Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer writes a weekly political column The Washington Post that runs on Fridays. He is also a Fox News commentator, appearing nightly on Special Report with Bret Baier, and a panelist on Inside Washington. Krauthammer joined The Washington Post as a columnist in 1984, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1987 for “his witty and insightful columns on national issues.” Krauthammer began his journalism career at The New Republic, where he was a writer and editor and won the 1984 National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism. Before going into journalism, he was a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale in 1980, he helped direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter Administration, and he practiced medicine for three years as a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. Krauthammer was born in New York City and grew up in Montreal, Quebec. He attended McGill University, Balliol College, Oxford and Harvard Medical School. http://tinyurl.com/3f7ulbq
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obama, Russia & The Wages of Weakness
Charles Krauthammer
March 8, 2014
Vladimir Putin is a lucky man. And he's got three more years of luck to come.

He takes Crimea, and President Obama says it's not in Russia's interest, not even strategically clever. Indeed, it's a sign of weakness.

Really? Crimea belonged to Moscow for 200 years. Russia conquered it 20 years before the US acquired Louisiana. Lost it in the humiliation of the 1990s. Putin got it back in about three days without firing a shot.

Now Russia looms over the rest of eastern and southern Ukraine. Putin can take that anytime he wants -- if he wants. He has already destabilized the nationalist government in Kiev. Ukraine is now truncated and on the life support of US and European money (much of which -- cash for gas -- will end up in Putin's treasury anyway).

Obama says Putin is on the wrong side of history and Secretary of State John Kerry says Putin's is "really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century."

This must mean that seeking national power, territory, dominion -- the driving impulse of nations since Thucydides -- is obsolete. As if a calendar change caused a revolution in human nature that transformed the international arena from a Hobbesian struggle for power into a gentleman's club where violations of territorial integrity just don't happen.

"That is not 21st-century, G-8, major-nation behavior," says Kerry. Makes invasion sound like a breach of etiquette -- like using the wrong fork at a Beacon Hill dinner party.

How to figure out Obama's foreign policy? In his first U.N. speech, he says: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." On what planet? Followed by the assertion that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" -- like NATO? – "make no sense in an interconnected world."

Putin's more cynical advisers might have thought such adolescent universalism to be a ruse. But Obama coupled these amazing words with even more amazing actions.

Upon coming into office, he initiated the famous "reset" to undo the "drift" in relations that had occurred during the George W. Bush years. But that drift was largely due to the freezing of relations Bush imposed after Russia's invasion of Georgia. Obama undid that pushback and wiped the slate clean -- demanding nothing in return.

Canceled missile-defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. Without even consulting them. A huge concession to Putin's threats -- while again asking nothing in return. And sending a message that, while Eastern Europe may think it achieved post–Cold War independence, in reality it remains in play, subject to Russian influence and interests.

In 2012, Obama assured Dmitry Medvedev that he would be even more flexible with Putin on missile defense as soon as he got past the election.

The Syria debacle. Obama painted himself into a corner on chemical weapons -- threatening to bomb and then backing down -- and allowed Putin to rescue him with a promise to get rid of Syria's stockpiles. Obama hailed this as a great win-win, when both knew -- or did Obama really not know? -- that he had just conferred priceless legitimacy on Bashar Assad and made Russia the major regional arbiter for the first time in 40 years.

Obama keeps cutting defense spending. His latest budget will reduce it to 3 percent of GDP by 2016 and cut the army to pre–Pearl Harbor size -- just as Russia is rebuilding, as Iran is going nuclear, and as China announces yet another 12-plus percent increase in military spending.

Puzzling. There is no US financial emergency, no budgetary collapse. Obama declares an end to austerity -- for every government department except the military.

Can Putin be faulted for believing that if he bites off Crimea and threatens Kiev, Obama's response will be minimal and his ability to lead the Europeans even less so?

Would Putin have lunged for Ukraine if he didn't have such a clueless adversary? No one can say for sure. But it certainly made Putin's decision easier.

Russia will get kicked out of the G-8 -- if Obama can get Angela Merkel to go along. Big deal. Putin does care about financial sanctions, but the Europeans are already divided and squabbling among themselves.

Next weekend's Crimean referendum will ask if it should be returned to Mother Russia. Can Putin refuse? He can already see the history textbooks: Catherine the Great conquered Crimea, Vlad (the Great?) won it back. Not bad for a 19th-century man.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server