Does Putin think America is weak?

[Polaris]

This is what the fuss is all about?

Gay, lesbian troops perform in drag at Kadena Air Base fundraiser

As a veteran myself, I don't mind a bit! Sounds like the troops there don't either. Sold-out show, more than twice what they anticipated. Only positive comments in the Stars & Stripes article. The negative comments mostly seem to be coming from old, right-wing civilians (some vets among them to be sure).

I wonder what sort of result you would get now from a poll of service members on the issue. I tried to find something from this year or last year, but my Google fu failed. Lots of polls of the general public, but none of service members on this issue. I guess once DADT was repealed, everyone sort of forgot about it and it was on to the marriage issue.

Well, that's what you get when Ann-Margret's not coming.

 

[Polaris]

The uprising in Libya.

Against an anti-American dictator.

The uprising in Egypt.

Which one? There were two - the second of which was against an anti-American budding dictator.

The attack in Benghazi.

Fog of war, and irrelevant. Only an issue because of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

The uprising in Syria.

Against an anti-American dictator.

The weakening of sanctions on Iran.

Not due to a position of weakness.

If "weakness" is operating under anything less drastic than George W. Bush, than anybody other than Putin on the world stage today is weak.

 

[Praktik]

And what's funny is that underneath all of this, the kernel of truth behind the smokescreen on American policy being the reason for Putin's actions is that American policies pushing NATO into post-Soviet countries, which could be described as a policy of strength/aggression - are probably far more operative in the Russian calculations than anything Obama has done in the last few years. This has been unanimous policy of Republican and Democratic presidents since the fall of the Iron Curtain - and therefore not subject to partisan attacks (which is probably why we don't hear about it in the clown show on cable news).

And as an outside observer, it's a little rich to see the promulgators of the Monroe Doctrine being unable to see a powerfully equipped state following a similar policy. Wouldn't any reasonably powerful state seek to have influence over its periphery and deny influence to actors looking to build a wall around it?

 

[theprestige]

If "weakness" is operating under anything less drastic than George W. Bush, than anybody other than Putin on the world stage today is weak.

All we have to do is assume that Obama "is operating under anything less drastic than George W. Bush", and it leads us directly to the conclusion that Putin thinks that under Obama, America is weak.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, Obama is WAY weaker than George W. Bush. I remember how Dubya bravely charged into battle when Putin invaded Georgia.

Oh, wait.

 

[Corsair 115]

Hmmm, the U.S. was plenty strong during the Cold War but that didn't stop the Soviets from rolling into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I'd suggest the old Cold War idea of "sphere of influence" is still in play, even if some of the circumstances are different these days.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course the ultimate solution would be to convince Russia to join NATO

 

[Corsair 115]

The Cold War may be over but its after effects linger on it seems.

 

[jj]

Well, war is ultimately about the economy, and after 6 years of relentless sabotage by the GOP, we are in fact pathetically, disgustingly, lame and weak.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The Cold War may be over but its after effects linger on it seems.

Very much so, especially for those that are a product of it, like Putin.

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing preventing Russia from joining NATO, other than Russian Politicians...

From the NATO website...

NATO membership is open to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

 

[Darth Rotor]

Getting back to the OP, I am not sure what is going on in the Crimea or the Ukraine is any indication that Putin thinks we are weak. I think he firmly believe that there is little we can do and little Europe will do to stop him. Unfortunately, he is right. We do not have a lot of options to exercise to strongly oppose him without getting involved in a war with Russia.

Yep.

As to the OP question, I don't think it's a case of Putin thinking the US is weak, but more a case of whether he understands that the West really has little interest in going to war with a strong military such as Russia over this sort of action.

Yep again. He has geography to his advantage, and more skin in the game by a long shot.

Hmmm, the U.S. was plenty strong during the Cold War but that didn't stop the Soviets from rolling into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I'd suggest the old Cold War idea of "sphere of influence" is still in play, even if some of the circumstances are different these days.

Yep. Welcome back to the multi polar world we actually live in.

Of course the ultimate solution would be to convince Russia to join NATO

That was my position in the mid 1990's, but two different presidents queered the deal on that one: Clinton and W. Pretty sure nobody really wanted to, and the "Partnership for Peace" thing was in too many ways window dressing. A pity.

The Cold War may be over but its after effects linger on it seems.

Just like our Civil War, oddly enough.

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

The Romans had a quaint old saying about all that:
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

More or less "If you want peace, be prepared for war." To be strong means you want peace so much you may even fight for it.

What's going on in Eastern Europe points to the matter of how well "winning the peace" at the End of the Cold War has gone. Maybe as well as those 14 points went down after WW I.

My thought on the OP: blaming President Obama for Europe's collective spaghetti spines is IMO unfair to President Obama. This is a matter in Europe's front yard, and we can sure "lead from behind" on this one as it is a seriously European problem. We can be supportive, and helpful, and encourage Russia to support the 1994 Ukraine agreement which we both, as major powers, signed up to. But, and this is very important: whatever comes out of this has to be a European solution to a European problem.

 

[skipster]

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

Apparently he's the former on even numbered days and the latter on odd numbered ones. Or vice versa.

As for the question in the OP, IMO Putin doesn't see just America as being weak. Being the schoolyard bully he is, he sees everyone as being weak and will attempt to bully anyone and everyone he can until he's forced to back off his victim of the moment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Romans had a quaint old saying about all that:
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

More or less "If you want peace, be prepared for war." To be strong means you want peace so much you may even fight for it.

What's going on in Eastern Europe points to the matter of how well "winning the peace" at the End of the Cold War has gone. Maybe as well as those 14 points went down after WW I.

And here it is again. You believe one must use one's strength or it doesn't exist? Does that mean if you owned a gun you would feel compelled to go shoot some people?

And I don't know why you think the conditions in Eastern Europe are a condemnation of how Western Europe acted. Countries act in their own interests, and the countries that don't belligerently pursue war wind up in better conditions than those that do. At least in the modern era.

 

[332nd]

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

Those are four things that spring immediately to mind, as perhaps giving the impression that Obama's response to Russian aggression might be tepid, lethargic, and inconclusive. At best, as in Libya, he'll let Europe take the lead. If Putin thinks he can make a profitable deal with them, that effectively takes American power off the table. At worst, as in Syria, he'll let Russia take the lead. All very well when it's the fox coaching the watchdog, something else entirely when it's the fox guarding the henhouse!

Ironically, America's military is probably the strongest it's ever been. With the backing of its NATO allies, the US could make any incursion into the Ukraine too costly to be worth Putin's trouble. Of course, it would be very costly for the US as well, and when the nuclear arsenals are taken into consideration, it's highly unlikely that Obama would ever seriously consider using the US military to thwart Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Certainly Obama has never given any sign of being willing to do so. So yeah, that's gotta look pretty weak to a man who's willing to put boots on the ground to get what he wants.

What have been Obama's signature military endeavors? Drawing down Iraq. Drawing down Afghanistan. Drone strikes. Killing Bin Laden.

Is that what Putin should be afraid of? Obama's gonna send SEAL Team Six after him in his sleep? Obama's gonna crash his goddaughter's wedding with a laser-guided missile?

Even just looking at the events of the past few weeks, it should be obvious that however strong it may appear in some contexts, Putin is justified in thinking Obama's foreign policy is too weak to pose any serious risk to him in the Ukraine. Obama may have big guns in his arsenal, but only an idiot would think he's a big scary man with his finger on the trigger, ready to shoot.

Yeah! After seeing how Bush invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, and made it clear that he would hunt out the enemies of America, no way Putin would invade a former... wait...

 

[Darth Rotor]

And here it is again. You believe one must use one's strength or it doesn't exist? .

I didn't say that. I said one should be prepared to. It's a bit of a paradox, don't you think?

And I don't know why you think the conditions in Eastern Europe are a condemnation of how Western Europe acted.

Check out who else signed the treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty.

Our friends in NATO have spent the last 20 years deliberately weakening themselves. There are consequences for such policies, but on the other hand, there are a lot of options. Not all options include the matter of arms. (See Putins hands on the nuts of Europe via natural gas, and the European hands on the Russian nuts vis a vis capital and finance).

Is Eastern Ukraine worth anyone in Western Europe's time and effort or blood? Maybe not.

But the Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians can't be too pleased at how Act I has gone, and are worrying about what Act II is going to look like. They have joined NATO and now realize that their European allies are ... well, we'll see, won't we?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Dupe Post, please delete.

 

[SezMe]

A lot has been made in recent days about how this terrible stuff Putin is doing wouldn't have happened if Putin just feared the USA they way he should.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/putin_doesnt_threaten_our_national_security_obama_does.html

http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147490378&tab=video&video=2147543962​

So....Putin doesn't fear America because Putin thinks gay people are

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.

 

[SezMe]

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.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, Obama is WAY weaker than George W. Bush. I remember how Dubya bravely charged into battle when Putin invaded Georgia.

Oh, wait.

A fellow I debate in another venue asserted that those are totally different things!

He believes in Bengahzi too...