McCain Was Right About Putin

[Jacobtm]

Add 'em up.  The numbers aren't even close.  I'm not saying what we did was right, I'm saying it's not in the same league as the wrong committed by Russians.

Of course, but to say "I only killed a fraction of the amount of people you killed!" doesn't amount to moral high ground.

[dead0man]

It would depend on the context.

[Beet]

Jacobtm is right to some extent. The US certainly supported murderous dictatorships and other groups in the name of the Cold War, all the way to the end. There was some decisive advantage that the West had; its own societies were freer and more humane internally. Because of this, our grip on Western Europe was not like the Soviets' grip on the East. In the realm of international policy that doesn't necessarily mean moral high ground.

[Jacobtm]

It would depend on the context.

We don't need to use the subjunctive here. The U.S. funded and promoted slaughter all throughout the world.

Did SAVAK need to exist to defeat the Soviet Union, or did the brutal oppression of the Iranian people and the overthrow of their democratic government allow the Islamic Revolution to take power and turn Iran against the U.S. for generations?

How much current "socialism" in Latin America is due to the memory of U.S. supported "capitalist" dictatorsips in the 70's and 80's?

Many 3rd world leaders dare not even use the word "capitalism" because they don't equate it with free movement of goods and services etc., they equate it with the U.S. government coming into your country, taking over its political establishment, selling out all your land to U.S. companies, stealing your natural resources and then telling you that you ought to be happy with the outcome.

That isn't Capitalism, it's imperialism. Now that we're not doing that anymore, and real Capitalism is (whether they like it or not) enriching Latin American countries, things are going really well for them. But tell them that it's Capitalism that has helped extend their life-expectancy or slashed poverty and they will balk because the idea of Capitalism was ruined for them by the U.S.'s reprehensible behavior in the 20th century.

[2952-0-0]

If it weren't for the exorbitant price of natural resources, then it would be Russia struggling to hold itself together.

[12th Doctor]

The best McCain can do is start another Cold War with Russia. Seriously, I am no Putin fan, but there were factors in Russia in the past 20 years that explain why he is supported. We won in the 1980's because we had the moral high ground as well as military, and that is where we need to stay; not get into a Cold War with Russia while still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To say we had a high moral ground is rewriting history. We may have been better, but both the USSR and USA were devils in the cold war. We won because we were in every way the more powerful country.

We had it over the Russians in the '80s. We are in every way more powerful than Cuba; Libya; and North Korea, but those regimes are still around. No, there was something in the basic culture of the European people at that time that prevented men like Honecker and Ceaucescu and the 1991 coup leaders from achieving their ends. There was a real appeal of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, and Western values among the masses; and to a great extent there still is. But the reason why the Putin-Medvedev regime has had so much success in Russia is that those Western values have lost a great deal of its glitter; both because of what happened in Russia in the last two decades and what has happened to the West in the last decade.

No, I would say that its what has happened in Russia, mainly.  Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states have had no trouble moving ahead.  The countries that have had a rough time were the ones directly affected by Russian corruption, like Ukraine, Belarus, the Central Asian states and, of course, Russia herself.

Russia was more affected because Russia was poorer and more distant from the center of Europe, and suffered worse politically and economically. 2000 was the turning point for Russia and 2001 showed what the US response would be; withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, while turning an essentially blind eye to human rights abuses. The message to Putin was that treaties don't pay, but nationalism does.

Of course, because Putin was an angel before the US did such things.  And man, we were mean to him...

"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul"

You're oversimplifying things. The US has limited influence over such things, but where we do have influence we can either use it wisely or unwisely...

It wasn't our job to pull Russia out of the gutter.

No, but we live in the same world as a Russia that has pulled itself out of the gutter by following Putin, hence his government's popularity and grip on the country.

Ummm... okay.  Did this debate have a point, because I know I didn't start off by arguing against you on that bit of obviousness.

Reading the thread, it looks like you started by saying that what happened in Russia was unaffected by the US because the Eastern European countries had different experiences, and I argued where US policy might have had some influence. Then you turned it around into "it's not our job/not our fault" which is something entirely different. It's certainly not our fault, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze our actions critically.

But if we played no major part in the outcome then what good does that do?  I'm the most introspective person you are likely to find, but following your reasoning, I really don't see the point.

[12th Doctor]

It would depend on the context.

We don't need to use the subjunctive here. The U.S. funded and promoted slaughter all throughout the world.

Did SAVAK need to exist to defeat the Soviet Union, or did the brutal oppression of the Iranian people and the overthrow of their democratic government allow the Islamic Revolution to take power and turn Iran against the U.S. for generations?

How much current "socialism" in Latin America is due to the memory of U.S. supported "capitalist" dictatorsips in the 70's and 80's?

Many 3rd world leaders dare not even use the word "capitalism" because they don't equate it with free movement of goods and services etc., they equate it with the U.S. government coming into your country, taking over its political establishment, selling out all your land to U.S. companies, stealing your natural resources and then telling you that you ought to be happy with the outcome.

That isn't Capitalism, it's imperialism. Now that we're not doing that anymore, and real Capitalism is (whether they like it or not) enriching Latin American countries, things are going really well for them. But tell them that it's Capitalism that has helped extend their life-expectancy or slashed poverty and they will balk because the idea of Capitalism was ruined for them by the U.S.'s reprehensible behavior in the 20th century.

The methods employed by the US were in response to far worse methods being used by the communists.  We had to respond, bottom line.  I would say this cycle started in Berlin, in 1946, but in fact it goes back to the very heart of communism.  Communism is not a compromise ideology.  Communism is not a moral ideology.  What is best in communism is that the revolution be advanced, regardless of the toll, and communists throughout history have behaved as such.  If our methods seemed brutal at times, it was because the people we were dealing with were infinity more so.

[Jacobtm]

It would depend on the context.

We don't need to use the subjunctive here. The U.S. funded and promoted slaughter all throughout the world.

Did SAVAK need to exist to defeat the Soviet Union, or did the brutal oppression of the Iranian people and the overthrow of their democratic government allow the Islamic Revolution to take power and turn Iran against the U.S. for generations?

How much current "socialism" in Latin America is due to the memory of U.S. supported "capitalist" dictatorsips in the 70's and 80's?

Many 3rd world leaders dare not even use the word "capitalism" because they don't equate it with free movement of goods and services etc., they equate it with the U.S. government coming into your country, taking over its political establishment, selling out all your land to U.S. companies, stealing your natural resources and then telling you that you ought to be happy with the outcome.

That isn't Capitalism, it's imperialism. Now that we're not doing that anymore, and real Capitalism is (whether they like it or not) enriching Latin American countries, things are going really well for them. But tell them that it's Capitalism that has helped extend their life-expectancy or slashed poverty and they will balk because the idea of Capitalism was ruined for them by the U.S.'s reprehensible behavior in the 20th century.

The methods employed by the US were in response to far worse methods being used by the communists.  We had to respond, bottom line.  I would say this cycle started in Berlin, in 1946, but in fact it goes back to the very heart of communism.  Communism is not a compromise ideology.  Communism is not a moral ideology.  What is best in communism is that the revolution be advanced, regardless of the toll, and communists throughout history have behaved as such.  If our methods seemed brutal at times, it was because the people we were dealing with were infinity more so.

Harsh methods to defeat the Soviet Union is one thing, but SAVAK did nothing but turn more people against the U.S. Pinochet the same. These crimes are inexcusable, and the fact that people in the U.S. think that torturing and murdering local populaces in 3rd world countries somehow helped to defeat the Soviet Union is just astonishing.

[12th Doctor]

Harsh methods to defeat the Soviet Union is one thing, but SAVAK did nothing but turn more people against the U.S. Pinochet the same. These crimes are inexcusable, and the fact that people in the U.S. think that torturing and murdering local populaces in 3rd world countries somehow helped to defeat the Soviet Union is just astonishing.

I'm confused.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I fail to see where Bush was wrong about Putin.

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912545-6,00.html

After the U.S. overthrew Iran's Parliamentary government and set up the Shah in power, his domestic intelligence/security agency, SAVAK, began doing all the terrible things you'd imagine from a dictatorial domestic intelligence agency.

These are the "harsh methods" that you were apparently supporting, but I doubt that once you read about what SAVAK, the Shah, and the U.S. were guilty of in Iran, that you will think this was something that helped defeat the Soviet Union. This was thuggery from an unpopular dictator desperately trying to keep his hold on power, nothing more. This was the work of a leader we had installed after deposing of a more-or-less democratically chosen Prime Minister. This is what I'm talking about. This is one of the atrocities that people throughout the 3rd world link with the U.S. and its influence.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912545-6,00.html

After the U.S. overthrew Iran's Parliamentary government and set up the Shah in power, his domestic intelligence/security agency, SAVAK, began doing all the terrible things you'd imagine from a dictatorial domestic intelligence agency.

These are the "harsh methods" that you were apparently supporting, but I doubt that once you read about what SAVAK, the Shah, and the U.S. were guilty of in Iran, that you will think this was something that helped defeat the Soviet Union. This was thuggery from an unpopular dictator desperately trying to keep his hold on power, nothing more. This was the work of a leader we had installed after deposing of a more-or-less democratically chosen Prime Minister. This is what I'm talking about. This is one of the atrocities that people throughout the 3rd world link with the U.S. and its influence.

Apparently you didn't get the joke.

[Dan the Roman]

The point of this thread, that McCain was "right" about Putin misses the point. The real question is what should be done about it, and on that note, nothing that came out of the mouths either of McCain or his senior advisers inspired much confidence.

What does McCain suggest we do about Putin? Isolate Russia? There is no appetite for that in Europe that receives 25% of its gas from Russia. Expand Nato? The Germans have already made clear they will veto any effort to add additional former Soviet Republics?

Second these comparisons to Hitler are absurd. Putin is not set on world or even regional domination. He swatted a small country traditionally within Russia's sphere of influence which was engaging in belligerent actions towards Russia. The fact is that Russia is a major power and it has a sphere of interest within which it is premminant. Countries within that sphere do not necessarily have to fall under Russian domination, but they have to realize that provoking Russia is a very bad idea. The United States simply is not capable of doing anything about this.

John McCain may be a Churchill, but Churchill was a politician who alienated friends and discredited whatever cause he was associated with for most of his career because he was an extremist in everything he did. It was not until 1940 that he achieved real recognition. . He saw Hitler as a threat, but he also felt Gandhi was equally bad, and even in the middle of the 1930s he was mentally incapable of differentiating between the two. In fact, he arguably weakened the anti-Hitler campaign in the 1930s through his association, and did far less to to steer public opinion against Munich than did Eden or Duff Cooper. His saving grace was that he located a cause in which his natural extremism and inability to grasp subtlety was an asset rather than a liability. If McCain became Prime Minister of England in June of 1940 he would be remembered as a great leader too. Had Chamberlain been President of the United States post 9/11 he would never have gone into Iraq, engaged Iran, and be far more popular than Bush is today.

All this comes down to is that every leader has a time and place. McCain's solution to every crisis is to fight, and his view of every clash is black and white. There was a time for that, and there may well be again. It is doubtful in my view that that time is today.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Might I begin by saying, what a horrible article this is. Jack Kelly frequently claims throughout the article that Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia, compare President Bush to Neville Chamberlain, not to mention only name John McCain in the article once.

Whilst Putin might be seen as the "power behind the throne" behind President Dmitry Medvedev, and a vast majority think that, even myself on numerous occasions, Medvedev was firmly in command during the South Ossetia Crisis and Putin supported Medvedev's actions against the Georgians. Though I believe if Putin was in Medvedev's position, as President of Russia, Putin probably would have taken a tougher stance against the Georgians.

What an absurd comparison to make between Neville Chamberlain and George W. Bush. Really absurd. Two different men, from two different eras. Maybe a better example might be Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush. Now that might be more so absurd than the comparison between Chamberlain and Bush. But I must admit, I am thinking out aloud. My basis for a comparison between Roosevelt and Bush is primarily due to Roosevelt allowing the Soviet's to take up a vast majority of Eastern Europe upon the conclusion of the Second World War, for the sake of "keeping the peace" between the two post WWII superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union. Although, once again Roosevelt and Bush were two different men, from two different eras, I could imagine President Bush reacting in a similar way, if it meant "keeping the peace". Stupid statement. I know.

Russia, is not seen as a threat against the United States, at least for now. Though the impending Administration, to be led by either President Barack Obama or John McCain might take that stance against Russia. However, I find it to be unlikely. The US-Russian alliance has grown in strength since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. If the US Government can support someone as corrupt as Yeltsin and Putin, then surely they would support someone like Medvedev, which the Bush Administration has done thus far. Judging by President Bush's reaction to the South Ossetia Crisis, it seems to me that for now, the Russians are not a threat, though if a similar crisis was to occur on a much larger scale then the United States would begin to consider the Russians as a threat.

Ah yes, John McCain was right about Vladimir Putin. Well Mr. Kelly, I didn't see any examples throughout your article of John McCain's prophetic claims about Vladimir Putin. Maybe next time you should actually mention McCain's more than once, if you are writing an article with the title "McCain was Right about Putin". Regards, Conor Flynn.

[dead0man]

Maybe a better example might be Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush. Now that might be more so absurd than the comparison between Chamberlain and Bush. But I must admit, I am thinking out aloud. My basis for a comparison between Roosevelt and Bush is primarily due to Roosevelt allowing the Soviet's to take up a vast majority of Eastern Europe upon the conclusion of the Second World War, for the sake of "keeping the peace" between the two post WWII superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union. Although, once again Roosevelt and Bush were two different men, from two different eras, I could imagine President Bush reacting in a similar way, if it meant "keeping the peace". Stupid statement. I know.

FDR was dead by the time we turned our back on Eastern Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't go that far.  And their invasion of Georgia might have removed all that good will we've built up in the last couple of decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Begin to consider"?  What an odd thing to say.  At what point would they be an actual threat?  Russian tanks in Warsaw?  Berlin?  Paris?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

FDR was dead by the time we turned our back on Eastern Europe.

Whilst then President Roosevelt was dead before the United States turned their back on Eastern Europe, he did admit that he gave Stalin too many concessions in Eastern Europe, in order to "keep the peace" in April 1945. However, as soon as Roosevelt was planning on doing something about Stalin's domination of Eastern Europe he was dead.

I wouldn't go that far.  And their invasion of Georgia might have removed all that good will we've built up in the last couple of decades.

You bring up a fair point, especially when you take into calculation the United States', especially the Bush Administration's support of Georgia's entrance into NATO and the European Union, throughout his Presidency. I do expect US-Georgian relations to strengthen more during either a Obama or McCain Administration.

Begin to consider"?  What an odd thing to say.  At what point would they be an actual threat?  Russian tanks in Warsaw?  Berlin?  Paris?

This is reminding myself of Anti-Communist Propaganda in the United States throughout the Cold War. The United States should begin to be weary about the Russians, when you hear reports of the Russian Government going forth with proposals to increase military expenditure, such as those heard in February 2007, not to mention when the Russians are against ideas of an anti-missile shield over Europe (Dmitry Medvedev said something about such a plan a while back).

[dead0man]

FDR was dead by the time we turned our back on Eastern Europe.

Whilst then President Roosevelt was dead before the United States turned their back on Eastern Europe, he did admit that he gave Stalin too many concessions in Eastern Europe, in order to "keep the peace" in April 1945. However, as soon as Roosevelt was planning on doing something about Stalin's domination of Eastern Europe he was dead.

If he had lived and kept the Soviets out of Eastern Europe even I could look past his horrible policies at home and think of him as a better than average President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is reminding myself of Anti-Communist Propaganda in the United States throughout the Cold War. The United States should begin to be weary about the Russians, when you hear reports of the Russian Government going forth with proposals to increase military expenditure, such as those heard in February 2007, not to mention when the Russians are against ideas of an anti-missile shield over Europe (Dmitry Medvedev said something about such a plan a while back).
[/quote]Right, they are already a threat.  Actually, they've never stopped being a threat.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Right, they are already a threat.  Actually, they've never stopped being a threat.

My post was quite contradictory was it not?

Try telling that to the United States State Department. On this board, in this thread I did indeed asked a US Government official, the US Consul General in Melbourne, Earl Irving to be precise about Russia this time last year. Find out more on that thread dead0man if you like.

[dead0man]

Yeah, I read that.  Just because an Ambassador says Russia isn't a threat doesn't mean Russia is not a threat.  I'm a little confused as to what you're getting at though.  Are you saying Russia is a threat despite what other people say (and thus agreeing with me) or are you saying they are not a threat?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Are you saying Russia is a threat despite what other people say (and thus agreeing with me) or are you saying they are not a threat?

In all honesty I believe that the Russians are flying under the radar and aren't at the moment seen as a threat to US interests abroad. So yes, I do agree that the Russians are a threat. Hell, I believe I even brought that up with Irving, though my memory about our discussion, apart from Irving saying that the US does not consider the Russians a threat is vague. Hooray for another contradiction, or so I think ??