crimea

Ukraine crisis: How Obama chose chaos over courage

maxresdefaultIf the reader will recall, President Obama came under fire in March 2012 when, during a meeting in Seoul, South Korea, he told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to inform his successor (Vladimir Putin) that he would have “more flexibility” after the November election to address the contentious issue of European missile defense to Russia’s liking. The statement was picked up by a microphone neither leader knew was on at the time. Those who took exception to Obama’s comments were concerned with the president both telegraphing political weakness to the Russian government as well as his duplicity in deferring the issue until such time as he no longer had to answer to American voters.

With regard to the tenuous standoff currently taking place – the European Union, Ukraine and the U.S. versus Russia – forget for the moment Russian president Vladimir Putin’s alleged desires to restore the Soviet Union to its former dubious glory, or to become “Supreme czar of all the Russias.” Forget Russia’s arguably valid concerns over an ultra-nationalist, Nazi-influenced ascendant regime in Ukraine and the arguably strategically sound measures Putin has taken in light of the uprisings there. Finally, let us set aside the plausible argument that Putin, Obama and EU leaders are, as some have suggested, acting out scenes in a play whose final act will solidify the power of global elites for all time.

For the moment, let us examine President Obama’s hand in the Ukraine crisis and the failures both strategic and diplomatic that, in my view, ought to relegate all of the subsequent bluster to fodder for stand-up comedy.

Apart from military entanglements, the chief ostensible concern among U.S. and EU leaders is the result of Europe having allowed itself to become reliant on natural gas they receive from Russia by way of Crimea, the long-disputed territory and strategic seaport recently annexed by Russia. With Russia in direct control of the flow of natural gas, obviously any political tension between Europe and the Russian Federation could dramatically affect both the comfort and the economy of Europeans.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama backs Nazis, crickets from the press

Obama_Yatsenyuk1Without a doubt, the political landscape in America has become such a surreal wasteland of utter deceit and conspiracy that should a preponderance of citizens ever become aware of its breadth and depth, we will collectively suffer a paroxysm of shame as well as horror in having been so completely duped for so many years by so many whom we trusted.

Since December, the European press has regularly reported on the fact that the Obama administration and congressional emissaries have lent support both moral and economic to factions that later became the revolutionary government in Ukraine. These factions, which fomented the uprisings leading to the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych late last month, are essentially Nazis.

In mid-December of 2013, Sen. John McCain traveled to Kiev and visited with members of the Svoboda Party, an ultra-nationalist, anti-Semitic group that is aligned with other European nationalistic parties; initially, they were called the Social National Party of Ukraine. Their symbol is a swastika-style logo. Since 2010, the Svoboda party has garnered a healthy following, winning their first parliamentary seats and taking just over 10 percent of the vote to become Ukraine’s fourth-biggest party.

I believe that the sole reason the European press feels safe in reporting these things is twofold. One is distance: The issue deals with the American government, rather than European governments. Two, their reporting is typically replete with references to the Svoboda Party and other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists as “far-right,” a term that is accurate with respect to the 20th-century European political model, but inaccurate with respect to the present one. It is convenient, however, in demonizing conservatives, particularly American conservatives – so the “far-right” appellation works for them, as well as the American press in other areas.
Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Who is Putin really fighting in Ukraine?

obama-putin1It would be an understatement to say that I was decidedly irked at Sens. John McCain, Lindsay Graham and others of their caliber making the rounds of television news shows this week bemoaning President Obama’s weakness on foreign policy as the cause for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Equally irksome was their bastardization of conservatives’ talking points pertaining to the issue; i.e., extolling the wisdom of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney in their admonitions to beware Russia in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

Palin and Romney were right, to be sure, but it is the GOP leaders’ hypocritical theatrics that gall. It has not been Obama’s weakness that is to blame for Putin’s excursion into the Crimean Peninsula, it is Obama having purposefully telegraphed weakness – in the same way he has telegraphed weakness in his foreign policy overall, thereby emboldening both enemies and potential enemies alike.

What’s the difference? The difference is huge. Jimmy Carter was a foreign-policy bungler. He was weak because he had a delusional overview of geopolitics and his significance as a world leader. Barack Obama has advanced similar policies, but this is not because of miscalculation; it is because of his desire – essentially a lifelong desire – to diminish the United States’ status as a superpower.

Obviously, Obama does not care if his detractors declare that he is weak or inept at foreign policy, any more than he cares if they believe he is a poor economic manager or leader on domestic issues. His policies, which have been detrimental to America on every front – economic stability, national security, domestic tranquility, foreign policy – are the sabotage of an enemy operative, not the careless acts of a ham-handed politician.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama Discards Joint Chiefs in the Wake of Putin Double-Cross

obama_joint_chiefs1

WASHINGTON, D.C. – FULL-CONTACT sources reported today that President Obama walked out of a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday, declaring that he no longer believed the information and intelligence being provided by that body.

In recent days, it has been reported that Obama skipped meetings with his national security team over the current situation in Ukraine and discuss potential policy options. Over the weekend, Russia carried out a military incursion into the Crimean peninsula, a strategic access to Russia for a number of reasons. This region has been disputed and fought over for the last two centuries; the situation has been steadily escalating amid saber-rattling on both the US and Russian sides.

The dissolution of cohesive intelligence within the White House coupled with Obama’s international embarrassment over what many call weak or imprudent foreign policy initiatives – particularly where Vladimir Putin’s Russia are concerned – are only the tip of the iceberg. While the President has made clear his intentions that the US ought not be the sole superpower in the world, according to our sources, his machinations in the Black Sea region involved Putin’s assurances that Muslim populations would be left alone. However, with several terrorist bombings in recent months within Russia carried out by jihadists residing in these areas, as well as Obama’s continued support for the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide, it appears that Putin may have double-crossed the president.

The question given Obama’s refusing the counsel of the Joint Chiefs is that of who is essentially running the country. Who does Obama trust if not them, and where will he obtain vital intelligence? There remains his Iranian-born senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, as well as CIA Director John Brennan (who is reported to be a closeted Muslim), and other minor advisers. Many have expressed over the inordinate influence Jarrett has exercised in her post in the administration, most recently her clandestine involvement in secret negotiations with Iran prior to public talks addressing their nuclear development program. Given the tense situations in the Ukraine and the Middle East, the anticipation of a heavily Muslim-influenced foreign policy is likely to engender concern on the part of American conservatives and more nationalistic domestic influences.

Posted by Erik Rush in News