Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (40373)	3/29/1999 8:20:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

Les-- The main thrust of the analysis seems to me to be correct. I think they exaggerate the degree to which nationalists have taken over in Moscow. Rather, no one can gain decisive control over the national government, and Yeltsin, in order to survive, must be flexible in making concessions. Also, I suspect that they overestimate the entente between Russia and China. But it has always been the smartest idea for states challenging the U.S, to coordinate timing, and cooperate in other respects if possible, and clearly the Russians do not want to be counted out as a great power, despite their reduced circumstances. China has aspirations to become the hegemonic power in the Pacific, but the prospect of competition with Japan heating up into war, and the value of U.S. markets for Chinese goods, limits their resentment of the U.S. role, I think. One reason why Russia has not called for the dissolution of NATO, although it resents its expansion, is because they like the U.S. to sit on Germany as much as anyone else; the same thing applies in the East. Thus, although I do think that China and Russia would like to bring us down a peg, I don't think that they would like us to abandon our role in either area.