It has become a ritual - every time President Dmitry Medvedev and
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin face the public - that the issue of the 2012
presidential campaign arises. This happened again when Medvedev was on
a state visit to Italy and when Putin held his now famed annual Q&A
session with the nation. The commentariat is obsessed with who among
the ruling tandem will lead Russia after Medvedev’s term comes to an
end. It would seem a new quasi-science has been invented and it should
be call “tandemology.”
Kremlinology was a failed quasi-science and so is tandemology. Both
are based on what the vast majority of so-called Russia watchers want
to happen and ignore evidence that contradicts their teleological
assumptions. There is no better example of this than Putin’s real or
imagined political ambitions. Will Putin return to the presidency? I have no
idea and I don’t think that Putin and Medvedev have come to any
consensus on this subject yet. But let’s consider what we do
know and apply some simple political logic, along with some basics
about Russian political culture.
During his trademark Q&A session, Putin was asked if he was
considering retirement from political life. His reply was, “Don't hold
your breath.” These words were instantly interpreted as a clear signal
that Putin is determined to reclaim his former office. This, of course,
makes headlines, sells newspapers and garners hits on the internet,
but what about circumstances on the ground here in Russia?
Putin’s Q&A marathons are now part of legend (and stand as brilliant
examples of domestic soft power). No other leader in the world of
his status comes close to Putin’s ability to engage his public (and
constituency). Does he continue this tradition as prime minister to
stay in the public eye (the commentariat thinks so) or does he do it
now because, as prime minister, he is responsible for the economy? Both
are in play, but I strongly believe the latter is far more important
to Putin. The Russia of today is the house that Putin built and he
wants, and even needs, to keep that house in order and under constant
renewal. Putin may be thinking about his political future, but most
assuredly he wants to protect his legacy, first and foremost.
Let’s return to the words “Don't hold your breath.” What does the
commentariat expect? What would happen in Russia if Putin said “Yes, I
will run again in 2012?” Or the reverse - what would happen if Putin
said “No, I will not run again in 2012?” Simple political logic and
current Russian political and social conditions dictate that Putin and
Medvedev must be circumspect when it comes to the 2012 presidential
election. Not doing so would render one member of the “tandem” an
instant lame duck. This is something Russia’s political elite cannot
allow to happen at the moment. By doing so, the entire Putin-Medvedev
project would undermine the political stability. The prospect of this is
completely unacceptable to the Russian body politic.
Putin and Medvedev have a political understanding, and at the core of
that understanding is Russia’s future – not the political ambitions of
either individual. This is what tandemology refuses to accept and
recognize.
Kremlinology suffocated itself to death and so will tandemology – so
don’t hold your breath.
I am very pleased that mainstream media actually took the time to watch or read the text of President Dimity Medvedev’s address to the Federation Council on November 12. To date, the mainstream media has lazily focused on any comment coming from a Russian leader that portrays Russia as “authoritarian.”
Maybe this is now changing – it would appear a new Russian narrative is in play. I call it “Medvedev as our kind of guy.” The mainstream media will be disappointed, I am afraid. Medvedev is not the antithesis of Vladimir Putin; he is part of the natural evolution of Putin’s vision for Russia.
Like many I was very impressed with the address, though at the same time I did not sense in anyway that Medvedev said anything significantly different from what he has said before. He is the same Medvedev that we watched as a presidential candidate and now as president. His ideas about Russia’s economy, civil society and foreign policy have not fundamentally evolved. That said, I would agree that his expression of his ideas are now becoming more nuanced. This is as it should be.
Medvedev was very blunt at times. He made it clear he had no illusions about the state of Russia’s economy and social spheres. Medvedev has been applauded for his openness in the Western media. However, Putin , too – as president – was just as open about his country’s flaws and challenges. But that is not the Putin the Western mainstream wishes to remember. If Western media would for a few moments remove their ideologically tinted glasses, they would realize that just about every thing Medvedev said about reform in Russia started under Putin.
Medvedev said that state shares in large companies should be reduced. Putin said the same. Unfortunately, the financial crisis forced the state to become more involved in the country that it would have liked (which mirrors state interventions in the West).
Medvedev spoke about badly needed legal reforms. But he didn’t start this process -- Putin did.
Medvedev said that Russia’s foreign policy should be pragmatic and devoid of ideology. During eight years of the Putin presidency, we heard the same. (The problem is the US and the rest of the Western world rarely took this seriously).
In terms of political reforms, again Medvedev’s ideas are not unique. Putin demanded a political system that created order out of chaos. With order now present, it is time to again to consider adjustments that allow more democratic feedback from the grassroots. Medvedev’s ideas about democratic reform and party development don’t necessarily make him into Russia’s Thomas Jefferson. Medvedev made it clear that those in Russia who desire to use democracy to return to political chaos will not be tolerated. At the end of the day, Medvedev only confirms the notion that he is Putin’s genuine successor when it comes to Russia’s democracy project.
Medvedev’s message is clearly about evolution. He certainly does present himself as being very different than Putin. Why should anyone be surprised by this? They are two different people, from different generations, and with different backgrounds. But one thing is clear to me: both want the same for Russia -- that Russia is strong, modern and in a state that reflects the hopes and attitudes of the people.
Is Medvedev “our kind of guy?” He certainly seems so. He speaks a language that the West can understand. And for a change it would seem that Medvedev has the unique ability to speak to his own people and the outside world at the same time. This can only be a plus for Russia’s image in the world and advancement of the country’s “soft power.”
However, let’s be clear about something: Medvedev in no way, shape or form is a repudiation of Putin’s legacy. My sense is that Putin is proud of his protégé. Medvedev is taking Russia in the direction that Putin has always intended. Ask yourself the following question: If Putin is so all-powerful and "autocratic," would he “allow” Medvedev to make such an address? Surely not.
Medvedev is the Putin that we can all understand. Medvedev’s Russia is a continuation of Putin’s. The Western mainstream focuses too much attention on the messenger and style. In reality, we have heard Medvedev’s message before.
05 December, 2009, 09:37
Peter,
What do You read in this START deadline missed?
BR
Aleks
01 December, 2009, 22:12
More grease to the elbows of Mr Putin, Mr Medvedev and Mr Lavrov. Nostradamus foresaw Pres.Medvedev in his visions. Having chosen Medvedev, Russia shall be great as predicted. Mr Medvedev is one of a twin brothers who has been rightfully chosen to lead!
01 December, 2009, 14:17
@ Marzipan6
I'm glad that you 'softened' your position somehow, not mentioning that you are backing up eastern European's opinion too, but 'only' that of Estonia and Baltic countries. However being active on numerous forums, blogs, speaking with parliamentarians, having relatives in Estonia etc. doesn't give you 'diploma' or monopoly of being exponent of Estonian main stream public opinion. It is JUST your opinion, and nothing more.
About that, you are feeling boring if everyone shares your opinion, I'm giving you another point of view, and that of being boring while reading the same posts whatever the current topic is about. You are simply pushing your agenda.
You made your point or at least published your thoughts numerous times whatever the current topic was.
And discussing about past of Estonian - Russian relations every time some topic is posted, surely doesn’t help other, sometimes more interesting, International, European and Russian topics to be highlighted and discussed.
Thanks
01 December, 2009, 07:58
NickF, I’d be really interested to know how you come to your view about what the majority of opinion in Baltic countries is. I’m very happy to tell you how I come to my view of it:
• I freely speak, read and write Estonian.
• On most days I read the internet version of three Estonian newspapers.
• I have visited Estonia on numerous occasions and traveled widely within it.
• I have spoken to numbers of Estonian parliamentarians, including some government ministers.
• I read the on-line blogs of numerous Estonian parliamentarians.
• I have been in gatherings that have been addressed by the Estonian President and Prime Minister.
• I have close relatives in Estonia with whom I am obviously in contact.
• I have grown up in an Estonian family, and have many Estonian acquaintances.
• I have also had numerous Latvian and Lithuanian acquaintances.
On this basis, I believe I have every right to say that I have a pretty good grasp of Estonian and Baltic positions on matters. Now, the basis of your understanding of what mainstream Baltic position is, is…..? Certainly my opinions are my opinions, Nick, but in regard to most of the matters I discuss on RT they are scarcely just my opinions. And certainly, I’m the spokesman for no one at all. But it does not logically follow from there that my opinions are held by no one at all. (By the way, lest someone now get off on a new zany tangent, I hasten to add that no official person in Estonia or anywhere else knows that I contribute to RT, not a one of them has ever asked me to, and no, I am not paid to do so.)
But you are right in one thing, Nick, namely that very few people on RT share my opinions. This is because RT is a Russian outlet, and people whose views are oriented towards Russian positions are likely to predominate amongst its readership. But wouldn’t it be boring to post somewhere where everyone agrees with you anyway?
30 November, 2009, 10:07
Bogdanov, as always, thank you for your response. In reply must say that I’m not aware of contradicting myself in my posts, and what is much more important, of contradicting objective external facts. Please consider the following in regard to what you have written:
(1) A corporate entity, whether a company or a nation or even a sports club, has a collective identity, a collective reputation, a collective moral responsibility and often a collective legal responsibility. Look at the example of Nazi Germany: it wasn’t enough for the individual criminals to be tried and punished. Because they did not commit those crimes in their own personal names but in the name of a national entity, that national entity also had to apologise if it wanted to restore relations with its neighbours. The fact that the German government that apologised was not the German government that actually caused the crimes to be committed was no excuse – the crimes were still done in the context of Germany, and it was Germany that had to apologise. The same applies to Russia. All Russians are not guilty of Soviet crimes, nor is Russia’s post-Soviet government guilty. But it falls on that government to seek reconciliation and atone for the crimes, and if they don’t, then Russia’s position in the international community and amongst its neighbours will remain as unsatisfactory as it now is.
(2) The Baltic countries were never (“never” means not ever, not at all, at no time) a legal part of the Soviet Union. Their invasion by Moscow was illegal, the dismissal and arrest of their legitimate governments was illegal, the election charade by which Communist regimes were installed in their countries conformed to no aspect of their own constitutional norms or laws, and the puppet regimes’ “request”, at the point of Moscow’s guns, to rescind their sovereignty and “join” the Soviet Union was contrary to the constitutional powers which even any legitimate Baltic government would have had. No aspect of the entire process was legal, nor was the force whereby Moscow held them captive within the USSR for 50 years. The Baltics did not want to be Soviet republics, from day one never thought of themselves as legitimate Soviet republics but always considered themselves sovereign countries occupied by a foreign power, and the very first chance they got, which was months before the end of the Soviet Union itself, they got themselves out of there. The Baltics are as much responsible for Soviet policies, Soviet debts and Soviet outrages as Nazi-occupied areas of Russia were responsible for German policies, German debts and German outrages.
(3) I expressed my views about “neocons” in my post of 21/11/2009 (11.27), and I refer you there for details. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are certainly independent today. They have freely chosen to undertake certain responsibilities in the context of the EU, NATO, the WTO and other international groupings as these are in their national interests. This does not mean that all such responsibilities represent the best of all worlds – they merely represent the best of the current world. The Baltic countries don’t feel even the least bit humiliated by this, and no one else need feel humiliated on their behalf, either.
(4) At no stage were the Baltics ever treated as equals in the USSR. Ask any Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. Please believe them ahead of Soviet/Russian propaganda, and ahead of the fantasies one may read in the Soviet constitution. Every native Baltic person had the clearest of understandings that they were second-citizens in their own countries, and that foreigners from the east were the master-race. This is nothing unusual; it is the common experience of all occupied peoples everywhere.
(5) If “Estonians are always calculating”, it is because they have to use their wits to survive and stay alive, considering the violent and predatory neighbours they must deal with. After all, Estonians have neither the military nor economic clout to defeat them. But they have lived on their wits for thousands of years, and have managed to establish and survive as a nation state in their own culture when many larger and stronger peoples have disappeared.
(6) Saying that Russians are Estonians’ “biggest and best friends” would cause uncontrollable laughter in any Estonian. But it would be a sad kind of laughter. If Russians are Estonians’ biggest and best friends, may they never see what an enemy actually behaves like. Russia can keep its “loving and deadly hugs” for itself and or for its other best friends, thank you.
(7) There is absolutely no reason for Estonia to thank Russia for its own existence, as you suggest. Estonians were living in their land for at least 2000 years before Slavic tribes first turned up at their border at around the 8th and 9th Centuries. From an Estonian perception, the people who became Russians are very much the new boys on the block and apart from a very few isolated occasions when it was in the newcomers’ interests to ally with Estonians in particular military efforts, they were almost always the attackers, the destroyers, the killers and the oppressors of Estonians. Estonia’s captivity within the Tsarist Empire coincided with the Europe-wide Enlightenment, and yes, eventually that filtered to Estonia, too, via Russian control. But it would have arrived much earlier, much more effectively and much better had Estonia been free. As for the Soviet years, Russia took a country that was, in 1939, economically and socially the equivalent of Finland, and reduced it to rubble. If it weren’t for the Soviet occupation, Estonia would still be like Finland or Sweden of Denmark today. As it is, that will take some more years. But it will happen – if Russia leaves it alone for long enough. Culturally, socially, economically, temperamentally and geographically Estonia belongs in Scandinavia, not in Russia.
(8) Please be assured that Soviet Moscow did not “allow” Estonia to keep its identity – Estonia kept it despite Moscow’s attempts, whether deliberate or otherwise, to destroy it.
(9) Estonians do not wake up each morning thinking, “Gee, I wonder how we can provoke Russia today?” It just wants to live its own life, and if Russia thinks that’s a provocation, that that is a comment on Russia, not Estonia.
(10) Estonia has nothing to apologise for in fighting against, and killing where necessary, invading troops. In 1940 Estonians fought against no one. In 1943-44 they fought bitterly against Russians not because Russians were coming to liberate them and certainly not because Estonians had even the slightest sympathy for Nazis, but because Russians were on their way back to resume their blood-bath of 1940-41. A few rogue individuals did participate in German war crimes against civilians, and the Estonian government has apologised for this many times.
(11) Indeed Estonians had no control whatever over the illegal mass influx of foreigners that Moscow engineered throughout the Soviet years. Occupied countries never have control of their own affairs. But since 1991, Estonia has granted citizenship by naturalization to 151,676 people, most of whom are Russians. Russia has never thanked Estonia for this, nor for the social guarantees that it provides to the approximately 100,000 people of Russian origin who have declined to take our either Estonian or Russian citizenship. Russia only criticises.
(12) Finally, a point of agreement with Bogdanov, who says that I tell only part of the story. This has got to be true. Anyone, anywhere telling any story at all can only tell a part of it, and I am no exception to that. But to the best of my knowledge and ability, the part that I tell is true.
30 November, 2009, 10:03
@Marzipan6
"To Nick: you will find that whereas I write in my own particular style, what I write is the standard understanding of all three Baltic States, and of almost all their people. It is also the standard view of other East European countries."
I must repeat something that maybe you are not willing to accept.
Your opinions are JUST yours. Also they are full of aggressive nationalism and it is not matter of style, it is matter of your ideology.
Europeans, like me, are nowadays too smart to accept an retarded ideology of 19 century, and monologue type you are propagating.
Your opinions are not shared by any European majority.
Also I must note (again) that you are NOT spokesman on behalf of other nations, neither western Europeans neither eastern Europeans, neither Baltic nations, neither even Estonians.
Simply, you are loudly expressing yourself and that's all.
And in MHO it is obvious that almost nobody shares your opinion.
Thanks
30 November, 2009, 04:34
Marzipan6. You wrote: "regardless of who in the Russian state committed crimes in the name of the state, it was the state of that time that committed them". Now I am confused. Because, I thought, that one thing which I agreed with you upon -- the responsibilities for commuted crimes lie on both -- government and people. If fact, I go even further. I, personally, think that, ultimately it is only specific people who are responsible for everything. And not the abstract governments/states. I denounce the notion that people in power are bad because they have power and "regular" people are good because they are not in charge. There are many bastards among "regular" people. And, if there are bastards in governments, they gain the power based on active or passive support of those bastards and ignorant once among "regular" and "innocent" people on the shoulders of whom they rise and stand.
We all have choice in this life. And God didn't promised to anybody that he created special people to serve them. We are on our own and we responsible for our actions. We can choose to raise our families and be quiet and adaptive to the government policies and actions. Or we may choose to fight government for right or wrong reasons. Or... there are many other way you determine your destiny and define the environment you live in. But, one thing is certain -- it doesn't matter if you act or do not act -- you still participate. You still part of the process which shapes your surrounding. Every day and every moment. And as such, you are equally responsible for what you have at the end. Not only your government.
Marzipan6. There is another aspect in this my view. You take everything or nothing. Otherwise, you will be confusing, hypocritical, contradicting, and finally lost. After collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow (Russia) took responsibilities for everything what the Soviet Union did. Including all problems, which were inherited from the Soviet System. Several other western Soviet republics "conveniently" washed blood from their hands and stepped aside, pretending that they never were "in the circle". And I would not have problems with them, if they would be quite about their past sins. But, they foolishly and loudly put themselves in the position not only to blame Russians, but to portray themselves as victims. And that is complete lie. And that is a position of cowards. That what disgusts me with current Georgia, Ukraine, and Baltic States. They pretend, that they are "independent" states now. That they "finally" relinquished themselves from the spider net of the blood suckers -- Russians. But, the reality is -- they are scrawling low like snakes before neocons in Washington now. Which is, from my point of view, looks even more humiliating and disgusting than being part of the "crime gang" -- the USSR, where they, at least, were treated as equals. You, would probably start argue with this my statements. But, I tell you, that, for example, Estonia should be really proving themselves being a very reliable and loyal servant to the US, to be "honored" of dealing with the secret information -- processing most of the background checks for the US immigrants. For me one this fact is mind-blowing. I am wondering if the American government already included Estonia in the list of states without asking Americans about it? What would, say, as an American citizen, think about, say, any tiny Latin American country (like, Cuba), if he found that this country is doing such background checks for foreigners arriving and living in Russia. Probably, as a "Russian dog". My point is -- in this world there are no one-way streets. Neither for people nor for countries. In this interconnected and interdependent world nobody is free. Everybody is taken sides which benefits them the most at the moment. But, ones declare it boldly and openly, the others -- like snakes -- do it quietly and hiding behind the bushes.
It seems, to me that Estonians are always calculating. They calculating then (during WW2) and they are calculating now. But, I have feeling, that their calculator is not working well. I am afraid they again made the wrong choice -- this time going with the neocons. It may hurt them later. They refuse to accept the fact that Russians are their biggest friends on this planet and the only guys who cares about them. But they, trying to avoid this loving and deadly hug from Russia, constantly put themselves in the situation where they have to scrub the mud and blood from their skins...
Talking about your list of what Russia should do... which, from my point of view, came pretty arrogantly. Here is my counter-list to Estonians who have problems with Russia:
(1) They should thank Russia for their existence.
(2) They should stop poking Russia, provoke and aggravate Russians
(3) They should apologize to Russia for those hundred of thousand soldiers and Russian civilians they killed during WW2
...
I don't think, that you like my list. But, neither do I like yours. Lets look at things straight and realistically. Russia is thousand times bigger and stronger than Estonia. Russia was a winner in the WW2. Estonia from the other hands, has its hands covered with Russian blood. From this perspective, Russia could do anything it wanted with Estonia after the WW2 was over. Even to erase it from existence as a separate national entity. Russia had moral rights to do this. Russians, though, chose to allow Estonians to keep their identity. This fact alone, should give a hint for Estonians that they should scroll before Russia. And not to mess with it.
In fact, your latest post is little bit disappointing. I guess, you relaxed and fell back to your regular anti-Russian routine. You have a couple of contradictions there. Like this one "Thank the Baltics for their efforts in granting full citizenship to the illegal colonists of the Soviet era". But, previously you claimed that Estonians were occupied, thus, I assume, didn't have any control of the country. Another one I already mentioned above. Strangely enough, but, I consider the presence of these contradictions a as good news. Because, it means that you have internal work going on. It is much better than being frozen in time with dogmas and prejudice ideas.
That said (which was my emotional response for Marzipan6's arrogant list of demands), I have to tell, though, that I do not rush to any conclusion about Baltic States. Neither about their past nor their present. I really want to hear opinions and personal experiences from as many people as possible from all three current Baltic States. Not West sponsored web sites maintained by russophobes. But, real people of different background and ages. Including Russians who used to live there during Soviet time and living there today. Marzipan6 is not necessarily may present Estonia and Baltic States in the right way. Meaning, he presents only small part of what is going in people minds over there.
30 November, 2009, 02:07
Nobody viewed the clip?
I thought it was pretty cool.
http://www.tackfilm.se/en/?id=1259453751375RA31
@Marzipan6
Yes but the fact is which you totally ignore is that Khazar non-Russian held prominent roles and became an elite directing policy and predominant of all the major functionaries of the Soviet apparatus.
Will the Khazars involve there predominant role in all the activities you mention and again where are the senior Russians that ordered and carried out these operations?
Predominant in the Soviet terror apparatus including the Baltic’s in the early years were Latvians even abroad like ANC terrorist wing under Lithuanian Marxist Joe Slovo in South Africa.
In fact the Marxists emigrated from the Pale of Settlement area consisting of region of Poland and Ukraine into Russia and became the leadership of Soviet Russia (Kaganovich, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Trotsky, etc).
I’ve mentioned before I mentioned and listed the groups and names of people involved in the Communist takeover of the Baltic’s
The biggest victim of Soviet terror was ethnic Russians and the largest mass looting of in history in Russia by the Bolsheviks during the 5 year civil war.
The same people changed there spots and became gangster capitalists occupied the post Soviet government from a decade looted and robbed Russia and worse conspiring with Islamic terrorists/separatists to destroy the country just like they assisted the Moorish occupation of Spain or the destruction of Yugoslavia.
There only able to get away with this of course because of the control of the media and connection in the west especially the US.
You claim is to have a totally 2 dimensional BS propaganda Communist history which is totally political for our forthcoming overt war accompanied by our 2 decades covert war against Russia. Like you’re support of these two clowns in Ukraine and Georgia.
We western governments supported, trained and financed Marxist terrorists groups and gave them a safe have to organise and distribute their propaganda right up until and beyond the 1917 coup just like we do with today’s Islamic separatist/terrorist groups.
And what about the Baltic’s and other countries support of Kosovo and them KLA occupation regime who have used the worst type of Bolshevik tactics trained by our SAS and US forces created by NATO and KLA terror war/campaign under the lie/false pretence of combating Serbian aggression which has know been debunked who have ethnically cleansed over 200,000 Serbs (3/4 of the population) and are trying to cleanse the remaining Serbs from the province so they can create a greater Albania.
And how the US has created Camp Bondsteal there the largest US military base in Europe to oversee the future oil pipeline from the Caspian when we annex Russia’s Southern states to the EU Empire.
Or how the EU, US and Islamic states support international Islamic terrorism across the entire Eurasian sphere (the real reason we are in Afghanistan) to create an Islamic caliphate, a new Ottoman empire stemming from the Balkans to Eurasia. Actually they support Islamic terrorism around the world so they can control the world’s oil and gas supplies and transit routes.
29 November, 2009, 22:24
Aleksandar Hranov, it is true...fascism is a modern political "system" where the capitalist corporations seize all state power, for all practical purposes, and submit everything to the purpose of their accumulation of profit.
Socialism is an economic system where the government owns all land and large scale industry, and takes the profits from it and decides their use. There are no private corporations at all under socialism, and the farming is by state farms which are owned the participants and the state. The political mechanism for control of such a system is s single party, which is a big problem because you cannot seem to keep it uncorrupt.
Additionally, since we have come to fundamental issues, I would like to point out that we no longer have "capitalism:" in the USA that Marzipan loves so much, because capitalism is free farming and free labor; we have no free farming, instead we have huge corporate farms.
In fact, our corporate farms are very close to Soviet state farms, the only difference is that instead of the political party running the state farms, the corporation and the CEO do.
Marzpan might take a look at what corporate CEOs give themselves in the USA, which makes the corruption in the Soviet Union look like sweet Mary Poppins!
29 November, 2009, 21:18
Pauline,
"..Like I said, the classic definition of fascism is when corporations seize state power ..."
If this be true, then God help all of us.
29 November, 2009, 19:00
@Marzipan6
"To Nick: you will find that whereas I write in my own particular style, what I write is the standard understanding of all three Baltic States, and of almost all their people. It is also the standard view of other East European countries."
Wrong Marzipan6. Unless by "other East European countries" you mean Poland, W. Ukraine and couple more, let me spear further emberessment.. .
I'm Bulgarian. My country is the only one to have fought with Germany in both WWs from what I remember: the other ones were either againts the Germans or were part of larger empires during WWI. During first WW Bulgaria had most victims per capita - 1 million killed out of 8 million country. .. Yet, almost noone in this country will entertain the idea of putting the equal sign between nazism and Soviet communism: and certainly no politician for what I know, even thought our current politics is very anti-Russian.
BR,
Aleks
29 November, 2009, 18:24
Peter/RT,
Vyacheslav's right.
I have also posted in vain a few times. Is there a tech problem or a filter of some sort?
BR
Aleks
29 November, 2009, 17:21
Hello! Good job Peter and please keep writing your blog.
This weekend my husband and I read President Dmitry Medvedev's address to the nation. My husband who is a US citizen decided to post the media speech on the front page of his website for the week. It is important for people in the USA to understand that other countries are civilized and that they care about their fellow citizens. There are many programs being offered to the Russian people now days, which will allow you to prosper in the country. For him it is a very exciting time in history to be living in Russia. All that was good economically for the citizens of the USA in the 50’s and 60’s is now being experience by the Russian people. Russia has two great leaders for over a decade. Medvedev and Putin have been doing such a great job for their country. www.paulinrussia.com
29 November, 2009, 04:20
To Vyacheslav Bezusov: I think our discussion is useful not only to clarify matters to each other, but also to hopefully provide insights to any other interested readers who can reach their own conclusion on the basis of what they read.
May I first of all say that the areas of commonality between us that you point out are not as a result of my views having changed. Even though accused of being anti-Russian, etc. etc., I do not view myself as being so. I have enjoyed most Russians I have known, have had several good Russian friends, and even in my childhood home Russians were always welcome guests. I enjoy aspects of Russian culture and my father, though Estonian, was even born in Russia. My argument is with the Russian state, and only with people, Russian or otherwise, who defend or justify the criminal actions of that state. Your reasoning about Chekists, etc. is irrelevant, because regardless of who in the Russian state committed crimes in the name of the state, it was the state of that time that committed them. And it is the state of today that needs to seek reconciliation of for those actions.
You have a problem with exactly what is the Russian state. Strangely enough, the question never arises of what is the United States, or Australia or Germany, etc. The pilgrim settlers, Colonial America, the federation of the United States of America, and its growth across the continent all were and are America. The collection of separate states on the Australian continent which federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 were all Australia, both before and after that pivotal date. The German Confederation of the early 1800s, Bismarck’s unified Germany of the 1860s, the Keiser’s subsequent German Empire, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, the Federal Republic of Germany and even the “German Democratic Republic”, so-called, were still all Germany, and no German is offended if we call any or all of those political entities just that. But you apparently tell me that Russians are offended if anything that was done upon and commanded from Russian territory before 01 January 1992 was “Russian”. How far back does this non-Russianness go before we can be confident that you will not be offended? Can we call Kerensky’s Russia, Russia? What about Tsarist Russia? Or did Russia begin about 18 year ago, and everything else is an offense?
Tsarist Russia, Kerensky’s Russia, the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet Russian Federation are all Russia. One political establishment of Russia is not responsible for the actions of another. But all are the moral owners and heirs of everything, good or bad, that was done within the administration of all of these, because they are all just the one Russia.
Today’s Russia is the heir of all the good things and all the bad things that were part of a thousand years of history. Russia is perfectly entitled to glory in its Soviet-era successes, which it does very noisily and publicly. And Russia is perfectly obligated to atone for its Soviet-era crimes, which obligation it ducks and avoids almost completely. You can’t have it both ways, Vyacheslav. Either cease forthwith Russia’s enormous annual May celebrations and stop glorying in the Soviet space achievements, because these were the deeds of an entirely different country. Or celebrate these to your heart’s content – and also earnestly seek reconciliation with neighbouring countries because of death and horror which Soviet-era Russia visited upon them for the best part of 50 years.
You seem to imply that Soviet crimes are only from long ago, and that most of its perpetrators are long-since dead. In reality, Soviet crimes against its neighbours continued until 1991. Up until then, the sovereign Baltic countries were still illegally occupied by Russia – yes, Russia. Lithuanians were still being killed by occupants in their own country, to be precise, crushed under the tread of Russian tanks. Latvians protesting against the occupation were still shot dead by Russian troops. Estonians were still terrorized by Russian authorities. And the nationals of all three were still languishing, under Russian control, in prison camps in Russia.
Meanwhile, today’s Russia still totally identifies with some of the most evil policies of yesterday’s Russia. For example, Stalin’s absolutely false and evil claim that the three Baltic countries freely and legally joined the Soviet Union, and that therefore there wasn’t even any Soviet occupation of the Baltics, is still Russian policy today, and expressed in just those words by the Russian President. Talk about offensive – that is offensive BIG TIME, and absolutely confirms that the Baltic countries will continue to hold the Russian state in derision and contempt. And in a degree of fear as well, because Russia continues to send the message that in regard to those matters that are of the greatest importance to its Baltic neighbours, it has not changed one whit since the time of Stalin!
You use the term, “Russophobe”, as if was itself some kind of insult against Russia, and impute such an anti-Russian insult to the Baltic countries, calling them Russophobes. All that “Russophobe” means is “one who fears Russia.” Russia’s Soviet-era actions in regard to the Baltics gave them much to fear, and contemporary Russia’s official embrace of the direst anti-Baltic Soviet views ensures that such fears cannot be put to rest. Please don’t blame the Baltics for this, Vyacheslav; it is Russia’s doing, past and present. As is the fact that Russia virtually declared diplomatic and economic war against Estonia in 2007 when it relocated not a Russian statue, but a Soviet statue (which was something from a different country according to your argument), and re-buried not Russian soldiers but Soviet Red Army soldiers, which again by your lights ought to be a different country to Russia. Yet Russia constantly shows itself to be, in its own eyes, emotionally and morally indivisible from, in this case, the worst aspects of the Soviet Union. You will understand why its Soviet-era victims hear this message loud and clear, and respond accordingly.
So what should Russia do if it wants to normalize relations with its Baltic (and other) neighbours? Here are some suggestions.
(1) Immediately drop the offensive and entirely indefensible Stalinist claim that the Baltics voluntarily joined the Soviet Union and that there was no Soviet occupation of those countries.
(2) Extend official expressions of condolence to those countries on June 14, which is their annual Day of Mourning for the victims of Soviet terror. To this day, Russia has vever done so. On that 24-hour period in 1941, almost 40,000 people, mostly women and children, were deported from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into Siberian slavery in a move to shock and terrorize those countries into submission under their Russian occupants. It shocked them, all right – it shocks them still, along with the evem greater totals of terror deportations that happened after the War! The wound that Russia, under the Soviet flag, struck against the Baltics is so horrendous that there is no way in the world that it can heal under the terms of Russia’s current actions.
(3) Thank the Baltics for their efforts in granting full citizenship to the illegal colonists of the Soviet era, who were sent there in the first place to render the local population a minority in their own land, and to thus socially engineer those countries out of existence. Thank the Baltics for extending to these people a significantly higher standard of living than they would enjoy in Russia itself (which is why they want to stay), and work with the Baltics, rather than against them, in helping to solve some of the problems of integration. There is much more I could say about this point, but as my post is already long, I will leave it for now.
So there’s some practical steps for starters. What the Baltics see in Russia is a truculent and dangerous country that is in deep denial of its own history and of its own deeds, and that wreaks its anger over its failure to reform and to prosper against its Baltic neighbours and others.. Not every Russian is this way. But the state that represents them, is. Outsiders cannot and should not change the Russian state – that is the responsibility of Russians, and no one else. But Russia’s neighbours do have a responsibility to act prudently in the light of the realities of Russia’s orientations and Russia’s behaviour towards them.
29 November, 2009, 01:57
It looks like Medvedevs speech got a much better responce in Sweden than in Russia.
They seem to love him calling him a hero.
http://www.tackfilm.se/en/?id=1259453751375RA31
@Vyacheslav Bezusov
I've had the same problem with some of my more detailed longer comments and responces.
28 November, 2009, 13:05
Peter/RT Staff: I sent 2-3 other comments that were not posted. I would appreciate it if the person in charge of this would be more diligent. Several of us who participate often put a lot of effort into these discussions. It is very frustrating to make these efforts for naught.
Marzipan6 - I see that you are mentioning some of the same things and making some of the same points that that I have made already in earlier posts. In an earlier comment not posted, I mentioned that we should be allies, concerning much of what we say, except for your indiscriminate and improper use of the words "Russia" and "Russians." And it seems that you may even be making an effort to modify some of your insulting terminology.
As you can see from my earlier posts, I have never made any disparaging remarks about Estonians, but on the contrary, said that most Russians love Estonians, Georgians, etc. That's why it "hurts" so much to hear russophobic remarks. I also have mentioned that the shared hardships of all nations who lived under Soviet Communism should be a uniting factor, leading to greater understanding among them. And of course I know about Arnold Susi and his friendship with and influence on and assistance to Solzhenitsyn. I alluded to this in an earlier post, mentioning that he had Estonian friends that he met in the Gulag, without giving all the details. Anyone who reads about Solzhenitsyn knows such things.
And of course no one (not just Estonians) asked what the arresting officers' nationality was, or to explain what the difference between Russia and the USSR was, etc., when being arrested in the middle of the night. But you are still missing the point. About this point - more below.
All Russia’s neighbors need to know about what Russia is doing about the evil aspects of the USSR is to open their own eyes and ears. Putin and Medvedev have both unequivocally condemned the crimes of the past, as have many others. Just because some die-hard commies and others still living in the past voice admiration for Stalin, etc., by exercising their freedom of speech, does not mean that most Russians agree with them. The "Name of Russia" programs last year are a case in point, but the Western Press virtually totally ignored the positive aspects (the winners St. Alexander Nevsky and Pyotr Stolypin and their significance), the numbers, and panel's comments and voting during all 12 or so programs and the final program. All the Western Press cared about was where Stalin stood (3rd, and obviously spammed to get that far). And Putin's oft-quoted remarks about the Soviet collapse being the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century are taken out of context. Without lamenting the fact, in the pure sense of the words he was probably right, in that one country suddenly became 15 new countries virtually "overnight." Now, in the realm of geopolitics, this WAS a catastrophe for that country, and virtually unprecedented in the 20th century. But Putin has made it clear that the world was changing, and many things. in principle, changed for the better (also see his recent remarks about his service in East Germany when the Berlin Wall fell). And how to deal with the subsequent collapse was, and still is, a tremendous challenge, as we all know.
As I mentioned before, “We were all victims” is not a well-worn line, although it should be used more, because it is true. It is also a little hard to require someone to answer for "evil Soviet-era actions" when most of those people are dead! Whether it would be worth it to conduct a witch hunt or not for those still alive is another question, and worth discussing. I personally would like to see more done in this direction. But the rules of evidence would most likely make it very difficult to pursue this, as most evidence of personal connections to crimes by those still alive was probably destroyed a long time ago. Instead, Russia has concentrated more on "rehabilitating" those victims who were unjustly punished by the Soviet system, and identifying and remembering them (for example, at Butovo). This probably seems to be an easier way in an attempt at "healing." I personally support more aggressive movement in this field, as I have mentioned before.
You wrote: "I certainly don’t hold every Russian guilty of the crimes of the Soviet Union, nor do I hold Russians as an ethnicity guilty of these. The only ones who are guilty are specific individuals who committed specific crimes." - Well Amen, we finally agree on something! However, your previous comments never mentioned this, but made accusations of collective guilt. As I mentioned before, any collective guilt must be an internal issue that each and every nation must deal with on its own. Repentance by definition must be voluntary and sincere and come from the heart, from each individual's conscience, if it is real and honest. (Again, Solzhenitsyn has often been called the conscience of Russia for good reason.) Otherwise, it's like you are trying to coerce a confession of guilt, saying, "Okay, come on you Russians, CONFESS that you, because you are Russians, persecuted other nationalities, and even other Russians. Admit it!"
You go on to say: "It so happens that most of those were Russians, but there were others also who worked under the control of, and in fulfillment of the policies of, their superiors, who again overwhelmingly happened to be Russians. There is simply no getting away from that reality. Nor does the fact that a large part of their crimes were committed against fellow Russians change the reality that the committers of those crimes were themselves overwhelmingly Russian." - So? What is the point of bringing up the nationality or ethnicity of those who were guilty? (Is it for purposes of sowing ethnic discord? Because that is what is being done here.) Russians were the biggest ethnic group/nationality in the Soviet Union. So it is quite possible that many were Russians simply by the law of averages. So what?* You are bringing it up presumably in an effort to identify the guilty ones, to especially distinguish them from Estonian victims, for example. So, how do you do this, by naming what to you (and to many other Balts and other former "Captive Nations") consider to be an obvious distinguishing characteristic. To you, they are Russian because they speak Russian. However, in the interest of fairness and justice, by doing this, the conclusion that you arrive at (that the bad guys were Russian), risks smearing other Russians, who were not guilty, and even victims themselves, and painting them with the same brush. And this is exactly where I vehemently disagree with you. Now, how did the Russians and other Russian speakers distinguish those bad guys who arrested and persecuted THEM? You have already admitted that the majority of Soviet victims were Russians. Did they say, "Oh those other bad guy Russians are butchers!"? NO! They referred to them as Chekist or NKVD butchers, etc. (many of whom were not even Russian BTW, especially in the 20s and 30s). Everyone KNEW that it was the "organs" of State Security, etc., that carried out the orders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union! So, why did Estonians call the bad guys Russians, and why did Russians call the bad guys Chekists, etc.? Same bad guys, different labels. Now what distinguished the bad guys as the bad guys? Their nationality/ethnicity, or their affiliation with the godless authority?! Logic DEMANDS that you admit that the COMMON denominator distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys was NOT their nationality/ethnicity, but rather their association with the organs of State Security and the Communist Party!!! Why is this so hard to understand? So, Marzipan 6, can you admit the possibility that you and others like you have been erroneously and incorrectly labeling the bad guys as Russians, when you should have labeled them as Chekists/communists, etc.? Even if the majority of the Chekists were Russians (and this is actually debatable)? Hey, the majority of Mafiosi in Italy are Italians/Sicilians. Do the innocent victims of the Mafia curse their persecutors for being Italian or Sicilian, too, or for being Mafiosi?
You said that you "never blamed Russians as a whole for Soviet crimes." But that is not true. In most of your previous posts, that is EXACTLY what you did! You labeled the bad guys of the USSR as Russians or other Russians, instead of using a more precise common denominator. You took the easy way out, the easy way of bigotry and prejudice. And if that is what most Estonians and other Balts say, I say that they are wrong, too, and intellectually lazy and bigoted, and I will resist that erroneous point of view as long as they keep maintaining it.
You have also echoed my words in your latest comments to Svetlana, regarding how natural it should be for Russia and its neighbors to "embrace one another in genuine sorrow for the past sufferings of each, in genuine respect for the difficult efforts of each to struggle free of the past’s painful legacy, and to offer genuine help to each other in their journey." However, unlike you, I see the main obstacle to this as being the common russophobia expressed by many of Russia's neighbors, especially in blaming Russia for the sins of the USSR, as opposed to the system that all commonly suffered under. So I believe this will happen if and when several of Russia's neighbors finally accept the realities of their common Soviet-era history, which they currently insist on blaming the Russians for.
* And how do you know that the leaders were mostly Russian? Just because someone speaks Russian doesn't make them Russian. Have you ever heard of the term, "the Russian Mafia"? The so-called "Russian Mafia" in the US is a term very often used (erroneously) in referring to Russian-speaking gangsters in the US, even though it just so happens that many, if not a majority, of these criminals are not even Russian. Many of them are from the former Soviet Union and Russian speakers, of course, but one should rather call them Soviet, as opposed to Russian. They do not represent traditional Russian society or culture in any way, and they give Russians a bad name.
28 November, 2009, 04:04
Svetlana, I believe there are many Russians with your viewpoint, and I can assure you that Estonians feel an automatic sense of respect and friendship for them. Both peoples have suffered so much at the hands of Soviet rule, both have much to share with each other in terms of human understanding and warmth. Those Russian people in Estonia who do not try to prise open Soviet-era wounds by repeating Soviet propaganda or insisting on some of the Soviet-era orientations of Russia’s present government are accepted, often with genuine warmth of feeling, by Estonians.
In many ways it would be the most natural thing in the world for Russia and its neighbours to embrace one another in genuine sorrow for the past sufferings of each, in genuine respect for the difficult efforts of each to struggle free of the past’s painful legacy, and to offer genuine help to each other in their journey. I believe this will happen if and when Russia finally accepts realities of its Soviet history which it currently denies. That denial sets up an enormous and painful barrier between Russians and their neighbours.
28 November, 2009, 03:44
Pauline, what you write is a little confused, and I would like to offer the following by way of clarification.
(1) Soviets and German fascists were the same in the death, horror and atrocities they worked upon people over whom they had power. But they did it for different reasons. Soviets justified their atrocities by class bigotry, and Nazis justified theirs by racial bigotry. But in the end, the millions of victims of each were just as dead as each other.
(2) Soviet mass savagery against Estonia’s civilian population began in 1940 BEFORE Russia was at war with Germany, and at a time when Estonia itself was strictly neutral. And it resumed in 1946 and continued for the next 40 years long AFTER the war, only gradually toning down to standard repression and terror. I’m afraid you are in deepest denial when you try to excuse these Soviet horrors by Russia’s war with Germany.
(3) You claim that the people of Russia could never fight for Stalin if he had abused them like history indisputably assures us he did. Two factors which you may not be considering helped produce that outcome, Pauline. The first is, that Russia’s historical attitudes were forged by having to live for a thousand years in what I call the madhouse of history. Brutal tyrants were constantly pressing in on them from both the east and the west, and Russians learned that their best safety lay in giving allegiance to their own, home-grown tyrants instead. Hence their amazing passivity under the yoke of both mad tsars and a mad Soviet dictator. But Russians are passionate about their country, and they will fight like the very devil against foreign invaders – which is what they did, even for a madman like Stalin. Secondly, Stalin was well aware of these Russian sensibilities, and during the war he wisely appealed to them not so much on the basis Marxist ideology as on the basis of sheer Russian patriotism. He even opened Russian Orthodox churches again, which a few years previously he had be converting to public toilets! But even with that, there were large-scale defections from Soviet forces by people who considered themselves Russian patriots and who despised Communism. Ever heard of Andrei Vlasov? There were many like him, but you will not be surprised to know that they are not celebrated in Russian history, neither then nor now. And did you know that Stalin’s paranoia extended imprisoning even many Russian troops of the Red Army when they returned to Russia from the defeat of Germany in 1945? Stalin actually feared their potential influence amongst Russian people, because they had seen the West!
(4) No, Estonia is scarcely the only place in the world. It is a very small country that is of no importance to anyone at all apart from its own people – and to those who wish to take their land fom them. Because of Estonia’s strategic location on the crossroads of east and west, there have been very many countries that have been enthused by that particular goal through history. I highlight Estonia’s orientations because generally no one else does. The West hardly notices the place, and Russia notices it only because it is an obstacle to its geopolitical aims and spin. Consider yourself blessed to have a window on realities that otherwise you would probably know nothing about. Once Russia stops broadcasting falsehoods about Estonia’s past and present, I will have no reason to continue writing here, except to thank Russia.
(5) At no time have I ever denied that Russia’s fight against Germany was pivotal in the defeat of Nazism. At no time have I ever denied that had Germany won, Estonia would have absolutely had no freedom at all. And at no time should you deny that under the terms of Russia’s victory, Estonia likewise had no freedom at all.
28 November, 2009, 03:43
What was the topic again? Oh yeah the Medvedev speech.
I haven’t actually heard Medvedev’s speech but he should have outlined long term projects like rail, housing and other infrastructure projects.
And Russia seriously needs to invest more in PR. Russia’s detractors like the oligarchs like Berezovsky her in London has invested his ill gotten loot in anti-Putin PR and media outlets here in Britain and France buying paying for articles in The Guardian newspaper, buying up political support in the major political parties Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, running websites in France and a civil rights organisations.
That’s why the ghost of Paul Kleibnikov or Forbes article description of Berezovsky are never mentioned when he is highlighted in the news.
“In December 1996, Forbes magazine published a scathing article about Berezovsky The Forbes article, entitled "The Godfather of the Kremlin," was printed with no byline for fear of violent retribution to its authors. "Berezovsky," noted the magazine's editor, James Michaels, "stands tall as one of the most powerful men in Russia. Behind him lies a trail of corpses, uncollected debts and competitors terrified for their lives."
If he want’s to tackle corruption he will have to start institutional/political reforms creating a proper base to oversee long term development in Russia.
I know Putin a number of years ago tried to tackle serious crime by closing down these private banks that were used to lauder money were about 20 investigators were killed . I don’t know what happened after that.
Again why does Russia not make an alliance with Asian states they need oil and gas and Russia needs technical know how and Russia can hand back the Kuril Islands to Japan as long as it does not become a US military outpost. And there is no land restrictions to them selling them oil and gas like transit states in the EU.
Russia could now start development in Siberia like it is starting with China which seems to have everything you need open land, fresh water, very low population, etc.
I like the new show The Keiser Report humour with financial analysis very good.
28 November, 2009, 03:33
Svetlana.
The recent discovery of humanoid Ardi who lived more then 4 millions year ago, brought excitement not only to the scientific community, but, also to the camp of theologists. As you know, the biggest surprise was that being the oldest humanoid ever found, Ardi exhibits more human features than chimpanzee's (the closest creature to humans). Actually being somewhere between them, it is closer to humans. Why it is so exciting? Firstly, the human history now expanded to approximately 6 million years. Secondly, the original theory that humans originated from apes has been shaken (this what brought joy to the world of religious people). But, the most importantly, the analysis showed that, if we assume, that both humans and apes originated from Ardi, then, it turns out, that apes experienced more dynamic evolution and changed more than humans!? What is my point? For me it is really depressing fact, because, it means that humans are not capable to learn and evolve. At least, monkeys are more advanced in this sense... May be humans have been really created by God on the very last day of his very laborious work by his own image when the quality of the clay he used for construction was already not so good (became more dry and not so flexible). :-)
That brings us to your question -- why Russian Federation cannot be renamed to Eurasian Federation, so all of us would be called Eurasians and everybody will be happy? The answer -- because, this had already happened once not so long ago. Russia was renamed to the USSR (it seems, nothing reminds about Russia in this name). And what happened? Nothing. The Soviet Union was still called Russia in the Western World. And Soviet citizens were still called Russians. Sometimes -- Commies. By the most advanced Westerners. Note, that monkeys would probably recognize the change, adapt to the new world, and pick up the new names. But, not humans. Humans are going in circles. Not evolving. Not accepting changing. Not capable to learn lessons. For already 6 million years...
Over the past 10 months I considered myself as a holdout. I said we must give the new American administration a chance to demonstrate that Washington had shed its neocon convictions and policies. Well, I have to say I have had enough. The verdict is in – it is “business as usual” in Washington. America’s foreign policy is not about change when it comes to substance – only the tone is different.
I like to think I am a patient person (most people who know me would probably disagree). I had hoped for a new American approach toward Russia. It hasn’t really happened. Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed. When Hillary Clinton was in Moscow she couldn’t refrain from the usual Washington lecturing on how it was a pity Russians aren’t like Americans – as if America is a beacon of human rights with Gitmo still open and “processing” suspects.
Nonetheless, Russian-US relations are slowly on the mend. Moscow is helping Washington to understand something called pragmatism. Washington needs Russia’s help when dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, non-proliferation of nuclear technologies and a host of other issues. But please tell me – when, how and where does Russia lecture the US about foreign policy? It doesn’t – Russia is only interested resolving global problems and not lecturing anyone. The Obama administration is still in need of a hearing aid!
While visiting the Middle East, Clinton said Israel’s “new” stance regarding the building of settlements in the West Bank was “unprecedented.” Seriously, I lost my lunch all over my keyboard when reading these words. The fact is Obama has again caved in, and caved in badly. Obama, for a very short interval, had the chance to say and do something very different from traditional American foreign policy in the Middle East. Instead the new president folded and what could have been a meaningful peace process folded as well. Israel needs only a few more months to complete its colonization of the West Bank to make the possibility of a Palestinian state a very real impossibility. Clinton’s words will have horrific consequences.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is now Washington’s man by default – this is more than a pity, it is a catastrophe. The main opposition candidate in the run-off election after the tainted first round in August, Abdullah Abdullah, has pulled out. It has always been a fool’s errand to make Afghanistan into a democracy of any sort. Abdullah Abdullah is no saint, mind you. He too wants to court Washington using the democracy card, and again with no thought about what the Afghan people think. The Taliban and their Pakistani friends must be having a great laugh. Washington continues to fight a war it can never win and everyone involved except the Americans and NATO know this.
I find all this quite amusing in a bizarre way. The Pakistanis say they are fighting the “bad” Taliban in Pakistan, while making deals with their “good” Taliban. (The “good” Taliban are groups that Islamabad supports in the hope of dominating Afghanistan).
On the Afghan side, the US appears only want to fight Al Qaeda and not the Afghan Taliban. Well, isn’t that convenient. The “bad” Pakistani Taliban can go to Afghanistan for rest and recreation without worrying about the Americans and NATO (which has no stomach for a fight anyway). All of this would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerously wrongheaded.
It is obvious that the Obama administration has not learned from the Bush people. America’s global empire, I guess, has nothing to do with the party of power in Washington. Obama’s words are only words and will do nothing to stop the utter decline of the empire. Obama is not leading on anything on the world stage, it is only playing out a lost cause. I suppose it was naive to think otherwise.
02 December, 2009, 15:31
The lens by which both the United States and Russia view the word is distorted. Distorted by way of the separate experiences both nations encountered in identical events. Take for example, “Socialism With a Human Face”. The Prague Spring of 1968 brought hope that a socialist society could exist in The Warsaw Pack. All that would be required was a functioning “Bill of Rights”. The “Czech” society would continue with its socialist plan while encouraging the western nations to buy “Czech” products. In simple terms this was unacceptable and Warsaw Pack came in to establish order. In the end candles were lit and a dream came cashing down to an end.
Chile is no different. An election is held and a divided parliament and divided electorate brings about the first freely elected Marxist president. His numbers would be close to Bill Clinton’s numbers in 1991.America and American business interests are not amused as nationalization of the economy takes hold. Many of the things Allende would do to save his country’s economy President Nixon would employ to fight off “The Arab Oil Embargo”. Chile is just a chess piece in a global game that brings about the Yom Kipper War, and the World steps up to the edge of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. Allende is over thrown. People are rounded up and shot, exiled or are made to go away.
I have often wondered what it is that makes socialism or better yet socialized capitalism that makes people so afraid. It will be awhile before things really change. For now the policy of looking out for ones own best interests seems to be at play.
12 November, 2009, 16:03
Listened to Medvedev's speech...
It is good for Russia that it has a young, smart, honest, vigorous, and ambitious leader. I hope, Medvedev would be able to change something and make the country being more attractive place to live and work. But, oh, boy -- how many times I have already heard similar speeches. How many times such inspirational voices blasted from the Kremlin, echoed across the country and then... peacefully died never being turned to the long term actions and not producing any long lasting results...
Though, -- comparing Medvedev and Obama -- I think, that the situation is little bit better for Medvedev. Firstly, Medvedev has a more coherent country -- the environment where he could find more support from the vast majority of Russians. Secondly, the goals are more clear (though, not easy to achieve). I would reiterate them in the simple way -- to catch up with US. At least, this is how I derived them from the speech. So, if Medvedev sets up prover forces, then he may have good chances to succeed. Partially. Though, that would require an incredible efforts from all Russians. Probably, comparable with those made by the young Soviet Russia.
Obama, from the other hand, is being kicked from all direction. And the line of kickers getting longer. (I guess, Peter, has recently joined that line as well. :-)). This is Obama's first problem. Second problem -- it is much more difficult for the US to set up the goals. Being on frontiers of human civilization, you have to determine your next move by yourself. There is no one around to copy it from. And as such, there is a big chance what you may miscalculate your steps and fail. Like the Soviet Union did. The country made a great effort to move the humanity to the next step of the social and technological progress, influenced the whole world and reshaped it. But, being ahead of others it exhausted itself, lost, and, finally, bitten the dust. And never was accordingly credited and appreciated by those who currently uses those principles and ideas born during that dramatic Communist experiment.
10 November, 2009, 13:53
Peter,
I am tired. Much older than my years.
Gene
10 November, 2009, 01:58
While I tend to agree somewhat with Robert Walters and Kierkegaard, I must say that Peter's Crosstalk show is very well done. I watch all that I can and the discussion is usually on a high level and covers some topics that I don't hear in the USA, or don't get the same perspective. Yes, you can tell his opinions on most subjects, but so what. The Crosstalk program is on a higher level that his blog... that tends to bait people to bring out USA bashing.
09 November, 2009, 18:58
Getting back to Peter's blog. In which way this blog departs from the Russian point of view, or author's percieved Russian interests? This is, clearly, an oppinion. But it is not about US, but about Russia's perception of how US change/lack thereof in foreign policy might impact Russia's national interests. Hence, RTV.
Such views, and the resulting free and uncensored discussion, are valuable to all those that seek to learn and understand. Knowing full well that there is no single springwell of "truth", and that there are many springwells of interests.
If we cannot appreciate such different points of view, then we are all in the need of a hearing aid.
09 November, 2009, 10:52
I have to laugh when I scan through some of the comments - and indeed the more recent main articles on this blog. Of course it is good to get an "alternative" view of US foreign policy, US/Russia relations, etc, , off the wall though it might be. But kierkegaard is absolutely right: those of us who look to RT for enlightenment or even debate about Russia are often disappointed. But it is hardly surprising: RT's mission statement is unashamedly to advance a positive image of Russia to the west. And there is nothing wrong with that per se. Unfortunately part of that positive image would include being more open about the problems that the country faces, and less deferential to the monolithic enigma that is Russia's ruling elite.
Frankly, America bores me. Russia is a far more interesting country in my opinion, and it would be nice occasionally to have a forum for debate which didn't reflect everything back onto the good old US of A.
Please??
09 November, 2009, 08:50
@ Aleksandar Hranov
Exactly, the Opel thing is another example of USA's cold war mentality. They cannot afford Opel anymore, the workers don't want GM anymore, but they will run Opel to the ground before they sell it to those Russians. Obama has failed period.
09 November, 2009, 07:44
Hi Peter,
Your comment:
"I had hoped for a new American approach toward Russia. It hasn’t really happened. Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed. When Hillary Clinton was in Moscow she couldn’t refrain from the usual Washington lecturing on how it was a pity Russians aren’t like Americans – as if America is a beacon of human rights with Gitmo still open and “processing” suspects".
America as well as Britian are still practising the CNN Effect. This Deplomacy, Freedom of the Press, Human Rights, The American way of doing things is part of " Devide and Conquer" strategy.
Why Clinton and the British are allowed into Russia is beyond my comprehention. Remember Mr Putin saying "Russia is Russia - Leave us alone and we will leave you alone" but they do not listen.
Also and this may sound off the wall, Kentucky and MacDonnalds are not fast food outlets, they are part of the American Indoctrination process.
09 November, 2009, 07:18
Hi Robert@ Robert Walters,
I agree,
"I think RT is one of the best forums available, try BBC, CNN or Aljazeera"
BBC, SKY, CNN and Aljszeera are American and British "Disinformation and Propoganda" networks. From what I see, they are controlled by the CIA and the MI5.
Peter's comments are factual.
07 November, 2009, 10:13
@ Robert Walters
I think RT is one of the best forums available, try BBC, CNN or Aljazeera forums and move beyond the engineered hate speech to real probing questions, it doesn’t get onto the forum, its so censored I couldn’t be bothered with them anymore, they present a single face, and don’t allow deviation, its simply not real news.
I read RT because it does allow for debate.
Peter has just started cross talk, give him a break, besides I like RT’s style, the reporter is allowed to ask that dumb question (that we were all thinking anyway) and its not this safe reading from a pre-prepared “marketing a cause” script you see on CNN.
@ kierkegaard
Bianca is one incredibly knowledgeable person and sometimes I think she is Leon Panetta’s boss, what she seems to know, I’ve never read anywhere.
But yes I agree with you, its hard to buy the Russia versus USA stuff when every country in the world seems to be divided, even the face of RT is half American, so one does get a sense that what is really going down is “beyond sovereignty”.
I get a real sense that there are two power poles battling it out and that both Russia and the USA are merely jokers in the pack of cards.
I think the only difference is that Russia is strategically situated and is open to attack from either power pole, not to beat evil Russians as depicted by CNN, but to win at a bigger game, which makes Russian governance ever more challenging.
I think the USA is in survival mode and swinging between the poles, it can’t seem to decide which side it is on.
I’m not sure if a new order is taking out some tyrants, or the old order tyrants are just rearranging the world, like you, I wish someone would whisper in my ear.
If it’s the first case, then I’m an eager soldier, if it’s the second case, I want to build a space rocket and take the good people left, to another planet, this one is poisoned.
I think intelligent people in general are becoming apathetic because they have realized as JohnX always says that this is really a proxy war, and the real poles of power are clandestine.
I think lethargy is setting in with normal people like myself because it doesn’t feel like my war, after all, I cant even figure out who the good guys are, if any.
Bianca is up in the strategic stratosphere, but what everyone is asking is “why”.
It’s a good question, Peters article seems to indicate that the USA is swinging between the power poles again, selling out, and my question is just what does happen exactly when “patience runs out”.
07 November, 2009, 08:22
kierkegaard wrote (about foreign policy makers): " In, say, the US, you know the cast of characters". Or, do you? You know only tip of the iceberg -- the "representatives". And, by the way, those representatives may have very little in common with those whom they represent and who put them at front line. Most probably they are used just as decoration or avatars or those "fat and ugly" who are really in charge. Just to fool you. And to cover their dirty games by destructing your attention from them.
I hardly believe that you know well those in the US who are cooking policies and determine the course of the American political ship. For that matter, I really do not understand why people in the US are so paranoid about Putin. He is not a superman. He doesn't control Russia. He is also a representative. So, Medvedev. They were put in the Office by the same group of "black Cardinals". Bankers. So, kierkegaard, if you, really, want to understand who is running the country and the country's political mechanics, the last place you should be focused on -- the Kremlin itself. Read Russian financial news and bulletins of jail/prison traffic. And learn to read news between the lines. The primary information is in there. Learn to distinguish important stuff from masquerading.
-------
Holmes and Watson went camping. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up his friend and asks: "Tell me, Watson, what does this starry sky tells you?" -- "Well, it tells me that the weather is going to be nice in the morning" -- "And to me it tells that someone has stolen our bloody tent!".
06 November, 2009, 20:26
@Kierkegaard,
I see what you mean now. In fact, come to think of it, I see a lots more of Russian movers and shakers and policy people being interviewed on RTV, but I do not always see them on the web site! This may explain why I did not think of it. I'll do some more checking of the website for those interviews.
06 November, 2009, 19:14
“Operation “re-set button” was a public relations ploy – and a cheap one at that. Nothing has really changed.”
I say ‘nothing has changed at all’ Peter.
How do you like the Opel story that just came out?
Yes, the cold war is so over..
When I was playing football (“soccer” dear Americans) I was told to look at the ball, and to ingore the oponent’s legs and body language. I think the same can be applied to politics, or put otherwise:
“Actions speak louder than words.”
Now, do I believe a real change (not the Obama type) can happen? Yes, I do. I know, must be this naive Eastern gene, but I actually think there is a slight chance. How?
One way is that somebody who speaks what he thinks gets elected in the US. Somebody honest to be more exact: somebody like Ron Paul.. let’s say in 2012. It promises to be interesting.
The other way is that we’re faced with “some outside, universal threat.. .” Or was Reagan just too old and talking nonsence?..
And that “..universal threat..” does not have to be necessarily an exotic one. We have a few very real, very earthly, very urgent and quite unavoidable ones it seems: for example ‘global climate change.’ Yes, the term has gradually replaced the more friendly ‘global warming’, but in fact to reflect reality it has to be ‘global climate nightmare.’
Time will show.
It’s just too bad we need to suffer in order to become human.
BR
Aleks
06 November, 2009, 14:49
JohnX and Bianca,
Good points, but my critique is that I am not getting enough news about Russia. It's nice that Peter is willing to critique his own country, about which I am sure he knows a great deal. But I would like to know who the major decision makers are when it comes to Russian foreign policy. That's the only reason why I might read a Russia-focused news site. In, say, the US, you know the cast of characters. But Russia? Who are the policy makers in Russia? Has Peter, or anyone else on this site, produced critical commentary of Russian foreign policy debates?
You see, we are talking about Clinton and Obama. But what about Lavrov and Putin and Medvedev? JohnX provides good analysis of the Western "Illuminati," but who are the key players in the Russian "Illuminati." Or should we just believe that Putin controls everything because he is just so wise (and in great shape!)
06 November, 2009, 10:03
Obama's failure has never been so clear as it was yesterday. The Palestinian President, Abbas will not run for re-election even though he would have won by a large margin with Hamas not participating. The Palestinians had placed all their faith and hope in Obama and he has left them frustrated, disillusioned and at a total loss. I blame Abbas for this, he must know that the international community cannot help. South Africa freed herself, and Palestine must also free herself. You cannot rely on America, they will never change their foreign policies.
05 November, 2009, 23:21
In regards to Obama goes things have gotten tens time worse under his administration with a push in western backed terrorism into Eurasia sphere Russia, Central Asia and China, more bases and NATO military presence in Europe against Russia which they are rehearsing war strategy and Afghanistan which they are using as a front with the excuse of fighting the Taliban against Russia as well as studying Russian army capacity in Britain and the US and increase in military budget.
Points of which I referenced Eugenes Friendly Fire blog.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/About_Us/Blogs/Friendly_Fire/agent-provocateur.html
@Kierkegaard
What about Russia's foreign policy as I can tell apart from a defensive US/NATO proxy war against Georgian satellite state Medvedev although he should have done it sooner in my opinion has been negotiating oil and gas and trade deals with Africa, Latin America Central Asia and China unlike or Islamic terrorist sponsoring/organised crime, colonial war driven British foreign policy which is just the same as EU, NATO and the US because they and controlled by that special 2% minority.
05 November, 2009, 22:40
@Robert Walters.
I have not seen the interview, but on the strenght of your comments, I would really like to know what is it that you find so appaling. For example, what were in your oppinion the most appalling misrepresentations of facts, or absence of facts? Why did it sound so lacking in objectivity to you? I am aware of the lack of information on the subject in the West, but your comments lead me to believe that you are well informed, and that in your oppinion, facts were misrepresented. I would really appreciate any information you can offer.
(In the meantime, I will try to find the program)
05 November, 2009, 20:25
Kierkegaard,
I have not yet seen a US TV Channel that featurs an honest to goodness critique of US foreign policy. Any "critique" that I see (and I have to put it in quotes), is really a wishy-washy analysis that tends to obscure the facts, rather then enlighten the viewer with information. Typically, data that "does not fit" is not ever mentioned. Available data is so twisted, that it is hard to separate fact from the wishfull thinking.
I am not suggesting that I have no criticism on RTVs journalism and the quality of analytical work. On occassions, I have sent scolding remarks when the inadequacy of an interviewer botches up a potentially good interview. I have criticized some analysist for jumping to conclusions, behaving as if they are talking from the first hand knowledge, and generally lacking the data. In today's world, when information is available from reputable sources worldwide --- especially reputable analysts and commentators with longstanding careers in their fields of endeavor --- there is no excuse being unprepared.
But these are mistakes I can forgive. This is just a question of time, and better adjustment to RTV core mission. At times, the enertainment value is given more weight then is warranted. There is perhaps too much emphasis on youth, making some of the interviewers look not just inadequate, but a certifyable airheads!
One can have many a criticism. But, it is still the most open media when it comes to getting the news. There is no "filtering" of news, such as I see in Western TV and print media. World news that goes contrary to the US mantra, is many times not reported at all, or if it is, briefly, erroneously and in a ridiculous context. How many times have I seen that?
Straight forward commenting, as here on this web site --- is rare.
I have to defend Peter's style. He is a professional with a well honed skills that provoke discussion. You will probably like his style --- or dislike --- but you will not remain indifferent.
But what I detect in RTV is something that entirely lacks in US and other Western media. It is optimism. No matter how complicated the relationships are, no matter how ridiculous the cold war mentality still permeates the thinking in the West, Russian media as a whole exudes optimism. Evan when there is so little to be positive about --- one feels that the doors are always open. Even amidst the hostility towards Russian anything, and even when downcast and despondent --- Russian thinking seem to always search for the rainbow.
What bothers me in mainstream Western media? Smuggness. There is always an air of condescending tone, phrase or the choice of word. It is almost as if their word is the last, the supreme knowledge and judgement upon any form of life on this planet.
That is called Hubris. And it is not Russia nor any other country, religion or creed that will bring the inevitable Nemesis to stalk the land. Because Hubris generates its own Nemesis, out of the thousands and thousands of big and small self-deceptions.
However, outside of mainstream media, there is an ever increasing pool of high-quality analysis, research and reporting. Their influence is unfortunatelly marginal in the US. It is more then ironic to find out about these authors in mostly foreign, non-Western media.
05 November, 2009, 16:20
Sorry Peter I can not agree that Russia-US relations are better. Russia is making to many concessions and getting nothing in return. There is much publicity, and praise given to Obama concerning the withdrawal of the planned missile shield, However Russia is ignoring at its peril the fact that Poland is hosting a Patriot surface-to-air missiles, which the United States claimed would be a dummy varietiey, Poland has stated the missiles will be combat-ready. Poland is now having US troops stationed in Poland to "re-train" its army. Also lets not forget the SM-3 mobile missile system, which is to be placed in Poland, Czech Republic "may be" in Ukraine, no doubt will also be in Afghanistan as US will remain there for decades, and despite denials at present also Georgia, and lets not forget Balric States. Russia will find itself surrounded. One can not dismiss the feeling that the CIA with its Polish allies will invent an excuse to strike
05 November, 2009, 11:47
I saw your interview regarding the trial of the Bosnian Serb leader and was appalled at the lack of objectivity both from you and the majority of speakers. I consider your interviewing techniques thoroughly unprofessional, biased and totally lacking in objectivity. The panel selected espouse extreme opinions, the content of your questions show a lack of knowledge or are blatant misrepresentations of the facts. You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.
05 February, 2010, 16:22
Fred,
Maybe Peter thought, why should I write a piece, when the topic will go somewhere else anyway. Peter is a good guy, and maybe thought; give some people what they want, somewhere to sound off on anything, a sort of free format area. He could be thinking, I don't need look for work, or lead the discussion, just people enjoy, if this is the product you want! and why not!
05 February, 2010, 14:41
I must register my respect and admiration for Peter Lavelle. I do admit that in the first few episodes of Crosstalk, I did not like the new format. But Peter Lavelle has turned the program around. His interventions are brilliant and, some are simply priceless such his comment on this morning episode on Cross when an American female academic asserted that “it was the national interests of the United States to defend democracy around the world” !Peter was quick to ask her was it also American national interest to torture people, conduct extraordinary renditions and run torture/prison camps! The American academic in question was momentarily at loss for words; she was also visibly angry that her words were contradicted by these ugly inconvenient facts of American war on human rights. Peter Lavelle deserves every last rouble/euros RT pays him!
02 February, 2010, 10:53
Where's Peter? It appears that this blog has become a sounding board for some anti-Russian, raving , lunatic Estonian ...this guy won't give up!!!! Hey buddy you made your point, give up! Estonians are not the only ones that suffered in history, Chinese under Japanese, Philippines under the Americans and Japanese, Vietnam under the US occupation, Armenians under the Turks, countless under the French and British. under the Germans etc.,etc.,
You my Estonian friend, as some one suggested on this blog must be paid by some conservative "think tank" in the US to irritate Russians.....Give up!!!
Remember after Russia spanked Georgia how the US claimed "we're all Georgians" etc., just a lot of hot air,,,,we only fight little weak countries !!!Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. Keeps our miltary industrial complex well funded ,trying out our new weapons...You're out of luck, Estonia has no oil!!!!no US aid!!!!
fred.....oregon, usa
31 January, 2010, 02:38
Is this guy still pumping out his ill-considered untimely thoughts.
31 January, 2010, 00:59
To xxxx: I neither promote hate for Russia, nor feel any hate for Russia myself. I do promote a knowledge of facts, because living in a fantasy land is as harmful for Russia as it is for its neighbours.
The facts I present may be verified in any relevant reference source the world over. May I assure you that the measure for determining whether or not a view is “crazy” is not whether or not it agrees with Russia’s preferred position, but whether or not it accurately represents verifiable facts. I note that although you clearly expressed your dislike of what I present, you did not even try to offer one bit of verifiable evidence that that discredits presented facts.
30 January, 2010, 13:04
Marzipan, I do not read them for a long time because it makes me sick and tired reading the crazy nationalist ideas of yours. You promote only hate in your messages! I think you are paid. This is not freedom of speech! This is propaganda!
I have an excellent solution for you too: to stop blaming Russia and the Soviet Union and to focus on something else. Just imagine what you could do for the world if you used your energy to promote love and peace!
29 January, 2010, 21:07
Peter,
Pls give us some direction of what to expect - like for example:
"I'm really busy guys, expect my next article not earlier than mid-february." or
"I'm closing this. Sorry guys."
As is I think we're a bit lost as to what happened.. .
All others, and especially 007,
I think you'll find it very interesting to follow Max Keiser's reports on programmes here on RT. I find them really.. illuminating.
BR
Aleks
28 January, 2010, 11:02
To xxxx, who is tired of reading my comments: I have both an excellent solution for you, and also a request. My suggested solution is, don’t read them. My request is, that you also let Bianca know how displeased you are with her for bringing up the subject of Harry Männil in the first place, and completely out of the blue, in her post of 16 January 06:24. If she hadn’t have brought up the subject and kept it alive so long you would not have read my responses, and become tired.
26 January, 2010, 13:01
marzipan, I got tired of reading your comments, I hope not all Estonians are like you, Bianka, good job! Thank you for your comments
21 January, 2010, 09:45
What was my first point? Simply that Männil may have arrested the 7 people in question, or he may not have. There is no written or witness evidence to confirm it either way. It is entirely possible that he did, and entirely possible that, 7 days after the imposition of the German occupation on Tallinn, someone else did. I don’t know, you don’t know, no one knows. That’s my point.
My point further is, that Männil is not Mikson.
What was my second point? That there is no evidence to show that Männil’s interrogation of the seven arrested people was itself criminal, and that there is no evidence to show that Männil knew, six days into the German occupation of Tallinn, that the arrest of the 7 would lead to execution. Neither you, I, nor present-day Estonian authorities know of a certainty that Männil had no guilt. I have merely pointed out time and again, and so has every judicial investigation that has considered the matter, including the KGB, that there is no evident that proves that he was guilty. The contrary (and non-judicial) opinion is that of Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff, who is committed to serve the SWC’s goals. Those goals, as I detailed in my post of 17 January 07:00, do not explicitly specify the bringing of justice to bear on individual Nazi War Criminals, but of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive.
What was my third point? That neither I nor Estonians at large are some kind of bloodthirsty ghouls that thrive on Russian blood, and love to see it shed. But that anyone who attacks any country, whether Germans attacking Russia or Russians attacking Estonia, can expect to be vigorously resisted, and quite rightly so.
What was my fourth point? That the numbers of Russian killed that you attributed to Estonia are simply false, for the reasons I previously detailed. And that the Russians driving into Estonia in 1944 utterly lost all right and expectation to be called “liberators” on account of the brutal mass atrocities that the same Russians worked against innocent Estonian civilians in 1941. Their immediate resumption of those atrocities in 1946, which continued in a severe form for ten years, and reduced to “mere” oppression and attempted cultural extinction of Estonia for more than the next 30 years, amply demonstrates that this expectation was entirely justified. Estonia was not responsible for what Hitler did in Russia or elsewhere, and had no responsibility (or ability) to defend Europe. Russia was responsible for its atrocities in Estonia, which far exceeded Germany’s there, and Estonia was responsible for trying to protect its people from a resumption of it, because no one else would. Nowhere have I ever “blamed the Soviet Union for all the world’s problems of the time,” and it is a nonsense for you to imply that I did. But I do blame the Soviet Union for its barbarities in Estonia, so does the world, and so should you.
You asked , “Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called ‘occupied’? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?” Every Nazi-occupied country was given freedom, except those which the Red Army “liberated”. This includes Estonia and its Baltic neighbors. Russia “liberated” countries into a new totalitarian Soviet empire of oppression, some with a pretense of nominal sovereignty such as the Warsaw Pact countries, and some that weren’t even accorded a pretense of sovereignty, such as the Baltic countries. As far as Estonia was concerned, the Red Army could pursue Hitler to its heart’s content, but Estonia knew, from Russia’s own previous behavior in Soviet occupied Estonia, that the Red Army would bring only more death, misery and oppression to it, and no liberty at all. This assessment proved to be 101% accurate, as you well know.
The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is certainly known. The number that should legitimately be attributed to Estonians themselves is absolutely unknown.
What is my fifth point? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy time. Or it may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy half of Europe. Or it may have been both. For the Baltics, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was destruction, slavery, death, and fifty years of foreign occupation.
What is my sixth point? The civilians killed in Dresden, as in every other bombed city, were overwhelmingly innocent of any crimes. Their countries were at war. The civilians murdered and enslaved by Russians in Estonia were also innocent. Their country was not at war with anyone in 1940, nor was Russia at war with them. What they experienced was a callous, calculated, cold-blooded crime against humanity, committed not in the heat of battle against an enemy combatant nation and with no military objective involved at all, but cold-blooded, paranoia-driven murder and enslavement. My further point is, that Dresden was a city of a nation of somewhere around 60 million or more people. The murdered and enslaved of Estonia were from a nation of 1 million people. Numerically, Dresden’s victims were greater; proportionally, Estonia’s were. None of this makes the death of any of the dead any better. But it makes the crimes of one set of killers vastly worse.
What was my seventh point? Estonia did not break the terms of its 1939 Bases Treaty with Russia, and that individual Estonians leaving for Finland to join the Finland’s repulsion of Russian aggression was neither under the control of, nor promoted by, the Estonian government. But Russia’s bringing in of troops way beyond the numbers specified in the Treaty until they amounted to more than 10% of the country’s entire population, its establishment of additional bases outside of the ones permitted by the Treaty, its use of some of these as bases from which to mount bombing raids against Finland, and finally its use of those troops to attack Estonia itself all were gross Russian violations of the Treaty. If Estonia broke the Treaty (it didn’t), Russia clearly broke it many times over beforehand.
What was my eighth point? Estonia, as a sovereign and responsible nation, never had a policy of killing Russian civilians, nor ever pursued such a policy. Under German occupation, a few (very few) rogue Estonian war criminals did participate in such German war crimes. Representing this as an “Estonian action” is false and dishonest. That was no more an “Estonian action” as the participation of Belgian volunteers in the defense of Estonia against Soviet re-invasion in 1944 was a “Belgian action.”
Finally, you claim that “Estonian history is all about technicality.” No. Since the arrival of Russian people at its borders about a thousand years ago, Estonian history has been all about survival. A citizen of a larger country finds such a concept very hard to understand.
21 January, 2010, 06:29
Marzipan6,
So, I am making wild accusations, and you despair of specifying errors of fact...
I despair of your doublespeak.
Bianca wrote:
“Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.”
Marzipan6 wrote:
No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”
AND YOUR POINT IS?
... he may indeed have not even known he arrested
... he may have done it
... no DOCUMENTARY evidence SPECIFYING that he was arresting officer exists.
Exactly, what is your point?
MY POINT IS:
....According to Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mikson was his superior, quote from their report:
....In the conclusions of the International Commission, there was an unequivocally negative evaluation of the activities of Evald Mikson, who was "particularly singled out," along with six other Estonian Nazi collaborators, as being "actively involved in the arrest and killing of Estonian Jews." He and three others -- Ain-Ervin Mere, Julius Ennok, and Ervin Viks -- were named as the ones who "signed numerous death warrants."
Estonian investigation confirmed not only that Mannil had worked for the dreaded Estonian political police, but that at least seven persons (all named) whom he had arrested and interrogated had been executed by Estonian Nazi collaborators.
This is the report. I did not invent it.
Marzipan6 wrote:
Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT.
Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution.
AND YOUR POINT IS:
.... he was hired by the German political police, as there was NEVER Estonian political police
.....he was hired to be Mikson's assistant
.....you never said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge
.... it was too early in occupation to know what is going on, he may not have known what is happening
So, exactly, what is your point?
MY POINT IS:
.... Evald Mikson was his superior, proven murderer
.....A lot of data available on the crimes by Evals Mikson and others I have already named in the above quote from the report
.....KGB files, the same data available to the US Justice Department OSI, contained extremely incriminating testimony against Mikson
....Estonian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement that asserted that Mikson was not guilty of any crimes, and least of all against the Jewish people, a total distortion of the historical facts
....The testimony recorded by the Sandler Commission (which investigated the Baltic refugees who escaped to Sweden) that Mannil had killed as many as 100 Jews, was thrown out because it was not possible to link victims to individuals to establish that they personally killed them
....According to the documentation, the name was Estonian Political Police, even though it was set up under Nazi rule
....This Estonian Political Police employed Estonians, from Mikson to all others who signed death warrants
.... The executioners were also Estonians
....Harry Mannil's name was associated with seven Jews, according to the report
....You can go on denying the SWC report for as long as you wish....
..... or are you REALLY saying that you HAVE NEVER DENIED IT, and that you are not DENYING it, while stating that Harry Mannil is not the arresting officer, that he may not have known about the arrests, interrogations and executions.... or that you MAY have done it, and MAY have known it.
Considering that his superior and other named executioners were Estonians, there is very little doubt in my mind that during his tenure as an ASSISTANT to Mikson --- he could not have helped knowing what his employer, Estonian Political Police did for living. Or managed not to be part of it.
Marzipan6 said:
Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?
YOUR POINT:
.... All the killing is tragedy
......If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied
And what is your point? It is regrettable, but they deserved it
MY POINT IS:
.....All deaths in this war were senseless
.....Russia did not start the war, Hitler did
.....Russia did what it had to do to defend itself and conquer Hitler
.....Do not defend vigorous Estonian help to Hitler's efforts in the name of "unprovoked occupation by Soviet Union of the Baltics"
.....There was nothing innocent about Estonian anti-Soviet actions in the war with Finland, and Soviet Union had learned all it needed to know about the Estonian "neutrality"
....The numbers of killed DO MATTER; Estonia's land was the slaughterhouse of Soviet Army, and the Red Army had to break through to pursue Hitler's forces
....By avoiding to look at the horrendous number of Red Army casualties in Estonia, Estonians can easily forget that these are real people and real deaths ---- and that their casualties of the war are not the strange exception, but unfortunately the rule.
....Do look at the numbers, they may help you see the real cost of bringing Hitler down, and who sacrificed how much to make it happen.
Estonian actions, contributed to prolonging Hitler's rule over Europe. You may find it strange, but many of us would for that reason alone, call Estonia a collaborationist nation.
Marzipan6 wrote:
“Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?”
No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.
My comment:
DO I NEED TO MAKE A POINT, OR ARE YOU SAYING ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR ELEVATING ESTONIAN VICTIMS ABOVE ALL OTHERS? Returning Soviet Army was the return of mass murderers, while the biggest mass murder known to mankind just occurred in Russia, where Hitler's forces killed millions? And you did expect then that Red Army was going to say ---- now we have to stop going after Hitler! We cannot enter Estonian territory!
So they were the mass murderers for killing tens of thousands of Estonians, while Estonians and Hitler killed about 400,000 thousand Russians, and the departing German army left on Russian soil millions of dead civilians?
Can you by any chance even comprehend your lack of grasp of what was going on at the time?
All the numbers of war dead in WWII are recorded. Are they totally accurate? No. Are they good representation of the order of magnitude? Yes.
Try to reflect on the magnitude of the tragedy, before you blame the Soviet Union for all the world's problems of that time.
YOU INSIST THAT RED ARMY, HAVING PUSHED HITLER OUT OF ITS COUNTRY, AND BATTLING HIS FORCES IN ESTONIA, ALONG WITH ESTONIANS WAS " REOCCUPATION OF ESTONIA". Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called "occupied"? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?
.....The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is known.
.....The number of Estonians that perished during that time, is known.
Marzipan6 wrote:
As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honor amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.
My comment:
Do I have to point out the lapse in your logic?
Other then some marginal writers, all serious historians that went over the documents understood Soviet Union's buying of time. Nobody had any illusions about Hitler's intentions. What Stalin did not anticipate, was the speedy collapse of Europe.
He was surprised that Hitler was wasting no time to move to the East. Stalin was genuinely surprised by Hitler's decision to invade so quickly, but not by the intentions to move to the eastern front. In fact, anybody who had anybody in WWII, knew that Hitler was going to turn to the East. Stalin was not the only one to be ignorant of the fact.
You are trying to make this sound like the two of them had a real partnership going! What nonsense!
Marzipan6 wrote:
But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2.
MY POINT:
Really, this is the TOWERING DISHONESTY? Dear Marzipan6, it is worth repeating your words: "Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2." Really? Dresden was a city of an enemy combatant? How can a CITY be an ENEMY COMBATANT? And Dresden's crime was that is was a city in a country whose insane leadership became primary aggressor nation of WWII!!!!!!!!!!
I do not know how can you ever think this way, and then having the nerve to actually say it in public. And then, accuse others of TOWERING DISHONESTY?
You are, here, for all to see, claiming that the only innocents in WWII were Estonians. All other civilians that were killed, somehow deserved it, and just cannot possibly be compared with Estonian innocents! This is twisted.
And do you think that it was OK to drop atomic bombs on two towns, at the time when Japan had no capability to attack any more? And all in the name of "ending the war"? These were civilians that were killed, not military assets of Japan.
I, UNLIKE YOU, DO NOT CLASSIFY INNOCENT POPULATION INTO "ENEMY COMBATANTS".
For me, innocents are innocents. Be they innocents of Estonia, Russia, Japan or Germany.
You believe that THE ONLY MURDEROUS ARMY WAS RED ARMY. The "return of mass murderers" is how you describe the Red Army push of the Eastern Front away from its borders. But to you, it was not EQUALLY MURDEROUS killing of ANY civilians in the war.
Marzipan6 wrote:
Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940.
MY POINT:
What a propaganda trick. Pravda was just being politically correct, as this was the official position. What did you expect them to write? Something like this: "Daily we are being spied on by our presumed partners, so every time we send planes out to the Gulf of Finland, our positions are in jeopardy. Daily, hundreds of Estonians are going over to Finland to fight against us. With Finland up until its knees already in Hitler's camp, Estonia is following the trend". That would have sounded reassuring to the public! Naturally that they lied --- everything is just roses, and we are doing so well.
What was your point to bring the article up? To say that Russia really liked what was going on in Estonia, and then changed their mind overnight, and turned into a strange, outer space-like killing machine that descended on Estonia?
Marzipan6 wrote:
Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil.
My point:
You are forgetting the period of Nazi Germany residing in Estonia, building concentration camps, busily killing millions of Russians, so close to you, that you could smell the stench? So, the "fifty year ravaging, was interrupted by Estonian participation in the largest mass murder in WWII, the killing of Russian civilians? And then proceeded with a vigorous "defense" to stop Red Army pursue the one an only true evil, the monstrous Third Reich.
But you see only Soviet Union committing barbaric evil.
The "mass atrocities" you are blaming Red Army for, is under 50.000 dead Estonians, including civilian and military, over the entire WWII period. If I am not accurate in the numbers, let me know.
The city of Dresden had many, many more civilian victims. Only civilians. And they were not killed by Russians.
Marzipan6 wrote:
The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbor simply takes one’s breath away.
MY COMMENT: My shock over your morals cannot be greater. This is the kind of reasoning that brings about wars and destruction. Now I can see, as I really feel the chill, how can some people justify the death of innocents.
For you, some things are just "regrettable". Well, they were the enemy population! What? Those civilians brought it ON THEMSELVES! What?
Your thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards the value of human life are as far away from mine, as one can get. No, Marzipan6, you are not right! Civilian population is not responsible for whatever their leaders decided! Nobody had the right to kill civilians indiscriminately from the air!
Taking your logic to its conclusion, Soviet Union was justified in occupying Estonia and treating the population as enemy combatants! Why not? You are saying that Estonia was peaceful, but that is not what the Russians felt on their skin? So, why not just call it "regrettable"?
Because it would be insane, as it is insane to defend the murder of civilians anywhere.
Marzipan6 wrote:
The historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia.
But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.
My comment:
Frankly, Marzipan6, after your definition of Dresden as the city of the "enemy combatant", I can hardly have anything much to tell you. You have your own version of history, while Russian history of WWII, does not really look any different from what is being thought in schools here in US.
Estonia suffered and still suffers from bad political judgment. As an independent country, seems to be making decisions that are disastrous to its population.
You see, Marzipan6, Estonian history is all about TECHNICALITY. Technically, Estonia was neutral. In reality, it played high risk politics. For a small country --- that is a big problem.
Today, same problem. Baltics, Estonia the primary cheerleader, are insisting on NATO developing a defense plan for Baltics. Clearly, the "insistence" is viewed with benevolence in some Western circles. But not all. A non-existent threat is elevated to the highest rank of militarization. Estonia is interested in high politics --- again. It will be more then happy to house any military gear on Russia's border. That is a judgment that only Estonia can make, but let's not claim innocence all over again.
Estonia is exposing itself to adventurism in high-stake politics, forgetting that it should strive to build good relations with all of its neighbors, especially Germany and Russia. Playing off one against the other is a loosing proposition.
20 January, 2010, 23:56
Thank you Bianca!
As usual it’s been very educational reading you.
Funny how current Ukrainian leadership wants to join the EU, but asks instead Georgia to send its “monitors.” If they share so much with Georgia in terms of values, I suggest they form a union with this country and leave the EU alone; I’m sure a few other would like to join such a union too... .
“According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all.””
Not what I heard on RT. Party of Regions was pretty surprised for somebody who has been asked and has agreed.
“Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."
Surely I want to see a confirmation from the Party of Regions that they have been asked on this before the second tour!
“Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.”
Yes, as you said, I want to know how many were send in total in the first place? I want to know what “most” means?..
Also, what their background is, how come there isn’t a single woman among them, how come they’re all between 25 and 40 years of age, and (most importantly) what was/is the purpose of their.. “monitoring”, and the means they were/are entitled to use?
This should be investigated I believe by institutions concerned and facts brought in the light ASAP. If any wrongdoing, people and institutions should be charged. As it is it definitely stinks and lack of digging into the matter more deeply will definitely invite more of the same.
BR,
Aleks
Ps. If I had to define age we live in, “lawlessness” comes to mind. If criminal behaviour on all levels is only rewarded, guess what conclusion will people worldwide come to?.. It’s an intelligent monkey you’re dealing with after all.. .
20 January, 2010, 04:43
I better correct an inadvertent error of fact in my long reply to Bianca, to save her the trouble of correcting it for me. I had said that Männil was hired by the German political police 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn. This is not correct – I don’t know when he was hired. The interrogations which are the subject of Bianca’s accusations regarding Männil occurred 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn.
20 January, 2010, 04:31
Bianca, you are making some very wild false accusations. I despair of specifying your errors of fact, as past experience shows that this is likely to have as much effect for you as water on a duck’s back. But perhaps not so for other readers, so here goes:
You write, “Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.” No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”
You continued, “And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge?” No, and you know that I’m not. First, there is no evidence designating Männil in charge of anything, yet you magically promote him to being “the man in charge of the institution.” It is hard for me to credit that this is not a deliberate and knowing untruth on your part.
Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT. Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution. Just as six days into the Soviet occupation of Estonia, people would not have dreamt that before the month was out, some 10,000 of them would have been transported to Siberian slavery, and most to their death, by the Soviets. There are some levels of barbarity that are very hard to apprehend before the event.
Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?
You go on to say, “Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?” No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.
As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honour amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.
But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2. Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940. Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil. The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbour simply takes one’s breath away.
You declared, “Again and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined.” Please don’t tell me what I want – it is for me to tell you what I want. And I assuredly don’t want WWII refought (where do you get such ideas from?) much less re-defined, as the historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia. But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.
Finally you wrote, “And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.” It all depends on what you mean by “Nazism.” There was certainly a Nazi occupation, though no particular sympathies amongst the people for it or for Nazi ideology either before, during or after the event. There were Estonians fighting within the German military against the return of Soviet occupation because Estonians had no military of their own after Russia, by deceit, occupied their country and destroyed their own military. And there were a few individuals who, sadly enough, did participate in German war crimes. Does this equate to there “being Nazism in Estonia?” One might just as sensibly ask, “Was there Communism in Estonia”? Well, there were several Communist occupations of the country. Before the first one, the membership of the Estonian Communist Party totalled less than 100, but as the second occupation extended into the decades, many took out party membership because that was the only way to secure half-way decent housing, jobs and education. Estonians even ended up serving in the Red Army – they had no option but to. And yes, there were also a few “true believers” who were committed Communist and betrayers of their people. But throughout all that time, Estonians as a whole resisted Soviet rule in any way they could, and got out from under it the very first opportunity that came along. There was “Communism in Estonia” in pretty much the same way as “Nazism in Estonia.”
20 January, 2010, 01:49
Aleksander,
This I found in Georgian paper.
"In the view of party leader, ex-Speaker Burjanadze, these actions of the government show what, in this government's view, are "democratic elections."
"We are sure that the freedom-loving Ukrainian people in fraternal Ukraine will ensure the victory of democracy without Saakashvili's interference!" statement says.
The first tour of presidential elections in Ukraine took place on January 17th. Before the elections 400 Georgian "monitors" arrived in Donetsk.
The President of Georgia commented the incident and said that monitors were sent on the request of Ukrainian people, and "their arrival was hailed with heart and soul". According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all. Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."
Georgian Central Electoral Commision intended to accredit over 2000 monitors. On January 17th the Ukrainian CEC re-considered registration of Georgian monitors and again rejected. CEC members decided to turn to Prosecutor General's Office.
Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.
He said this decision must ease "tension", accompanying Georgian monitors in Ukraine; moreover most of them were not allowed to work.
Well, at least it is news in Georgia, but looking at this carefully, somebody invited them. There is only one "somebody", and that is the current reckless President of Ukraine.
The purpose is still not clear, nor is it clear that they left Ukraine. Even less is clear, just how much of these "monitors" are there?
19 January, 2010, 22:42
Marzipan6,
I will let others look at my sense of ethics and morals.
You have quite clearly expressed yours. Your defense of Estonian Authorities, and your continued defence (that is apparently not needed) of late Harry Mannil, is stunning.
Now you are being even more creative. He was "not an arresting officer", you say. Is it ever the practice that high-ranking people in any police go out to actually arrest people themselves?
Are you also saying that he had nothing to do with their interrogation? And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge? So, the man in charge of the institution that has arrested, interrogated and then executed these seven people is not responsible for these murders, because there is no paper documentation showing him to be the arresting officer? \
Do you realize how far have you gone? And what are you really saying? In your world, nobody would have ever answered for the war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, unless they have themselves been the arresting officers, or killers, and the written documents to that effect exist?
So, for the first nine months of the Nazi administratoin in Estonia, as many Jews were liquidated, you are claiming that the most notorious of all outfits, the one Harry Mannil managed --- had nothing to do with their death and disappearance?
First you claimed that may be he did not know what was going on. Now, you are backing off that line of thinking --- to point out that his name was not the name of the arresting officer. But he was the man in charge!
I have commented on the Estonian Authorities, not on your personal sense of justice. But since you chose to be personal, let me remind you that your anguish for the victims is very selective. For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing. Oh well, you say, they should not have been there in the first place. That is like saying that Estonia should have been in different place, as it stood right on the eastern front.
Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII? That is, if you add all the fronts, Pacific and European together?
Nobody ever said that the losses that Estonia suffered in the slaughterhouse that was WWII are not tragic. I have often pointed out to you the tragedies and bitter fate that had befallen Estonia.
Do you remember how many times I said that I would never ask for an appology from anyone who was on the loosing side of WWII? And you know why? Because people are NOT GUILTY COLLECTIVELY. And the armies in the field do not make decisions --- they go and confront those that are their enemies.
You make such an extraordinary case for German-Soviet closeness, that nothing in history can confirm. You like photo-ops, as if they mean anything. The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed "partnership" they may have had. The annihilation of civilian population in areas of Nazi incursion into Soviet Union speaks all I need to know about your imagined partnership. In the light of millions of civilian victims in Russia --- your suggestion is not only without logic, it is immoral.
You have never regretted, as far as I remember, the senseless death and disappeance of millions of Russians in the cursed war. It is almost as if you think it was allright to slaughter them.
Estonia did loose close to 50,000 people to the war and deportations. That is a calamity for a small nation. But the death and destruction of civilians in other parts of the Europe and elsewhere cannot be overlooked, if you are to have some all encompassing judgement on the Soviet Union.
Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed then Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule. What about other German cities, like Hamburg and others? Dresden at that time did not have any military, or military supportive infrastructure to warrrant that vengeance. And at the time when Japan did not even have enough fuel to raise it military planes in the air, how does one justify dropping atomic weapon on two cities?
Your penchant for evidentiary support --- written one --- tells me that your feelings for victims seem to be "situational". You will be outraged over the death of some, while stone cold about others.
I do not question your morals and ethics. That is never possible without actually knowing the person, and their contribution to the lives of others.
But I question your judgement. It is heavily coloured by a driving force to portray history of Estonia in a simple, almost fairy tale manner. Yours is a story of an innocent nation, brutalized by a barbaric, large neighbor. Your context is the stage on which only the pieces of your selected props are visible.
Again, and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined. While the end of the Soviet Union brought to the larger audiences more historic depth, the net result did not change the overall knowledge.
As somebody at this forum mentioned before, the knowledge of the hardship under Stalinism in Estonia and other Baltic states, has been also supplemented by the knowledge of the Nazi era in those countries.
And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.
19 January, 2010, 12:02
It’s not “my” history of Estonia, Bianca, but universally available anywhere Estonian history is recorded.
Claiming that in 1939-40 “Finland was engaging the Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler” is about as ridiculous as one can get. Finland was engaging, on its own soil, a completely unprovoked attack against it by Soviet Russia, which Russia mounted in pursuance of claiming for itself territory which the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that it signed with its virtual ally, Nazi Germany, assigned to it. I can even refer you to photos on the web of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht joining in parades together celebrating their combined destruction of Poland at the same time as Soviet Russia was attacking Finland. Strangely, RT has not actually published these.
Occupying Estonia in 1940 and wantonly murdering and deporting its civilians into Siberian slavery by the thousands at a time when Russia was not at war with Germany, and when Estonia was at war with nobody at all, was as “necessary” as continuing the occupation, murder, deportations and oppression for almost 50 years after Nazi Germany was a memory.
Some Estonians fought under the Nazi banner, and some under the Soviet banner. Each was fighting one enemy of their country.
As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not have even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. He may have done – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist. But of course, who needs evidence when a surfeit of ideology and bias will do just as well? You don’t, but courts do. Which is why no formal accusation has ever been lodged against Männil, including by the KGB. And which is why no defense is necessary.
Yes, the Soviet Union and allies were the winners of WW2. The Soviet Union was also the oppressor of half of Europe for half a century, seamlessly exchanging one totalitarian occupation for another. Some more of “my” history, I suppose.
The more I learn about the ethics and values upon which you promote your views, the more I shudder.
19 January, 2010, 06:16
Aleksandar,
This bizarre event is stuck in the twilight of Ukrainian administration. It is really strange that these flights did arrive, and the authorities were ascertaining the purpose of the passengers' mission.
The whole thing is made more awkward, since Ukrainian authorities made it clear that these were not certified election observers. The authorities actually made things worse by not being clear about the passengers, and their "en masse" arrival. All that the authorities did, was add to the confusion.
It is really hard to speculate here. It is very possible that someone invited election monitors, but did not notify others, and did not issue appropriate certifications. I wonder about election monitors that did not happen to have one female team member?
Things are not adding up, but it would be hard to speculate on the purpose.
However, just imagine that these were two plane loads of Russians, looking all clean-cut, military tight-lipped. I can just imagine the outcry. Soon, you would see articles accusing Putin of personally tucking them in with blankets on that plane.
However, the current President has proven that he is game for any kind of gamble. Nobody would have ever imagined that he was going to pull the stunt with the gas cut-off. Nobody would have imagined such reckless behavior, in the middle of the winter. Yet, he did it. The propaganda did a fantastic job in painting Russia for the problem, even though even a little rudimentary investigation would have shown that only Ukraine could have cut off various branches at various times, since Russia controls only two entry points into Ukraine, while Ukraine controls four exits into Europe.
It was just as reckless to get himself involved in the Russian-Georgian war.
But what would be the purpose of undermining elections? There is a great probability that Timoshenko will win, as she can pick up voters of the smaller candidates, and Yuschenko vote will very likely go to her, unless they stay home.
Unless, the position of various groups around Julia is weaker then I think. If this is the case, and the reckless nature of Yuschenko proves to be at play, one can be prepared for the most nasty surprises. The gas crisis was a big, big time gamble. It created a serious situation for Russia, and forced European nations to start singing Nabucco tune. But just as it appeared that the strategy bore fruit, it backfired.
Several events have occurred that are contributing to the Nabucco project falling apart. One, the rather deceptive nature of Russia-Turkmenistan conflict over the gas contracted for by Gazprom. While the drama froze in place and mesmerized the normally vocal NGOs in both Turkmenistan and Russia, the ahead of schedule gas pipeline Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China, came on-line. Following that, just like magic, Turkmenistan-Russian gas started flowing again. Additional pipe to Iran indicates that the networking of pipes is multi-directional. Additionally, Russia and Turkmenistan are starting the project to network various gas fields inside Turkmenistan, allowing for utilization of any of the sources to meet the demands in any direction. Second, surprising move happened on South Stream. While a lot of political capital has been spent on Bulgaria, and the new government's review of South Stream plans --- an Italian-Turkish-Russian agreement on the move of underwater section to parallel Blue Stream into Turkish territorial waters, was a surprise. As it may turn out, the hotly contested trunk of South Stream entering Balkans at Bulgaria, may not be the first focus. The less talked about, the southern trunk of South Stream, that was to branch off from Bulgaria into Greece and then to Italy, may become the first to implement --- straight from Turkey, without Bulgaria. This may make Balkan strategy obsolete, or at least not the pipeline buster, as some have hoped. More difficult for Georgia is the move to open Turkish-Armenian border. With the Azerbaijan keeping low profile over Nagorno-Karabakh, it seems to me that some tacit agreements have been reached. The significance is in the possibility that Georgia may be bypassed in the future. Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey will be the new energy direction from the Caspian. Since Azerbaijan has just recently increased the amount of gas delivered to Russia, even less is left for any other competing pipeline.
The only realistic option at this point is to try to secure Iranian gas. This however, due to the political impasse, may not be possible in the medium term.
As Russia and Turkey plan for expanding gas pipe to Lebanon and Syria, the capacity of Blue Stream will increase.
All of these developments are now pointing to the higher, and higher degree of inter-networking of Eurasian territory. They also point to the fact that Turkey and Italy are seeking major roles in energy map of the future. And in the future, any new Turkmenistan's fields that come on line, require that Azerbaijan is part of the transfer towards Europe. Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey see more value in utilizing Armenia for transit, and avoid volatile Georgia.
The reason I am reviewing the recent events in the complex energy futures, is the feeling that I get that Nabucco has sustained a bad damage. It all may have started with the ill-advised snub of Angela Merkel, as she was departing US. On her last day, she was informed that GM decided not to sell Opel according to Germany's plan; as Germany was adamant about refusing any other deal, GM just pulled Opel from the market. This was a hostile act, as far as I see this. It did not take long for the response. The following day, Sweden and Finland, on the same day gave a green light to Nord Stream's environmental plan. It looked to me that Germany needed to send a swift message across Atlantic. It pulled in few favors by its neighbors, and the Nord Stream became an unstoppable reality.
All of this adds up to the unpleasant fact that the oil majors that stood behind Nabucco, now have very little leverage.
I may be way off the base, but I happen to believe that Yuschenko and Saakashvilli were all about securing Nabucco. Now, both places look rather irrelevant. Unless, some provocation makes Ukraine world news again.
Again and again, I am not convinced that the risks are worth it, and that Ukrainian political scene is not so deeply poisoned. But what if I am wrong, and the provocation may aim at creating a practical and political mess.
19 January, 2010, 04:18
Marzipan6,
just by repeating the "history" of Estonia, you are not convincing anybody. Your history is just as accurate as is your characterization of my comments. For example:
" Bianca congratulates Russia for committing no atrocities against Estonia between the signing of the Bases Treaty in September 1939 and the Soviet occupation of the country in June 1940 as if this was a point of high honor, and ignores the fact that throughout all this period Russia consistently broke the terms of the Bases Treaty increasing its troop numbers way beyond permissible levels, and then used them to overthrow the country."
Bianca never CONGRATULATED ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. This is not my quote, and you attributing this to me, shows just how much respect you have for others.
What I did, I pointed out to the readers that Russia first came to Estonia on the basis of the agreement for the use of naval base. And that during that period, Soviet Union did not interfere into the Estonian affairs. Nobody was prosecuted, arrested or deported. But Estonia ACTED IN A HOSTILE MANNER TO SOVIET UNION. Just the opposite from what you claim. It was Estonia that sent many volunteers to fight in Finland. It was Estonians that sent intelligence to Finland detailing Soviet military assets, as well as any departure of planes from the naval base. All documented.
As Finland was already engaging Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler, and shortly afterwords became a de jure ally of Hitler's Germany, these actions by Estonians were hostile to the Soviet Army.
You may not agree with Soviet strategy for winning WWII. Part of the strategy was to occupy the Baltics ahead of Hitler's push to the East. By doing so, Soviet Union eliminated military assets that were to be used by Hitler's army. You may not think that the occupation was necessary, but I am afraid, not many people who understand military affairs would agree with you.
Your argumentation is pointless. Estonia and Baltic states were assets to Hitler's military. The countries were occupied to create a forward position for Soviet military. On the surface, that did not do Soviet Union much good, but I can imagine that the position of St. Petersburg would have been much worse, if not terminal, if Soviet Union left preserved all the military assets for Hitler to use.
You are still trying to portray Estonia as a total innocent, in spite of a mountain of data to the contrary. Most historians feel sorry for Estonia and Baltics, but almost without exception state: "Estonia did fight under the Nazi banner". That is something that cannot be erased from history.
Marzipan6, you can keep on trying, and everyone will tell you how foolish you look. You keep on looking for the technicalities, so that you can explain away Estonia's past.
Just as in the case of Harry Mannil. Having defended him with the most ridiculous argument, you than claim that you have not defended him! And to prove your very technical point, you did not defend him, because --- there was no need for defense! Mind you all, Harry Mannil did not need to be defended by Marzipan6, because --- he was never charged! Yes, Marzipan6, we got that! Estonian authorities would not charge him, no matter the evidence, and you, Marzipan6, have technically no need to defend him. However, just in case somebody is wondering, you slip in the defense. Poor man, he did not really know what he was doing, it was so early in the Nazi administration!
He did not know that he arrested seven people, had them interrogated, and then executed --- not by some far away Nazis --- but by Harry Mannil's own Estonian Nazis.
What is clear to the whole world, but not to you, is that the command responsibility in Nazi institutions carried accountability. What I have said to you, and will say again, your whitewashing of Estonian Nazi past is your passion. You go very far in defending it, and then --- without explanation --- claim that you do no such thing.
If you insist, I will keep quoting your "defense" of Harry Mannil, to refresh your memory.
Your entire approach to the case of Harry Mannil is the mirror image of your difficulty with Nazism in Estonia. You will not defend it, because you do not believe the defense is needed --- it is always somebody else's fault.
As for your obsession with Stalinism, go for it. For as long as you let go of the WWII. Soviet Union and allies were winners in WWII. Accept this. Estonia was not the only country in Europe that has paid dearly for the conflict between the two. Estonia was on the wrong side of the war.
For as long as it is clear to you, Marzipan6, that allies did win WWII, and that Soviet Union was part of that effort. Do not get yourself confused by the technicalities, as you are in the case of Harry Mannil.
Harry Mannil is responsible for the lives of seven Jews, whom he arrested, interrogated and executed. In his command capacity, he is certainly responsible for many more lives.
Since you insist that there is not a shred of evidence against him, I can equally insist that you are silencing those seven people once again. These are people who did not get the justice, and you brazenly insist that they do not matter.
I am not so sure anymore that you care about the lives of those he killed. Because, as you say, he has not been charged by the Estonian authorities, so those people never existed.
The more I learn about Estonian authorities, the more I shudder.
19 January, 2010, 01:00
To Starlight:
Nothing you wrote even begins to overthrow the fact that Estonia’s government of the 1930s was strongly anti-fascist. Please read again more carefully Section 3 of my response to you of 16 January. It may also be helpful to read the following excerpts from Wikipedia’s article on Konstantin Päts:
“In order to head off the seizure of power by the proto-fascist Vaps Movement, Konstantin Päts declared state of emergency in the whole country…on 12 March 1934, disbanding the Vaps movement and arresting its leading figures. Konstantin Päts established a moderate regime that the historian Georg von Rauch has called Authoritarian Democracy. Regarding the constitution of 1934 too dictatorial, he organised the passing of a new constitution through a plebiscite and a National Constituent Assembly. During the transition to his constitution he became Riigihoidja (President-Regent) of Estonia on 3 September 1937 and President of the Republic, under the new constitution, on 24 April 1938. His constitution was based on the contemporary Polish and Belgian constitutions. He also admired the British two-chamber parliament.”
Between 1934 and 1938 the Estonia had a government that was authoritarian, but emphatically not fascist. For a more detailed account of that period of history, visit Estonica.org, and then click on “History” and on to “The Story of the Estonian Republic – 1918-1940 ”, and from there click box 9 at the foot of the page to take you to “Authoritarian Estonia.”