The experts on foreign policy and military matters spewed forth with, well, expertise, much bellicose Cold War era rhetoric and thinking, but what else can one expect from Cold War era-trained experts. My hair is standing on end from so much highly-charged chatter swirling on the air and online about the next steps the US and NATO should take to thwart more Russian aggression. First, let’s take a deep breath and calm down. We need to realize that Putin isn’t some madman, who heedlessly grabbed Crimea, just for the hell of it or because he’s an evil, former-KGB colonel. He moved, because events were transpiring in Ukraine that he perceived as threats to a vital Russian national security interest.
What moves the US made prior to Putin’s military move remain cloaked in secrecy by President Obama and his oh-so-tough warrior princesses. It would behoove all these experts to ascertain what exactly our own State Department did prior to this escalation. Yes, folks, it looks like we were meddling bigtime in internal Ukraine affairs, perhaps even training and arming Ukraine rebels (early February CBS report here). Judging by this administration’s penchant for fast and furiously arming foreign rebels, Al-Qaeda aligned zealots, and even Mexican gangsters, who would find this story out of the realm of possibility? Perhaps, that sycophantic, Obama-idolizing press might want to muster a little journalistic inquisitiveness and find out??? Are some of these freedom-fighters in Ukraine neo-Nazi fascists? Did Victoria Nuland meet with them in Kiev and did our government provide training or arms to these thugs? We’re so good at ginning up the Cold War bluster, but so mealy-mouthed about demanding some straight answers from our own government.
All water under the bridge, you say, yes,yes, so true, but it’s all relevant to understanding the context of events unfolding there and for formulating a way to deescalate this crisis. I’ve read many thoughtful opinion pieces on what the US should do and frankly, I disagree with most of them to a large degree. When you have a weak leader-from-behind, like we have, the last thing I would suggest is reactionary military posturing, because he will either overreact and we’ll find ourselves in a hot war quicker than you can say Russian reset (hehehe) or he’ll wimp out and make the US look even more impotent. That latter option would bolster an already prevalent impression in the world that President Obama is, yes, no other better word comes to mind, a wimp. The former option, well, no one wins in that option and it’s really not necessary to blunder our way into a hot war. Some deft diplomacy (please don’t send that vulgar twit Victoria Nuland) maybe he should find some good speechwriters to help him try to teleprompt us out of this mess.
Here are a few interesting opinions (mind you, I don’t support them, but they’re worth a read). From the failed Bush democracy project, Condi Rice weighs in with a lengthy piece that at least they did something during the Georgia 2008 invasion. She mentions that we should do something about Syria, opining about continued inaction, while remaining mum as to the details about what action on/in Syria would look like. Egads, no more cakewalks in the ME, please.
Here’s a Cold War era military type playbook response from The XX Committee, harkening to strengthening NATO and insisting that the Europeans grow a spine. It’s a well-thought out piece and in normal times, with a normal American CINC looking to promote American interests, well this would be a good idea. Alas, this isn’t the best of times, although I fear, we haven’t quite reached the worst of times, yet, (or nyet, both work) with this President. That said, there’s no way Vietnam-protesting John Kerry and mom jeans Barack Obama will push to expand NATO, after already signing away our nuclear superiority and announcing the gutting of the US Armed Forces. Unless it’s to rally the troops for the gay parade, this CINC doesn’t want to give marching orders. And besides that, he only has warrior princesses in the White House, so far, and none to field a US charge of the ladies brigade in Crimea (so fitting for another suicide mission).
Here’s another well-thought out response for the US to follow, if we had a pro-American leader in the White House. We don’t and Eric Edelman’s, “Confronting Putin’s Invasion”, sits predicated on building up the US military, which Obama just announced he’s cutting.
Being libertybelle, with my fondness for Sun Tzu, the odds are:
Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant of both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.
Let’s heed that final assessment, with this President and his macho girls, ready to fight:
Such people are called ‘mad bandits’. What can they expect if not defeat?
Timeless ancient Chinese wisdom, that’s my suggestion…