Putin Slaps Down 'Russia Is Back' Warning To West

Putin Slaps Down 'Russia Is Back' Warning To West

Quote:

---

The kindly grandmother seemed unlikely to be plotting a violent street demonstration, but police in St Petersburg, where the G8 summit of world leaders takes place next weekend, were taking no chances. They marched into Anna Shashokina’s flat, claimed it was being used as the headquarters of an opposition group and demanded to know her political views. “I became so agitated and worried I had a mild heart attack,” Shashokina, 67, said. “These things used to happen under communism in the 1970s when people were grilled by police. But isn’t Russia a democracy now? Isn’t it a free country?”

The visit was no mix-up. Shashokina’s son, Andrei, is a little-known opposition figure. In the run-up to the summit, a special police unit has been questioning and intimidating hundreds of opposition activists and their relatives. Critics of the Kremlin have been hauled into police stations to be photographed, fingerprinted and warned against taking part in demonstrations.

It is part of a pattern of repression that has led western politicians to question whether Russia under President Vladimir Putin belongs in the G8 of democratic nations at all. Relations between America and Russia are at their lowest ebb since the collapse of communism.

“The time for glad-handing is over,” said Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. “Putin wants to maintain a smiling facade but the reality is that Russia is close to breaking with the West.”

Putin spent last week mimicking the actions of a western politician. He clumsily volunteered too much information about the last time he had had sex and explained unconvincingly why he had kissed the stomach of a five-year-old boy visiting the Kremlin, saying: “I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten.”

The Russian president also went out of his way to charm human rights activists, such as Irene Khan of Amnesty International, with whom he clucked sympathetically over the Americans’ treatment of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay.

All the while, the crackdown in St Petersburg was gathering pace. Olga Kunosova, from the Yabloko opposition party, received a threatening anonymous phone call. “I was told if I didn’t stop my work and leave town I would end up being hit over the head with a pipe.”

Andrei Dimitriev, a leading left-wing activist, went into hiding after being ordered by police to tell his followers they should stay away from demonstrations. “They told me to stop all political activity at once and leave the city or they’d take me to the woods and bury me.”

The summit, chaired by Putin, will open on Saturday in the gilded 18th-century palace of Konstantinovsky, the president’s official residence on the outskirts of St Petersburg. Putin has spent £135m restoring the sprawling palace to its former opulence. The summit organisers have ordered 6.5m flowers to be planted along roads leading to the palace, but their fragrance might not be able to sweeten the disagreements.

For Putin, a former KGB agent who grew up in near-poverty only a few miles away, the official G8 agenda bears little relation to the real purpose of the summit. With 70% approval ratings, he is in expansive mood. “The message will be clear. Like it or not, Russia is back,” said a Kremlin aide. “We are on the way to becoming a gas and oil superpower.

“For Putin, the most important thing at the G8 is to get the respect he feels Russia deserves. It is about being up there with the big boys again.”

Russia accounts for just 2.6% of world GDP but has 27% of world gas reserves and 6% of proven oil reserves. The G7 account for 41% of global GDP but have only 4% of gas reserves and 9% of the oil.

Washington has been watching Putin’s assertion of power with increasing alarm. “Russia is no longer paying attention to what the Americans or the Europeans tell them,” said Cohen, who returned from a visit to Russia last week. “They’ve got their own agenda and they’re pushing it very hard.”

Top of the official programme is energy security: can the world lessen its dependence on oil and switch to alternative sources of energy?

Showing that America and Russia can co-operate where they have mutual interests, Bush plans to announce an agreement on civilian nuclear power, according to yesterday’s Washington Post. Russia could earn billions from the deal, which would permit America to dump spent nuclear fuel there, but it will prove controversial.

“You will have the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it and you will have the Russian democracy centre concerned about it too,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard.

Putin also intends to raise the fight against Aids and to emphasise the importance of improving education.

On the informal agenda are vexing issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme and North Korea’s missile tests. The Russians and Chinese have thwarted US efforts to impose sanctions on the two “axis of evil” nations, while stringing out the diplomacy.

Under Putin, 53, Russia has sold arms to Syria and is helping Iran develop “peaceful” nuclear technology.

Frustration with Russia led Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, to denounce Russia last May for rolling back democracy and using its oil and gas to bully its neighbours. “Russia is behaving like a runaway rogue state,” said one insider.

Cheney’s speech, which was reminiscent of the cold war era, was delivered with Bush’s approval, but the president is expected to be far more diplomatic on Putin’s home turf.

An early flashpoint of tension will be an “alternative” summit — sponsored by the American National Endowment for Democracy and the Soros Foundation — which opens at a Moscow hotel this Wednesday.

It will be launched by Garry Kasparov, the chess champion, who has compared the G8 summit to the 1936 Nazi Olympics; and Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister of Russia. Both have long been barred from airing critical views on Russian television, now strictly under the Kremlin’s control.

Despite Russian warnings that the presence of top western officials will be taken as an “unfriendly” act, the British ambassador, Tony Brenton, is expected to attend the summit. Washington is thinking of sending Nick Burns, its high-flyer at the State Department.

Further upping the ante, Bush is considering meeting a delegation of Russians from the alternative summit while in St Petersburg. “It is perfectly possible for the president to expect co-operation on matters such as Iran and North Korea, while supporting human rights and democracy,” said Carl Gershman, head of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Ultimately, however, the two nations may be on a collision course. Some US senators, such as John McCain, the 2008 presidential hopeful, have already said that Russia does not deserve to be in the G8. “There could come a point at which a line is crossed which will make it impossible to argue that Russia belongs in a group of advanced industrial democracies,” said Gershman.

Another view gaining ground in Washington is that the G8 could be expanded to the G10 or more. If Russia continues to head in an undemocratic direction, there is no reason why countries with fast-growing economies, such as China and India or even Brazil, should not be welcomed into the club’s hallowed membership.

The G7 — the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada — could then continue as a democratic sub-group, lessening Russia’s influence. “People who used to be very calm about getting on with Russia are growing extremely concerned,” said Cohen. “Behind the scenes, Putin should be told the implications of breaking with the West. Relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest point in the post-communist era.”

The mounting tension is a far cry from the American and Russian presidents’ first meeting in 2002, when Bush famously claimed to have looked into Putin’s eyes and seen his soul. The notion that membership of the G8 would draw Russia into the West’s embrace has been confounded.

Andrei Illarionov, a former Putin aide who negotiated Russia’s membership of the G8 in the 1990s, resigned earlier this year in protest at the regime’s heavy-handedness. Instead, he will be at the alternative summit this week.

“This is not the Russia in which we want to live. This is not the country in which we want our children to live,” Illarionov said. “That is why we are trying to do everything possible to make sure that sooner or later we have another country: the Russia of citizens, the rule-of-law, prosperity and freedom.”

RETURN OF THE SOVIET-STYLE IRON GRIP

- Opposition parties have been stifled
- National television channels have been brought under the control of the Kremlin
- Regional elections have been cancelled
- A crackdown on foreign non-governmental organisations has begun
- Visas have been denied to critics of the regime
- Pro-Kremlin youth groups march in T-shirts bearing Putin’s image
- Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was formerly Russia’s richest man, has been sent to a penal colony in Siberia for eight years after falling out with Putin
- The old Soviet form of the national anthem has been revived

---

Another dissident slamdunked.
Some of his speeches had to be terminated due to mysterious fire alerts, and Kasparov claims authorities "are detaining our delegates all over the country [with] at least 20 arrests that we know of and two guys badly beaten in Kaliningrad.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...12.shtml?s=icp

Quote:

---

“For Putin, the most important thing at the G8 is to get the respect he feels Russia deserves. It is about being up there with the big boys again.”

---

Putin will become like Kim of NK, just a matter of time, the G8 summit could be just the pitting point.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203108,00.html
The orchestra is testing out the tuba. The overture is soon to commence.
President Vladimir Putin lashed out at Vice President Dick Cheney ahead of this weekend's G-8 summit, calling his recent criticisms of Russia "an unsuccessful hunting shot,"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samizdat

Another dissident slamdunked.
Some of his speeches had to be terminated due to mysterious fire alerts, and Kasparov claims authorities "are detaining our delegates all over the country [with] at least 20 arrests that we know of and two guys badly beaten in Kaliningrad.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...12.shtml?s=icp

---

This is not correct.

Kasparov was never a dissident, he had all clearances to leave the USSR for various chess games in the west, he is no doubt a KGB agent, because he would otherwise never been allowed to leave the USSR and nobody would ever known about him in the first place.

They are preparing substitute "dissidents' in case of Putin's "demise under pressure".......[yeah, from the communist Politburo !!!],
so they can fool the West even more - such a scheme is not at all impossiblity.

All those who have their names mentioned in the "independent" media in Russia or who are mentioned on western media [after being allowed to talk to them - and some do that in English which the ordinary people don't speak], and also the fact that most of the people know very well that any opposition to the regime means serious problems including "disapearance", such "dissidents" are only a joke and cannot be ever trusted because the commies always control the game....

Honza

What about Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. Especially interested in your opinion on A Solzhenitsyn. He flip-flopped in the last year between attacking Putin and praising him, calling Russia the only chance to save Christianity. My take was he, as others prefer to forgoe the "MO" mental observation channel, cubicle, etc.

On the other hand- the Soviet system is merciless. And the tentacles have spread.

I'm still saddened by Solzhenitsyn's flip-flop- seemingly under threat. Here are his comments. Under duress? Most would prefer prison to "mental observation".

2006 : Russia, he suggested, was all that stood between NATO and the "downfall of Christian civilization."
He praised the efforts of Mr. Putin "to salvage the state from failure."

Here are June 2005 statements.
“It is often said that democracy is being taken away from us and that there is a threat to our democracy. What democracy is threatened? Power of the people? We don’t have it,” he told Rossiya, the state-run channel.

He said that the State Duma, dominated by the Kremlin’s supporters, was acting “as if it were drunk” and the country could face an upheaval similar to last year’s Orange Revolution in Ukraine if the Government did not change course.

In a previous televised interview, he attacked Mr Putin for failing to crack down on the oligarchs, the two dozen businessmen who bought state assets cheaply in the privatisations of the 1990s.

PUTIN TO AMERICA: NO DICE

ZERO HELP VS. ROGUE REGIMES


July 14, 2006 -- RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin has long envisioned Russia's return as a major world power. This weekend, Putin will see part of that dream realized when leaders of the world's most industrialized nations gather outside St. Petersburg for this year's G-8 summit under Russian presidency.

How will Russia project its new power, largely won thanks to high oil prices and fissures in the Western alliance? Putin provided part of the answer in an interview a week before the summit.

Russia, the president said, was seeking a "multipolar" world in which the United States would no longer be "the sole superpower that tries to dictate to the world how to behave."

The Russian leader was careful not to give the impression that he wanted to revive the Cold War in any form. Nevertheless, he insisted that the world had to be "multilateral because it is so diverse." He said that, while he regarded the United States as "a partner" on some issues, he had no qualms about opposing American policies on a range of others.

He spelled out that opposition with reference the two hottest issues of the day: North Korea's missile tests, and the Islamic Republic of Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

On North Korea, Putin said that, since Pyongyang was not "party to international agreements which limit activities in those spheres" - that is, building nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them - there are no grounds for sanctions. "They are right whether we like it or not," Putin emphasized. All he wants is for North Korea to inform the world community of the time and place of future tests as part of a "normal" pattern of behavior.

The Russian president was even more forthright on the Iranian nuclear crisis. He said Iran had full legal right to "all aspects of nuclear technology." He also dismissed U.S. and European calls for Iran to respond before the G-8 summit to the latest offer by the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. Instead, he said he'd wait for Tehran's answer until late August, as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has demanded.

To forestall attempts by the G-8 to tighten the screws on Iran, Putin also said he would oppose referring the issue to the Security Council even if Iran doesn't accept the latest offer. Instead, he wants the dossier to be returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency - thus perpetuating the diplomatic ping-pong.

Putin regards the American analysis of the North Korean and Iranian crises as "emotional." His advice: "We must not allow emotions to drown out common sense."

Last May, the Bush administration reversed policy by agreeing to direct talks with the Islamic Republic. The hope was that Russia, and, in a different context, China and France, would move closer to the American analysis. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to justify the U-turn by predicting a closer alliance around U.S. positions on Iran. If we are to believe Putin, however, Russia sees that policy change as an admission by Washington that its previous posture on Iran had been based on emotion.

That Russia, and in other contexts China and a host of smaller powers, should try to challenge the American "superpower" is no surprise. During the Cold War, global power politics assumed an ideological expression that often pushed classical national rivalries into the background. But today, many - notably Russia and China - have reverted to the nonideological big-power rivalries of the traditional type.

In that context, neither Russia nor China (nor, for other reasons, France and Germany) have an interest in allowing America to impose its solution for North Korean and Iran.

Pyongyang and Tehran wish to arm themselves largely because of their enmity for the United States. To ask them to abandon their quest for weapons of mass destruction is tantamount to calling for an end to anti-Americanism that provides the backbone of their ideology. Why should Russia, China, France or Germany help install pro-U.S. regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran?

Reunified under a pro-American regime, the Korean Peninsula would provide America with another powerful ally, in addition to Japan and Taiwan, to counterbalance Russia and China in the Far East. A pro-U.S. regime in Tehran would turn the Middle East into an American zone of influence, reducing Russia, China, France and Germany, among others, to crumbs from a feast in which they hope to be treated as guests of honor.

Russia, China and others can play the game this way because of another ironical twist to this story. They know that, if the worst came to the worst - for example, if North Korean and Iran tried to use nuclear weapons against neighbors or nations further afield - the United States could always be relied upon to deal with the danger.

In other words, Russia, China and other "multipolarist" wannabes want their bread buttered on both sides. They're happy to see the United States shut out of North Korea and Iran - but they also regard America as their ultimate insurance against the "rogue states."

When planning the liberation of Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration developed the concept of the "coalition of the willing." In the case of North Korean and Iran, we witness a what can only be described as "the coalition of the unwilling" - designed to make America the loser on all counts. Assured that there will be no serious consequences, the "rogue states" would intensify their anti-Americanism, and reward the "multipolarists" with even more advantages. That, in turn, can increase the resolve of the "multipolarists" to further "restrain" the United States.

The experience of the past three years has shown that the more the United States has tried the "multilateral" track on Iran and North Korea, the more defiant they have both become.

It is, perhaps, time for America and its "willing" allies - such as Britain, Japan, South Korea and Australia - to understand that what is at issue in the case of North Korea and Iran is a classical case of great-power rivalry motivated by national interests. In such rivalries, there are always two camps with conflicting agendas. The hope that the United States can organize a third camp that would include some "multipolarist" rivals is the offspring of an illusion.

Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samizdat

What about Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. Especially interested in your opinion on A Solzhenitsyn. He flip-flopped in the last year between attacking Putin and praising him, calling Russia the only chance to save Christianity. My take was he, as others prefer to forgoe the "MO" mental observation channel, cubicle, etc.

On the other hand- the Soviet system is merciless. And the tentacles have spread.

I'm still saddened by Solzhenitsyn's flip-flop- seemingly under threat. Here are his comments. Under duress? Most would prefer prison to "mental observation".

2006 : Russia, he suggested, was all that stood between NATO and the "downfall of Christian civilization."
He praised the efforts of Mr. Putin "to salvage the state from failure."

Here are June 2005 statements.
“It is often said that democracy is being taken away from us and that there is a threat to our democracy. What democracy is threatened? Power of the people? We don’t have it,” he told Rossiya, the state-run channel.

He said that the State Duma, dominated by the Kremlin’s supporters, was acting “as if it were drunk” and the country could face an upheaval similar to last year’s Orange Revolution in Ukraine if the Government did not change course.

In a previous televised interview, he attacked Mr Putin for failing to crack down on the oligarchs, the two dozen businessmen who bought state assets cheaply in the privatisations of the 1990s.

---

Solzhenitsyn is a puzzle but not a heavy one.

Only a devout communist or an idiot would return back to that country, which has no security of freedom and people cannot do anything themselves, the government still controls everything....and the government are still [now "former"] communists.

The fact is that when everybody was getting 10 years prison sentence, Solzhenitsyn only served 7 years - according to his own biography.

Now we can ask:

Did they brake him or was he realy such a devout communist that he wanted to serve rather than oppose ?

He wrote about the Stalin's era, which is great, but that was in paralel what Khruschev wanted to do - that is blame everything on Stalin and present the communists as "detente hungry and friendly" people.

For example why was it that Solzhenitsyn, such a good writter, didn't work with Anatoliy Golitsyn and any other true defector ?

Why Solzhenitsyn didn't even address this truly obvious Perestroika fraud, which anybody honest from Russia and Eastern Europe has to recognize - besides, every honest person would tell you right in the beginning:

DO NOT TRUST COMMUNISTS - PERIOD. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING WITH THEM !!!!

THESE BASTARDS CANNOT AND MUST NEVER BE TRUSTED !!!

YOU'LL REGRET IT IF YOU BE FRIENDS WITH THESE CRIMINALS !!!!

Solzhenitsyn hasn't done anything in that regard and I don't buy that he could be just a liberal. I don't trust liberals, specialy when they don't believe in God, they have no moral background to be honest because they don't fear God's punishment.

Anyway, I see Solzhenitsyn either as a big failure or he was an agent from the beginning.

I don't know, most likely Solzhenitsyn is an agent because as far as I remember, he was able to "smuggle" his works out of the USSR, which is something totaly impossible to manage because the society is so controled that you have communist informers everywhere and this would've been uncovered before he would get one issue printed.

Printing something is another problem, which Solzhenitsyn didn't have a problem with - he was able to get his works printed, even the One day of Ivan Denisovich, I have the original Czech langu8age version from the 1960s - now how is this possible that Solzhenitsyn, political prisoner, was able to achieve this ?

These are the facts and so no wonder he's saying what he's saying today.

That's all.

God Bless.

Honza