NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

Putin’s Censored Press Conference:

The transcript you weren’t supposed to see

By Mike Whitney

06/10/07 "ICH" --- - On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared in a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize Putin) the press conference has been scrubbed from the public record. It never happened. (Read the entire press conference archived here )

Putin’s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main issues.

The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to present. Since September 11, the Bush administration has carried out an aggressive strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles on its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed “pro-democracy” groups. These openly hostile actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners that the administration is going forward with the neocon plan for “regime change” in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation. Putin’s testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably right.

The Bush administration’s belligerent foreign policy has backed the Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures. He has no other choice.

If we want to understand why relations between Russia are quickly reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the main developments since the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his article “Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”

Buchanan says:

“Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?”

Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why his press conference was suppressed. The media would rather demonize Putin, than allow him to make his case to the public. (The same is true of other world leaders who choose to use their vast resources to improve the lives of their own citizens rather that hand them over to the transnational oil giants; such as, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet endorsed the neocon missile defense plan and, according to recent surveys, public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic is overwhelmingly against it.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of the controversy.

Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to Russia’s national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally determined to protect his own country’s interests in the same way. We can expect that Russia will now aim its missiles at European targets and rework its foreign policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its current plans.

The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as “a small missile defense system” which has set off “waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents”.

Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Putin said at the press conference, “Once the missile defense system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

“For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”

Putin is right. The “so-called” defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America’s existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this should be obvious.

The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the “longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia”.

In Boyle’s article “US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat” he states:

“By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."… This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence." …The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That’s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to Washington’s “diktats” or face the prospect of “first-strike” annihilation. That’s why Putin has expressed growing concern over the administration’s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The “hawks” who surround Bush have abandoned the “deterrence” policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be “won” by the United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.

The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline corridors throughout the region. That means Russia’s influence will have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and state-owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to the tenets of neoliberalism.

No wonder the neocons loved him.

Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow has strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush’s plans.

Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that Russia’s four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to convert Russia’s dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western elites. Their response was swift.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is “rolling back democracy” began; it’s a feeble excuse for political antagonism. In their article “Russia’s Wrong Direction”, Edwards and Kemp state that a “strategic partnership” with Russia is no longer possible. They note that the government has become increasingly “authoritarian” and that the society is growing less “open and pluralistic”. Blah, blah, blah. No one in the Washington really cares about democracy. (Just look at our “good friends” in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they’re afraid of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That’s what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution to separate Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the right to redraw national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a stunning success that the Security Council wants to try its luck again?)

Putin does not accept the “unipolar” world model. As he said in Munich, the unipolar world refers to “a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

He added:

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

How can anyone dispute Putin’s analysis?

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.

The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases to five thousand men on Russia’s perimeter. Is this conduct of a “trustworthy ally”?

Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia’s borders even while Putin has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and military equipment hundreds of miles away.

As Putin said on Tuesday: “We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

(This is why Putin’s comments did not appear in the western media! They would have been too damaging to the Bush administration and their expansionist plans)

Who Destroyed the ABM?

Putin said:

“We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defense system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now.”

Putin: “AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.” …we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these weapons.” We told them that “it would be better to look for other ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they don’t listen to us. They are not looking for compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one sentence: ‘Whoever is not with us is against us.’”

Putin asks, “So what should we do?” The present predicament has brought us “the brink of disaster”.

Putin: “Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia”.

So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his responsibilities to the Russian people without taking defensive “retaliatory” action to Bush’s act of war. By expanding its nuclear capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent danger, and so, Putin must decide “precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation”. (Note that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)

Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe.”

If only that was true in America!

Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has amassed enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest in the world. It is also one of the leading players in international energy policy with a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi Arabia. It is also the largest producer of natural gas in the world. Russia will only get stronger as we get deeper into the century and energy resources become scarcer.

Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to human rights or is “rolling back democracy”. He points out how truncheon-wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas, electric-shock devices and water cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is that how the West honors human rights and civil liberties?

As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty International’s yearly report condemning the United States conduct in the war on terror. “I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report here, which includes a section on the United States,” he said. “The organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.”

He added, “We have a proverb in Russian, ‘Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.’”

Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore Russia’s self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He’s demonstrated a willingness to compromise with the Bush administration on every substantive issue, but he has been repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing he wants is a nuclear standoff with the United States. But he will do what he must to defend his people from the threat of foreign attack. The deployment of the missile defense system will require that Russia develop its own new weapons systems and change its thinking about trusting the United States. Friendship is not possible in the present climate.

As for “democracy”; Putin said it best himself:

“Am I a ‘pure democrat’? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North America, it’s simply awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets….. I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.”

Well said, Vladimir.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

You can say that again.

But I really wish he wouldn't. It would simply (if the statements attributed to President Putin are indeed accurately quoted) prove the man has no issues with telling outright falsehoods.

The number of factual errors in his statements are staggering in their rash disregard for truth. I will use a couple of his statements to illustrate:

First:

As Putin said at the press conference, “Once the missile defense system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

“For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”

Not so. While assigned to the 36th Tactical Fighter Wing at Bitburg AB, Germany, I routinely sat Victor Alert - crewing aircraft loaded with nuclear weapons on constant 24/7 alert, cocked and ready to launch from 1975 to 1977, and later at Spangdahlem AB, Germany, with the 52nd Tactical Fighter Wing throughout 1977 until my injuries from an aircraft accident ended my flight status. It would also be a great shock to crews at Hahn AB, and Ramstein AB, Germany, as well as crews at RAFs Upper Heyford, Bentwaters, Alconbury, Greenham Common in the UK, that their alert duty was not a part of "US nuclear capability." It would also be news to the Army's Lance and the Air Force's Ground Launched Cruise Missile units in Germany, Belgium and the UK.

An for the record, there are no, repeat no, nuclear warheads, or explosive warheads of any sort on the interceptors of the current and proposed anti-missile systems currently deployed on US soil or envisioned for Europe. The "kill vehicle" is kinetic, a hit-to-kill system. In addition the total number of such interceptors envisioned is not enough to dent Russia's forces should she decide to launch her ICBMs, and has little to no capability against her SLBM forces. Both geography and geometry mitigate against it.

Secondly:

“We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defense system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now.”

No resources or desire, President Putin?! Then what is the ABM system that you have had around Moscow from the time of the ABM Treaty adoption and that continues in existence to this day having undergone at least three upgrades since its initial fielding? See: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/index.html And as for one side having one and another not, his statement is laughable - our ABM Treaty-compliant system was decommissioned just one day after its being declared operational, while the old Soviet, and now Russian system, remained in operation. See http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/safeguard.htm

Lastly:

It is telling that while Russia objects to the on-going finalization of the the European Interceptor site with both Poland and the Czech Republic, it must be remembered that when the idea was first proposed, Russia offered her own system in competition based upon the S-300 system to defend Europe against a rogue state like Iran, whose growing missile systems capability already poses a threat to Europe. She was denied, because again the geometry involved meant Russian systems on Eastern European soil and thus a renewed Russian presence there - a situation her former client states did not wish to revisit. Russia's failure to sell her own system has caused them no little embarassment and has resulted in statements like those above, even to the point of saying no threat exists from anywhere else. His statements are a reflection of hurt pride and prestige at having lost the competition and opportunity to renew old arrangements.

So, "Well said", Bart? No, well lied.

He didn't say well said, sir.

I suspect that wry Katzian sarcasm is in play.

No he didn't, he said "You can say that again.", based upon the last sentence of the quoted article: "Well said, Vladimir."

He is old line KGB. What did you expect? On the good side even the useful idiots of the American left have turned against the Russians for the most part, some to the point of denying they ever were Soviet apologists.

Thanks for the European nuclear history, Russ. I was thinking Putin was wrong when I read that. I think we even had nuclear artillery shells in Europe back in the old days.

Heh, just so. Mimickry.

It's his way. I suspect he finds little to really agree with anything in that article. Other than maybe dissing CNN.

From what you've seen of the Katman, you think he'd find common ground with the gist and the detail of it? Wouldn't that be out of character?

But I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong about your valuation of his agreement with the contents of the post. I'm sure he will.

Good Points...

I posted the article, in regards to the Neocon, PNAC concepts of preemptive militarism and geo-political goals for the region. This whole thesis was laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard. This is about the Anglo-American Establishment and the City of London trying to encircle and emasculate the Russian Federation. This is a very, very dangerous game which will result in war.

Not to get in a chicken/egg argument, BUT;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6452519.stm


Russian spies 'at Cold War level'
Alexander Litvinenko
Alexander Litvinenko's death put the spotlight on the world of spying
Russian agents are as active in Britain now as at the height of the Cold War, senior Whitehall officials have said.

The sources told the BBC's Frank Gardner there were more than 30 identified intelligence officers trying to get secrets by covert means.

Targets include military hardware, scientific know-how and technology, and inside tips on Westminster politics.

Businessmen who may have access to sensitive information are also of interest, as are Russian dissidents.

Such dissidents include Boris Berezovsky, friend of the murdered former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

'Very extensive'

Sir Paul Lever, a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: "Russian espionage activity in Britain is very extensive.

"In scale it's probably pretty much as it was at the height of the Cold War."


You need large numbers of people to keep them under round-the-clock surveillance
Crispin Black
Surveillance expert

He described the activities of Russian spies and how they operate.

"Mostly it is by gradually drawing their targets into a relationship which at first may seem to be a perfectly normal business relationship - 'we'd like some information, we'd like an article, of course we'll pay you', but over time develops into something more akin to the classic relationship of case officer and agent."

Once a potential agent has been hooked, his or her Russian handler then needs to avoid the British authorities.

Counter-espionage

In Britain, counter-espionage has been carried out by the security service M15 for nearly 100 years.


Russian counter-intelligence thinks that British intelligence are not only spying against Russia but trying to influence the political situation
Russian security expert Andrei Soldatov


The service now focuses mainly on counter-terrorism and only about 5% of its budget is now spent on counter-espionage.

The service oversees every visa application from a potential intelligence officer coming to Britain - and tries to keep out the more experienced ones.

Those that do get in usually operate from the Russian embassy in Kensington. Here they report to a controller, known as "the resident".

But keeping tabs on these agents is a difficult task.

Surveillance expert Crispin Black said: "You need large numbers of people to keep them under round-the-clock surveillance.

"And you have to change those people every now and again. Say the suspect goes on a journey - you can't follow them from here to Glasgow in one white Peugeot up the M1."

Not only that, but our security correspondent said that some Russian intelligence officers were reappearing in London from 20 years ago.

In Russia, Britain is in turn accused of spying.

Last year saw the case of "the rock" - allegedly a device planted by MI6 to receive coded data from agents.

Russian security expert Andrei Soldatov said: "Now Russian counter-intelligence thinks that British intelligence are not only spying against Russia but trying to influence the political situation."



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273948,00.html

t's time to send for George Smiley.

Russia’s covert foreign intelligence operations against America have reached Cold War levels under President Vladimir Putin, according to Washington officials.

White House intelligence advisers believe no other country is as aggressive as Russia in trying to obtain U.S. secrets, with the possible exception of China.

In particular the SVR, as the former KGB’s foreign intelligence arm is now known, is using a network of undercover agents in America to gather classified information about sensitive technologies, including military projects under development and high-tech research.

Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent, said: “In the days of the Soviet Union, the number of spies was limited because they had to be based at the foreign ministry, the trade mission or the news agencies like Tass. Right now, virtually every successful private company in Russia is being used as a cover for Russian intelligence operations.”

Intelligence experts believe that since Putin became president in 2000, the Russians have rebuilt a network of agents in the United States that had been depleted during the country’s transition from communism.

No, the dude posted the thread twice and I was referring to that. You didn't really think I thought....................... did you?



Well yeah. Like when a guy posts such serious stuff and doesn't go back to see his post and that there were two of them, I had to say something.

He asked me to delete the second one, but I was at work so it tooka while. In that vein I talked to Servo and he has been travelling a lot and said it was OK if Truth Trekker moderated on the Satellite of Liberty. Lots of Spam attacks there and beasty is on vacation.

Just so's y'all know.

Swell.

President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, I think, was the right man at a very unsettled time in the muddled change from collectiviation to private property and commerce, hopefully someday, free enterprise. But I always keep in mind that he was schooled as a "communist leader" and in that training he was indoctrinated to believe that a "good lie" for the cause was "just and proper". I think it would be best if he stayed in the office for another term unless he is sure of a competent leader to carry on the difficult work in changing the nation over to a functioning system.

Putin is corrupt, but I suppose anyone who got the job would have to be.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle1822204.ece

Joan Smith: Putin's Russia failed to protect this brave woman
Her death demonstrates the truth of what she wrote about his lawless state
Published: 09 October 2006
The news came in a phone call on Saturday afternoon: Anna Politkovskaya, Russia's most celebrated journalist, had been murdered in her apartment block in Moscow. This was a woman who had survived death threats, emerged alive from three days in a pit in Chechnya and recovered from an attempted poisoning on an aeroplane, only to be cornered at home. The assassin fired four times, leaving her body in the lift. Beside her lay his Makarov pistol, and four spent cartridges.

I cannot get the image out of my mind. This courageous, softly spoken woman, whom I last saw at a book launch in London, ended her life on the floor of a lift, executed at the home where she should have been safe.

Of course, I knew Anna was a marked woman but like everyone who met her, I hoped her international reputation would protect her. I was wrong. There is no protection for journalists who persist in trying to do their job in Russia, where the very idea of press freedom has become a joke.

What does exist in Russia is impunity, a climate which allows the thugs who target journalists to get away with murder. Forty-two journalists have been killed in Russia since 1992, many in similar circumstances: contract killings, carried out with ruthless efficiency, and for the most part unpunished by the Russian state.

Earlier this year, two men were acquitted of the murder of the American journalist Paul Klebnikov, editor of Forbes Russia, who was gunned down on a Moscow street in 2004. And it's not just journalists; last month, Andrei Kozlov, first deputy chairman of Russia's central bank, was murdered in Moscow.

Since Anna's assassination, there have been many statements expressing shock and outrage. Both Reporters sans Frontières and Amnesty International condemned the killing, as did the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. But where is the statement from Russia's current President, Vladimir Putin, expressing horror and shame that his country failed to protect its most celebrated reporter? Putin's silence is resounding, and it has been suggested that he would not have been devastated, on his birthday on Saturday, to hear the news that his most trenchant critic had been silenced.

In a world where journalism often means writing about the latest celebrity divorce, Anna talked about things that matter: the murders and mind-boggling atrocities carried out in the Chechen conflict. She wasn't starry-eyed about the rebels, writing movingly about the Russian mothers denied the truth about the deaths of their sons, hapless conscripts in a brutal war.

In 2001, when I met her for the first time at the London conference of the writers' organisation PEN, Anna had been forced to flee Moscow after receiving death threats from a Russian officer she had accused of crimes against civilians. Anna made a huge impression and subsequently we did what we could to keep a watch over her. I remember an occasion in 2002 when she went back to Chechnya covertly to investigate new allegations of human rights abuses and was detained; frantic phone calls followed, and we were relieved to get a message that she had turned up safe in Ingushetia. Later that year, she acted as a mediator between Russian forces and Chechen terrorists who had taken hostages at a Moscow theatre.

Last time I saw her, she was still recovering from being poisoned on a flight to North Ossetia at the height of the Beslan siege. That attempt on her life remains unsolved, allegedly because blood samples were deliberately destroyed before the toxin could be identified. First reports suggest that her murder may be connected with the story she was writing for her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, about torture in Chechnya, but there is also no doubt that she had many enemies.

Russia is the third-deadliest country in the world for journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, behind only Iraq and Algeria. This is happening now, on our doorstep, but a combination of circumstances - Putin's role in the so-called war against terror, and our dependence on Russian energy supplies - have inhibited western governments from the frank criticism his regime deserves.

That was left to people like Anna, whose tragically premature death - she was 48, and had two children - demonstrates the truth of what she wrote about Putin's corrupt, lawless state. It is too late to save her but everyone in this country who cares about press freedom should be up in arms. Her killers must be brought to justice, yes, but I also want to see the Russian state shamed into ending the climate of impunity which has allowed execution to become a daily hazard for the Russian media.

I decided to post this article, since it bears a direct correlation to the thread.


First Strike against Russia: The Real Danger behind US ABM Deployment in Eastern Europe


By Chimes of Freedom

Global Research, June 11, 2007
Chimes of Freedom

"These European ABMs are an adjunct to the longstanding US policy of nuclear first strike against Russia, ..." (Professor Francis Boyle, Global Research, June 2007)

Recent disinformation by the western media about Russia starting a new Cold War not only masks the threat of a US Anti-Ballistic Missile shield deployment but, as always, projects the blame on the victim, Russia.

The US missile shield must be understood in the context of its geo-strategic nuclear deployment. Far from being defensive, its ultimate purpose is to obtain such an unassailable advantage over any other nuclear power as to be able to threaten any would-be opponent with nuclear extinction if it were not to comply with the wishes of the US.

This new form of nuclear strategy has been called 'compellence'. Remember the word because you won't hear it mentioned by the western MSM which has already tried to distract us from the real dangers behind the deployment of the US missile shield with matters which bear no relevance such as the Litvinenko affair and the inevitable Russian response to retaliate with its own missiles.

By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. So Bush Jr. needs ABMs to take care of what remains. And in any event what really matters here is the perception. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."

In other words, with an apparent first strike capability, the USG can compel Russia to do its bidding during a crisis. The classic case in point here was the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviet Union knew the USG could strike first and get away with it. Hence they capitulated.

This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence."

The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. Easier to rule the world that way. Henceforth the USG will be able to compel even nuclear-armed adversaries to do its bidding in a crisis or otherwise.

Deterrence strategy was abandoned over twenty years ago when the US upped the ante in its Arms Race by introducing new, microchip-controlled nuclear weapons, including the medium-range Cruise missile, and replacing the idea of deterrence with 'pre-emption' or first strike. It was no longer necessary to wait for the other side to attack first. Instead, you attack first if you think the other side is planning to attack you.

Any sane person can see the danger in a strategy that inevitably leads to paranoia. But when you add to it the fact that everything is handled, not by humans, but by computers a War Games doomsday scenario is what we are faced with.

What the US is now dumping is no longer deterrence. That was dumped over 20 years ago. What it's doing is to develop the second stage of First Strike by introducing an element, compellence, which will effectively coerce all its competitors, through terror, to do its bidding.

It was concerning this that Vladimir Putin warned the world at the Munich Conference last February.

" I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security," he said.

"In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space."

And, in the context of the expansion of NATO into the old Warsaw Pact countries: "I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust."

"And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?"

Remember, it is in (former) Czechoslovakia and Poland where the US now intends to install its ABM radar systems. The pattern of aggressive closing in on the USSR is clear for all to see. Finally, in that speech, Putin warned the US that if it were to go ahead with a new arms race, including ABM deployment, Russia would respond asymetrically.

As the US and NATO have chosen to ignore Putin's warnings and go ahead they have now drawn the inevitable response of retaliation.

It is this background to the current new aggression of the USA and NATO that the western media hides by trying to distract attention with events which have no bearing on the real dangers of US geo-strategic nuclear deployment.

In the 'eighties, it was the late radical historian, Edward Thompson, and the European Nuclear Disarmament movement that campaigned against US First Strike strategy and who alerted the world to its danger. Now there is no Edward Thompson or an END. So it is up to the likes of we humble bloggers to demystify the MSM spin and let the truth be known.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=5935

Sounds good to me. As if they Russians and Chinese aren't thinking the same thing.

TT

Methinks "Chimes" has had his/her bell rung just a few too many times. The leaps of logic in that article bespeak a complete misunderstanding of the issue and no few displays of complete ignorance as to how the proposed missile interceptor system works, the geometries involved in either a US or Russian (formerly Soviet) first/retaliatory strike, the numbers of weapons systems involved, the probable strike options and strike postures/response options available to either side, etc.

But it was a fun read - most Tom Clancy wannabees usually are. And are almost always proving the old adage about opening one's "mouth." Simply invoking the "WarGames" scenario gambit proves it. That movie has long elicited howls of derisive laughter from those of us who actually worked in the real-life missile warning, strategic operations arenas. Rather than a suspense/action thriller it came across as pure comedy. [As an aside, this was especially so in the role played by a fine character actor, Barry Corbin, as Gen Jack Beringer, as the NORAD commander. It was such an obvious spoof of the real NORAD commander at the time, Gen James Hartinger, whose gruff demeanor was a well-known fact.] But there are those who actually believe that the entire National Command Authority (NCA) chain functions as that movie depicts. Mr Badham certainly pulled tons of wool over many an eye with that one.

I really don't know what to make of this. As a student of history, this baffles me, to a certain extent.


Putin On Bush's Missile
'Shield' & New Arms Race
6-13-7

The following is a small excerpt of the June 4 G8 press conference interview...

KOMMERSANT: In my opinion, recently Russia's relations with the West are developing at a catastrophic speed. If you examine them then you see that everything is very bad and going from bad to worse: the energy dialogue is frozen, no one is even talking about the Energy Charter, the arms race is proceeding. And you acknowledge it yourself. Yesterday you said that, yes, there is an arms race - you used precisely those words. And there is a new word in your vocabulary that was not there before, the word imperialism. That is a word from Soviet times. American imperialism and Israeli militarism were both terms that you must remember. And they were countered only by Soviet peace initiatives, as they are now countered by Russian peace initiatives. I would like to ask: do you not think it is possible to talk about certain compromises, to engage in compromises, to look even occasionally, even for show, at public opinion in Europe, in America and, finally, in Russia? Do you not think that this present course is leading nowhere? It is becoming, even gaining new strength with, this arms race, with these missiles of ours. To what purpose?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Frankly, I find this question quite strange and unexpected. An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, "don't do this, you don't need to do this. What are you doing? You are destroying the system of international security. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps." They said: "okay, no problem, go ahead. We are not enemies. Do what you want to." I think that this was based on the illusion that Russia would have nothing to answer with. But we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these charges. We understand in the rocks where bin Laden is hiding it might be necessary to, shall we say, destroy some of his asylum. Yes, such an objective probably exists.

But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways and means to resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons, lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us. We are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don't want to do that. No, it continues: "whoever is not with us is against us". What is that? Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue can be summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.

I talked about how we implemented the ACAF, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. We really have implemented it; I wasn't inventing anything. And there are inspection groups that come, they go onsite, our western partners check and see everything. We implemented it. And in response we get bases and a missile defence system in Europe. So what should we do?

You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia is in favour of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in favour of the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according to theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory into three or four parts.

If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I was not elected President of the Russian Federation to put my country on the brink of disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally broken then it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the whole world.

Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia.

We already talked about how we subsidized countries, the former republics of the Soviet Union, by providing them with cheap energy for 15 years. Why did we need to do that, where is the logic, what is the justification for this? We subsidised Ukraine for 15 years, by three to five billion dollars a year. Just think about it! Who else in the world does this? And our actions are not politicized. They are not political actions.

The very best example and proof of this - and I talked about this recently at a press conference - is the Baltic countries that we also subsidised for all these years. When we realised that the Baltic states were engaging in honest economic relations with us and that they were ready to transfer to world, to European pricing, then we met them half way. We said: "fine. We are g oing to continue to deliver energy to you at discounted prices. Let's agree on a timetable for a transition to European prices". We agreed with them and signed the relevant documents. Within three years they had gently overcome the transition to European pricing. Even considering the fact that we did not have a border treaty with Latvia and there was a serious political disagreement on this issue, until last year Latvia received cheap Russian gas and, as a whole, the gas Latvia received in 2006 was about a third cheaper then what it was for, for example, Germany. Ask the Latvian Prime Minister and he will confirm this.

When the Ukrainian question arose then we were told that this was a political decision and they accused us of supporting Lukashenko's regime, a regime that western countries are not very fond of. We said : "listen, first of all, we cannot simply declare war on all fronts. Secondly, we are planning to transfer to market pricing with all of our partners. The time will come when we do this with Belarus as well". We did this. Yet once we had done so the noise began, including in the western media: what are we doing there, why are we harming small Belarus? Is this a fair and admirable attitude towards Russia? We switched to one pricing regime with all the countries of the Caucasus: with Georgia - with whom we do not have very good political relations - and with Armenia, with whom we have excellent relations and a strategic alliance. Yes, we have heard a lot of criticism including from our Armenian partners but at the end of the day we were able to understand one another and find a way forward. They could not pay the entire price with liquid and therefore are paying in physical assets. With live, real assets and all of this is formalised on paper. No one can accuse us of politicizing these issues. We are not preparing to spend huge amounts of money subsidising other countries' economies. We are ready to develop integration on the territory of the former Soviet Union, but it must be integration on an equal footing. But you know, they are coming closer and closer to our interests and everyone is increasingly expecting that we are not going to defend these interests. If we want order and international law to prevail in the international arena then we must respect this law and the interests of all members of the international community. That is all.

KOMMERSANT: When I mentioned public opinion in Russia I was referring to the fact that, as I understand it, public opinion in Russia would be strongly opposed to a new arms race after the one the Soviet Union lost.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to something I said in last year's Address [to the Federal Assembly]. We have learned from the Soviet Union's experience and we will not be drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.

The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: "no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the world." And we are going to proceed this way in the future.

Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 per cent of GDP and will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which include quit e advanced military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people. In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.

CORRERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, two more points about the strategic balance in Europe. I would like to ask you whether you think that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is presently at risk and if it could lose force judging by what happened to the ACAF?

And the second point. You said that you do not want to participate in an arms race. But if the United States continues building a strategic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return to the situation and times in which the former Soviet Union's nuclear forces were focused on European cities, on European targets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. Of course we will return to those times. And it is clear that if part of the United States' nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology.


You can read the entire news conference transcript here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=5938

They paid back some of the people they enslaved for decades. They owed them that much at least. Russia is still a world player, but I'm sure they have to worry about payback if they ever get too big for their britches again. With the resurging KGB I worry that it's only a matter of time until they're back to their old tricks.

Rehash of your original article - questioner was obviously bought-in to the old Soviet version of recent history. Right up there with the "Chimes" piece.

Dreck.

I wish I'd said that.

Make no mistake, I am under no illusions about the former Soviet Union or the Russian Federation. I am interested in the nature of the US provocation. How could the US not think this would upset Russia? Imagine if the Russians proposed a similar system in Cuba, Mexico or Canada. Then, to add insult to injury, they claimed it was for rogue nations like Iran or North Korea. Personally, I'd vomit if such a proposal was made.

Can this system stop Russian strategic forces? Not at all.

Saying we plan to do it does give a bargaining chip or two.

So did you get a bit nauseous in June of 2000?

See: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/...V-2000-0611.htm

or

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1177889.stm

Their opposition today is based on wounded pride and failed initiatives to re-establish themselves in their old "stomping grounds." Nothing more. Putin and Co. know darned well that they have their own ABM systems, admit they have other less strategic systems (S-300 and S-400) SAMs, they know that the size of the proposed European capability is of no conseqwuence to their own forces, and it is they not the US that is developing and fielding new strategic ICBMs (we decommissioned our newest land-based system the Peacekeeper, opting to keep some of our older Minuteman IIIs under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (2002)). So don't give me how "righteous" their positions are.

They lost and they're mad. And in no little self-denial.


For a little background on the potential Iranian missile threat see http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm

Be sure to click on the "Range Chart" link at the top for a graphic representation of what that range means to Europe.

Thanks for the links, very interesting, indeed.

So, in your opinion, is Russia just pissed about NATO creeping up to its doorstep?

Nope, about losing the competition and the opportunity to re-gain a former presence in Poland and the Czech Republic, not to mention the potential rise in status. NATO expansion was a done deal long ago. The Warsaw Pact lasted only as long as Russia was in the driver's seat and in iron-clad control. NATO survived as an entity post -collapse and thus was able to expand or be expanded should it desire, as unlike the WP it was both a military and economic/governmental alliance. The former satellites of the WP couldn't wait to switch sides.

Fair enuf.

Missed that.

Good on you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Heck ya say.

Not such a slow summer after all. For spammers.

I think I'll hang out here in the Green Zone.

The whole thang played beautifilly for Putin at home, you know.

The fact that the Russians are xenophobic is old news. And then Bushie announces an ABM system on their near border?

Gee, what a surprise Putin went for the opportunity to play on the xenophobia.

Election coming and whoever he endorses will win. Bet the house.

Status w/in Russia is the Prime Directive. All about keeping control.

Count on't.

Heh, not much.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/ir...sile-ranges.htm


Thanks for that, sir

Protecting our bases in Turkey?

Or SA?

What a joke. Funny, if it weren't so stupid.

Hu

Look again at the more global chart, the one that shows the 1500km and 4000km range rings. Iran has already shown and stated that their Shahab-3 (a Taepo-Dong design variant) has a range of between 1500 and 2000km depending upon warhead weight. The Shahab-4 (a Taepo-Dong 2 variant, essentially a three-stage TD, with greater warhead throw weight) has a range between 4000 and 6000km. At 2000km much of eastern and central Europe is covered. At 4000km only Portugal and Iceland remain unthreatened in European NATO, 6000km covers all of them. The DPRK, the designers of the TD-2, are already testing new variants of the TD-2 thankfully with not a great deal of demonstrated success, but since it uses already proven technology that will change, it's just a problem of component integration not science. And Iran, unlike the DPRK can buy the scientific and engineering help it needs to make things happen. Time and money can do much, nothing remains static. The European Capability for Missile Defense is also a system in evolution and has yet to have the first bit of concrete poured. Preparation to meet a possible future head-on and not rely on Iran's "good will."

I would not be quite so dismissive, but then again I'm just a crusty old Cold Warrior, what do I know?

Amen to not relying on Iran's good will. I wouldn't bet on Russia's goodwill either. I noted the NK design and was looking for info on NK and Russia. Not close friends perhaps, but they share us as a rival.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FL25Dg01.html

But this mood began to change around 1995 when new voices came to be heard in Russia as well. These voices presented a more positive approach to North Korea.

This reflected the general change of mood in Russia. A large and increasing part of its population began to see the US-led West not as a friendly force but as a crafty rival, preying on Russia's weakness. The pro-Western enthusiasm of the early 1990s waned and was replaced by deep suspicions - not only in government offices but also in the popular psyche. Thus the geopolitical opponents of the West, the assorted "pariah states", began to attract some sympathy in Russia, and unabashed national egoism came to be seen as the only rational strategy.

Official policy toward North Korea also began to turn around. By 1997-98 it became clear that Pyongyang would not collapse any time soon, so the restoration of working relations with North Korea was a necessity, especially against the backdrop of Russia's efforts to develop a more independent political line. In academic articles, the critique of North Korea was toned down and augmented with a critique of the alleged Western insensibilities in dealing with this very peculiar society.

It's worth noticing that the human-rights issue does not play a major role in Russian foreign policy. A period of idealistic enthusiasm in the early 1990s proved to be short, so few people in Russia take seriously statements about human rights. Neither the Russian government nor the Russian public shows any enthusiasm for crusades in the name of human rights in distant lands. It is well known that North Korea is notorious for its disregard for human rights, but Russians could not care less. Their position is simple: first, it is North Korea's internal affair; second, if North Koreans themselves live under such a regime, who are we to pass judgments on their behalf?

And there are of course people who are sincere admirers of the Kims' regime, even if their numbers are small. For some Russian leftists, the regime is seen as a living example of communist resilience. They did not question the right of the government to starve half a million or a million people to stay in power. They either deny the facts (half a million dead? Washington's propaganda, of course!) or present the deaths as voluntary sacrifices made by the patriotic Korean people. But actually Korean domestic politics is not very important to the Russian Pyongyang-worshippers: it is the "anti-imperialist" stance of North Korea that really matters for the Russian left.

Fortunately, the general Russian public is still skeptical of the North Korean regime and does not harbor many illusions about its true nature. But nobody in Russia wants to build policy on the basis of ideology these days. Russians have had enough of ideology over the past century, so now they prefer interests, pure and simple. And to remind themselves of the past, many people still look through old, slightly yellowed pages of Korea monthly.

Dr Andrei Lankov is a lecturer in the faculty of Asian Studies, China and Korea Center, the Australian National University. He graduated from Leningrad State University with a PhD in Far Eastern history and China, with emphasis on Korea, and his thesis focused on factionalism in the Yi Dynasty. He has published books and articles on Korea and North Asia. He is currently on leave, teaching at Kookmin University, Seoul.

Since you seem to be a history buff and very knowledgeable about weapons systems, I would recommend any of the scholarly works by Anthony C. Sutton. Follow the money!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

Professor Richard Pipes, of Harvard, said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984):

You can say that again.

I deleted the duplicate thread, the connection timed out and I accidentally posted twice. Sorry!

Not to worry. It's just my little joke.

Trekker

Click on my name it will explain much.

Professor Sutton's book, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, was one of the texts in my masters work in international relations.

Once in a while the server goes down for a minute or two. Been a long time since there was real trouble. The smartasses around here know.

Where can I find that book online? I read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution ;Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler; America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones; and, lastly, I read excerpts from Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. His documentation is meticulous and basically irrefutable.

Dunno. I got it the old-fashioned way - hardbound (it was 1978 after all).

Come now, you guys are supposed to be computer and net literate.

http://www.amazon.com/s/102-4227791-837770...=Mozilla-search


1.
National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union

National suicide: military aid to the Soviet Union by Antony C Sutton (Hardcover - 1973)
15 Used & new from $4.95
Books: See all 14 items
2.
Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 (Contributions in Military Studies)

Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 (Contributions in Military Studies) by Hubert P. Van Tuyll (Hardcover - Sep 25, 1989)
Buy new: $106.95 8 Used & new from $96.21
Get it by Tuesday, Jun 19, if you order in the next 43 hours and 22 minutes.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
Excerpt - page 8: "... as having overly benefitted the Soviet Union in Antony C. Sutton's National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. 38 ..."
› See more references to National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union in this book.
Surprise me! See a random page in this book.
Books: See all 14 items

Well...I feel like a wet turd....

It took me a while to figure out how much is available online, but I'm thinking you'll have to settle for the second least expensive copy now.

Ah so.

Ah so what?

More great news coming out of NATO and the Russian Federation....

Lavrov Warns NATO on Russian Security

By STEVE GUTTERMAN
Associated Press Writer

June 26, 2007, 7:30 AM EDT

MOSCOW -- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday warned NATO against steps that would compromise Russian security, pointing to persistent disagreements on arms control.

Speaking at a session of the NATO-Russia Council, Lavrov said Russia and the alliance "face difficult work" on issues including missile defense, Kosovo and the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty.

"These issues touch on key aspects of European and International security, and aspects of strategic stability," he said. "Of course, it's necessary to approach them in a way that reflects care for each other's stability and security -- not taking any steps aimed at improving someone's security at the expense of the security of others."

Russia has been wrangling with the West over the Soviet-era treaty governing the deployment of conventional forces and U.S. plans to deploy missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic -- former Soviet satellites that are now in NATO.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the meeting of ambassadors to NATO would allow Moscow and the alliance to seek ways to "build on the successes" and tackle issues on which they disagree.

Despite Lavrov's warning, both sides struck a tone of cooperation: Scheffer arrived in Russia on Monday for two days of events marking the 10th anniversary of the post-Soviet NATO-Russia partnership and five years since the NATO-Russia Council was created to deepen ties and raise Russia's footing with the alliance.

"Given our starting point as Cold War adversaries, the task of building a genuine Russia-NATO partnership has never been an easy one," Scheffer said. But he said Russia and NATO have made good progress in building "a durable, mutually beneficial partnership."

He cited cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts, including patrols in the Mediterranean Sea, improved interoperability of forces and joint efforts to confront drug trafficking from Afghanistan.

"We have moved from a period of confrontation to cooperation with the organization," President Vladimir Putin told Scheffer in a Kremlin meeting later in the day. "Naturally, this is big, multifaceted work, and it cannot happen without problems."

Scheffer called for more "investment and engagement" in the relationship from both sides, saying that "we can do better than we have done." He told Putin that "NATO cannot do without its important partner Russia, and I think Russia cannot do without NATO."

Scheffer's visit precedes Putin's trip to the United States for a meeting with President Bush that appears likely to focus on missile defense.

Moscow says it does not believe Washington's assurances that the planned facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic are meant to counter a potential threat from Iran, suggesting that they are aimed to weaken Russia's arsenal. Scheffer repeated the U.S. contention Monday, saying the plan represented no danger to Russia.

The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, said Putin's offer of joint use of a Russian-rented radar station of Azerbaijan as an alternative to the U.S. plans was "good news" because it indicated Moscow shares U.S. concerns and is open to cooperation.

"After many months of high rhetoric, we now have the Russian president saying, 'We face a common threat ... and we will do better if we cooperate,'" Nuland told The Associated Press on the sidelines of Tuesday's meeting.

Russia is also deeply at odds with the West over the status of Kosovo. The U.S. and EU nations support supervised independence for the breakaway Serbian province, while Moscow says it will opposes any agreement that does not satisfy traditional ally Serbia.

Relations have also been strained by a dispute over the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, amended in 1999 to reflect changes after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

Russia has ratified the amended version, but the U.S. and other NATO members have refused to do so until Moscow withdraws troops from the ex-Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia -- an issue Moscow says is unrelated. Russia has warned it could pull out of the treaty, and a special meeting Russia called this month failed to end the dispute.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines

Goes well with the news that the KGB is back to cold war levels of spying.

giant steps backwards, led by bush

jest look into his eeeeeyyyyyeeessss.