Skip to comments.Why President Obama's mealymouthed response to Ukraine only invites Putin's aggression.
Posted on 03/11/2014 12:45:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Vladimir Putin running rampant in Ukraine showcases how the Obama administration's abdication of global leadership is making the world a more dangerous place.
Instead of providing clarity to our nation and our allies, the Obama administration offers tortured semantics. "Kinetic action" glamorizes the failed policy of leading from behind in Libya. A "spontaneous protest" explains the coordinated al Qaeda attack on American officials in Benghazi. The interim agreement over Iran's nuclear program -- described by one of our closest allies as a "historic mistake" -- is in this universe referred to as a display of "international unity." And on Friday, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was euphemistically designated "an uncontested arrival."
This is the language of fools. Appeasement, historically, leads to more and more violence. Bullies and tyrants are only encouraged when the United States uses words that willfully ignore the reality of the threats the United States and our allies face.
Ironically, this administration's effort to avoid conflict at all costs makes conflict all the more likely. Putin knows there will be no serious reprisals for aggression from an American president who was only waiting for his re-election to give him the "flexibility" to make additional concessions at the negotiating table. Putin's disdain for Washington has been on full display as he barely waited for the Olympic flame at Sochi to be extinguished before he turned his attention to long-suffering Ukraine.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
Cut and past the title -
Why President Obama's mealymouthed response to Ukraine only invites Putin's aggression
- into your Internet search window and then click on the first link that comes up. It should take you to the article.
There Ted Cruz lists options to deal with Putin's aggression.
I found the above Cruz OpEd linked in an American Thinker article titled Rand Paul vs. Ted Cruz? (which is worth checking out).
But we must also understand that the danger of war is increased by Obama himself. We must not believe that Obama will always be passive because his nature is to acquiesce to every affront. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is a radical, a Marxist, therefore he does not measure threats according to the same standard that all other presidents have used.
Obama will react with whatever it takes to defend and prosper his ideology. He will not necessarily react to threats which threaten his nation.One need only review the wars conducted by communists to understand that they are not pacifists but extremely bloodthirsty in the pursuit of the advancement of their ideology. More than 100 million have died of their hands. It is a commonplace to believe that the left abhors war, they do not, they exploit the brutality of war when it advances or defends capitalism but they indulge in the murder of a whole generations, classes, or races to advance their ideology. This is the mental matrix of Barack Obama.
Added to this new matrix inside Obama's head according to which America's power is applied, we have the extraneous but very dangerous reality that Obama himself is a narcissist. He associates his own well-being with the advancement of his radical anti-American, Marxist, anti-colonialist, pro-Islamicist ideology. In other words, to Obama the advancement of global justice as he defines it is synonymous with the maintenance of his own image. A threat to his image will lead to a violent reaction. We have already seen the lawlessness of this administration, for example the lawlessness of the IRS, in the election cycle for 2012 when Obama's personal advancement was at stake.
Under these circumstances it is impossible for actors on the international stage to know what will generate a violent reaction from Obama. The danger is that they will simply calculate that they can safely push and push without fear of reprisal. That is not true. They dare not push against Obama personally or against his ideology.
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to understand exactly what it is that motivates Obama. Too often we hear establishment Republicans criticize Obama for lack of experience on the job. This is a disservice to the nation. Beginning with a feckless campaign of John McCain in which they muzzled Sarah Palin and continuing right on through with the campaign and Mitch McConnell, the Republicans have consciously passed up every opportunity to explain to the American people what sort of man, actually what sort of communist, Barack Obama actually is. In their defense one might say they were intimidated by his race, but that is hardly an excuse for politicians who seek our money, our support, our shoe leather, and our votes to act on our behalf but fail us at the ramparts.
So for a leader such as Vladimir Putin to proceed simplistically assuming that he knows his man is a very, very dangerous assumption and possibly a miscalculation which could lead to war.
Scariest post ive read in a long time. Very true.
Israel and Bibi Netanyahu have consistently been given the back of Obama's hand for all the world to see.
March 5, 2014 - Netanyahu at AIPAC: Rebutting Obama, Affirming Israel "On Sunday, even before Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu had arrived in America for his current visit, President Obama was portraying him in an interview to Bloombergs Jeffrey Goldberg as the obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.
At the same time, Obama lavished praised on Netanyahus opposite number on the Palestinian side, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, calling him somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. Abbas, in another one of countless such instances, has just sent a representative to glorify a Palestinian who murdered an Israeli mother and her two children, and has also sent a wreath to honor a suicide bomber who killed eight Israelis on a bus.
But as for Netanyahu, Obama told Goldberg: When I have a conversation with Bibi, thats the essence of my conversation: if not now, when? And: where youve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously for us not to seize this moment I think would be a great mistake.
And if Netanyahu were to keep failing to seize the moment and make peace with this ideal partner, Obamaas Secretary of State John Kerry did last monthforetold dire consequences. He claimed Israel was already more isolated internationally, and warned of an absence of international goodwill the condemnation of the international community, a situation in which Americas ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.
As commentators have noted, this is a direct threat to a democratic ally from a president who has great difficulty taking credible stances toward the likes of Syria, Iran, and Russia."................
............."Netanyahu, not surprisingly, painted a much gloomier picture of the situation. Referring to Irans current purported moderates, its smiling president and smooth-talking foreign minister, he said that if you listen to their words, their soothing words, they dont square with Irans aggressive actions.
Even in the midst of the diplomatic talks, Netanyahu stressed, Iran keeps building intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads and that can strike, right now, or very soon, the Eastern seaboard of the United States . And as he also noted:
Its not only that Iran doesnt walk the walk. In the last few weeks, they dont even bother to talk the talk. Irans leaders say they wont dismantle a single centrifuge, they wont discuss their ballistic missile program. And guess what tune theyre singing in Tehran? Its not God Bless America, its death to America. And they chant this as brazenly as ever. Some charm offensive.
As well as being effective rhetoric, this is, it should be pointed out, factually true.".............
I read through the suggested strategies. What should America do if Putin disregards them and takes Crimea?
Nothing, is my immediate reaction.
While Putin will “disregard them,” they still would affect him. But we won’t know that with Obama in the White House running the show that is grounded in anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism and anti-U.S.allies policy.
If we HAD an AMERICAN as a president, there would be no reason to ask the question. On the other hand, since we don't have such a president, the one we have will probably go buy some new under ware.
I doubt that Putin looks up to Obama admiringly. Putin knows Obama is incompetent as a leader.
Let the European Union take care of their own back yard. That's what started this whole mess.
Crimea is already gone. And I think they are happy with that outcome.
It is only Hussein being "more flexible" aka TREASON.
That does not address my question of what America should then do about it.
You said you’d read Cruz’s bullet-points of action to take.
That’s what we should do.
1.) Secretary of State John Kerry called a Moscow pizza place last night, and had 20 pizzas sent over to Putin's house.
2.) An undercover operative left a paper bag filled with dog poop on Putin's front steps, lit in on fire, then rang the doorbell and ran away.
3.) Joe Biden has been directed to call Putin repeatedly and ask if he has Prince Albert in a can.
That is more of a before the fact strategy than an after the fact strategy.
I don’t think we can do anything short of military action to deter before or reverse afterwards.
It’s an ongoing strategy!
And just this afternoon Putin sent each of them a whoopee cushion.
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.