Putin against USA

[farshidbr]

Anyone noticed Putins speach in Munich against the USA foreign policy. What do you think about that?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think.. it's rivalry between representatives of the imperialists and the Russian capitalists.

The back and forth goes back quite a while.. including this incident, which the U.S. started. (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?38)

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2007 10:25 am
I think.. it's rivalry between representatives of the imperialists and the Russian capitalists.

The back and forth goes back quite a while.. including this incident, which the U.S. started. (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?38)
Yeah, that was just absurd, Cheney criticizing another country for not being democratic. <_<

[Coggeh]

The old cold war rivalry&#39;s are coming back , i&#39;d say Moscow is sick of not being treated with the same respect they once used have so their trying to tick off Washington with petty slanderous comments ,"back and forth" as you say , its all just a waste of T.V news time to me .

[Cheung Mo]

Weren&#39;t Bush and Putin best friends 3 years ago?

[Coggeh]

Ya ,Topsy Turvy relationship between Tweedledum and Tweedledee usual stuff .

[Janus]

It&#39;s not a new trend, in fact it&#39;s a reaffirmation of Russian opposition to US hegemony which has been developing for the past few years. This political battle is going to continue as the US comments more on Russia&#39;s political system while Russia criticized US leadership. This rhetorical war just gives more popularity ratings to the politicians.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:31 pm
It&#39;s not a new trend, in fact it&#39;s a reaffirmation of Russian opposition to US hegemony which has been developing for the past few years. This political battle is going to continue as the US comments more on Russia&#39;s political system while Russia criticized US leadership. This rhetorical war just gives more popularity ratings to the politicians.
I&#39;d be happy if both countries were to stop existing.

[Janus]

I&#39;d be happy if both countries were to stop existing.
Well, in that case, you might not be happy for quite a while.

[Question everything]

Just another Turn-coat (at least now the are turning toward the left) Politician Hoping on the Anti-Bush band wagon

[Phalanx]

Putin&#39;s quite imperialist himself, as he stepped up the Russian security forces involvement in Chechnya and meddles with his neighbor&#39;s elections.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 12, 2007 07:09 pm
Weren&#39;t Bush and Putin best friends 3 years ago?
Weren&#39;t Washington and Baghdad best friends 15 years ago?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Putin&#39;s quite imperialist himself, as he stepped up the Russian security forces involvement in Chechnya and meddles with his neighbor&#39;s elections.

That doesn&#39;t make him "imperialist." Imperialism is a specific stage of capitalism, and to be imperialist, a country has to meet certain criteria; which Russia doesn&#39;t.

[Phalanx]

In the Leninist sense, yes, but in the literal sense, Imperialism is one nation exerting influence over another. Russia obviously has done this with Siberia, Chechnya and other republics.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, not in the "Leninist sense," in actual fact.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 13, 2007 01:22 am
No, not in the "Leninist sense," in actual fact.
I&#39;m sorry, but Russian occupation of areas like Chechnya are examples of imperialism. One nations domination over another is imperialism, that&#39;s a fact.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 12, 2007 07:48 pm
One nations domination over another is imperialism, that&#39;s a fact.
No, that&#39;s a definition. Definitions are not true or false, so there&#39;s no point in you two arguing about &#39;em like that. They&#39;re more like assumptions than conclusions.

Definitions are more or less useful, and the definition of imperialist as kind of capitalism marked by finance capital and the export of capital to exploit other countries is used for a specific political purpose.

You can call this kind of capitalism "murgafroid" instead of imperialism if you like, but the economic and political differences between countries remain. Russia is more of an arena of investment for other countries&#39; capitalists than vice versa.

And the political position of opposing all wars and occupations by finance capital to further its economic exploitation - does not automatically apply in the same way to countries who don&#39;t meet that definition of imperialism. Or whatever word you want to use for it. If you reject Lenin&#39;s definition or analysis, you&#39;ve got to change, or develop a different justification for, the political positions which go along with it.

***

I&#39;d question whether even "capitalism" is entirely accurate for Russia; lemme point out they still haven&#39;t managed to legalize private ownership of land even.

***

Anyway, what prompted this speech by Putin? The big issue is the U.S. missile shield.

This anti-missile system, plus the development of space-based weapons, is aimed at giving Washington a first-strike capability - the ability to launch a nuclear strike, destroy most of an adversary&#39;s strategic nuclear arsenal, and hopefully shoot down the rest. Many people have noticed this - there was even an article in the super-establishment "Foreign Affairs" magazine about how the U.S. is moving towards having first-strike capability against Russia&#39;s aging, poorly maintained nuclear arsenal.

The last time Washington had no fear of nuclear retaliation, it destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and seriously planned and considered wars of annihilation against the USSR. Even the saner elements of the ruling class prevail, and this first-strike capability isn&#39;t used, it would decisively shift the world relationship of forces in favor of Washington. They could use the threat of nuclear annihilation to force other states to do all kinds of things. E.g. when they had their initial monopoly they used nuclear threats to force the Soviet Union to withdraw from northern Iran among other things. The USSR even ordered Iranian "Communists" leading the Gilan Soviet Republic to surrender without any resistance - they were slaughtered by the shah. (Iranian Kurdish forces, in contrast, carried out a fighting retreat.)

Supposedly the shield is only intended to negate the nuclear arsenals of "rogue states" like north Korea and Iran. &#39;Course, it&#39;s not clear then why the U.S. is planning to deploy antimissile systems to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Other powers besides Russia are worried by this. China&#39;s recent test of an anti-satellite weapon has to be seen in the context of U.S. work on space-based weapons. Even French opposition and British uncertainty on the missile shield - they&#39;ve been offered inclusion under it, but it would still reduce their room to maneuver and independent leverage on the U.S. (They&#39;ve got little enough already.)

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 13, 2007 12:58 am
In the Leninist sense, yes, but in the literal sense, Imperialism is one nation exerting influence over another. Russia obviously has done this with Siberia, Chechnya and other republics.
Isn&#39;t it to be expected that Russia has influence over Siberia, since Siberia is part of Russia?

That&#39;s like claiming the UK is imperialist solely because they influence the politics of Scotland, right?

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:21 am
Anyone noticed Putins speach in Munich against the USA foreign policy. What do you think about that?
can we do anything else but support him in what he says ?

nope. on this we have to simply agree with him. imo.

[Tower of Bebel]

Just another stupid catfight between two &#39;imperialist&#39; countries who face changing economies. Both face troubles in the future (Iraq, Iran, China, India, Africa) and both are now in a struggle to survive the economic resess

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Old but interesting article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/13/132400.shtml)

Its not marxist in any way, but it does outline the positioning that Russia and china have taken towards America.

It is open opposition to a capitalist rival.

Russia is wanting access to the chinese market, so it can sell it commercial goods, but also, to sell its military hardware, which is in many ways combarable in quality to that of the United States armed forces hardware,

In 2001, i think it was, the European Union wanted to lift the Ban of arms sales to china, which was impose after the tianniman square incident.

This was obviously because China which has been getting more and more wealthy might have bought alot of equiptment from the European Arms induustry.

The US however, shot down the EU and essentailly said no because it was not out of the question that the US could go to war against china in the future.

So, it is not at all suprising Putin feels confident to oppose the US, and with the US having military bases in 122 countries in the world its not an unsupring reaction since this is far more than during the cold war.

[Janus]

Russia obviously has done this with Siberia, Chechnya and other republics.
Siberia is a mainly a geographic delineation and is a part of Russia. Obviously, Chechnya has broken off to a certain degree but their independence is yet to be recognized by other nations and they&#39;re still a federal subject at the moment. Thus, the Chechen conflict is an internal matter or civil conflict/repression rather than true imperialism.

[Phalanx]

Siberia less so, but it has been a victim of imperialism. Russia forcefully incorporated it into its empire which led to the deaths of many Siberians. Being in the Russian Empire for so long I guess makes it part of Russia.

[Question everything]

sorta like Scotland and England (and yes england is Imperialist)

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 14, 2007 12:21 am
Siberia less so, but it has been a victim of imperialism. Russia forcefully incorporated it into its empire which led to the deaths of many Siberians. Being in the Russian Empire for so long I guess makes it part of Russia.
Yes, but it is like calling the states west of the Mississipi in the US "occupied areas".

The population in Siberia is largely ethnically Russian.

[Phalanx]

All of the United States and Canada are occupied territories. I acknowledge that most of the population are Russian and now it&#39;s very much so a part of Russia, but it&#39;s only because of Russian imperialism that it&#39;s in its current status.

[Mikhail Frunze]

I acknowledge that most of the population are Russian and now it&#39;s very much so a part of Russia, but it&#39;s only because of Russian imperialism that it&#39;s in its current status.

Siberia had always been sparsely inhabited. Excluding the Urali region, the population of the region is a mere 20 million. Siberia is legitimately part of the Russian nation; cities like Sverdlovsk, Omsk, etc were built by the Russians. So were the railroads.

The rights of indigenous Turkic groups like the Yakuts are respected and for the most part they are left alone to practice their traditional lifestyle. The Yakuts even have a federal republic.

[Question everything]

Yea but what about Missipi and Scotland? they were conquered through genocide, and re-settlement, kinda like what is happening in Palestine

[Janus]

Yea but what about Missipi and Scotland? they were conquered through genocide, and re-settlement, kinda like what is happening in Palestine
That&#39;s pretty much the history behind most the nation states that we see today.

[Guerrilla22]

Putin made some new comments just the other day. Things are pretty tense between the US and Russia right now. About the most tense they&#39;ve been since the cold war ended. Putin and Russia has been upset with NATO&#39;s continuing encroachment and the move by the Penatagon to place US military bases in Eastern Europe. Recently Putin threatned to pull out of a nuclear treaty with the US if the US goes ahead with its plan to install its missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

[Cheung Mo]

The Putinistas are too busy helping fascists, Stalinists, and religious fanatics beat up homosexuals on the streets of Moscow to do anything worthwhile for the average Ivan.

[Feslin]

"Every time we try to rape and pillage our neighbors, America has already raped and pillaged them&#33;"

Kettle: Hey pot, what&#39;s up?
Pot: OMG&#33; Kettle, you&#39;re black&#33; Everyone, look how black Kettle is&#33;

[The Something]

What I think is very interesting about the state of Russian is that political power has not changed hands since the fall of the USSR, Putin is an Ex-KGB. Most of the biggest buisnesses are run by Ex-KGB operatives put in that position by Putin. Their new security force they have also has roots with the kgb.

As it was stated in a new york times article "Putin is starting to show his true colors; his very soviet colors" Thought it was an interesting statement. Also he has started to cut down on some civil liberties very slowly there.(not unlike our own country *COUGH patriot act COUGH*)

[Janus]

Poland and the Czech Republic risk being targeted by Russian missiles if they agree to host a proposed U.S. missile defense system, a top Russian general warned Monday. Russia has been increasingly bellicose in its response to the U.S. proposal to build the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. President Vladimir Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that the system would be to guard the American East Coast and Europe from missiles launched from "rogue nations" in the Middle East.

Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, head of Russia&#39;s missile forces, said the system would upset strategic stability. It would be the first such site in Europe.

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made," he said.
Russian threatens Czech Republic and Poland (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_eu/europe_us_missile_defense)

The tensions are definitely heating up.

[Question everything]

:lol: a 2nd Cold war against Russia seems rather far away (China on the other hand :( )

[Guerrilla22]

There&#39;s a lot more tension between the US and Russia rihgt now than the US and China. Although there was that incident with China testing a missile on a satellite in outer space a few weeks back.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 20, 2007 12:29 am
:lol: a 2nd Cold war against Russia seems rather far away
Evidence of the mounting tensions between the west and Russia says otherwise.


Although there was that incident with China testing a missile on a satellite in outer space a few weeks back.
There has been growing tension between the US and China over the control of foreign oil the last couple of years. It really wouldn&#39;t take much (like a US attack on Iran for example) for that to turn into a cold war.

[Guerrilla22]

There has been growing tension between the US and China over the control of foreign oil the last couple of years. It really wouldn&#39;t take much (like a US attack on Iran for example) for that to turn into a cold war.

While there is definite competition and a certain amount of tension between the two, China is the US&#39; largest trading partner and vice versa. There economies are very interdependent, so its not at all likely that China and the US will engage in the rivalry that emerged between the US and the USSR.