Robert Bridge, there are close to 6-8 M Muslims in the United States. What Malik Nadal Hasan did has nothing to with his identity as a Muslim. Russia is a home to more the 20M Muslims; majority are good Russians and good Muslims.Because there are terrorists who happened claim to be Muslims, does that mean that Muslims must be excluded in the military both in Russia and the United States- something which the United Christian fundamentals and other rights wing groups have calling for? What about the Oklahoma bomber? Was he not a white Anglo Saxon- all American boy? The Cold War was a fact. However, analysis has failed to capture that the United States is a settle state-a former colony which is less than 250 years old. Whilst technological advanced, the United States shows very little understanding of other civilisations, and least of all Muslim civilisations. As for the The Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, I do not think that the troops of USSR went to that country to wage a Jihad against Muslims. In fact, the Soviet Union had great relationship with the Muslim world. The Soviet Union survived the invasion of the Third Reich. In 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed for multiple reasons. The United States will lose in Afghanistan because no nation or people wish to be occupied by foreign powers.

Are there any Cold War lessons that Russia has forgotten, too, and how would it currently be conducting its international relations differently had it not forgotten such lessons? Or even learned them in the first instance? I would be most interested to read an analysis by Robert Bridge, or anyone else, detailing what present-day Russia has actually learned from its Soviet experience and what it, including its people and its leaders both, have committed themselves to do differently as a result. In reality I have never read any such analysis anywhere at all, the implication being that Russia has not learned anything from its Soviet era. Can this be true?

The major lesson that few independent world powers need to learn is the traitorous nature of their vassals who're willing to bend over when a master is in power and who become the biggest and very enthusiastic foe as soon as a new master who is willing to pay for this enthusiasm if found. Mentality of slaves is a dangerous and very persistent thing in some small nation's representatives that will never allow them to become really free and independent.

This article covers a lot of ground that explains much, but is misleading in some respects by what is missed out. For example, the end of the "Cold War" presented America with an opportunity for world domination. This was set out with admirable clarity in the document "Policy for the New American Century" (PNAC). American foreign policy can be seen to follow closely the objectives set out in this paper. Militarily, it seeks 'full spectrum dominance', advocates pre-emptive 'first strikes', and doesn't balk at the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a means of asserting American will on weaker nations. Although the issue of global warming is touched on, nothing is said about America's policy of controlling the production and distribution of fluid hydrocarbons in all known areas of major concentrations. This explains the significance of the so-called 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deliberate destabilisation of Pakistan (because of the strategic position of Baluchistan in bringing Central Asian oil to the Indian Ocean). Nor is mention made of the role played by America in the Afghanistan debacle of the Red Army, in which it armed, trained and funded the Muslim fundamentalists (using Pakistan as an intermediate and supporting the work of its now infamous madrassas). This role was further extended into Yugoslavia (Bosnia), Russia (Chechnya and Ingushetia).

So GrizzlyBear, are you saying that what Russia learned from its Soviet experience is, that it should have been even harder on its captive peoples, and held them on even a tighter rein? As for a slave mentality, in principle I agree that this is a deplorable thing. However, I would be interested in your definition and description of what a slave mentality is. In my view, a slave mentality is characterised by being cynical towards all authority, refusing to take any responsibility for one’s own past or present, and assuming that any alliance is, of necessity, yet another slavery and not an actual alliance. A slave does not demand that his rulers be called to account for having abused, imprisoned and killed them, but remains passive before them. A slave does not have the self-respect to tell his government, “You cannot treat me like this, and you must account for your actions for abusing me in the past.” A slave does not believe he can really change anything, and mostly does not even try. And the longer a society has been in slavery, the more deeply rooted such a mentality of passivity, lack of initiative and paranoia before or indifference towards all authority is likely to be.