Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Is Russian President Putin A Thug?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, shown here at the commemoration of a Russian chapel in Vrsic, Slovenia. REUTERS/SRDJAN ZIVULOVIC

Peter Van Buren, Reuters: The real reason Washington calls Putin a thug

There is a near-certainty in American political speech, going back to the 1980s: When a senior United States official labels you a thug, trouble follows. “Thug” is the safest go-to word in the lexicon of American Exceptionalism.

So, it is with concern that folks are lining up at the mic to call Russian President Vladimir Putin just that. President Obama called him a “thug,” as did presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, who added “gangster” for good measure. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's spokesperson found fault with Putin and his whole nation, even adding an adjective: "Russia is a global menace led by a DEVIOUS thug." One rarely hears ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum or villain, but watch out for thug.

While throwing the term at Putin is tied to the weak public evidence supposedly linking Russian government hacker(s) to the Democratic National Committee computer breach, there may be larger issues in the background.

It seems the word “thug” is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I always like to quote Buddha in these situations .... "when you point a finger at someone, you are actually pointing 3 at yourself".


Aizino Smith said...

"when you point a finger at someone, you are actually pointing 3 at yourself"

That line is a s useless as "Let he who is without sin throw the 1st stone."

Simple American said...

Our Russiaphile flag is flowing freely. Eyes wide open.

If any leaders deserve to be considered 'a thug', it can easily be judged by how they act within their nation, (rights and freedoms), and on how they approach their responsibilities on the International stage. Is PM Trudeau 'a thug'? Of course not! He is on the peaceable end of the spectrum.

Some leaders take pride on being at the opposite end of that spectrum.

Allowing your allies to purposely drop chlorine bombs, destroy hospitals, markets, schools, bring down airliners, etc, that to me is on the other end of the , thug' spectrum.

The middle ground is probably the right place to be, in this modern international sewer.

As the Buddha said, (paraphrase) The Way is the Middle Path. Thugs not welcome!

TWN said...

Totally irrelevant, he is the guy we have to deal with just the way it is whether he is or isn't, still have to deal with him.

B.Poster said...


I think you have largely nailed it here. Whether he is or is not a thug he is the one we are going to have to deal with.

Thug or not he leads a very powerful country, has a broad and deep network of allies in the world, has the world's best media messaging machine, has a populace who largely supports him and will have his back in pretty much any conflict with anyone, he commands the best trained and best led forces on earth, he has the world's best cyber warriors at his disposal, and he has the world's most advanced nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

Bottom line: he's not going anywhere and we are going to need his help to deal with a number of problems we face. We're going to have to deal with him whether anyone likes it or not. Even if my analysis, of the power structure is off, Russia can still hurt us very, very badly. As stated, we are going to have to deal with him.

In determining the approaches to use, we will need to examine his character. Part of the problem in doing tis examination is to many people seem to have a crush on him of which the author of this article appears to be one of these and on the other hand we have folks like team Clinton and others who act recklessly to provoke things making a bad situation worse.

Part of this may be why Mr. Trump is so hated by the establishment. The policies of the establishment have been based upon a combination of stupidity and ideology for quite awhile. Perhaps the greatest way to bring about fury directed at oneself is to wreck someone's ideology.

Along comes Mr. Trump who is a pragmatist albeit he seems to allow his mouth to get ahead of his brain at times. By the appointment of men such as Paul Manafort and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn who have extensive to ties Russian leaders and their allies combined with his statements on NATO and his statements on Crimea appears to indicate someone who understands the need to try and build better relations with Russia.

Hopefully he can pull this off. In any event, if things were not so serious, it might be entertaining to observe the establishment along with their media allies in discombobulated fits with regards to Mr. Trump over the next eight years.

Young Communist said...

@ Simple American: So, president Obama is the thugs leader for having intentionally destroy four nations (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine).

Holy shit...

Simple American said...

Leaders are many times, left to pick up the pieces. This is the case in the examples given. IMHO

Young Communist said...

Syria, Libya and Ukraine was in one piece before.

Seriously, you need to see what type of game is played behind the scene and and by who.