Member Comments

• Posted By: streetwise @ 10/22/2008 3:11:28 PM

  for objective, demographic reason, cannot occupy them (let alon HOLD them) for generation to come,
  
  I beg your pardon: "for objective, demographic reasonS, cannot occupy them (let alone hold them) for GENERATIONS to come..,"

• Posted By: streetwise @ 10/21/2008 10:03:43 AM

  I think that, for west, to "strenghthen its influence" in Eastern Europe (that is, to include in the NATO the "former satellite countries") is not a triumph of diplomatic negotiations, but of diplomatic myopia .
  Former satellites have nothing to give to the west (besides some more bases to better encircle Russia, but WHO REALLY NEEDS it ?), and, on the other side, have realistically nothing to fear from a Russia that, for objective, demographic reason, cannot occupy them (let alon HOLD them) for generation to come, even if it would like to do it (and nothing prove that it would like: why invade a country when you can milk it in exchange for something it REALLY needs ?) . Viceversa, a Russia who feels itself undervalued in its interests (let alone threatened in its safety) could do things it would never do in other conditions, like align ever more with China . And this would be a damage for the west, that no amount of "new european" countries could ever balance or compensate...

• Posted By: Braes @ 10/18/2008 2:43:28 PM

  I do not support the actions of my government toward Russia, since the fall of Gorbachev. We have completely mismanaged it. We should have made a true and lasting peace and partnership, and invited you into the alliance first, then the other nations. NATO has always been large enough to allow states in that had political differences. (Greece/Turkey, one example Germany and the rest of humnaity, another...)
  Clinton didn't care, and Bush has seen Gazprom as a threat to his oil empire.
  They tried to start a mess in the Caucusus to give a failing poitical system a kick start. Now they are accusing my party, which has undergone dramatic change, of being anti-american.
  If you could seperate the cold war figures, and their writing from today, it will allow us a clean slate upon which to begin. I do not ask you to forgive us, as we have not reconciled yet our mistakes.
  Personally, I am very sorry. I hope to help turn a page in relations. Unlike many political systems, here discredited persons are still published, and allowed to continue in the process. It does not mean they will shape policy. It means they can advise.
  When they do not get their way, they skulk off and write another book.
  One political party here wants to make you a complete strategic cripple and continue the current policies.
  The other political party is simply afraid of the issue being used against them.