Putin Blasts US

[ocelot]

Putin blasts U.S. for 'very dangerous' foreign policies
Last Updated: Saturday, February 10, 2007 | 8:19 PM ET
CBC News
Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by trying to impose its will through an "almost uncontained, hyper use of force."


U.S. foreign policies are prompting countries around the world to develop nuclear arms, Putin told a security conference in Munich on Saturday in what many observers said were the strongest verbal attack that Putin has made on Washington.

Putin, speaking through a translator, said countries were "witnessing the almost uncontained, hyper use of force in international relations."

"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy.

"It is a world of one master, one sovereign.… It has nothing to do with democracy," he told the gathering of senior security officials from around the world.

"This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons."

Putin did not directly refer to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which was launched without United Nations' sanction, nor the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban government in late 2001. However, Putin said: "Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem: they have become a hotbed of further conflicts.

He also criticized a U.S. plan to to deploy a missile defence system in eastern Europe and its support of a United Nations plan that would grant autonomy to the Serbian province of Kosovo.

White House 'surprised and disappointed'
A White House spokesman said in response that the U.S. government was "surprised and disappointed" by Putin's remarks.

"His accusations are wrong," said Gordon Johndroe, the national security spokesman for U.S. President George W. Bush.


U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who was attending the conference, said the Russian leader had been "very candid."

Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona who was also attending the conference, said Putin's comments were "the most aggressive speech from a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War."

Putin slams NATO expansion plans
During his speech at the security conference, Putin also expressed concern about plans by NATO to expand.

"The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said. "On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he was disappointed by Putin's remarks.

"I see a disconnection between NATO's partnership with Russia as it has developed and Putin's speech," he said.

Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson for the Kremlin, told Reuters news agency that Putin was not trying to upset Washington in his speech.

"This is not about confrontation. It's an invitation to think," he said.

[ocelot]

I agree with Putin on a level. I think he overstated the problem but I still feel that he's on the right track. The way I see it is that the current US government no longer cares what the rest of the world'd feelings are but what is their agenda. There have been a lot of things that I find the US not being involved in, even though they are good causes and they have a great purpose, that the US wasn't instrumental in forming from the start. It almost feels like the US feels that they need to be in control of something in order to be involved. This is my impression from seeing articles on Kyoto, International Criminal Court, and other recent world actions. I hope I'm wrong in this and see lots of examples of things that the US followed along with. I think a good leader is one that knows when to stand up but yet also knows when to follow and compromise (in this case for the unity of the world).

[ocelot]

I do think that there are countries that have changed what they have been doing as far as nuclear weapons and security because of what the US has recently done. There are countries that no longer feel safe doing what they always have done (I'm not saying none of these countries are corrupted) because of the offence that the US has projected.

[achebeautiful]

The United States is finally doing what it should have been doing twenty five years ago, and because of it are being blamed for it. Israel is constantly accused of the very same thing. Every time someone says something about the United States or Israel, and the actions they take, there always seems to be an ability to forget what happened beforehand to cause that action.

The United States allowed embassies to be blown up, ships to be shot down, attempts to bomb buildings on U.S. soil and kidnappings and murders without any response for years. Now we respond, and the world hates us for it. Well, go ahead. I don't hate Canada. Matter of fact, I love and respect Canada. But I really do not care if they agree with us or not. If Canada wants to side with Vladimir Putin on this issue, then I believe they are wrong for it. Russia happens to be known for having a stake in the outcome of the Iraq War, having provided and sold military equipment such as night vison goggles and other such technologies to Saddam's regime. Besides, Putin is quite the shady character himself.

By the way, I talked with a soldier who is now back from Iraq, and I told him of your views about the U.S. military as opposed to the Canadian military role in Iraq and Afghanistan. He at first shook his head and wasn't sure where to begin or what to say. But after he collected himself, he told me that it is very erroneous to believe that the U.S. is only in Afghanistan and Iraq in combative, military situations. He said that the U.S. has more peace keeping troops in both of those countries than Canada and other countries combined. To think that all we are doing there is killing people is either a willing decision to believe such on your part, or an education based completely on faulty information. He is a Sergeant, and has reinlisted so that he can go back and help with the great work that is being done in 90% of Iraq. Iraqi people love the U.S. soldiers there, and children cling to there legs as men and women hug them and thank them for being there. Schools are being built, roads paved, water and sewage installed. This is all part of what U. S. soldiers are doing there, and why so many of them are reinlisting to go back. One of the men under his command is returning for the third time.....he signed up to do so!

I also told my friend about your comment made about not respecting the culture over there. He said that that remark was so untrue that it did not deserve a response. Every soldier before leaving for Iraq is trained in their culture, and that the mission there was to give those people freedom to live their lives according to their culture and beliefs. When they hand out food or anything else to the people there, it is ALWAYS within the beliefs of that culture. He is very interested in knowing where it is that you get your information from. His name is Ray, and he is very supportive of what we are doing in Iraq. He says that support comes from seeing the lives of Iraqi people changed for the better and the look of what freedom is like on people's faces.

Leona says:
"I think a good leader is one that knows when to stand up but yet also knows when to follow and compromise (in this case for the unity of the world)."

I agree, but please understand that long before the U.S. engaged in military action (and I mean for the past twenty to thirty years) world leaders have been plotting and even verbalizing their desire to bring down the West, namely the United States of America. So tell me this; when is the time to stand up if not now? Truth be told, there is never a time. That time never ever comes. Not in the eyes of the world.

So today the United States is hated. Tomorrow we may be no more. When that happens, the rest of the world will be able to solve all these problems without us. It will be very interesting to see how well they do.

[achebeautiful]

Defence Minister: Putin's Comments "nothing New For Poland"


Russian President Vladimir Putin's sharp criticism of the US and Europe on global security issues at a high-profile weekend conference in Munich showed Russia's true face, Poland's new Defence Minister Aleksander Szczyglo said Monday.

"For Poland this is nothing new," Szczyglo told Polish Radio. "The return to Cold-War rhetoric by President Putin, creating a climate of danger which doesn't exist on any side - these are all elements hailing back to a certain type of behaviour we know from the past," the Polish official said.

Putin's speech showed Russia's true character, he added. "The dreams are gone, the bubble has burst - this is the reality."

Putin on Saturday sharply criticized the planned deployment of 10 anti-ballistic missile systems by the US in EU and NATO member states Poland and the Czech Republic.

Poland's Prime Minister Jaroslav Kaczynski pushed ahead with parliamentary consultations Monday on the possibility of installing proposed US missile shield bases in Poland. Formal talks with the US on the matter are expected to begin within the next few weeks.

Neither the premier nor his identical twin President Lech Kaczynski commented directly on Putin's speech.

No high-ranking Polish leader attended the weekend Munich Security Conference, leading to criticism that both the president and premier were engaging in a damaging policy of isolating EU and NATO member Poland within the international arena.

Russia's scathing criticism of the proposed missile shield bases is the latest in a string of contentious issues plaguing relations with Poland.

A Russian ban on Polish meat and plant product imports caused a crisis in late 2006. Poland argued the move was illegal under an existing Russia-EU trade agreement and demanded Russia drop the ban.

When Moscow refused, EU member Poland blocked the start of talks on a new EU-Russia agreement.


"Italy foils 'arms for Iraq plot'"

Italian police say they have broken up a major arms trafficking ring that was planning to supply thousands of weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

They say the group involved had connections in Malta, Russia, Libya and China and some of those arrested were wealthy businessmen working in exports.

This began as a routine drugs investigation.

But soon police in the central Umbria region realised they had stumbled across something far more significant.

So far they have arrested 16 people - 12 on suspicion of drug dealing but four on allegations they were intending to supply arms.

Police from the anti-Mafia unit say they were planning to move 500,000 AK 47 assault rifles and 10 million pieces of ammunition.

The weapons, they said, had been sourced in China during what looked like routine business trips.

The coded emails recovered suggest the weapons were to be moved through Libya and on to Iraq.

Some of those arrested are wealthy businessmen involved in the export business, though the Italian ministry of defence says they had no permission to move arms.

Police in the Umbrian town of Terni, where the arrests were made, said there was a link between the gang and people working for a senior Libyan diplomat.

No weapons were confiscated during the enquiry and it is not thought any had yet been sent.

[ocelot]

First, Mark, I think you misinterpreted what I said when I was talking about respect that the US has for the Iraqis. To me, there are two levels of respect: the respect that a person or organisation feels it gives and the respect that the person receiving it feels. In the best situations this is an equal thing but it isn't always.

For instance, an abusive father may feel he's respecting his son by yelling at him whenever he does something wrong because he believes with each fault that his son knows about he's going to be stronger, but the son does not feel respected by his father, he feels abused. This is an extreme example. It's very important that people feel respected on their level. I used to very much doubt that the US respected other countries on their level (the other countries level) which I have heard from other people in other countries but on the level they feel they are respecting. From what I've heard it seems to be different in Iraq, as far as the respect issue goes. Just because I don't think that the US is giving the Iraqis the respect on their level doesn't mean I don't think they don't have respect for them. This is not an easy thing to explain, so please tell me if you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Second, the thing I meant by the peacekeeping troops versus the combat troops is not what they are doing but the mind set that they have during their mission. Troops trained for peacekeeping missions are much more likely to seem like a hero to the citizens and much better in the mind set to handle situations that could cause problems for the combat troops.

For instance, if a soldier from a combat troop was doing peacekeeping they would be much more likely to shoot at a civilian that surprised them (because they have been taught to shoot first at sign of danger). There is also a difference in attitude, in which the combat troops feel like they need to be in charge and strong. I read a quote from an article which they talked to the Afghan people and a common theme was the Canadian troops were much more humble than the American troops. I would be more inclined to think this is from the attitudes developed through the training than the soldiers themselves. I know that the US forces are doing peacekeeping acts but wouldn't it be better if the US had specialty forces for the peacekeeping, instead of changing the duty of the combat forces.

Last, the point I was trying to make by posting the Putin article was that the US can be so strong but they don't seem to like following. I can think of a few things that most of the developed countries are involved in but not the US. I know someone who thinks that a big problem with the UN is people trying to control it (this person named the US). So my question is: can the US follow along with the world if it is not a leader in a cause? Can they be a part of something with out trying to control it?

I feel it's very important for them to stand up when they feel there's a cause that's that important. And no country should stand still when there is a need in the world that needs our attention, but can they follow?

Is the world more dangerous because of the US's use of force? I would say yes, but the world needed this shake up. The war in Iraq I do not have a problem with as far as this goes. Saddam needed to be taken down but it as with other things had it's negatives and the world has gotten more dangerous because of it. I really wish it was someone else to have made these comments because I don't think Putin is very trustworthy as far as doing things to help other countries. We can go on our own way and ignore the problems but it doesn't solve anything. If the world is a bit more dangerous for awhile on its way to being better, so be it.

[achebeautiful]

I am sorry for misinterpreting what it was you were trying to say, Leona. I can be very headstrong with my views, and did not mean to blow you away with them.

My friend Ray, who has just recently returned from Iraq, was not a part of the peacekeeping troops stationed there. He was indeed a combat military officer. One of the things he was very clear about was just how much the people of Iraq love the U.S. presence there. To them, there is no distinction between peacekeeping and combat missions. A U.S. soldier is responsible for the freedom they one day hope to live in with peace. My Iraqi friend Khalid Abdullah also strongly feels the same way. He fully supports the U.S. effort, and hopes one day to be able to return to his homeland.

The challenging thing for our soldiers in Iraq is that by day some of these civilians are disguised as friends, and then by night they are setting off a bomb. It is very hard to distinguish between them. This makes it very very difficult to fight against. We are their to rebuild the land, and support their new found freedom, and at the same time getting attacked by those who appear to look like an innocent civilian. It's very hard on the soldiers.

As far as your point about the United States following, I blieve it is all politics. I agree with you that the U.S. does not get involved in many of these things, and maybe they should be much more clear as to why. But in truth, a lot of these things are directly aimed right at the United States without so much as saying so. For instance, the whole thing about Global Warming. The only thing for certain about Global Warming is that it can in fact be proven that the Earth has warmed by a very small amount over a short period of time. Nothing else is proven. Their is nothing to scientifically prove that man is the cause of it, or that man can do anything to stop it. At best, these arguements are as politically motivated as they are scientific. Besides, some parts of the Earth are actually cooling over time, so maybe it's just an evolution of things.

One thing I am learning from you is that the United States does a very poor job of explaining to the world why it chooses to do what it does and does not do. Maybe there is some arrogance to be attributed to that.

But again, Leona, I am very sorry for misinterpreting your words. Thanks for teaching me.