The Relationship between Putin and Boko Haram

Whether Democrat or Republican, no U.S. President has ever succeeded in deterring Soviet military intervention in Eastern Europe over the last 70 years.

He further writes that: “Vladimir Putin invaded and annexed Crimea. Instead of condemning him for this outrageous act, however, some think it is more important to blame President Obama for this tragedy. The analysis is flawed. The historical amnesia is frightening.

Well, all I could think of as I read this article was “Nigeria;” especially with the now almost intentional habit of our educated elites to blame President Goodluck Jonathan for the many security problems facing the nation led by the Boko Haram attacks and now lately those of the rampaging Fulani herdsmen – considering these senseless trend of religious-and-ethnic-and-extremists-related attacks predates his administration and go way back to the late 70s and early 80s.

It was so easy for me to draw obvious parallels between what the Prof was getting at here and what I have also long-considered to be a malaise within the Nigerian Polity.

Here is more of what he wrote:

  1. “It was not the reset [US-Russia New Relations Programme – google this] or Putin’s perception of Obama’s weakness that created the permissive conditions for Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea. Rather, Putin could review 70 years of history of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and correctly conclude that the United States had no means to stop his invasion plans.”

  2. “George W. Bush did not prevent Russia’s invasion of Georgia. (Some argue that had Obama bombed Syria last fall, Putin would not have invaded Crimea, but Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not stop Putin’s invasion of Georgia).”

  3. “Few would accuse President Reagan of being naïve or weak regarding the Soviet Communist regime. Yet, when Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev colluded with Polish General Jaruzelski to crush Solidarity and implement martial law in December 1981, Reagan could not deter this brutal crackdown.”
  4. “President Johnson, of course, did not prevent Brezhnev from invading Czechoslovakia in 1968. And President Eisenhower, even armed with his rhetorically muscular “roll back” of Communism policy, failed to halt the Soviet invasion of Hungary of 1956. And obviously, President Roosevelt was unable to compel the Red Army to retreat back to Soviet borders at the end of World War II.”

  5. “The record is clear and consistent. Whether Democrat or Republican, no U.S. president has ever succeeded in deterring Soviet military intervention in Eastern Europe over the last 70 years. American responses to intervention, however, did vary radically. President Reagan pursued a much more coercive and robust response to martial law in Poland in 1981 compared to President Johnson’s feeble response to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968.”

  6. It is on this debate — how to make Putin pay for his actions — that our national leaders should focus. Debating the extent of sanctions against Russian officials, arguing over the size of the economic assistance package to the new Ukrainian government, debating greater military assistance to the Ukrainian army, considering how large the increase should be of scholarships for Ukrainians to study in the U.S. over the next decade, or jousting over how large the plus up should be for the Freedom Support Act should be in next year’s budgets — these are the important policy questions of our moment. Debating Obama’s weakness only makes our entire country weak.”

    There you have it – if this piece had been written by a Nigerian substituting the words Russia/Putin with Boko Haram/Fulani herdsmen and Obama/other mentioned ex-Presidents of the US with Goodluck Jonathan, I bet this Prof. would have been torn-apart by our new very fierce public commentators and bloggers as a “Sycophant” or “Any-Govt-In-Power [A.G.I.P] Contractor” who is busy “rationalizing the weaknesses and cluelessness of Jonathan rather than saying the truth.”

    Well knowing these guys very well, I won’t be surprised if they accused this Prof of similar allegations in respect to Obama suggesting that “the Prof who is an ex-staffer of the President might just be seeking an easy way back into government reckoning.” Yet the obvious lessons to be learnt here are simple – No nation – whether the US or Nigeria should be at WAR with itself when it actually has a common enemy that is raping of its sense of sanity while wrecking either mild or maximum havoc on that nation as it is today with the case of Russia v US and Nigeria v Boko Haram, et al respectfully!

    Responsible citizens of every decent nation should be able to know the limits of playing Politics versus being Patriots of that nation – knowing that a thin line actually exists between these two scenarios – even as I was shocked to learn on CNN just yesterday morning about how “Putin’s approval rating in Russia was actually rising as that of Obama [39%], Cameron [40%], Hollande [17%] were actually at relatively all-time-lows!” [I am not suggesting here that these poll numbers are directly connected to the Ukraine-Crimea drama]

    This made me begin to wonder if liberal societies aren’t actually largely the cause of their own biggest problems? How do you turn against your leaders when you are supposed to be joining them in waging war against your common problems and enemies while citizens of nations ran by maximum leaders get to applaud them?

    And of course in no other nation can I confidently say this happens today more than in my own Nigeria – it has now become a fashionable thing of some sorts for our educated folks and elites to treat all the problems within the polity as “something caused by Goodluck Jonathan/his administration/the PDP” and every other commentator you give the microphone; or a page in the dailies; or a blog; must tell you “if only our Government was doing this, that won’t have happened” – to the point that we now seem to have come to an all-time-low level of some self-instigated mental blockade scenario where no one within this polity dares come up with any real palpable solutions on any subject matter because all you need to do to be popular nowadays is to just be against-any-position-of-the-Goodluck-Jonathan-administration and you are allowed bow and go.

    How come these Nigerians are the ones that can tell of a surety that “they know Shekau is still alive” as though he is a mutual friend of theirs whose phone number they have on speed-dial? How come they are the ones that know of a surety that “Boko Haram is more equipped and organized than the Nigerian Armed Forces” as though they have military-training backgrounds to expatiate on the subject matter? How come these Nigerians never criticize Boko Haram, hurling curses on them; praying that the blood of the innocent Nigerians they slain would be taken from them? How come Goodluck Jonathan is the one that must be blamed for the loss of these innocent lives as though he’s executed a treaty with Boko Haram to help him reduce the population of the nation over a period of time?

    When would these Nigerians begin to understand that there is no gain in negating your own country on the platform of being politically popular or correct?

    I really wonder for how long this dangerous trend would persist within this nation – in the words of Olu Jacobs in his famous detective series – I wonder; I just wonder.

    McFaul’s full article can be read from See:

5 thoughts on “The Relationship between Putin and Boko Haram

  1. It’s obvious that you are a Jonathan supporter and probably also benefiting from his government. You cannot advance a balance view point about the current issues confronting Nigeria. I wonder why you don’t bring up for discussion of the recent damning corruption report on Nigeria by the United States since you are so apt to draw parallels between what’s going on between the US/Obama and the Eastern Bloc and Nigeria/Jonathan and Boko Haram. How come you don’t bring up for discussion the $25 billion that the PDP claimed they have spend on Electricity in Nigeria and we still have 4000 megawatts of power today just as we had in 1999 when they took over the reign. It’s a stain on your credibility when you come across as all blindly supportive of a very corrupt government. And just for your information, I’m not aligned with any of the political parties in Nigeria just as i’m not with any in the US, but I call it like it is, at least, as I see it as a tax payer in both countries. I’m not blindly supportive of Obama’s policies just because we are both African-American. The way I see it, when he was sworn in as president of the United States, the first for an African American, history was made. By the next day, I started judging him based on his policies not by the color of his skin. Looks like you can’t see anything wrong about GEJ’s policies, no matter what and very selective about what part of his policies you bring up for discussions, maybe for fear of marginalizing your access into the Villa and blowing up some of whatever deals you’ve got going with his government. Just try practicing advancing a very balance view point sometimes and maybe, just maybe you can come across as credible.


  2. A simplistic response to BH/Fulani herdsmen menace is for me to attempt taking up arms in defense of innocent Nigerians. If we all did so it turns out as anarchy.
    To avoid such is why we have vested our powers in the institutions of the presidency and the armed forces. Hence these are the ones we hold responsible. It is that simple.
    Take the Kaduna and Jos riots of the past as a case study, when the state failed the people anarchy became the order. Let us admit that the irresponsibility of leadership in providing security and justice, due to their playing politics with lives of citizens is the real problem.
    We are left with two options:
    1) is to insist the government delivers on security and justice, or
    2) we resort to self-defense and ANARCHY, the inevitable consequence of protracted insecurity.
    Finally, I need to say I find your comparison of international politics with local TERROR rather unpatriotic. Compare Shekau rather with Osama and tell us how US presidents deal with such!


    • Segun, the last time I checked the US had lost THOUSANDS of Soldiers and TRILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS MORE of Innocent citizens in dealing with TERRORISTS; tell me about “the way they deal with terror” then…


      • By “THOUSANDS MORE of Innocent citizens” is very untrue, not on American soil and not American lives. The American citizens are being preserved successfully and feel safe unlike the case is with Nigerians. Even our president can’t move freely. If GEJ secures civilian lives like Obama does he would be our hero. Note that late Ya’Adua still gets the credit for handling the Niger-Delta crisis even when it didn’t come at this high cost in Nigerian lives.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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