Skip to comments.How to Solve the Putin Problem
Posted on 08/04/2014 12:10:17 AM PDT by No One Special
Especially when dealing with Russians, subtlety gets you nowhere; you must tell them, bluntly, what you want to happen....
Last months shoot down of Malaysia Air Flight 17 over Ukraine has made clear to just about everyone ... what should have been obvious a long time ago: Russian President Vladimir Putin is a serious threat to world peace.
If there is any lesson to be learned from studying European history ... its that thugs like Putin dont stop because theyve been punished or because they see the error of their ways. Thugs have a high tolerance for pain, and they are incapable of changing their behavior. They keep going until someone takes them out -- permanently...
Since subtlety doesnt work with Russians, the president and his European counterparts should also make absolutely clear that we have no interest whatever in how these people solve their Putin problem. If they can talk good old Vladimir into leaving the Kremlin with full military honors and a 21-gun salute -- that would be fine with us. If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head -- that would also be okay with us.
Nor would we object to a bit of poetic justice.... For instance, if the next time Putins flying back to Moscow from yet another visit with his good friends in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran, his airplane gets blasted out of the sky by some murky para-military group that somehow, inexplicably, got its hands on a surface-to-air missile.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That works both ways. Does the author suggest that Barry doesn't realize that? Then what? President Biden? President Boehner?
This author is almost openly advocating a restoration of Communist rule in Russia.
Ansel12, Americanthinker.com must be excerpted per copyright threat. Your post will now have to be removed because you continued the article in your response.
Please do not continue excerpted articles in any responses. Here's the link to Free Republic's copyright restrictions list. Please keep it handy and refer to it whenever you post published material.
Barry who? ;-)
Thanks, didn’t know that.
I do recommend people read the article for the useful point of view of the author.
Maybe shooting down Putin's aircraft, is about the only thing that bathhouse Barry could NOT get away with.
Oh, another thing: Russia has more thermonuclear weapons than we do. Did the author take that into consideration? I don’t feel like being incinerated in a fireball, does anyone else?
I am moving (to Seattle) and have been neglecting this ping list. This, I think, is a good article overall.
I would make one correction. The problem is not exactly one man, Putin, but rather the Soviet remnant in the Russian society, entrenched in the KGB/FSB and the military. They simply cannot think in terms other than territorial expansion by force. Given the loss of the Soviet Empire they regrouped using Soviet remnants in the neighboring countries to foment civil wars while covertly supporting the insurrection. It is therefore not axiomatic that a removal of Putin would by itself cure the problem; rather, the playboy oligarchs need to gain upper hand over the Sovietoid oligarchs. That may not happen for a long time.
Not at all. Putinism today is the closest that Russia has ever been to Communist rule in 25 years.
I start to agree, to some degree. But it wasn’t so just 7 years ago. What do you think has changed? If the rapproachement with the West is getting derailed whose fault is it and how it has to fixed?
Certainly, the election of Obama contributed to the perception of weakness in America and as a result encouraged revanchism in the Russian Federation. Prior to that, the ruling class there had a fear of unilateral action. We still have that, evident is how hesitant RF is in supporting the irredentists in east Ukraine. There seems to exist a party advocating negotiation and complete withdrawal of support for the insurgents. However, so long as Putin and his neo-soviet clan remain in power or close to the levers of power, RF will remain a regional threat.
Putin seemed attractive earlier for a couple of reasons. First, looking from America, it is easy to confuse his soviet cultural conservatism with genuine conservatism. Buchanan suffered from this delusion. Second, one doesn’t argue with success, and Putin was successful defeating the domestic mafia and bringing the oligarch under Kremlin control or exiling and murdering them. He also presided over the rapid growth of real incomes in RF, fueled by increasing oil prices.
Your analysis ignoring improved rule of law and more freedoms under Putin’s presidency, to a level unseen under any previous Russian government dating back to medieval.
This trend has somehow reverted circa 2008 but modern Russia is still freer than anytime in known history before 2000.
It is actually explains why the economy in Russia was performing significantly better than any other oil-exporting national economy in a period of oil bum.
That is simply not true. Tsarist Russia had individual freedom and rule of law on par with the rest of the civilized world after the serfdom was abolished in 1861. In more recent period, under Yeltsin, there was considerable level of civic freedom: press, for example, was free from censorship and privately owned and there was no political prisioners. Putin ended the mafia wars; that was his single accomplishment. However what he replaced the gangsters with is not rule of law but centralized around his person cleptocracy.
Were you living there under Yeltsin or it was Clinton who said you how nice and democratic his drunken calamite was?
I’m yet to see Putin ordering an artillery strike on Parliament impeachment him as Yeltsin did in 1993. What about a Yeltsin ‘Banditism act’ of that same year allowing any LEO down to a traffic inspector to imprison every person unilaterally for up to 30 days without trial ‘to check for being involved in an organised crime’? They weren’t obliged to provide a lawyer and your written ‘confession’ taken who knows how during these 30 days could put you on a death row. What about a 1996 presidential elections won by Yeltsin despite a rating of about 2% just a month ago? What about a 120% taxation on small businesses above a 50% protection fees from Mafia? A crime was rampant. You could have been robbed twice a day and a small city could have up to ten fatal shootings daily.
Yeltsinist regime was a step backward comparing to every Soviet regime after Stalin in terms of freedom.
A single freedom one could practice freely comparing to the Soviet regime is a freedom of travel. On the over hand a ticket to New York was way other an average annual income in that economy.
Might as well stop reading right there. Where' the proof?
I never defended Yeltsin, but what you mention is criminality and corruption, not unfreedom. In fact, civic freedoms often correlate with elevated crime levels. However, Yeltsin opened the KGB archives and abolished censorship; that is a significant measure of freedom. Putin has been reversing that trend as soon as he came into power.
Pieces of the civilian plane on the ground, the pro-Russian insurgents bragging about shooting down a plane (they thought it was a Ukrainian military transport), the Russian BUK missile system photographed nearby. There could be a dispute whether the RF regulars shot flight 17 down or the insurgents did, but since BUK systems do not grow on trees and are not sold at bait and ammo stores, the Russian military is guilty at least of providing the BUKs to the bandits.
You simply aren’t impartial. Putin has brought a European judicial system and a 13% income tax. And I can walk downtown at night. I own my home worth some $300,000 and I can change a $50,000 cars once a few years. And I’m not even an upper middle class.
I don’t deny that Putin gave Russia a level of prosperity not known since prior to the Bolshevik revolution. But you cannot deny that RF now has one party rule (well, unless you count the Communist party separately), has political prisoners, often on trumped-up unrelated charges, has very poor business climate due to corruption, and now is fomenting a civil war in an independent country.
Well, I would welcome an improvement unless it is a national Bolshevic or a Communist party and alikes backed by McCain or Obama.
In my opinion, the improvement should come in the form of an anti-soviet revolution similar to the Ukrainian “maidan”, which would make a clean break with the Soviet and post-soviet past and bar Communists and FSB from power. Once that is accomplished, the regathering of Russian minorities in the near abroad should proceed not through banditry but according to the international norms.
Yep, right. As if your scenario has played so well in form of so-called Arab spring. There is no viable opposition in Russia, apart from Nazis and Communists. Liberal democrats have spoiled their reputation for decades under Yeltsin and healthy American-style conservatism is not really known.
Is that a joke??
So we declare Putin's career is over and encourage his assassination? Sounds like someone has read too many novels.
Yeah I’m sure you got it all over the guy who foresaw the breakup of the Soviet Union and so advised Reagan. Not.
We have a country very similar to Russia, Ukraine, where an anti-Communist revolution already has taken place, whether or not Putin succeeds in fighting it in the east of the country. We don’t need to look at the Arabs, whose “spring” did not have an anti-Communist character anyway. Needless to say, complete de-sovietization also occurred in the countries of the former Warsaw pact. There is no reason to think that the Russian nation is under some special curse and is forever incapable of curing itself from the Soviet past.
We did something similar to Qaddafi; it wasn't a novel.
Anti-Soviet revolution is brewing in Ukraine for decades and nothing of value has come out of it. They are still Soviets, possessed by entitlement mentality, more so than Russians themselves. True motivation behind a ‘European choice’ is a prospects to become an immigrant in EU or have a longer welfare check at home for most of maidanites.
In Russia most people understand that it is not a government and foreign alliances but hard work and free enterprise which makes your wealth.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
But it is not so. The Maidan showed true heroism and genuine desire to get rid of the Soviet past. And the new government is popular everywhere precisely because it is anti-Soviet:
The population supports the government even in the East:
No question, the desovietization in Ukraine is only beginning. But in Russia the Soviets are on the rise. That is the problem.
Yes, right. They can gather a 5 thousand crowd in a city under a Ukrainian flag, and on another day there is a 10,000 crowd under the Russian flag.
And another 985,000 residents still don’t give a flying carp.
Without disputing which flag got 5 and which 10 thousand, that is normal: it shows that there are both loyalists and separatists in the East, and some of them feel enough passion about it to go and demonstrate.
What is not normal is that de-sovietization hasn’t even started in Russia: Lenin idols and red flags are still gathering points for the separatists. In Russia proper there is a schizophrenic mix of soviet symbolism and that of Imperial Russia: communist pentacle and two-headed eagle, often blended into one horrific symbol of confusion. Stalin has been re-cast as more or less savior of Europe from “fascism”; the cult of the 1945 victory is clearly designed to vindicate the terror of Lenin and Stalin. That is aberrant.
Your opinion is certainly distorted by media, kinda like a Sochi Olympics.
What part is inaccurate?
A majority of people does find Stalinism as evil in Russia, and they think older Tsarist imperialism is ridiculous. Gulag Archipelago is a required read in secondary school. A myth of their popularity is propped by Russian liberal NGOS working for foreign grants. These respective organizations are funded to counter these evils and when they can’t find any real boogeys they are reporting some really weird freaks and posing them as they are a part of something bigger.
The absolutely evil part of this process is that this propaganda is not only working for external consumption. There are enough immature idiots who sees this crap in media, thinks it is cool and they start to follow this model en-masse. That is how bogeyman propaganda translates into reality.
One live example of how it works are anti-immigrant gangs in Russia. About near millennium NGOs were all around media with their BS on how are skinheads on the rise in Russia and immigrants are in danger. It was an absolute bullcrap at the time as there wasn’t any visible skinheads or concerned immigrants. But constant propaganda has somehow changed it and by mid-1990s there have been numerous racist attacks.
In light of this crap I’m really concerned about growing fearmongering propaganda on both growing Stalinism and Chauvinistic Imperialism. It might translate into reality as well. Maybe already does.
I don't depend on the Western media to find out what Russia is like. I read Russian and have a computer.
I see someone paid a bus company to have this painting on. You can pay them and have George Bush there.
How likely, do you think, is that someone in Germany paints a city bus with portraits of Hitler and the swastikas? And of course it is not an isolated incident: there is voluminous body of Stalin apologetics filling shelves in stores; his portrait is carried like an icon in demonstrations (which OMON does not choose to disperse); in fact there are actual icons of Stalin made in Byzantine style. That is all social malignancy.
To your earlier remark about “tsarist imperialism”. Say what you will about the Russian empire, it was the last time Russia had a legitimate government, and it was able to assemble a community of nations lead by the Russian nation. For the Russian Empire to conduct a full-scale war on the Ukrainians would have been unthinkable. Putinism is not an attempt of restoration of the Russian Empire of old: it is a criminal gang that only knows to steal, intimidate and murder.
German Nazism was militarily defeated and all the German population felt the consequences.
Unfortunately or not, Communists haven’t experienced anything like that.
And it is not surprising that you may find more apologetes for the latter.
As for Tsarist imperialism, I know that you are some kind of sympathetic towards monarchy but please.
Monarchy is a tyranny in it’s pure form.
It is unfortunate that Communism was not condemned by a formal tribunal of historians and lawyers indeed.
Monarchy has nothing to do with tyranny. Monarch has an obligation toward his nation; a tyrant, by definition, does not. Such were, for example, the leaders of Russia from Lenin through to Putin: tyrants bringing the Russians nothing but misery.
Just like monarchs, dictators are de-jure are obliged before their subjects. In practice?... It is all depends on monarch’s or dictator’s mood.
Practice indeed varies — just like democratic practices vary, but no, a dictator is typically under no obligation except maybe to some junta that propelled him to power.
Understand that a monarch is bound to the contract — stated legally or not — that if his rule is successful then his child gets to inherit the kingdom because the son can be expected to be groomed for leadership by the father. This is a powerful incentive for the monarch to avoid popular suffering that might lead to a revolution. A wise dictator may try to transform his dictatorship to a monarchy, but given that a dictator rises to power more or less opportunistically, it is quite a long shot for him.
Certainly nothing depends just on the mood. Even a complete idiot would recognize that to avoid a coup that would depose him he must satisfy some interests other than his own. Late Roman emperors might have been exceptions (Caligula and the rest come to mind), but we’ve learned a lot since then.
~Certainly nothing depends just on the mood. Even a complete idiot would recognize that to avoid a coup that would depose him he must satisfy some interests other than his own.~
It is true for both dictatorship and monarchy. An idea is the king or dictator idiot or not is probably not a part of our discussion.
But it is a fact that monarch has more chances to be an idiot. At least dictator must have some intellectual skills to rise to power, which is not a case for monarch who are entitled to power by birth.
A fact? A future monarch is groomed for his function since he is born. If he is mentally weak, which of course can happen, a regency is set up or he is bypassed for another sibling.
Further, the skill set of a dictator is wholly different. He needs to be able to hold on to overwhelming military power. Since he came to power in a coup, there is forever a question of legitimacy hanging over him. A king, however, only needs to be loved and love his people back; technical government can be carried out by ministers.