How to Solve the Putin Problem

American Thinker ^ | August 4, 2014 | Herbert E. Meyer

[No One Special]

Especially when dealing with Russians, subtlety gets you nowhere; you must tell them, bluntly, what you want to happen....

[...]

Last month’s 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 ... it’s that thugs like Putin don’t stop because they’ve 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 doesn’t 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 Putin’s 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.

[wetphoenix]

I see someone paid a bus company to have this painting on. You can pay them and have George Bush there.

[annalex]

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.

[wetphoenix]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[wetphoenix]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[wetphoenix]

~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.

[annalex]

it is a fact that monarch has more chances to be an idiot

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.