. At least with Hitler, Europe <i>could</i> have done something about it if that had chosen to. It would have been well within the Versailles Treaty rights for certain, at least. Instead, it was appeasement, ignorance, and head in the sand. Rather like nowadays, perhaps?