I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. –Winston Churchill
Well, Vladimir Putin finally reveals his hand: he wants to rule the world and he’s angry the U.S. interferes with his plans. That’s not exactly what he said, though:
Attacking the concept of a “unipolar” world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: “What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master.”
“It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion,” he told the gathering of top security and defense officials.
“People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don’t want to learn it themselves.”
Gordon Johndroe, press secretary for the White House National Security Council, rejected Putin’s comments.
Let’s look at Mr. Putin’s actions to promote democracy and freedom just in 2006 (this is cross-posted to my blog and there are some self-referenced links):
- Stopping oil transportation to countries he’s trying to cow
- Assassinating political enemies
- Attempting to assassinate political rivals in geographically important states like Georgia
- Arming Iran
- Arming China
- Arming anyone who will act against the U.S.
- Taking over private enterprise within Russia and stifling the press
- Acting against non-government organizations in Russia
- Expanding the KGB
By focusing on the United States, Putin saves Europe from taking a serious self-assessment. I’m sure Putin’s words sound good, but to anyone watching Russia right now those words are very hollow and quite clearly psychological projection. Since the U.S. is everyone’s favorite scape-goat, he figures he’ll exploit it.
Those who want the U.S. to get out of Iraq need to consider the ramifications geopolitically of doing so. Since the Left refuses to drill for oil and explore serious ways to become energy independent (corn oil is not a serious solution), they should have a good alternative to staying in Iraq and being near to police the Middle East, but they don’t.
America’s reliance on Middle East oil, African oil, South American oil makes us a debtor nation. Of course these countries like our money, too, and don’t want that spigot to turn off, either, but we need them more than they need us. China also needs energy as their economy grows.
The geopolitical world’s ground shifts constantly and I’m not sure we have ever lived in a more dangerous time. Meanwhile, back to Anna Nicole.
I would bet the timing is not unrelated to the US intention to soon release intelligence on Iran’s activities in Iraq. Wonder if this will address the SAMs that have turned up there?
He has a funny way of competing with China. Nationalizing businesses really puts the kibosh on foreign investment.
What the left doesn’t want to acknowledge is that everyone is dependent on oil. If the shit hit’s the fan in te ME, it hits the fan everywhere, even in countries they like. Everyone is “dependent” upon oil, including every single individual who comprises the left. Why? because modernity itself relies on oil to be what it is. Oil has done more to relieve the burden of the downtrodden in the last fifteen minutes than Karl Marx could have ever hoped to do with all his dialectics and theories of surplus value combined. “Not your war”? “Not in your name”?
Bullshit.
yours/.
peter.
I did what your government suggested, I studied how Americans do business. I watched every episode of The Sopranos. The story of that American business leader and statesman Tony Soprano is really inspirational. I also watched Goodfellas, Once Upon A Time In America, and of course The Godfather and Godfather II (I could not make it through GF III).
I mean, stugots, I do what you tell me and then you give me shit about it. That is my problem with you guys.
Dan,
You’re exactly right, but the Russian people seem to like the strength no matter the cost. Putin is not acting like a leader worried about foreign investors fleeing to safer investments.
His actions don’t make sense to outsiders, but I think they make sense to Russians.
You know, perhaps America’s willingness to project its own military strength is what’s causing Russia to protect its interests. It is self-defense, really.
Melissa,
I think I understand, now. Putin means to impoverish the Russians so much that as Chinese affluence increases, manufacturing moves to Russia because of the low-cost labor. It’s brilliant!
Speaking of the Chinese, I think what we’re seeing is a fascinating contrast.
The Chinese, suffering 30 fewer years of Communism, concluded under Deng Xiaoping that the future rested on loosening the Communist Party’s grip on the nation’s economy, while minimizing political change. The Soviets, under Gorbachev, went almost the opposite route.
So, the Chinese ended the communes, ended reliance on heavy industry, reduced the size and role of state-owned enterprises, and slashed the military budget (this is the 1970s-1980s). But the Party retained political power.
The Soviets, OTOH, entered the age of glasnost but retained communes, and kept the state-owned heavy industries. Gorby allowed a free press, but never really pushed for economic liberalization.
By the 1990s, the Chinese had started a stock market, allowed foreign investment, and were busily making things for export. At that time, the FSU was trying to attract foreign investment, but it was a pittance compared with China. Even now, the communes remain in place (land privatization, AFAIK, has been marginal). The oligarchs replaced the Party, but private enterprise, true entrepreneurship, remains hobbled.
Moving into the future, it seems that while China builds corporations that challenge those of America, Western Europe, and Japan, Russia is intent on going backwards.
Maybe that’s why they’re selling SAMs to the Iranians.
Well, in part.
The Russian economy pre-collapse offered very few things that anyone would want. Soviet mismanagement really screwed up the system, so that aside from natural resources, the only thing they made that they could export was weapons.
Unfortunately, the Gulf War and subsequent conflicts showed the limitations of those weapons. When T-72s were being nailed the long way in the first Gulf War, it really hurt their export market. (Note to shtoopid trolls—the Iraqis were equipped with T-72s b/c they were not getting much from the US.)
The main export market became China, which had been cut off from Western weapons exports since Tiananmen Square. So, the Chinese fly Su-27s and sail Sovremennyy-class destroyers.
The Russians also sell arms to a variety of other unsavory sorts, usually those under embargo by the West (e.g., Iran). Gotta keep the workers employed somehow (and, to be honest, if the Russians didn’t sell it, it’s at least possible that the engineers would simply decamp for Tehran, Beijing, and Pyongyang anyway).
This is, of course, in addition to the political dimension. Moscow has never really reconciled itself to losing the Cold War, whatever Gorby’s claims, and would like to see a counter-vailing coalition. They’ve aligned with China (as the weaker partner), and have tried to make Europe more of its own pole.
In addition, the Russians have never stopped meddling in places like Ukraine, Georgia, and many of the -stans; places which they feel rightfully should remain in a Moscow-centric orbit. (Folks forget that Gorby and Yeltsin, in dissolving the USSR, tried to create a successor Commonwealth of Independent States, which would have kept the former USSR republics in Russian orbit. That was hardly likely, and statues of Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, etc., came down from Tbilisi to Minsk, much to alphie’s dismay.)
Sim alphie neglected to imply that our self interest are somehow base in comparison to the noble struggles of the Russian proletariat.
Yeah, I know, but I haven’t finished my AI studies yet.
Why would you need to know anything about artificial intelligence to program a sim alphie?
My take on this was slightly different, but I don’t disagree with Melissa’s.
So when there were two superpowers, the world enjoyed democracy, is that it, Vlad? Typical Russian, assumes siezing and exercising power is the only point to life and that without it, nothing is justified.
McGehee,
Putin is not too fond of the Muslims in his midst but he seems to have no problem with those aligned against America. He must believe that Iran won’t turn those nukes against him. Ditto China.
By the way, I had no idea you had a blog. I’ll add you to my blog roll.
Vlad’s forgetting the three century old occu-pation of Chechnya, give or take a decade, which resumed in due force in 1999-2000; which inspired the likes of 9/11 hijackers, Al Hamzi & Al Midhar. Not to mention the little problem, you had with ‘Khattab’ Samir al Suwaylim or Habdullah al Rahman, who was eliminated in 2002; but not
before he trained the Nord Ost theatre and
Beslan school hijackers. His supply of nuclear
materials and technician to Iran, will make it
increasingly likely to turn the weapons over
to the Chechens or their Sunni allies. I know
Sunnis and Shia don’t cooperate. . .
Lots of people would rather have a bi-polar world, like we do in the Tuamericas.
I thought Jeff asked us not to talk about … that.
The real question is why wouldn’t I need to know about artificial intelligence?
Given the myriad of problems facing the Central Asian region following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia should be accredited for their domestic progress, most notably their national projects to improve healthcare, education, agriculture and housing construction. Additionally, Russia has improved their regional relations by forging energy ties with neighboring nations and through the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Vladimir Putin’s efforts to improve the “quality of life for [Russian citizens]†is dependent on his ability to prosper economically within that regionâ€â€a task that is thwarted by the constant U.S. military pressure in the Central Asia. The U.S. has purposely exacerbated tensions in the Central Asian/Caucasian region by providing military aid, training and equipment to both Georgia and Uzbekistan in an effort to counteract Russian and Chinese influences. By forcing these nationsâ€â€nations that are historically prone to authoritarian leadershipâ€â€to democratize with promised compensations of financial assistance, the United States is essentially dividing the region into pro-Western and anti-Western states. In this scenario, are democratic intentions really beneficial?