International Impotence
As the much of world eagerly awaits the results of the face-off between a pinkly-pectoraled Putin and our metrosexual commander in chief in this mother of all Mexican standoffs, there is much to ponder. While Putin’s ongoing media campaign to present him to the world as a real man, physically strong and constantly engaged in activities that are associated with masculinity, virility, strength and courage may appear as laughable to American supporters of Barack Obama, the truth is, it’s working, in the rest of the world, in Spades.
We here in America tend to forget that much of that world which lies outside our borders lacks our richly well-earned and deeply ingrained sense of skepticism and cynicism that comes with the blessing of living in an open, democratic society. There are countless countries around the globe where, through oppressive governmental media manipulation, opinions and political sentiments within the public sector are formed in such a way as to support those in control and those leaders of other countries whose views on governance reflect their own.
What it all boils down to is that while effete, liberal America scoffs at Vladimir Putin’s Marlboro Man campaign to present himself around the globe as a virile, vigorous and above all else, strong, world leader, the rest of the world, minus the sneering liberals, is buying it wholesale. If such a survey were possible, it would be ever so interesting to see the results of a world-wide opinion analysis matching Putin against Obama. Mind you, this is just a suspicion from an old veteran of seven decades but I’m betting our metrosexual prezzie would not fare well around the globe against that shamelessly shirtless Soviet man of the world. I’d settle for just a survey of world national leaders. I suspect that Obama would lose that by astounding numbers as well. Go ahead, ask the world who’s flaccid in policy and performance.
Osama bin Ladin nailed it with his strong horse, weak horse description of geopolitics. He may have been wrong about many things but that assessment is a universal truth. Those leaders who exude strength, both political and of deep belief and character, attract followers and political support. Unfortunately for America at the moment, Vladimir Putin, a man with a demonstrable record of accomplishment as a KGB colonel, has done that exceedingly well on the world stage so that Russia is perceived as strongly and decisively led.
Contrast Putin’s record with that of our affirmative action president and you quickly see why the United States is operating from such a position of weakness in this current confrontation over the Ukraine, and particularly the Crimea. Too unfortunately for America, those photo-shopped pics of a broad-chested Putin riding a huge brown, Russian bear, juxtaposed with those of a sissy-imaged Obama on his bicycle are devastating to this country in the arena of world public opinion. The Russians elevated a former KGB colonel with some expectation of what he might turn out to be as a national leader.
An informationally deficient American electorate elected, and then re-elected, a man with no provable record of accomplishment anywhere in his past. That is proving out to be on the world stage what was easily predictable: our metrosexual president, a man of wide and demonstrable lack of accomplishment, isn’t capable of playing on the same field as that bare-chested Russian Bear. One has to wonder if sometime in the future the world might be witness to a vision of peace:
Two single tubs, side by side, overlooking a sun-setting eternity, with a pinkish, broad-shouldered silhouette in the one tub, holding hands with the jug-eared silhouette in the other.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy
Ralph Peters put it something like this the other night-you may not like Putin or what he stands for, but you know that he will represent his country’s interests as strongly as he can and that he believes in Russian greatness and that Russia should have a greater place in the world. The same cannot be said for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Indeed. Putin is a leader AND believes in what he wants for Russia and moves decisively. Obama does not believe in our Country, its people or exceptionalism and he has weenied around for five effing years to win elections and avoided at every cost what the American people want and, more importantly deserve-being a leader.
http://www.hollyzood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/vladimir-putin-riding-bear.jpg
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/obama-ballerina.jpg
Enuff said…
Yeah, those and the pics of Putin on horseback with his hunting rifle sly for those of him fishing versus the ones of B. Hussein 0bama riding a bicycle wearing Mom jeans with his helmet on or those of him eating snow ones and ice cream. Which ones exude the masculine image? *DUUUUUH-HUUUHH!*. It’s no wonder that 0bama is regarded as an impotent joke of a Chief Executive. Where is he now, at a party/fundraiser or already out on the golf course?
Putin’s a totalitarian as*hole, but he is smart, likes his own country, and he has balls. 0bama is a totalitarian as*hole who only thinks he’s smart, dislikes his own country, and never had any balls, ever.
Putin is like a Honey Badger, and B. Hussein 0bama is like a teacup toy poodle!!
Now if we could just get Obama to quit yapping like said poodle, before he gets himself –and us — into something our military will have to try to get us out of….
Nice article.
I could see Putin really sticking it to Stolen Valor clowns.
He’s probably just send them to the “punishment battalions” so they could try to earn those valor awards they claimed.
While I agree with the assessment of our CinC, I think we also have to acknowledge that Obama’s reticence to get involved in shooting wars accurately reflects the feelings of the nation as a whole. So it’s hard for me to understand what difference it makes that Obama’s the president.
We didn’t intervene when Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, because it wasn’t our fight then and this one isn’t our fight now.
I think in terms of international relations, it’s sometimes important to assume a little humility and remember “it’s not always about us.” There was never a chance that the US would have involved itself into Russia’s business, regardless of who was residing at 1600 Penn.
Likely true. But the tone set by the resident of 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, often influences what an adversary is willing to attempt in the first place.
Khrushchev is widely thought to have been emboldened by JFK’s flaccid response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and to have further perceived JFK as a weak leader at the Vienna Summit. Khrushchev is thought to have decided only after the Berlin Crisis to put nuclear missiles into Cuba. He did this because he perceived JFK as being weak and irresolute. He had had no similar perceptions regarding Eisenhower.
The same is true concerning the Soviet Union being emboldened in Afghanistan in 1979 by watching us stand by and do nothing in Angola in 1976-1977.
If an adversary perceives US strength, they’ll almost certainly be cautious. If, however, they perceive incompetence or lack of resolve they’re often emboldened.
I agree but what I’m saying is that the “lack of resolve” doesn’t just come from the President, it comes from the American people, too. In 1979 the American people were outraged by both the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of 52 hostages in Iran and demanded action.
I don’t see that kind of outrage among Americans today, which means that even if we had an interventionist president, he would be hamstrung by a Congress and a people who would not let him get involved.
Separate issue. But with respect to the latter point (popular resolve today and the willingness to go to war over Crimea), I can agree.
Not sure I’d agree about Afghanistan in 1979-1980, though. I don’t remember any real “hue and cry” to go to war to free Afghanistan then.
Strong sentiment for taking action against Iran? Yes. But I don’t recall much public sentiment for action re: Afghanistan.
Remember: the Soviets timed their invasion of Afghanistan well; we were somewhat preoccupied at the time. They invaded Afghanistan about 7 weeks after the Iranians took our embassy staff hostage. (smile)
Most Americans who didn’t give about Afghanistan then, don’t give a shit about Afghanistan now either….we care about stuff when it screws with our ability to keep our jobs or our ability to buy more crap…..fly some planes into our buildings sure we want some retribution, but we lack long term resolve as a nation and our leaders reflect that lack of resolve…most civilians don’t give a shit about the women and children of the middle east and whether or not those women and children are being treated nicely or poorly….we say differently but our actions as a society expose the truth.
Martinjmpr_Please don’t think I’m advocating anything as foolish as American intervention in what I see as a purely European problem. It is the EU that Ukraine wants to join so let the EU deal with the Russians.
The point of my writing is how this weak, clueless president, acting out all the liberal fantasies regarding foreign policy and America’s role in the world, has proved once again the truth of the maxim that you must negotiate from a position of strength not weakness. And in this world, perception is everything. From Obama’s bowing to other leaders to his apologizing for American greatness and strength, to his drawing red lines only to have his bluff called by a tinpot tyrant like Assad, our loser of a president is perceived by other world opportunists as both clueless and spineless, a disastrous combination for America’s future in world affairs. Not since Jimmy Carter has this country appeared so weak and been so poorly led.
And yes, Putin is a despot, but he is not seen by the world as being the naked emperor that our own feckless leader is. Read around the Internet and you will find much grudging admiration for Putin even though he is a ruthless tyrant. That admiration is for the resolute determination he has to make his country pre-eminent in the world rather than a nation leading from behind.
Poetrooper & Hondo: Where I disagree with you is in your assessment of Obama as some sort of cause. Obama is not the cause, his election was the effect of the fact that Americans are tired of war, tired of spending our blood and treasure to attempt to maintain order in an ungrateful world.
Obama didn’t create this wave of what I call “selfish isolationism” but he damn sure rode into office on top of it.
martinjmpr: you’re misinterpreting my comments. The current administration didn’t “cause” the situation in Crimea. Similarly, JFK did not “cause” the Cuban Missile Crisis and Jimmy Carter did not “cause” either the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. However, in each case the US administration in power at the time had previously acted in a way that led adversaries to believe they were irresolute, clueless, or weak. By doing so, they unwittingly encouraged those adversaries to test US resolve by doing things they might otherwise not have done. Historically, pretty much every US administration errs along these lines from time to time – either by acting to give the perception that they are irresolute/clueless/weak, or by drawing “lines in the sand” regarding things that really don’t matter to the US national interest. FDR appeared weak at Yalta, selling out eastern Europe to the Soviets and encouraging the implementation of the Iron Curtain. The Truman administration did the former when it publicly put Korea outside the US Asian “security perimeter” in early 1950. The Eisenhower administration IMO inappropriately overreacted regarding Quemoy and Matsu, and risked war needlessly. The LBJ administration did both: it got us IMO inappropriately into Vietnam (where we had no strategic interest at stake), then was irresolute by taking only weak half-measures. The Reagan administration let itself get entangled with Iran-Contra, sending mixed messages regarding terrorism. And don’t get me started about how the Clintoon (spelling intentional) administration treated terrorism like a LE matter while also getting us bogged down in the Balkans. Bush(43) arguably blew it re: Georgia in 2008. His father probably did something along these lines too (can’t think of an example at present.) Hell, since FDR the only POTUS who I don’t think managed to screw up along these lines was probably Nixon. (He was a bastard, but he and Kissenger were damn good at foreign policy.) And his administration may have screwed up along these lines too. Major power foreign policy simply ain’t easy. Mistakes are gonna happen. But IMO the Carter and current administrations have… Read more »
The most recent pronouncement – make that activity from the general direction of the White House is the declaration by bodaprez that a vote for separation of the Crimea by the populace would break international law.
It’s found here: http://news.msn.com/us/us-announces-visa-restrictions-on-russians
And there is no actual law quoted, therefore, a vote by the populace of Crimea to separate from Ukraine is illegal how?
This is all that this (lack of) administration can do: sit on its thumbs and yak, yak, yak. It doesn’t just appear ineffectual. It IS ineffectual.
God help us if a real crisis ever arises, and I do not mean a hurricane.
OK, so I get that Obama is not your ideal president. He’s not mine either, but what would a hypothetical “better” president do differently?
W. didn’t do squat when Georgia was invaded, and rightly so, IMO. As much as we like to pretend otherwise by occasionally invoking murky ideas like “international law” it’s generally accepted that major powers have “areas of influence” and are pretty much allowed to act as they please (or as their citizens will allow them to act) within those areas.
Speaking only for me I think a better plan of action is to not have someone like John Kerry making statements that “all options are on the table” when everyone knows that’s not the case at all.
Drawing hypothetical lines in the sand is bad foreign policy. Making statements that are in line with what you can actually accomplish make more sense and show a resolve to hold a position that an all options statement can’t possibly show.
For me this means making statements that the United States will consider a resolution in the security council and general assembly and will be discussing the possibilities of asset seizure and business freeze until such time as the Russians indicate they are interested in discussing appropriate diplomatic solutions.
That tells the Russians we understand their position, but we have to consider our position as well and ignoring can be done but will be costly to the weak Russian economy…
Never say you will use force if a line is crossed and then don’t use force…never threaten force unless force is an actual, possible response. By keeping the tone to diplomatic and economic pressure the United States also presents to the world the idea that we believe there is an honest diplomatic solution should the Russians choose to engage it, if the Russian do not engage that solution seeing the United States apply an economic pressure also indicates our willingness to follow our stated intentions.
Claims of force without use of force only indicate the claimant is not serious or is not cognitively capable of grappling with complex sphere of interest issues.
martinjmpr: in both cases (Georgia 2008, Crimea today) the POTUS rightfully did nothing. Those weren’t areas of vital US interest, and we really didn’t have a reasonable course of action that could materially affect either outcome.
However, the difference is that in 2008 we did nothing reasonably quietly. We didn’t go around claiming “all options are on the table” (as VOV notes below) for all the world to hear – and laugh at. Nor do I recall us deploying a laughably small “show of force” contingent (4 combat aircraft, 1 tanker aircraft, and 1 ship) to Russian frontiers in 2008, either. A show of force that is ridiculously small is, well, deserving of ridicule.
When presented with a fait accompli about which you can do nothing, sometimes all you can do is to lodge a pro forma public protest, then work behind the scenes to limit the damage. Making public threats (expressed or implied) you have no intent of ever carrying out is a losing strategy.
martnjumpr, what I’m saying is that we have no real dog in this fight. Therefore, the lip flapping and yapping by bodaprez and jaawboner are implied threats that have nothing behind them other than hot air.
I don’t view this action by Putin as the Darth Vader approach, just an overbearing and overly aggressive move that could have been done with a lighter touch. It might be that the population of Crimea would eventually have demanded and won independence of Ukraine, based on the ethnic Russian demographic. Putin has shown little interest in Ukraine per se.
However, for the current US(eless) administration to paw the ground, snort, and stomp its little feet is the stupidest of stupid moves yet, and there are plenty more where that came from. The dolts in the White House have done nothing but repeatedly embarrass this country in front of the rest of the world for the past five long years.
What was bodaprez planning to do? Foster another charge of the Light Brigade? And for what? We have no dog in this fight.
Some time back, I went to England on a brief vacation. It was during the Carter administration, after the attack of the killer rabbit. I got on the Tube in Picadilly Circus and sat next to some hippie guy who immediately began referring to Grinning Jimmy as a vegetable. I just looked at him and said ‘You have no idea.’
Were we saying that Vlad would stare and bodaprez would blink, or something like that?
Hmm… it seems so. http://news.msn.com/world/putin-rebuffs-obama-as-ukraine-crisis-escalates
In fact, it’s just SO awrfull that, unfortunately, bodaprez’s vacay roadtrip may not come to fruition. I kid you not.
http://news.msn.com/us/obama-vacation-plans-in-doubt-because-of-ukraine
What hell is it with that asswipe that his f@#%$#@king vacation is more important than doing his damned job!?!? And he whines about it in the press, FFS!
I will flatly state that I am more disgusted with this girlieboi in the White House than I was with Nixon and Carter combined.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll quit because the job interferes with his personal life.
Well, it was just an idea on my part.