Реклама Google — средство выживания форумов :)
Т.е. вы имели в виду именно колхозы, а не отмену частной собственности на землю?
А, пардон, я не заметил вашей реплики в другой ветке. Однако есть ли у вас какие-то конкретные претензии именно к этой книге? Не к деталям, а глобальные?
Загадки России ("New York Post", США)
Россия - меньшее из двух зол
February 16, 2004 — THE Russian soldier's greatest virtue has always been stubbornness. Time and again, Russia's military was defeated, fair and square - by Charles XII's Swedes, Napoleon's polyglot legions and Hitler's armored barbarians. But the Russians wouldn't surrender.
They always refused to play by Europe's rules, absorbing defeat after defeat - until they won on their own confounding terms.
Today, the Russians are being stubborn again, frustrating Europe's expectations and our own fond wishes. The new czar in the Kremlin is determined to have his country forge its own way. Our well-intentioned concerns don't move him a millimeter as he redesigns the one-party state for the 21st century.
Adding to our frustration, the people of Russia support him overwhelmingly.
They're being stubborn again.
Vladimir Putin's Russia presents those of us who revere democracy with a series of dilemmas. It's the worrisome member of the family of "Western" nations, charming one day, crazy the next - and prone to nasty behavior. It's richer in contradictions than it is in oil and gas.
Next month, Russia will hold national elections. Putin will win. Easily. Even the most grugding polls grant him a popularity rating above 70 percent. Yet, the Kremlin has gone to extravagant lengths to stifle an opposition so feeble it barely registers, smirking as it calls Russia a democracy. Attractive opposition candidates are eliminated - one way or the other. The media has been bullied, bribed and suborned. The people cling, once again, to the notion of a "good czar" who will save them from themselves and the powers of darkness.
Nonetheless, the March elections will mark real progress toward political, economic and social stability. They just won't be elections as we prefer them. Instead, the coming vote will be a referendum on Vladimir Putin. On one hand, the balloting will resemble the old Soviet yes-or-no "elections," since there's no serious choice. On the other, the elections will honestly reflect the feelings of Russia's majority.
At a glance, Russia appears to be in a transition. That may be so, but we just might find ourselves surprised by where the journey takes that vast country. Russia appears to be working out a middle way that suits its conditions and character - not our preferences.
Russia will remain Russia, declining to emulate either the USA or Germany, content to forge a workable combination of Mexico 30 years ago, Mussolini's 1920s Italy and Russia circa 1912. With a teasing hint of globalization for international investors.
Vladimir Putin is an unattractive figure on numerous counts. Yet, in other respects, he's probably the best that either Russia or the West can expect. It's certainly true that he can't seem to escape his KGB background - but it's doubtful that any leader in the Kremlin could do more to overcome the burden of Russia's past.
Russia has long been a land of contradictions layered upon contradictions, whether its schizophrenia had to do with arguments between Westernizers and Slavophiles, or democrats versus nationalists, or the prevalent crudeness and stunning brilliance of which its people are capable.
The contradictions continue. During the last decade's Boris-and-Bill Show, when President Clinton left Russia policy to the most amateurish collection of pseudo-diplomats ever to infect the Department of State, corruption flourished in Russia on a scale beyond a Saudi prince's dreams.
Putin has cracked down hard on corruption. Russia has become a more reliable, physically safer place to do business. The economy is making enviable progress.
Yet, the Kremlin crackdowns on the post-Soviet billionaires and other "criminals" concentrate on those who back opposition political parties or fund a free press. Oligarchs who support the Kremlin remain unscathed by law.
All this is very Russian. It's Peter the Great breaking the will of the boyari, the aristocratic oligarchs of his day. As the emotions of the Cold War settle, the Soviet Union appears to have been less of a break with the long sweep of Russian history than an intensification of it. And post-Soviet Russia is not about to jettison its political DNA. We're looking at remodeling, not reconstruction.
Despite its natural-resource wealth, Russian power has obviously diminished. We might be able to disengage, sign a few oil deals and let things stumble along - were it not for one unavoidable issue: Russia is a vital ally in the War on Terror.
And Russia has done far more than its share to make terrorism worse.
Political theories never survive hard contact with reality. Nor do our noblest ideals often fare better. Human rights should be a fundamental component of our foreign policy. So how do we justify cooperating with Russia, given its horrendous abuses in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Caucasus, its slaughter of its own citizens, the incompetence and lies - all of which have converted countless Muslims to terror?
Morally, we can't justify it. Yet, we cooperate. Because we must. In the real world, that's just how things work sometimes. You go with the less-bad alternative and grit your teeth.
We all may wish it were otherwise. But it's not.
A decade ago, we heard exuberant predictions of a new age of Russian glory waiting just around the corner. Next, we heard predictions of Russian doom, based upon demographics, economics, corruption and the dwindling number of birch trees.
The truth lies in between. Russia is moving forward, but at its own pace and in its own way. An angel won't replace Putin in the Kremlin. But Putin isn't entirely a devil. The glass is dirty, but it's nearly three-quarters full.
What do we make of a country that drinks itself to death, yet idolizes a national leader who refuses to raise a shot-glass to his lips? A country whose artistic achievements rival those of any culture on earth, but which has a phenomenal tolerance for human misery? A country whose stunningly rich elite reprises the excesses abroad of its 19th-century aristocracy, but whose common people, the chorni narod, have a shrinking life expectancy?
We make it our ally, do what we can to influence it and swallow hard.
Ralph Peters served as an Army officer specializing in Russia and its borderlands.
не могу точно вспомнить с какого момента, кто и по какому поводу первый сказал что США выиграли холодную войну.
Но повторяют это постоянно.
Это так странно. Я то полагал, что мы захотели перемен в лучшую сторону, сами их себе во вред во многом, но во многом и на пользу осуществили. на 100 процентов за наш собственный счет.
Практически кредитовали западную демократию землями, людьми и деньгами, нас при этом обманывали и водили за нос.
кстати - если в России кризисы были в 1917 и 1989 - то в США 1933 и 2005?
Очень любопытно - что за кризис был в Америке в 1933?
Рональд Рейган не выиграл для Запада "холодную войну". Советский Союз в этом конфликте потерпел неудачу вследствие собственных внутренних противоречий. Сомнительно даже говорить о том, что в "холодной войне" был победитель. Откуда тогда взялся исламский экстремизм?
Собственно, когда-то начиная это опрос я именно эту точку зрения имел ввиду.
СССР развалился - но при чём тут США и холодная война?
>Как бы то ни было, соревнование со Штатами СССР проиграл вчистую. И если считать, что это действительно произошло под влиянием в основном внутренних причин, то это ещё горше
Ну я вот периодически Формулу-1 смотрю - так там ряд машин (в т.ч. лидеры) систематически не доходят до финиша...
И что - это означает, что чужие пилоты лучше?
Не нужно сравнивать сладкое с круглым
СССР развалился - но при чём тут США и холодная война?