Why Do I Like Putin?

The title of this post was the question I was asked on Facebook recently. Let me reword the question in this way: "Which world leader would I like to have a beer with?" There is Putin and then there is ... there is ... well, I can't think of a second one. I do like the Russian beer Baltika, Baltika 4 in particular, so that's a plus. One beer should not cause me to have a gout episode, it would be worth it. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. This one-eyed man is Putin. 

But the question really is along the lines of another question. "Why do you hate America so much?" I don't. But I am not blind to the policies of the US. I saw a bumper sticker that I agree with, so I know I am right. It said.  "Support the troops." Who could disagree with that? But above this caption was a Star Wars figure, a storm trooper. Is this fair? Not entirely. But look at the numbers--how many Iraqis have died directly and indirectly to US war-making? The answer is at least one million. How many have died as a result of Putin's adventures in Ukraine? The answer is less than ten thousand. I have heard the argument that "Sure America is bad, but other countries are worse." I am not sure the math supports this argument. 

What do I mean about the blindness of the American leadership? The proposal for a "no-fly zone" in Syria is a good example. There aren't that many candidates that are against it. Rand, O'Malley, and Sanders are against it. Clinton is in favor of such a zone. Apparently Trump and Cruz do not have an opinion. I had thought that Trump was against and Cruz in favor, but the research I did says otherwise.  (One of Trump's advantages is that the voter reads their own ideas onto Trump, "He is my candidate.") All other candidates are in favor. One candidate, who out of kindness I will not name, proposed to "punch the Russians in the nose." 

What is a "no-fly zone"? From Wikipedia: 

A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) (NFZ) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent power from operating in the region. Aircraft that break the no-fly zone may be shot down, depending on the terms of the NFZ.

The previous incarnation of this policy in Libya was approved by the UN. This will not happen in Syria due to an obvious Russian veto. This means that the zone would be illegal under international law. The "red meat" Republicans, and Hillary Clinton, don't seem to care. 

To understand how catastrophic this policy would be we need to look at the civil war in Ukraine. Ukraine could either join the Russian free trade block, with whom they did most of their trading, or the European trade block, the EU. Ukraine could not join both. If they joined the EU then Russian tariffs would kick in, and visa-versa.  They had to choose. Ukraine was ready to join the EU, but a last-minute increase in the Russian offer led Prime Minister Yanukovych to change his mind. Riots ensued. While there was obvious anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, the riots were funded by the West. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

The US spent 5 billion dollars to get Ukraine "into" Europe and it is not going to let a little thing like an elected Ukrainian government get in the way!  

The US basically selected the new Ukrainian government. How do we know this? Victoria Nuland admitted it. 

Of course the US was quite miffed that the Russians were able to intercept this phone call. While the US did not get everything it wanted, this call shows the large measure of control that the State Department has over Ukrainian governmental decisions. As the saying goes, "He who pays the piper, decides the tune." 

Why was Russia so concerned about the Ukraine joining the EU? One reason was that all EU countries have mutual defense agreements. While Ukraine's entry into the EU would not technically be an entry into NATO, in a de facto way it would be. In addition to the obvious NATO plan to encircle Russia, this would leave Russia's most important warm-water naval base eventually in NATO control. As an artifact of the dissolving of the Soviet Union, these naval facilities, even though they had been Russian for 150 years, were inside the new Ukraine. Russia leased these facilities from Ukraine. These leases were due to expire in 2042. It would be unacceptable to any Russian leader for these bases to be NATO bases, as they would have been eventually. To give you a time frame for how long Crimea was a part of Russia, this is about as long as California has been a part of the United States. How fond are Americans of California? No leader of the Russian Federation is going to allow these ports to leave Russian control. War would be preferable to them. 

The idea that Putin is being provocative is just not an adequate read on the situation. For a longish article on why Putin is doing what he is doing, click here.  

Putin is like a circus juggler. He has to keep the balls of Russian interests in the air while dodging the balls Victoria Nuland throws at him. So far he hasn't dropped anything-- not even the spinning plates on a stick. You have to admire his skill. 

Since I still think Hillary Clinton will be the next President, and she favors a no-fly zone, aka war with Russia, one can only hope for the best. Do I "like" Putin? I do not see the question as important or even interesting. I hope he does well with his juggling. If Putin "drops the ball," we are all dead.