Speaking with the Associated Press before his departure for Russia; US President Barack Obama gave every impression that he intends to play Russia President Dmitry Medvedev off against Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. This is naive and very dangerous. Moreover, such an approach will not result in “resetting” Russia-US relations.
Either Obama believes he has already mastered Russian politics (assuming that is even possible among us who are hardcore Russia-watchers) or he is being given some very bad advice.
Irrespective of which, the US president never should have said the following in public:
“…Prime Minister Putin still has a lot of sway in Russia, and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated, that it's time to move forward in a different direction. I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new. And to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship, but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues - that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”
In Russia today, it is simply impossible to play Medvedev off against Putin. Both represent the same policy approaches, including foreign policies, but in different ways. As I have stated in the past, both are modernizers, with Medvedev taking more of a liberal trajectory and Putin more of a statist. At this point in time, both approaches need the other be to effective. Obama can in no way divide the two.
I still find it odd the western mainstream continues to see what they want to see in Medvedev and Putin. Medvedev is liked because he isn’t Putin. This has nothing to do with politics and policy – just simply misplaced perceptions that are only self-serving. (It needs to be remembered that a great deal of Medvedev’s popularity at home comes from the trust Putin has in him).
Additionally, no one in Russia’s political elite would ever think about “choosing” one member of the tandem over the other when it comes to foreign policy, and to please the leader of another country.
As far as where the tandem has its feet, I can only say they are on solid ground remembering the past and moving forward.
I certainly hope the upcoming summit will proceed better than Obama’s initial remarks would indicate. He needs better advice than he’s getting at the moment.
Show comments (10)US President Barack Obama will soon arrive in Moscow, marking his first visit to Russia while in office. However, in the days and weeks leading up to this occasion, with the aim of “resetting” Russia-US relations, there has been a concerted effort on a number of fronts to derail this enterprise. On the domestic front, some prominent Russian liberals have urged Obama not to engage closely with the Kremlin because of Russia’s claimed “values deficit.” On the foreign front, the issue of Georgia is again being used as a wedge to divide Moscow and Washington.
Since taking office, Obama has been provided with an enormous amount of advice on how to repair the Russia-US relationship, which was left on the barest of life-support by the Bush administration. The good news is that Obama appears willing to rebuild this bilateral relationship primarily on shared security interests. Indeed, until there is strong evidence to the contrary, it would seem Obama is embracing a realistic approach to foreign policy in general, and this includes Washington’s Russia foreign policy in particular. While I am cautiously optimistic that America will attempt to learn from its past foreign policy mistakes, there are those who demand that ideology, and the so-called “values agenda”, should remain paramount. In other words, it would seem that some believe there was nothing really wrong with Bush’s neocon agenda – it was good theory, but its implementation never reached expectations.
Many of Russia’s well-known liberals are not neocons, but they appear to suggest that the US should be party to solving Russia’s problems, as they understand their own country. In a Washington Post op-ed piece, “False Choices for Russia”, published on June 9 by Lev Gudkov, Igor Klyamkin, Georgy Satarov, and Lilia Shevtsov, we are told that “America has ignored the problems of democracy and civil society in Russia, but even turning a blind eye did not prevent the breakdown in the U.S.-Russian relationship -- and now Obama is essentially being asked to treat Russia as though it is incapable of democratic transformation.” Russia’s democracy project – with all its problems, successes, and challenges – is the sole affair of the Russian people. Now it is an obvious truism that, the more Washington meddles in the affairs of another, the more that state is seen as less than legitimate in the eyes of society and its liberals of all stripes.
The authors of “False Choices for Russia” continue the long and failed tradition of Russia’s liberal intelligentsia when looking to the West to remedy their country’s problems. I would advise Obama to ignore completely Russia’s liberals, up until the time Russian liberalism matures and accepts that it must work as a partner in Russian politics. To date, liberals in Russia only lecture and demean their own people, as well as criticize the current political elite without offering a coherent alternative. Russian voters have no interest in a liberal agenda and this is the reason Obama should have no interest in Russian liberals.
No one should be surprised that there are many liberal and neocon elements in the US and Russia who hope to influence Obama on how to engage Russia – after all, many make a living off supporting Washington’s policies and its various instruments of soft power. Truly improved relations Russia and the US would make them irrelevant and obviously redundant. This is where the foreign front comes to the fore – playing the Georgia card.
Washington’s “Georgia project” went into complete disarray when Mikhail Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia last August. It was supposed to be a quick war that would show the world “democratic Georgia”, after which America’s ally could continue the advance of western influence in the post-Soviet space at Russia’s expense. The result of that conflict was the emergence of two new states, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and there is nothing that will change this reality on the ground.
Today, things are very different. Saakashvili is fighting the political struggle of his life – he may not be made to flee his country, but it is clear he rules as a very unpopular leader. This state of affairs has not deterred many in the US and some in Russia from using Georgia a flashpoint to warn Obama that Russia cannot be truly a strategic partner of the US.
Saakashvili is no longer the showcase of the neocon agenda. But this does not matter – Georgia can be used in a different way. In the past few weeks, the message coming out of western media and governments is support for Georgia – which in Georgia is deemed no longer important. However, mainstream media rarely points out that Georgia’s opposition is really no different from Saakashvili when it comes to foreign policy, which of course is pro-American and anti-Russian. Thus, nothing has really changed – Georgia, with its erratic leadership and political elite, continues to be used to undermine a Russia-US rapprochement. How Georgia actually enhances American foreign policy interests are never really explained, particularly in reference to Russia.
It is my hope that Obama comes to Moscow like he did to Cairo – with an open mind. Moscow and Washington do have their differences, but the commonalities are even greater. Russia’s democracy project has a long way to go, but its course can only be determined by the Russian people and not by ideologically-driven Americans and self-denying Russian liberals. Georgia has become a failed state because of foreign meddling. Obama can turn a new page with Russia if he is determined to adhere to the value of mutual cooperation and leave the Georgians to figure out their own affairs among themselves in their geopolitical neighborhood.
03 July, 2009, 07:32
Peter,
Let's remain cautiously optimistic regarding the upcoming Medvedev-Obama summit.
Gene Hopkins,
SF, CA, USA
G
03 July, 2009, 04:57
I was going to refrain from commenting until I heard a quote from Pres. Obama today that just made my jaw drop. He said Putin should understand that the Cold War is outdated, and that Putin needs convincing that the US wants cooperation rather than an antagonistic relationship, and that he has one foot in the old way of doing business and one foot in the new. Wow. This is either the most hypocritical thing I have heard in the past 5 or 6 administrations, OR, Obama won first prize in the contest of, "Just Does Not Get It." Wow, where to begin and how to keep this short . . . How about, Mr. President, you could look at your own cabinet and consider replacing some of those old Cold War-horses. Maybe stuff a sock in Biden's mouth before he says something that sounds like it could have come from 1963. Or, how about, weed through your advisors and get rid of those C.F.R. guys who still want to dismantle Russia and sell the pieces to big capitalists. Or, um, cut back on funding those crazy "freedom fighters" in the North Caucasus. How about cancelling the contract for that missile installation planned for Poland (to protect against Iran, but "coincidentally" pointed toward the east?). THEN we can talk about whether or not Russia seems to have 'tude. OK?
02 July, 2009, 10:36
I'm afriad I agree with Astraea and Meslin on this one. America is clearly, clearly behind the Honduras coup, just look at the facts. I recommend Al-Jazeera as well as an alternative news source as well for those who want to see what role America has and is currently playing in Honduras.
02 July, 2009, 02:07
You are right Peter. Again. As always
It is painful to watch how much resources and even more lives are being wasted on and by politics of confrontation.
Wouldn't it be nice, if we could have a minimum of 1,000 years of global peace. Just think how much we could build, just think how far we could really go - all the way to the stars one hopes.
We have the dreams. So what or who is really stopping us?
Maybe those who are stopping us should pose themselves the old question: "How many Angels can dance on the tip of a needle?"
If they cannot answer that question then I bet they cannot even begin to know how much damage they are doing to humanity and its dreams and future.
JK
01 July, 2009, 21:04
Obama’s challenge is yet to be created - in Russia! This is the duty of the Russian host: to load only as much of expectancy to re-trigger Obama’s own creativity successfully expressed before entering White House.
Let the expansion face the resurrection. Otherwise all remains “just another brick in the wall”.
01 July, 2009, 20:25
Mr Lavelle.
It seems to me that like certain russian decisions'makers, you confuse wishfull thinking and realistic politics.
In Honduras, Iran, Georgia, Ukraine etc.american dirty tricks have not stopped. The AMD has not been scrapped and none of the 700 military and spy installations set-up all over the World (mostly around Russia) has not been closed.
Mr Obama' sincerity and willingness to change US global priorities need to be proved by actions not just by talks. So far nothing concret has been done, because, like his predecessors, Obama is a pawn
whose election costed 3 billions $. That is all ! Sincerely.
Jean-Claude Meslin
01 July, 2009, 17:19
Any country that looks to the west for guidance and help will end up exploited. No country should put too much faith in any foreign mentor because it will cost them.
Those in Russia that want the US to show them the way are not trustworthy. Only Russia can work out its own problems.
01 July, 2009, 09:17
Peter, this Obama person does not have a mind of his own and he is remarkable for being to say exactly what he does not mean! It is amazing.
01 July, 2009, 06:51
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Moscow and Washington have more commonalities than differences? Even the one thing I can think of that they truly have in common, which is to end terrorism, their approaches are very different, with Russia preferring regional solutions to America's unilateral cowboy antics.
Soon it will be a year since the South Ossetian conflict. To remind all of us of this tragic event there are a number of opportunists hoping to ignite another “media war” like the one that ensued after Saakashvili’s reckless adventurism. One such person is Svante Cornell of Johns Hopkins University and co-editor of the recently released “The Guns of August 2009: Russia’s War in Georgia.”
After having a look at the list of contributors to this book, I strongly suggest you avoid this tome. There is nothing new in it: just the same old prejudices and ideologically-driven affection for the “Mugabe of the Caucasus.” However, I do suggest you read Cornell’s ‘please buy book’ article “Russia shuts out the international community” printed by the Daily Telegraph. It is a wonderful example of how the neocon agenda never dies and never fades away.
I think Cornell should have been a poet or a fiction writer. In the first paragraph he exhorts us to be aware of evil in the world, and the greatest evil is of course Russia. This week Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution extending the 16-year-old UN mission monitoring Abkhazia. Russia’s veto was correct in every way. The resolution simply did not reflect new realities – Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi. These two new countries will never again be menaced by the descendents of Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
Cornell then goes on to repeat falsehoods at the start of the second paragraph – “Last August, Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed two of its provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” This sentence alone is the best reason to avoid Cornell’s book. This sentence is the premise on which the entire article is based, and thus invalidates the entire article (and book I would assume).
Allow me to rewrite Cornell’s sentence: “Last August, Saakashvili launched a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia which targeted civilians – primarily women and children – and recognized peacekeepers. Later, and because of Tbilisi’s aggression, Russia with great reluctance recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.” I have to assume that Cornell either lives under a rock or is willfully ignorant. Saakashvili has already publicly admitted he started the war. On top of this, leaks from an upcoming EU-related report support Saakashvili’s admission. What other evidence is needed for Cornell and his cabal of “blame Russia first” supporters to accept that the American-supported, -funded, and -trained Saakashvili regime is in the wrong?
I would comment on the rest of the Daily Telegraph article, but it is the same bluster and closed-mindedness we have heard and read in western mainstream media and from ideological diehards when it comes to Georgia’s so-called “western orientation.” Cornell and his ilk simply cannot admit that Washington’s Georgia project failed – thankfully it did and will continue to.
But I am not finished. There is something I think we all need to remember when reflecting on a conflict that should never have happened. People like Cornell like to think big and feel big, but what about the issue that really matters? He appears to have no interest in the fate and trials of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians. However, this is what the August conflict was all about – the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia was willing to live with the status quo before the aggression. Later, that stance changed. To avoid more ethnic cleansing of people who wanted to be free of Tbilisi, Russia agreed to their recognition as independent states for humanitarian reasons.
Please give the following a thought: South Ossetia and Abkhazia have since the early 90s wanted to be free of Tbilisi’s influence - neither wanted to be part of Georgia (let alone NATO). South Ossetia and Abkhazia have, since the end of the Soviet Union, looked to Russia for assistance and security from intensely hostile Georgian nationalism. But then again, that tragic story doesn’t fit into Cornell’s ideologically-driven narrative. That narrative avoids considering the hopes of oppressed people.
The neocon project is only about geopolitical ambitions - everything and everyone must conform to this thesis in advance. Any evidence that denies this thesis is discarded and so should Cornell’s book.
30 June, 2009, 14:47
I am sure FakesNews and the Counterfeit News Network are trying to drive us into the US bank dictators arms, luckily wih a good news outlet like RT, people can avoid the pull. Bad policies of warcrimes, torture and rape, I suppose good ones in relative terms are beatings and Gitmo concentration camps and worst ones are yet to be defined and implemented, we wait in dreadful anticipation! Sorry about the rape and torture, just bad ploicy, nothing I could do about it!
30 June, 2009, 14:28
During the abovementioned conflict we; like many others watched the developments daily, one observation that I would like to have an answer to is the fact that whenever Shakasvili was interviewed in his office he always had the idiotic EU flag to the left of him; now we know that Georgia is not a member of that unholy alliancen so why did he surround himself with those colours, surely the EU did not prompt him into fighting Russia or did they encourage him; would like to know
29 June, 2009, 19:04
Pauline,
As people, we can critique the actions of any country. You can critique American policies and Russian policies. Just because the US has embarked on bad policies, shouldn't lead us into the arms of foreign dictators for the sake a "multipolar world." The world is multipolar anyway., it doesn't need to be sold to use by this website, which is the Russian equivalent of FOX News.
29 June, 2009, 12:31
Haha, lolo, you made me laugh. South Ossetia never existed as entity before the Russians occupied Georgia in 1921. The majority of the population in Tskhinvali by that time were Georgians... etc. etc. Moreover, according to the Soviet Constitution Abkhazia and S.Ossetia are integral parts of Georgia.
29 June, 2009, 07:28
What's the difference between Chechnya and South Ossetia?
Well, Russia did not decide one day that O, let's go shoot the Chechens while they're sleeping. This is what Georgia did, the people in Tskhinval were sleeping when Georgia just opened fire on them. Secondly, South Ossetia has never been part of Georgia, never. When Georgia declared independence from the Soviets, S Ossetia and Abkhazia tried to do the same, but Georgia wouldn't let them. And in contrast, Chechnya was part of the Soviet Union so Russia, as the heir to the USSR, has the legal right to fight for Chechnya. And if you listen to the president of Chechnya, Mr Kadyrov, he says very clearly that many of these 'freedom fighters' in Chechnya are foreigners: Georgians, Azeris, British, Americans.
28 June, 2009, 15:14
@johnx, thanks for the info. I found an article about Rothschild and Khodorkovsky but it was by that guy who denies the Holocaust. However, he seems to have quoted a Washington Times article, so I'll stay open minded for now. If Rothschild really had his fingers in the Yukos pie, then I don't wonder why the Russian gov't shut down that operation so fast. AND why the western press is still fulminating about Putin. He pinched a lot of wallets in the west.
28 June, 2009, 00:37
Guistino,
What is the solution? As in ALL historic conflicts, compromise is the solution...Constantine, for instance, changed, and accepted Christianity, but a modified form. In my opinion, now Social Democracy is the answer...a synthesis between the extreme left and right that began back during World War I might work! The current economic crisis certainly shows that US Republican Party style unregulated capitalism is NOT the answer. Furthermore, you cannot have a global economic base and some Roman Empire superstructure...there MUST be a multi-polar world and a multi-power superstructure...and I say that as someone who loves my country, my own home, my own relatives, and I want justice, peace and prosperity. And by the way, get over your pontifical churchy attitude about the Soviet Union...they made some mistakes, but so have we, the USA! I grew up under APARTIED in the USA, called Jim Crow, and if you think people can be invaded for such things, or endlessly ordered about, then we sure as heck deserved to be invaded back then. This arrogant attitude as if the USA never did anything wrong is sickening to me, because my grandpa fought agianst slavery in the Union Army and I fought during the US Civil Rights movement! Don't tell me the USA is la la land, we have our problems!
26 June, 2009, 13:59
@MEJanssen
Sorry MEJanssen I posted the link to the Rothschild/Khodorkovsky article but RT didn’t post it.
Google focal point khodorkovsky and it is the forth result down.
@giustino
Good points as well as the issue of Chechen independence which is interlinked with Soviet and post soviet era organised crime, the oligarchs, western oil and gas control as describe in Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard and geo-politics which I will comment on latter.
26 June, 2009, 09:13
@ lolo. What has your current president done to solve problems between Russia and the U.S.? I admit MYpresident hasnt done much because he has to solve many problems and is judged by the whole world for trying to solve its problems. Its true he hasnt spoken much of Russia because he needs to stop America from bleeding. I am pretty sure YOUR president hasnt said much either. And Thank You! Look we can keep going on like this but something needs to be done between these two great countries. Agree?
26 June, 2009, 07:07
@ LB9806. Will you please mention 1 thing, just 1 thing, that YOUR president has DONE, that shows CHANGE towards Russia? Please do not mention the speeches, I'm looking for actual deeds, like stopping AMDs in Eastern Europe, stopping NATO expansion into post-soviet space, lifting sanctions against Iran, imposing sanctions against Israel for the illegal occupation and wars against Palestinians, etc. Thank you.
26 June, 2009, 07:01
Here are some questions: How were Georgian actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia different from Russian actions in Chechnya in the early 1990s? Why are South Ossetians and Abkhazians worthy of independence and Chechens are not? And, finally, why has only Nicaragua recognized the independence of these two places?
Discuss.
26 June, 2009, 06:55
John,
I don't believe there is a way in which the Russian people could remove Putin from power peacefully. Actually, I am unsure of what the remaining levers of influence the Russian people have over him or Medvedev are. Opinion polls?
Since I live on the border with Russia, I would like to go to sleep at night knowing that if, God forbid, something happens to Superman, he has a legitimate successor in place to take over. But I am not convinced that once Putin is gone, Russia won't descend into the same anarchic infighting that accompanies most changes of power. And, as a diplomat recently said, we should be afraid of Russia when it is strong, but even more afraid of Russia when it is weak.
If Putin truly was a patriot, he would have left public office last year. By perpetuating his seemingly unending rule, he only sets up Russia for an eventual leadership crisis. The only argument for Putin to remain in power is that he is somehow smarter or stronger or a better strategic thinker than all other 140 million Russians. Which does harken back to the days of Communist leadership, if you think about it. I have no respect for this line of thinking. I don't do cult of personality.
26 June, 2009, 02:53
To Peter, even if CNN or FOX start a "media war" no one in the U.S. would pay attention because no media reaports about international subjects. Come to the U.S. I invite you to my house and you will see no one cares! We Americans are too busy with our lives! Accuse the Americans for "raping and torturing" but I did no such thing! Yes the U.S. isn't perfect it has many flaws towards its people and towards the world but hopefully with MY president things will change for the better and if not then hopefully in the future, but things will not get any better if Russians and Americans dont forget the past! Leave the past behind and look at the future, Our future.
25 June, 2009, 18:33
@MEJanssen
First Russian International Corporate Philanthropic Foundation (of Khodorkovsky and Rothschild): "I am launching the Foundation [First Russian International Corporate Philanthropic Foundation] in London to highlight the international nature of the Foundation's aims and to create an infrastructure from which the next generation of Russia's leaders will emerge."
There was also an article somewhere that mentioned that the Rothschild/Khodorkovsky Yukos oil company avoided paying taxes during the 90’s through there Menatep bank to an off shore bank account in the Isle of Man in Britain.
@LorenzoGhilardi
Abkhazia and South Ossetia didn’t claim independence straight after the break up of the USSR.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia were incorporated into Georgia under Stalin and given autonomous status with in Georgia.
With the break-up of the USSR the post Georgian ultra-nationalist president abolished there autonomous status and regional representation to bring it under central control of Georgia by sending in troops to occupy the regions sparking civil war. It was only when Abkhazian and Ossetian forces drove them out did them claim independence.
Putin said in an unpublished interview with a German reporter that he recognised the post USSR agreement that Crimea belongs to Ukraine so it is not an issue.
25 June, 2009, 17:15
To understand what is happening to Russia you need to know what happened to the Serbs in Yugoslavia which I think is the model they are using against Russia even MPRI troops were discovered training Georgian forces in sabotage techniques.
Thankfully clever Serbs and there expat community overseas (which Russia does not have) have created a series of website with full info and evidence chronicling the use of NGO’s, foreign intelligence, media, PR and lobbyist groups, terrorism, organised crime, etc
@Dirk Diggler
I'll clear up the confusion for you Russia is the big country Georgia is the small one you know the country that has the largest international terrorist base in the world were the militants transferred there operations to the Panski Gorge in 2003 right under the US nose which I’m sure they had no involvement with.
25 June, 2009, 15:22
LOL Count Cash, thanks for my laugh this morning. Progress is wonderful! @johnx, I knew Khordokovsky was up to something smelly, but I didn't know the Rothschilds were behind him. Got another link for that? I'm up for some reading. Thx.
25 June, 2009, 15:00
Thank you for the facts John X and Pauline. Giustino, please stop watching CNN, they do not report the news from both sides, only the side that suits greedy Wall Street capitalists. Pauline: you forgot to add that most of those jailed are black and brown people, who are a huge minority in the States. And I should add that the former Soviet states see America and the EU as a cash cow. Compare that to the ties they have with Russia, which are based on family, history, language and culture, a far more lasting bond than one based on dollars.
25 June, 2009, 09:33
giustino you funny!
Ha Ha Ha!
Live in Ukraine with no heat and gas all the time. We Europe are so you want to say when it helps you.
24 June, 2009, 19:53
The thing is that the collapse of USSR took place too quickly and left many unsorted issues. Many boundaries should be re-drawn. South Ossetians and Abkhazians declared themselves independent soon after the disgregation, therefore Georgia did have no right to claim those countries. Crimea should follow the same path and return back to Russia, every land or cities like Narva where the vast majority of population is Russian should passed over to Russia. That's the only means to avoid future tensions between states. The only alternative in order to get future stability would be the ethnic cleansing of Russians inside those countries, which would mean a second Holocaust. I know any revisionism would be very dangerous if not managed by the international community without bias against Russia or its neighbors, but as long as those problems are not sorted, there will be always tension between them.
Russia in pictures
03 July, 2009, 18:27
In any serious conversation, if and as long one side keeps on following the "divide and conquer strategy" there can be no meaningful deal.
In fact Bush followed this strategy from the outset. Why should Obama continue with that if he wishes to improve the world we live in?
Each side should, to the best of its ability, examine its true motives prior to sitting down at the table, instead of just simply following its own selfish interests.
JK
03 July, 2009, 17:10
Ha ha I must say it made me laugh when I heard what Mr. Obama said. Mr. Obama obviously expects from Mr. Medvedev to behave like himself - to be a puppet who does not use his own head. But what Mr. Obambi's advisers didn't know is that Russia is a serious country having serious people (both President and Prime minister) leading it in serious times. What a poor move of a desperate USA! If they didn't manage to think something better they better don't come to Russia.
03 July, 2009, 15:43
@Ikenna Aduaka, I fear your comment about our president is correct. The American political "machine" selects the candidates, and nobody will be elected without a majority of their advisors coming from the "machine". I will look at whoever is near Obama's elbow when he arrives in Moscow. Those people will be involved in writing Obama's "talking points".
I still have hope that Obama will make some observations of his own and use his own words. Maybe by next year's Congressional elections, he will have decided which of his advisors to keep and which to "retire". That sometimes happens during a president's first term. Meanwhile, he has to be careful what he says and not stray too far from the party line. After all, we killed a president years ago for saying the wrong things.
03 July, 2009, 13:40
I think Obama is intimidated by Putin. Most world leaders are.
When does Obama start to show the "change we can believe in?"
03 July, 2009, 10:49
When ew talk about some leader being a Puppet, I can categorically say that Obama is simply a Puppet. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, I will give him or her facts.
Obama really dissapointed me. Putin is the greatest leader of our time, every country wants to have a Putin. It is a pity that Obama cannot be "American Putin"
03 July, 2009, 10:48
…just another brick in the wall…
He is not capable to grow.
03 July, 2009, 10:24
As time passes, slowly, Obama takes off his mask, revealing his real face. How democratic his comments really are ? What are his intentions ? He behaves very strange. I can't get it ...
03 July, 2009, 10:21
Mr Putin scare americans leaders, because they know that they cannot manipulate him.
Mr Medvedev, coming from the russian business communauty could be easely to manage. The two russian leaders must stick together, beware of the many US dirty tricks and speak firmly and frankly to Earth.
Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin
03 July, 2009, 10:21
It seems his advisors want to make an internal strife so they could create a situation like in Ukraine. Seems to me that was cheap attempt, as to make from mr. Medvedev another Juščenko-type puppet. To me hes no way an opportunist as neo´s would want to see him, thinking he´s inexperienced and able to be manipulated. Obama should get an answer that he has no right to do anything with any other country´s internal affairs, and in turn Russsia needs to press them instead of being always on the defensive. Defensive means they can lie about you and you trying to prove it is lies, while their dark side remains unattended to and spreading its power over the minds of simple people.
03 July, 2009, 10:10
I was just as shocked as you Peter, I wanted to hide! Obama says he has a very good relationship with Medvedev, is he aware that with 1 word from Putin, Medvedev will never speak to him again? Obama does not need new advisors, he needs to be a leader.