Obama Foreign Policy: Slap your Friends, Appease your Enemies

President Obama gave Vlad the Impaler the green light last week when he announced we're retreating from our European missile shield plans.

"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page. (AP)

The Economist, a respected British publication, observes that either the Obama Administration does not understand Central Europe, or it doesn't care.

The timing of the announcement is poor, coming on September 17th, the anniversary of the Soviet attack on Poland in 1939. In a country highly tuned to symbolic snubs, it matters that nobody in Washington seemed to know or care about that.

The news was broken clumsily too: the Czech prime minister was woken by a brief phone call from Mr Obama the night before the decision was made public.

This is a shame. These countries escaped Communist Russia's clutches a scant 20 years ago. They are a little more attuned to reality and it's darker side than their Western cousins who laze under the US Security umbrella while criticizing their protectors. Eastern Europe and the Caucasus really are the frontiers of freedom, and we are abandoning the inhabitants to fend for themselves against an angry, vengeful bear.

This shield was not just about protecting Europe. More importantly, it was about building military ties and common interest partnerships with these Eastern European countries who genuinely admire the United states while still rightly fearing Russia. Unlike "allies" like France and Germany, these and other Eastern European countries field real armies that do real work. Remember that Poland has its own zone in Iraq. Romanians guarded Kandahar Airfield, ranging outside the wire, when I was there.

The Economist reader comments are telling:

earnil wrote:

Very, very good article. One of few that dares to point out Russian - German honeymoon. There's really no one else left to defend CE and EE countries as Old Europe already proved several times, that it's willing to exchange our nations for promise of peace any time.

BTW - recently publicly disclosed report of Czech intelligence agency shows, that there are clear connections between major public anti-base platform and Russian-influenced sources and also, that Russian intelligence agencies made one of their major objectives to undermine public support of US bases in CE. Guess situation in Poland has to be same. Clearly, this is a victory for Russian intelligence services.

BEK7 wrote:

Realistically, Europe has no other option than the USA as respects defense. The enormous costs of self-defense by Europe makes it highly improbable that they will pick up the burden of self-defense.

Doing so would cause a complete meltdown of the social welfare model in Europe. There is no political will to do so.

So the only alternative to the USA leaving is for Europe to admit that it is defenseless. Can you say "We surrender?"

For good commentary from a man who's been there and back, read Ralph Peters's commentary "Obama Feeds Allies to the Bear."

WaPo - Ronald D. Asmus

Yes, you may kiss my hand!
Obama greeted by junior partner in Russia. Big Daddy Vlad was rumored to be out hunting bear in nothing but his skivvies.

Putin's Puppet Cutting the Strings?

It was a cozy little deal: Vladimir Putin, Russia's barechested macho czar, was constitutionally required to vacate the presidency.

Easy enough. He installed political son little Dmitry Medvedev in the presidency and took over the newly empowered post of Prime Minister. It was widely understood who the top dog was. Dmitry was the junior partner keeping the seat warm until Putin could legally regain it after Medvedev's term was compete

Now it looks like Czar Vlad's son may be gazing upon Mother Russia and entertaining Oedipal thoughts. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made the following statement to a reporter not too long ago:

“The final responsibility for what happens in the country and for the important decisions taken would rest on my shoulders alone and I would not be able to share this responsibility with anyone,” Mr Medvedev told an interviewer.

Putin's people are not happy.

Kremlin watchers say this assertiveness seems to be part of a new pattern, with Mr Medvedev appearing frustrated that, in spite of his constitutional power as commander in chief, he is stuck in a subordinate role.“An apprehension is growing on both sides, particularly the Putin side,” said Dmitry Simes, head of the Nixon Centre in Washington, who spent last week in Moscow.Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre think-tank, said:

"I don’t think he [Medvedev] is amused that he is regarded as a junior partner."

This could get interesting...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cfa5d788-d697-11dd-9bf7-000077b07658.html

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1110/42/373438.htm

Commies In Our Back Yard

I'm tired of hearing about Russia and China wooing Latin America, and I'm tired of the hand wringing that accompanies the latest news reports of it.

Latin America is not Uncle Sam's back yard. It is a diverse collection of countries full of people who don't like the United States. I think much of the dislike is unjustified and springs from envy, but our history is checkered there, so I won't begrudge the good Latinos their emotions.

It's been a fiery, tempestuous relationship between Uncle Sam and the sexy, exotic land to our south. Latin Americans willfully forget our acts of generosity while cataloging our every sin and carving them in stone never to be forgotten. It’s time we dropped the Sisyphean task of force feeding them aid and democracy. It has done no one any good.

A dedicated core of socialists across Latin America hate the US and romanticize Russia. Well, it’s time they got a taste of what it’s like to be embraced by the bear. Russia selling their pathetic military junk to gullible caudillos does not threaten the US.

The smart governments like Brazil, Chile and Colombia have already forged a confident path for themselves and trade effectively with a variety of world players. They have 21st century economies build upon solid democratic principles. Dealing with China and Russia will do them no harm; avoiding exclusive agreements with one country actually improves their position.

Meanwhile, tinpot dictators in places like Venezuela and Bolivia (Evo Morales has actually donned a tin hat) will cozy up to Vlad the Impaler, thumbing their noses at the colossus to the north. Fine. They've already gone over the edge anyway. Might as well hitch their fortunes to a falling red star; it'll make the inevitable crash all the more spectacular.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2008/11/russia_china_move_in_on_latin.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/forecast-for-latin-america-cold-war-winds-from-russia/

Russian Loser Visits Latin American Loser

Vlad the Impaler has sent his little boy Dmitri to visit Fidelito Chavez in Venezuela.

So the Russians will sell their military junk to a Venezuelan megalomaniac who is losing favor with his own citizens and bankrupting his country. I still don't understand how that impacts US national security.

We should encourage such partnerships in the hope that the negative synergy will hasten the downward spiral of both parties. This is a skid-row drunk and an a heroin addict prostitute who found a thousand dollars on the street and decide to shack up in a seedy motel. It's bound to end badly.

Here's a laugh line from the bloomberg article:

“The world is becoming multipolar,” Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, said yesterday at the event in Caracas. “Latin America is also one of the poles of strength.”

That Russian spokesman is either stupid or he is laying out a gigantic line of BS. A continent whose greatest exports are cocaine and angry, overheated Marxist rhetoric is hardly a "pole of strength."

It's more likely Venezuela will end up being either abandoned or owned by Russia who, unlike America, is impervious to indignant cries of it's "victims" and the clamor of world option. This could actually provide a valuable lesson to the naive.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aQHOA3f_7wSE&refer=latin_america

All Not Quiet on the Russian Front

Progressives suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome declare a moral equivalence between Russia's actions and those of the US. This demonstrates the preposterous lengths to which some will go to discredit President Bush. Bush is not Putin and Georgia is not Iraq.

I especially love it when some enlightened liberal defends Russia by stating that Iraq is far away from the US but Georgia is in Russia's back yard. So then, it's OK to attack someone if they are in your "sphere of influence"? That didn't fly with the left in the 1980s when President Reagan set things straight in Central America, so why it it OK for Russia now? Blind rage against the Bush-Cheney machine has driven the left to illogic.

Despite all that, all we really need to do is look to Russia's former vassal states and see what their opinion is. Hint: It's not pro-Russian. Even retro-Soviet dictatorship Belarus is putting distance between itself and the bear.

All other arguments aside, what does this tell us? It tells us that former Soviet Republics have made an informed judgment call, and they reject Russian imperialism.

So, whose argument should we trust, Bush-hating leftists ensconced in the cushy confines of secure, democratic western society, or the former Soviet republics who sit uneasily upon the fault line and who will bear the consequences of their actions?

So go ahead, progressives. Keep defending imperialist Russia. You're all alone, and the people who know Russia best know you are wrong. You're so far left you've left your senses.

Right Europe

There may yet be hope for Olde Europe. The Frances and Germanys (Left Europe) still look down their snoots at the poorer, grittier Eastern cousins (Right Europe) whom they grudgingly let into their club as junior partners. But the Polands, Romanias, and Baltic States may end up being their salvation. One immediate benefit of the East's reintegration is that Europe no longer has a testosterone deficiency, although there is still an east (mucho) - west (nada) imbalance.

Poland and the Baltic States do not share France and Germany's conciliatory attitude towards Vlad the Impaler. Here's what Polish President Lech Kaczynski had to say about France and Germany's craven response:

This position by the two countries is due to "the historical experiences and interests of corporations" that are looking to make "big money" in Russia.

Kaczynski has hit the nail on the head. Recall that Gerhard Schroeder, former German Chancellor, now works for Russian Gazprom. For corporatist Europe, it's all about the money: Deutschmarks Uber Alles. It guided their dirty conduct in the UN-Iraq Oil for Food scandal, and it guides them now. It's all about oil and money. What President Bush is accused of, Left Europe is actually doing, and the Right Europeans, God bless them, have called them on it.

Why the disparity between Europe's West (Left) and East (Right)? Eastern Europeans bear fresh scars of Russian oppression. They remember not having freedom, so they cherish it. Meanwhile, Western Europeans are the lazy, entitled teens lounging beneath the US security umbrella, all the while criticizing it and the parents who built it.

Unlike their Western cousins, Eastern Europeans share our values and actually like us. They know the world is not sunshine and lollipops. Romanians are outside the wire guarding some of our bases in Afghanistan. Georgia had the third largest contingent in Iraq. Right Europe actively seeks our training assistance and military cooperation. They want our military hardware and know-how.

They will need it. When the spam hits the fan, it will be Right Europe, not effete, effeminate Left Europe that saves the continent.

Lessons from Russia & Georgia

Teddy Roosevelt was right: "Speak softly and carry a big stick":
Georgia isn't the only former vassal state discomfited by Ivan's gaze. The Stans and other regions with names unfamiliar to us have been building their own economies, cooperating on energy and making deals with other neighbors, but they've been doing it quietly. Georgia impetuously jumped into Russia's carefully planned trap, setting back their heady post-Soviet progress.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Pt 2:
A corollary to President Roosevelt's maxim is don't write checks you're not prepared to cash, even if you're a superpower. President Bush made a wonderful speech in Tbilisi back in 2005 extolling Georgians' virtues. He assured them the American people stand with them. It was beautiful and inspiring, but now it's all just so many scattered words... His administration is now trying to make good on those words. I pray they succeed.

Doing something poorly is often worse than doing nothing at all:
Leftist here and abroad have won the propaganda war against the US. They had plenty of help from their fellow travelers in the press who trumpeted our every mistake. Our credibility is shot, we have no moral authority. It's not right, but that's where things stand. What affect will this naked aggression have on our already shaky "Freedom and Democracy" agenda? Will other states teetering on the brink be more likely to throw in with us, or will they decide it's easier to bow and scrape to regional thugs and local potentates?

Military might matters. International organizations don't.
"If you build it, they will come" is from that Kevin Costner movie, Field of Dreams. In the real world it's more like, "If you build it, someone bigger will take it away from you." Despite what the "citizens of the world" say, it's still a Hobbesean world where life is nasty, brutish and short. Can the UN help? No. Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has veto power over any resolution, which really doesn't matter anyway since UN resolutions have the value of toilet paper. If you have something worth keeping, you better have the means and the will to defend it.

We can't count on Europe
A weak collection of pacifistic states who depend on a ruthless military power for its energy needs have no influence over that ruthless military power. Russia will be rewarded for this aggression. Who will punish them? The Western Europeans? Remember how they dithered while Bosnia burned? They can't scrape together enough arms and willing men to organize a hunting party. Besides, Vlad the Impaler will pinch the gas pipe off, and winter is on the way. Mustn't anger the bear.

If you're not upset about this you need to dig a little deeper...

Whatever Happened to Free Tibet ?

I remember back a few years seeing Free Tibet bumper stickers on progressive Saabs and hippie VWs. Tibet is still in China's clutches, Russia is busy slapping around it's former vassal states, but the world is focused on the supposed crimes of George Bush.

I can understand the argument that we never should have invaded Iraq, although I think that point is now moot. I can also understand those who think war is wrong and who insist that might doesn't make right.

What I can't understand is those on the left who criminalize the Iraq invasion but see nothing wrong with Ivan putting a knife to Georgia's throat because she runs a competing pipeline and cozies up to Uncle Sam.

Who champions the whole "Iraq as disaster" meme? Scared, jealous neighbors who don't want their own despotic teacups turned over, and peace-at-all-cost Europeans who were profiting nicely from the Saddam-era status quo. And American progressives who used to stand for freedom have jumped right in.

Can't these progressives see the illogic in protesting the Iraq invasion but giving China and Russia a free pass every time they brass knuckle a neighbor or support oppression in Africa because they need the natural resources and subservient political allies?

Here are a few examples of Bush-bashing progressives defending Russia's naked aggression:

magnifco1000 wrote:

The bottom line, the former Soviet Republics have all been sent a message. You have to make peace with Russia, like it or not, and forget the siren call of supposed wealth and riches from the West. It's the call of opportunists and when push comes to shove, they won't be there for you anyway.

Now, substitute "former Soviet Republics" with "Arab Countries" and "Russia" with "the US" and you see how very unprogressive this statement is!

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:

I would like to wish that George Bush had the same common sense as the Georgian leader; retreat when you know that you can't win. It took the Georgian leader only a few days to realize this; Bush doesn't realize this after more than six years! But George has always been a slow learner.

Another progressive cheering at the retreat of a sovereign nation in the face of a foreign invasion, and wishing his own government would retreat in shame as well.

jellybean1 wrote:

Georgia invaded a breakaway region which is protected by Russia. Russia responded with military actions against Georgia. Georgia retreated because of defeat, and declared cease-fire.

This guy swallowed Ivan's propaganda hook, line and sinker. He's the same brain surgeon who routinely labels "kool-aid drinker" anyone who believes anything the President says.

All this madness detracts from human rights disasters that flourish due to world inattention and inaction: Reporters languish in Cuban dungeons. Darfur rapes and killings continue, Russia bullies it neighbors, human trafficking... And Tibet still isn't free. So rail against President Bush and our actions if you must. That is your constitutionally-guaranteed right, and government always bears watching. But please stop ignoring and even excusing brutality from other world actors.

I know progressives will never embrace President Bush, but is it too much to ask them to at least embrace intellectual honesty?

Eagles, Bears & Peaceful Europeans

Olde Europe, like the rest of the world, has been focusing on megalomaniac George Bush and his dictator destroying (or oil grabbing) dreams. The US is the biggest threat to world peace, these angry lambs bleat.

Well, Russia want a piece of that, and not for the peace and democracy reasons President Bush cites as his motives. No, this is classic Russian brute-force on the move in Georgia. This is the brutish thug in a vodka stained wifebeater grabbing his woman by the hair and dragging her back in the house because she dared talk to the mailman. Russia is the hairy ape that tells his woman, "If you try to leave me I'll kill you."

The US has broken some furniture on the world scene, but compare: Ecuador just told us to leave. We're packing up our anti-drug operation and leaving. Panama and the Philippines told us to leave, and we left. Ditto for bases we had in Spain, Greece and Uzbekistan. Has Russia ever voluntarily quit any country? And what are Russia's motives for her actions?

The US ostensibly acts to protect international shipping lanes and the movement of goods for global commerce, defense of liberal democracy and human rights, and to ensure the free flow of oil. Yes, it is about oil. Try running a world economy without it. And no, these are not altruistic acts: The US benefits from an orderly world system.

Russia acts to protect her "near abroad." From what I understand, this Nietzsche-esque will to power has to do with classic Russian values, paranoia and patriotism that can really only be understood after reading a stack of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky novels. Russia is not like any other country around her. She knows it and feels most secure with a fat belt of subservient vassal states surrounding her. Stop and ponder for a moment just how grotesque that really is...

Meanwhile, Olde Europe couldn't scrape together enough men and arms for a hunting party. Remember how we had to go into Bosnia because the Euros were too busy dithering? Russia is the heavily armed bully that has his pacifist neighbors to the west cowering in fear: Ivan stomps and roars, furrowing his bushy eyebrows and the Euros shiver and piddle down their legs like inbred dogs. And it's not just the military threat. Europe depends on Ivan's good graces to keep the oil and natural gas flowing from the east.

The most obvious lessons are trite ones: To protect peace, you must be prepared for war. Depending too much on others for basic needs like energy is not a good thing.

Robert Kagan has explained it much better than I. He wrote an article in Policy Review called Power and Weakness that explores and explains the divergent philosophies of Europe and the US. Europe is where we have always wanted them to be: Prosperous, free and at peace with one another and the world. They are living happily in a Kantian peace bubble that we helped build. But outside that bubble (and now intermittently intruding upon it) it is still a good -vs- evil Hobbesian world of "continual fear and danger of violent death; and [makes] the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." God bless Europe for her successes, but she must address the violent Hobbesian world that now presses in on her Kantian bubble.

The less obvious, but more important lesson is one of unity. Unity of thought and action. Can Western Civilization reconcile its diverse world views and form a coherent strategy, an 80% solution, that at least gets us all pointed in the same direction? To quote Franklin "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Or, if you prefer, Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Battles of ideas are preferable to ones with weapons, but when one side has all the arms or the other side refuses to fight, the debate is over and it's the rule of the gun.

Can we artfully blend sweaty American firepower with European sophistication and diplomacy? Can we agree on what we believe and hold dear? Do we have the will to defend it?