Russia and that

The media has been reporting quite a bit about Russia recently, this report being the latest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6169242.stm
I cannot really figure out why they are talking about this, it all built up after Politkovskaya. The Russian state has acted in a very overt way that i have not seen before, did anyone watch newsnight a couple of days ago, they showed some filming of someone critical of putin getting tranquilised with a syringe or something which was quite unpleasent to watch, i think that happened a few years ago, i think that russia has been fascist for some time, there has been quite a few documentaries about this, mainly on more 4, but i have not really heard of any of its fascist actions for any prolonged amount of time as this on the mainstreem media. At least the mejority of people know now, the gas might prove a good enough shield though from any big international condemnation.

Nah they don't think it was at the restaurant; think it was a hotel earlier.

The "Bulgarian dissident" who's been mentioned as well, who got killed with the poisoned umbrella in the 70s, was he an anarchist or something? Or was some bulgarian anarchist in London meant to have disappeared?

The reason is simple: inter-imperialst contradictions.
Vestern Bissnes and states have problems with Russia.
Russia control gas and petrol. It's to importent and to independent. Russia use that for increasing of economicle and politicle power. There is the same problems as with Irak in the pust, and with Iran and Venesuella todey.
In addition Russia is selling weapons to Iran, Venesuella, end China. That means Russia suport all burgua states who are in opposition to NATO.

...I had noticed this, but I disagree with the Joseph's OP where he states that Iran has been dropped as a threat by the liberal media.

Iran is very much still considered a threat, and I now seriously think that a strike is imminent, most probably by Israel (as a proxy for a US too tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq to prosecute a war on another front). Foreign policy circles are now discussing the likely fallout of this happening, with the fact of it happening taken as read.

ah! Sorry mate

Re Russia: the poisoned one was a spy and a killer himself, probably blackmailing someone important. He made public what was suspected; that the FSB (KGB) were involved in the Moscow bombings but probably wasn't killed for this because it was common knowledge. The Russian leadership (apart from just after 1989 when Russia was "stabilised" by the Russian Mafia), has come from the KGB - just like strong elements of the US leadership have come from the CIA. Yeltsin was the only exception in Russia and he was the KGB's gopher.
On Iran, an attack has to be a possibility and what a plunge into the abyss that would be. There are presently US battleships and minesweepers patrolling the Iranian coast in the Gulf, but not enough to pose an immediate threat.
To underline the "multipolarisation" (Alf) of imperialist rivalries, then the space attack by China last week represents a ratcheting up and a clear indication of the tendency for each imperialist nation, large and small, to contribute to the overall threat.

God help us indeed. Problem is the dynamic is pushing American remorselessly in that direction. It may not happen for a few years, but the recent offensive in East Africa shows the US is utterly determined to continue its policy of intervention, regardless of dangers of destablising whole regions.

No-one disputes such a war would be profoundly irrational, but this is the nature of war in modern capitalism and the nature of the system itself.

Russia (and China) are imperialist powers competing with the United States. Russia and China have been opposing U.S. imperialist interests in the Middle East. However, Russia is much weaker than China though, and so its being targetted. China has a much stronger position and the hands of the U.S. ruling class are tied (notice the glowing portrayals of China in the U.S. media - TIME magazine always runs a thing about chinese culture and technology, etc.). Its much more strategic to deal with Russia, indirectly attacking China.

it gets worse: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n02/domb01_.html

Sorry, but missed Newyawka's bit about US elections. Don't agree with that. The role of the state is primordial and a state like the US, though increasingly reactive and irrational, lays out its war plans well above the level of "elected respresentatives", including presidents.

China is definitely flexing its muscles in Africa and elsewhere. However, the US is not taking this lying down. Its recent backing for the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, and the proliferation of military bases (for "counter-terrorist operations") in East Africa show that its trying to reconquer strategic positions there.

China's expansion is impressive at first glance. But really, haven't we heard all of this before? We were told in the 60s that Stalinist economic expansion was a real goer. Then it was the German and Japanese models. Then the Asian Tigers and Dragons, not to mention the "Latin economy".

Just to put China's current strength in context. Nearly three fifths of its fabled exports are produced by foreign firms. Its indigenous manufacturing base is grossly inefficient and losing money hand-over-fist. Its great attraction for foreign capital is the grotesque exploitation of the workforce - but apparently Chinese planners are worried from the cheap export threat of places like Vietnam! It also has the most rapidly aging population in the world.

Its western capitalist friends are now wondering at the wisdom of the economic distortions China's exports are creating, even with the benefits of the cheap labour. They're projected - at current rates - to make over 50% of world trade by 2020. The other great powers simply cannot allow this to continue.

In fact, it's the moves by China's rivals to stem this growth that is fuelling its increasingly aggressive stance. But their military, although huge, is largely using obsolete weapons and they have little capacity to project their power globally, although this satelite test weapon is clearly an effort to overcome that and hit the US where it hurts.

Hey Jeff

Long time, no see! Nice to have you back old chap.

I think you're probably right about Chinese overstretch. In fact, the problem is overstretch for all imperialisms but this doesn't prevent them from having to continue in that vein. You also raise an interesting point about India too.

I think that you're mistaken not to pay more attention to Somalia. It inhabits a vital strategic position on the East Africa coast and is also in the same region as Darfur, etc. It's not an accident that the US has had over a 1000 troops based in neighbouring Djibouti for some time. The Somalian conflict impinges on the interests of Kenya, Eritrea, and even some of the Gulf States with all these actors supplying arms and/or other forms of aid to both sides.

Re Russia, there are certainly powerful centrifugal tendencies at work there. Again, these tendencies are characteristic of the current period of decomposition and are felt everywhere, even in Britain (note the current "debate" about the Union and Scottish independence). Whether it will result in a further Russian collapse in the near future is to early to say, but the potential is certainly there.

Good that Revol's following us around with his decadencometer. A very worthwhile use of his time