The Putin Doctrine, Tom's take: "Putin Has Stumbled in Ukraine"? | The St. Petersburg Times

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, writes of Vladimir Putin:

KnockItOff...the March 18 speech he gave in Crimea was definitely in the nationalist/romance genre as opposed to a work of realism. Putin appealed to Russians as a divided people, emphasizing national values. Bringing ideology into politics, especially romantic nationalism, commits a leader, tying his hands.

A pragmatist can react flexibly when circumstances change. But romantic rhetoric, even when used as an instrument, can’t be so quickly cast off. It plays on the emotions, which can bring about a strong element of irrationalism, which is something Putin has always tried to avoid in his foreign policy.

Putin’s departure from his usual realistic approach thrust Russia into a serious international crisis.

Source: Putin Has Stumbled in Ukraine | The St. Petersburg Times | The leading English-language newspaper in St. Petersburg.

Earlier in the piece, Fyodor Lukyanov wrote:

...after Putin’s return to power in 2012, he saw the West, primarily the United States, as the main destabilizing force in the world. This wasn’t due to anti-Russian sentiment in Washington or Brussels (Putin considered that obvious in any case), but to the West’s thoughtless and arrogant interference in one situation after another, destroying the foundations of national governance.

Fyodor thinks that it was a slip to deviate from the cold realpolitik. Similarly, I questioned Putin's having revved up the troops so to speak only to appear to tone it all completely down. See: When Donetsk & Luhansk Fall, Will Sanctions Against Russia Be Lifted?

What I'm finding now is the middle ground. Vladimir Putin is doing and saying what he must in his shoes to make clear that 1) above all, Russia will defend Russia (and Russians if needs be wherever they may be, if the West won't come to its senses) and 2) Russia doesn't want war but is working for global peace and progress without Western decadence/moral decay corrupting Russia from without and within.

The combination of these concepts I term here the Putin Doctrine.

In hindsight, he has played it masterfully. Russia's aid convoy is not only practical and needed and necessary, it's genius in the way it has so far unfolded. It makes Barack Obama's policies and actions vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine appear barbaric by comparison.

I credit Vladimir Putin with having grown immensely in office. I can't say the same of Barack Obama. Obama is not making the same errors in Iraq that he made in Libya (when he followed Hillary Clinton's dreadful advice), but he's still not even close to being up on Putin's level.

Putin doesn't have a perfect history. Who does? I don't, and neither do you. I don't like militarism; but he is the leader of Russia, and there are people in the West who have had their violent and greedy sights on Russia for centuries. None of it is lost on Putin.

Vladimir Putin's recent statements making clear that he wants peace, not war, not military conquest, not even close, and his actions with the humanitarian convoy to Eastern Ukraine, which is utterly transparent and obviously not concealing anything, should be accepted by the American people at face value. They are not tricks. He is being genuine. Is that why so many American politicians hate him? That's part of it.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.