Is Russia really our friend now?

[aiki14]

Here's an interesting article by Jeff Nyquist, which can be found along with much other things of value at:
www.financialsense.com

Strategic Relationships
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 03.07.2008

“I want to warn Americans. As a people, you are very naïve about Russia and its intentions. You believe because the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia now is your friend. It isn’t, and I can show you how the SVR is trying to destroy the U.S. even today and even more than the KGB did during the Cold War.” Sergei Tretyakov, KGB/SVR defector

If you read the news from day to day you will notice a gradual shift in the strategic balance. This year’s headlines are as representative as those found in previous years. Perhaps you’ve read about joint military exercises involving South Africa and Russia, South Africa and China, or North Korea acquiring uranium from Congo. Perhaps you noted the Communist victory in the Angolan Civil War. Maybe you’ve caught a glimpse of Europe’s growing anti-Americanism, or noticed stories about Russian weapons reaching insurgents in Iraq. How about a recent headline stating that “Germany wants a new strategic Partnership with Russia”?

We’re not supposed to worry about such things. We’re supposed to shop, that is, before the dollar sinks out of sight and the shopping mall regime ingloriously ends. What then? The Germans want a strategic partnership with Russia. This is perfectly logical. Germany needs Russia because Germany wants to feel safe, and Germany wants to be warm in the winter; and Russia needs Germany, right? It is now suggested that the European Union enter into special negotiations with Russia.

America’s best ally in Latin America is Colombia. The U.S. has been helping Colombia fight Communist rebels who traffic in drugs, guns and now uranium. When Colombian forces made a cross-border attack on a Communist encampment in Ecuador, killing the number two Communist leader in the insurgency, the neighboring government of Venezuela mobilized troops and tanks, closed the border with Colombia and broke of diplomatic relations. It’s not that there’s going to be a war in South America. There already is a war in South America. The question is one of general alignment for other countries. The strategic shift against America is here manifest – on a continental scale. Those who support Communism would be expected to find the Colombian attack objectionable and denounce Colombia as an American puppet state. Those who understand how dangerous Communism is, who grasp its intrinsic totalitarianism, its threat to the liberty and prosperity, will applaud Colombia’s cross-border attack. The people of Ecuador themselves should applaud. But there is a movement of countries, as I’ve noted, and a shift towards (dare we say it out loud?) a new totalitarian bloc.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is quietly backed by Communist China, not so quietly backed by Communist Cuba and the Communist president of Nicaragua, and by weapons from Russian President Vladimir Putin. If this were 1978 instead of 2008, Washington would be alarmed at the situation. Brazil and Argentina would be alarmed. But no, these countries understand the situation differently.

The Germans want a new strategic partnership with Russia. A large chunk of South America is headed toward the exact same partnership. It is said that the Cold War has been “consigned to history.” This is a convenient idea for those who would make a separate peace in a long struggle that wasn’t finalized – contrary to what you’ve read and heard. Re-enter the Cold War? Europe cannot do that. Take the side of the United States? Latin America hesitates. Great struggles do not die or disappear. They recur. Rome and Carthage had periods of prolonged peace between the three Punic wars. And so it is between the East Bloc and the West Bloc.

There was a curious interview, more than a year ago, with the speaker of the Chechen parliament, Mr. Dukvakha Abdurakhmanov. The reader should keep in mind that Mr. Abdurakhmanov was formerly the chairman of the Executive Committee of the District Soviet of People’s Deputies. Speaking of the Chechen revolt, Mr. Abdurakhmanov said in all frankness, “Russia created Dudaev, Maskhadov and Basaev [the chiefs of the Chechen rebel movement]. Basaev, by the way, was a GRU officer in Abkhazia; it’s not a secret….” Abdurakhmanov further stated that Chechnya had “saved Russia from NATO.” In fact, he added, the Chechens would save Russia in the future.

According to Webster’s New College Edition, an imposter is defined as “a person who deceives under an assumed identity. For example: a Communist who pays lip service to the free market; or a Communist who pretends to be an Islamist rebel. Here the question of identity depends on a false presentation, so that the whole world is deceived.

There is a new book, sporting an old theme, authored by Yossef Bodansky. It is titled Chechen Jihad: Al Qaeda’s Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror. The main argument of the book may be summarized as follows: Al Qaeda has nuclear weapons, and some of these have probably been smuggled into the United States for use against American cities. The weapons are Soviet-made weapons, smuggled out of Russia courtesy of the Chechen mafia via the Chechen rebel state (i.e., “Al Qaeda’s Training Ground”). It is an old story, first told by Bodansky in 1999 and repeated in greater detail in this more recent volume.

Now I will repeat what Abdurakhmanov said: “Russia created Dudaev, Maskhadov and Basaev [who was a GRU officer in Abkhazia].” The Chechens “saved Russia from NATO,” and the Chechens will save Russia in the future.


Copyright © 2008 Jeffrey R. Nyquist

[freakscene]

"Is Russia really our friend now?"

When have they ever been, post "cold war"? Good read thanks. It supports my theory that communism and its threats to the United States have never dissipated, despite what the schools of academia want us to believe.

[piggybank]

There is a fair bit of nonsense in this article. If you look at it from an European perspective.

Perhaps you’ve read about joint military exercises involving South Africa and Russia, South Africa and China

It was the USA that sparked a new arms race. But thats an other discussion.

Maybe you’ve caught a glimpse of Europe’s growing anti-Americanism

Anti-Americanism? Anti-Bushism would be more correct. Europeans still understand that the USA is a eons better country (democracy/freedom/etc) than Russia or others, and if we are not to become the next dominant superpower (wich we expect) then we rather have the USA as it for all the mistake's it makes. Remember that we all loved Clinton out here. If Hilary for ex. would become president then you would see a positive surge on EU-US relations.

or noticed stories about Russian weapons reaching insurgents in Iraq

AK's are everywhere. If anything this makes Russia more capitalist.

How about a recent headline stating that “Germany wants a new strategic Partnership with Russia”?

NUTS! German-Russian relation's aint exactly very warm. Think oil dependancy and Putin's past political extortion with this commodity. You think we like the fact that they try to excert influence on such future EU partners like Ukraine? Russia is a danger to us, and we treat it as that. Though we need their oil ... for the moment. Remember there is nowhere more installed renewable energy to find than in Germany. Germany has a leading, if not THE leading position in the EU, and the rest of the EU treat Germany with a lot of respect, because it's a very good partner for the rest of Europe, a rolemodel. And we know Russia and Germany aint to best friends, but atm they just need eachother economicly.

It is now suggested that the European Union enter into special negotiations with Russia.

.. special negotiations to keep them out of Georgia or other cuacasian country's with all to "politicly weird" seperatists movements? Or to stop them from pestering the Baltic country's?

America’s best ally in Latin America is Colombia.

It's a stupid mistake of US policy.

he U.S. has been helping Colombia fight Communist rebels who traffic in drugs, guns and now uranium.

They (FARC) are only communist because it was the convenient ideoligy to take for rebels at that time. It's an anti-dictatorial reactionary movement. it's not the only rebel movement in Columbia either. And South America's poor populous tended to go communist in the past because they were ruled by USA supported tirants that let company's like the "united fruit company" all the freedom to exploit their workers by a "capitalist" system. Where does the term "banana republic" come from?

The question is one of general alignment for other countries. The strategic shift against America is here manifest – on a continental scale.

Well shees it's the same shift that was suppresed 50 years ago. Cuba with castro? Allenda with a bullet in the head? Do i need to give another 10 example's?

Besides, socialist lula da Silva is the best that happened to the average brazilian ever so far. And he aint no nut.

Those who understand how dangerous Communism is, who grasp its intrinsic totalitarianism, its threat to the liberty and prosperity, will applaud Colombia’s cross-border attack.

Bullcrap! Decade's of capitalism in South America, sponsored by the USA, has been markant for exploitation, totalitarianism, lack of liberty and prosperity. And then "communism" is a very unnuanced term as used here.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is quietly backed by Communist China, not so quietly backed by Communist Cuba and the Communist president of Nicaragua, and by weapons from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But Chavez was democraticly ellected. And when they (his oposition) tried a coup in his first term and tried to put a dictator named Carmona in his place, the first country to recognize that totalitarian regime above a democraticly ellected regime was: The USA.

But hey, The USA supported Pinochet to, they rather had him than Allenda, god rest his soul.

The whole way how there is been reasoned about the South American situation here is just ... it boggles the mind. Does the USA really have no conciousness about their own terrible policy in this region??? Is this blindness?

There was a curious interview, more than a year ago, with the speaker of the Chechen parliament, Mr. Dukvakha Abdurakhmanov. The reader should keep in mind that Mr. Abdurakhmanov was formerly the chairman of the Executive Committee of the District Soviet of People’s Deputies. Speaking of the Chechen revolt, Mr. Abdurakhmanov said in all frankness, “Russia created Dudaev, Maskhadov and Basaev [the chiefs of the Chechen rebel movement]. Basaev, by the way, was a GRU officer in Abkhazia; it’s not a secret….” Abdurakhmanov further stated that Chechnya had “saved Russia from NATO.” In fact, he added, the Chechens would save Russia in the future.

Wait a minute, ... sudenly the Chechens arn't terrorists anymore but Freedom fighters?

Dudaev + Maskhadov = seperatists fighting by conventional means
Basaev = terrorist

Dudaev does not equal Basaev, not by a mile.

There is a new book, sporting an old theme, authored by Yossef Bodansky. It is titled Chechen Jihad: Al Qaeda’s Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror. The main argument of the book may be summarized as follows: Al Qaeda has nuclear weapons, and some of these have probably been smuggled into the United States for use against American cities. The weapons are Soviet-made weapons, smuggled out of Russia courtesy of the Chechen mafia via the Chechen rebel state (i.e., “Al Qaeda’s Training Ground”). It is an old story, first told by Bodansky in 1999 and repeated in greater detail in this more recent volume.

The whole chechen situation has been skewed over a million of times, and never was the nuancation made of difference between the ligitamite goverment of chechnia who were fighting the Russians as combatants by conventional means, versus the terrorist groups led by Basaev, chechen muslim veterans of the Chechnya wars that trained much of Bin ladens terrorists. This is rediculous. By these norms Chechens are always either terrorists or Freedom fighters, while the reality is that the majority are freedom fighters and that a minority is a hard core terrorist group with stronger ties to Al-Quiada than any other (be it a real or supposed) terrorist group. The Chechen terrorists are the most dangerous of all terrorists, by their ways of opperation, their effectiveness, their knowledge of war etc.





This article is IMO a big load of bull. Europe is moving away from Bush, not the USA. And not moving closer to Russia neither. Russia and China have their own competing Interrests, hence why Russia works more with India as a counter to possible Chinese ambitions in mongolia or the Amur river region/Siberia. Something has been lost with the USA siding with Pakistan and not making better relations with India, own fault. And South America is giving the USA the finger because it's tired of decade's of exploitation and political medling. Thats my unsalted European oppinion.

[freakscene]

the USA solely sparked a new arms race?

hmmmmmmm.

Remember that we all loved Clinton out here.

lol.

[mthompson]

Yes they did. And creating an external enemy (Al Quaeda, Russia, China, Chavez, etc.) is just one of the means to push the agenda.

[freakscene]

thats absurd.

[piggybank]

thats absurd.

Absurd is Bush having lay'd asside international treaty's that prevented further arms race. Treaty's that prvented further nuclear buildup or the militarizaton of space.
The USA started to make their missile defense shield and it made a lot of country's step up their space program's.
The USA has the largest and most powerfull army of the world and yet still invests a very large (compartivly) % of BNP in the millitary, in volume a much larger ammount of money than anyone else.
The USA has virtually surrounded Iran with puppets like New Iraq and Afhanistan. Russia, India and China probably aint to happy about that geopolitical shift neither. The USA has increased it's military presence in a number of very strategic regions.
The USA made alliance-like ties with Pakistan. Nothing that the Indians or some others should like.
Never has there been so much support (or lack of denouncement) for Israel's behavior in the levant.
The USA has also increased NATO to include for ex. the baltic country's ... what does russia think about that?

But it's a whole different, and more difficult, discussion.

[freakscene]

Oh, thats right. The last two posters live a vacuum, where time obviously starts when current President Bush took office.

The ABM treaty was partnered with a country that didnt exist any longer !!!

You love Bill Clinton? Interesting that you give him a pass and all the military expansion by the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians that took place in the 1990's

When he was elected, China could maybe hit the west coast of America with an ICBM. Thanks to his help, the technology was transferred to China, so that when he left office, they could strike any city of ours with pin-point accuracy.

In July 1997, Clinton was briefed on the increase of nuclear weapons that China was developing along with their increasing proliferation of missile, nuclear, and chemical weapon technology to countries like Iran and Pakistan.



thats one example of many i can list of things happening BEFORE Bush took office and can be used to argue the absolutely absurd argument that the USA was solely responsible for a global arms race.

I know that doesnt jive with those of you who believe time started during the Bush presidency.

:top:

The USA has the largest and most powerfull army of the world and yet still invests a very large (compartivly) % of BNP in the millitary, in volume a much larger ammount of money than anyone else

let me know when the chinese or russians post accurate figures. you might then have a point.

and let me predict your argument changing to "well why shouldnt those other countries have them too".

[mthompson]

Dude, less watching Fox and more thinking, and you'd probably discover that there are more than two colors/flavors/sides/etc in the world.

[freakscene]

Dude, less watching Fox and more thinking, and you'd probably discover that there are more than two colors/flavors/sides/etc in the world.

Like the side that doesnt believe America is solely responsible for an arms race which you seem to think?

I noticed in your rebuttal you didnt address the alarming Chinese military expansion in the 90's, or anything else of substance.

I rarely watch any cable news, but hey if you can toss something so stupid out, may i suggest you look for news in other places like the huffington post, daily kos, or moveon.org

?

:D

[piggybank]

The ABM treaty was partnered with a country that didnt exist any longer !!!

Russia inherited that nuclear arsenal. And Russia still exists. You have to look at it in a different way, nuclear detterent serves as a safeguard for invasion for many country's, like Russia for ex. . By creating a balistic missile shield you basicly try to nullify that detterent, and then there are only conventional means left for the country to defend itself in the most extreme thinkable situation, as the nukes are "useless".

Now the USA has the most powerfull conventional army. In the past nuclear weapons could serve as a detterent against that superiority, now however many country's feel forced to either upgrade their nuclear arsenal or build a stronger conventional army, well probably both. This is a fairly problematic situation for such country's as it would cost them a lot of capital, capital that otherwise didn't need to be spend there. And it's difficult to compete on this field with the USA. Only a united EU or an much more advanced China would have the potential to challenge the USA in superiority, and we Europeans genneraly don't feel the need, just don't invest much in millitary neither.

You love Bill Clinton? Interesting that you give him a pass and all the military expansion by the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians that took place in the 1990's

I'm not sure what youre saying here. can you ellaborate? Russias conventional army hasbeen rusting for a long time in the 1990's, it was not until some years of Putin that they began to stop the detoriation. China only expanded it's millitary by what could be considered normal steps, now they are doing it much faster. And especially Iran's speed of millitary buildup has sharply increased since Bush, although it has always been a country with a large mllitary comparativly.

When he was elected, China could maybe hit the west coast of America with an ICBM. Thanks to his help, the technology was transferred to China, so that when he left office, they could strike any city of ours with pin-point accuracy.

I never heard of that before. Have you anything to support that claim?

In July 1997, Clinton was briefed on the increase of nuclear weapons that China was developing along with their increasing proliferation of missile, nuclear, and chemical weapon technology to countries like Iran and Pakistan.

Wait a minute, now he's just briefed about it? And what was he to do about the nuclear proliferation? Invade? I don't see Bush invading N. Korea or Iran neither.

Besides, the only atempt at stoping a country to "nuclear proliferation" was an utterly botched one. Or do i really have to pull up a whole crappool of arguments involving Iraq ad the lack of "weapons of mass destruction" found?
The whole WMD argument for Iraq was not much more than a big lie to use as excuse for a war that served other needs.

thats one example of many i can list of things happening BEFORE Bush took office and can be used to argue the absolutely absurd argument that the USA was solely responsible for a global arms race.

I don't see any argument. Sure country's had military's and were developing new weapons before Bush, thats no argument. It's just so that the pace of millitarization has increased rapidly with Bush, mainly by increased speed of millitary develoments in the USA, wich was already the most powerfull country on earth.

I know that doesnt jive with those of you who believe time started during the Bush presidency.

Btw. can't you see that youre use of words here are somewhat insulting? You try to mark us as stupid as if we knew nothing about the world pre Bush?
It's quite obvious that we don't think time started with Bush. If you want to keep me fairly friendly then i would ask you to refrain from such nonsense remarks. Although i can aways go back to ignoring you if you want that.

let me know when the chinese or russians post accurate figures. you might then have a point.

and let me predict your argument changing to "well why shouldnt those other countries have them too".

Youre right, i cant present accurate figure's. But the US goverment still has the largest budget in the world, and a significant amount of it goes to the millitary. If you compare just how much difference there is with the total budget of other country's, then it gets fairly logical that other county's would have it hard to keep up even if they would put theyr whole budget in millitary.

[freakscene]

nevermind. you can go back to ignoring me.

every other country in the world is obviously expanding arms at "normal" rates, except the USA. if they are increasing its due to American imperialism.

oh, i forgot

bush bad

[mthompson]

lol, alarming Chinese military expansion :biggrin: Talk about stupid... :biggrin:

[freakscene]

lol, alarming Chinese military expansion :biggrin: Talk about stupid... :biggrin:

the fact that you want to ignore it while making an ignorant statement blaming America is stupid, yes

[mthompson]

Remind us, what was that country that invaded/bombed other countries in the last decade?

[freakscene]

you want a list including civil wars or just between neighboring countries/areas?

kashmir, chechnya, chad etc ..........

nevermind

bush bad