(From RealClearWorld)
Last week's tragic and deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, serve, sadly, as just the most recent reminder of the impact global terrorism has had on every continent and nation around the world. While the face of terror often carries a different banner and agenda, the symbolic, emotional and fatal impact it can have on a civilian population is undeniable.
Over seven years removed from the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the incident in Mumbai increasingly resembles a bookend of sorts in the chronology of global terrorism. Much like the cosmopolitan city of Mumbai, New York City represented not only a logistically ideal, civilian-dense target right on America's coastline, but a symbolic strike against American capitalism and finance. Much like New York City, Mumbai stands as a symbol of diversity and freedom in a country often plagued by sectarian divisions and strife. Crown jewels in two of the world's largest and most prosperous democracies.
There have been far too many terrorist attacks since 9/11, and to limit such a list to only five was no easy task. Many lives have been lost; relics, buildings and temples of worship left in rubble. Our goal at RealClearWorld was to avoid a list exclusively based on casualties, and instead accounted for other important factors in these attacks: Symbolism, strategic significance and domestic political impact were also considered alongside the carnage and bloodshed produced by these attacks.
With that criteria in mind, here are our five selections:
No. 5 Mumbai, 2006
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
01 December 2008
24 November 2008
RCW Person of the Year
(From RealClearWorld)
It used to mean something to be selected as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." Began in 1937, with Charles Lindbergh as the first honoree, the lineup of what used to be "Man of the Year" was filled with the world's movers and shakers, for better or worse.
FDR won it - the only person to be named thrice - but so did Adolf Hilter and Josef Stalin. Ghandi, Churchill, Ike and George Marshall were all among the early honorees. But over time, this list has been populated more often by frivolous choices.
The Computer has won it (1982) ... as did the Earth (1988) ... but the absurdity perhaps reached its apex when the magazine picked approximately 6 billion winners in 2006.
You.
Yeah, you.
Eager to restore its relevance, the magazine actually made a good choice last year - then-Russian president Vladimir Putin, certainly a worthy winner even if a controversial one. And Putin rewarded Time's editors with a lengthy and thought-provoking interview.
In about two weeks, the magazine is due to release its 2008 choice. But RealClearWorld has decided not to wait. We've seen enough from around the world to come up with our own Person of the Year. While there are scientists, humanitarians, artists and athletes who may warrant consideration, our top five candidates are more political in nature.
Here are our choices:
No. 5 Nicolas Sarkozy
It used to mean something to be selected as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." Began in 1937, with Charles Lindbergh as the first honoree, the lineup of what used to be "Man of the Year" was filled with the world's movers and shakers, for better or worse.
FDR won it - the only person to be named thrice - but so did Adolf Hilter and Josef Stalin. Ghandi, Churchill, Ike and George Marshall were all among the early honorees. But over time, this list has been populated more often by frivolous choices.
The Computer has won it (1982) ... as did the Earth (1988) ... but the absurdity perhaps reached its apex when the magazine picked approximately 6 billion winners in 2006.
You.
Yeah, you.
Eager to restore its relevance, the magazine actually made a good choice last year - then-Russian president Vladimir Putin, certainly a worthy winner even if a controversial one. And Putin rewarded Time's editors with a lengthy and thought-provoking interview.
In about two weeks, the magazine is due to release its 2008 choice. But RealClearWorld has decided not to wait. We've seen enough from around the world to come up with our own Person of the Year. While there are scientists, humanitarians, artists and athletes who may warrant consideration, our top five candidates are more political in nature.
Here are our choices:
No. 5 Nicolas Sarkozy
16 November 2008
Who'll Cause Obama's First 3 a.m. Call?
(From RealClearWorld)
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."
This ominous warning was not issued by President-elect Obama's campaign adversary John McCain or any of his surrogates. It came from Joe Biden, Obama's running mate and the nation's next vice president - merely two weeks before Obama's election victory.
Indeed, throughout his two-year campaign for the most powerful office in the world, Obama's lack of executive experience was almost always Topic No. 1. And his virtual blank slate pertaining to foreign policy produced more attack lines by his opponents than anything else.
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton made much hay when she unleashed the famed "3 a.m. call" television ad questioning whether a nation at war could risk electing someone so green as its leader. She made dramatic gains following the ad's unveiling, taking Obama to the wire in a spirited intra-party fight.
With an electorate more concerned about the current financial crisis and other more worrisome domestic issues, Obama beat McCain comfortably to win the election. But the world's bad actors and flash points will not simply go away. Fortunately for him, some of the potential problems will remain more long-term and less urgent, such as China, India and Brazil; while others, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Africa, will not be strategically pressing enough to warrant emergency actions.
So just who'll be responsible for Obama's first 3 a.m. phone call at the White House? After careful consideration, these are RealClearWorld's top five suspects:
No. 5 Russia
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."
This ominous warning was not issued by President-elect Obama's campaign adversary John McCain or any of his surrogates. It came from Joe Biden, Obama's running mate and the nation's next vice president - merely two weeks before Obama's election victory.
Indeed, throughout his two-year campaign for the most powerful office in the world, Obama's lack of executive experience was almost always Topic No. 1. And his virtual blank slate pertaining to foreign policy produced more attack lines by his opponents than anything else.
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton made much hay when she unleashed the famed "3 a.m. call" television ad questioning whether a nation at war could risk electing someone so green as its leader. She made dramatic gains following the ad's unveiling, taking Obama to the wire in a spirited intra-party fight.
With an electorate more concerned about the current financial crisis and other more worrisome domestic issues, Obama beat McCain comfortably to win the election. But the world's bad actors and flash points will not simply go away. Fortunately for him, some of the potential problems will remain more long-term and less urgent, such as China, India and Brazil; while others, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Africa, will not be strategically pressing enough to warrant emergency actions.
So just who'll be responsible for Obama's first 3 a.m. phone call at the White House? After careful consideration, these are RealClearWorld's top five suspects:
No. 5 Russia
06 November 2008
Unfinished Business from World War II
(From RealClearWorld)
President Dmitri Medvedev's announcement that Russia intends to deploy missiles "near Poland" sent shivers through Eastern Europe and drew condemnation throughout the West.
The term "near Poland" is misleading, for it doesn't even begin to convey the historic significance of exactly where Russia plans to place the missiles. It's a misstep in history that continues to exact a price to this day.
Russia wants to move these missiles to the Kalinigrad Oblast, an exclave that's physically separated from Russia proper after the disintegration of the Soviet Union that led to the independence of Lithuania. It's a sliver of land that used to be part of German East Prussia. "Kalinigrad" is better known as Konigsberg.
At the Potsdam Conference after World War II ended in Europe, the Soviet Union demanded, and received, considerable concessions from its western allies. Half of what used to be Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union, East Prussia was partitioned, and Poland was given most of German Pomerania and Silesia as compensation.
Not quite three months on the job, an eager yet naive President Truman proclaimed that Stalin was someone he could "do business with." He thought "(Stalin's) very honest, but he's also smart as hell."
With an ace in the hole (the A-Bomb), or so he thought, Truman was bent to play his hand to impress his Soviet counterpart. But Stalin was a much better poker player, for his spies in Los Alamos allowed him not to fold. Instead, he got what he wanted out of Truman: A Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe that today's Russia aches to reclaim.
Misreading Russian leaders, and their intentions, apparently is an American pastime. President Bush famous noted that when he looked Vladimir Putin in the eye, he found Putin to be "very straightforward and trustworthy. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
What will an earnest President Obama see in the eyes of Medvedev?
14 August 2008
Is Saakashvili Russia's Milosevic?
(From RealClearWorld)
Is Russia's intervention in Georgia a police action, a la what NATO did in 1999, when it bombed Slobodan Milosevic into submission? That's one way to look at it.
During a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Director of Eurasia Group Cliff Kupchan presented just such a view.
"It may be that (Russia's) goal is to depose (Mikheil) Saakashvili," Kupchan said. "In their view, it's very similar to NATO's action in Kosovo: Lots of bombing, some boots on the ground, taking away some territories and eventually getting the president deposed.
"They may not get a pro-Russian government in Georgia, but maybe one that's more tolerable."
Whatever the case may be, Russia's relationship with the West is already damaged, but maybe not as severely as some might think.
"I see the U.S. cutting back on a lot of bilateral meetings and agenda," Kupchan added. "But I don't think it'll go bare-knuckle, like trying to revoke Russia's membership in the G-8 or their effort to join the WTO."
There will be more pricey consequences, however, for Georgia and other former Eastern Bloc countries vying for membership in NATO.
Besides Georgia, which failed in its bid to join the security alliance earlier this year, the events probably will have the most profound effect on Ukraine -- the largest and most pro-Western former Soviet republic. Like Georgia, Ukraine was turned down for a membership in April but was tacitly promised that it would be reconsidered.
That's much less likely to happen now.
"This event highlights the problems Ukraine has in joining NATO," said Ana Jelenkovic of the Eurasia Group, a global political risk consultancy based in New York. "Besides the strong Russian opposition, it's even more unlikely for Ukraine to join NATO now because there is just no support for it from a large part of Ukraine's population."
This issue will continue to drive a wedge between the founding (i.e. western) members and the newer members that used to live under the Russian jackboots. Georgia and Ukraine's bids failed primarily because of strong French and German opposition, despite support from the U.S. and other eastern European countries.
That's not going to change anytime soon, especially considering western Europe's growing dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. For instance, Germany now imports more than 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia.
As for Georgia, not only is its NATO dream dead, it had better be on its best behavior. Despite the U.S. pledge to fly massive humanitarian aid to Tbilisi and strong rhetoric in its defense, there is no question the Bush Administration is furious -- at Georgia -- over the skirmish. Especially after Secretary of State Condolezza Rice's recent warning to Saakashvili not to provoke Russia.
"The U.S. is sending the C-17, a very large plane and a symbolic action," Kupchan said. "But there will be fallout in the U.S.-Georgia relationship. The U.S. is standing by him for now, though some acrimony will come out later.
"Russia has just taken a massive step into realpolitik. This is a shot across bow into the entire region."
And whatever the Kremlin's designs are, the opportunity wouldn't have been there without Saakashvili's intemperance. Whether Russia intends to make him the 2000s version of Milosevic, that remains to be seen.
Is Russia's intervention in Georgia a police action, a la what NATO did in 1999, when it bombed Slobodan Milosevic into submission? That's one way to look at it.
During a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Director of Eurasia Group Cliff Kupchan presented just such a view.
"It may be that (Russia's) goal is to depose (Mikheil) Saakashvili," Kupchan said. "In their view, it's very similar to NATO's action in Kosovo: Lots of bombing, some boots on the ground, taking away some territories and eventually getting the president deposed.
"They may not get a pro-Russian government in Georgia, but maybe one that's more tolerable."
Whatever the case may be, Russia's relationship with the West is already damaged, but maybe not as severely as some might think.
"I see the U.S. cutting back on a lot of bilateral meetings and agenda," Kupchan added. "But I don't think it'll go bare-knuckle, like trying to revoke Russia's membership in the G-8 or their effort to join the WTO."
There will be more pricey consequences, however, for Georgia and other former Eastern Bloc countries vying for membership in NATO.
Besides Georgia, which failed in its bid to join the security alliance earlier this year, the events probably will have the most profound effect on Ukraine -- the largest and most pro-Western former Soviet republic. Like Georgia, Ukraine was turned down for a membership in April but was tacitly promised that it would be reconsidered.
That's much less likely to happen now.
"This event highlights the problems Ukraine has in joining NATO," said Ana Jelenkovic of the Eurasia Group, a global political risk consultancy based in New York. "Besides the strong Russian opposition, it's even more unlikely for Ukraine to join NATO now because there is just no support for it from a large part of Ukraine's population."
This issue will continue to drive a wedge between the founding (i.e. western) members and the newer members that used to live under the Russian jackboots. Georgia and Ukraine's bids failed primarily because of strong French and German opposition, despite support from the U.S. and other eastern European countries.
That's not going to change anytime soon, especially considering western Europe's growing dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. For instance, Germany now imports more than 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia.
As for Georgia, not only is its NATO dream dead, it had better be on its best behavior. Despite the U.S. pledge to fly massive humanitarian aid to Tbilisi and strong rhetoric in its defense, there is no question the Bush Administration is furious -- at Georgia -- over the skirmish. Especially after Secretary of State Condolezza Rice's recent warning to Saakashvili not to provoke Russia.
"The U.S. is sending the C-17, a very large plane and a symbolic action," Kupchan said. "But there will be fallout in the U.S.-Georgia relationship. The U.S. is standing by him for now, though some acrimony will come out later.
"Russia has just taken a massive step into realpolitik. This is a shot across bow into the entire region."
And whatever the Kremlin's designs are, the opportunity wouldn't have been there without Saakashvili's intemperance. Whether Russia intends to make him the 2000s version of Milosevic, that remains to be seen.
21 July 2008
Chinese Ambition? There's More to It
(From Sinotaneous)
China and Russia settled a territorial dispute Monday when Russia agreed to return Yinlong Island (known as Tarabarov Island in Russian) and half of Heixiazi Island (Bolshoi Ussuriysky) to China. The 67 square miles of territory are on the northeast border with China.
No doubt some would read this as China flexing its growing international muscle. After all, who'd thought Putin and Medvedev's Russia would voluntarily cede its territories, no matter how small.
Besides, the sprouting Chinese presence in the Russian Far East, particularly in Vladivostock, has been viewed with ill ease by ordinary Russians. They're not comforted by the fact that many Chinese continue to refer to the port city by its Mandarin name Haishenwai (海参崴), even though the erstwhile Manchu fishing village has not been under Chinese sovereignty since 1860.
For over a century, Chinese school children were taught that Vladivostock, and a good chunk of the Russian Far East, were given to Czarist Russia in the unequal treaties of Aigun (1858) and Peking (1860). Near the nadir of its existence, a weak Qing Dynasty, fearful of the superior guns and boats of the west, surrendered acres of its ancestral lands without a shot being fired.
As China grew in strength over the last quarter century, the Chinese sought to right some historical wrongs. Flush with cash, China also had the option of settling border disputes without the use of force. The framework of the agreement was first negotiated in 1991 and continued through 2004. On the surface, the Chinese seemed to be getting the better of the Russians.
While the Chinese were busy earning the all-important "face" for the benefit of an increasingly nationalistic populace, Russia got what it wanted, too. For the price of a few small islands on and around the Amur River, Russia got China -- at least the PRC -- to renounce all future claims in the Russian Far East.
But the real worrisome fact from this China-Russia peace fest was just that. Once bitter rivals who fought several border skirmishes along a frozen river, China and Russia, each with its own anti-West ambitions, are closer than ever. Joined by a common desire to check American hegemony, the former communist rivals are putting their differences aside.
Any wonder why these guys are getting along famously at U.N. Security Council meetings?
China and Russia settled a territorial dispute Monday when Russia agreed to return Yinlong Island (known as Tarabarov Island in Russian) and half of Heixiazi Island (Bolshoi Ussuriysky) to China. The 67 square miles of territory are on the northeast border with China.
No doubt some would read this as China flexing its growing international muscle. After all, who'd thought Putin and Medvedev's Russia would voluntarily cede its territories, no matter how small.
Besides, the sprouting Chinese presence in the Russian Far East, particularly in Vladivostock, has been viewed with ill ease by ordinary Russians. They're not comforted by the fact that many Chinese continue to refer to the port city by its Mandarin name Haishenwai (海参崴), even though the erstwhile Manchu fishing village has not been under Chinese sovereignty since 1860.
For over a century, Chinese school children were taught that Vladivostock, and a good chunk of the Russian Far East, were given to Czarist Russia in the unequal treaties of Aigun (1858) and Peking (1860). Near the nadir of its existence, a weak Qing Dynasty, fearful of the superior guns and boats of the west, surrendered acres of its ancestral lands without a shot being fired.
As China grew in strength over the last quarter century, the Chinese sought to right some historical wrongs. Flush with cash, China also had the option of settling border disputes without the use of force. The framework of the agreement was first negotiated in 1991 and continued through 2004. On the surface, the Chinese seemed to be getting the better of the Russians.
While the Chinese were busy earning the all-important "face" for the benefit of an increasingly nationalistic populace, Russia got what it wanted, too. For the price of a few small islands on and around the Amur River, Russia got China -- at least the PRC -- to renounce all future claims in the Russian Far East.
But the real worrisome fact from this China-Russia peace fest was just that. Once bitter rivals who fought several border skirmishes along a frozen river, China and Russia, each with its own anti-West ambitions, are closer than ever. Joined by a common desire to check American hegemony, the former communist rivals are putting their differences aside.
Any wonder why these guys are getting along famously at U.N. Security Council meetings?
09 November 2007
The World's Most Dangerous Man
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a punk, maybe a street thug ... compared to Vladimir Putin.
While the West vacillates about what to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's quietly letting slide a monstrous buildup that may one day prove Tehran's shenanigans seriously inconsequential.
Could it be that we're at 1938 again?
Since Putin took over the presidency of ostensibly democratic new Russia in 2000, he has systematically eliminated his rivals, intimidated his neighbors, dismantled democratic institutions and consolidated his power. At the same time, he has bolstered Russia's international prestige and lifted it out of the economic doldrums that plagued the nation after the collapse of Soviet communism.
If this sounds like history is repeating itself, it just might be.
In 1938, Germany had freed itself from the shackles of the Treaty of Versailles and quickly regained its preeminence among the world's leading nations. Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 promising a reassertion of German nationalism and economic recovery, and in five years, he had mostly achieved those aims.
For that, he was lauded as a hero domestically, even as concentration camps were popping up all over the Reich and one-party rule was becoming more draconian by the day. The Germans, many of them, anyway, were enjoying the Autobahns and the summers on the Baltic, even if their Jewish neighbors were harassed and beaten during Kristallnacht and other activities on the dawn of the Holocaust.
Fast forward to 2007, the Russians likewise are enjoying a recovery of their own. With petrorubles pouring in, thanks to Putin's shrewd exploitation of Russia's rich natural resources, there is no debate that ordinary Russians are better off now than they were in the 1990s. And because of Putin's intransigence in all things that may be construed as pro-American -- Iraq, Iran, defense missiles shield -- he is slowly but surely reclaiming Russia's position as the most serious adversary of the United States.
The West's attitude toward Putin, to date, has been that of tacit tolerance, for various reason. In western Europe, where more than half of its natural gas is supplied by Russia, there is a real fear of having the spigot turned off by Moscow. Besides, European weakness toward an obnoxious neighbor is to be expected, from Munich in 1938, Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, to Belgrade in 1995. It's almost like clockwork.
The United States, on the other hand, has been unwilling to confront Putin head-on for absolutely no good reasons. The U.S. has no dependency on Russia of any sort. Putin has proved to be anything but an ally in the War on Terror. And as for checking China's growing influence ... yeah, China and Russia are all but in lockstep in terms of exercising their veto power in the United Nations, against actions that are of vital interest to the United States.
It may be that George W. Bush has a hard time living down this now infamous evaluation of Vladimir Putin the person, during a summit in June 2001: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." In terms of sheer idiocy, this one blows away "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job," by a country mile.
Of course, there's more to it then that. World leaders routinely misjudge their counterparts. (Truman once remarked about Stalin: "I think I can do business with Stalin. He's very honest, but he's also smart as hell.") But the good ones do not vest their nation's best interest in a non-existent personal relationship. But for Bush, a man who has trouble coming to terms with his own errors, this will take some sort of reckoning to fix.
But whether it's Bush, or his successor in the Oval Office, the Russian problem will have to be confronted, soon. Putin clearly has an agenda beyond next year, when he's obligated to leave office per Russia's constitution. He has intimated that he might run for prime minister. And while he has ruled out changing the constitution altogether to allow him to stay on as president, his pals are busy recasting him in a new role as "Father of the Nation."
Either way, he'll win the (re-)election in a landslide, for he is as popular in Russia as Bush is unpopular in the U.S. Emboldened by this, Putin's government will continue the harassment of uncooperative neighbors such as Georgia and the Ukraine, only with more intensity. And Iran will become a bigger flash point even if Iraq's situation stabilizes because the mullahs and Ahmadinejad wouldn't have this much courage without the Kremlin's backing.
The difference between Putin and Hitler, at the moment, is that it's uncertain whether Putin is bent on a destructive war. That said, Putin is potentially more dangerous because of what he has at his disposal: a nuclear arsenal, a substantial war machine, crucial natural resources, and a population that trusts his judgement. As a former KGB operative, Putin's ruthlessness (see: Alexander Litvinenko) cannot be underestimated.
So while we go on our merry way and continue to vest our energies dealing with third-world thugs such as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung-il, maybe our leaders should devote a little more attention to Putin and his gang, and at least signal some willingness to stand up to them. Otherwise, the West may be repeating a lesson that should've been learned from Munich in 1938.
Britain and her allies might've stopped Hitler short of total war by refusing to flinch and appease. Instead, Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper and declared it to be "peace for our time."
Let's not have "I looked the man in the eye and ... was able to get a sense of his soul," etched as the epitaph of this generation.
While the West vacillates about what to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's quietly letting slide a monstrous buildup that may one day prove Tehran's shenanigans seriously inconsequential.
Could it be that we're at 1938 again?
Since Putin took over the presidency of ostensibly democratic new Russia in 2000, he has systematically eliminated his rivals, intimidated his neighbors, dismantled democratic institutions and consolidated his power. At the same time, he has bolstered Russia's international prestige and lifted it out of the economic doldrums that plagued the nation after the collapse of Soviet communism.
If this sounds like history is repeating itself, it just might be.
In 1938, Germany had freed itself from the shackles of the Treaty of Versailles and quickly regained its preeminence among the world's leading nations. Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 promising a reassertion of German nationalism and economic recovery, and in five years, he had mostly achieved those aims.
For that, he was lauded as a hero domestically, even as concentration camps were popping up all over the Reich and one-party rule was becoming more draconian by the day. The Germans, many of them, anyway, were enjoying the Autobahns and the summers on the Baltic, even if their Jewish neighbors were harassed and beaten during Kristallnacht and other activities on the dawn of the Holocaust.
Fast forward to 2007, the Russians likewise are enjoying a recovery of their own. With petrorubles pouring in, thanks to Putin's shrewd exploitation of Russia's rich natural resources, there is no debate that ordinary Russians are better off now than they were in the 1990s. And because of Putin's intransigence in all things that may be construed as pro-American -- Iraq, Iran, defense missiles shield -- he is slowly but surely reclaiming Russia's position as the most serious adversary of the United States.
The West's attitude toward Putin, to date, has been that of tacit tolerance, for various reason. In western Europe, where more than half of its natural gas is supplied by Russia, there is a real fear of having the spigot turned off by Moscow. Besides, European weakness toward an obnoxious neighbor is to be expected, from Munich in 1938, Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, to Belgrade in 1995. It's almost like clockwork.
The United States, on the other hand, has been unwilling to confront Putin head-on for absolutely no good reasons. The U.S. has no dependency on Russia of any sort. Putin has proved to be anything but an ally in the War on Terror. And as for checking China's growing influence ... yeah, China and Russia are all but in lockstep in terms of exercising their veto power in the United Nations, against actions that are of vital interest to the United States.
It may be that George W. Bush has a hard time living down this now infamous evaluation of Vladimir Putin the person, during a summit in June 2001: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." In terms of sheer idiocy, this one blows away "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job," by a country mile.
Of course, there's more to it then that. World leaders routinely misjudge their counterparts. (Truman once remarked about Stalin: "I think I can do business with Stalin. He's very honest, but he's also smart as hell.") But the good ones do not vest their nation's best interest in a non-existent personal relationship. But for Bush, a man who has trouble coming to terms with his own errors, this will take some sort of reckoning to fix.
But whether it's Bush, or his successor in the Oval Office, the Russian problem will have to be confronted, soon. Putin clearly has an agenda beyond next year, when he's obligated to leave office per Russia's constitution. He has intimated that he might run for prime minister. And while he has ruled out changing the constitution altogether to allow him to stay on as president, his pals are busy recasting him in a new role as "Father of the Nation."
Either way, he'll win the (re-)election in a landslide, for he is as popular in Russia as Bush is unpopular in the U.S. Emboldened by this, Putin's government will continue the harassment of uncooperative neighbors such as Georgia and the Ukraine, only with more intensity. And Iran will become a bigger flash point even if Iraq's situation stabilizes because the mullahs and Ahmadinejad wouldn't have this much courage without the Kremlin's backing.
The difference between Putin and Hitler, at the moment, is that it's uncertain whether Putin is bent on a destructive war. That said, Putin is potentially more dangerous because of what he has at his disposal: a nuclear arsenal, a substantial war machine, crucial natural resources, and a population that trusts his judgement. As a former KGB operative, Putin's ruthlessness (see: Alexander Litvinenko) cannot be underestimated.
So while we go on our merry way and continue to vest our energies dealing with third-world thugs such as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung-il, maybe our leaders should devote a little more attention to Putin and his gang, and at least signal some willingness to stand up to them. Otherwise, the West may be repeating a lesson that should've been learned from Munich in 1938.
Britain and her allies might've stopped Hitler short of total war by refusing to flinch and appease. Instead, Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper and declared it to be "peace for our time."
Let's not have "I looked the man in the eye and ... was able to get a sense of his soul," etched as the epitaph of this generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)