In the short, vaporous forms of posting that we all adhere too there is ample room for misunderstanding.

I am glad that we are agreed. I sincerely thing the US needs to reevaluate its views on Russia, from both the State Department and the mass media (largely useless).

We do not live in the world that many of us (over 30) grew up in. In many ways it would be easier if we did but facts cannot be wished away.

When it was just the West and the Soviet Union life was much simpler.

I apologize. When you spoke of the return of a Tsar I thought you were speaking literally.

When I said, “…the Russian people feel secure when they have a strong leader” I meant exactly the same thing you said in your reply: “…a father figure leader. This is part of the Russian national psyche….” Your version is the more eloquent!

I’ve never thought about what would happen if the monarchy were returned. Interesting question to ponder.

“Just for the sake of academic argument….?” Hmmm. I think I agree with your conclusion.

Again, please accept my apologies. Sometimes I go off half-cocked. As my grandchildren would say, “My bad.”

On August 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am, Little Ma said:

On August 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm, von Rum said: “…If you look at the many moves made in the past few years to restore not only the architecture of the Tsars but to rehabilitate the actual Romanov family you will see a major change in Russia.”…”Putin has been especially adept at realizing that Russia needs a Tsar….”

What? Is Putin whispering in your ear, suggesting that you’re in line for the throne? True, the Russian people feel secure when they have a strong leader. But you’re saying they want to bring back a “Little Father”? I don’t believe it.

I am hardly receiving instructions from Putin, but rather from Russian history and culture. I meant, not a Tsar in the form of a Monarch, but in the form of a father figure leader. This is part of the Russian national psyche whether in the form of a Tsar, a Stalin or a Putin.

And even if they did by some wild chance bring back the monarchy would that be any worse than anything the 20th century has given us in countries that overthrew monarchies?

Just for the sake of academic argument would the world have been worse off if 1920 had seen a Hapsburg in Austria, a Hohenzollern in Germany and a Romanov in Russia? I hardly think so.

Which presidential candidate will most likely benefit from a perception in the USA that Russia is resurgent, and may cause us trouble over the next decade?

Hint: It’s not Obama.

Damn, he’s good! Puts Bush “I looked into his eyes” to shame.

I doubt Georgia asked anyone for permission to attack rebels on its own soil.

– sonofdy

Perhaps it would have been better if they had, since in order to do so they determined they needed to bombard a city with Russian citizens and civilians in it. It shouldn’t have been too hard to realize this would cause problems. . .and that maybe they should consult with their allies before doing so. At least then, we might have been able to have some assets in place to protect them, or something.

One nuke, of any age or size, detonated in the US will ruin our day.

can’t disagree.

On August 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am, sonofdy said:
wearycitizen: 1950’s type nukes are still far too damn effective

Well, that was not what I was getting at but you are correct. All these people wnating to go in guns ablazing must be insane. Russian arms may not be 21st cetury but they are at least 80’s era at worst. And let me tell you, an AK-47 that is 20 years old and functioning can kill the same as one just off the factory line. Russia does have fairly modern nukes. But more importantly they have functioning inter-continental missiles, and lots of them. One nuke, of any age or size, detonated in the US will ruin our day.