This "Putin Isolated" Nonsense Is Dangerous
These headlines are silly:
- India Times - Barack Obama says Russia will remain isolated if it continues to destabilise Ukraine
- Yahoo - Cameron warns Russia of isolation, further sanctions over Ukraine
- LA Times - Putin faces isolation at G-20 conference
- NY Times - Putin Gets a Cool Reception From G-20
- Vice - World Leaders Snub Putin at G20, Exile Him to 'Social Siberia'
- Reuters - G20 commits to higher growth, fight climate change; Russia isolated over Ukraine
- Guardian - Isolated Putin leaves G20 summit
Even more silly then those headlines was the German prime news Tagesschau which used a picture of Putin seemingly sitting alone at a lunch table to prove his "isolation". But news service pictures show that he is sitting with the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff waiting for the other lunch guests to sit down next to them. These were simply not visible in the frame Tagesschau selectively used.
And do these headline writers, TV correspondents and politicians know what the 20 in G-20 means? The people who publicly miffed Putin in Brisbane were Obama, Cameron, Harper, Abbott and Abe. I count five out of twenty.
Those leaders who did not "isolate" Putin by grandstanding in front of the media were from Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea and Turkey. Many of the leaders of those countries had one on one talks with Putin. Merkel alone had a three hour talk with Putin. Did that make him feel lonely?
Fact is Putin is about as isolated as the Pope.
Fact is also that those "world leaders" who "isolated" Putin represent a minority of people, military and economic power of the world. As Putin himself correctly pointed out before the G-20 meeting:
Incidentally, the combined GDP of the BRICS countries calculated using purchasing power parity is already bigger than that of the so-called G7 countries. As far as I know, the BRICS countries have more than $37 trillion calculated using purchasing power parity, while the G7 has $34.5 trillion. And this upwards trend is in favour of the BRICS, not vice versa.
Now all this silly isolation talk would be funny if the people in power would recognize it for the bullshit it is. Unfortunately a lot of stupid people in Washington DC, politicians as well as media folks, believe in their own propaganda bullshit and therefore tend to miscalculate in their assessments of global policies. This is dangerous as it often has bloody consequences.
Posted by b on November 16, 2014 at 17:12 UTC | Permalink
« previous page@coldn @85
LOL was that supposed to be ironic or something ? ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa..I do enjoy watching you flail around in here, responding to 20 or 30 comments as if your on some kind of important mission or something - when in fact no one but the people dumping on you will ever see it. Your kind is so reliably proud of being wrong. Please don't stop making me laugh, I do so enjoy it.
Posted by: nomas | Nov 19 2014 3:03 utc | 102
@ somebody #99
I believe that in their 3-hour "debate" Putin told Merkel how it is. Russia will be protecting its interests in Ukraine, also looking East, and despite extensive economic ties with Germany, Merkel could go fish if she didn't like it. A major shift by Russia to the East, where the growth is, and the markets for its energy resources.
So Merkel (nobody quotes Putin) then painted it as her reading the riot act to Putin, who "came up empty-handed." Actually Putin is the winner.
What say you?
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 18, 2014 10:03:58 PM | 103
I am not sure Merkel realised she would get quoted that way. I watched her talk (it was painful, but I wanted to find out what she had actually said) . which was a lecture really - and the media (German media, too) - condensed the hawkish stuff - from what feels like hours of talk on the interpendence of the universe. Part of the quoted stuff seems to have come from the Q and A where she seems to have become rare personal. (From a certain point onwards I could no longer bear to watch it). Possibly she felt relaxed and safe from hometurf politics in Australia. She has said nothing since her return but her Social Democrat coalition partners are on a decided push to out-peace and out-business-friendly her since her Australian remarks.
I believe that in their 3-hour "debate" Putin told Merkel how it is. Russia will be protecting its interests in Ukraine, also looking East, and despite extensive economic ties with Germany, Merkel could go fish if she didn't like it. A major shift by Russia to the East, where the growth is, and the markets for its energy resources.
Concerning the talk with Putin, no, you cannot fill 3 hours talk with that. They must have gone through all the Eastern European files and all the Russian European economic projects. EU Junker joined the talk and continued it without her. They will have to find some mechanisms with the Eurasian Union.
I guess, Angela Merkel's frustration comes from the fact, that Putin does not want the sanctions withdrawn. She is under a lot of pressure at home from business. She needs a face saving way out from the sanctions. Putin did not give that to her. He uses the present patriotic fervor (and the evil West) to push through this type of economic reform.
Posted by: somebody | Nov 19 2014 4:09 utc | 104
Nice summary - in German - of the business pressure on Angela Merkel
Die Manager sähen von der deutschen Kanzlerin gern mehr diplomatischen Einsatz als die regelmäßigen Telefonate mit Putin. Aber vor einer Reise nach Moskau schreckt Merkel zurück: Wie sähe es aus, wenn sie mit leeren Händen von dort zurückkehrt? Sie nutzt lieber internationale Termine für die Kontakte, den Europa-Asien-Gipfel vor einem Monat in Mailand oder jetzt das G-20-Treffen in Brisbane. Merkel findet ohnehin, dass sie angesichts der internationalen Lage noch eine moderate Position vertritt. Am Montag beraten die EU-Außenminister über eine Verschärfung der Sanktionen. Zusätzliche Maßnahmen hat die deutsche Kanzlerin im Vorfeld ausgeschlossen, lediglich die Liste der im Westen unerwünschten Personen könne um einige Namen verlängert werden. Trotz der Kriegsschiffe vor der australischen Küste – und der neuen Konfrontation im Osten der Ukraine.
Brief translation: The managers would like more diplomatic engagement from the German chancellor than just phone calls with Putin. But Merkel does not want to travel to Moscow: What would it look like would she come back home empty handed? She prefers international meetings for contacts like the Europe Asian conference or now the G20 ....
Posted by: somebody | Nov 19 2014 4:25 utc | 105
to nomas @ 34 --
Never mind the bollocks, it's the MSM! I always leaned more towards new wave, Talking Heads, e.g., but the Pistols were a great act (and an OK band). And you can't beat Ramones. They did a lot of cool stuff, 60's covers, "Bonzo goes to Bitburg."
Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 19 2014 5:31 utc | 106
@somebody, 104:
He uses the present patriotic fervor (and the evil West) to push through this type of economic reform.
Well, why not get some overdue housecleaning done under the circumstances, with the evil West even being so good as to provide both the demand and the necessity? As a socialist I may have my issues with Putin but one thing I don't underrate is his intelligence. It's downright amusing to see him outplay Western leaders time after time, whether it be turning the squeeze of their sanctions into the energy for an anti-corruption campaign, or more long-game economic moves such as pulling the rug out from under the dollar.
Posted by: Vintage Red | Nov 19 2014 7:00 utc | 107
In your face propaganda.
(I have to write this up while I remember it. It is not really OT as it relates to the Putin-isolated theme and b’s subsequent post on the execution video.)
France Culture radio is Gvmt. owned and serious, even "highbrow."
News. 12.00. Four topics on France. Intern hours (OK), gay marriage (divisive issue), a building in Paris, what to do with returning djihadists, which last took up the most time. It was mentioned that their families might be punished financially. Djihadists could never return to their homes because they might ‘recruit other people.’ Overall, Hollande was mentioned once, Sarkozy 15 times.
Foreign news: Burkina Faso (OK?), the child intifada - a new invention! Within this topic they played a clip of an Arab woman, mother of an imprisoned child, who spoke in Arabic with a very harsh, loud voice. The voice-over translation was reluctant and soft. ‘The Jews’ came back again and again. Next, the murder of two Jews in a synagogue, with axes, knives and swords, and Palestinian perpetrators. On to the meat: Putin, who was mentioned 17 times in a derogatory way. Autocratic, unpredictable, corrompu (corrupted), etc. The invited commentator, a EU official who spoke perfect French (I think he was Dutch) was questioned on Putin only. He mentioned 3! times (very unusual, the comment is short and is not supposed to repeat itself, but he was asked, so he repeated) that “Europe has deprived itself of its military option so there is nothing it can do” !!
After the news (still in lunch hour) a segment about music which was excellent. Onto an interview of an American woman, author of a book about authority, powerful men, and father-son relationships. The only examples mentioned were .. hold your hats.. Osama bin Laden (who did not grow up with his father really) ..M. Atta (about his father she can’t have known anything - Atta was a Mama’s boy btw), and tangentially, George W. Bush.
People listen to radio news distractedy, while driving, working, eating, taking a smoke break. They don’t listen closely unless the topic concerns them personally, e.g. intern hours. Which the producers know, which is why they hammer hard.
Unadulterated, outrageous, over-the-top anti-Putin and anti-muslim. Anglo - Zionist if you like.
France has gone off the rails completely. This is now quasi-official, or at least blatant; the public are noticing.
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 19 2014 16:00 utc | 108
The style of this British BBC Peskow interview is sublime fun. They made it look and sound like a spy thriller.
The content is good.
Posted by: somebody | Nov 19 2014 18:02 utc | 109
Good piece on the fascist nature of the Kiev regime:
Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh
NATO Releases Imagery: Raises Questions on Russia’s Role in Providing Tanks to Ukraine
Posted by: NeBzdi | Nov 19 2014 21:42 utc | 111
The C1ueless Terrorist said: or even that the Monroe Doctrine states...
You really are dense. The Monroe Doctrine was, and is, not a static, unevolving proposition like you. It was, and is, interpreted and practiced in a myriad of forms. Think of it more like taffy than a metal rod. Teddy Roosevelt's corollary to it is just one example of its malleability whereas Wilson's moralist and constitutionalist pacification campaign under its auspices was yet another interpretation and practice of the Monroe Doctrine. Regardless of the specifics you have provided related to the occupation of Veracruz, Woodrow Wilson's general motivation for intervening in the Mexican Revolution and occupying Veracruz was his particular interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The fact that he largely failed in Mexico is beside the point. Despite various Presidents' unique interpretations, the binding glue that justified America's meddling in Latin American affairs has always been the Monroe Doctrine regardless of the original wording of the Doctrine or the historical context in which the Doctrine was formulated.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Nov 19 2014 22:22 utc | 112
The troll said: " The Monroe Doctrine was, and is, not a static, unevolving proposition like you. It was, and is, interpreted and practiced in a myriad of forms. "
So if a doctrine doesn't actually stand for anything, is it still a doctrine? Or is it simply a transparent excuse for acting as an empire?
Some who understand, understand the difference.
Equine posterior visioneers, however, prefer to make up excuses.
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2014 22:44 utc | 113
MH17 truth coming out
and yes, it implicates Ukraine, too
Posted by: somebody | Nov 20 2014 9:30 utc | 115
Great. EU tries to blackmail Serbia into sanctioning Russia.
Something has got to give. Ms. Merkel should stop talking about the nice, uncoercive EU.
Posted by: somebody | Nov 20 2014 10:48 utc | 116
Dutch government refuses to reveal ‘secret deal’ into MH17 crash probe
http://rt.com/news/207243-netherlands-mh17-investigation-documents/
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 20 2014 15:09 utc | 117
What is going on?
1) Russia and Saudi Arabia: $200 Billion Dreaming
Though cooler heads might be tempted to dismiss the preceding as fantasy, it is apparently a fantasy shared by more than one. An op-ed by Al-Sirr Sayyid Ahmad on 4 September in the Saudi-owned, London-based Arabic daily “Al-Sharq al-Awsat” also touted an investment-fueled Saudi-Russian push for bipolarity. After informing readers that “the volume of trade between Russia and the Arab world was $5.5 billion last year, although it reached $55 billion in the years before the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Ahmad boldly stated: “Russia can provide investment opportunities for the private Saudi funds that are still wandering the world's capitals in search of investment opportunities. Russia is tempting because of the unwelcoming, or even hostile, atmosphere for Saudi money in Western capitals.... Broadening the base of economic cooperation can give added impetus to cooperation in the political sphere in order to confront Washington's dubious intent to exploit its status as sole superpower to redraw the map of the Middle East.”2. Pakistan and Russia sign military deal
Posted by: somebody | Nov 20 2014 20:41 utc | 118
So if a doctrine doesn't actually stand for anything, is it still a doctrine? Or is it simply a transparent excuse for acting as an empire?
The same can be said for many things. Take the U.S. Constitution as another example, or any Constitution for that matter. But that's a separate issue. Treaties too — more often than not they're broken, ignored or forgotten, but they look good on paper when they're drawn up and agreed upon.
Grow up, Faran, and admit my explanation was the more cogent and comprehensive one. You don't know everything so quit pretending you do.
Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Nov 21 2014 16:01 utc | 119
The troll says: "The same can be said for many things. Take the U.S. Constitution as another example, or any Constitution for that matter. But that's a separate issue. Treaties too — more often than not they're broken, ignored or forgotten, but they look good on paper when they're drawn up and agreed upon."
Now you're trying to say that the meaning of the Constitution is completely not doctrinal, but adapts to the times.
The problem is, again, equine posterior visioneer has failed to note that changes to the Constitution are made via written amendments.
The actual base Constitution and Bill of Rights has not been changed - only terms clarified or subjects not mentioned, added.
As for treaties: when a treaty is broken, the treaty no longer is valid.
Somehow, to the equine posterior visioneer - a doctrine is still perfectly valid when the action being undertaken in its name bears no resemblence whatsoever to the original doctrine.
Yet somehow the troll still purports to think he/she/it is knowledgeable.
A perfect example of Dunning Krueger in action.
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 22 2014 15:24 utc | 120
The comments to this entry are closed.
The troll quoted: " 5. The Monroe Doctrine in Practice: 20th Century
Continued Interventions
Though subsequent presidents spoke much less bluntly than Theodore Roosevelt had, the United States continued to intervene regularly in Latin America through the 1920s, and the Monroe Doctrine remained popular.
President Woodrow Wilson often articulated a moralistic program toward Latin America, renouncing conquest and expressing much concern over its economic progress. But he also projected a strong sense of superiority and intervened frequently in the affairs of Mexico when the people of that nation overthrew Porfirio Diaz, its long-time dictator in 1910. Wilson refused to accept Mexico’s new leader, Victoriano Huerta, and he occupied Vera Cruz when Huerta refused to apologize for arresting sailors from the United States who had gone ashore in Mexico. Substantial numbers of troops from the United States were soon deep in Mexico chasing Pancho Villa, a revolutionary leader whose raids sometimes crossed into the United States. Mexico must “take help if needed,” Wilson explained. Much of the public of the United States, troubled by the Mexican Revolution’s anti-clericalism and nationalization of foreign-owned businesses, agreed."
Pity that this so-called proof makes no mention whatsoever of the British need for Mexican oil, or of the German ship with ammunition heading for Veracruz, or even that the Monroe Doctrine states: "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."
and later on states: "It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference."
Once again, the supposedly learned troll instead demonstrates equine posterior vision.
But nice try. Next time, maybe you should actually read the Doctrine in question, as opposed to kindergarten textbooks or propaganda manuals.
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2014 2:51 utc | 101