• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Putin writes op-ed in New York Times: "A Plea for Caution From Russia"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
He may be a dick but he's mostly right. I also take his point about exceptionalism. I've always hated that word. Smug superiority patriotic bullshit. That's the type of shit you expect to hear from dictators.
 
Nice to see that Putin convinced some silly Americans to see his viewpoint.
Especially from this ex KGB member.
Where he comes to American news print to air his little tantrum.
Enjoying something not allowable in his own country.
Freedom of speech.

I swear, some Americans are totally tone deaf.
No wonder the state of politics in America is the way it is.
Wow. Just wow.
 
StinkyPinky said:
He may be a dick but he's mostly right. I also take his point about exceptionalism. I've always hated that word. Smug superiority patriotic bullshit. That's the type of shit you expect to hear from dictators.
Click to expand...

Well... the human rights violations he pulled with Pussy Riot wouldn't happen here, right?
 
Jaskalas said:
Well... the human rights violations he pulled with Pussy Riot wouldn't happen here, right?
Click to expand...

You go start up rock concerts in random places around a major city in the USA without a permit, particularly on private property (like say the front steps to a cathedral, like Pussy Riot did), and see if you don't land in jail.
 
Fern said:
So, Putin muscles us out of the lead role and that's a loss for him? I can't agree.

Furthermore, I'd think that's actually one of his objectives for any number of reasons. For one he has displaced Obama. For another he can deal with it as he likes. In my estimation he cares little what others think and he needs to see those rebels dealt with so they don't migrate over Chechnya etc.

Fern
Click to expand...

The "lead role?" That's hilarious. The prize for getting the "lead role" here is a gigantic shit sandwich.

I don't think you get it.
 
sportage said:
Nice to see that Putin convinced some silly Americans to see his viewpoint.
Especially from this ex KGB member.
Where he comes to American news print to air his little tantrum.
Enjoying something not allowable in his own country.
Freedom of speech.

I swear, some Americans are totally tone deaf.
No wonder the state of politics in America is the way it is.
Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

Nice to see Obama and Bush did the same thing.....just replace KGB with in bed with lobbyists
 
yllus said:
Sure, fuck that guy, but facts transcend the douchebag stating them. For that, this op-ed was useful. As I started by saying, in my mind these four points still stand:

1. Like the fighters who now are destabilizing Mali after fighting in Libya, he is concerned where they will go from Syria next.

2. Mr. Putin has confirmed that his government also believes that poison gas was used, but he professes to not know by whom.

3. Mr. Putin puts forward the idea that bypassing having a UN resolution only encourages countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

4. Mr. Putin states that the ideology of American exceptionalism is a dangerous way of thinking.

Points three and four are immensely interesting. I can understand three - if we're now even further blurring the weakly defined rules of international conduct, the only logical route of action for your average dictator is to acquire the ultimate trump card. He just can't be assured of not being attacked otherwise.

Point four is fairly nakedly self-serving, but also worthy of a healthy debate: America wants everyone to play by the rules, work through diplomacy, use the UN. Oh, but America isn't going to do that. We're different. I'd argue that to date that somewhat arbitrary standard has served the world very well to date, but that doesn't mean it's not hypocritical. Maybe it's worth revisiting in 2013.



I wouldn't say America is being diminished or enhanced by this or practically any other bit of diplomacy. This is fluff. American influence and posture starts and ends with dollars, whether that be in the form of military protection, positions on international financial committees or via cold hard cash transfers. Don't make more of this than is really there.



I think the question here is whether Mr. Putin is right or wrong in what he's saying.
Click to expand...

Point # 3 is exactly what Liberarians and other non interventionists have been saying for a decade now.

Iran didn't start getting serious about getting the bomb until after the US broke their relationship after Afghanistan kicked off. Iran actually provided good information to the United States leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. It was not until GWB gave his Axis of Evil speech that Iran starting having issues. IIRC they wanted a relationship but would refuse anything unless they pulled them off the list and stopped beating the war drums.

What is Iran to do? A superpower has invaded two sovereign nations on their borders and they are on the same list of enemies.

Of course they want to aquire the bomb, it's the only thing that would prevent American forces from ever setting foot on their soil.
 
nextJin said:
Point # 3 is exactly what Liberarians and other non interventionists have been saying for a decade now.

Iran didn't start getting serious about getting the bomb until after the US broke their relationship after Afghanistan kicked off. Iran actually provided good information to the United States leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. It was not until GWB gave his Axis of Evil speech that Iran starting having issues. IIRC they wanted a relationship but would refuse anything unless they pulled them off the list and stopped beating the war drums.

What is Iran to do? A superpower has invaded two sovereign nations on their borders and they are on the same list of enemies.

Of course they want to aquire the bomb, it's the only thing that would prevent American forces from ever setting foot on their soil.
Click to expand...

While the invasion of Iraq certainly provided extra incentive for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, their programs predate the US invasion of Iraq. To say that they are developing nuclear weapons due to US actions is not accurate as they were developing them anyway. I think you can say that they have accelerated their plans, but that's it.
 
eskimospy said:
While the invasion of Iraq certainly provided extra incentive for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, their programs predate the US invasion of Iraq. To say that they are developing nuclear weapons due to US actions is not accurate as they were developing them anyway. I think you can say that they have accelerated their plans, but that's it.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said they didn't get serious about it until afterwards. If we take history as an example of aggression Iran is very low on the list. Aquiring a bomb just to use it against Israel or anyone else just to be annihilated within hours goes against all logic even for their regimes history.
 
nextJin said:
Which is why I said they didn't get serious about it until afterwards. If we take history as an example of aggression Iran is very low on the list. Aquiring a bomb just to use it against Israel or anyone else just to be annihilated within hours goes against all logic even for their regimes history.
Click to expand...
yep it has been clear that Iran would want nukes only to protect itself. The notion that it will attack Israel is absurd.
 
nextJin said:
Which is why I said they didn't get serious about it until afterwards. If we take history as an example of aggression Iran is very low on the list. Aquiring a bomb just to use it against Israel or anyone else just to be annihilated within hours goes against all logic even for their regimes history.
Click to expand...

Since Israel developed nuclear weapons most of the other powers in the region have also pursued them in one way or another. Iran already had a nuclear threat from one of its adversaries before any US invasion.

Iran's nuclear program has always been about counterbalancing other threats. The idea that they were going to go crazy and just start throwing nukes has always been absurd. I'm just saying that the idea that Putin presented, that states will start pursuing nuclear weapons because the UN doesn't work, is completely wrong and utterly dishonest.
 
sportage said:
Nice to see that Putin convinced some silly Americans to see his viewpoint.
Especially from this ex KGB member.
Where he comes to American news print to air his little tantrum.
Enjoying something not allowable in his own country.
Freedom of speech.

I swear, some Americans are totally tone deaf.
No wonder the state of politics in America is the way it is.
Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

Our politicians are having op-eds in Russian newspaper now.

Fern
 
woolfe9998 said:
The "lead role?" That's hilarious. The prize for getting the "lead role" here is a gigantic shit sandwich.

I don't think you get it.
Click to expand...

Putin didn't put himself in that role by accident. Obama didn't relinquish it on purpose.

And given Russia's geographical location it's a valuable role.

Yeah, somebody's not getting it.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Putin didn't put himself in that role by accident. Obama didn't relinquish it on purpose.

And given Russia's geographical location it's a valuable role.

Yeah, somebody's not getting it.

Fern
Click to expand...

Putin is trying to keep Assad in power by any means possible, even though that means taking over a shit sandwich. Russia could easily have claimed the mantle of responsibility for Syria at any point in the previous two years and chose not to. I guess that tells you how "valuable" Russia thinks that role is, haha.

Russia doesn't want ownership of this, they just want Assad ousted less.
 
It's understandable conservatives have doubts the Syrian government launched the chemical attacks. So have Colin Powell testify that it was the Syrian government then it's a no brainer or it would've been prior to the chemical weapons inspection deal. Meaning the U.S Congress would have authorized force in a short time. (yes sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top