What Russia would you prefer, either strong democracy country and serious economic competitor or some authoritarian country with compliant leaders?

It is very interesting to know your oppinion about it, Thanks

I would prefer an economic competitor, to an ideological rivalry.

Maybe it is no so obviously, because there is in West countries a popular tendency called 'real policy', that allow collaborate even with dictatorial government if it can give some positive results

First choise off course, but Russia needs good reliable and competent leaders and a hell of a lot of reforms in order to make any serious progress. Sadly that aint the case at the present time and it never has been. I think its gonna take decades for Russia to become a respectable and efficient country.

__________________
Jesus was a communist!

Currently its looking like a political system moving towards autocracy, with a very competitive agenda towards the west.

My problem does not lie so much at the latte but much more at the former issue, the lack of democratic standards that is increasing currently. Apart from that I have also a problem with the state taking over full controll over the strategic very important energy sector in order to use it as diplomatic weapon and as tool to blackmail. Thats however not directly related to the issue of democracy or not.

My choice. THis Russia would be a better world citizen. And better for it's own people, also, IMO.

Not directly, but goverment control over large sections of the economy would seem to undermine the idea of limits to goverment power.

Who says that in a democracy the powers have to be limited to an absolute minimum? Thats the American viewpoint perhaps. If one would follow this definition tightly one would claim nothing else than that all social democratic parties are in fact undemocratic.

Hi, Slart. These are your own words - "the strategic very important energy sector". The "strategic" means "providing the national security", I hope you wouldn't argue this plane stuff. Answer, who the hell must control the strategic sector in any state if not the government of that state? Doesn't EU have it's own strategic sectors like EADS for instance, where the French goverment plays the first fiddle? Don't the USA have their own strategic sectors neatly protected against transnational influence, which was obviously showed during the UNOCAL and Dubai matters? Why shouldn't my government control our own oilfields and gas extraction, while the Norwegian government does the same with theirs? Why instead of my government control shall I choose the control of few men like Mittal and refuse to gain the dividends and other social budget benefits from selling of our national natural resources? Why all those enormous easy money should flow to the pockets of few private persons, who will decide and dictate to the weak poor government - what is allowed to Russia and what - not?
I wonder why are you unable to put on our shoes for the moment to understand our natural clear will - to have strong national business, to possess what is ours.
As for the supposed blackmail - let's see. It's we who push our values upon another nations? It's we who create and expand our military bloc to the borders of EU? Do we bomb the independent European countries to change their governments, imprison and charge their presidents against all international rules of souvereignity? So what and who the damn do we blackmail?

The clear difference between the examples you brought and Russia is that the former use the states control to secure essential industries from hijacking through foreign powers. Russia goes far beyond that. It uses the oil and gas sector it brought recently under its (nearly?) full control as an offensive weapon. You hardly can deny the dozen of "random" incidents that took place since then exactly there where it hit the countries it should.

I am perfectly fine with Russia wanting to secure the profits from its resources. I dont mind if it is states owned and the profit is going directly into the budget. Do what you want regarding this. But the fact that the Kreml has exchanged its assault tank, war planes and bombs against gazprom as its most powerful to threaten rebelling neighbors and even the EU although in a more decent and subtle way. (O-tone: we also can sell to China, ie you will lack on supply then) - thats blackmailing and you should not be surprised if thats the wrong action for making you look a trustworthy partner.

Moreover it looks funny how Russia demands the EU to open its markets further for their companies (often under vital state control) while you start to close your markets one after another for our companies.
Our values? That only can mean that Russia sees human rights not as its values. Is that correct? Moreover why is Russia in the OSCE when it does not share its values?
Do you speak about the baltic countries? It was not us, it was them that wanted at all costs to join EU and NATO. Guess why, because they had an extreme fear that Russia might just grap them back if they have no protection from somewhere else. A fear that looks not too weird if you see what is going on in some of your former regions today, where Russian "peace" soldiers are stationed.
WRT Ukraine. The EU has rejected the rumors about possible EU admission.

Are you talking about Iraq? That was not supported on EU level. And the major countries that engaged in this war against the will of its own people have been voted down and replaced by war opponents (Spain, Italy). And also in Britain, Blair has become a walking dead because of his engagement in Iraq. I am on your side on that. The iraq war was a crime. The electorate wanted to go rid of those politicians after they ignored their clear will on that.
Still Iraq? Well, in my eyes this victory justice was wrong. If Saddam should have faced trial only the ICC would have been a proper choice. But therefore the US or Britain would have needed to join the ICC-treaty itself. A step they refused to do. And seen from todays perspective they properly did so to not face an ICC trial themselves.
Georgia, Ukraine and Moldavia in first line. But also the EU in general that is strongly dependent on your gas.

THe difference on the Unocal and Dubai ports issue is that the US government does not now nor will they own either. The issue was that we did not want a foreign government to own either of them. There is a huge difference between that and Gazprom. I have to agree with Slarti. If you wnat the Russian government to own it that is one thing, if you want to use it as blackmail tool against your neighbors that is something different. Do nto be suprised if the Europeans especially see it as in their interest to build some LNG terminals near ports so they can diversify a little and not be so dependant on Russian gas.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

First - the government has control over only 1/3 of total gas and oil industry in Russia. The strawman tales about full control are being invented in the West media and easily used cause nobody amidst you have ever interested in real cifers beyond the lovely cozy clishees. The dozens (!!! c'mon count and name me the six of'em or confess right here that you don't restrain yourself in exxagerations once it regards the bad Russia) "incidents" that "hit" some countries were just the attempts to abolish the great and no more grounded subsidies and discounts. Explain me why shall Russia subsidize the economy of Ukraine for 3-5 blns a year with cheap gas, all the more, as Ukrainian government announced to become the part of our economic rival - EU? If Ukraine gonna be the part of your economic bloc (not to say about NATO) it could count on your financial help, wouldn't it? EU or the US could have given them the credits to buy our gas for market price, a little less then Austria for transportation reasons. What is unclear? We cannot force anyone to buy the gas for higher price than market sets, but what now is the reason for us to sell it cheaper?
What do you mean under the subject "rebelling"? How neighbouring states can rebel one against another? If you mean they want to get rid of our influence - so that's what I say: the only way to become really independent from Russia is to stop live on her donations. How could we affect on the policy of Ukraine if it chose freely whose gas to buy - Norvegian, Russian or liqid tanker gas from Quatar on the same world price? But they want to milk two cows at once - to be part of the EU and get gas as if they still are the donated region of Russia. I wonder how you don't see this, Bart. Imagine you were asked why do Europe assaults Russia with the so expensive BMW cars, and push us to pay thousands Euros instead of hundreds? Laughably.
What markets are closed, what is forbidden to sell in Russia? C'mon, shoot it. Just wonder to know, being living among the forest of trade hypercentres filled with european goods, watching the factories of european origin and capital which appear like mushrooms after the rain.
Don't tell me about human rights until the european concentration camps for illegal immigrants exist and shimmer with barbed wire and shortly after hungarian police shot ribbon bullets in the studens. Of course the human rights are one of our values or aims to reach, did you expect me to reject that? The difference between us is that we are going to protect the human rights of the majorities quite opposite to Europe's approach. That means, to be short, that if one day in Europe the paedophils will legitimate their public rallies and establish one new record for human rights we will not follow. As for OSCE - good question. I really don't know what the devil do we do there.
I spoke about ALL countries. The future membership in NATO is not questioned for all countries including Ukraine and Belarus, the time is questioned. No neutral country on the border with Russia. The membership in EU is not so urgent - the US bases and rockets can be stationed without so much troubles.
What's going on in some of our former regions, where Russian peace soldiers locate? No bloodshed and criminal clusters, to the contrary to the Kosovo, there you "peacekeepers" cheered and witnessed the destruction of the monasteries and other serbian shrines, the rapes, murders and discrimination of civilians of Serb origin.
[quote] I'm talking about Yugoslavia, I said - "European country". Iraq is one of former European colonies, and we don't wonder too much for your colonial or post-colonial "adventures" and other old "pig-sticking" lovely games of anglo-saxons outside the "Civilized World". I do regret those tens of thousands that would have slept in their beds today at the tyranny of Saddam but who are absolutely free and democratic now - as only dead can be. And I do regret of those tens thousands who still sleep in bed and will be democratized next few years in coming butcher.


Explain why must we sell them the gas for 40% of real price or pay the rest 60% for them yourselves. BTW. You might rebuild and make efficient the prodigal energetic sector in Georgia with your investments, instead of the US forging their army for bloodish assault to Abkhasia and S. Osetia.

The US government doesn't own the ports or UNOCAL, but strange thing - yet the government can sternly manage the activity of these companies once it concerns the State's Interests, as if it possessed them. The stock of the Russian State in the Gazprom is 51%, the rest are openly traded, in London for example. The company (the stock-holders, among whom is Rothschield and other masters of the West) wants to sell their gas for the best price and therefore to curb some ex-soviet discounts for today-independent ex-sattelites - that's commercial agenda to cut wastes. Nethertheless, I don't reject that in some situation the trial of any foreign agent to buy the control packet will be stopped in the manner of the US. Well, in the US the family of president, the vice-president rake the mad benefits from their oil monster-companies far surpassing the Gazprom in the weight and cynizm of approaches. In the least I don't remember Gazprom organized the military occupation of some countries, but that's another topic. I say, it's your inner issue, that blood of your soldiers in the injust thief war don't even bring a penny to your social system and only feed your high top. In Russia half of our own oil and gas helps to build new roads, schools and other useful things for people, already helped us to nullify the foreign debt. In the other perspective I don't see the big difference to any super-companies of the world. The probability of the assault of the US on Iran and looting it's treasures is thousands times higher then of the mythological neo-imperial rover threat of Russia.
Europeans openly declared us that they are going to diversify their gas import long before these declarations caused the restrained remarks of the Gazprom's president about possible reasonable diversification of the future routes of deliveries. I fully agree about idea of the LNG european terminals and hope they will decrease the hystery and paranoidal obsessions. There is great traffic of carbon-hydrogens from Russia to the Europe, the Baltic pipeline and pipes in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria will make it even bigger. But we must have optional creditable consumer - that's why the main attention will be payed to China. Europe shouldn't fancy all the stuff in the shop "Russia" intended for them only and behave childish demanding laughable economically irrational concessions.

I don't intend to protect Putin, but he said about open both economic market simultaneously.


It was the greatest error of the West, that they protect Baltic countries in such a way. These processes began in the ninetieths years when the Russia was democratic country and there weren't any blackmail and pressure. In that years we didn't understand this "second Berlin Wall". Thus taking that countries the West make a threat to lose Russia. If the West took Russia to NATO, WTO and others international structures, we would have essentially different situation in the country.

Nowaday it is very difficult to uphold ideas about democracy and social justice in Russia, where we hear about incapacity democracy in Russia from the West. Our government use this to increase it's rate and influence in Russia.


I think Oleg mean the attack to Serbia. It was very ambiguous action I think. It is interesting I heard the majority people in EU don't remember about this operation. Is it true?

If he is really serious about this, I think a deal could be reachable. But his words have to be followed by actions. If he comes forward with a basis for simultaneously opening of markets the EU for sure have an open ear for it. I mean it isn't like there can not exist cooperation between us two. Look for the Sojus rockets for example. The Europeans needed a middle size rocket with the option for human space flight, and the Russians wanted to get the chance to launch them from the European spaceport. Cooperation is possible if there is a will on bot sides.

In fact its not that long ago that Russia was not so hostile against Europe and the west in general. If I remember it all started with the critique from our side on the Yukos case. Not that the claims were wrong, (I guess so, I had no insight in it) but they were for sure extremely selectively applied. I mean you have dozens of oligarchs from Jelzins time, I am sure you could everyone of them destroy in legal cases as the CEO of Yukos. But they dont engage in an opposition movement and that makes the difference.

Well anyway I am sure the criticism was not welcomed with applause in Russia...

But it was the Baltics that at all costs wanted to leave Russia. I mean after all it was you who annexed them against their will. Isnt it right to let the people decide in the last instance what they want? The Baltics even though they had a considerable Russian minority after decades of planned assimilation from the Soviets, decided to leave Russia as long as it is possible and they did.

BTW there was a few years ago this argue about Kaliningrad and the EU borders between it and Russia. Hasn't this problem been solved through establishing a corridor or so?

But I see your point, actually its good to hear from a Russian for once the Russian perspective. In fact we dont really know how the Russians think here. I guess it will be similar the other way round.


I am not sure I understood you, can you elaborate?
Are you meaning that our criticism towards your democracy are used by your own state to increase its own influence?

No thats not the case I think, but it might not be the first issue we think about when hearing some calling us about failures of the west. You know the list is long, apart from Iraq that is another story, we would think of Afghanistan is pretty fucked up operation.

In Kosovo, Europe did a long time only wait and see. In fact it is still critized for having been too passive for too long. On the other side, the opposition within Europe towards the NATO campaign was not to be underestimated either. Especially the UCK was not viewed as really trustworthy in the public, and that proved right in the end, so the NATO was a fool to support them.

But I am glad at least that the weapons are silent now at the Balkan. I would not go as far as to claim there is really peace established but I hope the parties down there could reach a compromise. The new consitution of Serbia did not really help this goal.

Slart, would you mind to comment my post #11, adressed to you? Or do you want to escape answering the unsuitable questions it contains?