Putin sticks it to Rice, Bush and the US of A

Vladimir (the Great) Putin left the American Secretaries of Defense and State waiting forty minutes for an interview in which he harangued them for eight minutes.  The 'queen' was not amused. No report yet on Gates's response.  

In all seriousness, this is probably the biggest diplomatic slap in the face the United States has suffered since the Jefferson administration.  

The worm has turned.  We will have to start learning to live with it.

•  Links? Blockquotes?

  I fixed your tags, by the way.

  by PatsBard on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:51:18 PM PDT

•  Everything Old Is New Again

  The missles in eastern europe aside, Putin never had it in mind to shoulder up the west. He's a classic russian xenophobe. Russia has always had low esteem as a nation and it didn't change with the onset of their so-called revolution in the late 20th century.  It was inevitable that Russia would revert back to an anti-western position. She's always wanted to be the big boy on the block and now she's doing everything she can to accomplish that. The west should have been more critical of Russia when the forerunner of the war in Chechnya, the sudden explosion of apartment buildings in Moscow, began. What better way for Putin to make Russians accept a war on Chechnya then to make them feel unsafe in their own homes? Now he's coddling the murderers of jounalists and he's stifled any free press that existed in Russia. Cold War 2 has begun.

  by Steamboater on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:55:33 PM PDT

  •  can't argue with any of that.

    But I submit that Condi and her stupidity has made things worse. much worse.

    by agnostic on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:04:02 PM PDT

    •  Condi and Bush

      I shudder to think what kind of smug, obnoxious garbage Bush heaped on Putin whenever they spoke.

      Jesus, what an embarrassment to humanity.

      by PatsBard on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:21:54 PM PDT

  •  For sake of argument

    Steamboater, you make a few statements that one could take exception to. For example:

    He's a classic russian xenophobe.

    Xenohobe means afraid of strangers, outsiders. Is it your belief that Russia has no reason to be wary of America, China, or Europe? Before you answer, remember the Cold War, the two World Wars, and the many centuries of invasion/occupation that Russia has experienced courtesy of her Asian neighbors.

    It was inevitable that Russia would revert back to an anti-western position.

    In the 7 years of this administration, what would a "pro-Western" position have been? Why would Putin have supported that?

    I'm no Russia expert, but here's what I think I see: 1) Putin has defeated the plutocrats and (for better or worse) re-established the Russian state. Big surprise, it doesn't look much like a Western democracy. 2) Putin has recognized the strategic advantages resulting from the combination of formidable nuclear defense capability plus substantial energy resources, and is exploiting those advantages just as any good capitalist would.

    With respect to item #1, I think there was a chance to encourage something closer to a Western-style democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was pissed away in feckless pursuit of pure free-market ideology. Blame Milton Friedman, with an assist from Bill Clinton.

    As for #2, this could be characterized as the student emulating the master. If we wanted the student to behave differently, perhaps the master should have set a different example.

    If we want Russia to behave in a more friendly manner, we have to show why that would be to the advantage of Russia. We won't see that from Bush, obviously. Will Hillary and the Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic party be able to make the case? I have my doubts, but I'm willing to be shown that they can.

    by DBunn on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:56:23 PM PDT

•  He also threatened (after the meeting)

  to cancel an arms limitation agreement (NIXONIAN roots, and all) from the 1980s on mid-range  nuke tipped missiles.

  the real problem is that our 35 billion a year being wasted on our anti-BALLISTIC missile system (untested, unproven, and still missing major parts which have not even been designed, much less built). Ballistic missiles have three distinct places where they can be hit. Lift off, ballistic flight (deployment) and the end phase.

  Mid-range missiles are shorter range, but far more dangerous. They take off faster, they can fly at supersonic speeds at low altitudes (making detection pretty damned near impossible) and they are incredibly accurate.

  Even our silly space defense system can do some damage to ballistic missiles. they will have no impact on midrange supercruise missiles. In fact, mid range missiles are pretty much unstoppable. Small enough to transport. High lift off speed, pretty good range, packing ahuge punch, and impossible to detect.

  Yes, we have to hand it to Condi. She is ONE HELL of a fucking up diplomat.

  by agnostic on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:02:58 PM PDT

  •  Any secretary of state.....

    having to deal with Putin is going to be in a lose-lose situation.  The guy is anti-democracy, anti-freedom and is one of the worst people on Earth.  Why he garners anything but disdain from this website is beyond me.  

    by Hind2 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:48:39 PM PDT

    •  Offhand I would say that Bush killed more

      people than Putin. That must make him worse than Putin.

      by realtime on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:05:23 PM PDT

      •  do some research....

        Me thinks you do not really know much about Putin if you believe he is any better than Bush.

        by Hind2 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:58:15 AM PDT

    •  Respect your foe

      Why he garners anything but disdain...

      Why he garners "anything but disdain" is because he is worthy of our respect, if only as a formidable opponent.

      A good trick would be to turn him from an opponent to an ally. How will we do that? Not by treating him as an opponent.

      In what sense are we not opponents of Russia? If we are trying to maintain an American supremacy that is not supported by fundamental underlying strengths, we must be opponents. But if we are struggling against a common foe, then we are allies.

      What is the common foe of America and Russia? Hint-- the answer is not China. A better question would be what is the common foe of all three major powers.

      I suggest that the answer is the global sustainability crisis. That is the real enemy in this century. America, Russia, China, and every other nation on this earth have the identical interest in not succumbing to famine, plague, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and assorted wars that at best amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      In short, if we do not want Russia to revert to her former oppositional position, then perhaps we should not treat her as a subservient state, but rather welcome her as an ally without whom we cannot prevail against the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.

      by DBunn on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:24:44 PM PDT

      •  the reality in Mother Russia is complex

        What happened i the mid 90s was that pure capitalism, the kind pushed forward by Bremer in Iraq, and by the US under Bush everyplace, even the US, took over in Russia. It literally became dog eat dog, with the bigger dog getting more to eat. The more ruthless you were, the greater the chances of your success. I personally know of store, restaurant and factory owners that persevered and made it to today. In those days, you had two choices:
        a) bribe your local mafia (often led by ex-special forces or ex-KGB)
        b) hire your own body guards 24/7

        B) worked fine, so long as they were ruthless and weren't bribed for even more by the mafia.

        The people hated it. It was dangerous, it was crazy, and crime was widespread and rampant.  Putin changed that, and I would bet that 60% of the population adores him for removing a lot of the criminal element.

        During the crazy years, Chechins also played a huge role in murder for hire and mafia enforcement. They turned their own country into a cesspool. I was there in 1998. Trust me, it was not pleasant. Chechins also started organized attacks on Russian installations, and even took down professors, civil leaders, and more before they attacked that school.

        Putin was a strong armed devil, I agree, but you cannot ignore the circumstances. WHich you apparently wish to do.

        by agnostic on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:09:44 AM PDT

        •  Freedom and security

          There really ARE situations where people would want to give up some freedom in order to gain some security. Your comment about extreme Wild-West conditions in Russia in the 90s illustrates the concept.

          Putin seems to have established a degree of orderliness within domestic society, and some capacity for the Russian government to act on behalf of the national interest in international affairs. But these accomplisments have come at the cost of greater authoritarianism, loss of press freedom, etc.

          It will be interesting to see where Russia goes from here. Greater movement in the direction of liberal democracy would be welcome.

          BTW, can I assume that this comment

          Putin was a strong armed devil, I agree, but you cannot ignore the circumstances. WHich you apparently wish to do.

          ... was directed to someone farther up the thread, and not to me?

          by DBunn on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:58:16 AM PDT

          •  oh yessirree bob, sorry.

            twas higher up that mine arrow was aimed.

            by agnostic on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 08:19:40 AM PDT

•  Dude

  Did you have a posting mishap?  It's like you forgot to paste in the main body of your diary "below the fold"....

  If so, you can still edit the diary and post the rest of it.

  by amitxjoshi on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:15:51 PM PDT

  •  Previous diaries are done in the same style

    Though, granted, the last one was two years ago. And I was the first poster then, too, coincidentally enough. LOL

    by PatsBard on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:23:37 PM PDT

    •  plus ca change...:-)

      by amitxjoshi on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:26:48 PM PDT

•  Putin should appear on US television.

  I think that Putin should state his case against Star Wars missiles on US TV. It makes no sense to protect ourselves from missiles from a rogue regime that would only turn to terrorism. China's nuclear posture is also limited in number and can only inflict pain--but they would only have to build a few more missiles to keep up their capacity to do that.

  Star Wars defenses make some sense against Russia, the only nation whose arsenal is big enough to inflict serious damage. It would take a huge outlay for Russia to maintain that posture, but less than we'd have to pay to install that missile shield.

  Putin should explain that either Bush is lying to him about how the missile defense is "not directed at Russia," or he's lying to the taxpayers that it's capable of doing a single thing beyond boosting the deficit and forcing cuts to services the voters want.

  by Judge Moonbox on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:17:35 PM PDT

  •  Putin Starring In ...

    Yeah, on COPS! Then should arrest him for murder.

    by Steamboater on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:36:26 PM PDT

•  WTF Happened?

  Why did Putin go on a rant?

  Why were Condi & Gates meeting with him?

  Was Condi rusty on her Russian?

  by Empower Ink on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:21:30 PM PDT

•  Let's Remember Something.

  Putin is EXKGB

  -Russia is not an ally of the United States.

  -Russia has wielded her energy reserves as a club against Eastern Europe in an attempt to regain Soviet Era influence.

  -Vladimir Putin's enemies keep coming up.. dead.

  Perspective.

  by Cawdor on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:32:14 PM PDT

  •  A little more perspective on policy

    We know that U. S. administrations have tried to kill Castro over 600 times in spite of the fact that Cubans are better off now than they were when the U. S. and the mafia ran Cuba.
    The U. S. has terrorized and bullied every small country it can.  Check out some of our military interventions.

    A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS:
    From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan
    http://www.zmag.org/...

    A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
    1945 to the Present
    by William Blum
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/...

    by realtime on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:20:45 PM PDT

•  Putin got fed up with Bush

  like the vast majority of people in the world did.
  I think it's MAYBE as simple as that. As Bush got  more arrogant and aggressive, Putin turned against him.
  On the other hand, maybe Putin was a conniving KGB faker all along, playing Bush for a fool until Putin was holding stronger cards.
  Can we ever really know?  

  by Rosemary on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:47:54 PM PDT

•  "I looked into his eyes, saw his soul"

  I cannot believe how chummy this administration got with that guy. Even at the time (before he really proved me right) I was saying WTF are you thinking?

  by USArmyParatrooper on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:07:37 PM PDT

•  Putin is a fucking terrorist...

  on the same level with Bush.  He is on a short list of people that really may cause an end to the world.  

  by Hind2 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:46:35 PM PDT

  •  So's Bush.

    Quiz: which terrorist has more access to destructive weapons?  More power to destroy?

    I'll give ya a hint.  

    by Cliss on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:25:35 PM PDT