A Danger of Russia's Disintegration: Real of Imagined? - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

A Danger of Russia's Disintegration: Real of Imagined?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: gino

This is a hot topic between my wife and i. What do you guys think? gino

http://bd.english.fom.ru/map/projec...516/edomt0516_2

Posted by: gino

wow, I'm surprised no one gave a response on this one. sometimes i wonder if any one really talks to there wife's girlfriends etc..... my last visit to Moscow, i spent 2 months with Natasha. just about every night there news was one thing or another about how America and the west had Russia surrounded. that it was only a matter of time before the u.s. invades Russia for there gas oil and minerals. My wife believes this b.s. 100% as being true. It has been my experience that as an American starting a business in Moscow. That you are tolerated because you have money. however, you are not really welcome. Now, let me say i am speaking on a business level. i am not speaking about my personal life what so ever. i have just gone thru all the bureaucracy of opening a small business in Moscow, and it was not a pleasurable experience to me. Personally. Russia, has many prejudices when it comes to western men in there country. Thank God my last name is of Slavic origin. I'm not going to go into detail about the business experience because it will take to long to explain. however, i will give one example when we were married last year. Natasha and spoke to a gentleman at the Russian Ministry Of Foreign Affairs. He Told my wife in perfect English that her Government did not approve of her marring a man from America. I was pissed, and felt like punching the guy. Than on top of it he demanded a bribe of $100. That i had to pay if i wanted to get married before my visa expired. But besides all that i still love going to Moscow. please don't misunderstand me. my personal relationships with my wife and her friends are wonderful. the big problem is the government. ours is the same way. the cold war continues it just no longer has a name. Gino

Posted by: Khashyar

Thanks for sharing your experience and insight, Gino.

I did not realize that there was a fear that Russia is losing its power and is being surrounded by the influence of the U.S. and the West.

Khashyar

Posted by: gino

Khashyar, i was there during the time leading up to the fall of Kyrgyzstan. My wife interpreted the evening news for me. i was in shock at what she was telling me. i also, remember seeing an illustration of b52 bombers surrounding Russia on all fronts. With the fall of Ukraine ,Georgia, etc... There government has there people in a serious panic. Thats why the Russian public is against the Iraq war. Because there goverment is telling it's citizens that there on the short list as being the next Iraq. Gino

Posted by: grhodes2

Let me make sure I understand this right, I read that link, and according to some people over there, the US is still considered a major enemy with partial reason to the Iraqi war. So this is something totally different from the Cold War then. Which brings to my next question (and I seem to be full of them [and I'm not trying to sound stupid, I really honestly want to know], what does the FSU have the US wants?

Greg

Posted by: gino

Russia is very wealthy in terms of natural gas,oil, gold, and diamonds. some say Russia has more oil than the entire middle east.
the Russian's believe that the only reason we are in Iraq is for the purposes of taking control of the middle east petroleum reserves. the cold war continues because there is a new arm's race. read, some Russian news papers. they have developed and are in the process of deploying a new intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile. Russia, sees the west as being aggressive in terms of the new democracy's developing in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan. we are reducing there sphere of influence in there backyard.
Gino

Posted by: povlhp

When I talked to Larisa in Barnaul, she was also convinced that many things we heard were proaganda, and that the west, and US in particular tried to miscredit Russia. I think we were talking about the former republics. So we stopped talking politics.

I do understand that Russia has strong interests in the former republics, as comrade Stalin managed to deport loads of russians to these areas, so russia has a large population living there, whose interests they have to defend.

It is not democracy that hey see as the enemy. It is the lies the west are spreading to turn the FSU against Russia.

I am convinced, that a few years here, and Larisa will see the press here has very little lies, but might have a different view on some things.

Posted by: Jutman

Hi

Its a complex situation. To spilt Russia, there must be several variables with the right situation, like a people who wants to be free, economical and political disintegration central and a local gettting stronger to take over.

The situation in Chechnia is a mirror of the situation in Russia. From what I get from my wife and her family, is that IF Russia let them go, other want to be free to and Russia will change forever.

I have got following from perosns/media:
1. Karelia
They wanted to be reunited with Finland, some were allowed to migrate to the country. But Fnland don't want the land with Eastgermany in the mind = to high cost.
2. Komy
A beginning rich oil state up in the north. They have the economy, culture and local government to break out - in the future.
3. Dagestan
A poor region, with moslems elements but not organised.
4. Calmydia
The only buddist state with the European continent. They have a strong culture, but likely not the economy for independance and I have no info about the political situation.
5. Tatarstan
A region with severe autonomy, something Chechnya said no to, more than a decade ago. They have propere from the autonomy. I have again no political indication, but they are a cultural and economical strong enough for independence.
6. Tuva
A asiatic region, there was once in history a nation has therefor a strong culture and ethincs to be a soverign state. However its a poor country and therefor not in a position for indepence.

There are other region in Russia with the base for independence, but how close to they are to demand it and what regions I have only small info about and some perhaps none at all.

Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

I think it is a very real danger if Russia does not have a strong leader and a strong military. For now Putin, and the army's loyalty to him, are holding the realm together. That is a much better option than anarchy, disorder and civil war in Russia.

Posted by: povlhp

I am not sure you are right about the strong leader with military. Anarchy will not happen.

There must be order, and there will be order. In Russia, people are used to hierarchy and bureauchracy, and it will prevail. Military does not mean much inside Russia (except it employs lots of men) when it comes to stabilizing the country, not as far as I have seen.

If Russia had a strong leader, he would go after corruption. Corruption is anarchy. Corruption is crime against the state.

Posted by: grhodes2

Hey Gino, so if the Cold War does continue, Russia must be watching very closely how the US is dealing with North Korea right now, wouldn't they?

Greg

Posted by: gino

grhodes, when i was speaking about the restart of the cold war. i was speaking in terms it never ended.
the u.s. administration and the Kremlin both have the same old cold war mentality. It was the bush administration that refused to ratify the nonproliferation treaty in 1999. they want everyone else to stop building nuclear arms but not the u.s. remember, the u.s. wishes to build baby nuclear bombs (kinder gentler bombs). the Kremlin had no other choice but to also continue with there plans to develop and deploy the new (topal-m) missile. this was in response to our new missile defense shield. Both countries give lip service to the other, behind the scenes were granting asylum to Chechen terrorist, and probably supporting the Chechen rebels financially (covertly of course) selling f-16's to Pakistan etc... and the Russians are selling missiles to Syria, and helping Iran to develop nuclear weapons directly or indirectly it's all the same too me. north Korea has been launching missiles for years. this is only u.s. propaganda to scare people like you and i so that our government can get a bigger defense budget. yea, i believe the cold war continues it never ended. it's just not as cold thats all.
Gino

Posted by: RickGI

As someone who was in the Military during the Cold War and still serving today the Cold War is not still ongoing. During the Cold War I was working with weapon systems that were directly related to the conflict, (i.e. Ground launched Cruise Missles, GLCM for short and ICBM's) Most of those systems are gone now and the Military is transforming to a lighter more manuverable force that is more adaptable than it was during the Cold War. Do we still compete geographically? Yes of course but we also compete with our Allies in this area as well. I am now deployed and am working daily with Chech's, Poles, Ukrainians, Estonian's, Slovakian's, Romanian's,Georgian's,and Armenian's. That did not happen during the Cold War. The Cold war is over, no one won the World just changed and everyone is still adapting. I can understand many of Russia's concern with the expasion of Nato to right up their border but with that expansion thousands of G.I.'s are serving right beside FSU members and are realizing that 50 years of propaganda by both sides were just that and that we are not so different after all. I know there are still holdouts on both sides but eventually Our experience will filter down to the civilian sides.
Will Russia collapse? I don't think so however it is still possible that some of the province's will peel off on their own but they will still be closely tied with Russia just out of habit if nothing else.
Sorry to ramble on but this is a sensitive subject to me. I have witnessed first hand the wasted effort and resources put forth during 50 years of distrust. I think of what our countries could have accomplished together if not for the distrust. There will always be political manuvering by all sides but never to the level it was,both sides have too much to gain with better relations.
Just my $.02 worth from living it not watching it on CNN.

(Bush admin didn't take office until 2000 so either your timeline or facts are incorrect. Not that the Bush admin is my favorite I just see very little difference between any admin strategically speaking.)

Posted by: gino

oops i made a mistake. i don't mean to sound like I'm bush bashing either. my date must be wrong. the point i was trying to make is that our government expects no other country to develop nuclear weapons but it's OK for us. If we are to be a world leader. we should lead by example. yes, i agree things are very much different from the days of the cold war. however, the cold war mentality and prejudices are still very much alive between the 2 countries. the threat of nuclear Holocaust still exists today as it did 20 years ago.
yes, relations are much better. however, there is still need for much improvement.
Gino

Posted by: RickGI

Bash Bush all you want that is Democracy. Yes relations are not perfect and perfection is a myth but there is plenty of room for improvement in our relations with Russia. I know of only one area of Nuclear weapons the U.S. is looking into and that is "bunker busters" but hopefully there is enough opposition in congress to stop that. Yes there is still a nuclear danger out there but not from the U.S. and Russia or any of the mainstream nuclear powers but from countries such as North Korea or Iran or some other radical nation or group that could obtain it from one of these nations. That is why it is right to try and stop them from obtaining them. Radical Islamist do not like the Russians or any other non Muslim any more than the U.S. The U.S. is just at the top of the list. I don't want to sound like an anti-muslim, I am stationed in a muslim country and have interpretors who are great friends and while on patrol have met many that are nothing but friendly, however in any group religious or not there are radical elements. I do not like forced Christianity any more than forced Islam.
Yes there is still a danger of nuclear weapons being used, in my opinion more so now than during the cold war, but the U.S. and Russia are not the most likely to use them.

Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

THe problem is that both sides (Russia and America) are trying to dig pits under each other and the only people that it helps is Red China and the world of Islam. Quite frankly - not wise strategies on the part of Russia or the United States.

As far as the military is concerned, it is one of the factors that keeps Russia together. It's a very important institution in a country like Russia, and I think Russia would disintegrate due to seccesions if there was not a threat of military intervention hanging in the air like the Sword of Damocles.

What we know from Russia's history is that given the absence of strong leadership and strong military there is always anarchy, disorder and velikaya smuta .

Posted by: heatherlatyshev

Fortunately, I have not learned enough Russian to watch the news from Channel One Russia on our satellite or even read the russian news sites that Oleg reads several times a day on the Internet. I hear what he says about what Russian media is being told to let the citizens know about the current world political situation. The government has always and will always control the media in Russia. They tell the media what they can and can not allow on the air. In my opinion, this is a greater tragedy than anything else that is going on in the world. The only thing that can be accomplished by doing this is keeping the citizens of Russia clouded in ignorance for as long as it is allowed to go on.

I know that Oleg's family believed everything they saw on the news until we told them what was actually going on from the American point of view. Most of his family now would rather see the American news than Russian.....They say at least they have the oppurtunity to form an opinion from the knowledge they now have, rather than just going on with what Russia is allowing them to see.

And, FYI, Oleg rarely believes anything he reads on the Russian news, unless it's something that is 100% Russian and has nothing to do with other countries.

Posted by: tanya3475

In my personal opinion what American TV presents is not very truthful either...what i heard about Russia here on TV sometimes makes me laugh...it is the game of Politics and nothing else...if the War in Iraq seems right for the US Politics at the moment, it doesn't mean they will present it the same in other countries...i think media in every country depends on the government...didn't the USA support Al Qaeda many years ago, when Russia was leading a war against it? now Al Qaeda is the worst enemy...so it's all a game and i personally don't believe any media unless i see it with my own eyes

Posted by: heatherlatyshev

If you want to be completely truthfull about everything. I am a former US soldier from a long line of soldiers....going all the way back to WWI. I am so against this ridiculous war against terrorism it isn't even funny.

For starters, we teach our children not to sink to the level of the neighborhood bully....But the first time a bully shows us that the government has been laying down on the job, the President and all the other military "supervisors" decide we are going to bomb a whole bunch of innocent people and tell another country how they should run their government. I'm not saying that thier government was right or wrong to begin with, I just think that if they wanted our help, they would've asked. How can you expect our children to learn from our mistakes if we beat up the lesser people and say it's in the name of humanity that this is happening. There are so many innocents being hurt and killed right now, just because the US government let thier guard down, then decided to attack a country as a whole before they had all the correct info. This just seems completely useluss and unjust to me. I grew up hearing stories of past wars, and heard every one talk about all the things that had been done wrong in the past, so why would we actually want this, the "war on terrorism", to come back on our children 30 years down the road, when someone uncovers documents saying that we screwed up....This just isn't what I want for my children. I want them to grow up strong and knowlegdable and confident in the time and place they live in. And I will move clear across the world if I have to, but I will find a place to raise them where they will be safe from idiots that decide to fight rather than talk....Or at least try to talk first.

Posted by: tanya3475

Couldn't agree with you more, Heather...the "war against terrorism" is horrible and unjust, but here on TV they present it as the only "salvation"...it's like the hysteria...can't but think of the song "American Idiot" by my favourite band "Green Day" and the words "the nation controlled by the media"...but oh well, this war is another discussion, i guess

Posted by: heatherlatyshev

I know what you mean Tanya....nothing will ever be right. I was mentioning to my husband the other day that I couldn't believe the suicide bombers would give up thier family and everything they are "suppose" to care about to kill themselves. His remark was "They believe they are doing it in the name of God, and that it will lead them to salvation." I replied with something witty, like "well that's just stupid." Then Oleg reminded me of the Crusades that were fought hundreds of years ago in the name of God. It's all just one awful horrible circle.....And just so meaningless when it's all said and done.

Posted by: inlove

As a person working in the media industry, I have to say that I disagree with the statement that american goverment dictates how news will be presented and what will be said or not said, completely opposite the russian goverment, which is very much involved into the news presentation. In the states media is free as far as advertisers allow it to be.. not the goverment..

Posted by: dakotaridge

Heather,

Who needs the news? I was plenty entertained just watching the American movies that were dubbed with the English soundtrack still being audible in the background. The Russian dubbing seemed to be void of all emotion.

What amazed me was the total lack of interest in the '04 Olympics which were going on while I was there. They were being televised but nobody there seemed very concerned with it.

Posted by: tanya3475

I personally can say that my whole family in Russia and everyone I know there watch the Olympics and really enjoy it...the Olympics are bigger there than here, where people would prefer to watch baseball

instead

Posted by: dakotaridge

Quote:

Originally posted by tanya3475
I personally can say that my whole family in Russia and everyone I know there watch the Olympics and really enjoy it...the Olympics are bigger there than here, where people would prefer to watch baseball instead

Reply pending ... currently I'm restricted to left-hand-only typing so the forum will be spared my diatribes for awhile.

Posted by: Jutman

Hi

The problem is that people live in a fast-going world, where is is only times for headlines and thats rather negative. Especilly when we combined with a growing level of ignorance.

In example: People choose a politicians who promise lower tax!!
But thats not itself good, because the missing money will of course impact on ither issues. I don't want start a discussion on what and why a.s.o, because that depends on your politcal believe. But the principle is there.
Politicians are today elected by headlines who promise the gold without thinking of the consequenses. These politicians are simple dangerous in many ways, especially in big and powerfull countries.

In connection to americans news, the danish TV reported athat the government recommend a certain approach which the majority of news station choose to follow, during the war/campaign in Iraq.
Its much more problematic that the major news station are political connected, so the news are bias that way.

A more funny one is that during the afghan campaign, american Tv choose to broadcast with backgrounds of rocks and infertil land, instead of showing that Afganistan also have green and fertile valleys. The reporter ask the american crwew why? The answer: because these fits with the image the americans has of Afganistan.

Its not censorship, but its ??? I don't what.

Posted by: heatherlatyshev

If I am understanding Jutman's post correctly, which I think I am, it just goes back to the media doing what it will with the current situation. As American's, we've seen it in the past, that is, as long as you paid attention in history. Everything that is said and done in the media, as far as giving us knowledge on current events in another country, is based on what the media wants us to see. From what I have been taught by my husband, Oleg, in Russia, when he was a child, they did something similar. The news stations were not allowed to broadcast any news until the government had given it's approval to the story. They would twist and turn every word, if need to, to make it say what they wanted the people to hear. And it wasn't to long ago that a similar thing was happening in the US. During the Vietnam war Americans only heard what the military wanted them to hear. It was totally different for the soldiers fighting in a 'police action'....that whole title was a joke within itself, still is actually. I think it's disgusting that people can become such great, intellectual reporters, and make the civillian world look up to them so greatly, just to find out later that they were merely puppets on a string. They did nothing more than report what the government told them to in order to keep people happy. It's just wrong.

Posted by: RickGI

In regards to news bias a case can be made by the left and the right. It depends alot on your position and your conviction to it. I think the trouble lies with fringe elements in the Industry that are more interested in conveying their beliefs than reporting the news. I do think these cases are not the norm but more of an exception to the norm. As far as using a certain background for a shot for public perception, the east and west coast has usually given the rest of the country less credit than they deserve and I think is more a reflection on the reporter's ignorance than anything else. The American public would except whatever the particular landscape actually is.
News during Veitnam was filtered by the military for operational concerns, however just because the military gives only certain information out doesn't relieve the reporters of their responsibility to further investigate the story(ies). The military still does limit what it tells the press but the reporters also find information elsewhere. The trick is they need to make sure they get the story right, i.e. The Gitmo Koran story and subsequent retraction and the consequences in Afghanistan.
Socialism or Social Democracy if you prefer, may be a great fit for your nation or political belief just don't consider me ignorant or unenlightened if I choose to disagree.

Posted by: Jutman

Truth

Its a tricki one. I usually say, truth is based on absolute information, which seldom happens. But its also based on your values.
The best is to have a open society where you look after the truth yourself ands has right to tell other about it.