What would Reagan do with a punk like Putin?

Guest post by Investor’s Business Daily

Russian Aggression: Instead of a foreign policy that’s a blend of Neville Chamberlain and Monty Python, the U.S. should trade flexibility for some backbone, scrap the reset button and start digging some missile silos.

It takes a lot to make Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill. But President Obama, who bats not an eye as a Russian warplane buzzes a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, has accomplished that with his pusillanimous policy regarding Moscow’s creeping anschluss in Ukraine.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s comparison of current events to the days before World War II is on the mark. On Saturday, March 7, 1936, Hitler ordered three battalions of the German army to cross the Rhine bridges into an area of Germany demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I.

The British and French, fearing war, did nothing. The rest, as they say, is history.

Crimea was Putin’s Rhineland, and the sanctions involving travel restrictions on low-level oligarchs was laughable. Tyrants do not move swiftly. They test the waters. They nibble. They watch. Weakness and inaction only delay the inevitable.

When Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev met Ronald Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, he hoped the U.S. president would be willing to trade his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) away in exchange for arms-control agreements and vague promises of making nice with America.

Reagan refused to negotiate the SDI away. He opposed the proposed nuclear freeze and put Pershing missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet SS-20s that were targeted on Western Europe. He put America’s security in the hands of American technology, not the goodwill of its enemies.

Within hours of the election of Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania. He wanted the U.S. to abandon plans to deploy missile interceptors in Poland and warning radars in the Czech Republic designed to counter a future threat from Iran.

Unlike President Reagan, Obama meekly complied and notified the Poles in a midnight phone call on Sept. 17, 2009 — the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland — that we were pulling the plug on that system due to Russian objections.

Putin, getting ready to resume the Russian presidency and his plans to reassemble the old Soviet Union, took note. The U.S. under Obama would not resist Moscow’s ambitions.

Putin watched on 2012 as Obama promised Medvedev at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, that after his re-election he would have more “flexibility” to weaken missile defense, which would help him fulfill his dream of U.S. disarmament.

Speaking last Wednesday in Berlin not far from where President Obama once expressed his dream of a world without nuclear weapons, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence noted the obvious: that the Obama administration’s policy of “conciliatory diplomacy” toward Russia has failed and suggested an appropriate response to Putin.

“With continued instability in the Middle East, and Putin’s aggression in Ukraine,” Pence said, “I believe we must take immediate steps to strengthen our mutual security by deploying a robust missile defense in all of Europe — including Poland and the Czech Republic — to protect the interests of our NATO allies and the United States in the region.”

Coupled with an announcement that we would complete the Keystone XL pipeline and remove all drilling and energy export restrictions, it would be more than enough to make Putin, the old KGB colonel, pause.

Such strikes on the source of Putin’s economic strength and strategic ambitions would amount to real consequences for his actions.


Read more at Investor’s Business Daily

Doug Ross @ Journal

Watch This Reaction: Putin Laughs Right In This Journalist’s Face

When an interviewer recently confronted Vladimir Putin about Europe’s American-made missile defense system, the President of the Russian Federation couldn’t help but laugh right in his face.

According to the journalist, NATO’s missile defense system is pointed at and designed to protect Europe from the nuclear threat posed by Iran, not Russia.

Putin’s reaction is a must-see.

Interview: NATO claims the missile shield was not built against you but against Iran.

[Putin begins laughing almost uncontrollably]

Putin: You really make me laugh. God bless you because it’s almost time to finish the day… indeed it’s already time to go to sleep. At least I get home in good humor.


(Watch at Youtube)

What’s even more humorous is the seriousness of the interviewer’s subsequent reaction to being laughed at.

It seems that he actually believed the notion that NATO built its missile defense shield to protect from Iran, a country which, according to U.S. intelligence reports, has yet to develop not only the nuclear technology, but the inter-continental ballistic missile systems capable of delivering such technology all the way from Iran.

The propaganda on both sides is actually pretty funny considering how ridiculous the back and forth posturing has gotten, especially in recent months.

What won’t be funny is when Europe, Russia, China and the United States eventually use it to facilitate entry into a global conflict involving billions of people.

putin-laughs-his-butt-off

(Hat tip Tomato Bubble and Rense.com)
(Video via The Daily Sheeple)


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

Exclusive new poll: 72% of Americans see Putin as “clear and present danger” to U.S. and Israel.

Vladimir Putin: a "clear and present danger"?

Vladimir Putin: a “clear and present danger”?

(Washington, D.C.) — In preparing for the launch of The Auschwitz Escape, I contracted with a nationally-respected polling company to ask a series of questions that would help me better understand American attitudes towards the Holocaust, Israel, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the crises in Syria and Ukraine. The results were both fascinating and sobering.

In the days ahead, I will share all the results of this polling data with you. But given the crisis in Ukraine, I decided to begin by writing a column for National Review Online releasing the results of how Americans now perceive Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

HOW DANGEROUS IS PUTIN? JUST LOOK AT HIS OWN WORDS

By Joel C. Rosenberg

Who is Vladimir Putin, and what does he really want? Why exactly has he suddenly sent tens of thousands of heavily armed Russian troops into Crimea? Why did he invade Georgia in 2008? Why is he selling arms to bloodthirsty regimes like that of Bashar Assad in Syria? And why is selling both advanced arms and nuclear technology to a rogue terrorist state like Iran?

In the face of such questions, President Obama looks disoriented and confused. He and his national-security team have been painfully slow to understand the Putin threat. They’re now scrambling to develop a coherent and convincing policy to contain Putin, much less have a chance at rolling him back.

The American people now see Putin as a real and growing threat, and not just to the former Soviet republics but to the national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.

This month, I engaged McLaughlin & Associates, a nationally-respected polling firm, to ask a series of questions of 1,000 likely U.S. voters. Among them:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “In light of Russia’s invasion of southern Ukraine, and Russia selling arms and nuclear technology to Iran, and Russia selling arms to the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, I have come to believe that Vladimir Putin and the government of Russia pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States and our ally, Israel”?

In 2012, Mr. Obama mocked those who even raised such a question. Today, a remarkable 72 percent of Americans said they agreed with such a statement. Only 19 percent disagreed.

Are they right? Is Putin as serious a threat as Americans believe? To answer that question requires going beyond Washington conventional wisdom and listening carefully to what he has said in the past….

[To read the rest of my column on National Review Online, please click here.]

——————

FLASHBACK: PAST COLUMNS ABOUT PUTIN, RUSSIA AND THE BIBLICAL PROPHECIES OF EZEKIEL 38 & 39

————————


Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog