Skip to content

Obama to Russia: We Surrender!

September 18, 2009

russia_06

On Sept. 17, 1939, Soviet troops invaded Poland. In 1968 they invaded the Czech Republic (then part of Czechoslovakia).  In both countries (as well as in most of the other countries in Eastern Europe that fell under Soviet domination), the Russians imposed brutal Marxist dictatorships. When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, many of those countries finally got an opportunity to taste freedom for the first time in decades.

In the Czech Republic, and especially in Poland—which endured 70 years of communist repression—this new-found freedom allowed those countries to dismantle the police-state apparatus (which is necessary for the existence of every Marxist state) that the Russians had imposed, and to move closer to the West, all the while keeping a wary eye on the Russians. Russia’s brutal invasion of the Republic of Georgia last year was a reminder to them that Russian aspirations of regional domination are still very much alive.

After the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks, the administration of George W. Bush courted the region determinedly, recognizing that America’s security and Europe’s stability required a strong, safe Eastern Europe that could be relied upon as an ally in the war on terror. The Eastern Europeans proved their commitment by becoming, in some instances, more reliable than the French or other Western European nations. In fact, Eastern European nations were some of the most enthusiastic contributors of troops in the war on terror, fighting alongside U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the United States was forging these alliances, the Russians were busy forging alliances of their own. Aside from their traditional surrogates, such as Cuba and North Korea, they have found common ground with countries such as Venezuela and Iran. When Iran embarked on its program to acquire nuclear weapons, it was Russia that provided the technology to enable it to do so. It was Russia which built Iran’s nuclear reactors, and it is Russia that is providing Iran with the fuel to run those reactors.

President Bush not only recognized the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran, backed by Russia, would have on the stability of both Europe and the Middle East, he also recognized that Iranian missiles could now threaten the very security of the United States.

Bush agreed to set up a missile defense system, components of which would be placed in both Poland and the Czech Republic. The system was designed to protect the U.S. and its allies against potential aggression from Iran, intercepting any long-range missiles launched from that country.

Alas, it was not to be.

Bowing to pressure from Russia, which vowed to take “retaliatory steps” if the missile defense system was implemented, the administration of President Barack Obama has decided, as reported by Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program, to:

abandon the Bush administration’s so-called “missile-defense” system in Eastern Europe…The move marks one of the Obama administration’s sharpest reversals of a major Bush administration foreign policy to date.

This is a colossal blunder. A unilateral retreat without a quid pro quo is no way to deal with the Russians, as Ronald Reagan so aptly demonstrated. When rumors of Obama’s plan to drop the defense system surfaced last month, Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardner wrote that doing so would:

represent an appalling surrender to Russian demands, and the shameful appeasement of an increasingly aggressive regime that is openly flexing its muscle in an effort to intimidate ex-members of the Warsaw Pact.

Gardner added that:

Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians

The East Europeans know a slight when they see one.

Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president who understands the Russian threat first-hand, said:

I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe. The way we are being approached needs to change

Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the system, said:

The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic

Poland’s National Security Office said that the change was a:

defeat primarily of American long-distance thinking about the situation in this part of Europe.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests, adding:

We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror

The Russians, however, love the decision.

Russia, which has offered nothing in return for America’s gesture, called it a “responsible move.”

Bravo, Mr. President.

Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. Wayne permalink
    September 18, 2009 4:55 am

    Some of the most articulate enemies of tyranny are those who have had first-hand experience living under a system of tyranny. Poland and Czechoslovakia have both experienced Soviet tyranny. Why should it surprise anybody that President Obama would throw those countries under the bus — being the “Harvard scholar” that he is, isn’t he naturally sympathetic to socialism?

    Imposing rules of engagement on those who are on the front lines in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan, rules which introduce the threat of criminal charges that are politically motivated, on those front line forces should raise the flag of caution when assuming that the interests of freedom are the motivation of the Obama administration.

    The so-called collapse of the former Soviet Union may have been more superficial that fundamental, since the tyranny of Soviet socialism continues to show its ugly face through the camouflage and Western leftists will practice the charade that all will be well if only we can find a common ground and appease the tyrants.

  2. Mark J. Koenig permalink
    September 18, 2009 5:34 am

    “This is a colossal blunder. A unilateral retreat without a quid pro quo is no way to deal with the Russians, as Ronald Reagan so aptly demonstrated.”

    BLUNDER??? I think you’re missing the salient point here. It is no “blunder” or coincidence that President Obama chose to make this announcement 70 years TO THE DAY after the Soviet invasion of Poland. As Rush Limbaugh so eloquently pointed out yesterday, Obama is making a statement here about what he thinks of past U.S. foreign policy and supposed “imperialism”. This is no accident, and it is a huge mistake for us to assume that what is at work here is simple naivete or incompetence on Obama’s part. This is ENTIRELY deliberate. Obama harbors a deep resentment of this country and what he and his wife Michelle view as its unjust dominance in the world.

    These people are leftist to the core, and we had best acknowledge that and STOP giving them an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Some of us still refuse to see what is right before our eyes, as we can’t bear the thought of a U.S. President who actually wants to tear up the Constitution and remake the country in his radical image. WAKE UP – the truth is staring us in the face.

  3. In the know permalink
    September 18, 2009 7:01 am

    Mark and Wayne,

    Thank you for knowing history and it’s significance regarding this issue. It is disturbing to me that we have millions who witnessed the “illegal and immoral” war waged on Poland by Germany and the USSR. History repeats itself, I fear deliberatley.

  4. pbrauer permalink
    September 18, 2009 7:51 am

    You guys just want to restart the cold war, the Soviet Union no long exists.
    Suggest reading: The Cuban missile crisis. The Monroe Doctrine.

    • carterthewriter permalink
      September 18, 2009 8:11 am

      Does anyone have a flyswatter handy?

    • theblanque permalink
      September 19, 2009 2:11 pm

      You want us to roll over and go to sleep. Suggested reading: The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli; The Gulag Archipelago by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn; Witness by Whittaker Chambers.

  5. carterthewriter permalink
    September 18, 2009 8:17 am

    The two presidents kissed and made up last week. Their policies match.

    In fact, word has it the bridge across the Bering Strait will be contructed now so American dissidents can be transported to Sibera. I hear it’s a done deal.

    • pbrauer permalink
      September 18, 2009 8:37 am

      carterthewriter,

      Perhaps you are listening to Coast-to-Coast too much, turn off the radio and get some sleep.

      • carterthewriter permalink
        September 18, 2009 9:20 am

        Can’t sleep, there’s a horse fly bugging me.

        • pbrauer permalink
          September 18, 2009 10:44 am

          Hmmmm. You know what horse flies are attracted to, don’t you? (Sorry, I coundn’t let that set up pass) 🙂

  6. September 18, 2009 10:59 am

    GE…. owner of MSNBC… NBC…..CNBC (Obama’s propaganda machine)

    Pretty obvious what’s going on……..
    —————————————————————————————–

    Russia’s PM Putin to meet U.S. businessmen
    Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:33am EDT

    MOSCOW, Sept 17 (Reuters) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will meet several top U.S. executives on Friday, including General Electric Co (GE.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N), the Russian government said on Thursday.

    Putin’s meetings with top Western executives are usually a precursor of major business deals. Earlier this year oil majors Total (TOTF.PA) and Royal Dutch/Shell (RDSa.L) announced plans to expand in Russia at meetings with Putin.

    Talks with the U.S. firms follow a U.S. government decision to halt the deployment of a missile shield defence system in Europe, a move received positively by the Russian government.

    • In the know permalink
      September 18, 2009 11:05 am

      See related article. Convicted Lockerbie bomber release immediately followed by massive cooperative business agreement between the UK and Libya. You neo-communists screamed for years that Bush was a pawn of the corporations…HA! YOU are the corporations. Bought and payed for. You have been exposed and the fire sale is on. I’m surprised Airforce one doesn’t look like a NASCAR by now. It should!

      • pbrauer permalink
        September 18, 2009 3:24 pm

        LOL, you are funny. If I am a neo-communist then you are a neo-fascist.

        • September 20, 2009 1:26 pm

          Oh, grow up! The content of this article should alert to the fact that playtime is over. Now go to bed like a good boy and let the grown ups handle geopolitics. This is getting serious. Oh, and by the way, communism isn’t the opposite of fascism; it’s the same thing!

    • pbrauer permalink
      September 18, 2009 4:32 pm

      ms: “Pretty obvious what’s going on……..”

      Not to me, grab your tinfoil hat and explain it if you can.

  7. roger permalink
    September 19, 2009 2:35 am

    Russia was the enemy under Communism but it is a waste of taxpayers money to target them now.
    The enemy is the loony left and Islam. We have to focus on them now.

  8. Dave permalink
    September 19, 2009 7:32 am

    You might recall that the U.S. never got a whole lot of support from the rest of the E.U. when President Bush announced the deployment of a missle defense system in Poland. When one can’t even get much support from some of the folks who are going to benefit most, one has to wonder, “Why bother?”

    The U.S. helped to establish NATO immediately after World War II because Europe suffered greatly during that war, their towns in ruin and their industries heavily damaged. The U.S. was the only Allied nation that did not suffer damage. With the USSR eyeing its newly-conquered territories with the idea of establishing a new empire, the European nations would not have been able to resist the Soviet military were it to continue to sweep up land after the war. Only the U.S. could provide a deterrent in Europe toward further Soviet expansion. For that reason, it was prudent that the U.S. maintain a strong military presence in Europe, and ally itself to protect Europe from Soviet aggression. For that purpose, our committment to NATO was entirely necessary

    Those days are long over. Those previously-weakend European states have fully recovered from the war, and have gone on to become world powers in their own right with their own economies at least as strong as that of the U.S. In order to further strengthen their situations, those European nations, including some former Soviet Bloc nations, have banded together to forge their own confederacy–the European Union.

    The European Union is perfectly capable, militarily, diplomatically, and financially to support itself and deal with an aggressive Russia without U.S. involvement and without the U.S. attempting to “run the show.” It is long past time for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO to limit its exposure to further unwanted military action in areas (such as Georgia) that have nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. security. For the same reason, it was not a good idea for the U.S. to threaten Russia with a missile shield on its western border with Poland any more than it would have been for Russia to set up a missile shield along our border with Mexico. Face it–we don’t feel comfortable having Russian advisers working with Cuba and Venezuela even though they themselves are sovereign nations with their own alliances.

    I do not hear an awful lot of concern from the E.U. about the threat of Iranian attacks against the E.U. It would seem that if the E.U. were that concerned about Russia and Iran, it would have strongly pursued a defensive shield at their own expense, rather than simply sitting back and allowing the U.S. to work out all the details and pay the bill for such a system. Rather than our financially strapped U.S. footing the bill for the protection of the E.U.’s eastern and southern borders, the E.U. should use its own finances for the construction of a missile defense system. The U.S. can certainly provide technical assistance, if necessary, but we have our own projects that need to be paid for (the budget deficit, for one) before we build missile defense systems for our buddies in Europe.

  9. Nancy Warren permalink
    September 19, 2009 7:38 am

    I feel that the USA cannot afford this so called shield. If Europe wants one let them pay for ALL of it.

    However, I do NOT believe the Russians to be much of a threat any more…. to the USA…. but to Obama they may be a BIG THREAT!!!

    I KNOW that the Russian government has the records on ALL the old commies who operated in the USA. And maybe some “newer” ones as well!

    Perhaps, they have the “goods” on some folks close to Obama.

    Like his real Dad, Frank Marshall Davis, head of the communist party in Hawaii and porn writer . OR his purported daddy, Obama. Sr., a known commie from Kenya.

    Hey they may even have some files on his maternal grandparents and their possible personal involvement with Davis, his wife and the communist party of Hawaii.

    Maybe the Russians are very familiar with his Mom, too? Maybe even his Indonesian Step-dad.

    Obama may have commie secrets from his days as a community organizer as well.

    I could just imagine that outspoken Putin, laying a big old file on a table in front of Obama and telling him: “I got your political genealogy research for you, Mr. Obama right here.”

  10. pbrauer permalink
    September 19, 2009 9:08 am

    The shift from a land based missile system to one that is mobile and way less expensive has the approval of the Sec. Gates/ Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military personnel. It is also felt that the shift will protect Europe better and deal with the emerging threat from Iran.

    We need Russia’s help in dealing with Iran and having a missile system on their borders infuriates them and makes them uncooperative in our dealing.

    This is an excelannt move by the Obama admisitration.

    • bigdeg permalink
      September 19, 2009 3:41 pm

      Hey you (pbrauer),
      Please dig your head out of the sand. In this age of Utube and video it is possible the see what gates and others really think about this obama move. look back to 2006 when gates said on a news program that it would be terrible if the shield was not put in. Now he own his job to obama so he changed his story. Of course if he surrounded hiself with commies and socialists like our president, he would naturally think that way!

      • pbrauer permalink
        September 20, 2009 4:52 pm

        Hey you (bigdeg),

        Gates was picked by President Bush as his Secretary of Defense, so now that he has changed his mind about the missile shield you are throwing him under the proverbial bus? The very same argument could be made that he agreed with Bush because he wanted to keep his job. I don’t believe that is true, however.

        Nice try though.

  11. Judy permalink
    September 19, 2009 10:45 am

    pbrauer, yea right, it is less expensive since we will be buying it from GE.Oh, and I forgot, GE also gets a business deal with Russia. The europeans are terrified of Russia shutting off the natural gas supply to them are in a difficult position of choosing between what is morally right, or to heat their homes.

    • pbrauer permalink
      September 19, 2009 3:39 pm

      Judy,

      Have you ever considered getting on the Coast-to-Coast radio program with George Noory and explain your conspiracy about GE?

      GE got billions from the bailout, but it was done last year when Bush was president. Have you thought about that? That info just might shoot holes in your theory. 🙂

      • bigdeg permalink
        September 19, 2009 3:43 pm

        I dont care what pres. did it…
        we are talking about CORRUPTION!!!

Comments are closed.