Ukrainian Peace Deal
What Happens When You Bet on Europe and the US These Days
show comments
  • rheddles

    Good thing ISIL provided cover.

  • S.C. Schwarz

    And now Putin will move on to the Baltics and reveal, in case anyone has failed to notice, that NATO is an empty bluff too.

  • MartyH

    Obama’s “The Bear is loose” campaign this spring sure was prescient…

  • Arkeygeezer

    “The settlement is a deeply damaging blow to our values, to our prestige and to our geopolitical interests.”

    This is how you settle civil wars. This is how we settled our civil war in 1865 by reinstating southern governments, and granting amnesty to Southern Generals and troops.
    Whether or not the settlement is a damaging blow to our values, prestige, and interests is yet to be seen. When you meddle in someone else’s business, this is what you get.

  • MikePM

    Elections do indeed have consequences. Not just for us in the United States, but for many others around the world as well.

    • Duperray

      Alas ! It seems that some superpower accepts foreign election results only if they are in favor to its policy. And these dare to declame themselves “freedom promoters”…. What an hypocrisy!

  • Duperray

    All this dramatic, hysterical paper expresses an unclaimed rage. Of what? Of US failure to expel Russia from Sevastopol Navy base and Black Sea. The “coup” failed.
    You may win it another time.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Historians, by the way, will also pay attention; the Obama legacy has been permanently tarnished. Unless some real changes take place, neither this President nor his close associates will cut an impressive figure when the accounts are drawn up.”

    LOL, this fact came and went long ago, Obama is already known as the worst President in History.

  • Robert Morris

    This is what happens when we let Washington, DC and Ivory Tower fools make promises that have nothing to do with our actual national interests. This is a good first step. A good next step would be a wholesale firing from our academic and security establishments of cold warriors who ludicrously continue to fight a quarter-century on.

  • Fat_Man

    “Historians, by the way, will also pay attention”

    Instapundit says that journalists are Democrat party flacks with bylines. By the same token, historians are Democrat party flacks with Ph.D.s. You are going to have to wait a couple of generations before you get an accurate assessment of this Obama’s maladministration.

  • lukelea

    To me it looks like a sane resolution to insane EU over-reaching.

    http://www.cfr.org/ukraine/ukraine-crisis/p32540

    http://www.cfr.org/europe/european-unions-eastern-partnership/p32577

    Who are these reckless EU foreign-policy making bureaucrats anyway? Were they really elected to make decisions like this?

  • Dingus

    What kind of “action” do you suggest the west takes in Ukraine? If we go to war with Russia, we could easily risk a nuclear exchange, all for some pieces of land in eastern Ukraine. It’s typical neo-con rhetoric to demand something be done, without specifying what that something entails(hint: its usually an insanely dangerous, ill considered military adventure.)If you want to advocate World War 3 against Russia, then actually come out and take responsibility for sayng so.

    • JamesB

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

      “The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement
      signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security
      assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine’s accession to the
      Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was
      originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the
      United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave
      somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The
      memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force
      against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine
      as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up
      the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and
      1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control.”

      Truth be told, there are no good options here. The problem is that we did have this ^^^ agreement with Ukraine to protect them, and when they were invaded we did nothing. You’re sitting there thinking “who cares about Ukraine” without realizing that this is actually about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Every country that wants nuclear weapons is looking at this situation and thinking “we should go faster”, every country that has nuclear weapons and was thinking about giving them up is now dismissing the value of the same kind of deal that Ukraine signed. Take North Korea, flip the aggressor (US) and defender (Russia/China) roles and then tell me that what happened in Ukraine doesn’t hurt the chances of this happening.

      Being in charge means making hard choices and living up to your commitments. This is about more than just Ukraine.

    • dwpittelli

      1. Somehow we had no such aggressive taking of European territory under previous presidents, and they didn’t have to take “action” to prevent them either. Maybe weakness is provocative after all?
      2. Suppose Russia keeps nibbling away at various European countries. Where would you draw the line? The rest of Ukraine? The Czech Republic? The Baltics (NATO members all)? Formerly East Germany?

  • Corlyss

    “What Happens When You Bet on Europe and the US These Days?”

    You lose.

  • ThomasD

    “Historians, by the way, will also pay attention; the Obama legacy has been permanently tarnished.”

    Oh please, Obama is counting that the same sorts who represent today’s “reporters” will also be tomorrows “historians.”

  • SClanding

    Now we know what Obama was promising to Putin by sending the message….”that after the election, he would have more flexibility”.

    It was let the tanks roll, Vlad………

  • JamesB

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

    “The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control.”

    Meaning, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for border/security assurances from the country that invaded them and the superpowers that did nothing to stop it.

    Rest assured that every other country who ever signed this kind of deal with the US, and every country who aspires to nuclear weapons, is watching this series of events with great interest.

  • Chuck Pelto

    RE: What Happens?

    You get a repeat of History, a la, Hitler’s taking bites out of Europe, one nation at a time.

  • John Stephens

    I can honestly say that this does not cause me to think any less of President Obama’s fitness to hold office, and the mentality of those who elected and re-elected him.

    • GlobalTrvlr

      Because he/ they were already at zero and could not go less?

  • You mean: hashtag selfie diplomacy doesn’t work? Whodathunkit? (Not Jen Psaki, but in her case you can omit “it”)

  • Carl Williams

    “like Hitler’s victims in the 1930s”

    You forget that the above-mentioned Svoboda and their slightly more extreme Right Sector counterparts are rather large admirers of Hitler’s actions in the 1930s. That does rather blur the lines in terms of making a commitment to ‘support’ the Ukrainian government – I don’t like Putin much either, but I also don’t much like the idea of spending blood and treasure to back up an administration which comprises in large part outright, unapologetic Neo-Nazis.

  • Alec Rawls

    What would be REALLY foolish is for anyone to presume that
    this terrible-for-America outcome in Ukraine is not highly satisfactory to
    Barack Hussein Obama. It takes some deep inquiry into the facts of Obama’s
    background to understand that he is almost certainly not just Muslim but an
    Islamofascist (an orthodox Muslim, following the orthodox Islamic instruction
    for Muslims living in Dar al Harb to pretend that they are not Muslim and to
    advance Islamic conquest by means of deceit). What does not take any deep
    inquiry to understand is Obama’s unrelenting decades of anti-white racism (with
    Jeremiah Wright as his “mentor”) and his never-questioned communism.

    Obama spent his entire pre-electoral career in the employ of
    “community organizing” groups founded by the direct students and
    acolytes of Saul Alinsky, the leading American small “c” communist of
    20th century. Alinsky is the American Gramsci, but he went beyond Gramsci’s
    call for communists to make a “long march through the institutions”
    by actually mapping out the strategy by which communists COULD march through
    the vulnerable open institutions of Western society: by taking over the media
    and turning it into an instrument of anti-conservative demagoguery, which is
    exactly what happened.

    Obama is one of the few paid professional communists in the
    history of America. Before he got his law degree he was a direct employee of
    the Alinsky groups. After he got his law degree he represented them as a
    lawyer, and was in fact THE person most responsible for the 2007 mortgage
    meltdown because it was his representation of the biggest Alinsky-communist
    group, Acorn, that forced the banks to offer what came to be called
    “sub-prime loans” to non-credit-worthy customers. The Obama-Acorn
    lawsuits forced the banks to lower lending standards for black people, but
    since explicit racial discrimination is illegal in America, they had to do it
    by lowering standards for everybody.

    The point here is that Obama’s communist commitments are
    adult commitments that he has never questioned, so Of COURSE he sides with
    Putin against Ukrainian liberty. Not that Putin is any paragon of communism but
    Obama will wage war on liberty and capitalism everywhere he has a chance.

    Remember his first act in office, where he tried to force
    Honduras to take back the Hugo Chavez backed usurper Zelaya? Obama is STILL
    punishing that country for enforcing the perfectly clear language of its own
    constitution via unanimous decision of the Honduran supreme court. Obama backed
    communism over both liberty and the law, exactly as his lifelong commitment to
    communism would predict. There is simply no doubt what he is, at least on the
    communist-racist dimensions.

    His Islamofascism is also perfectly clear for anyone who
    looks into it, and he has certainly acted like an Islamofascist in office,
    backing the Islamofascist side in every conflict. He spent his first four years
    advancing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt systematically and by name.
    When that effort to establish a new home for al Qaeda (a new caliphate) failed
    he tried to find them a home in Libya by ousting the al Qaeda suppressing
    dictator Ghadaffi. Then he tried to find them a new home in Syria by backing
    the Islamofascists there, and of course he abandoned Iraq where we had won a
    long and hard war against al Qaeda.

    All of these efforts came to fruition when Obama empowered
    Islamofascists from Egypt, Libya and Syria flooded from Syria into northern
    Iraq, where Obama studiously ignored Maliki’s please to annihilate the invaders
    in the desert via air power while they were still staged in the desert outside
    of Mosul. Does anybody REALLY think that this choice does not reflect Obama’s
    wishes?

    This is a guy who knows he can get away with ANYTHING
    because the Democrat-controlled media will find a way to spin to his advantage
    everything that can be spun and cover up the rest. It is ludicrous to think
    that he didn’t bomb ISIS in the desert because he was worried about media
    fallout from the U.S. having to re-enter Iraq. The media would have marched him
    down 5th avenue with a blizzard of confetti: “Look how efficiently Obama
    dispatches threats to Iraq! His decision to pull out boots on the ground is definitively
    validated!” The reason he annihilate ISIS on the desert because they are
    his baby. He didn’t WANT to bomb them, and then he went on a long care-free
    golf-vacation because he had finally achieved the objective he had been
    shooting for since he insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood had to be invited as
    honored guests to his Cairo speech.

    The triumvirate of racism communism and Islamofascism is not
    the least bit unusual. It is the foundation of America’s “black
    Muslim” group the Nation of Islam. Jeremiah Wright is the one who taught
    Obama how to pretend to be a Christian while actually being NOI. Wright used to
    call himself a Muslim. It was while he was getting a master’s degree in the
    study of Islam that he started calling himself a Christian. Had he really
    converted to Christianity, or had he just, while studying Islam, come across
    the orthodox Islamic instruction that Muslims living amongst Infidels should
    pretend to be infidels, if by doing so they can effectively help to destroy the
    infidels from inside?

    This instruction comes from the hadiths (the recorded
    sayings of Muhammad), Tabari 8.23: “en Nu’aym came to the Prophet. ‘I’ve
    become a Muslim, but my tribe does not know of my Islam; so command me whatever
    you will.’ Muhammad said, ‘Make them abandon each other if you can so that they
    will leave us; for war is deception.”

    This is also backed up in Koran verse 16:106 where Muslims
    are given permission to pretend not to be Muslim so long as they remain true to
    Islam “in their hearts.”

    It is easy to tell that Wright did not actually convert to
    Christianity because the “Christianity” that his church teaches is
    actually Islam, or to be more specific, NOI. Instead of teaching the Christian
    law of love (to love your neighbor as yourself, regardless of whether they are
    Samaritan or whatever else), Wright’s church teaches the NOI version of the
    Islamic law of hate. In the Islamic version Muslims are to love each other and
    hate everyone else. Koran verse 48.29: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.
    And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among
    themselves.”

    The NOI version makes the focus of hate racial. Black
    Muslims are to love each other and hate WHITE PEOPLE, and that law of racial
    hatred is exactly what Jeremiah Wright teaches in his phony
    “Christian” church, along with an explicitly anti-capitalist economic
    doctrine, also adopted from NOI.

    This Muslim pretending to be a Christian is Obama’s personal
    decades-long mentor, who by Wright’s own self description taught Obama how to
    reconcile his Islamic heritage with America’s Christian-centered black activist
    community. He doesn’t say exactly what he told Obama but the answer is
    obvious: just do what Wright himself did. Just pretend to be Christian while
    remaining fully Muslim. Islam not only allows this, it calls for it. This is
    what Obama is SUPPOSED to do to be a good Muslim. Wright learned this in his
    study of Islam and all he had to do was explain it to Obama, and Obama’s
    consistent pro-Islamofascist policy decisions make clear that he HAS followed
    Wright down this path, pretending to be a Christian while actually being a
    full-on orthodox Islamofascist.

    • dwpittelli

      If you’re going to write such an epic, how about removing the extra line breaks?

  • phreethink

    This is an self-contradictory post on multiple levels.

    First, the Ukrainians were “encouraged into a confrontation with Russia” by “foolish and distracted Western policies,” but on the other hand Russia’s response is “naked aggression.” Which is it? You can’t have it both ways: Either Russia is responding to a provocation, or it is “naked aggression.”

    Second, somehow the big problem is NATO’s failure to intervene militarily rather than the original provocative policy. Somehow, the failure to respond is what damages Obama’s legacy rather than the original idiocy of threatening the Crimea, Russia’s warm water port over which wars have been fought for 300 years. The Ukrainian regime change/NATO engagement was a dangerous policy even if you don’t believe the Russian claim that NATO promised it wouldn’t move to the East after German reunification. Of course, if that promise had in fact been made, that only makes the Ukrainian policy is made only more dangerous and idiotic.

    Third, the author violates Godwin’s law by throwing in the Hitler’s victims comment. Maybe the Hitler reference was just triggered by the Ukrainian SS, errrrr, militia involvement, but wouldn’t that make Kiev the Germans? Of course, a Hitler/Chamberlain analogy only fits if Chamberlain had provoked Hitler into invading the Sudetenland. Maybe that case could be made (I doubt it), but there is just no need to invoke the Nazis to attack Obama’s Ukraine policies.

    There is plenty to dislike about Obama’s policies in Ukraine: Russia was provoked by an idiotic, short-sighted policy that fed into Russia’s world view. A better question is who was in charge of the original policy, and how it was allowed to proceed despite the obvious risks. A president is always ultimately responsible, but a president must rely on his foreign policy team to avoid this kind of mistake. Someone at State or on the National Security Council should have (must have!) seen this coming, and they should have at least tried to put a stop to it. Someone should have taken it to the President and told the President that the regime change policy in Ukraine would likely provoke exactly this type of a Russian response, and that there was no way that NATO could stop such a Russian response. If Obama got that warning and ignored it, then the responsibility is his alone. If Obama did not get that warning, why not? Was it because the engineers of this policy knew he would stop it? Plausible deniability? At the very least, a reasonable argument can be made that the whole Ukrainian tragedy is just the latest outgrowth of Obama’s decision to continue with the same interventionist neocon foreign policy of the Bushes and Clinton, including many of the same neocon players.

    All of those are legitimate criticisms and questions, but none is any reason to make things worse by drinking the warmongering “Putin’s naked aggression” coolaid, and then top it off with a specious Hitler analogy.

    Hopefully, the author was just having a bad day. This post should be deleted.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.