Untimely Thoughts

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...

12 February, 2010, 12:13

What's all the complaining about the man just because he makes his position known. Yeah we expect an interview host to be neutral but take a look at Fox News and see how biased the presenters are and dare anyone try to get an opposing point across without being ridiculed and slandered.

Peter Lavelle is a man who speaks his own mind but still entertains any argument even if he doesn't necessarily agree with it an this is the hallmark of true an transparent hosting.

Yes he shoots from the hip from time to time but that is what makes his style unique and addictive to most viewers.

I've only been watching RT for about 3 months now and see a whole new perspective but they are going to have to stay true to their stance on being non biased and remain independent from political bias etc or they will become just another sellout like the rest of the world's private commercial or state sponsored media.

The power of true media lies in its independence and freedom of expression.

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

21 December, 2009, 10:13

Hi,it's completely agree with this article.

15 November, 2009, 16:19

@ Bianca,

I completely agree and hope that the world will become a better place.

31 October, 2009, 15:55

Okay Peter,

I have been given WAY too much air time on your blog. It is time for johnx or Bianca to chime in. I will shut up for the rest of the day. Our creator gave us one mouth, and TWO EARS. To me that means listen more than you talk.

Your friend,
Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 15:42

Peter,

Now the American press is talking about "Power Sharing" before the Afghanistan election. What a FARCE. Let's get the HELL out of that country. How long will it take for the United States to learn from Russia's lesson?...THAT COUNTRY CANNOT BE OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER. Let them work it out themselves.

Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 13:01

Peter,

George Bush and Dick Cheney stole the election from the American people in 2000 and 2004. They tried to turn the United States into a NAZI regime. They failed, but they came VERY close to succeeding. Believe me, I am watching this new administration closely. I think Obama is a good guy. So is Medvedev. (In my humble opinion)

Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 12:00

Peter,

I am not afraid to confront the police. I was arrested FIVE times in2005, taken away in handcuffs. One time, I was stripped naked and thrown on the floor of a Police station. No charges were ever filed against me. Hilariously, that was during the Bush/Cheney regime. They did not know who they were messing with. I love the transparency of Obama.

Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 11:41

Peter,

You are a friend. But I will say to johnx, come to my country, come to San Francisco. You will be ridiculed, you will be made fun of, you will be called a "San Francisco Liberal" as an insult. I love it. Bring it on you Republican narrow minded beeoches. It takes a man to stand up to the power. Boris Yeltsin is one of my true original heroes.

Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 10:40

Hi Peter,

Here is an example of how we do Halloween in San Francisco.

I got off the "underground" train yesterday. I confronted three cops. I said, "Great outfits! They almost look real.". They laughed and one of them said, "You are the FIRST one all day who had the balls to say that". We all laugh at each other on Halloween.

Gene H., San Francisco

31 October, 2009, 09:40

Opie Taylor Lives (From the Andy Griffith Show)

I was walking the WILD AND CRAZY streets of San Francisco tonight. I asked people what they thought of my "Opie Taylor" Halloween costume. They said "Dude, that is righteous, great costume". Funny thing was, I just went out like myself.

31 October, 2009, 06:42

Peter,

Why does johnx get more air time than me on your blog? He is obviously very smart. However, I am no dummy. He is the Yin and I am the Yang. PRINT THIS IF YOU DARE!!! HAPPY HALLOWEEN FROM THE USA.

Gene H., San Francisco

G

30 October, 2009, 23:25

@Peacekeepertwo

It’s worse than that the international Islamic forces fighting in Iraq were diverted from networks created by the CIA/MI6/BND, etc to fight in Chechnya

Just like the September the 11th hijackers, fighters were diverted to Zarqawi networks in Iraq the most famous being the UN headquarters bombing hence why they had the Nord Ost and Beslan terror attacks to bring a quick end before there network unravels by closing them down so the do not fight US lead forces in Iraq.

Nord Ost was definitely organised by MI6 and the moderate leadership as there is financial and video tape evident by Maskadov, the guy who lead the attack and Basyeav in a video date 6 months prior planning the assault and there is strong evidence that Beslan was rehearsed and organised in Bosnia under the supervision of MI6 agents and UN representative Paddy Ashdown as there was a video discovered of militants training through a known Islamic front NGO linked to Chechen terrorism of militants in the spring of 2004 in a terrorist training camp practicing setting up explosives and rehearsing hostage taking in a school gym.

“Cybercast News Service has also obtained a video that terrorism analysts say depicts an active jihad training camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region previously described by analysts as an ideal gateway for terror missions into Europe.

The video, which is over four minutes in length, shows outdoor maneuvers, explosives training and training inside what appears to be a school gym. Exercises in hostage-taking are also shown.”

http://www.aina.org/news/20050817121245.htm

The original article on the CNSnews site with the link to the video (which I have) has been removed

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/dfasc1004.htm

US might have had foreknowledge of the attack as documents where discovered in Iraq before the assault of photos of schools in the US.
Did they also have links to the Beslan cell?

Zarwaqi himself was a Jordanian/Chechen terrorist trained in Chechen camp in Afghanistan to fight in Chechnya his cousin were a senior member of the Islamic council of Dagestan in 93.

@Kierkegaard

But Kosovo was not meant to be an independent state it was not engineered that way its purpose is essentially to be a transit point for organised crime and terrorism from Europe into Eurasia for western geo-politics not surprising that Soros and Brezinski were at the forefront of supporting policy in the Balkans

Of course the two Georgian regions were/are never truly independent either being part of Russia or Georgia/US

But there is not much risk of destabilisation coming from the two Georgian regions spreading to other parts of the Caucasus or around the world like what is happening with the Panski gorge unlike Kosovo where terrorist camps and terrorist cells and crime gangs have spread over the border into neighbouring Southern Serbia in it’s 10% Muslim population area and Macedonia as well as being the base for organised crime networks throughout Europe dominating 90% of the sex trade in London and being the prominent in Afghan drug distribution into Europe.

There is only a few countries truly independent due to there size, geographic location, population, military capacity and financial resources.

@Bogdanov

I haven’t actually read the book or even know about the author just read the article.

30 October, 2009, 11:17

Hillary was upset that Mr. Putin didn't bother to meet her. Even the South African President didn't want to meet her, she had to chase him around the country.
She needs to act her age, very immature woman.

29 October, 2009, 15:42

johnx.
I am not very familiar with the work of V.Erofeyev. I heard about him before, read little bit. He is definitely good, but Russia has plenty of other pretty talented writers. I think this is the Russian language which gives this opportunity for many Russians. As Erofeyev himself wrote: "I cannot understand those writers who left the country. Russia -- the paradise for writers. But, I have hard time to understand those readers who decided to stay here. Russia -- the hell for readers".

Anyway, I read your post and decided to learn little bit more about the guy and his work. Specifically, I read "Encyclopedia of the Russian Soul". I think it is fine writing. And I couldn't find anything there which would show Erofeyev as being anti-Russian. Yes, he is very critical of Russia and its inhabitants. Russia and Russians are presented in the satirical and often exaggerated (generalized) way. But, he is far from being alone in this genre. Many famous Russian writers did the same. Including Pushkin, L.Tolstoy, Gogol. It seems, Erofeyev himself was influenced pretty much by very famous F. Dostoevsky.

Actually, I found that this his writing is pretty funny in many places. Though, you should read it in Russian, know the author's biography (why he is writing in certain way), and the context (space-time of Russian reality) very well. By the way, the context is always very important in any Russian literature. And take in account, that he generalizes Russian character from his local point of view. Otherwise, the whole thing may look disturbing and ugly. And misunderstood.

There is a difference in the relationship between the word and the cultures, say, in the USA and Russia. This difference -- the level of trust to the press in the respective countries. There are certain definite newspapers and magazines in the United States that people trust. Russians, from the other hand, get used to avoid taking written and spoken words too literally.

Relationships between Russia and Russians, who had chance to live abroad for some time (like Erofeyev) are pretty complex. Russians are like sailors. They could not stay on land for a long time -- the sea calls them. But, once they are on the ship, they start dreaming about the land. So, they never have internal piece. Or as Erofeyev says about immigrants: "Russia cannot be forgotten. Everything is wrong there. And not just wrong, but miraculously wrong... But, Russian immigration never fits in other country's reality. Everybody complains. Nostalgia is killing them. But, they afraid to death their mother-Russia".

Interestingly enough, but people like Erofeyev (whom I consider as truly Russian patriots) always inspired me personally for actions in my life -- to break the cage of Russian stereotypes and be free from it. They help me to look at myself and my relationships with the world in different way and see those problems which restrain me from moving forward.

28 October, 2009, 23:26

Hi Peter,

Afghanistan is quickly becoming an absolute disaster for the United States. Today's revelation that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Hamid Karzai (President? of Afghanistan) has been on the CIA's payroll for years, is disgusting. I have added an excerpt about this news.

Here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33500863/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

Gene H., San Francisco

By Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen
updated 6:18 p.m. PT, Tues., Oct . 27, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan - Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

28 October, 2009, 19:11

@Alann;

Thank you for kind words.

I do think at times if it is worth taking time to talk about issues that general press just skips over. Partially, many a complex issue is swept under a few, well rehearsed phrases due to the intent to deceive. More often, it is journalistic need for expediency, for reducing complexity to something they can put in a sentence. Either way, public gets a distorted view. I am starting from a premise that most readers are more then willing to learn something new. And in today's graphics driven media, information is in short supply.

In Kosovo, the deception goes much deeper then the denial of its Serbian identity. The most recent history has only put the finishing touches to a process lasting many centuries. It is just that Serbs, weakened by the Ottoman rule and the demographic and economic catastrophies of WWI, WWII and the communist rule, did not comprehend the insidious nature of their cultural erradication.

Unlike South Ossetian or Abkhazian cases that were never part of Georgia until Stalin's generosity to his native Georgia, Kosovo has always been Serbian. Under nearly five hundred years of Ottoman rule, and various war-time occupations, Serbian majority population has never been in question. And in the same time, Methohija is a significan Serbian heretage, as these were endownments of Serbian rulers and aristocracy to the Serbian Orthodox Church. Methohija, literally means "church lands". The demographic picture started to change dramatically only in WWII, as Hitler favored Albanian quzlings, against the Serbs. However, while such wartime alliances are damaging, that was nothing compared to the communist rule. For some, still not quite known reasons, communists were eager to prove that their brand of communism was better then the austere communism of Albania. All sorts of propaganda was unleashed accross the border, attracting Albanians from Albania to come over the mountains to the "promised land". And indeed, at that time, it was a land of plenty. In Kosovo, Albanians had the freedom of religion, economic advantages, generous social services and health care, not to mention that Yugoslav passport at that time allowed the holder to travel visa free to Europe! The immigration overwhelmed Serbian population. The new immigrants had little patience for Serbian complaints. Serbian churches, monasteries, farms, graveyards --- all became target under the very communist noses. They scratched their heads, wondering what happened! The trickle of Serbian exodus turned into a stream. NATO entry under the UN flag, resulted in the open ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbs. Over 300,000 fled the violence that NATO purposefully unleashed on Serbian population to curry the favor with the Albanians.

The point that I have raised here is simple: is the mankind moving in the direction of the rule of the law, or is regressing to the laws of the jungle? One can always say that the international law has been implemented in a very spotty manner. I agree. However, there are aspects of international law that are well observed -- especially in issues of trade and transport. On the other hand, other international laws have been respected only by the weak, but not by the strong.

The history of mankind has shown a remarkable progress in the development of the rule of the law. It has never been a steady, ascending path. There were setbacks and centuries of backslide. But the progress is undeniable. The trouble is that today the countries with the most developed societal structures based on the rule of the law, are backsliding in a spectaclular way. Internally, the populace has arrogantly thrown away centuries of gains by allowing cuts in liberties at home, and gross violations of laws abrad. When the world leading countries show such disrespect of the laws --- their own or international agrements --- that bodes ill for the advancement of the culture of the rule of the law. US policy makers made a serious mistake at the end of the cold war. Instead of seizing the day to establish stronger rule of the law accross the world, they sqandered it on the assumption that by pressing their economic and military advantages, US would be better served. That is history, and cannot be reversed. With all the push by Obama administration to try to recover US leading position, it will take a miracle. Trust has been broken.

Backsliding in global affairs is where we are at. In one and only body where a semblance of consensus can be found, UN Security Council, the arrogance of the West is still the coin of the realm. But the pride comes before the fall, and the pridefull never even see their fall until well down that slide.

The question is, what will happen as the part of the word that was most instrumental in building the rule of the law in human relations, falters and looses its economic and military might? The rest of the world that was always weak on the rule of the law in their own cultures, will be left with picking up the pieces. But how will this be done, will determine the fate of mankind. If the world proceeds in the direction of fighting for the pieces of imperial hubris, we will enter a dark phase, indeed. But if the wisdom prevails, international law and order may become stronger and more credible. That would require that the international law is extended from the realm of trade and transport, into other burning issues, such as a seccession.

We can all sit and cry that the world is the way it is. But let us remember that not that long time ago, little feudal estates also fought each other over many misunderstanding, from the rights of hunt to the fate of fair maidens. Yet, many a nation overcame that state of affairs, with universal laws applicable to the nation as a whole. There is nothing to prevent the same process applying to the world as a whole. The tighter economic interdependence may force the process along.

It is very possible that the strongest nations may see this as infrigement on their freedom to do what they please. And it may well be up to others to forge a more equitable legal environment, in spite of the non-conforming nations. That may as well become a natural evolution following the crash of post-cold war order.

28 October, 2009, 13:17

Peter,
As a fighter and soldier- I admit as manipulated one- you and I are equal. Has money destroyed you, like me or are there other obstacles, which for me are irreverent. In a way I want to down grade you to my level, which is human. In the beginning of you carrier at RT I thought I met my double. What the hell has happened during the time past? I have written numerous articles in my country as Lieber Putin! What the hell is going on in the horse trading RT? Do you have a problem to voice your opinion? I’m one of those believers who want believe the gossip. Peter, I’m a media connoisseur and can evaluate your worth for RT. And therefore you are only a valuable soldier. Welcome in my world.

26 October, 2009, 19:36

@Bianca,

As always you are a real pleasure to read. The ease with which you put all things straight is mesmerising. Thank you again for it!

As for trying to explain the differences to some people on this blog between the Kosovo and Metohija and South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues, I am afraid it is pointless as it is "throwing pearls to pigs".

By the way, Kosovo in Albanian does not mean a thing, nor do the toponyms in Kosovo have their meaning in Albanian but only in Serbian. One more crucial proof that Kosovo and Metohija (the real name of Kosovo is Kosovo and Metohija) has always been and will be Serbian land regardless of the current "elephant in a china store" called the U.S. of A. and its henchmen.

26 October, 2009, 14:33

When I learned of the most recent Bombing in Baghdad Iraq, I ask who benefits from this event. I am an American, and it is painful for me to ask this question, Could the US army be Paying Insurgents to do this? There are Always people who will disregard the Human life, to increase profits. We have been lied to so many times, to us locked into never ending war. I hope the American people will wakeup. I am so discouraged by the Power large Corporations have on our Defense Dept.

26 October, 2009, 07:48

Until the parent state accepts the independence of its former territories, they will never really be legitimate, independent entities.

I believe this is true in Kosovo as much as in Abkhazia. Moscow can get a few friends to recognize their independence, and the West can do the same for Kosovo, but without Tbilisi or Belgrade's blessing, each territory has a big question mark over it.

They will remain 'disputed territories' until such status is changed. And I don't see any legitimate Georgian government (or Serbian one for that matter) changing their policy for years and years to come.

Peter and others here can call them independent states. But they are not. As independent, at the most, as Freetown Christiania.

So, let's drink to the disputed territories of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Kosovo. The stillborn states of the multi-polar world.

26 October, 2009, 07:41

Bianca,

The Matrix? You must be joking.

Søren