Skip to comments.3 Presidents and a Riddle Named Putin
Posted on 03/29/2014 11:27:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Bill Clinton found him to be cold and worrisome, but predicted he would be a tough and able leader. George W. Bush wanted to make him a friend and partner in the war on terror, but grew disillusioned over time.
Barack Obama tried working around him by building up his protégé in the Kremlin, an approach that worked for a time but steadily deteriorated to the point that relations between Russia and the United States are now at their worst point since the end of the Cold War.
For 15 years, Vladimir V. Putin has confounded American presidents as they tried to figure him out, only to misjudge him time and again. He has defied their assumptions and rebuffed their efforts at friendship. He has argued with them, lectured them, misled them, accused them, kept them waiting, kept them guessing, betrayed them and felt betrayed by them.
Russian troops firing into the air and backed by armored vehicles stormed a Ukrainian airbase in Crimea on Saturday.Obama and Allies Seek Firm, United Response as Russia Grips CrimeaMARCH 23, 2014 Ukrainian marines outside a Ukrainian military base in Feodosia, Crimea on Monday.
Each of the three presidents tried in his own way to forge a historic if elusive new relationship with Russia, only to find their efforts torpedoed by the wiry martial arts master and former K.G.B. colonel. They imagined him to be something he was not or assumed they could manage a man who refuses to be managed. They saw him through their own lens, believing he viewed Russias interests as they thought he should. And they underestimated his deep sense of grievance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
What the American press fails to realize is that Putin does what is best for Russia...not America.
And punishing Russia will not change what Moscow has already done.
Since we’re not going to go to war over Crimea, we might as well just live with the outcome there.
I am left wondering if this being the “world’s policeman” will end up being our downfall just like the Brits found out a couple of centuries ago. I don’t think it’s a sustainable course to continue to fight everyone else’s battles, especially when we sent our young men and women to fight and die for people who are not worth our effort (can you say Iraq and Afghanitsan). And you couple that a with what it does to our treasury and you have an untenable situation. Finally, just look at the EU. Those fat bastards still think they can sit back and we will defend them while they act against our efforts.
The New York Times immunizes Hillary Clinton.
But when it comes to Benghazi, they will have to cauterize the wound.
From 1815 to 1914 the British engaged in innumerable colonial wars which were not particularly costly, with the exception of the Boer war, and could be said to have generated substantial wealth for the homeland. It was not these wars but the Two World Wars that enervated Britain, nearly eliminated a generation of young men, and virtually bankrupted the country. It was continental wars rather than colonial wars that left Britain weak. The Brits finished off the job on themselves with the socialist government of Clement Atlee following World War II.
Whether Britain could have held onto its Empire in the face of the nationalist movements of the 1950s is arguable but that is a different question.
I think the lesson from this history to be taken by the United States is not so much that the role of policeman weakens a nation but that wars such as the Boer war or the Vietnam War can and often do weaken a nation. Certainly, the Afghan war described by Churchill in The Malakand Field Force should be considered in parallel with our misadventure in Afghanistan.
Above all, we should perhaps compare our excursion into Iraq as one of the great policy errors of the nation, far exceeding in cost the liability imposed on Britain by the Boer war.
The Eisenhower/Reagan model seems to have worked much better than the Johnson/Bush model.
>>Certainly, the Afghan war described by Churchill in The Malakand Field Force should be considered in parallel with our misadventure in Afghanistan.
I read that in the last year or so. Everyone involved in Afghanistan from the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the White House should have been required to read it and understand it.
Who displaced war hero Churchill and was elected by promising free health care for the returning soldiers.....leading to the establishment of the British National Health System....and the nationalization of electricity, railways, steel, coal industries.
Same as Obama and obamacare....
The way I see it.
Its true that we go to war with the army we have, I’m not sure we can go to war with the government we have.
Half of our government are hell bent on bringing America down and another quarter are determined to line their pockets with cash from military contractors. We’re doing some seriously stupid crap in the world like paying Ugandans to fight in Somalia while sending troops of our own to Uganda.
We need to stop trying to fix the rest of the world while our nation is such a mess.
Live with the outcome???.....Not before we give Ukraine what the coup was all about........tons of money. Who do you think fills the coffers of the IMF.
I’m flabbergasted that ANYONE could not get Putin.
He’s just the latest commie in a very long string of commies—acting as commies INVARIABLY ACT.
Strength and determination on the part of the US is the only viable option—’course our muzzie POTUS is doing the exact opposite.
How d’ya think that’s going to work for us???
Hmm..I wonder what former Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks about being used as the 'anti-viral' agent?
The problem with Reagan was there was not another Ronald Reagan to replace him after two terms.
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.