Robert Amsterdam

The extent to which this question is even a little bit mysterious is the extent to which the inquisitor has been victimized by the Kremlin's propaganda.

Russia is a fundamentally weak country compared to its "enemies." Weak socially, weak economically, weak militarily. The Kremlin knows it can't afford to directly provoke the NATO countries beyond a certain baseline. It seems to understand this better than we do, because too many of us are listening to the absurd propaganda it churns out.

It's about time we realized the strength of our position and tried using it, as John McCain has urged we do, to influence the course of events in Russia for both our benefit and that of the Russian people. Edward Lucas has laid out a blueprint for doing so in his brilliant book "The New Cold War."

Or, we can wait until Russia can actually back up its propaganda with reality, as we did when we faced the Bolsheviks, and puts us in a position where we have no choice but to act. If we do, our children will rightly condemn us.

What exactly are you suggesting?

- Kick Russia out of the G8? Isn't this just symbolic? What good would it do anyway?

- Economic blockade? Aren't we completely relying on them for energy?

- Stop investing in Russia? Germany and Italy are, why should we stop?

- Block Russian investment? But maybe it's better if they infuse capital into our battered financials?

I've seen a lot of tough talk on Russia lately, but I haven't seen any realistic suggestion on what the west can realistically do to voice its displeasure. The G8 thingy, advocated by McCain, for example, is the most woosy choice of the lot imo.

When the west becomes completely self-reliant on energy, then maybe it will talk tough and act tough, but sorry to dissapoint you: this ain't happening.

Here is the realistic alternative in the real world:

Learn to cooperate with Russia. Stop interfering in its internal affairs. Recognize its resurgence. Understand its interests.

If the G-8 meant nothing to Russian, then it wouldn't have joined. The fact that you think sitting at the table with the world's most powerful nations means nothing only goes to prove how utterly and hopelessly out of touch with reality you are.

Can't you answer that question about energy? Are you asking ME? We were afraid of Soviet nukes too, but we still fought them you clueless propagandizing freak.

America invests virtually nothing in Russia and profits still less. Haven't you heard about the assets they've stolen? You should get out a bit more.

Ever heard about apartheid and divestment? Some people (unlike you) have morals and don't want to profit from evil.

This is a CAMPAIGN you dolt. The time for action comes after the talker is ELECTED.

Do you really think anyone believes (not that anyone is paying the least bit of attention to what you say) that you WANT us to successfully confront and destroy Putin's Russia? Your dishonest is truly neo-Soviet in character, utterly transparent and just as big a ridiculous failure.

James:

You wrote, "Extremely few people, even Moscow's strongest supporters and defenders in the West, would attempt to argue that yesterday's elections were remotely legitimate."

I would suggest a distinction needs to be made between the registration process (the number of candidates) and the election itself.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest that the results of Sunday's election reflected anything other than the choice of the populace.

You can argue that you would have liked to have seen a couple of the fringe extremist candidates (e.g. Kasparov) but please don't belittle Russia to suggest that the election were rigged or unfair.

Timothy, a free and fair election cannot take place in the context of state-controlled media, non-independent courts, and obstruction and interference of political participation.

If it were not rigged, why would Golos report hundreds of instances of ballot stuffing? Why would the Kremlin want to severely limit the number of observers allowed in? Andreas Gross said it himself that "it was not free, and it was not fair."

What happened last Sunday in Russia is the reality - but don't try to call it democracy.

By the way, CEC chair Vladimir Churov just admitted the violations:

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2008/03/05/016.html

It is now irrelevant to argue that this is democracy.

Democracy is simply a means to an end. The desired end is a Civil Society.

Therefore, a Democracy without a civil society is an anarchy but a civil society with a fledgling Democracy is a good first step.

What many people seem to conveniently forget is the absolute disaster that was Russia in 1998.

We are now 10 years out and at the end of that "good first step."

I think we will all be pleasantly surprised by steps 2 and 3.

Be patient and keep the faith brother!