Obama Continues “Milquetoast Diplomacy” Tour in Russia

In keeping with his theme of weakness and capitulation in nearly every foreign policy stance taken thus far, Barack Obama travels to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders.  He reportedly did not pack his manhood–or our national interest–for the trip across the Atlantic.

by Michael Naragon

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Our president offended Brits by giving ridiculous gifts to the Prime Minister and Queen of England.  He apologized for American policy in Europe and the Middle East.  He described us as a Muslim nation and gave a conciliatory speech to Arab Muslims in Cairo.  He shyed away from “meddling” in Iranian affairs as protesters were shot and beaten by the government, but quickly jumped into action in an attempt to save a fellow Marxist would-be dictator in Honduras.

Obama’s next stop on the Magical Mollification Tour is Moscow, where he intends to give away whatever it takes to “retune” our relationship with the former Soviet nation.

The first sell-off will be U.S. support for the anti-Russian governments of nations like Georgia and Ukraine.  Washington insists that it will not abandon our relationship with Georgia, but reports indicate that the administration has effectively forgiven Russia for the invasion of Georgia last year, and will overlook continued Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the cease-fire agreement.  The Russians claim that their forces on the border are there for “deterrence” only, but it seems highly unlikely that the Georgians, who were soundly defeated in the border war last year, would have any capability to threaten Russia.

If you recall, Obama decided to “strongly condemn” the Russian invasion after apparently waiting for internal polling data to dictate his response.  “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war,” Obama said at the time.  “Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

How Georgia was to show restraint is questionable, considering they were the ones that had been invaded.  Apparently, candidate Obama would have preferred the Georgians lay down before a like-minded aggressor.  He has been, after all, very partial to Marxist dictatorships.  At the time, Obama’s response was criticized for being too weak compared to Republican candidate John McCain’s.  Obama’s campaign merely changed the subject, accusing McCain’s top foreign policy advisor of lobbyist ties to Georgia.  This, of course, was during the days when Obama was still promising he would have no lobbyists in his government.

A Moscow think-tank has indicated that Russia will be willing to reestablish friendly ties with the U.S. if Obama will turn from anti-Russian governments in the former Soviet states and abandon bi-lateral military/political agreements with those nations.  This, presumably, is an allusion to the missile defense shield advocated by President George W. Bush, a continual sore spot for U.S.-Russian relations.  How the Russians would be hurt by nations like Poland possessing missile shield technology is difficult to imagine, unless they had a grand design to rebuild the Soviet Union at some point in the future.

Obama’s primary counterpart during his visit to Russia will be Dmitry Medvedev, with whom the president will renegotiate the START treaty, theoretically limiting the strategic arms of both countries.  This is the same Medvedev who gave a speech immediately following the election in which he congratulated Obama and attacked American foreign policy in Eastern Europe, a clear challenge to the president-elect.

Obama got the message loud and clear, it would seem.  He is so focused on implementing an arms reduction policy that the administration has hinted it will bypass the Senate to put the treaty into practice.  Constitutionally, the Senate must approve all treaties before they are followed by the U.S.  Many presidents have signed off on agreements with other nations that the Senate has later denied.  Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, for example, weren’t even accepted by his own Senate following World War I.

Instead, Obama’s staff has said that the president may institute parts of the treaty by executive order and on a “provisional” basis, allowing the Senate to go through the formality of actually passing the treaty at a later date.

The president told Russian television that his “goal is that both countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles in a way that doesn’t leave either country with an advantage, but reduces tensions and the expense of maintaining such high nuclear stockpiles when they’re not necessary for our defense and our deterrence.”  In recent years, the only nuclear tensions in the world have come from Iran, North Korea, and, at times, Pakistan.  Obama has done little to curb any of those situations.  Why, then, would he concern himself with arms reduction because of non-existent nuclear tensions with Russia?

Interestingly, Obama will have only one scheduled meeting–a “working breakfast”–with Vladimir Putin, the real power broker in Russia.  Putin is the man who makes policy in Russia, and yet our president will only see him once, and even then for only a few moments.  It smacks of an insult.  As if Putin, the former KGB official, is too important to meet with the likes of this community-organizer-turned-president.  On second thought, perhaps he is.

The same Russian think-tank that proposed American actions to rebuild the relationship also claimed that there was little trust for the U.S. in Russia.  They should be very pleased now.  We have returned to the Carter philosophy that we will blindly accept any terms in the name of peace, regardless of what nations, including our own, are endangered by such ideology.