Rainbow Revolutions?
Posted on 06/10/2005 1:26:33 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
MOSCOW, June 10. (RIA Novosti) - Many Russians view the eastward advance of NATO and "color" revolutions in former Soviet countries of the CIS as interconnected events. Is there a conspiracy against Russia?
Writer Alexander Prokhanov and Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Democracy foundation, shared their opinions on this score in a weekly, Argumenty i Fakty, in the run-up to Russia Day on June 12.
The West's geostrategic objective is to weaken Russia, to prevent it from becoming a superpower again, and to turn it into a compliant donor. This is why Russia is being surrounded by security cordons and "hostile regimes" are being established around it. "So, there are all the elements of a conspiracy," Prokhanov said.
According to him, the attack against Russia includes the introduction of foreign standards and values in Russian society. "Hollywood is as important as the CIA in this attack, and the eastward advance of NATO is as important as young Russian men wearing T-shirts with the American flag," the writer said. "And the consequences of this attack are unpredictable."
Yakovlev said there was certainly a conspiracy against Russia, but it involved Russian bureaucrats who were "greedy, corrupt and despised their own people." He said the goal of this collusion was personal power and enrichment.
"In the past, we blamed everything on the Jews, [but] now it is the turn of Americans," said Yakovlev, a "hero" of Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika. "If you watch Russian television regularly, you get the impression that the U.S. has nothing to do other than plot against Russia."
Yakovlev was shocked by the results of a poll according to which 80% of Russians view America as the country's main enemy. "Russia and the Soviet Union never fought the U.S. Not a single Russian soldier was killed by an American and vice versa," he said. "And now this shocking result. But if you ask anyone what the U.S. did to him or her personally, they will have no answer."
On the whole, if there is a conspiracy against Russia, "the main conspirators are we ourselves," Yakovlev said.
;-)
Call me skeptical of the sincerity of Russian domestic and foreign policy. Putin has already taken back most of the freedoms the Russian people enjoyed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is once again in bed with Iran selling them nuclear technology.
The Soviet Union lost the cold war not because of the people. They lost because they ran out of money and could no longer support the repression. Reagan spent the Soviet Union into the ground.
While my thoughts are skeptical, I see France and Germany as willing participants. It is their populaces that have their heads in the sand because they truly believe that the state can take care of them. Call it tinfoil hat theory, I don't know. However what I do know is that the old Soviet influence is still great within the confines of the UN and as my daddy says, "a leopard cannot change its spots."
Rainbow Revolutions?
Bush's fault!
"Oh yeah, a leopard cannot change its spots, once Russian, always Russian. OK. How about Ukrainians? Are they a threat? They were a very prominent part of the old USSR, second only to Russia. Can they be trusted or a leopard never changes its spots?"
Were you a member of the Communist party? I didn't say Russian. I think I referred to a Soviet. How manhy of the old Communists really changed? Apparently Putin didn't and that is my point. If you look at all the old Communists, they may have moved to other locations, but when you look at the politics, it is all coming back to Communism.
Same as putting the stature of Stalin back up. The freedoms of the press has been greatly reduced.
"However, he does not take away MOST of the freedoms. And he does something so the Russian people could enjoy less of the poverty they were fed with before."
I agree. Making money and being a capitalist society is what Russia needed. Now look at all the monopolies in Russia. Who runs them? From what I have read, mostly old Communists and many have been stealing.
Russians have pride. They are a good, hard working, people. I know this as I grew up in Brighton Beach. However, I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to the former Communist regime.
As for losing the cold war, the Soviets were outspent. The East Germans led the way. And as the old document about communism said, reapproachment was one of the goals. I will have to find it for you. Think it was in a 1963 document by an FBI agent. I did find this however,
"I'd say that the United States, European states and most others around the world were following the strategy of the Communist Manifesto pretty well up to the 1980's when they realized that economic socialism simply doesn't work and they can't make it work. Even though most socialist and communist countries have abandoned the idea of economic communism they still, out of habit, maintain other socialist policies which continue to violate fundamental rights. People need to realize that the policies and programs they have been lured into believing are necessary and proper for the state to maintain, such as; Social Security, public education, taxation, a central bank, regulation of industry, progressive income tax, capital gains tax, imminent domain confiscation and other tyrannies are simply failed socialist policies that are maintained because people are continuing to accept them because they have been indoctrinated into it in the past. "
PS The information contained in post #29 came from Anatoly Golitsyn's book "Perestroika Deception" (1995), pp. 100-101
New World Order nursery.
The Soviet Union lost the cold war not because of the people. They lost because they ran out of money and could no longer support the repression. Reagan spent the Soviet Union into the ground. ==
It is mistake. United States hadn't overspent USSR. Just take into consideration the today goverment debt of United States which was accumulated during Cold war (It is a price for Cold war). About 6 trillion dollars.
And now compare it with debts of Russia (Russia pays soviet debts). About 120 billions. This debt was accumulated during perestroika by Gorby then by Eltsin times. Soviet debts for Cold war was almost none.
Russian people and only them are those who destroyed USSR and created independent Russia. This fact isn't realized by many westerners.
Russia was major locomotive of USSR. USSR spent russian resources to support other republics and socialistic camp.
Today those resources partually plandered by oligarkhs but still works on Russia only. Russia now have almost mono ethnical population. Now 80% of ountry population is russians. In USSR was about 50%.
Russia inherited 70% of industry of USSR. Military complex diminished but civil sector overperforms now soveit best years.
IMHO Russia today has even more strength and potential then Soviet Union has in its best years.
I wouldn't take Golytsin for info. Defector is always defector.
I wouldn't think that Yakovlev takes any order from anyone today. Same is Putin.
==I wouldn't think that Yakovlev takes any order from anyone today. Same is Putin.
Putin does indeed take orders, as did his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin:
"At a press conference in late 1993, Primakov confirmed the warlike attitude of the 'former' Soviet Union by warning NATO that he and his fellow Soviets might assume a new military posture toward the West at any time. Polish defector Zdislaw Rurarz described a follow-up question from a reporter:"
"Primakov was asked whether his presentation of the issue was in any way endorsed by President Boris Yeltsin. Surprisingly enough, he said that there was no need for that!"
(Source: MacAlvany, D.S., “Russian strategic deception: The ‘new’ Communist threat,” The MacAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Jan., 1994, pp. 20-22)
"Despite Yeltsin’s membership in the Soviet Communist Party since 1961, even he serves as a mere figurehead. He takes his orders from the likes of Primakov and the rest of the KGB leadership, all of them hardened Communists following long-term strategy."
Yakovlev is much higher on the food chain than is Putin. And Primakov is still higher than both of them IMO.
Anti-americanism has been around forever. It was all over France in the 1960s, and continues to this day. It started springing up in Germany and the UK in the 70s and came to a boil during the Reagan years.
And like in France, it never went away. If anything, 'W' gets treated a lot more civil than Ronnie ever got.
When I was in Russia, during '93 and '98 it seemed like everyone loved Americans. Starting when Clinton took on mean old Yugoslavia, Russia has been getting more and more suspicious. By 2000 it just wasn't any fun to hang out in big towns like Moscow and Peterburg, and even some of the provincial towns were getting cranky.
Ukraine was pretty nice until the Iraq war began, then they caught the bug as well. I snapped this college student's book bag on a trolleybus in Kyiv last year. Notice the anarchy symbol - these seem to go hand in hand.
As Eastern Europe gets more Westernized and starts to forget the Soviet days, I think they'll pick up more and more of Western Europe's silliness.
IMO - It all started with France, and they're keeping the drumbeat going. They've been a pain the a** since Dien Bien Fu. You know, if Russia pulled one-tenth of France's cr*p, we'd have nuked them. It wasn't Putin who flew around the world trying to get Cameroon and Elbonia to vote against the US in the UN. After 9/11, when all our allies were saying 'be careful' and 'don't do anything rash', the Russians gave us bases. Not the 'don't fly over me' French.
Many in the West are oblivious to the real conspiracy of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is poised to take over the entire continental landmass of Asia, and, given the lack of will to fight on the part of Europe, and the growing Euro-American schism, will likely severely threaten if not conquer Europe as well. Taking this analysis further, some sort of horrible and surprising Pearl Harbor like event (but one much worse) would hamstring the USA's ability to do anything about it.
RE: Accualy it started since 1999 since bombing of Yugoslavia.
Yes, the same old tired and worn out excuse. But Clinton is gone, and the American Right did what we could to go after him. Unfortunately, there were cowards who really did not have the stomach to go through all the way with the impeachment. So, beyond this tired, worn out excuse, what are the real reasons?
Defector is defector, or, first defector is false defector, and second defector is real defector, or, is first defector real and the second false?
Oh, man .... this may be your BEST (worst?) yet! Keep on shootin' them pics! Good to have you in on this thread! :-)
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.