US-Russian non-aggression pact?

[Mark1031]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/index.html

Putin is campaigning for Bush. Does anyone find this creepy? As Putin moves toward totalitarianism he supports Bush and Bush keeps quiet.

 

[Immortal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/index.html

Putin is campaigning for Bush. Does anyone find this creepy? As Putin moves toward totalitarianism he supports Bush and Bush keeps quiet.

Did you actually read the article or did you just imply that support for Bush = Support for totalitarian dictatorship because of your own bias? And what aggression are you talking about?

Taken from the article:

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

"In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."

President Putin made it clear Russia remained opposed to the war in Iraq.

"Today, our views on that differ from the views of President Bush," he said.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Putin publicly opposed the Iraq war, and Bush publicly rebuked Putin for his antidemocratic practices. I'm not sure about their private wishes regarding each other's fortunes.

On the other hand, I don't know why international terrorists would want Bush to be defeated. He provides them with more recruits and money every day by causing hatred of America overseas.

 

[Mark1031]

Did you actually read the article or did you just imply that support for Bush = Support for totalitarian dictatorship because of your own bias? And what aggression are you talking about?

Taken from the article:

I don't recall the leader of Russia or the USSR ever expressing such blatant support in a US election. The reference was meant to invoke the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact and to imply that both Russia and the US were drifting toward fascism. Granted overblown hyperbole but nether country is drifting more in the direction of liberal democracy.

 

[Immortal]

I don't recall the leader of Russia or the USSR ever expressing such blatant support in a US election.

Welcome to a world where people can actually agree on things despite past problems. Can I introduce you to France and Britain? Maybe the entire EU?

The reference was meant to invoke the Hitler/Stalin non-aggression pact and to imply that both Russia and the US were drifting toward fascism.

I am aware of the M-R Pact, in fact, that was the entire point of my post: Another tired "BUSH IS A NAZI" cliche of a post.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I don't recall the leader of Russia or the USSR ever expressing such blatant support in a US election.

America has never benefitted from a strong Russia before. It was usually counter to our national interests.

Except now, it isn't. A strong Russia is good for the US on many different levels. I wholly approve of improving Russo-American relations and taking steps to aid the rebuilding of Russia.

 

[Mark1031]

Welcome to a world where people can actually agree on things despite past problems. Can I introduce you to France and Britain? Maybe the entire EU?
I am aware of the M-R Pact, in fact, that was the entire point of my post: Another tired "BUSH IS A NAZI" cliche of a post.

There many in the US, primairly in the right, that think Bush has been far too easy on Putin. Now he publicly backs Bush using some of the same rhetoric as the campaign. I find this very creepy. If you understood what the title of the thread referred to why did you ask? So you could say another Bush Nazi thread. That is not the main point of the thread and it was mostly a tongue in cheek reference. For those that cannot understand/tolerate the subtle irony of the title this thread can be generally about the history/wisdom of heads of state expressing direct and clear support for a particular candidate in another countries election.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

There many in the US, primairly in the right, that think Bush has been far too easy on Putin.

That's a very unfortunate view to take. Destabilizing Russia would be a very dangerous thing to do at this point.

 

[Mark1031]

America has never benefitted from a strong Russia before. It was usually counter to our national interests.

A strong Russia is not the point though. The drift back toward totalitarianism, while probably to be expected given Russia’s history and at the moment is not that bad, in the long run if it went too far it would be very bad for US interests IMO. Nationalism+totalitarianism+nukes=bad bad bad.

 

[BasketCase]

I've got a pretty good idea of what's going through Putin's head at the moment.

Recall that before 9/11 happened, America was saying some pretty nasty things about Russia for its handling of Chechnyan terrorists/rebels/freedom fighters/whichever.

After 9/11, America clammed up. Maybe because we couldn't really fight terrorism while castigating Russia for the same thing, or maybe because we'd seen that Russia had the right idea after all (i.e. send in the military and beat the living bejeezus outta whoever went jihad on your butt).

Russia has Chechnya, America has Osama. The two nations are in the same boat, and Putin would rather not be in that boat alone. I think he's pro-Bush in order to get support for his own War on Terror, and also to keep his biggest critic silent. Kerry is probably not gonna give Putin either of those.

 

[Mark1031]

That's a very unfortunate view to take. Destabilizing Russia would be a very dangerous thing to do at this point.

I agree and do not support this POV. There is not much we could do anyway. I just find Putin's language to eerily parallel the Bush campaign line and I find this weird and wonder what precedents there are for this.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

A strong Russia is not the point though. The drift back toward totalitarianism, while probably to be expected given Russia’s history and at the moment is not that bad, in the long run if it went too far it would be very bad for US interests IMO. Nationalism+totalitarianism+nukes=bad bad bad.

At this point, and for the forseeable future, a strong Russia is greatly helpful to US interests, and a strong Russia needs strong, centralized leadership. That is what Putin is there for.

A strong Russia does two things:

1) it gives us another major power to play off the EU, China, and India (and who feels threatened by two of those three)

2) it absorbs central asian terrorism that would otherwise be directed at the US

 

[eyrei]

Putin knows he can manipulate Bush, so he wants him in office...

 

[Cuivienen]

Did you actually read the article or did you just imply that support for Bush = Support for totalitarian dictatorship because of your own bias? And what aggression are you talking about?

You misinterpreted. Putin is becoming totalitarian. Putin is supporting Bush. Not "Putin is supporting Bush the totalitarian."

 

[HighlandWarrior]

i'd like a US-Russian union. Russian don't worry about "human rights" and with enough money im sure we could get some russian troops interrorgating those prisoners