Our neo-con war-mongers do certainly seem to have the hots for him. Go figure?

Paul Krugman is the best.

with almost no opposition, but what it got from its triumph was an imploding economy that is in no position to pay tribute, and in fact requires costly aid. Meanwhile, foreign investment in and lending to Russia proper more or less collapsed even before the oil price plunge turned the situation into a full-blown financial crisis.

Which brings us to two big questions. First, why did Mr. Putin do something so stupid? Second, why were so many influential people in the United States impressed by and envious of his
stupidity? The answer to the first question is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin’s background. Remember, he’s an ex-K.G.B. man — which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug. Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows.

The answer to the second question is a bit more complicated, but let’s not forget how we ended up invading Iraq. ... there is a still-powerful political faction (neocons) in America committed to the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid.

Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they didn’t learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with admiration and envy."

Neocons (the American or the Russian versions) do not view an imploding economy as a problem as long as their aggressive foreign policy is 'successful'. An imploding economy will hurt the 99% but the 1% will do quite well. Hence no reason for neocons to be concerned.

Lots of money from taxpayers - a.k.a the 99% - was transferred to the top with the war. A good chunk of that money went back into the reelection campaign funds for the people starting the war.

That doesn't sound like a loss to me.


On edit: +w