Putin's mad and I'm glad
 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n_x.htm?csp=24


Putin: USA acting on its own has made world more chaotic

Quote:

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY MUNICH, Germany — Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States on Saturday for acting unilaterally in foreign affairs and accused America of destabilizing the world. Putin's criticism was harsh and wide-ranging — from U.S. missile defense efforts to Russia's support for Iran. They came during remarks and a question-and-answer session at a security confernence attended by world leaders and military officials, including U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and members of Congress.

This can only mean one thing, Russia is afraid of America going to war against Iran over the latest round of;
"they can and they can't have nukes",
because Mr Putin has a lot of time and money invested in Iran.

Remember before Bush went to Iraq (right or wrong is not the problem)
this country and just about every country in the world protested Bush
going to war against Iraq.


Yep! War is on the way ... I'm not glad about that of course just the fact that it
is so easy to see. :yep:

:rotfl: :rotfl: Tootin' Putin:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:hmm: yeah ...I spelled it right...:rotfl:

I'm glad he said it. As much as you might disagree I think he's very much right on unilateralism. Come on America, no need for the messianic attitude. Take some criticism for once :hmm:

Yep maybe "Team America - World Police" will have to stop strutting around the playground picking on the little kids now:up:

Problem is, (for CCIP and robbo) what can Putin do? The EU is going along with the US, China ain't ready yet (not India) Chavez well .... hot air from him. If only the Martians would attack. :rotfl:

Oh of course nothing. That's why he's talking :roll:

The US, of course, is in a position to act unilaterally for exactly that reason.
By the way, Putin's speech, I think, is aimed more at raising his and his government's profile at home. Just as in the US you have people starting to talk themselves off more strongly as the election year draws nearer, no surprise there...

:gulp:

Where are the Carriers?

Putin did surprise me however ... notice at the end of the article, Putin becomes a gentleman when he says;

Surprised? I think it was said repeatedly by both men that they liked each other, and I'm quite certain they genuinely do. They do have a number of things in common; though I consider Putin to be a far superior politician (it's not so much a compliment as an acknowledgement of his combination of image control and strategic pragmatism, in both of which Bush suffers).

What impresses me about Putin (and don't get me wrong, I'm no fan and view his government critically at best) is that he is a very hard politician to attack. Though the West has been making digs at his 'undemocratization', at home he's been making those attacks look like a joke and in fact using them to enchance his standing. Practically for every criticism made of him, he's been able to respond in a way that makes him look better.

My favorite Putin moment: at the G8 summit, his retort to Bush's speech on Iraq and spreading democracy - "I don't think we want the same kind of democracy as in Iraq". I was rolling when I heard that :p

Already been done. Khrushchev called it a "Cult of Personality".

If Russia did not kick up a stink now again we would all be wondering if Russia has gone off the world stage.

They are doing a 190 billion dollar military facelift so I figure he's planning on becoming a world player with teeth.
Now is this because of China, the U.S., or both?:hmm:

Makes you wonder doesnt it :hmm:

We are seeing the shaping of the new world now.... Looks like if things continue the way they are we are going to be seeing 3 Superpowers, Russia, China and the US

I dont think the US is too happy about China though... I mean not only does it have the man power and wallet to topple the US, its recent military tests have shown its got america by the balls in the event of a war :-?

my money is that he's more concerned about china than the US. Whats the US gonna do... invade russia??:rotfl:

I think not.

China however, well there is purportedly a shipload of natural resources just over the border from china, and who is getting to be the most energy-hungry nation??:hmm:

Now this diplomatic move was overdue. Although it is aimed at the europeans as well as the russian public opinion, it nevertheless is a highly substantial warning. Russia necessarily must feel surrounded, pushed back and strategically outplayed since NATO started it'S foolish attempt to push it's sphere of influence as far as directly to the Russian borders. Additionally it is under pressure by chinese migration into it'S empty eastern territories, and unrest in it's Islamic southern provinces. NATO's policy necessarily must be seen as provocations, and strategically threatening, and since years so.

I said this for years now.

It is time to ask if it really is clever to seek confrontation that way. The US as well as NATO needs to realize that they have no monopole on defining what is in the interest of mutual relations (like the NATO expansions often is sold as). Some iditots who are drunk of their own magnificient egos even want to see the Ukraine joining NATO: iIf you want to see a second cold war with Russia, go ahead with that. For Russian interests that is as unacceptable as were Russian ICBMs in Cuba unacceptable for the US. Uklraine is their sphere of infoluence. period.

The American insensitivity to the views of others is dangerous, and has triggered a lot of additonal and unneeded destabilisation on the globe, and when Putin labels that as "dangerous", then he is right on the mark. Like it or not, but Russia is a global major player again, economically the West partially depends on it (energy), while militarily they are pressing hard to step back into the first line of global players, and I think they are successful in that, judging by the financial investements of the last five years. They had military equipement that partially is en par with modern Wetsern euqipment, partially surpasses it in quality. But since some years they also have the money again not build such equipment in limited numbers, but to distribute it to their armed forces in higher quantities.

You may be tempted to claim after the cold war that the self-declared winner of that has the right to take it all. But Russia seem to disagree on that. Today's Russia is not that kind of threat like the Soviet union may have been. I see a good basis (founded on mutual supportive or even identical interests) for cooperation. NATO's infantile "mine is longer than yours" attitude is not helpful. such confrontative style also makes it more and more diofficult to get Russian cooperation on issue like Iran - as if that divergence in interests isn't already difficult enough.

And those who are now surprised by Putin's outburst, only illustrate that they have not watched russia close enough during the last five years and since Putin took over. The message was on many walls, and bright and clearly.

One thing is for sure. Russia is no warmonger. But it will defend it's interests, nobody has the right to demand them act stupidly and self-hurting, and having cooperative relations with them is far vbetter than icy silence.

Putin just took the right to point this out, indirectly.

I do not care if Westerners accuse him of being not democratic. He raised the stability of russia, and that is what makes Russia more predictable. He strenghtend national structures, and stabilized the military. All that is good. He also managed to fight back the criminal oligarchs that corrupted the economy after the initial anarchy when the soviet Union broke down and western capitalism sold them economical exploitation as "democracy" and freedom. He send clear messages that all have understood: "do your businesses, and if they are a little bit dirty, I do not care, but when you mess with the interests of the Russian state and try to translate wealth into political power, I'll take your head." I see myself unable to criticise him for that, when looking at the desolate condition russia has been in just ten years ago. And as my journalistic idol Peter Scholl-Latour once said on TV: "Putin a dicator? I've seen many far, far worse dictators in the past fourty years." when Putin does things the way he does - then maybe this is because he knows that in that big country other governmental styles (like the EU madness for example) simply does not work. How well total liberalism works in Russia we have seen when the oligarchs and self-made millionaires threatened to take over the whole state. I think Russia has learned that lesson.

Putin's mad and I'm glad
 

I largely agree with Skybird's opinion about Putin.
The oil & gas dollars are helping him to make Russia into an economic (semi) superpower, which will reflect in a more self assured posture in international policy and military affairs.

However these remarks puzzle me:
If the Russians feels surrounded by NATO it's their problem. With the choice of a proper foreign policy that fear could be eliminated.
Contrary to this, the former Eastern Bloc countries felt a future threat from Russia after the break down of the Warsaw Pact. Countries like Polan, Hungary and the Czech Republic - for many years suppressed by Russian military might - requested to join NATO. How could the West has shown these countries, who at a certain time all resisted their occupation, the door with the argument that their former occupier might feel threatened?
It is in my view a historic necessety that these countries became part of a free Europe and share its economic and military protection.
Putin will have to live with that reality...

As far as the remark:It's not an argument, it's not substantiated and it says more about Skybirds view on NATO than about NATO's view on Russia.

You're still here justifying Commie agenda I see Skybird.

I think your favorite KGB Russian overlord, Putin, was attempting to demonize the US as that seems a popular thing to do lately. In an attempt at trying to "sympathize" with Germany and win them back to the old regime. He basically threw it right out there that he wants an ally against the US in his visit to Germany. It's plain as day.

Putin is certainly an old hard liner when it comes to his thinking and I'm sure he'd have a new Soviet nation if he had it fully his way. You could be his client state!

I'd be all for it because being the only superpower on the stage is, quite frankly, a far underappreciated job. I think it's time for the next "Cold War".

That's exactly the arrogance Putin - and me - are talking about: "Putin will have to live with that reality". No, it's not just Putin, it's a majority of russian public opinion, and No, they must not just live with it - in fact they already are reacting. BTW, Putin is very popular - especially amongst the young. They (voluntarily) even make pop songs about him. The size of intellectual opposition is overestimated, imo. and many of it's dreams about "all would be well if we would have a way like the EU" are simply this: dreams. A look at Brussel's already present anti-democracy and ursurping of powers that have no democratic legitimation should teach them for the better. - And after the fall of the USSR, and before stronger state control was reestablished again, the country, it'S ressources and economy almost got sold off to oligarchs and Western predators. No, the West has no reason to tell the Russian that the West is more fair, just and well-.going than Putin's method.

When the US felt that Soviet-friendly influence might be installed in Middle America, they started to wage wars in such cases. That was far tougher a reaction for much lesser cause. Talking about wars against independant states, not Aerican federal states wishing to leave the union. ;)

If a foreign military power starts to creep towards your borders more and more, installs sensors, radar screens, missile defense systems that reach far into your territory, it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation - like U2 flights high above your territory outside your missiles reach. Not to mention diplomatic phrases like "hurting one's territorial sovereignity". Mind you again: when America thought Soviet influence was coming too close in form of socialist regimes, it launched hidden or open wars. It turned countries in south and middle america into bloodthirsty tyrannies. Say what you want, Putin is far from that. He wants to keep together what he has left, and not give any more ground, that's it. The nineties were a time of constant giving ground and constant bad compromise and constant moves back. This has been brought to a halt.

It is not wise to treat a huge and mighty country, which in sort of it'S energy ressources has already a mighty "civilian" club available, in such provocative manner. It is totally unimportant if you think your moves are harmless, and have good reasons. Important is what reaction you cause because they see it different. there is also a nationalistic faction in Russia that is far worse than Putin. You do want to avoid acts that help them to come to power again or even just widen their influence. Putin doies not ifgnore them, but it seems to me that he also has managed to tame their ambitions for the time being.

NATO always claims it's only for the best of people. at the same time it is a toothless tiger on the european part, an actor making excessive use of military force whenever it serves his interests on the American part. This is what Putin lined out, and correctly.

NATO also needs to ask if it is in NATO's own interest to grow that far. that the US is aiming at a global role for it, is clear. But I do not see it that way. Europe shall not have any interest in playing policeman - not in the North-Atlantic neighbourhood, but in Asia. Or closer to China. the farther NATO reaches into crisis regions in the south-east, the greater the chance that it will get cought up in a real war that has little to do with European interests. Why fighting other people'S wars? And is anyone living under the impression, after Afghnaistan, that the european part of NATO is prepared for that? Or that the american part, after the poor performance in Iraq, is prepared for that? Like the EU, a too huge NATO also could lead to inability to act, to reach decisions, to come to reasomnable agreements. Every dwarf wants his voice represented in the outcome. There are already far too many players in the team.

Bombings of embassies (no way to convince me those were unintentional), patrol flights that are setting courses most precisely on the path of international border for "that is legitimate", phrases like "we armed them to death during the cold war, we'll do it again" (voice in this forum), and "let there be no doubt that the US has the capability to wage two wars at the same time" (Powell), sabre-rattling against Iran although having lost in Iraq and is being outmanouveured in Afghanistan and helpless against Northkorea - not really a display of reason and modesty. "Mine is longer than yours - so don't even dare to piss me!" In many regards, NATO policy is american policy, and American foreign policy does not reach farther than it can reach out with it's fist - an armslength, that is. That is the tapping-around of a relatively blind man. As is extremely obviously demonstated for example in the Middle East, since decades.

Nato is not the holy round of the twelve King Arthur knights. It neither is as noble, nor as capable. As a matter of fact it is in deep crisis, torn apart between America's attempt to use it for it'S own global desires, and Europe stubborness by which it refuses to even take responsebility for europe itself, and halfheartly waging wars that are not labelled wars in other parts of the globe, trying to close ties with Islamic countries at the same time. The example of Afghanistan for me has started to sing the swan song of NATO, although one might not be willing to see that before another 10 or 20 years have passed. the North Atlantic has become significantly wider in size, not smaller.

25-40% of gas and oil for most European countries comes from Russia. For Germany, it is even slightly more. You want to piss the russians, for whatever silly reasons you have? then at least make sure you get independant from them first. Like I always said before: you want to resist Islam? Become independant from Muslim oil first (around 20% of German's oil comes from Arab states, 20% that are tough to replace on today's tensed global energy trade markets since the chinese and Indians switched to higher gears).

Sounds like Mr. Putin is playing the Kim Jong Il card for attention.

Putin's mad and I'm glad
 

Everybody will have to live with realities that we don't always like. If you can't stand reality, try to change it, which is exactly what Putin tries to do and is entitled to do, by the way.

That really depends on how you compare the Western lifestyle with the Russian one. It is my conviction that most people will reach a different conclusion than you, Skybird. I for one find more fairness, justice and wellbeing in the Western lifestyle.

I would like to rephrase this in:
"If decades long oppressed countries decide to prefer freedom and choose to become members of an Alliance to guarantee that freedom... it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation etc. etc."
One of the realities that Putin has to face is that his foreign policy carries the burden of the heritage of a totalitarian communist regime that suppressed its neighbour countries...

Wasn't that Soviet influence in those days of the Cold War an "open provocation" in Cuba, Bolivia, Guatemala, Angola etc.? Every revolutionairy agitator with a "democratic peoples movement for the liberation of..." who claimed to be "Marxist" - either in Azia, Africa or South and Middle America - could count on the full diplomatic and military support of the Soviet Union, no matter how dictatorial the regime was.

I can't argue that much pessimism. :down:
I'll confidently await the judgement of history on NATO.
And I think you are a little bit too much focussed on the line: "Mine is longer than yours". I never heart Jaap De Hoop Scheffers use that phrase to explain NATO policy.