Putin’s backtalking is just another sign that the Bush administration is a spent force
Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10:19AM ARTICLE: “Putin Hits Back, Criticizing U.S. In Yearly Address: Russian Leader Call for Stronger Military,” by Judith Ingram, Washington Post, 11 May 2006, p. A1.
Nice line: “We are aware of what is going on in the world. Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, he eats without listening, and he’s clearly not going to listen to anyone.”
Translation: “The Bush Administration does what it wants with its military and energy policies. It decides to invade and conquer one of the world’s largest oil reserves, and does so with little care for allies’ opinions. Even now, though, this regime lectures the world on democracy while consorting with whatever dictators it cares to, so long as their access to energy is assured.”
Cheney warns that Putin is threatening to reverse the gains of the last decade in Russia. Guess what? Plenty of our allies belief Bush and Cheney have already reversed the gains made by globalization over the past decade!
Yes, yes, the Clinton years are looking better by the minute.
So Putin calls for more military spending, which right now in Russia sits at less than one-twentieth of the U.S. military budget--so please, no freaking out just yet!
Sick Man Russia is rapidly turning into Old Man Russia, and Putin is trying to build up a bit of a trust fund, in addition to restoring Russia’s rightful place in the roster of great powers (I’ve seen periods of weak Russia in history, and they’ve never gone well, so yeah, I approve of the strategy).
But instead of understanding those needs and that strategy, this administration seems intent of making sure we reduce our partnership with Russia as much as possible. Why? Apparently right now we need allies less than ever.
Putin’s backtalking, along with Ahmadinejad’s and all the rest around the world, just signals the growing awareness internationally that the Bush Administration is a spent force. This crew is not inclined to change their spots now, and the world knows it.
So, quite frankly, our debates should focus most on who and what comes next for America. The conversation is basically over with the Bush Administration. So it’s time to focus on the new ideas, the new leaders, and the lifers within the bureaucracy who will both rule--for all practical purposes--in the meantime and be there when the new crew arrives.
Reader Comments (14)
“In the working out of a great national program which seeks the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on and are going to be stepped on. But these toes belong to the comparative few who seek to retain or to gain position or riches or both by some short cut which is harmful to the greater good.”
These are fine words and it is a pity that it was not I who thought them up. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of the United States of America, in 1934.
-from Putin's address this week.
It does not even seem related to the scene internationally but a Kabuki dance on the placement and organization of FEMA in or out of DHS is indirectly related to that international scene. 90% of the world handles domestic disasters through its military. The US is one of the few that uses civilian agencies as the primary response organizations. FEMA has always been underfunded and too small to deal with a truly catastrophic situation. It should be in DHS because there is a larger personnel base in an era of dwindling competence in the civil service caused by the past 5 administrations. Nonetheless, the chenoybl event, where the Soviet Union literally ran out of concrete encasing the smoldering reactor, and the Armenian earthquake where the vaunted Soviet Army had to sit and watch survivors die because they could not get shovels to help, indicate that events may also impact great power relationships. In short, fate (events) can intervene. In Russia's case it will be interesting to see how far energy can go to provide Russia with "new divisions." There is no doubt Putin intends to utilize his energy "divisions." As in the comment of Stalin "How many divisions does the Pope have." This is going to be an interesting time in US-Russian relationships since both may be dealing weak cards from their former hegemonic positions. Did we "Win" the cold war or did Russia "lose." We are about to find out if disasterous events played a role in the demise of two political leaderships (both may have lasted about the same time- 70 years for the Communists in Russia and about 70 years for the Republicans since the 1952 election). After all without President Ford's pardon of President Nixon, and Ross Perot there might have been only the probably stolen election of 1960 standing between Ike and a 70 year run. Tom's theories are built in part on the implicit strengths of organization and capacity of the West vis-a-vis the deliberate of other powers (China-beat us at our own game) and Militant Islam (beat us at religious ferocity) and as the Chinese curse states "May you live in interesting times" these fully qualify. My guess is another 25 years will be needed to see if demographics (not energy) is the real challenge to both societies during the present time. In the west, immigration is the problem and in Russia demographic collapse seems to outweigh energy as a driving factor in long-term failure to retain power. This next 25 years calls for the most intellect and most thoughtfulness since the depression and world war or the new dark ages will probably begin. Russia's implicit choice of authoritarianism and the US choice among choices will be given full opportunity to see where each nation stands in relation to the other, and in the world, at the end of those 25 years.
I think that the good Dr. is right on this one. but he is looking to far into the future. what I mean is that he should become more friendly with the punditry in washington. or in other words. stop acting rationaly and come back to the real world where we argue about the national anthem being sung in a different dialect.
talk about lack of connectivity...
The situation in Russia is an example of history repeating itself. Seems to me just like the early 20th century and the rise of facism in europe. Hey where is the Marshall Plan for Russia. Or because of the military industrial complex we need "targets" for our military might - explaining the intelligence power grab of the Pentagon. Sigh, those good old days of the cold war where the Navy and the Air Force were relevant and were allocated a lot of money. We want it back, waaahhh
Anyways, the Bush Admin has officially been turned into a zombie, just dragging along and can't wait to get out of here. What is needed now is to fire all the senior staff and get fresh blood. Condi and Rummy seem tired and spent. Gotta go. Reaction times of the admin seem nonexistant. If you cant even be reactive how can you be proactive?
Vinit Joshi
Democrats for Romney (or Brownback)
Right now, any world leader can talk back to the United States government. U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq and the rest of the world hates the American government. They have no credibility.
>> So, quite frankly, our debates should focus most on who and what comes next for America. The conversation is basically over with the Bush Administration. So it’s time to focus on the new ideas, the new leaders, and the lifers within the bureaucracy who will both rule--for all practical purposes--in the meantime and be there when the new crew arrives.
Which means our focus now is on what will that bureaucracy look like when the next Prez takes the reins? The next two years will show a conservative shaping of these "lifers," in the State Department and CIA to be sure, but also in the Pentagon. That means that this administration still has a lot of potentcy to shape what comes the next few years, as it has little to loose right now in stirring up what it considers to be liberal bastions of lifer government types.
Per Tom's remark about the Clinton years looking better by the minute, while it is true that Yeltsin/Clinton had a much better rapport than Putin and Bush, it's also true that by the end of his term Yeltsin was loathed and his two "reformer" advisors, Gaidar and Chubais, are probably the most hated public figures in Russia, with hefty fortunes acquired between them in the "privatization" process. Whether we like it or not, Putin is far more popular in Russia today than Yeltsin ever was after 1992.
Also, there was that small incident with Wesley Clark and the Russians at the Pristina airport, if the British retired Gen. Jackson is to be believed...
Putin's comments last week on the surface seem to 'up the anty' between our two countries. (They seemed mild to me)
However, could this 'war of words' in reality be some sort of "good cop, bad cop" routine designed to pressure Iran?
I say this because the best and brightest of both our nations work at the highest possible scientific levels together in space.....everyday!!
The U.S. and Russia are working on something substantial in orbit, and I'll bet that our space joint venture ultimately trumps our earthly 'disagreements'.
Yes, yes, the Clinton years are looking better by the minute.
The Clinton years? That would be when we blew the opportunity to help Russia make a less painful transition from their failed command economy to become an integrated part of the Core instead of teetering on the edge of falling into Gap status.
Like Hugo Chavez, Putin can bluster about Bush and the US because oil is now more than $70 a barrel. Oil is now more than $70 a barrel because India and China made a better transition from command to market economies in the 1990s, probably because they didn't listen to the profoundly wrong advice of the Harvard University economics faculty who advised the Russians back in the Clinton years.
"Yes, yes, the Clinton years are looking better by the minute."
Yah, the Bushies are pikers compared to the Clintons: I mean, why waste a mere 4 years trying to come up with strategic traction, when you can waste a whole decade searching for one?
What is forgotten here is that this isn't the first time the Russians have said things like that. I seem to remember, if others here (*ahem*) have forgotten, similar statements from the Russians during the '90s, and their saber-rattling vexation about us then (or am I the only one who remembers the Balkans?)
The Clintons were right with their Balkan policies but "lost" diplomatic capital with Russia as a result. Same here.
The problem for me is that whenever Tom posts things like "Yes, yes, the Clinton years are looking better by the minute," he seems less like a straight-shooting strategic analyst and more like someone pushing for Hillary! '08. Especially since it is at moments like that where a lot of continuity, both good and bad, gets forgotten, and a rather partisan slant predominates.
I'd love a good convo about what comes next for America but would hope that doesn't include the gradual transformation of this site into just another collection of partisan talking-points. Geostrategically, the Clinton years were not that wonderful - they had their moments (as has Bush), but failed in ways that are not really *that* far from how Bush is foundering geostrategically.
(And yah I remember the allies - grudingly, reluctantly, belatedly - being dragged finally, after much death and wasted years, into doing the right thing in the Balkans. I also remember the Russians attitude about that, and our allies' saying they would never do that again. plus la change they haven't).
And, refering to a below post, as for grandiouse plans for a European Action Force ("EU SysAdmin"), they issue blueprints like that seemingly every other year (remember the EU Rapid Deployment Force?). When it comes to follow through, though, well. . .
Balkans? Actually good point. Balkans was where we Russians have started to realise what the game was going on.
I was in Moscow's barricades in August 1991 and I remember anybody around were almost in love with America and the West. And then was Balkan war. We understood that it could be us under NATO bombs if we hadn't nukes in place.
Now it's bloody boring in Russia, TV is just a drag, no real news, anything is state controlled, right. But I remember it was really funny in 90ths when quite a bunch of TV anchores were also working in Liberty radio that in turn was funded by the State Department. I mean key figures in Russian media were payed by American state, can you imagine this mess?? Putin stopped this and I'm not watching TV anymore. You see what I mean? Let's share responsibility guys. You can't complain as to how Russia handles ongoing challenges if you are the challenge.
It's all really sad after all.
Mark in Texas, I think I've seen some of your posts elsewhere before, if I'm thinking of the right Mark from Austin.
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/05/is_russia_abusing_its_energy_p.html
Anyway, we did a post on RussiaBlog rebutting Max Boot's comparison of Chavez and Putin i.e. if the Russian state is experiencing an oil windfall it isn't trickling down to the price Russians pay at the pump, which is comparable to what we pay in the U.S. for an inferior, higher sulfur grade. That's why my esteemed colleague Yuri Mamchur never went jogging growing up in the dirty air of Moscow and now runs eight miles at a time here in Seattle.
In contrast, Venezuelans have the cheapest gas at the pump on Earth and Chavez has given away so much oil he had to buy 100,000 barrels from the Russians just to cover Petroleos de Venezuela's contracts...maybe it was a kickback for buying all those Kalashnikovs, too?
SCO
June 15, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meets to add 4 new members: Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran. This makes the organization 45% of the world's land, 28% of the world's population and 4 nuclear powers.
Iran
Russia has been selling advanced weaponry to Iran. The sort that will make things difficult when Bush decides he wants to attack Iran: torpedos that go more than 200mph underwater, AA missiles designed to take out cruise missiles and smart bombs. I think these weapon sales are a calculated ploy by the Russians to boost profits bigtime (the AA missile sale was valued at $800,000,000+).
10 America fears Iran.
20 Oil prices go up, Russia makes more money.
30 Russia sells weapons to Iran, making money for their aerospace industry.
40 Rhetoric in America ratchets up, making oil prices go higher, Russia makes more money.
50 GOTO 10
Putin has been busy re-nationalizing the petroleum industry (remember Yukos back-tax problem?), so higher income from oil is helpful. By repaying the IMF loans, we lose control over how their economy can be controlled. Russia has also been investing heavily in "downstream" petroleum distribution. Lukoil is the name of the refiners/dealers/distributors in the west. From well to pump, they'll be able to control and handle the petroleum. Shades of Lenin's remark about "the capitalists will sell us the rope we will hang them with."
UN Security Council
Russia hasn't rolled over on the administration's demands for sanctions against Iran. In the rhetoric of this administration you're either for us or against us. This places Russia in the "against us" column.
I believe that we'll see Russia mutate back into a resurrected Soviet Union. Part of the struggle that became labeled The Reformation was a struggle between traditional Christianity and capitalism. In our case, capitalism won. Iran's Islamic Revolution was a rejection of western capitalism; an example of how different Europe could have gone if the Reformation went the "other way." I believe that Russia will likewise reject western capitalism and return to the good old days in the near future. Nostalgia is a deadly trap that deludes its victims before it destroys them. Just look at the fondness folks have during their rush to embrace "the Clinton Years," "the Reagan Years," "the Cold War Years," or "the Leave It To Beaver Years."