Its only a couple of years back that Russia was unable to feed itself let alone reassert its influence outside its borders. On the contrary its writ was challenged well inside its own territory. It was on the brink of another collapse; the collapse of the Russian Federation itself looked possible. Under an ill president Boris Yeltsin everything was in chaos. The Soviet Union was no more nor was the Eastern European countries under the Soviet umbrella. And it was not only myself but the whole world which used to think that Russia had got so many damages and losses that it may take well a generation for it to just get back on its own feet again, or it may never happen. But what happened that made Russia so strong to again challenge the USA. How it got so strong? How did this miracle happen? I still cant believe my eyes. It seems Russia is bent on becoming a global superpower again. It wishes to recreate a new Soviet Union, may be this time with a new union name and with capitalism not communism its economic system but it seems that it is trying to recreate a new union with capitalism. Should we call it the Union of Soveriegn Republics, a single party dictatorship called the Unity party with Putin as a sort of secretary general of the Unity party? What are you views about this.

A few quick points:

(1) The USA has violated the agreements and assurances it made to Russia (Gorbachev) to allow Russia to it convert to capitalism and join the global economy, without expanding NATO. Specifically, the USA was supposed to only allow the re-unified Germany into NATO (not expand with Poland, Czech Republic, Kosovo etc.) Furthermore, the USA has been aggressively encircling Russia (CIA-directed "color" revolutions in Georgia, the Ukraine and Serbia): http://www.infowars.com/?p=4318

(2) The USA is not a democracy, it is controlled by corporations and institutions. In particular, the military/oil/agriculture/banking industrial-complex is the power structure behind the scenes. These people, acting with their international counterparts, is leading the expansion of an Anglo-American-Israeli empire (the "New World Order").

(3) Russia (Putin) is not willing to be put under the control of this "New World Order". It is resisting and to the extent that this is good, Putin's "strong arm" tactics (in particular, False Flag (Chechen) apartment bombings) that would otherwise be criminal, might be justified. However, it seems that China is to a large extent a willing "New World Order" partner.

(4) Instead of contemplating some hypothetical "Union of Soveriegn Republics", I think you should instead be considering the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Coop...on_Organisation In particular, I think the future roles of Iran and India in the SCO should be contemplated.

Canada is the most great country in the world !!:D

I agree, absolutely. I suppose you agree with me that a second "superpower" can only be good in the long run.

You are correct in that your stated "industrial complex" has enormous influence. However, the American people could, if we choose, vote to nationalize much of it (like many would like to do with health care). So we are CLEARLY still a democracy. (democratic republic) Please don't confuse that with how stupid we Americans are about whom we elect at times. We elect who we want and we get what we voted for. Then we change our minds. History is clear on this. You imply that if we really had a working democracy things would be better. You're wrong. Our democracy works like all the others - poorly. Democracy sucks .......... just less than everything else.

I need more information on these agreements the USA violated. Your link at the end of (1) is an opinion piece that only supports the last sentence. This is not the first time I've heard of this, but there has never been any information given on it.

marliwahoo, the american people think they can vote and change most of it

If you ever elected a President who really wanted to change things, he would be murdered in no time.

My opinion here,,,

Americans have what they have voted for. There is little support for radical change. It's not a lack of freedom. It's what we have chosen. We have plenty of choices, we just choose poorly sometimes.








We won't elect such a person anytime soon. Neither candidate will be able to affect the kind of change that is "radical". There is very little support for radical change. Small changes - yes. Big changes -no.