McCain Wants To Restart the Cold War

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

lol.....Putin being an ex-KGB officer is a rumor

Frank

I didn't say it was a rumor. I was saying that Putin wanting to return to the days of the Soviet Union were rumor.

And, George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA. What does that mean?

[afmo]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I didn't say it was a rumor. I was saying that Putin wanting to return to the days of the Soviet Union were rumor.

And, George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA. What does that mean?

its not a rumor, its plainly visible in putins actions...but some of us just see what we want to see...

[tortoise1956]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I didn't say it was a rumor. I was saying that Putin wanting to return to the days of the Soviet Union were rumor.

The following was found by doing a search on CNN.com using "Russian Armed Forces":

Almost three years ago, Putin said, "We should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century." Clearly, the USSR was Putin's country. During his career as a KGB officer, he cultivated a sense of duty and loyalty to the state (and to the "guild" of espionage officers).
Since becoming president, his nostalgia for the Soviet past has been manifested in the re-adoption of symbols from the Communist period. When that period ended, President Boris Yeltsin resurrected national symbols from the czarist pre-revolutionary period, including the tricolor Russian national flag, the imperial double-headed eagle on the state coat of arms and the hats of military officers, the 19th century-style gala uniforms of the Kremlin guard, and the adoption of patron saints by the armed forces and security services.
Under Putin, these symbols have been complemented by the communist Red Star, which appears on military hardware such as tanks and aircraft; the re-adoption of Stalin's Soviet anthem tune as the music for the Russia's national anthem; the use of "comrade" as a form of address within the military and security services; and the placement of a bronze bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky in the courtyard of the Internal Affairs Ministry in Moscow. (Dzerzhinsky was the founder of Lenin's dreaded secret police, the Cheka, and was responsible for arresting, exiling, torturing, and executing countless victims.) Moreover, Putin appears to be particularly fond of commemorating every December 20 as Security Services Workers' Day, or Chekist Day, recalling the day in 1917 when "Iron Felix" founded the Cheka, the predecessor of Stalin's NKVD, the KGB, and today's FSB.

I suppose some people will continue to deny that he wants to return to the bad old days, but his actions are very persuasive. Add to this the fact that he is calling for a return of the annual military parade through Red Square, and I seriously doubt that even Etta can say that he is just misunderstood and keep a sraight face...

[tortoise1956]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

That's just it. The Ukraine IS NOT interested in joining NATO. They don't want to be under the control of Russia, but they don't want Western control either.

Etta,

Here is a link to a story about Ukraine requesting NATO membership:

Bush pushes Ukraine's NATO bid - CNN.com

Now, are you still going to say that Ukraine doen't want to join NATO?

As noted in the story, Russia is worried about the fact that nine former satellites already belong to NATO. Guess what? They joined NATO because they are scared spitless of falling under Russian control again.

BTW, that is not my take on things, but rather straight from a co-worker who defected in the 1960s. He was an army officer who led a privileged life as an internationally known sports star for an eastern bloc national team, but he gave it up for the chance to be free. He visits his birthplace at least twice a year to visit family and friends, and has said that they are very concerned about the recent events in the CIS. They already had Russian tanks roll through their country and don't want a repeat.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by tortoise1956

The following was found by doing a search on CNN.com using "Russian Armed Forces":

Almost three years ago, Putin said, "We should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century." Clearly, the USSR was Putin's country. During his career as a KGB officer, he cultivated a sense of duty and loyalty to the state (and to the "guild" of espionage officers).
Since becoming president, his nostalgia for the Soviet past has been manifested in the re-adoption of symbols from the Communist period. When that period ended, President Boris Yeltsin resurrected national symbols from the czarist pre-revolutionary period, including the tricolor Russian national flag, the imperial double-headed eagle on the state coat of arms and the hats of military officers, the 19th century-style gala uniforms of the Kremlin guard, and the adoption of patron saints by the armed forces and security services.
Under Putin, these symbols have been complemented by the communist Red Star, which appears on military hardware such as tanks and aircraft; the re-adoption of Stalin's Soviet anthem tune as the music for the Russia's national anthem; the use of "comrade" as a form of address within the military and security services; and the placement of a bronze bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky in the courtyard of the Internal Affairs Ministry in Moscow. (Dzerzhinsky was the founder of Lenin's dreaded secret police, the Cheka, and was responsible for arresting, exiling, torturing, and executing countless victims.) Moreover, Putin appears to be particularly fond of commemorating every December 20 as Security Services Workers' Day, or Chekist Day, recalling the day in 1917 when "Iron Felix" founded the Cheka, the predecessor of Stalin's NKVD, the KGB, and today's FSB.

I suppose some people will continue to deny that he wants to return to the bad old days, but his actions are very persuasive. Add to this the fact that he is calling for a return of the annual military parade through Red Square, and I seriously doubt that even Etta can say that he is just misunderstood and keep a sraight face...

Putin defends missiles at parade

Russia's display of heavy weapons in this year's Victory Day parade in Moscow is "not sabre-rattling", President Vladimir Putin insists.

Tanks and intercontinental missiles are to be paraded for the first time since the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

The outgoing Russian leader said that Friday's parade to mark the end of World War II would demonstrate Russia's growing defence capabilities.

"We do not threaten anyone and do not intend to do so," he said.

A dress rehearsal for the parade was conducted on Monday.

Mr Putin is stepping down as president on 7 May to be replaced by Dmitry Medvedev.

'Growing capabilities'

"For the first time in many years combat equipment will be involved in the parade," Mr Putin told government officials.

"It's a demonstration of our growing capabilities in the defence sphere.

"We are capable of protecting our people, citizens, our state and our wealth."

Last year, Mr Putin announced the resumption of bomber patrols in international airspace and ordered the navy back into the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

High oil and gas prices means that Russian can afford to bolster its military capability, correspondents say.

But they say it is nothing like as large as it was during the Soviet times.


Story from BBC NEWS:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Putin defends missiles at parade


Yes, the mainstream media is blaming Putin for destroying the goodwill between Russia and the U.S. But, it takes two to tango, as they say.

During the last eight years, Putin's foreign policies have been largely a reaction to Washington 's winner-take-all approach to Moscow since the early 1990s, which resulted from a revised US view of how the cold war ended [see Cohen, "The New American Cold War," July 10, 2006]. In that new triumphalist narrative, America "won" the forty-year conflict and post-Soviet Russia was a defeated nation analogous to post-World War II Germany and Japan --a nation without full sovereignty at home or autonomous national interests abroad.

The policy implication of that bipartisan triumphalism, which persists today, has been clear, certainly to Moscow . It meant that the United States had the right to oversee Russia 's post-Communist political and economic development, as it tried to do directly in the 1990s, while demanding that Moscow yield to US international interests. It meant Washington could break strategic promises to Moscow , as when the Clinton Administration began NATO's eastward expansion, and disregard extraordinary Kremlin overtures, as when the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and granted NATO membership to countries even closer to Russia --despite Putin's crucial assistance to the US war effort in Afghanistan after September 11. It even meant America was entitled to Russia 's traditional sphere of security and energy supplies, from the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia to Central Asia and the Caspian.

Such US behavior was bound to produce a Russian backlash. It came under Putin, but it would have been the reaction of any strong Kremlin leader, regardless of soaring world oil prices. And it can no longer be otherwise. Those US policies--widely viewed in Moscow as an "encirclement" designed to keep Russia weak and to control its resources--have helped revive an assertive Russian nationalism, destroy the once strong pro-American lobby and inspire widespread charges that concessions to Washington are "appeasement," even "capitulationism." The Kremlin may have overreacted, but the cause and effect threatening a new cold war are clear.

The Missing Debate

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by tortoise1956

Etta,

Here is a link to a story about Ukraine requesting NATO membership:

Bush pushes Ukraine's NATO bid - CNN.com

Now, are you still going to say that Ukraine doen't want to join NATO?

As noted in the story, Russia is worried about the fact that nine former satellites already belong to NATO. Guess what? They joined NATO because they are scared spitless of falling under Russian control again.

BTW, that is not my take on things, but rather straight from a co-worker who defected in the 1960s. He was an army officer who led a privileged life as an internationally known sports star for an eastern bloc national team, but he gave it up for the chance to be free. He visits his birthplace at least twice a year to visit family and friends, and has said that they are very concerned about the recent events in the CIS. They already had Russian tanks roll through their country and don't want a repeat.

I agree with Putin that NATO is a "Cold War relic."

Among the biggest obstacle in Ukraine's path to NATO membership is Russia. With nine former Soviet bloc countries already members, NATO countries abut some of Russia's borders and Moscow fiercely opposes further eastward expansion of the alliance that it denounces as a Cold War relic.

Maybe the government of the Ukraine wants to join NATO, but the people don't.

According to the Lieven article I posted:

The first is that according to every reliable opinion poll, the great majority of Ukrainians do not even want NATO membership. They are convinced that far from bringing Ukraine greater security, inclusion in the alliance would lead to fierce internal divisions and potentially even split up their country, as well as vastly increase the threat from Russia.


Leaving aside the deep historical and cultural ties between much of Ukraine and Russia, Ukrainians are well aware of how economically dependent their country is on Russia and how little by comparison the West has done to help them. Until it was reduced at the start of 2006, Russia’s annual gas subsidy to Ukraine was worth more than four times as much (between $3 and $5 billion dollars) as the whole of U.S. aid to Ukraine in the five years since 2000 (less than $800 million). Millions of Ukrainians work legally in Russia and send their families remittances, which contribute immensely to the Ukrainian economy. By contrast, only a handful of Ukrainians receive work visas for the U.S. and the European Union.

The second fact is that if Ukraine does become a member of NATO, the U.S. cannot defend it. Given American commitments in the Middle East, where is Washington to find another army with which to defend Ukraine? Would any American administration be prepared to re-introduce the draft in order to defend Ukraine? If it did, would any Congress agree? And even if one can imagine this happening in some parallel geopolitical universe, is there any chance that American troops would be used to shoot demonstrators in eastern and southern Ukraine calling for their regions to break away from Ukraine in order to remain allied with Russia?

And this is backed up by this article:

Ukrainian leaders strive for NATO membership, citizens unsure they need it

The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 2, 2008

KIEV, Ukraine: When they sit down for dinner, Leonid and Yelena Adrov don't just talk about their daughter's grades or summer vacation plans. They have another burning issue to discuss — Ukraine's membership in NATO.

"Our soldiers should not be sent to die" in conflict zones, says Leonid, a 35-year-old construction worker in Kiev, who is against joining the Western military alliance.

"We should be moving in the direction where life is better," says his wife, Yelena, 35, an accountant who hopes NATO membership will bring her country closer into the European community.

At the alliance's summit in Bucharest this week, President Viktor Yushchenko is determined to convince NATO states to put his country on track for membership. But Ukrainians themselves are deeply divided; more than half oppose the idea.

The west of the country looks to the European Union and hopes NATO membership will eventually make Ukraine part of the democratic and prosperous Western club. The Russian-leaning east, meanwhile, is deeply suspicious of the former Cold War foe and does not want to spoil relations with Moscow, which fiercely opposes the alliance's continuing eastward expansion.

Ukrainians will eventually make the final choice in a referendum.

NATO also is split about whether to begin the membership process for Ukraine and another young democracy, Georgia.

The United States strongly backs the idea. On his way to Bucharest, U.S. President George W. Bush visited Kiev in a show of support for the former Soviet states.

"We must make clear that NATO welcomes the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine for membership in NATO and offers them a clear path forward toward that goal," Bush said Wednesday in Bucharest.

But key Western European powers, namely Germany and France, are opposed, unwilling to upset already uneasy relations with Russia, the main supplier of energy to Europe.

Inside Ukraine, the split is even deeper.

According to a poll conducted in February by the respected Razumkov Center, 53 percent of Ukrainians opposed joining NATO and 21 percent supported the idea. The rest were either undecided or uninterested. The survey of 2,017 people across Ukraine had a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points.

"The attitude (toward NATO) is quite bad," said Andriy Bychenko, head of the center's sociological service.

The differences are further deepened by the country's centuries-old historical and geographical divides. Western regions that were once under Polish and Austro-Hungarian domination give NATO 48 percent support, according to the study. Proponents see NATO membership as a first step on the road to full integration with the European Union. They appreciate Washington's help and wish European nations were more supportive.

But in eastern parts of the country, which were long under Russian rule, as many as 70 percent are bitterly opposed to membership. Central and southern regions are also hostile toward NATO.

Most opponents fear spoiling relations with Russia, which has threatened to aim nuclear weapons at Ukraine if it joins the alliance and deploys anti-missile defenses on Ukrainian territory. Millions of Ukrainians who live and work in Russia or have relatives there would also suffer if Moscow were to require visas.

"For centuries we've had good relations with Russia, and loosing them is what people are most afraid of," said Hanna Herman, a senior member of the opposition Party of Regions, which is the main opponent of membership.

NATO's military operations are another concern. Ukraine has sought to prove itself by deploying troops to Iraq from 2003 to 2005 and sending peacekeepers to Kosovo and Lebanon. A Ukrainian peacekeeper died in violence in Kosovo last month, prompting angry rhetoric from NATO critics. Many here fear that joining the alliance would mean sending troops to Afghanistan, where Ukraine suffered losses during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s.

Ukrainian leaders' request in January to begin the membership process led to weeks of embarrassing protests in parliament that paralyzed its work. Opposition lawmakers filled the legislative chamber with balloons and anti-NATO posters, scuffled with opponents and even locked the parliament speaker in his office to prevent him from convening sessions.

The battle over NATO also spilled onto the streets. During Bush's visit this week, several thousand activists rallied in a central square and outside the U.S. Embassy, held up obscene posters, chanted "Yankee Go Home," and burned an effigy of the U.S. leader.

Despite democratic achievements since the 2004 Orange Revolution and reforms to modernize the Ukrainian military, the country's pro-Western leaders have failed to defeat Soviet-era stereotypes of NATO as an enemy and aggressor.

"I don't trust NATO. I want to be with Russia and Belarus, with Slavic people," said Halyna Reztsova, 65, a retired tailor, who was among several dozen anti-NATO activists rallying under red Communist flags in central Kiev.

Ukrainian leaders strive for NATO membership, citizens unsure they need it - International Herald Tribune

[tortoise1956]

We didn't force the former east bloc nations to join NATO. They eagerly requested membership in order to prevent falling under the Russian sphere of influence again. What you fail to understand is that allowing them to be swallowed by Russia would be a repudiation of what we stand for as a nation - that everyone has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no matter who they are. I for one have no problem with letting them become part of an alliance that doesn't depend on coercion and force to maintain its membership.

Remember one thing; Russia and its leaders have had dreams of empire for at least the past 500 years. This has not changed under Putin, although it may be better disguised. Once you wrap your head around that, it may be easier to understand their actions in that context.

[xds&chevys]

what?
Who? Me?
What am I doing?
Oh nothing, just building this giant bomb........but don't worry, we're not going to shoot it at YOU, its for defense just like the rest of them in that great big pile over there..........no no no those are just your basic garden variety intercontinental missiles.....

??seriously??

[tortoise1956]

As you posted, NATO membership requires a referendum of the people. If they vote against it, then they don't join. That's a better offer than the threat by Russia to point missiles at Ukraine if they do join.

That, by the way, is what makes NATO more than a cold war relic. When a country resorts to threats of nuclear force, they become a threat to all nations. After all, what is to prevent them from using that same threat against Lithuania, or Finland, unless they once again become subservient to Moscow? At least NATO is a credible deterrent to that threat.

Putin is no friend of any European country, which is one reason why the rest of the NATO member nations support both Ukraine and Moldova's membership bids. they grew up either under the Soviet Union, or with it right next door. They have no illusions about the true aim of the Russian government. I'm surprised that you still do.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I read the Time article about Putin. The first site you post is pretty interesting - "In Praise of Laziness?"

I am sorry, Etta, I couldn't find an article on Putin in your favorite, approved source, Vanity Fair. LOL!

J/K