9 ms·

"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is dri

"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is dripping with it. For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" [1] and a government of thugs who are too busy stealing the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources to pursue the eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States. The Russian state has assassinated journalists [2] and jailed political opponents with impunity while the bureaucracy (now intertwined with organized crime) steals money at an alarming rate [3]. They don't even bother to hide it anymore (Egregious example: Magnitsky [4] and Litvinenko [5]). I hate the idea of the US getting involved with a civil war on the other side of the world and Putin is right in his logic, but as an immigrant from Russia I can't help but feel I'm reading the same propaganda but with a translator. If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cable... [2] There's a whole damn wikipedia article dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-defense-b_n_866050.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-def... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy Edit: To clarify, yes this is emotional and ad hominem. But come on, how many of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following international law? This article is only on the front page of HN because of its author and it bears remembering how Putin's actions have spoken far louder than his words.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
venus 13y ago
Irony, you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I agree with you, of course - Putin is by all accounts a monster, and he has no moral standing whatsoever. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
- baltcode 13y ago
  He is wrong in the sense that something has to be done to stop the Assad regime that has lost the confidence of a majority of Syrians from continuing to murder and torture more civilians.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    You seem to be misinformed as to >why< the US is trying to get involved in Syria. This is a good run down of the situation: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do... Suffice to say, the welfare of the people of Syria is the last thing on Obama's mind. Let's take a look at how well the last place he got involved in is doing these days: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-repor...
  - waps 13y ago
    The same is trivially true for a dozen nations. Should we attack them all ? Hell, one might even say it's true for America itself.
    - waps 13y ago
      Maybe crude to answer my own question but this seems a pretty good answer : http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
      - smsm42 13y ago
        I got a serious problem with "Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall.". It betrays deep misunderstanding of what Israel actually wants and what would benefit it (which makes all the rest suspect too). Weak Assad would benefit Israel greatly. Despite all the saber-rattling, Syria would never seriously think of going to war with Israel, because that would mean the end of the current Syrian regime. Helping Hezbollah? Sure. Passing weapons from Iran to whomever that could hurt Israel? No problem. But direct conflict? No way. Cold war is the worst Assad would ever do. However, everything changes if Assad regime falls and rebels - among which would be such organizations as Syrian Islamic Front or Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, with predictable amount of love for Israel - were to come to power. They would have no experience of losing the war like Assad regime had, and no problem with suffering a bit more of mayhem is it's for the good purpose - after all, that's just what they did right before it and succeeded. And they'd own all munitions that Assad regime had assembled (at least those that left after the war, but there would probably be sizeable amount left, and if not, Putin could help), including WMDs. How there's any benefit for Israel in that? Israel would be glad to have Assad's ass get some thorough kicking. However, having an explosive unstable government with WMDs on its borders is not exactly one's dream. Israel already has this problem with Lebanon, and it didn't work that well so far. Having second one is really not anybody's wish.
rosser 13y ago
While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.
- akiselev 13y ago
  You are right and as I said, I have no qualms with his logic but Putin here is playing international politics. His arguments are not new and here on HN I'm sure few people drink the war on terrorism Koolaid. This article is only notable because his name is attached to it and it is only there for the purposes of international politics, regardless of whether he really cares for peace in Syria or not.
- foxhedgehog 13y ago
  This is not really what ad hominem means, especially in the context of a NYT byline.
- nhebb 13y ago
  I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid. Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives based on his character and past actions.
  - cdash 13y ago
    He is not the one talking about going to war.
    - foxhedgehog 13y ago
      He's not?
  - jtc331 13y ago
    Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win--regardless of who's making it.
mcphilip 13y ago
It might be helpful to remember that this is merely a well written op-ed with Putin's name attached to it. It's an international relations gambit to influence the American public to consider Russia's point of view. To get bogged down by the name attached to the editorial is to miss the importance of the content.
- foxhedgehog 13y ago
  "I agree." -- Attilla the Hun
- akiselev 13y ago
  The content is nothing new, the author is the only interesting part of this article.
  - waps 13y ago
    I doubt very much it's defending Russia's point of view. It's defending a point of view that has the outcome as Russia's and that Russia would like people to adopt, but I think we can be 100% certain it is not, in fact, Russia's point of view. Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others. So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?
    - teamgb 13y ago
      Er, Russia has huge interest in the region, as do the other players. There are two competing natural gas pipelines being built, both of which must transit through Syria to get to the Mediterranean. What's at stake is who gets to sell energy to Europe for the next 50-100 years! None of this is a secret. The Financial Times and others have reported on this over the years.
haberman 13y ago
Also ironic: the only reason this strike would be "against the law" is because of Putin's own veto (and China, who is probably just following suit on this one). He conveniently omits this point, because the moment the focus turns to his motivations, it would be immediately obvious how self-serving the entire piece is.
- cdash 13y ago
  The entire point of the UN and "the law" is that Russia gets to veto the same as the US gets to veto.
  - haberman 13y ago
    That may be, but Putin is making a case against intervention while omitting his huge conflict of interest. He is making self-serving arguments under the guise of caring about lofty ideals that his own actions demonstrate he has no regard for.
    - rooshdi 13y ago
      The same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.
      - chrischen 13y ago
        You say that as if everyone's equal...
      - foxhedgehog 13y ago
        I guess that I missed the Obama administration's op-ed opining about life in Russia.
        Phlarp 13y ago
        Presidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Americans.
alan_cx 13y ago
I do wonder if Russians, Arabs, Muslims, and so on feel the same way when Obama (Bush(s), Clinton, Blair, Cameron, etc) pontificates. The phrase "western hypocrisy" is not new. What is ironic, is that oddly I prefer the unashamed way Russia acts, compared to the cover-ups and lies of the west. You know where you stand. We in the west are supposed to be better, but all we are better at really is PR. In Russia, people know what the deal is, and can deal with that one way or another. In the west people are just dismissed as silly tin foil hat people, and nothing gets done until a Snowden comes along and busts the bubble.
- frozenport 13y ago
  In Russia an anti-american sentiment is heavily associated with Putin, often the Russian opposition is quite supportive of America - the place that made the Internet and YouTube.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    Russian opposition might be supportive of America just because Putin is not. The moment Putin vanishes, the new government will still look up after Russian own interests and not care at all about America.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      Of course they should look at their own interests first, but this doesn't mean hostility to America or other countries. Just that there are limits to friendship.
  - abcd_f 13y ago
    > the Russian opposition is quite supportive of America Of course it is, because guess who's paying for said opposition?
    - varjag 13y ago
      This sentiment is quite common throughout former USSR: if someone is opposing the established authoritarian rule, they must be shills on the payroll. After all, what's there not to like, right?
dobbsbob 13y ago
I liked his 2012 inaguration (coronation) when Putin strolled through a sea of cheering supporters in full regal pomp to simply switch spots with Medvedev.
CleanedStar 13y ago
> Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" And what was Russia the year before Putin became head of it? It's not like corruption came in with Putin. Most Russians I know think Putin has lowered the amount of corruption, and I agree. Russia was so corrupt it was barely functioning under Yeltsin. You're correct there is significant corruption in the government, but amazingly there was even more corruption before Putin came in. > eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States Russia's GDP is one eighth of the US's. It's ratio was even lower back in 1917. Who thinks this? Not even Zhirinovsky thinks this is realistic. > The Russian state has assassinated journalists Then you link to a list of journalists killed by persons in Russia. Where's the link? Who killed Chauncey Bailey in the US in 2007? Who killed Dona St. Plite? Who killed Manuel de Dios Unanue? Scores of journalists in the US have been killed who did not agree with the government foreign policy on Haiti, on Vietnam etc. > and jailed political opponents with impunity How about Manning? They want to extradite Snowden. Lynne Stewart is in jail. American jails are filled with political opponents. Oh, they broke the law? Well that's what they say in Russia too.
ma2rten 13y ago
> If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit. Even a good person can be wrong sometimes, even a bad person can be right.
Zoomla 13y ago
the law doesn't apply if you are a "very important person", don't believe what politicians say.
SCAQTony 13y ago
"...If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit...." Well, at this point with the NSA scandals, this Syrian civil, I am convince that Putin is the reasonable voice and that we ARE in deep shit.
- pekk 13y ago
  So move to Russia. You first.
  - SCAQTony 13y ago
    Why run when collectively we can encourage our politicians to do the right thing?
mrb 13y ago
"For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a 'virtual mafia state'" If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! For the same reason, Putin may be doing evil things in his country, but I still side with him: bombing Syria is a silly idea.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! many people unfamiliar with Russia or similar countries forget that selective enforcement of law is a well established and widely practiced form of tyranny and abuse of power there. The same principle applies when people like Putin are selectively say/do something that may look like a right thing - it is just a tool of advancing their agenda. Like in your example with a criminal when he would point you to the lady requiring assistance, and would do whatever he wants while your attention is diverted. You'd need to discard his statement precisely because he is a criminal.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    So you are saying that Putin's point is only for short-term gain while ignoring the long term goals (supposedly bad) that Putin/Russia has, right? Ok.. makes sense and it's playing the fear of something card. Since being short-sighted is bad and we clearly should be looking at it from all sides/perspectives, please enlighten us as to what impact Obama's short-term plan (to bomb Syria) will have in the long-term plans that he might have? While at it, please share what's Obama long-term plan for Syria what why American should have one at all.
kstenerud 13y ago
CleanedStar, it looks like your account has been hellbanned.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Repeating his comment. If he was banned because of this comments, then ban me too. <quote> > Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" And what was Russia the year before Putin became head of it? It's not like corruption came in with Putin. Most Russians I know think Putin has lowered the amount of corruption, and I agree. Russia was so corrupt it was barely functioning under Yeltsin. You're correct there is significant corruption in the government, but amazingly there was even more corruption before Putin came in. > eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States Russia's GDP is one eighth of the US's. It's ratio was even lower back in 1917. Who thinks this? Not even Zhirinovsky thinks this is realistic. > The Russian state has assassinated journalists Then you link to a list of journalists killed by persons in Russia. Where's the link? Who killed Chauncey Bailey in the US in 2007? Who killed Dona St. Plite? Who killed Manuel de Dios Unanue? Scores of journalists in the US have been killed who did not agree with the government foreign policy on Haiti, on Vietnam etc. > and jailed political opponents with impunity How about Manning? They want to extradite Snowden. Lynne Stewart is in jail. American jails are filled with political opponents. Oh, they broke the law? Well that's what they say in Russia too. </quote>
  - MortenK 13y ago
    I believe this is a very important counter point to the general opinion that Putin is quite literally the devil. Usually these claims are made by people who have never been to Russia, don't know anything about Russian culture or history and who takes US news articles about russian politics at face value.
  - mladenkovacevic 13y ago
    A little bit of propaganda combined with a whole lot of blind ignorance and decades of brainwashing can make anyone look like the devil. I believe that for some Americans, the notion that Putin might just not be all about "selling weapons to dictators" makes them have involuntary convulsive reactions.
antocv 13y ago
I got interested in #1 link, and cant understand what that description of the US concerning Russia is so different to how US is run? They are just using words like racketing, extortion and "governement support criminal activities", who defines the criminal activities and isnt taxing extortion? Isnt US supporting criminal activities. The same description can apply to USA or China. The US has much more advanced techniques of performing the same activities Russians do. We are all humans.
Spearchucker 13y ago
I agree with the sentiment of the text, regardless of the author's history. I don't like Obama either, but had he written this I would still have agreed with the content. Is attacking Putin's character useful in this context?
varjag 13y ago
This is reminiscent of one Soviet era joke: - We in America are free to criticize our government without any penalties! - Duh, us Soviets are free to criticize your government too! This very publication is a great example of the difference between the USA and Russia. A publication in major Russian media criticizing the government policy is soo not happening anytime soon.
jusben1369 13y ago
Tweet I saw earlier today "Is Putin's speech translated into Chechen? I'm asking for a friend" P.S I don't think it's irony either, I think it's hypocrisy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

venus 13y ago

Irony, you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I agree with you, of course - Putin is by all accounts a monster, and he has no moral standing whatsoever. That doesn't mean he's wrong.

baltcode 13y ago
He is wrong in the sense that something has to be done to stop the Assad regime that has lost the confidence of a majority of Syrians from continuing to murder and torture more civilians.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  You seem to be misinformed as to >why< the US is trying to get involved in Syria. This is a good run down of the situation: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do... Suffice to say, the welfare of the people of Syria is the last thing on Obama's mind. Let's take a look at how well the last place he got involved in is doing these days: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-repor...
- waps 13y ago
  The same is trivially true for a dozen nations. Should we attack them all ? Hell, one might even say it's true for America itself.
  - waps 13y ago
    Maybe crude to answer my own question but this seems a pretty good answer : http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
    - smsm42 13y ago
      I got a serious problem with "Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall.". It betrays deep misunderstanding of what Israel actually wants and what would benefit it (which makes all the rest suspect too). Weak Assad would benefit Israel greatly. Despite all the saber-rattling, Syria would never seriously think of going to war with Israel, because that would mean the end of the current Syrian regime. Helping Hezbollah? Sure. Passing weapons from Iran to whomever that could hurt Israel? No problem. But direct conflict? No way. Cold war is the worst Assad would ever do. However, everything changes if Assad regime falls and rebels - among which would be such organizations as Syrian Islamic Front or Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, with predictable amount of love for Israel - were to come to power. They would have no experience of losing the war like Assad regime had, and no problem with suffering a bit more of mayhem is it's for the good purpose - after all, that's just what they did right before it and succeeded. And they'd own all munitions that Assad regime had assembled (at least those that left after the war, but there would probably be sizeable amount left, and if not, Putin could help), including WMDs. How there's any benefit for Israel in that? Israel would be glad to have Assad's ass get some thorough kicking. However, having an explosive unstable government with WMDs on its borders is not exactly one's dream. Israel already has this problem with Lebanon, and it didn't work that well so far. Having second one is really not anybody's wish.

rosser 13y ago

While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.

akiselev 13y ago
You are right and as I said, I have no qualms with his logic but Putin here is playing international politics. His arguments are not new and here on HN I'm sure few people drink the war on terrorism Koolaid. This article is only notable because his name is attached to it and it is only there for the purposes of international politics, regardless of whether he really cares for peace in Syria or not.
foxhedgehog 13y ago
This is not really what ad hominem means, especially in the context of a NYT byline.
nhebb 13y ago
I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid. Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives based on his character and past actions.
- cdash 13y ago
  He is not the one talking about going to war.
  - foxhedgehog 13y ago
    He's not?
- jtc331 13y ago
  Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win--regardless of who's making it.

mcphilip 13y ago

It might be helpful to remember that this is merely a well written op-ed with Putin's name attached to it. It's an international relations gambit to influence the American public to consider Russia's point of view. To get bogged down by the name attached to the editorial is to miss the importance of the content.

foxhedgehog 13y ago
"I agree." -- Attilla the Hun
akiselev 13y ago
The content is nothing new, the author is the only interesting part of this article.
- waps 13y ago
  I doubt very much it's defending Russia's point of view. It's defending a point of view that has the outcome as Russia's and that Russia would like people to adopt, but I think we can be 100% certain it is not, in fact, Russia's point of view. Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others. So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?
  - teamgb 13y ago
    Er, Russia has huge interest in the region, as do the other players. There are two competing natural gas pipelines being built, both of which must transit through Syria to get to the Mediterranean. What's at stake is who gets to sell energy to Europe for the next 50-100 years! None of this is a secret. The Financial Times and others have reported on this over the years.

haberman 13y ago

Also ironic: the only reason this strike would be "against the law" is because of Putin's own veto (and China, who is probably just following suit on this one). He conveniently omits this point, because the moment the focus turns to his motivations, it would be immediately obvious how self-serving the entire piece is.

cdash 13y ago
The entire point of the UN and "the law" is that Russia gets to veto the same as the US gets to veto.
- haberman 13y ago
  That may be, but Putin is making a case against intervention while omitting his huge conflict of interest. He is making self-serving arguments under the guise of caring about lofty ideals that his own actions demonstrate he has no regard for.
  - rooshdi 13y ago
    The same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      You say that as if everyone's equal...
    - foxhedgehog 13y ago
      I guess that I missed the Obama administration's op-ed opining about life in Russia.
      - Phlarp 13y ago
        Presidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Americans.

alan_cx 13y ago

I do wonder if Russians, Arabs, Muslims, and so on feel the same way when Obama (Bush(s), Clinton, Blair, Cameron, etc) pontificates. The phrase "western hypocrisy" is not new. What is ironic, is that oddly I prefer the unashamed way Russia acts, compared to the cover-ups and lies of the west. You know where you stand. We in the west are supposed to be better, but all we are better at really is PR. In Russia, people know what the deal is, and can deal with that one way or another. In the west people are just dismissed as silly tin foil hat people, and nothing gets done until a Snowden comes along and busts the bubble.

frozenport 13y ago
In Russia an anti-american sentiment is heavily associated with Putin, often the Russian opposition is quite supportive of America - the place that made the Internet and YouTube.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Russian opposition might be supportive of America just because Putin is not. The moment Putin vanishes, the new government will still look up after Russian own interests and not care at all about America.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    Of course they should look at their own interests first, but this doesn't mean hostility to America or other countries. Just that there are limits to friendship.
- abcd_f 13y ago
  > the Russian opposition is quite supportive of America Of course it is, because guess who's paying for said opposition?
  - varjag 13y ago
    This sentiment is quite common throughout former USSR: if someone is opposing the established authoritarian rule, they must be shills on the payroll. After all, what's there not to like, right?

dobbsbob 13y ago

I liked his 2012 inaguration (coronation) when Putin strolled through a sea of cheering supporters in full regal pomp to simply switch spots with Medvedev.

CleanedStar 13y ago

> Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" And what was Russia the year before Putin became head of it? It's not like corruption came in with Putin. Most Russians I know think Putin has lowered the amount of corruption, and I agree. Russia was so corrupt it was barely functioning under Yeltsin. You're correct there is significant corruption in the government, but amazingly there was even more corruption before Putin came in. > eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States Russia's GDP is one eighth of the US's. It's ratio was even lower back in 1917. Who thinks this? Not even Zhirinovsky thinks this is realistic. > The Russian state has assassinated journalists Then you link to a list of journalists killed by persons in Russia. Where's the link? Who killed Chauncey Bailey in the US in 2007? Who killed Dona St. Plite? Who killed Manuel de Dios Unanue? Scores of journalists in the US have been killed who did not agree with the government foreign policy on Haiti, on Vietnam etc. > and jailed political opponents with impunity How about Manning? They want to extradite Snowden. Lynne Stewart is in jail. American jails are filled with political opponents. Oh, they broke the law? Well that's what they say in Russia too.

ma2rten 13y ago

> If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit. Even a good person can be wrong sometimes, even a bad person can be right.

Zoomla 13y ago

the law doesn't apply if you are a "very important person", don't believe what politicians say.

SCAQTony 13y ago

"...If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit...." Well, at this point with the NSA scandals, this Syrian civil, I am convince that Putin is the reasonable voice and that we ARE in deep shit.

pekk 13y ago
So move to Russia. You first.
- SCAQTony 13y ago
  Why run when collectively we can encourage our politicians to do the right thing?

mrb 13y ago

"For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a 'virtual mafia state'" If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! For the same reason, Putin may be doing evil things in his country, but I still side with him: bombing Syria is a silly idea.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! many people unfamiliar with Russia or similar countries forget that selective enforcement of law is a well established and widely practiced form of tyranny and abuse of power there. The same principle applies when people like Putin are selectively say/do something that may look like a right thing - it is just a tool of advancing their agenda. Like in your example with a criminal when he would point you to the lady requiring assistance, and would do whatever he wants while your attention is diverted. You'd need to discard his statement precisely because he is a criminal.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  So you are saying that Putin's point is only for short-term gain while ignoring the long term goals (supposedly bad) that Putin/Russia has, right? Ok.. makes sense and it's playing the fear of something card. Since being short-sighted is bad and we clearly should be looking at it from all sides/perspectives, please enlighten us as to what impact Obama's short-term plan (to bomb Syria) will have in the long-term plans that he might have? While at it, please share what's Obama long-term plan for Syria what why American should have one at all.

kstenerud 13y ago

CleanedStar, it looks like your account has been hellbanned.

levosmetalo 13y ago
Repeating his comment. If he was banned because of this comments, then ban me too. <quote> > Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" And what was Russia the year before Putin became head of it? It's not like corruption came in with Putin. Most Russians I know think Putin has lowered the amount of corruption, and I agree. Russia was so corrupt it was barely functioning under Yeltsin. You're correct there is significant corruption in the government, but amazingly there was even more corruption before Putin came in. > eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States Russia's GDP is one eighth of the US's. It's ratio was even lower back in 1917. Who thinks this? Not even Zhirinovsky thinks this is realistic. > The Russian state has assassinated journalists Then you link to a list of journalists killed by persons in Russia. Where's the link? Who killed Chauncey Bailey in the US in 2007? Who killed Dona St. Plite? Who killed Manuel de Dios Unanue? Scores of journalists in the US have been killed who did not agree with the government foreign policy on Haiti, on Vietnam etc. > and jailed political opponents with impunity How about Manning? They want to extradite Snowden. Lynne Stewart is in jail. American jails are filled with political opponents. Oh, they broke the law? Well that's what they say in Russia too. </quote>
- MortenK 13y ago
  I believe this is a very important counter point to the general opinion that Putin is quite literally the devil. Usually these claims are made by people who have never been to Russia, don't know anything about Russian culture or history and who takes US news articles about russian politics at face value.
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  A little bit of propaganda combined with a whole lot of blind ignorance and decades of brainwashing can make anyone look like the devil. I believe that for some Americans, the notion that Putin might just not be all about "selling weapons to dictators" makes them have involuntary convulsive reactions.

antocv 13y ago

I got interested in #1 link, and cant understand what that description of the US concerning Russia is so different to how US is run? They are just using words like racketing, extortion and "governement support criminal activities", who defines the criminal activities and isnt taxing extortion? Isnt US supporting criminal activities. The same description can apply to USA or China. The US has much more advanced techniques of performing the same activities Russians do. We are all humans.

Spearchucker 13y ago

I agree with the sentiment of the text, regardless of the author's history. I don't like Obama either, but had he written this I would still have agreed with the content. Is attacking Putin's character useful in this context?

varjag 13y ago

This is reminiscent of one Soviet era joke: - We in America are free to criticize our government without any penalties! - Duh, us Soviets are free to criticize your government too! This very publication is a great example of the difference between the USA and Russia. A publication in major Russian media criticizing the government policy is soo not happening anytime soon.

jusben1369 13y ago

Tweet I saw earlier today "Is Putin's speech translated into Chechen? I'm asking for a friend" P.S I don't think it's irony either, I think it's hypocrisy.