Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY ARE WE BAITING PUTIN?
worldnetdaily ^ | May 8, 2006 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 05/09/2006 9:44:56 AM PDT by x5452

Title: WHY ARE WE BAITING PUTIN? Published: May 8, 2006 Author: Pat Buchanan

by Pat Buchanan

WHY ARE WE BAITING PUTIN?

May 08, 2006 09:33 PM EST

"(N)o legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply management or attempt to monopolize transportation," thundered Vice President Cheney to the international pro-democracy conference in Vilnius, Lithuania.

"(N)o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."

Cheney's remarks were directed straight at the Kremlin and President Vladimir Putin, who is to host the G-8 Conference in July.

Cheering Cheney on is John McCain, front-runner for the GOP nomination, who has urged President Bush to snub Putin by boycotting the G-8 summit. What the GOP is thus offering the nation right now is seven more years of in-your-face bellicosity in foreign policy.

What does McCain think we would accomplish -- other than a new parading of our moral superiority -- by so public an insult to Putin and Russia as a Bush boycott of the St. Petersburg summit? Do we not have enough trouble in this world, do we not have enough people hating us and Bush that we have to get into Putin's face and antagonize the largest nation on earth and a co-equal nuclear power? What is the purpose of this confrontation diplomacy? What does it accomplish?

Eisenhower and Nixon did not behave like this. Nor did Ford or Bush's father. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" once. But the Soviet Union we confronted in those years was hostile. Until lately, today's Russia was not. Yet the Bush boys are in their pulpits, admonishing the world's sinners every day.

What is their beef with Putin's policy?

In January, Putin decided to stop piping subsidized gas to Kiev and start charging the market price. Reason: Ukraine's president, elected with the assistance of U.S. foundations and quasi-government agencies, said he was reorienting Kiev's foreign policy away from Russia and toward NATO and the United States.

If you are headed for NATO, Putin was saying to President Viktor Yushchenko, you can forget the subsidized gas.

Now this is political hardball, but it is a game with which America is not altogether unfamiliar. When Castro reoriented his policy toward Moscow, Cuba's sugar allotment was terminated. U.S. diplomats went all over the world persuading nations not to buy from or sell to Cuba. Economic sanctions on Havana endure to today. We supported, over Reagan's veto, sanctions on South Africa. We have used sanctions as a stick and access to the U.S. market as a carrot since we became a nation. What, after all, was "Dollar Diplomacy" all about?

Cheney accuses Moscow of employing pipeline diplomacy -- i.e., using its oil and gas pipelines to benefit some nations and cut out others. But the United States does the same thing, as it seeks to have the oil and gas of Central Asia transmitted to the West in pipelines that do not transit Iran or Russia.

"(N)o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor," declared Cheney in Vilnius. How the vice president could deliver that line with a straight face escapes me.

Does Cheney not recall our "Captive Nations Resolutions," calling for the liberation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which, though free between the two world wars, had long belonged to the Russian empire? Does he not recall conservative support for the breakup of the Soviet Union? Does he not recall conservative support for the secession of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, and more recently Kosovo, from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia?

What concerns Cheney is Moscow's support for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Georgia's president was also elected with the aid of pro-democracy NGOs, mostly funded by Uncle Sam. All these color-coded revolutions in East Europe and Central Asia bear the label, Made in the U.S.A.

When Cheney says, "No one can justify actions that ... interfere with democratic movements," he is hauling water for Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, and similar agencies, which Putin wants shut down or kicked out of Russia for interfering in her internal affairs.

We Americans consider the Monroe Doctrine -- no foreign power is to come into our hemisphere -- to be holy writ. Why, then, can we not understand why Russia might react angrily to our interference in her politics or the politics of former Russian republics?

The effect of U.S. expansion of NATO deep into Eastern Europe, U.S. interference in the politics of the former Soviet republics, and U.S. siting of military bases in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia has been to unite Russia and China, and undo the diplomacy of several successive U.S. presidents.

How has this made us more secure?

If we don't want these people in our backyard, what are we doing in theirs? If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: putin; russia; wingnutdaily

1 posted on 05/09/2006 9:44:59 AM PDT by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: x5452

Pat is garbage. End of story.


2 posted on 05/09/2006 9:46:37 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Telling Putin that we are on to his game is baiting him? Telling him that selling arms and atomic technology to Iran is contrary to US interests, and that we don't appreciate what Russia is doing is baiting him? Not bloody likely.


3 posted on 05/09/2006 9:50:24 AM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"But the Soviet Union we confronted in those years was hostile. Until lately, today's Russia was not. Yet the Bush boys are in their pulpits, admonishing the world's sinners every day.

What is their beef with Putin's policy?"

pat Buchanan will forever be remembered as a one time presidential candidate.. No one likes him but the left.

Hey pat, I can't speak for the president, but one Putin policy I have a beef with is his decision to not assist us in the war with Iraq.

There is a price Putin must pay for that, even if it's simply a snub. Grow up.


4 posted on 05/09/2006 9:52:18 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Pat is an anti-israel jew hating hack. Everyone in the US knows it. I take everything he says with a grain of salt.


5 posted on 05/09/2006 9:52:28 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: x5452; Admin Moderator

Duplicate thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629000


6 posted on 05/09/2006 9:58:01 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452
"We Americans consider the Monroe Doctrine -- no foreign power is to come into our hemisphere -- to be holy writ. Why, then, can we not understand why Russia might react angrily to our interference in her politics or the politics of former Russian republics?

Could it have something to do with their expansionist policies? And their alliances are designed for that very purpose?

7 posted on 05/09/2006 9:58:49 AM PDT by virginiaspook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Quote: "How has this made us more secure?"

I rarely agree with Pat, but I think this is a valid question. What is the Bush team attempting to do here? I thought Bush and Putin were the best of buds. What gives?


8 posted on 05/09/2006 9:59:19 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"How has this made us more secure?"

Uh, by telling the Russians we know they are behind us with a shiv, and they better not bother trying to use it?

Pat is an insult to wasted skin everywhere.


9 posted on 05/09/2006 9:59:24 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
Telling him that selling arms and atomic technology to Iran is contrary to US interests,

The problem here is that our own country has close relationships with Gulf Arab states who have been sponsors in the past of Islamic extremism in Russia. Its no secret where the funding for the Chechen movement was coming from. Its also no secret who was funding the construction of extremist Wahabbi mosques. Overwhelmingly it was from the Gulf Arab states. Yet I have not seen Russia call on the US to stop selling arms to countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Then you have the whole issue of our own backing for the KLA terrorists and the bombing of Russia's Serb allies. Even after 9-11 Bush still said it was the right thing to do. What is the average Russian in the street supposed to think of that? Why is not unreasonable to assume that NATO would have bombed Russia in support of Chechens if not for Russia having nuclear weapons? Unfortunately we are running a do as I say and not as I do foreign policy when it comes to Russia and I really don't blame them for not playing along. At least Pat seems to recognize that.
10 posted on 05/09/2006 10:12:12 AM PDT by Timedrifter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timedrifter

"Unfortunately we are running a do as I say and not as I do foreign policy when it comes to Russia."

Agreed. We have the right to use our economic, military, and political power anywhere in the world as we see fit! Yet we take issue when other countries, like China and Russia, do the same. Talk about hypocritical! And, even if we really do understand they have the right to do what they think is in their own national interest, what good do we hope to accomplish by chiding them in public?


11 posted on 05/09/2006 10:27:43 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x5452
WHY ARE WE BAITING PUTIN?

Apparently Pat Buchanan is distressed by the idea of foreign policy with a conscience, which I think is one of the finest achievements of the Bush administration.
12 posted on 05/09/2006 10:30:13 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timedrifter
So we are to make nothing of Russian arms sales to Iraq (they were Saddam's biggest supplier)? Nor are we to remember the payoffs made to Russian politicians from the oil-for-food program? I know a thing or two about Yugoslavia (since my lovely wife is half Serb), and we were supposed to ignore what the Russians were doing there. I don't think so. This isn't a case of do what I say, not what I do. Not at all. Putin is an autocrat and is turning Russia into a dictatorship in fact if not in name, all for Russian great power ambitions.
13 posted on 05/09/2006 10:30:37 AM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Maybe we are baiting him because he is a commie, murdering ex-KGB type who has tried to stab the USA in the back at every chance and is probably partly responsible for the Iran nuclear situation, among other things.

Other than that, I don't see why we shouldn't make kissy-face with him.


14 posted on 05/09/2006 10:35:37 AM PDT by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
WHY ARE WE BAITING PUTIN?

What else do you use minnows for... ecept bait. Maybe Bush can use him to catch some Militant Muslims.

15 posted on 05/09/2006 10:35:50 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Timedrifter
I think it has more to do with Russia's inability to deal with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin longs to re-establish a new version of the USSR and is actively seeking to do so. Why would we let him? Doing so would be an insult to everyone who fought against that tyranny for so long.

As for Pat, he is just out of touch. He wants America to curl up in a little ball and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist. Like it or not, our national interests are no longer restricted to our hemisphere. Unless, of course, Pat wants us to just take whatever natural resources we need from our neighbors in the hemisphere?
16 posted on 05/09/2006 10:38:22 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x5452
Pat is flat out of brain cells, I am afraid. Russia IS acting hostile, for all intents and purposes, by literally backing and siding with a potentially deadly enemy, Iran in their drive to build nuclear weapons. What more do you want, Pat? An engraved invitation to Reality?

Buchanan blames the Ukraine for actually resisting takeover by Putin via his ethnic Russian operatives in the Ukraine political system. And so Ukraine should suffer its unfortunate geographic location? Subsidized gas? How about restriction of trade and embargo? Sorry, you can't equate Cuba with the Ukraine here, as the Ukraine hasn't actively sought to undermine Russian interests in the world, outside of their attempts to seize power! Nope, Apples and Oranges, Pat.

Everything Cheney said is valid, vetted, and pertinent to our relationship to Russia and its neighbors. We do not want to sit idly by as some sort of Russian Empire III coalesces before our eyes, and threatens what peace and stability we might have.

Pat seems to be evolving from a mere Paleoconservative Nativist Isolationist, to an Isolationist Appeaser. Maybe, we will see.

17 posted on 05/09/2006 10:51:29 AM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Axtell

I know I for one was outraged when Putin said he'd prefer Bush for another term, and when Russia announced they were launching a spy satilite on Iran on behalf of Israel.


18 posted on 05/09/2006 11:29:20 AM PDT by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RKV

I think the Western media should have more pointed out, that there have been 150,000 deads at least in Chechnya, while the number of killed in Iraq is still significant lower. It bothers me to hear all the Bush-bashing for Iraq while Putin gets a pass.


19 posted on 05/09/2006 11:31:42 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson