With the USA's attention for many years on war instead of peace, we have forsaken Russian and the developing democracy there. We made a choice to put the money from the US Government toward that of war in the Middle East. We should have put as much or more into developing closer ties and a closer relationship with Russia. The decisions made in the past make come back to haunt us.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas...a.ap/index.html

It seems the Russian Navy is sending some ships with joint maneuvers to Venezuela. This is in response to the USA sending ships to Georgia for aid. Whose nuke is the biggest is not the real questions but who is willing to use it is the scary one.

It's called Cold War. Maybe it'll get a different name this time around. It's all based on Mutual Assured Destruction, ie, any harm you do to us, we'll do worse to you. Brinkmanship is an important element. It worked for a long time.

Knowing what we know about Putin's dictatorial and warlike attitudes, we can count on him to take us to the brink as often as he can.

It's called Cold War. Maybe it'll get a different name this time around. It's all based on Mutual Assured Destruction, ie, any harm you do to us, we'll do worse to you. Brinkmanship is an important element. It worked for a long time.

Knowing what we know about Putin's dictatorial and warlike attitudes, we can count on him to take us to the brink as often as he can.

Yes, I remember the end of the Cold War and I hope that history does not repeat itself. For all our sakes!

Monica Crowley, whatever one thinks of her, gave a riveting description in one or other of her two books on Nixon, Nixon Off the Record and Nixon in Winter, of Nixon being dumbfounded and enraged that Bush I and James Baker did practically nothing to advance U.S. interests as the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin took the reins of a proto-democratic Russia.

According to Crowley, if I remember, Nixon saw opportunity for the U.S. to spearhead a Russian version of the Marshall Plan. To help advance economic developments that would (he argued) foster and reinforce democratic tendencies there. And of course to thread U.S. interests tightly throughout the structures that controlled Russia's natural resources. As well as getting in position to tap its largely latent but potentially vast human capital.

Ah well. A pathological human being, Nixon, but arguably the last chief executive truly capable of statesmanship. (With all due respect to both Carter and Reagan for their respective achievements. And to Bush I for at least knowing when to call off the Crusade and come home.)

Ah well. A pathological human being, Nixon, but arguably the last chief executive truly capable of statesmanship. (With all due respect to both Carter and Reagan for their respective achievements. And to Bush I for at least knowing when to call off the Crusade and come home.)

Agreed. I don't think that anybody has ever made a convincing case that Nixon was either stupid or incompetent or wimpish. Paranoid? Yes. Crooked? Yes. But not the others.

The Russians are a breed unto themselves. I doubt that we could have made friends of any depth with the guys who became the new mafia. These are not nice people and there are few honest men to be found in the entire country. IMHO

These are not nice people and there are few honest men to be found in the entire country. IMHO

Funny -- Nixon recounts that Brezhnev told him exactly the same thing about the Chinese, to wave him off from dealing with Mao.

Part of RN's idea, I take it, was that had we been more involved, the Russian asset grab by crookedest oligarchs might have gone somewhat differently. At least some of them would have been our oligarchs!

Based on an unscientific sample consisting of a dozen or so Russian emigrants to the U.S. whom I know, there are plenty of honest ones. Of course you're right, in that they are not to be found in that country any more.