Posted on 03/29/2014 11:35:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I looked into his eyes once, and what I saw scared me half to death.
In June 2001, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin ended their first face-to-face meeting with an outdoor news conference beneath a craggy mountaintop in Slovenia. "Is this a man that Americans can trust?" I asked Bush as Putin glared at me.
"Yes," Bush replied, before allowing Putin to answer a separate question. A few minutes later, the American president elaborated: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country," Bush said, adding a few sentence later, "I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him."
While Bush spoke, Putin fixed his eyes on mine—a look so cold and dark that I wondered whether those eyes were, for some unfortunate Cold Warriors, the last thing they saw.
Disclosure: I don't pretend to read people as well as Bush, nor am I a foreign policy expert. Just three months after the Slovenia summit, Putin cooperated with Bush during the 9/11 attacks, and did so more broadly in the months that followed. Perhaps Bush saw goodness in Putin. And perhaps I spotted something else, because Russia's advances on Georgia in 2008 and on Ukraine today suggest that Putin is an easy guy to misjudge.
In the summer of 2008, Putin and Bush were in Beijing for the Olympics when Russian troops moved into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. Peter Baker of The New York Times described the U.S. response:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
The tendency is to believe that Putin is a communist KGB dictator bent on taking over the world.
He is none of the above . In reality he is leader of a third rate nation that may still be in serious decline. If not still negative, the curve is so flat to seem in decline. The men are alcoholic. The women are so scared of life they don’t bear enough children to halt the population decline.
Russia has been consistently unable to use the vast resources and people to emerge into the present as a capable nation. Russia has only two strong attributes. Russia has vast natural resources, especially oil, to sell. Russia has the capability to design and manufacture weapons.
Russia was handed the opportunity to be what China is now and then screwed it up. The capital invested was essentially stolen. Those in charge didn’t understands that profits make businesses grow and took the return on sales and spent them on condos in France or Switzerland.
Putain sees his job not as conquering the world but as stabilizing and saving Mother Russia. The success in doing that job is not yet certain.
Concurring bump.
And even bigger FOOLS are the people who vote them into office.
That is not correct, they are resurgent. The Russian fertility rates bottomed out in the early 2000's and are now 1.7 and rising. Ours is 1.9 and slowly falling.
I was looking up surge barriers in another thread yesterday where every single poster here thought we should just abandon NYC and northern NJ. That idea has it's merits but that kind of negativity doesn't exist in Russia. Putin just completed the Soviet era barrier to protect St. Petersburg which is 16 miles long. Our barrier from Sandy Hook to Breezy Point would be only 1/3 of that distance and have similar technical challenges although require more armor on the Atlantic side. But unlike modern Russia we will do nothing except blame the Koch brothers for sea level rise.
I said may..... one year or even two does not make a trend
The city birth rates are still pretty low there (1.5) and the rural rates are probably partly induced by Islam. Still, outside of birthrates, our decline into socialist squalor is precipitous. I drove around some barrios last time I was in California. We have similar conditions developing in Northern Virginia (e.g. Herndon). The birth rates are pretty high there but by illegals. Our economic “growth” has come mainly from Fed-printed dollars. Unless we get a huge change in our politics we are screwed much more than Russia on their trajectory.
Notice how Ron Fournier can’t bring himself to criticize Obama without reaching back into the past and dragging George Bush into it?
I suspect it did. When I tried the home page, that was down too, so I think it was the whole site.
From my associations with those that have come to America, to get out of the crumbling Soviet Russia and ukraine, back in the ‘90’s, never has a line from a book, and into a movie, be more true:
“The Russians don’t take a, ahem, dump, without a plan.”
(Thanks to Tom Clancy for that one.)
We try to make political awards out of our future socio/political/no military/financial governmental budgets. WE haven’t really ‘got it’, when coming to anything long term for the country, because of ‘how will it benefit the budgetmakers, first.’ syndrome.
The Russians, don’t.
I'm curious, are any of those four NATO members (for example, the Baltic states)? In other words, do you think Putin willing to test NATO?
ow the left begions to vilify Pution the way Mohamar Ghadaffi was piloried in the MSM press. This is the lefts way of preparing the USA for military action.
Obama should never been allowed to have his hands on our military.He is worse than Putin ever dared to be.Obama escapes consequences and responsibility. Putin demands responsibility and leads his nation, which is more than one can say for Obama.
Obama needs to be gotten rid of, turfed, made to resign.Whatever works.
In Putin's mind, key to that is rebuilding the idea of the Russian as a he-man: tough, sneaky, chivalrous, indomitable despite the howling cold... Expansionism is an easy way to sell that stasis: Russia on the march, scores of tanks, enemies cowering in fear at being cut off from resources squeezed from the icy distance, from the mechanic to the soldier, men, choruses of men singing... Between reality and propaganda, he might just pull it off.
Somehow, Condi being where she was and when, fits the feminization of this country, and outlines its resulting peril. She is a bright lady, but was in over her head emotionally. We're dealing with chest beaters Condi, and they were weaker then then. We are weaker now (per the Marxist plan) as a result. The bear needs to be a bear. Georgia was a piece of meat. Beat the bear down and it hates your guts forever. Cower before it and it will eat you. Perhaps the best way to deal with Russia was to have found a common foe, but even that is hazardous. Islam made a good candidate in that respect and therewith Iran, but somehow it didn't come off. GHWB warned us that we had to do a better job during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Congress didn't let him. Yeah, the welfare state again. Marxists.
“ I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country,” Bush said”
Sounds like Bush got him exactly right!
NOT
FMCDH(BITS)
“Oh and remember when we led the bombing of and splitting up of Serbia?”
Very well. From us bombing tents with heaters, thinking
they were tanks, not bombing airports being fooled by
craters painted on the runways, Russians suddenly appearing
at the Pristina airport and the murder of Milosevic.
I still feel we were on the wrong side on that.
“Nevertheless it is stupid to expect the entire world to embrace western lifestyles and cultures.”
Stupid? That’s to say the Constitution is stupid? Stupid
to wish the same rights and freedoms we have on the rest
of the world. Stupid to think that everyone on the planet
should have paved roads, electricity, indoor plumbig and
plenty to eat? America has set a great example to the
rest of the world and its stupid to expect everyone else
should follow in our footsteps?
No. The fact is that they are the ones who are stupid.
Come to think of it it is stupid to expect primitive
cultures to embrace western lifestyles. Like you with
Russia, I’ve spent some time in Mexico. It was fun and
the people are ok but its still a craphole.
A little naive maybe, but not stupid.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
With that said, NATO is also not ready for a war with Russia. While Obama is technically accurate about Russia being a 'regional power,' the size and scope of that region is considerable and is formidable. It is akin to calling China a regional power as well - a statement that is similarly technically accurate, but in reality foolish. Considering the NATO countries bombing Libya ran out of bombs in under two days, and the British -before deciding not to participate in the Syria attack before the Russians mucked up that US/French plan - didn't have enough tomahawk missiles in their navy to do more than a token gesture, NATO's capabilities would fall solely on the US (with strong French assistance in the air and sea, token British assistance in the sea, strong German presence on land, and a showing by Poland in special forces - Grom - that would prove the Poles to be modern day Spartans). NATO as a group falls to those countries, with the US taking the lion's share of the load. However, Russia's number one anti-NATO weapon is that it knows no US politician, apart from the likes of McCain et al, will ever approve military action against Russia. Period.
This is a belief shared by China as well, and a belief that may be veritable.
My view is that Russia will be pulling the South Ossetia/Crimea move every 4-5 years. As it goes stronger, and the US (depending on leadership) weaker, it will move from the Georgia's to the Ukraine's. It will pick up breakaway regions (Moldova will lose something soon ...although Transnestria, sp, is technically lost). The West will do nothing ....much. For example, the talks going on now have assumed Crimea is a part of Russia. That is not under discussion, just that Russia leave Eastern Ukraine.
Sanctions will be lifted in a week, Europe will breath a sigh of relief, Russia will smile, and Kerry and Obama will claim victory. Similar to the Georgia situation ...without Kerry and Obama to smirk. In essence, gain land, get hit with sanctions for a few weeks, threaten escalation, the West has talks to de escalate the situation, Russia agrees, every one is happy and says Russia has withdrawn, and Russia withdraws with the new territory that got ignored during the talks.
If that is losing it is a great thing Russia is not winning.
America needs a Reaganesque leader. This does not mean a hawk in the likes of a McCain, who thinks air strikes and Manpads solve all situations. I mean a leader who can wield both diplomatic and military strength, and is seen as a capable pair of hands. The Russians don't fear strength ...they respect it. America needs a president that will be respected. Again, I do not mean a hothead ...that is like a madman going to a NRA convention and waving a gun around, sweeping people, with his finger on the trigger. Someone is likely to shoot him as he is putting everyone in jeopardy. No, I mean someone speaking softly and with confidence, and carrying a BIG stick that can land you a month from now. There is a huge difference between crazy hawks like McCain, and a confident strong person like Reagan. The difference between a drunk sot with a gun and a Navy SEAL.
America needs stronger leadership, or this will repeat again in 4 years. Only difference is China may also get on that choochoo train.
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.
