Mitt: [rquoter]The Price of Failed Leadership Why are there no good choices? From Crimea to North Korea, from Syria to Egypt, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, America apparently has no good options. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, Russia owns Crimea and all we can do is sanction and disinvite—and wring our hands. Iran is following North Korea's nuclear path, but it seems that we can only entreat Iran to sign the same kind of agreement North Korea once signed, undoubtedly with the same result. Our tough talk about a red line in Syria prompted Vladimir Putin's sleight of hand, leaving the chemicals and killings much as they were. We say Bashar Assad must go, but aligning with his al Qaeda-backed opposition is an unacceptable option. And how can it be that Iraq and Afghanistan each refused to sign the status-of-forces agreement with us—with the very nation that shed the blood of thousands of our bravest for them? Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied? A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries." When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion. Months before the rebellion began in Syria in 2011, a foreign leader I met with predicted that Assad would soon fall from power. Surely the White House saw what this observer saw. As the rebellion erupted, the time was ripe for us to bring together moderate leaders who would have been easy enough for us to identify, to assure the Alawites that they would have a future post-Assad, and to see that the rebels were well armed. The advent of the Arab Spring may or may not have been foreseen by our intelligence community, but after Tunisia, it was predictable that Egypt might also become engulfed. At that point, pushing our friend Hosni Mubarak to take rapid and bold steps toward reform, as did Jordan's king, might well have saved lives and preserved the U.S.-Egypt alliance. The time for securing the status-of-forces signatures from leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan was before we announced in 2011 our troop-withdrawal timeline, not after it. In negotiations, you get something when the person across the table wants something from you, not after you have already given it away. Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed. A chastened president and Secretary of State Kerry, a year into his job, can yet succeed, and for the country's sake, must succeed. Timing is of the essence. Mr. Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and the 2012 Republican nominee for president.[/rquoter] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579445170801186310
stick and stones. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday Russia was “confrontational" about Crimea’s intended annexation. <a href="http://t.co/g7yeWmLkwb">http://t.co/g7yeWmLkwb</a></p>— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/statuses/446052911022227456">March 18, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I usually agree with you... But not on this point. Due to history and culture, Russians respect and are obedient to strong authoritarian rule and that is exactly what Russia needed after the Cold War and they Didn't get until Putin consolidated power. Russians are used to struggle and isolation, they are behind Putin and will support him. He'll look at Chechnya and the spin job he did.
The Soviet Union already had started to reorganize their economy prior to the fall of the wall. Putin may have issues with parts of Communism in practice, but make no mistake he strongly favors a reunified Soviet Union state that is strongly controlled by the government and takes an active role in the control of natural resources.
g1184, Putin has an 80% approval rating. If anyone wants to try and look at this from Russia's point of view, this is how they see it: http://www.tomatobubble.com/id491.html
Do a simple google search of "Putin's popularity"... There are literally dozens of articles discussing it... He is overall quite popular... When I was in Russian last summer I got to see how the culture and needs of the Russian people are different than the USA or EU. To be clear, I do not support Putin.
Most North Koreans approve of Kim Jung Un, but that's one of those stats that's only true in technicality. No sarcasm: do you really believe what Putin's heart desires is the same as what the Russian population's heart desires?
Of course! Just like all of Germany desired the same things Hitler did... and same for all countries that have "approved" the rule of like minded aspiring despots...
I don't think Pooty has any intention of invading Ukraine. It's a threat, a power play to secure Crimea. He can take Crimea and look like a hero at home to cover the devastating loss of Ukraine. The World will bluster but I think it won't take long before it's accepted and more normal relation, i.e. business, will be restored. Invade Ukraine and he is in for a decade of shaitstorm that could stifle business to the point that it threatens him from within. He can take Crimea cheaply without a shot being fired and not face an local insurgency. Invading Ukraine will be cost a lot of lives and money, require the occupation of a hostile population, face a long bloody insurgency and incite Muslims everywhere against the Soviet Union. And above, Mitt criticises past actions but does not say what he would do about the reality of today. That's the cheap and easy brand of Republican politics. I don't believe Mitt even knows what strategic and diplomatic actions occurred or are planned. Most of that is Top Secret and nobody is briefing Mitt.
Several things: - the fall of the wall was not the fall of the Soviet Union. The Union fell after the attempted coup by the hardline generals against Gorbachev, and the subsequent popular reaction against that coup. - The economic reforms instituted by Gorbachev were very different from the reforms that occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved and Yeltsin took over Russia. Gorbachev was allowing more private enterprise and less restrictions, while Yeltsin gave/sold all of the state owned industries to millionaire gangsters and friends/allies of his. In one case you had reform and in the latter you had a complete change in who owned and controlled the economy. -Putin definitely wants Russian hegemony over the countries formerly controlled by Russia in the Soviet Union (and previously in the Russian Empire), but that does not mean he wants the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an atheistic Marxist state. Putin's Russia is a conservative Orthodox Christian state. The ideology and propaganda of the two are radically different and diametrically opposed -- even if the aggression and oppression of the two are similar. Putin, it seems, wishes to emulate Tsarist Russia more so than Marxist Russia. -Putin does indeed want a strong centralized State that has oppressive control on the economy and on politics -- but that doesn't mean communism. Yes, Communism has that, but so does absolute monarchy, fascism, presidential dictatorships, etc.
I don't think Russia is comparable to NK. While Russia is authoritarian the Russians are not living completely cut off from the rest of the World as people in NK are. There is censorship and propaganda but most Russians still have access to the internet and can travel to see what the rest of the world is like. Putin most of all wants domestic stability and renewed Russian influence and prestige. I am guessing most Russians want that too. While we may look at Putin as just another despot and wonder why a people with access to global communication would want a guy like Putin running things we also didn't experience the decade of chaos and humiliation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
