Helmut Schmidt: US More Dangerous than Russia

Former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt told Die Zeit earlier this week that the United States is a greater danger to peace than Russia.  I cannot find the original interview with Schmidt, but Gabor Steinart has a lengthy discussion of this in Der Spiegel (English version here). Certainly, you could make the argument that Putin's Russia is a vastly diminished military force and therefore does not have the capacity to launch foreign military adventures. But that is not what Schmidt is saying here.  He sees Vladimir Putin as "an enlightened potentate" who has wisely avoided regional conflicts.  Steingart recaps:

According to Helmut Schmidt, the Russian military has not entered any foreign territory since Gorbachev came into power. The Russians, says Schmidt, have not engaged in any aggressive acts, even allowing Ukraine and Belarus to break away from the former czarist empire. And this was done without so much as a civil war, which, in Schmidt's view, is an astonishing achievement.

The track record of the US under George W. Bush is, of course, much different, with one disasterous pre-emptive war launched and much loose talk now of World War III.  But Bush is isolated, his policies discredited, while Putin has a great deal more flexibility and credibility on the world stage.  An isolated America is certainly more dangerous than a diplomatically robust Russia. But the Bush era is rapidly coming to a close, and - except for core Republican supporters - there is not much interest among Americans in waging new wars.  On the contrary, there is a hunger to reverse the damage done over the past 7 years.

But maybe Schmidt simply has a soft spot for "potentates", he told Die Zeit that Leonid Breschnev was the "most human potentate". " He showed his emotions and could shed a tear."

Comments

[Omar]

Steinberg's message is unclear.

"Putin ist ein Pazifist wider Willen"

So, Putin can't be as much of a danger, because the russian millitary isn't up to the game. Fine, they really can't afford another Chechnya.. But isn't it the same with Bush et al? Bush simply can't afford to attack Iran (for example), because the military power of the US would be "overstretched". The Bush administration has shown more than enough times that it doesn't care about public opinion. So, where is the difference??

And let's not mention his evaluation of Chinese interventionism..

Me, i think every state chief is trying to pursue goals. These goals don't necessarily have to be in the best interest of the state. The damage he can inflict is merely limited by his willingness to lie (to get the people to stand behind him) and willingness of the military to get on with "the job".. Look at turkey and their "let's-kill-some-turks" plans..

Where Helmut Schmidt lies correct is by comparing the estimated casualties of US- and russian actions in the past 5-10 years..

I really do hope US-citizens vote for someone who will truly think twice about killing humans preemptively. And though, David, you won't like it, but i don't think that Obama is that person..

[David]

@Omar,

I can understand some of your skepticism but Barack Obama:
1)Is the only major candidate in either party who vocally opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003.
2)Is the only candidate who has nuclear disarmament as part of his foreign policy platform;
3) Is the only candidate who has stated that if elected he would meet with the leaders of Iran without preconditions.
4) Is the only candidate who spent his formative years in a Third World country.

To me, he is the best hope for a better America on the world stage.

[Joerg]

Yes, but will Americans elect Obama?

Russia has been pretty aggressive towards its "near abroad." Is nobody taking issue with Schmidt's comment in the quote in this post?