What Can We Gain From Russia, Anyway?

In the 1980's, Reagan actually toyed with the Russians in talks at Geneva and Reykjavik. The Kremlin at the time badly needed a deal to save the entire communist economic system -Gorbachev's #1 objective- and this had to include the cancellation of the US missile defense program, a technology the Soviets lacked the resources to compete with.

But Reagan knew it, and wasn't really interested in helping them save their dictatorship, nor in giving up his SDI plans- the aim was nothing less than freedom and democracy for Russia and all of eastern Europe, not just Glastnost and Perestoika. So The Gipper waited until 1987 -a full two years after his first Swiss summit with Gorbachev- before signing the INF treaty.

Today we have Barack Obama -who's in need of a foreign-policy victory- openly pandering for a missile deal as the START treaty expires... it's hard to imagine him bringing home anything of value from Russia now. Sadly for us, it appears that Obama's poker skills are in the same league with his bowling and girly-style baseball throw. And Russia recieved much of what it wants before Obama even landed, so how would anybody expect Barack to gain any advantage? Meanwhile, the Kremlin has failed even to comply with the terms of the truce signed with Georgia last year- continuing to do pretty much as it pleases.

At this summit in Moscow, Obama is to announce the restoration of bilateral military relations with Russia, as well as of the NATO-Russian Council. And to please the Kremlin, Obama has now put on hold plans for the deployment of American missile defenses on Polish and Czech soil. In a letter to Medvedev earlier this year, Mr. Obama floated the idea of cancelling those deals entirely if Russia can prod Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. The Russian's response was dismiss this out of hand, but they now know the installations are negotiable.

When a superpower like the United States faces the world with an insecure foreign-policy posture, you can really get taken to the cleaners in trying to convince certain people to like you. The Kremlin leaders Obama is rushing-into-the-arms-of now are in reality zero-sum, mostly ex-KGB thugs who are out to settle a few scores with the west; this crew can smell weakness, and will be taking advantage of any on the US side to the fullest. Wouldn't it be fascinating to read the Russian intelligence files on Barack and Hill's personality flaws... and how best to exploit them?

And as to set the tone, as Obama landed in Moscow thousands of Russian troops were involved in the biggest war games in the south Caucasus since the end of the Cold War... menacing the small, independent nation of Georgia yet again. President Saakashvili remains a thorn-in-the side survivor, resistant to Russian hegemony in what the Kremlin sees as its near abroad. A pro-Kremlin regime in Georgia would give Moscow the control it desires over energy routes through the Caucasus... and influence over independent-minded Azerbaijan and Armenia, too. But as Barack smiles and glad-hands Kremlin leaders, it's like the brutal war in Georgia never happened. The Russians have paid no real price whatsoever for their expansionist adventure there- and therefore would do the same thing again in a minute.

It's hard to imagine just what Barack Obama expects to gain for America by rushing over to Moscow like this- as with Iran, he's allying the US with unsavory, anti-democratic regimes for little benefit, while abandoning those who aspire to traditional American ideals of free elections, free press, free enterprise, and rule of law in Russia and the CIS.

And he might be betting on the wrong horse yet again- the evolving reality in Russia today is that Vladimir Putin is on the political ropes-

As reported in American Thinker:

A few weeks ago, a massive protest by unpaid aluminum industry workers in the town of Pikalyovo, outside of St. Petersburg, snarled traffic for more than a hundred miles on a major interstate roadway. Putin was forced to make an emergency visit to the town and put up significant government funds to assure payment of wages.

Nearly a quarter of Russia's population lives in "monotowns" like Pikalyovo, which depend entirely on a single industry for subsistence. Russia can't afford this kind of largesse everywhere, and economists were openly worrying whether the gesture in Pikalyovo could place the country on the road to ruin.

Putin's assumed plans of cruising right back into the presidency in a couple years are suddenly looking shaky; the collapse of the Russian stock market and the ruble have dented support, and it's not possible to blame it all on Medvedev- everyone knows where the real power lies. Like Gorbachev, Putin needs an arms deal to save his economic model -a brand of dictatorial crony capitalism- so Barack Obama would be well-advised to not let him have it.

The new missile deals Obama has made a priority seem to be of little value to US interests- few expect Russia to ever seriously face off with the US or NATO, let-alone with nuclear weapons. But any substantial nuclear arms deal with Moscow certainly frees them up to focus on far more useful endeavors, such as modernized conventional forces that could wipe the floor with Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, or Poland. More special forces and US-type weapons, communications, transport, and training is something Putin could actually put to good use... unlike 2000 ICBMs sitting in silohs.

Russia has little to offer the United States in any negotiations- and they have almost no influence on America's foreign policy. It would be difficult for the US to purchase gas without the necessary LNG infrastructure in place. Russia's state-dominated oil industry is a chronic underacheiver, and government property grabs discourage western oil tech firms from providing the needed development. Add to that the Kremlin's use of energy as a diplomatic truncheon and oil deals simply look better elsewhere. Moscow's industrial backwardness and continuing Wild East legal environment brought them a pitiful $36B in trade with the United States last year- much of that likely Stolichnaya, not notoriously shoddy Russian manufactured goods.

However, there are few things we would value coming from Russia- like maybe a halt to their calculated and opportunistic attacks upon US power and influence, i.e.- bad mouthing the dollar/calling for a world currency, selling high-tech weapons and nuclear know-how to our enemies/terrorist sponsors such Tehran, Damascus, Caracas, and Pyongyang, as well as nabbing that US/Kyrgizstan air base from right under Obama's nose... just to make a point. But it's difficult to address these issues when Obama appears to not be interested in any such unpleasantries while chatting with Vlad and Dmitri.

The prototypical narcissist Obama is primarily after power and fame- and at any cost. In practice this means looking for a headline weapons-control deal that props-up his man of peace schtick while allowing him to eliminate F-22 production, cancel needed missile defense programs, and perhaps even cut military aid for traditional American allies, and all in order to fund his expensive domestic programs and entrench the Democratic party politically.

Obama long-ago bet his whole foreign policy platform on appeasement and legitimizing dubious regimes, and has nowhere else to run... it's hard for him to now support America's traditional freedom agenda when he's already on the record abandoning it. Thus his kid-gloves treatment re. issues like Russia's bullying of Georgia and Obama's shameful acquiescence to the brutality deployed in Tehran last month.

We have a president who's more focused on his personal and far-left domestic political agendas than on what's in the long-term, common-sense strategic interest of the United States- at best, a warped world view. Today's Russia is nothing to be afraid of, either- really just a Saudi Arabia with trees. Russia is a deeply dysfunctional society who's industry, political culture, and rule-of-law all remain seriously underdeveloped. They've got oil, though- and pride themselves in punching-above-their-weight. What our president doesn't seem to realize is that the Russians are -as is so often their practice- bluffing... as they are dealing from a position of comprehensive weakness.

But the cynical Kremlin surely doesn't take Obama seriously at all, instead they purely see an opportunity for comprehensive strategic and diplomatic gains at America's and NATO's expense. The reality is that Russia has nothing to offer the US- so as Barack heads over there to flatter them and give away our strategic advantage, perhaps we should ask for what?

And the worst is yet to come. In 1978 Jimmy Carter met with Soviet Premier Brezhnev, extending his hand in friendship much as Obama is doing in Russia today. After seeing what kind of a zero they were dealing with firsthand, the Soviet Union promptly invaded Afghanistan- in direct violation of promises made to Carter in Moscow six months earlier.

It is hard to imagine today's Kremlin being cowed or intimidated after meeting with a smiley plastic mannequin like Obama, putting his arm around them and schmoozing all the time- they know he's not going to do anything.

Next year it's Yes We Can invade Ukraine... and what are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: Obama reaches all-time low of -3% differential rating in Rasmussen's latest -here-

Socialism Returns to Prague

Twenty years after the Velvet Revolution, the former Warsaw-Pact Czechs are enjoying the fruits of a dynamic free-market democracy in a country that was crumbling in grey socialist mediocrity just a short time ago.  Today, new Mercedes and Alfa-Romeos fill streets that were previously only sparsely populated with smoking Eastern-block clunkers and the occasional frumpy black commie limo with some aparatchik in the back.   The largely pro-American Czechs (who feature Europe's one and only American country music station and a semi-pro baseball league) supplied troops in Iraq and last year signed-onto George Bush's missile defense proposal based here and in Poland. 

Czech President Vaclav Klaus is a pugnacious conservative known for his skeptimism regarding the EU- a Thatcherite capitalist who famously confronted Al Gore at Davos with "I don't think there's any global warming".  Klaus is credited for much of the speedy transition to capitalism as PM in the early-mid 1990's, albeit with some bumps... and has taken an unfashionable pro-market stance in his ideas for dealing with the world financial crisis.

Current Czech PM Mirek Topolanek is the one who stated in the EU Parliment that profligate spending favored by Obama-Pelosi-Reid represents a "road to hell" that EU governments must avoid.  He added "We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way."  

So Prague Castle doesn't seem to be the most obvious venue for President Obama's first public speech in Europe- but the Czechs currently hold the rotating EU presidency, and of course many people here, as elsewhere, are enthusiastic about the Obama presidency for whatever reasons... so here he is. And there is a varied political spectrum, with powerful social-democrats, Greens, and others- and even an only mildly reformed Communist Party who pragmatically replaced the traditional hammer-and-sickle/star symbol with a less-threatening-looking three red cherries on a stem.  

My wife happens to be Czech, and we have a place in Prague- so this morning I attended Obama's speech at the castle that overlooks this Golden City.  And the script seemed like it was written in anticipation of North Korea's Taepodong II missle test just 7 hours earlier.

The socialism that has come back to Prague 20 years after the revolution -and 40 years after the Russian invasion- now comes in the grinning form of Barack Obama- a man governing far to the left of the bipartisan-centrist rhetoric he employed during last fall's US election campaign.  

One result is a surreal situation in which America has big-spending statist allies like France and Germany considering its "stimulus" proposals too fiscally reckless for their liking.  And countries like Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, who suffered through 40 years of totalitarian socialism's systemic cruelty and comprehensive lack of results, do not share the romantic view some in the West have of Obama's ultra-liberal proposals and big-government solutions for every challenge.

With TelePrompTer screens glistening in the morning haze, Obama appeared about 20 minutes late with his wife Michelle to moderate cheers from the mostly young crowd.  Like Obama's most-fervent US supporters, those attending appeared to be 20-somethings alongside 60-something boomers-  and many of these came in from Germany, where all things Obama are quite trendy.

The President appeared with a large forced grin, as a car salesman would do to manipulate your emotions- providing the same "what's this guy up to?" feeling I got from the first time I ever heard him speak.  And like a slick salesman, Obama is unflinching as he tells you the car can fly, or go under-water... whatever you need to hear.

He proceeded to deliver a speech on green energy and foreign policy that attempted to tie-together Czech and US history and agendas with a dash of Yes-We-Can.  Obama's popularity is clearly helped by his mixed-race heritage, yet he still finds it useful to make statements like "In my birth-year of 1961, few could imagine a person like me" coming here as US President.  That lead inexplicably to "I am here today because people on both sides of the wall (Iron Curtain?) refused to be kept separated, "no matter what they looked like".  How did the communist Europeans look different from Western Europeans?  Hard to imagine just what he's talking about.

Obama used the occasion to outline his pollyanna plans for a "world without nuclear weapons"- including a comprehensive test-ban treaty, anti-proliferation regimes, a world "fuel bank" for supplying cooperative powers with fuel for peaceful uses, as well as a "strategic reduction with the Russians this year".

Obama put some effort towards presenting a case that forced-Soviet-allies of the Warsaw Pact like Prague "came together" with the West because they "wouldn't listen" to those who said it wasn't possible or likely- sounds good.  But the plain truth is that no Velvet Revolution would ever have been possible without a serious rollback of Soviet power- as accomplished by Ronald Reagan... and he didn't do it by talking.  

One only has to look to the Soviets' crushing of the Budapest (1956) and Prague Spring (1968) uprisings to see just how they dealt with renegades. President Reagan never considered "reaching out" to the Russians until they had been forced to bring in the reformer Gorbachev, and the US had regained military superiority- well into his second term as president.  Even then, he was reluctant to make any deal that would save the Soviet system economically... he wanted it to be defeated, and for millions to be freed.

It was Reagan who aggressively challenged Gorabachev with "tear down this wall" in Berlin- and was mocked by the American and European left as naive and too confrontational.   While previous presidents promoted containment or detente with the USSR, producing a smoldering, dangerous, and expensive 40-year Cold War, Reagan argued for a "real arms race" with the Soviet Union.  He said "in an all-out competition, they can't keep up" and would become economically "unhinged".  Pacifists -such as then-Senator Joe Biden- opposed Reagan's Pershing II missile deployments in Europe, SDI missile-defense inititiative, as-well as almost every other weapons program he used to confront the Soviet Union. 

When Reagan initiated this politically unpopular military buildup in 1981, called the "Evil Empire" by it's name, then later struck a deal with the Saudis to drive the price of oil to $20/bbl, the Soviet empire cracked, then crumbled... completely vindicating the principled and politically brave strategy.  The fact is that the Czechs, Poles, East Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Slovaks didn't stand a chance of throwing-of their chains until Reagan put the Kremlin back on it's heels for good.  And it was that moral and strategic clarity that won the Cold War without firing a shot... not offers of appeasement. And clearly not the two sides joining-hands, as in Obama's version of reality.

Sounding today much like strategic train-wreck Jimmy Carter, Obama  pronounced that "Moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon"-  just the kind "moral" superiority that allowed Carter to lose countries such as Nicaragua and Iran to far worse regimes than the unsavory US ally that he withdrew support for.  In stark contrast, Reagan had told us that "We can't play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent." 

President Obama stated that in overthrowing communism, the Czechs "exposed the emptiness of an ideology"- but it would be interesting to hear him explain just what he considers the key differences to be between past socialism and the multi-trillion-dollar big-government/social programs that has unveiled since he got himself elected.

He then stressed that regarding Iran and North Korea, we should not "let anybody tell you we can't work together- because Yes  We Can"- but there's really nobody saying that except perhaps some imaginary straw-man in the speechwriter's mind.  We have worked very well with a number of allies in the Six-Party talks with Pyongyang, as well as the US-EU diplomatic efforts regarding Tehran's nuclear ambitions.  We've also been offering for years, alongside these allies, exactly the same incentives, dialog, and sanctions/threats of sanctions that Obama proposes... and without a trace of success.  There is likely little new that the West can offer at this point that would entice them into giving up a their nuclear programs- if they're not about to be bombed, then keep going- why not? 

The sad truth is that both have sensed weakness in Obama's "open hand" gestures- which they have met only with contempt.  These regimes' political survival is completely based on outside enemies, a confrontational stance, and propaganda victories- and their power can't survive a comprehensive peace deal, so they see little to gain from it.   Obama says they can "join" the rest of us- but can either really expect to compete effectively in the world economy? He seems to operate under the assumption that they don't want to be rogue states- while in reality, they thrive on it.  They've already survived all the sanctions thrown at them, and are likely correct that their strongest hand lies in pursuing nuclear weaponry and ICBM systems.  If either had wanted a good faith deal, they'd have done it a long time ago-  instead, they've broken every agreement or promise ever made.

What in-fact might work would be a credible military threat, so these apocalyptic cults would realize the consequences of such nuclear brinkmanship, while leaving them a final "out"-  but that's far from what Barack Obama was proposing today.  This speech had standard formula in-full: smiling, hope-n-change "we're-all-in-this-together" themes, false arguments regarding "they",  conveniently malleable history lessons, and the proposal of failed ideas of the past as "new" and morally-superior.  

He also stated that it was "cowardly" to embrace fear, rather than "hope"- apparently this doesn't apply to his domestic strong-arm tactics with legislators of his own party.   How much longer will this schtick work before reality intervenes, anyway?

Of Political Courage, & The Company You Keep

Ronald Reagan's views regarding the USSR, communism, and the then emerging Cold War were initially formed by his experiences in the Hollywood labor strike of 1946.

According to author Peter Schweizer's (Reagan's War) research of Soviet archives, strike leader Herb Sorrell was being funded by the Communist Party... and received operational help from Soviet agents. Sorrell was head of the Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), and the goal was nothing less that control of the Hollywood film industry. He had said at the onset of the of the strike "There may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over"- and had brought in crews of goons, just in case things got rough as he was predicting... which of course, they did.

The Screen Actors' Guild voted on whether to join-in, and a majority decided not to honor the strike. Reagan's employer, Warner Brothers Studio, was determined to keep up to production schedule, but advised actors crossing the picket line to sneak-onto the lot through a drainage pipe. Reagan saw that as being intimidated by an unjust cause, and one with underhanded methods. His response to this advice from WB security was "if I'm going to cross the picket line, I'm going to cross the picket line"- and he did just that. He soon emerged as a leader of the anti-strike, anti-communist movement in Hollywood.

It wasn't long before Reagan received a phone call in which he was told that if he continued to oppose the CSU strike, he would never be able to work in films again... as a crew would find him and disfigure his face with acid. He soon obtained a gun for the protection of himself and his family, which he kept handy in a holster each day, and placed on his nightstand every night. Communist sympathizers in Hollywood denounced him as a "fraud", a "stooge", and a "fascist"... even old friends turned on him. His wife Jane Wyman blamed Reagan's new political mission and the environment of fear created by his ruthless new enemies for their divorce.

But, when all was said and done, the strike had collapsed- and Reagan's leadership and courage had impressed even his most bitter opponents. In 1947 several actors, writers, and directors testified before the Un-American Activities Committee of the US Congress on communist influence in Hollywood. Both the Congress and press were extremely impressed with Reagan's poise and intelligence in testimony, and it was clear he had done his homework.


Later, in 1951, in front of the same committee, actor Sterling Hayden testified that the 1946 Hollywood strike had failed because the CSU had run into Reagan, who he described as a "one-man battalion".

His brave, and often lonely fight against Communism became, and was to remain for 40 years, highly personal. When others were seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union, from the 1950's on-through the Carter Administration, Reagan's belief in the American capitalist system told him that if the USSR was forced to compete in a real all-out arms race with the US, their weaker economic system simply "couldn't keep up". Few agreed with this at the time, and it was actually widely ridiculed. However, this truly insightful viewpoint was 100% validated when he was President in the 1980's.

The his hard-line strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union earned him criticism from all quarters of the press and academia as a "warmonger", and a trigger-happy, "self-assured bumpkin" with an overly simplistic world view, among other things. While most feared what they saw as invincible Soviet power, Reagan said that "the Russians aren't ten-feet-tall" and spoke of inherent weaknesses in the communist system that few others saw. This was a difficult position to take, but Reagan always displayed true, visionary leadership.

He also said while campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964, regarding appeasement to avoid war, that: "there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace... and you can have it in the next second: surrender!". Such unwavering views were often unappealing to a large chunk of the electorate... but the man was sincere in his convictions above all else, and had no taste for political opportunism. Reagan's KGB file defined him with grudging respect as a "convicted anti-communist" and a "firm and unbending politician, for whom words and deeds are one in the same."

Even once elected President in 1980, his military buildup and confrontational approach with the USSR were unpopular. With both double-digit inflation and unemployment inherited from the Carter administration, his own cabinet in 1981 was highly divided on the issue of increased military spending and new weapons systems... but President Reagan held firm with plans to confront both militarily and economically in a concerted manner what he famously dubbed the "Evil Empire". When others called the Warsaw-Pact nations of eastern Europe "Soviet satellites", he more accurately referred to them as "captive" states.

Reagan's foreign opponents felt threatened by his influence long before he became President. KGB agents stationed in the US were told in the 1970's that someday, they may be called upon to "get rid of Reagan". There was also a stillborn mission by Cuban agents to nip this problem in the bud in the 1960's... and assassinate him. There were three known attempts on Ronald Reagan's life before deranged lunatic John Hinckley shot him in 1981.

As California Governor in the late 1960's, Reagan was well-known for his outspoken views on topics ranging from campus radicalism to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He became the number one opponent of Berkeley radicals, whom he didn't hesitate to call "brats" and "freaks" at press conferences and in his speeches. In 1967, Secret Service agents fired upon two men lighting gasoline bombs next to the Governor's mansion. Reagan's brave stands soon earned him a spot on the hit-list of the Weather Underground... the group even kept a bullet with Reagan's name on it at their headquarters. These radicals were planning an armed, Marxist overthrow of the US Government, and they had contacts with the intelligence services of countries such as Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and North Vietnam. They had also collaborated with a Cuban agent on a plot (broken up by the FBI) to assassinate Reagan.

And where does Barrack Hussein Obama fit into this story of valour, honor, and principle?

Unlike Reagan's brave political stands, which had earned him at best lost friends and public condemnation (and at worst a divorce and death threats)- Mr Obama has a record of consistently adopting pragmatic, self-serving platforms that get him the power and positions that serve his aspirations... first and foremost. This of course includes support of, and promotion by, the Chicago Democratic machine- one of the most corrupt in the country, with whom he certainly made no waves... just "get along to get ahead".

.

And there was no shame in seeking the advice and support of powerful, yet controversial figures in Chicago politics to aid his career, and perhaps get some "street cred" (with south-side African Americans that didn't grow up in Hawaii or go to Harvard).... anti-American racist Reverend Wright, Nation of Islam rabble-rouser Louis Farrakhan, and shady political mover/racketeer Tony Rezko, among others.

Later, when the DNC had adopted him as their prodigal son, he was more than willing to slavishly serve the party's entrenched interests (i.e. unions) and it didn't seem to violate his principles to win elections by disqualifying opponents with questionable legal maneuvers...and thereby running unchallenged.

Mr Obama was also received an early boost from former bomb tossing members of the very same Weather Underground that had planned a Marxist overthrow of the US Government... and attempted to put a hit out on Ronald Reagan.

Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (who had bombed numerous US Government buildings in the 1960's) hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama at their home in 1995. Obama of course denies any significant connection, but records show that he had in-fact e-mailed and called Ayers repeatedly after 9/11... relevant due to the fact that Ayers stated after the Al Qaida terrorist attacks that ""I don't regret setting bombs".

Of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign , Obama distanced himself from all these controversial figures. Not too surprising, considering the shocking opportunism and lack of character this man has displayed throughout his political career- from thrown elections fixed by the party to gangster connections like Tony Rezko- whatever it takes. Most or all previous candidates never would have been able to dodge such issues... but the media's complete abandonment of their traditional vetting role (at least on the Democratic side) allowed the DNC to present an appealing, yet plastic, manufactured-to-order product for electoral consumption... and consume they did.

Meanwhile, Obama had spoken during the campaign of reaching an accommodation with determined and aggressive foes of the United States, such as Iran and Syria... exactly the kind of appeasement of an insatiable enemy that Reagan warned us about for years. What else can a militarily and economically weaker nation like Iran, Syria, or North Korea- or a terrorist organization like Al Qaida- do to get their way with us, except to attempt to scare a majority of our electorate with frightening brinkmanship?

What a contrast this specious and ruthless political chameleon is to the brave and visionary principles of Ronald Reagan. And to add insult to injury, we already have Obama taking a classless cheap shot at Nancy Reagan at his first post-election press conference (while she's just out of the hospital, and 87 yrs old). The problem with the smiling, charming Barrack is that a quite different one tends to leak-out when he's not chained to a teleprompter.

This scheming opportunist is clearly no messiah. And regarding issues of judgement, principle, character, political courage... and true leadership?

Barrack Hussein Obama couldn't hold The Gipper's jockstrap.