Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

November 1st, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

11 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Vlad Says It Like It Is

Putin opened up a visit to Europe with a remark that made Chirol and Dr. Seuss very proud, calling them on their “traditional tendency” to appease aggressors.

Russia: Putin Says Europe Soft On Terrorists

Russian President Vladimir Putin today opened a state visit to the Netherlands, one of Russia’s most important trading partners and a senior member of the European Union. In remarks to journalists before his arrival, Putin accused Europeans of being soft on terrorism, with what he called a traditional tendency to appease. Do Putin’s comments have merit, or could he be seeking to deflect criticism of Russia’s human rights record in Chechnya?

The article goes on to try and pin down the political motivation for such bold comments by asserting that they were intended to deflect criticism from Russia’s Chechnyan adventures. Yet, despite whatever short term tactic the comment may or may not have been, Putin didn’t mince word. He called it like it is.

In a commonplace avoidance of reality, one response so far is:

“It takes time to come forward with a unified antiterrorism strategy, but this is the price for having our European Union functioning as it does; if you want to come forward with a common policy, then you need time. And this is something Putin does not like to see,” Leurdyk said.

Yet, if national policies don’t work, what does a common European policy have to do with anything? Policy formulation is not the answer. Dealing with the dangerous reality of terrorism is, and by that I mean not treating it as common crime. Perhaps the Germans and others could take a few lessons from the days of the RAF.

Comments to this entry

Gabriel Mihalache
November 1, 2005
10:52 pm
'calling them on their "traditional tendency"Â? to appease aggressors' SUCH AS RUSSIA? :-)
Curzon
November 1, 2005
11:26 pm
LOL to Gabriel
bp32
November 2, 2005
12:00 am
This is obviously self-serving rhetoric by Putin (and certainly rational given his Chechn 'problem'), something he has been pushing since 9/11 and the Bush adminstration's slogan of "your with us, or your with the terrorists". However, it again illustrates a debate that we must have regarding reputational logic, specifically with regards to terrorists (one I have been trying to highlight over at the Duck [see here and here for starters). Given the baggage (not necessarily justified) attached to policies of appeasement I realize that this is a difficult task, but we cannot assume that appeasement is an illegitimate policy, that anything short of aggressive, offensive policy is appeasement, and that other actors actual react the way we think they do to appeasement.
bp32
November 2, 2005
12:03 am
Oops, one of my links didn't seem to take--see here if you are interested...
sun bin
November 2, 2005
12:06 am
Vlad? I thought you were talking about Lenin :)
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
November 2, 2005
2:48 am
Certainly "appeasement" is a dirty word, but the underlying notion of offering "carrots" is not without merit in some situations. But deciding how far to go with unpleasant folks is a tricky question that probably always looks different in hindsight....
Elizabeth
January 8, 2006
1:47 pm
Hindsight indeed. Like if luck goes your way, if the terrorist has a heart attack, you were right. If a brain tumor causes an unexpected rise in aggression, you were wrong.

Putin's straight talk is why many Russians like him. And he doesn't need to beat around the bush with vague terrorism yadda-yadda to defend his stance on Chechnya. He directly told the European press (I think it was the Netherlands news agency, but I forget, anyway he says it all the time) that Russia had a right to keep Chechnya, just like France and Spain kept the Basque regions and Britain keeps Northern Ireland, and if they think it's any different, they can explain why.

Actually we are all still waiting for an explanation, but so far, none have been forthcoming.
Mi-Hwa
January 8, 2006
5:15 pm
Russia is like a criminal telling someone they're being soft on crime. Like China, Russia has very little moral standing in the world.
Elizabeth
January 9, 2006
4:52 am
Oh, but countries such as the United States (cough, gitmo, ahem, never signed treaty on children's rights, now going back on agreements on torture), Great Britain (ahem, colonialism, see 18th and 19th centuries, Dresden, and more recently, shooting a South American because, er, God this looks bad, they thought he was a Muslim with a backpack?), and France (see "Algeria", see "anti-semitism") are just shining examples of wonderful governance.

Russia and China are poor. America and Britain are rich. They are all sons of bitches- the only difference is who writes the history books, and which news channels you watch.

The main difference is that while European countries and the Americans committed mass genocide and culture-o-cide (see: Basque regions, Bretagne, Savoie, etc.) 150 years ago, Russia never finished it because the Chechens were subdued under overwhelming Soviet might. So where is the moral superiority there??? "Sorry, Russia, that was okay when we did it to keep our national integrity, but you are too late."

Moral standing, indeed.
Bill Petti
January 9, 2006
1:05 pm
Since when is "tu quoque" a valid counterargument?
Elizabeth
January 9, 2006
1:31 pm
Putin's argument is not as simple as "tu quoque". It is more like:

1) Either colonizing an area and using nearly all means possible to subdue insurgency and/or rebellion is justifiable and right, or it's not.

2) If it is not right, then any profits gained from such activities should be given back, and the acts apologized for.

3) A host of countries (among them England, France, and the United States) have committed acts of the kind described in (1).

4) None of the countries referred to in (3) believe that they are under any obligation to commit to any actions of the sort described in (2).

4) Therefore, none of the countries referred to in (3) believe that the actions described in (1) are wrong.

Logical leap made by Russians: Therefore, they are accusing Russia of doing something wrong for some other reason, namely, because they do not like Russia, they do not trust her, and they want to see her as small, impotent, and miserable as possible. This is yet another reason that Russia must defend her own borders and interests at any cost- because she has no real allies.

Certainly, they could not possibly object to Russia's intervention on moral grounds, because in that case, they would at the very least apologize for Scotland, the Cherakahua-Apache displacement, and oh so much more. But they won't. They don't think they were wrong. They think such things are justifiable.

And so does Putin.