The History Book Club discussion

This thread is set up to discuss Vladimir V. Putin.



Vladimir Putin

It seems that everybody has something to say and Mr. Putin is no exception - here is what he had to say in the New York Times.

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria



By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.


The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.


Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. 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.
Vladimir Putin

I will be adding some of the reactions to the above here on this thread - but feel free to add your thoughts on Mr. Putin trying to get involved in America. Some newscasters have called it Trolling in America. Chris Hayes on NBC calls it - Putin Is "Trolling" The U.S.

What do you think? Everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint as long as it is civil and respectful.

Vladimir Putin

These are books on goodreads that are by Putin:

all by Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked
By Max Fisher, Published: September 12 at 12:04 pm


(Alexei Nikolsky/AFP/Getty Images)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has an op-ed in today's New York Times urging President Obama not to strike Syria. It's a fascinating document -- a very Russian perspective translated into American vernacular, an act of public diplomacy aimed at the American public and the latest chess move in the U.S.-Russia standoff over Syria, one in which we the readers are implicated. Putin does make a number of valid and even compelling points, but there is an undeniable hypocrisy and even some moments of dishonesty between the lines.

Below, I've annotated the op-ed, line-by-line, elaborating and translating at some points, fact-checking a bit in others. Putin's writing is set off in italics and bold; my notes are in plain text.

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

So far so good, and all true, establishing a baseline of cooperation on shared interests while acknowledging U.S.-Russia tensions.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

Putin here is implicitly defending Russia's right to use its veto to block the United Nations from any action on Syria, including simple press releases condemning the use of chemical weapons. The U.N. Security Council veto system, which means that Russia can block any action just because it says so, was not a product of "profound wisdom" as much as profound pragmatism. Countries don't like to give up their power to other countries. After World War II, getting the world's five remaining great powers (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union) to consent to this newfangled United Nations system required granting them veto power so they'd be comfortable with it. This is what it took, but it wasn't profoundly wise, and both Russia and the United States abuse their veto power plenty.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

It's true that the League of Nations collapsed because no one took it seriously, including the United States. But the United Nations survived the Cold War, which included lots of non-U.N.-approved military actions from -- you guessed it -- the United States and the Soviet Union. If the United Nations can survive the unilateral Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, among many other wars large and small, it will survive cruise missile strikes on Syria.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Putin makes some strong arguments here that a U.S. strike on Syria could hurt U.S. interests. Many of his points are defensible and have been made by American analysts, such as the risk to U.S.-Iran negotiations and the fear that strikes would exacerbate extremism. Some of them are disputable -- Obama's proposed strikes would be pretty modest compared to the ongoing violence, a drop in the bucket, and thus unlikely to so dramatically reshape an already war-torn region.

But what rankles many analysts about this paragraph is that it ignores Putin's own role in enabling the already quite awful violence, as well as the extremism it's inspired. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It's a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

As above, these are strong arguments against outside involvement in Syria's civil war, made more than a little hypocritically, given that Putin himself has been actively involved in shaping the conflict and steering it away from peace. Still, the concern about Syria breeding extremist violence is likely an earnest one for Putin, who surely knows that some Chechens have been fighting in Syria and could very plausibly cause trouble back home in Russia.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future.

Russia has certainly espoused dialogue and a compromise plan, but it has acted instead to stop that from happening, refusing to wield its considerable power to bring this about. There is no one in the world better positioned than Vladimir Putin to force Assad to the negotiating table. Instead, Putin has shown every indication that he wishes for Assad to defeat the rebels totally and outright, as his father Hafez al-Assad did in 1982 when he crushed an uprising in Hama.

We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.

Putin is couching his support for Assad as simple fealty to international law. It's true that, according to the United Nations charter, almost any U.S. strikes on Syria would be illegal under international law. Still, it's hard to believe that Putin is motivated by international law, given the lengths he's gone to prevent the United Nations from protecting other forms of international law when it comes to Syria. Russia has blocked the United Nations from simply condemning Assad's attacks on civilians or the use of chemical weapons in Syria, much less taking action to punish or stop those crimes.

Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

This is true, and a real dilemma for Obama, given that he is attempting to portray strikes against Syria as meant to uphold international law against the use of chemical weapons.

Still, you'll be shocked to learn that Putin does not hold himself to the same standard he's setting here for Obama. Putin's Russia launched a war against Georgia just five short years ago. He would argue that the war was justified, but it certainly wasn't approved by the United Nations Security Council.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

This is the section of the op-ed that's drawing by far the most criticism. There is very little reason to believe that rebels carried out the attack but strong circumstantial evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. An investigation by Human Rights Watch pointed to the Assad regime as responsible. The United Nations investigation, while not permitted to formally assign blame, is expected to amass lots of evidence indicating Assad regime responsibility -- a story that broke mere minutes after Putin's op-ed went online.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

These are all strong points clearly meant to align with, and thus call greater attention to, arguments that many Americans have been making against strikes. Putin knows the memory of Iraq is weighing heavily on the United States right now and wants to remind us why. Russia, for its part, vehemently opposes Western intervention in foreign countries, which it sees as a continuation of Western imperialism and an indirect threat to Russia itself.

Max Fischer from the Washington Post continues:

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

This is credible. Putin's Russia has actually made some important strides in nonproliferation, including signing an historic nuclear disarmament treaty, New START, with President Obama in 2010.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin's big argument: Let's follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It's hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin's claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

This is my favorite part of the op-ed because it suggests that perhaps Putin himself, and not just a Western public relations firm, may have had a hand in crafting it. "Americans aren't special" is a terrible way to convince Americans to hear you out. But that idea is a sore point for Putin, exactly the sort of thing he'd struggle to resist poking at.

"American exceptionalism" is a complicated idea but it basically boils down to a combination of simple nationalism and a belief that the United States can and should play a special role in shaping the world. The one other country that has most closely shared this view of itself was the Soviet Union. Putin's Russia has obviously lost the ability to play the role of a superpower, but he still cultivates a sense of nationalism and national greatness. That often means nursing Russian pride hurt by perceived American bullying. This jab at "American exceptionalism" is a great illustration of that.

There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

This is an appeal to shared values and an implicit argument for harmony. It's a reminder to American readers that Russia is a predominantly Christian nation. And it could also be, as World Politics Review editor Matt Peterson pointed out to me, an implicit argument for sovereignty, that all nations are equal and so no one country should go interfering with another.

About Max Fisher:



Max Fisher is the Post's foreign affairs blogger. He has a master's degree in security studies from Johns Hopkins University

(Source for entire article: Worldviews - The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...)

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons
By Laura Smith-Spark and Tom Cohen, CNN
updated 10:25 AM EDT, Sun September 15, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politic...

The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin

by Masha Gessen

Synopsis:

The Man Without a Face is the chilling account of how a low- level, small-minded KGB operative ascended to the Russian presidency and, in an astonishingly short time, destroyed years of progress and made his country once more a threat to her own people and to the world.

Handpicked as a successor by the "family" surrounding an ailing and increasingly unpopular Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin seemed like a perfect choice for the oligarchy to shape according to its own designs. Suddenly the boy who had stood in the shadows, dreaming of ruling the world, was a public figure, and his popularity soared. Russia and an infatuated West were determined to see the progressive leader of their dreams, even as he seized control of media, sent political rivals and critics into exile or to the grave, and smashed the country's fragile electoral system, concentrating power in the hands of his cronies.

As a journalist living in Moscow, Masha Gessen experienced this history firsthand, and for The Man Without a Face she has drawn on information and sources no other writer has tapped. Her account of how a "faceless" man maneuvered his way into absolute-and absolutely corrupt-power has the makings of a classic of narrative nonfiction.

The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia

by Angus Roxburgh

Synopsis:

Russia under Vladimir Putin has proved a prickly partner for the West, a far cry from the democracy many hoped for when the Soviet Union collapsed. Angus Roxburgh charts the dramatic fight for Russia’s future under Vladimir Putin—how the former KGB man changed from reformer to autocrat, how he sought the West’s respect but earned its fear, how he cracked down on his rivals at home and burnished a flamboyant personality cult, one day saving snow leopards or horse-back riding bare-chested, the next tongue-lashing Western audiences. Drawing on dozens of exclusive interviews in Russia, where he worked for a time as a Kremlin insider advising Putin on press relations, as well as in the US and Europe, Roxburgh also argues that the West threw away chances to bring Russia in from the cold, by failing to understand its fears and aspirations following the collapse of communism. Fully updated following the 2012 presidential election, the new edition of this acclaimed book provides a unique and penetrating inside view of Putin’s Russia.

Folks, what are you thoughts on the developments with the Russian US deal?

Vladimir Putin And Russian Statecraft

by Allen C. Lynch (no image)

Synopsis:

Since Russian leader Vladimir Putin assumed power in August 1999, speculation about his character, motives, and plans for Russia’s future has been rampant in the West. A portrait of Putin has emerged in the West that is one-dimensional, ill informed, and diametrically opposed to the image of Putin the majority of Russians hold. Even after he stepped down as president in May 2008, retaining a significant measure of power as prime minister under his hand-picked successor, President Dmitri Medvedev, Putin remains poorly understood. In this interpretive biography of Putin, Allen C. Lynch seeks to reconcile the two conflicting images and find out just where the truth lies about the man and the statesman.

Westerners view Putin as an authoritarian holdover from the Soviet era who has clamped down on domestic opposition, freedom of the press, and other elements of a functioning democracy and who has relentlessly exerted Russian influence abroad, challenging the West and seeking to control its post-Soviet periphery. Most Russians, in contrast, are likely to be grateful to Putin for presiding over an economic recovery and reasserting Russian dignity on the world stage. A complete apprehension of the Russian leader, according to Lynch, requires an understanding of the way in which Putin’s personal experiences and critical events in recent Russian history have shaped his outlook. Lynch convincingly demonstrates how a complex interplay of Russia’s post-Soviet circumstances and the particular path of Putin’s career have informed his choices as leader.

Bentley wrote: "Folks, what are you thoughts on the developments with the Russian US deal?

"

Whatever else it is, I think it was major psychological win for Assad against his regional foes. If Assad plays it right, he might be able to crush the rebels. Or he might not. I think it's too early to tell.

Putin And The Rise Of Russia

by Michael Stuermer (no photo)

Synopsis:

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the world was left wondering about its destiny. In spite of the losses incurred, Russia is still a power with vast military inventories and an energy giant whose oil reserves will last, at present rates of exploitation, for more than 30 years, and with natural gas for more than 180 years. Questions abound as to what constitutes Russia's national interest, especially now, as a result of the conflict in South Ossetia. With Vladimir Putin no longer president, many Russians fear instability and insecurity. But the outside world, too, keeps wondering what will happen next. It is a defining moment for Russia, with far-reaching implications for the rest of the world.

Michael Stuermer has observed at close quarters the former president as he steered his country out of the chaos of the post-Yeltsin years. his authoritative new history of modern Russia considers the future for a country striving to be, once again, a great power with global reach.

Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In and Out of Love with Vladimir Putin

by Ben Judah (no photo)

Synopsis:

Judah's dynamic account of the rise (and fall-in-progress) of Russian President Vladimir Putin convincingly addresses just why and how Putin became so popular, and traces the decisions and realizations that seem to be leading to his undoing. The former Reuters Moscow reporter maps Putin's career and impact on modern Russia through wide-ranging research and has an eye for illuminating and devastating quotes, as when a reporter in dialogue with Putin says, "I lost the feeling that I lived in a free country. I have not started to feel fear." To which Putin responds, "Did you not think that this was what I was aiming for: that one feeling disappeared, but the other did not appear?" His style, however, feels hurried, an effect of which is occasional losses of narrative clarity. In some cases limited information is available, and his pace-maintaining reliance on euphemistic, metaphorical, and journalistic language can leave readers underserved and confused. Judah is at his best when being very specific, and perhaps the book's achievement is that it makes comprehensible how Putin got to where he is; those wondering how Putin became and remained so popular will benefit from this sober, well-researched case.

The Corporation: Russia and the KGB in the Age of President Putin

by Yuri Felshtinsky (no photo)

Synopsis:

Felshtinsky's The Corporation, brings forth the truths of Putin's reign and the team of FSB agents that serve him loyally. This book illustrates Putin as representing a completely new phenomenon, never before encountered by mankind. Suspected of numerous murders throughout his life, including Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, Vladimir Putin has continually kept himself untouched by authorities. And even now as he leaves office, his strong hold on Russia continues on to the Prime Minister's seat.

Jerome wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Folks, what are you thoughts on the developments with the Russian US deal?

"

Whatever else it is, I think it was major psychological win for Assad against his regional foes. If As..."

The rebels are not happy with this because of the reasons that you have given. And I cannot blame them - they have suffered for so long against a very evil regime - at least that is my take on anybody who would gas his own people or anybody for that matter.

Thank you for the adds too Jerome.

Sorry Richard we do not allow self promotion - here is your note without the self promotion:

Richard said:

I predicted over ten years ago that as soon as their oil money strated rolling in a strong man would take over Russia and again be a big player on the international stage.

It is very difficult to turn a country run by a dictator into a democracy.

If you beleive in provicence, then you can say the U.S. was created to show the rest of the world what freedom and democracy can achieve. Unfortunately not many countries have gotten the message.

As to exceptionalism, we are exceptional not because we are a superior in inteligence or strength but because of our system of government and our freedoms.

Okay I babbled enough.

Richard Brawer

Richard I appreciate your post and your comments and it is true that coming from a dictatorship - it is difficult to then foster democracy.

The Great Experiment that is America is exceptional if only in the fact that it survived and flourished. Keeping it that way is the challenge now and we have to realize that things are not that easy in a democracy either.

And as far as Russia - their history has been one of turbulence and seeking for something better - which has in the past fallen in with the likes of Stalin and others like him. Putin is more complex and enigmatic.

I think what Putin had to say is interesting to say the least - and very reasonable. I now begin to wonder just how much his previous words and actions have been filtered by the media and US government?

Check out this link where Time magazine has published a different cover here versus the rest of the world!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/tim...

Kind of scary in view of all the other things good old Obama has been up to lately.

Ed, I agree it was interesting - not altogether factual and in some places galling coming from Putin. And the line about "growing trust" between he and Obama could not be more false. Photo ops show a very tense relationship at best and the fact that they do not like each other much but are stuck with each other basically.

Putin is not in this to help America or Americans - he is "trolling' the newspapers here because "he can" and our laws allow him to do this sort of thing. Can you imagine if Obama wanted to take out an op ed ad in Moscow about something Putin was planning - do you really think it would get airtime - I doubt it - if it did - the newspaper owner or owners would disappear. That is the difference between America and Russia. Freedom of the press and "real freedom" is another.

Putin is really in this for Putin first, Russia second and its interests third. I am sure that Iran and China are also delighted with this. Let us give Obama some credit - without the threat of the use of force by the United States (whether you agreed with that action or not) - nothing would have happened regarding the chemical weapons in Syria - nada. So even though he gets a D for style points and for appearing to waffle (which he did do) - I thinks he gets an A for the final result and being strong enough to change his mind and opt for the negotiated agreement keeping military options still out there as a sword still over the head of Syria's illustrious leader. I think the person who obtained the greatest victory here was Assad. The rebels are not getting much from this and the Syrian people who have been gassed have paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. Syria is still devastated and the zillions of refugees still cannot return home nor do they probably want to - facing Assad's regime.

This was a very, very complex situation and I have to say this - gassing people is abhorrent and country dictators who are doing this to their people should be stopped in their tracks. The UN is becoming more and more ridiculous - they could not even come out with a letter condemning what Assad is doing in Syria killing his own people and destroying his own country and then finally gassing them - why could the UN not do anything - because of the vetoes of China and Russia. They vetoed everything because of their interests - period.

And now a few words for editor Rick Stengel who was asked by Kerry, and immediately accepted, the job of running the department’s public diplomacy mission, according to Politico. Stengel I guess was responsible for these covers elsewhere - don't you think that was a very weasel like move and only devalued America elsewhere. I think Kerry should tell him he changed his mind.

I was never for America bombing Assad because of chemical weapons - the UN should have been doing something a very long time ago to help the Syrian people and the Syrian refugee camps. America has been doling out money to help the Syrian people in all of these camps in all of these surrounding countries but the mission was flawed because it was at cross purposes with what it was supposed to accomplish. What are you bombing and how do you know the chemical weapon stockpiles are there - if you are just doing a few strategic hits here and there. I see no problem with a multi national force going into Syria and uprooting Assad for what he has done and having him stand trial for gassing and other atrocities as was done to the Nazis after World War II. The complexities surrounding who will take over next is the issue - personally I would not want the US to be once again nation building on its own. There is too much to be done at home and most of the country has had enough with Iraq and Afghanistan. We have heard the case for "weapons of mass destruction" before from Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Powell and none of that was true. Saddam Hussein was horrendous - no doubt about it - but there were no weapons of mass destruction - so folks are understandably paranoid and suspicious.

And let us face it - the world is turning its back on Syria because of two veto votes - Russia and China. So let us not pat the Russians on the back just yet.

This was all about them. I am glad that they have finally acted and have done something - but why did they finally do that something and what made them do anything? It was very simply - the threat of force. Very sad considering the plight of the Syrians.

Ed, thank you for adding your post and the link - very interesting - and Time should be ashamed of itself too - but it is all about the money. Why different covers and not the same cover here - because there would have been backlash and outrage by the American people against Time magazine and the cover.

What do the rest of you think - Putin is an interesting puzzle and this situation is extremely complex.

I agree it is a complex situation - and that Putin is more wily than I ever gave him credit for. It's just this time his words are so reasonable that it gives me pause not to dismiss him outright.

As for the WMD, I personally believe that they exist and are hidden away in other countries. The Middle East is one vast desert after all. I wouldn't doubt that certain elements in Saudi Arabia are complicit in it somehow.

Well I tend to agree with your premise that it is a complex situation and that Putin is wily.

But what he did was a distraction - and a backhanded way of going behind Obama's back - It certainly is promoting what he wanted to accomplish. Kerry's error was turned into an opportunity by Putin which meant that Obama could not turn his back on the offer (if Putin could deliver the Syrian Assad and we all know he could and can).

His words are carefully crafted propaganda and Max Fisher did a great job of separating the wheat from the chaff.

I do not believe anything about WMDs and that has basically been proven after the fact and even Bush and Powell admitted they were given incorrect intelligence. And the Saudi Arabians were George W's best friends.

So I think everybody can believe what they want because we certainly do not know who to believe most of the time (smile) - Thanks for your post - good information for a debate of ideas on the subject (smile)

What surprises me about the current situation is that Obama, who is supposed to be intelligent, was outsmarted by Putin, who I never thought was that sharp. So I have to give him credit for that.

BTW, in the security community of which I am part, the thinking is that the chemical weapons have Russia's name all over them and Putin is desperate to get them back before this is discovered and confirmed by the U.S.

I don't think Obama was outsmarted - I think he was weighing all options which looks like waffling and is indeed waffling if you go back and forth while you weigh all options - which he did in a very public way - which he gets a D on. He did not want to go into Syria but gassing children was taking him there. I give him an A for the courage to do what he did finally do.

Putin on the other hand is another weasel and believe me there are a whole host of countries who would like to embarrass America any way they can. When Putin's affair with the 30 year old gymnast which ruined his 30 year old marriage which I believe is ending in divorce, ended in divorce or they are filing for divorce - the newspaper which published the truth and the report of his affair was closed down - the headline on the news report of what happened to this newspaper and the owners - was titled Better Dead Than Read. I will provide the link.

Here it is:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bett...

Ed if that is true and it may very well be true - then once again Putin is out for Putin, then Russia and its interests versus anything to do with Syria or the poor Syrian people and certainly not America or the American people. I think it was Kerry's response to a reporter's questions which set this off - and Putin and the Russians went running with Kerry's verbal mistake. However, in fairness to Kerry what he stated was that Assad would never agree to the destruction of all of his chemical weapons and Putin and the Russians ran with it. Even if they had to run over and bulldoze Assad. However, this was a win, win for everybody from Putin's viewpoint.

This is example of how Putin can be a completely antagonistic person to deal with - look at his body language and never looking at Obama or making eye contact - this is not a person that cares about America or the American people - in fact he could care less about Obama or how much he embarrasses our country or the President. That is my take. Obama is being as cordial as he can be and personable and Putin does not crack a smile or make eye contact until the end of the news conference.

Published on Jun 17, 2013
President Obama and President Vladimir Putin of Russia speak to the press after a bilateral meeting in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland. June 17, 2013.

http://youtu.be/idqnFKQNHdc

Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin

by Fiona Hill

Synopsis:

Who is Vladimir Putin? Observers have described him as a "man from nowhere" --someone without a face, substance, or soul. Russia experts Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy argue that Putin is in fact a man of many and complex identities. Drawing on a range of sources, including their own personal encounters, they describe six that are most essential: the Statist, the History Man, the Survivalist, the Outsider, the Free Marketeer, and the Case Officer. Understanding Putin's multiple dimensions is crucial for policymakers trying to decide how best to deal with Russia.

Hill and Gaddy trace the identities back to formative experiences in Putin's past, including his early life in Soviet Leningrad, his KGB training and responsibilities, his years as deputy mayor in the crime and corruptionridden city of St. Petersburg, his first role in Moscow as the "operative" brought in from the outside by liberal reformers in the Kremlin to help control Russia's oligarchs, and his time at the helm of a resurgent Russian state. The authors then examine the nature of the political system Putin has built, explaining it as a logical result of these six identities.

Vladimir Putin has his own idealized view of himself as CEO of "Russia, Inc." But rather than leading a transparent public corporation, he runs a closed boardroom, not answerable to its stakeholders. Now that his corporation seems to be in crisis, with political protests marking Mr. Putin's return to the presidency in 2012, will the CEO be held accountable for its failings?

"For more than a dozen years --the equivalent of three American presidential terms -- Vladimir Putin has presided over the largest nation on the planet, the second most powerful nuclear arsenal, and massive natural resources. Yet there is still debate about who he really is. Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy have gone a long way in answering that question, starting with the title, which makes a crucial point: even though 'Mr. Putin' was, in his upbringing and early career, a prototype of the Soviet man, he's no longer 'Comrade Putin.' His aim is not the restoration of communism. He has made a deal with the capitalists who have thrived in Russia over the past two decades: they support him in the exercise of his political power, and he supports them in amassing their fortunes." --from the foreword by Strobe Talbott(l

Can Russia Modernize/ Sistema, Power Networks and Informal Governance

by Alena V Ledeneva

Synopsis:

In this original, bottom-up account of the evolution of contemporary Russia, Alena Ledeneva seeks to reveal how informal power operates. Concentrating on Vladimir Putin's system of governance referred to as sistema she identifies four key types of networks: his inner circle, useful friends, core contacts and more diffuse ties and connections. These networks serve sistema but also serve themselves. Reliance on networks enables leaders to mobilise and to control, yet they also lock politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen into informal deals, mediated interests and personalised loyalty. This is the 'modernisation trap of informality': one cannot use the potential of informal networks without triggering their negative long-term consequences for institutional development. Ledeneva's perspective on informal power is based on in-depth interviews with sistema insiders and enhanced by evidence of its workings brought to light in court cases, enabling her to draw broad conclusions about the prospects for Russia's political institutions.

This is from The Atlantic - all of the late night comedy hosts have gotten in the act:

Putin Should Have Run His Op-Ed on BuzzFeed: Late-Night Comedy Roundup

http://bcove.me/dee43mr3

The Russian says Americans aren't exceptional (except Justin Timberlake), Pol Pot's personal ads — and more.

Syria remained a main topic on late-night TV Thursday night. With the Syrian admission that it does, indeed, have destructive weapons, The Tonight Show’s Jay Leno joked about George W. Bush’s continuing search for weapons of mass destruction. Leno also referenced the recent story that the CIA has begun delivering weapons to the Syrian rebels in his monologue, saying they won’t use them on the United States until they topple Assad’s government.

On the heels of his role in negotiations on disarming Syria of its chemical weapons, Russian President Vladimir Putin was published in the New York Times Thursday in the opinions section. Putin took umbrage with American exceptionalism and warned of possible problems within the international community. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel and Leno all referenced the newspaper industry struggles, with Stewart suggesting Putin should’ve written for Buzzfeed.

Russia’s record on gay rights was slammed by hosts, as well. Kimmel said Putin misunderstands American thinking and that Americans simply think we’re better than Putin, while Late Night's Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert and Conan O’Brien all noted the hypocrisy of Putin preaching equality in his piece.

"MediaBuzz" Panel: Was Putin's Op-Ed Fit To Print In NYT?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vide...

Howard Kurtz talks to Dana Milbank and Jim Pinkerton about Putin's op-ed in the New York Times.

"Fox News Sunday" Panel: Who Are The Winners And Losers Of The Syria Deal?

Brit Hume, Jane Harman, Bill Kristol and Charles Lane discuss the winners and losers in the Syria deal.

http://youtu.be/dTJHDcTHKr

(Source - Fox News - Real Clear Politics)

The McLaughlin Group: Putin's Op-Ed, Obama's Address, The Pope & Syria

Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Mort Zuckerman and Guy Taylor discuss.

http://youtu.be/DpPrtptVI58

Sen. Menendez On Putin NYT Op-Ed: "I Almost Wanted To Vomit"

"I almost wanted to vomit," Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said about Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed for the New York Times. "I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is."

http://youtu.be/tfhYaCk9QIs

Source: CNN

Chris Hayes: Putin Is "Trolling" The U.S.

Chris Hayes talks about Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times with Kenneth Roth and Julia Ioffe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/...

Source: NBC

Syrian Rebel Commander Idris Slams Putin as a ‘Terrorist’

In an interview with TIME, Syria's top rebel commander lashes out at Moscow, pleads for U.S. help - Weapons that are trying to bomb the Euphrates Dam are all from Russia.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/10/...

Video is of the Euphrates Dam:

Published on Sep 9, 2013
A great disaster threatens the eastern region in Syria as well as Iraq in case shelling the Euphrates Dam by Al Assad forces' warplanes continues. The lives of thousands are threatened and villages and cities will drawn in case the dam collapses.

The Euphrates Dam is in Al Tabaqa city, 55 kms far from Al Raqqah, 185 kms far from Der Al Zour and 375 kms far from the Iraqi borders. The area around the Euphrates Dam and the Ba'ath Regulatory Dam, which is 30 kms to the east towards Al Mansoura, has been subjected to shelling by Scud missiles whose destruction range is 2.5 kms, and destabilizes the soil on an area that exceeds 2 kms.

Uncertain information about cracks and destabilization in the dam's bodies has been received, warning of a great disaster in case one of them collapses, with catastrophic impact on the Syrian lives on the whole Syrian lands. The direct impact area extends along the Euphrates from Al Tabaqqa to the Iraqi borders (52680 sqms), almost one third of Syria's area, and is home for 3 million Syrians.

http://youtu.be/1TdACkn2lWk

Source: Time Magazine and Youtube Video which was enclosed with Time Magazine on line article

The PR firm behind the Putin NY Times piece: - (Audio interview attached)

Ketchum if You Can: The Real Story Behind Putin’s New York Times Op-Ed is PR Gold
BY NINA PORZUCKI ⋅ SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 ⋅

http://www.theworld.org/2013/09/ketch...

(Source: PRI's The World)

CBS also has a piece on this:

Selling the message: How PR firm helped place controversial Putin op-ed

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_16...

Source: CBS

Putin and Bush's Favorite PR firm
The public-relations firm that placed Putin's op-ed ran afoul of propaganda laws under Bush.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politi...

(Source: National Journal)

Russia’s Vladimir Putin: “We Use PR Firms Too”

http://muncievoice.com/8804/russias-v...

(Source: MuncieVoice.com

Meet The PR Firm That Helped Vladimir Putin Troll The Entire Country

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/vladim...

(Source: Business Insider)

U.S. public-relations firm helps Putin make his case to America

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/0...

(Source: Reuters)

Expert: Putin has bought Assad 'a ton of time'

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/...

Source: CNN

The Wall of Shame:



Assad - #1 by far

Ketchum
Time Magazine (for their cover switch - devaluing America abroad)
Rick Stengel - for any part played in the above while having one foot in each camp
China and Russia for blocking any assistance whatsoever to protect the Syrian people with their vetoes
Putin too - for hypocrisy and much much more
The UN (for doing nothing)

Letter from Jim DeMint sent directly to Vladimir Putin:

It is good.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/167987463/L...

Why is America Exceptional by Matthew Spaulding. (not on goodreads at all)

http://www.heritage.org/research/repo...

Putin's New York Times Blunder
18 September 2013 | Issue 5215
By Buck McKeon

Well Done!

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion...
The Moscow Times

“An Open Letter to the People of Russia,” - from Representative Steve Israel of New York-
http://israel.house.gov/index.php?opt...

http://israel.house.gov/index.php?opt...

Human Rights Watch

Dispatches: What Putin didn’t tell the American people

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/12/di...

Rand Paul in Time Magazine

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/13/sen-...

Great! (for foreign visitors meaning not so good)

Germany Sold Syria Chemicals, Government Admits
Reuters | Posted: 09/18/2013 11:47 am EDT | Updated: 09/18/2013 12:22 pm EDT

And Britain indicates that they may have done the same

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09...

Well Putin Likes Puppies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02...


(His dog even attends events with foreign visitors)

Putin Divorce: Couple Calls It Quits After 30 Years
Posted on the 07 June 2013 by Mendeleyeev

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/20...

The latest rebuttal to Putin from McCain - published in Pravda



When Pravda.ru editor, Dmitry Sudakov, offered to publish my commentary, he referred to me as "an active anti-Russian politician for many years." I'm sure that isn't the first time Russians have heard me characterized as their antagonist. Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by Russia's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.

I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don't respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin's rule.

Sergei Magnistky wasn't a human rights activist. He was an accountant at a Moscow law firm. He was an ordinary Russian who did an extraordinary thing. He exposed one of the largest state thefts of private assets in Russian history. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in Butyrka prison without trial, where he was beaten, became ill and died. After his death, he was given a show trial reminiscent of the Stalin-era and was, of course, found guilty. That wasn't only a crime against Sergei Magnitsky. It was a crime against the Russian people and your right to an honest government - a government worthy of Sergei Magnistky and of you.

President Putin claims his purpose is to restore Russia to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing Russia, which - lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy - is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent.

How has he strengthened Russia's international stature? By allying Russia with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a Syrian regime that is murdering tens of thousands of its own people to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world's attention. He is not enhancing Russia's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

President Putin doesn't believe in these values because he doesn't believe in you. He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn't believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.

I do believe in you. I believe in your capacity for self-government and your desire for justice and opportunity. I believe in the greatness of the Russian people, who suffered enormously and fought bravely against terrible adversity to save your nation. I believe in your right to make a civilization worthy of your dreams and sacrifices. When I criticize your government, it is not because I am anti-Russian. It is because I believe you deserve a government that believes in you and answers to you. And, I long for the day when you have it.

Article about the above on BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...

Time piece:

http://world.time.com/2013/09/19/mcca...

New York Time piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/wor...

Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

A Reply of sorts from prava.ru
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/...

Note: McCain sent the op-ed to both but the newspaper would not publish it but Pravda.ru did and the response of sorts is above.

Max Fisher and The Washington Post

John McCain’s self-defeating Pravda op-ed can only help Putin
By Max Fisher, Published: September 19 at 2:05 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...

The Japan Times

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013...

RT (Russia or Russian Times) - located in Moscow

Grounds to believe Syria chemical attack was smart provocation – (according to - my insertion) Putin
Published time: September 19, 2013 14:00
Edited time: September 20, 2013 12:47 Get short URL

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-rebels...

Some of his rhetoric makes sense - some not so much.

I have to agree that McCain's editorial was confrontational and completely the wrong tone. Putin sounds reasoned and logical in comparison.

Further I'm afraid McCain was not the person who should have delivered it in the first place. People call McCain a 'maverick', in my view he is a traitor to his own party. If you're going to call yourself a Republican then at least act like one. It is obvious he only called himself one to get elected way back when. He is left leaning at best and a closet liberal at worst and his own constituents hate him. Only because of the gerrymandering of voting districts it is impossible to get him out of office. If McCain wants to be a Democrat and speak for them then he should come out and call himself one.

Lastly I don't consider McCain a 'hero' either. I served in the Vietnam war too and getting yourself shot down is not exactly a hero to me, avoiding getting shot down - now that's what a hero is. So he was a prisoner of war, so what. You're not supposed to get captured in the first place. The only respect I have for the man is that he survived and made something of himself. But I don't want to be represented by him in regards to speaking to the Russian president. That is Obama's job not McCain's. I think he made America look stupid and small.

Believe me I'm not on Putin's side but I think he came out on top on this one.

I did not have a problem with the McCain article although I wish he had checked to see which newspaper or outlet in Russia had the largest reach.

Having said that he did make some good points which were also true.

Putin also made some good points but unfortunately nobody believes that the rebels gassed their own people aside from Putin who wants to exonerate Assad - the UN report also did not point the finger at the rebels but towards the Syrian government - there is a lot of posturing going on here.

I can see you do not care for McCain and that is fine.

I do think that McCain is a hero and we can agree to disagree. And he was a prisoner of war like many other heroes. I am glad that Obama did not resort to the same tactics as Putin - I think Putin was out of line and trolling America but having said that I am all for free speech, freedom of the press and so on for everyone - so I cannot blame the New York Times for publishing Putin's op-ed - that is what they do.

I am also not on anybody's side aside from being on the side of peace and safety for the Syrian people and for America to make the right kind of decision minus the politics and histrionics. I am glad that senators and representatives responded to Putin in kind - in his own country and that way Putin will understand a bit of what happens when you insert yourself and butt in to somebody else's country's decisions, etc.

I do not think anybody came out on top in Syria aside from Assad. As far as Obama he does not get points for style on this one but he did the right thing in the end. Has Putin scored some points on this one in the Middle East - probably with those who do not like America but those folks were probably not on America's side to begin with. Russia wants the spotlight (I mean Putin) - it makes them feel important and they really are in this situation.

And don't you doubt for a moment that the offer on the table would be there if it wasn't because of the threat of force.

Thanks for your post Ed and for your comments.

I'm all for the Syrian people too and helping them- the problem is: which ones? We already screwed up Egypt and Libya backing the wrong factions. And let's not forget Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite the vaunted CIA and NSA we just don't seem to know what we're doing in the Middle East. It's such a shame, I hate seeing people suffer like this.