We know that any entity cannot survive, if it be divided against itself. Churches, corporate boards, and administrations of any kind cannot weather adversity if the players are not on the same sheet of music.
Take the President and Vice-President, for instance. It seems we have a discrepancy, in that, they are not able to communicate a united coherent policy on Israel and the possibly of them taking out Iran's nuclear program.
"We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened," Biden said.
The US has "absolutely not" given Israel a green light for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US President Barack Obama said Tuesday.
Obama was qualifying comments Vice President Joe Biden had made Sunday that left the impression the US would not stand in the way of an Israeli action.
"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," said Obama, currently in Russia, during a CNN interview.
Obama said it was "very important that I'm as clear as I can be, and our administration is as consistent as we can [be] on this issue."
We can see how members of an entity can put forth an image of inconsistency and confusion. Imagine when it's the same person showing indecision and erratic statements.
Suspected U.S. missiles and Pakistani fighter jets attacked followers of a notorious militant leader close to the Afghan border Tuesday, but the army complained the American strikes were hurting its campaign against the country's public enemy No. 1.
Between 12 and 14 militants were killed when two missiles hit a training camp run by Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan tribal region, intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. The missiles were believed fired by American drones.
Now, let's be clear about this, I am not trying to complain about the killing of the enemy. I am complaining about inconsistency, I am only critical of consistency when it is the wrong thing.
Obama has spent some time overseas in Russia, where nothing really matters right now. From what I can gather from the visit, the Russians really didn't seem to care if he was there or not. There were no adoring crowds, the media wasn't fawning over him, and the leaders were not impressed.
The body language shown in the pics of Obama with both Russian leaders, Medvedev and Putin, shows who is in charge. The reason is simple. Obama is painting a vivid image of weakness. Meanwhile, he is being mocked openly by the Russian leadership.
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised the hospitality and openness of U.S. former President George W. Bush in a telegramme sent hours before meeting his successor Barack Obama.
"During the last years we have been working on strengthening Russia-U.S. cooperation. Although there were differences between our countries, I always valued your openness and sincerity," Putin said, congratulating Bush on his 63rd birthday on July 6.
"With special warmth I recall your hospitality in the Crawford ranch and your family estate in Kennebunkport," Putin wrote, referring to their 2007 meeting at the Bush family vacation home when the two leaders went fishing and ate lobster.
Fron this simple act, I cannot see much respect for Obama from Putin. If there is any at all, it must be some ancient Russian custom. To front out the new American leadership by recognizing the old one is not a sign of respect, where I come from..
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday rejected U.S. President Barack Obama's charge that he was mired in Cold War thinking, setting the scene for a stormy first meeting at a Moscow summit next week.
In a pre-trip interview, the U.S. leader told the Associated Press that Putin needed to "understand that the Cold War approach to U.S.-Russian relationship is outdated" and that Putin had "one foot in the old ways of doing business."
Putin -- who once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the century" -- hit back, saying Russians were standing firmly on both feet.
"We are standing firmly on both feet and always look to the future. That is the peculiarity of Russia. That has always allowed Russia to move forward and get stronger. That will continue," Putin was shown saying with a smile on state television.
So I think it's safe to conclude that the two top leaders are not on the same page with each other. The President is not even on the same page with himself. This leads us to ask ourselves a very important question. Is it really surprising this administration is the laughing stock of the international community and may very well tear down what it took two decades to build, in one trip?
I apologize for not having written anything of any marginal value lately. As it turns out, some things beyond my control have garnered much of my attention. So, as it turns out, this is an optimal moment in time for the usual trusted standby feature, in which I can half-ass my way through the post.
I swear, sometimes I think there is nothing better to do in the world of the press, than to drum up controversy when there is none. If this is true and Obama did visit the home of George Will for a gathering, what's the big deal?
Personally, I see it as a positive. But let there be no doubt, there will be many on the left who might be a bit worried about this development. On the same token, some on the right may be tempted to read further into this than is required for basic comprehension and understanding.
The only way we are going to know how Obama is going to govern is going to come after he is inaugurated and starts signing or vetoing the ham, sausage, and bacon sandwiches that Congress will be delivering to his desk. But what a slap to the face of his base of supporters it will be, if he compromises with the right. Those who hate conservatives with every ounce of their beings will feel betrayed, and the same group may turn on him in the future.
We've all been reading the news concerning the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over natural gas prices. It seems this is becoming an annual event and every year we see the same old tired outcome.
The problem is that cutting off gas supplies to the Ukraine also causes those in Western Europe to suffer. Those that are paying the prices set by thuggish capitalists in Moscow must bear the burden, along with those for whom the action is originally intended. Simply put, Russia's way is to apply undue pressure through the EU.
Since this is becoming an annual occurrence, it would seem that the EU will need to form some strategies for the future. Ukraine's economy may not be able to bear the price hikes from their malevolent neighbors as easily as its western counterparts. So it would make sense for the EU to be the humanitarians they often chide the Americans for not being enough of, and help the Ukrainians make the payments. This would ensure the flow of gas for the short-term.
For the long term, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for the EU countries to support a massive conversion to electric heat. It will be costly and may not be easy. But in the bigger scope of things, it will make Europe less dependent on Russia and decrease their ability to extort money from others.
From Reuters comes this story, about Russia urging Israel to halt its offensive against the terrorist organization Hamas.
Russia urged Israel on Sunday to end military attacks that had killed nearly 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and allow humanitarian supplies into the territory, Russia's Foreign Ministry said.
I can see where the tone of the Russian government is somewhat subdued here. Russia just completed an armed invasion of Georgia for much less than the reason Israel is preparing to re-take control of Gaza. I don't remember Georgia firing missiles across the Russian border, but still they came anyway.
Maybe, the Russians feel the need to make a customary statement. Historically, they have worded their critiques of Israeli military actions harshly, and if they say nothing, they will look like they are weakening. But at the same time, they know too harsh of a reaction will look openly hypocritical. What to do, what to do?
China is deeply concerned at the current situation in Gaza,and hopes parties involved could immediately halt the armed conflict, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said here on Tuesday.
The United States has been acting as the world's only superpower in 2008, but the financial turmoil, which broke out in Wall Street in September, showed its vulnerability.
In addition, the country is still deep in trouble with its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has undermined its international image.
Some analysts attributed the waning U.S. strength to its policy of unilateralism and expansionism on international issues, and its practice of a laissez-faire free market economy at home. It remains to be seen what consequences of these policies will have on U.S. national strength.
By contrast, Russia's flexing of strong muscles in the international political arena in the outgoing year indicated a marked recovery of its strength.
It's true that an economic crisis will weaken any country, but America is not the only country affected by the recent financial woes. And Russia is not in too great of a position right now, due to the downturn on the prices of oil and natural gas. So China's propaganda machine is not very convincing to those that have a basic understanding of reality.
What we have here is posturing for the coming Obama Administration. China is using negative statements to cast aspersions on the US.
Why?
To create an image of American weakness in order to manipulate the new President. Their goal is to make Obama think the world doesn't like us, so they can use the old "do what we want and we'll like you again" ploy, as a foreign policy strategy. They want to play on our innate need for acceptance and approval.
The big question is, will Obama fall for it? I think it is likely that he will, because his campaign centered around "restoring America's position in the world". So if the world wants a weaker America so it can be liked again, it is highly likely that is what it will get.
Russia would come under crippling financial pressure and may need to raise money externally if oil languishes at an average of $30 a barrel over the next two years, the World Bank predicted Friday.
The bleak scenario would mark a rapid unraveling of Russia's oil-fueled economic gains over the past eight years, during which time the government has paid down most of its foreign debt and built up a vast stockpile of international reserves.
Don't look now, but PYY sources have learned that Russia has petitioned the US Treasury Secretary's office for part of the remaining $350 billion bailout fund. Film at 11.
Charles Krauthammer has one worthy of a look, on possible sanctions against Russia if they overthrow the Georgia government. He left one big one out, see if you can guess which one it is.
As we decipher what went wrong with the US policy on Russia and analyze the conditions that led up to where we are at present, there are some things we must think about before we can draw some intelligent conclusions.
From the time the Soviet Union fell until now, Russia has transformed itself from a communist to a fascist regime. Think about it. In just nineteen short years, Russia has almost completely reversed its traditional position on the political spectrum. Two ideologies that once felt very threatened by each other have occupied space in the Kremlin, in my adult lifetime. And in the interim, there was a brief feeble attempt at operating a democratic republic. But it has failed.
To get the full appreciation of this concept, just imagine a chemical converting itself from an acid to a base. Both compounds are caustic, both can be harmful in their extreme forms. Both can potentially be very dangerous, if not handled correctly. (Feel free to read or reread an earlier post I called The Political PH Scale for more.)
Communism and fascism are terms that are generally accepted as economic in nature, but in some instances they are applied to the political sciences. In some areas they compare, others they contrast.
Under communism as we have known it in our lifetimes, economic theory was based on state control. Prices were set by the government under the doctrine known as "central planning". Converting to a free market economy was a difficult task for Russia, since only socialism was permitted to be taught in schools for seventy years. Economists had trouble grasping the simplest of concepts, like price setting.
The political system under Soviet style communism was rigidly controlled, there were no free elections, and in essence was a dictatorship (sometimes monarchical, sometimes oligarchical). It relied heavily on the KGB to squash opposition and keep the people under the heavy hand of the leadership.
Under fascism, private ownership was allowed. Private companies were allowed to exist but only with a watchful eye from above. Governmental approval was still an important component and nothing could be done without it. The businesses were highly taxed for uses deemed to be in the best interests of the state.
Likewise, there were no free elections, life was rigidly controlled, and sported a dictatorship. Hitler used the Gestapo to protect his rule. Mussolini used OVRA. All totalitarians, be they individual or by committee, rely on a secret police component to protect the regime with many bordering on the edge of paranoia as a driving force.
With today's Russia raking in billions in energy revenues, arms sales, and other high profit commodity ventures, they have successfully turned the "central planning" philosophy into quite a successful venture, a corporate state (which is a central theme in most forms of fascism the world has seen in the times of its existence). With Putin serving as supreme potentate, this fulfills the dictatorship requirement despite the fact there was an attempt to put on a show of an election.
With this knowledge and understanding, the case can be made the real enemy here is not the wallet or purse strings, but authoritarianism.
Sure, the case can always be made against socialist economic policies. They are logically flawed and have been proven to stall healthy growth. But in many socialist nations, there are free elections and the people actually elect leaders that echo the will of the people. And in these cases, their desire is usually for more dependency on government.
There is no real freedom in any component of fascism. Sure, they may allow private enterprise to exist in name, but behind the scenes that's about as far as it goes. In other words, under fascism, the government owns it but let's you keep it in your own name. Many person has lost his/her business under Hitler and Putin, by not doing what the government wanted them to do.
But at some time along the way, both systems seek out an imperialist path which is guided by expansive self-interest. Hitler sought to restore Germany to it's former boundaries. Now, Putin seeks to do the same. Both have used nationalism as the central theme for their expansion projects. Both ideologies have a strong nationalist component.
But let's get back to how we got to this point. We can look at this and that, we can point fingers at each other all day long. The fact of the matter remains simple.
What has happened has happened and cannot be changed now.
What is imperative to guide us to a solution is just as simple.
We need to understand what has transpired in Russia and use it to effect a sensible solution. Nothing will ever be solved until people gain these two understandings. So once this educational benchmark can be attained, this is when a real comprehension of what we are dealing with can truly be realized.
The fact remains, this is what real hegemony looks like. This is what a real war for oil looks like. America did invade Iraq and arguments can be made all day long about the prudence of such an undertaking. But that's where it ends.
We did not invade a democracy. We overthrew a brutal blood-thirsty dictator. We did not install our own government, we allowed the Iraqi people determine who would lead them. And now, they are determining their own destiny and we are not actively working to replace them, when we disagree with their self-determined policies.
The same cannot be said for Putin's Russia and his incursion into the Republic of Georgia.
There is an old aphorism about a turtle on a fencepost that applies to the Obama story. I heard a caller today on the Dennis Miller Show make this very fitting analogous comparison:
Obama is like a turtle on a fencepost because:
1. We don't know how it got there.
2. We know it doesn't belong there.
3. We know it can't get down from there.
4. If it falls from there, it won't be pretty.
This is especially applicable when we consider Obama's weak response to the Russia-Georgia conflict and his criticism of John McCain's much stronger one.
"Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach," Obama adviser Susan Rice said on MSNBC. "We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation."
Asked about criticisms by Barack Obama's campaign saying he was being “belligerent and aggressive” toward Russia, McCain replied, “This isn't a time for partisanship and sniping between campaigns. This is about hundreds if not thousands of innocent people whose lives are being taken or they are being rendered homeless, wounded. This is not time for that to start with.”
McCain has every right to emphasize the fact that this issue should not be politicized. Using this conflict to take a swipe at an opponent shows immaturity, it exposes his inexperience and lack of expertise in foreign affairs.
Now is the time for Obama to show his leadership qualities and why he is able to perform in difficult foreign policy crises. He isn't. Now is the time for him to put his mettle on display for all to see. He isn't. All he has managed to do is throw a soft pitch and criticize McCain for throwing a faster one.
The important questions everyone should ask are:
If he were to become President, would he be able to hold up during an international crisis like the one playing out a world away? Would he show statesmanship or would he play the role of political hack novice and blame Republicans for making everything worse?
Now is the time for demonstrating leadership qualities for the purpose of giving voters something to analyze before they cast their votes this November. It is not the time for playing politics by using a very difficult situation as fodder for a lackluster platform.
4. Maureen Dowd is quite an arrogant and snobby writer for the NYT. But sometimes, she stumbles onto something and makes a point or two. She must get around the blogs, because many of us have been saying Hillary has something up her sleeve. And now, Dowd seems to think so too.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq, there was an onslaught of condemnation by anti-war nations like France and anti-war organizations like MoveOn.Org. Hollywood elitists were weeping and gnashing their teeth, calling George Bush a war criminal for having invaded a sovereign nation that was so misunderstood in the world arena. In addition to these things, there was a great multitude of complaints about civilian casualties, and how not enough care was being taken to prevent them.
While the E.U. and the U.S. have publicly condemned the Russian military's disproportionate response, McCain and Obama have called for a ceasefire as part of their campaigns. Others have no doubt made their customary statements. But one has to wonder, where are these same people that made so much noise during Iraq?
At the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, you will find no posts that condemn Putin and Russia with nowhere near the same intensity. The topic of the day in these places (and other sites like them) seems to be John Edward's affair. On the Kos, there's even a post mentioning John McCain having a lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia on his staff of advisers. But alas, there are no strong condemnations or claims of hypocrisy directed toward Russia, for their behavior in this conflict.
Russia has long supported the separatist movement in South Ossetia. And now that Georgia has moved to restore order (in a province that has long been recognized as being within the nation of Georgia) Russia has meted out a brutal campaign with very little (or no) regard for the integrity of human life. This is particularly interesting, because Russia does not allow it's provinces to secede. Just ask Chechnya.
In short, Georgia has done nothing that Russia would not have done in a similar scenario and I think the world knows this. But unfortunately there are too many afraid of Russia to complain. But I say to them and others, there will come a time (if it isn't here already) whereby we will all regret propping up Russia, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Our intentions may have been noble and altruistic at the time, but our analysis of the very history (and collective psyche) of the Russian nation was also seriously flawed. This was an enormous miscalculation on our part, as is often the case when we get involved in foreign affairs. As they have increased their power through revenues created by the implementation of private enterprise, they have rebuilt much of their military infrastructure. And because of this, they have become emboldened to once again assume the role of regional bully.
As most know by now, there has been fighting in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Instead of showing restraint over a situation that was not advisable to start with, Russia now appears to be ready to escalate the crisis. The latest from the IHT seems to tell the story well, the following is the part I want to focus on:
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia, eclipsing the authority of President Dmitri Medvedev, left the Olympics in China and arrived Saturday evening in Vladikavkaz, a city in southern Russia just over the border that is a military staging area. State-controlled news broadcasts showed Putin meeting generals, suggesting that he was in charge of the operations on Georgian soil.
Putin made clear that Russia now viewed Georgian claims over the breakaway regions within its borders to be invalid, and that Russia had no intention of withdrawing. "There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo," he said, according to Interfax.
This passage tells us something.
While Putin held the official title of President, no real challenge of this magnitude presented itself in a manner where he could lead a major military operation. In my view, this is what he has wanted. Since it didn't happen when he held the title, he now has the opportunity to show who still holds the real power in Russia, as Prime Minister. This clearly shows that the current President is nothing more than a figurehead to appease constitutionalists.
This also says something else.
By now, it's perfectly clear to me that they not only want to extract Georgia's forces from South Ossetia, they want to punish Georgia to make them an example for the world to see, while showing off their military capabilities. The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have given the U.S., their chance. Now it's their turn. And if we scratched a little deeper, it could mean that Putin and his government have some hidden jealousies towards the known abilities of the U.S., and their success at turning around a failing operation in Iraq.
By and large, Russia wants to flex their muscles and make statement of power in order to feel relevant again. It looks like they have figured the world will be consumed by the Olympics, so now is as good of a chance as any. With attention in Beijing, they give every appearance of having felt more emboldened to carry out this task, which is nothing less than a return to the days of Russian domination in the region.
Deep down, Putin has longed for a return of Russia to the power-broker that was once realized as the leader of the Soviet Union. Deep down, he once again longs for this prominent role on the world stage and greatly resents the break-up of the former USSR, making the U.S. the only sole super-power left in the world for that time.
But his envy of the U.S. is not the only component driving his desire for a widened conflict. He now realizes that China may be looming on the horizon as a potential challenge and (in some ways) threat to the "great bear".
Sure, both of them are co-existing fairly well right now and have even conducted joint military exercises together at one point. But let us make no mistake here, Putin also knows history. He knows that the USSR and China were very close until the Sino-Soviet, which began after Stalin's death. He knows that can happen again as China becomes more powerful through a better business ethic and the funneling of revenues into high tech weaponry, which they have yet to show off.
What this means is, the U.S. and the E.U. will need to work together for a common goal, once again. If they don;t set aside their petty differences, we may see some things that will once again threaten western civilization, only far worse than any "cold war" could.
This one is from the Daily Mail. Comparisons and contrasts are found in this article about Putin's reign as President of Russia and his future role of Prime Minister. A bit lengthy and well-written, this one definitely contains some things to consider.
With France being anything but a monolithic society, I am not sure all French will agree with the contents of this London Times piece. This article describes Nicolas Sarkozy's politically active son and the ambitions he may or may not have.
Despite the recent tragedy that has killed many people in the heart of China, this WSJ article raises some cause for concern. My heart certainly goes out to the individuals that have suffered great loss, but like the author of this piece, I too am very skeptical of the Chinese government. (HT: Amerloque)
This one deals with a war of words over the war in Iraq. In any conflict or endeavor of any kind, there are bound to be unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we live in a finger pointing and blame placing world that must assign full responsibility to honest mistakes made by fallible human beings. Someone must take the fall for negative outcomes and in the process, some defensive blame projections do occur. This article Mr. Hanson outlines his views on the mistakes made in the Iraq War and why we are being confronted with the excuses well-before the final outcome is known.
Russia is preparing to equip Iran with a powerful new air defense system that would dramatically increase its ability to repel an attack, Iran's defense minister said Wednesday.
The S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system is capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of over 90 miles and at altitudes of about 90,000 feet. Russian military officials boast that its capabilities outstrip the U.S. Patriot missile system.
Putin has made it clear he opposes U.S. deployment of an air-missile defense shield in eastern Europe. For whatever reasons fathomable, the Russians simply do not want it.
Whether or not the Russian government is serious about doing this, whether or not the system could be as effective as touted, remains yet to be seen. But, one thing we cannot rule out here is Russia may be using this as a bargaining chip for us to re-think our stance on the European deal (like the deal in the 60s that was produced from the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Mustang at Social Sense has made a good case, as to why socialism would not work so well here in the United States. If you have time, it's definitely something to read and consider.
An editorial in the SD Union-Tribune sees the return of Czarist Russia, working it's way back to absolutism. The only thing missing is the principle of divine right. Or is it?
Here is my comment to Mustang's post, posted in the comment section of Social Sense:
I have often felt that Putin has ice running through his veins. (Unlike Gorbachev who had to have some love for his countrymen, in a time when the jig was up and communism met it's natural demise.)
I have often wondered what ever would possess Yeltsin to trust this man to do what was right with Russia. I think I know, and Mustang has just validated some of it.
My thought about this has been simple: The mafia controls Russia.
When it was the USSR, the only way to get things that the state was unable to provide (through its failed experiment) was the black market. When the USSR folded and Russia became a free market economy, the only ones that had experince in running a capitalistic enterprise, was the black market.
So, in the interim, it legitimized itself; but it kept its ruthless business theories and models. (Attila the Hun would be proud).
Meanwhile, every American economist that had the time, tried to help Russia develop a free market independent of government control. Not only that, we sank lots of money into Russia's economy. They ate it all up.
Then, in the end, they did it the way they wanted to, anyway.
Now, instead of the government controlling the business world, the business world controls the government. The tactics are the same as the mob, because it is the mob. And the mob, is a cold dark entity that has no affection or respect, for those that compete against it.
I would add further that the government of the USSR tolerated the Russian mafia, as long as the bribes were paid. If they weren't, then the non-compliant organization was shut down and the proprietors were sent to Siberia. But today we see a very different circumstance that has developed, since the fall of the USSR. We now see a Russian mafia that is tolerating the government. As long as the favors to the Russian mob keep coming, the kingmakers will continue to allow the Russian government to function, unabated.
What a switch. In essence, the Russian people have traded one form of tyranny for another, like so many oppressed people allow, when making a change from oppressor to oppressor.
But that's the Russian people's problem, right? Wrong.
Now, we see President Putin coddling Iran and buying into the lies they are currently trying to sell in the world market of ideas. For some strange reason we see Putin meeting with the terrorist leadership of Iran, as if nothing is wrong. Yet, when our President makes a statement, it is criticized and even mocked, despite its poignant content.
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.
Let's contrast this with Putin's statement, reported from the same article:
But in Tehran on Tuesday, Putin said, "Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility."
Translation: Our businesses are overly dependent on Iranian oil and cannot compete in the world market without it. Therefore, we should not upset the apple cart, lest we lose out ability to compete.
Basically, the Russian mob needs the Iranian oil. And with its long history of oppressive and brutal tactics, they are not going to worry about Iran starting WWIII, in the process. They, like Putin, have ice flowing through their veins and values are not a priority right now.
President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he had ordered the military to resume regular long-range flights of strategic bombers, a show of Russia's resurgent military power which comes amid a chill in relations with the United States.
One topic that appears to have come up during Putin's fishing trip with his American counterpart is the Missile Defense Shield. (Details here.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin offered an expanded counterproposal to U.S. missile defense plans Monday, challenging President Bush to build a regional European missile shield that could include a sophisticated new radar facility on Russian soil.
Putin's proposal went far beyond the cooperation he first suggested in Germany last month and surprised Bush as the two leaders wrapped up two days of informal meetings at the president's family compound in this oceanfront resort town. Bush welcomed the plan, and his advisers said Putin's suggestions convinced them that he is serious about working together, not just posturing, as they initially suspected.
Criticism of Putin is nothing new here at PYY and I am sure that there will be much to criticize him for, in the future. With that said however, I also would say that Putin's counter-proposal should be looked at before reaching any final conclusions.
I haven't had time to scrutinize the proposal. But I would say that to balk without looking at it, would be foolish. If the world is to ever have a remote chance of seeing peace, the U.S. cannot be at odds over trivial things with Russia. In short, we have to pick and choose our battles wisely.
Like it or not, Russia cannot be ignored as a player on the world stage. Aside from the rhetoric that comes with the territory (international politics), I still think that Putin would rather have us as an ally, than as an adversary. Deep down, despite the differences in both governments, I still think Putin sees a greater enemy than the U.S., which is radical Islam.
Earlier this year, I posted a piece entitled Cold War II (The Sequel). In it, I criticized Russian President Putin for raising the level of rhetoric, for the specific purpose of creating an enemy to deflect attention from the problems he has created within his own country. Well today, we can plainly see that Mr. Putin is content to raise the stakes even more, by threatening to aim missiles at Europe, should they accept the offer made by the U.S. to install a missile defense shield on the continent.
MOSCOW — In a threat not uttered since the Cold War, Vladimir Putin said that Russia intends to aim its missile systems - potentially nuclear weapons - at targets in Europe in retaliation for the U.S. decision to establish antimissile bases there.
During a lengthy dinner, Russia's President defended his semi-authoritarian style and insisted he is the world's only true democrat. In an interview with The Globe and Mail and a small circle of other journalists, he stressed that his country is not moving away from a market economy, refused to consider extraditing a former KGB agent charged with poisoning a dissident in London, and lashed out repeatedly at the United States and NATO for operating in countries previously within Russia's sphere of influence.
In the last 17 years since the fall of the old Soviet Union, the world has generally viewed the new Russia as irrelevant and not a serious force to be reckoned with (in terms of influence in the world arena). In the big picture, this has not been the best course of action, but that's the way it has played out up to this point.
In many of the former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Socialist Republics, there was (and still is) much resentment over how Mother Russia lorded over them and interfered within their local affairs. If one of the nations was to get too independent from Moscow, force was threatened and in some cases used, if local officials did not comply with Kremlin directives. (SEE: 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia)
Today, the resentment has shifted back to Moscow. At present, most of these former satellites are looking towards Western Europe and the U.S. for the development of their economies and other kinds of support that Moscow could not supply then, and still cannot now. And Putin, being a former Cold Warrior, cannot stand it. It's an ego thing with him and those that stand with him in the Russian government.
How can we reach this conclusion?
Russia lost much influence when they could no longer prop up the various eastern European governments that once stood with them. The Russian government's collective ego was left bruised after coming to the realization that their theories on the fall of western civilization were not accurate, and the theories of a glorious existence of world-wide socialism would never materialize (at least not Soviet style). After decades of predicting the collapse of western capitalism (particularly the U.S. and her allies), their collective tails were tucked between their legs as they pulled out. To add insult to injury, the same nations were elated and looking forward to repairing relations with those nations that had been the subject of an intense propaganda campaign by the Kremlin, despite the fact this has been a gradual process.
In some ways and to some degree, we can certainly understand the suspicions of Russians. One need only to look at history to gain a more in-depth understanding of their attitudes towards the west.
Napoleon and Hitler, two imperialists that wanted to build empires that equaled or were greater than that of the Romans, set their sights on Russia without thought to the serious difficulties that would lie ahead in such an endeavor. Their blatant aggression was bold and specific.
These events, alone, could shed some light on explaining Putin's growing outward mistrust of Europe and the U.S., if it were not for one very important thing. The defensive missile shield is not offensive in nature.
This leads me to question the irrational response Putin has chosen to render.
The Bush administration maintains that the purpose of installing a missile shield in Europe is to protect it from rogue states currently seeking a nuclear bomb, like Iran and North Korea. Putin claims that these counties do not (at present) pose a valid threat, on the basis of the fact that neither country has a capable delivery system. He is right for now, but just how long will he be right?
This leads me to wonder further, why is he so concerned?
If Putin is right, then he shouldn't be worried if the U.S. and the countries agreeing to deployment waste money on it. Right? The only thing that is feasible after this is, Putin's motives are not as pure as he wants us all to believe.
He must want the world to think that his fear and mistrust of the EU leads him to believe that the EU and/or the U.S., both want to attack Russia with nuclear weapons at some point down the road. And by having the missile shield in place, it would embolden Europe to become more aggressive and turn once again to imperialism for expansion purposes, as they have done in times past.
That's all well and good. But if we look at present-day Europe, they certainly are not giving any outward signs that this is the case. In fact, instead of aggressive rhetoric and actions, we see modern-day Europe as a model of passive foreign policy (almost to a fault). In reality, if anything at all, Europe is a pacifist entity that avoids most conflicts due to the ability to look back and see what consequences lie at the end of war. And let's not forget this little tidbit of insight: Europeans still remember the widespread destruction of their continent and certainly have the capabilities of visualizing what their continent would look like if they chose this path again, this time with nuclear weapons being at the center of such a conflict.
The U.S. has even offered to provide a shield that will protect Russia and by them turning it down, it becomes more apparent that this isn't about the danger they perceive will come from the west. In real terms, it demonstrates to me (and many others) that Russia wants to maintain a level of leverage should they once again decide to exert coercive influence, over its former sphere of influence.
If we look at the insanely jealous husband that is always accusing his wife of infidelity, we can usually pinpoint the source of his suspicion and paranoia to the fact that he, himself, is not faithful to her. And in a textbook model of egocentric behavior, he knows that he is not doing right, so he perceives that everyone else must not being doing right either. This case is no different. His accusations of perceived aggression by the west, can also fall into this category.
It has been announced that Boris Yeltsin had died at the age of 76. Much will be said about his tenure as the head of the Russian Republic, status post, Soviet Union. But a good review of his bio, can be found here. What he meant to the Russian people and the part he played in the world theater will be played out in editorials everywhere the next few days, worldwide.
I will be interested to see how the funeral and the eulogies will treat him. I would think they should be complimentary, despite not all that he did was worthy of the compliments. If we watch closely, we may be able to better gauge where Russia is really headed, based on what we hear the next few days.
