Posted on 05/18/2005 5:42:05 PM PDT by Destro
RUSSIA ATTACKED BECAUSE IT'S GETTING STRONGER
19/05/2005
MOSCOW, May 17 (RIA Novosti) - "The strong are not popular," and this explains the growing attacks on Russia by the former Soviet republics, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Izvestia.
Lavrov explained his idea by saying that when the 50th anniversary of VE-Day was marked in 1995, Russia had "sky-high debts, it was weak and tended to avoid an international policy that is now described as multi-vectored." Yet the 1995 VE-Day celebrations were not surrounded by the controversy that marked this year's events as the Baltic countries raised the issue that the end of Nazism in their region meant the beginning of communism there and demanded Moscow's apology for Soviet oppressions.
Lavrov said that this situation reflects the financial independence of Russia, which is repaying debts, carrying out economic reforms and has preserved its natural advantages like its energy resources, vast territory and transport possibilities. Moscow knows that it should review its heavy dependence on oil and gas export and plans to make the economy innovative.
"Some forces probably dislike this possibility," Lavrov said. "This is why they need irritants around Russia that would distract attention" from it.
Speaking about the recent events in the former Soviet countries, Lavrov stressed that there are no parallels between the "color revolutions" and the events in Uzbekistan, where no formal pretext, such as disputable election results, existed for calling the events a revolution. According to certain information, a group of armed people, some of them fighters of Islamic organizations, had long been preparing an invasion in Uzbekistan.
"They seized weapons in a military unit and used them to take over several government buildings and take hostages," Lavrov said. He did not discount that they also used innocent civilians as a living shield.
"The events in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan differ from each other, but could ultimately benefit those who want to destabilize the situation in the region," Lavrov said.
I suspect that when the Islamic terrorists finally do use the a-bomb, it will be on Russia, maybe Moscow. There is so much unguarded plutonium in that area it's just a matter of time.
Must be a prima-donna complex: whatever's happening, has to be about them. WhoTF would need them, to attack or for any other purpose? The attacks and threats they have to face are of purely internal nature, like organized crime, restive ethnics etc.
Don't hate them because they are evil!
Uhmm, I don't think he has that exactly right.
Attackers are drawn to perceived (or actual) weakness, not to strength.
After the perceived weakness of the Klinton years, the US was perceived as weak. As soon as we took Afghanistan in 32 days that perception changed and the attacks stopped. The islamofacists then reverted to attacking other soft targets, like Spain, Russia, and helpless Iraqi civilians, etc.
We needed them after 9/11 - the Northern Alliance was Russia's allies not ours.
bump!
America did nothing of the sort - America bought off the Taliban not the Northern Alliance (which came to bite us in teh ass at Tora Bora). Russia had the good intel on the Taliban not us.
There was a bunch of reports in the MSM (e-ek!) about Green Berets inserted with the Northern Alliance and disbursing cash, in the beginning of the campaign, with the warlords holding out for more. Thus I disagree - we did a lot of the sort.
Russia never left Afghanistan - and the Soviets were never defeated their militarily.
Russia has the Byzantine complex. The Russian Empire has many cultural and religious ties to the Byzantine Empire and they have the same messed up scheming version of politics. The Russians also have a cultural death wish. If they had a choice between holding out a hand of friendship and mutual profit or burning a bridge, they'll choose burning the bridge every time.
While I agree that Moscow is a target. I suspect that it will be shipped to a port in a container. If they wish to do NY then they will have to control a fast ship and drive it close.
Won? Huh? The Soviets lost in Afghanistan, didn't they? They were humiliated and defeated in the Afghan quagmire that the US would helplessly sink into if it invaded now, right?
Nope - the Soviets won in Afghanistan. The famed Mujahaddin had slunk back to the refugee camps in Pakistan, demoralized, dejected, and defeated. I was there, I saw it. It was August, 1986, and the Mujhaddin had given up. The Soviets had won.
Dr. Wheeler has been called the "real Indiana Jones" by the Wall St. Journal, the "creator of the Reagan Doctrine" by the Washington Post, and an "ideological gangster" by the Soviet press. He has traveled to 180 countries and all seven continents, and leads 3 to 4 expeditions a year.
Possibly, but I think it would be risky to take it that far. If they wanted to do Moscow, it could just be a few hours drive.
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.