Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Vlad the Implorer

Tags:

Well, now we’ve seen it all. Vladimir Putin has an op-ed in the 11 September edition of the New York Times imploring Americans to undermine their own security by doubting the motives, credibility and policies of the US government:


The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders.

A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Vladimir Putin – A Plea for Caution From Russia NYT 11 September 13

There you have it. It’s Obama versus the world and the Pope. With Vladimir Vladimirovich as the humble arbiter of peace and voice of sweet reason. Oh, brother! Pity “those still finding their way to democracy” if they wander into his neighbourhood.

Ironically, the powerful effect of this agitation and propaganda on the weak-minded comes at a time when many in the United States, especially among certain factions of the Left and the Right, are as vulnerable as mice; since domestic spying revelations have undermined the faith of Americans in their own government. You know, that Snowden guy who sought asylum recently in… uh, Russia… Hey, hang on a minute. Vladimir, it seems you are a very naughty boy.

In a wide-ranging tour de force Vladimir touches on the history of collective security and the demise of the League of Nations, the Grand Alliance in the Great Patriotic War, the common threat of insurgent religious extremism sans borders, sober reflection on the sanctity of the international rule of law and a minor tirade on the infamous imprudence of the Bush doctrine and all the misery and loss suffered as a consequence. A masterful effort with this little nugget buried within:


No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack – this time against Israel – cannot be ignored.

Vladimir Putin – A Plea for Caution From Russia NYT 11 September 13

You say what? Cannot be ignored if you are mentioning it, probably no. What exactly does this crafty, slippery, siloviki Bond villain actually have in mind? Haven’t we seen this movie before? A quick guide to understanding Vladimir Putin:


First, the anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism is genuine and has deep roots in the Soviet and Russian past.  It is bolstered by suspicions that the US and the West have a global agenda, and that central to that agenda is to humiliate Russia and exploit it for its resources.

Second, Putin, and Russian policymakers generally, view things in zero sum terms: if the Americans gain, Russia must lose, and vice versa.

Third, put these two things together:  Putin and the rest of the elite figures that if the Americans want something it must be antithetical to Russian interests and is part of a broader scheme to dominate Russia.

Fourth, like most autocratic rulers in states with highly personalized rule and weak institutions, Putin is obsessed with legitimacy and dreads the prospect of being overthrown.  This too has deep roots, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the 2012 protest movement, the Arab Spring, and Libya have only stoked those fears.  Strict non-interference in internal affairs of states, no matter how brutal they are, is the highest principle of international relations to Putin and the Russians generally: he said exactly that in his remarks at the G20.  To them, internationalism and intervention are an anathema.

The Only Thing Hard to Understand Is Why You’d Think Putin Is Hard to Understand Streetwise Professor 7 Sep 13

Which explains a lot including his ironclad allegiance to the Assad regime, which we will underestimate at our own peril. That exegesis of Putin’s personality is a pretty harsh, old school, Cold Warrior’s interpretation but it seems hard to argue with under the circumstances.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 68 Comments

68 comments

  1. Shaun Appleby

    Into Putin’s eclectic world view can be had here in an extensive interview he granted for the G-20; interestingly to both international and domestic journalists. Check for your wallet after. There is no doubt he’s a charming, fascinating guy but they said as much of Mussolini.

  3. princesspat

    Vladimir Putin, Meet Niccolo Machiavelli

    Sully thoughts re the NYT op ed written by “….this botoxed former KGB hack….”

    Good. And whatever the American president can do to keep Putin in this triumphant mood the better. Roger Ailes was right. If the end-result is that Putin effectively gains responsibility and control over the civil war in Syria, then we should be willing to praise him to the skies. Praise him, just as the far right praises him, for his mastery of power politics – compared with that ninny weakling Obama. Encourage him to think this is a personal and national triumph even more than he does today. Don’t just allow him to seize the limelight – keep that light focused directly on him. If that also requires dumping all over the American president, calling him weak and useless and incapable of matching the chess master from Russia, so be it. Obama can take it. He’s gotten used to being a pinata.

    All this apparent national humiliation is worth it. The price Russia will pay for this triumph is ownership of the problem. At some point, it may dawn on him that he hasn’t played Obama. Obama has played him.

    ~snip~

    Of course, this argument only makes sense if you don’t believe the US is best served by being responsible for the entire Middle East, and by being the only major power seriously invested there. If your goal is US global hegemony, this was a very bad week. But if your goal is to avoid the catastrophe that occurred in Iraq, to focus on the much more important foreign policy area, Asia, and to execute vital domestic goals such as immigration reform and entrenching universal healthcare … then the result looks pretty damn good. Or at least perfectly good enough.

  4. JanF

    For example Discarded Draft of Putin’s Opinion Piece on Syria

    Earlier today, Tablet obtained a copy of the initial draft of the Putin column. As Syria remains an immensely charged issue, we have chosen to reprint selections of it below in order to give a better sense of what Putin really intended to say. (Italics represent text that did not appear in the final draft.)

    RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders through their unnecessarily permissive media. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

    ~snip~

    We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal except for gays, chess champions, and journalists.

  5. joe from Lowell

    Russia believes in its right to be a foremost power in world affairs, second to none, and will pursue global superpower status as a core element of its national interest.

    Morganthau explained this in his great foreign policy book, when he insisted that there was continuity between the czarist era and the Stalinist era. The promotion of global revolution was a paint job. Underneath, Russia was still doing what Russia does.

    Vladimir Putin has a client, and he wants to protect that client. He understands that American air strikes in the midst of a civil war could mean the end of that client (a client that doesn’t just deliver emotional satisfaction, but real-world benefits like a Mediterranean naval base), so he’s doing what can to protect it.

    That explains the editorial, and it explains the offer to give up the Syrian chemical weapons.

    The only way this isn’t blindingly obvious is if you’ve been mainlining Russia Today. Then he probably looks like an enlightened, principled anti-imperialist.

  8. fogiv

    of what the eagle and the bear could be thinking (or planning, or hoping) i’m still pretty curious about that dragon behind the curtain.  what of china shaun?

    …leading state media are voicing support for Russia’s proposal that the Syrian government places its chemical stockpiles under international observation and fully joins an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.

    “This latest development brings a glimmer of hope for preventing a worst-case scenario being staged on the issue of Syria, while also preventing the international relations system suffering a major impact. China welcomes and supports Russia’s initiative,” says the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s top official newspaper.

    “As there are signs that Bashar al-Assad’s government might be willing to make concessions, the Obama administration should know denying international mediation a chance at this juncture would weaken its case for strikes even further. With little international support and the consequences of any military action unpredictable, acting alone would only reinforce the US’ image as a warmonger,” adds the China Daily.

    Elsewhere, The Beijing News says China conducted its 59th patrol of disputed East China Sea islands known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China since September 2012, when the Japanese government announced a plan to “purchase” part of the islands.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl…

    so beyond parroting the putin line, what’s their stake? note that i didn’t snip in that last graf for nothing — japan was among the primaries we approached in trying to build an international coalition on syria earlier.  thoughts on china, shaun?  anyone?

  9. fogiv

    http://www.newyorker.com/onlin…

    Modern Love

    by Vladimir V. Putin

    They say love is like a polar bear. If you want to take it in your arms and hug it, first you must be sure that it is properly drugged. Or perhaps love is like a tiger. If it escapes from the zoo and starts charging at you, you must shoot it with a tranquilizer dart. Whether it is a polar bear or a tiger, though, one thing is true: you must make love drop to the ground, preferably with some kind of drug, or it will maul you to death and eat you.

    I was lonely, vulnerable. I had just come off a relationship that had seemed so promising, but now she was far away, in Siberia. It is true that I had sent her there, but the fact remained: I was alone.

  10. Shaun Appleby

    It is quite a stretch to paint President Putin as a civic-minded steward of global security as he shills for his murderous Syrian client.

    David Shorr – Everyone’s Credibility on the Line in Syria RealClearWorld 13 Sep 13

    Excellent read and notes, “despite all the who’s up/who’s down commentary touting Putin’s craftiness, he has actually put himself on the hook to deliver those results.” Well said.

  11. princesspat

    Dispatches: What Putin didn’t tell the American people

    President Putin should give more credit to his audience: Russia will be judged by its actions, both on the international arena and domestically. So far, Russia has been a key obstacle to ending the suffering in Syria. A change towards a more constructive role would be welcome. But a compilation of half-truths and accusations is not the right way to signal such a change.

    It is going to be interesting to see how Putin handles the scrutiny his more public “owernship” of Syria will bring.

  12. fogiv

    WHAT DID I JUST READ?

    By Barack Obama

    Imagine my surprise when I opened the New York Times and read Vladimir Putin’s Op-ed. I didn’t know what I was reading for a few minutes. Sometime’s my Chief of Staff will put The Onion in front of me just to shake things up so it took me a moment to realize this was not a joke.

    First off, let me say I had a very nice time at the G20. The food was good, although a bit heavy for my taste, and the weather was pleasant. Certainly you can see the sky sometimes, which you can never do in China.

    As I continued to read the Op-ed, I really couldn’t understand whether we were being insulted or praised. Mr. Putin seemed to respect the United States for one paragraph, and then blast us in another. Now understand, I admire Mr. Putin. For his age he seems to be in great physical shape and even though I could kick his ass in basketball I do believe that if a bear were to attack the both of us, he would be the one to shoo it away.

    But let’s make one thing perfectly clear: this is written by a man who is the head of Russia. Russia, where the air conditioning in the room conked out even though I was in the Presidential Suite. Russia, where no one smiles and where people actually look disappointed that they are white.

    Mr. Putin, we put a man on the moon and you barely got a monkey home safely. We invented the computer and you invented the way to steal it. Your country is filled with our fast food businesses and yet there is not one Russian take out place in the whole United States.

    You are known for Siberia, we are known for Big Sur. We make Cadillacs and Lincolns and God knows what you call those little square deathtraps. It’s one thing to put down exceptionalism, but before you do that, you at least have to produce one Broadway show, or make one commercial airliner, or invent one type of salad.

    Having said that, your people are wonderful and I know that you care about them deeply, except, of course, for the gay ones. As a matter of fact, you care about them so much that you hate to see them argue, especially with you, so you graciously offer them the solace of prison.

    In any case, I enjoyed your editorial and I am very impressed that it was printed in The New York Times. If only there was a newspaper in your country that would print this.

    My very best wishes,

    Barack Obama.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

  13. louisprandtl

    for last suxty years are well documented. But seriously are we acting a bit holier than thou in our  selective outrage? Our exceptionalism? How many people died in Saddam’s gas attacks and what was Reagan’s admin’s role?

    In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

    The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a…

  14. JanF

    “If John McCain wants to write something for us, he is welcome,” Dmitry Sudakov, the English editor of the Russian paper told Foreign Policy’s The Cable on Friday. “Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already. We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain.”

    A senior aide to the Arizona Republican and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member told the Cable that “McCain would be glad to write something for Pravda, so we’ll be reaching out to Dmitry with a submission.”

    TPM: John McCain To Respond To Putin In Russian Paper

    I cringe to think about what Senator “Bomb Bomb Iran” will write. Is there any way to pre-disavow such a thing?

  15. janicket

    Booman finally pulls his head out long enough to do a purty damn good analysis of President Obama’s Middle East policy in an instructive timeline, including the origins of the mess he inherited:

    http://www.boomantribune.com/s…

    His conclusion:

    His policy has been to reject the view that American interests are tied up in a regional sectarian war in which we want to see the Sunnis prevail. His policy has been to resist constant and powerful forces that keep insisting that we accept the paradigm the neo-cons set in motion back in 2006-7. His policy has been to keep us out of Syria, no matter the political cost to himself, his reelection efforts, or his posterity.

    At the same time, his policy has been consistently that there is no military solution to Syria. The Sunnis cannot prevail there and we wouldn’t want them to anyway considering what they would do to the religious minorities. He tried to coax Syria out of the Shiite paradigm. Then he tried to get Russia to help him kill the sectarian paradigm. And now he has Russia on board to see this through to an end that isn’t settled by one sect prevailing against the other.

    He has never seen Syria as a proxy war against Iran or Russia or as a war that we need settled in the Sunni’s favor.

    His policy is not in disarray. It’s actually on its first solid footing since his presidency began.

    Of course, the usual suspects continue to insist that no, no, what Obama really wants is to go all BOMBS AWAY!!!! but Boo’s response?  “Derp”.

Comments are closed.