Are We Sending Russia the Wrong Message?

OR: Hypocrisy, Hpocrisy, Thy Name is Bush

Published on September 15, 2004 By CrispE In Politics

Vladmir Putin, Czar of Russia announce today sweeping measures designed to centralize his authority politically and is stating that "terrorism" is now the number 1 problem in Russia. He said "Over the 15 years of its new life, civil society in Russia hasn't really awakened," Izvestia said. "And the president has decided that in conditions demanding fast, effective, and often urgent decisions, it's better not to have such a society -- because the authorities are uncertain of the results of waking it."

One of the reasons Russia is adding $5.4 Billion to defense next year is that it feels like it is going alone in it's struggle against terrorism, mostly by Chechen rebels and their allies. The Bush Administration denies meeting with the rebels, but A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement. as reported by CNN.

Why would the Bush Administration claim it has no contacts with Chechen rebels and then grant asylum to one? Simple, we want to keep Russia weak while at the same time promoting the concept that terrorism is our enemy. How do we do this? By saying we "love" freedom for all peoples (except, of course, those who oppose us, regardless of political system) and then turning around and aiding terrorism when it suits our purposes.

This is a very dangerous course to pursue for the Bush administration. We are not dealing with a country moving towards democracy in Russia but rather in the opposite direction. Putin is under pressure from within the Kremlin (remember that group?) to take dramatic steps to ensure that terrorism stops in Russia. There is some sentiment, reported in the international press that journalists in the region suspect American money and advisors are covertly supporting the rebels much as we did with the Taliban, who used to be our boys in Afghanistan.

The bigger issue is whether this is hypocrisy. Can we truly say we are interested in ending terrorism when we have such policies as do with Russia and Chechnya? Can we pick and choose like a menu at a Chinese restaurant those terrorists we will support because it furthers our aims?

What does the Bush administration really stand for?

Does ANYONE know?

Comments (Page 1)

Deference

on Sep 15, 2004

Instead of dealing with this, I'm sure the Bush Admin will attempt to quietly bury this and shuttle it to the background as they have done with N. Korea all the while claiming us to be kicking tail in Iraq while American beer swillers knock back another and claim Bush the best guy they never knew since he's, "doin' somethin' 'bout the terrorists".

Will somebody just poke out my eyes and ear drums so I can live like the others, in peace and ignorance?

(hey, I didn't say everybody!)

stevendedalus

on Sep 15, 2004

It's okay for us and Israel to get tough on terrorism--it's not the jurisdiction of others.

CrispE

on Sep 15, 2004

Deference:

'Tis the plight of the interested and informed that we will be saddled with knowledge and wisdom whilst the populace....

Say, did you see that last pass in the Buffalo game? Didn't think so. Hehehe.

I don't think the people know it, but a Russia under Putin is MORE of a problem than Hussein ever was. He IS armed. He IS aggravated. He IS dangerous.

CrispE

on Sep 15, 2004

stevendedalus:

It's ionteresting that you should say that. The U.S. keeps "saying" we don't approve of the wall the Israelis are building. We don't approve of Israeli gunships blowing up Palestinian leaders. We don't approve of terrorist actions against Israel.

But actions tied to our disapproval? None. But in Russia, we say we support Putin and then work with the rebels. Are we working with the Palestinians to keep Israel weak too?

Anthony R

on Sep 15, 2004

You should do some research into who Putin is, he is an old KGB agent. If you dont know who they were and what they did start reading. Bush is just trying to make sure that the response is proportional and not apocalyptic, and no wonder, Putin makes statements like, we wont go nuclear against terrorists in the region. Obviously to make that statement, using nuclear devices must have crossed his mind. It’s an interesting read and a good question though.

CrispE

on Sep 15, 2004

Anthony R.:

Well, I am a historian. The thing is not so much that Putin was part of the KGB. It's that he believes the old Soviet Union is his destiny the same way the czars did. Russians, interestingly, never revolted in the 60 years of oppressive communism. They just assumed that was the way government was intended.

As far as "proportional" response goes, I disagree. Either tell the Chechens we won't stand for terrorist acts and let them stand on their own 2 feet or make a pre-emptive strike on the Russians.

You may think I'm kidding but the Russians are not to be toyed with like the Iraqis. They have a worldwide network of intelligence and if THEY want to do terrorism against us, we will not stop them.

That's why U.S. policy is so wrong in this case.

ShoZan

on Sep 15, 2004

The thing is not so much that Putin was part of the KGB. It's that he believes the old Soviet Union is his destiny the same way the czars did. Russians, interestingly, never revolted in the 60 years of oppressive communism. They just assumed that was the way government was intended.

Good thing, those who did not revolt went to camps and dissappeared forever they must have really loved Communism.

CrispE

on Sep 15, 2004

ShoZan:

Yeah, but consider the ones who died in World War II fighting for the totaliarian Stalin! Some of the Russian battles were fought with little more than rocks and sticks.

I really do think (and from talking to some Russian immigrants) that the idea of democracy is so foreign to them that many will be saying about Putin "about time he took control".

ShoZan

on Sep 15, 2004

True even though some Russians are great thinkers, the common Russian Citizen has been so ingrained with socialism and communism that they just don't know anything else, they want people to take charge over their lives because anyone who thought different was killed off either by wars or camps. Sorry for repeating some of what you said.

Anthony R

on Sep 16, 2004

Here is a good question for you to ponder while you are up in your ivory tower of academe. why is Putin helping Iran build nukes?

CrispE

on Sep 16, 2004

Anthony R.:

I said I was a historian, not a professor (although I did teach). My Ivory Tower is made of investment and stock market expertise tested on a day to day basis.

The Russians first started helping the Iranians with "nuclear technology" in the 70's and have been at it on and off since then. The Iranians were the counter-balance in the Middle East. Soviet foreign policy used to be all about the principle of having approximate equality in the world (in Europe, the Iron Curtain, in Asia, China to counter-balance Japan, North Korea to counter-balance South Korea, in the Americas, Cuba and other "pro-Russian" rebel groups.

The Russians weren't going for dominance because they figured democracy would fail if you stressed it enough. They were just waiting the U.S. out. But a funny thing happened on the way to the bank....... their bank closed first.

Putin is a student of that history and will help (small letters, it isn't as much as the Germans or the French) funnel nuclear tech to the Iranians as long as the U.S. continues to be aggressive in the Middle East.

It is not connected to the Chechen situation except that Putin sees the U.S. more and more as a threat.

Solitair

on Sep 16, 2004

Interesting how Chechens are all lumped togetrher in one boat. No seperation between terrorist and nationalists at all. It's like calling all Saudi's terrorists because there are some Saudi terrorists. Or calling all Nationalists in Norteern Ireland terrorists because they want the same end result as the IRA.

Putin is trying to use the terrorist incidents to justify his hardline approach while increasing his power. He labels everyone in Chechnya who oppossed Russian rule as a terrorist. That's wrong. The US has been talking to the opposition parties and previous government. Nothing worng with that. They claim t obe supporters of democracy and these people were democratically elected by the population.

Note the move by Putin to allow him to directly appoint state governors directly. Remove the electorate from the decision. And all in the name of terrorism. Imagine what would happen in the US if Bush tried the same thing.

Paul.

Lee1776

on Sep 16, 2004

Good post Solitair.

I'm with you on this one.

That is why we are trying to work with the Iraqies and not make Iraq a glass parking lot (like some people want) then leave. Just because of a minority that don't want a Democratic Government. Note: Just a conparison to show how the US Government policy works, not an advocation for the war. Though I am for it.

jesusstayscrunchy

on Sep 16, 2004

Putin is just better able to make the same sort of executive power-grab that Bush did after 9/11. We got the USA PATRIOT act, Russia gets "managed democracy." Certainly, Putin has a right to fight terrorism, but it is doubtful that restructuring regional governorships and the Duma will have any effect on this at all. What it will do is make Vladimir Putin more powerful -- which is something most every executive wants.

Chechnya was invaded by the tsars and Stalin shipped millions of Chechens off in the 40's. Do these people have a right to resist Russian rule? Perhaps. Right to resist isn't right to kill women and children though. It's a complicated issue.

drmiler

on Sep 16, 2004

Reply #14 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/16/2004 11:23:16 AM
Putin is just better able to make the same sort of executive power-grab that Bush did after 9/11. We got the USA PATRIOT act, Russia gets "managed democracy." Certainly, Putin has a right to fight terrorism, but it is doubtful that restructuring regional governorships and the Duma will have any effect on this at all. What it will do is make Vladimir Putin more powerful -- which is something most every executive wants.

Chechnya was invaded by the tsars and Stalin shipped millions of Chechens off in the 40's. Do these people have a right to resist Russian rule? Perhaps. Right to resist isn't right to kill women and children though. It's a complicated issue.

What they "need" to do is bring back the KGB (Kiss Goodby your Butt!)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!