Posted on 04/02/2017 5:19:42 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
Vladimir Putin is a powerful ideological symbol and a highly effective ideological litmus test. He is a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives. I don’t want to compare him to our own president, but if you know enough about what a given American thinks of Putin, you can probably tell what he thinks of Donald Trump.
Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember, although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.
Vladimir Vladimirovich is not the president of a feminist NGO. He is not a transgender-rights activist. He is not an ombudsman appointed by the United Nations to make and deliver slide shows about green energy. He is the elected leader of Russia—a rugged, relatively poor, militarily powerful country that in recent years has been frequently humiliated, robbed, and misled. His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at imprimis.hillsdale.edu ...
I found this quote from the article particularly interesting:
There are two things Putin did that cemented the loyalty of Solzhenitsyn and other Russians—he restrained the billionaires who were looting the country, and he restored Russia’s standing abroad. Let us take them in turn.
I recently went to Mongolia. Apparently, they have a rich kleptocrat class that is exploiting their country, too. Probably it is the same dynamic as in Russia, but the Mongolians do not yet have a strong leader who is able to stand up against the kleptocrats.
Everyone needs to think of Putin as the modern equivalent of the Czar. Let me state the historically obvious the Czars were not democrats! If you look at history from our nations founding until now through most of that history we had cordial relations with Russia. This relationship was not based on any notions of “shared political values”. People would have laughed at you even you if hinted that was needed. The period of 1918 to the fall of the USSR should be viewed as an anomaly in our relations with Russia. We can and should go back to previous relationship. Nations don’t have “friends” they have periods of time where they have overlapping “national interests”. We need to stop anthropomorphizing the relations of nations.
There will be periods where our and Russia’s interest overlap there we should partner. Where they don’t we can compete or ignore. Yes there are places and problems in the world that we should ignore no matter how many pictures of massacres, starving women and children the media shoves into our living rooms.
Not to mention McCain and his anus attachment Graham as being either on the same level as the MSM or purposely misleading the American public about Russian and Trump narrative would be a crime.
No doubt Putin is not America friend, but calling their cyber actions an act of war is very telling...
The neocons like them love spilling American blood and treasure to fund their globalist ambitions...
His job is to obtain the best results for Russians and Russian peoples, not Americans, not Homos, not Pedophiles, not Leftist Agitators, not Negros, not Femanazis, not Muslims, not Media, not moneyed Elite Globalists, not Socialists, not DemoRats, and not Hollywood Elites.
He seems to be doing his job well from his track record.
He’s simply a wartime leader. I think he likes freedom just fine, but in wartime it’s always curtailed, especially when the enemy is found within.
Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush and Obama all did things similar to Putin.
The Russians are clearly under attack from the globalists.
The Globalists have attacked their banking, their economy, their allies abroad, and attempted to launch a color revolution. They try to push homosexuality and perversion on them. They celebrate and enrich Russian oligarchs who will play ball with the international bankers. It’s always something.
So, as a president facing an existential threat, he tightens the screws. That’s about it.
Very well put, very accurate, concise, some of the best advice/opinion I have read here in a long time.
McCain and Graham, Songbird traitors.
What you wrote is quite a stretch. I don’t admire Putin, but he’s not my enemy. Putin hasn’t murdered millions of people.
How to think? Wait, I know there’s a brain manual around here somewhere that shows the location of the ON switch.
Aaaah...no!
Not just "no", "h*ll no!"
Putin is first and foremost a KGB thug, and if you forget that for a second, it's to your mortal danger.
Putin is second of all, one of if not the richest man in Russia, so Putin is an olagarch!
Third, Putin is a Russian expansionist/imperialist, who wishes most to restore the old Soviet Empire.
So the only real wars Putin is fighting are the ones he started.
Fourth, Putin is a dictator which means he has nothing in common with traditional American conservatism.
Your claim above that "Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush and Obama all did things similar to Putin" is absurd by any objective measure.
Certainly, Putin is not Stalin, but he is a dictator from a mold vastly different than any US president, wartime or not.
Does that mean the US cannot get along with Putin?
No, of course not -- in 1941 when faced with a common enemy more deadly than any today, the US & Brits teamed up successfully with Stalin, a dictator more brutal than any today.
And that, I believe, is all President Trump is talking about when he says, "wouldn't it be nice?".
But teaming-up is one thing, general political admiration for dictators is something only the Left does, never American conservatives.
Oh, great! Now there's a standard we can apply globally, right?
Anyone who hasn't murdered millions of people will be our lovey-dovey friends! </sarc>
Of course, Putin is not our enemy, but this article wishes to make him into some kind of "hero" of US conservatives, and sorry, but that just cannot be.
We must oppose Putin when he tries to conquer other countries.
We can support him if he teams-up with us in the War on Terror -- but remember, the number one terrorist country is Putin's dear ally: Iran.
Bottom line is this: trust Putin as far as we can throw him, no further.
Putin's second task is to stop Russia from turning into a compromised "snowflake" hellhole run by nutty progressives...
I trust Putin more than I trust John McCain. Regardless, I’m pretty much all through with constructing global enemy myths.
Ping
Putin is the Czar. A modern version and embodies all the characteristics - Autocrat of all the Russias of past Czars.
This obviously does not make him a democrat. Continued use of Cold War expressions misstate what he is. The Czars of past history were absolutist & oligarchs. If they wanted to be the richest man in Russia they could do so with the wave of their hand. Primarily he is a Russian nationalist. Too many Americans associate the word Czar with Nicholas II. Probably the only Czar they have heard of or know anything about. Nicholas II was J. Wellington Wimpy compared to his predecessors.
None of what I have said should be interpreted as liking or preference for Putin. Its just a recognition that Russia has returned to the past (Its roots!) in the type of leadership it wants.
That being said there is no reason for viewing Russia with automatic hostility. Through most of our history relations with Russia were not close but respectful. I see no reason why we can’t return to that.
Stalin modeled himself after his hero, Ivan the Terrible.
Not in any real historically meaningful way.
But heck lets all take Stalin’s view!
That's insane on the face of it.
You would take away McCain's senate vote and give it to Putin?
And you would expect Putin to vote for more US national defense?
Chengdu54: "Regardless, I’m pretty much all through with constructing global enemy myths."
This at a time when the globe has never been effectively smaller, and so the idea of "global enemy" never less problematic?
Between "global enemies" vs. "global competitors" vs. "global frenemies" today one can quickly make a long list, beginning with Islamic terrorists, Russian & Chinese expansionists, international socialists, globalists, climate changers, etc., etc.
It is simply fact, not myth, that Russians can, have & do challenge US interests in many regions around the globe.
Of course Putin's threats are not to be compared with Stalin's Soviet Communism, but they are threats none-the-less, and must be effectively countered.
Sure, nobody says we must go to war against Putin, absent some egregious military adventure into a Russian neighbor, but we must not let our guard down, ever.
So, your suggestion of making Putin chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee in place of John McCain is beyond the realm of rational thought.
No dispute about that.
But remember the above article claims that Putin is some kind of "hero" to American conservatives, and that is just not true!
It's not just untrue, it's impossible by the very definition of the words "American conservatives".
We do not admire, much less make heroes of czars, or dictators, or "dear leaders" or any other such people.
US American conservative means, at core, two things: our Constitution and Bible and neither has room for a Russian KGB thug "czar" as our "hero".
Do you disagree?
Reily: "None of what I have said should be interpreted as liking or preference for Putin.
Its just a recognition that Russia has returned to the past (Its roots!) in the type of leadership it wants."
If that's all the above article said, then there's no disagreement here.
But it went beyond that to say we admire Putin as "hero" and that's too much to let go unchallenged.
Reily: "That being said there is no reason for viewing Russia with automatic hostility.
Through most of our history relations with Russia were not close but respectful.
I see no reason why we can’t return to that."
The fact is that every president since the fall of the Berlin Wall has hoped & tried to "reset" our relationship with Russia and all have been disappointed.
Sure, it's no "bad" on Trump if he tries yet again, but do not be surprised if he too is disappointed.
Indeed, I would predict that President Trump's success with Putin is 100% a function of how strong Putin views the US as being under our new leadership.
If we are weak we will not be happy with the results.
The US had cordial relations with Czarist Russia, they even agreed to sell Alaska to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.