[freddie]

Originally Posted by Argos

Welcome to planet Earth, stranger! Of course it's imperialism! Politics of regional or global superpowers were always like this and will always be. Well, the rusty weapons can be replaced and they are constantly modernizing. What experts did surprise that their military structures and strategies have extremely improved since their last enterprises in the Caucasus. That will make thing definitely harder for the NATO. I don't really believe that Russia wants back the former time of glory (which by the way never really existed), they want to gain control back in their immediate surroundings, which has been almost completely occupied by the NATO.

It doesn't have to be imperialism. Not in the 21st century. This is not ancient Rome. I think it's high time we move on. It's true USA also supported it's fair share of dictators and extremist guerrillas (Saddam and the mujahedin in Afghanistancome to mind), but once it bit them in the ass they were the first to admit their mistake and changed their stance. While Russia (together with China) seems to abuse it's veto power in the Security council even way after their "allies" have turned into genocidal dictatorships (Serbia, Somalia) or religiously mad potential nuclear forces. (Iran)

Originally Posted by Argos

I never saw Putin as the sole architect of the developments of the second half of this decade. From the moment the three guys from St. Peterburg shared the top positions in the Kremlin I did see them as one body. Putin just used the blade more elegantly than Medvedev does. In the internal politics, here I agree with you, Medvedev's way will be more constitutional, more in accordance with the rule of law, even with more liberty for the media, but in foreign politics I don't see a turning point, not now and not in the nearer future.

It's like this; if he wants to obey the rule of law then he'll have to ease up on the cold war speech of his ministers and generals combined with ceasing operations that involve infiltrating neighbouring countries. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Argos

Economy is of course important, but the money itself isn't the big problem for Russia, it's the loss of control. The total dependence of Europe on Russia providing the vast majority of energy ressources brought them always in a good position for negotiations on any topic, the emanzipation of Europe will make it far more difficult to pull partners on their side, when it comes to questions important for Russia.

Yeah. When I said "cent" I meant it in a broader way.

Originally Posted by Argos

And global strategy should not be underestimated. The economic success and power of the USA is based on their global (military!) strategies. Russia's economical success, that is, a positive development of their economy with reduction of the huge dependence on their wealth of natural ressources and overcoming poverty, this can only be obtained with a higher influence on their neighbours. The question here is just, how much success brings a forced partnership (bullying and blackmailing) economically, and how much a partnership of trust and friendship.

I don't think the military strategies have attributed as much to the success of the USA as you might imagine. It firmed up their grip on some specific (although significant) parts of the market, like energy supply (just like Russia), but on the other hand they've spent billions of dollars during their war escapades. What's really behind the success is the world-leading high tech and outsourcing of heavy industries with less added value. The irony of all ironies is taliban rebels putting up websites, wishing death to America and it's imperialist allies, while maintaining the site on a server equipped with an Intel Xeon CPU on a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 platform.