Are We Sending Russia the Wrong Message?

OR: Hypocrisy, Hpocrisy, Thy Name is Bush

from JoeUser Forums
Vladmir Putin, Czar of Russia announce today sweeping measures designed to centralize his authority politically and is stating that "terrorism" is now the number 1 problem in Russia. He said "Over the 15 years of its new life, civil society in Russia hasn't really awakened," Izvestia said. "And the president has decided that in conditions demanding fast, effective, and often urgent decisions, it's better not to have such a society -- because the authorities are uncertain of the results of waking it."

One of the reasons Russia is adding $5.4 Billion to defense next year is that it feels like it is going alone in it's struggle against terrorism, mostly by Chechen rebels and their allies. The Bush Administration denies meeting with the rebels, but A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement. as reported by CNN.

Why would the Bush Administration claim it has no contacts with Chechen rebels and then grant asylum to one? Simple, we want to keep Russia weak while at the same time promoting the concept that terrorism is our enemy. How do we do this? By saying we "love" freedom for all peoples (except, of course, those who oppose us, regardless of political system) and then turning around and aiding terrorism when it suits our purposes.

This is a very dangerous course to pursue for the Bush administration. We are not dealing with a country moving towards democracy in Russia but rather in the opposite direction. Putin is under pressure from within the Kremlin (remember that group?) to take dramatic steps to ensure that terrorism stops in Russia. There is some sentiment, reported in the international press that journalists in the region suspect American money and advisors are covertly supporting the rebels much as we did with the Taliban, who used to be our boys in Afghanistan.

The bigger issue is whether this is hypocrisy. Can we truly say we are interested in ending terrorism when we have such policies as do with Russia and Chechnya? Can we pick and choose like a menu at a Chinese restaurant those terrorists we will support because it furthers our aims?

What does the Bush administration really stand for?

Does ANYONE know?
politics
11,753 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Instead of dealing with this, I'm sure the Bush Admin will attempt to quietly bury this and shuttle it to the background as they have done with N. Korea all the while claiming us to be kicking tail in Iraq while American beer swillers knock back another and claim Bush the best guy they never knew since he's, "doin' somethin' 'bout the terrorists".

Will somebody just poke out my eyes and ear drums so I can live like the others, in peace and ignorance?

(hey, I didn't say everybody!)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's okay for us and Israel to get tough on terrorism--it's not the jurisdiction of others.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deference:

'Tis the plight of the interested and informed that we will be saddled with knowledge and wisdom whilst the populace....

Say, did you see that last pass in the Buffalo game? Didn't think so. Hehehe.

I don't think the people know it, but a Russia under Putin is MORE of a problem than Hussein ever was. He IS armed. He IS aggravated. He IS dangerous.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
stevendedalus:

It's ionteresting that you should say that. The U.S. keeps "saying" we don't approve of the wall the Israelis are building. We don't approve of Israeli gunships blowing up Palestinian leaders. We don't approve of terrorist actions against Israel.

But actions tied to our disapproval? None. But in Russia, we say we support Putin and then work with the rebels. Are we working with the Palestinians to keep Israel weak too?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You should do some research into who Putin is, he is an old KGB agent. If you dont know who they were and what they did start reading. Bush is just trying to make sure that the response is proportional and not apocalyptic, and no wonder, Putin makes statements like, we wont go nuclear against terrorists in the region. Obviously to make that statement, using nuclear devices must have crossed his mind. It’s an interesting read and a good question though.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anthony R.:

Well, I am a historian. The thing is not so much that Putin was part of the KGB. It's that he believes the old Soviet Union is his destiny the same way the czars did. Russians, interestingly, never revolted in the 60 years of oppressive communism. They just assumed that was the way government was intended.

As far as "proportional" response goes, I disagree. Either tell the Chechens we won't stand for terrorist acts and let them stand on their own 2 feet or make a pre-emptive strike on the Russians.

You may think I'm kidding but the Russians are not to be toyed with like the Iraqis. They have a worldwide network of intelligence and if THEY want to do terrorism against us, we will not stop them.

That's why U.S. policy is so wrong in this case.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
The thing is not so much that Putin was part of the KGB. It's that he believes the old Soviet Union is his destiny the same way the czars did. Russians, interestingly, never revolted in the 60 years of oppressive communism. They just assumed that was the way government was intended.


Good thing, those who did not revolt went to camps and dissappeared forever they must have really loved Communism.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
ShoZan:

Yeah, but consider the ones who died in World War II fighting for the totaliarian Stalin! Some of the Russian battles were fought with little more than rocks and sticks.

I really do think (and from talking to some Russian immigrants) that the idea of democracy is so foreign to them that many will be saying about Putin "about time he took control".
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
True even though some Russians are great thinkers, the common Russian Citizen has been so ingrained with socialism and communism that they just don't know anything else, they want people to take charge over their lives because anyone who thought different was killed off either by wars or camps. Sorry for repeating some of what you said.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is a good question for you to ponder while you are up in your ivory tower of academe. why is Putin helping Iran build nukes?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anthony R.:

I said I was a historian, not a professor (although I did teach). My Ivory Tower is made of investment and stock market expertise tested on a day to day basis.

The Russians first started helping the Iranians with "nuclear technology" in the 70's and have been at it on and off since then. The Iranians were the counter-balance in the Middle East. Soviet foreign policy used to be all about the principle of having approximate equality in the world (in Europe, the Iron Curtain, in Asia, China to counter-balance Japan, North Korea to counter-balance South Korea, in the Americas, Cuba and other "pro-Russian" rebel groups.

The Russians weren't going for dominance because they figured democracy would fail if you stressed it enough. They were just waiting the U.S. out. But a funny thing happened on the way to the bank....... their bank closed first.

Putin is a student of that history and will help (small letters, it isn't as much as the Germans or the French) funnel nuclear tech to the Iranians as long as the U.S. continues to be aggressive in the Middle East.

It is not connected to the Chechen situation except that Putin sees the U.S. more and more as a threat.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting how Chechens are all lumped togetrher in one boat. No seperation between terrorist and nationalists at all. It's like calling all Saudi's terrorists because there are some Saudi terrorists. Or calling all Nationalists in Norteern Ireland terrorists because they want the same end result as the IRA.

Putin is trying to use the terrorist incidents to justify his hardline approach while increasing his power. He labels everyone in Chechnya who oppossed Russian rule as a terrorist. That's wrong. The US has been talking to the opposition parties and previous government. Nothing worng with that. They claim t obe supporters of democracy and these people were democratically elected by the population.

Note the move by Putin to allow him to directly appoint state governors directly. Remove the electorate from the decision. And all in the name of terrorism. Imagine what would happen in the US if Bush tried the same thing.

Paul.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Good post Solitair.

I'm with you on this one.

That is why we are trying to work with the Iraqies and not make Iraq a glass parking lot (like some people want) then leave. Just because of a minority that don't want a Democratic Government. Note: Just a conparison to show how the US Government policy works, not an advocation for the war. Though I am for it.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Putin is just better able to make the same sort of executive power-grab that Bush did after 9/11. We got the USA PATRIOT act, Russia gets "managed democracy." Certainly, Putin has a right to fight terrorism, but it is doubtful that restructuring regional governorships and the Duma will have any effect on this at all. What it will do is make Vladimir Putin more powerful -- which is something most every executive wants.

Chechnya was invaded by the tsars and Stalin shipped millions of Chechens off in the 40's. Do these people have a right to resist Russian rule? Perhaps. Right to resist isn't right to kill women and children though. It's a complicated issue.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #14 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/16/2004 11:23:16 AM
Putin is just better able to make the same sort of executive power-grab that Bush did after 9/11. We got the USA PATRIOT act, Russia gets "managed democracy." Certainly, Putin has a right to fight terrorism, but it is doubtful that restructuring regional governorships and the Duma will have any effect on this at all. What it will do is make Vladimir Putin more powerful -- which is something most every executive wants.

Chechnya was invaded by the tsars and Stalin shipped millions of Chechens off in the 40's. Do these people have a right to resist Russian rule? Perhaps. Right to resist isn't right to kill women and children though. It's a complicated issue.


What they "need" to do is bring back the KGB (Kiss Goodby your Butt!)
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Soltair:

Yes, lumping all Chechens together is wrong and was not my intention. But for God's sake, this was the finance minister of the biggest rebel group in the country we gave asylum to. Putin is smart enough to know whom we are talking to and when. This isn't some alley meeting in Paris near the Eiffel Tower, this is CIA operatives in fatigues in Chechen forests.

The point is, can we afford this duplicity with rebel groups who will use any means, including the terrorism "we say we abhor" even if the rebel groups aren't telling us they might commit atrocities when they take our advice and MONEY before they do them?

Another point: By doing the stuff we have been doing, have we indeed handed the right wing in Russia the means to grab the power away from the democracy in the name of "security"?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't meeting with Chechen leaders analogous to meeting with Palestinian leaders?

Terrorism originating from volatile region X does not delegitimize peaceful efforts to gain sovereignty for volatile region X.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Terrorism originating from volatile region X does not delegitimize peaceful efforts to gain sovereignty for volatile region X.

..but it can show a lack of consistancy from a poorly thought out foreign policy. Some of us only asked Bush and his Vulcan cabinet (who have more years of foreign policy experience than any other in the history of U.S. administrations) to grow a brain and be sensible.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The biggest rebel group in the country is the group belonging to Aslan Maskhadov, the former prime minister. He has condemned the attacks in Beslan. He was democratically elected by a majority and as such there is nothing wrong with the US talking to him or giving his ex finance minister asylum. Talking to him is like talking to any opposition party.

The big problem is the next biggest rebel group led by Shamil Basayev. These are a radical islamic terrorist organistation who have claimed responsibility for many terrorist events, including Beslan. I would be very worried if the US even considered supporting these terrorists. Talking to him would be like talking to Osama Bin Laden.

Paul.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Soltair:

I think you have consider the context of what we are trying to do in Chechnya first. CIA operatives are there to do what work? Support the "freedom fighters"? All opposition parties in Chechnya qualify in that regard as Russia has handpicked the country's government. So, let's start with this understanding: The opposition parties all know each other and are in contact. The CIA's work cannot be reasonably thought to involve "only peaceful oppostion" since the groups ALL have some terrorist elements.

Now, you may say, but wait, why do you involve Maskhadov in the equation for terrorists? If they weren't, wouldn't they have been obligated to tell the Russians about the terrorist acts that "their fellow freedom fighters" were going to do? Yes, if they disagreed with terrorism as a tool of politics. No if they didn't.

You are giving the CIA much more credit than it deserves. This is like Ollie North and Iran-Contra. The CIA believed it was helping freedom fighters. But the acts of the freedom fighters then as now turns violent as they have less and less to lose by commiting atrocities.

If Putin were not KGB trained, he might not believe we were helping. But he is KGB and this has to amaze him that America could be both so bold and yet so obvious.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine:

Yes, it is analagous and it is fairly well know in Palestine that CIA is involved. But these are the differences. 1) Palestinians are "financed" by the Saudis and other Middle Eastern states (I have heard they also get aid from China but never have been able to confirm). The U.S. works with the Israeli side also.

2) The Chechen rebels are desperate for help and desperate to be noticed. Palestinian terrorism is not desperate but rather calculated. They know how to make the Israelis despair. Chechens are much more interested in bang for the buck to attract attention.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
What does the CIA have to do with giving asylum to a former finance minister? How is it relevent whether the terrorists want despair or attention?

What about this angle: Putin wants to use Chechen terrorism as an excuse to crush the peaceful Chechen separatist movement. Are you suggesting that we should give at least tacit support to this?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine:

What does the CIA have to do with asylum for the finance minister? Who do you think arranged it?

Despair is much different in political circles than attention. The Russian people were relatively unaware of the rebels. The Russian press isn't exactly the New York Times and CBS. Most Russians are having a hard time with their own problems. So making them aware of the situation is important in the minds of the Chechens.

Putin should either be supported in crushing the separatist movement (would we tolerate such idiocy ourselves?) or we should re-examine a foreign policy that says "if you're against us then you're terrorists, against the Russians, then you're freedom fighters." Those people who died on the Russian planes that the Chechens blew up are no less dead than the ones flown into the WTC. And just as innocent. And just as terrorized.

You can't have it both ways. Negotiation with terrorists is something we won't do, why would we EVER support the idea that others should?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I really do think (and from talking to some Russian immigrants) that the idea of democracy is so foreign to them that many will be saying about Putin "about time he took control".
As I'm sure many Iraqis say bring back Saddam!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
stevendedalus:

It's interesting you should say that. Russia has this history of harsh but semi-benevolent government. Did you ever see the "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?" Python scene from Life of Brian? That is really how the Russians felt much of history.

Saddam's role in Iraq was a bit more like Hitler. Hitler tried to make Germany great by expansion and international attempts to bully the rest of what the Nazi's thought was a weak world. That kind of plays to people like the Germans after World War I and an Iraq that had been kicked around for the past 100 prior to Saddam.

So, like the Nazis the Bathists lived by intimidation and tried international expansion. Both are sure to eventually make you lots of enemies.