Elizabeth Scalia's take on the Ukrainian crisis and the Obama administration's reaction:
The Obama White House is learning the hard way that presidential power requires something more substantial than an eternal marketing campaign and an endless spin-cycle, because no matter what a utopian president thinks the world should be like, the reality is this: in human life, peace is a transient thing, and in geopolitics, it is more often than not an illusion that quickly reveals itself as one. If Europe has been “at peace” these last 60 years, it’s a profound aberration in the scheme of history.
Obama (and his Secretary of State) seem to believe that humanity has — by virtue of nothing at all, except perhaps his say-so — transcended itself and entered into a we-are-stardust-we-are-golden
happy place, where (in Europe, at least) nobody wants war, because everyone is loving peace.
That is a rather terrifying demonstration of naivete. Even a so-so student of human history and behavior (like me) knows that someone always wants war. Someone alwayswants more power. Someone is always looking for a way to avenge what they believe are past insults.
Naivete gets a second hit as Obama seems not to understand that his idea of patriotism (bowing, talking and receding as much as possible from the fore) has absolutely nothing to do with how Putin understands patriotism. Obama’s kind of an introverted patriot; he’d like America to keep to itself. Putin is a kind of extroverted patriot. He wants to extend his boundaries.
He demonstrated that in 2008, when he moved into Georgia, fully understanding that President Bush was a “weak horse” without the capital to do anything. That move was enough for Mitt Romney to warn in 2012 (and Sarah Palin to note in 2008) that Russia under Putin was a geopolitical threat to Ukraine and more — a notion that Obama blew off as “’80′s ideology.”
Putin saw another weak horse. Particularly after Syria.
If the WaPo believes Obama has been living in a fantasy world, well, he seems to still be there — how else does he believe he can simultaneously cut our military back to pre-WWII levels while “squeezing Russia”, diplomatically, as though diplomacy has been his strong point, or something.
She's got more and it's worth your time including references to weapons used in the past to stymie the Russian Bear.
Read it. Pass it on.
