Putin is about to be re-elected as Prime Minister of Russia. He's already served two terms as President. He no longer is President - that's currently Dmitri Medvedev.

The biggest problem is a country doesn't gain recognition and acceptance just by accepting democracy. The USSR's collapse did not entirely remove the anti-American anti-democratic sentiment from Russia. According to all the documentaries and sites and books I have read on the subject ex-KGB and ex-Soviet political leaders were involved in this democratic Russia. These same Russian's who were extremely anti-American and anti-democratic only a short time ago.

Also even during this ten year period you speak of spies from Russia were captured in Canada and other western democracies showing that the Russian Government was serious about peace and reconciliation. The US and its allies moved cautiously forward but did not embrace Russia immediatly and always remained suspicious of Russia's intentions. Unfortunately Russia did not prove it had good intentions in its democratic movement. Your talk of self interest and such is not going to bring in western allies, even though the US is very self centered the Nato allies and European allies look out for one another's interests and Moscow was not looking out for anyone interests but their own.

Both sides distrusted each other and Putin was elected and showed the West that they could not further any relationship with Russia in a manor that benefits the west or democratic countries. Under Putin thousands of journalists mysteriously have disappeared since he became President. When a journalist gets to critical or begins investigating the Government they often just disappear or are found murdered. These murders are rarely solved and the Government doesn't seem that interested in stopping them if they aren't responsible for them directly. Two prominent people who opposed Putin both were killed by radiation poisoning Roman Tsepov who is believed to have been corrupt and extorted protection money using his security agency. It is said while he was good friends with Putin he did end up butting heads over corruption and such. He mysteriously died of radiation poisoning the culprit was never found or arrested. Then of course we have Alexander Litvinenko who died shortly after he began to talk to other countries. When western countries tried to investigate at first the Russia Government co-operated however when the investigation lead back to Russia and the fact that a Russian had to have been responsible suddenly they stopped co-operating and turned hostile.

Today Russia supports and has since the fall of the USSR several non-democratic countries. Always bashing heads with western democracies, the cold war never really ended Russia continued to invest in countries that were undemocratic and were anti-western. That never changed and under Putin Russia has become more and more hostile and provocative against democratic countries and more and more supportive and friendly with dictatorships and allowing and enabling genocides and human rights abuses alongside China.

Its true that the US kept expanding Nato despite the USSR collapse. But would they have done so if Russia had actually shown their intentions and proved they were seriously moving to democracy? If Russia had stopped supporting communist governments and not provided weapons and support to enemies of western democracies. If Russia had pulled its spies and joined military agreements and other agreements with western countries the out come would have been far different.

Look at Japan and Germany both were America's biggest enemies. However after defeat they embraced Democracy and America and look at them today they are beacons of democracy and loved by the west. They have little to fear other then China or other dictator based states Russia currently supports.

As for Georgia and such, Russia sent Peace keepers to a country which hates Russia officially. They then used peace keeping as a pretext to split the country up and devastate the Government who was found to be in legal right to the territories which Russia annexed. Its like say their was a rebellion in India a rebel group in Northern India rebelled against the Government. Pakistan then sends peace keepers into India to keep the peace between the pro-Indian and anti-indian forces. The Pakistani Government then decides when India tries to recapture their soil and defeat the rebel group, that Pakistan should retaliate and recognizes the secession of Northern India while the rest of the international community disagrees. Then Pakistan unleashes hell on India in the name of protecting those rebels.

An enemy state should never peace keep in another enemy state. The peace keepers should always be neutral and not have a vested interest in the success of any of the rival groups. It also didn't help that Georgia was seeking Nato membership this peace keeping operation was an intimidation practice and excersize of military authority.

Fact is all those countries that joined Nato and are moving towards western alliances. Those countries either fear, resent or just don't care about Russia. That isn't the Wests fault it is entirely Russia's their actions past a present drove their allies to abandon them. The use of fear and blackmail drive resentment in Russia's former states. Such as Russia's iron grip on the oil and energy sectors which they often use as a negotiating tool. The constant threats of military action, Russia tries to rule by fear at least under Putin and did so under the USSR that brief ten years was not long enough nor did Russia put fourth enough evidence that they truly changed to build a relationship with the West.

Of course I do obviously have a bias towards western democracy. However being a member of the Conservative Party having talked via email with our Prime Minister and being nominated to Parliament in my province. I can honestly say that Canada at least along with several western countries were not convinced Russia turned a leaf, fact is Russia didn't do much to prove that the change was really deep or serious. Like I said spies were still operating in Canada and the US, the Russian Government continued to supply weapons and funding to enemies of Nato and western countries. Russia maintained very strong ties with all their communist partners, many USSR political and military leaders remained in Government roles. Its very hard to argue that the West shouldn't have been skeptical and concerned or defensive.

Russia's intentions were not entirely clear, today with Putin many would argue the West made the right choice by not letting our guard down and maintaining a suspicion of Russia. As you said Russia cares only about itself and that alone makes them a very bad candidate for a partner. Canada and other western countries want a partner that has an interest in seeing them succeed and promoting their values. Nobody wants to partner with a country that doesn't care or at least do a good job pretending to care about its partners!

No, he's going to be President again in 2012. Russia's term limits merely apply to consecutive terms, such that Putin had to give up in 2008, but could come back in 2012, as he is.

Today Russia supports and has since the fall of the USSR several non-democratic countries. Always bashing heads with western democracies, the cold war never really ended Russia continued to invest in countries that were undemocratic and were anti-western. That never changed and under Putin Russia has become more and more hostile and provocative against democratic countries and more and more supportive and friendly with dictatorships and allowing and enabling genocides and human rights abuses alongside China.

Its true that the US kept expanding Nato despite the USSR collapse. But would they have done so if Russia had actually shown their intentions and proved they were seriously moving to democracy? If Russia had stopped supporting communist governments and not provided weapons and support to enemies of western democracies. If Russia had pulled its spies and joined military agreements and other agreements with western countries the out come would have been far different.

The biggest problem is a country doesn't gain recognition and acceptance just by accepting democracy. The USSR's collapse did not entirely remove the anti-American anti-democratic sentiment from Russia. According to all the documentaries and sites and books I have read on the subject ex-KGB and ex-Soviet political leaders were involved in this democratic Russia. These same Russian's who were extremely anti-American and anti-democratic only a short time ago.

Also even during this ten year period you speak of spies from Russia were captured in Canada and other western democracies showing that the Russian Government was serious about peace and reconciliation. The US and its allies moved cautiously forward but did not embrace Russia immediatly and always remained suspicious of Russia's intentions. Unfortunately Russia did not prove it had good intentions in its democratic movement. Your talk of self interest and such is not going to bring in western allies, even though the US is very self centered the Nato allies and European allies look out for one another's interests and Moscow was not looking out for anyone interests but their own.

Both sides distrusted each other and Putin was elected and showed the West that they could not further any relationship with Russia in a manor that benefits the west or democratic countries. Under Putin thousands of journalists mysteriously have disappeared since he became President. When a journalist gets to critical or begins investigating the Government they often just disappear or are found murdered. These murders are rarely solved and the Government doesn't seem that interested in stopping them if they aren't responsible for them directly. Two prominent people who opposed Putin both were killed by radiation poisoning Roman Tsepov who is believed to have been corrupt and extorted protection money using his security agency. It is said while he was good friends with Putin he did end up butting heads over corruption and such. He mysteriously died of radiation poisoning the culprit was never found or arrested. Then of course we have Alexander Litvinenko who died shortly after he began to talk to other countries. When western countries tried to investigate at first the Russia Government co-operated however when the investigation lead back to Russia and the fact that a Russian had to have been responsible suddenly they stopped co-operating and turned hostile.

Today Russia supports and has since the fall of the USSR several non-democratic countries. Always bashing heads with western democracies, the cold war never really ended Russia continued to invest in countries that were undemocratic and were anti-western. That never changed and under Putin Russia has become more and more hostile and provocative against democratic countries and more and more supportive and friendly with dictatorships and allowing and enabling genocides and human rights abuses alongside China.

Its true that the US kept expanding Nato despite the USSR collapse. But would they have done so if Russia had actually shown their intentions and proved they were seriously moving to democracy? If Russia had stopped supporting communist governments and not provided weapons and support to enemies of western democracies. If Russia had pulled its spies and joined military agreements and other agreements with western countries the out come would have been far different.

Look at Japan and Germany both were America's biggest enemies. However after defeat they embraced Democracy and America and look at them today they are beacons of democracy and loved by the west. They have little to fear other then China or other dictator based states Russia currently supports.

As for Georgia and such, Russia sent Peace keepers to a country which hates Russia officially. They then used peace keeping as a pretext to split the country up and devastate the Government who was found to be in legal right to the territories which Russia annexed. Its like say their was a rebellion in India a rebel group in Northern India rebelled against the Government. Pakistan then sends peace keepers into India to keep the peace between the pro-Indian and anti-indian forces. The Pakistani Government then decides when India tries to recapture their soil and defeat the rebel group, that Pakistan should retaliate and recognizes the secession of Northern India while the rest of the international community disagrees. Then Pakistan unleashes hell on India in the name of protecting those rebels.

An enemy state should never peace keep in another enemy state. The peace keepers should always be neutral and not have a vested interest in the success of any of the rival groups. It also didn't help that Georgia was seeking Nato membership this peace keeping operation was an intimidation practice and excersize of military authority.

Fact is all those countries that joined Nato and are moving towards western alliances. Those countries either fear, resent or just don't care about Russia. That isn't the Wests fault it is entirely Russia's their actions past a present drove their allies to abandon them. The use of fear and blackmail drive resentment in Russia's former states. Such as Russia's iron grip on the oil and energy sectors which they often use as a negotiating tool. The constant threats of military action, Russia tries to rule by fear at least under Putin and did so under the USSR that brief ten years was not long enough nor did Russia put fourth enough evidence that they truly changed to build a relationship with the West.

Of course I do obviously have a bias towards western democracy. However being a member of the Conservative Party having talked via email with our Prime Minister and being nominated to Parliament in my province. I can honestly say that Canada at least along with several western countries were not convinced Russia turned a leaf, fact is Russia didn't do much to prove that the change was really deep or serious. Like I said spies were still operating in Canada and the US, the Russian Government continued to supply weapons and funding to enemies of Nato and western countries. Russia maintained very strong ties with all their communist partners, many USSR political and military leaders remained in Government roles. Its very hard to argue that the West shouldn't have been skeptical and concerned or defensive.

Russia's intentions were not entirely clear, today with Putin many would argue the West made the right choice by not letting our guard down and maintaining a suspicion of Russia. As you said Russia cares only about itself and that alone makes them a very bad candidate for a partner. Canada and other western countries want a partner that has an interest in seeing them succeed and promoting their values. Nobody wants to partner with a country that doesn't care or at least do a good job pretending to care about its partners!

You have either misunderstood or are ignoring what I have said. I did not say Russia alone follows it's national interest but that all nations do. I also never claimed that Russia should be trusted or that it was a democracy but that the west had an oppurtunity to integrate Russia and not alienate it.

What you are basically advocating is precicely the mistake that I have said the west has made. If you had your way, Russia just like Japan and Germany would be a nation under American military occupation/control. There are also countless cases of the west supporting dictatorships where it suits them. Best examples being Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Bottom line is that we have a case of a missed oppurtunity and I hope that it's something that we won't live to regret.

I beg your pardon for personal comment, but only Joel is capable of writing frigging wall of text with rather discussable argumentation and again not free from factual mistakes, that could have been easily put in a few sentences. Any hopes to have any discussion with the guy dies before they're born - you understand, that you just can't help. One can't argue religion, you just believe in it or not.

Kudos, that was fun :D Will repost it in my blog if you don't mind?

@JC7

We are all entitled to opinions but you keep getting yourself caught up in passing many of your opinions as fact.
You speak about camaraderie between nations like Japan and the US and yet you disregard actions like the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities. Do not assume that everyone in Japan is in love with America.

Regarding Germany helping out with the bailouts it is a bit more complicated than them doing it out of good will. They are doing it out of economic necessity, period.

You also mention how NATO is so costly for the US but maintaining empires has always been a huge financial burden throughout history.

I try to judge countries not by their talk but by their actions, and while German and or Japanese leaders may to an extent criticise the US from time to time they always end up falling in line in the end.

That last paragraph of yours has me worried. Seems to me that you think if a government isn't supportive of globalisation it automatically makes them bad. While in theory it benefits all, as we can observe there are always many negative aspects as well. I believe that any country should have the right to uphold their sovereignty, unfortunately we live in an age where we have countries talking one way and acting another way.

One country after another is being taken over by the United States through military action and the only thing that can protect anyone's independence is military might. That's why we can now see other powers forming counter alliances to try and deter military aggression. I suspect that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was formed for this reason.

Again I believe it would benefit everyone if there was more deterrence in the world and the less unilateral action the better.