Why Obama Needs to Care About Ukraine

After allowing Putin to lecture him and guide his actions on Syria, Obama will not look very impressive if he allows Putin to wage war against sovereign nations as part of scheduled post-Olympic entertainment.

People are bound to ask: what happened to the US’s international prestige and power since 1994, when the Budapest accords were signed? If only 20 years ago the US felt justified in guaranteeing the sovereignty of Ukraine in return for the country relinquishing its nuclear arsenal, where did the country’s power go since then?

Rate this:

32 responses to “Why Obama Needs to Care About Ukraine”

Sandra Heine Merchant

March 1, 2014

“…scheduled post-Olympic entertainment.” I love it! That is pretty much how I described it to my husband. I added “the cock of the walk strutting his stuff and seeing how many feathers he can ruffle.” Only this is far more serious. I appreciate your perspective, Clarissa.

LikeLike

valter07

March 1, 2014

Do not see any point whatsoever to blame Obama in particular. Yes, some Republican would use stronger rhetoric. Maybe he’d even send three ships rather than two into the Black Sea, to do nothing…
US does not mess with strong adversaries. Period. No matter who is in power. If it does, it is only as a result of miscalculation and underestimating the adversary (e.g. Vietnam).

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 1, 2014

Nobody expects or wants military action from the US, but why can’t they do financial sanctions and visa restrictions?

LikeLike

Reply
1. valter07
  
  March 2, 2014
  
  Unfortunately, it works both ways:
  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html#.UxOcU4VGOnq
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Kyle

March 3, 2014

The U.S. stood up to the Soviets pretty strongly in the 1980s, I’d say that was messing with a strong adversary. Vietnam wasn’t so much a miscalculation as a very poor means of conducting foreign policy. The outcome could have been a lot different had the war been fought differently from the get-go.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  March 3, 2014
  
  “The U.S. stood up to the Soviets pretty strongly in the 1980s, ”
  
  – Reagan liked to self-delude. But the world saw him then and sees him now as a silly clown. The guy could barely stand straight, so how could he stand up to?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Kyle
  
  March 3, 2014
  
  He was far from any silly clown and he accomplished things with the Soviets that everyone at the time said were impossible to do. Gorbachev in his autobiography said that Reagan spent the Soviet Union out of existence. With Reagan, the Soviets realized that their bullying tactics were not going to work anymore. Reagan got concessions from the Soviets on things which shocked everyone at the time. Not really sure what the world considered “silly” about him.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 3, 2014
    
    Kyle, this spiel of yours aboutReagan having somethingto do with the temporary dissolution of the USSR is boring. Im sorry you didnt manage to get any education, I truly am, but I dont see why you are not trying to educate yourself. Feel free to worship the idiot Reagan, but what’s the point of bringing this sad, silly mythology here? Time and again, you embarrass yourself and don’t progress an inch in your development. This is sad.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
3. Z
  
  March 3, 2014
  
  …by bombing the country back into the stone age, as Goldwater said? Serious people did not believe this then and do not believe it now. Here’s a mainstream college class, beginning level: https://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/vietnam/lecture.html
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
4. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  Reagan had quite a bit to do with the breakup of the USSR. What is a myth is to claim that it was all because of him, the way many conservatives try to claim. He got concessions from the Soviets by starting the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was rather surprising considering that the SDI wasn’t even past the drawing board, but it concerned the Soviets enough to make concessions. He increased defense budget, which forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could not win. He also did the following:
  
  There was a natural gas pipeline between Russia and Europe that the Soviets were intending to have constructed, the second strand of which Reagan stopped.
  
  Reagan funded anti-communist guerillas which forced the Soviets to fund counter movements to in various countries
  
  The Soviets had to ship extra arms shipped to Cuba to soothe anxieties over Grenada: $3 billion
  
  Military spending increases announced to match Reagan: $15-20 billion per year
  
  Reagan put restrictions on technology exports to the Soviets, which cost them
  
  The Soviets lost revenue due to the sudden drop in oil prices (indirectly due to Reagan’s tax cuts and reforms, which led to a flowing of money out of commodities)
  
  The Soviets had to spend money to support the Polish government due to Reagan’s sanctions
  
  Then you combine all of that with Gorbachev’s various reforms that undermined the structure of the Soviet system, and it isn’t surprising that it broke apart.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    “Reagan had quite a bit to do with the breakup of the USSR.”
    
    – No, he did not. And repeating it a hundred times in a row won’t make it true.
    
    “Then you combine all of that with Gorbachev’s various reforms that undermined the structure of the Soviet system, and it isn’t surprising that it broke apart.”
    
    – A character in my favorite novel by Mikhail Bulgakov says, “In the presence of people with a university education, you allow yourself to make statements of a cosmic degree of silliness. . .”
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
5. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  “…by bombing the country back into the stone age, as Goldwater said? Serious people did not believe this then and do not believe it now.”
  
  Nor did Reagan. What Reagan understood was that the only way to counter Soviet aggressiveness was from a position of strength and not weakness.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
6. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  I’m not just repeating it, I’ve given some arguments for it. I would also say that repeating that he did not have anything to do with it doesn’t make that argument anymore true either. Consider at the time the mindset of many about the Soviet empire: Barbara Tuchman, a twice-winning Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and author, said that Reagan should approach the Soviets with what she called the “stuffed goose option,” i.e. give the Soviets what they wanted. Try to buy them off with food and goods.
  
  Reagan did the opposite, which caused Gorbachev to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine, i.e. that the Soviet Union would use military force to defend socialist states. Reagan purposely cut off technology and trade to the Soviets which put a lot of additional strain on the Soviet economy and this was in addition to the arms race. Reagan also directly challenged the Brezhnev Doctrine by sending troops to oust the Communist government in Grenada, and sent aid to the anti-communist resistance movements in Eastern Europe at the time. His Strategic Defense Initiative as said also terrified the Soviets.
  
  Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviets also gave great hope to political dissidents like Natan Sharansky and Lech Walesa of the Solidarity movement in Poland, who said that the Polish people owe Reagan their liberty.
  
  To say that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet empire I think ignores a huge number of things Reagan did to the Soviets that undermined them. Even if however one wants to claim that Reagan didn’t have anything to do with the Soviet collapse, it is very much a fact that he did have a major influence on changing Soviet foreign policy away from the bullying tactics of the past that they had adhered to. I do not know how anyone could call the man stupid considering he accomplished with the Soviets things that most of the intellectuals at the time claimed could not be done. He was not any “cowboy” the way many like to make out either, but rather followed a policy of prudence, of peace through strength as he put it, when dealing with the Soviets. He also was responsible for turning around the American economy which put the United States into a much stronger position to deal with the Soviets as well.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    Kyle: I know you have a tendency to be oblivious to your surroundings and incapable of a dialogue, but try to to concentrate and hear me this once: When you say things like, “His Strategic Defense Initiative as said also terrified the Soviets”, I can’t take you seriously or have any discussion with you about anything. Just concentrate for two minutes on your own words. How can you possibly conclude that anything “terrified the Soviets”? Did “the Soviets” tell you they were terrified? All of them? Some of them? Don’t you see that you are saying very ridiculous things.
    
    Please, don’t write another meaningless rant because nobody reads them anyway. Just think for a second, OK?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
7. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  By “terrified the Soviets,” I mean the Soviet leadership. This is known for a few reasons:
  
  1) The Soviets had an intense opposition to the SDI
  2) It got them to give concessions to Reagan
  
  If “terrified the Soviets” strikes you as a bad way to phrase it, maybe I should say then that it “deeply concerned the Soviet leadership.”
  
  “Please, don’t write another meaningless rant because nobody reads them anyway. Just think for a second, OK?”
  
  Oh come now Clarissa, that isn’t fair. For one, I am not ranting. Two, I am just trying to explain my point of view in some detail is all. It would be wrong for me and disrespectful to you to just claim that Reagan had something to do with the Soviet collapse without at least providing some details for my argument.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    “If “terrified the Soviets” strikes you as a bad way to phrase it, maybe I should say then that it “deeply concerned the Soviet leadership.””
    
    – Same question. How did “the Soviet leadership” communicate its deep concerns to you? 🙂 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
8. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  If the Soviets were not concerned over SDI, they would never have expressed concern over the program.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    Really??? Because politicians never lie or prevaricate? 🙂 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      March 4, 2014
      
      If we look past the empty verbiage, we will see that the exact same people hold all of the power (economic, political, etc) in the FSU countries today that held the power there in, say, 1982. They live in fancier palaces, but that’s the extent of the difference.
      
      Russia is governed by a KGB agent who promotes the same old Soviet ideology. So even if one accepted (against all reason) the contention that Reagan was somehow involved in the events of 1991, what were those events other than a formality?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
9. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  Why would they lie? Politicians only lie if it benefits them, not if it undermines them. I do not see how it goes against all reason to claim Reagan had something to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union when multiple people from the Cold War are of the opinion that he did, including Gorbachev.
  
  Those events were more than just a formality. Multiple countries were liberated and Russia was greatly weakened. A HUGE thing as well is that the breakup of the Soviet Union showed the world once and for all what a sham communism, that it did not work.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    “Why would they lie? Politicians only lie if it benefits them, not if it undermines them.”
    
    – Exactly. It was very useful to convince the gullible Americans that everything changed, get them to believe the lies about democracy, free elections, etc. It’s surprising, though, that some Americans somehow managed to retain this gullibility for so long.
    
    “Multiple countries were liberated and Russia was greatly weakened.”
    
    – For all of 2 seconds. Look at the original post. See what is happening in Ukraine right now? The difference between 20 years ago and now is that back in 1991 (and for a long time before) nobody in the FSU countries believed the Communist propaganda. And today, the absolute majority of Russians believe Putin’s propaganda completely.
    
    “A HUGE thing as well is that the breakup of the Soviet Union showed the world once and for all what a sham communism, that it did not work.”
    
    – And since 1991, half of Latin America elected pro-Communist governments. And there is no philosopher or thinker of any repute in the world right now who is not a Marxist of some sort. If you want to do any scholarship whatsoever in the Humanities today, you do some form of Marxism because there is just no escaping it. And (less important but still related) every time I mention here on this blog that Communism doesn’t work, a crowd of American and European readers passionately disagrees. So who demonstrated what to whom exactly?
    
    And as for Reagan, of course, history doesn’t accept hypotheticals, but I do believe that this country could have achieved greatness, could have become so much more than it is, if only it hadn’t been for that silly buffoon. Such an enormous squandered opportunity! And I’m not sure there is really any coming back for that. Handing the country over to medieval religious fanatics right at the moment when it was on the brink of irrupting into true modernity! What a criminal.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
10. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  What a sham communism **was**
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
11. Kyle
  
  March 4, 2014
  
  Not sure how showing concern over SDI constituted a lie, as the Soviets made concessions that undermined themselves. Ukraine is being invaded, true, but I was also talking about East Germany, Poland, the now Czech Republic, etc…I disagree that Reagan was any buffoon or that he held the U.S. back at all. To the contrary, if it had not been for him, our economy would have remained completely in the doldrums with the policies that the Democratic party was proposing. As it is, Reagan, in conjunction with the Democrats, made the country great once again.
  
  How do you see it that Reagan held the country back? Like from a policy standpoint, what things do you wish had been done that you see it that his presidency squandered?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 4, 2014
    
    Reagan brought in the religious fanatics and licked their anuses like there was nothing better in the world. He destroyed the economy, handed all the power over to religious crazies, his foreign policy was ridiculous. As I said, a drooling fool, ridiculous across the world. But feel free to keep worshiping him, of course.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
12. Kyle
  
  March 5, 2014
  
  Oh, I agree on the religious fanatics, but that is par for the course with Republicans unfortunately. Foreign policy we will just have to agree to disagree, however how did he “destroy” the economy? The economy recovered so much under his administration that he was re-elected in a landslide. And depending on how you look at it, he did it partially using some of the policies the Democratic prescribe, i.e. fiscal stimulus. His fiscal stimulus however was through tax cuts and defense spending, but those parts were still conventional fiscal stimulus (Keynesian stimulus is demand-side, which includes demand-side tax cuts and spending by the government). He also pushed through deregulatory policies and supply-side tax cuts, which incentivized business growth and investment and freed up the economy. He also gave the Federal Reserve the political cover it needed in order to raise interest rates to bring down the inflation. The raising of interest rates initially tanked the economy, but then it recovered big-time.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 5, 2014
    
    The religious fanatics only managed to take control of the GOP because Reagan handed the control of the party over to them. He did that because he was very weak. Just on the basic human level, he was a very weak person. This is also the reason why he dismantled the economy: he was weak and couldn’t resist the lobbyists. The damage he did was long-term and we can fully evaluate it today. Two seconds after his first term the damage was obviously not seen yet.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
13. Kyle
  
  March 5, 2014
  
  Democratic party**
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
14. Kyle
  
  March 5, 2014
  
  My understanding is that the religious in particular gained influence in the GOP with the rise of the Evangelicals. I would have to disagree that Reagan was weak. For example, back in his youth, as an actor, the Communists threatened to throw acid in his face if he didn’t side with them, but he still refused. I also don’t see it that it’s a weak person who gets the Soviets to fold on certain things.
  
  On the lobbyists, I think it’s more complicated then that. Reagan actually showed quite a bit of resistance to certain lobbyist interests. For example, if you read about his deregulation policies of the banking industry, these were heavily resisted by the banking industry itself. This is because the banking industry had a monopoly via protection from regulation. It was virtually impossible to start a bank, so there was very limited competition. Deregulation changed all that and opened up all those banks to competition. Companies also lobbied to have leveraged buyouts made illegal which Reagan also resisted.
  
  One reason conservatives are against heavy regulation is because it only invites lobbyists. Democrats often argue about the lobbying problem, but then propose more regulations. The problem is that in the process of seeking to regulate more, Washington then gets swarmed with lobbyists in the process. This is what happened with President Obama. He sought to increase regulations, but in the process, Washington was swarmed by lobbyists over his financial regulation bill and his healthcare law.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 5, 2014
    
    “For example, back in his youth, as an actor, the Communists threatened to throw acid in his face if he didn’t side with them, but he still refused.”
    
    – OK, after this statement I have to end all discussion with you because I don’t engage with mentally ill people. I am very sorry you are suffering from such a serious condition and I wish you somehow get it under control.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
15. Kyle
  
  March 5, 2014
  
  That is a fact of history. Read about Reagan’s time as President of the Screen Actor’s Guild. It isn’t surprising at all, as many communist-leaning labor unions at the time had a lot of influence and ability to bully people and did so. So that Reagan was threatened by communists is nothing out-of-this-world.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 5, 2014
    
    Kyle, seriously, do seek help.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

March 2, 2014

\\ If only 20 years ago the US felt justified in guaranteeing the sovereignty of Ukraine

I don’t think America has ever felt justified after seriously weighing “what ifs”. Supposedly, it was good for USA interests to play the role then: USA block vs Russian block (courting Ukraine and showing off to Russia and others), USA as a force in the world by participating in agreements, and many different things I don’t understand.

Why think “felt justified” at all? .

LikeLike

Clarissa's Blog