Ralph Peters has given us a perfect example showing how the
fear of seeing something or the desire to see it can make the beholder see the
thing where it is not. That's like a frightened child seeing demons in a cloud.
It is like diehard fans of Elvis Presley seeing him everywhere they wish he
were.
And so, Ralph Peters is seeing Vladimir Putin. He sees him
become more murderous and more dangerous than ever before. In fact, this is the
title of the article he wrote. In full, it reads like this: “Vladimir Putin
will only become more murderous and dangerous,” published on January 24, 2016
in the New York Post.
Those who might have wanted to know how much Ralph Peters
dislikes Vladimir Putin now have the answer; Peters dislikes Putin a lot
because he fears him a lot. But that's not the puzzling part. Rather, the
puzzle is in the body of evidence that the author lays out to convince the
readers they too must fear Putin, and must learn to dislike him a lot. To make
that point, Peters relies on the findings of a British inquiry which says that
a Russian defector “was murdered, and that Vladimir Putin 'probably' approved
the operation personally.”
And folks, believe it or not, that's all there is to it.
Ralph Peters has only a probability he uses as evidentiary stepping stone from
where he launches a ferocious attack on Putin. He prosecutes the Russian leader
for this crime, and for all sorts of other crimes, about which he has no
evidence except that the defendant deserves to be feared and disliked.
Unlike the Church Inquiry in America producing solid proof
that the CIA committed crimes abroad, unlike the strong evidence that came up
to the effect that Henry Kissinger was involved in the murder of Salvador
Allende, unlike the Israelis who constantly brag they can and do assassinate
their enemies anywhere the latter go to hide – the evidence against Putin's
involvement in the death of a dissident comes down to this: “On his deathbed,
the [dissident] stated that Putin had ordered the hit. No sane person doubted
him.” That's it, my friend, that's all the evidence that Peters has; evidence
he asserts can only be doubted by the insane.
And all that information prompts him to ask the question:
“Why should we care about the death of one defector when the world's ablaze?”
And he answers: we must care because Russia has nuclear weapons, and
Putin ignores international law. Like Hitler he uses war to settle differences
with others. He is brilliant but also ruthless, making use of his genius to
understand his people and size up his enemies.
To elaborate, Peters says that when Putin took charge of Russia , the
country was in dire shape. He took advantage of the oil and gas boom to enrich
his people, an achievement that made them proud of him and their country. The
trouble in the eyes of the author is that the local adulation spilled over into
Western Europe . Coupling that reality with
Putin's use of natural gas as a weapon, his influence grew large. He was thus
able to force the Europeans into signing the kind of energy contracts that
serve him well. And he was able to disrupt every response they came up with to
his bad behavior.
But is this such a serious development, we should worry that
Putin is out there doing what he does? Oh no, says Peters, that's not the whole
story; there is more to Putin's doings. He took Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine , says
Peters. He also deployed forces to Syria which he managed to
stabilize. He also grabbed an airbase in the interior. And the worst part is
that “along the way, he suffered embarrassments, but no compelling defeats.”
See?
But why is that so bad, Ralph? It is bad because “he [Putin]
now expects to win – which makes him extremely dangerous.” What's the
connection, Ralph? How does the expectation to win make someone dangerous? He
explains that despite his genius, Putin has a weakness; it is that he has no
grasp of economics.
Those are points that Peters sees as dots on the map. He
believes he can connect them to reveal something big. To do that, he constructs
a scenario he says will eventually unfold in real life. It will go like this:
“The danger may be coming to a head; market forces are applying the brakes.
With oil and gas prices plummeting, Russia 's economy is shrinking … and
the first cracks in Putin's popularity are showing … the grumbling has begun.”
But whose fault is that?
Aha, that's a good question, says Peters. It is Putin's
fault, of course. Do you know why? Well, to know why, you must disregard what
was said earlier about Putin having no grasp of economics. You must, for the
next little while, believe that Putin knows economics so well, he understands
that Russia 's
salvation rests in the diversification of the economy.
Here is the catch however: “a diversified economy would have
defused his [Putin's] authority.” Because this would have threatened his own
salvation, he chose not to diversify the economy thus safeguard his salvation,
rather than diversify and safeguard Russia 's salvation. See? See how
things work out nicely when you hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously in
your head?
This is why the Russian economy will continue to
deteriorate, says Peters. He then asks: “Should we rejoice? Does this mean that
the assassinations and invasions might end?” No, says the writer, and that's
because the Russian President could turn bitter and reckless, given that his
pride has been wounded. He might lash out left and right at anything that
moves.