Time Magazine's Person of the Year

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
putin11.jpg




[q]Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2007
A Tsar Is Born
By Adi Ignatius


No one is born with a stare like Vladimir Putin's. The Russian President's pale blue eyes are so cool, so devoid of emotion that the stare must have begun as an affect, the gesture of someone who understood that power might be achieved by the suppression of ordinary needs, like blinking. The affect is now seamless, which makes talking to the Russian President not just exhausting but often chilling. It's a gaze that says, I'm in charge.

This may explain why there is so little visible security at Putin's dacha, Novo-Ogarevo, the grand Russian presidential retreat set inside a birch- and fir-forested compound west of Moscow. To get there from the capital requires a 25-minute drive through the soul of modern Russia, past decrepit Soviet-era apartment blocks, the mashed-up French Tudor-villa McMansions of the new oligarchs and a shopping mall that boasts not just the routine spoils of affluence like Prada and Gucci but Lamborghinis and Ferraris too.

When you arrive at the dacha's faux-neoclassical gate, you have to leave your car and hop into one of the Kremlin's vehicles that slowly wind their way through a silent forest of snow-tipped firs. Aides warn you not to stray, lest you tempt the snipers positioned in the shadows around the compound. This is where Putin, 55, works. (He lives with his wife and two twentysomething daughters in another mansion deeper in the woods.) The rooms feel vast, newly redone and mostly empty. As we prepare to enter his spacious but spartan office, out walk some of Russia's most powerful men: Putin's chief of staff, his ideologist, the speaker of parliament—all of them wearing expensive bespoke suits and carrying sleek black briefcases. Putin, who rarely meets with the foreign press, then gives us 3 1⁄2 hours of his time, first in a formal interview in his office and then upstairs over an elaborate dinner of lobster-and-shiitake-mushroom salad, "crab fingers with hot sauce" and impressive vintages of Puligny-Montrachet and a Chilean Cabernet.

Vladimir Putin gives a first impression of contained power: he is compact and moves stiffly but efficiently. He is fit, thanks to years spent honing his black-belt judo skills and, these days, early-morning swims of an hour or more. And while he is diminutive—5 ft. 6 in. (about 1.7 m) seems a reasonable guess—he projects steely confidence and strength. Putin is unmistakably Russian, with chiseled facial features and those penetrating eyes. Charm is not part of his presentation of self—he makes no effort to be ingratiating. One senses that he pays constant obeisance to a determined inner discipline. The successor to the boozy and ultimately tragic Boris Yeltsin, Putin is temperate, sipping his wine only when the protocol of toasts and greetings requires it; mostly he just twirls the Montrachet in his glass. He eats little, though he twitchily picks the crusts off the bread rolls on his plate.

Putin grudgingly reveals a few personal details between intermittent bites of food: He relaxes, he says, by listening to classical composers like Brahms, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. His favorite Beatles song is Yesterday. He has never sent an e-mail in his life. And while he grew up in an officially atheist country, he is a believer and often reads from a Bible that he keeps on his state plane. He is impatient to the point of rudeness with small talk, and he is in complete control of his own message.

He is clear about Russia's role in the world. He is passionate in his belief that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragedy, particularly since overnight it stranded 25 million ethnic Russians in "foreign" lands. But he says he has no intention of trying to rebuild the U.S.S.R. or re-establish military or political blocs. And he praises his predecessors Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev for destroying a system that had lost the people's support. "I'm not sure I could have had the guts to do that myself," he tells us. Putin is, above all, a pragmatist, and has cobbled together a system—not unlike China's—that embraces the free market (albeit with a heavy dose of corruption) but relies on a strong state hand to keep order.

Like President George W. Bush, he sees terrorism as one of the most profound threats of the new century, but he is wary of labeling it Islamic. "Radicals," he says, "can be found in any environment." Putin reveals that Russian intelligence recently uncovered a "specific" terrorist threat against both Russia and the U.S. and that he spoke by phone with Bush about it.

What gets Putin agitated—and he was frequently agitated during our talk—is his perception that Americans are out to interfere in Russia's affairs. He says he wants Russia and America to be partners but feels the U.S. treats Russia like the uninvited guest at a party. "We want to be a friend of America," he says. "Sometimes we get the impression that America does not need friends" but only "auxiliary subjects to command." Asked if he'd like to correct any American misconceptions about Russia, Putin leans forward and says, "I don't believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies. This is the reason why everybody is made to believe...[Russians] are a little bit savage still or they just climbed down from the trees, you know, and probably need to have...the dirt washed out of their beards and hair." The veins on his forehead seem ready to pop. [/q]
 
For all the crowing we (the world in general) do about Bush's administration, it is Putin (and the Russians in general) who is perhaps the largest obstacle to international diplomacy and the elusive "world peace." Russia is trying to reassert what power it thought it once had, to the detriment of the world community at large. They have historically behaved in such unacceptable, amoral ways, and it always surprises me that the Western media, maybe not wishing to be branded as anti-Russian reactionaries, does not comment on it more often. Every international incident out there, and you can bet the Russians have their fingers in it somehow. Iraq/Iran is a no-brainer, but take a close look at Eastern Europe and how Russians are flexing their muscles with respect to Kosovo, for example. They are essentially alone on the world stage in being squarely against independence for the province despite the fact that it is really inevitable. They have a shameful history of meddling in the Balkans and are largely responsible for the war criminals that are still allowed to walk free in Serbia today.

It is easier to criticize the Americans when their actions are more overt, but every time we do so, we should take a closer look at the situation and you can be sure that the Russians are pulling the strings in the opposite direction.

Putin is an irresponsible thug, who is essentially akin to that person who stands at the back of the boat, rocking it. The others then try to bail the boat while he points fingers at them, saying that their action of bailing is what's causing the rocking and worsening the situation. I don't mind him as the pick of person of the year, it's probably fitting. I just have little if any respect for the man or his presidency.
 
Russia may have benefitted from him economically, but in others areas - such as the press, politics and so on - Putin's bringing back the Soviet era.
 
anitram said:
Every international incident out there, and you can bet the Russians have their fingers in it somehow

The Russian sphere of influence and action is significantly smaller (economically and militarily) than that of the US. Sitting on one of the world's largest reserves of oil, natural gas and minerals, they feel threatened by the encroachment of US bases, pro-US governments, and missile defense shields in surrounding countries.
 
Yah Bono did an awesome job, and he pretty much hit the nail on the head. Gore doesn't really need to be presient to be the kind of leader we need in this country.
 
It clearly should have been Petraeus. Why TIME would pick a guy like Putin over a guy like Petreus I'll never know.
 
They didn't favor Putin over Petraeus, it's about who had more influence, and not only in the US or directly related to the US, and there Putin certainly is in front of Petraeus.

I'm very uncomfortable with him being in power, and now he has made sure to still being in power. And it makes me sad that our former Chancellor is such good friends with Putin.
He is trying to divide East Europe and getting implemented the people in those countries that are like marionettes to him, and he is drifting off the democratic way Russia has taken before.
 
2861U2 said:
It clearly should have been Petraeus. Why TIME would pick a guy like Putin over a guy like Petreus I'll never know.



it's not a "coolest person of the year" or "awesomest person of the year" or "most politicized speech before congress of the year."

it's the person who's had the most influence on world events. Stalin has been Time's person of the year. it's not an endorsement. it's a statement of fact.
 
Irvine511 said:




it's not a "coolest person of the year" or "awesomest person of the year" or "most politicized speech before congress of the year."

it's the person who's had the most influence on world events. Stalin has been Time's person of the year. it's not an endorsement. it's a statement of fact.

I understand that. Obviously the person of the year doesnt have to be a "good" person. I'm not saying Putin is a bad choice. I'm just saying personally, I'd pick Petreaus. He's completely turned Iraq around.

Smart move not picking Gore, though. I think they'd receive too much criticism.
 
2861U2 said:



Smart move not picking Gore, though. I think they'd receive too much criticism.

Ya, I was thinking that too. As much as I expected it and as much as I was disappoionted he didn't win now that I think about it, it would be Gore overkill. Too many awards, too many accolades and it's "enough already" ... they almost become meaningless.
 
2861U2 said:

I'm just saying personally, I'd pick Petreaus. He's completely turned Iraq around.

I'd give it to Brett Favre. He deserves it the most. He completely turned the Packers around this season.
 
2861U2 said:
I understand that. Obviously the person of the year doesnt have to be a "good" person. I'm not saying Putin is a bad choice. I'm just saying personally, I'd pick Petreaus. He's completely turned Iraq around.

Our considerable political differences aside, I still don't think you can make a case for Petraeus as person of the year. As you mention, he's been involved in Iraq. That's one country, and not only is his influence there debatable (Muqtada al-Sadr strikes me as more influential), but his influence outside Iraq is pretty minimal. Putin's action's have broad implications on multiple continents. I think his selection as person of the year is good, even if it's not a nice one.
 
If I can change, and you can change, we can all change!

I always enjoyed Rocky ending the Cold War in Rocky IV.
 
Time magazine picks the most influential, not the most likeable. Putin isn't the most likeable man on the planet but he clearly has influence.
 
Brett Favre :drool:


I think Bush said his person of the year is Petraeus

How about Larry Craig? :wink:

Or maybe McCain said that. I guess perhaps Mitt's unfamiliar with some of the standards they have for person of the year and some of the other choices they have made in the past.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Count Republican Mitt Romney among those who aren't happy with Time Magazine's choice of Russian President Vladimir Putin for Person of the Year.

In an interview with CNN's Glen Beck, the presidential candidate called the choice "disgusting."

"You know, he imprisoned his political opponents. There have been a number of highly suspicious murders," Romney said on Beck's radio show. "He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the Man of the Year is really disgusting. I'm just appalled."

"Clearly General Petraeus is the person, or one of a few people, who would certainly merit that designation," the former Massachusetts governor added.

Rival presidential candidate John McCain also said Wednesday he disagreed with the choice.

“I noticed that Time Magazine made President Putin the Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year,’” McCain said, according to NBC. “I understand that probably, but my man of the year is one Gen. David Petraeus, our general who has brought success in Iraq.”
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:


I'm just saying personally, I'd pick Petreaus. He's completely turned Iraq around.




lowered levels of violence in an nearly ethnically cleansed city with increased amounts of american troops doesn't really qualify as "completely turned Iraq around."

the surge was supposed to deliver on three points:

1. oil revenues
2. de-Baathification
3. local elections

the reduction in violence isn't even a first step, it's a means of being able to get to the first step into getting Iraq to be an operational country.

had Patraeus accomplished even one of these things, there might be an argument.
 
but, anyway, Putin -- what's happened is that he's stabilized Russia, a country flush with new oil wealth and nukes, and turned it into a global power again.

it is no longer a unipolar world with the US far atop everything. under the stewardship of a good president, this can be a good thing (think Clinton). under the stewardship of an idiot and Darth Vader, this is a bad thing. but while Bush has been running around and drumming up evildoers to fight, the rest of the world's been realigning.
 
Irvine511 said:




lowered levels of violence in an nearly ethnically cleansed city with increased amounts of american troops doesn't really qualify as "completely turned Iraq around."

the surge was supposed to deliver on three points:

1. oil revenues
2. de-Baathification
3. local elections

the reduction in violence isn't even a first step, it's a means of being able to get to the first step into getting Iraq to be an operational country.

had Patraeus accomplished even one of these things, there might be an argument.


Baghdad is NOT an ethnically cleansed city. Not even close. Iraq as the Iraq Study Group found last year that Iraq is still so ethnically mixed even in the north and south that partition as some advocate is simply not possible.

Iraqi deaths, although difficult to accurately estimate, have fallen dramatically since the start of the surge. According to www.icasualties.org , over 3,000 Iraqi's were killed in February 2007. So far this month, the number is 360. The flow of refugees out of Iraq has stopped and in some cases been reversed. While local elections have not occured yet, there has been political progress in getting Sunni tribes and groups to abandon the insurgency. The Iraq military and police forces are now providing the security for 9 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Oil production is up. The amount of electricity available to residents in Baghdad is 6 times what it was at the start of the year. US deaths from hostile fire were at 120 for the month of May are down to just 9 for the month of December. Although there are 11 days left in December, December may go down has the month with the lowest casualties, killed and wounded for the US military of the entire war to date.

Those are accomplishments that not even I would have predicted in such a small space of time, and Democrats like Murtha have now come forward to admit that the Surge is indeed working. The leading Democratic Candidates are not talking about Iraq anymore to the degree that they did before, and instead of calling for a withdrawal of all US combat forces by March 31, 2008, all the three leading contenders are open to having US troops in Iraq up into 2013.

Its likely that Oil Revenue sharing, De-Baathification and local elections will happen in 2008 and it will be interesting to hear the excuse then for why The President's policy in Iraq is not working.

Patraeus efforts over the past year are being felt in Iraq, the entire middle east, and the United States. Putin's impact is more isolated to Russia and the fact that Russia plays a spoiler on issues such as Iran and Kosovo is nothing new, nor is the fact of Russia benefiting from higher global energy prices. Living standards have improved in Russia, but the standard of living in Bosnia is still better.

Russian military strength is still a tiny shadow of what it once was during the days of the Soviet Union. The government in Moscow went from a country of 300 million and 6 million in the armed forces to just 143 million people and a total military of 1 million in just the past 15 years, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But even today, Russia's 143 million population continues to decline by 750,000 people per year and its projected that Russia could be down to just 135 million people by the year 2015. While Russia still retains the old Soviet nuclear force, the huge change in populaton and resources from the Soviet Union to just the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation's continued large annual population decline mean that Russia will never come close to having the global power that the Soviet Union had.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom