Pat Buchanan: Does Putin not have a point?

Commentary on the response to Putin's speech by Pat Buchanan, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination:

What did we do to antagonize Russia?
1. When the Cold War ended, we seized upon our "unipolar moment" as the lone superpower to seek geopolitical advantage at Russia's expense … planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch.
2. America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
3. Used bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, [and] now seem hellbent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
4. [Plan to] put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?
5. [Through] tax-exempt think tanks, foundations and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and Russia herself.
6. U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia.
7. America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?

How would we react if China today brought Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela into a military alliance, convinced Mexico to sell oil to Beijing and bypass the United States, and began meddling in the affairs of Central America and Caribbean countries to effect the electoral defeat of regimes friendly to the United States? How would we react to a Russian move to put anti-missile missiles on Greenland?

No comments: