Why doesnt the world hate the Russians?

Maloy, your above post talking about why the world hates the US other than Russia because of what they did and then you downplay what the Soviet Union did is a problem. You then admitted that basically the world was their [both USA and USSR] playground. Both countries instated coups, supported dictators, bla bla. You can't be one sided, you should be in the middle, because nobody was innocent back then, and nobody is innocent now! And that goes for all the countries not just the US

Originally posted by looking4truth
As for Russia being peaceful for being uninvolved in a war for nearly 2 decades......... What about the First Chechen War and The Second Chechen War????

That is the only military conflict with direct Russian involvements, and even that is within the Russian Federation. i didn't say Russia had no wars, only that by far not as many as US did. And it is not in some far away country that couldn't possibly be a threat- like the wars US starts. First- Chechnya can be considered one single war, not two wars. Military skirmish never really stopped from 1994 to 2003. That was a local affair, where Russia was attempting to prevent its country from breaking apart. It cannot even be fully considered a war, but a civil strife within a region of Russia. A large strife, but not a war between two nations.

Alot of stuff you brought out before- is Soviet Union issues. Russia is a wholly different metter. Russia is a different country, with different government, different ideals and mentality, and different goals from Soviet Union. What I am mostly talking about in terms of non-agressive superpower- is the Russia of today. No more Cold War boogiemen, for the US to witchhunt.

Originally posted by looking4truth
BTW the fanatics that the Russian federation deal with, the ones that comitted the Beslan School Massacre are the same as the ones the US fight. I feel they are connected and hence Russia and the US fight the same foes.

The Chechen rebels have very limited connection to Muslim extremists in the Middle East (specifically Al Quida). Yes during the Second War they received alot of help from Middle East. Alot of Arab mujahedeen fought in Chechnya. But the Al Quida the US is fighting is somewhat different. Plus US is not fighting those responsible for 9/11, they are fighting everyone who they consider a threat (imaginary threat mostly). Iraq, accusations against Syria, North Korea, etc. US has far more enemies that Russia (again I am not talking Soviet Union).

In terms of Muslim extremists, US and Russia might have similar enemies, but they will never fight against them on the same side- these enemies are not as dangerous as Hitler was. US has far too many interests other than defeating Bin Laden and his cave-dwelling buddies, in this War On Terror. Russia is not interested in aiding these shady American causes.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Just because the Russian Federation is not involved in major Foriegn fight does not make them peaceful. That would be like saying North Korea is peaceful because they have had no combat since the 1950's. There's more to the story than a lack of will to fight.

Because North Korea is just so agressive right? The facts are straight- no conspiracies- Russia has not attacked anyone after the fall of Soviet Union. A few regional strifes with their neighbors do not count. Russia does not have the influence, or the need to go around "colonizing" nations for their resources today. Tell me one nation, that today has reason to be threatened by Russia? I am not talking oil cutbacks (as with Ukraine)- that is not the same threat as military action. When it comes to war, US is the major threat in the world. Russia isn't even close. Compared with US Russia is certainly far more peaceful.
-Hmmm I wonder who vetoed the UN resolution to stop the conflict in Lebannon (thus approving the war)- certainly wasn't Russia.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Even with all of Russia's new found oil wealth the government there lacks the will to deal with major issues like corruption, a poor urban infrastucture, human trafficing, and general wide spread crime.

These activities are far overstated by Western media. Just like any open capitalist country, Russia has crime and corruption. Putin in fact is now putting the right people in place to fight these issues, and trust me they will get better with time. Now how does this relate to other nations hating Russia?

Originally posted by looking4truth
I also notice that for such a peaceful nation there's been no rush to get rid of it's huge stockpile of weapons, especially the nukes. Not that the US is better with this,
but it's another indication that at least Someone feels they be necessary someday.

Why would Russia get rid or iits arsenal? So that US is the only remaining superpower, and there is nothing to hold it back from attacking whoever it wishes- including Russia? Russia was invaded throughout history (by Mongols, Poland, Swedes, Germany, France). It no longer wished to be the punching pillow of Europe. These weapons guarantee no attack on Russia. They also give it superpower status. The fact that Russia owns them, does not in any way indicate that it has plans to use them. Simply no reason to get rid of it.

As for Russia being peaceful for being uninvolved in a war for nearly 2 decades......... What about the First Chechen War and The Second Chechen War????

BTW the fanatics that the Russian federation deal with, the ones that comitted the Beslan School Massacre are the same as the ones the US fight. I feel they are connected and hence Russia and the US fight the same foes.

Just because the Russian Federation is not involved in major Foriegn fight does not make them peaceful. That would be like saying North Korea is peaceful because they have had no combat since the 1950's. There's more to the story than a lack of will to fight.

Even with all of Russia's new found oil wealth the government there lacks the will to deal with major issues like corruption, a poor urban infrastucture, human trafficing, and general wide spread crime.

I also notice that for such a peaceful nation there's been no rush to get rid of it's huge stockpile of weapons, especially the nukes. Not that the US is better with this, but it's another indication that at least Someone feels they be necessary someday.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy, your above post talking about why the world hates the US other than Russia because of what they did and then you downplay what the Soviet Union did is a problem. You then admitted that basically the world was their [both USA and USSR] playground. Both countries instated coups, supported dictators, bla bla. You can't be one sided, you should be in the middle, because nobody was innocent back then, and nobody is innocent now! And that goes for all the countries not just the US

I never said Soviet Union is guilt free, especially Stalin. i am just underlining that contemporary Russia is not Soviet Union. It long abandoned Soviet Union goals and ideals. It no longer wishes to grow in size, or "colonize" others, so the Russia is no longer interested in the world as its playground. However US is the same old US that was during the time of Soviet Union, if not worse. US didn't abandon its empirialistic ideals and goals. It still interferes around the world, as if it was its playground.

If the status of a sole "hyperpower" should have given US anything, it would be a great responsibility to improve the world, not longer having to be in a race with Sovier Union. US could have improved its worldwide image, and focused on doing something good for a change. It no longer has threatening enemies. However US ignored this opportunity. It used its power to exploit the world even further, through its corporate empire and globalism. US, no longer held back by Cold War influences, felt free to attack anyone it wanted to, and pretty much acted on it. Thats why much of the world despises it. And with US soon losing its sole hyperpower status to China, it might no longer be able to do what it wants anywhere it wants. So what does the government do- it speeds up its globalization process.


Yeah no large nation is innocent, or will ever be. Those with power, are bound to abuse it to further their cause. But US is the sole nation that can be considered an gloabl empire today. Thus much of resentment around the world lays upon it, sometimes unjustly even.

Russia did and does alot of shady and corrupt stuff- sure. But unlike US, it has the decency not to be hypocritical about it- and lecture other nations on how they should live their life.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by maloy]

Okay maloy, it just seemed slightly biased the first post you posted. And China may become a next superpower economically, but they are not going to surpass the US militarily anytime soon.

you'd be surprised what 1.2 billion people, and an intensively idealistic government with unbelievable budget surpluses can do. China won't surpass the US militarily in the next decade, or maybe even a few decades. But it is inevitable for such a huge nation like China. No matter how much money US throws at its military, no matter what US does to increase its worldwide influence, China will surpass it. No nation can stay on top for very long. Just hope that America's fall from the top, won't be a very high fall. Second place is not bad for a country that has been a superpower for a century (by that time).

Well maloy we will just have to see. History has always been surprising, and nobody knows what it is in store. China does have quite a few problems, as does the US, as well as Russia, UK, France, so on and so forth. So I don't know who will become the next superpower or if we will live in a polarized world or not in the future. Now I don't think the US will just sit back and allow China to become the world's superpower without a fight. So I don't *know* where that will lead. 1.3 billion people in China is an asset but can quickly turn into a liability. Again it isn't a sure thing as so many on here are so quick to say. The EU or Russia may be the next world's superpower or the US may hold the place for a long time

Originally posted by maloy
That is the only military conflict with direct Russian involvements, and even that is within the Russian Federation. i didn't say Russia had no wars, only that by far not as many as US did. And it is not in some far away country that couldn't possibly be a threat- like the wars US starts. First- Chechnya can be considered one single war, not two wars. Military skirmish never really stopped from 1994 to 2003. That was a local affair, where Russia was attempting to prevent its country from breaking apart. It cannot even be fully considered a war, but a civil strife within a region of Russia. A large strife, but not a war between two nations.

Now look, I know it's official moscow rhetoric to paint the fight with chechnya as an "internal" conflict. But the reality is it's a breakaway republic. And worrse for those trying to rewrite history, because the Chechens have been claiming soveriegnty for centuries. It's not internal when one combatant is a seperate country dating back to the 15th century when they fout the turks for independence. Chechnya never wanted to be a part of Russia and fought the soviets as well. Don't give me that garbage that it's an internal problem. Russia is trying to hold on to land that it occupied under soviet rule but without the success it had under the iron fist of the past.

Alot of stuff you brought out before- is Soviet Union issues. Russia is a wholly different metter. Russia is a different country, with different government, different ideals and mentality, and different goals from Soviet Union. What I am mostly talking about in terms of non-agressive superpower- is the Russia of today. No more Cold War boogiemen, for the US to witchhunt.

Bad attempt at deflection my friend. SOVIET HISTORY IS RUSSIAN HISTORY. Because the regime has expired doesn't make it non-exsistant in history of the country that birthed it. The soviet government came about as part of THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. To say that Russian history is seperate is either ignorance or a down right deflection of truth.

The Chechen rebels have very limited connection to Muslim extremists in the Middle East (specifically Al Quida). Yes during the Second War they received alot of help from Middle East. Alot of Arab mujahedeen fought in Chechnya. But the Al Quida the US is fighting is somewhat different. Plus US is not fighting those responsible for 9/11, they are fighting everyone who they consider a threat (imaginary threat mostly). Iraq, accusations against Syria, North Korea, etc. US has far more enemies that Russia (again I am not talking Soviet Union).

Only because the Russian government still has a lot of friends in low places. Had the Russian military and Intel services had their say, fighting in Chechnya would have quickly escaladed into fights with any government alowing aid to flow to Chechnya. It's only because beaurocrats don't want to lose Russian influence with the Arab governments that prevents them from cutting the terrorists off from their money and weapons.

Also if you believe North Korea is no threat to Russia, well then just cut them off from their cheap oil supplied by Russia. See how fast NK turns attention (and missle trajectories) towards them. The only reason North Korea is NOT seen as a threat to Russia is because it's still a customer/client state. Change that and see how safe Russia feel swith a nuclear armed NK in their backyard.

It's true that Russia helped Kim Jong Ill's father during the first Korean war, but will she do it again? I doubt it. And then how friendly will the NK's be when they find out there's no Russia to the resue?

The facts are straight- no conspiracies- Russia has not attacked anyone after the fall of Soviet Union. A few regional strifes with their neighbors do not count. Russia does not have the influence, or the need to go around "colonizing" nations for their resources today.

A few regional strifes???? How many border disputes does one country have to be in? Let's see there's Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, and who else?

What is the common term for the 15 ex-soviet countries not wanting to be part of the Russian Federation? Is it "Near Abroad" and "Post Soviet Space"? And how is that "spere of influence" thing working out for Russia? You know the not "colonial" desire by the Russian Federation to absorb ex-soviet states. At least three countries...Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania show how much they care for being absorbed.....ALL THREE JOINED NATO AND THE E.U.!!!

These activities are far overstated by Western media. Just like any open capitalist country, Russia has crime and corruption. Putin in fact is now putting the right people in place to fight these issues, and trust me they will get better with time. Now how does this relate to other nations hating Russia?

Yeah, but like the US, they wash up on everyone elses shores. Russian crime is not just a Russian problem. Human Trafficing, illegal arms sales, drugs, gigantic stolen automobile rings.......... These things put Russian criminals in the Criminal Super Power status along side those like in western countries like the US. It's not as easy to wipe away as you make it sound. It efects people worldwide.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Now look, I know it's official moscow rhetoric to paint the fight with chechnya as an "internal" conflict. But the reality is it's a breakaway republic.

I could write you a short book about Chechnya and the wars there right now, so no point in trying to prove myself in this short post. I have posted alot about this and the idea of national sovereignty in post Cold War Russia, in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by looking4truth
Bad attempt at deflection my friend. SOVIET HISTORY IS RUSSIAN HISTORY. Because the regime has expired doesn't make it non-exsistant in history of the country that birthed it. The soviet government came about as part of THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. To say that Russian history is seperate is either ignorance or a down right deflection of truth.

Soviet Union was more than just Russia. Ukraine for example played a very large part.

But even if you do identify USSR as equaing to Russia, it still has far less conflicts, wars, and coups on its hands than the US.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Also if you believe North Korea is no threat to Russia, well then just cut them off from their cheap oil supplied by Russia. See how fast NK turns attention (and missle trajectories) towards them. The only reason North Korea is NOT seen as a threat to Russia is because it's still a customer/client state. Change that and see how safe Russia feel swith a nuclear armed NK in their backyard.

It's true that Russia helped Kim Jong Ill's father during the first Korean war, but will she do it again? I doubt it. And then how friendly will the NK's be when they find out there's no Russia to the resue?

Are you kidding me? NK a threat to Russia? What is it gonna do lob a half baked nuked (which will probably never reach its target) at Moscow, guaranteeing its own destruction? Russia knows it has nothing to fear from NK. Neither does anyone else. Why not leave NK alone, and without the attention maube Kim Jong Il will cease his media attention-grabbing tricks. If you really try, you can argue that San Marino, or Luxembourg is a threat to the world. It won't change reality- that NK threatens no one. Do you have concrete proof that NK is even a remote threat to Russia?

Originally posted by looking4truth
A few regional strifes???? How many border disputes does one country have to be in? Let's see there's Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, and who else?

What is the common term for the 15 ex-soviet countries not wanting to be part of the Russian Federation? Is it "Near Abroad" and "Post Soviet Space"? And how is that "spere of influence" thing working out for Russia? You know the not "colonial" desire by the Russian Federation to absorb ex-soviet states. At least three countries...Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania show how much they care for being absorbed.....ALL THREE JOINED NATO AND THE E.U.!!!

Soviet Union in the 1980's tried to interfere in several of its Warsaw Pact states. Hungary, Czech republic- whatever. But it never turned into a full scale conflict, and in most cases Soviets retreated without much strife. Gorbachev in fact let everyone go without firing a shot. Please inform me on what border disputes you are talking about? Borders have been long drawn. The Baltics are causeing this stink storm because now they got the great Americans ready to put NATO bases in their states. See how you like your new occupation, after a few decades. All of the Baltic states were allowed sovereignty without any sort of conflict. Russia let them go, even though it could have held on.

Turkmenistan? Seeing how it doesn't even border Russia, its interesting what the border dispute is all about. In fact Russian relations with most of the ex Soviet states in Central Asia (except Georgia- a US puppet state courtesy of a covert coup) are very good (ex. Kazakhstan).

It is US causing most problems in the old Soviet bloc countries. Somehow using the WOT as an exuse to interfere anywhere in the world, US suddenly gained interest in Eastern Europe and Central Asia countries. And the coups didn't even clear, as US is already planning on building military bases in those countries (Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia). In Ukraine and Georgia, the acquisition of power by US puppet regimes were illegal- Americans don't even know half the story.

Russian Federation does not want to absorb anyone. Especially not the Baltics. Actually Belarus, transniester, Crimea, Kazakhstan, and even Serbia to a certain extent want to be part of Russian Federation. But Russia is not planning on having anyone added to the already large nation.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Yeah, but like the US, they wash up on everyone elses shores. Russian crime is not just a Russian problem. Human Trafficing, illegal arms sales, drugs, gigantic stolen automobile rings.......... These things put Russian criminals in the Criminal Super Power status along side those like in western countries like the US. It's not as easy to wipe away as you make it sound. It efects people worldwide.

Now you ware going to accuse Russia of its crime problem? US might as well declare war on Italy- with the whole mafioso issue throughout 20th century. Every large nation has major crime problems- US not the least of it.

Originally posted by maloy
Now you ware going to accuse Russia of its crime problem? US might as well declare war on Italy- with the whole mafioso issue throughout 20th century. Every large nation has major crime problems- US not the least of it.

I think it's become clear that it will be nearly impossible to talk to you about Russia without the constant comparison's to the US. Any attempt to point out something about Russia is met with "Yeah but the US did this". It's silly. I understand the spite and jealousy many people from that part of the world feel, however if one can't even converse about the country through even one post without using it to take swipes at the US than what's the point?

I got it.......... US =Evil, Warmongering, Stupid Cowboy's, Loud Mouth, Colonialistic, etc. etc. etc.

Now, the main point of your post about Russia is out of the way (US is Bad), can we get back to talking about why some people may harbour ill will towards Russia as well?

OK, I will attempt to point out that Russia has been a colonial power in the past. Pre-Soviet Russia going back centuries......

Muscovy..... Though I will say that at least it was a mainly peaceful annexation of most territories, especially considering the methods of the western european nations.

Imperial Russia..... Though it greatly exanded it's territory through many conflicts, it at least saw many reforms that brought it up to the mordern cultural and technological status that other countries at the time enjoyed.

Russia (regardless of the intitial aggressor) fought wars with The Ottomans/Turks ELEVEN TIMES IN 242 YEARS !!!! That's an average of once every 22 years.
Russo-Turkish Wars

I will concede that many of the wars Russia has fought in her long history were started by someone else.

There are certainly imperialistic overtones in the policies of the current Russian government. Aid is doled out to suffering nations, but Russia wants things in return. Here is an interesting article about the treatment Russia gives it's nieghbors.

.Imperial Ambition or Humanitarian Concern?

Russian policies and attitudes towards the other former Soviet republics - collectively known to Russian foreign policy-makers as the `near abroad' countries [1] - have been a source of continuing controversy and uncertainty. Many in the West have detected `neo-imperialist' overtones in Russian policy. They have argued that Russia has, since 1992, increasingly been seeking to assert itself as the dominant power throughout the territories formally melded together in the USSR [2]. In Russia itself, a confused picture has emerged. Certain political and military leaders, the best-known and most extreme being Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have argued overtly for Russian dominance over the near abroad. Such figures have frequently made reference to alleged abuses of the rights of ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking populations in near abroad countries in justifying these calls [3].

Having discussed in general terms the nature of `humanitarian' intervention and assistance, the authors will argue that history, geography and power relations dictate that Russia is almost bound to intervene in some way, shape, or form in affairs in the near aborad. In order to explore this propostion, the discussions will then focus on the evolution and nature of Russian relations with specific near abroad countries since 1992. The areas to be examined in detail will be relations between Russia and the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia, and Russian policies towards the secessionist crisis in Moldova. It will be asked to what extent it can plausibly be argued that Russian policy has been motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns about the fate of Russians outside Russia or whether professed concerns basically amount to little more than a diplomatic figleaf for a neo-imperialist agenda.

The point I'm really trying to make is that while it's easy to look around the world and find a reason and a person to dislike the US, no nation is completely without blood on it's hands at some point in history. Russia is no exception.

As for the topic of this thread, "Why doesn't the world hate the Russians?", I can only speculate that it's because the Russian Federation has been too crippled since being formed after the fall of the Soviets to act out in the fashion of human rights abuses it was once famous for.

The current climate though, and Russia's new explosion of oil wealth will allow it to once again flood the armies of anyone willing to condemn the US with a plethora of Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947's and nuclear reactors for "peaceful" use. Even today as we sit here typing, thanks in large part to Russia, an AK-47 costs only $30 in Africa while drugs to fight AIDS remain almost unattainable. That's a legacy to be proud of and continue huh?

Here is an interesting thing to think about, it's an article about Russia's great legacy weapon, the AK.

www.mosnews.com...

Ak-47s are used to “massacre, maim, rape and abuse, torture, and fuel violent crime in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Britain, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Mexico, Sierra Leone, the U.S., Venezuela and Yemen,” the report added.

And from the man who designed it, this is how he feels about Russia continuing to export it,

(see link above)
“Because of the lack of international control over arms sales, small arms easily find their way to anywhere in the world to be used not only for national defense but by aggressors, terrorists and all kinds of criminals,” the Russian inventor said.

“People often ask me whether I feel guilty about human suffering that is caused by the attacks with AK-47,” he added. “But it is not the designers who must ultimately take responsibility for where guns end up. It is governments who must control their production and export.”

A simple exercise,

Find an article describing a new drug or treatment to fight dibiltating diseases developed in Russia.

Now see if it's easier to find an article on the sale of MIGs, AK-47's, RPG's, or other military hardware.

The point being, how can Russia use it's new oil wealth and prosperity for good? And most importantly, will it? We'll all have to wait and see.

The point of my rant against the US, is that American government has no right to pressure and lecture Russia on its democracy and foreign policy, when Americans are not much better in both cases.

You want to talk solely about Russia- ok.

First- Russia has been a democracy for 15 years. The progress it has achieved for such a large and idealistic nation (under communism), is unmatched anywhere in the world. No nation so large and powerful, has ever seen such a rapid transformation. Instead of fighting wars to keep its Soviet era satellite states under control, Russia let them all ago. Further than that, in the 80's it even gave concessions to some countries. For example Crimea was practically given to Ukraine, as it was never historically part of Ukraine, and was conquered from the Turks by Russians. Soviet Union build up infrastructure even in the 80's (airports, highways) in small countries (like Baltics) which would have not been able to do it by themselves. Soviet Union did some positive things you knows. Millions of people in Eatern Europe and Central Asia (as well as Africa and South America) got top education in Soviet Union, when they would have never gotten it otherwise.

Originally posted by looking4truth
OK, I will attempt to point out that Russia has been a colonial power in the past. Pre-Soviet Russia going back centuries......

Of course, like any large and powerful nation it was. But the colonial times are long forgoten now, to figure into attitudes of people today. Russia was a very large, but sparesely populated country. It needed to constantly fight with its neightbors like Turkey, Poland, and Sweden so that its land would not be taken away. In fact these three states (you can also call them empires) constantly attacked Russia, and Russia constantly attacked them too. Those were simply the times when wars needed to happen to sort these issues.

One thing I will admit that Russia did wrong in the 1900's, was attack Finland in the 1930's. Although Russia was beaten back, that attack was unprovoked, and was Stalin's idiotic mistake.

Originally posted by looking4truth
There are certainly imperialistic overtones in the policies of the current Russian government. Aid is doled out to suffering nations, but Russia wants things in return. Here is an interesting article about the treatment Russia gives it's nieghbors.

Just so you know- Zhirinovsky is an ultra nationalist. He mostly has support from uneducated farmers and skinheads. He is not even a real "fascist", because he was put in place by Russian government to keep the real fascists out of DUMA (correct move). He is a joke of a politician, and no educated Russian intellectuals pay attention to him. You can perhaps compare his idiotic statements and views to those of Pat Robertson in the US. He in no way represents Russia or its people, and is best left ignored when talking about the country as a whole.

It is true that ethnic Russians do get wrong treatment in some places. In a few instances it even bordered on ethnic cleansing (Abknazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya), in which cases Russians were forced to intervene as peace keepers, because UN is not worth **** and ignored everything. However I agree that this is no reason to recolonize those regions by Russia- and really that is not what it is doing. If it wanted to add Abkhazia and transniester to Russian Federation, it would have already done so.

If you mean that stopping supply of gas to Ukraine and similar affairs: it has been said many times. Its Russian resources and money. Obviously Russia will set better rates for its friends, than for its strategic enemies. And of course Russia wants to have some influence (not necessarily dominance) over the region. Such as huge country is bound to be interested in its neighboors' affairs (I am not even gonna talk about US or Chinese dominance). You expect a superpower like Russia (yes it is still a superpower) to sit on its hands, and watch everything that goes on around it quietely without having a say? In fact for the most part it does sit on its hands. No one is under military threat from Russia now are they? Economic issues are just that- economic- and should not be considered as aggressive foreign policy.

Originally posted by looking4truth
As for the topic of this thread, "Why doesn't the world hate the Russians?", I can only speculate that it's because the Russian Federation has been too crippled since being formed after the fall of the Soviets to act out in the fashion of human rights abuses it was once famous for.

Russia may be crippled, but if it wanted to it could still lay alot of military pressure on anyone, including the Baltics and Ukraine- Russia does have the second most powerful military on earth, and in some categories even the first. Yet it hasn't done anything, other than intervene with Chechnya separatists.

Originally posted by looking4truth
Here is an interesting thing to think about, it's an article about Russia's great legacy weapon, the AK.

AK's are easy to manufacture, can be easily converted to use different ammunition, are of very reliable construction, and of course are pretty powerful. However the vast majority of AK's around the world are not manufactured by Russia. They are made locally. If fact Russia is now considering patenting the AK name and design, so at least those AK's are not seen as Russia's weapon. AK 47 has not been used or manufactured by Russia itself for many decades, nor has it been exported for a long time. Those rebels (or whoever else you are talking about) in Africa, could have gotten weapons from anywhere. European manufactureres and firearm resellers sell weapons to practically anyone. Yet they choose the AK for its practicallity. So basically you are blaming the AK for how good it is- thus the reason for its continued use and countless reproductions around the world? Russian overnment itself mainly sells weapon systems to governments, and not guerillas or thugs. Main Russian customers are China, India, South American governments, and Middle Eastern governments. Sure guerillas and terrorists and death squads get these weapons passed on by someone else- but they are not supplied by Russian government.

Originally posted by looking4truth
A simple exercise,

Find an article describing a new drug or treatment to fight dibiltating diseases developed in Russia.

Now see if it's easier to find an article on the sale of MIGs, AK-47's, RPG's, or other military hardware.

The point being, how can Russia use it's new oil wealth and prosperity for good? And most importantly, will it? We'll all have to wait and see.

There are so many articles on weapons manufacturing, because thats mostly all that Western media pays attention to. Go to "Itar Tass" website, and read the real Russian news- not the biased European news.

Russia currently has a major battle with AIDS in progress. Of course it is very difficult because of poorly developed regions where AIDS is most widespread. Russia has free rehabilitation clinics for drug users, which have had constantly increasing funds since the 90's. The drug epidemic of the 90's is over. Also the problems with population growth are over, thanks to dedicated funding and monetary help for families willing to have children. College education is still mostly free in Russia. Even in far away historic cities, funds are now being given by the government for restoration of historical sites.

Since Putin renationalized the oil industry and other resources, money has finaly started to trickle down to ordinary people. This has only happened for the last few years. True- before that the oligarchs and greedy capitalists and corrupted bearecrats got most of the money from these exports. Thankfully it is slowly changing under Putin. You have to remember how tough it is to turn around and change politics in a large country like Russia. Still progress is being made. If you travel to Russia now, and compare it with the 90's, it is a completely different country, improving in virtually every way. Don't underestimate this progress because you only have access to western media.

Corruption and crime is also being battled, but because of the bearacracy, it is very difficult. Yet under Putin, thousands of federal policemen and other agency workers have been put behind bars or kicked from their jobs for bribes and corruption and ties with the mafia- even high ranking officials didn't have immunity. Now that FSB and other internal fedral agencies have made it their priority, crime is being battled as well. Not by arresting just street thugs, but by finally going after the people in charge.

Russia only had 15 years to develop its democracy. Most European nations had over a century, as well as US. Progress is being made if you look in the right places.

Originally posted by maloy
Russia only had 15 years to develop its democracy. Most European nations had over a century, as well as US. Progress is being made if you look in the right places.

Well my friend, I'm going to let you have the last word. I've enjoyed talking with you about this. I actually learned a few things while looking information up during this discussion. I appreciate the articulate and factual manner in which you made your points. I look forward to further discussions in the future.

Originally posted by maloy
Russia only had 15 years to develop its democracy. Most European nations had over a century, as well as US. Progress is being made if you look in the right places.

Actually it took the U.S. only 12 years from the quest for independence 1775 to the creation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 to be considered a democracy. The former colonies had the Articles of the Confederation but it just wasn't enough and not many people were pleased by it.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Actually it took the U.S. only 12 years from the quest for independence 1775 to the creation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 to be considered a democracy. The former colonies had the Articles of the Confederation but it just wasn't enough and not many people were pleased by it.

Officially US might have become a democracy in 1787, but it was far from the democracy it is today. Women's rights, African American's and Native American's rights, and a throng of other issues have been dealt with throughout 19th and 20th centuries in the US. Only in the 1960's was real progress made in fight for civil rights. And even today many issues still remain unresolved (ex- gay marriage and abortion). Every democracy in the world, including Russia and US, are democracies in the making- just with different levels of progress.