Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Has The West Lost Russia ?

  1. #1
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Has The West Lost Russia ?

    Today in The Moscow Times
    Author Mr. Gordon M. Hahn draws a vague conclusion as if we have nearly forgotten a previous Super Power and arch rival. Have we ? Some good analysis and even intriguing (although much assumed) ‘what ifs’.

    Most of his data regarding NATO support and 'Baltic bashing' is way off (troop levels, etc), but does try and make a point. What if Russia joined the coalition forces in at least Afghanistan? Hell, most of the UXO there are (ahem) USSR’s finest and now IED materials. A tad long-winded, but worth a quick read.

    These are the bitter fruits of the West's -- and in particular the United States' -- mistaken policies toward Russia since the end of the Cold War. Instead of treating Moscow magnanimously, as historian Richard Pipes once urged, the West declared victory.

    The resumption of long-range strategic bomber flights that will patrol areas bordering European and U.S. airspace. In short, Russia is back as a global player, and it is no longer a starry-eyed admirer of the United States.

    The cost of NATO expansion is that Russia has been lost in the medium term -- and perhaps in the long term as well -- as a powerful, committed democracy and Western ally. Moreover, the West has pushed Russia closer to China and Iran.

    If these are the costs of NATO expansion, what are the advantages? Few, if any. The alliance received from its new member states: a few thousand additional troops that are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, a three-jet Latvian air force and five Estonian nurses. Compare these benefits to Russia's vast military and intelligence resources and experience -- particularly in Afghanistan. Moreover, Moscow has helped to track down global jihadists, prevent the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction and reconstruct Afghanistan. As a true ally, Russia could contribute much more to the Western alliance than the small new NATO members.

    All opinion polls now show that a plurality or majority of Russians regard the United States as the greatest threat to Russia and the world. Putin has repeatedly decried the U.S. impetus for a "unipolar" international structure -- which is to say, global hegemony.

    The Russian elite's consensus is even harsher. Alexander Solzhenitsyn recently said the United States seeks to encircle and weaken Russia. This statement is highly symbolic, coming from the esteemed writer who once took refuge in the United States as a political refugee from the Soviet state. It also underscores how cold U.S.-Russian relations have become.

    One hopes the next U.S. administration will not repeat Clinton and Bush's mistakes of insulting and underestimating Moscow. Even in the best of circumstances, the next U.S. president and his or her Western allies will face the daunting task of piercing through the unfortunate and unforgiving perceptual lens through which resurgent Moscow views the West, especially Washington.
    More at the link...

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    27

    Default

    I'm not sure you can lose what you never had. Russian paranoia hasn't changed, and neither has American hubris. That's a dangerous mix and one which almost pre-ordains conflict and disagreement.

    Additionally, Russian designs on the Middle East haven't changed either and neither has their incipent anti-Semitism, both of which are opposed to our policies in that region.

  3. #3
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Kit nailed it. You can't lose what you never had. Russia's history prior to the beginning of the Cold War can be summed up as "Who's invading us this week?" A bit flippant and over-simplified, but the Russians have been on the receiving end of a lot of invaders for 2,000 years. Of course they panic at the thought of anything less than military parity with the dominant powers of the world, they interpret this as a prelude to another invasion. Given the global competition for resources, and the extent of Siberia's resources, they kind of have a point.

    Clinton and Bush's mistakes of insulting and underestimating Moscow.


    ... Hmmm. "Insult" is a perception. Based on Russia's history, I suspect that anything less than abject terror of Russia's military might would be perceived as an insult, as would any military presense in what Russia considers her sphere of influence. Our operations in Afghanistan, cooperation with the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, bringing Estonia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other former Soviet states and client states into military cooperatives, etc are an insult in Russian eyes, because they highlight Russian military ineffectiveness.

    "Underestimating"??? Given Russia's challenges with corruption that are at the heart of so many of their problems, this is again a Russian perception. To describe the Russian situation and capabilities accurately would be an "insult", hence must be an undersestimation of Russia... I need to stop the circular treasoning before I get sick

    Russia continues to "pet any anti-American dog" because the general strategy has worked for them as well as any other, and it costs relatively little. Internally, it propogates an image of Russia's leaders as "can-do" guys who are rebuilding Russian might and security. Externally, it builts Russia's image as a hero of all opposed to American Imperialism, much like the Iranian posture in the Muslim world.

    This is behind many of our small wars, and is shaping the ones we're in now. Ironically, the most pragmatic solution amounts to bribing the Russian leadership. It's expensive, and the cost would keep rising, but strategically, it might be cheaper than tolerating their behavior.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    EDM, 25 Aug 08: Russia is Ready for a Major Confrontation With the West
    A well-orchestrated surge of nationalistic pride seems to be driving Russia into a major confrontation with the West over the invasion of Georgia. The Russian media is full of brutal abuse, aimed at opponents of the invasion. State-sponsored propaganda has implied that the West is not only supporting Georgia against Russia, but has sent mercenaries to the fight. It was reported that on August 10 in South Ossetia a "black U.S. citizen" was captured together with a group of Georgian special forces planning subversion. It was reported that a captured pilot of a Georgian Su-25 attack plane shot down over South Ossetia "could not speak Russian or Georgian". These reports have not been substantiated.

    In a display of Cold War rhetoric, the Kremlin-controlled daily Izvestia has called the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "war hawk" and "a single old skinny lady that likes to display her underwear during talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov." The daily called Rice "insane" and described her statements criticizing Russian actions as "colloquial diarrhea". Lavrov has in turn publicly used heavy language, accusing NATO of bias and of trying to save the "criminal regime" in Tbilisi as a suspension of military cooperation was announced by both Moscow and the Alliance......

  5. #5
    Council Member Beelzebubalicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    currently in Washington DC
    Posts
    321

    Default

    The cost of NATO expansion is that Russia has been lost in the medium term -- and perhaps in the long term as well -- as a powerful, committed democracy and Western ally. Moreover, the West has pushed Russia closer to China and Iran.
    Yeah, never was and never will be a committed democracy and Western ally and was always closer to China and Iran. We definitely could have done a better job of recognizing Russia for what it was and acknowledging their issues. The US set it itself up as a convenient and easy opponent and a good counterpoint for Russian nationalism.

    Kremlin-controlled daily Izvestia has called the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "war hawk" and "a single old skinny lady that likes to display her underwear during talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov."
    What is this about? War hawk I get, but single old skinny lady that likes to display her underwear? Are we in Junior high school (see last quote at link)? Well, who's looking, Mr. Crusty Long Face? Just like junior high school, the boy who throws rocks at you just really wants to see your panties...see this pic for example.

  6. #6
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Well, who's looking, Mr. Crusty Long Face?
    Not me. Never. No way. No how.

    Now junior high when the micromini was in vogue was different story....

    Now if Condi goes back to Moscow in one of those, Crusty Long Face will have something whine about...

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 08-27-2008 at 05:23 PM.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
    Posts
    21

    Default Anybody Read Dmitry Medvedev in the Early Bird?

    http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080827625352.html

    Here's a quote from the President of the Russian Federation -

    Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.

    "complicity of the US and some other NATO members" = he believes the US and NATO are already actively working against Russian interests in their backyard.

    This will only spiral into more harsh words from pundits in the West until the next US Administration sorts itself out and plots a policy to deal with Russia. It might be pretty late at that point.

  8. #8
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,339

    Default UK Foriegn Minister takes hardline

    Well if you thought Western Europe was on the sidelines check this out:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7583486.stm

    Yes, a statement issued during a visit to Ukraine and the main BBC radio 4 evening news referred to fears over the Crimea - with the naval base and Russian population (incidentally far smaller than in the USSR era).

    A BBC reporter on the Crimea issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7583810.stm

    I am not sure if Russia is "lost" but some are certainly "stirring" the mix well.

    davidbfpo

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    A bit flippant and over-simplified, but the Russians have been on the receiving end of a lot of invaders for 2,000 years.
    That is not over-simplified but simply wrong - it is astonishing where this myth comes from in the first place.

    For Christ's sake, take out a map. Russia, that is this huge thing covering a good part of Eurasia - and it is still, after all what the evil West did to it, the largest country in the world. It reaches from the Finnish border (in Tsarist times it included Finland) to the Pacific and encompasses countless people of non Russian ethnicity. And just to mention it, it wasn't always like that. Actually the Russians started out in a region somewhere between what is today Kiev and Moscow, the rest was "acquired" later. Amazing what you can achieve when you are only "defending" yourself against evil invaders, isn't it?

    Actually, the truth is simply that Russia has been consistently, for hundreds of years, been one of the most expansionist, imperialist and most militarist nations in the world. And while the stories about it being invaded are a perfect justification (and a tune that Soviet propaganda harped constantly), it has been far more often in the role of the invader itself - that is the solution to the mystery of how it ended up as large as it is. Russia is and was for centuries an empire in the truest sense of the word, and Russians took and take pride in the size of this empire and the number of peoples they dominate.

    I cannot help but to wonder where this odd sympathy with Russia, that one encounters so often in America, comes from - here in Germany it is just the same. Speaking of Germany and just out of interest...was there ever any similiar sympathy for this country in America? I can't remember that there was overly much worry about how the Germans being humiliated after, let's say WWI (Germany lost all its colonies and a sixth of its territory after that one, not to speak of the right to maintain an army with which it could defend itself - how the Russians would scream if anyone would do that to them). And there was certainly not the slightest bit of compassion for Germany after WWII, no thought was wasted in America that the German people has a right to have some power or only a basic national souvereignity. After WWII, Germany lost another quarter of its territory, around 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, with somewhere between 1 and 2 million of them being killed (while America, the alleged eternal defender of the oppressed and the only nation with nuclear bombs at the time, stood idly by), the rest was divided up between the victors and even those parts were not allowed full souvereignity until reunification in the early nineties. And yet no one was worried that the Germans could feel offended. Why is that?

    Ah yes. It was because of Hitler and the Nazis, right? Well, was Stalin and the Soviets really so much better? Otherwise Americans should actually feel more sympathetic to Germany than to Russia, or so one should assume. Germany is a West European country, after all, and more Americans are from German heritage than from any other single nation. But, out of some reason, a Germany being crushed and humiliated to the bone causes less compassion than when Russia has to accept that it isn't a superpower equal to the USA.

    Now the Russians have to live with only the bit of land that has been left to them after the collapse of the Sovietunion (which is only more than any other country in the world has, oh my). No, it is perfectly understandable that they are angry. Come to think of it, the whole thing in Georgia is actually the West's fault. The Russian Army had every right to invade the country to protect the minorities of South Ossetia and Abchasia, then to advance further into Georgian territory, occupy the vital S-1 road, plunder a bit, and then, with Moscow's recognition of the two provinces as souvereign states, make it clear that they do not intend to leave. All perfectly understandable.

    Is it actually known that, when Germany embarked on a similar course of action in 1939, this caused the Second World War? (Naturally there were differences, two of them being that the minorities in question back then were ethnical Germans, while South Ossetians and Abchasians are not ethnical Russians, another being that back then Russia aka the Sovietunion supported the German invasion after having made a deal that it would get the eastern half of invaded Poland). Sure, there is this obvious parallel of what the West did with Kosovo and one can say that the Russians are just in the role of NATO in Georgia. But then there is also a certain parallel between this crisis and the situation in Chechenia - and here the Russians are in the role of the Georgians and Putin has far more ruthlessly beaten the wishes for independence out of the Chechens, than Sakashvili ever did with regards to the South Ossetians.


    That all is not to say that the West could not have done some things better with reagrds to Russia after the break-up of the Sovietunion. Especially America did behave very arrogantly with all the talk about "we won the Cold War". Also, the whole Kosovo matter was gravely mishandled and a far-reaching autonomy of that province would have been a fairer solution with regards to the Serbians (and the Russians in so far they have to do something with it) than a complete independence. The Iraq invasion was an act of hubris and the missile shield program in Eastern Europe a completely senseless provocation.

    However, that all does not mean that Moscows behaviour with regards to Georgia was "okay", understandable or justified. It was not, it went way, way too far. And it also does not mean that the West "lost" an essentially well-meaning Russia, a country ready and open for democracy. It did not.
    I do not want to imply that Russia is an eternal "Empire of Evil". But fact is simply that Russia has its continous history of imperialism, expansionism and militarism. It is also a country that has virtually no democratic tradition whatsoever. To honestly believe that this state would simply become a friend after the implosion of the Sovietunion was simply naive. Russia was nice and peaceful in the nineties for mostly one reason: it was weak. The more it recovers, the more assertive it will become. Western humiliations may have enhanced this behaviour a bit, but they have not caused it.

    How to cope with Russia in the future? It is nice and certainly politically correct to be "open for dialogue". It is also prudent to avoid needless provocations (which is always good advice). But above all things, Russia has to be shown determination and resolution. And as tough as it may be, it must be clear to everyone in Moscow, but also in Europe and the US, that Russia stepping over a certain, well-marked line (running for example between the Baltic states and Russia) has to mean war - Total War if necessary.

    Medvedev said recently that Russia did not want a new Cold War, but that it would not fear it, either. This is exactly the attitude, which Europe and the US should have. After all, we know how the first one ended.

  10. #10
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I cannot help but to wonder where this odd sympathy with Russia, that one encounters so often in America, comes from - here in Germany it is just the same. Speaking of Germany and just out of interest...was there ever any similiar sympathy for this country in America? I can't remember that there was overly much worry about how the Germans being humiliated after, let's say WWI (Germany lost all its colonies and a sixth of its territory after that one, not to speak of the right to maintain an army with which it could defend itself - how the Russians would scream if anyone would do that to them).
    Try looking up the German-American Bund...as for post WWI, yes there was but it got lost in alienation toward Europe in general as captured in the failure to accept Wilsonian ideas on the League of Nations


    And there was certainly not the slightest bit of compassion for Germany after WWII, no thought was wasted in America that the German people has a right to have some power or only a basic national souvereignity. After WWII, Germany lost another quarter of its territory, around 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, with somewhere between 1 and 2 million of them being killed (while America, the alleged eternal defender of the oppressed and the only nation with nuclear bombs at the time, stood idly by), the rest was divided up between the victors and even those parts were not allowed full souvereignity until reunification in the early nineties. And yet no one was worried that the Germans could feel offended. Why is that?
    Opinion hardly factual and not even close to the mark in history. Germany lost. The West including the US, Brits, the French, and others helped Germany rebuild. Meanwhile this thing called the Cold War started ohh, about 1945 with the USSR. I don't think that you would find anyone in the USin the 1950s who thought Stalin was any different than say Hitler. But in 1941, Hitler made Stalin an ally to the West when he turned against him.

    I would suggest you present your opinions as such without the hyperbole. I would agree with a good deal yoiu had to say regarding Russian expansionism. But when you get into the lecture mode as above, you lose the audience and the ice under you is getting thinner. Your slanted use of history undermines the points you were supposedly trying to make. Since you decided to weigh in in such a fashion, go here and introduce yourself.

    Tom

    Moderator

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    @Tom Odom:

    I give you that my style is often somewhat provocative, but that is not meant as an personal offense. If you find anything factually wrong with what I am saying, feel free to contradict or to correct me at your leisure. Goes for anyone.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom
    Try looking up the German-American Bund...as for post WWI, yes there was but it got lost in alienation toward Europe in general as captured in the failure to accept Wilsonian ideas on the League of Nations.
    The German-American Bund notwithstanding: it was in and after WWI that it became downright problematic for people of German heritage in the USA to say where they came from. Many chose to change their name to a more anglo-sounding version, others preferred to claim that they would be of Dutch or Danish heritage. Yes, there was considerable indignation in the US diplomatic corps because many felt the Versailles treaty to be grossly unfair, but the negotiation had taken place with Wilson's participation. And while the US admittedly never ratified it, it did also nothing against it in the end and instead chose to withdrew from Europe, leaving Germany at the mercy of the French and British, so to speak. I see nothing wrong with my assessment that the felt compassion with Germany was not overly large.





    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom
    The West including the US, Brits, the French, and others helped Germany rebuild.
    In the danger of upsetting you even further, I would like to say that this is another classic myth (one that the Federal German government supported, perhaps understandably so, to strenghten the ties with especially the US).
    "US, Brits, the French, and others helped Germany rebuild."
    First, "Brits and French" had virtually nothing to do with the rebuilding of Germany. As far as the US was concerned, Germany received a mere 1.5 billion dollars in help via the Marshallplan - the least of the larger European nations. (Britain received the biggest portion of that help, followed by France and then Italy). Of course, Germany was also subjected to what is probably the most extensive intellectual rip-off of known history, really every bit of German scientifical and technical knowledge (by no means only military material), including all patents held by any German company, were confiscated by the Allies, especially America and Britain, to bolster the competitiveness of their economies. Actually, for two years after the war any newly acquired research results of any German scientist and engineer were automatically taken over by the Allies. The combined value of what the allies took supersedes any help that Germany received by far.
    Additionally, I could go on at length about the toiling of millions of German POWs in foreign countries, the parts of the Morgenthau Plan that were realized or that Germany was kept for some years after the war short of food (which caused a unusally high death rate of newborn babies) but that would probably cause someone here to call me "anti-american". Plus, I would be lecturing again.

    Let it be enough to say that the treatment of Germany after WWII was really, really harsh, and its economic recovery was absolutely not the result of any overwhelming rebuilding effort by the allies, who took far more than they gave. You don't need to tell me that most Americans believe this "rebuilding through the Marshallplan" story, but it is simply not what happened. If you don't believe it, look it up.

    That is actually how this whole topic came up, as far as I am concerned: back in the mid-nineties, I had a talk with an young American officer (Lieutenant, forgotten which grade) who had this most astonishing opinion that Russia, after having "lost the Cold War" would have been far worse treated than Germany after it had lost WWII. He actually believed that the latter had enjoyed a very mild treatment and had been carefully rebuild through most generous support from the US. I told him (in my blunt and provocative style) that if Russia would have been treated by the West as mildly as Germany had been after WWII, the Russians would have fired every atomic rocket they still had at their disposal at the time.

  12. #12
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Mostly true -- and mostly not terribly relevant...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsune View Post
    That is not over-simplified but simply wrong - it is astonishing where this myth comes from in the first place... Russia is and was for centuries an empire in the truest sense of the word, and Russians took and take pride in the size of this empire and the number of peoples they dominate.
    True; they also play for sympathy and blatantly take a xenophobic approach to most everything. In that, they bear great similarity to most major nations. Doesn't pass the "so what?" test...
    ...After WWII, Germany lost another quarter of its territory, around 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, with somewhere between 1 and 2 million of them being killed (while America, the alleged eternal defender of the oppressed and the only nation with nuclear bombs at the time, stood idly by), the rest was divided up between the victors and even those parts were not allowed full souvereignity until reunification in the early nineties. And yet no one was worried that the Germans could feel offended. Why is that?
    That was, I suspect due to hard feeling built up against Germany from 1939 until 1945 (whose fault was that?) and the fact that the World was exhausted and wasn't prepared to start yet another large war.
    Ah yes. It was because of Hitler and the Nazis, right? Well, was Stalin and the Soviets really so much better? Otherwise Americans should actually feel more sympathetic to Germany than to Russia, or so one should assume. Germany is a West European country, after all, and more Americans are from German heritage than from any other single nation. But, out of some reason, a Germany being crushed and humiliated to the bone causes less compassion than when Russia has to accept that it isn't a superpower equal to the USA.
    If there's a great deal of compassion for Russia here in the US, I wish you'd tell me where to find it. Outside of the so-called and self styled liberal elite and the left leaning media and entertainment types who never saw a Socialistic effort they couldn't apologize for, there's virtually no sympathy here for Russia. The truly incompetent and pathetic American media gives those outside the US a very inaccurate picture of the US and its beliefs.
    Now the Russians have to live with only the bit of land that has been left to them after the collapse of the Sovietunion (which is only more than any other country in the world has, oh my)...with Moscow's recognition of the two provinces as souvereign states, make it clear that they do not intend to leave. All perfectly understandable.

    Is it actually known that, when Germany embarked on a similar course of action in 1939, this caused the Second World War? (Naturally there were differences, two of them being that the minorities in question back then were ethnical Germans, while South Ossetians and Abchasians are not ethnical Russians, another being that back then Russia aka the Sovietunion supported the German invasion after having made a deal that it would get the eastern half of invaded Poland)...
    That was then, this is now. Times and attitudes change. Not always for the better, either...
    That all is not to say that the West could not have done some things better with reagrds to Russia after the break-up of the Sovietunion. Especially America did behave very arrogantly with all the talk about "we won the Cold War". Also, the whole Kosovo matter was gravely mishandled and a far-reaching autonomy of that province would have been a fairer solution with regards to the Serbians (and the Russians in so far they have to do something with it) than a complete independence.
    We can agree on all that.
    ...The Iraq invasion was an act of hubris and the missile shield program in Eastern Europe a completely senseless provocation.
    Disagree on the first, there's much more to it than that. Just as you suggest the west needs to takle a firm stand against Russia, the US should have taken a firm stand against provocations and attacks from the Middle East. We did not and are now paying the price for not having done so. On the second, possibly. I don't think it's senseless but it also has not been handled well IMO.
    ...Western humiliations may have enhanced this behaviour a bit, but they have not caused it.
    True.
    Medvedev said recently that Russia did not want a new Cold War, but that it would not fear it, either. This is exactly the attitude, which Europe and the US should have. After all, we know how the first one ended.
    Makes sense to me.
    ...I see nothing wrong with my assessment that the felt compassion with Germany was not overly large.
    Nor do I. Nor am I inclined to be apologetic about it. The US' troubles here and there arouse little compassion in Germany or most anywhere, for that matter -- we aren't too popular around the world and it isn't Bush, that's been true for a couple of centuries and has grown in intensity since WW II. Nations do not have friends, they have interests. Lifes a bitch, then you die
    As far as the US was concerned, Germany received a mere 1.5 billion dollars in help via the Marshallplan - the least of the larger European nations. (Britain received the biggest portion of that help, followed by France and then Italy).
    Well, $1.5B then is technically about $17.5B in 2006 dollars and when you factor in the extent of damage throughout Europe; the large number of people out of work (and thus startlingly low wages) and a few other factors, you get to a practical amount of about $30.0B in today's dollars; not a tremendous amount but a considerable sum to pour into a former major foe from a nation that had itself accrued a massive war debt. Has anyone else in history done that? I'm not sure what the fact that those who were more 'friendly' got more money and help than the former enemy did has to do with anything, seems logical to me. As for the patents and such -- lot of international, particularly European, precedent for that...

    I wouldn't call you anti-American for citing any of that though I might suggest that you are speaking with an obvious and earned bias.

  13. #13
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Kitsune:@Tom Odom:

    I give you that my style is often somewhat provocative, but that is not meant as an personal offense. If you find anything factually wrong with what I am saying, feel free to contradict or to correct me at your leisure. Goes for anyone.
    Good. Then work on your style or I will correct it.

    As for what Ken calls your earned bias, the feeling that somehow Germany was wronged in the course of losing 2 world wars, there is a lesson there, especially in the latter episode.

    Tom

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The truly incompetent and pathetic American media gives those outside the US a very inaccurate picture of the US and its beliefs.
    Just a nitpick, Ken--but I really don't think it is "incompetent and pathetic" at all. Certainly, there are bad reports, reporters, and media outlets. Collectively, however, it provides a stunning amount of diverse and pluralistic coverage, and even some pretty damn good analysis at times.

    I don't think it paints a particularly inaccurate image of the US at all. To get back to the original point, I don't think anyone following it for the last 60+ years could possibly have got the impression of any significant American sympathy for Russia.

  15. #15
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Is my hyperbole showing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Just a nitpick, Ken--but I really don't think it is "incompetent and pathetic" at all. Certainly, there are bad reports, reporters, and media outlets. Collectively, however, it provides a stunning amount of diverse and pluralistic coverage, and even some pretty damn good analysis at times.
    You may be correct. I think much of it merits my description and that there are some great and good exceptions to that rule. I do agree wholeheartedly that there are some who are capable of and do provide good reporting and analysis; I just wish they were a larger percentage of the total.

    I suspect my view is strongly colored by over long (way over long...) experience and a perception that they did much better before the entertainment industry took over television and the broadsheets were forced to or allowed (still unsure which is correct there...) television to set the pace and standard.
    I don't think it paints a particularly inaccurate image of the US at all.
    Perhaps. I'm quite sure there are some Americans who want some or all of the massive celebrity coverage that appears -- but I've never met any and that includes folks as young as my four year old Granddaughter, my teenage nephews and nieces, younger neighbors and all their friends. Many if not most people would prefer less of that and more hard news and analysis, particularly about the international scene. My point with that is that superficial we may collectively be but my perception is that the sensation focused media makes us look far more dippy than we really are...
    To get back to the original point, I don't think anyone following it for the last 60+ years could possibly have got the impression of any significant American sympathy for Russia.
    I'd agree -- unless for whatever reason someone wanted to selectively pick articles to remember...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •