[RD] The threat to American Democracy

[Farm Boy]

putin did NOT invade Ukraine . It turned out to be an invasion as America lied and did not prevent the Ukranian resistance . If there is even the slightest nagging doubt that this will turn out to be bad , let me clarify it for you Americans . Your little escapade in Ukraine to secure to Midterms really runs the risk of WW III and hundreds of millions of deaths . 25 or 50 of them might be Americans . It does run a very real risk of the end of the American Democracy . ı don't expect the practiced talking heads give up or anything but gotta be prepared . If you have the storage space , start storing some cans of food .

I think I finally get the point. The USA was supposed to conquer Ukraine for Russia.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Wait, Farm Boy interpreting an r16 post? That's gotta generate some kind of hermeneutic singularity.

 

[Takhisis]

So wait Brazil is our fault too ... Jeez... we suck

Yes, yes you do. Bolsonaro is just the receptacle for an ideological drive spread out from the US. And he himself is an apologist for the return to the dictatorships spectacularly bankrolled by the US to keep the entirety of Brazil as one serf-driven plantation meant to produce coffee, bananas and rubber. And damn anything else.

Joking aside, when I saw reports on the situation in Brazil, my first thought was that about how similar that looked to Jan 6, particularly wrt Bolsonaro/Trump supporters. I also initially thought it was a little arrogant to think that the US insurrection had caused the Brazillian one, but thinking about it some more, I am reminded that I place substantial blame on severity the global COVID pandemic, on the way the US was (mis)handling it, Trump specifically. So its not a stretch to say that the US had a bad influence on other countries in other significant areas as well.

Still... USA#1

Let's see, it's guided by the same ideology, co-ordinated as part of an alliance with the same ideological objectives (anti‘communism’, anti-homosexuality, BIG MAN rape apologism, evangelical Christianity, racism based on skin colour, among others), and, hey, there's even financial transfers between untaxable self-proclaimed churches.
I wonder whence come all the similarities.

Once you look deep into it, the deep ideology behind all these would-be tyrants is the same as that of Vladimir Putin. You should read, as I posted in the UK politics thread, the works of Ernesto Laclau. He was an Argentine-born academic who got a professorship of sorts at an English university from which he placidly produced works on how populists should construct power. Build up an enemy, give simple solutions to complicated problems, never apologise, never back down, &c.
And I remember that Lexicus and IIRC wim were a bit flippant at the time when I was complaining about South American populist caudillos a few years ago, but, as Laclau actually set out in writing, the whole point of this movement is for the Great Leader™ to assume popular power directly, abolishing the sharing of power, alternation in office, checks and balances, audits and so on. In essence, an apology of a return to messianic clique-based monarchy.

Look at Donald Trump. Look at his forerunners: Palin, Bush, Gingrich. They all went for abolishing controls, checks, balances. They packed courts and gerrymandered districts.
Now look at the recently-failed coup by Castillo. It was the same: the congress was trying to impeach him for corruption, so Castillo tried to get the army to help him suspend Congress as well as expel from office all the judges and prosecutors who were investigating him for corruption.
Look at Argentina, where both the president and vice-president have been handed criminal convictions during their present term of office and, technically, have been elected unconstitutionally (article 90 forbids their re-election, but nobody stood in their way).
Look at Venezuela, where I actually watched the current ‘head of the revolution’ announce, during his last electoral campaign, that he was begging the people to vote for him or else he'd be forced to save the country by again fixing the election.
Look at Nicaragua, where Ortega arranged for the previous president to lower the threshold for a candidate to win the first round of the election in exchange for allowing him to leave the country with all his stolen money and free of prosecution. Now Ortega's candidates ‘win’ in every single district and all opposition candidates are routinely arrested and any and all organisations other than the state and ruling party have been forcibly disbanded.
Look at El Salvador, where the president openly calls himself a dictator and removes judges and prosecutors at will.
Look at Cuba, where the Castros reneged on their promise to hold elections or uphold the then-suspended constitution and whose grandchildren post pictures of themselves in luxury cars on social media while everybody else is at or over the brink of starvation.
Look at Mexico, where the president once said that if enough people protested against him he would leave and… he hasn't left.

All of these take sides on one side or the other of an imaginary left-right fence, but when there is the one ruler it doesn't matter because all that happens is rule by whim of the self-anointed one.
And that's why all of them individually have dealings with Russia and China. The bolder ones also openly deal with Iran (like Reagan), just to name one.
Because they want to contain the spread of democracy. Once people have a taste of what they can do they'll want it again, which is why even the restored French monarchy fell again in the 19th century. Thrice.
It's just their own self-surival.

But, also, never forget to look at the entire clique that really supports them and is the real circle of power.

 

[r16]

where are all those people who explain every post with charges of whataboutism , deflection and 50 other fancy words ? Like if the thing starts to make sense , "Putin expected America to invade Ukraine for him" . Putin knew America controlled enough of Ukranian leadership to make them not to fight . Putin was promised there would no fight . Except a few clashes here and there . The elite of Russian units were caught without preparation and the belief it was a breakdown in American control and every Ukranian general and official under Russian pay had to exert more effort to avoid being identified as a traitor , combined with competition between all sorts of institutions of the Russian military led to prolonged attacks , isolated , ineffective , extremely costly and too gingerly to avoid hitting thousands of NATO personnel inside Ukraine .

nor the feel good stories about the peaceful NATO treating the rest in brotherly love are real . George Sho-ross is real . A-K-P is one of those which he financed ...

and before anyone ever thinks of charging some guy with Nationalism because that some guy mentions an Argentinian as the creator of the theory , it was fully brought up by CIA and whatnot years before . Like who would believe the Kurdish seperatist movement respects the women , loves and protects the nature and offers localized / on the spot committees and whatnot because its leader follows the writings of some guy from Vermont or whereever ?

 

[Samson]

I think I understand, at least part of the argument you are making and to the extent that I do, I'm thinking that I disagree. However, I am also pretty confident that I am missing or misunderstanding at least some part of your argument so I'm going to have to read it again and think more about it, or talk with you some more about it. I do find your argument very interesting, and I admit that I had not really thought about the issue in quite those terms before.

So here is part of my disagreement with the position you seem to be taking. You seem to be starting from a premise that Russia must become a "superpower" again, in the same way that it once was. I reject that premise. Many nations were once world superpowers and no longer are. Maybe one day the US will no longer be a superpower and some other nation will be, China for example. The TV show Firefly implies (or states outright this scenario IIRC). The point is that once a nation is no longer a superpower, for whatever reason, they, specifically their leaders, can accept it, and move on to the country having a new/different role on the world stage. If Putin refuses to do that, that's not Obama's fault. In fact, one of the underlying (if unsaid) purposes of NATO is precisely to prevent Russia from expanding their power, such that they become a major threat to Europe, (or the US) again. But that does not make armed conflict inevitable. Only if Russia's leaders insist that Russia will become a threat to Europe will there be armed conflict.

So for a very oversimplified example... If an Italian Prime Minister announced that they longed for the days when they essentially controlled the entire Mediterranean coastal area, plus what is France, Spain, Turkey, etc... and they wanted to go back to that... ie "restore their sphere of influence" as you put it.. and the US, or any nation FTM, said "Yeah no, we're not cooperating with you restoring the Roman Empire, that's not going to be a thing", that wouldn't be "making conflict with Italy inevitable". It would take the Italian Prime Minister making the decision that he was going to restore the Roman Empire, no matter what anyone else says. If the Italian Prime Minister accepts that he simply cannot restore the Roman Empire through conquest, there will be no armed conflict. That is what makes conflict inevitable, Putin's desire for conflict. You can't pin that on the US.

Another oversimplified example... If you and I are playing a game of RISK with say 5 players. You and I don't have to attack each other at all. in fact we could play the entire game without ever attacking each other. Moreover, we could play the entire game without ever attacking anyone. Now of course you can not win the game this way. But trying to "win" the game is your choice as a player. You can always just defend your territory and have peasant conversation with the other players and enjoy some food and drink. You don't have to "win" the game or "finish" the game. How many times have you played a board game that was never actually finished? We don't want anyone to finish conquering the world IRL. Using my RISK analogy... Putin wants to win, or at least, for starters, to capture Asia and Europe so he can get the bonus armies each turn. That is what is making conflict inevitable, because he can't capture Europe and Asia without attacking other players. The player controlling part of North America refusing to help him and convincing others to help stop him is not the one who is making conflict inevitable. If Putin would just relax, have some beers and enjoy the ballgame on the TV, we would hardly have to roll any dice, but if Putin wants to conquer the world, that makes conflict inevitable.

It seems to me a better example would be the Cuban missile crisis. One can say that what happened was inevitable given the sphere of influence the US considers around its shores without justifying the US reaction or denying Cubas right to self determination.

 

[r16]

give me 15 minutes and ı will find the Solomon Islands on the map for you . How silly an article name , too ...

US confirms threat to invade Solomon Islands over China security agreement

The refusal of a senior US State Department official to rule out military action against Solomon Islands means that is exactly what is under discussion in Washington.

www.wsws.org

yeah , any volunteers to explain why the US has a security need in some forsaken place ? Yeah , it is not Cuba either .

 

[Sommerswerd]

It seems to me a better example would be the Cuban missile crisis. One can say that what happened was inevitable given the sphere of influence the US considers around its shores without justifying the US reaction or denying Cubas right to self determination.

I don't think so. The US was more directly responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the US placing Titan missiles in Turkey, specifically to threaten the USSR. The USSR placing missiles in Cuba was billed as a response to that, and the USSR's eventual removal of the missiles from Cuba was in response to the US agreeing to remove the missiles from Turkey.

This whole discussion reminds me of the scene in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, where the Governator tell John Connor that the AI Skynet launched the US ICBMs at Russia in order to induce Russia to launch their ICBMs to destroy the US government that was trying to disable Skynet. Before the explanation, John Connor is puzzled why the US would attack Russia, saying "aren't they our friends now?" "now" meaning in 1992, when that movie came out, we were at a point where the whole notion of the US being friendly towards Russia was a novel concept, so much so that it warranted a line/reminder in a blockbuster action film.

 

[Remorseless1]

give me 15 minutes and ı will find the Solomon Islands on the map for you . How silly an article name , too ...

US confirms threat to invade Solomon Islands over China security agreement

The refusal of a senior US State Department official to rule out military action against Solomon Islands means that is exactly what is under discussion in Washington.

www.wsws.org

yeah , any volunteers to explain why the US has a security need in some forsaken place ? Yeah , it is not Cuba either .

Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia are in the neighborhood. Same reason the the Marines invaded Guadalcanal in 1942.

 

[r16]

that's why ı promised to find the place within 15 minutes . Somewhere to the East of New Guinea . Like ı have played the relevant Panzer General scenarios multiple times . Still am impressed by lack of responses that the cited article was surely written by Socialists ...

 

[Traitorfish]

Influence toward what? At least during the Soviet era, they/someone could imagine that they were offering a political system superior to that of the decadent West. What do they offer neighboring states now? Why is the US under an obligation to honor some "sphere of influence" independent of the content of that influence?

My questions may sound testy, and they partly are, but I'm asking them in earnest. I'm willing to concede I may be a brainwashed anti-Russian American. But if so, avail me of your outside perspective. What does Russia offer toward the thriving of any of its previous dependencies? For what positive thing would it use its influence in that sphere?

The US is not under any obligation to honour a Russian-asserted sphere of influence, and I say as much in the quote you're posting:

It is of course entirely up to Russia to obtain recognition of whatever sphere of influence it asserts, and no other country has any obligation to humour it because it was a big deal in the seventies

My argument is that recognising this sphere of influence is a necessary precondition of rapprochement with Russia, and that refusing this recognition necessarily entails confrontation with Russia. It's simply dishonest for liberals to pretend that they are all for rapprochement with Russia while rejecting any achievable rapprochement out of hand.

So here is part of my disagreement with the position you seem to be taking. You seem to be starting from a premise that Russia must become a "superpower" again, in the same way that it once was.

No, I'm not saying that. As I said in a previous post:

[Putin] expected to be allowed to govern Russia as a second-rate power that excercised hegemony over neighbouring status but didn't meddle in America's backyard as his Soviet predecessors had done.

Putin and his allies evidently believe that it is in Russia's interest to achieve and maintain this regional power status and are prepared to use a variety of measure including military force to pursue it. This doesn't imply a restoration of Russian superpower status, only the restoration- or in the view from Moscow, the continuation of Russian status as a peer to the United States, permitted the same sway over its geographic backyard (Eastern Europe and Central Asia) that the United States has historically wielded over its backyard (Latin America and, after 1945, Western Europe). The United States can chose to offer some degree of recognition of this sphere of influence to secure rapprochement with Russia, or it can refuse recognition and commit itself to confrontation, but there was never a third option where the US just asserts the continuation of a unipolar world order and Russia, chastised, meekly withdraws

The fundamental disconnect underlying all this is that the Americans think they won the Cold War, but the Russians think that they reached a negotiated settlement, and both countries are baffled by the fact that the other doesn't share their assumptions about what this implies for the political geography of Eastern Europe.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's simply dishonest for liberals to pretend that they are all for rapprochement with Russia while rejecting any achievable rapprochement out of hand.

I may not be the typical liberal, but I don't seek "rapprochement" with Russia, unless they want it on acceptable terms.

You keep making US the agent of your sentences: As long as the US does . . . That's what makes it feel to some of us like you think it's the US that is ultimately responsible for the situation.

But you've made yourself clear.

 

[r16]

it is the US that engineered the fight to keep this an American Century .

 

[Traitorfish]

I may not be the typical liberal, but I don't seek "rapprochement" with Russia, unless they want it on acceptable terms.

You keep making US the agent of your sentences: As long as the US does . . . That's what makes it feel to some of us like you think it's the US that is ultimately responsible for the situation.

But you've made yourself clear.

The original context of this discussion, which I think you have missed, was Obama's characterisation of Romney's aggressive rhetoric towards Russia during the 2008 presidential election as a relic of the Cold War. Obama presented himself as favouring rapprochement with Russia, which I think as disingenuous, because the conditions of rapprochement were, as you say, not acceptable to the United States. Quoting below:

Obama does pretty good standup, he's pretty funny. Not as funny as he thinks he is, but still pretty funny, witty, etc. He drops some pretty good zingers on the stump/stage and gets in some pretty sick burns.

Remember, "Don't boo... vote!"?

Another one... Remember the "horses and bayonets" dig he dropped on Romney? That was a nice one. As an aside, I'm guessing that the US military has waaaay more bayonets (if we're talking combat knives that can be affixed to rifle-muzzles) today than they had in the Revolutionary or Civil War... but I guess that underscores the point... the burn wasn't even really accurate but it stung at the time. Another example of that was the quip he hit Romney with about the Cold War calling for the politics back, that was hilarious at the time but has since ironically turned out to be embarrassingly wrong.

Obama was right that rapprochement was the best policy towards Russia; he was wrong that his administration was going to seriously pursue such a policy. Romney wasn't so much right about the best way to deal with Russia as he was honest about what America was going to end up doing anyway.

If you would like me to heap curses and calumny upon the Muscovite Ogre, fine- but the reason I keep going back to the US is because the topic at hand is US foreign policy, not the justice or injustice of Putin's geopolitical ambitions.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'd have to go back to that moment, but the way I remember it, Obama wasn't proposing rapprochement with Russia, he was just mocking Romney for mentioning Russia at all, as any kind of threat whatsoever. He was suggesting that Russia was inconsequential.

Edit: Yeah, he was needling Romney for having said Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat--(rather than al Qaeda) (!)

But now that I look back at the clip, my disagreement is with Sommer. Obama rushes the line and buries it within serious considerations--gives it no room to breathe as a laugh line. I'm in basic agreement with him about Obama's strengths as a comedian. And with you regarding geopolitics. Thank you for clarifying, including how it came up in the thread. I'm not sure I had been following the immediate pretext for your comment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd have to go back to that moment, but the way I remember it, Obama wasn't proposing rapprochement with Russia, he was just mocking Romney for mentioning Russia at all, as any kind of threat whatsoever. He was suggesting that Russia was inconsequential.

Edit: Yeah, he was needling Romney for having said Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat--(rather than al Qaeda) (!)

But now that I look back at the clip, my disagreement is with Sommer. Obama rushes the line and buries it within serious considerations--gives it no room to breathe as a laugh line. I'm in basic agreement with him about Obama's strengths as a comedian. And with you regarding geopolitics. Thank you for clarifying, including how it came up in the thread. I'm not sure I had been following the immediate pretext for your comment.

In disagreement with me about what? I want context to watch that clip again in light of your take. The way I remember it is the same as you... Obama was mocking Romney for mentioning Russia at all... my feeling at the time was Obama was implying that USA#1 had already defeated Russia, Awesome-Combo-Supreme-Victory... and mentioning a "rivalry" with Russia was sooo 1980s. "Rapprochement" wasn't involved. Recognition of Russia as some sort of regional stabilizing power wasn't involved. We won, Russia lost... ie Carthage Destroyed, on to the next threat ie Middle Eastern terrorists (ie barbarians).

Also, Obama is funny onstage... Where are we in disagreement? Im excited to debate/argue with you but I'm completely unclear what to argue about.

 

[innonimatu]

The fundamental disconnect underlying all this is that the Americans think they won the Cold War, but the Russians think that they reached a negotiated settlement, and both countries are baffled by the fact that the other doesn't share their assumptions about what this implies for the political geography of Eastern Europe.

The russians are not baffled at all, they may have been many years ago. The ultimatum presented in 2021 should have made it clear that their view had changed.
I think Emmanuel Tood is mostly right, again. This is the end of 30 years of liberal hegemony on the world.
The outcome in terms of power balances in the wolrd at large is already locked in. How "western" countries will manage this internally, in their politics, is what concerns me most now. What alternatives to liberalism will win, because being defeated in foreign policy has internal consequences.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Where are we in disagreement?

Whether this particular moment is an example of O's comedic skills. I'll post the clip and tell you why I think he muffs this line--comedically. We're not in disagreement about the main point: that Obama has solid comedic skills.

Here it is:

He doesn't pause for long enough after it for it register as a zinger. He doesn't give the comedian's knowing look to signal that he's just delivered a zinger. His voice doesn't "code switch," let's say, into the different tone of voice in which "the eighties are calling" is ordinarily spoken in a zinger-style line. He buries the comedic impact of the line in a more general "serious business," "showing my foreign policy savvy" presentational style, buries it in terms of pacing, and voice modulation.

Now, it was probably more important for him in that moment to establish his seriousness and savvy as thinker about foreign policy than to score a zinger, so politically it may have been the right choice on his part. But it is not an example of his skill with comedy.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Whether this particular moment is an example of O's comedic skills. I'll post the clip and tell you why I think he muffs this line--comedically. We're not in disagreement about the main point: that Obama has solid comedic skills.

Here it is:

He doesn't pause for long enough after it for it register as a zinger. He doesn't give the comedian's knowing look to signal that he's just delivered a zinger. His voice doesn't "code switch," let's say, into the different tone of voice in which "the eighties are calling" is ordinarily spoken in a zinger-style line. He buries the comedic impact of the line in a more general "serious business," "showing my foreign policy savvy" presentational style, buries it in terms of pacing, and voice modulation.

Thanks for the clip. I see what you mean. I think this debate was one of those where the format did not allow the audience to react to the comments of the participants. Obama knew this and so in consideration of this, he knew that he couldn't structure his remarks in the stand-up comedy format that you seem to be referencing. If he had done that, his jokes would have seemed to fall flat, because the audience wasn't allowed to react. So instead, he went with, as you correctly point out, a deadpan, "this is serious business" delivery of his jokes, where he was obviously mocking Romney and telling jokes, but doing it in such a way where he was, again, as you say, showing off his savvy and belittling Romney's comparative lack of savvy through his use of deadpan, matter-of-fact humor, with a delivery to mimic a tone as if he wasn't joking.

Remember that in this 2012 debate, Obama was the incumbent POTUS, so he was leaning heavy into the weapon he decidedly did not have in 2008, the aura of experience. Obama leveraged the fact that he was the actual POTUS at the time, so he knew tons of stuff Romney did not, and could not. He was the only one on the stage who had actual experience being POTUS and he kept whacking Romney with it. Now we can philosophize about how chivalrous that was, since obviously, the challenger to an incumbent POTUS will almost always be a potential rookie. His "horses and bayonets" and "battleship" remarks were additional highlights of him leveraging his experience to mock Romney. In 2008, McCain's principal attack on Obama was the repetitive refrain "he doesn't understand", basically referencing Obama's inexperience. In 2012, Obama was turning the tables on the Republicans, pointing out that he was the only one who had actually done the job, so he was the one who was most qualified for the job.

 

[Gori the Grey]

He could have got a jab in with a deadpan delivery, but it would have had to be phrased differently in that case. "The [previous era] called; it wants its [thing in question] back" style of joke is broad humor. It does not lend itself to deadpan delivery. You're not wrong that there was to be no audience reaction (though even in such circumstances you can sometimes steal a laugh, since laughter is involuntary). But then you need to design your zinger (and it was designed rather than extemporaneous) for such circumstances.

Now, I realize I'm the one who's swimming against the tide, since the line was all the rage the day after. But I'll die on the hill that this is not an example of Obama's comic skills.

Couple of side notes: I wonder how Trump would have fared in 2016 if the debate format were as here: the two candidates sitting near each other at a table. The distant-from-one-another-each-at-an-individual-podium style of the 2016 debates lends itself to Trump's chest-thumping and bluster (and stalking). You're asked to fill the room, and room-filling is precisely what Trump does.

We sometimes say (though I don't myself think) that Obama's ribbing of Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner humiliated Trump and drew him in to the 2016 race. I wonder what Putin thought about Obama's cavalier dismissal of his nation as a threat, and whether any of Putin's subsequent actions are a result of this smug little jab: "высокомерный little кенийский: I'll show you who's not a threat!"

Finally, we've come a long way, in this thread, from whether Dems should fund unattractive Republican candidates if we've made it to the question of Obama's chops as a comedian.

 

[Sommerswerd]

He could have got a jab in with a deadpan delivery, but it would have had to be phrased differently in that case. "The [previous era] called; it wants its [thing in question] back" style of joke is broad humor. It does not lend itself to deadpan delivery. You're not wrong that there was to be no audience reaction (though even in such circumstances you can sometimes steal a laugh, since laughter is involuntary). But then you need to design your zinger (and it was designed rather than extemporaneous) for such circumstances.

Now, I realize I'm the one who's swimming against the tide, since the line was all the rage the day after. But I'll die on the hill that this is not an example of Obama's comic skills.

Couple of side notes: I wonder how Trump would have fared in 2016 if the debate format were as here: the two candidates sitting near each other at a table. The distant-from-one-another-each-at-an-individual-podium style of the 2016 debates lends itself to Trump's chest-thumping and bluster (and stalking). You're asked to fill the room, and room-filling is precisely what Trump does.

We sometimes say (though I don't myself think) that Obama's ribbing of Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner humiliated Trump and drew him in to the 2016 race. I wonder what Putin thought about Obama's cavalier dismissal of his nation as a threat, and whether any of Putin's subsequent actions are a result of this smug little jab: "высокомерный little кенийский: I'll show you who's not a threat!"

Finally, we've come a long way, in this thread, from whether Dems should fund unattractive Republican candidates if we've made it to the question of Obama's chops as a comedian.

We can agree to disagree on this being an example of Obama's comedic skills. As you say, the quip set the media/internet ablaze the next day. I remember thinking it was pretty durn funny at the time, as I had, by then, hesitantly and cautiously accepted John Connor's "aren't they our friends now?" attitude about Russia. I think if anything, it shows Obama's comedic range. In Colbert's interview of Prince Harry about his new book, and his life in general, Harry commented about Queen Elizabeth II's ability to deliver hilarious put downs and jokes with complete deadpan, "this is serious business" tone. I think that Obama was putting that sort of range on display in the debate, because that is what the format called for. Obviously he is able to deliver jokes with stand up comedian levity when the situation calls for it. I'm not trying to persuade you, as you've already said this is a Bunker Hill position for you, but that's my take on it.

As for Putin and Trump, the former seems less like the kind of person who would be so easily goaded and/or emotionally manipulated. Also, since he has effectively established himself as dictator for life, he has even less occasion to feel threatened or humiliated by the remarks of a paltry 8-years-at-best POTUS. He knows he can always just wait them out. Trump on the other hand is infamously easily emotionally manipulated and highly susceptible to flattery, insults, etc. I think Putin's invasion of Crimea had nothing to do with Putin being tilted/insulted by Obama no longer regarding Russia as a threat and maybe something to do with Putin recognizing that the US, particularly under Obama, was not prepared to deal with Russia as the threat that it really was.