Posted on 02/20/2007 12:16:08 PM PST by vertolet
Rarely has Russia's leadership been so widely reviled in the West, yet rarely has the West needed Russia's friendship more.
The most obvious reason the West needs Russia is the latter's abundance of natural resources, which Western governments have for decades assumed would always be at the disposal of their industries. Indeed, Europe has almost learned to take its dependence for granted, relying on its good fortune that, for the past three centuries, the Russian elite has identified itself wholeheartedly with European culture and values. The occasional voices that arose to call for a reorientation eastward to Siberia, or southward to Central Asia, have never been more than marginal political or cultural influences.
Until today, that is. Now that two-thirds of gross domestic product (GDP) in the world is generated in the Asia-Pacific arena, and European and US elites trumpet their increasing hostility toward Russia's economic and political resurgence, it becomes hard for even such an ardent Europhile as President Vladimir Putin to argue that his country's destiny perforce lies with Europe. Translated into simple geopolitical terms, if the West cannot convince Russia that it deserves a "special relationship", then over the next two decades China and India, rather than Europe, will become the primary beneficiaries of Russia's resource abundance, and the axis of global political and economic development will shift accordingly.
The consequences of such shift for the West are not hard to imagine. It would lead to the decline, first of Europe, and then inevitably of Europe's closest ally, the United States. Ultimately, Russia's decision (and it is clearly its to make) to align itself or not with the West will prove decisive in tipping the scales in favor of the long-term prospects of modern Western civilization.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
How does one get beyond that statement? Does the leadership of the former Soviet Union count as Russian?
The Russians aren't to be trusted. And to the extent that we do we'll pay a price.
"for the past three centuries, the Russian elite has identified itself wholeheartedly with European culture and values" - not so sure about that. Russian wants western technology and aspires to western power, not to western values. It wants eastern values - namely despotism, at least the elites in Russia, do. The long suffering people of Russia haven't done too well by the arrangement.
In cases of maniacal delusions: stop alcohol consumption immediately.
And now the new Russian elite seem to be moving back toward Russia's traditional oligarchic, autocratic form of government and society/culture.
Russia is nation on the verge of becoming a Muslim-dominated country.
It is not necessary for Muslims to be a majority within a territory to be thrust under shari'a law. Their moral superiority is such, that perhaps only twenty to twenty-five percent of a population need be Muslim, for Islam to exert its ideology. Everybody else simply becomes dhimmi, and the non-conformists are executed, again not a new concept in Russia.
The practicing cadre of Communists was FAR smaller than that, and they effectively held control in the Soviet Union for most of the previous century.
They're kidding right?
"The most obvious reason the West needs Russia is the latter's abundance of natural resources,"
F Russia and their abundant "natural" resources like nuclear plants and AAA missiles and dioxin and polonium.
Personally I think Russia *ought* to be our ally for all the reasons stated in the article, but alliance is a two-way street.
We may prefer economic and strategic alliance, but Pooty prefers the role of competitor to the U.S. regardless of our shared interests in resources and against terrorism.
W screwed up not continuing working with Putin as he did right after 9/11. But our State Department has been screwed up ever since we supported the Afghan insurgents against the USSR occupiers. And supporting the Islamists in the Balkans and in Chechnya is a continuing blunder.
Makes no sense forcing them to find allies, however undesirable.
We have every business expanding NATO in the eastern europe to those who invite it - they have tasted "russity", have been puking from the rotten taste, and would like to get guarantees that they will not be forced to eat that crap again. Their high degree of self-interest in it is precisely the stuff of which solid allies are made. And working with a kegebun putin was a mistake from the day one, regardless of anything else.
Well, Russia did get rid of Hitler. If it hadn't, eastern
Europe countries today would be empty.
Judging from the memories still existing in [at least parts of] Eastern Europe - say, the Baltics - the Germans were much preferable to what happened both immediately prior [1940] and for decades after them. Thus your argument is fellatious.
These vulnerable countries IMO shouldn't put all their eggs in the wrong basket. The loss of Bosnia and Kosovo is an example of what can happen.
Russia looks at Poland as a neutral buffer, we should too. Point is, why do you want to restart the cold war?
1940 in the Baltics was not the Germans [they came in 1941], but the russians. 1940 was put there for a reason: it was not "prior to 1940", but "prior to the Germans, like in 1940".
"why do you want to restart the cold war?" - because I have been born and grew up in moscow - and know first hand how bad and dangerous that civilization is. thus it must be contained like a plague it is, never allowed to spread onto those who do not want to have anything to do with it [and thus deserve better], and if possible, rolled back or at least quarantined. ef them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.