Skip to comments.My thoughts On Pat Buchanan’s Brilliant And Incisive Take On Washington’s Ukrainian Fiasco
Posted on 07/29/2014 3:03:59 PM PDT by Lorianne
In just 800 words Pat Buchanan exposes the sheer juvenile delinquency embodied in Washingtons current Ukrainian fiasco. He accomplishes this by reminding us of the sober restraint that governed the actions of American Presidents from FDR to Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I with respect to Eastern Europe during far more perilous times.
In a word, as much as they abhorred the brutal Soviet repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968 and the solidarity movement in Poland in the early 1980s, among many other such incidents, they did not threaten war for one simple reason: These unfortunate episodes did not further endanger Americas national security. Instead, in different ways each of these Presidents searched for avenues of engagement with the often disagreeable and belligerent leaders of the Soviet Empire because they felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the worlds largest nation.
Accordingly, during the entire span from 1933, when FDR recognized the Soviet Union, until 1991, when it ended, the US never once claimed Ukraines independence was part of its foreign policy agenda or a vital national security interest. Why in the world, therefore, should we be meddling in the backyard of a far less threatening Russia today?
(Excerpt) Read more at davidstockmanscontracorner.com ...
Meanwhile, the Russkies are developing their nuclear capability and have been supporting communist movements and states across the world, as well as Islamic nations like Iran. They also possess tremendous influence with their media, with which they promote a virulent anti-Americanism that essentially tells the world "it's okay to kill Americans, they're the servants of the NWO."
Buchanan and these freaks are either useful idiots or else they are working for the Reds directly.
You will not be very popular with the war dogs here.
When do we start quoting the Domino Theory? It worked great last time it was drug out and waved around.
The only thing stopping us from “developing our nuclear capability” is the Obama administration. Believe it or not, nuclear weapons are not that expensive, especially for a country like ours that already has the infrastructure for them.
War dogs? As opposed to lap dogs?
Like several years ago when Putin invaded Georgia, complete with the whole "separatists" and "defense of Russians" nonsense.
The Ukraine declared it's independence in August of 1991, how could there be a policy for Ukrainian independence in the US prior to that? Is Stockman smoking rope? Has he not seen the expansion of Russia by Putin since O'Zero took office?
Wrench...better put some ice on that
Pat is always brilliant.
Do you think it's great that our wuss-in-chief is making threats that you know he won't ever back up?
I’m not aware of him making any threats except for sanctions, and then refraining to call Putin straight out a “liar,” which any real leader would have done some time ago.
These folks beating the drums seem to think that war with Russia will be like all of our other recent wars where less than 1% of the country goes off to some far away place most couldn't find on a map and thoroughly delivers ass-kickings on the nightly news while the rest of America goes about their day-to-day activities without any interruption or care in the world.
It won't be like that.
The reason we did not "threaten war" is because we didn't have the ability to intervene militarily. However, we provided other kinds of support to the opposition, much of it covert and also rhetorically. We provided the hope that kept the opposition alive. We had a containment policy, the Truman Doctrine, JFK's rhetorical defense of freedom throughout the world, and Reagan's evil empire along with a Polish Pope.
America used the VOA and other ways to communicate with the oppressed in these countries. In short, we had American leaders who could articulate the ideological struggle we were waging.
Just had a nightmare flashback.
If you substitute Sudetenland and Danzig for Crimea or Georgia and speak of "defense of Germans" history would be repeating itself-except that now there isn't any longer a man to stand in the gap in opposition to the tyrant.
Looking at these problems from the point of view that Washington really wants to solve them is even more ludicrous than believing that Obama and his cabal have the best interests of the United States at heart.
The recent situation with Russia and Ukraine has seemed murky to me as soon as Russia moved on the Crimea. Whatever one might think would be the right thing to do, we have done little for the same reason that we did probably nothing to free Tibet from China: too far away and impossible to do without risking a major war.
The idea that there is anything we can do to dissuade Putin from acting in Russia’s historical sphere of influence seems pretty nonsensical. W did, or could have done nothing to keep him from moving on Georgia.
Buchanan is probably right; we should engage with Putin where possible and try diplomacy and strenghtening alliances to contain Russia if they become too ambitious. (Such as installing missile defense systems in places like Poland and the Czech Republic. And we all know what happened to those plans. And we should avoid stupid moves that reopen areas such as the Middle East to renewed Russian influence.)
Reagan wouldn’t be passive, Obama is.
Reagan would be opposing Russia recovering empire and undoing what he accomplished and becoming a threat to the world again.
Obama is more with our Russia supporters here, in fact it is quite a game they play, calling for weakness, yet pretending that Obama isn’t with them and weak himself.
The biggest problem with your fantasy is that you couldn't possibly find anyone on this forum who even thinks what you have described or has even called for a war with Russia.