Putin’s Intentions Aren’t What Matter

From Family Security Matters.

Putin’s Intentions Aren’t What Matter


They're not hard to divine, but our strategic vision shouldn't depend on them anyway.

‘What matters is the intent. And we don't have a sense of that." That is what one of Washington's legion of anonymous "senior government officials" told the Wall Street Journal about the Russian military forces now massing on Ukraine's border - complemented, of course, by the tens of thousand more Russian troops stationed in what, until just a few days ago, used to be . . . Ukraine.

Clearly, our Beltway gurus have refined a bit of ancient wisdom: If you cannot remain silent and proceed to remove all doubt that you are a fool, at least remain anonymous.

Let us pretend for a moment that our senior official is right, and that Vladimir Putin's intent, rather than America's strategic perception, is "what matters." Is the Kremlin's intent really so shrouded in mystery that our $50-plus billion per year intelligence community doesn't quite "have a sense" of it?

Putin has just annexed the Crimean Peninsula with virtual impunity, after promising not to do it even as his forces were moving into place to do it, and despite Russia's prior guarantee of Ukraine's territorial security. His military invasion and seizure comes in the wake of his 2008 invasion of Georgia and seizure of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - which followed security assurances similar to those Russia had given Ukraine.

In connection with both invasions, the United States and Western Europe vowed that there would be serious consequences but meekly accepted Russia's aggression. In fact, during the Bush administration, after the United States publicly touted Ukraine and Georgia for NATO membership, the hand-wringing alliance stopped short of incorporating them.

Rest assured that Putin's bare-chested romps do not include navel-gazing over what the West's actions imply about its intent. He fully understood that NATO was unwilling to extend to these former Soviet satellites its security guarantee - viz., that an attack on any NATO country is considered an attack on all NATO countries that must be repelled as such. Coupled with Europe's willingness - actually, anxiousness - to increase economic intercourse with and energy dependence on Russia even after the Georgian invasion, Putin grasped that he had a green light to indulge his revanchist ambitions.

Against this backdrop of recent history, Russia now has upwards of 50,000 troops in position for an invasion of heavily Russian sections of Eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin claims to be engaged in military exercises, under circumstances where there are many thousand more troops than training exercises would justify and where the "we're just doing exercises" pretext is shopworn. Russia's claim that it has no hostile designs on Eastern Ukraine echoes its false assurances regarding Crimea and Georgia. Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal report elaborates, the gathering Russian forces are making active efforts to conceal their positions and their equipment along the Ukrainian border. They are establishing supply lines that would be essential to an invasion and prolonged occupation.

So what do you suppose Putin's intent might be? Sure is tough to get a sense of it, no?

Willful blindness to easily acquirable knowledge is standard operating procedure in Washington. When accountable national-security officials learn that important American interests are being threatened, the public expects them to take decisive action. Decisive action is politically risky. Often, politicians would rather not know.

When information is too available and too pellucid for them to feign ignorance, epistemological uncertainty about its significance is always a convenient fallback position. Let's say a cop on the beat in a high-crime area in the dead of a summer night sees a man in a ski mask, screwdriver in hand, eying an apartment window. He would not be a cop for long if he turned his back because, after all, you never know what the masked man's intent might be. But he would still qualify for a front-office job at the National Intelligence Directorate - perhaps analyzing "largely secular" organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.

All that said, though, intent is not what matters in international affairs. The key is to have a strategic vision of the real world and our interests. That is the solid foundation for American foreign policy. If it were in place, there would be far fewer occasions to wonder about our adversaries' intent. That problem is solved by having decided they are adversaries until proven otherwise; by treating them in that manner in every interaction; and by making clear to them that the wages of crossing us will be real and lasting. (Maybe someone could tell President Obama that Putin has joined the Tea Party - might do the trick.)

It is all well and good for House majority leader Eric Cantor, among other Republican leaders, to chide the president for designing policy around the Putin he hopefully imagines rather than the real Putin. This, however, is neither a new problem nor one that's unique to Obama.

As I ruefully detailed back in 2008, the Bush administration delusionally regarded Russia as a "strategic partner," notwithstanding Putin's quite calculating strategic cooperation with Iran (you know, the "Death to America" guys) on nuclear-power development and ballistic-missile technology. Then, as I observed in late 2010, two years after the Georgia invasion, with Putin defiantly occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia, GOP support for Obama's wayward New START treaty with Russia was mustered by such foreign-engagement masterminds as former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice (architect of Bush's strategic partnership with Russia) and Senator Richard Lugar (who in 2006 had partnered with then-senator Obama to disarm Ukraine). The treaty would not have been ratified without the familiar machinations of Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham - then on a respite between supporting Qaddafi against jihadists and supporting jihadists against Qaddafi. McCain and Graham strongly urged their colleagues to take up consideration of New START . . . then voted against it once its approval was assured.

Russia is on the march because it was treated like a friend while it acted like an enemy. As usual, the bipartisan transnational-progressive clerisy convinced itself that our adversaries, who thrive on instability, have an abiding interest in international stability - that they are best seen as trusted "partners" in the pursuit of American objectives rather than aggressors pursuing their own very different objectives.

As Putin menaces Ukraine, Obama prattles about international law. Even if this president's sudden interest in faithful adherence to law could be taken seriously, the international arena is not a "community" sharing common legal norms and enforcement mechanisms. Aggressors are not presumed innocent such that we must sit idle until their intent can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They are presumed hostile until they prove otherwise.

Today's Russia is no Soviet Union, at least not yet. But it will grow stronger, and its behavior more provocative, until we devise economic, diplomatic, and defense policy on the assumption that it is an enemy. The longer we wait to "reset" in accordance with reality, the more painful the reckoning will be.

A Tale of Two Centuries

From Family Security Matters.

A Tale of Two Centuries


It's unfair to expect Obama to do anything about Ukraine when his biggest priority is convincing twenty-somethings to buy worthless health insurance policies by appearing on online comedy shows and deploying his March Madness bracket.

The Obama Twitter feeds are filled with desperate pleas to buy ObamaCare; harnessing every memeworthy bit of internet detritus from cat pictures to twerking in the hopes of convincing healthy young people who don't want health insurance to buy it anyway.

On March 17th, Obama's Twitter linked to a statement on Ukraine and then it was back to "There's only 14 days to get coverage." It's currently down to 12 days. It's like holiday shopping, but with a $6,000 deductible.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) went to Ukraine, called Russia's invasion a "weak" and "panicky" reaction to Obama's strength, and then announced plans to speak about the "Between Two Ferns Effect". The "effect" is the sheer awesomeness of Obama's appearance on an internet comedy show to promote ObamaCare.

It's that kind of 21st century thinking that sets Barack apart from Vladimir's quaint 19th century hunger for territory. While a former KGB agent wastes time conquering countries, a former community organizer focuses on selling nationalized health care to young invincibles through a website that works about as well as a Soviet Yugo.

Putin's power rests on a shaky energy industry, but Obama's power rests on ObamaCare. Kerry scoffed at Russia's invasion as so 19th century. In the 21st century, power doesn't come from land or armies, but from online popularity. Online popularity took a radical Illinois State Senator and turned him into a world leader. Online popularity is the WMD that the State Senator is convinced will save ObamaCare.

Putin has a weakness for staged photo ops circulated over the internet, but they are more like Kaiser Wilhelm II chopping pre-cut logs while yearning for the return of the German monarchy than Obama's self-deprecating attempts to be all things to all people. The Russian government has no use for irony; it leaves such things to the opposition. In the post-modern America, leaders claim absolute power while making self-deprecating jokes. They discard the rule of law and then hawk nationalized healthcare in infomercials for an effect more surreal than a crony capitalist KGB man with a law degree taking off his tailored suit and $500,000 Tourbograph watch to play Great White Hunter.

Putin poses on horseback, in a wetsuit, in a hang glider, finding ancient urns in the sea or shooting tigers. Obama poses playing with a lightsaber, makes an unimpressed face with McKayla Maroney and unveils his March Madness picks. The Russian dictator strikes heroic poses straight out of the 19th century, while Obama struggles to hold the unstable attention span of 21st century millennials . Obama's poses are no less absurd than Putin's, but they are self-consciously absurd. Putin is playing the part of the great leader, while Obama disguises the enormous power he wields by acting more like Ellen; a talk show host endlessly cracking jokes and posing for goofy selfies.

It's easy to laugh at Putin's posturing, but Obama's public image is no less cynical. Both men are instinctive totalitarians with backgrounds in Marxism and little respect for the rule of law. Obama is a creature of a more modern media age catering to a demographic which prides itself on skepticism, at least where Western religion or nationalism are concerned, while being as gullible as any of the old ladies clutching red portraits of Stalin in Simferopol when it comes to the progressive agenda.

The difference between the two centuries and the two men is a matter of misdirection. Putin enhances the public perception of his power while Obama downplays it. Putin's base likes their red meat raw while Obama's base prefers a soy burger that looks and tastes exactly like meat so that they can have an ersatz imitation of the real thing that preserves their moral superiority. Putin's base values strength while Obama's base waters down their abuses of power with the appearance of cleverness and humor.

Obama delivers Putin's totalitarianism in soy form. It looks a lot like a burger, but it's really just an Asian legume. It looks a lot like tyranny, but it falls apart when confronting an actual tyrant. It's easy to raid guitar factories, lock up anti-Muslim filmmakers and send the IRS after political opponents, but that sort of pettiness is an ordinary day in Russia which just banned lacy underwear. The EPA, USDA and even the IRS are no match for Russian teenagers packing those dreaded assault rifles.

Obama's Mean Girls strategy for Putin is to make him unpopular. The various White House responses talk of isolating Russia. But Obama needs Russia to isolate Iran. He needs China to isolate Russia which will become inconvenient when China starts a shooting war with Japan. Obama can't isolate everyone. He can't isolate anyone. He has just now gotten around to kicking Syria out of the US after Russia and China prevented him from isolating Assad.

The Hills and Big Brother are poor models for international diplomacy. While Obama is figuring out how to convince Russia to stop talking to Iran and China to stop talking to Russia and everyone to stop talking to North Korea, these countries are moving their own agendas forward by doing things, instead of by tweeting them.

The social network strategy for Russia will work about as well as it did for Syria or for ObamaCare. In the postmodern 21st century, Twitter mobs can destroy the lives of individuals who make racist jokes, but they're no match for a conquering army. The Facebook nerds who steal elections, the Twitter social justice activists who spread privilege checking hashtags, the Tumblr diarists who churn out memes about microaggressions are as useless as their leader.

Progressive nerd bullies are as vicious online as they are impotent in real life. Obama's plan to make Putin unpopular while he gobbles up countries isn't a brilliant show of strength; it's a passive aggressive display from the cyclist-in-chief who excels at putdowns, not at takedowns.

The left has been getting its own way for so long that it has forgotten that the Colbert Report isn't real life, that snide remarks are no substitute for strength and that there are some men who are not afraid of being mocked by Saturday Night Live.

The 21st century post-modern power that the left puts so much into isn't an evolution, but a devolution. It's a collapsing civilization's response to its own decline. The ironic poses of our post-modern dictators are a distancing effect for a culture that suspects sincerity but takes humorous denials at face value. The more indirect the path between motive, assertion and action, the more self-aware the modern totalitarian politician must be. And it is this show of self-awareness that is prized above all else including integrity, ethics and truth.

Romney was so despised because he was monotone, a black and white figure who said what he meant instead of layering it through infinite levels of irony. The age of the counterculture would have considered him a square. The grandchildren of that age saw him as equally unhip for his sincerity. The post-modern politician is serious by being unserious, he navigates deftly between jokes, personal narrative and the core message. He sells a brand, rather than a policy. An identity rather than an idea.

21st century branding is obsessed with the deft positioning of images and causes, but its practitioners are unable to apply the deft hijacking of memes to sell health insurance to the equally deft maneuverings of armored vehicles and armed men in Crimea. They have become social media shut ins, expert at navigating the narrow bubbles of online and offline elitist social networks, but blink in confusion when they are pulled away from the computer long enough to see lines of troops moving into another country.

The men and women in charge of our countries understand how to smear and to demean, how to build Twitter followers and tell self-deprecating jokes. They can't build a website, but they consider actually making things beneath them. They are critics of the culture, social justice commentators, public intellectuals who can make anything into propaganda, but can't hammer a nail into a board.


They treat every problem like an online debate. They assemble allies, pile on enemies, troll the opposition and then declare victory. But winning a debate doesn't make the tanks go away.

"The world has seen through Russia's actions and has rejected the flawed logic behind those actions," Joe Biden declared. That might be a winning line in a Facebook debate, but it doesn't do anything to move Russian forces out of Ukrainian cities.

Accusations of flawed logic, spell checks and saying, "You said literally when you meant figuratively" will not move a single piece of Russian armor out of Crimea.

Making Putin unpopular, a task already accomplished when he joined the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade and the Boy Scouts in refusing to jump on the gay rights bandwagon, is an impotent display of postmodern soft power. Meanwhile the failure to stop Putin will make him more popular in the places that truly matter, where no one buys ObamaCare and no one is impressed by accusations of flawed logic.

Putin has demonstrated to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and China that America is weak, that it has become a nation living inside its own imagination, and he has shown Eastern Europe and the rest of the world that America is a bad friend while Russia is a dangerous enemy.

Obama's 21st century world is an imaginary place whose virtual territories depend on real infrastructure and energy. Underneath the glittering cities in the sky where everyone is part of a virtual community are the real roads and cities of stone and steel that can be taken by anyone with enough men and determination to capture them.

The Facebook strategy can sell health insurance, but it can't make ObamaCare financially viable. It can sneer at Putin, but it can't do anything to change the real world equations. The left has confused the overlay, its commentaries and memes, for reality. It has come to believe that The Daily Show is real news, that Obama is a real leader and that a Twitter hashtag is real power.

The Russian soldiers in Crimea are a reminder that, as Mao said, "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Western left has forgotten the simple truth that no Eastern leftist has ever become decadent enough to forget. Power does not come from the "Two Ferns Effect" of self-deprecating irony, but from the Russian guns in Crimea.

Baltics Next for Putin?

From Family Security Matters.

Baltics Next for Putin?


Tsar Vlad the Bad may have more in mind....

Ukraine's Ill Wind. Begin with President Obama's flaccid remarks re Ukraine, ISO common ground with Vladimir Putin, delivered yesterday, announcing sanctions so weak the WaPo editors ridiculed them--"...we'll know that the president's calibrations are adequate when they cause Russia's markets to plunge rather than rally." They led Russia's deputy PM to call The One "a prankster." Factor in ex-Bush 43 UN ambassador John Bolton's witty, acerbic analogy (0:58) on the weekend, re SecState John Kerry negotiating with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov: "like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife." Or was Putin scared when Kerry said: "We hope President Putin will recognize that none of what we're saying is meant as a threat, it's not meant in a personal way." Putin proceeds, having formally annexed Crimea yesterday; Crimea will on March 30 "reset" its clocks to Moscow time.

Confirming weakness also applies to our allies, France plans to send helicopter-carrier ships to Russia--ideal for ferrying commandos to combat areas. There is a 4-day ceasefire in effect now in Crimea, whose complex ethnic history augurs more strife to come. Russia (pre-Putin) armed that allowing the Kosovo breakaway in 1998 without Serbia's consent created a precedent; but there the "ethnic cleansing" was real, not trumped up as here.

Mitt Romney cites The Bard on Obama's dithering:

In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

Baltic Chill. Now, consider the populations Putin might target in the three Baltic members of NATO: Estonia is 26 percent ethnic Russian + Belorussian (White Russian--Belarus today); Latvia is 30 percent R+B; Lithuania is 7 percent R+B. Compare these to Ukraine, where the R+B population share is 18 percent. In each of these countries the R+B population is concentrated in provinces closest to Russia. So these countries might be seen by Putin as ripe for the taking.

Recall that in 1939, after Britain & France let Germany swallow Czechoslovakia in March, Germany invaded Poland September 1, having secured its eastern flank (for a time, at least) via the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 23. Hitler did not believe that Britain or France would honor commitments to come to Poland's aid by declaring war.

In that Hitler was, of course, wrong. But his expectation that his monstrous act would go unanswered had ample basis in the string of victories he had won in previous years: invading the Rhineland in 1936; the Austria anschluss "connection") in 1938; getting Czechoslovakia for nothing in 1939. Hitler's miscalculation proved fatal, not only for him, but for 50 million others over the next six years.

Fast forward to August 2008. Putin annexes two provinces of Georgia after trumped up ethnic agitation; the West does nothing. Now he invades Ukraine and annexes the Crimea, with the rest of East Ukraine his for the taking. Why should he stop now? Because the Baltics are in NATO? Maybe. But Georgia was allied with the US in 2008, though not in NATO; 2,000 Georgian troops were serving with US forces in Iraq--on a per capita basis, for Georgia's 4 million population, equivalent to a 150,000 troop commitment for a nation of 300 million (about the US population in 2008).

Estonians rightly fear Moscow's menace:

As in Ukraine, Estonia's Russian speaking population isn't evenly dispersed. In Narva, on the Russian border, over 90 per cent are Russian speakers.

On the wooded islands off Estonia's west coast, conversely, there are hardly any native Russian speakers. On Saaremaa, Estonia's biggest island, I spend a day with Erika, who grew up here under the Soviet regime. ‘Estonians have always wanted their own home, their own piece of land,' she says. ‘We're individualistic.'

Russia's brutality towards Ukraine also chills the Baltics. Genocide has a way of instilling fear. Vlad does not have that in mind this time; brutal subjugation will do.

Geopolitical Climate Change? Scholar George Weigel suggests that the Eastern Europe NATO countries call vigorously for sterner action against Putin. Scholar Leon Wieseltier calls for intellectual pushback, as Ukraine is not Putin's last whistle-stop:

There is the question of how to respond practically to Putin's aggression and there is the question of how to respond intellectually. The latter is no less important than the former, because the Ukrainian crisis is not a transient event but a lasting circumstance with which we will be wrestling for a long time. We must mentally arm ourselves against a reality about which we only recently disarmed ourselves: the reality of protracted conflict. The lack of preparedness at the White House was not merely a weakness of policy but also a weakness of worldview. The president is too often caught off guard by enmity, and by the nastiness of things. There really is no excuse for being surprised by evil. There is also no excuse for projecting one's good intentions, one's commitment to reason, one's optimism about history, upon other individuals and other societies and other countries: narcissism is the enemy of empiricism, and we must perceive differences and threats empirically, lucidly, not with disbelief but with resolve. "Our opinions do not coincide," Putin said after meeting with Obama last year. The sentence reverberates. That lack of coincidence is now a fact of enormous geopolitical significance. Putin is "in another world," Merkel recently remarked after a conversation with Putin. But the world is composed of all the worlds, and reality of all the realities. Our minds must make room for them all, not least for purposes of resistance....

Wieseltier identifies several dangerous assumptions driving Obama's world view: pervasive rational actors; an increasingly interdependent world; a new century springing free of hidebound historical precedents; we must avoid a new cold war;

Russia scholar Leon Aron sees Putin's home front vulnerability. This Aron argues, is driving Putin's push abroad:

With the vicious inevitability of Greek tragedy, the Kremlin's strategy has brought about precisely the outcome that Putin feared most. When, on the Maidan, those who were willing to die outlasted those who were willing to kill -- when the revolution triumphed, after almost three months of a deafening propaganda campaign, this triumph could not be interpreted domestically other than as a victory for the West, Russia's strategic defeat, and a blow to the Putin regime's domestic legitimacy. The huge wound needed to be cauterized. A revanche and recovery effort became a key domestic political imperative; the fate of Ukraine -- a country of 46 million -- is merely the means to that end.

Hence the seizure of Crimea, Ukraine's political Achilles heel. If anywhere could help whip up a wave of patriotism large enough to wipe away the damage done by Putin's handling of the Ukrainian relationship that spawned the Maidan protest, it is the peninsula. Crimea has been a target of Russian populist, nationalist, and Communist politicians for years, with its large Russian naval base and a majority-Russian population, including some fervently patriotic Soviet military retirees.

It had all the hallmarks of an easy sell: Father Putin, protecting the "compatriots" in a place where Ukrainian sovereignty has been contested in the minds of many Russians since the fall of the Soviet Union.

But, Aron notes, the Russian public has not yet bought into Putin's game

Bottom Line. If I were the Baltic states, I'd relocate to Australia.

How to Fight Putin’s Propaganda

From Family Security Matters.

How to Fight Putin’s Propaganda


It's hard to keep up with the Russian propaganda over the Ukraine, but a fascinating article, "Playing by Putin's tactics," examines some of it. The column in The Washington Post is by Molly K. McKew and Gregory A. Maniatis, who worked for Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili and his national security adviser during and after the 2008 war with Russia. However, the article offers no substantive response to what Putin is doing.

In describing how vulnerable Western media are to Putin's propaganda over Ukraine, they note that "Itar-Tass ran a story last weekend, later picked up by Forbes and others, that 675,000 Ukrainians had recently sought political asylum in Russia." Such absurd claims are being used by Russia to justify its invasion of Ukraine.

Not surprisingly, this ludicrous story showed up at Russia Today (RT) television under the headline, "675,000 Ukrainians pour into Russia as ‘humanitarian crisis' looms." RT is the Moscow-funded channel that gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a TV show.

Rebecca Novick in The Huffington Post dissected the phony refugee story in the context of documenting how Russia was "creating a fake refugee crisis" in the Ukraine to justify its military intervention. She cites a Russian TV channel video showing a picture of many people crossing the border, claiming they are escaping to Russia. In fact, however, it was a picture of people crossing the Ukraine-Poland border.

The refugee crisis story was a lie from start to finish. The Twitchy site documents the number of Russian outlets picking up the story and how the claims were debunked by eyewitnesses.

In an editorial, The Washington Post says that Putin might actually believe his own Ukraine propaganda. It noted that his public comments have "become indistinguishable from the propaganda of his state television network."

It is far more likely that he knows the stories are false, but promotes them anyway. In the words of Ukrainian activist Ruslana, they are the work of "paid liars."

McKew and Maniatis write, "Going forward, the terms by which the world is playing are Putin's-a reality we all must recognize and for which we need an effective response."

One simple way to respond would be to enforce the law concerning Russian propaganda broadcasts in the U.S., which are reaching tens of millions of American homes. Media carriers for the Moscow-funded channel, which changed its name to RT from Russia Today to mask the foreign connection, include Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Verizon Fios, Cox Cable, RCN Cable, MHz Networks, and Dish Networks.

MHz, which provides RT to dozens of public TV stations, is itself a public television programming service that receives taxpayer money from the federally-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In fiscal year 2011, for example, the CPB funneled $27,580,113 into MHz Networks and its affiliates.

As AIM has discussed many times over the last four years, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is "a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities." In addition, broadcaster Jerry Kenney points out that the law mandates that the broadcasts carry a notice that they constitute propaganda on behalf of a foreign government.

But the Obama administration doesn't enforce the law. And the tax dollars keep flowing through MHz to the public TV stations airing RT.

An unintentionally hilarious video released by RT (with my own subtitles) shows Putin reviewing his troops at the channel in Moscow.

According to RT, the propaganda is not coming from the Russians. Instead, the channel is now exposing the dangerous "lies" in the media that are supposedly being told by the American side, as revealed by a "journalist" by the name of Manuel Ochsenreiter. His claims include:

Secretary of State John Kerry "is one of the best paid professional liars in the West."
"This whole Ukrainian conflict is not about democracy, it is not about oligarchs and it is not about political parties."


Who is Manuel Ochsenreiter? The editor of a German magazine described as "right-wing," he seems to be a favorite of RT. He showed up in an RT story that ran under the amazing headline, "International journalists refute claims of Russian forces in Crimea." His photo gallery shows him with a Syrian Army soldier at the Khomeini Shrine in Tehran in 2012, and interviewing a Hezbollah official.

He also happens to have published on his own website an interview with Aleksandr Dugin, the Putin adviser linked to former KKK leader David Duke, who declares:

"Russia is a liberal democracy. Take a look at the Russian constitution: We have a democratic electoral system, a functioning parliament, a free market system. The constitution is based on Western pattern. Our president Vladimir Putin rules the country in a democratic way. We are not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not a soviet communist regime."

Such propaganda doesn't pass the laugh test.

But it becomes deadly serious when you examine Dugin's views on Iran, as explained in the article, "Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia's Foreign Policy." Identified as the leader of the "International Eurasia Movement," Dugin discusses a "strategic alliance" between Iran and Russia that will expand to include Turkey, China and India.

In this context, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reports that Iran and Russia have reached a primary agreement for building two more nuclear power plants in Iran. This report doesn't appear to be propaganda.

Smartest President Ever?

From Family Security Matters.

Smartest President Ever?


The things I feared most when Barack Obama was elected to a second term are unfolding.Last Friday night, Obama said: "There will be costs" if Russia invades the Crimea. Hours later, Russian soldiers moved in. Remember that 3 AM phone call Hillary Clinton warned us about in 2008? Remember Saturday Night Live's satire about it? "This is hard!" said the actor playing Obama about being president. Indeed it is. The man who is accustomed to voting "present" when hard decisions are necessary is on the spot now.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia, one of the world's many thugs, believes our president is spineless - and is taking advantage. A lot can happen in the three years remaining in Obama's second term, and the invasion of the Crimea is one of many to come. It's another vision of the world as it is becoming during the Great American Decline. It's another test for "the most intelligent man ever to become president," according to presidential historian and sycophant Michael Beschloss. Obama should ace it, right? Maybe not. Could Beschloss possibly have been mistaken? We've never seen any of Obama's grades because won't release his records.

Expect ever-more-difficult tests right up until January, 2017. Will Putin cut off natural gas to Ukraine? Will he invade the mainland? Does he have his eye on the Baltic States? Does anybody really expect it's all going to stop here?

So far, President Obama has issued statements. His chief diplomat, John Kerry, talks about crossing lines. The world remembers what Obama said about a red line in Syria last year: "A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," he said. Syria did both, and what did Obama do? He said, "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."

For years, Obama has gotten away with contradicting himself like this on the American political stage. The mainstream media had never gone after him the way they went after the cowboy, and maybe he thinks he can get away with it on the world stage too. That's how he's always handled whatever challenges have come his way. "Get out the teleprompters!" he'd say. "I'm going to make a speech!" The mainstream media lauded him for his brilliance every time. How is that working with Putin? Not good. Rather than expel Russia from the G-8, Obama threatens to expel Russia from the G-8. Does he really think that's going to scare Putin?

Try to think of it this way: A bully is walking down the beach and sees a cowboy and a community organizer. Which one is he going to kick sand at? I can just picture it. Can you? Obama stands up rubbing his eyes and draws a line in the sand with his toe. Putin crosses it. Obama backs up and says, "Oh yeah? Well how would you like me to issue a statement?" When that doesn't work, he says: "All right, that's enough! I'm doing to tell Chris Matthews to call you a racist!"

The rest of the world is watching too. China said Monday it agrees with what Russia did in the Crimea. Remember: China has always wanted Taiwan back, and the United States has pledged to protect it. China also wants some islands in the Sea of Japan, and it could prompt Kim Jong Un to invade South Korea again. What would Obama do about any of that? I read a report in Stars and Stripes that our troops stationed in Okinawa are gearing up by having a stage show on base in which our gay soldiers perform in drag. That ought to scare 'em. The best defense is a good offense, and what better way to offend communist troops than a drag queen performance? The community organizer really knew what he was doing when he repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Sunday's Washington Post quoted Andrew C. Kutchins of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with? I don't think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.

"Thinking now of Kerry's recent statement about global warming being the "most dangerous weapon of mass destruction. . . . The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand." Now that he has to deal with thugs like Putin, perhaps he'll change his mind about that. Like Obama, Kerry thinks he's wicked smart, even though his grades at Yale weren't quite as good as those of the cowboy president Democrats believed was so dumb.At a time when America needs real leaders, we're left with Obama and Kerry. Putin is eating their lunch.

Talk Is Cheap - Putin Threatens Islamic Terrorists With "total destruction"....Again

Believe me, folks, I've been waiting for six years to be able to put up a post here at Holger Awakens on how the Russians came down with the iron fist on Islamic terrorism in their country - I've heard 100 times people say "those terrorists are going to regret that attack, Putin will crush them" but yet I STILL have no article to put up that actually SHOWS how the Russians gathered up 200 of them, or bombed one of their hideouts and killed 20 of them....I'm still waiting.

So, once again, after a couple of more Islamic terror attacks in southern Russia, Vladimir Putin is puffing out his chest and warning these terrorists of "total destruction" and once again I will wait to put up a story of just what he did to do that.

Don't hold your breath.  Talk is cheap in Russia....we all know that too well here in America.

The story comes from Times of India.

Putin warns 'terrorists' face total destruction


MOSCOW: President Vladimir Putin warned "terrorists" on Tuesday they face total destruction, after Russia was hit by double suicide bombings in its southern city of Volgograd that claimed 34 lives.

"Dear friends, we bow our heads in front of the victims of the terrible acts of terror. I am sure we will toughly and consistently continue to fight against terrorists until their total destruction", he said.

Putin made the comments in a New Year's address from the Far Eastern Russian city of Khabarovsk, which is seven hours ahead of Moscow and where he met with victims of devastating summer floods.

"In the current year, we have encountered problems and have been challenged by serious experiences, including ones like the inhuman acts of terror in Volgograd," Putin was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

Curiously, his New Year's address that was broadcast earlier to the inhabitants of Russia's furthest flung time zones of Magadan and Kamchatka did not mention the Volgograd attacks.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Putin had broken with a longstanding traditional by departing from the traditional New Year's address which is normally recorded days in advance at the Kremlin.

"Here (in Khabarovsk) he made his New Year's wishes and this became his New Year's address. So he basically broke a long-standing tradition."

Vladimir Putin Vs. President Barack Obama

From Family Security Matters.

Vladimir Putin Vs. President Barack Obama
by ALAN KORNMAN
December 18, 2013


Vladimir Putin is projecting Russian power across the world stage exactly as the former KGB operative was trained to do. The Cold War never ended, just the tactics and technology have changed as we roll into 2014 and beyond.

The United States military led by President Ronald Reagan won round 1 of the U.S. / Russian cold war. Today, Communist Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently had six significant victories every American must be aware of.

This is the sad story of the KGB Operative chess player versus our ill equipped community organizer -- and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Communist Russia's Objective

The Russians are expanding their presence in the high seas and upgrading their naval nuclear capabilities with the objective of controlling naval bases outside of their shorelines. Russia currently has naval bases in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopal in the Black Sea. According to Russia Today, June 26, 2013, the Syrian port of Tartus in the Mediterranean Sea is still an active Russian naval facility. There are recent intelligence reports the Russians have vacated the Port of Tartus but is by no means a permanent situation.

"The future overseas naval bases, like the one is Sevastopal, are not being referred to as "naval bases" by Russian officials, but by other terms. Moscow is calling them "supply points" or "bases for naval logistics" to make them sound far less threatening. The nomenclature does not really matter. The functions of these naval facilities, however, are for Putin's strategic military purposes.

Vladimir Putin is shifting the Russian naval fleet into a nuclear capable offensive attack force which should be fully operational by 2020. The commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Karakayev, said that Russia's inter-continental ballistic missiles would become "invisible" in the near future. ‘Invisible' means submarines with nuclear warhead delivery capabilities.

Russian President Putin's Victories

#1 Egypt

President Obama made a historical tactical error ordering the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in favor of the International terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood, and its leader Mohammad Morsi as ordered by Hillary Clinton.

On October 6, 1981, Gamaa al-Islamiyya, a franchise of The Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Hosni Mubarak, a declared and proven friend of America went after The Muslim Brotherhood terrorists with an iron fist.

President Obama backed the same Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who murdered Anwar Sadat back in 1981. Putin has not forgotten that Anwar Sadat was the Egyptian leader who canceled the Soviet's Navy right to use Egyptian ports over 50 years ago in favor of the USA.

As a result of President Obama's foreign policy blunders in Egypt, the Russian Navy will likely again have a ‘supply station' in Egypt's warm water ports. The current Egyptian government is very public against President Obama and running to the side of Vladimir Putin.

#2 Syria

The President of Syria, Bashar Assad, had been an important partner of the United States for decades. President Obama's sparked a Sunni / Shia Muslim civil war and publicly called for Bashar Assad to step down or face the consequences if he overstepped his famous red line.

Bashar Assad dismissed Mr. Obama's empty threats and chose to fight Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Shariah, and the Muslim Brotherhood rebels who had Obama's support.

President Obama laid down the red line saying American forces will attack Assad if he used chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were used, Mr. Obama starts the countdown to attack and embroiling the US into another Middle East Conflict. President Obama put himself into a position where his words of war caught up with him and he desperately needed a way out and not have to bomb Damascus.

In comes KGB statecraft expert Vladimir Putin to save our community organizer President Obama at his weakest moment. Putin packaged a deal to defuse the situation and broker a chemical weapon free zone deal between the United States and Syria. Mr. Obama hands Putin a unprecedented public relations victory as peacemaker. Putin's regional influence grows as President Obama again shames America with another failure of world diplomacy that may well take decades to recover from, if ever.

The view from 30,000 feet is that Putin established Russia's foreign policy influence on the world stage for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Obama has woken up a hungry Russian sleeping bear that is feeding on his failures and missteps. Analysts have described this situation as Vladimir Putin playing chess while Mr. Obama plays checkers.

#3 The Asian Pivot

The Asian Pivot is President Obama's policy of shifting our diplomatic, security, and economic attentions from Europe and the Middle East to the rising powers in the Pacific. I agree with President Obama the Asian Pivot will have long term benefits for the United States for years to come.

The Asian Pivot for Vladimir Putin is to sell more oil to the East and establish ports for the Russian Navy.

President Obama however, is viewed by China officials as losing all influence in strengthening America's presence in China. Obama's State Department admittedly has no high ranking individuals who are China experts. Mr. Obama sent his VP Joe Biden to save the Asian Pivot and our relationship with China. Many experts question Joe Biden's track record of guffaws, and his unusual temperament not being compatible with the Asian cultures formalism in matters of diplomacy.

Putin on the other hand, is exploiting the Far East's thirst for Russian oil and natural gas. Putin knows that Vietnam is the key pivot point of Southeast Asia. Vietnam occupies key shorelines connecting the Strait of Malacca with NE Asia and is accessible by sea to the Russian Federations Far East Ports.

The Asian Pivot will not interest the main stream press because what are they going to say. Bumbling Joe Biden was sent by President Obama to exert American influence in China as a direct counter to Russia's victories in the Far East.

While President Obama falters, Vladimir Putin is moving his chess pieces to further Russia's naval reach and dominance.

Make no mistake about it - Putin is playing a serious geopolitical game here and America better wake up and quick hoping it will not be too late.

#4 President Obama Buys Russian Helicopters

The Moscow Times reports President Obama authorized the purchase of 68 Mi-17 armed helicopters from Rosoboronexport at a cost of more than $1 Billion and then donating said helicopters to the Afghans.

The Rosoboronexport agency chief executive, Sergei Chemezov, is a long time confidant of Putin. President Obama recently terminated penalties and sanctions against Rosoboronexport which were initiated by President Bush in 2006 for selling sensitive intelligence to Iran and Syria.

Why would the President of the United States of America appease the Russians and get nothing in return?

"There was no redeeming value, no redeeming feature to this sale," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. "An inferior product bought with American taxpayer money from a Russian export agency that was unconscionably selling to Assad. If you made it up, no one would believe it."

#5 Edward Snowden Exposes American Weakness

Edward Snowden is the U.S. traitor who exposed classified secrets of our government to the Chinese and Russians. When the FBI was hot on Snowden's trail he was welcomed into the open arms of Vladimir Putin with the help of the Communist Chinese.

Vladimir Putin's defying President Obama's ineffectual blustering demands for the return of Edward Snowden is embarrassing enough but right when you think it couldn't get worse. We learned that our ‘allies' in the Asian Pivot, Hong Kong & China, facilitated Edward Snowden's escape into Putin's Russian bear hug.

Law enforcement professionals will tell you that China's actions in the Snowden treason affair is a ‘Clue' on how little they fear President Obama and the will of the American people. The ‘Clue' China exposed for anyone who was looking, is that they may appear aligned with the West but China's respect for Putin and the Russians is greater.

Based on these ‘Clues' I will make the prediction America's influence in the Far East will deteriorate even further unless American policy makers reverse our current direction of appeasement in the world of geopolitical statecraft.

#6 Vladimir V.Putins NYTimes Op-Ed

Putin said, "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation."

"There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

These words coming from that KGB Communist operative Vladimir Putin is disrespectful to America. Not so much in the words themselves but the fact he knows there will be no repercussions from the Obama Administration.

Conclusion

Russia and the United States will always be enemies. Warriors throughout time eternal have respect for their adversaries if they show courage, strength, and determination on the battlefield. It is on the battlefield or the negotiating table where respect is either earned or lost.

Der Spiegel writes, "Putin's strength is only relative because it feeds on the weakness of the West." It brings me great shame to conclude that on the world stage President Obama is weak and clownish, while Vladimir Putin projects strength and leadership.

Out of President Obama's weakness our adversaries will feel emboldened to strike making the world a much more dangerous place.

In Vladimir Putin's NYTimes Op-Ed he came across as an adversary who felt sorry for the United States and longs for the days past when America was a strong and respected. If Putin had any fear of President Obama he would not have been embarrassing him in such a public fashion as he did in his NYTimes op-ed.

Mr. Putin knows America and Russia have a common enemy with Islamic Jihad. It doesn't matter if the Islamic threat comes from Chechnya, Iran, or The Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic terrorists of the world operate under hundreds of different names but all fight for a central Caliphate. If Islamic Iran develops a nuclear capability and the the missile systems to deliver their deadly payloads, it will alter the geopolitical landscape of the world. A nuclear Iran will threaten both Communist Russia and the United States of America.

Putin knows the day will come when America and Russia will have to be allies again as we were in defeating the Nazis during WW2. Putin is signaling that he wants assurances the USA will be a strong ally on that fateful day when the U.S. and Russia will again have to become allies of circumstance.

This is the sad story of the KGB Operative chess player versus our ill equipped community organizer -- and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Just Great, Putin Announces Russia Will Stand With Syria If America Attacks

So here we are....the face down between Putin and Obama.  Who is going to blink?

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Syria: Russia will stand by Assad over any US strikes, warns Putin

President Vladimir Putin gave warning that Russia would stand with Syria if America launches military strikes against the country.

Mr Putin promised to "help" President Bashar al-Assad's regime in the event of a US campaign, showing how Russia and America had failed to narrow their differences over the Syrian civil war during a tense G20 summit in St Petersburg.

President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart could not even agree on the factual point of whether a majority of G20 members supported or opposed military action.

Mr Obama said that most of the 19 countries represented at St Petersburg had backed the US position – and 11 duly signed a statement urging a "strong international response" to the poison gas attacks in Damascus.

But Mr Putin disputed this, pointing out that although David Cameron might have signed the statement, Parliament's vote against British military action showed that the Prime Minister did not speak for his country.

Ending the summit, Mr Putin said that world opinion was firmly against US-led intervention, adding that Russia would take Syria's side. "Will we help Syria? We will," he said. "We are already helping, we send arms."

Russia has been Syria's biggest arms supplier, signing a contract to deliver the S300 air defence system. Some components of this advanced defensive shield are understood to have been delivered, although whether Russia has supplied everything is unclear.

In recent weeks, the Russian navy has also sent three warships to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, where it maintains a base at the port of Tartous. Russian reports suggest that a fourth vessel, carrying a "special cargo", is now heading to the area.

When a journalist suggested that the G20 was evenly split over military action, Mr Putin replied: "You said views divided 50-50, that is not quite right". He listed only the US, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France as countries supporting an intervention.

Mr Putin added that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, had remained "careful" on this issue. As for Mr Cameron, the Russian president accepted that he supported a military strike, but added that the Prime Minister does not represent the "will of the people" because of parliament's position.

Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy were all "against military action," he said. Even in countries where the government happened to support action, "the majority of the population is on our side," added Mr Putin.

"Using force against a sovereign state can only be done in self defence, and Syria is not attacking the United States," he said. "As one participant said yesterday, those who do something different are placing themselves outside the law."

Mr Putin and Mr Obama did not have a formal bilateral meeting during this summit – and the American president unilaterally cancelled a planned meeting in Moscow. But the two men had an informal conversation on the margins of the event.

"It was a constructive, meaningful, cordial conversation," said Mr Putin. He added that it lasted 20 to 30 minutes and "each of us kept with our own opinion".

Mr Putin said: "There is dialogue: we hear each other and understand the arguments. He [Mr Obama] disagrees with my arguments, I disagree with his arguments, but we do hear, and we try to analyse."

In the end, the summit's divisions over Syria prevented agreement on a joint statement signed by all of 19 countries – the 20th is the European Union. Instead, one was signed by the US and Britain as well as Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey.

Referring to the gas attacks in Damascus on Aug 21, these countries said: "We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable."

Putin to Obama: Don’t hand ‘trump card’ to Syrian rebels before U.N. evidence presented

So here we are again, Vladimir Putin shows Barack Hussein Obama how a leader does things - while Obama rushed to put out his "red line" and then proceed to show his hand that the U.S. would go into Syria before lining up all of the allies he needs, Putin has weighed everything for over a week without saying anything on the world stage and finally, today he's come forward to put all of the pressure on the U.S. President.  We have a man leading our country who is an amateur.  Yep.  Elections have consequences.

The story comes from The Washington Times.

Putin to Obama: Don’t hand ‘trump card’ to Syrian rebels before U.N. evidence presented


MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin urged President Obama on Saturday not to rush into a decision on striking Syria, but to consider whether strikes would help end the violence and be worth the civilian casualties they would inevitably cause.

Speaking for the first time since the suspected chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, Putin also questioned whether Syrian government troops should be held responsible. He said it would make no sense for them to carry out such a devastating attack while they were on the offensive.

“In such conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for foreign military intervention is foolish nonsense,” Putin said.

The United States said Friday that the attack in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, the Syrian capital, killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

The Russian leader implied the chemical attack came from among the rebels, saying he was convinced it was a provocation carried out by those who wanted to draw in the United States.

If the Americans have evidence to the contrary they should present it to the United Nations inspectors and the U.N. Security Council, he said. “If there is evidence it should be presented,” Putin said. “If it is not presented, that means it does not exist.”

Putin’s foreign policy adviser complained Friday that Russia had not seen the U.S. intelligence that Washington insists proves the role of the Syrian government.

On Saturday, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, met with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to provide information backing up the U.S. position, the Foreign Ministry said.

In addressing Obama, Putin said he was speaking to him not as the U.S. president but as a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize.

“We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world,” Putin said. “Did this resolve even one problem?”

He urged Obama to reflect on the results of the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq “before taking a decision to carry out air strikes that will bring casualties, including among the civilian population.”

Russia's Putin: We Will Destroy Those Responsible

I mentioned below in comments on the Moscow subway bombing aftermath video that I wouldn't want to be a muzzie in Moscow about this time - I should add that I wouldn't want to be anyone in Chechnya right now, either.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin today promised that those involved in the subway bombing "will be destroyed." From the article at DEBKA:

Putin: We will destroy those responsible for Moscow Metro bomb blasts


Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin promises the attackers responsible for setting off explosions at two Moscow subway stations early Monday, killing at least 37 people and injuring scores, "will be destroyed."
Two female suicide bombers hit the two central Moscow underground rail stations in coordinated attacks during the early Monday rush hour of March 29. The first exploded in the second car of the train at the Lubyanka station near the Kremlin and the Federal Security Services headquarters, killing 25 people on the train and the platform. Thirty minutes later, the second blast killed 12 at the Kultury Park station near the famous Gorky Park. The bombers are said to have triggered blasts of 2-3 kilos strapped to their bodies. North Caucasian al Qaeda affiliate, powerful among Islamist rebels, is believed responsible.Half a million people were in the stations when the blasts occurred. Russian security has shut down the Moscow subway system, one of the busiest in the world through which 5.5 million commuters travel daily. Terror alert was declared in central Moscow.Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman sent the Russian government condolences on the loss of life in a terror attack on behalf of the Israeli government.
In Feb. 2004, a major attack on a train at Moscow Metro killed 39 people.

New Russian 'Solidarity' Movement Is Launched

The Russian Liberals, using the famous moniker of the Polish revolution, Solidarity, have launched a renewed effort to restore the democratic principles that rose out of the fall of the Soviet Union. Former international chess champion, Gary Kasparov, is leading the movement that held an organizing meeting in the Moscow area today. Here's some of the details from the story over at Breitbart:

Former chess champion Garry Kasparov and other prominent liberals launched a new anti-Kremlin movement in Russia on Saturday.
The organization, called Solidarity after the victorious Polish anti-communist movement, aims to unite the country's dysfunctional liberal forces and encourage a popular revolution similar to that seen in other ex-Soviet countries.
"We are fighting for victory because we have something to say to our people and something to offer them," Kasparov said at the founding congress Saturday in a Moscow-region hotel. "On this very day, we are in a position to take stock of past mistakes and act differently," he said.
With a parliament now dominated by Kremlin-friendly parties, Russia's liberals have found themselves marginalized. Yabloko and SPS, the two main democratic parties to emerge after the collapse of the Soviet Union, lost their State Duma representation in 2007 after failing to garner at least 7 percent of the vote.

The Russians really find themselves in a tough spot ...in that the Kremlinists have basically kept the face of democracy but under Putin, they have taken more and more un-democratic positions and instituted more and more of the Soviet-like totalitarian policies, yet most Russians remember the economic despair that occurred under the first Liberal government.

From an American viewpoint, it certainly would be good news to see the Liberals gain some political hold and start checking the imperialist actions of the Russian Kremlinists under the puppet leadership of Medvedev. An interesting part of the article:

Solidarity's manifesto, "300 Steps to Freedom," outlines concrete recommendations on how to improve the social, political and economic setup of the country.

That almost sounds like the Republican party's Contract with America back in the 90's, doesn't it?

This movement will have an uphill battle and with Putin still running the Russian government, I would say it's entirely possible that Kasparov and these other Liberal leaders may find themselves in a bit of danger over the next year. It's going to come down to the Russian people deciding if they have suffered from the totalitarian Putin government or if they fear more, a return to economic downfall that is so associated with the Liberal movement from the old days.

Kasparov starts new Russian anti-Kremlin movement

Much of the Russian public has lost faith in liberal democracy, which remains associated with the chaos, poverty and corruption that emerged in Russia under President Boris Yeltsin.
"One of the tasks of the Solidarity movement is to rehabilitate those basic principles that, unfortunately, for a significant or even overwhelming portion of our fellow citizens, have become associated with failure, misery or reduction of freedom," Kasparov said.
Critics like Kasparov say Russia under former President Vladimir Putin and now his protege Dmitry Medvedev has rolled back the democratic reforms that heralded the post-Soviet era.
Some 150 delegates from more than 40 Russian provinces poured into the hotel's auditorium Saturday, where they voted unanimously to inaugurate the movement.
After the vote, the delegates rose from their seats to cheer, clapping along to rock music from the "glasnost" era, the period of openness and political debate that presaged the collapse of the Soviet regime.
Kasparov called on delegates to salvage the tainted reputation of Russian democracy by joining forces against Russia's current leaders. Those leaders, he said, "have taught themselves to use liberal rhetoric and have created a complete dictatorship under the mantra of liberal principles."
Solidarity's manifesto, "300 Steps to Freedom," outlines concrete recommendations on how to improve the social, political and economic setup of the country.
But in a sign of what it may be up against, members of the pro-Kremlin youth group Young Russia, some dressed as monkeys, demonstrated outside the Saturday conference, distributing flyers that read "monkeys are rocking the boat."
Standing around a wooden dinghy, they hurled bananas into the air, some of which were lit on fire.
"We came to show that there are people in our country who actually wish our country well," said Valery, one of the young pro-Kremlin activists.
Kasparov and other opposition leaders emphasized that the financial crisis offered a window of opportunity for Russia's democratic opposition to prosper.
Both the leaders and delegates were hopeful about the new movement's prospects, though they recognized the enormity of the task ahead.
"We might not be able to launch an Orange Revolution right now, but we can certainly create an orange organization," said Valeriya Novodvorskaya, one of the movement's leaders, referring to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that brought pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko to power.

Putin Assumes Party Leadership, Control Of Russia

I don't usually venture into Russian politics but this is hard to resist. Vladimir Putin has now taken over leadership of the majority party in Russia, United Russia and get this...he was elected head of the party in an UNANIMOUS vote! And this was 600 party members! Can you imagine 600 Democrats or 600 Republicans agreeing unanimously on a single party leader? Haha.

Here's some from the story from the AP here:

Vladimir Putin accepted the leadership of the dominant United Russia party on Tuesday, securing his grip on power after he leaves the Kremlin and becomes prime minister next month.
The nearly 600 party delegates immediately approved his candidacy in an unanimous vote.
"I am ready to undertake additional responsibility and become the head of United Russia," Putin said at the party congress held across Red Square from the Kremlin.
Becoming head of United Russia enhances Putin's power base in the State Duma, the lower house of Russia's parliament, where the party holds a two-thirds majority. It could also serve to undercut the authority of Putin's hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

The reason I put this story up is the fact that Putin has been successful in manipulating the Russian political system so he in essence will have more control than the new president. This reeks of Venezuela and Chavez. Now, it wouldn't be so worrisome if Putin hadn't been flexing his muscle recently and with Russian oil and natural gas making them a bit more of a force in Europe, Putin seems eager to try and bring Russia back to some sort of dominance. At the same time, I've never seen a country where the president is but a figurehead end up in a good spot - Putin will be able to pull the strings and not have to own up to the consequences and that is a recipe for disaster.

Putin Accepts Leadership of Party

Putin's decision to lead the party evokes memories of the Soviet era, when the Communist Party chief held the real power and the formal head of state was little more than a figurehead.
By becoming leader of United Russia, Putin has sent a clear signal that he will remain the boss, analysts said.
Political analyst Alexander Konovalov said Putin's decision was influenced by groups within the Kremlin who opposed his decision to leave the presidency.
"Here one can clearly see the struggle of Kremlin groups that would like to keep Putin in power under any pretext and are looking for a way to do it," Konovalov was quoted as saying in the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. "They were unable to force the president to violate the constitution and serve a third term. Now they are trying other options."

Speaking before Putin, Medvedev turned down an offer of membership in the party, saying the president should not be affiliated with any political party. He said he supported Putin taking the party leadership, which both he and Putin said would improve coordination between the government and parliament.
"Coordinated work of the government and the parliamentary majority will allow us to successfully solve tasks of economic development, improvement of health care and the education system and strengthening the security of the state," Putin said.
Putin has promised not to shift any presidential powers to the prime minister, who under the

Russian Election Monitors Cry FOUL !

In the Russian elections, Putin's party nearly swept and looks to hold over 70% of all parliamentary seats.
But, hold the phone! Election monitors are saying it's a sham. Of course, opposition parties are saying the same thing and since one block of them is the Communists, I'm not throwing things yet but the fact is, all indications prior to the elections were that Putin and the Russian executive branch were wielding tremendous influence over the elections and from this account, that held true.

Full story here.

Dec 3, 8:27 AM EST
Monitors Say Russian Vote Unfair
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW (AP) -- Foreign observers and Russian opposition groups accused authorities Monday of manipulating a sweeping parliamentary election victory for the party of President Vladimir Putin, who hailed the results as a validation of his leadership.
With ballots from nearly 98 percent of precincts counted, Putin's United Russia party was leading with 64.1 percent of the vote, the Central Election Commission said - which would give it a sweep of 70 percent of seats in parliament.
The only opposition party to make it into parliament, the Communists, trailed with just 11.6 percent of the vote, with Kremlin-allied parties claiming the rest of Sunday's vote.
The Communists, Liberals and foreign observers criticized the vote as unfair. Opposition leader Garry Kasparov, the ex-chess champion, denounced the vote Monday as "the most unfair and dirtiest in the whole history of modern Russia."

Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB officer and the chief suspect in the London poisoning death of Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko last year, will serve as a deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party.
"Now Mr. Putin and Mr. Lugovoi stand together as the emblem of Russia - the two people linked by a murder," Litvinenko's widow, Marina, said in a written statement. Litvinenko in a deathbed statement accused Putin of ordering his killing - which the Kremlin has denied.