No, Mr. Obama. Putin Doesn't Act Out of Weakness

In a recent press conference, President Obama called Putin's incursion into Syria "an act of weakness".

Unfortunately, that statement is as foolish as it is wrong.  Putin is in Syria because he saw an opening in which the free-Syrian rebels are being bogged down by fighting two wars:  one to overthrow Bashar Assad, and the other, fighting the ISIS insurgency.  This, then, was the perfect opening for Putin to step in and insure that Syria becomes another strong ally in the Middle East.  Also, he knows that Obama is weak as an anti-war foe, and that our President won't step in to take on Russia while Putin's forces decimate the free-Syrians.

This is exactly what he did in the Ukraine.  As soon as there was a Ukrainian revolution in early 2014, Putin took advantage of the chaos by first seizing and annexing Crimea.  Then, by fighting with the pro-Russia, Ukrainian separatists to annex all of the Ukraine once the dust settles.

To not recognize what Putin is up to and thinking he is weak is as ridiculous as calling ISIS a JayVee team.  Also, Obama shouldn't be surprised if the "weak" Putin takes back the Ukraine and creates another puppet-state by securing Assad's future as President in Syria.  Then he will just move on to another conquest whenever the time is right.  Mark my words.

References:

Opinion: Acting out of weakness? Why Obama's dangerously wrong about Putin's intentions in Syria: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/06/acting-out-weakness-why-obamas-dangerously-wrong-about-putins-intentions-in-syria.html

With a straight face, Obama asserts Putin is weak and no challenge: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/101215-772941-60-minutes-interview-obama-putin-is-weak-clinton-mistake.htm

The Complete Failure of the Obama Doctrine

On the Sunday following President Obama's announced nuke deal with Iran, Thomas Friedman -- liberal op-ed columnist  and pseudo intellectual for the New York Times -- sat down with the President to discuss the deal.  As part of the interview, Friedman gave props to  Obama for "knocking down walls" that have existed for years in the countries of Burma, Cuba, and now, Iran.  Friedman called the President's actions towards these countries the "Obama Doctrine" which is to engage rather than isolate adversaries with sanctions.  The only problem with this so-called Doctrine is that it is inconsistently applied.

For, example, the President claimed sanctions haven't worked for 60 years in dealing with Cuba.  They also haven't deterred Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.  Yet, we still apply sanctions against North Korea, and most recently, Obama applied sanctions against Russia over Crimea and the Ukraine.  If sanctions don't work, why apply them to Russia, and why keep them against more than two dozen other countries?

Then, there's the inconsistencies against Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, and Crimea.  In Libya, we led from behind by forming a coalition to overthrow Gaddafi.  And, Gaddafi was overthrown.  But, in the case of Syria, we did nothing to help the free-Syria rebels oust the tyrant Bashar al-Assad.  Similarly, in the case of Crimea and the Ukraine, we did nothing to assist those who were fighting the Russian-backed rebels.

Also, where there has been engagement, how has that worked?

Engagement with Russia obviously didn't work.   In 2009, Obama (vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton) "reset" relations with Russia.  We even sweetened the relationship by scraping our European missile defense system that had been seen as a threat to Russia's ability to launch an attack on Europe.  So, what did all this "honey" buy us.  Nothing.  Russia has used our less-aggressive green light to retake Crimea and, eventually, all of the Ukraine. Then, too, Russia has been busy hacking our White House and State Department computers. Things between our two countries haven't been this cold since the war.  And, now, Russia is out to protect Iran from any attack over it's nuke program, by installing a sophisticated ground-to-air missile defense system.

In Libya, we and our coalition overthrew Gaddafi, but, since then we've had to high-tail-it out of the country because the people we freed weren't really our friends.  Then, in Egypt, Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood.  Unfortunately, the entire country didn't and the Muslim Brotherhood officials that won elections were ousted by a military coup to protect the nation.  It seems like the Obama Doctrine is all about betting on the wrong horse.

Given the past spoiled fruits of the Obama Doctrine, it is hard to believe that our relationship with Cuba and Iran will turn out any better. Already, Cuba is demanding (not asking) for the return of Guantanamo Bay and financial reparations for the last 60 years of sanctions. The "or else" on that demand is anyone's guess.  Then, too, besides just recently calling for "Death to America", the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran is demanding immediate removal of all U.N. sanctions or their is no deal.  So, now, the Obama Doctrine might be faced with "no engagement" on that one. At the same time, while we are feeding the hand of Iran over a nuke deal, they are busily overthrowing any remnants of the government of Yemen which the President claimed was our best ally against radical Islam.

Essentially, in the wake of the Obama Doctrine, there has been nothing but failure after failure.  The fact that the Middle East is on the precipice of an all-out Shia versus Sunni war is an example of how a carrot-only-without-a-stick philosophy is not only wrong but just plain stupid.  However, media types on the left like Friedman just can't see it.  Simply, the world will not be a better place until Obama and the Obama Doctrine leave the world stage in 2016.

References:

Friedman:  Iran and the Obama Doctrine: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doctrine-and-iran-interview.html

Obama Doctrine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know: http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/obama-foreign-policy-doctrine-iran-nuclear-agreement-deal-change-interview-thomas-friedman-new-york-times-video/

U.S. Sanctions Programs: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx

How the Russian 'Reset' Explains Obama's Foreign Policy: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/16/how-the-russian-reset-explains-obamas-foreign-policy/

Obama scraps Bush missile-defense plan - ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-scraps-bush-missile-defense-plan/story?id=8604357

White House hacking reports highlight digital cold war between US, Russia: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0410/White-House-hacking-reports-highlight-digital-cold-war-between-US-Russia

Russia to supply Iran with missile defence system: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/russia-supply-iran-sophisticated-air-defence-system-150413180038692.html

US shuts down Tripoli embassy and evacuates staff in Libya: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-closes-down-embassy-and-evacuates-staff-in-libyas-capital-tripoli-9630561.html

New York Times:  Working With the Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/roger-cohen-working-with-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

Army Ousts Egypt's President; Morsi Is Taken Into Military Custody: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/egypt.html

Obama Tonight: Yemen and Somalia Are Models of Success: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-tonight-yemen-and-somalia-are-models-success_804728.html

pb

For Russia, U.S. Oil Production Is Doing More Harm Than Sanctions

One thing is sure, the Democrats hate oil companies; and they want you to hate them too.  This year they are demonizing the Koch Brothers. In the past, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies were the targets of their wrath.  Every time gasoline prices jumped significantly, the Democrats held hearings to publicly flog the oil company CEO's for manipulating prices so that they could fatten their already fat profits.

But, nothing ever came out of all those hearings. That's because, secretly, every Democrat wants high prices at the pump.  Only then will consumers shift to alternatives to oil or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles or drive less.

Barack Obama is no different.  Since coming to office, he has used EPA lawsuits -- most of which were found to be without merit -- to stop oil production and fracking operations in places like West Texas. He has blocked the Keystone pipeline project in order to restrict oil supplies. Following the BP Deep-Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf, he has effectively used that as an excuse to limit what had been a previously fast-growing and vast area of oil production.  At the same time, federal oil leases -- both for offshore and federal lands -- have been severely restricted by this President.  Lastly, he has attempted to use questionably endangered species like the Lesser Prairie Chicken and the Greater Sage Grouse to stop oil drilling and production in vasts swaths of the U.S.

But, despite all those efforts, and thanks to private and state oil drilling, America is set to be the world's largest oil production country by sometime next year.  And, we are all the beneficiaries because there is now a glut of oil and prices are falling; with lower prices at the gasoline pump to follow.

Even more interesting is the fact that lower oil prices, as a result of rising U.S. production, might be doing something to Russia that the President's own sanctions over the Ukraine haven't done.  That is, to severely hurt their economy.  Russia is heavily dependent on oil production and exports.  But, as the Russian Central Bank so noted, lower oil prices are threatening their economy. and, that comment was made when Brent Crude was at $98 a barrel.  Today, Brent is selling at about $86 and will probably fall even lower as world inventories continue to rise.

So if President Obama wanted to hurt Russia even more, he could approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Approve more federal leases and back off litigation and the EPA's abuse of the Endangered Species Act to restrict production.  However, given the political influence of the environmentalists and the Democrats, he would rather the Ukraine be handed over to Russia than increase U.S. oil production by one drop.

References:

Venezuela blames U.S for global oil price slump: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2014-10/17/c_133723506.htm

Massive Rise in Crude Oil Inventory Sends Prices Tumbling: http://247wallst.com/energy-economy/2014/10/08/massive-rise-in-crude-oil-inventory-sends-prices-tumbling/

U.S. to Be Top Oil Producer by 2015 on Shale, IEA Says: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

Russian Central Bank Fears Weak Oil Price Could Threaten Economy: https://www.google.com/search?q=Russian+Central+Bank+Fears+Weak+Oil+Price+Could+Threaten+Economy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Court backs Texas revolt against EPA's new greenhouse gas rules: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/05/court-texas-epa-greenhouse-gas

Oil and gas production on federal lands is in free fall under Obama: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/16/oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-in-free-fall-under-obama/

Save a Chicken, Drill a Well - Wall Street Journal: https://www.google.com/search?q=Save+a+Chicken%2C+Drill+a+Well+-+Wall+Street+Journal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Critics cry foul as feds place lesser prairie chicken on threatened species list: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/28/critics-cry-foul-as-feds-place-lesser-prairie-chicken-on-threatened-species/

EPA backs off on fracking contamination claims in Texas: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/01/epa-backs-off-on-fracking-contamination-claims-in-texas/

EPA’s Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat of Many: http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many

EPA drops action against Range Resources over Parker County water wells: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/30/3849362/epa-drops-action-against-range.html

Three Reasons Why The Downing Of MH17 Will Go Unpunished

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

Russia's Foolish Attempts To Foil Our Space Program

On May 13, Dmitry Rogozin, the bureaucrat who leads Russia's defense industry, announced two retaliatory actions against the U.S. in response to the sanctions being placed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis.  First, Russia will no longer allow Americans to ride on their rockets in order to gain access to the International Space Station (ISS) after 2020.  Secondly, effective immediately, Russia will stop selling their RD-180 and NK-33 rocket engines to American companies which are currently being used to launch commercial and military satellites.

Certainly, this announcement seems to spell the end of our involvement in the International Space Station after 2020 because, since the ending of our Space Shuttle program in 2011, the U.S. has had no manned space capability.  This is a result of Obama killing Shuttle replacement as a budget cutting effort in 2010.  In actuality, America is scheduled to return to manned low-earth orbit missions in 2017 in a NASA program called Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

Unlike the original replacement program, which would have been fully NASA funded and controlled, the CCP is intended to be more of a civilian based system.   The program has two crew vehicles: a CST-100 capsule and the Dream Chaser space plane.  In terms of launch vehicles, both crew vehicles are capable of being launched by either the Atlas V, Delta IV, or the Falcon 9 rockets.  Of those, only the Atlas V rocket uses the embargoed Russian engines. Even so, the makers of Atlas V still have enough stockpiled Russian engines to keep that vehicle operating for another two years.  Beyond that, I am quite sure that the Atlas V will be retrofitted with U.S. made engines; once the Russian supplies are depleted.

In essence, Russia's attempts at retaliation are quite foolish.  My guess is that Putin cooked this whole thing up for public consumption in mother Russia.  This way, he is seen as a strong leader,  capable of taking strong actions against Obama and his sanctions.

References:

Russia casts doubt on US' future with the ISS over Ukraine sanctions: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/13/russia-casts-doubt-on-us-future-with-iss-over-ukraine-sanctions/

NASA's Commercial Crew Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

CST-100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100

Dream Chaser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

ATLAS V Rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

Did Clinton Just Give Obama A Wake-up Call In Dealing With Putin?

One of the observations -- and certainly a criticism -- regarding President Obama's handling of difficult situations is that he doesn't seem to see things the way they really are.  Many times he takes actions that aren't in proportion to the seriousness of the event.  Certainly, his "baby steps" handling of Putin's takeover of Crimea has given his critics a perfect example of this weakness.

Recently, just a day before Crimea successfully voted to secede from the Ukraine, Bill Clinton was asked to comment.  Interestingly, he said this about Putin:

“The one thing I will say about him is he was always pretty transparent. He never pretended to be what he wasn’t..."

Well, one thing I can say about Clinton is that he is a very skilled wordsmith; never wasting words and always making sure that, what he says sends a clear political message.  Rarely does he ever gaffe when talking unscripted.  Therefore, I think that the quote, above, is something that he has thought about and clearly wanted to say.  For this reason, I believe the former President was trying to send a wake-up call to Obama by telling him that he needs to take Putin's words and actions seriously.  Otherwise, he would never have wasted a single word in mentioning something that, to too many people, was clearly obvious.

Source: Clinton On Putin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/17/bill-clinton-putin-highly-intelligent-but-has-flawed-view-of-greatness/

Ukraine/Crimea: Obama Resorts to His 'Pen' Again

It's been more than a week since Putin moved against Crimea.  Yet, there still is no international coalition willing to take Russia to task.  Not the U.N.  Not NATO.  Not even a smattering of European allies. Instead, Obama has resorted to going it alone by inking an executive order that might restrict the approval of certain Russian visas into the U.S; and, too, he may also use his 'pen' to draft executive orders which would tie up Russian assets.

If this sounds all too familiar, it is.  Instead of a Congress that won't work with him, he now has an international community that won't work with him either.  In both cases, our President is being publicly exposed as a feckless leader who lacks the negotiation skills necessary to take on any real challenges and make things happen.

So, he must, once again, resort to his only avenues of leadership: His "pen and a phone".  En garde!

Oh, yes, I forgot one other thing he uses to bring his foes to their knees: Speeches!  And, lot's of 'em!


Back Story: Obama’s 7 State of the Union talking points. No. 6: ‘The Pen and Phone’ strategy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/27/obamas-7-state-of-the-union-talking-points-no-6-the-pen-and-phone-strategy/

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