Russia on a downward spiral from democracy?

GirlMidnite

Do I terrify?
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Posts
2,162
Bush Criticizes Putin on Democracy's Slide


Thursday February 24, 2005 10:01 PM

AP Photo NY111

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia (AP) - Struggling to repair troubled relations, President Bush prodded Vladimir Putin on Thursday about Moscow's retreat from democracy but the Russian leader bluntly rejected the criticism and insisted there was no backsliding.

``Strong countries are built by developing strong democracies,'' Bush said he told Putin. ``I think Vladimir heard me loud and clear.''

``Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy,'' the Russian leader replied.

Confronting criticism that he is quashing dissent and consolidating power, Putin said Russia chose democracy 14 years ago and ``there can be no return to what we used to have before.''

Four years after Bush said he had gotten a sense of Putin's soul and found him trustworthy, the two leaders talked for 2 hours at a hilltop castle in hopes of easing mounting distrust between Moscow and Washington. Bush said he had not changed his opinion of Putin and wanted to remain friends.

``This is the kind of fellow who, when he says `Yes,' he means yes, and when he says `No,' he means no,'' Bush said.

Yet Bush challenged Putin about his government's behavior, saying that democracies reflect a country's customs and culture but must have ``a rule of law and protection of minorities, a free press and a viable political opposition.'' He said he talked with Putin about his ``concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling these universal principles'' and about Putin's restrictions on the press.

``I'm not the minister of propaganda,'' Putin said, standing alongside Bush at a news conference.

They also confronted differences over Moscow's arms sales to Syria and Russia's help for Iran's nuclear program. While Bush tried to keep a smile on his face throughout the session with reporters, Putin seemed tense.

It was their first meeting since Bush opened his second term promising to spread democracy and freedom and asserting that relations with all leaders would be predicated on how they treat their people. Bush faced pressure from home - from prominent Republicans and Democrats alike - to get tough with Putin, and their talks were seen by some as a test of whether the president would put his inaugural pledges into practice.

For over an hour of their meeting, the leaders were alone with only translators, in a private session that was the longest they have had in over four years. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the discussions were never heated.

In public, Putin compared his move to end direct popular election of regional governors to the American process of electing presidents through the Electoral College rather than by the results of the popular vote. ``And it's not considered undemocratic, is it?'' Putin said.

He suggested that Russians who oppose his actions, such as a campaign against the Yukos oil company and his shutdown of independent media outlets, can sway public opinion because they ``are richer than those who are in favor.'' ``We often do not pay the attention to that,'' Putin said.

Bush was challenged as well, by a Russian journalist who asked about ``violations of the rights of journalists in the United States'' without giving specifics.

Bush seemed irritated. He said he talked with Putin about Russian press freedom and that the Russian leader asked in turn about practices in the United States.

``People do get fired in American press,'' the president said, adding that they get fired by editors or producers or others - not by government.

But while saying that a free press is the sign of a healthy society, Bush added, ``Obviously there has got to be constraints. There's got to be truth.''

Another question from a Russian reporter prompted a broad defense from Bush on the way democracy is practiced in the United States. ``I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you, our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way,'' he said.

Bush and Putin said they were in united on the desire to stop suspected nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. They remained at odds over Russian arms sales to Syria, which the United States wants halted, said a senior administration official.

``We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that,'' Bush said. ``We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon.''

Said Putin, ``We share a common opinion in this regard and we are taking a similar approach: We should put an end to the proliferation of missile and missile technology. The proliferation of such weapons is not in the interest specific of countries or in the international community in general.''

Trying to showcase cooperation, the leaders agreed to steps to counter the spread of both conventional and nuclear weapons.

They agreed to upgrade security at Russia's nuclear plants and weapons ss; provide new procedures for responding to possible terrorist attacks; and set up a program to keep nuclear fuel from being diverted to use in nuclear weapons.

``We agreed to accelerate our work to protect nuclear weapons and materials both in our two nations and around the world,'' Bush said.

Another agreement, signed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, calls for controlling shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that, in the hands of criminals or terrorists, pose a threat to both passenger and military aircraft.

The Soviet Union and now Russia have widely sold shoulder-fired missiles to customers around the world. Approximately 1 million of these weapons have been produced worldwide, a White House statement said. The senior administration official said the agreement did not cover the type of weapons that Russia is selling Syria.
--------------------------------

Russia is a historical magnet for shit government.
 
The slide is so steep I believe Russia could be only a step or two away from a dictatorship.
 
Ham Murabi said:
The slide is so steep I believe Russia could be only a step or two away from a dictatorship.
Not much doubt thats where the former head of the KGB wants to take it. The question is....will he end up like Iagoda, Yezhof, and Beria?
 
Russia is turning away from democracy??? Wow , they're becoming more and more like the US everyday . i'm so proud to be alive in these times :p
 
Ham Murabi said:
The slide is so steep I believe Russia could be only a step or two away from a dictatorship.

This is quite true, journalists have been persecuted, the divide between rich and poor is widening, and Putin has the cold wish to make the young democracy heel at his feet before he crushes it.

I can envisage in 5 years time, a return to a cold war chill.

I think, Bush is a different type of leader from Putin. He is much more fun to mock.
 
Bush lecturing Putin on anything is like Ted Bundy lecturing on the sanctity of life...
 
Aren't all summit conferences exercises in hypocrisy for all concerned?

Look, for example, at Putin's background...
 
"Strong countries are built by developing strong democracies,'' Bush said he told Putin. "I think Vladimir heard me loud and clear.''

He really is a cretin. If he thinks Putin is going to take any notice of a President who only just scraped into the White House after a second farcical election in 4 years, he's living in a land of his own...

Leave it to the EU George...

We know how to talk to these pesky Ruskies...

Go home and fuck up next year's Budget or something. You're good at that...

ppman
 
Russia never really became as Democratic as the textbooks in school or the news taught us. You STILL can't say and do as you please anywhere NEAR to the level you can over in the United States.
 
Pepsi Man said:
Russia never really became as Democratic as the textbooks in school or the news taught us. You STILL can't say and do as you please anywhere NEAR to the level you can over in the United States.

But the gap's narrowing as the US slowly loses ground...

ppman
 
p_p_man said:
Leave it to the EU George...

We know how to talk to these pesky Ruskies...

ppman

Really? What are you going to do, stand around debating the issue until the situation explodes or the US is stupid enough to do something about it? I would point to the EU's stellar performance in regards to Kosovo and Bosnia. The EU makes the League of Nations look good.

And you know how to deal with the Russians in what way? For the 50 years following WWII, the policy of the European nations was to hide behind the US in reference to the Soviets/Russians, so what is the new plan?
 
catfish said:
Really? What are you going to do, stand around debating the issue until the situation explodes or the US is stupid enough to do something about it? I would point to the EU's stellar performance in regards to Kosovo and Bosnia. The EU makes the League of Nations look good.

And you know how to deal with the Russians in what way? For the 50 years following WWII, the policy of the European nations was to hide behind the US in reference to the Soviets/Russians, so what is the new plan?


Good post here.
 
p_p_man said:
"Strong countries are built by developing strong democracies,'' Bush said he told Putin. "I think Vladimir heard me loud and clear.''

He really is a cretin. If he thinks Putin is going to take any notice of a President who only just scraped into the White House after a second farcical election in 4 years, he's living in a land of his own...

Leave it to the EU George...

We know how to talk to these pesky Ruskies...

Go home and fuck up next year's Budget or something. You're good at that...

ppman

Every country needs to choose its own way of doing things and Russia has made huge improvements since the fall of the Soviets. It is a pity they chose a popular pisshead to run the place straight after because he allowed a criminal free for all to occur that has poisoned the country and will be very difficult to recover from within an open society.

One has to allow Putin the means to take corrective measures in a Russian way, much as the US has taken anti terrorism measures to heart in their own restrictive, anti freedom way which no other western country has found necessary or appropriate.

The US strategy for several years has been to isolate Russia from the old Soviet block and to curtail the possibility of it rising to be a world power again. The Ukraine was a classic example of a "democratic change" manufactured by the CIA and some of the biggest names in US foreign relations with the aim of constricting Russian access to trade on that border.

Putin striking out to supply arms to Syria would be a strategic defense to re-empower their international credibility and is only a problem because the arms do not have "Made in America" on them.
 
catfish said:
Really? What are you going to do, stand around debating the issue until the situation explodes or the US is stupid enough to do something about it? I would point to the EU's stellar performance in regards to Kosovo and Bosnia. The EU makes the League of Nations look good.

And you know how to deal with the Russians in what way? For the 50 years following WWII, the policy of the European nations was to hide behind the US in reference to the Soviets/Russians, so what is the new plan?

If you recall, the US considered it had conquered Europe in WWII and wielded its debt investment as a submissive weapon to its allies. The US never cured Russias problems by leading from the front with blowhard bluster so its rich to criticise Europeans for not doing so while the Americans directed the strategy.

The EU is a growing and developing organisation that operates democratically.

You suggest that the world relies on a gungho US President to fix stuff. Well, that only happens when there is a payoff and the problems interfere with US interests.

The EU does not suffer that same singular drive so will take a different, more diplomatic course much as they are with Iran. They are not driven by the "world domination" strategy of US foreign policy so military intervention is way down the track usually for negotiable problems.
 
catfish said:
Really? What are you going to do, stand around debating the issue until the situation explodes or the US is stupid enough to do something about it? I would point to the EU's stellar performance in regards to Kosovo and Bosnia. The EU makes the League of Nations look good.

And you know how to deal with the Russians in what way? For the 50 years following WWII, the policy of the European nations was to hide behind the US in reference to the Soviets/Russians, so what is the new plan?

I think you are mischaracterizing the role of the EU. The EU was not set up to compete with the U.N., the U.S. or NATO. It's primarily an economic consortium, and as such can exert financial and/or economic pressure on a trading partner like Russia.
 
RobDownSouth said:
I think you are mischaracterizing the role of the EU. The EU was not set up to compete with the U.N., the U.S. or NATO. It's primarily an economic consortium, and as such can exert financial and/or economic pressure on a trading partner like Russia.

But will they? I seriously doubt it.
 
woody54 said:
If you recall, the US considered it had conquered Europe in WWII and wielded its debt investment as a submissive weapon to its allies. The US never cured Russias problems by leading from the front with blowhard bluster so its rich to criticise Europeans for not doing so while the Americans directed the strategy.

The EU is a growing and developing organisation that operates democratically.

You suggest that the world relies on a gungho US President to fix stuff. Well, that only happens when there is a payoff and the problems interfere with US interests.

The EU does not suffer that same singular drive so will take a different, more diplomatic course much as they are with Iran. They are not driven by the "world domination" strategy of US foreign policy so military intervention is way down the track usually for negotiable problems.

No one is suggesting military intervention in Russia. The US did not feel like it conquered Europe in the years after WWII ( I suggest you read "Truman" by David McCollough ) but did feel that it needed to intervene economically and militarily in a very critical time. The EU will handle nothing because it lacks the ability or the desire to do anything that might adversely effect econmomic concerns. Shouldn't you point the same finger at the EU that you do to the US when you accuse us of only doing things if they are good for the US economy?
 
catfish said:
No one is suggesting military intervention in Russia. The US did not feel like it conquered Europe in the years after WWII ( I suggest you read "Truman" by David McCollough ) but did feel that it needed to intervene economically and militarily in a very critical time. The EU will handle nothing because it lacks the ability or the desire to do anything that might adversely effect econmomic concerns. Shouldn't you point the same finger at the EU that you do to the US when you accuse us of only doing things if they are good for the US economy?

Conquering/intervening militarily and economically is playing with words but the reality was no one sneezed without an OK from Washington.

The EU will succeed and will be a dominant economic force in the world in near future. The EU will follow strategies that enhance their economies but they do not have an overt policy (like the US) which spells out that if they want stuff, they will take it. The US world position is on the wane. Like any bacterial colony , it has voraciously grown to exploit resources till it dies in its own shit, much like the British Empire. The trick for survival will be to adapt to a new reality as Europe, China and India rise.
 
LovingTongue said:
Bush? Criticizing Putin? ROTFLMAO... funniest news story EVER...

It's from the WH woody..they have a lot of comedy writers there to churn out crap like this.. Two minutes of watching the thing on tv was enough to show that georgie boy was having some kind of epihany...
 
woody54 said:
Conquering/intervening militarily and economically is playing with words but the reality was no one sneezed without an OK from Washington.

The EU will succeed and will be a dominant economic force in the world in near future. The EU will follow strategies that enhance their economies but they do not have an overt policy (like the US) which spells out that if they want stuff, they will take it. The US world position is on the wane. Like any bacterial colony , it has voraciously grown to exploit resources till it dies in its own shit, much like the British Empire. The trick for survival will be to adapt to a new reality as Europe, China and India rise.


Funny, I heard this exact same stuff in the mid to late 80's except it was Japan that was going bury us economically, we would never survive, they are buying up the United States, they hold our debt...blahblahblah. I know that the downfall of the US is your personal wet dream, but I wouldn't count us out quite yet.
 
woody54 said:
Putin striking out to supply arms to Syria would be a strategic defense to re-empower their international credibility and is only a problem because the arms do not have "Made in America" on them.

Exactly...

:)

The US has a growing problem which, eventually, it will have to come to terms with and George is not the man to do it.

The EU is strengthening all the time, Russia has to re-group and strengthen itself from the fiasco of the Yeltsin years. Many of the old Soviet satellites are now member states of the European Union creating a common ground (even if it's only historic) between the two of us.

America basically has nothing to which it can build on (even the common heritage ties between Europe and the US have loosened a lot over the years). It alienated Europe, invaded a Middle East country and is now in the process of alienating Russia brushing aside Putin's hope that they would work together for a better future.

What America has to do is stop what it's doing, take a couple of steps backwards and re-assess the situation before it embroils itself in even more trouble in the future...

So far under Bush, America has created nothing and destroyed much. For itself not for others...

ppman
 
p_p_man said:
"Strong countries are built by developing strong democracies,'' Bush said he told Putin. "I think Vladimir heard me loud and clear.''

He really is a cretin. If he thinks Putin is going to take any notice of a President who only just scraped into the White House after a second farcical election in 4 years, he's living in a land of his own...

Leave it to the EU George...

We know how to talk to these pesky Ruskies...

Go home and fuck up next year's Budget or something. You're good at that...

ppman

Yes, let the "axis of ennui" - France, Germany, the European Union - take care of it.
 
landslider said:
Aren't all summit conferences exercises in hypocrisy for all concerned?

Look, for example, at Putin's background...

Aside from being former KGB I know little about Putin..However bush is another matter.

draft dodger.
cocaine user and trafficer
village idiot
cocksucker
cheat
liar
murderer
ect:
 
Ham Murabi said:
Yes, let the "axis of ennui" - France, Germany, the European Union - take care of it.

No, no, no. The Europeans, especially the French, don't "Do it." They criticize.

One of the reasons they're in negative population growth. :)

Ishmael
 
Back
Top