How to Think About Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is a powerful ideological symbol and a highly effective ideological litmus test. He is a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives. I don’t want to compare him to our own president, but if you know enough about what a given American thinks of Putin, you can probably tell what he thinks of Donald Trump.

Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember, although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.

Vladimir Vladimirovich is not the president of a feminist NGO. He is not a transgender-rights activist. He is not an ombudsman appointed by the United Nations to make and deliver slide shows about green energy. He is the elected leader of Russia—a rugged, relatively poor, militarily powerful country that in recent years has been frequently humiliated, robbed, and misled. His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat.

Bogie: "I think you are making some sort of a mistake."

I lumped you in with Chengdu54 who expressed that opinion.
It's just curious that Bogie and Chengdu54, on a thread about Russia's Vladimir Putin should take off on Senator McCain, as if he's a bigger problem than Putin!
Having a little trouble with your I.F.F. are we?

Bogie: "As an American citizen McCain is my responsibility. I have been watching him for years. I don't trust him."

As a Republican McCain is far from our most conservative or most loyal to the Trump agenda.
On the other hand, let's be real: he's preferable to any Democrat in that position, and iirc has criticized Trump's proposed military budget for not spending enough!.
So I have no problem with that.

Bogie: "It’s not about how many dollars get spent. Military contractors spend $100 for a common hammer."

Only if it is very special purpose, one of a kind.
Common hammers purchased in bulk cost the military about what you'd pay at Home Depot, or less.

Bogie: " We need research and engineering."

Absolutely, massive research & engineering, no argument.

"Squandering on the Iraq military is’t going to do anything to save the day"

Perhaps you know President Trump's opinions on this?
He says we should not have gone into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the first place because that created a power vacuum soon filled by many nefarious forces.
But once there, Trump says we should have left an adequate force to help the new Iraqi government defend itself.
Such US forces would also help train and support the new Iraqi army.

Today US forces in Iraq have increased to barely adequate levels for their missions.
One of those is training & supporting the Iraqi army.
One result is Iraqi forces suffer 99+% of the casualties in their war against ISIS.
In that respect at least, it's US money well spent.

Bogie: "A few individuals will make lots of paper dollars but have no place to spend them."

I don't get that -- are you saying they need more Wal-Marts and Home Depots in Iraq, or in the USA?

Bogie: "What kind of sense does that make?
It has nothing to do with the constitutional mandate of national defense."

You may remember from US history, our first war against radical Islamic terrorism was under Presidents Jefferson & Madison, the Barbary War.
President Madison, you may remember, is called the Father of the Constitution and Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence as well as originating our Bill of Rights.

In the early 1800s Jefferson & Madison sent the US Navy thousands of miles to Northern Africa to defeat Islamic terrorists, and they saw no contradiction between that and our Constitution.
In the 1800s US forces in hostile lands (i.e., Indian Territory) often used native warriors to bolster our own military strength.

So I don't see a problem with that aspect of it.

And in that Barbary War, William Eaton - US Consul to Tunis who a pal of Jefferson raised a mercenary army for the US Navy & USMC assault on Tripoli. There was a grand total of 8 US Marines in the force. The USMC even with a leader named Pressley O’Bannon are the greatest but 8 even led by the possible forerunner of Elvis Pressley can’t take a city!
So Eaton acted not only as a diplomat but in this case as a modern CIA COS, setting up, managing & executing a covert action. Probably all with his own money.

Chengdu54: "He’s coddled the Democrats for years and essentially took a dive in the 08 election.
He’s disloyal to the conservative movement, opting to seek admiration from the left."

Sadly, I can't say that's totally false.
But I do think you exaggerate it beyond what McCain deserves.
He's still on our team, and vastly better than any conceivable Democrat in his position as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Indeed, if you consider previous chairmen -- Democrat Levin and Republican Warner, a couple of political beauties there.
You have to go all the way back to 1985 under President Reagan, when Senator Barry Goldwater held the post, and even Goldwater by that time was no longer the gold-standard for "Mr. Conservative".
So while McCain may not be as good as we can hope for, he may be the best we can ever realistically expect.

Chengdu54: "So yeah, I’m way more worried about him than I am about Putin."

So, where Bogie's I.F.F. is malfunctioning yours is simply gone altogether, a casualty of propaganda wars or, what, election PTSD?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.