Vladimir Putin lays out a menacing choice for the West

[AkMike]

The Post's View
Vladimir Putin lays out a menacing choice for the West

 By Editorial Board October 27 at 7:22 PM

ANYONE WONDERING what Western leaders have been up against when they try to reason with Vladi­mir Putin need only read the transcript of the Russian ruler’s three-hour performance at the annual Valdai conference in Sochi on Friday. Mr. Putin was politely questioned by an assortment of Moscow-approved foreign journalists, scholars and former policymakers about Russia’s aggression in Ukraine — and out poured a poisonous mix of lies, conspiracy theories, thinly veiled threats of further aggression and, above all, seething resentment toward the United States.

“Having declared itself the winner of the Cold War,” the United States, with the help of “its satellites,” according to Mr. Putin, promoted a “unipolar world [that] is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries.” According to Mr. Putin, Washington has created chaos across the world by conspiring to foment revolutions, including what he views as an armed “coup d’etat” in Ukraine. Even worse, it believes “there is no need to take into account Russia’s views.”

Mr. Putin portrayed the invasion of Crimea as the corrective to this “imperialism.” “The bear will not even bother to ask permission,” he boasted. “Here we consider it master of the taiga, and . . . it will not let anyone have its taiga.” He made it clear that most of Ukraine is part of the “taiga” over which the Kremlin claims dominion — and Ukraine, he warned, “will certainly not be the last” “example of such sorts of conflicts that affect [the] international power balance.”

Other nations “at the intersection of major states’ geopolitical interests,” Mr. Putin said, could suffer from “internal instability,” leading to “a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers.” NATO’s Baltic members, as former republics of the Soviet Union, will no doubt pay particular attention to that prediction.

In a somewhat positive sign, Mr. Putin conceded that Western sanctions against Russia “are a hindrance” and, after more railing at the United States, he offered that “we are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations.” He even said that Russia is willing to resume discussions of nuclear arms reductions — a favored initiative of President Obama that Mr. Putin stiffed two years ago.

The problem is Mr. Putin’s notion of what would constitute an acceptable settlement. After recalling with apparent nostalgia “the rules” of the Cold War, and twice mentioning that former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe on a dais at the United Nations (“the United States and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone”), Mr. Putin protested that “we don’t need to be a superpower.” However, he said, “we want others to stay out of our affairs and to stop pretending that they rule the world.”

Judging from his rhetoric, Mr. Putin is offering the West a choice between ceding Russia its “taiga” — including dominion over Ukraine and whatever other parts of Eurasia that Mr. Putin chooses to claim — and “a whole set of violent conflicts.” No wonder that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has talked to the Russian ruler more than any other Western statesman, described him as “in another world.” Mr. Obama recently lumped Mr. Putin’s Russia with Ebola and terrorism as major threats facing the world. The speech infuriated Moscow, but if the Kremlin chief was hoping to show that he doesn’t deserve such treatment, he failed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...dac31a031_story.html

[Gator]

    “The bear will not even bother to ask permission,” he [Putin] boasted. “Here we consider it master of the taiga, and . . . it will not let anyone have its taiga.”   He made it clear that most of Ukraine is part of the “taiga” over which the Kremlin claims dominion — and Ukraine, he warned, “will certainly not be the last” “example of such sorts of conflicts that affect [the] international power balance.”
     

I wonder if the Russian speakers here consider this an accurate translation of Putin's remarks.

If true, this is incredible sword rattling.  Putin is a wild card, potentially a loose cannon. 

Maybe the West should arm Ukraine with modern weapons. 

So Putin mentioned Khrushchev and the alleged shoe pounding with pride, as an example to not tangle with what?  A mad person.   The shoe incident took place in 1960.  In 1962 Khrushchev had to eat his shoe and withdraw his missiles from Cuba.

[lordtiberius]

Anyone else try reading this speech? 

Main take away for me is how tedious this man is.

[Muzh]

Anyone else try reading this speech? 

Main take away for me is how tedious this man is.

Are you talking about yourself?

[Muzh]

I wonder if the Russian speakers here consider this an accurate translation of Putin's remarks.

If true, this is incredible sword rattling.  Putin is a wild card, potentially a loose cannon. 

Maybe the West should arm Ukraine with modern weapons. 

So Putin mentioned Khrushchev and the alleged shoe pounding with pride, as an example to not tangle with what?  A mad person.   The shoe incident took place in 1960.  In 1962 Khrushchev had to eat his shoe and withdraw his missiles from Cuba.

C'mon Gator. It's the same as when Mitt mentioned the 47 percent of leeches at a Tea party function. Then he changed his tune when he was serious.

[Anotherkiwi]

I wonder if the Russian speakers here consider this an accurate translation of Putin's remarks.

I've seen it quoted elsewhere (Moscow Times, Kyiv Post, etc).  Translation appears to be pretty much the same everywhere.

[fathertime]

As far as I'm concerned Putin hit a home-run with that powerful speech...he put a lot of cards out on the table about US actions.


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

So Putin mentioned Khrushchev and the alleged shoe pounding with pride, as an example to not tangle with what?  A mad person.   The shoe incident took place in 1960.  In 1962 Khrushchev had to eat his shoe and withdraw his missiles from Cuba.

What a silly dishonest interpretation of events.  Khrushchev did not eat his shoe and Russia got some of what they wanted..the US removed the Intermediate range Nukes from Turkey, and the US agreed  not to invade Cuba....


Fathertime!   

[lordtiberius]

Ahh not quite dishonest, 2 years later removed by Brezhnev.

[AC]

As far as I'm concerned Putin hit a home-run with that powerful speech...he put a lot of cards out on the table about US actions.


Fathertime!

Of course it does to you, Komrad.

[AC]

I wonder if the Russian speakers here consider this an accurate translation of Putin's remarks.

If true, this is incredible sword rattling.  Putin is a wild card, potentially a loose cannon. 

Maybe the West should arm Ukraine with modern weapons.

So Putin mentioned Khrushchev and the alleged shoe pounding with pride, as an example to not tangle with what?  A mad person.   The shoe incident took place in 1960.  In 1962 Khrushchev had to eat his shoe and withdraw his missiles from Cuba.

Maybe the West should have never interfered in the first place.  Mr. GQblues himself posted a video of a young Senator Obama meddling in Ukraine.

[Photo Guy]

At the time Kennedy was killed, Khrushchev liked him and was looking forward to working with him, according to his son.

Putin is certainly a dangerous loose cannon. He has not come to terms with the basics:
Most Ukrainians have chosen a life similar to the EU and that includes politics.
He's in denial about this. Putin has instilled fear in many countries, places where there was little fear before. That fear can even be found in Belarus, where a Soviet styled dictator reigns. Countries that were recently neutral towards Russia, now see Putin as someone to fear, someone to guard against. It appears that Belarus might cooperate with Ukraine militarily, as now Belarus also fears Russia. When Russia creates fear, the result is isolation. Putin does not even realize the negative effects of isolation. He does not realize the benefits of trust. 

[Belvis]

        “The bear will not even bother to ask permission,” he [Putin] boasted. “Here we consider it master of the taiga, and . . . it will not let anyone have its taiga.”   He made it clear that most of Ukraine is part of the “taiga” over which the Kremlin claims dominion — and Ukraine, he warned, “will certainly not be the last” “example of such sorts of conflicts that affect [the] international power balance.”

         
I wonder if the Russian speakers here consider this an accurate translation of Putin's remarks.
If true, this is incredible sword rattling.  Putin is a wild card, potentially a loose cannon. 

The translation is accurate though then you try to judge Putin's frase by interpretation of it from politically motivated source. I'll try to recover the full context. Putin were comparing the approaches towards Kosovo and Crimea precedents. You know the different attitude of West to the very close cases. Putin said in the course of the discussion:

I'll remind you the ancient Greek proverb. What is permissible for God is not permissible for an ox. May be it's not permissible for an ox but I want to tell you: the bear won't ask for permission. He is considered the owner of the taiga, but he, I know for a fact, does not want to go to a different climatic zone, as it is uncomfortable for him there. However, he will not give it to anyone else; I think that this should be clear.

So you view the Putin's remark like this picture:


And we see it like this one:

Maybe the West should arm Ukraine with modern weapons. 

You're not the only one who voiced this thought about intensifying bloodshed.  France’s ambassador to US answered to these good intentions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-22/-poker-player-putin-bluffed-and-won-french-envoy-says.html

We are not going to send our soldiers in Ukraine. It does not make sense to send weapons to the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians would be defeated real easily, so it will only prolong the war and lead to a still bigger Russian victory.

[Photo Guy]

BTW, How do Russian rationalize this idea:
'...According to Mr. Putin, Washington has created chaos across the world by conspiring to foment revolutions, including what he views as an armed “coup d’etat” in Ukraine...'
    (I've read numerous news articles that that show us Putin's view)

In contrast, this statement from Putin back during the Presidential election:
Moscow Times:
...Putin told an audience of government officials and business leaders that Russia would "respect the choice of the Ukrainian people" in order to assuage tensions in the country, although he said the election itself would be an illegitimate political exercise. ..

So Putin contradicts himself. He respects the choice of the Ukrainian people, but he doesn't respect their election process, and he continues to label the current govt.' a coup d'etat. To me, this looks like madness. It looks like he has no respect for anyone who disagrees with his neo-Soviet ideology.

[Photo Guy]

Belvis, you are correct: Putin sees Ukraine in terms of 'ownership'. Archaic.

[AC]

Belvis, you are correct:  Putin sees Ukraine in terms of 'ownership'.  Archaic.

 


Putin's speech is just a repeat of old Soviet tactics which generally work well against peasants who are not capable of thinking for themselves.  Ukraine is showing itself as a country which wants to break free from the shackles of slavery to the old Soviet ways.  Putin must be laughing about his speech to his elite and wealthy friends:  he knows that he has whipped the Russian peasants  into a frenzy with his rhetoric about the West.  Fear and paranoia is what peasants respond to; and we see that his popularity is still relatively high.

[Gator]

       


The translation is accurate though then you try to judge Putin's frase by interpretation of it from politically motivated source. I'll try to recover the full context. Putin were comparing the approaches towards Kosovo and Crimea precedents. You know the different attitude of West to the very close cases.

So you view the Putin's remark like this picture:


And we see it like this one:

Thanks for the clarification.  It resembles a double entendre.   The Western press should have done a better job of picking up on the subtle aspects.

You're not the only one who voiced this thought about intensifying bloodshed. 

To make it clear, I am against arming Ukraine or doing anything that results in more bloodshed.  I am also against Russia's intervention. 

[JayH]

To make it clear, I am against arming Ukraine or doing anything that results in more bloodshed.  I am also against Russia's intervention.

Gator--the problem is this-- not arming Ukraine leaves the blood being spilt of Ukrainians trying to defend their homeland.
As it is-- the superior weapons and technology of the Russian forces has the potential to make it a one-sided battle.
Giving Ukraine the capacity to defend themselves is not escalating the situation-but it can give them the means to defend their borders
Another factor to consider--the more effective the defence potential of Ukraine the more Russia and particularly Putin will be deterred.No bully wants to face a more even contest.
Take note--of Putin's ridiculous comments in Sochi-there will be no end until Russia is defeated- and the faster the means to achieve that is created --the better we will all be-- and even more so for Ukraine.

Note--literally as I write this the Russians are pushing very hard now-- as in today.I wrote previously that this was coming-- looks like it has started-on several fronts-- and maybe  a new one any hour.

So really-- that help is needed urgently.

[lordtiberius]

And where will this help come from?  The Americans that you love so much?

[JayH]

And where will this help come from?  The Americans that you love so much?

Seriously LT--there is a type of idiotic American that has left a bad taste in the rest of the world  about the good o'l US of A--your type of ra ra stupidity is taking that to new heights.
If you really are intent on being a moron-- go find a road to play in somewhere!

[Photo Guy]

To make it clear, I am against arming Ukraine or doing anything that results in more bloodshed.  I am also against Russia's intervention.

This does not make any sense because we all know the Russians are arming the rebels. So the Ukrainian patriots should not be armed? Illogical. I say- send the Ukrainians as many anti-tank weapons as possible. And more surveillance drones.

[AC]

Seriously LT--there is a type of idiotic American that has left a bad taste in the rest of the world  about the good o'l US of A--your type of ra ra stupidity is taking that to new heights.
If you really are intent on being a moron-- go find a road to play in somewhere!

Not very kind, especially considering that you're kind are the exact kind who constantly criticize the USA for being the "policeman" of the World but then complain that we're not fast enough to help your particular pet peeve of what you think we should do.

This is one thing that President Obama got right in a recent speech about our intervention against ISIS.  He said something along the lines of:  "Who is the World going to call?  Russia?  China?  No, they call the USA.  Even those who are most critical of the USA are the first to call."

[AkMike]

And that's from the same moron that helped destroy Ukraine's weapons'

"Flashback: Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine
Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine
The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.

[AC]

And that's from the same moron that helped destroy Ukraine's weapons'

"Flashback: Senator Obama pushed bill that helped destroy more than 15,000 TONS of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine
Obama traveled to Ukraine with Sen. Dick Lugar in 2005 just seven months after he became a senator, touring surplus weapons stockpiles
Most of the small arms and ammunition were left over when Soviets withdrew from Eastern bloc nations, and later dumped in Ukraine
The two senators secured U.S. funding to help destroy the weapons instead of leaving them intact


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.

This is true.  I think it was GQblues who posted a youtube video link of this, which I previously mentioned.  The problem with US assistance around the globe is that we never really can get it right for everybody; there's always somebody who is not happy.  It's always based on somebody's particular wish about what they feel is important.  I personally agree with George Soros that Ukraine is far more important than ISIS however obviously none of us venting our spleens here have any control over what Congress and the President actually do.

[AkMike]

I personally agree with George Soros that Ukraine is far more important than ISIS however obviously none of us venting our spleens here have any control over what Congress and the President actually do.

Not quite correct.

 November 4th is right around the corner!