Putin addresses American people in NY Times -- he pimp slaps and humiliates Obama

Listens to the American people? You're delusional if you think he just decided to listen to us.

His staff is probably planning a campaign of rhetoric and propaganda to win favor for a Syrian intervention, but right now there's too much heat from his support of spying on the world indiscriminately and being exposed as just another Wall St lackey in the White House.

 

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Does that include gays and political opponents? Hypocritical Biatch!

People really take this douche seriously?

 

Yeah, like continuing to sell weapons to Syria and keeping their only naval base in the Mediterranean open.

 

If Romney were President, we'd already be in Syria and probably Iran. That alone makes Obama a better choice. Is Obama a slave to Wall Street? You can't get elected if you aren't, but there are degrees of evil and corruption, and while Democrats have been corrupted, they are still better than Republicans.

Obama is obviously back peddling. Good. Any sane human being would love to go back in time and stop the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan from ever happening. The trillions lost, the millions dead, all to make the rich richer and perpetuate corporate thuggery. Not to mention the raping of Latin America.

And so Obama backs down and neocons bash him. Newsflash, neothugs are going to bash Obama no matter what he does. BFD.

 

Putin's understanding of the sausage-making that is statecraft is second to no world leader. That his regime is authoritarian and anti-civil rights is not for debate. I've been invited there and my guitarist refused to play -- he's openly gay and refused to go. I don't blame hime for that..

This is indeed more of a riposte to the peculiar exceptionalism of the US, and his reference of "with us or against the terrorists" is hardly a scrape at Obama specifically. Both W and Obama have rubbed Russia the wrong way in post-9/11 relations.

Understand his point of view. The US engages in support of Russia's opposition, as well as anti-Russian political parties in it's periphery (Ukraine, Georgia, etc). It engaged in a war on terror, but rebuked Putin when Putin offered to help if it only endorsed it's own fight against radical Chechens, because for some reason. Remember that shortly after 9/11, Putin was in the US alongside Bush pledging support, largely because Russia's history with Islamic terrorism goes back a long way...and has suffered a lack of sympathy from the rest of the world when it has responded. The US could have had Russia fully on board in it's "coalition of the willing" and both W and Obama's administrations pissed their mess kits in regards to US-Russia relations.

Instead they chose to abandon those opportunities to support opposition candidates that have no chance of winning, dissident groups with questionable motives, and leaders of movements and governmets in former USSR states who are corrupt but anti-Russia (and by virtue of American support, pro-US) all under the banner of "democracy" which I was too cynical then or now to believe. Seriously, does anyone want to go to war with Russia over territories claimed by Georgia? Because a lot of old men in Washington on both side of the aisle and who still miss the Cold War sure as hell do.

The US has also pushed for a ballistic missile defense system in former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland, supposedly to prevent strikes from *Iran* which has no missile capable of reaching these places.

This really, really, really irked Putin long ago, who called the bluff and said the US was trying to revive the Cold War, and that building these facilities was aimed at needless beligerence with Russia, not the Middle East, and he countered that NATO was free to use Russian radar facilities bordering Iran if it was interested in using those instead. No one was.

So, the man has a point. The US in it's policies both with terrorism and the way it deals with his own country, has been reckless and hypocritical. It will cite international law until it is blue in the face, until it finds itself on the wrong side of it, and then feels like it can be ignored, because "We are America and we do what we want." And no one else likes it either.

Sure, Putin has a vested interest in the survival of Assad, due to Russia's naval base and Syria's historic ties as a client state, but it doesn't make him wrong about the terrorists involved and the realistic liklihood of a US strike making a very bad situation much worse.

And four more points:
1. What remains of the old Communist Party in Russia is the largest party opposing him. It's erroneous to call him "a commie" for about a thousand reasons.
2. His election might very well be rigged and people certainly complain about his corruption and heavy handedness, but he's very popular and his cult of personality is the biggest in Russia since Stalin in WW2. Russia is far more stable now than when it was the free-for-all in the 90s when oligarchs and gangsters ran the show. Most Russians like him and support him, and life is better and safer for the average Russian than it was before him.
3. He's not the first Russian head of state to pen an Op-Ed for the NYT. Gorbachev has at least once and I'm prety sure Yeltsin has as well.
4. This Op-Ed is certainly newsworty and topical and worthy of starting a thread, so no one should chop down bigtexxx's tree for doing that. I do agree that Obama's policy with Russia and Syria is misguided at best, but I also don't think W's was any better, nor do I think John McCain or Mitt Romney would have done much differently. The issue here isn't Obama, but US foreign policy as a whole and the direction it has continued to move in.

I do agree that Putin is showing leadeship on the issue, and represents world consensus. As much as we can criticise Putin's domestic..um shortcomings, his criticism of US policy is hardly hot air. Ignoring Russia's interests in the pursuit of short-term policy gains is not good, especially when there is a lot to gain by taking them seriously. It wouldn't be any different than the way the US engages China, who I frankly think is far more proactive in projecting power (especially in the developing and mineral rich world) and represents a far greater threat to world stability.

 

Better than Republicans is relative. Social policy aside, that statement doesn't have legs to stand on. A lot of Liberal's love to bring up Clinton reducing the public debt, for example. That's amazing, for as long as you're willing to ignore the trade deficit being quadrupled, the Financial Services Modernization Act, and NAFTA.

Socially, I'm left, and in that regard I consider Democrats to be "better," but those issues can largely be addressed by the society. What we need from out leaders is for them to hold public interest in the same esteem as their own. In that, both are equally guilty. The Elizabeth Warrens are needed what we need, but they can't get elected as you said. However, that doesn't mean voting for the candidate with similar views on abortion is choosing the lesser evil. The only lesser evils run 3rd party. I'm not expecting to see a 3rd party candidate win an election in this generation, but we can at least give some alternative voices a little more volume.

Just as many Dems share you view of "well if Romney were here, we'd be 3 wars ahead by now!" It's a big deal, because taking either side in that bipartisan divide both side keep jamming wedge issues into is a TRAP. We'd be halfway to Syria right now if it wasn't for Snowden's leaks helping liberals view Obama in the same light as the President who cried WMD. Not because the lesser evil was elected.

Neither side is as concerned with which of the two we vote for, as long as it's one of the two asshat's toeing the line.

 

Putin's letter is a decade too late.

 

trolls! trolls everywhere.

 

Putin sells arms to Syria - this is nothing more than him trying to protect a paying customer.

DD

 

Must admit I'm not really following all of this too closely, but the whole thing looks like such a mess from what I've been able to read.

Spoiler

 

I'll grant you it is mess-y. Typical hawks seem anti-war, typical doves are pro international policing, the US "side" has an Al Qaeda component, the other side has a secular if non-democratic component, the US has to act like the crazy Ivan so the people with real possible influence have to react, nothing is ever clear information in the world of political disinformation and manipulation, there is no accommodation for nuance on pundit TV.....

Individual's judgement will depend on who they personally trust, who they think holds their interests as the primary objective; assuming you can reasonably discern what your objectives are in this.

FAUX?
Putin?

THE two most disingenuous, self-serving perpetrators of preposterous postering on the planet?

 

I love how pathetic you are, Texxie. Why not just post the article without making things up? There was no pimpslap nor humiliation. Actually, for someone who claims to treat women with equality and respect, I'm surprised you would use the term "pimp slap." You think you're clever,but you're very basic, and in your own terms, intellectually lazy.

And yes, I did read this long before you posted it on your stomping grounds. I wish you would treat Clutchfans with more respect than consistently spamming the forums and trolling. If you are so tired of (insert derogatory liberal word here), go to FoxNews already. Seriously, that message board is full of people on the fringe right, like you.

The truth is that Obama actually follows the correct process before engaging in something so serious. He speaks to his voters and opposition and attempts to gain support through evidence BEFORE he does anything.

Did your hero, GWB, do any of that? NO.

Even if a Republican pres were doing the same thing right now, I'd respect the process because it is the expectation of any president.

I don't know what you're complaining about, but again, it looks like you're trolling. Obama is a stronger leader than you are willing to admit, but because he's not war-crazy or ignores the American people, you say he's been pimpslapped. I'm not even his biggest fan, but I can read through fallacies pretty quickly. Your posts are simply propaganda, lies, opinions without factual basis and downright meritless.

You can do better. Maybe a forum change would be good for you, and everyone else.


And for God's sake, change your signature. It's completely offensive coming from you and your posting history. Really? After all of your previous race-baiting and "The Blacks" comment, you'd choose one of the most celebrated African American leaders in history to mock? Look in the mirror, bud. Every moment is an opportunity to change yourself for the better.

 

In Soviet Russia, OpEd writes you!

 

I never thought about it that way, but I am pleased with the Democrats in Congress who are listening to their constiuents and thinking outside party lines.

 

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States." <-- That hurt

Rocket River

 

It's not really humiliating to Obama directly, but instead the actions that the US has been taking in the Middle East for decades (which Obama has contributed to).

But I guess you get what you want out of it.

 

I agree this Op-ed is discussion worthy but I find it rather ironic the praise that Putin is getting from many for this. Let's not forget that under Putin Russia has also interfered in other countries especially those in the former Soviet Union. Further if Putin was so concerned about peace as Syria's main patron he could've certainly helped to pressure them to peace table. While Putin raises some valid points this is really the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Good Info
Disliking the Messenger is one thing
ignoring the message is another

Rocket River