As I am sure most of you know, Russia sent large numbers of troops into Ukraine over the past few weeks in violation of international law. The official claim from Moscow is that the invasion, which has so far been described as "low-key," is a peace keeping mission and an effort to protect Russian nationals living inside of Ukraine from imminent civil war. To the rest of the world, however, it looks like Russia is attempting to reacquire Ukraine, a nation that was previously a cornerstone of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin, went on record in 2005 saying "that the fall of the Soviet Union was 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe' of the 20th century," so it seems logical to assume that this is a strategic political move and not a reactive peace keeping mission.
Since the invasion began, the United States has erupted with questions and accusations about Barrack Obama's effectiveness in dealing with the situation. One of the most common accusation among republican politicians is that Obama is a weak president and that his weakness has led Putin to believe that he can act with impunity. On Sunday, Senator Lindsey Grahram went on CNN to say that "Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression." Senator John McCain claimed that "this is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where no one believes in America's strength anymore."
Now I am a pretty conservative person, and I disagree with most of Obama's policies, but these accusations are ridiculous. President Obama has authorized more drone strikes than any other president in history, and Osama bin Laden was discovered and killed on Obama's watch. But conservatives are trying to use this crisis to turn public opinion against Obama. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. Anytime any American president makes any decision about anything, the opposing political party attempts to undermine him. Obama has done everything he can to dissuade Putin from keeping troops in Ukraine. According to the Washington Post, "Obama authorized the Treasury Department on Thursday to impose sanctions on 'individuals and entities' responsible for the Russian intervention in Crimea or for 'stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people,'" but his options in dealing with Russia are limited. He cannot use military force without starting World War 3, and so far, the United Nations has done nothing except talk about taking action.
Honestly, I agree with the popular opinion that Russia sent troops into Ukraine because Putin sensed weakness, but it was not weakness in Obama. He knows that the United States is deeply divided, that most European countries will never take action, and that the United Nations is a joke. Putin is using Ukraine to test the rest of the world, similar to what Adolf Hitler did with Poland in 1939, but the world is too busy bickering to take any decisive action. I cannot believe that I am saying this, but Republicans need to get behind Obama on this one. This is too important of an issue to be turned into another internal political struggle. If anything, Americans should be angry at the Europe and the United Nations for dragging their feet on this issue.
Since the invasion began, the United States has erupted with questions and accusations about Barrack Obama's effectiveness in dealing with the situation. One of the most common accusation among republican politicians is that Obama is a weak president and that his weakness has led Putin to believe that he can act with impunity. On Sunday, Senator Lindsey Grahram went on CNN to say that "Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression." Senator John McCain claimed that "this is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where no one believes in America's strength anymore."
Now I am a pretty conservative person, and I disagree with most of Obama's policies, but these accusations are ridiculous. President Obama has authorized more drone strikes than any other president in history, and Osama bin Laden was discovered and killed on Obama's watch. But conservatives are trying to use this crisis to turn public opinion against Obama. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. Anytime any American president makes any decision about anything, the opposing political party attempts to undermine him. Obama has done everything he can to dissuade Putin from keeping troops in Ukraine. According to the Washington Post, "Obama authorized the Treasury Department on Thursday to impose sanctions on 'individuals and entities' responsible for the Russian intervention in Crimea or for 'stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people,'" but his options in dealing with Russia are limited. He cannot use military force without starting World War 3, and so far, the United Nations has done nothing except talk about taking action.
Honestly, I agree with the popular opinion that Russia sent troops into Ukraine because Putin sensed weakness, but it was not weakness in Obama. He knows that the United States is deeply divided, that most European countries will never take action, and that the United Nations is a joke. Putin is using Ukraine to test the rest of the world, similar to what Adolf Hitler did with Poland in 1939, but the world is too busy bickering to take any decisive action. I cannot believe that I am saying this, but Republicans need to get behind Obama on this one. This is too important of an issue to be turned into another internal political struggle. If anything, Americans should be angry at the Europe and the United Nations for dragging their feet on this issue.
I don't think Russia plans to annex Ukraine. He just wants that chunk (Crimea) and will use the current instability to gobble it up for Russia. I unfortunately have to agree with the rest of it; many parallels can be drawn between this and Hitler pre-WWII. I don't necessarily know if Putin is going to do what Hitler did in WWII, but I think that the UN needs to have a more assertive authority over nations. The issue in the 30's was the League of Nations was weak; that same issue persists today with the UN.
ReplyDeleteYea, it's funny how history repeats itself, and it has only been 75 years. Hopefully Russia doesn't do what Germany did in WWII, but based on what I know about Putin and his love of the old Soviet Union, I am worried that it will.
DeleteI think Russia will do whatever its government leaders decide it can get away with. That's its history, especially for the last 100 years. Eastern Europe fell under the domination of the Soviet Union for 45 years because a Democratic president gave it away at the Yalta Conference in 1944 (against Churchill's advice). It invaded Checkoslovakia in 1968 because a Democratic president had shown his weakness in the way he conducted the Vietnam War, and the Soviets weren't afraid of his reaction. Unlike the way they backed down when President Eisenhower threatened to use power if they didn't leave Israel alone in the Suez Crisis of 1956. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1980 because another weak Democratic president showed he wouldn't do anything when they used other nations (especially Cuba) as proxies in hot spots around the world.
ReplyDeleteObama's tough ONLY within the U.S. and that's ONLY because the liberal press uses PR spin to support everything he says and does, just like they used PR spin to undermine everything the two Bushes and Reagan ever said and did. He authorizes drone strikes only because Bush did it for 8 years and it didn't cause an international stink. Russia can sense his weakness, and has already invaded the Crimea, but it also still has troops stationed in other former Soviet Union countries, against their will. What will happen to them if the U.S. doesn't grow some moral courage? Obama's threats to exact a "cost" clearly indicated he was only talking sanctions. Reagan ARMED the rebels in Afghanistan and eventually made that hot spot the Soviet Union's "Vietnam" -- they withdrew with their tail between their legs and this was a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union shortly thereafter.
Certainly the facts say Obama is a weak leader in foreign affairs, but with the press' lapdog subservience to him, it's no wonder most Americans will end up agreeing with his positions -- until it's too late.
Just because Obama has chosen to use economics instead of guns to fight back doesn't make him a weak leader, and just because arming the locals worked for Reagan in the 1980's doesn't mean it will work for Obama. Afghanistan was adamantly against a Russian invasion, but half of the population of Ukraine wants to be under Russian control. If we were to arm the Ukrainians, nothing would change except that Russia may view it as an act of war. Besides, lets take a look at what resulted from Reagan's militaristic approach: we helped bring Saddam Hussein to power and created 30 years of problems for ourselves.
DeleteOf course, economic sanctions only work so far as the rest of the world follows suit, which so far they haven't. If nothing changes, there may be a time for passive-aggressive military action, but to jump in right away with Machiavellian tactics seems reckless to me.
Saddam Hussein was in power BEFORE Reagan took office.
DeleteReagan's "militaristic approach" is what caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Prior to his election and policies, U.S. military planners were convinced we would face the long-dreaded Soviet invasion of western Europe by 1984. So his policies arguably prevented World War III and, beyond doubt, won the Cold War. And that opinion is held by MANY experts on foreign affairs -- pretty much everyone except those on the far left.
By the way, it did take courage to arm the Afghanistan rebels, and critics then questioned whether it might provoke war with the Soviets, In fact, liberals lined up against him every time he did something that turned out great. I remember this all quite well.
I didn't say Obama was a weak leader solely because of his reaction to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. And I'd be interested in hearing about the evidence you seem to have that half the people of Ukraine want to be under Russian control. That's not true according to anything I've ever heard or read (besides Russian propaganda). If it's that a lot of Ukrainian people speak Russian, just remember that many of them speak Russian because they were invaded by Russia before. By the same argument, I suppose all of the former Soviet Union countries, as well as all of Eastern Europe wants to be invaded by the Russians as well? They, too, speak Russian as well as their own language because they had to learn it -- their Soviet conquerors forced them to learn it.