Does Putin think America is weak?

[BenBurch]

When you are a nuclear superpower, one thing you cannot do is DIRECTLY confront another superpower, because that is likely to end with escalation.

If we were bold enough to, say, annex Mexico, Putin would put on a show, but he would NOT stop us.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

All that aside, if the primary filter through which we analyze Russian actions is the extent to which American actions/inaction informs those Russian actions, our analysis will probably fall short of accurately describing Russian motivations, leaving many variables undercounted or not counted at all. This whole line of thinking is hopelessly lost in American navel-gazing and myopia.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with USA. The history between Ukraine and Russia goes back to a time long before USA even existed. In fact most people consider Kiev to have been the first capital of Russia. Although back then they were called Kievan Rus'

 

[quadraginta]

I can't think why people conflate belligerence with strength, or a desire for peace with weakness.

Because Commies.

 

[quadraginta]

Exactly. It has nothing to do with USA. The history between Ukraine and Russia goes back to a time long before USA even existed. In fact most people consider Kiev to have been the first capital of Russia. Although back then they were called Kievan Rus'

For some definitions of "back then", apparently.

From your link;

The term "Kievan Rus'" (Ки́евская Русь Kievskaya Rus’) was coined in the 19th century in Russian historiography to refer to the period when the center was in Kiev.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'#cite_note-13
​

Also, it should be noted, by 19th century Russian historians.

It does, though, arguably support the idea that Russia is just a frontier colony of the Ukraine.

 

[quadraginta]

The uprising in Libya. The uprising in Egypt. The attack in Benghazi. The uprising in Syria. The weakening of sanctions on Iran.

You left off Georgia, which is probably more important than all of those.

Because George Bush.


Or something.

 

[quadraginta]

When you are a nuclear superpower, one thing you cannot do is DIRECTLY confront another superpower, because that is likely to end with escalation.

If we were bold enough to, say, annex the rest of Mexico, Putin would put on a show, but he would NOT stop us.

FTFY.


We were gonna go for the rest of it when we invaded and stole the first half, but too many Congresscritters didn't want all those Mexicans in our country.

Funny how that worked out.

 

[Praktik]

It seems Republicans making the most noise on this are concerned with the President projecting an "image of strength" - but I can't help but feel that this is really about projecting an "image of strength" to the American people, not the world.

I say this because it seems to be that most of these people are contrasting the Obama foreign policy with Bush foreign policy, which projected an "image of strength" in their minds.

What they're missing is this "image of strength" ran up against reality out there in the wider world - where Europe, Canada, the middle east and yes Russia - saw America tie itself down in two hard-fought wars with very little tangible benefit to demonstrate for it and plenty of serious downsides for American geopolitical and revenue positions.

So if your "image of strength" ends up actually creating an image of weakness in the wider world, it seems to me many Republicans (and some Democrats) are immune to this feedback loop - interpreting the general consensus outside America that recent US wars have been a wasteful fool's errand as the product of European "anti Americanism" or a "damned if you do damned if you dont" approach to American policy in the minds of the "Arab street"....Furthermore its a proven vote-winner in America for voters similarly inured to the negative outcomes of recent policy.

Therefore projecting the "image of strength" becomes an almost unfalsifiable policy course to recommend, having divorced themselves from the impacts of policies they have themselves advocated, is it any wonder this group keeps hitting the "strength" button to every foreign policy dilemma? It gets votes, it has found a home in the narrative they see guiding America's role in the world - why would they do anything other than castigate Obama for being "weak"?

They are not looking at outcomes but posture and potential votes next cycle.

 

[Kopji]

I think that if anything sent the wrong message it was probably our response to the chemical weapons use in Syria. Russia parlayed a rather weak hand into a success.

Congress did not support Obama's and Kerry's original rhetoric and it is logical to think Putin feels the US does not have the stomach for more military involvement.

 

[Polaris]

FTFY.


We were gonna go for the rest of it when we invaded and stole the first half, but too many Congresscritters didn't want all those Mexicans in our country.

Funny how that worked out.

Is it common for thieves to pay their victims for what's been stolen where you come from?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379134/Mexican-American-War

According to the treaty, which was subsequently ratified by both national congresses, Mexico ceded to the United States nearly all the territory now included in the states of New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas, and western Colorado for $15,000,000 and U.S. assumption of its citizens’ claims against Mexico.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the dubious justification for the war, only the wording.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Putin feels the US does not have the stomach for more military involvement.

No one in the west has the stomach to go to war with Russia. Think about it seriously for a moment. What is a good end game when it comes to a war with Russia? What is a victory that our grandkids live to see? Going to war with Russia is an insane move, and everyone on the planet knows that, even if some seem to want to suggest they think otherwise for political reasons.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation, which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required-and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.

 

[Travis]

I can't think why people conflate belligerence with strength, or a desire for peace with weakness.

These are the same people that think the victims of bullying are weak when they report bullying instead of trying to use violence.

 

[SezMe]

It seems Republicans making the most noise on this are concerned with the President projecting an "image of strength" - but I can't help but feel that this is really about projecting an "image of strength" to the American people, not the world.<snip>

I think the analysis in this post is spot on.

 

[crescent]

We lost a tremendous amount of credibility in Iraq, and the situation with Afghanistan and Pakistan is ... complex.

Obama is dealing with the hand he was dealt; it will take a generation or two for the U.S. to recover from the loss of trust we took on resulting from Iraq. We might need to sit back a bit and be a bit isolationist for a decade or two before people start remembering that the U.S. does not @#@$# up everything we touch.

So, our options are limited. Europe has more options, but is hesitant to use them. Maybe Europe can step up, or maybe the former Warsaw pact nations will form their own little Russia containment club (Poland and Lithuania at least seem upset by all this).

If the conservatives want a forward leaning military policy, then they out to stop blaming Obama for the blowback associated with the last time we had a very forward leaning policy.

 

[Travis]

I think it is a bit unseemly to use those web sites to make your case. It is eerily similar to some wingnut citing WND.

There are some nutters who can't get beyond The Ghey but there are others who cite different reasons for their stances. I'd rather you go after the right wing, not the ultra right wing.

I refuse to acknowledge that there is such a distinction.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If we were bold enough to, say, annex Mexico, Putin would put on a show, but he would NOT stop us.

Why would anyone want to annex that mess? All Putin would do is sit back and laugh.

@crescent: nice post.

 

[Dog Town]

Why the U.S.? There are much closer powers/allies, than US!
We could take him down in days! Mostly, because he would not hide.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why the U.S.? There are much closer powers/allies, than US!
We could take him down in days! Mostly, because he would not hide.

Arrogance much. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia has a relatively modern military and a well trained and equipped one. Their pilots won't be running away and leaving the skies to the US as happened in Iraq.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe Putin realizes that GW Bush placed the USA in a position where we can't afford another war.

 

[Dog Town]

Arrogance much.

I love, how you ignored the rest. And for the record: YES!