He's Putin Us On: Vlad's comparison misses the mark

He's Putin Us On: Vlad's comparison misses the markby Daniel ClarkIn his opposition to America's missile defenses, Russian presidentVladimir Putin put forth the comparison that, "Analagous actions by theSoviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, led to the Caribbeancrisis. For us today, from a technological viewpoint, the situation isvery similar. Such a threat is being set up on our borders."Borscht!The particular missile defense sites that Putin opposes, which are to bebuilt in Poland and the Czech Republic, pose no threat to Russiawhatsoever -- assuming that the Russian government has no sinisterintentions toward its European neighbors, that is. President Bush hasassured him that the shield is being deployed against Iran and other roguestates, and not Russia. In any case, the shield cannot be considered aprovocation, because it's a purely defensive system.Putin made his remarks at a press conference, following an EU summit inPortugal. One might have hoped that the reporters there would have quizzedhim about why he saw the shield as a threat. In other words, why does heso badly want to maintain the option of launching nuclear missiles intoEurope? Instead, they let Putin obscure his utterly indefensible positionby making this specious comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis.Once we try to follow Putin's argument through, its invalidity becomesobvious. The Cuban Missile Crisis arose when it was discovered that theSoviets were placing offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. Until PresidentKennedy had photographic evidence that this was the case, he had acceptedKhrushchev's assurances that the only missiles the Soviets were installingin Cuba were defensive in nature, to guard against a possible U.S.invasion of the island. The fact that the missiles were placed 90 milesfrom American soil, with America being the understood enemy, was notenough to provoke a threat from Kennedy.For several years, there have been simmering fears in the West that Putin,a former KGB agent who has never resigned from the Communist Party, issetting the groundwork to rebuild the Soviet Union. Among other offenses,he has squelched freedom of the press in his country, and recently stageda public demonstration on his own behalf, in the Stalinist tradition. Whathe is now attempting is a rhetorical role reversal, by casting the U.S.and its allies as the Soviet aggressors of the Sixties.Can Putin really believe his own accusation, that a small missile defensebattery in Eastern Europe is a threat to a nation with a nuclear arsenalthe size of Russia's? Before answering that question, consider that it isRussia who is building the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran. On arecent trip to that country, Putin denied that the plant would be used toproduce nuclear weapons, and warned Russia's fellow Caspian nations not toallow their countries to be used by the U.S. to stage an attack on theIranian site.If Russia's building the power plant doesn't already give it enough of afinancial interest, it has also helped to arm Iran in order to defend thatsite. Just this past January, Putin's government delivered anti-aircraftmissile systems to the Iranians, in fulfillment of a $700 millioncontract. The Russian government reacted with mock surprise to America'sconcerns about the deal, pointing out that the weapons involved aredefensive in nature. The difference is that the purpose of the Russianmissile systems is to defend Iran's potential to develop offensive nuclearweapons, whereas ours are meant to defend European cities fromnuclear-armed Islamist fanatics.If our missile shield proves to be successful, it will diminish the valueof the Iranian nuclear project, by taking away Iran's capacity to strikewith long-range nuclear missiles. Thus, all the hardware and all thetechnology that Iran has been purchasing from Russia will be severelydevalued. The threat from our defensive missile shield is not to thesafety of Putin's country, as he claims, but to that of his country'sinterests in Iran.So far, President Bush has stood firm against Putin's protestations, butworries remain about the degree of trust that the president seems to havein his Russian counterpart. Bush, who is known to hand out silly nicknamesas pneumonic devices, once adorned Putin with the cuddly moniker"Pooty-Poot." We can only deduce that "Lambchop" was already taken.When Bush first met with Putin in 2001, he alarmed and embarrassed many ofhis supporters by remarking that he had "looked into his soul." Here'shoping that he didn't get blinded by the soot.-- Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance. The NewMedia Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers,journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Support Our Broadcast Network

We're a 100% Listener Supported Network

3 Simple Ways to Support WVW Foundation

Credit Card
100% Tax-Deductable
Paypal
100% Tax-Deductable

Make Monthly Donations

 

-or-

A One-Time Donation

 
Mail or Phone
100% Tax-Deductable
  • Mail In Your Donation

    Worldview Weekend Foundation
    PO BOX 1690
    Collierville, TN, 38027 USA

  • Donate by Phone

    901-825-0652

WorldviewFinancialTV.com Banner