Putin's Greatest Allies... The Republicans

‘Playing marbles’

03/03/14 08:51 AM—Updated 03/03/14 08:53 AM
By Steve Benen

Photo by ALEXEI NIKOLSKY
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin visits a navy ship in the Barents Sea Russian naval base of Severomorsk , on January 10, 2013. A 14-year-old Russian orphan…

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) appeared on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday, raising a compelling suggestion about domestic politics in the context of the Ukrainian crisis.

“We’re 48 hours from an international crisis, I would hope Americans would focus on condemning the actions of Putin rather than in a knee-jerk way, again, criticizing the president of the United States,” the congressman said.

What a nice, wholly unrealistic attitude.

Americans have seen our share of international crises involving Russia. What’s unusual about this one, at least from a domestic political perspective, is that we now see prominent Republican officials publicly expressing admiration for Russian leadership.

The Ukraine crisis is just the latest example of President Barack Obama being outmaneuvered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Sunday.

“Putin is playing chess and I think we are playing marbles, and I don’t think it’s even close” the Michigan Republican said on “Fox News Sunday.” ”They’ve been running circles around us.” […]

“And, by the way, the big one that started this was the absolute retreat on our missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia.”​

First, Czechoslovakia hasn’t actually been a country for the last couple of decades. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee should probably know that.

Second, remember all the prominent Democrats praising Putin’s strategic acumen over the Bush/Cheney administration when Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008? All the Dems who hit the Sunday shows to say Putin is “running circles around us”? No? That’s probably because it never happened. Indeed, if it had, the praise likely would have become a controversy unto itself.

And third, Rogers is impressed with Putin for reasons that don’t make any sense.

Kevin Drum characterized the Michigan Republican’s comments as “nuts.”

*Has Rogers even been following events in Ukraine lately? The reason Putin has sent troops into Crimea is because everything he’s done over the past year has blown up in his face. This was a last-ditch effort to avoid a fool’s mate, not some deeply-calculated bit of geopolitical strategery. […]

[H]aving failed utterly thanks to ham-handed tactics on his part, he’s finally decided on one last desperation move. Not because the West is helpless to retaliate, but because he’s simply decided he’s willing to bear the cost. It’s a sign of weakness, not a show of strength. It’s the price he’s paying for his inability to control events.​

This is what I was trying to get at last week, though Kevin clearly said it better. Putin keeps trying various strategic moves, which fail, which in turn forces the Russian leader into more reckless moves, which also fail.

Invading Ukrainian territory isn’t the action of a grand master chess player; it’s the action of a child throwing the chess board into the air because he doesn’t like the way the game is going.

Why the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is so impressed with this is a mystery.

 

Actually, the "big one" that started this was the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration.

The "spark" was Russia's failure to crush the Euromaidan protests in time to keep their surrogates in Ukraine in power. With Euromaidan's success came the fear in Putin that the naval bases in Crimea would fall to pro-European forces within Ukraine.

That was highly unlikely to happen. Crimea itself is semi-autonomous and pro-Russian. Any attempt by the newly empowered pro-European government in Kiev to "take" Russia's naval base would have failed. They wouldn't have even tried, as they intended to honor the agreements they made with Russia, and Crimea itself.

The decision to invade Crimea is a fool's move by Putin. He had no logical reason to do so, and it's about as bad a move as I've ever seen him make. He's now on the "hot-seat" and it's not going to go well for him.

Ukraine intends to keep Crimea, but I suggest they allow it to rejoin Russia, as part of a negotiated settlement. The area is dominated by Russian surrogates anyway, and the Russians are not going to stop @#$%ing with Ukrainian politics, but by ceding Crimea they can avoid a major War with Russia.

I'll go further and suggest a land-title transfer between those lands owned by pro-Russian people in Ukraine-proper willing to move to Crimea and the remaining pro-European people living in the autonomous region of Crimea who are willing to move to Ukraine-proper. Not all will (who wants to give-up their land?), but by doing so they could avoid being under the rule of Russia, and to me that's better than being beaten and murdered.

I'm not saying any of the above would be easy, but it's a workable solution that avoids a major conflict that would likely kill hundreds of thousands of people.

 

So with ALL of the Right-wing criticism and blaming our president for this situation in Ukraine, what exactly have any of them suggested should be done? Zero as far as I can tell. Military intervention is not an option. We really have zero interests in the region. And our European allies seem unwilling to act. So given all of those realities, what is the Right-wing in this country suggesting we do? Besides emboldening Putin by showing division in this country, are there any suggestions the Right has to address this crisis?

I thought not. *chirp*...*chirp* blame Obama...*chirp* ... *chirp* ... blame Obama...*chirp*

 

Obama needs to turn on the missile shield in East Europe to protect the rest of Europe.
Obama needs to increase the oil productions from ANWR to help stabilize the oil prices for us and Europe. He could also increase the flow in the Keystone pipeline.

 

So your ideas are to turn on a non-existent missile shield in Eastern Europe, pump more oil through a non-existent pipeline, and drill for more oil that would take approximately 10 years to hit the world markets and do nothing to stabilize current oil prices.
No wonder people ignore the Right.

 

Way over your head. Those are projects that Obama has cancelled. They would be ready about now, but ...............

 

Total BS. The missile shield plan is still in the works, it takes 10 years for realize oil from ANWR drilling, and the keystone pipeline would take years to complete and do nothing to change or "stabilize" world oil prices which have been pretty stable anyway as our dependence on oil lessens.

What I actually asked is what any of these Right-wingers would do differently rather than just criticize our president for not reacting in some way they can't define but are all too happy to sew internal divisions within our country during a foreign crisis that advantages Putin exclusively? Anything? Got something?

 

Maybe if Obama was in charge of the drilling it might take 10 years. But if you freed up industry, I will bet they could get it going in 2 or 3 at the most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/w...cels-missile-defense-russia-opposed.html?_r=0

 

Now that is what we need, less regulation on oil production. Keystone delayed itself for non compliance.

 

So the Right's opinion of what Obama should have done to address this crisis in Ukraine is drill for oil? That's a bit like attacking Iraq for 9/11...Oh wait, I guess there is precedent.

 

Non-compliance to what? The only non-approval it has received has been Obama.

 

a) I do not represent "the Right". That is my opinion.
b) Nothing new here. It is what I/we have been saying right along. Now maybe you can see why we said it, but I doubt you could possibly admit that.
c) You keep poo-pooing drilling for oil. I seem to remember someone crediting us with winning the cold war. Would you care to tell me what the biggest "weapon" he used to win that war was?

 

Sooooo, Putin's greatest allies are republicans who insist we drill, drill drill?

...I'm still not following this...

...basically 'cause it's too @#$%ed-up to follow.

Oh, wait, is the answer "Obama did and or did not do it according to some specified and or not specified quantifier that republicans are at leisure to disclose and or keep secret at their discretion?

Or is it Putin's man-boobs, again?

Look, if they turn you on, it's OK, but it should be clarified that his naked body is not unusual for a flabby, out-of-shape whatever-age he is.

But, it'd help if you stopped staring at them and focused on solutions to real problems, rather than whether or not his nipples make you feel like a deer.

 

I will give you a clue to help you follow. To quote something I have heard before, " It is the economy, stupid. The economy!"

 

Then call him!

Is there a secret button to "turn on the missile shield"?

He snaps his fingers and things just happen?

You betcha!

And you know this how?

 

You need to read post #6.

Oh, and 4 years of college and 40+ years of experience.

 

Ever hear of Environmental regulations?

 

Ever hear of Obama? BTW, yes, I have heard of environment regulations. I technically was a party to writing some.

 

Is there one that can keep Putin's shirt on?

Please?

They keep staring at me.

 

But, no comments about Obama winking at you?

View attachment 2330