Vladimir Putin accepts nomination for President of ruling United Russia party

[Fog]

The next Russian presidential election comes up in March of 2012. We can expect Putin to be re-elected in a landslide. It will be interesting, to say the least, to watch how much more publicly anti-american their foreign poloicy & military moves will be. This man hates the USA from the bottom of his heart, and he will do everything humanly possible to make our lives miserable everywhere in the worls he can. If the current administration in Washington is re-hired for another 4 years in November, God knows what the world will look like in 2016.

 

[Brett327]

He's been calling the shots during Medvedev's tenure, so I wouldn't expect any big policy changes. He will likely continue his very visible and audiable rebuke of all things American. The russians love it and it's amusing to watch - more bark than bite, IMO. With the exception of their UNSC veto power and their perpetually contrarian stance to our initiatives there (what else is new), the Russians aren't in a position to be much more than an annoyance to us.

Brett

 

[phrogdriver]

The next Russian presidential election comes up in March of 2012. We can expect Putin to be re-elected in a landslide. It will be interesting, to say the least, to watch how much more publicly anti-american their foreign poloicy & military moves will be. This man hates the USA from the bottom of his heart, and he will do everything humanly possible to make our lives miserable everywhere in the worls he can. If the current administration in Washington is re-hired for another 4 years in November, God knows what the world will look like in 2016.

Hates the USA? Doubt it. Hell, he and President Bush did everything but French kiss after their first summit meeting. The US makes a convenient foil for him. All national leaders, especially dictators (which Putin is the next best thing to), need some kind of enemy or adversary. It helps keep the people unified and helps the people maintain the belief that they need this particular leader to protect and guide them.

Lots of nations take positions against the US. Very few of them have hurting the US as their real objective. Nations act out of their own self-interest. In most of the "anti-American" countries, the leaders are simply pandering the people, who admire anyone who stands up to the big bully of the US. Occasionally a country appears anti-American because it has interests opposite ours, but thats less common.

In any case, national leaders rarely make decisions based on personal hatred of another country. They do things for their national interest and things that will keep themselves in power. If pleasing the US was what the Russian people wanted, Putin would start giving President Obama bro hugs tomorrow.

 

[Fog]

I guess you historians never heard of the Korean or Viet Nam wars? Russia's national interest since WWII has been to counter America & American foreign policy at every available opportunity. A career KGB operative, I expect Vladimir Putin to continue what has characterized Russian foreign policy for the past 66 years. To think otherwise is to deny history. Look at the Mideast, the PRC, Iran & now an emboldened Russia. If you're not concerned (particularly given our budget realities), check your pulse. JMHO.

 

[Brett327]

Russia =/= Soviet Union

Our relationship with Russia has been very different since the end of the cold war, so to characterize modern Russia as essentially a continuation of the cold war Soviet Union is also a denial of history. What is it, exectly, do you think Putin is going to do differently once he's back in office? Spell it out for me, because I'm not getting it. This seems to be the thrust of your original post - Putin back in power = bad times for US interests. I contend that nothing will change. While I agree that the US and Russia aren't best buddies, they really don't present much of a strategic concern at this point in time. Emboldened Russia? How so? I also contend that Russia is diminished in recent years. What am I missing?

Brett

 

[Jim123]

Rhetorical question for Fog and for everyone- is the U.S. these days as having a lot of similarities to 1970s America? I think all of us have a similar answer...

For that matter, how much does present-day Russia resemble its past and what is different? I think they're still smarting from their own misadventures (Afghanistan and that Berlin Wall coming down thing). How does the old saying about history go? It doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes... A lot of good folks in the free world put in a lot of good work in the 1980s to make up the ground we lost in the 1970s. We are going to pull back a lot of our military influence around the world over the next 5-10 years; as a country we have all but decided that we can't afford not to. Nature abhors a vacuum, so who is going to fill that in??

Brett and phrogdriver, you're both right- making noise is cheap and taking action costs money that they don't have (not like they used to in the 1970s), but Fog, you're right too--Russia has been at an ebb for at least two decades and it won't last forever--and for ourselves we're going into an ebb that is going to last for quite a while.

As for Putin, he and his political career have a lot of years left. At about 20 years in Russian political life, he's barely middle aged.

 

[Fog]

Russia is a significant petroleum exporter and the natural gas provider to western Europe. While they have devolved into hoodlum capitalism since the end of the Cold War, they can also shut-down Europe's economy any winter of their choosing. Their influence in Iran is the major de-stabilizing force in the world today, and if we ever see a WWIII, it will come about because of Russia emboldening the Iranians into a nuclear confrontation w/ Israel & the U.S. That has not changed since the end of the Cold War - once again IMHO.

 

[phrogdriver]

I don't think anyone disputes that Russia is trying to be a power player in the region, and in the longer term, regain some of its old status in the world. It's doing that, not because it or its leaders hate us, it's doing that because it's good for Russia. What else are they supposed to do?

What I'm saying is that all nations do, or at least should, do what's in their interests. Now, wise leaders know that longer-term goals tend to be more collective, whereas short-term goals tend to be filled with conflict. The reason everyone seems to hate us in particular is because we are the most powerful nation around. If others want more influence, most of the time it comes from diminishing ours. That's why it often seems as if much of the world is always busy denouncing the US.

All the things Fog is listing are true to some extent, but their motivation isn't anti-American, other than as a means to an end. They're just being pro-Russian. The only way to defeat an enemy is to know him and his objectives. If the US makes decisions on the basis of the belief that "Putin hates the US," we'll be making the wrong responses, e.g. hate is something that can't be dealt with by negotiation.

If we understand the actual motivations behind their decisions, whether they are based on economics, military, or political power in a given situation, we can make the right responses in order to achieve our national goals.

 

[Fog]

Rhetorical question for Fog and for everyone- is the U.S. these days as having a lot of similarities to 1970s America? I think all of us have a similar answer...

Definitely similar to the 70's, but worse now for the following reasons:
(1) Congress was less dysfunctional then,
(2) There was national consensus as to the fundamental integrity of governmental institutions (Congress, Fed, White House, etc.),
(3) Only the USSR was widely considered an intractable foe (PRC was still a bunch of farmers then), and
(4) While the economy stunk (12% inflation & 20% Prime), the U.S. and Europe governments had decent balance sheets & liquidity.

The European Union may disintegrate w/in a year and the U.S. could exhaust its ability to borrow the PRC's & other governments' money. After Plan A & B go to hell, what will be our Plan Chuck if those things come about? Unfortunately, I don't see a Ronald Reagan saddling up this time around.

 

[HercDriver]

2) There was national consensus as to the fundamental integrity of governmental institutions (Congress, Fed, White House, etc.),

Really? Post-Watergate, post-Viet Nam?

 

[helolumpy]

Russia was pretty bold without Putin in power, they invaded a soveign country (Georgia) that was on the verge of joint NATO and no one lifted a finger to help. Russia has significant influence in their vicinity, but they are not the world wide power the Soviets were.

If you live in a country that borders Russia, then sweat them big time. So they will impact US interests, but only in their local area.

As for as Putin's view of the US, everyone needs a bad guy to point to. Putin, Chavez and Castro have all milked the anti-American sentiment for years to great success. Many Islamists have blamed Israel and Westernism (Great Satan) on every negative event that has occurred in the last 50 years.

We had Saddam, then Bin Laden. Now, I don't know who the bad guy is (Wall Street Bankers?), but politicians will always need an enemy to point to in order to place the blame and rally the troops.

 

[Brett327]

This just in, Putin's party may barely hold on to it's control of the Duma in the recent election and it's likely loss of the super-majority that it has enjoyed since 2007. This should make it a lot harder for him to ram policy matters through the legislature.

Brett

 

[Gatordev]

Russia was pretty bold without Putin in power, they invaded a soveign country (Georgia) that was on the verge of joint NATO and no one lifted a finger to help. Russia has significant influence in their vicinity, but they are not the world wide power the Soviets were.

Technically there were some Marines there to help, but I'm guessing you mean an actual State coming to intervene.

We had Saddam, then Bin Laden. Now, I don't know who the bad guy is (Wall Street Bankers?), but politicians will always need an enemy to point to in order to place the blame and rally the troops.

Personally I think we should invade Wall Street, though I've heard that occupations of Wall Street haven't historically been successful.

 

[xj220]

Another issue Russia is facing is that its population is on the decline and that'll seriously affect growth (as in there won't be any). Some musings I've read stated that Russia knows this and will try and bolster its presence in an effort to stave off an impending withdrawl from the world stage. True or not, anything blatant Putin does will be more political fluff than actual animosity.

 

[xj220]

If pleasing the US was what the Russian people wanted, Putin would start giving President Obama bro hugs tomorrow.

Well, we already know they both play Mafia Wars.