What if Vladimir Putin was actually a good leader and the US news cover him in a negative light for its own agenda?

Nikdy som nemal v úmysle vkladať sem cudzojazyčné články, ale tento ma veľmi zaujal, tak som sa rozhodol oň podeliť. Okrem toho si myslím, že väčšine z Vás angličtina nerobí problémy:

What if Vladimir Putin was actually a good leader and the US news cover him in a negative light for its own agenda?

It is an excellent question , thanks for it.

Let me start with a remark. At the 2006 Vilnius Conference in Lithuania, Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Putin for taking anti-democratic measures, but then he visited Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and praised their authoritarian dynastic regimes. For Putin, this was a clear confirmation that the United States were not interested in partnership as much as obedience.

Is the message clear? In Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan hold power sons of secretaries of the Communists Party of the USSR, after elections with results 97–98% for the ruling family, massive suppression of opposition etc. But they are obedient. So Mr. Cheney commends the progress made. If Putin were just as helpful his democracy would very probably improve - at least in eyes of Mr. Cheney.

The incident shows that assessing internal democracy in Russia is not the key problem. No experienced politician, as Dick Cheney undoubtedly is, can think that a functioning Western-style democracy could exist in Russia after 70 years of communist regime. The question is whether there is a regime in Russia that appreciates role of the United States in the World Liberal Order and is willing to subordinate like Germany and other European countries or will try to promote its own national interests if it thinks that American politics of global dominance harms them.

In March 1992, immediately after the fall of the USSR, a U.S. grand strategy of primacy that aimed to “prevent the emergence of a new rival” was outlined in a secret five-year Defense Planning Guidance paper that was leaked to the press. The primary author of the paper was Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was then serving under Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney during the George H. W. Bush term.

What does that mean? With such strategic goal, the United States cannot want to have equal partners only clients or vassals.

This has been s**** in relation to Russia over several years. Although President Putin has offered significant assistance to the United States immediately after September 11, 2001, such as the Air Force Base near Afghan borders, the United States insisted on expanding the North Atlantic Alliance to the east.

One of the best American diplomats ever George Kennan warned that pushing NATO toward Russia’s borders was “a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions,” which was likely to provoke an anti-Western backlash. Kennan wrote that Russian hostile reaction to the enlargement will be used as a proof Russia is a dangerous country. Exactly that happened.

The second point of the dispute was the abolition of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Bush unilaterally denounced it, although Russia saw it as a threat.

Russia together with Germany and France opposed the US intervention in Iraq in 2003.

Finally, when President Bush decided to recognize Kosovo (a split province of Serbia), and offered NATO membership to the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia, despite President Putin's warning to Condoleezza Rice, that it would mean crossing the red line, conflict was near. Bush made the proposal in 2008 at NATO's summit in Bucharest. Georgian President Saakashvilli was so sure that President Bush will not leave him alone if he would try to take back the breakaway province of South Ossetia by force, that he attacked its capital. It led to a short war between Russia and Georgia and freezing of US Russia relations. Because Russian army proved to be in pitiable condition only after that Russia started to invest in its military.

To sum it up, Russia in the geopolitical game is a player who reacts when is driven into a corner. Why? Because is much weaker.

This does not mean that Putin acts as a democrat on the domestic political scene. Because of Russian history, there is no Western-style democrat to rule. Cultural preconditions are lacking. But he is not a dictator, He rules with the consent of population. When Putin reacted on the state coup in Kiev by organizing a referendum in Crimea, his preferences skyrocketed to 90%. Why? Russians feel deeply humiliated by the horrible “transformation” they experienced in nineties under Yeltsin. Incredible robbery of the state property was sold to them as a lecture in “democracy” and “market economy”. They saw it as a fraud. During WWII GDP in the USSR fell by 24% during nineties by 34%. When Putin spoke about dissolution of the USSR being the greatest disaster of the 20th century he had this impoverishment in mind. Not a program to restore the USSR.

The present level of freedom in Russia is without parallel. Try to find on youtube videos of Alexey Navalnyj about corruption in Russia. Some have English subtitles.

Putin, after taking up power, inherited almost disintegrated state, and its main task was to restore the central power in Russia, otherwise Russia would be similar to Ukraine today – a failed state where several oligarchs are fighting for power. But with tremendous stacks of weapons of mass destruction.

The first victim of the war, whether it be cold or hot, is truth. A number of very good American journalists had been so influenced by the surge of patriotism after September 11 that they blindly supported American foreign policy, including intervention in Iraq, which was a tragic error.

When emotions surge, one can stand only on the one side of the barricade. The American press, to the utmost exception, therefore did not even try to truly describe the development in Russia, not to speak about Russian point of view. The result is a completely distorted interpretation of the situation in Russia and its relations to the West. With the exception of British The Guardian would other media hardly met the standards set by Walter Lippmann.

NATO rhetoric is based on an erroneous interpretation of Putin’s behavior, claiming that his intent is to restore the USSR. In reality, such rhetoric is aimed at legitimizing US efforts to maintain its global dominance.

What now? There are scientists with integrity like prof. John Mearsheimer, Prof. Stephen Walt, Prof. Stephen Cohen who can be found on youtube. Especially former career diplomats are excellent source of information Chas Freeman, Jr. Jack Matlock really served to the nation. Mainstream media is I am afraid still almost useless. But there are good books like The Strongman by Angus Roxburgh or Superpower Illusions by Matlock. If you will read it you will get insight into complex development of Russia in last 25 years. It is really not a black and white story of bad boys against good boys, but it is fascinating.

👍: nrbatas

Pardon, zabudol som na autora a zdroj:
Vaclav Zak, studied at Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering
odkaz

Kto v súčasnosti v našom verejnom priestore kladie takéto otázky? A kto na ne takto výstižne odpovie?
Podľahli sme západnej a najmä prozápadnej propagande. A vôbec sme si to nevšimli. V našich médiách prebehli čistky a nastala „normalizácia“, podobne ako po roku 1968. Dokonca aj v našich verejnoprávnych médiách. A vôbec sme nezaregistrovali, že sa niečo deje.
A keď prišli dôsledky, hľadali sme vinníka. Oblbnutí propagandou sme sa začali báť inej propagandy, uverili sme konšpiráciám a pod ich vplyvom sme začali bojovať proti konšpirátorom.

Celá tá rusofóbia, ktorá ovládla západný svet, je jedna veľká konšpirácia. Skladá sa z mnohých na seba nadväzujúcich dezinformácií, ktoré sme zhltli aj s navijakom...
Ach, my úbohí Európania a Severoatlanťania...

Nie úbohí, ale sprostí!
Len poklesom charakteru spoločnosti sa na nej dalo dosiahnuť to, čo sa dosiahlo.
Každému čo patrí.

6,.....aj keď si nohy neumýva?

👍: nrbatas

jehovista by nemal v politickej téme čo hľadať. Už si zabudol na toto pravidlo, ktoré si si sám sebe v rozpore s bibliou určil.

Tým rusofóbom často pri ich argumentovaní chýba logika. Je zjavné, že pripojenie Krymu bolo pre Rusko veľké sústo, nielen čo sa týka trápnej a hlúpej reakcie západu. A pritom to bolo jednoduché, keď to väčšina obyvateľov chcela a zvyšok tvorili z väčšej časti Ukrajinci, ktorí si neboli istí a mnohí z nich boli neskôr radi, že väčšina rozhodla za nich. Je ľahké pripojiť si územie s lojálnym obyvateľstvom.

Ako si niektorí predstavujú, že by Ruskom malo napadnúť európske štáty? Možno by sa vojenskou silou udržali v niektorom štáte pár dní. Ale čo potom? Čo by si počali s búriacim sa obyvateľstvom, ktoré by stále kládlo odpor?
A načo by to robili? Potrebujú oni územie niektorej ďalšej krajiny? Nie. A keby aj, veľmi dobre vedia, že by to nezvládli. Ani vojensky, ani ekonomicky a už vôbec nie politicky.

Úvahy o ruskej hrozbe preto považujem za niečo podobné, ako teórie o plochej Zemi.