Putin: "The Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact was okay . . . the UK and the US caused WWII"

I think the idea is that with the other allies leaving them in the cold, they were better off seeking a separate peace with Germany for a few years so they could get the war-machine going for what everyone realized was going to be an eventual Soviet-German war, rather than risk standing alone against a German invasion in 1939 with their relatively unprepared military.

Which I don’t think is even wrong as far as it goes. But it ignores the fact that beyond non-aggression, the treaty also divided up a good chunk of Eastern Europe between the Soviets and the Germans. But since the Soviet Union never admitted that that part of the Treaty existed, presumably it wasn’t taught in Putin’s highschool history class.

And that’s why Pat Buchanan (see above) is either an ignoramus, troll, or closet Nazi.

Just a few minutes ago, I was watching an interview on NHK World during which a Japanese reporter was interviewing some [del]flack[/del] spokesperson for Putin. After each answer, in which the spokesperson basically accused the the West in general and the US in particular of various and sundry crimes against Russia, the interviewer’s face showed even more shock than at the previous answer, and she still managed to get through all the questions without calling that lying fool a lying fool.

From Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, by Paul Johnson, Chapter 10, “The End of Old Europe”:

Same book, Chapter 11, “The Watershed Year”:

The Greater Germanic Reich the Nazis envisioned.

Everyone needs a goal in life. I think I’ve just found mine.

I’m not naive; I know it’s going to take a lot of hard work, dedication, perseverance, and more. Still, I think I’m up to the task. All I’m asking for is the chance.

Remember, ’ . . . a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a bug bomb for?’

Heil Orkin!

BTW, Patrick L. Smith’s analysis of Putin’s speech actually makes Putin look rather sane and clearheaded compared to the American leadership.

No, he wasn’t.

As you would have seen from other posts I’m actually in St Petersburg at the moment. There is a paper that is published every day (St. Petersburg Times) which is quite critical of Mr. Putin, saying he is 20 years out of date and all that sort of thing. However, it gets published- and it includes a lot of articles that aren’t favourable to said Govt.
I have no idea if it is widely read, and recognise that this is a very Westernised city but support for Mr. Putin is supposed to run at about 40%.

Putin’s whole speech. Judge for yourself.

I would compare Russia at present to Mexico under the PRI: A quasi-democracy, dominated by one party, with rigged elections, but not quite a dictatorship.

St. Petersburg is also almost certainly not representative of much of anything. Neither would Moscow be. I’d expect both of them to be much more liberal/westernized than Russia as a whole.

Also, when and if Putin’s regime falls, it’s not likely to be replaced by anything more liberal, democratic or pro-western. His most significant opposition is the Communists.

Based on their ideology and party program, they actually seem to be rather reasonable as Communists go. But, somehow I don’t think they’re going anywhere.

Unfortunately that piece was just some glurge to promo his full length book on the subject: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. Rather more depressingly, the book debuted at sixteenth place on The New York Times best-seller list. If I had to pick between ignoramus, troll, or closet Nazi, I’d have to go with closet Nazi.

Oh, I don’t disagree. (The Russian Communists have even dropped their one-time atheism, and Zyuganov had a much touted mutual back-slapping meeting with Patriarch Kirill). On the nationalism front, though, I don’t think the Communists are likely to be any less nationalistic than United Russia is.

Also, “Litinov cocktail” does not sound as scary as “Molotov Cocktail”. :slight_smile:

More seriously, I do remember that Churchill wanted a war with the USSR after WWII, but less known is that he also had wanted it before WWII too. When the Russians did attack Finland in 1938 Churchill (then the British First Lord of Admiralty) wanted to intervene in favor of Finland, (He claimed that the intervention would not lead to war with the USSR :dubious:, but that attempt told Stalin to make alliances elsewhere) in the end Finland ended the war with Russia by conceding territory and the Allies did not had time or could not organize to send equipment or troops there.

Well, not exactly – that is, I can’t see a decentralist, isolationist, traditionalist paleocon like Buchanan getting behind the idea of an all-powerful centralized national state, nor a war of imperialistic conquest, nor any form at all of “socialism” or “New Order” – but, I’m sure he does have quite a racist streak and quite an anti-Semitic streak.

I’d already read it. It’s certainly at a level that is not usually seen in American discourse but the audience also was not a typical public speech either so that’s to be expected of someone competent. His view of the world is conveniently as self serving of Russian interests as the other dynamic has been of US interests though. He’s pointing the finger about the US using advantage after more actively playing the great game in regions of primary concern to Russia (because the US was so focused on the middle east.)

It’s one thing to raise the question of how we modify international systems for a post Cold-War vs a post World War II environment. He happens to do it from the position of a major regional power that has used significantly the same playbook on regional scale as he accuses the US of using to the detriment of the world. A system that would protect non-western powers from western meddling would also make them more susceptible to regional power meddling since there’s no counterweight.

It’s certainly an important speech in the renewed Great Game. I’m not sure if it’s more than a move on that chessboard though.

Yeah, and you stole 1 1/2 hour of my life (and more importantly of my week-end) that I intended to spend procrastinating and playing games and instead used to educate myself. :mad:

:o Sorry.

Here, relax and unwind with some TVTropes! :smiley:

Of course, the original Great Game was the rivalry of Britain and Russia for control of Central Asia. Nobody much wants to take over Central Asia any more, I think, not even the Russians, it’s just one big headache. The battleground at present is Eastern Europe – and what vital interests does the West have there anyway?

I really can’t see why the U.S. and Russia can’t be friends now.