Yes, this is an opinion, but a worthy read that seems to clarify some of the Putin moves since the early part of the century.
A perspective on Russian-American relations after 2004.
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I’m glad to see WAPO acknowledge a Russian perspective that is too often ignored. It is the view that the U.S. in its foreign policy is actively hostile to Russian interests, brazenly hypocritical in its public statements and untrustworthy in its promises.
The first two sins might be forgivable, but the third is a calamity.
LikeLike
Did you read the essay. Putin flipped out in 2004 and the rest is history. Along with the statement and belief that Ukraine is not a country.
His regard for human life, even his own country men and children is minimal if even existent.
He used tanks and flamethrowers in the Belsan hostage situation, adding to the death toll.
Same stuff he is doing now when he gets frustrated. He wanted Georgia, and he got it. He flattened a city in Chechnya, and he got it.
Now he ran into a wall. So he proceeding to flatten Ukraine town by town. Strange since he referred to Ukrainians as kinsmen.
The man is a murdering megalomania, and the world is too small and with serious other issues to have to put up with him.
The only reason he keeps this up is nukes. When he runs out of cannon fodder, missiles and materiel, he will flash that badge.
Effectively, we and the rest of the West are held hostage while he slaughters day in a day out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Putin flipped out in 2004 and the rest is history.”
Obviously, that’s not how I read the editorial.
LikeLike
“Three days after the September 2004 terrorist attack at Beslan, Putin delivered a blistering speech from the Kremlin voicing his indignation at the West in language he hadn’t used before: “We showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten.” And then, in an unmistakable reference to the United States, Putin added: “Some would like to tear from us a ‘juicy piece of pie.’ Others help them … reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world’s major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them.”
Threatening nukes 3 decades ago? Russian policies and brutality caused the hostage situation. Russian tactics added to the death toll: tanks, grenades, flamethrowers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re misreading Putin. He wasn’t threatening with nukes, he said we were set on destroying Russia because they were still a nuclear power.
LikeLike
Uh. And why bring that up if Russia was too. Think about it.
You think was a good friend because he killed Muslim men, women and children. His own and anyone else’s who needed a cleanup.
Yes Islamic terrorism was and still is a problem. And you don’t like them. Understood. You voiced that numerous times.
Yet we now see pure savagery from a frustrated, petulant man. His past speeches have said clearly that Ukraine belongs to him. Apparently with or without infrastructure or even too many people.
Trusting Putin is like trusting Ghengis Kahn. Yeah he was a good ally until…
You can the man out of the KGB, but not the KGB out of the man. He is constantly hacking us , elections are his specialty. Without nukes he is a third world thug.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently trusting us isn’t that great either.
We sheltered Russia’s terrorists.
We lied about expanding NATO.
And it appears we blew up their pipeline.
There are no good guys in this, including us.
LikeLike
“And it appears we blew up their pipeline.
”
Nope. A pro-Ukrainian group in Germany is being investigated for it. But keep trying to put the blame on anyone but Putin, the ONLY real bad guy here.
LikeLike
Sure, 4 guys on a sailboat planted over a ton of Semtex on two pipelines in 300 feet of water.
That requires either a large remote submersible or a decompression chamber which would be impossible to conceal.
Or a submarine.
No way, either the CIA or Seals
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Small submersibles are plentiful, expensive but plentiful. Any wealthy individual or group could have pulled this off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You got nothing but rampant speculation. It makes a lot more sense for a pro-Ukrainian PRIVATE group to have done it.
LikeLike
No, it makes more sense that the CIA(or the Brits) did it, they’ve been meddling in Ukraine for 20 years at least. Remember the Maiden Revolution?
You just don’t want it to be the obvious culprit.
LikeLike
… “it makes more sense that the CIA(or the Brits) did it, t”
Speculative nonsense.
“You just don’t want it to be the obvious culprit.”
And you so desperately want it to be the case.
Kind of like Biden corruption. You just keep speculating but you have ZERO proof.
LikeLike
RE: “Threatening nukes 3 decades ago?”
How do you get that?
There’s a link in the WAPO piece I think you should read:
https://www.russiamatters.org/node/20317
It shows that Russia believed the U.S. actively supported the Chechan uprisings. While no public records validate Russua’s belief, it would take exhorbitant naiveté to assume that Russia’s beliefs were unfounded.
LikeLike
Are you reading the essay. I have answered with quotes that you seemed to ignore.
Do you have any evidence outside of Putin’s circle that we supported Chechnyan rebels? What the heck would that do. We were already up to our chest in war in two countries. And Chechens were Islamic, not a good thing to be after 9/11.
Believe is different from know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: Do you have any evidence outside of Putin’s circle that we supported Chechnyan rebels?”
I have the evidence provided by your own source that Putin and his circle believed the U.S. supported the Chchen rebels. It is also common knowledge the the CIA conducts covert operations of this kind, often by funneling money through NGOs to orchestrate insurgencies. But it doesn’t matter whether the covert operation can be proved. The only thing that matters is that Putin and his circle believe the Chechan uprisings were the result of U.S. covert projects.
LikeLike
…”Putin and his circle believed the U.S. supported the Chchen rebels”…
Big difference between BELIEF that the US supported the Chechens, and EVIDENCE.
Kind of like voter fraud. Big difference between theories and PROOF. Ya know “theories, but no evidence”. Seems to me that your tribe is content with having theories only. Have at it. Until you have proof or evidence, why should anyone pay attention to it.
LikeLike
Read the article. You keep rehashing old stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As Putin said, ‘What would we have done if Russia had granted asylum to Ossama Bin Laden?’
Almost 200 children died at Beslan, and we sent the mastermind to college.
AS I have said over and over, there are no good guys in this, including us.
LikeLike
“‘What would we have done if Russia had granted asylum to Ossama Bin Laden?’”
We wouldn’t have invaded Russia.
You just can’t admit that there are good guys because you are a basic isolationist.
LikeLike
How many Chechnyans died before Belsan?
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of them, except those who were alive at the time.
LikeLike
That tickled me.
I needed that, 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll make it easy for you:
“The First Chechen War began in 1994, when Russian forces entered Chechnya on the premise of restoring constitutional order. Following nearly two years of brutal fighting, with a death toll exceeding 100,000 by some estimates, the 1996 Khasavyurt ceasefire agreement was signed and Russian troops were withdrawn from the republic.” Wikipedia
Now you could bet money that out of that death toll, and knowing Russian tactics today and last century, many children were slaughtered. So let’s just call it even.
The Second War, of course, ended when Grozny was flattened. How many children there?
Russia 2, Chechnya 1 as far as civilians and children.
Again, who invaded first?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The WAPO story you posted concerns a break in U.S./Russia diplomatic relations that the writer traces to 2004. What does this commentary have to do with that?
LikeLike
You know sometimes history is important. Why do we create and let succeed monsters like Putin? Call it “Putin, the Early Years”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is this history important; are you not able to say?
LikeLike
Here is a homegrown example.
The South seceded to keep slavery. They were clear in their Seccession documents.
But years before, Fugitive Slave laws, restricting territories to free only, etc. set the tone.
The threat of losing slavery was becoming real after years of legislation and movements. Now the reasons are clearer as to why they actually seceded. They didn’t just wake up and shell Sumter.
According to the essay, the words and deeds of Putin were pretty clear long before Belsan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “According to the essay, the words and deeds of Putin were pretty clear long before Belsan.”
What is the significance of that? According to the essay U.S./Russia relations were cooperative up until 2004. Something happened in 2004 to derail the previously cooperative relationship. The essay suggests that U.S. behavior caused the break.
LikeLike
There might have been a chill, but essentially
the cooperation we warmed too was up to 2001.
Putin has no problem killing Islamics, terrorists or not. So after 9/11, Bush and Putin were “brothers in arms”. I saw where Russia gave us donkeys to carry weapons into Afghanistan.
Some confusion over what we were doing providing refugee status to non-combatants. And apparently, the leader of the hostage situation was in our country.
And that is when “he flipped out” in my view. We went from frenemies to enemies overnight. I guess the “soul” Bush said he saw in Putin’s eyes sputtered out.
Personally, I think Putin was facing political pressure to come out as strongman.
He did. And here we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forget it Len. You can never convince a pro-Putin voice that historical context is necessary to understand current situations. Especially when it calls into question the mental levels of his hero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You aren’t making any sense. Your own story reports that Russia believed it was the U.S. that ‘flipped out” [your term] in 2004, but you refuse to see what is plainly written.
LikeLike
Putin flipped out.
That speech was virulent. And Putin sure wasn’t going say “I kinda lost it after Belsan”.
We are not getting anywhere, just rehashing the same issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conspiracist here “alleged” that Chavez helped rig our election and lots people “believed” it.
So does that make it true?
We will soon find out at trial next month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “We are not getting anywhere, just rehashing the same issue.”
No, we’re not. You think your story supports your narrative, but actually it undermines your narrative.
LikeLike
I think not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He thinks not a lot.😇
LikeLike
RE: “You can never convince a pro-Putin voice that historical context is necessary to understand current situations.”
The historical context WAPO describes includes the allegation that the U.S. stabbed Russia in the back in Chechnya.
LikeLike
Did they? Allegation? And for that we end up with 100,000’s of deaths. Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine.
No sale. Putin’s mistress could have been raped by the entire Alabama football team, and has no right kill folks worldwide to soothe his pride. None.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The United States was battling al-Qaeda at the time; Russia was fighting Chechen separatists. But Putin came to believe that America was an unreliable, hypocritical partner — and that belief would curdle into the open feud that has deepened, year by year.“
“This “alternative history” doesn’t condone or excuse Putin’s horrific crimes in Ukraine. His invasion of his neighbor was the illegal, unjustifiable act of a ruthless authoritarian. But in assessing the roots of such a conflict, it’s useful to understand the mind of the adversary — and to see clearly the pathway to disaster.”
My sentiments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The RUSSIAN allegation. Because Russia said it, YOU automatically believe it.
LikeLiked by 1 person