Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I changed the title to reflect the content of the article:
"Special Report: How the U.S. made its Putin problem worse"
That doesn't tell you anything. The title I use reflects how the West betrayed Putin:
WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK (Reuters) - In September 2001, as the U.S. reeled from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vladimir Putin supported Washington's imminent invasion of Afghanistan in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War.
He agreed that U.S. planes carrying humanitarian aid could fly through Russian air space. He said the U.S. military could use airbases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. And he ordered his generals to brief their U.S. counterparts on their own ill-fated 1980s occupation of Afghanistan.
During Putin's visit to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch two months later, the U.S. leader, speaking at a local high school, declared his Russian counterpart "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States."
For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading.
Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack. In a nationally televised address, Putin warned that the move would undermine arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
"This step has not come as a surprise to us," Putin said. "But we believe this decision to be mistaken."
So that's how we came to the point of Putin amassing troops next to Ukraine, ready to act. We sort of looked for it. Again, Bush described him as "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States."
I changed the title to reflect the content of the article:
"Special Report: How the U.S. made its Putin problem worse"
That doesn't tell you anything. The title I use reflects how the West betrayed Putin:
WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK (Reuters) - In September 2001, as the U.S. reeled from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vladimir Putin supported Washington's imminent invasion of Afghanistan in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War.
He agreed that U.S. planes carrying humanitarian aid could fly through Russian air space. He said the U.S. military could use airbases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. And he ordered his generals to brief their U.S. counterparts on their own ill-fated 1980s occupation of Afghanistan.
During Putin's visit to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch two months later, the U.S. leader, speaking at a local high school, declared his Russian counterpart "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States."
For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading.
Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack. In a nationally televised address, Putin warned that the move would undermine arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
"This step has not come as a surprise to us," Putin said. "But we believe this decision to be mistaken."
So that's how we came to the point of Putin amassing troops next to Ukraine, ready to act. We sort of looked for it. Again, Bush described him as "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States."
I'm glad they have recovered their dignity.
Hilarious!
Blame Bush for Obama's incompetence...................................... .again.
Being liberal means never having to say you are responsible.
Did the U.S.-Russia relationship deteriorate between 2001 and 2009, or did it not?
Perhaps
However, Obama has been president for over five years. HE COULD HAVE IMPROVED RELATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS DURING THAT TIME IF HE FELT RELATIONS HAD 'DETERIORATED'.
Obama needs to understand that foreign nations respond to STRONG LEADERS who can negotiate from a POSITION OF STRENGTH. Obama's weakness and incompetence has led to the dangerous situation in the Ukraine.
1. "I will be more flexible after the election"
2. unilaterally removing missiles from eastern europe
3. failure to develop missile defense system in eastern europe
4. incompetence in Syria and Libya giving Putin more power at home
5. failure to make Ukraine a NATO member
6. failure to supply the Ukranians with weapons to defend themselves (since we disarmed them)
7. failure to recognize and stabilize the new Ukranian government
8. failure to rally and organize NATO in response to the Russian threat
OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT. Do liberals understand this? HE AND HE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN MISTAKES AND INCOMPETENCE. BLAMING BUSH BECAME ABSURD A FEW YEARS AGO. NOW IT IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS AND EMBARRASSING. One does not negotiate from a point of weakness, in which there are no consequences to other nations for their actions. This has been true since the beginning of time. Is Obama that stupid?
If Obama cannot function as a POTUS, and can only assign blame to others, perhaps he should resign.
Had O not supported the illegal coup, there would be no problem in eastern Ukraine.
This was entirely Obama's doing. He and his sycophants clearly had no idea what the blowback would be and they lacked the curiosity to figure it out ahead of time.
I guess you are indeed a liberal, as you enjoy changing history.
Truman was a democrat. Yet if he had just let Stalin steamroll western Europe and perhaps taken over the rest of the world, then Russian-US relationships may have "improved".
Not all view points and cultures deserve equal consideration and merit. In the world of absolute relativism, there is no right or wrong. This is the world that liberals live in.
If Truman, unlike Obama, had no spine, then the world today would be much worse. Appeasement and attempts to be "liked" results in exploitation on the part of aggressors, which rarely share the interests of their "victims".
Wake up- weak leaders make the world more dangerous and chaotic.
However, Obama has been president for over five years. HE COULD HAVE IMPROVED RELATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS DURING THAT TIME IF HE FELT RELATIONS HAD 'DETERIORATED'.
Obama needs to understand that foreign nations respond to STRONG LEADERS who can negotiate from a POSITION OF STRENGTH. Obama's weakness and incompetence has led to the dangerous situation in the Ukraine.
1. "I will be more flexible after the election"
2. unilaterally removing missiles from eastern europe
3. failure to develop missile defense system in eastern europe
4. incompetence in Syria and Libya giving Putin more power at home
5. failure to make Ukraine a NATO member
6. failure to supply the Ukranians with weapons to defend themselves (since we disarmed them)
7. failure to recognize and stabilize the new Ukranian government
8. failure to rally and organize NATO in response to the Russian threat
OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT. Do liberals understand this? HE AND HE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN MISTAKES AND INCOMPETENCE. BLAMING BUSH BECAME ABSURD A FEW YEARS AGO. NOW IT IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS AND EMBARRASSING. One does not negotiate from a point of weakness, in which there are no consequences to other nations for their actions. This has been true since the beginning of time. Is Obama that stupid?
If Obama cannot function as a POTUS, and can only assign blame to others, perhaps he should resign.
Was Bush a STRONG LEADER negotiating from a POSITION OF STRENGTH when he let Putin take Georgia? Maybe if he wasn't so weak & incompetent that wouldn't have happened? I don't even like Obama & I think bashing him over this one is incredibly misguided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
