Bush in the Baltic



Only the historians of the future looking backward will have the data available on hand and the dispassionate jeweler's eye necessary that distance gives to make accurate judgments as to whether or not America could have possibly forged some sort of mutually beneficial alliance with Russia, out of our common interests, sometime during the optimistic but brief 1992-2005 corridor of possibility. Alas. It was not to be. Was it thus destined that we would be adversaries once again? Did it have to happen this way?

Perhaps ... the lingering antagonisms of the Old Cold Warriors in the highest reaches at "State" and "Defense" combined with Russia's quixotic flirtations with autocracy and what can only be construed as a "simian" strongman rule presented insurmountable obstacles to any such alliance. Perhaps. (The Corsair sips absently from 1949 Chateau Haute Brion, in the twilight, contemplating the melancholy limits to hyperpower, while listening to Couperin)

Whatever the case, Russia has gone over to the dark (read: China) side. Remeber the clueless Putin in Woodward's book, getting blown off on the phone by Bush, when he all but begged the President to come attend St. Petersberg's 300th anniversary celebration? As if International diplomacy were a photo op. Perhaps in the Russian political calculus it is.

The Russian Bear has presently withdrawn from it's Western flank, leaving behind it's "children," humiliated, and now going in for Asian intrigues, where, disturbingly, America is increasingly devoid of influence (Where, indeed, was "Iron Lady" Condi Rice when Hu Jintao was breaking Koizumi?) or voice (Is it really a "six party" talk? Or, is there only now just China, Dominant in the region?).

Of course, China will use Russia so long as Russia's sturdy ass can be of "service." China is currently leveraging it's Sino-African collabo in much the same manner, namely, for resources. In the case of Russia, however, the uses go more than purely natural resources for their rapidly expanding economy, but also for limited joint military activities, to indirectly threaten opposition movements in soi-dissant renegade provinces like Taiwan and, possible opponents to regional hegemony, like Japan (Which proved to be not so tough America, who is distracted in the War on Terror and Eastern Europe), thus, in the process, giving Russia that adolescent lifting sense of their "manly power," so louchely expressed by the padded shoulders in military uniform (Averted Gaze) and those high aggro steps while marching. Manly, to be sure. (Exaggerated cough suggesting feigned detachment) Ah, for a lady to marry a Russian in a uniform of "Hussars to the Guard; oh, to be invited to Prince Orlovski's Ball, now wouldn't that be something?"

But how else can Russia act being that its chief identifying fundamental characteristic as a nation is the desire to be a major military player on the world stage (Tchaikovski's March Militaire anyone?). Ah, to have the world fear and respect the Russian uniform, the military prowess, they dream (The people do so, alas, quite childishly, because their rulers are so thoroughly corrupt and infantile) Stung from the "Orange" and "Rose" Revolutions and the dramatic tensions presently smoldering in Moldova, Belarus ("Europe's Last Dictatorship" says Bush), Uzbekistan (Which, incredibly-dramatically just pulled out of a Soviet Republics Group in anticipation of the Bush visit), &c, Bush's trip -- while offering opportunities to smooth sticking points -- will cause more damage because the Russia visit is sandwiched between layovers in Baltic breakaways.

And let's be honest, the real reason for the trip is to shore up the 2nd Bush Administrations "mini-mandate" of securing democracy throughout Eastern Europe, cutting off Russia from The Great Caspian Oil Game. That mandate sets American foreign policy at direct odds with the Kremlin. And, according to 60 Minutes:

"On the eve of a meeting with President Bush in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin responds to criticism of democracy in Russia, raising questions about the U.S. 2000 election and President Bush?s decision to go to war in Iraq."

This is not an unexpected outburst. Putin's abysmal ignorance regarding American electoral politics only highlights -- embarrassingly -- what a chilly provincial hack Putin makes of himself on the world stage when faced with the daunting prospect of a microphone and cameras uncontrolled by his charming little junta. The leadership in Beijing must fairly break into controlled hysterics after dealing with such a dolt. Also, regarding: Iraq; Russia has always been a friend/client/consumer -- since the Cold War and the UN's non-aligned block days at Turtle Bay -- of that embattled emerging democracy. The frosty relationship between Washington and the Kremlin only heightens that profitable Iraq-Russia friendship that goes, as they say, "way back." To CBS:

"In an exclusive interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, Correspondent Mike Wallace repeats criticism from the Bush White House about recent changes Putin has instituted in Russia.

" ... Putin tells Wallace he should question his own country's democratic ways before looking for problems with Russia's. The Russian president also says the United States shouldn't try to export its democracy, as it is trying to do in Iraq."

Well, "Pooty-Poot" is dead-on right there. President Bush is on page two of the Bush Doctrine. Page one was: "Democratize the Middle East." Now, the remix: Extend democracy throughout Eastern Europe, gain access to Caspian Sea black gold, overthrow tyrants (Not necessarily in that order). This trip is going to be brutal for Putin. Just Brutal. It will hallmark the essential broken-manness of Putin's Russia (Which is not a good thing to do, rubbing salt in a bear's wound, even if you are in the stronger position) What Bush is essentially doing can be compared to boldly taking the Czar's jewels in broad daylight. Sheer boldness. And Russians especially are fond of boldness as a twisted virtue (The Good) as opposed to a chumpy acquiescence (The Bad): very "ghetto," this, tres "street," this unhinged moral compass of Third World masculinity (For further reference, see the international machinations of Henry the K).

"Mr. Bush has called on Moscow to renounce its forced annexation of Latvia and the other Baltic regions and has noted that defeating the Nazis did not lead to freedom for the Baltics. The president says he'll bring it up with Putin when they meet, which is sure to irritate the Russian leader."

Is this visit entirely to irritate and humiliate Putin? Didn't we already accomplish this in Bratislava Castle? What gives? Is this some post-Cold War hazing ritual?

"Earlier this week, Putin protested Mr. Bush?s decision to visit Latvia on his way to Moscow. Mr. Bush and Putin are scheduled to meet over dinner before Monday's ceremonies in Moscow marking the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany. Administration aides have been downplaying expectations for this session, saying the two leaders are meeting for just an hour Sunday night at Putin's dacha, followed by a social dinner with their wives. "

"Wallace gets quite a reaction from Putin by asking him about a recent change the Russian leader made. Says Wallace, 'There was a time when the regional governors were elected, correct? And all of the sudden, Putin says, 'No, no, no. I shall appoint the governors.' That's democracy? That's not democracy the way I understand it."

"'The principle of appointing regional leaders is not a sign of a lack of democracy,' Putin retorts.
'You're absolutely wrong. For instance, India is called the largest world democracy. But their governors have always been appointed by the central government and nobody disputes that India is not a democracy.' The Russian leader then points to what he believes are drawbacks to America's own brand of democracy, including the Electoral College system."

Oh, please. Do tell us, Pooty:

"'In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic,' says Putin."

Yeah, but, you know, in America opposition parties are given equal time, ya know? But The Poot is on a tear:

"'And you have other problems in your elections, ' he tells Wallace. 'Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court. The judicial system was brought into it. But we're not going to poke our noses into your democratic system because that's up to the American people.'"

Oh no he didn't.

"Putin also believes the U.S. democratic system does not travel well and that is precisely why he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. 'Democracy cannot be exported to some other place ...'"

Anyway: for the rest go here. And check out 60 Minutes Sunday.The full interview airs Sunday, May 8, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.