"Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe."
That, from The New York Times this past Saturday, was disconcerting. Why Putin feels betrayed was not explained in the article. It's not just the U.S., Europe too, and it was Putin-U.S., not Putin-Obama, so this may not be on the right track, but it was what I thought to do. The two men do not have a good relationship so I thought to look at some of their public statements, and reports about their relationship, to see why. I know myself and so inevitably I am going to make judgments on who is right and who is wrong but I know myself well enough to know that being judgmental is a fault of mine for it really doesn't matter who is at fault, does it?...Well, maybe it does, a little.These are in reverse chronological order:
New York Times op-ed by Putin, September 11, 2013.
"Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies."
...
"Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."
...
"No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country."
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country."
...
"From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression."
...
"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
...
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security."
...
"We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive..."
...
"If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
I think I reprinted that when it appeared...but I'm not sure. Those were excerpts, but pretty extensive excerpts. I remember being a little off-put by this upon first read and upon re-read I'm a little off-put. If I had been Obama I would have been a little more off-put. I did notice the date and wondered if that was deliberate, but on whose part would it have been deliberate? The Times, I presume.
National Public Radio, September, 12, 2013.
"Leaders who respect each other and have a good relationship don't mock each other.
Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin do not have a good relationship.
Just as Russia and the U.S. are attempting to work out a delicate deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons, the Russian president published an op-ed in The New York Times thumbing his nose at President Obama.
Reactions to the affront have been strong."
"I almost wanted to vomit," New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN. House Speaker John Boehner told reporters he felt "insulted."
...
"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
...
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security."
...
"We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive..."
...
"If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
I think I reprinted that when it appeared...but I'm not sure. Those were excerpts, but pretty extensive excerpts. I remember being a little off-put by this upon first read and upon re-read I'm a little off-put. If I had been Obama I would have been a little more off-put. I did notice the date and wondered if that was deliberate, but on whose part would it have been deliberate? The Times, I presume.
National Public Radio, September, 12, 2013.
"Leaders who respect each other and have a good relationship don't mock each other.
Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin do not have a good relationship.
Just as Russia and the U.S. are attempting to work out a delicate deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons, the Russian president published an op-ed in The New York Times thumbing his nose at President Obama.
Reactions to the affront have been strong."
"I almost wanted to vomit," New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN. House Speaker John Boehner told reporters he felt "insulted."
...
"As long as the two countries keep talking — something they've had a hard time doing lately — the personal animosity that lies barely beneath the surface between the two presidents may not matter so much."
...
"The personal relationship is very bad," says Matthew Rojansky, who directs an institute on Russia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There's no sugarcoating that, even though both have tried."...
"The op-ed wasn't pleasant. Putin writes that his relationship with Obama "is marked by growing trust." Yet he adopts a lecturing, disapproving tone, taking issue with Obama's characterization of the U.S. as an exceptional nation."
...
"It's fairly unprecedented in the history of the relationship," says Leon Aron, director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "This is a kind of patronizing that I certainly don't recall, ever."For all the tension that existed between them, Leonid Brezhnev never tried to pants Richard Nixon in quite this way. And Putin's gesture comes at a curious time: You would think that while the two countries are trying to conduct sensitive talks about Syria their leaders would only be saying soothing things about working together on common goals."
...
"...Russia worries that the U.S. is looking for one more excuse to intervene in its geopolitical sphere.Putin has long been frustrated by U.S. military actions that have led to regime change in Iraq and Libya."
...
"He has achieved this position of hectoring and lecturing the U.S. about what to do, because Putin is this deus ex machina who delivered peace [on Syria]," Aron says.
...
Since Putin returned to the presidency last year, Russian relations with the U.S. have been marked by a series of hostile gestures.The U.S. passes a law punishing Russian officials for human rights violations, so Russia bans American parents from adopting Russian children. Russia gives sanctuary to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, so Obama cancels a planned sit-down with Putin.
Last month, Obama angered Putin by describing him as "looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom."
Those remarks came in the context of Obama's insistence that he doesn't "have a bad personal relationship with Putin."
But the "bored kid" comment was only his latest cranky characterization of Putin. Prior to meeting with the Russians in 2009, Obama said in an interview, "I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new."
"It was diplomatically incredibly clumsy, because obviously Putin would react badly to that," says Rutland, the Wesleyan government professor. "The relationship was dead on arrival, the personal relationship."
...
Now the two countries are working together in search of a solution regarding Syria's chemical weapons.
...
Putin now perceives himself as having saved Obama's bacon. As such, he believes he's earned bragging rights.
If Menendez wanted to vomit and Boehner--Boehner!--was insulted, I guess Obama must have been more than off-put.
I think Putin should have gotten props for Syria. I guess he didn't. Obama should have given him props.
"Back in January 2009 when Obama was sworn into office for the first time, he had high hopes for U.S.-Russian relations after things went south between George W. Bush and Putin.
There was a new young president – Dmitry Medvedev – in the Kremlin and Obama thought maybe Washington and Moscow could start over.
That March, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, a big red "reset button." Almost like red roses. It was mislabeled with the wrong Russian word but in matters of the heart it's the thought that counts. Things were looking up.
Medvedev and Obama had chemistry: By the end of the year, they reached agreement on a transit treaty allowing the United States and NATO to use a route through Russia into Afghanistan.
Then in April 2010, they signed the new arms control agreement."
When protesters took to the streets of Moscow in December, Vladimir Putin, waiting in the wings as prime minister, accused Clinton of stirring things up.
By May 2012, Putin was back in the Kremlin and then the chill set in.
He made a date with Obama for the G-8 meeting at Camp David but canceled and sent Medvedev, who was now prime minister.
It's been one quarrel after the other since. Syria, human rights, missile defense, a Russian law that bans American from adopting Russian children.
Putin even uncovered his own spy scandal: a U.S. diplomat wearing a blonde wig.
Then in June of this year, news broke that the Russian president had kept the diamond-studded Super Bowl ring that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft showed to him during a 2005 trip to St. Petersburg.
Things got worse in August when admitted National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed up in Moscow and was eventually granted temporary asylum.
Obama was stung by the move and canceled a summit meeting with Putin scheduled around this week's G-20 meetings in Russia.
"I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin," Obama insisted in August. "When we have conversations, they're candid, they're blunt; oftentimes, they're constructive."
Obama continued, "I know the press likes to focus on body language and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom."
CNN, September 4, 2013.
There was a new young president – Dmitry Medvedev – in the Kremlin and Obama thought maybe Washington and Moscow could start over.
That March, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, a big red "reset button." Almost like red roses. It was mislabeled with the wrong Russian word but in matters of the heart it's the thought that counts. Things were looking up.
Medvedev and Obama had chemistry: By the end of the year, they reached agreement on a transit treaty allowing the United States and NATO to use a route through Russia into Afghanistan.
Then in April 2010, they signed the new arms control agreement."
...
"But there were some warning signs.When protesters took to the streets of Moscow in December, Vladimir Putin, waiting in the wings as prime minister, accused Clinton of stirring things up.
By May 2012, Putin was back in the Kremlin and then the chill set in.
He made a date with Obama for the G-8 meeting at Camp David but canceled and sent Medvedev, who was now prime minister.
It's been one quarrel after the other since. Syria, human rights, missile defense, a Russian law that bans American from adopting Russian children.
Putin even uncovered his own spy scandal: a U.S. diplomat wearing a blonde wig.
Then in June of this year, news broke that the Russian president had kept the diamond-studded Super Bowl ring that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft showed to him during a 2005 trip to St. Petersburg.
Things got worse in August when admitted National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed up in Moscow and was eventually granted temporary asylum.
Obama was stung by the move and canceled a summit meeting with Putin scheduled around this week's G-20 meetings in Russia.
"I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin," Obama insisted in August. "When we have conversations, they're candid, they're blunt; oftentimes, they're constructive."
Obama continued, "I know the press likes to focus on body language and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom."
"But the truth is, is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive."
Since Putin came back to power, Obama said, "I think we saw more rhetoric on the Russian side that was anti-American, that played into some of the old stereotypes about the Cold War. And I've encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues. With mixed success."
Putin also sees no reason to cover up his disagreements with Obama.
"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia," he said this week. "And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either. We work. We argue about issues. We are human."
Since Putin came back to power, Obama said, "I think we saw more rhetoric on the Russian side that was anti-American, that played into some of the old stereotypes about the Cold War. And I've encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues. With mixed success."
Putin also sees no reason to cover up his disagreements with Obama.
"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia," he said this week. "And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either. We work. We argue about issues. We are human."
He-he-he-he, he looks like Napoleon after Waterloo, he-he-he...Oh, sorry. Well, he does look like a bored kid in a classroom. If Obama was insulted...Who amongst us would not have been insulted? That's really ridiculous.
Barack Obama has chided Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, for "cold war approaches" to relations with the US, saying Putin had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new", just days before the two men meet in Moscow.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama said the US was developing a "very good relationship" with Putin's successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, over issues such as nuclear arms reduction. But the American president acknowledged the balance of power in Russia by saying that he would also meet Putin, because he "still has sway".
"I think that it's important that, even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated – that it's time to move forward in a different direction", said Obama. "I think Medvedev understands that.
"I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new. To the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship, but wants co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process."
In April, Obama met Medvedev and spoke of "the beginning of new progress" in relations, praising the Russian president as "critical" to that movement. After that meeting, the two men issued a statement saying they were ready "to move beyond cold war mentalities".
Obama's latest remarks clarify that he sees Putin standing in the way of progress, particularly on issues such as weapons reduction. His comments may in part be driven by a belief that Putin is behind Russian objections to US plans to place a missile system in eastern Europe.
However his remarks, likely to infuriate the Kremlin, come amid growing pessimism that next week's Moscow trip will lead to a genuine "reset" in relations.
Putin will discuss "tactical and strategic issues" with Obama, the prime minister's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said last night. He added: "Putin will want to share his vision of current Russian-US relations on the basis of his experience of intensive contacts at the highest level when he was president. He has tremendous experience of contact with US presidents and a brilliant knowledge of the agenda."
Peskov told Ekho Moskvy radio: "Of course, he will be interested to understand the new US head of state, in order to make his modest contribution to the vision of possible prospects of development."
...
The Guardian, July 2, 2009.
Barack Obama has chided Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, for "cold war approaches" to relations with the US, saying Putin had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new", just days before the two men meet in Moscow.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama said the US was developing a "very good relationship" with Putin's successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, over issues such as nuclear arms reduction. But the American president acknowledged the balance of power in Russia by saying that he would also meet Putin, because he "still has sway".
"I think that it's important that, even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated – that it's time to move forward in a different direction", said Obama. "I think Medvedev understands that.
"I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new. To the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship, but wants co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process."
In April, Obama met Medvedev and spoke of "the beginning of new progress" in relations, praising the Russian president as "critical" to that movement. After that meeting, the two men issued a statement saying they were ready "to move beyond cold war mentalities".
Obama's latest remarks clarify that he sees Putin standing in the way of progress, particularly on issues such as weapons reduction. His comments may in part be driven by a belief that Putin is behind Russian objections to US plans to place a missile system in eastern Europe.
However his remarks, likely to infuriate the Kremlin, come amid growing pessimism that next week's Moscow trip will lead to a genuine "reset" in relations.
Putin will discuss "tactical and strategic issues" with Obama, the prime minister's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said last night. He added: "Putin will want to share his vision of current Russian-US relations on the basis of his experience of intensive contacts at the highest level when he was president. He has tremendous experience of contact with US presidents and a brilliant knowledge of the agenda."
Peskov told Ekho Moskvy radio: "Of course, he will be interested to understand the new US head of state, in order to make his modest contribution to the vision of possible prospects of development."
Ah yes, Medvedev. Obama got along with Medvedev. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If t'ain't cricket to "mock" another head-of-state, t'ain't cricket to "chide" one, neither. I'd have been a little off-put by those remarks if I had been Putin. And before they had even met! Nice, Obama.
...
"Reset Button," March 6, 2009.
“We worked hard to get the right Russian word,” Mrs. Clinton said, handing the button to Mr. Lavrov. “Do you think we got it?”
“You got it wrong,” he replied, explaining that the Americans had come up with the Russian word for overcharged.
“We won’t let you do that to us,” she said quickly, with a full-throated laugh.
They really didn't get along, do I remember correctly? Or was that the Chinese guy? Obviously, this was embarrassing, it doesn't speak well for American competence, I guess, but it was such a little thing, and on a goodwill gesture, I cannot imagine that this goodwill gesture did any harm at all.
