First of all, the Ukrainian government should be leading the charge against the separatists for the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH17. However, their army is in no position to take any military action. They can't even secure the crash site. While the separatists are receiving weapons and training from Russia, the Ukrainian army is receiving no such support from either NATO/Europe or the United States. To date, the U.S. has only supplied peripheral support such as sleeping bags, some medical supplies, meals-ready-to-eat, and night vision goggles. Obama will never supply weapons because he is, first and foremost, an anti-war President. To supply the Ukraine, as silly as it seems, would be to promote war in that country. This is the reason he hasn't provided the non-ISIS rebels with weapons in their fight against Bashar al-Assad.
Secondly, Europe and NATO won't act to assist the Ukrainian government because, to do so, might cause Putin to take economic action against Europe by cutting off oil and gas supplies. Russia supplies nearly 40% of their natural gas and a third of its total oil requirements.
Finally, The United Nations and its Security Council are impotent in their ability to take action against either Russia or the Ukrainian separatists because Russia (Putin) has veto power and that power would effectively kill any resolutions or military actions that may be proposed by other members of the Council.
The bottom line is that Putin is in the catbird seat when it comes to the Ukraine. He knows that Obama and the Europeans won't act against him and his goal of reconstituting the U.S.S.R. Ultimately, he will annex the Ukraine; just as he was able to annex Crimea. Unless, the world wakes up and takes decisive actions, his ambitions of a stronger and larger Russian superpower will resurface.
Reference:
Russia in the European energy sector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector
Showing posts with label Nato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nato. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
A Comedy On The World Stage: Barney Fife Versus Vladimir Putin
I think most people are well aware of the Barney Fife character from the Andy Griffith show, with his shaky gun hand, empty weapon, and a single bullet in his buttoned shirt pocket. I suspect that Vladamir Putin has looked into Obama's eyes and all he sees is Barney Fife. Maybe, even, Barney Fife "light". Sadly, Obama doesn't have "Andy" around to pull his behind out of the fire when things really get rough.
Just a few years ago -- six to be exact -- moving U.S. warships into an adversary's backyard meant something; especially when it was a guy like George Bush, a known war hawk, who was directing the movement. Putin understood this and respected such power. But, when Obama challenged Putin by moving U.S. warships into the Black Sea, it was like Barney drawing his unloaded gun. Putin knew quite well it was just an idle threat. After all, he observed our President's weak behavior in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Then, when Obama said there would be "costs" if Russia went any further on his movement into Crimea and the Ukraine, Putin responded by moving fresh troops into the area. Are you getting the picture?
Obama told Russia that the United States will "stand" with the Europeans and the rest of the world (not lead) and that there will be "costs". But, will the rest of the world really stand with us and will there truly be costs?
First of all, Russia, as a member of the United Nation's Security Council, has veto power and nothing that condemns them or that would impose sanctions on them would ever come out of the U.N. So, then, that leaves NATO to act against Russia's aggression. Except for the United States, all the other member nations are out of Europe. Russia supplies Europe with 20% of its natural gas and 38% of all its imported oil. If threatened by sanctions, Russia need only respond by turning off the gas and oil supplies and the "costs" would be much greater than what Obama and NATO could inflict on Putin. We know this can be done for a fact because, in 2006, Russia, in a dispute over natural gas pricing, cut pipeline deliveries of gas to the Ukraine and "Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia all reported drops of around 30%."
Once again, Putin has put Obama in check and is now just waiting to declare checkmate. The only thing our Fife-like President can do is give speeches of condemnation and watch Putin take what he wants. While it is possible that Obama might go it alone and place some limited sanctions on Russia, Putin still might punish Europe in retaliation. For sure, Putin absolutely knows that Obama will never unbutton that shirt pocket of his and actually load that bullet.
References:
Obama warns Russia of 'costs' for intervention in Ukraine: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis-obama-costs-idUSBREA1R21M20140228
Ukraine/Russia gas dispute: The European Impact: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm
Just a few years ago -- six to be exact -- moving U.S. warships into an adversary's backyard meant something; especially when it was a guy like George Bush, a known war hawk, who was directing the movement. Putin understood this and respected such power. But, when Obama challenged Putin by moving U.S. warships into the Black Sea, it was like Barney drawing his unloaded gun. Putin knew quite well it was just an idle threat. After all, he observed our President's weak behavior in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Then, when Obama said there would be "costs" if Russia went any further on his movement into Crimea and the Ukraine, Putin responded by moving fresh troops into the area. Are you getting the picture?
Obama told Russia that the United States will "stand" with the Europeans and the rest of the world (not lead) and that there will be "costs". But, will the rest of the world really stand with us and will there truly be costs?
First of all, Russia, as a member of the United Nation's Security Council, has veto power and nothing that condemns them or that would impose sanctions on them would ever come out of the U.N. So, then, that leaves NATO to act against Russia's aggression. Except for the United States, all the other member nations are out of Europe. Russia supplies Europe with 20% of its natural gas and 38% of all its imported oil. If threatened by sanctions, Russia need only respond by turning off the gas and oil supplies and the "costs" would be much greater than what Obama and NATO could inflict on Putin. We know this can be done for a fact because, in 2006, Russia, in a dispute over natural gas pricing, cut pipeline deliveries of gas to the Ukraine and "Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia all reported drops of around 30%."
Once again, Putin has put Obama in check and is now just waiting to declare checkmate. The only thing our Fife-like President can do is give speeches of condemnation and watch Putin take what he wants. While it is possible that Obama might go it alone and place some limited sanctions on Russia, Putin still might punish Europe in retaliation. For sure, Putin absolutely knows that Obama will never unbutton that shirt pocket of his and actually load that bullet.
References:
Obama warns Russia of 'costs' for intervention in Ukraine: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis-obama-costs-idUSBREA1R21M20140228
Ukraine/Russia gas dispute: The European Impact: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Barney Fife,
Crimea,
europe,
Nato,
Ukraine,
United Nations,
Vladimir Putin
Monday, November 28, 2011
Pakistan's Anger Over Air Strikes Was Inevitable
When last Saturday's NATO airstrike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and injured 13 others, the retaliation by the Pakistani government was only to be expected. For month's, now, the U.S. and NATO have been conducting not-always-so-surgical strikes against the Taliban in that country. Unfortunately, innocent citizens -- including some children -- and the Pakistani military have been been either killed, maimed, or injured in the process.
Since Obama took office, unmanned drone attacks have been escalated in an effort to make the Afghanistan/Pakistan Taliban war as bloodless as possible for our own military personnel. To me, not having to suffer a potential sacrifice of losing one's own troops just makes it easier to make quick -- and possibly bad decisions -- in the battlefield. At the same time, NATO, too, has conducted airstrikes in lieu of troops on the ground.
Sadly, this "air strike" policy and its collateral deaths and injuries have put us in an extremely bad position: Winning the war but losing the hearts and minds of the people in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is as if we never learned the lessons of World War II and how hated the Germans were for their indiscriminate buzz-bombing and V1/2 rocket strikes against British citizenry.
Make no mistake about it, we needed the cooperation of Pakistanis to effectively execute the war in Afghanistan and shutdown the influence of those Taliban militants who are in hiding in Pakistan. But, now, I think we've blown it. We just might have pushed an already-deteriorating alliance into a state of hostility; thus making the possibility of winning the Afghanistan war an impossibility.
Since Obama took office, unmanned drone attacks have been escalated in an effort to make the Afghanistan/Pakistan Taliban war as bloodless as possible for our own military personnel. To me, not having to suffer a potential sacrifice of losing one's own troops just makes it easier to make quick -- and possibly bad decisions -- in the battlefield. At the same time, NATO, too, has conducted airstrikes in lieu of troops on the ground.
Sadly, this "air strike" policy and its collateral deaths and injuries have put us in an extremely bad position: Winning the war but losing the hearts and minds of the people in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is as if we never learned the lessons of World War II and how hated the Germans were for their indiscriminate buzz-bombing and V1/2 rocket strikes against British citizenry.
Make no mistake about it, we needed the cooperation of Pakistanis to effectively execute the war in Afghanistan and shutdown the influence of those Taliban militants who are in hiding in Pakistan. But, now, I think we've blown it. We just might have pushed an already-deteriorating alliance into a state of hostility; thus making the possibility of winning the Afghanistan war an impossibility.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama: Our Talk,Talk, and Keep Talking Paper Tiger
For all of Obama's boot-licking at the G20; his bowing to the Saudi King (Click To See Video); and, his laying prostrate before the world by accusing America of past arrogance and apologizing for a variety of other ills, it certainly didn't buy him anything.
The G20 didn't buy into his call for his Obama-style, stimulus-to-bankruptcy, plan that he went begging for. Instead we will probably give control of our banking system and securities markets to some yet-to-be-determined world entity. The dollar may stop being the world's reserve currency because Obama may be toying with some asinine world currency concept; a move that could result in a weakening, not strengthening, of our economy and our balance of trade.
Also lacking, as a result of Obama's apology tour, the NATO countries wouldn't cough up any more troops or support for the War in Afghanistan. When he needed support on a tough resolution against North Korea, Russia and China told our newbie Prez to, figuratively, pound sand. Furthermore, Russia hasn't moved an inch in its support of nukes for Iran; even though Obama gave in to Russia for that very reason. Therefore we won't be installing an Eastern European missile defense system. Also, Pakistan has shunned his request for joint operations on the Iraqi border (See Full Story). What a great track record!
Groveling is unbecoming of a U.S. President; but, apparently not for this amateur. I personally view Obama's trip as a weakening of America's dominant position in the world. I think our foes on the world stage only see a guy who is a always ready to "give-in" and carrying a bag full of carrots and nary a stick. This constant apologizing for America's past ills without standing up for the great things that this country has done for the world is just stupid and makes him look weak. This is the JFK scenario all over again (See my past blog entry: Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again).
During the campaign, Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American." I'm just waiting for Barack Obama to, somehow... somewhere, make that same statement; hopefully, sans the unbelievable "for the first time in my life" commentary. Maybe now it is clear why he had such a close circle of blame-America friends like Reverend Wright and William Ayers (See Ayers posing while standing on our American flag). How can anyone forget Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" screed! (See this very telling video montage)
The G20 didn't buy into his call for his Obama-style, stimulus-to-bankruptcy, plan that he went begging for. Instead we will probably give control of our banking system and securities markets to some yet-to-be-determined world entity. The dollar may stop being the world's reserve currency because Obama may be toying with some asinine world currency concept; a move that could result in a weakening, not strengthening, of our economy and our balance of trade.
Also lacking, as a result of Obama's apology tour, the NATO countries wouldn't cough up any more troops or support for the War in Afghanistan. When he needed support on a tough resolution against North Korea, Russia and China told our newbie Prez to, figuratively, pound sand. Furthermore, Russia hasn't moved an inch in its support of nukes for Iran; even though Obama gave in to Russia for that very reason. Therefore we won't be installing an Eastern European missile defense system. Also, Pakistan has shunned his request for joint operations on the Iraqi border (See Full Story). What a great track record!
Groveling is unbecoming of a U.S. President; but, apparently not for this amateur. I personally view Obama's trip as a weakening of America's dominant position in the world. I think our foes on the world stage only see a guy who is a always ready to "give-in" and carrying a bag full of carrots and nary a stick. This constant apologizing for America's past ills without standing up for the great things that this country has done for the world is just stupid and makes him look weak. This is the JFK scenario all over again (See my past blog entry: Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again).
During the campaign, Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American." I'm just waiting for Barack Obama to, somehow... somewhere, make that same statement; hopefully, sans the unbelievable "for the first time in my life" commentary. Maybe now it is clear why he had such a close circle of blame-America friends like Reverend Wright and William Ayers (See Ayers posing while standing on our American flag). How can anyone forget Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" screed! (See this very telling video montage)
Labels:
Barack Obama,
china,
G20,
Michele Obama,
Nato,
North Korea,
Pakistan,
President of the United States,
russia,
Saudi King
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)