Quote:
Originally Posted by simon
...Anna Politkovskaya, who strongly criticised Putin, was poisoned on her plane journey to Beslan and later assassinated. Or Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned in London.
|
What an argument! Politkovskaya's murder had nothing to do with the Kremlin. She had practically no influence on politics and public opinion and was of no danger for Putin whatsoever. Better look for the assassinators in another direction.
Litvinenko was a Polonium dealer. He transported that substance (in huge amounts!!!) in a not correctly closed container and the Polonium vaporized and contaminated every location, where Litvinenko went, for days. He simply inhaled enough that he had to die of a lethal dosis. It was an accident. It's quite unlogical to assume that somebody tried to kill him like this. It's like giving him a motor-cycle expecting he would die in a road accident. Assassinators work differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon
If those countries want US bases on their territory, that's for them to decide. It's not for other countries to tell them whether or not they can.
|
You don't mean that seriously, do you? No country wants a military basis of it's strategic opponent at it's borders.There will always be intense reactions from their side. Think about, what would the USA do if some Latinamerican country decides to build a Russian basis on their territory? And what have they done when something like that happened (Cuba)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon
Russia is currently supporting breakaway armies in Georgia and Moldova. Russian troops are backing up the breakaway republic in Moldova. Russia is imposing an economic blockade on Georgia.
|
Russia has tried for years to convince EU and USA to help solve the ethnic problems in these countries, but they refused, IT'S NOT IN THEIR INTEREST. They have their fun seeing Russia surrounded by their numerous problems with their former 'provinces', keeping them constantly occupied with unsolved conflicts, so they can't work on foreign politics of global scales. Russia now does what they have to do, no matter whether we like it or not. We had our chance.
The last years we have witnessed more than enough of those strategies, thought up in Washington, to keep Russia at it's place. It's a simple defence concept of the USA to keep their power. A high amount of conflict potential lets the USA remain the most powerful country in the world. An almost conflictfree, prospering world, especially in Eastern Europe and West Asia, makes the EU stronger. Therefore the EU should help solve the problems there, not support the USA with those politics. Helping Russia to develop it's economy and solving the numerous problems of this area will make Europe the most powerful institution of the world and it's really sad that an alcohol-abuse demented Texas cowboy takes us Europeans by the nosering and pulls us everywhere he wants. (Well, what to expect from a region, whose name comes from a cow, who was the fuck-toy of the Big Boss - who obviously fucks her till now!)
It's not important, who is right or who is wrong, and what happened in the past - the main concern is the future. The neighbour-countries will have much profit from a working-together with Russia, there is no use for nationalist actions and revenge for things, which are not in the responsibility of the current political leaders in Russia.
Another fact to observe: Putin had to fight from the first day of his reign against the 'family' and the nationalist military fraction. Every nationalist conflict in the former republics with their strong Russian minorities strengthens the power of the military and puts pressure on the government to act 'appropriately' and Russia is in constant danger that they may overtake the government or at least win the next presidental elections, which will be a highly undesired development for the EU. The EU should consider, how to build the house Europe for the future as long as we are able to do it.