Comments on: Putin’s speech

By: Falconer

Falconer — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:35:22 +0000

Hey, hector bim, what is ridiculous is that people speak of russian present state without any significant knowlege of its past. When you talk of “occupied” Georgian, Moldovan, Finnish and Japanese lands please have in mind that Karelia (let’s forget that it was a part of russian empire since 18c) passed to USSR after the war with Finland when 126 875 soviet solgers were killed. The situation with Japan is much more obvious – most of lands that USSR took from Japan after the WWII were annexed by Japan after Russia-Japan War, 1905. To Moldova… Russian solgiers are now in territory called “Left side of Dnepr river@ – there live mostly russian speaking people who (including their government) do not want to stay with Moldova. And about Georgia… I haven’t heard of any occupied Georgian land. The russian soldiers present there are peacemakers. And definitely they are much more effective than NATO soldiers in Afganistan or Iraq. And as far as I know neither Estonia nor Armenia have any problem with Russian state. Let’s better look on newborn nazi-cult in baltic countries and authoritarian political regime in Armenia.

By: J Thomas

J Thomas — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:54:04 +0000

” Is it just me, or is he accusing us of supporting the chechnyan rebels?” Is it so? How to know….

By: Anar

Anar — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:25:48 +0000

Most of russians are chauvinist natured and Russia itself is very imperialistic.Slavic russians treat their minorities as second class people. Chechens are very strong and proud nation.They just won`t stop fighting until they gain indepence or die. from a real caucusian!

By: anon

anon — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:31:01 +0000

Would Putin say “Al Qaeda are helping us…”? Is al Qaeda a competing nuclear power? No, he is obviously referring to the US, and it is clearly not the first time, he knows his audience will be familiar with that reference.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:06:20 +0000

So, so far we have the EU, the US and Saudi Arabia as possible candidates. How about the most obvious answer – Al Quaeda? Al Quaeda has (quite insane) designs on a world caliphate, after all, or so we are told.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:48:56 +0000

Hard for me to see why Putin might think US is behind Chechnya problems, tho it is possible. Milosevic accused the US (and Europe, esp. Britain and Germany) of being behind the ‘problems’ with the Kosovars. (Which insofar as relations with the KLA was not so far fetched.) Anyway, seen that Putin was so close to Milosevic and still defends him, it’s hardly surprising he’d echo similar sentiments. As to reasons why it is possible for him to refer to a US interest in weakening Russia… if there are reasons, it’s not the kind non-Russians would like to hear.

By: jcrohn

jcrohn — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:47:04 +0000

Don’t you folks think perhaps Putin was accusing the EU of supporting Chechen terror, somewhat in response to its spectacularly ill-timed demand that Russia account for its failure to end the Beslan siege less bloodily?

By: KJ

KJ — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:26:13 +0000

Putin’s words were encouraging because he was being frank about the extent to which the terrorist threat from Muslims is threatening Russia. Mention of nuclear weapons should give particularly Arab Muslim regimes pause. See numerous posts at the Belmont Club on how it is only successes in the war on terror and the wide range of responses available to GWB which stand between us and a nuclear reponse escalating rapidly to the obliterateration of Islam from the planet. Putin does not have the alternatives available to GWB, because his non-nuclear military is close to useless. Nor does he have successes in the war on terror. If I was an intelligent Mullah my blood would run cold listening to him.

By: Doctor Memory

Doctor Memory — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:58:13 +0000

This is ridiculous. If anything, Russia is the country that has designs on its neighbors. For example, it occupies Georgian, Moldovan, Finnish, and Japanese territory and has actually annexed some of that land. I don’t see any evidence that the historical appetite of the Russian state for the acquisition of land has waned, especially in the way they treat their neighbors. True, and yet not really relevant. The Russian political psyche is rather noted for managing the amusing trick of pursuing aggressive expansionist imperialism while simultaneously adopting a pose of beseiged, betrayed and bedeviled victimhood. (Whether this is better or worse than the American trick of pursuing aggressive expansionist imperialism while adopting the unlikely pose of reluctant technocrat is mostly a matter of personal taste: in either case, woe betide the country who tweaks the giant’s sense of pride.)

By: soul

soul — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:41:44 +0000

“Some want to cut off a juicy morsel from us while others are helping them. They are helping because they believe that, as one of the world’s major nuclear powers, Russia is still posing a threat to someone, and therefore this threat must be removed.”__ Putin Is it just me, or is he accusing us of supporting the chechnyan rebels?

By: Tom P.

Tom P. — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:18:30 +0000

In 1991 the Soviet Union disintegrated and 14 former Soviet republics declared independence. Chechnya tried to but Russia would not allow it. Why not? Check it out on my blog that I wrote Thursday (9-2) Tom P.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:17:27 +0000

From a review of Sen Bob Graham’s new book: “He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Rep. Porter Goss, nominated last month to be the next CIA director. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers. Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who gave significant financial support to two hijackers, were working for the Saudi government.” If they Chechnya terrorist are financed by SA, and Putin wanted to threatened SA in order to stop the funding, who is going to stop him? Well, George Bush, protector of terrorist regimes that make him money. So Putin mentions, just casually, that he still has some nukes. Unless Putin mentioned nukes to frighten Ossetia.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:07:59 +0000

“He’s talking about the US, no question about that.” Not enough explanation in this thread about the mention of nuclear weapons. Hard for me to see why Putin might think US is behind Chechnya problems, tho it is possible. We are messing in Georgia, I think. I still think this is about oil and SA. I think SA really wants Russia to lower its production.

By: wren

wren — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 12:35:06 +0000

It’s not about N. Ossetia or Transdniestria or the Kuriles, it’s about power. Putin wants to have the same level of control that the Czars and Communistis enjoyed. The Chechen attacks in Russia help him consolidate his power by exploiting the fears of the Russian people. The exact same thing is happening in the US, Israel, Indonesia, Taiwan, Pakistan and on and on. As it becomes increasingly difficult to deliver the “economic” goods, look for more.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:41:43 +0000

Original text here. This graf:

They are helping because they believe that, as one of the world’s major nuclear powers, Russia is still posing a threat to someone, and therefore this threat must be removed.

is not translated correctly. He didn't say "is still posing a threat to someone", he said "is still posing a threat to them" ("еще представляет для них угрозу"). Check it out: Babel Fish Translation. Note the word still. He's talking about the US, no question about that.