Putin's mad and I'm glad

[Abraham]

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:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...
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.

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:

NATO's infantile "mine is longer than yours" attitude is not helpful

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.

[NefariousKoel]

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".

[Skybird]

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.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's exactly the arrogance Putin - and me - are talking about: "Putin will have to live with that reality".

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.

No, the West has no reason to tell the Russian that the West is more fair, just and well-.going than Putin's method.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

I can't argue that much pessimism.
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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Abraham

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.

So why did you tell him that he has to live with reality...

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.

You may talk about lifestyles, maybe. I talked about the mechanism by which power that leads and influences a state is being projected, and legitimated. And here the madness of allowing political party policies overruling the interests of the whole community, the massive lobbying and the inextricable sleaze of politics and industry, the turning of democracies into effective plutocracies (US) or ruling of (corrupt) bureaucracies under heavy PC and socialistic influence (Europe) hardly can be seen as the shining democratic alternative that it claims to be. And the EU: when observers and insiders say that every member of parliament in Brussel is being workd on by a mean of roughly two dozen lobbyists, then you may think that democracy may still be there and is immune to that massive attack on it. I don't - and see that proven in the way the EU has developed over the last 5-10 years, if not longer. these gremias are not elected by the european people, but nevertheless forge rules which elected governments are expected to follow. If such governments (like Merkel said it for Germany) are accepting to obey rules that are outlined to them, without having the ability to reject them, that this turns the idea of elections and democratic procedures on national level into an absurdity, and probably in most European countries also violates constitutions, constitutional rights for sovereignity, and puts these constitutions very much out of effect. All this because of bureaucratic bodies that are not elected, and are not democratically legitimised. There must be a reason why founding fathers of the early EEG (EWG), namely Helmut Schjmidt and Giscard d'Estaing, today are talking so bitterly against the course the EU has set in the past years. Schmidt say it very clearly: this is not the Europe the intentionback then was aiming for, and the accumulation ofunlegitimised power in Brussell's institutions is highly threatening for the national democracies of europe. He also does not hide that in his opinion the new idea of what the EU shall be is doomed to fail, and will become obsolete and inefficient. Quite some old politicians who had resposnebility in the late 70s and 80s agree with that view. The EU is being turned into a dictatorship of bureaucrats who outsit the coming and going of politicians and governments, having the power to influence the process of turning political goals into realities by hindering or helping them when processing them in the internal bureaucratic procedures. that is nothing else than ursurping of power, to a degree that compares to the dominance of the courtly bureaucrats and minstre in acnient china who very much hollowed out the institution of the emperor and turned him into their puppet. It led china to a century-long status of stagnation, in which the country almost got suffocated and prooved to be unable to flexibly respond to the new challenges of changes when the Westerners arrived. Thus it was overthrown.

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...

Then I recommend you throw out Germany of NATO and the EU.

And btw, NATO has no obligation whatever to accept every Peter and Paul as a member - simply because Pauls wishes to become a member, btw. His wish is not NATO's command. The West, and Russia are two huge political spheres, and I also say that the US compares to the historical examples of empires (I mean that as a fact-oriented argu,ment, not a provocation). Empires do not simply stop at this artificial line on a map, or that river. the power and influence they project degrades, the farther away you are from their centre. Beyond the teritory they claim to be theirs, they nevertheless project some influence: border traffic, trade traffic, habits of people living in "the outback", languages being spoken, knowledge of their habits and laws affecting local conditions outside their territories, but close to the border, currency, etc. Between two such spheres or empires therefor it is wise to have a bufferzone of territories not officially belonging to any of them. Else every movement of the one necessarily will immediately affect and force to react the other. the margin for misunderstabndings or errors becomes extrmeely thin that way. Best example: the iron curtain through europe. thatwas such a no-bufferzone-contact between two huge blocks.
Your rephrasing is pathetic in choice of words, but you know that yourself - you picked it nevertheless, because suggestive phrasing like this serves your cause.

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 am sure that after the example of cuba - Nicaragua, Honduras, San Salvador, Peru, Chile and Argentina, Panama were doomed to become very lethal, incredible threatening challenges for the mere existence of the US, and the West. Reason enough to launch hidden wars, direct interventions, and support dictatorships that costed the lifes of hunrdeds of thousands. Not to mention the Souteastasian domino... Well, Vietnam was lost. And still we have not Neo-USSR-like nations in that region. Northkorea is an artefact from even earlier times.

I can't argue that much pessimism.

A weak reply. NATO is a bright-weathert alliance. Go arguing with that in the face of the political rifts about Afghanistan and troop contributionsd for it.

I'll confidently await the judgement of history on NATO.

Here it is: it served it's purpose well duzring the cold war, but with the end of the Soviet Union it failed to reach agreement on it'S future role - the one camp wishing to turn it into a deputy helping to push global ambitions of the major dominant player in the team, the other camp allowing to be intimidated by that demand, but passively refusing to support that by substantial contributions, blocking that agenda indirectly. The age of self-deception sooner or later must come to an end. Really, the Afghanistan controversy is telling much. and as a matter of fact, countries like France, Germany, Italy, probably Spain as well, and smaller ones hiding behind these, will never support a global role for NATO in deeds, not just words. That is diplomacy: to say No, without using the word.

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.

Please don't tell us you are surprised that he has not.

[dean_acheson]

Yes, I wish that we in the United States would learn to take criticism better.

I also wish that we hadn't gotten involved in the worlds problems, mainly in 1917, and that little European stink in 41, since that wasn't 'our' war anyway.

Can't the world take care of itself without us? Get rid of the imperialistic WTO and World Bank, as well as letting the UN move to Brussels....

Lord knows, we always just screw everything up, and everything would be so much better if we would just stick to bad movies and McDonalds.... and letting the EU run our court systems.

I'm sorry, but taking lessons in how the world should work from a former KGB agent is something that I find a bit difficult.

[CCIP]

I wanted to say something but Skybird has already said everything. It's wonderful to operate under the assumption that one's vision is better than others', but let's not forget that we aren't dealing with a 'Soviet Empire' of any sort here. Russia is perfectly willing to work with the west so long as its interests are respected. And as I see it, some of you seem to have some sort of ideological block to respecting them.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by CCIP

I wanted to say something but Skybird has already said everything. It's wonderful to operate under the assumption that one's vision is better than others', but let's not forget that we aren't dealing with a 'Soviet Empire' of any sort here. Russia is perfectly willing to work with the west so long as its interests are respected. And as I see it, some of you seem to have some sort of ideological block to respecting them.

(in high falsetto voice) "Oh, Skybird you have already said everything that could be said about this problem" Kiss, kiss

I'm sorry I just couldn't resist it CCIP ... Please forgive me, but come on your an intelligent sort of guy you can come up with something ... :p

My second guess about Putin getting all worked up about the USA is that he is trying to drag Germany and the
EU in agreement to align themselves against us.

Russia's well known investment in Iran is the real reason as our warships steam torward the Persian Gulf.
Just like France stood to lose billions of dollars if we attacked Iraq and they let everyone know they
were against that confrontation.

Putin is a chess player and after thinking about why Putin would say,
"Bush is a nice man to do business with",
I realized he was talking third person to President Bush, saying hey Mr President
were not too happy about your intentions, "Lets make a deal"

Putin has the US Congress on his side ... No one in the majority wants to start a war with Iran, right?
They don't even want us to finish the preventive maintence war we are in right now.

Mr. Bush can't convince the Congress to fund a war ...
all that leaves is for Iran to make the first move and the US Navy to finish it ...
the whistle on tea pot is going to start blowing and
somebody better get out of the way.

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...
Now see why Putin is tooten?

[CCIP]

May I remind you that, as with Iraq, whatever investments Russia may have in the 'enemy', it will end up being a big winner should a war break out - as it was with Iraq (where it lost what Saddam owed them, but gained oil sales and a bunch of contracts too - net result well in the positive figures). Anything that threatens middle eastern oil is in fact great news for Russia. I would attribute much of Russia's economic upswing lately to the effects of instability in the Middle East on oil prices.

[irish1958]

CCIP,
You are right about that.
In less than 2 years, we will have a new "leadership" in the US. I hope they will know history and have a little better understanding of Islam and the need for national self interests.

[joea]

FFS, why are some of you Americans so eager to make enemies???? :hmm:

[irish1958]

Originally Posted by joea

FFS, why are some of you Americans so eager to make enemies???? :hmm:

Simple. The John Wayne, cowboy mentality of some of our conservatives forces them to ignore opinions that are contrary to their "beliefs". As a matter of faith (defined as certainty without the necessity of having facts to support your position) they believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, or at least misguided.

Sorry if i hurt someone but at least here i can say that.

Putin put out your tong from Iraq a@s and stop make fool of our self

[Fish]

Originally Posted by geetrue

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...

So where are we waiting for? A Gleiwitz incident?