Putin Steps Into a Vacuum of Constructive Dialog

Putin is a lot of things: oppressor, ruthless, disingenuous, cruel, vindictive….. the list is long. He is also an opportunist, who sees the paralysis of constructive dialog between President Obama and obstructionist Congressional Republicans as a chance to promote his agenda, chip away at US influence and further destabilize our dysfunctional government.

Having gone through the collapse of the USSR, he recognizes the symptoms leading up it’s demise that have taken hold here. While his motives are to precipitate the collapse of the USA, his messages, the tools he uses to further that end, are the substance of the unspoken dialog we should be having, but is lost in the political firestorm that has become the new American Regressionism.

In a healthy environment of constructive Congressional dialog and worthy motives, Putin’s Op-Ed wouldn’t be published. The national dialog would be focused instead on how to rebuild our middle class, extricate ourselves from carbon dependency, make immigration a manageable process of inclusion, extend civil rights to our disenfranchised citizens, make our streets safe and educate our children for tomorrow. We would be so busy working on building a better future, suspicious intentions wouldn’t have a chance to take hold. If you’re screaming about the evils of Putin, you’re wasting your time. We have a lot of cleaning up to do here at home.


About jackdetate

Married, 2 children, retired, enjoying unstructured time: "And then he drank a dew From a convenient grass, And then hopped sidewise to the wall To let a beetle pass." ~ Emily Dickinson
This entry was posted in Socio- economics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Putin Steps Into a Vacuum of Constructive Dialog

  1. The same morning that Putin’s column was published I spoke to a native Russian speaking software support specialist. After we concluded our support session we talked briefly about the Putin column and the vagaries of Russian to English translation. He mentioned that he thought a couple of the words had been twisted to appeal more to an American audience. I wonder what we might have made of the column if we had read the column in the original Russian. I’d like to have a better sense of how the meaning was modified. What did they change that made them think we would be more receptive to the tweaked version?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s