The American Right Wing hates President Obama. They hate him so much they are outspoken in their admiration for the "manly" actions of Russian President Putin as he continues to threaten the former Soviet state of Ukraine.
There's one big problem with the Far Right going out of their way to criticize President Obama, while praising Russian President Putin: They remained almost completely silent when President Putin went into the former Soviet state of Georgia in 2008, when President George W. Bush was in the White House.
There's another problem with the Far Rights constant criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy decisions. Apart from providing President Putin with political encouragement for what he's doing the Far Right is demonstrating, once again, that they are historical illiterates and geo-strategic neanderthals.
Seriously, these people are clueless. Let's take a look.
As was the case with Syria (which I wrote about here) Russia has some very legitimate economic, strategic, and military issues in Ukraine. This is especially the case in Crimea.
It's not well known in the West, or from the media's narrative, but Far Right groups in Ukraine aren't happy with ethnic Russians (or the Jews). Worse, they are preparing to confront the issue as the Ukraine state continues to unravel. With many ethnic Russians residing in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea (beige color, below Ukraine on the map) Russia can legitimately argue that it must act to protect ethnic Russians in the region.
There's more.
Polls from the Kremlin show that the majority of Russians were initially opposed to Russia invading Ukraine. Still, President Putin has a pro-Russian leader - Sergei Akysonov - who has taken charge in Crimea and, like Putin, could benefit from starting a hot war in the region that could help fortify his position domestically.
At the end of the day, President Putin has some very serious domestic issues to consider after intervening in Ukraine. But these issues more than likely will fall to the wayside if he succeeds in defending ethnic Russians in Crimea. With India backing Russia's "legitimate interests" claim in Ukraine one thing becomes clear. President Obama's Right Wing critics in the United States have no clue about the region, and their petty and divisive comments show it.
So, yeah, there's a reason why President Obama shouldn't trust the Far Right when it comes to foreign policy (which I wrote about here and here). Their comments are divisive and insincere.
They always have been.
- Mark
There's one big problem with the Far Right going out of their way to criticize President Obama, while praising Russian President Putin: They remained almost completely silent when President Putin went into the former Soviet state of Georgia in 2008, when President George W. Bush was in the White House.
There's another problem with the Far Rights constant criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy decisions. Apart from providing President Putin with political encouragement for what he's doing the Far Right is demonstrating, once again, that they are historical illiterates and geo-strategic neanderthals.
Seriously, these people are clueless. Let's take a look.
 |
| Crimea in beige color, right below Ukraine |
As was the case with Syria (which I wrote about here) Russia has some very legitimate economic, strategic, and military issues in Ukraine. This is especially the case in Crimea.
It's not well known in the West, or from the media's narrative, but Far Right groups in Ukraine aren't happy with ethnic Russians (or the Jews). Worse, they are preparing to confront the issue as the Ukraine state continues to unravel. With many ethnic Russians residing in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea (beige color, below Ukraine on the map) Russia can legitimately argue that it must act to protect ethnic Russians in the region.
There's more.
ECONOMIC: There's a U.S.-backed plan to endorse Ukraine's entrance into the European Union. If this happens, and as an economically weak nation, Ukraine could be subject to the same "structural adjustment" terms that were imposed upon Cyprus (as I wrote about here). Once they are strapped with excessive Western loans - and with it's floundering oligarch-ruled economy - Ukraine could be forced into bank supporting "bail-ins" (among other terms) they don't have to worry about now.
STRATEGIC: Since the time of Peter the Great (1682-1725) Russia has sought access to warm water ports, a route to Mediterranean and the open seas. The stories of Peter the Greats moves to protect Russia's access to the Sea of Azov - and his moves to create St. Petersburg while guarding Taganrog - are legendary. Keeping Crimea within Russia's larger geo-political orbit only makes sense, especially if you're President Putin.
MILITARY: Russia already feels threatened by NATOs expansion into Turkey and the West's opposition to the "Shi-ite Pipeline" which Russia supports. By maintaining alliances and troops in "Russian" break off states - which Crimea could become - Russia maintains their military preparedness and national security interests (there are currently four break off states, including Transnistria, a "state" a former student from Moldova helped me develop a strong interest).
Polls from the Kremlin show that the majority of Russians were initially opposed to Russia invading Ukraine. Still, President Putin has a pro-Russian leader - Sergei Akysonov - who has taken charge in Crimea and, like Putin, could benefit from starting a hot war in the region that could help fortify his position domestically.
At the end of the day, President Putin has some very serious domestic issues to consider after intervening in Ukraine. But these issues more than likely will fall to the wayside if he succeeds in defending ethnic Russians in Crimea. With India backing Russia's "legitimate interests" claim in Ukraine one thing becomes clear. President Obama's Right Wing critics in the United States have no clue about the region, and their petty and divisive comments show it.
So, yeah, there's a reason why President Obama shouldn't trust the Far Right when it comes to foreign policy (which I wrote about here and here). Their comments are divisive and insincere.
They always have been.
- Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment