It's interesting to observe how "the Kremlin team" is playing a complex game: on the one hand, their aim is to prove that Medvedev will bring a certain thaw vs Putin's period. On the other hand, they try to convince everyone of the continuity of the policy.
What will we have in reality? IMO, a thaw is more probable. the country's development program (internal modernization, partial liberalization of the economy and development of human capital) that was unveiled by Medvedev calls for pursuing a foreign policy course that largely resembles China's: to avoid confrontation with other countries and "softly" expand an influence that will enable Russia to successfully defend its positions in the issues which are critical to national interests. Society has a special "request", especially when it comes to business circles for which foreign policy confrontation and conflicts are fraught with sizeable losses, while the country's image overseas is an important success factor. It is evident that the former head of the board of directors at the country's biggest monopoly is well aware of this request. On the other hand, at this stage of development, the Russian Federation, as many Russian analysts think, is already well positioned to "afford" such policy softening. Compared to the 1990s Russia experienced a more than serious strengthening of its role on the international scene, as a result of which a potential softening will occur from a position of relative "strength".

__________________
Tatiana Kuznetsova,
Political expert
http://www.finamrus.com/

Sorry, I didn't realise you have dual citizenship. My bad. But seriously, how does Russia's appalling buerocracy make it illigitimate? Have you been to Ireland?

The US system of elections is not democratic and representative. You do know about the electoral college?

The US is the country which is renowned for its ability to interfere in other counties' elections and business. You do realise that right now you're basically running Ghanna, right? You disagree with Russia and you throw a hissy fit. Like it or not, Putin is very popular and the Russians have the right to decide who governs them.

Medvedev being president and Putin being prime minister = nothing changes, and that what the Russian wanted = no change.

__________________

This "election" was closer to the old style soviet era "elections" than it was to a real election. Whatever flaws the US electoral system has, it is clearly closer to being democratic than what putin has produced.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

If Russia people don't want change , they have right to choose Medvedev!
Why you want Russia people to change?
And what you want Russia people to change?
Uh?

__________________

Well, Russians didn't have much choice anyway. you seemed to have the power to read between words. Where did I say that I want Russian to change? What does it mean anyway? Change to what?

__________________

Show you what you have said!

__________________

Xy_god, I am describing a situation.

Hope you can improve your english...

__________________

That's the reason why NATO exist. I remember one german politician said that none of the west-european countries is capable of ensuring its safety by own force.

But NATO is expanding continuously to east, I wonder why such expansion is necessary?

Yes, Euros, Roubles, Yuans, Yens, we arrange it soon.
So you don't see the plain difference? Russia recently had weak, nearly catastrophical situation in politics and economy and only one buyer - the Europe. Europe was not allowed to trade for anything but US dollars, and therefore Russia simply had had no physical choice, but to trade with american vassals. But as the eastern pipelines are being built quickly, the Europe stops to be single buyer, and for instance China and India don't need to donate american economy through the use of petrodollar in direct contracts. In fact, any country, which has no american military guard on it's territory and can defend itself against american invasion can use currency most economically reasonable and not bringing the inflation losses like dollar's ones.
Germany had and has economy in excellent stance, the Euro is most respectful and trustful currency, the producers of carbohydrogens are numerous - yet you can not buy oil and gas for Euro anythere. Saddam wanted to use petroEuro - the US killed him and ruined all country. Iran voiced about it's own oil bourse - since that day it's on the gunpoint. Any Chancellor whose government would try to insist on petroEuro, would die in car or avia incident, like president of Macedonia, or, if to recall modern fashion, some "islamists" would blow him up.
Nobody will ever ask you, Mabus, or Bundestag, or any German, if they decide to deploy million or dozen of millions soldiers to Germany. I don't want to make the boogeyman out of occupation of Germany - I only want to point that Germany is american military protectorate and has no attributes of fully souvereign nation. If this suits everyone - ok, for instance, Russia has nothing against it, as we ourselves can now solve the problem of export payments' diversification and will decrease the crude oil export itself.

The post #28 of Traveler says why: "The support we have given them in causes of joining Nato etc, supporting their right for military expansion etc."

Traveler means that east european countries have right to expand militarily, and the US support them. This is open declaration of allied war preparations against Russia.

In post #21 he also remarks about real goals of AMD shield in eastern Europe:
"This stupid, senseless missile shield unnecessarily fucks things up.(Mabus) -

Oh i dunno, if the Soviets...sorry, the Russians didn't have the world's largest nuclear arsenal maybe it wouldn't be a problem."

So the US of this dandy Traveler (and Britain, seemingly, as he has double citizenship) gradually prepare for the full scale war against Russia and therefore get the AMD ready in Poland to clamp the compensational impact against conventional invasion.
Europe must forget about close ties with the US and Russia - that's pure idealism on the background of future highly possible assault on RF. If this war will happen, the "old" Western European countries can hope on the neutrality staggering status like Sweden in WW2 in the most.
Sad things, people feel it here as they get similar propagandistic reports from the american and british media. "Never lived good, so there is no no need to get habit to" they say with grimly sarcasm. Only 8 years of peace and development, will we have at least 20, as grandfathers had before the 1941...

That seems to be the general feeling in Germany, even although I would clearify this statement a bit.

We Germans can ensure the safety of our borders/territory on our own, but just as every other European nation, we are totaly unable to project any power (e.g. ensureing the safety of trade routes) on the world stage on our own. That's probably why we are sticking with the USA.

My personal opinion is, that we should change that and turn to an European-only/EU defense alliance, but unhappily that won't happen soon

I'm wondering about this as well and honestly I see no positive effect for western Europeans to be allied with e.g. Georgia. These countries are non of our business and won't provide to our own security, which should be a main focus for an alliance.

Anyway I'm no big fan of the NATO, it's just a relict of the cold war times. My dislike for this organisation is only surpassed by my utter "hate" for the useless UN.

__________________
"bellum omnium contra omnes; atque in eo bello jus esse omnibus in omnia."
Thomas Hobbes

"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes