Today saw some much needed optimism for the world in general - a democrat back in the White House and a new found sense of encouragement not there since prior to Bush.

You can always trust the Russians though to act up at moments like this

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has also sought counter the optimism.

'I am deeply convinced that the biggest disappointments are born out of big expectations,'

...what is it about them?...or rather their leadership? They always throw a fit when a western country does something right. If it was only once every so many years they did it - fair enough. But everytime they blast every good thing that comes out of America and every country.....to me they just like to act the pr*ck.....I have always thought so.

But am I blind that maybe they have real concerns I cannot see? Personally I don't think so - they have always done it. And they choose their moments to perfection. When the rest of the world is in crisis they love to rock the boat. Maybe it is an unfair assertion but that is the impression I have. What do you think?

I wouldn't disagree with much of that, but the quote taken from Putin does ring very true. I'm glad Obama won and think he will be a good president but I fear another Blair. Remember how he could do no wrong when sworn into office after 18 years of the Tories. I fear that many Democrats expect more of him than he can deliver but we will see. Either way, it's a historic moment and Putin's language is hardly diplomatic.

You can always trust the Russians though to act up at moments like this

really? where are the countless other incidents where the russians have "acted up" :dunno:

...what is it about them?...or rather their leadership? They always throw a fit when a western country does something right. If it was only once every so many years they did it - fair enough. But everytime they blast every good thing that comes out of America and every country.....to me they just like to act the pr*ck.....I have always thought so.

can you give some examples of them always doing this, even though I personally beleive what Putin said is very true, and is echoed by lots of people. You do know you have taken the quote out of context. I think most leaders have been very happy but have voiced subtle concers that we shouldnt expect so much only to be let down.

Maybe it is an unfair assertion but that is the impression I have. What do you think?

yes, an unfair assertion imo

Not seen the context of this but I woulnt get too upset about it. Just standard politicking. Russians making sure they are seen as being removed from the western euforia. Lets see what happens when real deals have to be negotiated.

Russia's like a child who wants attention. They can't stand the world looking admirably at Washington.

Funny thing about Russia is they're in a state of flux. They want to be recognised by the West, but do business with the East.

Putin should take care of his inebriated country first.

the russians are the russians and will always be the russians. people shouldn't be upset or surprised - this is the game they play with us.

Putin should take care of his inebriated country first.

:cheers: :okay: :lol::grouphug::applause:

Russia's like a child who wants attention. They can't stand the world looking admirably at Washington.I'd put it slightly differently:

Putin's like a child who wants attention. He can't stand the world looking admirably at Washington.

Putin is right. Those putting too much hope in Mr Obama are likely to be disappointed. The Russians know better than most that the Americans, no matter who might be their leader, aren't the most reliable of friends and always act in their own coldly-assessed and ruthlessly-pursued national interests.

After their Cold War capitulation (and didn't they go quietly?), the Russians did everything the Americans asked of them, but nevertheless had their economy ruined, all their security guarantees promised to them by the Americans broken and found themselves encircled by US bases and a hostile military alliance with CIA front organistions agitating in every neighbouring country.

Well, they wised up after that and voted in old Vlad. Things since have been different. :yes: And the Americans don't like it.

How is this in anyway controversial, when did it become an international incident to not get overly excited.

Obama may not be as brilliant as the hype suggests, I don't see any controversy in that sentence.

Putin is right. Those putting too much hope in Mr Obama are likely to be disappointed. The Russians know better than most that the Americans, no matter who might be their leader, aren't the most reliable of friends and always act in their own coldly-assessed and ruthlessly-pursued national interests.

After their Cold War capitulation (and didn't they go quietly?), the Russians did everything the Americans asked of them, but nevertheless had their economy ruined, all their security guarantees promised to them by the Americans broken and found themselves encircled by US bases and a hostile military alliance with CIA front organistions agitating in every neighbouring country.

Well, they wised up after that and voted in old Vlad. Things since have been different. :yes: And the Americans don't like it.Putin already has a huge propaganda outfit but I'm sure they could find a job for you. Next time an FSB agent murders one of Putin's opponents here in Britain, they can call on you to invent elaborate excuses, you can suggest why it's much more likely that someone else murdered the victim, you can discredit the victim's character. Oh wait! You do all of those things already! Iran also has you on their propaganda payroll right?

Anyway the reports are that Putin's domestic prestige is waning as the low oil prices put the squeeze on Russia's one-trick economy that he has squandered every opportunity to reform and diversify. Putin had lucky timing but he has never been capable or visionary when it comes to the economy.

i think people are forgetting Putin tends to be a miserable old git most of the time any way

Putin is right. Those putting too much hope in Mr Obama are likely to be disappointed. The Russians know better than most that the Americans, no matter who might be their leader, aren't the most reliable of friends and always act in their own coldly-assessed and ruthlessly-pursued national interests.

After their Cold War capitulation (and didn't they go quietly?), the Russians did everything the Americans asked of them, but nevertheless had their economy ruined, all their security guarantees promised to them by the Americans broken and found themselves encircled by US bases and a hostile military alliance with CIA front organistions agitating in every neighbouring country.

Well, they wised up after that and voted in old Vlad. Things since have been different. :yes: And the Americans don't like it.

It seems you buy into the idea that former Soviet states can't make their own choices when it comes to which security organisations they choose to be part of or not.

Surely, you agree that sovereign states can make that decision for themselves?

I wouldn't disagree with much of that, but the quote taken from Putin does ring very true. I'm glad Obama won and think he will be a good president but I fear another Blair. Remember how he could do no wrong when sworn into office after 18 years of the Tories. I fear that many Democrats expect more of him than he can deliver but we will see. Either way, it's a historic moment and Putin's language is hardly diplomatic.

I think JDRS has got it bang on.

There is very much a Blairism about Obama, they are certainly both excellent speach makers but we want substance. Change is a great word and it's a word where people have all projected their different hopes.

As for Putin, I wish we had a nationalist leader like him running the show instead of someone who gives so much of our money away to our enemies in the EU and to Africa when we have children's hospices in Cheshire facing closure.

Some of us always got the creeps from Blair.

The Awayo squirrel sense is not twitching in the same way with Obama. Then again, I'm not American so am unlikely to pick up on the same tell-tale signals Blair was broadcasting. Before I congratulate myself too much however, although I didn't warm to Blair (nor get my hopes up much about what he'd be like as PM), I still didn't quite have him for the egregious mounteback he is.

Obama's from another country and culture so it is less easy to gauge him. It's right not to get silly with one's expectations, but I will stick my neck out and say that we aren't dealing with another Blair.

It seems you buy into the idea that former Soviet states can't make their own choices when it comes to which security organisations they choose to be part of or not.

Surely, you agree that sovereign states can make that decision for themselves?

Ex-Soviet States? Fuck that, I was talking about eastern Europe. The Russians were super nice and raised no objections to German unification (hair-raising stuff given their history). To sweeten this bitter pill, the US promised that as thanks for this, the US would not extend its military alliance east of the new united Germany. Then they flipped them the bird and did so anyway.

Now, if you were Russia, what would you think about that?

Democratic sovereign states can make up their own minds, not Russia. And by the way, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are ex Soviet states and joined NATO in the first wave expansion.

And besides you seem to be alluding to justifying the Soviet takeover of EE by suggesting that it is undestandable that Russia would want a buffer zone. Well if thats the case, I woulld suggest for EE it's perfectly understandable to want to be protected from Russia. Particularly Poland who has been invaded by Russia more times than Bush tripped over his words.

Russia is a big state with small state fears, it has the biggest nuclear arsenal and one of the largest navies and armies in the world. I think we should pay more attention to 'protecting' smaller states than worry about Russia being encircled?

No I am talking about the blatant breaking of agreements. You'd squeal if the Russians did the same.

When Russia naively tried to be friends, the Americans treated them like shit. Vlad said "no more".

The US has expanded its anti-Russian military alliance into the Russia's next door countries (again, naively the dopey Yeltsin government missed the point entirely and thought that *they* could join Nato. Wise up suckers! That's not what Nato is about) by actively pushing it. Making sure that all of the scumbag nationalist hard-right regimes in Europe were promised massive aid and free military goodies if they joined up.

Somehow I think that the US would think rather differently if the Russians tried this type of stuff in Mexico or the UK if the Russians pumped load of cash and arms into RoI so long as it joined up with a new anti-British Warsaw Pact, including US bases in Ireland.

And the Russians have a perfect right to feel insecure given what happened to them only 70 years ago.

No I am talking about the blatant breaking of agreements. You'd squeal if the Russians did the same.

When Russia naively tried to be friends, the Americans treated them like shit. Vlad said "no more".

The US has expanded its anti-Russian military alliance into the Russia's next door countries (again, naively the dopey Yeltsin government missed the point entirely and thought that *they* could join Nato. Wise up suckers! That's not what Nato is about) by actively pushing it. Making sure that all of the scumbag nationalist hard-right regimes in Europe were promised massive aid and free military goodies if they joined up.

Somehow I think that the US would think rather differently if the Russians tried this type of stuff in Mexico or the UK if the Russians pumped load of cash and arms into RoI so long as it joined up with a new anti-British Warsaw Pact, including US bases in Ireland.

And the Russians have a perfect right to feel insecure given what happened to them only 70 years ago.That's total bullshit. Russia was even invited to join the missile defence shield as a partner.

Eh? The (currently non-existent) missile defence shield wheeze is an anti-Russian policy.

It was the Russians who mischieviously called the Americans bluff and said: okay, we'll take your word for it - about "rogues states" is it? No problem, we'll join up then and you can place the missiles in Kazakhstan where they'd actually be in the right place.

Err, we'll get back to you on that one, the Americans said. :lol: Like "duh". The missile shield was a neocon scheme to provoke and humilate Russia. The Americans know this, the Russians know this and the Americans know the Russians know this.

As I've said, I don't have too greatly inflated hopes about Obama but I wouldn't be surprised that with saner heads now in charge at the White House, this particular dangerous and provocative policy (not a technology, it wouldn't work) will be filed away somewhere.

^ It obviously isn't aimed at Russia if they're invited to join as a partner (!!) especially given that Russia probably has the technology to defeat it anyway (something of which the US is well aware). However Russia's somewhat untenable public line has it as an anti-Russian system, and no surprises that you swallowed that hook, line, and sinker just as you do anything else that's anti-West (and in particular anti-American/British).

The Russians weren't invited to join it. *They* mischievously asked to join and got the finger. For obvious reasons.

Two articles from Agence France Presse confirming that the US did indeed invite Russia to partner the missile defense shield:


Russia Rebuffs US Overtures On Missile Shield

by Jim Mannion
Moscow (AFP) April 23, 2007

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates offered Russia cooperation on missile defence activities Monday but was rebuffed by Moscow who said a planned US missile shield was "seriously destabilising".

Nevertheless, Gates said he remained "cautiously optimistic" after meetings with President Vladimir Putin, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov and Defence Minister Anatoly Serdukov.

Both sides agreed to continue discussions on US proposals for cooperation on missile defense research and development, missile warning data and joint operations.

Gates even held out the possibility of co-locating a radar with the Russians.

"I think we are beginning to get down to specific issues of concern to Russia, and I believe the experts will clear up any misunderstandings as well as address Russian concerns," he told reporters.

Gates' upbeat view contrasted with a statement read by the Russian defence minister saying Russia's position on the US missile shield "remains unchanged".

"We believe the strategic missile defence system is a seriously destabilising factor that can have a significant influence on regional and global security," Serdyukov said, speaking through an official interpreter.

Moscow was Gates' first stop on a European trip to try to ease tensions aroused by US plans to establish missile defence sites in Europe, to counter what Washington views as a growing missile threat from Iran.

Russia in particular has adamantly opposed plans to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a targeting radar in the Czech Republic, countries that lie close to Russian territory and were once under Moscow's control.

Gates said he believed Serdyukov's rebuff was prepared before their hour-long meeting and did not reflect the tone of the discussions.

"One of the concerns that we are going to have to address and work with them over time is their concern that someday in the future, at some distant point a few years from now, the character of these sites might change, and in fact become a greater concern in terms of Russian strategic security," Gates said.

He said that might involve placing restrictions on missile defence sites.

The Russians also voiced concern about the US deployment of conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles, Gates said.

But the talks focused mainly on missile defence and a US proposal for cooperation presented to the Russians last week at a NATO meeting.

The United States was "willing to explore cooperation with Russia across the full spectrum of missile defence activities", Gates said.

"We could potentially work together to explore new concepts and technologies, conduct research and development on missile defence systems and components, to share early warning data, to promote stability and to improve the capacity of our forces to conduct successful cooperative missile defence operations during peacekeeping and other joint military activities," he said.

He told reporters later that he invited the Russians to inspect the US missile defence site at Fort Greely, Alaska, and a radar in California similar to the one proposed for the Czech Republic.

"We would like to have the Russians as partners in this process. We would like to share information with them, we are prepared to co-locate radars with them. We think there are some real opportunities here for both sides," he said.

Gates will visit Warsaw on Tuesday to brief Polish leaders on his talks here and will also make a brief stop in Berlin.

The missile defence issue has threatened to divide Washington's traditional allies.

Germany has said Washington must work to ease Russian concerns, while the Czech Republic and Poland have said Moscow has no right to interfere.

US officials travelling with Gates said that while they believed cooperation was in both countries' interest, Russia would not have a veto on the issue of missile defence.



Gates Asks Russia to Partner on Missile Defense Development

Moscow (AFNS) April 23 - The United States intends to be prepared for future threats and is inviting Russia to become a partner in a defensive endeavor, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.

"We now face new threats that require new strategy for both deterrence and defense," Gates told U.S. and Russian reporters. "Moreover, the ever-increasing pace of technological innovation, combined with the proliferation of mass destruction and delivery systems, means the threats we face now may be much more ominous in 10 to 20 years.

"Indeed, who can say in 2007, what states or groups may have such capabilities in 2017?" he asked.

Gates came to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior defense leaders to discuss U.S. plans to deploy missile defense assets in Eastern Europe. He said the main focus of his trip was to continue developing responses to the challenges posed by weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile proliferation.

Following his first meeting with Defense Minister Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov at the Russian Ministry of Defense, Gates said he would reiterate in all his meetings that the United States is willing to "explore cooperation with Russia across a full spectrum of missile defense activities."

"We could potentially work together," he said, "to experiment with new concepts and technologies, conduct research and development on missile defense systems and components, to share early warning data, to promote stability and to improve the capabilities of our forces to conduct successful, cooperative missile defense operations during peacekeeping or other joint military operation."

Gates reassured the Russian defense minister that the U.S. plan for missile defense is not aimed at Russia or any particular country.

"They are oriented against potential aggressors in the Middle East and Southwest Asia whose leaders could someday use a handful of ballistic missiles in an attempt to blackmail Europe and America and sow chaos and sap our collective will," he said.

President Bush believes "the deployment of missile defense is an essential element of our broader efforts to transform our defense and deterrence policies and capabilities to meet the new threats we face," Gates said. "To that end, the United States is responding with a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy that includes working with our allies and partners in other countries.

"We invite Russia to join our defensive endeavor as a partner," he said. "We've agreed an expert group will continue our discussions on ballistic missile defense and other subjects of mutual interest and concern."

Gates thanked the Russian defense minister for hosting their first meeting. The secretary said he found it "to be quite valuable as we engaged in honest and frank discussion of current challenges and opportunities in the world and the ways in which we can jointly address them."

"The days of the Cold War are over," he said, "and no one can seek to return to them. In today's post-Cold War yet still challenging world, no longer is it presumed that one side must win and one side must lose when addressing specific issues. When both the United States and Russia work together, both countries and others win. The inverse is just as true: When we fail to work together, both countries may lose."

Serdyukov said he hopes the negotiations with Gates would make a significant contribution to the further improvement of regional and global security.

The Russians are cannier than I thought.

No I am talking about the blatant breaking of agreements. You'd squeal if the Russians did the same.

When Russia naively tried to be friends, the Americans treated them like shit. Vlad said "no more".

The US has expanded its anti-Russian military alliance into the Russia's next door countries (again, naively the dopey Yeltsin government missed the point entirely and thought that *they* could join Nato. Wise up suckers! That's not what Nato is about) by actively pushing it. Making sure that all of the scumbag nationalist hard-right regimes in Europe were promised massive aid and free military goodies if they joined up.

Somehow I think that the US would think rather differently if the Russians tried this type of stuff in Mexico or the UK if the Russians pumped load of cash and arms into RoI so long as it joined up with a new anti-British Warsaw Pact, including US bases in Ireland.

And the Russians have a perfect right to feel insecure given what happened to them only 70 years ago.

And what about the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians? Latvians? Romanians? Bulgarians? Czech, Slovaks? Georgians? Ukrainians? Where are their rights? Given what they endured as recently as 20 years ago.

^ Let me anticipate Awayo's response: "those are all neo-nazi US stooges with a wholely unjustified, unreasonable, and vicious hostility towards gentle well-meaning Mother Russia". :|