Does Putin think America is weak?

[Wudang]

What is this even supposed to mean?

I think you should have stopped there.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What the hell does everyone want?

I think Republicans want Obama to do what they do: beat his chest and howl like an ape.

 

[Praktik]

I think Republicans want Obama to do what they do: beat his chest and howl like an ape.

That's sarcastic and all but pretty true. Probably if you just changed the D to an R beside Obama's name and nothing else you would get no claims of Obama weakness, and instead assertions of his amazing toughness as evidenced through his willingness to lead in Sky Robot Assassinations and to surge in Afghanistan.

This is just the ritual of complaining of Democratic foreign policy weakness. It's the rote recitation of received wisdom, but I guess a lot of them are used to that every Sunday in another forum so I suppose it holds together seen this way.. Those pundits need their chum in the water and this has moved a few cycles in the Punditocratic Wheel of Wisdom.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think the paragraph after the one you quoted, from the post you replied to, makes a start at answering your questions. It's not the first such paragraph I've written in this thread, either. Respond to that paragraph, and maybe we can have a conversation.

You want Obama to invent a time machine and go back in time to change things so Putin won't invade? Because that's all your posts have been, complaints about what Obama has done or not done previously.

What do you what him to do right now? Is this really a hard question? What action should the US be taking against Russia that Obama isn't suggesting?

If Economic Sanctions and kicking them from the G8 aren't tough enough for you, what actually is?

 

[Praktik]

A more interesting question is what happens when Russia calls the NATO article 5 bluff - are we really going to start WWIII after they run over Latvia in 16 hours? Hard to find the constituency who would be lobbying for that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A more interesting question is what happens when Russia calls the NATO article 5 bluff - are we really going to start WWIII after they run over Latvia in 16 hours? Hard to find the constituency who would be lobbying for that.

This is exactly it, and this is what Putin cares about. Putin couldn't care less about the GOP's talking points, what he cares about is "Are the west willing to start a nuclear war over this."

This is why I posted Kennedy's quote from a speech during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy realised that having missiles in Cuba was a trigger to a Nuclear War, and so was willing to go that far if required. The Soviets backed down realising that they didn't want to push for Nuclear War. Kennedy talked tough, yes, but he was willing to back up that talk all the way to the end if necessary.

In this case, how many western countries would really push all the way to nuclear war over a piece of dirt that used to belong to Russia, has a high proportion of Russians, and apparently in new voting (even if influenced) wants to go back to being Russian? Are the GOP really serious that they would be willing to push this all the way to launching Nukes? Because if tough talking doesn't work, you either have to carry out your threats, or look totally weak. As soon as you threaten a military response, you have to be willing to use it, and with Russia, that threat has to include the use of nukes.

Putin is relying on the fact that the West doesn't ever what to go there.

 

[Praktik]

The conceit underneath the reasoning here is that America and the West has any ability to apply seriously tough moves. Nobody can replace what Europe needs from Russia anytime soon, Russia possesses conventional, asymmetric and nuclear ways of responding to military threats that can make any power on the planet think twice - even America.

Americans still seem to believe the American capacity to change the world is infinite. Vietnam showcased the failure of overwhelming military advantage, we got new lessons on this in the last decade. Perhaps this is the latest lesson that the American moment has passed - and yet the perceptions of power and ability to influence things are still as enthusiastic as they were when people thought reinstalling the Shah would work out great. Perhaps the consequence of living in a narrative that inures you to the negative outcomes of past policy is that you are doomed to repeat it.

If the only moves of toughness America can safely exercise here are symbolic - it's safe to say the demands for more toughness are symbolic too.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Several people in this thread have argued that America is, in fact, strong. Yet Putin views America as weak. If you have a strong military, yet refuse to exercise it, isn't Putin's view justified?

There is more to America's strength than military power.

A surprising number of people appear to have mancrushes on Putin.

Is he hot? I have no idea, as I am not gay.

You know as well as everyone else does that whatever Obama does, the Right will whine about it.

Yes. It doesn't seem to help us outside our own borders. Senator McCain has, IMO, hit his sell by date already.

"The west – run by a generation that believes the market is the solution to everything – suddenly found you cannot outsource strategy;"

I hear that Sun Tzu is still accepting contract offers, dead as he may be.

I'll make it simple.

"Obama should ____________________"

"Go home tonight and give his very best to the missus with all the vigor he has in his body."

Why? He's got the hardest job in the world. Sometimes, a vigorous love making session helps one see the world in a better light the next morning.

Beats chasing after some intern for a knobber.

 

[Praktik]

Larison pours cold water on recent Rice comments about "emboldening" Putin through being weak in an article entitled, "The 'Emboldening' Fantasy":

What Rice et al. perceive as “inaction” in Syria, Russia and Iran likely perceive as ongoing interference and hostility to their interests. The crisis in Ukraine also looks very different to Moscow than it does to the Westerners that have been agitating for an even larger and more active U.S. role. Western hawks were frustrated by how slow their governments were to throw their full support behind the protesters, and as usual wanted the U.S. and EU to take a much more adversarial and combative approach with Russia because they see Western governments as being far more passive than they want. However, Moscow doesn’t perceive the U.S. role in Ukraine to be a limited or benign one, and the toppling of Yanukovych has been fitted into their view that the protests were a Western-backed plot from the beginning. The idea that Russia would have responded less aggressively to the change in government if the U.S. had been giving the opposition even more encouragement and support is dangerously delusional, but that is what one has to believe in order to argue that the U.S. “emboldened” Moscow in Ukraine.​

 

[Travis]

Ted Cruz really makes no sense.

You’d better believe Putin sees in Benghazi four Americans are murdered, the first ambassador killed in service since 1979, and nothing happens

What does Cruz think should have happened? Does he think Obama should have ordered retaliatory bombing runs on the already devastated city? What good would that have done except turn the people there totally against us?

You’d better believe that Putin sees that in Syria, Obama draws a red line and ignores the red line.

And this seems to just be a fever dream. I seem to recall that Obama drew a red line, it was crossed. America geared up to punish Assad and this caused Assad to cry "Uncle" and gave up his chemical weapons.

In what universe is that anything like what Cruz seems to think happened?

 

[Belz...]

I really wish conservatives would make up their minds. Is Obama weak and ineffectual or is he a ruthless socialist dictator?

It depends on what the talking point is.

 

[Peephole]

Perhaps this is the latest lesson that the American moment has passed.

Russia's influence has been in in decline for a good two decades. It was kind of silly to expect this to continue forever, and not have an autocrat like Putin eventually start objecting to the continuing expansion of NATO and the EU. It doesn't really say anything about the US and the EU. Except that the days of naively encroaching upon Russia's borders are over.

 

[Praktik]

I think it does though, in terms of the American perception of ability to change and influence events in far off places.

This is consistently falling short of expectations, and the only wonder is why these expectations remain so high in some quarters.

I guess I'm getting into political philosophy here and a bit abstract, but I think there's certainly a thread like this in the American outlook that Russia and America's ability to influence Russia is just one more sign of. Reality is consistently outpacing the imagination of some American policy wonks and particularly in Neocon quarters.

 

[Peephole]

I think it does though, in terms of the American perception of ability to change and influence events in far off places.

But events in Ukraine changed in favor of the US. I don't think the US had a lot or even anything to do with it. But Ukraine, or at least part of Ukraine decided to align itself with the West instead of Russia. The mostly desperate Russia action of invading Crimea, was just a last ditch attempt to at least save some part of Ukraine and to try to draw a line in the sand.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But events in Ukraine changed in favor of the US. I don't think the US had a lot or even anything to do with it. But Ukraine, or at least part of Ukraine decided to align itself with the West instead of Russia. The mostly desperate Russia action of invading Crimea, was just a last ditch attempt to at least save some part of Ukraine and to try to draw a line in the sand.

More in favor of the EU, not the US. We are no longer in a zero sum game with Russia, if we ever were (since USSR broke up).

In re Ukraine: does EU really need another financially troubled nation?

 

[Praktik]

But events in Ukraine changed in favor of the US. I don't think the US had a lot or even anything to do with it. But Ukraine, or at least part of Ukraine decided to align itself with the West instead of Russia. The mostly desperate Russia action of invading Crimea, was just a last ditch attempt to at least save some part of Ukraine and to try to draw a line in the sand.

Did they though? Looks to me like a win for Putin so far and a demonstration that the faction favored by the west was unable to gain the kind of support they needed to rule the country (not just the western part of Ukraine and Kiev). Ukraine's final resting place in this is far from settled but looks like you could end up with a rump state tilted towards the West and an eastern part firmly under russian control - and this may be the "best" outcome.

And in that apparent US/Western moves of strength served to feed Russian fears - NATO encirclement, NGO support (which sounds nice to us but pernicious to Putin) and moral support for anti-russian leaning factions in an area of vital russian interest - it just may be another example of an adversarial/aggressive posture delivering poor results. Gains here, from the American geopolitical standpoint can easily be rolled back and look to have begun doing so. Perhaps a less aggressive posture would have resulted in more long-term stability and prevented this escalation from even occurring. A stable Ukraine is a developing Ukraine - increased wealth, I think, would just by force of nature push Ukraine into Western arms.

We'll see how it plays out but I'm thinking there is now zero chance of Ukraine being in NATO, and depending how far this escalates we could see some serious credibility gaps in the NATO alliance if Putin decides to keep pushing in the years to come. He's likely to have two recent actions, Ukraine and Georgia, under his belt with little serious consequence.

From a neoconservative policy standpoint - looks like another failure to add to the list - stemming in large part from an inability to see the world as it is and to learn the lessons of previous failures.

 

[Peephole]

In re Ukraine: does EU really need another financially troubled nation?

No. And combined with Russia "signaling its disagreement", Europa and NATO will probably just back off and mostly ignore Ukraine.

 

[Peephole]

Did they though? Looks to me like a win for Putin so far and a demonstration that the faction favored by the west was unable to gain the kind of support they needed to rule the country (not just the western part of Ukraine and Kiev).

Ukraine was oriented towards Russia and that has changed. That's a big loss for Putin.

We'll see how it plays out but I'm thinking there is now zero chance of Ukraine being in NATO, and depending how far this escalates we could see some serious credibility gaps in the NATO alliance if Putin decides to keep pushing in the years to come. He's likely to have two recent actions, Ukraine and Georgia, under his belt with little serious consequence.

I don't think that isn't how this works. Neither country was part of NATO, and big countries with powerful armies will generally behave however they want, except towards other big powerful countries or alliances. There is no such thing as precedent.

It isn't in Russia's or NATO's interest to rekindle a Cold War. So neither party will. Russia made an exceptional, desperate and dangerous move. All parties likely recognize this and will behave accordingly. It's unlikely Putin will try something similar, and meanwhile NATO will back off from trying to enlarge in the same manner.

 

[jimbob]

More in favor of the EU, not the US. We are no longer in a zero sum game with Russia, if we ever were (since USSR broke up).

In re Ukraine: does EU really need another financially troubled nation?

I'd agree that we aren't. However I wonder whether Putin thinks we are.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'd agree that we aren't. However I wonder whether Putin thinks we are.

Putin is the product of the Cold War Era, he still is stuck in the Us vs Them mindset.