Russia, Argentina tout world without US domination

[bigbadwolf]

Found this today:

MOSCOW – The presidents of Russia and Argentina called for a world not dominated by the United States as the two countries signed deals Wednesday to cooperate in energy, agriculture and science and other areas.


The agreements dealing with nuclear and conventional power, scientific research and food exports underlined Russia's growing interest in developing relations with Latin America. They come shortly after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a high-profile trip to the region.


"The domination of one state, even the biggest, most powerful or most successful one, is unacceptable in any case," Medvedev said.


After the signing, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez expanded on the theme, complaining how "powerful states" had forced economic and security policies onto others.


"We see the results of such policy — the whole planet is paying for it," she said.


Medvedev and Fernandez witnessed the signings and issued a joint statement in which they "expressed support for the multilateral approach ... in the search for peaceful resolution of intergovernmental conflicts and the new problems of forming a multipolar world," a phrase implying opposition to the United States' perceived dominance of world affairs.

source

 

[Davidglen77]

They're right.......and they made a good example of it in their statements. Things have gone wrong in Argentina and Russia and didn't effect the whole world. Take a look at recent events in the USA and you will see what they mean. Saludos a Cristina y Dimitry!!

 

[RWS]

. . . . Things have gone wrong in . . . Russia and didn't effect the whole world. . . .

Excluding, of course, the Soviet Revolution and its aftermath; and its aftermath's aftermath; and its . . . .

The world is terribly interrelated, perhaps more so than ever today -- and tomorrow. Nevertheless, a safer, less-Hollywoodized world would indeed be an improvement: take that, Steven Spielberg!

 

[steveinbsas]

Found this today:

"MOSCOW – The presidents of Russia and Argentina called for a world not dominated by the United States as the two countries signed deals Wednesday to cooperate in energy, agriculture and science and other areas.

The agreements dealing with nuclear and conventional power, scientific research and food exports underlined Russia's growing interest in developing relations with Latin America. They come shortly after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a high-profile trip to the region.

This makes it sound like they are signing a free trade agreement. Good old Argentine/Russian style economics, right?

"The domination of one state, even the biggest, most powerful or most successful one, is unacceptable in any case," Medvedev said.

A Russian president said that?

After the signing, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez expanded on the theme, complaining how "powerful states" had forced economic and security policies onto others.

Does anyone remember the "economic and security" policies Russia (formerly known as the U.S.S.R.) forced on other countries in Eastern Europe following WWII or the Argentine government on its own citizens time and time again (and not so long ago)?

"We see the results of such policy — the whole planet is paying for it," she said.

Oh, yes, especially in Africa, where US aid (thanks personally to G.W. Bush) is saving hundreds of thousands of lives in Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda. Of course Kristy is referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. We all know the US was only seeking economic gain (cheap oil) in Iraq and George Bush sent the US military into Afghanistan because he bombs other countries just for fun and profit (for the manufacturers of armaments and friends of the administration).

Obviously, the US is powerless to affect (note the spelling) the price of oil at will, even that flowing from Iraq. Why didn't the US just take it when they had the chance? Hmmmm.

Medvedev and Fernandez witnessed the signings and issued a joint statement in which they "expressed support for the multilateral approach ... in the search for peaceful resolution of intergovernmental conflicts and the new problems of forming a multipolar world," a phrase implying opposition to the United States' perceived dominance of world affairs.

Russia will never invade Eastern Europe or force economic policies on the region after the US "dominance" is ended and the US troops are brought home, will they? The troops should be withdrawn, right? Russia won't use the fact that they control the natural gas supply of Europe as a weapon of economic leverage. They'll be fair, right? They won't try to dominate anyone, will they? They won't invade any of their southern neighbors to regain control of the gas pipelines in countries that they used to dominate, either, will they?

Since World War II, Europe has experienced it's longest period of peace in modern history, so lets end the US dominance there, bring our troops home, and see what happens. Er, I mean live in mulitpolar peace.

At least we know that Argentina won't invade anyone (not even an island), and if the Russians do try to dominate anyone, we can all gather at the Casa Rosada with signs and sing songs.

That will make a difference, won't it?

 

[igor]

Does anyone remember the "economic and security" policies Russia (formerly known as the U.S.S.R.) forced on other countries in Eastern Europe following WWII or the Argentine government on its own citizens time and time again (and not so long ago)?

Neither Russia nor Argentina have ever been considered to be beacons of democracy. Therefore, "look at yourself" defense approach hardly makes sense here.

Russia will never invade Eastern Europe or force economic policies on the region after the US "dominance" is ended and the US troops are brought home, will they? The troops should be withdrawn, right? Russia won't use the fact that they control the natural gas supply of Europe as a weapon of economic leverage. They'll be fair, right?

While I admire old school people, for me Russia invading Europe is about as likely as France invading Germany nowadays. The idea of the World Revolution died back in 1991. As to the natural gas and other resources that Russia sells to the Europe, what's all this war rhetoric about? How come Saudi Arabia does not use their oil supplies as a weapon of economic leverage?

 

[steveinbsas]

Neither Russia nor Argentina has ever been considered to be beacons of democracy. Therefore, "look at yourself" defense approach hardly makes sense here.

The presidents of Argentina and Russia are denouncing the "domination of the world" by the US. Thank you for pointing out the fact that neither have been "beacons of democracy" thereby highlighting the hypocrisy (especially of Medvedev) of their call for a world not "dominated" by the US. Given the difference, I'll take US style domination over the traditional Russian model.

[/quote]While I admire old school people, for me Russia invading Europe is about as likely as France invading Germany nowadays. The idea of the World Revolution died back in 1991. As to the natural gas and other resources that Russia sells to the Europe, what's all this war rhetoric about? [/quote]

What war rheoric? Where were you on Novemebr 6, 2008? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5090077.ece

Of course if the big, bad, bully, (the USA) wasn't putting missiles in Europe, Russia wouldn't have to do things like this.

Russia won't have to invade Europe to exercise tremendous leverage. They only have to close the gas valve.

I do agree that France invading Germany is not likely. Few thought Germany would invade France a second time following the end of WW I, but they sure did, didn't they? When was the last time France invaded Germany?

Russia will probably restrict its actual invasions to former satellites to the south, thought they undoubtedly would love to retake control of a few other "republics" they once dominated.

If I remember correctly, the US was accused by many of invading Iraq to get the oil (world wide protests: NO BLOOD FOR OIL!).

How come Saudi Arabia does not use their oil supplies as a weapon of economic leverage?

Of course Saudi Arabia is a member of OPEPC. All 13 nations of OPEPC combined were not able to sustain the recent high price of crude oil. Individually, they are certainly even less powerful and, even combined, they are not the world's sole supplier of crude oil. As the US continues to get much oil it's foreign oil supplies from Canada and Mexico, they probably wont have to invade either of them to get their oil.

Europe doesn't have anywhere near the same alternatives to maintain it's supplies of natural gas.

 

[igor]

What war rheoric? Where were you on Novemebr 6, 2008? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5090077.ece

Of course if the big, bad, bully, (the USA) wasn't putting missiles in Europe, Russia wouldn't have to do things like this.

I assume any person can read this article and make his own conclusions if he wants to.

But in general, people who are hysterical about russian threat got stuck in time at least 20 years ago, unfortunately.

 

[steveinbsas]

I assume any person can read this article and make his own conclusions if he wants to.

But in general, people who are hysterical about russian threat got stuck in time at least 20 years ago, unfortunately.

I grew up in the age of "duck and cover" but I don't think school kids need to practice that drill anymore.

It isn't Russian missiles or an invasion that are the new Russian threat against Europe...just the gas valve.

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2006/12/jackson_diehl_on_the_russian_t.htm

Freezing to death is nothing to get hysterical about, is it?

 

[igor]

Freezing to death is nothing to get hysterical about, is it?

There must always be something. That's for sure.