Originally posted by Rockpuck
If Russia is serious here, I would expect Georgia and Moldova to be re-occupied fully once more as a first target.
If Russia wanted Georgia and Moldova, it would not have let them separate so quickly after the fall of USSR. The truth is Russia wanted them gone,
because it had (and still has) far too many problems of its own to worry about the problems of others (such as poverty in Moldova, or ethnic tensions
in Georgia). This truth still remains, and Russia is not interested in having either of the two countries becoming part of the Russian Federation.
On the other hand, it is interested in having friendly governments in those countries. But it did alow the Rose Revolution in Georgia to slip through
its fingers, and didn't interfere, nor does it stand up too much for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is a good reason for that.
Russia has an agenda under Putin, that will likely continue with Putin's successor. You are wrong to think that this agenda involves about
reoccupations. The agenda involves strengthening and securing the territory that Russia has now. In fact Russia is trying to distance itself from
the pro-Russian separatist regions in those countries (Georgia and Moldova), and it will not allow itself to be dragged into war with those countries
- because that is exactly what those countries want, especially Saakashvilli. There will be no reoccupations of Georgia or Moldova by Russia, and it
is already far to late for new wars in Eastern Europe, because NATO and EU have gobbled everything up.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
If Russia truly wishes to finish off ties with the West, it will retake the regions the West influenced to turn against Russia.
Forget securing its own oil and natural resources. Forget national security. Forget dealing with separatist regions. Forget the fragile economy and
fighting government corruption. According to that statement Russia's main goal to make enemies with everyone else!
No one wants to cut ties with anyone. But ties are being cut because of reckless actions by one side (NATO), and unyielding character of the other
side (Russia). Its not about enemies and friends, its about politics.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
And as I always say when talking about Russian / West relations, the entire mess is 110% entirely the US administrations fault!
I'd say its not the Bush's administration. It's the US foreign policy, which hasn't changed much since the start of the Korean War. No matter
who is in the White House, the military complex and its supporting corporate and political infrastructure will keep successfully lobbying for wars and
conflicts which are of benefit to someone who has some say. Bush is the favorite scapegoat, but Clinton and his precedents were not much different if
you examine their decisions. It is the success and the marketing of the said wars and conflicts that decides the good from the bad as far as citizens
are concerned.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
When Bush first became president, US/UK/Russian relations where as well as they have been in our history of existence.
Far from it I think. The improvement of post-Cold War relations came to a full halt the moment Clinton decided to bomb Serbia. Never mind that it
was an illegal interference in Serbia's national relations, and completely ignored Russia's and China's views - US had to do it to help the poor
Muslims (as if!!!!). The constant b*tching from the West about Chechnya didn't help either. Russia was left with its arms tied in the 90's
concerning helping Serbia and other foreign relations. This is what contributed to deteriorating relations. In the eyes of Russians Clinton was just
as "bad" as Bush.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Iraq was a big trading partner of Russia's.
Saddam was never planning to repay the huge debts he owed to Russia, because he thought they served as a buffer againts the war that happened anyway.
Needless to say he was wrong. Russia knew his strategy, but played with him anyway because Cold War never fully ended, and the "enemy of my enemy is
my friend". Russia never deeply cared about Saddam or Iraq. On the other hand when US invaded Afghanistan they allied with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
and other CIS Asian nations, and used the ex-Soviet bases there. This is what angered Russia the most about the start of the War On Terror.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Then, Cheny being the smart man he is, went to Lithuania and in front of Russian allies, Russian turncoats, former friends and old soviet generals and
insulted Putin and Russia.
True. One plea to Americans: please keep President Bush alive and well, because the second-in-line nutjob would do wonders to retrace all of the steps
leading to an all-out Cold War. That or just shoot Cheney on the spot when the worst comes to worst. You can even blame it on Russia.