A transcript of President Putin's remarks to a youth group at Lake Seliger Friday is not available that I could find. Uniformly reported however are these remarks, which are taken from Reuters:
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts. We don't want that and don't plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia."
"Russia's partners...should understand it's best not to mess with us. Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."
He said eastern Ukraine did not agree with Yanukovich's removal and was now subjected to "crude military force" from government planes, tanks and artillery.
"If those are contemporary European values, then I'm simply disappointed in the highest degree. Small villages and large cities surrounded by the Ukrainian army which is directly hitting residential areas with the aim of destroying the infrastructure... It sadly reminds me of the events of the Second World War, when German fascist... occupiers surrounded our cities."
Putin used the term "Novorossyia," "New Russia," to refer to eastern Ukraine. If not literally the first time, it is one of the first times he has used the term in public.
And so there it is, ladies and gentleman. By his actions and his words Vladimir Putin is laying claim to eastern Ukraine as part of Novorossyia and he is going to get it. It is not precisely clear if Putin's nuclear threat is aimed at Ukraine or the West, if his vow to repel aggression towards Russia encompasses further Western sanctions, Ukraine joining NATO, Western arming of Ukraine. If those remarks were directed toward his paranoid fear that NATO was going to attack Russia over its actions in Ukraine, well, the man is so far out of touch anything he thinks and says is possible. In other words, it is not clear if Putin is drawing a "red line" somewhere or speaking hypothetically.
Putin's actions and his words, that is, his transparent lies, have been consistent to his purpose. The West, once again, is in denial. Putin's remarks Friday were not even reported in America's quasi-official New York Times. I do not know if Official Washington is in denial but quasi-official America seems to be. All should awaken to this reality rationally and strategically. Churchill said in the run-up to World War II "There it all was, laid out in precise detail, in prose as turgid as any in the Koran." Churchill was referring to Mein Kampf. Official and quasi-official America have been in denial about the Koran too but that is a subject well-covered here and a debate lost.
Today, we have a nationalist, expansionist, militarist leader of a major nuclear power who has invaded a sovereign nation and who is rattling his conventional and wmd military capability in casual remarks. The West has imposed economic sanctions against him, "costs," it puts it, for his wrongdoing. The sanctions were intended to be corrective and are temporally limited. They have been effective in costing this dangerous leader but have not proved corrective. We should take him at his word and his actions and ask ourselves some direct questions:
Are the sanctions punitive? Yes. Corrective has left the building. The outcome is pre-determined, Putin will get what he wants in Ukraine, it will just cost him some money to get it. Further sanctions will cost him more money.
Do the nations of the West have the right to punish Russia? Yes. They are sovereign states, they may trade or forbid trade as they wish, permit or deny travel as they wish.
Does Russia have the right to punish the West for its punishment of Russia? Yes.
Does the West's punishment fit Putin's crime? Yes. Both Official America and Official Russia have stated publicly that Russia has felt the costs. For the West, the cost is for the crime of invasion. That is the truth. For Russia, the costs are for no crime. That is a lie. Because the costs cannot be precisely determined there is some risk that the sanctions will impose too great a cost even in the West's view for the crime. The West would not wish to turn Russia into Cuba. Nudging the Russian economy into recession seems the greatest punishment the West is willing to inflict.
Does the West still wish to proceed with another round of official punishment against Russia for the non-official invasion? It does.
Do we wish to revisit the decision not to put American troops into Ukraine? We do not.
Do we wish to revisit the decision not to supply arms to Ukraine? We do not.
Ukraine has asked again to join NATO. Do we wish to revisit the decision to reject Ukrainian membership? We do not.
Is the West still willing to sacrifice Crimea, eastern Ukraine, all of Ukraine possibly to Putin's Novorossyia? Yes. Russia, pay your money at the toll gate.
Those are the components of the strategy for dealing with the Russian invasions laid down early and often by President Obama. He will not go woolly in the knees over those. Good for him.
Should the West, NATO and the U.S. Strategic Command be war-planning for full nuclear war with Russia? Yes. That is only rational to Putin's words and actions.
Is "Greater NATO" the new, final red line for America and the West? Yes. By treaty. Obama has said it is too.
I opposed NATO expansion early, often and vigorously and as with the Koran and Islam that debate was lost. America is committed to nuclear war with Russia, if it comes to that, if Putin's Novorossyia comes to encompass Vilnius, as surely if it came to encompass Washington, D.C. Were I president I would have the damnedest time making the decision to proceed with nuclear war with Russia over Vilnius, Lithuania. I, as president would be committed by formal treaty, law, engage in that war. To fulfill my legal obligations under that treaty I would sacrifice millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans and western Europeans to fulfill a treaty to 3,000,000 Lithuanians. It is entangling alliances like NATO's expansion that formed the links in the chains that bound the European nations together and dragged them like slaves into World War I exactly 100 years ago this summer. I don't know what I would do if I were president and Putin invaded the Baltic states that the U.S. is chained to. Obama, the real president, surely is thinking of this. Isn't he? No...No, I would not do it. If I were president in that eventuality I would ignore the NATO treaty. I would not engage in nuclear war with Russia over the Baltics. I would ignore the treaty just like Obama ignored the law on Egypt's non-coup coup.
Those are my answers. What are yours?
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts. We don't want that and don't plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia."
"Russia's partners...should understand it's best not to mess with us. Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."
He said eastern Ukraine did not agree with Yanukovich's removal and was now subjected to "crude military force" from government planes, tanks and artillery.
"If those are contemporary European values, then I'm simply disappointed in the highest degree. Small villages and large cities surrounded by the Ukrainian army which is directly hitting residential areas with the aim of destroying the infrastructure... It sadly reminds me of the events of the Second World War, when German fascist... occupiers surrounded our cities."
Putin used the term "Novorossyia," "New Russia," to refer to eastern Ukraine. If not literally the first time, it is one of the first times he has used the term in public.
And so there it is, ladies and gentleman. By his actions and his words Vladimir Putin is laying claim to eastern Ukraine as part of Novorossyia and he is going to get it. It is not precisely clear if Putin's nuclear threat is aimed at Ukraine or the West, if his vow to repel aggression towards Russia encompasses further Western sanctions, Ukraine joining NATO, Western arming of Ukraine. If those remarks were directed toward his paranoid fear that NATO was going to attack Russia over its actions in Ukraine, well, the man is so far out of touch anything he thinks and says is possible. In other words, it is not clear if Putin is drawing a "red line" somewhere or speaking hypothetically.
Putin's actions and his words, that is, his transparent lies, have been consistent to his purpose. The West, once again, is in denial. Putin's remarks Friday were not even reported in America's quasi-official New York Times. I do not know if Official Washington is in denial but quasi-official America seems to be. All should awaken to this reality rationally and strategically. Churchill said in the run-up to World War II "There it all was, laid out in precise detail, in prose as turgid as any in the Koran." Churchill was referring to Mein Kampf. Official and quasi-official America have been in denial about the Koran too but that is a subject well-covered here and a debate lost.
Today, we have a nationalist, expansionist, militarist leader of a major nuclear power who has invaded a sovereign nation and who is rattling his conventional and wmd military capability in casual remarks. The West has imposed economic sanctions against him, "costs," it puts it, for his wrongdoing. The sanctions were intended to be corrective and are temporally limited. They have been effective in costing this dangerous leader but have not proved corrective. We should take him at his word and his actions and ask ourselves some direct questions:
Are the sanctions punitive? Yes. Corrective has left the building. The outcome is pre-determined, Putin will get what he wants in Ukraine, it will just cost him some money to get it. Further sanctions will cost him more money.
Do the nations of the West have the right to punish Russia? Yes. They are sovereign states, they may trade or forbid trade as they wish, permit or deny travel as they wish.
Does Russia have the right to punish the West for its punishment of Russia? Yes.
Does the West's punishment fit Putin's crime? Yes. Both Official America and Official Russia have stated publicly that Russia has felt the costs. For the West, the cost is for the crime of invasion. That is the truth. For Russia, the costs are for no crime. That is a lie. Because the costs cannot be precisely determined there is some risk that the sanctions will impose too great a cost even in the West's view for the crime. The West would not wish to turn Russia into Cuba. Nudging the Russian economy into recession seems the greatest punishment the West is willing to inflict.
Does the West still wish to proceed with another round of official punishment against Russia for the non-official invasion? It does.
Do we wish to revisit the decision not to put American troops into Ukraine? We do not.
Do we wish to revisit the decision not to supply arms to Ukraine? We do not.
Ukraine has asked again to join NATO. Do we wish to revisit the decision to reject Ukrainian membership? We do not.
Is the West still willing to sacrifice Crimea, eastern Ukraine, all of Ukraine possibly to Putin's Novorossyia? Yes. Russia, pay your money at the toll gate.
Those are the components of the strategy for dealing with the Russian invasions laid down early and often by President Obama. He will not go woolly in the knees over those. Good for him.
Should the West, NATO and the U.S. Strategic Command be war-planning for full nuclear war with Russia? Yes. That is only rational to Putin's words and actions.
Is "Greater NATO" the new, final red line for America and the West? Yes. By treaty. Obama has said it is too.
I opposed NATO expansion early, often and vigorously and as with the Koran and Islam that debate was lost. America is committed to nuclear war with Russia, if it comes to that, if Putin's Novorossyia comes to encompass Vilnius, as surely if it came to encompass Washington, D.C. Were I president I would have the damnedest time making the decision to proceed with nuclear war with Russia over Vilnius, Lithuania. I, as president would be committed by formal treaty, law, engage in that war. To fulfill my legal obligations under that treaty I would sacrifice millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans and western Europeans to fulfill a treaty to 3,000,000 Lithuanians. It is entangling alliances like NATO's expansion that formed the links in the chains that bound the European nations together and dragged them like slaves into World War I exactly 100 years ago this summer. I don't know what I would do if I were president and Putin invaded the Baltic states that the U.S. is chained to. Obama, the real president, surely is thinking of this. Isn't he? No...No, I would not do it. If I were president in that eventuality I would ignore the NATO treaty. I would not engage in nuclear war with Russia over the Baltics. I would ignore the treaty just like Obama ignored the law on Egypt's non-coup coup.
Those are my answers. What are yours?
