New York Times Still Clueless About Putin

20120302_russia_getty_slideshow

Between John Kerry babbling that this isn’t the 19th century anymore and the New York Times clinging to the popular leftist thesis that Putin was just angry at us, it’s time to ask whether anyone on the left should ever be allowed to discuss foreign policy again.

One prominent member of the council, Valentina I. Matviyenko, chairwoman of the upper house of Parliament, emerged from the meeting declaring that it was impossible that Russia would invade Crimea, yet a couple of days later Russian troops were streaming into the peninsula.

When Mr. Putin made his first public remarks on the crisis on Tuesday, he said that Russia would not support Crimea’s efforts to secede. On Friday, the Kremlin allowed a mass pro-secession rally in Red Square while senior lawmakers loyal to Mr. Putin welcomed a delegation from Crimea and pledged support to make it a new province of the Russian Federation.

An informed commentator on Russian politics would conclude rightly that this was misdirection. And the New York Times actually used to have those. But not anymore.

So the New York Times instead “logically” concludes that Putin just threw together an invasion.

An examination of the seismic events that set off the most threatening East-West confrontation since the Cold War era, based on Mr. Putin’s public remarks and interviews with officials, diplomats and analysts here, suggests that the Kremlin’s strategy emerged haphazardly, even misleadingly, over a tense and momentous week, as an emotional Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe.

So yes, it’s America’s fault. When in doubt the left reverts to what it knows. To the only thing it knows. America Bad.

The decision to invade Crimea, the officials and analysts said, was made not by the national security council but in secret among a smaller and shrinking circle of Mr. Putin’s closest and most trusted aides. The group excluded senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the cadre of comparatively liberal advisers who might have foreseen the economic impact and potential consequences of American and European sanctions.

“It seems the whole logic here is almost entirely the product of one particular mind,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian analyst and editor of the quarterly journal Russia in Global Affairs.

It’s like the New York Times is unfamiliar with how authoritarian countries work.

Some of Russia’s plans were clearly years in the making, including one to sever Crimea from Ukraine through Moscow’s political support for sovereignty and even reunification. Nevertheless, Mr. Putin’s strategy in the last two weeks has appeared ad hoc, influenced by events not always in his control.

So this was a policy years in the making… that Putin suddenly threw together because he was angry at America. Go home New York Times, you’re drunk.

Because of Mr. Putin’s centralized authority, Russia’s policies and actions in moments of crisis can appear confused or hesitant until Mr. Putin himself decides on a course of action.

That’s how Russia has always worked. It doesn’t mean that its actions are ad hoc, but that it’s authoritarian.

The group, the officials and analysts said, included Sergei B. Ivanov, Mr. Putin’s chief of staff; Nikolai P. Patrushev, the secretary of the security council; and Aleksandr V. Bortnikov, the director of the Federal Security Service. All are veterans of the K.G.B., specifically colleagues of Mr. Putin’s when he served in the organization in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, during the 1970s and ’80s.

The New York Times is trying to pretend that this is a new phenomenon, but this is how the country was always run under Putin. It’s been a KGB organized crime ring.

It’s not random and it’s not improvisation except to the extent that every military operation is. There was doubtless a plan on the table for such an eventuality that is now being carried out. It’s not even inconceivable that Putin engineered Yanukovich’s collapse, which is probably more plausible than the conspiracy theories about the EU, an organization that couldn’t catch a mackerel with an aircraft carrier, for exactly this outcome.

  • A Z

    Gnaeus Julius Agricola defeated the Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Agricola could have made Scotland a Roman province. Three reasons are given for the Romans leaving. First, it would have cost more to administer Scotland than any tax revenue generated. Second, Emperor Domitian need additional troops in the Rhine frontier due to disturbances there. Third, Domitian like many Emperors was jealous of overly popular generals. This last point is as true today as it was in history.

    So I reject the insipid, craven nabobs of the NYT nattering about Putin does not know what is going on in the Russian foreign policy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Julius_Agricola

    • A Z

      “Agricola was recalled from Britain in 85, after an unusually long tenure as governor. Tacitus claims Domitian ordered his recall because Agricola’s successes outshone the Emperor’s own modest victories in Germany. The relationship between Agricola and the Emperor is unclear; on the one hand, Agricola was awarded triumphal decorations and a statue (the highest military honours apart from an actual triumph); on the other, Agricola never again held a civil or military post, in spite of his experience and renown. He was offered the governorship of the province of Africa, but declined it, whether due to ill health or (as Tacitus claims) the machinations of Domitian.” – wiki

      Domitian is generally regarded as a good emperor in the 1st half of his tenure. In the last half of his tenure he was cranky & suspicious.

      Putin is KGB. He is not suspicious and would not put the kebosh on someone enacting their own foreign policy?

      Puh-leeeeease, NYT you ask too much.

      • truebearing

        It’s getting harder and harder for them to get one lie to jive with another. They are doing their best to splice bad ideas and lies together to appear consistent and knowledgable.

        Maybe Daniel is right. Maybe they’re all drunk. They can’t be feeling to good with their circulation shrinking faster than the snow today. It’s 58 degrees here. We’re delerious. We also have the flu, which may have something to do with the delerium, but at least it’s warming up finally. Thank God for global warming!

  • DB1954

    Another fine example of Zero’s post-modernist (read: lobotomized) foreign policies.

  • Gamal

    The Russian Parliament authorized Putin to invade not only Crimea but all of the Ukraine. The New York Times argument that it was just Putin shows blatant ignorance or worse. The Russian invasion was very well done. Not a shot was fired. You can’t pull something like that off unless you plan very carefully. Most countries couldn’t pull that off no matter how well they planned. Part of the reason Russia could do that is that while Obama has been fighting global warming and the Tea Party while cutting money to our military, Russia has been building up its military.

  • Napier

    “a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe”
    Agreed, this is nonsensical. Putin is a totalitarian and has expansionist plans. It’s not the West’s fault.

    However, the possibility that the invasion of Crimea is an attempt to retain at least influence on some territory on the Black Sea before the Ukraine becomes part of NATO and the EU shouldn’t be discounted. After all, the fights in Kiev were also about whether the Ukraine starts admission talk with the EU, which means that sooner or later it is going to be in NATO. Putin gets the Crimea, NATO gets the Ukraine.

  • Anukem Jihadi

    This is simply well laid groundwork to more easily facilitate the acceptance of the terms of surrender. Russia’s not the only entity that makes long range plans.

  • Erudite Mavin

    As John Bolton reminded all the other evening on FOX

    Putin’s 2005 speech to Russians

    Putin, a veteran of the Soviet spy agency called the KGB, made the comments Bolton cites in an April 2005 state of the nation address to the country’s top politicians and parliament. A version is available in English from the Kremlin archives. Putin’s words vary depending on the translation, but the idea remains the same.

    From the Kremlin:

    “Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”

  • truebearing

    “Between John Kerry babbling that this isn’t the 19th century anymore and theNew York Times clinging to the popular leftist thesis that Putin was just angry at us, it’s time to ask whether anyone on the left should ever be allowed to discuss foreign policy again.”

    Hilarious and accurate.

    “So this was a policy years in the making… that Putin suddenly threw together because he was angry at America. Go home New York Times, you’re drunk.”

    More hilarious and accurate. The New York Times has turned itself into a punchline…with the help of Daniel Greenfield’s accomodating wit.

  • Now and then

    Perhaps the NYT is trying to equate Putin with President Obama but as I’ve previously said … Putin has a black belt and Obama and his staff are the white belts

  • NoToSocialism

    of course the invasion of Crimea was done hastily, but of course it was planned well ahead – the protests in Kiev forced Putin to quickly occupy the only territory that could remain under his influence – Crimea – once the Ukraine becomes part of the European Union and NATO.