Tag Archives: foreign policy

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.

Are We Retreating from Engagement?

Posted on by
Reply

William Kristol in The Weekly Standard:

Kiev is ablaze.  Syria is a killing field.  The Iranian mullahs aren’t giving up their nuclear weapons capability, and other regimes in the Middle East are preparing to acquire their own.  Al Qaeda is making gains and is probably stronger than ever.  China and Russia throw their weight around, while our allies shudder and squabble.
…
Having withdrawn from Iraq, and seeing it now fall apart, the administration is nonetheless determined to get out of Afghanistan.  Its Russia “reset” is a joke, and its “pivot to Asia” an empty slogan.  Secretary of State John Kerry huffed and puffed when Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons last year, and asserted it was a Munich moment.  How right he was! Kerry came back brandishing a piece of paper, and Assad remains in power.

Indeed.  But it’s OK, because—look! Shiny!

Kerry now says that global climate change may be the weapon of mass destruction we should most fear.

It’s going to be a hard two years.  And it’s going to be harder, for many more than just two, repairing the damage.

Susan Rice…Has No Regrets

Posted on by
Reply

Susan Rice, currently President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, said this on Sunday to NBC Meet the Press‘ David Gregory:

[W]hat I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time.  The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment.  It could change.  I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning ….

Compare that with this transcript of a conference call in which a State Department official described real-time reporting of the events in Benghazi by folks present in and during the attack.

State knew the truth in real-time, as that transcript demonstrates.  And Susan Rice, then State’s Ambassador to the UN, surely knew, also, at least by the time she went on those Sunday talk shows a week after the attack and murders.  She knew at the least because she was, and is, a highly intelligent, dedicated woman who would have moved to corroborate the talking points she was given and not simply have parroted them.  She knew because, of course, State would have passed along the above transcript for her review before sending her out on the talk tour.

More Accommodation for our Enemies

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama decries keeping the pressure on Iran during “negotiations” over their nuclear weapons program while bragging that pressure is what got them to talk (more).

Now he’s accommodating the Taliban by cutting back on pressure on them during Pakistani “negotiations” over their future in Pakistan.

The Obama administration has sharply curtailed drone strikes in Pakistan after a request from the government there for restraint as it pursues peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban, according to US officials.

“That’s what they asked for, and we didn’t tell them no,” one US official said.

YGTBSM.

This is national security, community organizer style.

US Missile Defense

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times reported a few days ago that Russia appears to have violated a 1987 treaty banning the test, production, even possession, of medium-range missiles by testing a new ground-launched cruise-missile.

It seems that Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller advised NATO of the tests and that the Russian testing program actually began flight tests in 2008 (keep that timing in mind), but for all that, the Obama administration has declined to protest officially or to take meaningful action in response to this threat to the security of our allies and so to our own security.

We shouldn’t be surprised at this latest demonstration of Obama’s timidity on the world stage.  This is the same President who surrendered to the Russians on the question of placing a missile defense capacity in Poland and the Czech Republic—a defense system designed specifically to intercept short- and medium-range missiles and wholly incapable of handling ICBMs.  With the Russian medium-range missile flight testing having begun just a few months earlier, their vociferous objections to a missile defense system capable of defending, oh, say, Europe becomes much more understandable.

This is also the same president that has gutted DoD’s missile defense system R&D and deployment anywhere.

Now this.  What did Obama really expect, though?  He’s neither stupid, ignorant, nor naïve.