If intimidation (via some pressure combo of military, economic, civil-disorder instigation, and petroleum-supply threat) is not ‘control’, then what is it?

I think I know the answer, but just wanted to ask the people who read this article do they feel the difference between the two terms and why the first one was used here?

adding China, what do you have? Treason

Unfortunately, me thinks we have death and destruction instead. Why? USA can no longer find enough of itself to lawfully remove a traitor and other methods would surely bring in the blue helments. With the astronomical debt the major players of the world see USA as an outlet store; eg., a large mass of consumers. This outlet _must_ continue operating for the time being in order to purchase a large share of other countries produce; esp. China and OPECs. These countries and our handlers (bankers) would never allow large scale unrest.
I’m certain of that…

Anyone who cares to know can find all he needs about the “Russian mafia” role in the September Bank Panic (not to mention the oil run-up just preceding).

Also, anyone who wants to know will know that there is no real demarcation between the ‘Russian mafia’ and certain operations within the Kremlin. One stark clue is in an examination of the cyber-warfare waged on Georgia and Latvia –it originated with a company based in St Petersburg (the so-called “St Petersburg” faction within the Kremlin is Putin’s crew) that has been described as ‘criminal, and protected’.

Do some research, man –use the tools at your disposal. No need to read crackpots, either –there’s a wealth of sovietology out there, work done by respected professionals.

there is inside the Kremlin an organization at least as brainy and creative as Google, about the same size, too, a few thousand geniuses, that is lifetime-dedicated to ending the world order as it is and resetting it with Russia in the position of the USA. They’re on a roll, too, as Dan and others have noted here.

These guys in the Kremlin –they get tapped early, and spend an honored and remunerated –and patriotic –career on just one or a few big projects –all without having to worry one whit about getting called before a congressional committee every time the white house or congress has an election.

it goes something like this. first, you put former politburo member in charge in Kyrgystan. then, you cause 9/11. then, you have the US come in, and have to be dependent on these “post-Soviet” states. then, one day, say just before or after an election in the US, you have “Taliban” suddenly discover the obvious move of attacking the Pakistani supply line. then you “offer” Kyrgystan “$2 billion.” eventually you get the USA to pay triple the rent. then you offer USA supply routes through Russia. gee, i wonder whether those are stable?

meanwhile, thanks to NATO “eastward expansion,” you have the former Communist party members who were just recently your puppets tell everything you need to know about what NATO’s doing, all the while sabotaging relations among its members and complaining to the world that NATO is not even necessary anyway. Also, you get a manchurian candidate into the white house to disarm your enemy within the first year of his ridiculous administration.

speaking of whether russia is technically marxist-leninist, i heard on npr during last night’s commute that the world bank just yesterday released their (annual?) report on the relative openness of countries’ economies.

out of 121, Russia is ranked 114.

And what exactly is unusual about that? The first duty of AN leader is to serve the interests of the nation he has been trusted to govern.

Can you imagine Barak Obama saying “I am less of an American patriot” than Bush or Clinton? Can you even imagine Bush saying it publicly of Obama (whatever he may privately think) even though they are not of the same party.

American governments serve American interests (or if they don’t you should do something about it) – it is wrong & ultimately futile to expect that foreign leaders also exist to serve American interests.