.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Picture of the Day - 3








This is the man who brought back the Soviet national anthem.



There's been a little coverage that Putin "criticized the US on Iraq," but take a minute to look at what he really said.

Thank God Russia is not Iraq,".... "It is strong enough to protect its interests within the national territory and, by the way, in other regions of the world."

Answering a questioner who asked about supposed U.S. intentions to gain control over Russia's huge, resource-rich interior, Putin said:

"I know that such ideas are brewing in the heads of some politicians. I think it is a sort of political eroticism which maybe gives someone pleasure but will hardly lead anywhere and the best example of that is Iraq."

"... What we are doing to increase our defense capability is the correct choice and we will continue to do that," Putin added.

Am I mistaken in reading this as a threat to the US to keep its hands out of Russia and its "interests" in "other regions of the world?"

I've been pondering the recent Russian hostility and the "special message" that Putin carried to Ayatollah Khamenei. Was it "give up your nukes and we'll protect you?" (That would be a win for the Russians in the form of a permanently bound client state.)

The Russians are definitely active: (AP) "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a surprise trip to Moscow on Thursday to discuss Iran's nuclear program with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who just returned from talks with Iranian leaders in Tehran."

What if the Russians come up with a different solution which leaves the US isolated? Are the Russians going to "win" the Iranian showdown?

(President Vladimir Putin listens to a question in Moscow's Kremlin, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007. (AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Vladimir Rodionov, Presidential Press Service))

posted by mikevotes at 3:08 PM

10 Comments:

  • I don't think the Russians have much objection to Iran having a bomb or two. The same way the Chinese have no real objections to N.Korea. Kind of like keeping a guard dog.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:49 PM  

  • I agree, but if that's untenable, another good choice is for Russia to join in control with Iran and the Caspian nations to control all that oil.

    And if they're reliant on Russia for defense, all the better from the Russian side.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:11 PM  

  • What makes (made?) the US a super-power was not just it's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but it's ability to influence and shape world affairs. With our military at the breaking point of effectiveness and our reputation in the world community approaching that of a rogue nation, is Russia maneuvering itself to be "the worlds only superpower?"

    I realize this is an oversimplification...

    By Blogger -epm, at 5:24 PM  

  • But as a general point, you're right.

    Somehow, against Putin and China's autocracy, the Bush administration has turned the US into the bad guy.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:55 PM  

  • I'm afraid most of the world sees the invasion of Iraq as a naked oil grab and not an act of humanitarian intervention. I have no idea how you turn that around.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:31 PM  

  • New President and a repudiation of all things Bush, and then maybe you get back to the table.

    It's going to take a long time.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:18 PM  

  • Russia and Iran have serious disputes, but outside of Iran and Syria the U.S. has hegemony over the region. Russia would very much like to prevent that from becoming complete. Also, Russia and China are forming the SCO, a counter to NATO, and would like to appear to be defenders of Islam. Both have large Muslim populations within their borders and on the periphery. Pakistan, Mongolia, and Iran have publically expressed interest in joining the SCO.

    But more than anything, Russia wants to be taken seriously as a world player that is not beholden to the U.S.
    That's my take, anyway.

    By Blogger Todd Dugdale , at 11:01 PM  

  • "New President and a repudiation of all things Bush, and then maybe you get back to the table."

    The congressional Republicans continue to largely support Bush's dictatorial policies in lock-step. New president or not, there is a stark divide in America about the very definition of what it means to be American, and what exactly we stand for and value as the legal and ethical core of our nation.

    Is this the nation we fought WWII to protect?

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:39 AM  

  • Todd, The Russians are quickly becoming serious as they step into the gap left by US missteps.

    The interesting thing to me is the Russia/China relationship. China is more or less quietly backing the Russian moves. They don't want the political fallout of doing it themselves, but they see a less powerful US as good from their point of view.

    ....

    EPM, I don't know. I got tired of watching Ken Burns pan across photographs so I don't know much about WWII.

    Seriously, the main issue is the dislocation from realism in foreign policy enacted by the Bush admin. Foreign policy realism had always acted as something of a center keeping US policy from swinging between administrations.

    Now that, and the international rust that went with it is gone.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:18 PM  

  • I sometimes think what we're seeing here is just a competition for dwindling resources.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home