Monthly Archives: March 2014

What Does Russia Do for Us?

Posted on by
Reply

Or, more to the point, what’s the value of Russia’s good opinion of us?  After all, it’s this perceived need that’s among the barriers to providing meaningful aid to Ukraine in the face of the present Russian invasion of that country.

Max Boot, at Commentary, suggests that one aspect of the pseudo-thinking going on inside President Barack Obama’s head and that of his State Department Secretary is this:

Russia…remains an important power that Washington hesitates to antagonize because of a general feeling that we need Russian help to deal with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and other important issues….

What help?  How has Russia “helped” us in any way there, or anywhere else?  In Iran, the Russians are actively helping build nuclear reactors and actively blocking attempts to slow, much less stop, the Iranian drive to acquire nuclear weapons.  In Syria, the Russians are actively propping up Bashar al-Assad and sending him both arms to replace combat losses and SAMs with which to oppose the Israeli air force.  In Afghanistan, the Russians routinely interfere with (though they’ve not actually blocked, yet) our access to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, from which a major portion of our Afghan-based troop resupply flows.

Those “other important issues?”  Russia has replaced us in Egypt.  Russian is propping up a failed Venezuelan government that is antagonistic to us.  Russian is back to sending naval units, including electronic surveillance assets, to Cuba.  And now they’ve invaded Ukraine, with a view of anschluss and partition.  And so on.

Since Russia isn’t helping us anyway, what “help” will we lose if we support, materially, the nascent Ukrainian government?

Aside from the morality of the situation (the strong should protect the weak), and the improvement to our credibility, it’s in our national interest to actively support the new Ukrainian government, to facilitate their—and the bulk of their people’s—move to closer ties with Western Europe and the West generally.

It’s in our interest to do this regardless of what the Russians might think of us as a result.  Or even because of that.

Stern Words

Posted on by
Reply

Stern words, indeed, from our Secretary of State and motor boat skipper John Kerry.  Even that liberal paragon who is George Stephanopoulos is becoming skeptical; that’s visible, too, in this interview excerpt, via The Daily Caller.

“Russia has engaged in a military act of aggression against another country, and it has huge risks, George,” he said.  “It’s a 19th-century act in the 21st century that really puts at—at question Russia’s capacity to, uh—be within the G-8….”

“All those violations, sir,” Stephanopoulos cut in, “so what’s the penalty for what Russia has already done?”

The Secretary of State noted the United States was still “busy coordinating” with allies, and that President Barack Obama had spoken with Putin for 90 minutes yesterday.

“I think all options are on the table,” Kerry later commented. “There’s no question but that Russia needs to understand this is serious.  And we and the other friends and allies engaged in this are all deadly serious about this.  We call on Russia to engage with the government of the Ukraine.  We’re prepared to work very closely with Russia in order to address any legitimate concerns that exist.  We believe there are many alternatives before you get to an invasion, and none of those have been tried at this point.”

“But the invasion has already happened, hasn’t it?” Stephanopoulos again interrupted.

“The invasion of Crimea has already happened, that’s absolutely accurate,” Kerry replied, “and we believe that President Putin should make the decision to roll it back.”

No G-8.  Yeah.  Huge risk.  And all options are on the table.  Every one of them.  Including the (gutted) military one, that means.  Oh, wait—that’s the same all options including military that’s standard fare for Obama’s empty, rhetorical “threats.”

And Russia needs to be serious.  Yes, indeedy.  We’re serious.  We’ve got our game faces on.  Deadly serious.  But no penalty answered Stephanopoulos’ question.

We’ve got Putin’s attention, now.  Just maybe not the way we want it.

For Progressives, Some Lives are More Important than Others

Posted on by
1

King Cove sits 11 miles southeast of Cold Bay in Alaska, a distance that often takes a lifetime, under current conditions, to travel.  That’s because there is no road between the two towns, only an over-water boat path, and a small airport in King Cove that’s weather-closed a third of the year.  Cold Bay has an all-weather airport, though.

The residents of King Cove want—need—a road connecting the two towns, and they’ve been fighting the Federal government for one for 30 years.  The Feds get the veto authority because the land route for the gravel road (all that the locals are asking) runs through Federal land.

Whence the need?

Cove residents say a road is necessary so they can reach an all-weather airport in Cold Bay that will transport them to Anchorage, about 625 miles away, for medical treatment.  They say that in emergency situations, it’s a matter of life and death.

According to local Aleutian elders, 19 people have died since 1980 as a result of the impossible-to-navigate weather conditions during emergency evacuations.

That’s the lifetime it takes to get from King Cove to Cold Bay under current conditions.

Never mind that; the Federal government has its own priorities.

[T]he Department of Interior announced it was rejecting plans for a proposed land swap that would allow the road to be built.  The Dec 23 decision cited the negative environmental impact on grizzly bears, caribou, and water fowl like the Pacific black brant.

“(Interior Secretary Sally Jewell’s) decision on King Cove was heartless and wrong, and her message to me ever since has been that I need to ‘just get over it and move on,'” Senator Lisa Murkowski(R, AK)….

And

During an August visit to Alaska, Jewell was told that building a road that connects King Cove and Cold Bay was vital.  But in December, Jewell rejected the road saying it would jeopardize waterfowl in the refuge.

“She stood up in the gymnasium and told those kids, ‘I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals,'” State Representative Bob Herron (D)….

That land swap?  Alaska had offered over 43,000 acres for the 1,800, or so, needed for the short road.

But animal welfare is more important to these Feds than human lives.

Union Greed, Extended

Posted on by
Reply

Included in President Barack Obama’s latest budget proposal was a 1% raise for Federal employees.  Of course, in this time of profligate spending and exploding debt, that’s not enough for public service unions.

David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the nation’s largest federal employee union, said Monday that the 1% increase is “pitiful” and fails to compensate for sacrifice by government workers.

“Federal employees have endured years of pay freezes and cuts in retirement benefits,” Cox said in a statement.  “Federal employees deserve a meaningful pay raise, not a token increase that will be more than eaten up by rising living costs, including higher retirement and healthcare costs.”

And

Union leaders argue the planned increase is not enough to compensate for recent hardships endured by federal workers, who will see an estimated $120 billion in lower wages and benefits during the next decade due to the pay freezes, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.

“I strongly believe that federal employees deserve more, and this amount is inadequate,” [National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen] Kelley [said].  “There is no question in my mind that inadequate raises will have consequences on recruitment and retention.”

All Americans have been sacrificing in this failed recovery, especially in the private sector, where too many have no job at all in which to get a 1% pay raise, and some Americans have been sacrificing far more in defense of this country—and these government unions—against threats and attacks by our enemies.  Government union employees are hardly special, except perhaps in their own minds.  If government employees don’t like their “rewards” for doing their jobs, they don’t have to stay in those jobs.  Not even government employment is a jobs welfare program.

These guys “deserve” a pay raise based on what useful criteria?  The actual “meritorious” job performance of the IRS?  Of State?  DoJ?

What rising living costs are being claimed in an environment of artificially depressed interest rates and low inflation?

Rising healthcare costs?  You mean Obamacare, which you guys (and your private sector counterparts) enthusiastically supported?

Beuller? Beuller?  Anyone?

The bit about lower future wages and benefits is especially…amusing.  This is of a piece with the fantasy of future-year “cuts” that exist only in the minds of those trapped in the Beltway Imaginary Friends World.

As to those cried over consequences to recruitment and retention, that works for me; we have too many Federal employees, anyway.  During the recent Democratic Party shutdown of the government, the EPA rated 94% of its employees non-essential, for instance.  And see my earlier remark about nobody being held in a government job against his will.