Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: What Does Putin Want?

  1. #1

    What Does Putin Want?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...oes-putin-want

    Foreword by the Saker:

    The analysis below is, by far, the best I have seen since the beginning of the conflict in the Ukraine. I have regularly posted analyses by Ishchenko on this blog before, because I considered him as one of the best analysts in Russia. This time, however, Ishchenko has truly produced a masterpiece: a comprehensive analysis of the geostrategic position of Russia and a clear and, I believe, absolutely accurate analysis of the entire “Putin strategy” for the Ukraine. I have always said that this conflict is not about the Ukraine but about the future of the planet and that there is no “Novorussian” or even “Ukrainian” solution, but that the only possible outcome is a strategic victory of either Russia or the USA which will affect the entire planet. Ishchenko does a superb overview of the risks and options for both sides and offers the first comprehensive “key” to the apparently incomprehensible behavior of Russia in this conflict. Finally, Ishchenko also fully understands the complex and subtle dynamics inside Russian society. When he writes “Russian power is authoritative, rather than authoritarian” he is spot on, and explains more in seven words than what you would get by reading the billions of useless words written by so-called “experts” trying to describe the Russian reality.



    We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Denis, Gideon and Robin for translating this seminal text, which was very difficult to translate. The only reason why we can read it in such a good English is because the innumerable hours spent by these volunteers to produce the high quality translation this analysis deserves.

    I strongly recommend that you all read this text very carefully. Twice. It is well worth it.

    The Saker
    Continue Reading
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    As ex-KGB, I'll SWAG he wants the return of the CCCP.

  4. #3
    And what is Rand's position on Putin and Russia? Short answer: Who knows?

    I would like to point out here that this author, Justin Raimando from antiwar.com, is a long-time liberty supporter. Many articles of his have been posted here over the years. I do recall some sentiment on this forum that "Justin is full of it now..." but be that as it may Rand's strategy is alienating some long-time supporters and this is just one example.


    "Stand with Rand" Paul. But, where exactly?

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...407-story.html

    "Stand With Rand." That's Sen. Rand Paul's main slogan as he launches his campaign for the White House. He's holding a "Stand With Rand" rally in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday and is holding another "Stand With Rand" rally in New Hampshire, the traditional first primary state, on Wednesday. It's an unfortunate choice of words, because it underscores the chief problem with his candidacy. For the life of me, I can't figure out what he really believes where he really stands, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

    At a January forum with fellow Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Paul challenged his colleagues' hawkish showboating on Iran: "Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops? I'm a big fan of trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you're ruining it.'"

    Two months later, he was "ruining it" by putting his signature on an open letter to the Iranian leadership. Authored by arch-neoconservative Sen. Tom Cotton, the letter basically told Tehran that a Republican in the White House would nullify any deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

    His explanation for this complete reversal was baffling. He told Glenn Beck that it is "kind of crazy" for anyone to question his decision to sign: "Do I have any regrets about informing another country of how our Constitution works?"

    He told a different story at the SXSW Festival in Austin, Texas. Claiming to support the diplomatic talks, he said: "I want the president to negotiate from a position of strength, which means that he needs to be telling them in Iran, 'I've got Congress to deal with.'"

    How is it helpful to tell the Iranians that any agreement they sign may expire in two years? Cotton is nothing if not forthright: He has said he wants to "blow up" the negotiations, and certainly his letter aimed at doing just that. For Paul to join in this sabotage attempt was intellectually indefensible and entirely in character.

    Rand Paul's record of policy contradictions is extensive.

    As a U.S.-backed movement seized power in Kiev, Paul called for "respectful relations" with the Kremlin: "Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that is a good idea."

    A few months later he was demanding that President Vladimir Putin be "punished," invoking "our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression." Putin, said Paul, was guilty of "violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation." Here's the thing: The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by Congress. It was signed by President Clinton, who didn't bother to consult the Senate. It's kind of crazy, as Paul would say, that it's necessary to inform the senator how our Constitution works.

    Paul's record of contradictions is extensive. In 2011, freshly elected to the Senate, Paul proposed an alternative budget that zeroed out all foreign aid including to Israel. The budget included a section explicitly eliminating aid to Israel on the grounds that it undermined "Israel's ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies."

    After the neoconservative wing of his party lashed out at him for being "anti-Israel," Paul started singing a different tune. His revised budget froze foreign aid at present levels. Yet even that modest attempt at fiscal discipline was thrown overboard when he voted to increase aid to Israel and boasted about it in a statement issued by his office.

    The most bizarre part of the story is that the senator's office insists that Paul "has never proposed any legislation that targeted Israel's aid." It's one thing to change one's mind it's quite another to deny that any change has taken place.

    Here's one last example. In June, Paul wrote an op-ed piece on the Islamic State crisis for the Wall Street Journal, asking: "What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran's air force? What's in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?"

    Good questions, and yet it wasn't long before the senator was advocating airstrikes and calling for a formal declaration of war against Islamic State.


    I'm a libertarian and I was, as recently as a few months ago, enthusiastic about Paul.

    He started out as "a different kind of Republican" a characterization his campaign never tires of invoking. But Paul's response to the barrage of attacks unleashed by GOP mandarins has been to deny this difference. This strategy threatens to nullify his attempt to broaden his appeal beyond conservative voters even as he alienates his libertarian base.

    Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and a longtime libertarian activist.

    Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
    These are FOUR examples of Rand Paul flip-flopping on important global issues. Alienating a long time Ron Paul supporter.

    I'm actually not alienated. I'm just disappointed that Rand is choosing to act like every other lying candidate on the planet to achieve his personal ideas of 'who knows' at the expense of telling the truth in the present. I was disappointed in him most recently from his speech at the faith and freedom coalition when he pandered to the Israel sympathizers by demonizing Palestinians in a one-sided way instead of talking about, I don't know, anything else?!

    The OP has posted an article that's as critical of the U.S.A. if not moreso than it is of Russia but the OP has a "Stand with Rand" sticker attached to his avatar. Isn't it going to be confusing when all Rand's supporters are out of step with Rand's stated policies because no one can figure out what Rand's position is since it changes with the weather? The OP claims to "support" Rand but he posts an article that is out of step with the stance on Russia that Rand Paul has taken.

    But what will the OP say about my dissension?

    Well, it seems he's already said it:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5844814

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I do think that most of the self-ascribed libertarians who still don't support Rand are beyond help, mind you, but I suppose it never hurts to give it another try.
    OP, if long-time "self-ascribed libertarians" like Justin are beyond hope what does that say about the American voter who is not only clueless, but far too busy doing other things to even pay attention to any of these issues? If Rand can't reconcile with the base that his father's campaign created what other base is going to support him? You may think he is going to just take over the GOP but THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN to attack him in my opinion. They are giving him just enough rope to hang himself, and some of that rope Justin has pointed out.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    As ex-KGB, I'll SWAG he wants the return of the CCCP.
    I disagree. I think his policy is reactive, defensive.

    NATO absorbed most of Eastern Europe against Russian objections in the 90s and early noughties, but at the time Russia was too weak to do anything about it.

    In 2008, by which time the Russian economy and military had recovered quite a bit, NATO announced that it would eventually incorporate Ukraine and Georgia. Two months later Russia and Georgia went to war. That was Russia telling NATO "no mas." In 2014, NATO launched (another) color revolution in Ukraine in an effort to bring a pro-NATO government to power and bring Ukraine into NATO. Russia and Ukraine immediately went to war. Again, this is Russia telling NATO "nyet." The Russians are not going to allow another NATO state on their border. It would be the equivalent of the Chinese entering into a militancy alliance with Mexico an stationing forces in Tijuana. The US would never accept that, would it?

    IMO, Russia's minimum demands are an explicit promise from NATO that Ukraine will never be admitted to the alliance. If NATO made that concession, Russia would disgorge Crimea and drop its support for the independence of East Ukraine - settling for a federated system. That would achieve Russia's strategic objectives and gives Putin enough of a victory to appease the Russian public (who are screaming for blood - much as with the US public). NATO could easily make this concession. NATO does not need Ukraine to maintain its security, they just want it as a base to undermine Russia proper. They have to give up those ambitions. And getting the Russians to nullify the annexation of Crimea would be sufficient red meat for Obama to appease the bloodthirsty American public. That's the solution, IMO.

    As for the odds of that actually happening...?

    I think NATO, and the US in particular, are so filled with hubris that they probably won't back down.

    The Russians cannot back down, it's a matter of national survival (and survival of the Putin regime).

    Que the OP's predictions of doom and gloom.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-03-2015 at 04:15 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  6. #5
    Having no idea what so ever who the man is, I find it hard to even guess.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    As ex-KGB, I'll SWAG he wants the return of the CCCP.









    Haha after looking at these maps i dont think so. Seems to me that the fascists had actually won the war they just rechanged there brand with a new flag and identity.

  8. #7
    Interesting analysis! thanks!

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  9. #8
    Having actually read the article, I thought it was good. Changed my thinking on some things.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Having actually read the article, I thought it was awful. I was excited at first, grew more suspicious as I read further and then ended not only sorely disappointed but angry that trash like this has any traction. It sounded like a Russian intelligentsia writing about geopolitics with RT as its primary, and only, source.

    Don't get me wrong, his predictions are sound in the false narrative he sets. But...it's a false narrative.

    The U.S. Survives by pillaging its Allies of resources? It "missed its only chance to reorganize the Cold War economy"? What the hell is he talking about? The repeated (almost gleefully) lamentations of American decline leading it to lashing out in order to stave off an impending internal implosion? Again, what the HELL is he talking about? I asked myself this over and over as I went through the text.

    In one space he talks about the how democracy is inconsistent and America is full of pent up confusion and disorder....yet in another he assumes there is some kind of multi-decade American 'masterplan' to subjugate the EU, and the rest of the world, if you followed his world view as described. In one space he notes Putin's ruthlessness in effectively taking control of Russia, but then spends practically the rest of the text acting as an apologetic to his behavior.

    I am paraphrasing it but at one point he speaks of there being "no one else with his stature in Russian politics today." Can anyone guess why? I'll give you three tries.

    Don't even get me started on the "Nazi state" bullcrap.

    Tripe, biased propaganda piece and nothing more.

    Being a student of history and modern politics, I will gladly debate anyone who defends this garbage passing itself off as informative.
    Last edited by RabbitMan; 05-04-2015 at 12:43 AM.
    "Freedom, then Pizza!" - Oklahoma State GOP Convention 5/11/2012

  12. #10
    It is essential to understand what the Russian leadership wants to achieve, particularly the president, Vladimir Putin. We are talking about the key role that Putin plays in the organization of the Russian power structure. This system is not authoritarian, as many assert, but rather authoritative – meaning it is based not on legislative consolidation of autocracy but on the authority of the person who created the system and, as the head of it, makes it work effectively.
    No, Russia would do just fine, and continue on the same path, if Putin died tomorrow. It is claptrap to suggest Putin is the only one with plan and direction. Russians are political animals. Nobody does or understand politics like they do.


    I am reading further, and finding it faltering:

    During Putin’s 15 years in power, despite the difficult internal and external situation, he has tried to maximize the role of the government, the legislative assembly, and even the local authorities.
    Not even, Putin is enforcing four columns, at the cost to the fifth. He understand war has already begun, and this is the warm up.

    He had to understand the nature of the fight and his opponent. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have lasted so long.
    In one sentence in his whole auto-biography, he labels and understand Americans.

    This articles only problem is it keeps calling "Russia", "Putin", as if this is all not part of a broader strategy.
    The strategy ios Russia, the title should be "What does Russia want?"

    It is the same kind of propaganda, used over and over again, that a leader is its country. But this is Russia, and Russia is different. The strategy will continue with or without Putin. Russian strategy does not rely on puppets, like western strategy, who read well edited scripts, with buzz and power words, it relies on agents, who understand the complexities of geopolitics. That is why Russian leaders peak freely, and will continue to do so, without teleprompter. Medvedev was never even in on the strategy. He himself was a puppet.
    The U.S. Survives by pillaging its Allies of resources? It "missed its only chance to reorganize the Cold War economy"? What the hell is he talking about? The repeated (almost gleefully) lamentations of American decline leading it to lashing out in order to stave off an impending internal implosion?
    Right now, the United States rules through power, to get better trade deals. But the allies "it" pillages the most off of are... ...the American Citizens. The United States has become little more than the armed wing of the bankers, and the people of it, are the ones to bear the tax burdens for their wars. The more wars they initiate, the more the American taxpayer must give. It is the first empire in history to pillage itself at the behest of another power (multinational corporations).
    Last edited by UWDude; 05-04-2015 at 02:09 AM.
    His Name was Seth Rich.

  13. #11
    I read these threads and all I take away from it is that there seems to be a lot of people who want a re-match of the Cold War.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I read these threads and all I take away from it is that there seems to be a lot of people who want a re-match of the Cold War.
    It was very profitable to the MIC. (It built the MIC)
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I read these threads and all I take away from it is that there seems to be a lot of people who want a re-match of the Cold War.

    OP looks like one of them. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Company.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nning-Platform
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



Similar Threads

  1. Where Is Putin?
    By Zippyjuan in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-16-2015, 01:26 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2014, 06:58 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 06:51 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 01:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •