Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Uncategorized

U.S.-Russia relations in freezer

Let’s not call it Cold War 2.0, at least not yet.

The New York Times reports that the Ukraine crisis involving the Russian takeover of Crimea signals a deepening freezing of relations between the world lone superpower and one of its rivals for international supremacy.

The United States won the first Cold War partly because the then-Soviet Union bankrupted itself by trying to out-muscle its American rivals. It didn’t have the resources to keep up. The United States won. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Russia emerged a damaged, highly corrupt nation.

What’s happening now in Ukraine isn’t the first such land grab that the Russians have completed. They did the same thing in Georgia in 2008. Ukraine’s unrest made Moscow nervous for the ethnic Russians in Crimea, which voted to secede from Ukraine.

Where do U.S.-Russia relations go from here? Into the tank, according to the New York Times.

The Times’s Peter Baker reports: “The decision by President Vladimir V. Putin to snatch Crimea away from Ukraine, celebrated in a defiant treaty-signing ceremony in the Kremlin on Tuesday, threatens to usher in a new, more dangerous era. If it is not the renewed Cold War that some fear, it seems likely to involve a sustained period of confrontation and alienation that will be hard to overcome. The next reset, if there ever is one, for the moment appears far off and far-fetched.”

Against this backdrop we have critics of President Obama pushing him to do more than he’s done. Obama’s response has been to rely heavily on international allies to join in condemning the Russians’ efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia, of course, is having none of it.

What does the United States do? What can the lone superpower do? The hard reality is that our hands are tied, except to deny Russia involvement in high-level economic summits, such as the G-7 meeting about to occur next week in The Netherlands. It should be the G-8, but Russian strongman Vladimir Putin won’t be there.

The rivalry between the United States and Russia has just gotten a good bit frostier.

Uncategorized

Vlad says U.S. crossed the line? What line?

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks to his parliament had me turning to my atlas.

He told Russian lawmakers that the United States and its allies “crossed the line” by imposing sanctions on Russia for its incursion into Crimea, a section of Ukraine.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/putin-slams-west-calls-end-cold-war-rhetoric-n55386

I pulled my atlas out and looked at the map of Europe. Yep, there it was: Ukraine includes the Crimea Peninsula; it’s all part of the same sovereign country, or at least it was until Crimea seceded from Ukraine over the weekend.

Putin ordered thousands of Russian troops into Crimea to “protect” ethnic Russians there. He’s now officially recognized the creation of this new entity in southern Ukraine.

But he’s scolding the United States because we refuse to recognize the incursion — or invasion — of Russian forces into Crimea? We were “unprofessional”?

“We have to stop this Cold War rhetoric and realize that Russia is an independent nation … you have to respect those interests of Russia,” Putin told the parliament. True enough, Mr. Strongman/President. No one doubts Russia’s independence. What’s at issue here is why Russia seems to doubt Ukraine’s independence, just as it did in 2008 when it doubted Georgia’s independence when it sent troops into that former Soviet satellite republic.

Russia is in the catbird seat here. The international community can do only so much to Russia. There will be no military counter-offensive to boot the Russians out of Crimea, or air strikes against military facilities elsewhere in the massive country. There will be further economic sanctions and political isolation measures taken.

Putin can criticize the United States all he wants. We are, after all, the biggest of the big dogs seeking to pressure Russia to rethink its own interference in another nation’s internal struggle.

For him, though, to say the United States has “crossed the line” is laughable on its face.

Uncategorized

Sanctions welcome, although likely futile

2 Comments

President Obama today imposed tightening sanctions on Russians who are involved directly with impeding Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Will they work? Not likely. Are they welcome? Certainly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/russia-sanctions-ukraine-obama-executive-order-104728.html?hp=t1

Obama invoked his executive authority to punish those who are involved in the Russian arms industry or those who provide “material support” to forces involved in the occupation of Crimea, a region in Ukraine that over the weekend voted overwhelmingly to integrate into Russia.

The sanctions do set a new standard for punishing Russia in the post-Cold War era. They are “by far the most extensive sanctions imposed against Russia since the end of the Cold War,” an official said, according to Politico.com.

Is this all the world can do in response to what has become a virtual Russian invasion of a sovereign nation? Probably yes, short of a military strike against Russia. No one in their right mind is calling for a “military option” in response to this crisis — although former Vice President Dick Cheney keeps suggesting that those options do exist “without putting boots on the ground.” What hogwash.

All that’s really left for the world is to isolate Russia, which President Obama insists is going to inflict pain on the one-time Evil Empire.

Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to reverse course just because of these sanctions. He’s already invested too much of his own reputation in this incursion to back out now.

The hope on this side of the dispute, though, should be that the United States follow through with what it already has announced and then ratchets it up even more if Russia intensifies its interference in the affairs of what used to be an independent nation.

Uncategorized

Listen to one of your own, GOP

No one ever has accused Robert Gates of being a Barack Obama apologist.

He’s a Republican. Gates served as defense secretary in the George W. Bush administration; he stayed in that post during part of the first term of the Obama administration. He left office, and then wrote a memoir that was quite critical of many aspects of President Obama’s handling of foreign policy and defense matters.

So, when Robert Gates scolds his fellow Republicans for their incessant criticism of the president’s handling of the crisis in Ukraine, well, the man’s got some credibility.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/09/former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-admonishe/198417

Gates told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace on Sunday that the critics ought to back off. He noted that in 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, no one accused President Bush of being unwilling to use military force if the need arose.

The current president deserves a bit of breathing room to “manage this crisis,” Gates told Wallace. Indeed, the constant carping from those on the right seem to be giving aid and comfort to an adversary — Russian President Vladimir Putin — who’s unafraid to exploit any perceived weakness from someone on the other side.

Of course, Wallace had to bring up Obama’s golf outing during this crisis. Gates answered that all presidents need time to chill out, given that they often “work 20 hours a day.”

I only would add that presidents of the United States never are off the clock.

Uncategorized

Irony taints Obama critics

There’s a certain irony attached to the criticism that keeps pouring in from the right regarding President Obama’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

They gripe that the president is feckless and ineffective in his handling of the crisis that has seen Russian troops roll into Crimea after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president.

The irony? It is that the criticism itself undermines the president/commander in chief as he seeks to work out some kind of response in conjunction with our allies.

Putin dismisses warnings from Obama

Didn’t we hear similar concerns about the left’s continual carping during President Bush’s two terms? Russia sent troops into Georgia in the final full year of Bush’s presidency, which caused a lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. The left was wrong to undermine President Bush’s efforts — and the right is wrong to do the very same thing to President Obama.

It was the great Republican U.S. senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, who coined the axiom about politics “ending at the water’s edge.” He meant that partisan critics of presidents ought to hold their fire when the president is acting in his role as head of state during an international crisis.

This is precisely what Barack Obama is trying to do now as he works with our allies to find some kind of diplomatic solution to Russia’s meddling in what should be a solely internal matter to be decided by Ukraine.

The carping from the right is emboldening Russian president/strongman Vladimir Putin and it isn’t helping end the crisis.

Uncategorized

Russians might pull their envoy to the U.S.?

So, let me see if I have this correct.

Ukrainian insurgents have driven that country’s president out; he’s holed up in Moscow; Russia is threatening to intervene in another sovereign country’s affairs; Russia is mobilizing its armed forces; President Obama has warned Russia that any outside interference in Ukrainian affairs will have “costs.”

And the Russians are threatening to pull their ambassador to the United States?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/01/russia-moves-to-bring-back-ambassador-from-us-amid-ukraine-crisis/

Shouldn’t the United States pull its ambassador to Moscow?

Secretary of State John Kerry has said U.S.-Russia relations are at stake. It’s not entirely clear what precisely he means by the stakes involved.

There cannot be a severing of diplomatic relations between the nations. This gamesmanship over who pulls their ambassador first, though, cannot continue.

The best solution from the U.S. and European standpoint would be for the Russians to butt out, to let Ukraine decide who will govern the country without outside interference.

If the Russians are intent on honoring international law, then they’ll back off and let their neighbors in Ukraine settle this dispute on their own.

Uncategorized

‘This isn’t Rocky IV’

The last time Secretary of State John Kerry used a “Rocky IV” reference in public was at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Then, he was poking fun at Republican presidential nominee’s assertion that Russia was this nation’s most dangerous “geopolitical foe.” Kerry, then a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, declared that Romney’s view of Russia was more like the “Rocky IV” film that became a silly metaphor for the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

It drew huge applause and laughter at the DNC’s final night in September 2012.

It’s not a laugh line in today’s context.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/kerry-russia-must-be-very-careful-judgments-ukraine-n39236

Kerry has warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about rekindling the Cold War by threatening Ukraine, a neighboring country — and former Soviet state — with military exercises.

Ukraine has just ousted its Russia-friendly president amid terrible street violence in cities throughout that country. Putin’s decision to activate the military has forced Kerry to issue some stern warnings on behalf of the United States.

He told NBC News: “I think Russia needs to be very careful in the judgments that it makes going forward here. We are not looking for confrontation. But we are making it clear that every country should respect the territorial integrity here, the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia has said it would do that and we think it’s important that Russia keeps its word.”

According to NBC.com, Kerry also said that “Russian President Vladimir Putin should ‘listen carefully to Ukrainians who have voiced their desire for change,’ repeating that the United States does not view its relationship with Russia as a ‘sort of continuation of the Cold War.’”

Are we going to war with Russia if the Russians intervene militarily? Of course not. However, memories of the long-simmering rivalry between the nations ought to be as long in Russia as they are in this country.

We won the Cold War. Putin ought to think carefully about how it turned out for his side if he intends to start a new one.

Uncategorized

You must define ‘outrage,’ Mr. President

President Obama said today he is “outraged” over the violence in Ukraine.

He vows “consequences” will occur if the Ukrainian government refuses to stop killing its people who are mounting what were supposed to be peaceful protests.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/198803-obama-outraged-by-rising-ukraine-death-toll

Let’s understand, of course, that the president was “outraged” over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. He threatened a military strike, he sought permission from Congress — which it had demanded — to act and then, presto!, the Russians stepped in with a deal to rid the Syrian military of the chemicals it used on its citizens.

The Ukraine matter is different, to be sure.

The United States cannot launch a military strike against the former Soviet republic that sits right next to Russia. It can, and must, be firm in enacting economic sanctions — perhaps even imposing a trade embargo if the government doesn’t stop slaughtering its citizens.

Bear in mind that this is a big deal with huge implications around the world. Ukraine possesses a lot of the nuclear material used to build the Soviet arsenal during the Cold War. The Cold War ended a little more than two decades ago, but the material remains.

The Ukrainian government had announced a truce with those who were protesting, only to see the truce shattered overnight, prompting the rhetorical response from the White House.

And per normal these days, the usual suspects here at home are criticizing the White House and the president for perceived fecklessness in handling this crisis.

Let’s understand, the Russians aren’t about to let anyone — even the United States — get too involved singularly in this dispute.

There must be a concerted international effort involving the European Union, and the United States and Russia to bring huge pressure to bear on the Ukrainian government thugs.

Can our government play a role? Sure, but we need to make sure this remains a team game.

President Obama’s outrage must be tempered with reason and even a tad bit of patience.

Uncategorized

Boehner angry because Obama won’t negotiate?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s office has released a video that criticizes President Obama for negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria while refusing to negotiate with Republicans over federal budget issues.

Hold on a minute, Mr. Speaker.

Here’s the video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/19/boehner_why_is_obama_willing_to_negotiate_with_putin_but_not_republicans.html

I recall clearly during a previous budget battle that Boehner declared quite openly and vocally that he was finished negotiating with the president. He wouldn’t talk to Obama about budget matters, apparently out of anger over the way the budget talks had broken down. The speaker said there would be no more face-to-face contact with the president. Nothing. None.

Now he’s upset because Obama is talking to Putin about the Russians’ proposal to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons arsenal to international inspectors, even after Putin wrote an essay for the New York Times that criticized the United States for considering itself an “exceptional” nation.

I figure that President Obama thinks he has more to gain with Putin — a former head of the KGB spy agency — than with Boehner, whose own political party has been commandeered by a faction within it.

I believe the speaker ought to be angry with those within his own House Republican caucus.

Uncategorized

Obama is winning the Syria debate

With all due respect to the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, President Obama is emerging as a victor in the struggle to rid Syria of the chemical weapons it now says it possesses.

Mike McCaul, R-Texas, said on Fox News Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the big winner here and that President Obama has been reduced to a bit player in this ongoing drama.

Well, that’s about what we’ve come to expect from a leading House Republican.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/322295-rep-mccaul-obama-no-victor-in-syria-deal

Living as I do in the heart of Anti-Obama Country, I am acutely aware of the negative views of the president’s handling of the Syria crisis. I am not happy with the way he’s handled some developments in this crisis. I wished initially he hadn’t backed off his threat to strike Syria in retaliation for that government’s gassing of civilians.

But consider what’s happened.

* Barack Obama issued the threat to hit Syrian military targets to dissuade Syria from using chemical weapons in the future.

* Russia, one of Syria’s main allies, steps in with a plan to get Syria to turn its chemical weapons over to international inspectors.

* The Syrians, who at first denied having the weapons, agreed.

* Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart agree to the deal and have given Syria a timetable to comply.

I agree the deal is fraught with danger. Syria might not comply, forcing the United States to follow through with its strike threat.

What was the catalyst for all this? The president’s initial threat to hit Syria.

Does that make Barack Obama look stronger or weaker? I believe it strengthens the president. Of course, those in the opposing party say he is weakened by all this. I would suggest that a strategy that results in Syria giving up its chemical weapons without having to bomb them into doing it takes us closer to an end to a serious crisis.

That view, of course, will be a non-starter for those who think the worst of the 44th president of the United States.