Obama: "We’re Going to Stand Firm in our Unwavering Support for Ukraine"

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
We’ll continue to make clear to Russia that further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world. The international community will continue to stand together to oppose any violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and continued Russian military intervention in Ukraine will only deepen Russia’s diplomatic isolation and exact a greater toll on the Russian economy.


President Obama, the Jar Jar Binks of 21st Century diplomacy, has assured the Ukrainian people that they have his "unwavering support". If any of you doubt Obama's resolve, just look at how he dealt with Assad of Syria. Assad was murdering children with poison gas. Obama made it "clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use", calling it "a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war... If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons."

If I may quote myself: "Got that? Assad is a dictator committing atrocities, killing children with poison gas, committing crimes against humanity we will not tolerate, so, we must not fail to act."

But, we didn't. Not even a pin prick. Will our "unwavering support" for the Ukraine be any firmer than our ephemeral resolve to stop a murdering dictator, killing children with chemical weapons? Vladimir Putin stepped into the Syrian debacle and gave our toothless, Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ an excuse to do nothing and he took it gladly. Then he went on vacation. Again.

"isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world" Diminish Russia's place while it increases its territory and resources? His carrot is larger than your stick, Mr. President. It's not that your words aren't pretty, Mr. President, it's that no one believes you when you say them.
"If you like your peninsula, people of the Ukraine, you can keep it!"
I don't know how many in the US are willing to start a shooting war to kick Russia out of the Ukraine, but unless that is at least an option, I don't see how Obama has a prayer of using "diplomatic" or economic means to do so.



Cross posted at Proof Positive

13 comments:

  1. It would not be an option for me. And if we allow our president to have "starting a shooting war" as an option, then we are going down a new and dangerous path in our national journey.

    The fact that Obama is a buffoon is no reason to conclude that US presidents should have the option of starting a shooting war in order to achieve foreign policy objectives. Perhaps the congress - the only branch of government with that legal option - should return to their proper role in regards to wars.

    I have a suggestion for them though; how about we mind our own business and stop pretending we are the world's policeman?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to wrap your mind around "deterrence" If a shooting war isn't even an option, there's no way it can be a deterrence. How many nukes did we drop on the USSR during the Cold War? How many did we have with the credible threat that we could use them if provoked? That's deterrence.

      I'm not suggesting that we start a war over Crimea. But, the fact that Putin knows President Selfie is a paper tiger takes away any deterrence a stronger America might have provided.

      "how about we mind our own business" Maybe we should have thought about that when we entered into an agreement with the Ukraine to provide them protection against incursions like this, and Senator Selfie was instrumental in disarming the Ukraine.

      Delete
    2. My problem with so many Neo-isolationists, is that they don't see any middle ground between "cops of the world" and "throw our allies to the wolves".

      Delete
  2. My mind doesn't need wrapping, but thanks for the suggestion. But let me get a clarification, are you suggesting the president should have the option of starting a shooting war to achieve foreign policy objectives? I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm actually trying to get to the bottom of this.
    Next,I would like to know what we are trying to deter. Then I wouldn't mind hearing some suggestions. And last, if we made such a commitment to Ukraine, and I admit to being ignorant of such an agreement, then I would have opposed it as I oppose all such agreements. So I continue to suggest that we mind our own business.
    We agree that Obama's weakness and ever confusing and vacillating foreign policy invites adventurism on the part of belligerent nations such as Russia.

    Of course, the USA is even more belligerent than Russia since Obama took over, and even before that at times. Which of course doesn't make it okay for Russia.
    I'm with George Washington on this issue, I oppose entangling alliances in most instances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me share with you a few words from a recent editorial by...Mitt Romney.

      "In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, 'a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.'"

      As far as entering into future alliances, there is merit in what you say. In abandoning our allies who mistakenly trusted our word and resolve... Abandoning one's allies is not "minding our own business". Do we honor our treaties or not? And if we will not, will any of our allies honor theirs when it is we in need of help? Will we have any left?


      Delete
  3. Did you see Ron Paul's editorial? Makes a good case for not meddling in this one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Meddling" is a curious word to use, since we were not only signatories to the original agreement which guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty in the 90's, but Obama reaffirmed that agreement in 2009.

    But then, Dr. Paul is famous for his incorrect usage of certain words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I suppose it all depends on ones perspective of the Cry-me-a river situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know if Mr. Paul, with his excellent grasp of the Constitution, quote any of the Founding Fathers who favored breaking any treaties or agreements they had made? Then maybe you'll understand my point.

      Delete
  6. I threw together a few thoughts on this discussion of a complex subject here: http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2014/03/non-interventionism-vs-cowboy-diplomacy.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent article. You should cross post it here.

      Delete
  7. That was my original intention, but I got busy. I'll post it here now.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.