Posted on 04/02/2017 5:19:42 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at imprimis.hillsdale.edu ...
How to think about Putin was more like How to think about the world. Today the paradigm is GLOBALISM or internationalism, with the people who have the vested interests in globalist rule pushing it down our throats. Putin represents a country's leader REJECTING GLOBALISM. How he rules Russia, how good he may be as a person, isn't the point.
WILL YOUR COUNTRY BE THE BITCH OF GLOBALISM AND TAKE YOU WITH IT, or not?
Shop much at Fallacies Galor?
What’s different now is we are now dealing with a Russian regime that is not actively exporting & supporting a “pernicious ideology” against us and to others around the world. Its a regime that so far is more like “Old Russia” and will see its interests more along previous historical lines. All those previous attempts you cite are with the USSR, its gone! This Russia seems to be behaving like Old Russia - pre-communist Russia. I say this is an opportunity to go back to the old relationship. Liking, admiring, hating or whatever of Putin is irrelevant. But seeing him as a continuation of the Cold War is wrong and not useful.
I'm curious, oh Great Conservative, how many millions has Putin killed? I mean since you compare him to an assortment of men who murdered in the millions. But you left out Pol Pot.
ML/NJ
Go back and re-read what I posted:
The fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) roughly corresponded to the collapse of the old Soviet Union (1991).
So the presidents mentioned include: WJ Clinton, Bush II & Obama/Hillary.
Reily: "Liking, admiring, hating or whatever of Putin is irrelevant.
But seeing him as a continuation of the Cold War is wrong and not useful."
Except that Putin is an old Cold War KGB agent, whose goals appear to be restoration of as much of the old Soviet Empire as he can manage.
So sure, we can trust Putin, but only as far as we can throw him, no further.
Chengdu54 : "I don’t admire Putin, but he’s not my enemy. Putin hasn’t murdered millions of people."
So, I see where you fellows went to the same school of indoctrination -- where any dictator who hasn't killed millions of people is A-OK by you guys, right?
I would point out that President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill quickly allied with Comrade Stalin (who did kill millions), when they had a common enemy to defeat, so that is not the issue here.
Rather, the issue is the article's opening sentences:
It's one thing to say: "sure, let's partner-up with Putin in the War on Terror, if possible", but it's very different to say: "Putin is our ideological hero, whom we respect more than, oh, say, Senator McCain"!
I'm saying: let's not get carried away here.
Putin is a dangerous man, not to be trusted any more than absolutely necessary.
Just like a leftist, YOU change the subject. You were the one who picked the dictators you chose to compare Putin to. I'm not even sure Putin is a dictator in the sense that you suggest. He might be but Russian government is something I really don't understand.
But speaking of dictators, why do you think have been the top five American Presidents?
(Clue: the one usually rated at the top WAS a dictator and has many more deaths that should have been attributed to him than Putin does.)
ML/NJ
Your second point, that we should work with Putin's Russia very carefully and in places where we have common National interests is absolutely correct, we don't have to be nice guys, just careful and honest.
Yep, it's pretty much the Commies and the Muslims that really foul thing up most everywhere.
No, that is the subject under discussion, but just like a leftist you start off with ridiculous false accusations.
ml/mj: " I'm not even sure Putin is a dictator in the sense that you suggest.
He might be but Russian government is something I really don't understand."
By all accounts, Putin rules Russia with an iron hand, tolerating no dissent and allowing no freedom in the media.
He is reported to be the wealthiest man in Russia, making him a kleptocratic oligarch.
Putin has invaded at least two neighboring countries (Georgia & Ukraine) annexing territories from them.
He is reported as meddling in other countries' elections, including possibly our own, and as threatening such weaker countries as the Baltic states.
So, by all accounts he is a dictator and thug, has been described on this thread as a "czar", but without any of the old royal trappings.
A "czar" with no trappings is just a thug, period.
ml/mj: "...the one usually rated at the top WAS a dictator and has many more deaths that should have been attributed to him than Putin does."
That would be a certain Mississippian named Jefferson Davis whose wartime rule in the American tradition of that time, however, is not to be compared with anything going on today.
Where does Hitler fall in that spectrum?
Around the world and in different historical periods the word "conservative" has meant many different things, including "royalist", "imperialist", "national socialist", "Roman Catholic" & "fascist dictator".
So it's extraordinarily important that we not let American conservatives, who are a very different breed of political animal, be lumped by the leftist media in with those others.
American conservative means two things, basically: constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order.
It also certainly means nationalist, but only in the sense of strong national defense & law enforcement, not with the idea of military adventurism.
Not sure which post you are referring your question too, but, ...
Hitler was generally a Socialist, but more specifically a Communist that adjusted his Communism to his own benefit by imposing National Communism rather than International Communism. That meant that after he took control of Germany he became the Big Boss and did not have to turn over control to the International Communists in Moscow, convenient, no?
OK, so he now is top dog with National Communism which he cleverly calls National Socialism, but he has central control.
Fortunately for Hitler, early on he realized that Communist central control won't work, so he "partnered" with businessmen and industrialist cronys to direct industry like Moscow Commies could not.
Bingo, German arms and industry explode, Hitler has his centrally controlled war machine, and political observers describe it as "Fascism" and National Socialism, but it's really far leftist political (rather than economic) policy and closely related to Communism.
Hitler, for all of his flaws, was not a Communist.
I could also point to the French Revolution, during which numerous atrocities were committed.
Communism and Islam are iterations of a larger phenomenon.
You are correct, Globalism is the driving reason for Putin's actions and American post Reagan failures.
Hitler was a fascist.
Nobody in their right mind trusts McCain.
Objectively speaking, yes.
It's worth noting this. putin pushed us out of Manas AFB in Kyrgyzstan; he ripped off a hunk of Ukraine despite their treaty to respect that nation's territorial integrity; he is still waging an undeclared war against Ukraine; he provides arms and intel to the Taliban; he sends their planes to buzz or ships; he sends their planes to buzz Ireland's airspace; he sends their submarines into Sweden's territorial waters; he creates with his puppet Assad a humanitarian disaster in Syria to prop up his pet dictator; he launched a propaganda campaign against the USA and supports every far left and far right group in Europe to undermine those nations; and he stations nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad to threaten the Baltic nations and Poland.
You ignore that some of these putinistas are embracing treason for putin; they’re putting the interest of that tyrant above the interest of the American people.
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.