Russian modern Geo-politics

[independent]

Thanks, it just confirms the way I typify some persons on the forum:
Instead of taking thinking as a part of reality, they try to follow the line that the reality is what one thinks/believes.
I know this technique is used by brainwashers producing for the brainwashed the effect of self-fulfilling prophesy. But the brainwashers do not take it seriously themselves. God only know what they think. Maybe, they believe in no more than the formula that “means justify ends”. If you look at the history of the mankind openly, then you will discover it is the main menace to human beings.

You don't have to like how things are - and what is the driving force in it - but if You deny what
majority thinks - You miss the game. You or I are not able to apply new rules - so we must accept
valid ones - or waist our time by fighting against windmills ....
And it is not about ideology - it is nature of human being what makes us act like we do - so there is
no need to brainwash anyone to want to be rich, or a rich people to use his/her money to get power
and it is as obvious that when someone gets power he/she will use it to get more...
What Machiavelli wrote is still valid today...

[SiD]

Yalta this

Our peacekeepers were ingaged into military action <...> Of course they missed georgian attack, but they have shown russian counter attack. And of course they cant sort out who ruined what.

was said about western media. It is common myth that Russian forces demaged Skchinvali while counter attack, not georgians ruined it. So i dont see how i changed my view.

I have made analogies with the previous acts of Russia that should make us think it would be nothing new if the Russian military wrought more damage on Tskhinvali than the Georgian side.
I’d like also to add questions raised by another person (Aleksandre Ramishvili) on August 25th on the internet (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/17/the-russia-georgia-war-and-the-international-law/">http://lawiscool.com/2008/08/17/the-rus ... ional-law/</a><!-- m -->) :
Can this be the scenario:
South Ossetian militaries under the Russian peacekeeping control had been bombing Georgian villages previous to the conflict. Georgian authorities several times announced this to Russia. On 7 august Georgian forces directed their artillery shelling to the points where the attacks had been coming from, i.e. Tskhinvali (it is absolutely possible to bomb Georgian troops from there) making the Russian party to the peacekeeping agreement in breach of it for failure to restrain the Ossetian militia. Casualties would definitely follow. Russia announced to defend its civilians after Georgian troops announced ceasefire for several hours to ensure the civilians were out of the war theatre. there was no civilians left in the city when Russia decided to defend them. and if there were why did they bombed the city after? So there can be points identified:1.The peacekeeping mandate became void for failure from Russian party to enforce it. 2. civilians were out of the war zone when Russia announced the necessity to defend them.3.Tskhinvali was under effective control of Georgia before the Russian offensive making it de facto Georgian territory(not to mention the de jure recognition of it as Georgian territory by Russia itself).

Just repeating “it’s myth, it’s myth, it’s myth” serves a bad argument.
But, Frankly, I don’t remember if Russia under Putin (and now Medvedev) has ever admitted any mistake.
Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum.

This your teory doesnt explain how our peacekeepers died. Besides i have seen our reporters in night wenn georgians ruined Tskchinvali there deffinetly were civilians and many were seeking refuge with peacekeepers. I repeat that was in the night not next day. Your western media woke up much later.

[Yalta1945]

What Machiavelli wrote is still valid today...

Interesting, what language did you study him and did you read all the writings of Machiavelli? I know that even some very proud professors don't know some parts of his writings or pay no adequate attention to the signs of his probable schizophrenia and sex-pathologia.

[Yalta1945]

This your teory doesnt explain how our peacekeepers died. Besides i have seen our reporters in night wenn georgians ruined Tskchinvali there deffinetly were civilians and many were seeking refuge with peacekeepers. I repeat that was in the night not next day. Your western media woke up much later.

Reporting is a separate topic. We know the difference both in reporting and providing open access for the media. Anyway, this situation cannot be examined without introspection into the events before the 8th of August.

[SiD]

This your teory doesnt explain how our peacekeepers died. Besides i have seen our reporters in night wenn georgians ruined Tskchinvali there deffinetly were civilians and many were seeking refuge with peacekeepers. I repeat that was in the night not next day. Your western media woke up much later.

Reporting is a separate topic. We know the difference both in reporting and providing open access for the media. Anyway, this situation cannot be examined without introspection into the events before the 8th of August.

Just wenn next time you will see georgian story or any other, ask yourself question: Russian peacekeepers were there, georgian peacekeepers were ther, how could russian peacekeepers be attacked? Thier positions are well known to georgian military. Besides to take city you need SOME force. Why were they there if it wasnt prepared?

[independent]

What Machiavelli wrote is still valid today...

Interesting, what language did you study him and did you read all the writings of Machiavelli? I know that even some very proud professors don't know some parts of his writings or pay no adequate attention to the signs of his probable schizophrenia and sex-pathologia.

Study him is too much to say - but I read The Prince for a long time ago. And I was surprised
how similar was getting and keeping power then and now. For me it was also an explanation
how vague is idealism when it meets reality.

[Yalta1945]

What Machiavelli wrote is still valid today...

Interesting, what language did you study him and did you read all the writings of Machiavelli? I know that even some very proud professors don't know some parts of his writings or pay no adequate attention to the signs of his probable schizophrenia and sex-pathologia.

Study him is too much to say - but I read The Prince for a long time ago. And I was surprised
how similar was getting and keeping power then and now. For me it was also an explanation
how vague is idealism when it meets reality.

Machiavelli is not a man of integrity, weak philosopher, and no sociologist. When you read more of him, and read explanations on him, then you suddenly realize he is not as consistent as he should be, - if just the evaluation based on his own premises matters. Good, if you have “The Prince”. Then you can check how much he gives to Fortuna, and what his teaching is worth after it. Well, I just quickly tried to find it on the internet in English (I read Machiavelli 13 years ago), and I found the end of Chapter XXV:
"I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
Well, I remember to have read you must kick Fortuna. Anyway, he prays Fortuna as a goddess (she is crucially important in his work) whom one must beat because Fortuna is a woman. Machiavelli is one of the oddest pagans. Hitler’s passages in “Mein Kampf” are sometimes referred to as lunatic. Machiavelli is pathologic too.

[independent]

Machiavelli is not a man of integrity, weak philosopher, and no sociologist. When you read more of him, and read explanations on him, then you suddenly realize he is not as consistent as he should be, - if just the evaluation based on his own premises matters. Good, if you have “The Prince”. Then you can check how much he gives to Fortuna, and what his teaching is worth after it. Well, I just quickly tried to find it on the internet in English (I read Machiavelli 13 years ago), and I found the end of Chapter XXV:
"I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
Well, I remember to have read you must kick Fortuna. Anyway, he prays Fortuna as a goddess (she is crucially important in his work) whom one must beat because Fortuna is a woman. Machiavelli is one of the oddest pagans. Hitler’s passages in “Mein Kampf” are sometimes referred to as lunatic. Machiavelli is pathologic too.

An funny quote indeed. I don't think that his book in whole is so reasonable - but what comes to power
and realism against idealism I really can't argue with him. But as I already mentioned - I read it for long time
ago (over 20 years) so I rather remember what kind of influence it have to me than what he exactly wrote.
btw. when You think that it was wrote some 500 years ago - paganism seems kind of acceptable... but
of course it shows also that he had his limitations of understanding reality.

[Yalta1945]

Machiavelli is not a man of integrity, weak philosopher, and no sociologist. When you read more of him, and read explanations on him, then you suddenly realize he is not as consistent as he should be, - if just the evaluation based on his own premises matters. Good, if you have “The Prince”. Then you can check how much he gives to Fortuna, and what his teaching is worth after it. Well, I just quickly tried to find it on the internet in English (I read Machiavelli 13 years ago), and I found the end of Chapter XXV:
"I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
Well, I remember to have read you must kick Fortuna. Anyway, he prays Fortuna as a goddess (she is crucially important in his work) whom one must beat because Fortuna is a woman. Machiavelli is one of the oddest pagans. Hitler’s passages in “Mein Kampf” are sometimes referred to as lunatic. Machiavelli is pathologic too.

An funny quote indeed. I don't think that his book in whole is so reasonable - but what comes to power
and realism against idealism I really can't argue with him. But as I already mentioned - I read it for long time
ago (over 20 years) so I rather remember what kind of influence it have to me than what he exactly wrote.
btw. when You think that it was wrote some 500 years ago - paganism seems kind of acceptable... but
of course it shows also that he had his limitations of understanding reality.

I value seeds for their fruits. It is not a coincidence that Machiavellism got a pejorative description.

[SiD]

Machiavelli is not a man of integrity, weak philosopher, and no sociologist. When you read more of him, and read explanations on him, then you suddenly realize he is not as consistent as he should be, - if just the evaluation based on his own premises matters. Good, if you have “The Prince”. Then you can check how much he gives to Fortuna, and what his teaching is worth after it. Well, I just quickly tried to find it on the internet in English (I read Machiavelli 13 years ago), and I found the end of Chapter XXV:
"I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
Well, I remember to have read you must kick Fortuna. Anyway, he prays Fortuna as a goddess (she is crucially important in his work) whom one must beat because Fortuna is a woman. Machiavelli is one of the oddest pagans. Hitler’s passages in “Mein Kampf” are sometimes referred to as lunatic. Machiavelli is pathologic too.

I havent read this book, i am no philosopher and not know much about Machiavelli but i understand those words like: fortune loves the breave. I think he meant that if you want fortune on your side you must be adventurous becouse while you wait for fortune to come to you someone else can already have it. Man must create fortune, to act and it will be at his side i think he meant that. About beat and kick i think it is about challenges. Be brave and confident no matter the odds. You must command fortune not just hope for it i think he meant that. But as i said i am not philosopher.

[Yalta1945]

For You, Machiavelli lovers…
Machiavelli’s efforts in “The Prince” (“Il principe”) and “Discourses” (“Discorsi”) to employ more realistic and rational approach in reasoning are smashed by his big bang of irrationality when he tries to explain why the rulers fail. This is where his scientific comprehension fades away entirely as to worship the myths of virtù and la Fortuna. For the part that exposes his most obvious contradictions and inconsistencies, refer to chapter XXV of “The Prince”. It’s the part where Machiavelli stumbled over, being unable to rationally stitch together his ideas. It’s also the part where the author suddenly falls short of asserting practical usefulness of his analyses. Any expectations to see how this work develops into a cooking book for power usurpers are killed by Machiavelli’s rather fatalistic/pessimistic disclaimer in Chapter XXV.
I made a few dozens of pages of critical remarks on him long ago but I cannot access them now, so I briefly mention what might be found on the net. First, this conclusion:
„Although Machiavelli seeks to deny fatalism, he also seems to argue himself into it. Many critics have found in Chapter 25 of The Prince the lowest depths of Machiavelli’s cynicism, because the logical conclusion of his argument is that nothing the prince does particularly matters, because he is a mere political time server.“
(<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-148,pageNum-85.html">http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Lit ... um-85.html</a><!-- m -->)
The worst was however Machiavelli’s set of values where the power was put above everything else, including ethics. It was a drastic breach of the earlier definition of politics that saw it as continuation of ethics. While St. Augustine pointed that without justice states are “the great bands of robbers“, Machiavelli did not bother about this as well as many other central questions of society.
I have found on the internet a short description of how things were looked upon before and after Machiavelli. Here comes the conclusion: “The historic responsibility of Machiavelli consists in having accepted, recognized, indorsed as normal the fact of political immorality, and in having stated that good politics, politics conformable to its true nature and to its genuine aims, is by essence non-moral politics.“ (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/range11.htm">http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/range11.htm</a><!-- m -->)
Machiavelli focused just on the way to secure the ruler success (in a narrow sense), but the story of the big bandit Borgia whom he admired could not be counted as a success story. His own life was not so, either. Mussolini who praised Machiavelli and tried to put Machiavellism into his practice turned to be a big loser. The same is true about Hitler. Machiavellism may certainly be a philosophy of ambitious losers and lunatic criminals.
Look how the essence of Machiavellism was epitomised in a single joke: “Complete the following statements: ... I believe other people ... (a) should do what I want them to do; (b) should fall down and kiss my feet; © should lie down in my path, so I can walk on them; (d) There are other people?
The correct answer, of course, for the true Machiavellian, is (d).” From What would Machiavelli Do? The ends justify the meanness“ by Stanley Bing (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://brneurosci.org/reviews/machiavelli.html">http://brneurosci.org/reviews/machiavelli.html</a><!-- m --> - book review)
There have been fairly good critical thoughts and analyses on Machiavelli made in the previous centuries, and it is still surprising how often they seem to be neglected or forgotten now. Maybe, the only marginal elites read books in the XXI century? But many writings can be found of the internet as well. I found an interesting text of John Morley (XIX century!):
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Machiavelli">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Machiavelli</a><!-- m --> J.Morley: “Machiavelli has been supposed to put aside the question of right and wrong, just as the political economist or the analytical jurist used to do. Truly has it been said that the practical value of all sciences founded on abstractions, depends on the relative importance of the elements rejected and the elements retained in the process of abstraction. The view that he rejected moral elements of government for a scientific purpose and as a hypothetical postulate, seems highly doubtful. Is he not more intelligible, if we take him as following up the divorce of politics from theology, by a divorce from ethics also? He was laying down certain maxims of government as an art; the end of that art is the security and permanence of the ruling power; and the fundamental principle from which he silently started, without shadow of doubt or misgiving as to its soundness, was that the application of moral standards to this business, is as little to the point as it would be in the navigation of a ship.
The effect was fatal even for his own purpose, for what he put aside, whether for the sake of argument or because he thought them in substance irrelevant, were nothing less than the living forces by which societies subsist and governments are strong.“
Maybe, the problem of Machiavelli was that he saw tyrannies as the prevailing form of government in the world; maybe he could not simply accept the injustice and immorality of the world he saw, so he tried to escape from it through a kind of paradox we sometimes witness in the nature when a victim does not even try to escape, instead falling into hypnotic state for painless death.
If I saw no other texts in the world except those that I can find on this forum, my conclusion would be that the world speaks Airport English (self-criticism).
Whatever Machiavelli (who was even nicknamed “Old Nick”, that is, the devil, Satan) thought of the politics, he died as a Christian. The fact is worth for consideration.
Christianity had deep roots in Russian culture. If the word ‘spasibo’ - ‘спасибо’ (thank you, thanks) which is a shortened form of “спаси Бог”, meaning “may God save you”, still may not show what god was meant by this wish, then a Russian word for ‘Sunday’ – ‘Voskresenye’ ‘Воскресенье’ indicates it clearly as it means ‘Resurrection’. So I see Machiavellism as the traditionally anti-Russian way of thinking, and I’d advice Russian chauvinists to mediate on the known old meanings of the first letters of Russian alphabet: “Aз Буки Веди Глаголь Добро… Добро Есть Живете…” „Kако Люди Мыслете… Мыслете Наш Он Покой“

[Yalta1945]

'A New Russian Imperialism'
Every day Russian foreign policy is becoming tougher, in many cases more clearly defined and independent.
Russia has been waging undeclared wars in many areas of the former USSR--wars that can be termed imperialistic.
Russian Military Intervention
In cases where there are attempts (by the newly sovereign republics) to demonstrate genuine independence and to achieve freedom from Moscow, Russia supports "national-liberation" movements against these republics under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking population. Sometimes the direct involvement of Russian troops is camouflaged and presented to the world as a "peacekeeping mission" in an area where interethnic conflicts have arisen. It is evident, moreover, that there is no willingness to evacuate remaining Russian army divisions stationed in these republics (after initial partial withdrawals in 1991-92).
Caucasian Wars
There is an analogous situation in the Caucasus. In reality, Russia was in a state of war with Georgia, but the Russian government denied this, using very strange language in its public statements. If, to illustrate the situation, one were to compare Abkhazia with Russia's Tambov oblast', the question would arise from where the Tambov governor could obtain SU-27s, MiG-29s, modem tanks and thousands of Kalashnikovs? Where did Abkhazia acquire such large quantities of airplanes, tanks, and artillery? Who provided the help needed to enable Abkhazia to carry out major military operations? Who has been funding arms deliveries and the upkeep of the Abkhaz army as well as hundreds of "volunteers" from Russia?
In this case I do not plan to accuse the Russian authorities of first taking the side of Abkhazia, and then going over to the other side. We know how this war began--Shevardnadze was partly to blame, Ardzinba was also at fault, and now it is difficult to say who was the more culpable. But the principal aspect is the still-unclarified role of Russia in this war for instance, was it considered necessary to help the Abkhazians against Georgia, which had "overdone it" in its striving for national independence? In any case, Abkhazia was helped, with the result that the Abkhazians "liberated" their entire territory, thanks to Russian troops and hardware.

Did things go too far?
Playing on the strong imperialistic attitudes of post-Soviet society, the Russian authorities are endeavoring to offer up to it--as an oath of fealty to great-power aspirations--a number of achievements that they have to their credit, i.e., the maintenance of military control over the entire territory of the former USSR.

When was it written? Guess!
-----------------------------------------------------
The right answer is in 1994
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol4/Afanasyev.html">http://www.bu.edu/iscip/vol4/Afanasyev.html</a><!-- m -->

[ferms1]

A few years ago I communicated that a "cold war" with Russia might be reality via competition in the world market. Yes now that China controls United States cash flow might there be hidden agendas of growing industrial sector via building war machine to pay China back via cash flow.

[Peach]

A few years ago I communicated that a "cold war" with Russia might be reality via competition in the world market. Yes now that China controls United States cash flow might there be hidden agendas of growing industrial sector via building war machine to pay China back via cash flow.

You think we're witnessing a cold war with Russia? I wouldn't say so. Bad relations between Russia and the west is not enough to call it a cold war. Especially because Obama promised to revise cooperation with Russia to a better direction. Moreover, you mentioned a cold war because of market competition, but, even if a cold war would take place, it wouldn't be about competition, it would regard politics.

[solzhenitsyn08]

In those happy days of Russian Tsars everybody were happy to be governed by the noble dynasties who were the akins of Angle-Saxons, Germans even Franks. The "straw hair blue eye" Medvedev shall put back those happy days in their proper places in the history of Europe.

[Lenin666]

on Russians invitation <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vk.com/reg7690296">http://vk.com/reg7690296</a><!-- m -->