Why would Russia have done so, opposing the war and knowing that this intelligence would provide even more impetus for our attack?
This isn't the first time that Putin has tried to help Bush against his political opponents. Putin recently argued that Bush's critics have no right to oppose the Iraq war if they supported our intervention in Kosovo.
I'm not saying that Bush and Putin have some partnership. That would be pretty conspiratorial, especially considering that the administration has criticized Russia's undemocratic ways. But couldn't it be that tyrannical Vladimir Putin, as a matter of self-interest, would rather have an authoritarian president in control of the US, a president with no grounds to criticize Putin's own unlawful arrests and brutalization of rebels?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
or it could just be that, now that his country's monetary interests in Hussein's regime are moot, he doesn't have any reason to withhold support anymore...
International politics are among the strangest and subtlest things... who knows?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
wait wait wait... Your taking the Chechen's side against the Russians? Don't you remember the Moscow theatre hostages? Or any other Chechen terror attack?
God, when is terrorism a BAD thing to you people? Is it only bad when a white person does it like in OKC?
Muslim terrorism is good in Israel because it's the Israeli's fault.
Muslim terrorism is good in Russia because it's the Russian's fault.
Muslim terrorism is good against America because it's America's fault.
Ya know at some point you have to admit that it's the terrorists fault and what happens to them is their fault too. Is it the justice system's fault if you go to jail after commiting a crime? No, it's YOUR fault. And what the US, Russia and Israel does to root out terrorism is NOT a bad thing. All you want to do is blame the victim and Mondy morning quarterback.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Did I ever say that the Chechen rebels were justified in their insurgency? I actually tend to disapprove of separatism (including Palestinians, by the way, who I think should remain part of Israel and work to secure their civil rights). It inches too close to nationalism for my taste.
All I said was, the Chechens don't deserve to be brutalized by the Russian army. My position is not that rebels or terrorists are right -- only that they don't deserve torture. You can agree with that, can't you?
Besides, the Chechen war is not my main quarrel with Putin. It might be if I had all the facts, but there really is no way for anyone outside Russia to learn what's going on there because of poor media coverage. The West doesn't care much about that war and the Russians have no incentive to report on it.
My main problem with Putin is his police-state behavior, controlling the press, rigging elections, imprisoning dissidents without due process, etc. Just the sort of things that the old Soviet regime was guilty of.
[ June 19, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Maybe he just really liked the cuisine at the G8 conference in Georgia a couple of weeks ago. The French president certainly did.
"God, when is terrorism a BAD thing to you people?"
You've been drinking the blood of Ann Coulter, haven't you?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Russia has not had much experience with democratic self-rule outside of a brief experiment in the Karensky Republic (which ended with the bullets of the Bolsheviks). For centuries Russians have lived in the totalitarian hell of their own making. Now that a break has finally come, and real reform has brought a major step toward democratic self-rule, it may be that Putin's use of a few strong-arm, police state tactics are needed to keep a lid on things, so the country is not completely taken over by the organized crime syndicates and the old guard communist diehards who still remain, wishing for an opportunity to regain the glory of the Soviet Empire.
Because of its recent history, Russia cannot presently be governed the way the U.S. is governed. Putin's compromise between pro-west democracy and a little authoritarianism on the side, may be necessary as a necessary transition, until Russians throw off the last vestiges of the spirits of Stalin and Rasputin, and a basic respect for government by law instead of by men becomes better established.
Even if the Russians to some extent are still brutalizing themselves, at least they are no longer brutalizing other nations around them.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:Because of its recent history, Russia cannot presently be governed the way the U.S. is governed
not disagreeing, but i thought i'd point out that this argument could apply equally to any number of repressive regimes the world over. we supported saddam for this very reason in fact.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:You've been drinking the blood of Ann Coulter, haven't you?
nah, it's just that "we people" HATE america and LOVE dancing in the streets whenever them islamists do their evil deeds
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I didn't think progressives danced. I thought we hung out in dark coffeehouses and twirled our berets in celebration. Daddy-O. Or whatnot.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: You've been drinking the blood of Ann Coulter, haven't you?
ROFL. Hilarious.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Not sure I see much evidence of a compromise, Ron. Seems to me like Russia was freer under Gorbachev than it is now.
I'm also not sure how to distinguish Putin (KGB alumnus that he is) from the die-hard Communists.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
As for the original question, I would assume it's Russia's way of playing both sides. Agree with the French and Germans before the war. Support the US at election time. Everyone's happy.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Hilarious.