Obama Criticizes the ‘Free Riders’ Among America’s Allies

[Xolodno]

By MARK LANDLERMARCH 10, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama believes that Saudi Arabia, one of America’s most important allies in the Middle East, needs to learn how to “share” the region with its archenemy, Iran, and that both countries are guilty of fueling proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Mr. Obama also said his support of the NATO military intervention in Libya had been a “mistake,” driven in part by his erroneous belief that Britain and France would bear more of the burden of the operation. He stoutly defended his refusal not to enforce his own red line against Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, even though Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued internally, the magazine reported, that “big nations don’t bluff.”

The president disputed criticism that he should have done more to resist the aggression of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Ukraine. As a neighbor of Russia, Mr. Obama said, Ukraine was always going to matter more to Mr. Putin than to the United States. This meant that in any military confrontation between Moscow and the West, Russia was going to maintain “escalatory dominance” over its former satellite state.

“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said. “This is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”

--------

Interesting article.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

1. I saw this this morning

He'll catch fire from the Republicans, but his comments are spot on. Basically, he's telling the WWII Western Allies that if they want to keep the warm, cozy relationship we all have, they need to start kicking in in terms of defense spending and taking the lead on some of these Middle Eastern issues.

[JFKDem62]

2. Excellent. We have no business being the defender of the world any more.

We are approaching third world status here at home.
Crumbling infrastructure, poisoned water, contaminated food.
We cannot educate our children, cannot afford medical care, etc etc.

[Albertoo]

3. Not Obama at his best

Change the name of the countries and the dates, and you can see it's a dangerous attitude:

“The fact is that Sudeten and Dantzig, which are not formally allied to France and Britain, are going to be vulnerable to military domination by Germany no matter what we do,” he said. “This is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”

Putin is a bully. Letting him have Crimea was OK as it is essential to Russia's security,
but letting Russian troops roam in two Ukrainian provinces was weakness.
Bullies like Putin take more as long as one lets them.
Plus Putin has empire nostalgia, a surefire recipe for disaster.

[Xolodno]

4. I've seen that and similar statements a lot.

But at the end of the day....no valid solutions.

Supply Ukraine with lethal aid, and Putin will just up the ante.

I believe it when Putin said "he can be in Kiev in two weeks"....and NATO would be powerless to do anything, nor were they going to risk WWIII over a nation they knew in the end may just as well slide back into corruption. Which is exactly is what is happening now. Best they could do....throw in some sanctions for a time.

But he didn't take Kiev. Why? Ukraine is ungovernable. Too much corruption and of course you only have maybe half the populace that's friendly to Russia and that part doesn't necessarily want to reunite.

So Putin may be a bully, but he is a patient bully. He knows he can wait things out and eventually the old corrupt roots will out-grow the populist rhetoric. As proof, Saak in Georgia was forced out (and members of his cabinet indicted for corruption) and is slowly repairing relations with Russia. In Ukraine, Yats is hanging on by a thread and is very unpopular. Poroshenko isn't exactly "besties" with Putin....but does know he has to work with him and the West isn't going to do much more than it has now.

In the Mid-East...I agree, the House of Saud needs to learn to get along. Why should our troops be their meat-shields in a 1400 year old war.

[Albertoo]

5. Think of your answer (#4) in terms of negociation, or poker

Your stance hands your opponent (Putin) the benefit of bluff. You are actually implying and stating
1- you know the Donetsk and Dombass regions are vital to the Russians.
2- that Putin is ready to go to war over it
3- that NATO would not decide to react

When all of this is posited and openly stated, if I am Putin, I go right in and help myself to square miles.

[Xolodno]

6. But is missing one thing...

To firmly put Ukraine on the side of the East and into a quandary of never joining NATO, he needed either:

A. A popular uprising against its current government that was fueled by the funneling of 5 Billion dollars into NGO's that fanned the flames.

or

B. A popular uprising against its current government that has the appearance of being fueled by the west, by giving it heavy moral support, officials in photo-ops supporting protesters, not dis-avowing the 5 Billion spent in NGO's had any role in it, etc.

And no matter which you ascribe to, the West gave it to him.

The West went all in with a seven deuce off-suit with aces on the table....and Putin smirking like he was holding the other two aces. Maybe this is the "playbook" Obama was referring to that needed to go.

The West has walked away from "popular uprisings" in the past when it knew they weren't going to win and interfering would be catastrophic.

[Albertoo]

7. Sorry, I do not understand your point

The only simple thing I'm saying is that Obama, who did lots of good things, has had some blind spots. Openly stating he wouldn't protect Ukrains against the incursions of Russian paratroopers in the Donetsk and Dombass was one. (not to mention the Russians and their Ukrainian stooges did down an airline jet, after all)