Are We Sending Russia the Wrong Message?
OR: Hypocrisy, Hpocrisy, Thy Name is Bush
from 
JoeUser Forums
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?
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?
