I was about to criticize Putin for lust for power.. [Archive]

EuroTroll

8th December 2006, 22:28

Bush is still ages ahead.

Putin is no angel for sure.......

You're comparing apples with cups of poison IMO.

Bush's administration have made some terrible mistakes with very grave consequences, but under the crust of foolishness are good civilized people, I believe. When Bush is gone, the U.S. can return to a foreign policy that is not from the horse's rectum and become what the Europeans consider a normal country once more.

Putin's administration is systematically turning Russia into a totalitarian terror state. Away with the free press, away with political opponents, away with the independence of neighbouring states. Russia will rise from ashes once more, become just as oppressive as the Soviet Union - but this time they won't be limited by a disfunctional economic system.

We should all be very concerned indeed.

PS. I can say whatever I want, since - being Estonian - I'm a fascist by default anyway. ;)

A.F.F.

11th February 2007, 21:14

Putin.... now in red :hot:

...started bullying again. Strong words against US and their rearmament.

On secondary note, he said Finland shouldn't join in NATO, which I didn't know we are joining :confused:

I brought this up because my personal opinion is that we ain't dealing with a puppet here like with US but a serious threat.

And just for the record, I'm all for Putin and his wonderfull job :up: :angel:

Erki

11th February 2007, 21:23

Should I start watching TV news and reading oldspapers? :s tare:

Eki

11th February 2007, 21:30

On secondary note, he said Finland shouldn't join in NATO, which I didn't know we are joining :confused:
What he actually said was that Finland joining NATO wouldn't be good for peace and security, but that it's up to Finland if it wants to join or not. I agree on that. When Finland isn't in NATO, there's no reason for Russia to consider Finland a security threat and "justify" a pre-emptive strike against Finland. If Finland were in NATO, Russia could understandably consider it a threat to its security and if Russia had a war with ANY NATO country, for example Turkey, Finland would automatically be drawn to that war.

Mark in Oshawa

13th February 2007, 18:37

EKi, of course, it would be presuming that Russia would attack a NATO country. NATO never has attacked Russia and isn't about to start.

As for Putin, he is a real manipulater, and he shows lots of signs of making the Russian nation his personal fiefdom. Russia is a huge disappointment to me, but that should be expected after 70 years of corrupt leaders, all those apparchatiks would have to find a way to influence things, and Putin is the top one of those ex-Communists running things. His methods are crude, and it is obvious that freedom is being stamped out in Russia.

I can say this...I live in Canada. You Finn's, you keep your heads down....he is too close to you...

Captain VXR

13th February 2007, 19:07

Erm, go North to Alaska and you can get within 50 miles of Russia :s . I don't know why but I'm always suspicious of the Russian and Chinese govornments :mark:

EuroTroll

13th February 2007, 19:14

What he actually said was that Finland joining NATO wouldn't be good for peace and security, but that it's up to Finland if it wants to join or not. I agree on that. When Finland isn't in NATO, there's no reason for Russia to consider Finland a security threat and "justify" a pre-emptive strike against Finland. If Finland were in NATO, Russia could understandably consider it a threat to its security and if Russia had a war with ANY NATO country, for example Turkey, Finland would automatically be drawn to that war.

Since when do Russian/Soviet leaders need to justify going to war? :rolleyes: When they spot a weak unprotected duck, they will try to take it.

Eki

13th February 2007, 19:40

NATO never has attacked Russia and isn't about to start.

Try to convince Russia that. It's like Iraq, Iran or North Korea have never attacked the US, yet the US sees them as threats.

BrentJackson

13th February 2007, 19:59

^ North Korea just finished a deal with the US and it seems it includes security guarantees. I don't think that one's gonna cause any more problems.

Being I'm currently residing on the West Coast of the United States, the Finns (really anyone in Eastern Europe) have a bit more to be concerned about than me. But Putin isn't any better than the autocrats who Yeltsin tossed over in 1991. That's sad when you get right down to it. Russia right now has lots of problems - terrible environment, economic problems, an AIDS crisis and worst of all they are starting to turn xenophobic again. I hope Putin has more of a brain than what he's shown, but after Litvenienko and that Russian journalist killed in her apartment I think they have reason to be concerned. It's been rumoured they killed their own people in the 1999 bombings just to go after the Chechens, too. Not people I'd want to be neighbours with.

EuroTroll

13th February 2007, 20:08

Not people I'd want to be neighbours with.

Nor I. :(

Eki

20th February 2007, 14:11

EKi, of course, it would be presuming that Russia would attack a NATO country. NATO never has attacked Russia and isn't about to start.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252771,00.html

Russia: Countries That Host U.S. Missile Shield Will Be Targets

Monday, February 19, 2007

MOSCOW — Poland and the Czech Republic risk being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host elements of the proposed U.S. missile defense system, a top Russian general warned Monday in the latest in a series of increasingly bellicose statements from Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that it wants to deploy missile defense components in Europe to counter threats from Iran, and warned that Russia could take retaliatory action.

Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, head of Russia's missile forces, said the U.S. move would upset strategic stability.

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made," he said.

A.F.F.

20th February 2007, 14:52

All right :hot: In other words, don't **** with Mr.Zero.

Naturally I don't mean Putin by Mr.Zero :angel:

Brown, Jon Brow

20th February 2007, 15:41

Everone knows the next major conflict will be between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar. Then France will invade the Channel Islands and WW3 will begin.

EuroTroll

20th February 2007, 16:55

Russia: Countries That Host U.S. Missile Shield Will Be Targets

That title really shocked me! But thankfully it is misleading as titles often are.

The thing to remember here is that the Russians generally view international affairs as a game of power between the Great Countries. The real participants in this game are countries like the USA, China, Japan, the UK, Germany, France, India, Iran (to an extent) and of course Russia itself. All other countries, in their view, are not players on the world stage, but puppets of the Great Countries.

That's why the Russians don't see the possible establishment of NATO missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as being part of the defence policy of these countries, but as an increase of the power of the USA in Europe. And as Russia desperately wants to increase its relative power and influence on world affairs, it feels it has to counter (what they see as) the escalation of the USA's defensive power in Europe with an escalation of their own offensive power.

The right thing to do, of course, is to ignore the barking and go ahead with the caravan.

BrentJackson

20th February 2007, 20:08

Oh, that's great.

Russia can't shove guys around with natural gas prices, so now they are threatening them with force. Terrific. :(

Between these guys and the Chinese are they just giving lots of ammo to the world's hardasses, do they know that?

Eki

20th February 2007, 20:46

Also German foreign minister has criticized the way the US has behaved with its missile defense system:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb18/0,4670,GermanyUSMissileDefense,00.html

Germany Nudges U.S. on Missile Defense

Sunday, February 18, 2007

BERLIN — Germany's foreign minister said the United States should have included Russia in discussions of a proposed missile defense project in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to comments released Sunday.

Because the proposed missile defense bases would be stationed "close to Russia, they should have been included in discussions earlier," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in an interview for Monday's edition of the German daily Handelsblatt, which released his comments in advance.

Steinmeier encouraged Washington to include Russia in continuing discussions.

"Given the strategic nature of such a project, I would advocate proceeding carefully with intensive dialogue with all partners involved, whether directly or indirectly," Steinmeier said.

Russia has sharply criticized the project, which involves setting up about 10 missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic, both NATO members, as part of a larger system to guard Europe and the eastern U.S. from missiles launched in the Middle East.

Eki

20th February 2007, 20:47

That's why the Russians don't see the possible establishment of NATO missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as being part of the defence policy of these countries, but as an increase of the power of the USA in Europe.
How do missile interceptors on their own soil improve the security of Poland and the Czech Republic? Doesn't that increase the chance that those intercepted missiles fall on Poles and Czechs instead of continuing to where they are aimed (maybe the US)?

Tomi

20th February 2007, 20:53

both NATO members, as part of a larger system to guard Europe and the eastern U.S. from missiles launched in the Middle East.

Lol, this is the funny part, what country in middle east has missiles that reach, poland or eastern us?? You have to be quite deep from texas to buy this kind of crap.
To me it looks like putin is trying to create somekind of internal worrieness in russia, so that he can someway explain to the people why he has to continiue as president.

Eki

20th February 2007, 20:58

Lol, this is the funny part, what country in middle east has missiles that reach, poland or eastern us??
Maybe Israel?

Tomi

20th February 2007, 21:04

Maybe Israel?

They have yes, but in general I think europeans should stay calm, and dont fall for alkind of scare tactic talk that comes from behind the pond, a look at the map often tells you the truth about distances, and why would someone in middle east want to treath poland or what ever country in europe.

L5->R5/CR

20th February 2007, 22:29

Why do we need to talk to Russia about putting military installations in other countries when we aren't having hostile relations with Russia in the first place?

Europe needs to stop tripping over themselves to stroke Russia's ego. The nationalization and monopolization of oil resources will soon fade in terms of their windfall proffits for the Russian government. Decreasing prices as well as GAZPROM's utter incompetence when it comes to expansion will so lead them to decreasing revenues with no hope for expansion. The companies with the capabilites to make the discoveries and develop them will tell Russia to piss off and then all will return to the world.

But seriously, Russia is just a petty thug of a country (not that the US is all the much better, but...). Europe needs to get over Russia, they all want to stroke Russia's ego to get her energy but without the Western European energy market Russia is as powerless and hopeless as they could ever be...

Oh and don't think the Czech's and Polish weren't well enticed/compensated either...

EuroTroll

20th February 2007, 23:06

How do missile interceptors on their own soil improve the security of Poland and the Czech Republic? Doesn't that increase the chance that those intercepted missiles fall on Poles and Czechs instead of continuing to where they are aimed (maybe the US)?

It's actually rather simple. :rolleyes: When someone fires a missile towards Poland or the Czech Republic, they can shoot it down. When someone fires a missile over their territory, they have a choice of either shooting it down or letting it go. It increases their options on what to do should a missile happen to fly around their part of the world.

Lol, this is the funny part, what country in middle east has missiles that reach, poland or eastern us?? You have to be quite deep from texas to buy this kind of crap.
To me it looks like putin is trying to create somekind of internal worrieness in russia, so that he can someway explain to the people why he has to continiue as president.

I think you're right Tomi in that the defence system will actually be built with Russia in mind. Eastern Europeans generically have a great deal of weariness towards Russia, and it is made greater by the firm direction towards the Dark Side that Russia has taken during Putin's reign.

Also, I think you're right in that Russia's protests about the missile defence system are actually directed towards their domestic audience. With Presidential and Duma elections not so far away, internal power struggles are increasing. The militarists, of course, are trying to increase their influence by scaring people by inventing enemies.

I don't think, though, that Putin will try to remain in office. There will be a smooth power transfer to Sergei Ivanov.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1320000/images/_1324701_putin_ivanov_ap300.jpg

Why do we need to talk to Russia about putting military installations in other countries when we aren't having hostile relations with Russia in the first place?

You don't. This matter is between the NATO allies Poland, the Czech Republic and the USA. These are defensive weapons and pose no threat to Russia. Claiming otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.

Eki

20th February 2007, 23:13

It's actually rather simple. :rolleyes: When someone fires a missile towards Poland or the Czech Republic, they can shoot it down. When someone fires a missile over their territory, they have a choice of either shooting it down or letting it go. It increases their options on what to do should a missile happen to fly around their part of the world.

Does it really? Do you really believe the Poles and the Czech are operating those missile interceptors so that they can decide what missiles to intercept and what not?

EuroTroll

20th February 2007, 23:17

Does it really? Do you really believe the Poles and the Czech are operating those missile interceptors so that they can decide what missiles to intercept and what not?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Eki

20th February 2007, 23:19

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Not more than you do, but I don't trust the Americans any more than I trust the Russians.

EuroTroll

20th February 2007, 23:21

Not more than you do, but I don't trust the Americans any more than I trust the Russians.

I know.

I, on the other hand, trust the Americans about 10 times more than the Russians. Hence our difference of assumptions. :)

Eki

21st February 2007, 00:46

I know.

I, on the other hand, trust the Americans about 10 times more than the Russians. Hence our difference of assumptions. :)

I can't see why the US would be willing to defend Estonia (or Poland and the Czech Republic) any more than Russia is. At best Estonia would be just a buffer zone and cannon fodder to the US, in my opinion.

EuroTroll

21st February 2007, 00:51

And what a wonderfully provocative opinion it is! :) It's not the topic of this thread, though. :p :

Roamy

21st February 2007, 02:52

We ll a couple things Vodka Breath has failed at captialism so may as well return to the cold war. So everyone wants us to bail out on the world so I think it would be a great time to escape. carve iraq up into 3 pieces relocate all the idiots. Stop foregin aid and ****ing bail. Offer all women 40 yrs and under in Venezula who are at least a "7" immediate citizenship in the us - then move on!!

Rudy Tamasz

21st February 2007, 08:58

Putin is typical security guy, a proverbial man in black, very stiff, paranoid and obsessed with the idea of a total crackdown on everything. His depth of thinking is equal to that of a drill sergeant. You would want some kind of assurance against such a neighbor. Ivanov is even worse IMO.

F1boat

21st February 2007, 09:13

I'm afraid of Russian authorities :(

Mark in Oshawa

21st February 2007, 19:27

The fact Eki distrusts the US as much as the Russians says it all to me. Eki, you would not trust the Americans to do the right thing if it was the only option, while you would give the benefit of the doubt to a guy like Putin? Putin has done more to turn Russia back into the restrictive hell hole it was in the USSR's day than people realize. Last time I looked, that was never a recipe for any successful nation to grow and build an economy. Putin's buddies run the oil and gas industry. There is little export of anything else. Human rights and press freedoms are under attack. Yet you trust Putin and Bush equally. Unreal.

It never ceases to amaze me of the naive notions of those who think America is the root of the worlds problems. America has a lot of faults, and god knows I see more than a few of them as I spend a lot of time down there now but in the end, no other nation has put more on the line with less direct return than America.

Mark in Oshawa

21st February 2007, 19:30

Ian McC

21st February 2007, 20:16

I don't trust the Americans

Eki, I doubt there is anyone on this forum that doesn't know that already :)

EuroTroll

21st February 2007, 20:22

It is funny, people from the nations who have lived under thugs such as Putin and the former Communist governments have no problem trusting the US and their motives, yet someone like Eki or Tomi who live in a democratic state all their lives distrust the US.

I don't wish to offend the Finns, but I think it is very specifically a Finnish trait to be completely spineless in international relations and just operate with the overwhelming aim of everyone getting along. A country who actively fights for their values obviously interferes with the attainment of the goal of everyone getting along, so it seems profoundly evil to many Finns. Hence the distaste they have for the USA.

It is sometimes remembered in Estonia that when we declared the restoration of our independence on August 20, 1991, the Finnish President Mauno Koivisto publicly advised the Estonians to calm down and take Moscow's wishes into account...

This attitude obviously derives from Finland's own very traumatic experiences with the Soviet Union, so it is understandable. Understandable, but profoundly wrong IMO.

You have to fight for what's right, if you want it to prevail. You have to! The Americans do that. :up: It's just that their methods have become very dubious, and consequently they are unsuccessful. And having places like the Guantanamo Bay prison is just an utter disgrace that hurts us all. :down:

But this thread is about Russia. :)

EuroTroll

21st February 2007, 21:23

I don't wish to offend the Finns, but I think it is very specifically a Finnish trait to be completely spineless in international relations and just operate with the overwhelming aim of everyone getting along.

I should add that this Finnish spinelessness in international affairs is especially odd considering that the Finns are actually - in everyday life - undoubtedly the most straightforward, tough and honest people in our region, with great integrity.

Tomi

21st February 2007, 21:38

I should add that this Finnish spinelessness in international affairs is especially odd

What international affairs are you referring too?

Eki

21st February 2007, 22:50

You have to fight for what's right, if you want it to prevail.
I think Finland did fight what they thought was right in 1939-1945, and I might add that with better success than the Estonians. What we learnt is that you can't trust outside help, because their own interests always come first and yours only after that. We also learnt that it's not nice when outside superpowers try to interfere with your own internal affairs without your consent.

I think most Finns would have preferred peace instead of war. That's why Koivisto tried to warn the Estonians not to stretch it too far. Like Mannerheim said in his order of the day after the winter war:

http://www.kevos4.com/mannerheims_speech.htm

"You did not want war; you loved peace, work and progress; but you were forced into a struggle in which you have done great deeds, deeds that will shine for centuries in the pages of history. More than fifteen thousand of you who took the field will never again see your homes, and how many those are who have lost for ever their ability to work. But you have also dealt hard blows, and if two hundred thousand of our enemies now lie on the snowdrifts, gazing with broken eyes at our starry sky, the fault is not yours. You did not hate them or wish them evil; you merely followed the stern law of war: kill or be killed. "

Eki

21st February 2007, 23:21

I think Finland did fight what they thought was right in 1939-1945, and I might add that with better success than the Estonians. What we learnt is that you can't trust outside help, because their own interests always come first and yours only after that. We also learnt that it's not nice when outside superpowers try to interfere with your own internal affairs without your consent.

I think most Finns would have preferred peace instead of war. That's why Koivisto tried to warn the Estonians not to stretch it too far. Like Mannerheim said in his order of the day after the winter war:

http://www.kevos4.com/mannerheims_speech.htm

"You did not want war; you loved peace, work and progress; but you were forced into a struggle in which you have done great deeds, deeds that will shine for centuries in the pages of history. More than fifteen thousand of you who took the field will never again see your homes, and how many those are who have lost for ever their ability to work. But you have also dealt hard blows, and if two hundred thousand of our enemies now lie on the snowdrifts, gazing with broken eyes at our starry sky, the fault is not yours. You did not hate them or wish them evil; you merely followed the stern law of war: kill or be killed. "

Here's one more quote from that speech, which likely reflects the feelings of many Iraqis after they lost the war:

"Our fate is hard, now that we are compelled to give up to an alien race, a race with a life philosophy and moral values different from ours, land which for centuries we have cultivated in sweat and labor."

Malbec

21st February 2007, 23:54

You don't. This matter is between the NATO allies Poland, the Czech Republic and the USA. These are defensive weapons and pose no threat to Russia. Claiming otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.

Actually they do pose a threat to Russia.

The traditional nuclear powers, the big 5, have them on the basis of mutually assured destruction. It does not matter whether the US claims that the ABMs are intended to shoot down missiles from 'rogue' states, the fact is that in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the West (or indeed China) the anti-ballistic missile defence system tips the balance in favour of NATO. In such a case the balance would be tipped so far (if the system worked as advertised) that mutually assured destruction would no longer be the case. Only the destruction of whoever is fighting NATO would be assured.

This kind of anti-missile system was banned under previous agreements between the USSR and the US for exactly this reason. MAD is the most stable form of preventing nuclear war that we have between two existing nuclear powers.

That is why both China and the Russia have started to reexpand their ballistic missile forces having downsized them after the Cold War.

On every other issue, I agree with your analysis of Russia. What is worrying for west Europeans is that as North Sea gas reserves start to run out, we will have to depend on Russian reserves instead, and we have seen how the Russians like to both use the threat of cutting gas supplies and the awarding of gas/oil contracts to extend its power overseas.

Mark in Oshawa

22nd February 2007, 00:28

Interesting take on things Eki. You believe in FINLAND fighting for its rights, but the Estonians, no, they should take it easy so as not to offend the Russians. The Russians have proven once and again they are bullies, plain and simple and Europeans better get used to the Russians threatening them the same way they threaten the Ukraine.

Sticking one's head in the sand not to offend anyone..what a concept. Too bad bullies love that attitude. The Americans may not always communicate well with other nations, and they can be clumsy at times, but make no mistake, a world economy dominated by America beats one being run by the likes of Vladdie Putin any time.

As for Anti-Ballistic Missle shields being a threat to MAD, let me tell you that any nuclear weapons going off is bad for the earth. Fallout would cause more problems for the living than can be imagined. You think the Americans would ACTUALLY use Nukes for conquest? You really are dreaming then. The reason they have started with this technology is their mistrust of stupid little trolls like Kim in North Korea, or the Imams of Iran who believe in the world coming to an Islamic apocalypse as the unbelievers will be burned and the righteous Muslims see Allah and get their rewards. The Americans don't trust people who are NOT afraid of the implications of their actions. Last time I read, America had the nuclear hammer over the world for 2 years, and did nothing to exploit it. Building an ABM system now wouldn't make them any more likely to use nukes. For those who believe that an ABM system would ensure a nuclear exchange, I have some nice swamp land to sell you.....

Malbec

22nd February 2007, 00:37

As for Anti-Ballistic Missle shields being a threat to MAD, let me tell you that any nuclear weapons going off is bad for the earth. Fallout would cause more problems for the living than can be imagined. You think the Americans would ACTUALLY use Nukes for conquest? You really are dreaming then. The reason they have started with this technology is their mistrust of stupid little trolls like Kim in North Korea, or the Imams of Iran who believe in the world coming to an Islamic apocalypse as the unbelievers will be burned and the righteous Muslims see Allah and get their rewards. The Americans don't trust people who are NOT afraid of the implications of their actions. Last time I read, America had the nuclear hammer over the world for 2 years, and did nothing to exploit it. Building an ABM system now wouldn't make them any more likely to use nukes. For those who believe that an ABM system would ensure a nuclear exchange, I have some nice swamp land to sell you.....

Whether the Americans might actually use nukes isn't the point. Strawman arguments will get you nowhere.

The fact is that the Russians have a large number of ballistic missiles which has for 40-50 years given them some form of reassurance in the form of MAD and has also bought them a place at top level international politics regardless of their slide down the economic food chain after the collapse of the USSR.

Threaten that foreign policy clout which comes from the possession of effective nukes and the Russians are not going to take it lying down. Neither are the Chinese.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 01:02

Interesting take on things Eki. You believe in FINLAND fighting for its rights, but the Estonians, no, they should take it easy so as not to offend the Russians.
If the Estonians hadn't taken it as easy as they did (it wasn't called the Singing Revolution for nothing), their hopes could have been crushed in bloodshed instead of them becoming an independent nation. I don't think the Estonians would have had much chance against the Red Army if they had chosen an armed uprising instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution

Eki

22nd February 2007, 01:06

You think the Americans would ACTUALLY use Nukes for conquest? You really are dreaming then.
It doesn't matter what we think, it's about what the Russians think, and many of them distrust the US just like many Americans distrust the Iranians and the North Koreans.

janvanvurpa

22nd February 2007, 04:29

It is funny, people from the nations who have lived under thugs such as Putin and the former Communist governments have no problem trusting the US and their motives, yet someone like Eki or Tomi who live in a democratic state all their lives distrust the US. Strange......maybe Studiose and Rudy know real evil when they see it because they lived with it??

I distrust certain elements of the US: the radical right wing and ALL Fundementalists (everywhere) but especially those right wing radical nut jobs whose eagerness to appease the Fundi-whack-jobs leads them to deploy phony theatrical crises (and equally phony theatrical "conclusions like "Mission Accomplished!") and destroy the good will and reputation of the US for petty domestic political purposes.

Maybe Eki and Tomi distrust the cuurent gang of fools and criminals controlling the Presidency in the US just because they live in a Democracy and they recognize phony poorly done demagoguery.

One can suggest that the former East Bloc regimes exsisted because a critical number of people in those States believed it was the best thing to do, and others because in short they were used to it.
Doesn't mean they know all about multi-party parlementary democracy.
Or even how to recognize when they're being lied to.

By your illogic the best person to comment on Democratic governance would be somebody who was imprisoned at an early age, and tortured, and blinded by some autocratic regime, that's the best schooling, eh.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 05:29

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 06:07

One can suggest that the former East Bloc regimes exsisted because a critical number of people in those States believed it was the best thing to do, and others because in short they were used to it.
Doesn't mean they know all about multi-party parlementary democracy.
Or even how to recognize when they're being lied to.

Perhaps, before suggesting that, one should give a thought or two to the waves of Soviet repressions (executions, deportations to hard labour camps in Siberia, confiscation of property, interrogations and constant hassle by the authorities, loss of ability to pursue a cultural/scientific career, etc.) against millions of people in the Soviet Union - often with the mere justification that there was reason to believe that these people were not loyal to the Soviet Union.

Perhaps one should also cast one's mind back to the events in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakkia in 1968 to acquire another clue why "a critical number of people in those States believed [maintaining the communist regime] was the best thing to do." :rolleyes:

You're right in that this doesn't make us experts on democracy. It does, however, give us a clearer sense of its value and a more urgent desire to promote it.

It is also worth remembering that, in contrast to the mess in Iraq, the Bush administration has also done well in certain foreign policy matters. The popular revolutions in Georgia (which has started well on its way to becoming a democratic and prosperous country) and the Ukraine (where it has been somewhat reversed) were very well supported by the USA. Moldova and Kyrgystan have also benefited from the USA's financial and moral support to members of the opposition. In these cases, the USA has truly promoted the cause of democracy and freedom.

Roamy

22nd February 2007, 06:07

see if we would just isolate and stop all foregin aid - the world would be a great place because you could live without fear of the USA being involved in your life. I just don't know why this is so hard for our government to comphrend.
The Russians could sit around and have a vodka bottle on every table while they contribute what ever in the hell they do. China could continue to prostitute the children for economic gain and no one would ever need to be concerned. The Middle East would merge into one great country via a few wars and lastly **** the jews as they have worn out there world welcome. **** maybe I should run for president !!

Mark in Oshawa

22nd February 2007, 06:13

I don't think for a second the best democrats should be brought up in a Gulag, but what I have pointed out is that people who just finally were able to achieve living in a modern democratic state have a greater appreciation for the greater threats to that status.

The US may do a lot of things in a clumsy manner with George W. Bush as President, but no one can deny that the attack of 9/11 made America nervous, scared and just a little bit pissed off. You have to always go on the understanding if Bin Laden had just not poked that stick in to America's eye that day, Bush was likely a one term president, the Americans would have snoozed the last 7 years away, and the world would have been in that somambulant state that the Clinton administration seemed to do well with. Of course, that ambivalence about actually solving a foreign policy issue that actually mattered with effort and resolve was lacking and that was what drove Bin Laden into thinking America would take 9-11 lying down. Well they aren't lying down, and they wont just let the world kick them around. Regardless of your opinion of the Americans, for the most part they had a foreign policy that was sometimes clumsy, sometimes brilliiant but often very non-committal to any one strategy for a length of time other than being for democracy and free markets, and sort of barely tolerant of regimes that deserve a lot more scorn than they often got. Western powers didn't want to solve the messy problems. Now that one of them has created a messy problem, you want them to walk away from it.

At least the Americans have motives that are somewhat defensisble. Putin's motives for most of what it does bodes no good will for anyone but Vladimir Putin and his friends. Just ask Russians who disagree with him, at least the ones who haven't had the radioactive milkshake.....

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 06:38

What international affairs are you referring too?

Tomi, I'm referring to Finland's only foreign policy partner that is difficult - Russia. (This brings us nicely back to topic of the thread. :) )

In my opinion, Finland is too focused on trying to get along well with Russia, and consequently does very little to try to influence things. While the Baltic countries are very actively trying to alert the Western world to what is happening in Russia, Finland just... sits there.

And when Russia launches one propaganda attack after another against Estonia and Latvia (did you know that Estonia and Latvia are actually Fascist countries where grave human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis, as they have done throughout history? ;) ), Finland just... sits there.

And when the enlightened government/opposition in Georgia, the Ukraine and Moldova are trying to break free from Russia's sphere of influence, Finland just... sits there.

Not a kind supporting word to anyone. God forbid you might make Russia angry. :rolleyes:

Mark in Oshawa

22nd February 2007, 08:13

Studiose, I never looked at Finland in that light, but you know, you are right on the money. Scandanavian nations are loathe to criticize the Russians or to make any kind of stand save for Denmark. The Danes have gotten military involved in Afghanistan and sent troops to Iraq as well. When have the Swedes or Finn's done any foreign policy other than donate troops to UN Peacekeeping? When have they taken tough stands against nasty dictators who could actually make life a little more difficult for them? When have the Finns come out and told the Russians to take that long walk of the short pier that they really need to be told.

Finland is a terrific little country, its people are tough and yet kind, but they have some sort of aversion to pissing people off that need to be told. The Estonians and Lativians are no threat to Russia, but you would never know that to see how Russian political propaganda has tried to run down the status of not just the Baltic nations, but other countries such as the Ukraine and Georgia when they couldn't control their motives.

The Finns should be backing the Baltic states, Moldova, the Ukraine. The Finns should state that Russian foreign policy inititives are sending the world back to the cold war, and the Finns should be taking a stand for something other than scolding the rest of the world on how morally bankrupt their motivations are to get involved in some of the things they do.

Of course, Finland isn't the only nation guilty of this. Canada's last 2 prime ministers spent 13 years scolding the Americans every chance they got, kissing up to Castro when they felt it was meaningless, and spent a lot of political capital bending themselves in knots trying to avoid committing any troops to any effort to actually bring some sort of peace where it might have to be enforced. What is more, they were so earnest in trying to portray this nation as peace loving and good natured good guys, they pretty much had us stand for NOTHING. Being neutral and being neutral while ignoring human rights violators are two different things. Some nations can be neutral while actually standing for something, but the last time I looked, most nations have to stand up for something and actually commit more than hot air to defending the principles they want to espouse. No one cares what Finland thinks in this world.....and no one was listening to Canada for a long time either. I think at times, if you want respect, you have to get out there and earn it, and I don't see a lot of morally smug leaders in some nations doing that.

The Americans, love them or hate them, at least you cant ignore them. Ditto for the Russians or the UK. Nations such as the Czech Republic, Poland and the Ukraine have pushed a lot of world opinion towards respecting human rights, fighting back against the Russian's desire to run things as if the Cold War was still on because they were/are NOT afraid to stand up and say no to Russia. The Finns did it in 1945, and haven't said much since....

Tomi

22nd February 2007, 09:07

In my opinion, Finland is too focused on trying to get along well with Russia, and consequently does very little to try to influence things. While the Baltic countries are very actively trying to alert the Western world to what is happening in Russia, Finland just... sits there.

And when Russia launches one propaganda attack after another against Estonia and Latvia (did you know that Estonia and Latvia are actually Fascist countries where grave human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis, as they have done throughout history? ;) ), Finland just... sits there.

And when the enlightened government/opposition in Georgia, the Ukraine and Moldova are trying to break free from Russia's sphere of influence, Finland just... sits there.

Not a kind supporting word to anyone. God forbid you might make Russia angry. :rolleyes:

I think we try to get along with all countries not only russia, lol yes i remember those fascist comments, those where ridiculous, I dont know why those should have been commented, a bit same when us say in speaches they fight for americans freedom in iraq, too ridiculous to comment. :)

Tomi

22nd February 2007, 09:17

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 09:23

I think we try to get along with all countries not only russia, lol yes i remember those fascist comments, those where ridiculous, I dont know why those should have been commented

Tomi, they should have been commented because if a country like Finland - with whom Estonia is historically and ethnically very closely related - doesn't come out and say that this is nonsense, then Russia will get the impression that European countries don't really disagree with them. Which encourages them to come after us again and again and again. And what's worse, some people around the world will start to believe it.

Estonian volunteers fought with the Finns against the Soviet Union. Is it really so much to ask that you proclaim us to not be Fascists once in a while? :)

Tomi

22nd February 2007, 09:29

Tomi, they should have been commented because if a country like Finland - with whom Estonia is historically and ethnically very closely related - doesn't come out and say that this is nonsense, then Russia will get the impression that European countries don't really disagree with them. Which encourages them to come after us again and again and again. And what's worse, some people around the world will start to believe it.

Not really i think, beacuse they did have nothing with what to back up their talks. They can say whatever but if there is nothing behind, it's just empty words.
Also whats happening in the Baltic region is i belive followed very closely in EU, the problm is that russia has energy, big countries in europe needs that. Every country in the region should try to get independent as possible of russian energy, i dont know what estonia is doing about it, but i know we are working on it for sure.

janneppi

22nd February 2007, 09:35

Studiose, I never looked at Finland in that light, but you know, you are right on the money. Nordic nations are loathe to criticize the Russians or to make any kind of stand save for Denmark. The Danes have gotten military involved in Afghanistan and sent troops to Iraq as well. When have the Swedes or Finn's done any foreign policy other than donate troops to UN Peacekeeping?
Denmark, along with Norway are members of Nato, and have both commited troops because they've had to do so under pressure form some Nato country. It was rather unpopular at the time, and remains so. Partly that has lead Denmark to withdraw it's 450 men infantry and replace it with few helicopters. I also believe Norway pulled it's 10 man brigade two years ago. :)

I can't speak for the Swedes, but Finnish constitution has prevented us from working in non UN operations, add to that, Finland was prohibited to have any "offensive" weapons after WW2 to prevent us from attacking Soviet Union i guess. ;)
That part of the treaty was forgotten in the early nineties by president Koivisto.
Thirdly most of our pre-2000 equipment is of soviet/Eastern origin, with the way of things were it would have been very difficult to buy western military equipment. Having altogether different equipment than anyone else in combat situation is a big hindrance. Finland has recently been working to NATOfyi it's military, but it takes time and money, latter which we don't really have too much.
Fourth reason for not participating in combat operations is the nature of Finland military, iwhich is based on conscription. It's a altogether different matter to send professional soldier´s to harms way than your local plumber or accountant.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 09:49

Maybe Eki and Tomi distrust the cuurent gang of fools and criminals controlling the Presidency in the US just because they live in a Democracy and they recognize phony poorly done demagoguery.

That's well put. I don't distrust ALL Americans, just the ones currently running their foreign policy.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 10:03

And when Russia launches one propaganda attack after another against Estonia and Latvia (did you know that Estonia and Latvia are actually Fascist countries where grave human rights violations are occurring on a daily basis, as they have done throughout history? ;) ), Finland just... sits there.

To be fair, I don't think the leaders of Finland oppose the propaganda and human rights violations committed by the US more vocally than they do those by the Russians. They just...sit there. And the same goes to China.

A.F.F.

22nd February 2007, 21:59

Estonian volunteers fought with the Finns against the Soviet Union. Is it really so much to ask that you proclaim us to not be Fascists once in a while? :)

As the words of Bill Hicks, it was a long time ago. Let it be.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 22:08

As the words of Bill Hicks, it was a long time ago. Let it be.

Trust me, I'm not hung up on that. It was just a bit of fun, that comment. ;)

I am, however, truly unhappy that the Finnish government appears to be so indifferent towards other nations' struggles with Russia. And I'm disappointed, because underneath that appearance of indifference is cowardice IMO.

Tomi

22nd February 2007, 22:27

Estonian volunteers fought with the Finns against the Soviet Union. Is it really so much to ask that you proclaim us to not be Fascists once in a while? :)
You are not fascists, and thank's for the help then, if it would happen today your brave volunteers would propably be called, foreign fighters or terrorists, by the enemy. :)

Eki

22nd February 2007, 22:27

In my opinion, Finland is too focused on trying to get along well with Russia, and consequently does very little to try to influence things.

Do you really believe Finland could influence things outside its own borders whether it tries or not? I don't.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 22:37

Estonian volunteers fought with the Finns against the Soviet Union. Is it really so much to ask that you proclaim us to not be Fascists once in a while? :)
Yes, and I as most likely many other Finns are greatful for that. However, as you said, they were individual volunteers just like the Swedish volunteers, not the Estonian nation. Estonia and Sweden as nations didn't officially do much for Finland, so I think you shouldn't ask Finland to do officially much for Estonia. I'm sure there are a lot of Finnish individuals who are sympathetic to Estonia.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 22:43

Do you really believe Finland could influence things outside its own borders whether it tries or not? I don't.

Yes, I very much believe so.

I think Estonia has been a very useful friend to Georgia. Our top government officials often visit Tbilisi to share our experiences on making a successful transition to a free market economy, on what we have found to be the right way to deal with Russia, on how to become full members in international organization like NATO, etc. And our Foreign Ministry works hard on making the case of Georgia heard in Europe and America.

If Estonia can make a difference, why can't Finland? And I think you underestimate the value of simple verbal support. The nations that are in the grips of Russia, trying to break free, often feel themselves very alone in the world. I know the Balts did in the late 1980s. When someone notices their struggle, mentions them publicly, it gives them a great boost - it gives them new hope. Added to that, the Finns have a very thorough and good understanding on how to build functioning governmental systems in the field of national defence, education, health care. A great many young Estonian specialists went to Finland in the 1990s to just learn, learn and learn.

There's a lot you could do, so why don't you do it?

I think I know why... :rolleyes:

Eki

22nd February 2007, 22:55

Yes, I very much believe so.

Maybe so, Martti Ahtisaari had some success in Namibia and the former Yugoslavia and Harri Holkeri had some success in Northern Ireland, but I think it should go through the UN, alone we can't do much.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 23:01

Yes, and I as most likely many other Finns are greatful for that. However, as you said, they were individual volunteers just like the Swedish volunteers, not the Estonian nation. Estonia and Sweden as nations didn't officially do much for Finland, so I think you shouldn't ask Finland to do officially much for Estonia. I'm sure there are a lot of Finnish individuals who are sympathetic to Estonia.

Yes, congratulations, you have found just the right argument. You don't have to do anything. Your friendship with Russia is safe and your conscience is still clear. :rolleyes:

Edit: Wow, I'm becoming rather unkind. Maybe I should stop. :uhoh: :p :

janneppi

22nd February 2007, 23:16

Yes, I very much believe so.

I think Estonia has been a very useful friend to Georgia. Our top government officials often visit Tbilisi to share our experiences on making a successful transition to a free market economy, on what we have found to be the right way to deal with Russia, on how to become full members in international organization like NATO, etc.
That is something you are better equipped than us because your position is closer to them. Hell, perhaps you could tell us a way to join NATO with our 1000km land border with Russia? ;)

Added to that, the Finns have a very thorough and good understanding on how to build functioning governmental systems in the field of national defence, education, health care. A great many young Estonian specialists went to Finland in the 1990s to just learn, learn and learn.

And our officials are happy to provide help when asked.

Should we be more helpfull, of course.
Then again, you just might confuse being cautious with being a covard, or it might be me. :)

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 23:25

Then again, you just might confuse being cautious with being a covard, or it might be me. :)

After some more thinking, I think I went too far by calling you cowards.

I guess that the bottom line is that our countries have chosen different, almost opposite routes for dealing with the Eastern neighbour (which is undoubtedly the central theme in the foreign policy of both countries). Both routes are understandable when considering the historical context. Which is better? Who knows. Time will tell.

I wish Finland were more active internationally, but it is your choice.

Tomi

22nd February 2007, 23:26

Hell, perhaps you could tell us a way to join NATO with our 1000km land border with Russia? ;)

Would you want to join? Why? are you scare of something, coward :)

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 23:42

That is something you are better equipped than us because your position is closer to them. Hell, perhaps you could tell us a way to join NATO with our 1000km land border with Russia? ;)

Now just hang on there with the crazyness! Didn't Mr. Putin inform you just last year that you can't join NATO? :p : ;)

Well, ok. I said that it's your choice and I don't care, but I'm going to tell you what I think anyway. :p : You need to make more friends. You are not making any friends now, just smiling to Russia and ignoring everyone else. And Russia, my good Sirs, the Russia of Putin, of Ivanov, of the Nashi nutters when they come to power - that Russia will never be your friend. If the opportunity to take Finland arises again, they will attack you again. And your previous relation to them will mean precisely diddly squat.

Now, while the world is still in order and relative peace, make more friends in the Western world. Maybe then you will have Western allies next time. I think it's really in Finland's best interest to finally choose a side, become an active country with a recognizable face on the world scene - and certainly join NATO.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 23:45

Perhaps one should also cast one's mind back to the events in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakkia in 1968 to acquire another clue why "a critical number of people in those States believed [maintaining the communist regime] was the best thing to do." :rolleyes:

I think Hungary in 1956 was an example of what happens when people take up arms instead of taking it easy. If Estonia would have chosen violence and armed resistance in the late 1980s, I think it could now be like Chechneya. The Russians could have easily said that they are just fighting the "terrorists", but to open fire on a bunch of people singing is much more difficult to justify no matter how annoying they are.

Eki

22nd February 2007, 23:50

If the opportunity to take Finland arises again, they will attack you again.
The opportunity is always there, I just don't think it's wise to give them an excuse to do it and make it more easy for them.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 23:53

I think Hungary in 1956 was an example what happens when people take up arms instead of taking it easy. If Estonia would have chosen violence and armed resistance in the late 1980s, I think it could now be like Chechneya. The Russians could have easily said that they are just fighting the "terrorists", but to open fire on a bunch of people singing is much more difficult to justify no matter how annoying they are.

Yes, that's correct. But of course the major difference between Estonia and Chechnya is the neighbourhood. It would much more difficult to commit atrocities before the eyes of Europe (with thousands of refugees arriving on the shores of Finland and Sweden to tell the tale) than it is in the Caucasus mountains.

EuroTroll

22nd February 2007, 23:59

The opportunity is always there, I just don't think it's wise to give them an excuse to do it and make it more easy for them.

That is exactly the sort of thinking that is fundamentally wrong IMO. The opportunity isn't always there. Now, when the Western world is united, it isn't there. For every predator, it's always easiest to attack a prey that has been separated from its heard. If the Western world will once again go into grave internal conflict at some point in the future, and a country like Finland will be alone - then they will attack. And I think you know very well that a country like Russia doesn't need real justifications for going to war.

And do you really think that if the Finnish Foreign Minister declared that perhaps Russia should stop meddling in the internal affairs of Georgia, then Russia will have an excuse for war? :laugh:

Eki

23rd February 2007, 00:20

Yes, that's correct. But of course the major difference between Estonia and Chechnya is the neighbourhood. It would much more difficult to commit atrocities before the eyes of Europe (with thousands of refugees arriving on the shores of Finland and Sweden to tell the tale) than it is in the Caucasus mountains.
Good point. Similarily, most ordinary Americans don't even know where or what Estonia and Finland are, so they couldn't care less what happens to them, and the US government would sell Finland and Estonia to the Russians just as easily as Germany did in the 1930s if it served their interests. I wouldn't put too much hope on the US.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 00:28

Good point. Similarily, most ordinary Americans don't even know where or what Estonia and Finland are, so they couldn't care less what happens to them, and the US government would sell Finland and Estonia to the Russians just as easily as Germany did in the 1930s if it served their interests. I wouldn't put too much hope on the US.

NATO is a military alliance of 26 Western countries, bound together by a charter which states that an attack on one is an attack on all, and all are obligated to help the one.

Now, the only reason I can think of why this wouldn't be appealing to a country like Finland is insanity. :p :

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 00:37

Sorry, I forgot to mention the real reason: that nice Mr. Putin made it quite clear that he wouldn't be very happy if you joined, didn't he? What a nice man he is.

:p :

Mark in Oshawa

23rd February 2007, 01:43

I think Hungary in 1956 was an example of what happens when people take up arms instead of taking it easy. If Estonia would have chosen violence and armed resistance in the late 1980s, I think it could now be like Chechneya. The Russians could have easily said that they are just fighting the "terrorists", but to open fire on a bunch of people singing is much more difficult to justify no matter how annoying they are.

That's you Eki, blaming the girl in the short skirt for being raped again.....

You condemn the US for invading US, but seem to see nothing wrong with Russia's intervention in Hungary in 1956?

Your logic just slays me, it really does....

Mark in Oshawa

23rd February 2007, 01:51

Studiose you are wasting your time with Eki and Tomi. They feel as Finn's that that antagonizing Russia by actually standing up for themselves is not worth provoking a war over. They feel that Russia has a right to tell their nation what to do I guess. I can tell you this much, If I was a Finnish citizen and heard Putin tell my nation that it should mind its own business and not join NATO, I would want my nation in NATO tomorrow.

Of coruse, it seems that Eki has no problems with this for he sees no reason to join NATO. He see's the US as the problem in the world, not the Russians. Funny eh?

One more thing Eki, Americans know where Finland is and Estonia is. They also know if they needed Finnish help in any fashion, they likely couldn't depend on it, but I suspect they know Estonia would step up. Finland, for whatever reason is so neutral they hurt themselves into taking any stand to offend anyone who might actually threaten them. They have no problem of course telling the Americans how morally bankrupt they are, because they know America wont do anything about it.

Sorta like Canada's last two prime ministers who made anti-American bashing a sport when they wanted to gin up the left wing vote in this country. It cost them nothing but killing any influence we may of had in tempering the often clumsy foreign policy initititives of the United States. Our current PM gets a receptive ear for our concerns because he is very willing to listen to American view points, disagree respectfully on occasion, and agree and help on other issues. Being neutral for the sake of not offending anyone just makes you a patsy....

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 02:23

Studiose you are wasting your time with Eki and Tomi.

No, I'm not. I don't need to convince them, we're just talking. :)

They feel as Finn's that that antagonizing Russia by actually standing up for themselves is not worth provoking a war over.

Yes, that's the hilarious part. :) Even mentioning the word "war" is current Fenno-Russian relations is absolutely laughable. Russia will not attack an EU member now, for Christ's sake. :laugh:

So this is just the right time to stop bending over and stand up. ;) Pick up a stick, and poke Russia a little. It's fun, you know!

And when you've stretched your legs a bit and had some fun, come and talk to the other countries that are standing up.

(I was talking to Finland there Mark, not you :p : )

They feel that Russia has a right to tell their nation what to do I guess. I can tell you this much, If I was a Finnish citizen and heard Putin tell my nation that it should mind its own business and not join NATO, I would want my nation in NATO tomorrow.

Yes, exactly! But Putin doesn't need to tell Finland to mind it own business...

Roamy

23rd February 2007, 06:39

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 06:57

I really don't even know what the ****ing russians are good for. Do they even produce anything that the world wants. Seriously if this whole continent was elimated tomorrow morning would you be missing something??? A Lada and a bottle of Vodka is not something I am rushing out to buy !!

Nada. No. No. Me neither.

This thread was about Vladimir I'm Not Going To Give Up What I Have Gotten And I Will Be The Next Tzar Of Russia Putin and not about Finland's pussyness in foreign policy, especially towards our Baltic friends :rolleyes:

Roamy

23rd February 2007, 07:18

Thank AFF
some fins are pretty cool people

Tomi

23rd February 2007, 07:24

[quoteIf I was a Finnish citizen and heard Putin tell my nation that it should mind its own business and not join NATO, I would want my nation in NATO tomorrow. [/QUOTE]

When has he actually said something about how our nation should do in the first place ?, im no fan of putin either to me he and bush is the same sh!t in different parcel.??

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 07:32

This thread was about Vladimir I'm Not Going To Give Up What I Have Gotten And I Will Be The Next Tzar Of Russia Putin and not about Finland's pussyness in foreign policy, especially towards our Baltic friends :rolleyes:

Alright. It`s your thread, so I will of course respect your wish and shut up.

Please tell me, though, why you think my criticism of Finland`s "say nothing" policy regarding the Baltic States deserves sarcasm.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 07:44

When has he actually said something about how our nation should do in the first place ?

Here`s a link (http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Putin+Suomen+Nato-j%C3%A4senyydest%C3%A4+Sotilasliitot+eiv%C3%A4t+li s%C3%A4%C3%A4+turvallisuutta/1135224754902).

I brought it up not so much because of what he said - which was quite little - but because the Finns seemed to react with utter hysteria to what was really just a remark...

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 08:08

Alright. It`s your thread, so I will of course respect your wish and shut up.

Please tell me, though, why you think my criticism of Finland`s "say nothing" policy regarding the Baltic States deserves sarcasm.

You don't need to shut up Studi, you know that :)

I'll tell you why it deserves sarcasm. Folks here act like Finnish foreign policy that's what funny.

The common opinion here in Finland is that Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia etc is the same **** in different package. They all Russia if you ask them. Always were, always will be. If those countries are intependent, fine, yippee and and sugar on the top but in the end, they're Russia for us.

Personally, if you ask me, I think we should get back to 80's. The cold war was the best time when there was a big **** up iron curtain between Russia and the west. Nothing got in and more importantly, nothing got out.

You ask why Finnish foreign policy is so very silent and hinted if they are scared of Russia/ Putin ?? God damn right we're scared of Russia and Putin. I know I am.

We're both minor league players Studi. But you can bug them all you want because if they bug you back, how much it would change? More things than in Finland ??? Honestly, I think not.

Having said this all I add, no offence. I just felt you deserve an honest answer :up:

janneppi

23rd February 2007, 08:35

NATO is a military alliance of 26 Western countries, bound together by a charter which states that an attack on one is an attack on all, and all are obligated to help the one.

Now, the only reason I can think of why this wouldn't be appealing to a country like Finland is insanity. :p :

The reason i feel uncomfortable with NATO is that it's a completely different organization nowadays, if Russia is a sheep now as you say it is, why do you need a defence net, against Sweden? Lithuania?

There has been much talk about NATO becoming a tool to enforce "democracy". Afghanistan being one example, and it's not really going as well as it should.
If youre going to be installing democracy with cluster bombs, you can count me out, i don't really care who tortures Abdul, is it the old evil dictator, or a some new leader, who has the consent of NATO to do that to fight terrorism.

Eki

23rd February 2007, 08:39

That's you Eki, blaming the girl in the short skirt for being raped again.....

You condemn the US for invading US, but seem to see nothing wrong with Russia's intervention in Hungary in 1956?

Your logic just slays me, it really does....
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with Russia's intervention in Hungary in 1956, I said it was predictable. What would you have expected the Soviet Union to do?

Eki

23rd February 2007, 08:48

They feel that Russia has a right to tell their nation what to do I guess. I can tell you this much, If I was a Finnish citizen and heard Putin tell my nation that it should mind its own business and not join NATO, I would want my nation in NATO tomorrow.

No, Putin has not told Finland not to join NATO. He has specifically said that the decision to join NATO is up to Finland. He just said Russia wouldn't like it. I think he has the right to say what Russia doesn't like as long as he doesn't act on it. Just like the US has the right to say they don't like Iran to have nuclear weapons as long as they don't do anything about it.

Eki

23rd February 2007, 09:07

Here`s a link (http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Putin+Suomen+Nato-j%C3%A4senyydest%C3%A4+Sotilasliitot+eiv%C3%A4t+li s%C3%A4%C3%A4+turvallisuutta/1135224754902).

I brought it up not so much because of what he said - which was quite little - but because the Finns seemed to react with utter hysteria to what was really just a remark...
Quote from the link:

Putin piti selvänä sitä, että kaikki tietävät Venäjän suhtautumisen sotilasliittoihin yleensä ja Natoon erityisesti.

”Me emme ajattele, että ne lisäävät turvallisuuden parantamista maailmassa”, Putin sanoi.

Sotilasliitoista ei Putinin mielestä ole torjumaan nykyaikaisia uhkia kuten terrorismia, huumeita ja ihmiskauppaa.

”Nämä ongelmat me voimme ratkaista vain yhdessä, ilman liittoutumia. Ja tietääkseni Suomen johto on samaa mieltä. Lopullisen valinnan tekee tietysti Suomen kansa ja Suomen johto”, Putin sanoi.

Translation:

Putin thought it was obvious that everybody knows how Russia feels about military alliences generally and NATO especially.

"We don't think they increase security in the World", Putin said.

Putin thinks military alliences aren't suitable to fight modern threats like terrorism, drugs and human trade.

"These problems we can only solve together, without alliences, and as far as I know the Finnish leaders agree with me. But of course the final decision (to join NATO) is up to the Finnish people and their leaders."

I didn't see anything threatening in Putin's words. He just said his opinion, when the journalists asked him. And his opinion makes sense. I don't think NATO is any good against terrorism, drug trafficing and human trade either.

And Finns didn't react with utter hysteria, Finnish press did. And what do you expect from them when they seem to react with utter hysteria even to the ex-girlfriend of prime minister Vanhanen?

Tomi

23rd February 2007, 09:13

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 09:18

Putin thinks military alliences aren't suitable to fight modern threats like terrorism, drugs and human trade.

I wonder what is?? Putin isn't exactly doing any better job by himself.

And Finns didn't react with utter hysteria, Finnish press did. And what do you expect from them when they seem to react with utter hysteria even to the ex-girlfriend of prime minister Vanhanen?

:up:

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 10:52

I didn't see anything threatening in Putin's words. He just said his opinion, when the journalists asked him.

Yes, that was my point as well. It seemed to me that Finland went into a hysteria basically because Putin put "Finland" and "NATO" into the same sentence. But I did indeed get that impression of imminent moral collapse in Finland from the Finnish press - so I guess it was just blown way out of proportion, and there was in fact not much to it. For which I'm very glad. :up:

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 10:57

I'll tell you why it deserves sarcasm. Folks here act like Finnish foreign policy that's what funny.

[...]

[...] But you can bug them all you want because if they bug you back, how much it would change? More things than in Finland ??? Honestly, I think not.

Thanks for that, but I didn't understand the parts I'm quoting. :) Can you please explain again who deserves the sarcasm and why?

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 11:00

The reason i feel uncomfortable with NATO is that it's a completely different organization nowadays, if Russia is a sheep now as you say it is, why do you need a defence net, against Sweden? Lithuania?

I didn't mean that at all! My point was certainly that you should join NATO to protect yourself from Russia, who is most definitely a wolf whose teeth are growing.

There has been much talk about NATO becoming a tool to enforce "democracy". Afghanistan being one example, and it's not really going as well as it should. If youre going to be installing democracy with cluster bombs, you can count me out, i don't really care who tortures Abdul, is it the old evil dictator, or a some new leader, who has the consent of NATO to do that to fight terrorism.

NATO shouldn't be and isn't a tool for spreading democracy. The logic of the NATO operation in Afghanistan comes from the "one for all, and all for one" clause in NATO's charter. NATO interpreted 9/11 as an attack by the Taliban regime on the United States.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 11:11

The common opinion here in Finland is that Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia etc is the same **** in different package. They all Russia if you ask them. Always were, always will be. If those countries are intependent, fine, yippee and and sugar on the top but in the end, they're Russia for us.

Dare I suggest that an attitude adjustment is called for? ;)

We're both minor league players Studi.

That's certainly true, but in my opinion minor league players should do all the minor things they can do to make the world better. If 20 minor league countries start pulling in the same direction, the result is a pretty major pull. ;)

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 11:17

Thanks for that, but I didn't understand the parts I'm quoting. :) Can you please explain again who deserves the sarcasm and why?

I said Baltic friends. You said Baltíc states.

Sarcasm comes from my post. Batic friends are no friends to Finland.

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 11:20

Dare I suggest that an attitude adjustment is called for? ;)

That's certainly true, but in my opinion minor league players should do all the minor things they can do to make the world better. If 20 minor league countries start pulling in the same direction, the result is a pretty major pull. ;)

And small streams can create big rivers. To me that's like convincing inner beauty is what counts. All in all it's just ugly people's talk. :)

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 11:26

Dare I suggest that an attitude adjustment is called for? ;)

By all means but I don't think it's any use. This thing goes from generation to generation. It's not hard to guess where the roots are though.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 11:36

And small streams can create big rivers. To me that's like convincing inner beauty is what counts. All in all it's just ugly people's talk.

:)

You wear me down, you Finns. :hmph: There's too many of you, and you've all been brainwashed from birth. In fact, I don't want to talk to you anymore. :mad: Screw you guys, we're going to help Georgia and Moldova without you. And when they will have a great party to celebrate getting into the EU or NATO, we won't invite you. :hmph: And when Russia rips you apart because you're alone, we'll say "Ha, ha" and fart in your general direction.

:p :

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 11:38

By all means but I don't think it's any use. This thing goes from generation to generation. It's not hard to guess where the roots are though.

Isolationism? ;)

janneppi

23rd February 2007, 11:51

I didn't mean that at all! My point was certainly that you should join NATO to protect yourself from Russia, who is most definitely a wolf whose teeth are growing.

NATO shouldn't be and isn't a tool for spreading democracy. The logic of the NATO operation in Afghanistan comes from the "one for all, and all for one" clause in NATO's charter. NATO interpreted 9/11 as an attack by the Taliban regime on the United States.
We managed without NATO for decades, at a time when Soviet Union was far more formidable friend ( ;) )
Altough, it's propably a good idea for countries like Estonia to jump under the skirt of NATO and EU, i can see where you come from and had we been in the same situation, we'd propably do the same.

With the current EU troops developement, NATO looses it's purpose, especially since focus of world affairs is on the other ocean. And that's where Russia is looking too, it's resources are not on this side of Ural mountains, they are located closer to China, India, Pakistan.

Tomi

23rd February 2007, 11:56

With the current EU troops developement, NATO looses it's purpose, especially since focus of world affairs is on the other ocean. And that's where Russia is looking too, it's resources are not on this side of Ural mountains, they are located closer to China, India, Pakistan.

Exactly, todays wars is not about need for land, but about nature resourses, good examples are, Iraq and Tchetchenia.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 11:56

We managed without NATO for decades, at a time when Soviet Union was far more formidable friend ( ;) )
With the current EU troops developement, NATO looses it's purpose, especially since focus of world affairs is on the other ocean. And that's where Russia is looking too, it's resources are not on this side of Ural mountains, they are located closer to China, India, Pakistan.

Yes, I'm not going to argue with that. In any case, as long as the Western world or even just Europe is united, we're all pretty safe.

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 12:18

Now that we all can agree on that, let's mature up and agree that Putin is a big fat doodiehead, right? ;)

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 12:30

I don't think we have ever disagreed on that. :)

Eki

23rd February 2007, 12:36

Now that we all can agree on that, let's mature up and agree that Putin is a big fat doodiehead, right? ;)
Only if also agree that Bush is a big fat doodiehead too.

And then we can all sing Pink Floyd's "The Fletcher Memorial Home" together:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/pinkfloyd/thefletchermemorialhome.html

take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
and build them a home a little place of their own
the fletcher memorial
home for incurable tyrants and kings
and they can appear to themselves every day
on closed circuit t.v. (Hazell knows about those thingies, ask her)
to make sure they're still real
it's the only connection they feel
"ladies and gentlemen, please welcome reagan and haig
mr. begin and friend mrs. thatcher and paisley
mr. brezhnev and party
the ghost of mccarthy
the memories of nixon
and now adding colour a group of anonymous latin
american meat packing glitterati"
did they expect us to treat them with any respect
they can polish their medals and sharpen their
smiles, and amuse themselves playing games for a while
boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead
safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye
with their favourite toys
they'll be good girls and boys
in the fletcher memorial home for colonial
wasters of life and limb
is everyone in?
are you having a nice time?
now the final solution can be applied

Tomi

23rd February 2007, 12:38

Now that we all can agree on that, let's mature up and agree that Putin is a big fat doodiehead, right? ;)

sure he is

Rudy Tamasz

23rd February 2007, 12:49

You wear me down, you Finns. There's too many of you, and you've all been brainwashed from birth. In fact, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Screw you guys, we're going to help Georgia and Moldova without you. And when they will have a great party to celebrate getting into the EU or NATO, we won't invite you. And when Russia rips you apart because you're alone, we'll say "Ha, ha" and fart in your general direction.

Yeah, the sad reality of Eastern Europe. Either you suck up to Brussels bureaucrats, not elected by anybody and not accountable to anybody and they will tell you what size of shoes to wear, or you get fed to the Bear and end up someplace in Siberia.

:( :( :( :( :(

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 12:55

Yeah, the sad reality of Eastern Europe. Either you suck up to Brussels bureaucrats, not elected by anybody and not accountable to anybody and they will tell you what size of shoes to wear, or you get fed to the Bear and end up someplace in Siberia.

I would rather be within the European Union than without. We got to join this Union voluntarily, you know. ;)

Rudy Tamasz

23rd February 2007, 13:42

I would rather be within the European Union than without. We got to join this Union voluntarily, you know. ;)

I know. ;) With my back against the wall I'd rather drink Leffe with Brussels bureaucrats than Stolichnaya with Kremlin apparatchiks.

Eki

23rd February 2007, 14:25

I would rather be within the European Union than without. We got to join this Union voluntarily, you know. ;)
That reminded me of an old joke:

Churchill, Hitler and Stalin were trying to make a cat eat mustard. Churchill said, "I'll make him eat it voluntarily", but the cat didn't eat. Hitler said, "I'll force him to eat it", tried to squeeze the mustard into the cat's mouth, but the cat kept his mouth shut. Stalin took the mustard and spread it on the cat's butt. It gave the cat a burning sensation so he started to lick it off. Stalin said, "I forced him to volunteer".

harsha

23rd February 2007, 15:08

:beer: for the non alligned movement :D

A.F.F.

23rd February 2007, 16:18

Only if also agree that Bush is a big fat doodiehead too.

I'm a fair guy, I can cope with that. Bush make Muppets look smart.

EuroTroll

23rd February 2007, 16:46

That reminded me of an old joke:

Churchill, Hitler and Stalin were trying to make a cat eat mustard. Churchill said, "I'll make him eat it voluntarily", but the cat didn't eat. Hitler said, "I'll force him to eat it", tried to squeeze the mustard into the cat's mouth, but the cat kept his mouth shut. Stalin took the mustard and spread it on the cat's butt. It gave the cat a burning sensation so he started to lick it off. Stalin said, "I forced him to volunteer".

Yes... :)

EuroTroll

6th March 2007, 12:14

Another Russian journalist dies under suspicious circumstances.

Story here... (http://www.kommersant.com/p747802/Ivan_Safronov_arms_trading/)

RIP Ivan Safronov :(

BrentJackson

6th March 2007, 19:30

Another Russian journalist dies under suspicious circumstances.

Story here... (http://www.kommersant.com/p747802/Ivan_Safronov_arms_trading/)

RIP Ivan Safronov :(

Just when he's about to spit out a big story about Russian arms deals. Putin's really getting to be like his old masters, isn't he? :hmph:

Rudy Tamasz

7th March 2007, 10:55

Just when he's about to spit out a big story about Russian arms deals. Putin's really getting to be like his old masters, isn't he? :hmph:

Don't you know they had a red carpet in Moscow airport to meet a couple of spies who blew up a leader of Chechen rebels Zelimkhan Yandarbiev and then served time in Qatar jail? Looks like the Moscow KGB junta has officially permitted murdering people who they perceive as enemies.

Eki

7th March 2007, 11:16

Looks like the Moscow KGB junta has officially permitted murdering people who they perceive as enemies.
Israel does that too. And the US tried to bomb Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war.

Rudy Tamasz

7th March 2007, 14:54

Israel does that too. And the US tried to bomb Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war.

Eki, I tell ya, you got issues. Get a life instead. No matter what the topic of a thread is, you use it time and again to say how bad the U.S. leadership is.

Puppies are sweet. F1 cars are fast. Doesn't it serve to prove your point that Bush is bad?

Eki

7th March 2007, 17:09

Puppies are sweet. F1 cars are fast. Doesn't it serve to prove your point that Bush is bad?
I don't know how. Can you explain?

BrentJackson

8th March 2007, 14:33

Israel does that too. And the US tried to bomb Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war.

Yeah, your point is? France bombed the Rainbow Warrior, MI6 overthrew Iran's leader in 1953, Australian agents were involved in "investigations" after Bali. The US, Russia and Israel aren't the only nations that do such things.

Nice try making the US look bad, but it didn't work. Again.

Eki

8th March 2007, 14:51

Yeah, your point is? France bombed the Rainbow Warrior, MI6 overthrew Iran's leader in 1953, Australian agents were involved in "investigations" after Bali. The US, Russia and Israel aren't the only nations that do such things.

Nice try making the US look bad, but it didn't work. Again.
Did I at least make Russia look less bad, by pointing out that it's just like all the rest power hungry and brutal nations?

EuroTroll

8th March 2007, 15:28

Did I at least make Russia look less bad, by pointing out that it's just like all the rest power hungry and brutal nations?

I don't see what there is to be gained from the "oh, Russia is just like all the others" attitude. Russia is continuously distancing itself from democracy, and I think it should be pointed out as something unusual and bad.

L5->R5/CR

8th March 2007, 16:06

Did I at least make Russia look less bad, by pointing out that it's just like all the rest power hungry and brutal nations?

What other countries have poisoned and murdered other outspoken dissenters???

A.F.F.

8th March 2007, 18:42

I don't see what there is to be gained from the "oh, Russia is just like all the others" attitude. Russia is continuously distancing itself from democracy, and I think it should be pointed out as something unusual and bad.

I disagree. I think Russia is still lost but the current leaders should be pointed out as something unusual and bad.

EuroTroll

8th March 2007, 19:01

I disagree. I think Russia is still lost but the current leaders should be pointed out as something unusual and bad.

Yes, what I meant was that the distancing from democracy should be pointed out as unusual and bad.

Tomi

8th March 2007, 19:09

Yes, what I meant was that the distancing from democracy should be pointed out as unusual and bad.

Well democracy in a country that never has had any would be unusual, what there is now is not so unusual.
It's very unpredictable country, if they also get a "menthal case" for president everything can happen.

EuroTroll

8th March 2007, 19:23

Well democracy in a country that never has had any would be unusual, what there is now is not so unusual.

The main issue is trends, I think. Under Yeltsin, Russia was getting closer to being a democracy, under Putin, further away.

Tomi

8th March 2007, 19:35

The main issue is trends, I think. Under Yeltsin, Russia was getting closer to being a democracy, under Putin, further away.

I think it was a question about money, now because of high oil prices they have money and they can build up their army again, with a strong army you dont have to listen much what others think.

Gannex

8th March 2007, 19:59

Until the end of the Cold War, Russia was feared and respected. After the fall of communism and the loss of many of her republics, Russia became insignificant, little more than a middle-ranking regional power like, say, Turkey. This did not sit well with the Russian people, and was especially painful to the Russian elite. Putin is their response. They love him because he is turning Russia again into a nation to be reckoned with. The Russians care far more about that, than about democratic freedoms. Given a choice between living in a free, democratic but puny nation, or living in a strong, feared, country, ruled by a strongman, the Russians will always choose the latter. Some of them even get misty-eyed when talking about Stalin, for goodness sake. It's hard to see how that lot will ever get democracy or freedom; they don't want it, and as I see it, they don't deserve it.

Eki

8th March 2007, 21:18

What other countries have poisoned and murdered other outspoken dissenters???
Well, who's been caught doing so? I don't think it's been proved that the current Russia has been proved guilty of murdering dissidents, or that the current US administration has been proved not doing so. Chavez has said that according to the Venezuelan intelligence, the US is trying to assassinate him. Some people here have been talking about the US intelligence like it's some sort of gospel, I don't think it's any more reliable than the Venezuelan intelligence:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar04/0,4670,VenezuelaChavez,00.html

BrentJackson

8th March 2007, 21:41

Eki, of course Chavez thinks the US want him dead. This is the same guy who called Bush the devil at the UN and said the podium which Bush had stood on stank of sulfur. You trust him? I sure as heck don't. Venezuelan intelligence no better than US intelligence? Yikes man, do some research and back off the propaganda. :eek:

L5->R5/CR

8th March 2007, 21:57

Well, who's been caught doing so? I don't think it's been proved that the current Russia has been proved guilty of murdering dissidents, or that the current US administration has been proved not doing so. Chavez has said that according to the Venezuelan intelligence, the US is trying to assassinate him. Some people here have been talking about the US intelligence like it's some sort of gospel, I don't think it's any more reliable than the Venezuelan intelligence:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar04/0,4670,VenezuelaChavez,00.html

This just shows how far you will go for an anti-American agenda.

All the western and major powers are guilty of heavy-handed dealings. China kills people all the time that speak out. More and more Russian dissenters, within the state and with a high profile, are suddenly dying in mysterious accidents or from rare freak poisonings.

In terms of killing foreign nationals, I'd wager the Chinese, the Americans, and the British (maybe the French too) have a pretty big lead in that right now. But in terms of killing their own people, high profile, highly visible people, Russia is so far in the lead its not even funny.

There is a big difference between killing critics in your own country and killing people plotting to kill your citizens in separate country.

This is like people saying since the Pentagon has updated and released new offensive strike scenarios for Iran that we are going to go to war in Iran. The Pentagon updates these scenarios every couple of years no matter what is going on, and has been doing so since the late 1970s. Anyone can find a media report to defend any given viewpoint, that doesn't make them true (some people think we injected Castro with cancer after years of trying to kill him).

Eki

8th March 2007, 22:07

Eki, of course Chavez thinks the US want him dead. This is the same guy who called Bush the devil at the UN and said the podium which Bush had stood on stank of sulfur. You trust him?
Not more or less than Bush calling Iran or North Korea "evil".

Eki

8th March 2007, 22:31

Not more or less than Bush calling Iran or North Korea "evil".
Maybe if the US toned it down a bit. Nobody likes a bully.

Gannex

8th March 2007, 23:28

Wasn't this thread about Putin?

Gannex

9th March 2007, 03:35

I thought this thread was about Putin.

EuroTroll

9th March 2007, 08:23

Rudy Tamasz

9th March 2007, 09:07

You're spot on, Gannex.

Putin is very popular in Russia, because he's turned the country around, risen it from the ashes. And Putin is very unpopular just beyond Russia's border because...
- history has shown that a weak Russia is a good Russia to its neighbours, just as a strong Russia is a bad Russia,
- Putin has already shown just how true the above sentence is.

Studiose, you are terribly wrong. In structural terms Russia is an incredibly ill country with a million of problems. What Putin and his cronys did was hiding the problems, strangling independent mass media, brainwashing everybody and creating an illusion of a strong Russia rising from ashes. Their current wealth is totally oil based. A surplus of oil cash helps the close their eyes on many problems but the problems are there to break loose when oil and gas run dry. Russian elites are so shortsited that they don't even invest sufficiently to keep up the current level of oil and gas production. Instead they spend their money on expensive cars, chicks, boys etc. Russians are about to be in a terrible mess pretty soon.

Tomi

9th March 2007, 09:23

Studiose, you are terribly wrong. In structural terms Russia is an incredibly ill country with a million of problems. What Putin and his cronys did was hiding the problems, strangling independent mass media, brainwashing everybody and creating an illusion of a strong Russia rising from ashes. Their current wealth is totally oil based. A surplus of oil cash helps the close their eyes on many problems but the problems are there to break loose when oil and gas run dry. Russian elites are so shortsited that they don't even invest sufficiently to keep up the current level of oil and gas production. Instead they spend their money on expensive cars, chicks, boys etc. Russians are about to be in a terrible mess pretty soon.

I see the thing very same, the oligarks invest abroad rather than in russia, that tells alot about how they see or belive in the future of russia.
Also it's not so sure that it's putin who is behind the resent murders, there is now going on a fight for power, it can be anyone of those involved.

EuroTroll

9th March 2007, 10:37

Studiose, you are terribly wrong. In structural terms Russia is an incredibly ill country with a million of problems. What Putin and his cronys did was hiding the problems, strangling independent mass media, brainwashing everybody and creating an illusion of a strong Russia rising from ashes. Their current wealth is totally oil based. A surplus of oil cash helps the close their eyes on many problems but the problems are there to break loose when oil and gas run dry. Russian elites are so shortsited that they don't even invest sufficiently to keep up the current level of oil and gas production. Instead they spend their money on expensive cars, chicks, boys etc. Russians are about to be in a terrible mess pretty soon.

Can't quite agree with you, Rudy. Since the crisis of 1997-1998, the Russian economy has grown at an average annual rate of almost 7%.

You are, of course, right on the issue of huge structural problems, but I don't see the oil and gas revenues stopping any time soon, and money from selling oil and gas is just as good as money from selling high-tech electronics or medicine...

janneppi

9th March 2007, 11:19

I'm with Studiose, Russia has natural resources up the wazoo.

Their transition to putiocracy was a bit of a chaos, something which they seem to be fixing, it'll take time and unfortunately, dead journalist. You just can't rapidly change the direction of a country that size, if yout try, it'll break apart.

Mark in Oshawa

10th March 2007, 15:24

Putin is a dictator in many ways, and THAT I think is what gets people ticked. Russia should be so much more than it is. It had the building blocks of a western style economy. The factories were there, the resources are there, the cheap labour is there. What is more, western democracies were actually sending money into Russia when Yeltsin was in power for investment and use in modernizing industry.

Yet almost 16 years after the USSR died, we have a country that is run by a strong autocratic leader who threatens to shut off the gas pipeline to his neighbours if they wont do his bidding.

How this man is good for anyone is beyond me. Of course, a few of you will tell me this is a good thing, but I don't see it. Human rights are the building block of a modern democracy, and since Putin has become the president of Russia, they have taken a back seat while his pals in the Oil and Gas industry have basically turned the country into their private fiefdom. We have police taking bribes, we have corruption with some minor officials. We have journalists who stand up being taken out, dissidents being killed overseas, and the state control of media telling the Russian people about how wonderful their government is. Also, may I point out that the human rights abuses in places like Chechya make what is happening in Iraq by the Americans look like a tea party.

No, Putin is bad for his nation, bad for the world. He does what he wants when he wants, and the sooner he is replaced by a real democracy, the better, but right now, Russia isn't radically different in some ways from the old USSR, except now, they have a veneer of democracy and capitalism....

A.F.F.

10th March 2007, 18:07

I thought this thread was about Putin.

I thought too. But when Eki invates himself in it, the oddest things can happen. Like the other day on rally forum. We started talking about Rally Australia and ended up building a tunnels for gangaroos :)

So Putin, Bush... what's the ****ing difference ? Upside down they're all the same.

A.F.F.

10th March 2007, 18:10

No, Putin is bad for his nation, bad for the world. He does what he wants when he wants, and the sooner he is replaced by a real democracy, the better....

Except I can't see it happening. :down:

Tomi

10th March 2007, 19:12

Except I can't see it happening. :down:

except someone want to bring them democracy, oh sorry i forgot russian has an army and WMD too. :)

Eki

10th March 2007, 19:26

I thought too. But when Eki invates himself in it, the oddest things can happen. Like the other day on rally forum. We started talking about Rally Australia and ended up building a tunnels for gangaroos :)

So Putin, Bush... what's the ****ing difference ? Upside down they're all the same.
I noticed today at a supermarket that they had kangaroo meat in the freezer. Must have been leftovers from Rally Australia.

A.F.F.

10th March 2007, 19:56

I noticed today at a supermarket that they had kangaroo meat in the freezer. Must have been leftovers from Rally Australia.

:laugh:

My main man Eki. :D

Tomi

10th March 2007, 20:13

I noticed today at a supermarket that they had kangaroo meat in the freezer. Must have been leftovers from Rally Australia.

i advise not to eat kangaroo, you might get jumpy.

Eki

10th March 2007, 21:21

i advise not to eat kangaroo, you might get jumpy.
Yes, I prefer my meat tender, not bouncy.

BrentJackson

12th March 2007, 20:46

Not more or less than Bush calling Iran or North Korea "evil".

Point taken, but what else could you call Mahmoud "Death to Israel!" Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il. Both have personally killed people, Mahmoud having been one of the big players in the American Embassy takeover in 1979 and Kim Jong-Il being the mastermind of a 1984 bomb attack that killed most of South Korea's government ministers.

Last I checked, Dubya hasn't killed people or been a terrorist.

Eki

12th March 2007, 21:24

Point taken, but what else could you call Mahmoud "Death to Israel!" Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il.
I don't remember Ahmadinejad calling death to anyone. He's just wished Israel ceased to exist like East Germany or the Soviet Union, and I agree with him. Do you have a nick name for Reagan too, like Ronald "Death to the Soviet Union" Reagan?

Last I checked, Dubya hasn't killed people or been a terrorist.
Oh, yeah? What about those few thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis he's gotten killed, don't they count? Or those executed in Texas while he was the governor and didn't pardon them? I'm not convinced Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il have personally killed anyone either.

BrentJackson

13th March 2007, 19:03

Eki, if you think a guy involved in the hostage taking in Tehran in 1979 isn't a terrorist you need you seriously need your head examined. Kim Jong-Il has had a South Korean warrant on his head since 1984.

As far as he wants them to go away peacefully, its pretty obvious that a guy calling for the "Destruction of Zionist State" (his quote, not mine) isn't being peaceful about it. He wants them dead, not gone. And when you consider that Israel is a secular state surrounded by Islamic dictatorships, I happen to be very glad they are there. Not happy about their treatment of the Palestinians, but that will get solved one day, probably not too far into the future because Israelis are tried of worrying if that Arab that just walked into the restaurant has a Semtex bodysuit under his clothes.

As for Iraq, I don't debate that was a stupid decision and it has caused a lot of grief. But while Bush is just an idiot, Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad are dangerous idiots. You seem to have a "hate the USA" complex - even though you live in a democratic state that if not for the US supporting Europe after WWII you probably wouldn't be in - heck, you could have ended up ruled by Stalin. I don't debate they have done dumb things, but it seems to yopu everything they do is wrong. That's a bit loopy to this Canuck.

Eki

13th March 2007, 19:49

You seem to have a "hate the USA" complex - even though you live in a democratic state that if not for the US supporting Europe after WWII you probably wouldn't be in - heck, you could have ended up ruled by Stalin.
I suggest you study the history of World War II. The US fought against Finland and Germany as an ally of Stalin. Without the US, the Soviet Union might have collapsed almost 50 years before it did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

"The Continuation War (Finnish: Jatkosota, Swedish: Fortsättningskriget) or War of Continuation, lasting from June 25, 1941, until September 19, 1944, was one of the two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II.

The name of the Continuation War comes from its relation to the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), as it is seen as a Stalin's attempt to continue his conquest of Finland which was aborted by the end of the Winter War or Finnish revanchist attempt to rectify the result of the Winter War.

The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, but did not participate actively in the Continuation War. Nazi Germany took part by providing critical material support and military cooperation to the Finnish side. USA did not fight or declare war against either party, but it did provide massive multi-level assistance to the Soviet Union. "

Roamy

14th March 2007, 06:37

hey why talk about the history - talk about the future - Russia is corrupt and is struggling with any kind of enterprise. They now are BLOWING the chinese
to try and stay in any kind of a power loop. I would imagine in 10 yrs the chinese will take over Russia by just sending them a letter of intent. But on the good side they could produce some really gorgeous women!!

A.F.F.

14th March 2007, 12:55

Which one, Russia or China?

janneppi

14th March 2007, 15:28

Putin is a dictator in many ways, and THAT I think is what gets people ticked. Russia should be so much more than it is. It had the building blocks of a western style economy. The factories were there, the resources are there, the cheap labour is there. What is more, western democracies were actually sending money into Russia when Yeltsin was in power for investment and use in modernizing industry.

Yet almost 16 years after the USSR died, we have a country that is run by a strong autocratic leader who threatens to shut off the gas pipeline to his neighbours if they wont do his bidding.

Russia never had basic institutions that "western" countries had, up to the communist revolution people were divided more or less into nobelmen and slaves, Jeltsin was propably ahead of his time by 20 years and got into power by accident. Building a transparent democracy takes decades, hell, not that many western countries can brag about it.

How this man is good for anyone is beyond me. Of course, a few of you will tell me this is a good thing, but I don't see it. Human rights are the building block of a modern democracy, and since Putin has become the president of Russia, they have taken a back seat while his pals in the Oil and Gas industry have basically turned the country into their private fiefdom. We have police taking bribes, we have corruption with some minor officials. We have journalists who stand up being taken out, dissidents being killed overseas, and the state control of media telling the Russian people about how wonderful their government is. Also, may I point out that the human rights abuses in places like Chechya make what is happening in Iraq by the Americans look like a tea party.

No, Putin is bad for his nation, bad for the world. He does what he wants when he wants, and the sooner he is replaced by a real democracy, the better, but right now, Russia isn't radically different in some ways from the old USSR, except now, they have a veneer of democracy and capitalism....
While Putin isn't exactly a fluffy pink kitten who gives people strawberry pudding and flowers, he, Russia is better off with him than under communist rule.
Give it 15 years and maybe, maybe will see a different Russia.

Rudy Tamasz

14th March 2007, 15:58

While Putin isn't exactly a fluffy pink kitten who gives people strawberry pudding and flowers, he, Russia is better off with him than under communist rule.
Give it 15 years and maybe, maybe will see a different Russia.

You are wrong in principle, Janeppi. The choice is not either communism or a half-decent authoritarian regime. Communism is no longer in the picture. It is a choice between an authoritarian regime and progress towards democracy.

No matter how inefficient Yeltsin's regime was it still kept the dollar apart from the political power. The current Russian gov't consists of people who have their own business interests. They are in a terrible conflict of interest and grossly mismanage the country because of that.

What keeps them afloat is the current oil boom. They have their megaprofits and can throw pretty generous leftovers to average Russians. But in pursuit of the quick dollar they don't even bother to make decent investments in oil and gas production. No matter how much of natural resources they have in the ground, they won't be able to use it and then they are done.

janneppi

14th March 2007, 16:10

Rudy Tamasz, i didn't say the choice is between Communism and a half-decent authoritarian regime, all i said the latter is better that the former.
Russia wasn't ready for democracy, if it had been, Putin wouldn't have gotten away with what he did in Russia leadership.

I'd say Russia having a chance (i do think it's bigger than you suggest) with their oil money is much better than a collapsing nuclear power.

A.F.F.

14th March 2007, 16:43

Why do you claim Russia is building a democracy Janneppi ??

And what comes to communist rule, I say it was better. Hell, I don't have to there. I have to live next to them. Close the frigging borders inside out and let them play communist like they did before.

janneppi

14th March 2007, 19:13

Think of it this way, after Soviet Union collapsed, people who were ruthless and especially those who were in the right place benefitted most, things weren't so peachy for poor people. Think robber barons and US in the 19th century. When everything collapsed, if you had enough money, you weren't held accountable for anything.
Putin has made some boundaries there, for example you get easily killed if you try to use your new found wealth in politics against his people.
There is still whole lotta work to be done in uphelding law against these people, but i feel it's moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

I'm not sure Russia's democracy is ever going to be as western-like as people here would like it to be, western influence however going to affect it in a good way.

EuroTroll

14th March 2007, 19:34

Eki

14th March 2007, 19:46

Also, I think that the West's ability to influence things in Russia is decreasing very fast, as Russian economic power increases.
The West will only influence things in Russia if the Russians let themselves to be influenced, and I think that's the way it should be. I don't like forcing democratic Western values to anyone, because it's not very democratic in my opinion, but I'm happy when somebody adopts them voluntarily. There's a saying in Finland that goes "water poured down to a well won't stay there". I think it's the same for ideologies and ideas like democracy. People have to first understand what it's about and realize that it's good for them, otherwise they won't take it.

EuroTroll

14th March 2007, 19:54

The West will only influence things in Russia if the Russians let themselves to be influenced, and I think that's the way it should be. I don't like forcing democratic Western values to anyone, because it's not very democratic in my opinion, but I'm happy when somebody adopts them voluntarily. There's a saying in Finland that goes "water poured down to a well won't stay there". I think it's the same for ideologies and ideas like democracy. People have to first understand what it's about and realize that it's good for them, otherwise they won't take it.

You make me sick, you really do. ;)

Do tell me, please, how for instance might the people of North Korea understand what democracy is about and realize it's good for them? And wouldn't you say, on the example of South Korea, that it actually would be good for them?

janneppi

14th March 2007, 20:45

Janneppi,

While I agree with you that Putin has been successful in curbing the power of the oligarchs and strengthening the rule of law (both good reasons for his popularity), I don't see how can say that he's building democracy.

Democracy - the rule of the citizenry - can only work if the people are well and neutrally informed of what is going on inside the country and outside it. Systematic repression of free press, and hassling and killing critical journalists is not the way to build democracy, it is the way to build an autocracy that rules over a manipulated mass.

Also, I think that the West's ability to influence things in Russia is decreasing very fast, as Russian economic power increases.
If i said Putin is building a democracy, i'm sorry, i didn't mean to. :)
What i mean to say is that democratic ideas will, in time, gain foothold in Russia through west, as more of it's citizens become aware how things could be done, every year i encounter bus loads of Russian tourists, some even in western Finland, what they take with them(along with Philips tv's :) ) is bits and pieces of information how they could live.

As Eki said, it's difficult at best to force Russia to change, it won't accept being told what to do, and un like you or me, they can tell Mr Johnny Foreigner to take a hike.
The trick is to make them think they do it themselves. ;)

Malbec

14th March 2007, 21:04

As Eki said, it's difficult at best to force Russia to change, it won't accept being told what to do, and un like you or me, they can tell Mr Johnny Foreigner to take a hike.
The trick is to make them think they do it themselves. ;)

There are two assumptions you are making there.

The first is that the Russian people currently do NOT want a democratic state.

The second is that turning Russia into a democracy can be done merely through the will of the people.

With the first assumption, unless my memories of Russian civilians prepared to die for their nascent democracy when the FSB/KGB tried to launch a coup in Moscow against Gorbachov and Yeltsin was a dream, the Russian people have wished for it for quite some time.

Lets not be naive here, its not just a case of Russians visiting west Europe and suddenly finding out what democracy is all about right now, they already know through friends and relatives in the west, direct trade with democracies and through satellite TV and the internet. They already know what its all about.

The fact is that there are a considerable number of very brave journalists and activists who know very well the risks they are facing when they report on Putin's excesses, yet continue to do so because they know very well that if democracy is to survive, a free press and active opposition is a must.

Please don't try to dress this up as Putin being firm because a firm leader is all the Russians understand, the guy is centralising power and is becoming a dictator, pushing the country away from the democracy it looked like becoming against the peoples wishes.

Now, Russia is turning into a security state as it used to be under the Communists, except that there have been some free market reforms and the gangs no longer operate underground. Do you think in such an environment it would be so easy for the people to push for a democracy?

Eki

14th March 2007, 21:13

You make me sick, you really do. ;)

Do tell me, please, how for instance might the people of North Korea understand what democracy is about and realize it's good for them? And wouldn't you say, on the example of South Korea, that it actually would be good for them?
By creating good and mutually beneficial relationships with the elite of North Korea, so that they'll gradually open up the country and transfer it towards free-market economy like China has been doing for the couple of past decades. I think the Chinese way may be the best for North Korea, like it could have been better for an average Russian instead of suddenly collapsing and falling to the bottom.

Eki

14th March 2007, 21:16

There are two assumptions you are making there.

The first is that the Russian people currently do NOT want a democratic state.

The second is that turning Russia into a democracy can be done merely through the will of the people.

I thought the only point was: Russians don't want foreigners to tell them what to do. Nobody does. Dignity is important to most people.

Malbec

14th March 2007, 21:18

By creating good and mutually beneficial relationships with the elite of North Korea, so that they'll gradually open up the country and transfer it towards free-market economy like China has been doing for the couple of past decades.

And what would be in it for the Kim family?

Right now, they are in total control of the country and have all the riches they want. Not only that, they and their cadre are guaranteed power forever as long as the state lasts.

As long as the army gets fed and the generals get decent perks, they can be relied upon to keep the civilians quiet.

Moving towards a free market inherently means relinquishing power over the economy. Why would they want to do that and move towards a democracy which by its very nature would threaten the very comfortable position the Kims find themselves in?

janneppi

14th March 2007, 21:20

There are two assumptions you are making there.

The first is that the Russian people currently do NOT want a democratic state.

I'm not saying that, at least not in such terms.

With the first assumption, unless my memories of Russian civilians prepared to die for their nascent democracy when the FSB/KGB tried to launch a coup in Moscow against Gorbachov and Yeltsin was a dream, the Russian people have wished for it for quite some time.
I do think ordinary Russians want a democracy, but they don't want in bad enough, instead of protesting in the streets with large numbers they still prefer to believe what they are told even when they know it's a lie, they still bribe their way through bureaucracy or life in general if it's easier than doing it right.

The second is that turning Russia into a democracy can be done merely through the will of the people.
How else can it be done if the ruling class isn't giving away it's power?

Please don't try to dress this up as Putin being firm because a firm leader is all the Russians understand, the guy is centralising power and is becoming a dictator, pushing the country away from the democracy it looked like becoming against the peoples wishes.
Where have i dressed up Putin as other than what he is?

Now, Russia is turning into a security state as it used to be under the Communists, except that there have been some free market reforms and the gangs no longer operate underground. Do you think in such an environment it would be so easy for the people to push for a democracy?
No, which is why i said it takes time and people to really want it, or do you expect that If the Pope said bad, bad Putin, he'd see the error in his ways and change things overnight?

Eki

14th March 2007, 21:22

And what would be in it for the Kim family?

Right now, they are in total control of the country and have all the riches they want.
There would be the same riches plus some more that will be distributed to ordinary North Koreans. You think the North Korean elite is the first one to suffer from the sanctions?

Malbec

14th March 2007, 21:26

There would be the same riches plus some more that will be distributed to ordinary North Koreans.

LMAO

I presume thats a joke.

So you're a dictator, looking forward to putting your kids on the throne after you, with everything you want at your fingertips and the country completely under your control, and you'd actually want to give away power so you can have some riches?

Pur-lease. Thats the funniest thing I've read all day.

Malbec

14th March 2007, 21:39

I do think ordinary Russians want a democracy, but they don't want in bad enough, instead of protesting in the streets with large numbers they still prefer to believe what they are told even when they know it's a lie, they still bribe their way through bureaucracy or life in general if it's easier than doing it right.

That is undoubtedly true, but its also sadly true of other countries. In the UK and also in the US, the governments have centralised a considerable amount of power in the aftermath of 9/11. In the UK for example, the legal framework is there to ban all public meetings of a certain size, although the police have refused to act on it.

The thing is that with Russia you have a state that is willing to violate other country's sovereignty, killing a man under British state protection on British soil for example in order to stifle its opposition. In this case, why would it be wrong for the British authorities not to step in and take this case to the highest level? Why not apply international pressure for him to change his ways? If a link is found with the FSB, why not start freezing Russian state assets on British soil? I read that an American critic of the Putin regime (not sure if he was a Russian dissident though his name sounded Russian) was shot in Washington last week, ostensibly a mugging but possibly more. If the Americans find a link back to the FSB, why should they not freeze Russian assets or apply a little economic muscle on Moscow to curb its worst excesses?

I accept fully that that kind of action isn't going to bring Putin crashing to his knees, but it will let him know what is acceptable and what isn't. Would that sort of thing be acceptable in your eyes to pressure Russia towards democracy? After all, it does involve the west meddling in Russian affairs.

Eki

14th March 2007, 21:40

LMAO

I presume thats a joke.

So you're a dictator, looking forward to putting your kids on the throne after you, with everything you want at your fingertips and the country completely under your control, and you'd actually want to give away power so you can have some riches?

Pur-lease. Thats the funniest thing I've read all day.
Not all of it right away, but gradually as I said. Maybe it will take 50 or 100 years and two or three generations of leaders, but it may eventually happen. Democracy crept to the western hemisphere also gradually. It took hundreds of years instead of happening over night.

Malbec

14th March 2007, 21:53

Not all of it right away, but gradually as I said. Maybe it will take 50 or 100 years and two or three generations of leaders, but it may eventually happen. Democracy crept to the western hemisphere also gradually. It took hundreds of years instead of happening over night.

I suspect other things will intervene within the timescale you describe that will bring that regime to an end.

janneppi

14th March 2007, 21:55

The thing is that with Russia you have a state that is willing to violate other country's sovereignty, killing a man under British state protection on British soil for example in order to stifle its opposition. In this case, why would it be wrong for the British authorities not to step in and take this case to the highest level? Why not apply international pressure for him to change his ways? If a link is found with the FSB, why not start freezing Russian state assets on British soil? I read that an American critic of the Putin regime (not sure if he was a Russian dissident though his name sounded Russian) was shot in Washington last week, ostensibly a mugging but possibly more. If the Americans find a link back to the FSB, why should they not freeze Russian assets or apply a little economic muscle on Moscow to curb its worst excesses?

I accept fully that that kind of action isn't going to bring Putin crashing to his knees, but it will let him know what is acceptable and what isn't. Would that sort of thing be acceptable in your eyes to pressure Russia towards democracy? After all, it does involve the west meddling in Russian affairs.
If (and when) Russia get's caught with her hand in the cookie jar, it should be reprimanded, you also have to realize it comes with consecuences, a butterfly flappes its wings in Eastbourne and next month half western Europe finds the gas pipe is down for repairs.

I'm not saying don't meddle with Russia's affairs, i'm saying it wont help anyone and it might backfire.

If by some miracle there is tangible evidence that Putin was responsible for the killing of the guy in UK(it won't be found, trust me), I would expect UK to put pressure Russia, but it would'n have any effect of Russia internal situation.

Eki

14th March 2007, 21:55

I suspect other things will intervene within the timescale you describe that will bring that regime to an end.
Yes, but they might well create more death and destruction.

Malbec

14th March 2007, 22:03

If (and when) Russia get's caught with her hand in the cookie jar, it should be reprimanded, you also have to realize it comes with consecuences, a butterfly flappes its wings in Eastbourne and next month half western Europe finds the gas pipe is down for repairs.

I'm not saying don't meddle with Russia's affairs, i'm saying it wont help anyone and it might backfire.

If by some miracle there is tangible evidence that Putin was responsible for the killing of the guy in UK(it won't be found, trust me), I would expect UK to put pressure Russia, but it would'n have any effect of Russia internal situation.

You're most probably right, but Russia has a lot to lose too, investment and trade with the EU accounts for a vast chunk of their income. And we all know that rich Russian boys and girls love nothing better than to head west so they can spend all their rubles. Hitting them may not affect Russia's economic or military abilities but it would sure cramp the lifestyles of many of their powerbrokers.

In the long term of course, crying wolf over gas supplies will have the opposite effect, Western Europe will factor the risky supply in when it considers whether to turn to gas, oil, coal or nuclear for future electricity supply, so such threats will have less effect in the future.

And sadly, I agree that its unlikely any concrete evidence will be found linking Litvinenko's murder to the FSB.

Mark in Oshawa

16th March 2007, 19:50

EuroTroll

16th March 2007, 21:30

Latest thing I heard is they are one of six nations that are going to put restrictions on Iran's development of Nuclear capablities. OF course, we all know which one of the six has been helping Iran the last few years...Russia, so how long will it be before we discover this is just another meaningless exercise ( the six are Russia, China, France, the UK, US and Germany)?

Yes, now that Iran has missed a few payments, Russia found its conscience. :rolleyes: Not to worry, I'm sure those prickly Iranians will get the message and pay up. After which everything will once again be fine and dandy with their nuclear program, as far as Russia is concerned.

L5->R5/CR

17th March 2007, 06:03

Gotta love the Russians.....even when they are "free", they still run their nation under an autocratic regime. Latest thing I heard is they are one of six nations that are going to put restrictions on Iran's development of Nuclear capablities. OF course, we all know which one of the six has been helping Iran the last few years...Russia, so how long will it be before we discover this is just another meaningless exercise ( the six are Russia, China, France, the UK, US and Germany)?

Putin is just the leader though Russians want, for in last week's "MacLeans" magazine, I read an article on how most Russians felt uneasy about democracy and its effects on Russia and how they wanted a strong hand in charge. After 70 years plus of Communism, I guess the Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well in Russia. Putin is just the guy to keep them under his thumb. Tough job, someone has to do it I guess.

What a shame for mankind and the rights of man to be free. Russia could be so much more as a nation than the leadership it has been givin in the last century.

Russians want a strong Russia to be proud of. Democracy (and US/Western pressure that collapsed the Soviet system) has been the most visible part of the changes that crippled Russia and that people can't cope with. They don't care what kind of system they have as long as Russia is strong and proud and they have food and a warm place to sleep at night

There are no altruistic goals when people are cold, hungry, jobless, and without hope. Democracy can't be an over night thing. Russia is very lucky that China has a healthy appetite for energy (Russian petrols are heavy in non-metal contaminants because of their age relative to most other deposits). It if wasn't for the Chinese energy hunger, the price of petrols would be so low that Russia would still be fumbling around instead of being able to fund it self enough to bully its way into having some sort of cash flow.

Lord help Eastern Europe when the petrol well begins to dry up for Russia. Then again, with the way tuberculosis and the low birth rate is going maybe there won't be enough Russians to be a problem with the current regime glutts itself into falling....

Eki

19th March 2007, 22:16

Rudy Tamasz

20th March 2007, 09:01

Eki, before you speak out about Russia and the U.S. take a look at yourself. Doesn't Finland has its share of problems?

The gov't lost the elections, the far right is on the rise. Spousal abuse and economic discrimination against women are issues. Roma are marginalized, Sami are unhappy and prisons are overcrowded. God, I wouldn't want to live in Finland!!!

janneppi

20th March 2007, 09:39

Rudy Tamasz

20th March 2007, 09:57

How do you figure our govt lost the elections?
the biggest party remains biggest if by a small margin, prime minister will be the same, only the other big party will change from leftist(ish) to economically rightist.

That's exactly the point that I cannot figure: how do you remain in power if you lose the popular vote in a, well, democratic country? Peculiarities of Finnish democracy? Would anybody care to explain?

janneppi

20th March 2007, 10:26

In general, the president nominates leader of a party that get's most seats out of 200 to spearhead goverment negotions, as a thumb rule that party get's the prime ministers seat.
This time the Centre Party (which had the PM seat before) got 51 seats(down 2 seats), second became National Coalition with 50 seats(up 10 seats) which was one of the opposition parties, third came Social Democrats with 45 seats( down 8) as they were one of the goverment parties, you could say they lost.
The expected new goverment is Centre party plus National Coalition, they would get 101 seats, but propably one small party, perhaps the Christian democrats is invited to bolster the goverment vote.

If what i wrote happens, the goverment moves from right-left goverment to right-right goverment. Centre Party, while lost seats, is still the biggest party and didn't loose. It's a bit wonky since we have three big parties, Social democrats(leftist(ish), Centre Party(farmers) National Coalition (big business)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6463465.stm

Eki

20th March 2007, 10:53

The expected new goverment is Centre party plus National Coalition, they would get 101 seats, but propably one small party, perhaps the Christian democrats is invited to bolster the goverment vote.

The Swedish Peoples' Party will also always be in the government, no matter left of right.

God, I wouldn't want to live in Finland!!!
Nobody has asked you to. And don't worry, we don't try to kick ass and spread our way of life through military force, so Belorussia will be safe.

Rudy Tamasz

20th March 2007, 11:23

Okay, now I get it. No matter what happens, it's the farmers who rule the country. It's also the farmers who determine the foreign policy. And after that Finns still keep bashing Texas oilmen for their foreign policy??? Or that's just jealousy? I mean, you are a farmer up there North next to the polar circle and nothing grows there so you get bored and frustrated. Then something happens down South in the land of palms and grapes and you let all of your frustration loose. It's a textbook case for some Freudian analysis if you ask me.

Rudy Tamasz

20th March 2007, 11:26

BDunnell

20th March 2007, 11:28

You're most probably right, but Russia has a lot to lose too, investment and trade with the EU accounts for a vast chunk of their income. And we all know that rich Russian boys and girls love nothing better than to head west so they can spend all their rubles. Hitting them may not affect Russia's economic or military abilities but it would sure cramp the lifestyles of many of their powerbrokers.

In the long term of course, crying wolf over gas supplies will have the opposite effect, Western Europe will factor the risky supply in when it considers whether to turn to gas, oil, coal or nuclear for future electricity supply, so such threats will have less effect in the future.

And sadly, I agree that its unlikely any concrete evidence will be found linking Litvinenko's murder to the FSB.

I feel that we are seeing the same problem with regard to the West's attitude towards Russia's behaviour as we see in relation to the Middle East. It is easier to turn a blind eye than to face the facts of corruption and a fundamental lack of democracy. Russia has quite simply not adapted well to capitalism, and I think this is at the root of its problems.

janneppi

20th March 2007, 11:28

Yes, you're absolutely right.
It's the poatoes that rule the world, not oil. ;)

Eki

20th March 2007, 11:38

BTW, Eki has mentioned Swedes in Finland. How about Sami? Why are they not represented? They are indigenous after all and were in the place in the place now called Finland when Finns were somewhere in Ural mountains.
The Sami probably don't have enough voting power. The Sami are about 6500 in Finland and Swedish speakers are about 200,000. But a woman from Somalia was elected. She was the first foreign born ever to be elected into the Finnish parliament.

BTW, your theory of the Sami and the Finns is outdated. Genetics suggest that the Finns and the Sami are both mixtures of Scandinavian, Uralic and Baltic, the proportions in the mixtures are just different.

See Finland DNA-project:

http://fidna.info/index.htm

BDunnell

20th March 2007, 11:45

SOD

8th April 2007, 05:13

There are no altruistic goals when people are cold, hungry, jobless, and without hope. Democracy can't be an over night thing. Russia is very lucky that China has a healthy appetite for energy (Russian petrols are heavy in non-metal contaminants because of their age relative to most other deposits). It if wasn't for the Chinese energy hunger, the price of petrols would be so low that Russia would still be fumbling around instead of being able to fund it self enough to bully its way into having some sort of cash flow.

guess who China exports all their manufactured goods to?

if it wasn't China, someone else would be buying Russian oil. If the ME was what it was in 2002, the price of oil would be lower still.