Print Page | Close Window

Is Vladamir Putin Insane?

Printed From:
Category: Forums
Forum Name: News from around the world
Forum Discription: a place to post news stories and discuss events going on in the world today
Printed Date: September/23/2023 at 12:57pm

Topic: Is Vladamir Putin Insane?
Posted By: WhiteWolf
Subject: Is Vladamir Putin Insane?
Date Posted: June/04/2007 at 4:32am

With all that is going on in the world, Russia's President is threatening to - point his missles, possibly nuclear, at countries in Europe. This is something that hasn't been said since the Cold War.

I have been noticing for months now that this guy has been sayhing all kinds of inflammatory things, and I have become increasingly aware of the possibility that the guy might actually be insane.

Either way, I'm starting this thread to have a place to vent about this new global threat, and have no doubt that I'll be returning often.

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: June/05/2007 at 4:02am

Tue Jun 05 2007 09:21:02 ET

Bush: 'In Russia, reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development'...

President Ilves, Foreign Minister Swarzenberg, and distinguished guests: Laura and I are pleased to be back in Prague, and we appreciate the gracious welcome to this historic hall. Tomorrow I will attend the G-8 Summit, where I will meet with the leaders of the world’s most powerful economies. This afternoon, I stand with men and women who represent an even greater power – the power of human conscience.

In this room are dissidents and democratic activists from 17 countries on five continents. You follow different traditions ... you practice different faiths … and you face different challenges. But you are united by an unwavering conviction: that freedom is the non-negotiable right of every man, woman, and child – and the path to lasting peace in our world.

This conference was conceived by three of the great advocates for freedom in our time: Jose Maria Aznar, Vaclav Havel, and Natan Sharansky. I thank them for the invitation to address this inspiring assembly – and for showing the world that an individual with moral clarity and courage can change the course of history.

It is fitting that we meet in the Czech Republic – a nation at the heart of Europe, and of the struggle for freedom on this continent. Nine decades ago, Tomas Masaryk proclaimed Czechoslovakia’s independence based on the “ideals of modern democracy.” That democracy was interrupted –first by the Nazis and then by the Communists, who seized power in a shameful coup that left the Foreign Minister dead in the courtyard of this palace.

Through the long darkness of Soviet occupation, the true face of this nation was never in doubt. The world saw it in the reforms of the Prague Spring and the principled demands of Charter 77. Those efforts were met with tanks and truncheons and arrests by secret police. But the violent would not have the final word. In 1989, thousands gathered in Wenceslas Square to call for their freedom. Theaters like the Magic Lantern became headquarters for dissidents. Workers left their factories to support a strike. And within weeks, the regime crumbled. Vaclav Havel went from prisoner of state to head of state. And the people of Czechoslovakia brought down the Iron Curtain with a Velvet Revolution.

Across Europe, similar scenes were unfolding. In Poland, a movement that began in a single shipyard freed people across a nation. In Hungary, mourners gathered in Heroes Square to bury a slain reformer – and buried their communist regime too. In East Germany, families came together for prayer meetings – and found the strength to tear down a wall. Soon, activists emerged from the attics and church basements to reclaim the streets of Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved peacefully in this very room. And after seven decades of oppression, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

Behind these astonishing achievements was the triumph of freedom in the battle of ideas. The Communists had an imperial ideology that claimed to know the direction of history. But in the end, it was overpowered by ordinary people who wanted to live their lives, and worship their God, and speak the truth to their children without fear. The Communists had the harsh rule of Brezhnev, and Honecker, and Ceausescu. But in the end, it was no match for the vision of Walesa and Havel … the defiance of Sakharov and Sharansky … the resolve of Reagan and Thatcher … and the fearless witness of John Paul. From this experience, a clear lesson has emerged: Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed – but freedom cannot be denied.

In the years since liberation, Central and Eastern European nations have navigated the difficult transition to democracy. Leaders made the tough reforms needed to enter NATO and the European Union. Citizens claimed their freedom in the Balkans and beyond. And now, after centuries of war and suffering, the continent of Europe is at peace at last.

With this new era have come new threats to freedom. In dark and repressive corners of the world, whole generations grew up with no voice in their government and no hope in their future. This life of oppression bred deep resentment. And for many, resentment boiled over into radicalism and violence. The world saw the result on September the 11th, 2001 – when terrorists based in Afghanistan sent 19 suicidal men to murder nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States.

For some, this attack called for a narrow response. In truth, Nine-Eleven was evidence of a much broader danger – an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. The extremists’ ambition is to build a totalitarian empire that spans all current and former Muslim lands – including parts of Europe. And their strategy to achieve that goal is to frighten the world into surrender through a ruthless campaign of terrorist murder.

To confront this enemy, America and our allies have taken the offensive with the full range of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement capabilities. Yet this battle is more than a military conflict. Like the Cold War, it is an ideological struggle between two fundamentally different visions of humanity. On one side are the extremists, who promise paradise but deliver a life of public beatings, repression of women, and suicide bombings. On the other side are huge numbers of moderate men and women – including millions in the Muslim world – who believe that every human life has dignity and value that no power on earth can take away.

The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is not bullets or bombs – it is the universal appeal of freedom. Freedom is the design of our Maker, and the longing of every soul. Freedom is the best way to unleash the creativity and economic potential of a nation. Freedom is the only ordering of a society that leads to justice. And human freedom is the only way to achieve human rights.

Expanding freedom is more than a moral imperative – it is the only realistic way to protect our people. Years ago, Andrei Sakharov warned that “a country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors.” History proves him right. Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other. Democracies address problems through the political process – instead of blaming outside scapegoats. Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists – they will join in defeating them.

For all these reasons, the United States is committed to the advance of freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. And we have a historic objective in view. In my Second Inaugural Address, I pledged America to the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Some have said that qualifies me as a “dissident president.” If standing for liberty in the world makes me a dissident, then I’ll wear the title with pride.

America has pursued our freedom agenda in many ways – some vocal and visible, others quiet and hidden from view.

Ending tyranny requires support for the forces of conscience that undermine repressive societies from within. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik compared a tyrannical state to a soldier who constantly points a gun at his enemy – until his arms finally tire and the prisoner escapes. The role of the free world is to put pressure on the arms of the world’s tyrants – and strengthen the prisoners who are trying to speed their collapse.

So I have met personally with dissidents and democratic activists from some of the world’s worst dictatorships – including Belarus, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. At this conference, I look forward to meeting other dissidents, including some from Iran and Syria. One of these dissidents is Mamoun Homsi. In 2001, this man was an independent member of the Syrian parliament who issued a declaration asking the government to begin respecting human rights. For this entirely peaceful act, he was arrested and sent to jail – where he spent several years beside other innocent advocates of a free Syria.

Another dissident I will meet with here is Rebiyah Kadeer of China, whose sons have been jailed in what we believe is an act of retaliation for her human rights activities. The talent of men and women like Rebiyah is the greatest resource of their nations – far more valuable than the weapons of their army or oil under the ground. So America calls on every nation that stifles dissent to end its repression, trust its people, and grant its citizens the freedom they deserve.

There are many other dissidents who could not join us – because they are being unjustly imprisoned or held under house arrest. I look forward to the day when conferences like this one include Alexander Kozulin of Belarus … Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma … Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba … Father Nguyen Van Ly of Vietnam … and Ayman Nour of Egypt. The daughter of one of these political prisoners is in this room. And to all their families: I thank you for your courage. I pray for your comfort and strength. And I call for the immediate and unconditional release of your loved ones.

In the eyes of America, the democratic dissidents of today are the democratic leaders of tomorrow. So we are taking new steps to strengthen our support for them. We recently created a Human Rights Defenders Fund, which provides grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of activists arrested or beaten by repressive governments. I strongly support the Prague Document that your conference plans to issue, which states that “the protection of human rights is critical to international peace and security.” And in keeping with the goals of that declaration, I have asked Secretary Rice to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an un-free nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy and human rights.

People living in tyranny need to know they are not forgotten. North Koreans live in a closed society where dissent is brutally suppressed, and they are cut off from their brothers and sisters to the south. The Iranians are a great people who deserve to chart their own future – but they are denied their liberty by a handful of extremists whose pursuit of nuclear weapons prevents their country from taking its rightful place in the community of nations. The Cubans are desperate for freedom – and as that nation enters a period of transition, we must insist on free elections, free speech, and free assembly. And in Sudan, freedom is denied and basic human rights are violated by a government that pursues genocide against its own citizens. My message to all those who suffer under tyranny is this: We will never excuse your oppressors, and we will always stand for your freedom.

Freedom is also under assault in countries that had shown some progress. In Venezuela, elected leaders have resorted to a shallow populism to dismantle democratic institutions and tighten their grip on power. The government of Uzbekistan continues to silence independent voices by jailing human rights activists. And Vietnam recently arrested and imprisoned a number of peaceful religious and political activists.

These developments are discouraging, but there are more reasons for optimism. At the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies on Earth. There are now more than 120 democracies – and more people now live in freedom than ever before. And it is the responsibility of those who enjoy the blessings of liberty to help those who are struggling to establish free societies. So the United States has nearly doubled funding for democracy projects. We are working with our partners in the G-8 to promote the rise of a vibrant civil society in the Middle East through initiatives like the Forum for the Future. We are cooperating side-by-side with the new democracies in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. We congratulate the people of Yemen on their landmark presidential election, and the people of Kuwait on elections in which women were able to vote and run for office for the first time. And we stand firmly behind the people of Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq as they defend their democratic gains against extremist enemies. The people of these nations are making great sacrifices for liberty. They deserve the admiration of the free world – and they deserve our unwavering support.

The United States is also using our influence to urge valued partners like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to move toward freedom. These nations have taken brave stands and strong action to confront extremists, along with some steps to expand liberty and transparency. Yet they have a great distance still to travel. The United States will continue to press nations like these to open up their political systems, and give a greater voice to their people. Inevitably, this creates tension. But our relationships with these countries are broad enough and deep enough to bear it. As our relationships with South Korea and Taiwan during the Cold War prove, America can maintain a friendship and push a nation toward democracy at the same time.

We are also applying that lesson to our relationships with Russia and China. The United States has strong working relationships with these countries. Our friendship with them is complex. In the areas where we share mutual interests, we work together. In other areas, we have strong disagreements. For example, China’s leaders believe that they can continue to open the nation’s economy without also opening its political system. In Russia, reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development. Part of a good relationship is the ability to talk openly about our disagreements. So the United States will continue to build our relationships with these countries – and we will do it without abandoning our principles or our values.

We appreciate that free societies take shape at different speeds in different places. One virtue of democracy is that it reflects local history and traditions. Yet there are fundamental elements that all democracies share – freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly … rule of law enforced by independent courts … private property rights … and political parties that compete in free and fair elections. These rights and institutions are the foundation of human dignity, and as countries find their own path to freedom, they will find a loyal partner in the United States.

Extending the reach of freedom is a mission that unites democracies around the world. And some of the greatest contributions are coming from nations with the freshest memories of tyranny. I appreciate the Czech Republic’s support for human rights projects in Belarus, Burma, and Cuba. I thank Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Croatia for contributing to the new United Nations Democracy Fund. And I am grateful for the commitment many new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe are making to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghan and Iraqi people look to you as a model of liberty – and they will remember that you stood with them when they needed it most.

In all these ways, the freedom agenda is making a difference. The work has been difficult, and that will not change. There will be triumphs and failures, progress and setbacks. Ending tyranny cannot be achieved overnight. And of course, this objective has its critics.

Some say that ending tyranny means “imposing our values” on people who do not share them – or live in parts of the world where freedom cannot take root. That is refuted by the fact that every time people are given a choice, they choose freedom. We saw that when the people of Latin America turned dictatorships into democracies … and the people of South Africa replaced apartheid with a free society … and the people of Indonesia ended their long authoritarian rule. We saw it when Ukrainians in orange scarves demanded that their ballots be counted. And we saw it when millions of Afghans and Iraqis defied the terrorists to elect free governments. At a polling station in Baghdad, an Iraqi man with one leg told a reporter, “I would have crawled here if I had to.” Was democracy imposed on that man? Was freedom a value he did not share?

The truth is that the only ones who have to impose their values are the tyrants. That is why the communists crushed the Prague Spring … and threw an innocent playwright in jail … and trembled at the sight of a Polish Pope. History shows that ultimately, freedom conquers fear. And given the chance, freedom will conquer fear in every nation on earth.

Another objection is that ending tyranny will unleash chaos. Critics point to the violence in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Lebanon as evidence that freedom leaves people less safe. But look at who is causing that violence. It is the terrorists. And it is no coincidence that they are targeting young democracies in the Middle East. They know that the success of free societies there is a mortal threat to their ambitions – and to their very survival. The fact that our enemies are fighting back is not a reason to doubt democracy. It is evidence that they recognize democracy’s power. It is evidence that we are at war. And it is evidence that free nations must do what it takes to prevail.

Still, some argue that a safer goal would be stability – especially in the Middle East. The problem is that pursuing stability at the expense of liberty does not lead to peace – it leads to September the 11th, 2001. The policy of tolerating tyranny is a moral and strategic failure. And it is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Others fear that democracy will bring dangerous forces to power, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Elections will not always turn out the way we hope. Yet democracy consists of more than a single trip to the ballot box. Democracy requires meaningful opposition parties, a vibrant civil society, and a government that enforces the law and responds to the needs of its people. Elections can accelerate the creation of such institutions. In a democracy, people will not vote for a life of perpetual violence. To stay in power, elected officials must listen to their people and pursue their desire for peace – or the voters will replace them through free elections with leaders who do.

Finally, there is the contention that ending tyranny is unrealistic. Some argue that extending democracy around the world is simply too difficult to be achieved. That is nothing new. At every stage of the Cold War, there were those who argued that the Berlin Wall was permanent – and that people behind the Iron Curtain would never overcome their oppressors.

The lesson is that freedom will always have skeptics. But that is not the whole story. There are also people like you, and the loved ones you represent – men and women with the courage to risk everything for your ideals. In his first address as President, Vaclav Havel proclaimed, “People, your government has returned to you!” He was echoing the first speech of President Tomas Masaryk – who was in turn quoting the 17th century Czech teacher Comenius. His message was that freedom is timeless. It does not belong to one government or one generation. Freedom is the dream and the right of every person in every nation in every age.

The United States of America believes deeply in that message. It was the inspiration for our founding, when we declared that all men are created equal. It was the conviction that led us to help liberate this continent, and stand with the captive nations through their long struggle. It is the truth that guides our Nation to oppose terror and tyranny in the world today. And it is the reason I have such great confidence in the men and women in this room.

I leave Prague with certainty that the cause of freedom is not tired – and that its future is in the best of hands. With unbreakable faith in the power of liberty, you will inspire your people … you will lead your nations … and you will change the world. Thank you, and God bless you all.



Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: June/14/2007 at 2:31am
Putin and the Russian government, are apparently now going to - sell up to nine freaking submarines to that other craziest of crazies, socialist "President" of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Why is it that lunatics are always finiding themselves on the same side of the fence? Should this really be surprising anyone.

At least they are not nuclear submarines. Selling Venezuela nuclear subs would, of course, be a violation of the non-proliferation treaty which keeps nations without nuclear capabilities from purchasing them.

What is less disturbing is this whacko's reason for buying the subs: "As a deterrent to possible U.S. naval blockades." What this essentially means is that Chavez is creating a de facto extension of the arms buildup of the Cold War. Note the other weapons and platforms this socialist government has been buying from Putin. And what the hell is Algeria going to do with two diesel subs?

Talk about frustrating.


Posted By: christophersnow
Date Posted: June/14/2007 at 10:41am
How did I miss this thread for 10 whole days?

"Does a dog have fleas?" -Ummon

"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing." - Howard Roark
Dean Koontz= Always working!

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: June/14/2007 at 10:52am
Once Ummon asked a lesser light,

Have you been wiping with a stick?


Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: August/21/2007 at 6:12am
Here is an outstanding and very revealing article that I just dug up and read on -

This just as Putin has begun flying attack bombers with libe ordinance near US airspace for the first time since the Cold War and the collaps of the Soviet Union.

Quote September 20, 2004, 8:14 a.m.

No Peter the Great
Vladimir Putin is in the Andropov mold.

By Ion Mihai Pacepa

Vladimir Putin looks more and more like a heavy-handed imitation of Yuri Andropov — does anyone still remember him? Andropov was that other KGB chairman who rose all the way up to the Kremlin throne, and who was also once my de facto boss. Considering that Putin has inherited upwards of 6,000 suspected strategic nuclear weapons, this is frightening news.

Former KGB officers are now running Russia's government, just as they did during Andropov's reign, and the Kremlin's image — another Andropov specialty — continues to be more important than people's real lives in that still-inscrutable country. The government's recent catastrophic Beslan operation was a reenactment of the effort to "rescue" 2,000 people from Moscow's Dubrovka Theater, where the "new" KGB flooded the hall with fentanyl gas and caused the death of 129 hostages. No wonder Putin ordered Andropov's statue — which had been removed after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 — reinstalled at the Lubyanka.

In the West, if Andropov is remembered at all, it is for his brutal suppression of political dissidence at home and for his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. By contrast, the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked up to Andropov as the man who substituted the KGB for the Communist party in governing the Soviet Union, and who was the godfather of Russia's new era of deception operations aimed at improving the badly damaged image of Soviet rulers in the West.

In early 2000, President Putin divided Russia into seven "super" districts, each headed by a "presidential representative," and he gave five of these seven new posts to former KGB officers. Soon, his KGB colleagues occupied nearly 50 percent of the top government positions in Moscow. In a brief interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline, Putin admitted that he had stuffed the Kremlin with former KGB officers, but he said it was because he wanted to root out graft. "I have known them for many years and I trust them. It has nothing to do with ideology. It's simply a matter of their professional qualities and personal relationship."


In reality, it's an old Russian tradition to fill the most important governmental positions with undercover intelligence officers. The czarist Okhrana security service planted its agents everywhere: in the central and local government, and in political parties, labor unions, churches, and newspapers. Until 1913, Pravda itself was edited by one of them, Roman Malinovsky, who rose to become Lenin's deputy for Russia and the chairman of the Bolshevik faction in the Duma.

Andropov Sovietized that Russian tradition and extended its application nationwide. It was something similar to militarizing the government in wartime, but it was accomplished by the KGB. In 1972, when he launched this new offensive, KGB Chairman Andropov told me that this would help eliminate the current plague of theft and bureaucratic chaos and would combat the growing sympathy for American jazz, films, and blue jeans obsessing the younger Soviet generation. Andropov's new undercover officers were secretly remunerated with tax-free salary supplements and job promotions. In exchange, Andropov explained, they would secretly have to obey "our" military regulations, practice "our" military discipline and carry out "our" tasks, if they wanted to keep their jobs. Of course, the KGB had long been using diplomatic cover slots for its officers assigned abroad, but Andropov's new approach was designed to influence the Soviet Union itself.

The lines separating the leadership of the country from the intelligence apparatus had blurred in the Soviet satellites as well. After I was granted political asylum in the United States in July 1978, the Western media reported that my defection had unleashed the greatest political purge in the history of Communist Romania. Ceausescu had demoted politburo members, fired one-third of his cabinet, and replaced ambassadors. All were undercover intelligence officers whose military documents and pay vouchers I had regularly signed off on.


General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the Soviet gauleiter of Romania who rose to head the Soviet foreign intelligence service for an unprecedented 15 years, used to predict to me that KGB Chairman Andropov would soon have the whole Soviet bloc in his vest pocket, and that he would surely end up in the Kremlin. Andropov would have to wait ten years until Brezhnev died, but on November 12, 1982, he did take up the country's reins. Once settled in the Kremlin, Andropov surrounded himself with KGB officers, who immediately went on a propaganda offensive to introduce him to the West as a "moderate" Communist and a sensitive, warm, Western-oriented man who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drink of Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listening to American jazz and the music of Beethoven. In actual fact, Andropov did not drink, as he was already terminally ill from a kidney disorder, and the rest of the portrayal was equally false.

In 1999, when Putin became prime minister, he also surrounded himself with KGB officers, who began describing him as a "Europeanized" leader — capitalizing, ironically, on the fact that he had been a KGB spy abroad. Yet Putin's only foreign experience had been in East Germany, on Moscow's side of the Berlin Wall. Soon after that I visited the Stasi headquarters in Leipzig and Dresden to see where Putin had spent his "Europeanizing" years. Local representatives of the Gauck Commission — a special post-Communism German panel researching the Stasi files — said that the "Soviet-German 'friendship house'" Putin headed for six years was actually a KGB front with operational offices at the Leipzig and Dresden Stasi headquarters. Putin's real task was to recruit East German engineers as KGB agents and send them to the West to steal American technologies.

I visited those offices and found that they looked just like the offices of my own midlevel case officers in regional Securitate directorates in Romania. Yet Moscow claims Putin had held an important job in East Germany and was decorated by the East German government. The Gauck Commission confirmed that Putin was decorated in 1988 "for his KGB work in the East German cities of Dresden and Leipzig." According to the West German magazine Der Spiegel, he received a bronze medal from the East German Stasi as a "typical representative of second-rank agents." There, in those prison-like buildings, cut off even from real East German life by Stasi guards with machine guns and police dogs, Lieutenant Colonel Putin could not possibly have become the modern-day, Western-oriented Peter the Great that the Kremlin's propaganda machine is so energetically spinning.

Indeed, on December 20, 1999, Russia's newly appointed prime minister visited the Lubyanka to deliver a speech on this "memorable day," commemorating Lenin's founding of the first Soviet political police, the Cheka. "Several years ago we fell prey to the illusion that we have no enemies," Putin told a meeting of top security officials. "We have paid dearly for this. Russia has its own national interests, and we have to defend them." The following day, December 21, 1999, another "memorable day" in Soviet history — Stalin's 120th birthday — Putin organized a closed-door reception in his Kremlin office reported as being for the politicians who had won seats in the Duma. There he raised a glass to good old Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Stalin, meaning "man of steel," was the dictator's nom de guerre).

Days later, in a 14-page article entitled "Russia on the Threshold of a New Millennium," Putin defined Russia's new "democratic" future: "The state must be where and as needed; freedom must be where and as required." The Chechens' effort to regain their independence was mere "terrorism," and he pledged to eradicate it: "We'll get them anywhere — if we find terrorists sitting in the outhouse, then we will water on them there. The matter is settled." It is not.


On September 9, 2004, Chechen nationalists announced a $20 million prize on the head of the "war criminal" Vladimir Putin, whom they accuse of "murdering hundreds of thousands of peaceful civilians on the territory of Chechnya, including tens of thousands of children."

For his part, President Putin tried to divert the outrage over the horrific Breslan catastrophe away from his KGB colleagues who had caused it, and to direct public anger toward the KGB's archenemy, the U.S. Citing meetings of mid-level U.S. officials with Chechen leaders, Putin accused Washington of having a double standard when dealing with terrorism. "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" Putin told reporters in Moscow.

Then Putin blamed the collapse of the Soviet Union for what he called a "full scale" terrorist war against Russia and started taking Soviet-style steps to strengthen the Kremlin's power. On September 13, he announced measures to eliminate the election of the country's governors, who should now be appointed by the Kremlin, and to allow only "certified" people — that is, former KGB officers — to run for the parliament.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, its people had a unique opportunity to cast out their political police, a peculiarly Russian instrument of power that has for centuries isolated their country from the real world and in the end left them ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of modern society. Unfortunately, up until then most Russians had never owned property, had never experienced a free-market economy, and had never made decisions for themselves. Under Communism they were taught to despise Western democracy and everything they believed to be connected with capitalism, e.g., free enterprise, decision-making, hard work, risk-taking, and social inequality. Moreover, the Russians had also had minimal experience with real political parties, since their country has been a police state since the 16th century. To them, it seemed easier to continue the tradition of the political police state than to take the risk of starting everything anew.

But the times have changed dramatically. My native country, which borders Russia, is a good example. At first, Romania's post-Communism rulers, for whom managing the country with the help of the political police was the only form of government they had ever known, bent over backwards to preserve the KGB-created Securitate, a criminal organization that became the symbol of Communist tyranny in the West. Article 27 of Romania's 1990 law for organizing the new intelligence services stated that only former Securitate officers "who have been found guilty of crimes against fundamental human rights and against freedom" could not be employed in the "new" intelligence services. In other words, only Ceausescu would not have been eligible for employment there. Today, Romania still has the same president as in 1990, but his country is now a member of NATO and is helping the U.S. to rid the world of Cold War-style dictators and the terrorism they generated.

Russia can also break with its Communist past and join our fight against despots and terrorists. We can help them do it, but first we should have a clear understanding of what is now going on behind the veil of secrecy that still surrounds the Kremlin.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former two-star general, is the highest-ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.

*   *   *


Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: September/12/2007 at 7:06am
More evidence of the title of this thread: - Emperor Putin Dissolves Russian Government.

Guess what he reminds me of now...

Also there's this: - Russia test's the Wold's most powerful non-nuclear bomb.

Why don't they just build a Death Star already?

Seriously, this can't be good for anyone, and yet it is being largely ignored by the press.


Posted By: masha99
Date Posted: October/12/2007 at 7:34am
Well, he did institute the National Make-Out Day this year, so he can't be all bad

Maybe all you've got is what you get to... -- Brad Cotter
Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent -- Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind

Posted By: Einsteingooddog
Date Posted: October/13/2007 at 4:07am
Originally posted by WhiteWolf WhiteWolf wrote:

More evidence of the title of this thread: - Emperor Putin Dissolves Russian Government.

I don't get it...who did he "dissolve" this the equivalent of firing all the cabinet members for the President. He can't "dissolve" the Russian Parliament can he? You'll have to excuse me...I don't know much about the Russian political system.

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: October/13/2007 at 6:27am
That's the question, isn't it? Can he or can't he? You would think that no, he can't just fire his entire cabinet, but that is exactly what he did. He then installed a puppet minister for the sole purpose of succeeding him as presidnet and reserving the seat until he can run again in another eight year(according to Russion law). What it mean is he has consolidated his power in an effort to maintain total control over the entire country. Also he kills people that publicly disagree with him.

There has never even been an egomaniacal James Bond villain as bad as this guy.

Posted By: masha99
Date Posted: October/14/2007 at 3:29am
Oh c'mon guys. You don't actually expect a Russian ruler to follow the rule of law, do you? Just because they declared themselves a democracy doesn't make it so.

Is Putin more insane that Stalin? Andropov? Nah, probably not.

Maybe all you've got is what you get to... -- Brad Cotter
Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent -- Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: October/14/2007 at 1:41pm
Perhaps, but don't fool yourself too much. A story I posted a couple of pages back even states in the title that Putin is a dictator "in the Andropov mold" before outlining the various reasons why that is.

Times are different now, both for Russia and for the world. The United Nations is full of crooks who grandstand as peacekeepers, yet no one thinks to punish them or deny them the power that fosters the corruption right under their noses. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can go speak at Columbia University, even after denying that the Holocaust ever happened and saying that he would like to wipe the entire nation of Israel off the map (and worse).

Seeing this, any world leader sees that it is all just a game of posturing, with your finger stuck accusatorily in the air while your other finger is saying something very different to the audience behind your back.

Putin may not be any "less" of a dictator than Stalin and Andropov, or any of the others. But he may be more strategically flexible, as the times demand. The court of public opinion can be very fogiving to someone speaks in line with their own idealogy, no matter what manner of misdeeds he may be carrying out behind the scenes.

The title of this thread might not be pointed enough at the true nature of Putin's disfunction. He might not be insane after all, but rather a very carefully calculating mastermind.

Posted By: masha99
Date Posted: October/15/2007 at 2:36am
I don't disagree with any of this, but again this is nothing new. UN has always loved dictators, especially of the Communist bend, and this country has spent more time than not being blind to the danger. Is Putin potentially dangerous? You bet. But that's just one of many reasons to have someone intelligent in charge of our foreign policy and not to try to appease dangerous dictators. Again, that's always been the case, and you of all people should know better than to expect the "mainstream media" (there, I've said it) to keep us informed of international dangers, Russian or otherwise. They are too busy screaming about global warming. But that's another thread.

Maybe all you've got is what you get to... -- Brad Cotter
Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent -- Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind

Posted By: christophersnow
Date Posted: October/15/2007 at 7:36am
I iterate,

Originally posted by christophersnow christophersnow wrote:

"Does a dog have fleas?" -Ummon

"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing." - Howard Roark
Dean Koontz= Always working!

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 1:03pm - Vladamir Putin has been named TIME magazine's Person of the Year for 2007?

On Glenn Beck's program, - Mitt Romney calls the choice 'disgusting,' and rightly so...

John McCain says - 'It should have been Patreous.' And I totally agree with him.


Posted By: MONSTER
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 2:52pm
in answer to the topic's Question no he's not insane, just evil..Times man of the year huh, well that had to be expensive for the russian people, I wouldnt think buying a title is very cheap.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." Isaac Asimov

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: December/19/2007 at 3:26pm
Personally, I think it has a lot more to do with American Journalists and Editors at places like Time, The New York Slimes, and the Clinton News Network, slouching ever more solidly towards the side of socialism and powerful government rule over the people. They might actually admire the guy!


Posted By: masha99
Date Posted: December/22/2007 at 4:44am
Yeah, by now it has as much credibility as the Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe all you've got is what you get to... -- Brad Cotter
Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent -- Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind

Posted By: MONSTER
Date Posted: December/23/2007 at 3:55pm
Peace.....Peace....I hate the word, as i hate hell al...i mean whats that...its a funny word, NEVER heard of it....

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." Isaac Asimov

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 5:52am
Normally I would never link anything to the New York Times, but even a liberal fishwrap like that one can't ignore what is happening in Russia.

So it is then, that they produced - this very good, in depth article, about Putin. Some of these things are just stunning, that in today's world this coul actually be going on at the highest level of gevernment with so little opposition. This is scary, and dangerous, and any appeasement--and ignorance or indifference are both forms of appeasement--are criminal acts equal to what Putin is attempting to do himself.

Posted By: christophersnow
Date Posted: February/25/2008 at 3:01pm
Wow...that is just sad. How much you want to bet we'll get an influx of Russian immigrants? YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT TOO MUCH POWER, PEOPLE!

"It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing." - Howard Roark
Dean Koontz= Always working!

Posted By: masha99
Date Posted: February/26/2008 at 2:29am
This assumes he doesn't close the borders again.
Amazing how Russia just keeps reverting to totalitarianism. Glad to be out of there.

Maybe all you've got is what you get to... -- Brad Cotter
Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent -- Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind

Posted By: WhiteWolf
Date Posted: March/03/2008 at 12:34pm - SOUTH AMERICA ON THE BRINK OF A MARXIST WAR?

This is no joke, people, and if you think Putin doesn't have a hand in this, then you are as crazy as a Marxist yourself.

Posted By: jchutch2
Date Posted: April/14/2008 at 10:10am
Hey! Harpo was PERFECTLY sane!

All Your Base Are Belong To Us

Print Page | Close Window