Skip to comments.Obama’s Fantasy-Based Foreign Policy
Posted on 03/08/2014 1:25:00 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
On February 23, five days before Russia invaded Ukraine, National Security Adviser Susan Rice appeared on Meet the Press and shrugged off suggestions that Russia was preparing any kind of military intervention: Its in nobodys interest to see violence returned and the situation escalate. A return to a Cold War construct isnt necessary, Rice insisted, because such thinking is long out of date and doesnt reflect the realities of the 21st century. Even if Vladimir Putin sees the world this way, Rice argued, it is not in the United States interests to do so.
It was a remarkably transparent case of pretending the world is what we wish it to be, rather than seeing it as it is.
On February 28, Russian troops poured into Ukraine. As they did, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Kerry briefed reporters after their talk, plainly unaware of the developments on the ground. Kerry said that Russia wants to help Ukraine with its economic problems. Lavrov had told him that they are prepared to be engaged and be involved in helping to deal with the economic transition that needs to take place at this point.
Hours later, television screens across the world displayed images of Russian soldiers infiltrating Crimea and Russian artillery rolling through Sevastopol. Obama administration officials told CNNs Barbara Starr that the incursion was not an invasion but an uncontested arrival and that this distinction was key to understanding the new developments.
But euphemism cant alter reality. So, President Obama delivered a statement: The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine. The White House wasnt quite ready to lead the international community in a response to an intervention that was underway, but with the snarl of a puppy, the president announced we would stand with others if the uncontested arrival somehow turned into real military intervention. (Thirty minutes after his warning, no doubt meant to convey toughness and resolve, Obama appeared at a Democratic National Committee pep rally and declared the opening of happy hour.)
Four days later, with Russia in effective control of Ukraines Crimean peninsula, Vladimir Putin held a press conferencea rambling series of claims and statements that sometimes contradicted each other and often contradicted reality. Putin maintained, for instance, that there were no Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine, and that the Russian-speaking soldiers who often identified themselves as Russian soldiers were probably local defense groups who may well have bought their uniforms from military surplus stores.
Where others saw the agitprop of an emboldened authoritarian, the White House chose to see hope. Administration officials seized on one sentence of his blather and expressed optimism. Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces so far, there is no need for it. . . . Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort, Putin said. Obama national security officials saw this claimwhich came days after Russian troops had been deployedas evidence that Putin was looking for an off-ramp. And soon we had a name for this new Obama approach to the crisis: de-escalation.
Its not de-escalation, its delusion. And its dangerous. The public seems to understand this. In a Fox News poll released March 6, Obamas foreign policy approval rating fell to a new lowat just 33 percent (56 percent disapprove).
For five years, the Obama administration has chosen to see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. In this fantasy world, the attack in Fort Hood is workplace violence. The Christmas Day bomber is an isolated extremist. The attempted bombing in Times Square is a one-off attack. The attacks in Benghazi are a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. Al Qaeda is on the run. Bashar al-Assad is a reformer. The Iranian regime can be sweet-talked out of its nuclear weapons program. And Vladimir Putin is a new, post-Cold War Russian leader.
In the real world, it was a pen pal of the late jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki who opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood. The Christmas bomber was dispatched from Yemen, where he was instructed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Times Square bomber was trained and financed by the Pakistani Taliban. Benghazi was a deliberate attack launched by well-known terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is amassing territory and increasing its profile. Assad is a brutal dictator, responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians. The Iranian regime is firmly entrenched as the worlds foremost state sponsor of terror and remains determined to lead a nuclear state. And in Russia we face a Cold War throwback willing to use force to expand Russian influence.
And Vladimir Putin, it turns out, is who we thought he was. Unfortunately, so is Barack Obama.
Is there anything about this guy that doesn’t involve a fantasy (as far as his political influence is concerned?)
Very little. His Indonesian and probably still Kenyan citizenship appear quite real, as does his lack of qualification for the presidency Everything else we’ve been told about him us either a lie or he’s deliberately hidden from us ( the most basic way to lie us to simply hide or bury the truth). But the American public doesn’t want to deal with truth, preferring delusion instead so long as there’s free food stamps and obamaphones being passed out.
We are so .......
I enjoy watching the Obama administratiion acting foolish and ineffective, but I still see no reason to get involved in this.
By treaty the Russians are allowed up to:
on Crimean territory.
Establishing 16,000 troops into the Crimea wasn't an invasion. Just like when the US moves guys into Guantanamo, they're not invading Cuba.
So let's be careful not to heat up the rhetoric unnecessarily.
The Ukrainians have excellent reasons to hate and fear Russia, and the world would be a better place if they could finally become a free people - not ruled by Russia, nor by EU-sponsored oligarchs with their own militias, nor by National Socialists.
One way to make that happen would be to arm them and encourage them to enshrine something like the 2nd Amendment.
Another way would be for the US to become a large-scale NG exporter. When that happens a lot of the pathologies of Russia(=GAZPROM) will be contained.
Washington could make this stuff happen and there'd be no danger of war. Unfortunately - as we all know - they're myopic and corrupt.
>> But the American public doesnt want to deal with truth
What’s most bothersome is the willingness to throw all the liberty away. I’ll remain optimistic knowing that only a minority (them) voted for it while another minority (us) fought it against. Too bad the others don’t give a hoot.
How true. We now have ambassadors who can’t even find their postings on the map and John Q Citizen is so dumbed down The Crimean Peninsula may as we’ll be on Mars. But Obama is so cool. Can’t spell R-E-S-P-E-C-T though...
Someone should go into the men’s locker room of the golf course clubhouse and explain the above to Mr. Obama. I’ll bet you a dollar it’ll be the first he’s heard of it.
About 12 years ago Hayes wrote a book “proving” that Iraq was behind 9/11. It was, of course, a pack of neocon lies. But, his bosses got the war they wanted while real conservatives were slimed as “unpatriotic” and worse.
Now, this little girlyman is at it again.
Your legacy is in the toilet.
Worst president of our lifetime.
I’ve come to believe we are both insomniacs because I see your posts here in the middle of the night practically daily. Wishing you all the best.
I should add that the Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement (and its various extensions) isn’t the whole story.
Russian troops are clearly in control of the Crimea - they have established roadblocks, entrenchments etc. This level of military deployment is obviously not covered by the base agreement. Also we have the stories of Ukrainian troops being besieged in there barracks.
Russia can say that it is acting with the authority of Yanukovych - who is both a corrupt apparatchik of Russia AND the legally elected President of Ukraine.
It can also claim to be acting in accordance with the internationally-recognized right to self-determination - in this case by the people of Crimea.
How to unpick such a mare’s nest of legality?
The first thing to do is to clarify obvious facts - like the fact that the Russians have longstanding rights in the Crimea, established by treaty and by long historical provenance. It’s also clearly over-determined that the people of Crimea will formally secede to Russia.
This is de facto. It may also be de jure, or it may not. The fact is that Crimea is going to become part of Russia and its not morally obvious that it shouldn’t be.
The rest of Ukraine is another matter. East Ukraine is heating up: there could be/already is strife between EU puppets and Russian puppets, all with their own militias.
The right answer is to strengthen Ukraine - not as a EU or US client-state, but as a constitutional republic with an armed citizenry and able to buy NG for US prices rather than GAZPROM ones.
I could not believe the media reports of "relief" when Putin made his absurd claims, but there they were.
Moreover, for anyone looking for rationality in our Fed Bubble Stock Market, we need to realize these "investors" are not playing with a full deck:
It wasn’t an invasion, but rather an uncontested arrival.
Sounds like the Southern US border...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.