Subject: Saturday's Washington Post Editorial
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008
From: "Sarah Carey" <SCarey@ssd.com>
The best response to the "Mr. Putin's Bluff" piece is to ignore it. It is a knee jerk reaction, based on tired, and hopefully soon to be retired, assumptions that ignore new realities.
Mr. Putin was, of course, speaking to a domestic audience that feels very strongly, and with considerable justification, about the issues he discussed. And he was accurate. The US has a new President and a new foreign policy team. They have made it clear that they intend to reexamine the US relationship with Russia and that they, like a number of Congressional leaders, want to build a constructure relationship with Russia. Russian leaders, directly and indirectly, have signalled that they want an honest and constructive relationship with the US that builds on common interests while agreeing to recognize and attempt to deal with real differences. This is a major change from the position, spearheaded by Vice President Cheney, of Russia bashing and, worse, of isolating Russia.
"Putin's Bluff" incorporates all the code words designed to signal evil ambitions on the part of the Russians---referring to Putin as "intimidating" President elect Obama and as pursuing "imperial power" and a "neo-imperial project "(whatever that is). It urges Obama to stand firm in regard to NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine and the installation of missile interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is exactly what our new President should not do. He should reexamine the rationale for, the goals to be achieved and the alternatives to these two highly controversial measures. Not because Putin advocates such moves as "concessions" but because serious questions have been raised by serious people regarding the wisdom of such moves, including by the people living in the countries affected. (I just returned from Kyiv where I was handed, outside of my hotel, a map of the city; on the cover was written "NATO Go Home; Welcome to Kyiv).