Chechnya, Russia and WHAT!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/world/europe/01torture.html

So I came upon this article, and I got to thinking about two different things. The first is that it is well known that Putin, (current leader by all measures), rose to power and popularity by brutally repressing, and destroying, the Chechnya Insurgency. This article fits perfectly in with the time line, and despite the fact that they did not mention it, it is kind of clear that Putin would of put this butcher-er, president, in charge of Chechnya. So this got me to thinking, how could the West be so naive to believe that we could turn a person like Putin simply with Capitalism? The idea's of Capitalization have wrongfully been mixed with the idea's of liberalism. The second observation I notice is that Russia is largely regarded as the greatest threat to the United States, them and China, and with the exception of the brief eight years that the Bush administration distracted the world with the idea that Terrorists were our greatest threat, most politicians and academia agree that Russia, and China are our two greatest threats. The thing I find interesting is that China may not be as big of a threat as we have previously estimated at least not in the short term. My feeling is that Russia is going to be extremely dangerous because if my prediction is right it will follow vaguely in Iran's footsteps. Iran became a threat after flirting with Capitalism and watching the market destroy their economy and prop up a corrupt and ruthless leader. From there the Islamic Extremism and Nationalism took over, and the rest is history, with the exception of N.K. few nations despise and distrust the west so much.

The problem in Russia is not that their leader is raping the population, however Russia has become a nation deeply invested in Capitalism and due to failures of it's own and the current collapse of the world's financial system and conversely a devastating downturn in the Capitalist market, Russia is being set on a path, that could prove challenging and dangerous for the United States. Russia's economy foolishly built on oil, has crumbled and the lack of divestment has forced Russia once rich Oligarchs to surrender to the Government as the state attempts to save the economy via a Nationalizing Agenda. The danger lies in the fact that the State, Russia, now inherits a modernized and efficient industry and because of its current history with Capitalism, it appears that Russia is backsliding into its Nationalistic Communist self. The recent events and undertakings that the Russian government has enacted, (Georgia, Ukraine Gas, NATO Missile, Darfur, Iran, Radiation poisoned Spy's), have only added further evidence that Russia has taken a more combative stance with the West and have sought to further Russia's interest above all. Fueled by his popularity Vladimir Putin has effectively set up a system where he has the final say, and is the main orchestrator in all of Russia's actions. So to conclude my thoughts, it is wise to learn from this article, two things, one that Russia under Putin has no limits as to the brutality it will employ to achieve its ends. The second is that Russia is a threat and that balancing that threat diplomatically will become crucial within the next few years, and Russia's power needs to be limited, it is simply unacceptable that Russia can literally bring the EU to it's knees via it's power over natural gas and oil.

The last thing I noticed in an unrelated manner is how underreported Islamic rebellions are against Repressive regimes. Western Media has all but ignored the plight of the Uyghur’s and Chechnya is mentioned just as rarely. Throw this in with the coverage of the current Palestinian conflict and a trend emerges. This is not to say that these rebellions are any better or that their methods are acceptable, rather it is being said to shine light on the disproportionate attention and sympathy the west dedicates. For further reference consider the way the West reacted to Tibet during China's Olympics, when it was clear that the events were not peaceful and were actually an anarchic battle waged