Bush versus Putin

Greg Djerejian thinks the wily Russian bested Bush in the art of diplomacy and grand strategy:

Putin, I think it's fair to say, rather outmaneuvered Bush on this issue at the G-8 meeting, first by making the case there's nothing particularly magic about the Polish and Czech locations, second by making the point those locations leave countries like Russia (and thus other countries east of Poland, like say Ukraine) exposed to the supposed Iranian missile threat to Europe, third by looking like he's in good faith trying to work with the U.S. on a responsible collective security posture, while nevertheless rejecting key elements of the U.S. approach (which now no longer quite have the same trappings of something of a fait accompli), fourth by appearing now like he's acted in good faith to broach a compromise so that when the U.S. essentially rejects in large part (as is ultimately likely) the Azeri option, Putin doesn't appears the bad guy, and therefore, allows himself room to more robustly counter the ultimate American decision made (particularly re: the interceptors in Poland), so that he'll be on firmer footing to showcase his disgreement.

But Bush will have a "war czar" soon, so things are sure to be back on track.

Comments

When we factor in the effects of Bush's long years of heavy drinking and coke-snorting, I'd guess that Putin currently has around a 50 point IQ edge over our Fearless Leader.

So why should we be so shocked at this?

Also, since Putin's immediate predecessor wrecked their own country while in a drunken stupor, I suppose they think Bush is just a little cosmic payback...

Posted by RKU | June 8, 2007 9:51 AM

I'll reiterate the points I made on the previous discussion of this topic:

a) The US government has been moving aggressively to undermine and weaken Russia --via the support of oligarchs thievery, the funding of the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine (in order to establish control of Russia's food supply), the ongoing attempts to seize the Caspian Sea oil deposits, and now-- the setup of anti-missile systems close to Russia's borders. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1360080,00.html

b) A global government --created by the US government to rule the planet -- would be a horror for US citizens as well as for Russians, Chinese, and Europeans. Such a government would inevitably become a vicious, inescapable dictatorship.

The benign Augustus Caesar is succeeded by Caligula, Nero, and the likes of Dick Cheney.

c) The Bush Administration is not trying to DEFEND the United States -- it is trying to conquer the world. Before supporting that aggression, Americans should ask what's in it for us. Because we will bear the heavy costs -- in lost liberties as well as in lost blood and savings.

d) In 1776, Edward Gibbon pointed out the pattern to our Founders:

"The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.

A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of allies, and the apprehension of his enemies.

The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge.

But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies.

The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. (58)

To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly."
---------
Chapter III, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 10:09 AM

"I'll reiterate the points I made on the previous discussion of this topic:"

Why the brevity, Don Williams? I'm sure you have other points you've previously made that absolutely need to be regurgitated here at length.

Don't you think water fluoridation figures into this issue?

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 10:14 AM

When this presidency's equivalent of "The Best and the Brightest" is written, it will be called, "The Dumbest Mother F--kers alive". Yes, we can thank General Franks for that. What I thought so interesting about Franks is that he didn't have any reservations about an invasion and occupation that Feith helped plan. As far as Putin, he is a very bright man. In any match up between Putin and Bush, Bush will get played like a fiddle every time. There is no contest.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 8, 2007 10:28 AM

Re Petey's "Why the brevity, Don Williams?"
---------
Because I thought that if I kept it real simple, Petey could maybe provide some comment with substance. Either refute my points, modify my points, argue contrary points or provide some facts and information. Although I realize that Petey is occupied with matters of greater import --like the intricate details of gossip re certain basketball teams.

Posted by Don Williams | June 8, 2007 11:09 AM

I wonder why Djerejian is so confident the "Azeri option" will be rejected? If it's technically feasible to use this site, I suspect Bush may call Putin's bluff. Seems to me this White House is a big fan of having military assets near oil wells.

Posted by Jasper | June 8, 2007 12:30 PM

If it's technically feasible to use this site, I suspect Bush may call Putin's bluff. Seems to me this White House is a big fan of having military assets near oil wells.

Why do you think it's a bluff? I suspect Putin would be perfectly willing to receive large cash payments for cooperative efforts where he'd have a hand in the decision making. And is this White House a big fan of military assets jointly controlled by Russia and the US? Somehow, I doubt that will fly, since at least part of this resurgence in "missile defense" and "defending Europe" probably is driven by switching back to Cold War mode. Seriously, Polish and Czech antimissile systems to defend against Iran? From the realm of personal anecdote, now that even my father has soured on Iraq, he's been sending me clippings about what a brutal dictator Putin is, which means that certain right-wing religious quarters have gone back to harping on the Red Menace. Meet the old enemy, same as the old enemy.

Posted by mds | June 8, 2007 1:19 PM

Whenever the "war czar" comes up I think of this.

Posted by SDM | June 8, 2007 1:44 PM