“The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever.”

19 Replies to ““The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever.””

1. I don’t blame the Russians for thinking there’s some sort of clever “logic” behind all the chaos Obama is causing.
   Russians are logical people — they would never understand that Obama and the Dems are just plain stupid and are embracing some sort of Americanized neo-Marxism under a sort of class warfare, racialized, sexualized, global-warmingized, religionized, secularized, Islamicized, multi-millionaire anti-capitalist demagogue!
   (Poor Marx must be pissing in his grave, and I think I just heard Stalin blow a giant fart from the indigestion)

2. Well, I believe there is one thing we can all agree on; Obama has most assuredly stirred up a hornet’s nest in the M.E.

3. Americans play checkers…Russians play chess…..
   Russian designers credo…designed by genius to be operated by idiots…….
   They are also wary and paranoid….survival traits…..

4. ricardo
   the russians think ALL american politicians are stupid and in on the scheme, not just Obumble4s and the dems, tho they do think Obumbles has an extra dose of stupidity. An the russians are anything but logical thinkers, fact most of them do not think as them state has in the past done their thinking for them. This also holds true for most X kommy states. The russians are big on conspiracy theories, as they needed to be for survival under kommy rule. If U’v ever dealt with russians U would know this, they can be sharp as a bag of wet mice on day to day things, it can be very trying to deal with them.
   Ratt…Obumbles is starting to understand that he is totally ignorant on middle east dynamics, and this could be very dangerous, as the like of Iran may just think that it is a good opportunity to strike at Isreal or Saudi Arabia, and that could/would start a wider conflict, drawing in weary Russians and stupid Americans(Obumbles and crowd)Interesting time we live in!!!

5. Churchill (no slouch in the cleverness world) picked up on Stalin’s crafty duplicity at an early stage – Roosevelt never realized how outclassed he was by the Russians.

6. “Obumbles is starting to understand that he is totally ignorant on middle east dynamics…”
   No he’s not starting to understand anything. Otherwise he never would have given such a stupid speech as he gave today in Jerusalem. The Russians are right; the Americans have made a disgusting mess of Middle East policy.
   But it goes back further than just George Bush. The US made a series of disastrous miscalculations about Hussein and Iraq, never thinking what the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war would look like. Bush Sr. has a lot to answer for. His oblivion, and big paycheques from Saudi Arabia, directly led to Gulf War 1, which in turn led to the rise of Al Qaeda.

7. I agree, and think that the collapse of the Soviet Union made the various administrations in the US sloppy.
   Like sasquatch said, the Americans play checkers, the Russian play chess, and an excellent summation by one of commenters to Goldman’s article explains very vividly why wolves in sheep’s Marxist clothing are now in charge of the US and to a lessor extent in control of most Canadian institutions.
   Goldman’s comment, ‘the Russians and the rubes’ says it is a nutshell.
   Commenter – cfbleachers
   “The Russians were able to put a Walter Duranty at the NYTimes and an Alger Hiss to help build the UN from our State Dept. As well as Harry Dexter White, who was in the Treasury Dept. and primarily designed the World Bank and IMF.
   And this…was while we purportedly had a government that was not teeming with radical leftists who adore and idolize Mother Russia and Father China.
   Obama’s KNOWN past, includes Bill Ayers, the Socialist Scholars Convention, the Midwest Academy, the New Party, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Carl Davidson, Don Warden, and Frank Marshall Davis.
   So, these Russian “chess players” who are now “afraid” of where Obama is taking America…why? Has he turned Maoist and become convinced by Anita Dunn and Tom Friedman?
   Are they trying to destroy the world economy by forcing the Middle East to implode, thereby ruining the petro industry, while simultaneously applying a tourniquet to the production of our own natural resources, under the phony guise of the “global warming” hoax?
   Our DOJ is littered with radical leftists and we only know that because of Christian Adams, Hans Von Spakovsky and now… the OIG report.
   What about State? The CIA? Treasury?”

8. Notice, as well, the uncompromising Zionism of the Russian Israelis, as well as their refusal to bother with claptrap about roadmaps and peace with the Arabs. Life under communism taught them that the only thing Jews can trust Gentiles to do is to kill Jews at the first opportunity, the only word Israel can trust is that of her God, and Israel’s only option for survival is be able and willing to annihilate her enemies without mercy—that the nations of the world might see, be overwhelmed by heart-stopping, bowel-emptying terror, and thenceforth without exception bend the knee at the name of the God of Israel, at last treat His spouse with the respect and honour she deserves, and never again covet anything that is hers.
   You will notice such a strategy has worked very well for the Russians.

9. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

10. From the comments….

11. Thanks for putting in that reference OMMAG. My experience with Russians, and people who have emigrated from Ukraine is that one either has people who have been totally destroyed by the socialist system or people who managed to overcome it. Of the first class, I’ve had to ditch Ukrainian immigrants as friends as they expect everything to be done for them and I’ve told them that if they want socialism, head back to Ukraine. These are the casualties of socialism and they greatly outnumber the people who have prospered under such a system.
    Having dealt with a number of other Russian/Ukrainian immigrants, some of whom may have mob connections (one can infer them by what they don’t say rather than what they say), who are very bright, very self-motivated and far more capitalist than the stereotype of the US capitalist. I’ve had to calm down ranting Russians who can’t believe that their money won’t let them just buy an MRI scan for their wife tomorrow. This was before the private MRI clinics were widespread in Vancouver and I’d get the “I thought this was a capitalist society” line more times than I care to remember. None of them could understand the Canadian medicare system and there was a universal feeling among this population that some very brain damaged totalitarian had come up with it — in Russia they could bribe their way to better medical care but this option was denied to them in Canada. I would have happily taken their bribes back then if I could have actually sped up the process of getting an MRI.
    One argument I had with a psychiatrist during my medical school days was my inability to recognize the pathology of paranoia. My parents came from the eastern block and they were clinical paranoids — that’s why they survived. This psychiatrist, who was the product of a wonderful worry free environment where unicorns romped amongst the daisies, viewed paranoia as a pathology and was upset when a medical student contradicted him and told him it was a survival trait. He and I never agreed and I do admit a certain myopia for paranoia in my patients as I’m not sure if paranoia is a Slavic personality trait or just a personality trait that was concentrated in the survivors of communism. I let people know I’m paranoid as I will double check their stories and point out inconsistencies as I worry about the patient from out of town needing opiates being an RCMP plant designed to catch over-prescribing doctors. I check up on these suspicions and often find out I’m right. Paranoids are survivors.
    Being of Slavic origin myself, I do have to admit that I’m a bit biased with regard to the innate intellectual superiority of Slavic races. What is happening in the US is a system of credentialism where having gone to the right schools, having the right degrees is far more important than actually knowing what one is doing or having the intelligence to do it. The penalties for failure in the US are far less drastic than they are in a totalitarian state. I’ve been very impressed with Russian and other Slavic hackers who really know their stuff and where to find the weak points in N. American computer systems. I know of one cell phone company that’s recruiting engineers entirely from Eastern block countries as they are far more skilled in dealing with any problem that gets thrown at them. The US has been steadily dumbed down whereas the Russian schools are far more rigorous for those who have the potential to succeed. Now if only Russians could learn how to breed again.

12. What does Russia care if these events are manufactured or accidental? It always mops up. Who backs Syria and North Korea? It sure as hell isn’t the Belgians (that we know of).

13. “So, these Russian “chess players” who are now “afraid” of where Obama is taking America…why? Has he turned Maoist and become convinced by Anita Dunn and Tom Friedman?”
    I don’t think so, Ken. The Russians don’t care about ideology any more, and that starts right at the top with Uncle Vlad. What they care about is that the other Great Powers in the world be run competently. To any statesman, a competent government, particularly if it’s an occasional opponent, is very important. A competent opponent has a realistic view of the world, understands fully the interests of others, and thus understands what cannot be touched and what can be negotiated. It’s called intelligent self-interest. You can always do business with someone who has a clear understanding of what you need and what he needs.
    Amoral (as opposed to immmoral) pragmatism is largely the way Russia and China run now. However, when they look at Europe, they see a slew of nations increasingly preoccupied with their own increasingly chaotic internal affairs. When they look to the United States, they see two presidencies in a row, Bush and Obama, run by ideologues. And their ideologies have led them into what the Russians regard as foolish and reckless adventures which have done nothing to promote stability among nations and a great deal to weaken it. And largely these policies have backfired badly.
    The Russians, like the Chinese, want stability. Instead, the United States seems to be doing nothing but fostering disorder. Arab Spring is as much a failure as the Bush war on terrorism. And the US is encouraging the UN to violate the sovereignty of nations through its Responsibility to Protect doctrine (thank you Lloyd Axworthy, you useful idiot).
    So like the Chinese, the Russians are bothered by having to deal with a bunch of incompentent amateurs.

14. “What is happening in the US is a system of credentialism …”
    Yes, one thousand times, yes. And it’s been going on for a long, long time. Having got rid of the British monarchy in 1784 along with its aristocracy, the US has spent at least the last half century trying to recreate them. Dynasticism started with the Kennedys and now it’s a regular feature of American politics: Clintons, Bushes. By all accounts, Jeb wants to be King Bush III. And Hilary certainly wants to be Clinton II.
    Other than a better grade of weed and toffee noses, is Harvard/Yale/Princeton really that much better than Michigan State or Kracow or Leningrad Polytechnic? Somehow I doubt it.

15. If all the stupid Russian politicians are dead, then I fear we are doing something very very wrong in the free world because we are overrun with them at all levels of government and education facilities. How did the Russians ever get so lucky ? It’s just not fair.

16. cgh, well stated. The failure of communism in Russia is a fairly recent event and many Russians have been quite happy to junk it. What the Russians haven’t been able to get over is their desire for a strong stable leader, hence the elevation of Putin to virtual czar status. Similarly, China has gone over to capitalism for pragmatic reasons; can’t remember which Chinese member of the politburo uttered the memorable phrase: “who cares about the color of a cat as long as it catches mice” which was the point which started China on a course where it eventually became more of a capitalist country than the USSA.
    Both Russia and China have had to make major changes in how their governments function because of the failure of previous ideologies. The US, OTOH, has been steadily crippling itself as it hasn’t yet had any significant enough failure in its economic system forcing it to re-evaluate how it does things. Right now, Russia and China are much closer to pure capitalism than the US. The only difference is that in both these countries a prerequisite to doing business is knowledge of who needs to be bribed and how much. Hard to say which is worse; a simple system of officials and set bribes vs a very destructive organization such as the EPA and a system of regulations that send most manufacturing overseas.
    One of the most difficult problems democracies face is that of pragmatic dictatorships run by intelligent people. All that Putin has to do to those who oppose his imperial style is to point to the chaos that exists in the US and just to Obozo as an example of what can happen when the people chose their leaders. There’s no history in Russia or China of the people voting themselves a unicorn in every garage. One thing that the Russian people don’t like is chaos.
    Once the Russians come to the conclusion that Obozo is a bumbling idiot who really doesn’t have a carefully crafted plan but is just the product of an affirmative action system gone berserk, then America’s role in the world will be reduced to second rate status. There are enough Russian moles implanted into the US during the cold war to cause major instability should the Russians chose to do so. True American innovation and freedom, back in the days when it still existed, was capable of beating any totalitarian power. However, those days seem to be a distant memory in the USSA and one now has a nation with a majority of parasites squabbling over who will get the largest portion of the spoils as they destroy America from within.
    I suggest to any parents stupid enough to consider enrolling their child in a french immersion class to have them learn Chinese or Russian instead if they want to be successful in the pending new world order.

17. I think the article is junk — the money line is, “George W. Bush was a decent and well-intentioned man without a clue as to the consequences of his actions”.
    Since people such as Mr. Holder like to equate Pearl Harbor with 9/11 in non-serious two-paragraph letters to Mr. Paul, Jr. on the subject of the legality of “drone attacks” on Americans within the United States, it calls to my mind the question of how well folks think Franklin D. Roosevelt would have done in the same circumstances that faced George W. Bush at 11:00 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, considering the following facts:
    1. Franklin D. Roosevelt had no less than Winston S. Churchill (with his greatest speeches, as London was being destroyed) out there promoting the cause for, at minimum, 19 months (as Prime Minister) prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor; Bush had nobody of the same reputation making his case, ever.
    2. George W. Bush had been President for about 7.5 months on September 11, 2001, whereas Franklin D. Roosevelt had been president for close to 9 years on December 7, 1941, by which point America was so unprepared for war that, but for pure happenstance resulting in a six-minute window of opportunity at the Battle of Midway, the Pacific and Indian Oceans would have fallen under the hegemony of Japan.
    3. George W. Bush had 17 UNSC resolutions in his pocket on Iraq — the UN being Churchill’s suggestion, if memory serves, for the name of the world organization proposed by Roosevelt in the days immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour.
    4. George W. Bush had a previous Democratic President (Mr. Clinton) who had actually signed a law requiring regime change in Iraq.
    5. Roosevelt had to be dragged, against his political judgment, into the conflict, and only did so after Pearl Harbor, despite prior deadly German attacks, which went unanswered, on American naval forces in the Atlantic.
    6. In the wake of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush invoked the spirit of the Atlantic Charter (brain child of Roosevelt) in trying to frame American foreign policy.
    And GWB is the clueless do-gooder? Please excuse me while I go vomit.
    There are no Russian “politicians”, smart, dumb, alive, dead, or otherwise: that “system” is a pure thugocracy, which it has always been, with a bit of Western nomenclature (President, Prime Minister, Parliament, blah, blah, blah) thrown in to provide a cover story for the Western media, in the same way that Stalin the non-Russian mass-murderer tried to ingratiate himself with the Russian people with a bit of Czarist lipstick.

18. David, I’ll have to disagree WRT to GWB. Yes, his actions in invading Afghanistan were completely appropriate given the attack launched from that country on the US. However, when it came to Iraq, the reasons for the invasion were sketchy and, despite it being a brilliant military victory, there seems to have been no thought whatever given of what to do after Saddam’s military was destroyed. A bit of forethought in this area would have resulted in a completely different outcome in Iraq.
    GWB was the one who shredded the US constitution in response to the 11/9/2001 attacks and, while he didn’t take advantage of this to restrict the freedoms of US citizens, Obozo was perfectly comfortable in using GWB’s precedent to continue abuse of the US constitution. GWB was the father of “homeland security”, the most totalitarian agency yet to have been created in the US.
    GWB had an option; trust the US people or consider them to be ignorant sheeple to be herded according to the commands of statists. Unfortunately, he chose the latter and Obozo has just continued his legacy.

19. David, there’s a number of historical inaccuracies in what you posted. With respect to your points:
    1. FDR was determined to enter the war as soon as possible. What prevented him was an isolationist Congress. As it was, he exceeded Presidential powers considerably by:
    a) ordering the US navy to engage German warships on sight in May 1941
    b) selling warships to Britain on a cash-free basis
    c) using American shipping to actually deliver military and strategic stores.
    d) reaching financing agreements with Britain for establishing British military production in Canada.
    2. Given the shortcomings in the US defence budget, thanks to Congress, the US was as well-prepared as it could be in 1941. Its Pacific bases in Hawaii and Phillipines had been heavily reinforced, particularly with aircraft. The Pacific fleet had been brought up to full operational strength. And a large naval construction program had been started and was well underway. The US was not blind to the danger that Japan posed. Indeed, they had begun preparing for Japan in the 1920s. And it was the commencement of the naval construction program in 1938 that produced most of the ships that would win the naval war in 1943-44.
    In the long run, Midway didn’t matter. The size and scale of US naval armament delivered in the spring of 1944 made Japan’s defeat inevitable. And Yamamoto knew it, as evidenced in his statements in 1940-41. “We can run wild in the Pacific for a year, but after that I can guarantee nothing.”
    However, for the United States in 2001, the situation was very different. The US had already been in active conflict with Al Qaeda for at least nine years. A better analogy for the situation is if the Japanese, after sinking half the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour had gone on to sink the rest in San Diego.
    Loki is right. Afghanistan was necessary, but Iraq was a serious blunder. It diverted resources away from Afghanistan, allowing Al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup, resulting in the mess we have today. The military victory over Hussein was almost irrelevant. So badly did the Americans understand the consequences of the destruction of the Hussein regime that their military victory turned into a virtual defeat in the aftermath. Nearly all American casualties and losses came AFTER the fall of Hussein.
    So yes, the Americans have behaved like blundering idiots in the ME for the past two decades.