Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Eivanov

Kim

Kim — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Your post is remarkably demented.

Your own data shows that the overwhelming plurality Russians want Medvedev to build bridges in post-Soviet states, yet only one of the four countries he plans to visit is in that area. He should be visiting twice as many post-Soviet states as anyplace else, but he isn’t.

Moreover, Russia’s relations with Kazakhstan don’t need improvement. Obviously, Russians were talking about Russia’s tortured relations with former friends Ukraine and Georgia as well as the Baltics, and Medvedev is ignoring all these countries.

In other words, your data supports exactly the opposite conclusion of the one you’ve drawn.

Russia doesn’t have a ”working relationship” with a single nation in the civilized world — just as was the case in the times of the USSR. It’s just experienced a humiliating failure in the Serbian elections, as its own ”little brother” rejected Russia for Europe. And instead of admitting Russia has a problem, you seek to paper it over with silly propaganda, just as in Soviet times.

Moreover, if you are suggesting that Medevdev’s election as president wasn’t rigged, you are rejected data provided by Russian scientists proving the contrary without citing any evidence at all that you are correct.

http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/from-russia-with-fraud/

And that’s only ballot stuffing. Even if it hadn’t occurred, the Kremlin purged the ballot of all real opposition candidates before the election occurred, making Medvedev’s election a total sham and a laughing stock in the West. Of course, none of it matters since Putin never left office and continues to rule Russia with his jackboot firmly on the nation’s throat.

Finally, the net conclusion of your post is that Russians want a new cold war with the world’s only superpower, the U.S. Russia is repeatedly buzzing American targets with nuclear bombers to make sure of this. If you support Russia engaging in a second cold war when the first one destroyed the USSR, and if the people of Russia to likewise, that is suicidal and insane.

Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Kim,

Thank you very much for your lengthy, emotional, if somewhat unfocused, comment.

I agree with you that Medvedev should visit more CIS countries than just Kazakhstan. However, one man can only be at one place at once. By going first to Astana and Beijing, Medvedev is drawing the vector of Russia’s foreign policy. By going to Berlin, he’s defining its breadth.

Should he eventually try to repair “tortured relations” with Ukraine, Georgia, and Baltic countries? Absolutely. But that would need a thorough preparation, and this isn’t the president’s job. Lower-level diplomatic contacts are more appropriate at this point.

I leave aside parts of your comment dealing with the Serbian elections, Medvedev’s election, Putin, and the state of U.S.-Russia relations. Those are great topics to discuss, but I didn’t touch upon them in my post. I suspect that, by mistake or confusion, you’ve included something belonging elsewhere.

Best Regards,

Eugene

Kim

Kim — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You ignore the point of your own post, namely that Medvedev is following the will of the people of Russia. Talk about unfocused! The simple fact of the matter is that he isn’t doing that, your own data shows it. The Kremlin couldn’t care less what the people of Russia want, and for you to suggest otherwise is quite simply dishonest.

All diplomatic efforts require advance preparation on the president’s behalf. He’s CHOSEN to do that preparation in regard to OTHER COUNTRIES.

Moreover, it’s simply bizarre to suggest that Medvedev has any real ”presidential” role while Putin remains in government. He IS a ”lower-level” person, doing Putin’s bidding.

The point of your post was to suggest that Russia is achieving foreign policy successes. It isn’t, and Serbia is one bit of evidence that shows this. You are afraid to discuss it because you know perfectly well it decimates your thesis.

Russian foreign policy is abject, repeated failure. Instead of confronting that failure, just as in Soviet times you seek to deny and rationalize it. That only leads Russia down the road to more disasters.

Kim

Kim — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

By the way, your post states: ”Only 9 percent of Russians believed that the country should strive for the “strategic partnership” with the United States.”

So you did in fact raise the issue of ignoring and provoking the US, clearly implying you think Medvedev can split off other countries against America.

You’re being extremely disingenuous and neo-Soviet in your attitude, indicative of a Kremlin-sponsored propagandist. That’s very disappointing.

Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your continued interest in my post. You really are making my debut on this site a sound success.

The VTSIOM poll that I mentioned showed that the Russians wanted Medvedev to develop close relations with the CIS countries (28%), Europe (17%) and China/India (17%). Medvedev’s first diplomatic initiatives point to this general agreement with the wishes of his electorate. But it’s somewhat bizarre to imply that the 2/1 ratio means visiting two CIS countries for one China. Diplomacy isn’t being run by poll numbers unless, of course, you’re Bill Clinton.

I share you concern about the pitiful state of U.S.-Russia relations. However, denying Russia the status of “strategic partner” isn’t a Russian invention. This is actually one of the conclusions of the March 2006 report by the Council of Foreign Relations, “Russia’s Wrong Direction” (if you happen to be unaware of the report, I’ll be happy to provide you with a link). Now, if the American foreign policy experts don’t talk about “strategic partnership”, why should the Russians?

Best Regards,

Eugene

Li Yan

Li Yan — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I do not like politics, I only like the handbags!