Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Civilizations: Chuck vs. Mikhail

Expand Messages
  • Kai Ivari
    Comment on Chuck Weis s http://www.egroups.com/message/chechnya-sl/10178 and Mikhail Ramendik s reply http://www.egroups.com/message/chechnya-sl/10188 I am
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 31 5:27 PM
      Comment on Chuck Weis's
      and Mikhail Ramendik's reply

      I am glad to see that there are people like Chuck
      in US who, despite of the apparent lack of personal
      encounter with Russia, have not allowed their human
      intuition to be mislead by the Russian and Western media,
      and are able to make independent conclusions.
      My compliments to you, Chuck!

      Mikhail's comments (besides their neo-racist flavor,
      one of numerous "innocent immoralities" of post-soviet Russia's
      mentality) are just a part of a large scale Russian
      efforts to mislead the West that Russia is ``democratic'',
      ``human'', ``white'', and even a ``part of Europe''
      opposing the evil ``Muslim Khalifat'', etc.

      The reason is simple. Russia(n state) wants to keep its imperial
      might and the population of not free people who are trained
      and always ready to follow the call from the Kremlin, as
      the Chechen war exemplifies. Those two components are
      essential for keeping the means of Russian traditional tendency
      to ``conquer and assimilate'' (under whatever pretext)
      intact. Western money and Russian chauvinism and unfreedom are
      important for Russia's rulers.
      Without its imperial might (diplomatic, political, economic,
      military) and without the obedient, dependent, poor,
      chauvinistic population which never knew what the law and the
      personal freedom really mean, the Russian state would loose
      its only potential to dictate to the world (the Europe at least)
      its understanding of what is ``kindness'' [which the Chechen
      orphans are sent to the Russian military schools to learn]
      and ``dictatorship of law'' (a la Putin), or what is ``statehood''
      and ``democracy'' (a la KGB and a corrupted elite of descendants
      of bolshevics-communists, Red/Soviet Army, Gulag and KGB officers,
      and of legalized thiefs), or what is ``civilization'' (a la new
      ``white'' Russians), or ``where is Kremlin'', and what one should
      think of the place of Great-Russia in the world, or how the true
      Europeans like gen. Shamanov should live (or be killed otherwise)...

      What Mr Ramendik is not telling to the List is a wave of feelings of
      Russian superiority which is common to the present day youth in
      (a remarkable success of KGB-conducted propaganda of the 90-es!).
      I have enough often contacts with the educated Russian people to
      this chauvinistic trend. West is universally viewed just as a stupid
      enough source of the money.
      To get them is the only reason to ``cooperate'' with the West.
      European (Asian as well) values are either missundersttod
      (c.f. Mikhail's comments) or despised and neglected. What does it
      mean in a long term run, when Russia will reestablish its
      military and economic might in a decade or two, depending on
      how short-sighted post-Clinton US and its allies will act?
      Russia cannot reach the present Western living standards even
      in several decades, but it is able to become a military threat
      as early as in ten years. What one can expect from the country
      then? In this sense I see a ``conflict with the West'',
      which Chuck mentions, almost unavoidable. The West most likely
      will have to pay its price for neglecting Chechnya today.

      Those, the specifically ``educated'' population, and the nuclear
      power, are the only two arguments of Russia for its ``superpower''
      ambition. That is why, to preserve them,
      Russia still has one of the highest military
      budgets in terms of the GDP percentage, and replaces the truly
      democratic reforms with a mimicking of the democratic institutions.
      The plot is that a naive European or American
      when hearing about Russian ``constitution'', ``president'',
      ``parliament'', ``elections'', ``independent courts'', and the
      ``civil freedoms'' would think that they are ``the same'' as in his
      own country while they are essentially different and have a little
      to do with the institutions having the similar name here. Most
      important is that their place and a role in the Russia society
      can be changed and relatively easily manipulated according to
      the Kremlin's and KGB's design. The same has been taking place
      in Soviet Union, but that time the West was not so debauched by
      the easy money made in/with Russia to believe this.

      I would only disagree with Chuck that ``the United States Government
      is in a difficult position concerning Chechnya, and it is taking
      a position similar to the position it adopted towards the war
      between Iran and Iraq: aid both sides ...'' In fact, the position
      of the US Government is based on a (still unrealized)
      hope that the Chechens could be finished fast and without too much
      noise so that the ``business as usual'' (sorry for repeating this
      Ms. Albright's quote) could continue. This is a highly cynic,
      immoral and, in fact, short-sighted and politically impotent

      Another important point of Chuck, is that Russia's actions
      stimulate Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, there is too
      much truth in it. I am afraid this is even a part of Russia's
      policy - to make the West feel that it needs Russia to defend
      it from Islam. The profit is clear - easier ``integration'' (in fact,
      penetration) into Western institutions, Western golden rain on the
      Russian economy, especially its military-industrial branch,
      and the subsequent weakening of both sides: the West and the Islamic
      world which traditionally has much closer ties with the West
      than Russia. Russian racist and chauvinist mentality (also seen
      on the list) would be very supportive to such policy which,
      in fact, is also one of Russia's (and Soviet) imperial tools.
      Just remember the history of Georgia's ``voluntary joining''
      to Russian Empire: first Russians made a military agreement to help
      Georgia to defend itself against Persia, then the Russia army
      entered the country while making clear to the Persians that
      it won't interfere and waiting until Persians destroy the Georgian
      army, and then there was none to defend the Georgian sovereignty.
      Now, two centuries after these events, a Russian on the list
      sincerely claims that Georgia joined Russia voluntarily.
      This is how Russian historical myths are created and propagated,
      and how great-Russian ``peaceful'' policy is implemented.

      Hope to continue later,

    • ChuckWeis
      If you were considering what entities will play an important role in future conflicts, how would you evaluate the following news report: Putin indicated that
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 31 7:07 PM
        If you were considering what entities will play an important
        role in future conflicts, how would you evaluate the following news

        "Putin indicated that the Russian military must be prepared to handle
        domestic threats, such as rebels in Chechnya, and external ones -
        such as international terrorism and a perceived threat from the

        Also, how would you interpret the statement:

        ``Today, the military factor is vital above all for preserving
        stability in the country, for ensuring its peaceful and progressive
        development,'' Putin told top military and security officers during a
        meeting in the Kremlin. ``The defense capability should be a priority
        of our state.''?

        In addition, Afghanistan has proven to be an important power
        that is affecting Russian and US policy. Twenty years from now, what
        role will the ideology of Jihad play among hundreds of thousands of
        people who have seen their loved ones killed by the Russian Army? Is
        Russian brutality in Chechnya creating a population base for Jihad
        that will affect world politics for 2 - 3 generations or will Chechen
        youth develop into loyal citizens in a prosperous Russian territory?
        Or will there be no Chechen youth who live to remember their loved
        ones so there is no social consequence of the current Chechen
        conflict to consider for the future?

        I believe that Russian militarism and the social results of the
        present conflict in Chechnya will play important roles in future
        conflicts. I personally don't see any good coming from the two, and
        social and economic planners must debate the logical results.

        I am certain that I am one of many in this newsgroup who value
        your input on these issues, Mikhail, since I feel you contribute to
        understanding of Russia, its leaders, and its culture.

        Chuck Weis
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.