The Consequences of Disarming America The president’s policies laid the groundwork for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
Edit Published March 4, 2014 by charlenecleoeiben54123The Consequences of Disarming America
The president’s policies laid the groundwork for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
Obama has consistently shown weakness on foreign policy.
East. West. Partition. Blockade. Intervention. These were all words
that seemed to have lost their traditional political context after the
Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union dissolved, for the most part, into
its constituent parts. As of now they’re back, and with a vengeance,
because, as longtime Washington pundit Rich Galen of Mullings.com
observed, “While Putin was smiling and waving to Western nations at the
Sochi Olympics his military was plotting the invasion of Ukraine.”
Whether the troops are “Russian” or “Soviet” is of little matter. Their intentions are the same: trying to keep a piece of the eastern bloc from shifting to the West. The invasion of the Crimea, an ethnically Russian region of Ukraine, that followed the ouster of pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has the president of the United States impotently waging his finger at Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world on edge.
Forget the parallels to what Hitler did to Czechoslovakia that so many people are making in the invasion’s aftermath. As they say, “That was then, this is now.” The fact that Putin would order troops into Crimea to “keep the peace” reflects how very much emboldened his regime has become during Obama’s years in the White House.
[See a collection of editorial cartoons on Vladimir Putin and Russia.]
Based on the geography and demography of the region, it’s not too hard to see the eventual resolution of the current crisis somehow involving the emergence of two or even three new states out of what is currently Ukraine: West Ukraine, which would align itself with the West and probably gain admittance to western continental and global blocs; East Ukraine, carved out of the largely Russian speaking territories in the eastern half of the current country that would be tied to Moscow; and possibly even an independent Crimea, also under Russian influence and protection; in the middle of it all a divided Kiev, serving as the capital of both the new eastern and western states but likely not divided by a wall guarded by snipers and watchtowers..
It’s not an immediate solution but, given Ukraine’s ethnic divisions it is certainly is a possible one. The west is largely impotent concerning Putin’s invasion. There is simply no way enough global pressure can be brought to bear to force him to withdraw the troops until he chooses to do so. They will be there for as long as he wants them to be, especially if he can manufacture the pretext that they are there merely to safeguard a burgeoning regional independence movement and to protect it from outside interference.
Why does Putin believe he can act in such a bold manner? In the opinion of one senior U.S. Senator, it’s because Obama has consistently shown weakness on foreign policy since coming into office.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
“The arrogant actions of President Putin and Russia in recent days are a direct result of President Obama’s disarming of America since the beginning of his Administration,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe said in a release Monday.
Obama’s “disarming of America over the past five years limit our options in Ukraine today,” the senior GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said. “Throughout this Administration, I have also warned that if the United States does not maintain a ready and capable military, we would surrender our global influence and leave a vacuum that will be filled by Russia. I warned this day was coming, and it is here. President Obama’s attempt to seek peace through apologetic diplomacy while defunding and dismantling our military has failed. Today our enemies don’t fear us and our allies no longer respect us.”
It’s a damning indictment that has the certainty of truth about it. There may be a lot of people out there who are uncomfortable with the idea of the United States as “the world’s policeman,” friends and foes alike. It’s absolutely true that many of them are here in the United States, fed up with paying the bills to protect the world and, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unwilling to see how what happens halfway around the world is in America’s security interests.
[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]
Obama tapped into this sentiment in his 2008 and 2012 runs for president, campaigning on the idea that he was prepared to pull America back from her global responsibilities in favor of regional and international efforts by the community of nations.
Fair enough, as far as it goes, but who would the naysayers propose fill America’s role. The United Nations repeatedly proves it has little value in the security arena save for its role as a well-funded debating society meeting in an opulent chamber. Are we really willing to cede authority for Asia policy and peacekeeping to China, let Russia call the shots once again in central Europe, and let the E.U. deal with the West? Most people might say they were indeed wiling but would also most assuredly cringe at the results.
Since coming into office Barack Obama has almost single-mindedly tried to pull America back to reduce its influence throughout the world. In doing so he has created a vacuum that will be filled, whether it is the Russians, the Chinese, the EU or the radical Islamic states in the Middle East. The groundwork allowing Putin to put Russian troops into the Crimea was laid long before the first one took a single step. It was American weakness and withdrawal, the hallmarks of Obama’s foreign policy that made it possible. Now all we can do is sit and wait.
Whether the troops are “Russian” or “Soviet” is of little matter. Their intentions are the same: trying to keep a piece of the eastern bloc from shifting to the West. The invasion of the Crimea, an ethnically Russian region of Ukraine, that followed the ouster of pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has the president of the United States impotently waging his finger at Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world on edge.
Forget the parallels to what Hitler did to Czechoslovakia that so many people are making in the invasion’s aftermath. As they say, “That was then, this is now.” The fact that Putin would order troops into Crimea to “keep the peace” reflects how very much emboldened his regime has become during Obama’s years in the White House.
[See a collection of editorial cartoons on Vladimir Putin and Russia.]
Based on the geography and demography of the region, it’s not too hard to see the eventual resolution of the current crisis somehow involving the emergence of two or even three new states out of what is currently Ukraine: West Ukraine, which would align itself with the West and probably gain admittance to western continental and global blocs; East Ukraine, carved out of the largely Russian speaking territories in the eastern half of the current country that would be tied to Moscow; and possibly even an independent Crimea, also under Russian influence and protection; in the middle of it all a divided Kiev, serving as the capital of both the new eastern and western states but likely not divided by a wall guarded by snipers and watchtowers..
It’s not an immediate solution but, given Ukraine’s ethnic divisions it is certainly is a possible one. The west is largely impotent concerning Putin’s invasion. There is simply no way enough global pressure can be brought to bear to force him to withdraw the troops until he chooses to do so. They will be there for as long as he wants them to be, especially if he can manufacture the pretext that they are there merely to safeguard a burgeoning regional independence movement and to protect it from outside interference.
Why does Putin believe he can act in such a bold manner? In the opinion of one senior U.S. Senator, it’s because Obama has consistently shown weakness on foreign policy since coming into office.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
“The arrogant actions of President Putin and Russia in recent days are a direct result of President Obama’s disarming of America since the beginning of his Administration,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe said in a release Monday.
Obama’s “disarming of America over the past five years limit our options in Ukraine today,” the senior GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said. “Throughout this Administration, I have also warned that if the United States does not maintain a ready and capable military, we would surrender our global influence and leave a vacuum that will be filled by Russia. I warned this day was coming, and it is here. President Obama’s attempt to seek peace through apologetic diplomacy while defunding and dismantling our military has failed. Today our enemies don’t fear us and our allies no longer respect us.”
It’s a damning indictment that has the certainty of truth about it. There may be a lot of people out there who are uncomfortable with the idea of the United States as “the world’s policeman,” friends and foes alike. It’s absolutely true that many of them are here in the United States, fed up with paying the bills to protect the world and, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unwilling to see how what happens halfway around the world is in America’s security interests.
[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]
Obama tapped into this sentiment in his 2008 and 2012 runs for president, campaigning on the idea that he was prepared to pull America back from her global responsibilities in favor of regional and international efforts by the community of nations.
Fair enough, as far as it goes, but who would the naysayers propose fill America’s role. The United Nations repeatedly proves it has little value in the security arena save for its role as a well-funded debating society meeting in an opulent chamber. Are we really willing to cede authority for Asia policy and peacekeeping to China, let Russia call the shots once again in central Europe, and let the E.U. deal with the West? Most people might say they were indeed wiling but would also most assuredly cringe at the results.
Since coming into office Barack Obama has almost single-mindedly tried to pull America back to reduce its influence throughout the world. In doing so he has created a vacuum that will be filled, whether it is the Russians, the Chinese, the EU or the radical Islamic states in the Middle East. The groundwork allowing Putin to put Russian troops into the Crimea was laid long before the first one took a single step. It was American weakness and withdrawal, the hallmarks of Obama’s foreign policy that made it possible. Now all we can do is sit and wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment