Clueless or Careless?

~ Clarissa

OK, people, wait, is it true that Obama said the following in his State of the Union speech:

Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria — client states they see slipping away from their orbit.

Tell me it’s a lie. Because this is offensive in ways that are too disturbing. I know he is uninterested in foreign policy but this is a gaffe even George W. Bush wouldn’t make.

Why didn’t anybody tell me??

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

19 thoughts on “Clueless or Careless?”

  2. When you call this a “gaffe,” do you mean it’s a true statement that a politician accidentally let pass his lips? 🙂

    Isn’t this exactly what Putin is doing — whether his priorities make any sense or not?

    Like

    Reply

      1. Yes, but Putin desperately wants it to be.

        “ffs” ???? Does that stand for “for fuck’s sake,” or do I just have a vulgar mind?

        Like

        Reply

    2. Putin is obviously not giving any money to Ukraine. Ukraine is not Russia’s client state. There is no bloody dictator in power in Ukraine. The Ukraine Obama is describing existed, to some extent, several years ago. But that was all before Russia’s economy began to tank.

      The whole statement is a mess.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The only real Ukraine is Donbass. The rest is the figment of imagination of the Austro-Hungarians… Or, in more modern times – of the US State Department. Didn’t you know?

        Like

        Reply

        1. I didn’t but Obama seems to share his informants with Putin. Maybe it’s a way to save some money.

          And hey, isn’t it funny that both sides accuse each other of being a product of Hungarians? There is a class of Ukrainians who keep insisting that Russians are not really Slavs but Finnish – Hungarians. As if it were somehow better to be Slav than Finnish – Hungarian.

          It’s like Hungarians are suddenly very meaningful to everybody.

          Like

          Reply

          1. These are both “andersonian insults”. The Russians are, in effect, telling Ukrainians “not only are you imagined community, but you are even not imagined by yourself”. In turn the Ukrainians are trying to undermine the “objective” (i.e. genetic) basis for the imagined community of the Russians. Finno-Ugric people being invoked on both sides is just a coincidence.

            Like

            Reply

  4. I thought I heard President Obama say that, but I thought maybe I had mis-heard. I think it’s correct regarding Syria, but it seems an illogical and insensitive thing to say regarding Ukraine.

    BTW, I’m reading a book entitled “Flash Points: The Emerging Crisis in Europe,” by George Friedman. I’m finding out how woefully ignorant I am about European culture, politics and geography. You have to wonder when it will explode. Or maybe it’s exploding now, in slow motion.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I read the book. The first half is a very good resume of the nation-state trajectory. The predictions were not very convincing to me, though. Plus, I was put off by the author’s excessively emotional style of writing but that’s just my idiosyncrasy.

      Have fun reading!

      Like

      Reply

  5. Think of you would describe the Russian invasion of the Donbas. Now try to abbreviate it to make it as few words as possible.

    That’s still way too much time for a politician who will simply grab a codeword (and Ukraine is better known to Americans than Donbas) and stick it into a sentence that’s built for oratory impression rather than communicating information.

    I’m only surprised he couldn’t find a third client state for the Russians to prop up as a list of three tends to make a greater impression than a list of two does.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’d say “Russia is pouring money into its war in Ukraine.” If that’s too harsh, I’d say “into destabilizing Ukraine.” But he reached for a complete analogy, and that rarely works in foreign affairs.

      Like

      Reply

  6. Having created a foreign policy vacuum, Obama has allowed Russia to fill it. In consequence, the future for Israel — once important to America — is chancy at best. As noted Here,

    Obama cannot take action against Russia without discrediting his entire Middle East policy, and so destroying his own legacy.

    Israeli Air Force commanders are reportedly deeply worried about Russia’s military presence in Syria.

    When Russian President Vladimir Putin deployed his forces to Syria last year, he claimed that the deployment would be brief. Russian forces were placed in Syria, Putin said, to protect Assad and would leave once he was able to defend himself.

    Last week, when the terms of the deployment agreement concluded between Russia and Syria were made public, we discovered that those early claims were false. Under the terms of the deal, Russia can maintain permanent bases in Syria.

    Israel’s Air Force is no match for Russia’s. The S-400 anti-aircraft system Russia is deploying to Syria covers half of Israeli territory. Russia’s deployment means that Israel has lost its regional air superiority.

    . . . .

    [R]eports that Russia is transferring arms to Hezbollah are deeply worrying. For the past five years, according to reports in foreign media, the Air Force has repeatedly bombed shipments of Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

    Israel is not in a position to contemplate bombing Russian military shipments to Lebanon. It is also not in a position to challenge a Russian decision to allow Hezbollah to use advanced weapons like Yakhont anti-ship missiles against naval ships either from Lebanon or Syria.

    And there is no reason to believe that Russia won’t do so.

    . . . .

    [U]ntil Barack Obama came into office, Israel never had to worry about Russia.

    For 65 years, the US forced Russia to curb its activities in the Middle East.

    The Middle East is a mess and getting worse.

    Like

    Reply

    1. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire time! Letting Putin in there is an enormous mistake. Enormous! And American politicians still can’t give up on the truly stupid idea that Putin is in Syria to help the US fight ISIS. Why on earth would he want to help the US? Why would he want to fight ISIS? This is deranged thinking. It’s not reality based at all.

      And it’s very probable that Russia is, indeed, transferring weapons to Hezbollah.

      This is such a mess. And it is, to a great degree, caused by the short-sighted and unrealistic foreign policy of the US.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment