Hillary Clinton was right to draw attention to Russia's sabotaged elections. However expressing concern is not the same as condemnation, which she should have done. Apparently, oil and nukes give Russia greater status.

Who are we to complain, are we so sure that this country's elections are clean? Hear we are preaching to the whole world, again, when we can't keep our own house in order. Lets worry about our own country and our out of control bankers.

What purpose is served by telling the truth about strong-man Putin?

Is anything the US president or Secretary of State says going to change Russia, while so many Russians see Putin as the last barrier between them and chaos? Sec. Clinton already publicly acknowledged the despicable facts; what more can be done from here that will be done?

How many loosing battles should we ask the US president to fight at one time?

Does the UK have a Maggie Thatcher hidden somewhere to stand with America; Which sides will Sarkozy play? What is in China's interest?

We certainly do not honor Anna Politkovskaya's memory with meaningless words, that no one has any intention of backing up with action; they would only serve to create more martyrs.

As my father used to say: "Talk is cheap."
Sometimes it is better to be silent.

Dear Americans! My name is Roman, I live in Russia. I know that in our country, all is not well. I hate when others interfere in the affairs of our country. I think americans have a lot of questions to the will of the rulers, but we don't interfere in your affairs, the internal problems of America. Russia Has its way, that she is more than a thousand years.
electronic transfer

This article is reminded me of a funny story about a warrior and a dragon.

One warrior decided to kill the dragon. He went to the place where the dragon lived, and saw a huge, stinking cave. The warrior went to that cave, and shouted: "Hey dragon come out and fight with me!" No one answered. Then the warrior put his head into the cave and began to shout louder. Suddenly a voice came from above: "Okay, okay, I herd you, just stop yelling into my ass!”.

IMHO
Dear Hillary Clinton !!!)
You should look after your husband and do not climb in sovereign rights of Russia...

A recent Rolling Stone article brought to the forefront the horrifying fact that a #1 rock hit reaches only 13 million listeners, compared to 138 million reached by top 40 pop hits. That, coupled with thousands of DJ layoffs across the country and stations switching allegiances, leaving several cities without a rock station at all, continues to prove that rock radio is dying a slow painful death.

That said, Radio Moscow arrives to give us all a wondrous flashback to the prog-rock and psychedelia of the late 60s and early 70s, when bands actually dared to have a rhythm section, an understanding of the blues and the willingness to push the envelope from album to album. Their latest album, The Great Escape of Leslie Magnafuzz, would be a rock radio wet dream if there were rock stations left to give new bands a push. “Little Eyes” is a prime example of what makes the band work, featuring the best elements of Zeppelin, Hendrix and Clapton shoehorned into a song so ear-crunchingly raw it’s positively refreshing.

Without rock radio DJs to help give bands like them the push they deserve, it is up to us on the Internet to show that great rock music isn’t dead and gone. Even with just a cursory listen I think you’ll agree, Radio Moscow’s got its fingers on the trigger of what rock fans need as we head into 2012.

We shut off contacts with the FSB and expelled a number of Russian diplomats. The Russians retaliated with their own expulsions and put brutal pressure on our cultural arm, the British Council (in an act described by one observer as “like hitting a librarian”).

Shell’s and BP’s huge Russian operations were at about the same time heavily leant on by Russian officialdom. As British ambassador, I found myself being hounded by a Kremlin-supported youth group, and vividly recall that, for my last few months, there were no high-level UK/Russian contacts at all.

Time moves on, but some things in Russia haven’t changed. While Dmitry Medvedev enjoys the title of President, Vladimir Putin continues to call the real shots. For understandable reasons, he is popular with most ordinary Russians. They are richer, more secure and in some ways freer (to travel, for instance) than they have ever been.

But there is a dark side. Russia’s ruling elite has become immovable and predatory, elections are fixed, corruption is on a par with Nigeria, the legal system is pliable, and the police and security agencies untouchable. Two recent scandals underline how bad things now are – the extraordinary inability of the Russian system to prosecute, or even sack, senior government officials who committed a huge fraud and then brought about the death in custody of the brave lawyer who exposed it; and yet another blatantly rigged trial of the leading opposition oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

And the global economic crash has made things harder for the government. A population used to fast-rising living standards is having to tighten its belt. Falling oil prices almost brought financial collapse and showed how close Russia now is to an Arab-style petro-economy. Unnerved by the crisis, rich Russians decided en masse to move their money to places where their property rights are less subject to official whim.

And it is not only money that is leaving. The young and the mobile are increasingly seeking lives in countries not ruled by a “party of thieves and swindlers”. More than a million have left over the past three years. My city, Cambridge, is full of bright Russians who view their homeland with a very Russian affection but who have no intention of living there under present circumstances. Medvedev himself has caught the widespread disenchantment with his observation that the country faces a new “period of stagnation”.

All of this gives Russia strong reasons to try to improve cooperation with the West. If she is to diversify her economy away from oil and gas, she will need Western capital and technology. In the oil and gas sector, it is Western (and notably British) companies, not Russian ones, that have the technology necessary to get to Russia’s increasingly remote reserves. And key Russians know that, if Russia is really to prosper, she needs to create a much cleaner and more transparent business and legal environment.

I am constantly struck by the number of businessmen I meet who cheerfully take on the challenges offered by India or China but who blench when I suggest they might do business in Russia. Russia knows she needs to draw on Western experience to overcome such attitudes. She is particularly keen to learn from us what has made the City of London such a world-beater. So, for Russia, there is a lot to be gained from a warmer relationship with the UK.

What’s in it for us? The short answer is business. Russia’s growth prospects may have been diminished by the crash, but they still remain significantly greater than those of the stagnant West. Even given the widely advertised (and often exaggerated) difficulties of doing business in Russia, British companies should be hungry to get into this populous and fast-growing market. Since in Russia all big business is heavily political, it is good that the Prime Minister is showing his support by taking a party of senior businessmen with him.

But the ultimate prize is much more than British jobs and profits, important though they are. For too long, Russia has been a European outlier; impoverished, oppressive and resentful. By making ourselves open to Russia – tourists, students, businessmen – we put the qualities of our society on display and encourage them to want the best of it.

By contributing through trade and investment to raising Russian prosperity, we assist the rise of a Russian middle class who are already beginning to demand the same democratic and legal rights as we have. It will take time, but it is these pressures that will eventually turn Russia into the normal European country we all want her to become.

Finally, there is foreign policy. In an unstable time, it is important that the UK and Russia, both key foreign policy actors, work together where possible. The Russians see the world very differently from us. In their eyes, Nato is a threat, Central Asia may be run by nasty dictators, but at least they keep the fundamentalists down, China is an increasingly potent neighbour with whom it is better to cooperate than contend, Georgia is an irritant that has already caused two wars (they will not have forgotten David Cameron’s visit to Tblisi during the second of these), and Western human-rights activism is no more than badly camouflaged power politics.

There are, nevertheless, areas where we can and must work together, notably over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and our shared interest in keeping Afghanistan out of fundamentalist hands. On the most dramatic political development of recent months, the Arab Spring, we have usually been at loggerheads. Russia (perhaps with an eye to the implications for her own Mubarak-style political system) has been uniformly hostile to the popular movements that have now brought down three Arab dictators. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s most interesting discussion in Moscow will be about the likely fourth – Syria’s Assad – and the damage Russia is doing to its influence in the region by consistently backing the losing side.

David Cameron’s visit to Moscow today will not be easy. He will get no movement on the Litvinenko dossier. He should make it clear that the surge of British investment the Russians want to see will largely depend on a much cleaner and law-bound economic environment than Russia currently offers. And he will be conscious that there are few votes in being photographed shaking hands with despots, even soft ones.

On the Russian side, there will be a traditional suspicion of British perfidiousness, and a firm determination not to let the West interfere in its internal political affairs. The smiles at the closing press conference will not be so wide as to suggest that either side has conceded anything vital to the other. Nevertheless, there is serious business to be done – on commercial exchanges, on shared regulatory experience, on making the world a safer place.

The Russians plainly see the visit as important: Cameron will meet not only Medvedev, but also with the real power in the land, Putin. It is good that the top-level gap that we have had in UK/Russian relations for the past five years is about to be filled.

• Sir Anthony Brenton was British Ambassador to Russia, 2004-08

Thanks

Admin of agenda software

US should immediantly start a military compaine against these Ruskies. Bomb them - this should be the only policy of America toward inferior races.

It doesn't matter what politicians say before the elections (both the U.S. and Russia will have presidential elections in 2012). Despite Hillary Clinton's harsh statement one can be sure that Washington will officially recognize the elections results as well as all EU countries will do. Traditional pre-election squabbles between the U.S. and Russian leaders will not affect long-term relationship between the two states, but during the elections period may exacerbate the situations around the Missile defense, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan etc. Most important is to ensure that these top-level games do not lead to any unplanned emergency situations caused by misinterpretations by the hotheads in the field (including possible attempts of some American or Russian allies to try to seize the moment for solving their own problems, as it often happened in times of the U.S. and the USSR confrontation).
Instead of weakening of Russian authorities, in fact it will be further crackdown, increasing of pre-elections social populism and mass-media propaganda aiming at assuring Vladimir Putin's victory in the first round of presidential elections. No fundamental changes in Russian political situation should be expected. At the same time Moscow can face some difficult months in its foreign policy, especially concerning the prospects of Eurasian Union. One can find arguments in my article on this topic in my personal blogs at blogspot and wordpress.

After all, what were the pre-election polls saying?

If the pre-election polls were consistently saying that Putin would get X% and the election results are X+1% then your evidence of MASSIVE election fraud is somewhat lacking, and the most you should be doing is "expressing concern", not "condemning the result".

So how about some pre-election predictions versus post-election figures, and then we can all judge for ourselves how big the mote is in everyone's respective eyes....

In Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., is democracy, where people are happy.
If necessary we will pay another Nobel Peace Prize. Faster Bomb please Putin. If you killed a few thousand civilians, it does not matter.

there should be a caption contest for that photo!
motorcycle parts - ticket sales

This will not do anything, so I don't see why Obama should talk tough. Russia is corrupt and they know it and do not care, and just because the United States thinks poorly of how they rigged their election does not mean that anything is going to change. And isn't this a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Didn't we have a rigged election as well with the hanging chads? So we have no credibility in this matter, and it is not worth doing. We have a lot more to focus on as a nation that will go over better and might make a difference. Good idea, but not worth it in the long run.