cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

According to Romney:

1 - The Obama administration should have threatened Russia rather than trying to repair our long fractured relations.

2 - While threatening Russia, Obama should also have made it very clear that America had no intention of not letting them take control of Crimea because of their important naval base there, or of "interfering" in their "influence" in Ukraine (which is a clever way of saying he would have kept Ukraine out of NATO).

3 - Obama should have pre-planned to enact sanctions against Russia, so that if they got out of line, he could enact sanctions. Which Obama is doing. And Romney alluded to, saying "some of these things are being done..."

4 - Then he says we should have gotten Ukraine into NATO, after all.

5 - Obama should have recognized that Russia is our greatest geopolitical enemy - who is totally not our enemy - except geopolitically, where they are. And that although they are our enemy, they're our friend, and as our frenemy, they just want to be authoritarian, which we don't need. Which is why we totally shouldn't have tried to make better friends with our enemy who isn't our enemy, but is. Because they're not our enemy, except geopolitically. Then they are.

So, to sum up, Romney thinks Obama is naive because he didn't threaten our enemy who is not our enemy, to make them our friend when we shouldn't have been trying to make friends with them, by threatening to give them what they want, and not to interfere with their influence or their control of their base in Crimea, and that Obama should have been more prepared to enact the sanctions he's enacting.

Got all that? Phew... Too bad we didn't elect this guy, right?

 

http://www.realclear.com/politics/2014/03/23/romney_obama_naive_6296.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_me...

 

12 Replies
BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

Okay Schurrbart, this is how clueless that Obama has ALWAYS been.  The Ukraine could perhaps defend themselves with something more than sticks had then senator Obama not begged the Ukraine to get rid of their conventional weapons.   http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/2005/LugarObama.htm    

 

It was just a little over a year ago that Obama mocked Mitt Romney that "the cold war is over"  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg   

 

Perhaps if President Obama spent more time at security briefings, instead of on vacations and the golf course, he then might be half as aware as citizen Romney was.

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

What would be fitting would be for guys like Sally to live in a high risk area, and to have to depend on Bama to be their security. Then the skittles would hit the fan.

 

As it is, we are all in the high risk area of international politics, and depending on getting the amaturer out of office as soon as possible so that we hopefully will have a long span as a free people.

 

My vote is that we export the liberals and import hard working people from throughout the world that believe in personal responsibility, thrift, and hard work. I can see Bama in a ships captain uniform sailing away.

hardnox
Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

Yeah, but in the conservative pantheon them rooskies absolutely quake in their boots when confronted by a Real American.

 

Even Vlad, who may be one notch above the Kenyan socialist muslim but no match for an RA.

 

Also thinking about the return of history after it was declared dead for a couple of decades. Same 'ol situation with Russia as the continental powers faced in the 18th and 19th centuries and as the world did for the latter half of the 20th.

 

But in conservative mythology the only think you need to know is the snippet from 1980-91 when an RA came in and cleaned up the mess that the liberals made. That's what I mean when I often refer to the danger of believing your own BS.

 

An insufficient respect for history was surely at the heart of the neocon's having led us into the greatest military and foreign policy debacle in our history (which we're pretty much OK with because we wouldn't want to not Support Our Troops). But that surely has significant influence on our moral stature in objecting to a violation of national sovereignty and in maintaining the illusion of military supremacy.

 

History didn't start in 1980 or 2008. It just keeps flowing.

 

PS. It is hard to get a handle on Romney as far as foreign policy goes- being a good administrator with an olympics, a state or running a financial firm doesn't give a lot of clues. They're all going to be somewhat captive to who they choose as advisors and given that his were mostly retreads from team neocon, I don't think you can be very optimistic.

 

As noted here, in the past few years McCain has revealed himself as a nutcase. Whew!

 

I'd be willing to bet anyone $50 that Sarah Palin didn't know who George Kennan (the author of post war containment policy) was and I'm relatively sure that she'd aggressively reject the significance of anything with a bit of complexity anyway. Given the neocon folks who recruited her and the fact that she could never be anything but a ventriloquist's dummy for her handlers, that doesn't seem to have offered much hope either.

 

With Paul Ryan, it wouldn't matter because it would go away if we quit ruining the character of poor folks through government dependency.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

I'm sure you, like myself, growing up in the cold war, remember the common knowledge that if the USA had just kept marching past Berlin in 1945, wiped out the red army and destroyed communism then and there it would have prevented all the nuclear fears of the cold war.  Bound up all neatly and packaged by american exceptionalism.   Probably not an american would have returned from that match.   How little Americans really understood about the war on the eastern front or the size of the red army.   

 

I really can't imagine getting into any war for any reason in that part of the world.  Let the meaningless sanctions fly, but Russia can take it all, I'm not interested in being sent to fight there.  Anyone who thinks someone should intervene should read of the fun Napoleon had there or what the Germans experienced.  No thanks, no way.  

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

Romney doesn't have a clue and Obama doesn't miss any briefings. Try again. Obama was rightly worried about the nukes in the Ukraine.
KNAPPer
Senior Contributor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

True words Sam.........

hardnox
Advisor

Re: Romney on Obama and/or Russia explained

Yeah, as Bruce has noted, everybody who ever saw Patton thinks they've got the lowdown there.

 

Nevermind that the Red Army had 60,000 T-34 tanks that were superior to anything we had, and 10 million men under arms. And oil, which the Germans didn't.

 

So then we should have just nuked 'em. Sure. And then what?

 

The reality speaks to the genius of Kennan's containment strategy. But actually, history isn't even anywhere near that simple. By 1948 we had "lost China" and everyone was pointing fingers. Kennan began to dissent from the harder line stance that was being driven by partisan politics. He was even red-baited a bit in the follwing years.

 

And I guess that even if you say we won the long slog of containment we may have lost the Republic to the Deep State that grew from within throughout.

 

I say "may have" becasue I remain chastened by the Archdruid pece of a few weeks ago. If we declare that we're already a fascist, or irretrivabley socialist nation or whatever, it seems highly likely that we're pretty soon destined for something far worse.

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

what I would do, FWIW

3 things, determine:  A. How many countries do we want to allow Putin to take, he probably has eye`s for all that he can get.  B.  Do the people in those countries not want to be ruled by Putin? In other words don`t waste money defending a country that 95% wants Putin as their leader.  C.  Is Putin really a greater or a lesser evil than the New World Order?  If Putin is a threat to the open immigration, feminized socialist welfare European Union, perhaps the US should also join up with Putin Smiley Happy

 

Crimea is lost, now does Ukraine and Moldova want to remain independent?  If so then perhaps a joint effort shared EQUALLY by members of "NATO" should draw the line in the sand in the Ukraine...but of 50%+1 favor Putin, then fugetaboutit not worth it.  But just a appearance of a NATO effort at this early stage would turn Putin.  However once Putin has tanks running up and down the streets it`s a little too late, because of tough guy, saving face, seeing who can piss further and such and Putin isn`t one to bluff around with, when the dlcks get whipped out Putin might lose, but he`ll be sure to piss on everyone real good before he zipps back up.

 

Bottomline: If Putin really is some kind of threat, it`ll be less difficult to do something along with NATO now, than later.

hardnox
Advisor

Re: what I would do, FWIW

I think that's essentially what we're doing.

 

I don't think anybody is seriously talking about retaking Crimea. Some eastern provinces ares still in play.

 

I doubt that anybody is very interested in a land war in western Ukraine.

 

Then the game (possibly) continues over other regions in former Soviet satellites that have large Russian ethnic populations. Probably not immediately but over time.

 

And the game certainly continues in oil and gas and in currencies.  I think he's actually more vulnerable in the financial arena than many assume. What you're dealing with is a small cabal of multi-billionaire resource oligarchs living in a first world city in a marginally second world country.

 

As far as provocations against Russia, the greatest one has surely been the placement of ABM systems in former client states along the periphery.  Well, they do have a lot of nukes and back in the days of RR it was generally considered important.

 

Also, see my comments on Kennan and the early days of the Cold War. There probably is some precedent for the degree of partisan meddling in foreign policy to be found ca. '48-'52.  I don't think that history tends to regard it as particularly constructive.