Skip to comments.Putin's tough stance burnishes his image
Posted on 03/27/2014 8:11:38 PM PDT by goldstategop
Nina Moreyeva, a Moscow resident who lives on a pension, doesn't agree with the widespread perception in the West that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been too muscular in his actions in Ukraine. Quite the opposite. She believes Russia had the right to annex the Ukrainian territory of Crimea even if it meant going to war with Kiev.
"Crimea is deep in our history," she says. "I have never accepted that it was given to Ukraine" by former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. Nor is she worried about the West imposing sanctions. "Russia shouldn't be under anyone's thumb," she says. "Let them keep their potatoes. We'll grow our own."
Her sentiments are hardly unusual. Mr. Putin's popularity is spiking to the highest levels in years largely as a result of the Kremlin leader's forceful handling of the crisis in Ukraine.
Many Russians say they strongly approve of Putin's decision to "draw the line" after what they see as two decades of Western expansion, via the enlargement of the European Union and NATO, into what was formerly the Soviet Union and its allied states.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Being tough helps in winning universal respect.
My husband and I visited St. Petersburg in 2008. We were visiting friends in Sweden and decided to fly over to Russia.
After a week in Russia we BOTH agreed that the Russians had a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long way to catch up to the USA of FIFTY years ago.
It was expensive while getting LITTLE value for what we paid for. The food was DULL, DULL, DULL, DULL.
The hotel was clean but dull and boring.
They AREN'T that smart after all. Their space program was thanks to the Germans--the ones who DIDN'T come to the USA after WWII. THOSE Germans made OUR space program.
You know, I’ve always had a lot of respect for Hitler. How about you?
I’m not so sure about that.
Putin needs to recognize even Republicans will support Obama if Putin doesn’t stop now.
Good job and all, but you’re getting us off the button.
We don’t really want to rally to Obama, but given the choice, we will.
Back off Putin. Just saying.
Do you have respect for Obama?
And do you think he can be tough?
Spare me the sarcasm - we both know that is not the real issue here.
Obama doesn’t wear the pants in the family.
And he has drawn one red line after another! Are you waiting for the next one?
No I do not have respect for Obama, but stating that being tough wins you universal respect forgets an awful lot of history.
No Obama can’t be tough. Putin has acted like to two bit thug dictator. That type of brazen disregard for accepted international behavior earns him zero respect outside of the misguided Russian on the street.
Stalin probably had a lot of people who adored him too. When Khrushchev went up against Kennedy, I’ll bet the Russians were in his corner too.
The real issue, is that Putin is a disgraced figure, from here on out. His place in history will be extremely negative.
I’m not really talking about Obama.
The GOP was originally opposed to Obama. Still is in fact.
But Putin is messing that up, and he’s driving me temporarily toward Obama.
Just saying Putin sort of originally had my support. That is pretty much gone at the moment.
Putin back off.
A leader’s words must have consequences or they mean nothing.
That is the difference between great leaders and failed ones.
Putin has Crimea. Obama has Obamacare.
Which legacy will be remembered? That is now up to history to judge.
If you believe Obama’s 21st Century diplomacy is going to stop the likes of Putin, good luck.
I do not believe Obama’s diplomacy alone will be effective.
America is larger than Obama.
That is what I’m saying. Putin has a certain level of good will, or had until recently.
I do not believe he will squander that.
I could however be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again.
I just don’t recommend he continue.
Americans are bored shitless by this whole issue. Ukraine crisis is buried so deep on Drudge that you miss it when scrolling through. That said, Putin has the right to protect Russian interests and he’ll continue to go one up on us with every action of ours.
You keep trotting out these platitudes about leaders, their words, and their consequences.
NOTHING is going to make Putin right for what he did.
Yes Putin has Crimea. Hitler occupied his neighbors too.
How is Hitler remembered? You do know right?
Putin is a thug dictator. He’s no different than Hitler at the end of the day, as it comes to what he has done to his neighbor state.
Whether Obama is respected or not, has nothing to do with this. We both know he’s a child. Putin will have to answer for his own deeds. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with that. Obama didn’t force him to do it. Good grief.
A strong ultranationalist leader in Europe has always had a strong base of support from their ethnic countrymen in other nations and from others searching for strong ethnic European leadership. The German American Bund had a lot of American support before WWII. Obviously, being a strong leader does not equal being a good leader. Freedom is never a value supported by a nationalistic fanatic except for their narrow group of adherents.
It only means something when the bad guy loses.
And if he doesn’t - does history care?
No! There is truth to the adage history is written by the winner.
And between states - the balance of power determines who prevails in world affairs, in a word strength and not words, morality or treaties.
The exception to might makes right has its limits. Tyrants overreach and the pendulum swings back. Napoleon and Hitler come to mind.
You can become overconfident and lose. Its an iron law of history.
>Putin needs to recognize even Republicans will support Obama if Putin doesnt stop now.<
Are you sure Obama will lead us in a direction that benefits America knowing that it is his intention to permanently change the face of this country.
How do you know he won’t lead us into utter destruction?
We are in a real quandary, aren’t we?
Who has done more damage to the US, Putin or Obama?
I say it’s Obama, by a wide margin.
Putin invaded Crimea, next door, and you think that makes him Hitler. Why?’
In the past 12 years, US has invaded four countries - none of them next door. That doesn’t make us Hitler. Obama wants to topple the Syrian gov’t — also not next door.
Hitler had might...but then he pretty much had the rest of the world against him, and he couldn't match their might in the end. That's why I say, there is no exception to "Might Makes Right."
Hell, even Al-Qaeda has done less damage.
Yes Obama by a huge margin and nothing could drive me to support Obama.
As a Conservative, I recognize evil when I see it.
What Putin did was evil. He had no business going into a neighbor state and annexing it.
If you can’t grasp that, there’s really nothing to discuss here.
If you approve of this, you approve of any nation lining up and absorbing it’s neighbor. I’m not signing on to that crap. I would think that you could grasp this, but alas you can’t, so here we are playing games, when what has taken place is clearly wrong.
Don’t tell me about the victor being able to write history. Is what Obama is doing right? Does the fact his party can write the history books make it right?
Surely you don’t buy into that do you?
Tell you what WilliamIII, just name the territory we annexed and I’ll agree that you won this discussion.
“Obama didnt force him to do it. Good grief”
Actually, the West did have a hand in this in supporting the “Ukrainian Spring”, which saw the Ukrainian government in Kiev overthrown a few months ago, which then plunged the region into turmoil...
The dice were rolled, this is the apparent outcome so far.
Okay, and if youre going to buy into that logic, the United States supported Europe for the better part of seventy years. I guess the U. S. S.R. had every right to march in and take over then.
Is that really what you think?
Do you think Russia didnt lobby to have the Ukraine choose to stay with the Federation?
If the Ukraine would have chosen to stay with the Federation, do you think the West would have had a right to go to war over it, perhaps annex part of Russia to get even?
You obviously think the E. U. was evil for urging the Ukraine to go with it economically? Why is that evil, but if Russia tries to get the Ukraine to stay with the federation, that isnt evil?
The dice were rolled?
Man I have seen some delusional people in my time, but this honestly breaks new ground.
The West is now evil, and Russia is pristine as the driven snow.
Damn. Mexico, come on down, Freepers now agree, you can have Texas back. The U. S. and its partners are evil. Annex all heavily Spanish speaking heavily newly entered Mexican national regions and be done with it.
We were unfair to them.
All I’m saying is that you roll the dice when you attempt to overthrow an established government body. Over the past few years under Obama, none of the “Springs” have worked out in our favor: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria... All muslim nations; interestingly, when Obama’s doctrine is applied to an European non muslim situation, it is actually much more dangerous... This territory we are in right now with Russia is way more dangerous than any situation we could get into with a muslim nation... We should not be in this situation with Russia right now, we are more similar and have the same enemies; this makes no sense. Obama has undone 50 years of reconciliation between Russia and the USA in less than 5 months over Kiev and an economic aid package...
The Ukraine is a sovereign nation.
Do you understand what “sovereign nation” means?
What happens within it’s borders is an internal matter. It is not Russia’s problem to fix.
Why are you folks all twisting yourselves into knots, to try to explain why Putin was justified in what he did?
It honestly beats anything I’ve ever seen, people who call themselves Conservatives blaming the West for trying to do business with Ukraine, and siding with a ruthless ex-KGB man who has invaded and annexed another nation’s territory.
What part of this seems legal or warranted to you here?
Ukraine is on Russia’s border and was tossed into chaos when their government in Kiev was overthrown “Spring style” back in November 2013; after a few months of turmoil, Russia stepped in to protect their regional interests. I wish the USA would do similar along our southern border with Mexico; own that shit.
In a parliamentary system, the party is elected and their selected person serves as president. The protests resulted in a no confidence situation, and the President found himself unpopular even in his own party. He resigned. It’s hardly a national crisis. It happens in Britain, Israel, and other places where a parliamentary system is used.
New elections would be held, and a new president would come along. The old president and his henchmen have been kicked out of their political party, and they are being sought for prosecution for firing on the protests and killing people.
Now you explain to me why Russia had to come in and fix things? Should it also invade Britain, Israel, or any other nation where the president steps down and new elections are indicated? Evidently so...
There is no justification for Russia doing what it did, and no twisting and moaning and groaning is going to change that.
Using your rules, since there are a lot of Spanish speaking people in southern Texas, and since many of them are recent arrivals, Mexico could easily state just what Russia did, that their fellow Mexicans were being mistreated, and Mexico needed to step in to protect them.
I wouldn’t approve of that either.
Ukraine is on Russias border and was tossed into chaos when their government in Kiev was overthrown Spring style back in November 2013; after a few months of turmoil, Russia stepped in to protect their regional interests. I wish the USA would do similar along our southern border with Mexico; own that shit.
A distinction to add is that, so far, right or wrong on other aspects, we have not annexed any part of Iraq, Libya, etc.
You’ve probably seen this? Even Yanukovych’ party leader says that Yanukovych rule was a “catastrophe” and (in slightly less direct words) that Yanukovych had become a tyrant:
I have yet to see any serious evidence that ethnic Russians were mistreated by the gov’t. in Ukraine.
What is interesting is that this Borys Kolesnikov, the deputy head of the Party of Regions, and many of the protesters and right wing types alike, are all calling for an end to the rampant corruption. If they could put aside the use of ethnicity in their politics, they might be able to cooperate and actually get something done. If the Russian Russians would MTOB, that is.
One other thought: I’m quite sure that any FR poster who thinks Putin has gone too far would be tagged by RT and other Russian propaganda types as a Nazi. It’d be funny if it was not so sad.
But Crimea was part of Russia since before America was a country until 1954, when Khrushchev moved it. A large majority of Crimeans would rather be part of Russia.
Look at how the USA expanded.
Was that evil too?
Paul, I agree with your comments. You made some good points.
Your history of Crimea is probably right. I’m not here to say it being part of the Ukraine is right or has to remain that way, but I am here to say that there are ways international disputes like this are resolved through peaceful legitimate means, and this wasn’t one of them.
This was an act of war, IMO.
If we have a dispute with Mexico, does it waltz in claim U.S. Territory, call a special election in a week or so, conduct that election, tabulate the vote, and announce those who voted decided to join Mexico by close to 100%? Would we buy into that? Of course not. It is not legitimate to accept what Russia did. It is legitimate to object stridently.
Yes, the U.S. did expand. It did it in major ways, with the Louisiana purchase, and the war and subsequent purchase of the Mid-West and Western parts of the United States.
Was it’s treatment of the native Americans on the up and up? Many of them died from diseases brought over from Europe. More of them died as a result of our expansion. I think there is a legitimate issue to be raised here. The question is, are the two comparable? Are the circumstances equal? Were the two societies relatively equal? Was the United States violating international law at the time? Was what it as doing more or less how things were done in the day?
International norms have changed. If the U.S. were adding land today in the manner it did back then, I would object stridently.
Is Russia taking over a civilization that is far inferior, and territory that is sparsely populated? Is what it did acceptable international behavior for the 21st Century? I don’t believe so.
As for whether the U.S. expansion in it’s first century, some of it was reasoned. Some of it probably was evil. I’m not here to judge the rest of the world by that standard, because we are not operating in that world any longer.