Obama's Hollow Threats: A Failure To Grasp Geopolitics – As He Defends Iraq War

"The vast human cataclysms of the 20th century will not likely repeat themselves. But the worldwide civil society that the elites thought they could engineer is a chimera. The geographical forces at work will not be easily tamed.......In geopolitics the past never dies and there is no modern world." - Robert Kaplan, in 'Old World Order', TIME, March 31, p. 35.


When a New York Times editorial takes you to task for over the top and antagonistic rhetoric you know you’re off the beam as a President. The Editorial (‘A Tortured Policy Towards Russia’) noted:

“THE United States has once again twisted itself into a rhetorical pretzel. As when it threatened military action against Syria if a “red line” was crossed, the Obama administration’s rhetoric about Russia and Ukraine goes far beyond what it will be willing and able to enforce. “

It went on to point out:

“Washington’s rhetoric is dangerously excessive, for three main reasons: Ukraine is far more important to Vladimir V. Putin than it is to America; it will be hard for the United States and Europe to make good on their threats of crippling sanctions; and other countries could ultimately defang them”.

All of which I wholeheartedly agree with.  And yet what do we behold Obama doing yesterday? Well,  continuing with his offal and hollow, belligerent rhetoric denouncing the “brute force” he said Russia used to intimidate neighbors like Ukraine and vowing that the United States “will never waver” in standing up for its NATO allies against aggression by Moscow.”   Of course, he knows as his incompetent aides do as well, that he can never ever back that up without being willing to have a nuclear war. Does he? I doubt it.

In a speech clearly written by Robert Kagan or some other Neocon idiot-  evident by its lack of intelligence and puerile bombast  -   Obama dismissed Russian justifications for its intervention in Ukraine point by point, as “absurd” or unmerited.  He also used the Neoliberal media trope that Russia was “re-drawing borders” totally oblivious to the geopolitics of the issue. To remind readers, geopolitics is basically the “battle for space and power played out in a geographical setting” (TIME, ‘Old World Order’, March 31, p. 32).

As the TIME piece adds: “This is a concept that hasn’t changed since antiquity yet one which to which too many Western diplomats  and academics have lately seemed deaf.”

The reason for that is that these “diplomats” and “academics” (sic) have tried to lend urgency and memetic superiority to the Neoliberal “New World Order” which purported to organize the 21st century according to economic arrangements, financial and trade agreements and abstract unions. The problem is that the reality of geography (and ethnicity)  trumps this hyper-bullshit for most humans, and in the case of Ukraine  (ibid.): “its very geography makes it nearly impossible to orient itself entirely toward the West.”  It is IN Russia’s sphere of influence, holds its most strategic sea port and hence there was no doubt Russia would claim it if the Neoliberal West pushed its advantage too hard – with expansion of NATO. Hence, Russia has far more invested in controlling this geography than the U.S. and would fight to the death to preserve its hegemony. Meanwhile, the U.S. has no business meddling, period.

This is grasped even by Mikhail Gorbachev, he who advocated originally for the New World Order (allowing the Soviet Union to break up), but saw successive U.S. Presidents break their promise not to expand NATO.  No wonder as TIME noted (‘Morning After in Crimea’, p. 12, Gorbachev- when asked his opinion of Putin’s actions on the eve of the referendum- pointedly noted that “Putin should not stop at Crimea but take all of southern Ukraine”.  Which makes sense from a geopolitical viewpoint given that otherwise Crimea is cut off from Russian supply lines, roads, etc.  Gorbachev emphasized this geopolitical view when he said (ibid.)

“In essence, southern Ukraine is just like Crimea. Its population is Russian. It was civilized by Russians.”

Does Obama get any of this? Clearly not.  Incredibly,  this guy even defended aspects of the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a junior senator, as a stark contrast to the way Russia has seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. One’s mind must boggle at this incomprehensible turnaround but of course Obama watchers have seen it before – many times- altering positions and policies from what he stoutly proclaimed in campaign mode. It’s almost becoming a pattern like a broken record.  So, we weren't terribly surprised when he  said:

“But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead we ended our war, and left Iraq to it people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decision about its own future.”

Of course, this is firstly devoid of any basic grasp of GEOPOLITICS!  Iraq, at over 6,000 miles distant from the U.S. - posed no remote geographical security interest or threat - unlike the Ukraine and NATO's incursion does for the Russians. Iraq was perpetrated purely out of bogus WMD bullshit hatched by a rat nicknamed "Curve ball". ON that basis, and because Saddam once made some vague threats about Pappy Bush, a full scale assault was launched that eventually cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions in treasure.

 Thus the Iraq War was indefensible as well as illegal from the get go, irrespective of whether the U.S. claimed one city, or one sand berm. The  truth is that the legitimate "international system" condemned the Iraq invasion and occupation since it violated Principle VI of the Nuremberg laws - the crimes against peace, and pre-emptive war.   Instead of contorting himself into such ridiculous positions to try to justify a verbal attack on Russia, he’d do better to watch and listen to the young Senator’s opposition to that disgusting pre-emptive war which imitated the Nazi invasion of Poland.  Meanwhile, Russia’s occupation of the Crimea was actually justified by a 1997  treaty with the Ukraine, which allowed a limit of 25,000 troops.

Obama - in his spiel yesterday- even conceded the U.S. itself has NO geopolitical stake in Ukraine:

"To be honest, if we define our interests narrowly, if we applied a cold hearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way. Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea.   Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation"


But he then bloviated that, oh we just had to get involved and be the Cop of the World, because "casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent."

Clearly, it appears Obama’s brain has been hijacked by the neocons and their disreputable endless war narrative. Where we once held out hope he’d rise to the level of a transformative President – like Kennedy did after the Cuban Missile Crisis – it is now evident Obama has regressed to his mean over the past 6 years.  The only difference now is his use of belligerent, antagonistic rhetoric when calm, thoughtful,  dispassionate response is sorely needed.  To repeat the words of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) on Chris Hayes’ ALL In show two weeks ago:

“This is not something that anybody needs. Not the West, not Russia, not the world, There needs to be an end to the polemics, as you showed from people like John McCain, an end of the passion, an end to the punditry, and a solution.”

Unlike Obama and the Neoliberal and neocon imps and lackeys in his administration, Col. Wilkerson proposed an actual pragmatic geopolitical solution: making Ukraine a buffer state between NATO and Russia which is a reasonable solution.  As he went on to point out –from the transcript:

“Ukraine needs to be the buffer state. Crimea needs to be exactly where it is, with Russia - where it's been for over three hundred and fifty years, and we need to stop the passionate statements and get down to business and work this out. We don't need a war."

Meanwhile, Obama continued on from his intemperate remarks the day before,  as if he’s begging for a war, asserting (New York Times, March 30 headline story, 'Obama Renewing U.S. Commitment to NATO'):

“We have to make sure that we have put together very real contingency plans for every one of these members, including those who came in out of Central and Eastern Europe. And over the last several years we have worked up a number of these contingency plans.”

More worrisome, and disclosing that the neocons have seriously egged him into rash, provocative actions, the NY Times (op. cit.) reported that:

The United States has already sent an extra six F-15C Eagles and 60 airmen to Lithuania and 12 F-16 fighter jets and 200 service members

And the provocations are likely to worsen, as the  NY TIMES continued, noting:

Aides said the president would bolster that presence by rotating more ground and naval troops for exercises and training in Poland and the Baltic countries; update contingency planning for specific countries and update NATO’s threat assessment in the region; and increase the capacity of a NATO quick-response force.

Sadly, we don’t know where this will end or how. We had expected the sober and pragmatic  response of a statesman and someone who could work with Russia in a serious way –  predicated on  feasible geopolitical solutions as opposed to Pax Americana fantasies. But it appears the neocons in Obama’s administration have had the last laugh in turning him into one of them (even accepting THEIR IRAQ WAR!) 

Even if they don’t get a new war with the Russians, the damage to the cooperative relationship with Putin appears permanent. And Mr. Putin is the key to keeping further wars in Syria and Iran from igniting.

This rending of the cooperative agreement may have been what the neocons likely  wanted all along, which is bad enough. One thing I can say I never thought I’d see is Obama turning into a neocon! Though truth be told, Oliver Stone in his ‘Secret History of the United States’ did show Obama’s policies vis-à-vis Iraq and the Middle East much chummier with Bush’s than many have realized. Perhaps another reason he didn’t prosecute Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld for war crimes, or enabling and approving the CIA renditions and tortures.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55005/media-whoop-up-stampede-to-cold-war-hot-war-whatever

And:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/cameron-salisbury/55095/vladimir-putin-rock-star-made-in-America

 And (On Ukraine's  Nazis):

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/55086/ukraines-inconvenient-neo-Nazis
 

Obama: "Russia is a Regional Power" - And Other Moronic Remarks

No, I am emphatically not an "Obamabot" as would be obvious if thinking people read my posts critical of him.  I voted for him twice given the horrific alternatives, but was never on his "band wagon" in the sense of turning a blind eye to his flaws and misguided policies, i.e. drone killings, "debt commission", Chained CPI, supporting NSA mass spying, anti-whistleblower stance etc. Now, in hindsight, I still congratulate him when I believe he's made a policy choice, speech or decision that's wise and justified, and I criticize him when I believe he's veering off course, doing something ill-advised or stupid (perhaps because of bad advice).

In the latter category, Obama delivered a talk at a Nuclear Security summit in the Netherlands yesterday that was remarkable for its abysmal failure to grasp basic geopolitics, his dismissal of Russia as any kind of power on the global stage, and his failure (or unwillingness) to grasp the Ukraine crisis at any more than a Neoliberal media level.

Of course, the superficial content of his spiel could well also reflect  Obama’s “chameleon-like nature” in taking on the hues of the venue he addresses, first pointed out by Salon.com writer David Bromwich in his recent piece, ‘Obama’s Disappearing Act – What Happened to the President He Wanted To Be?’   As Bromwich observed:

 

"More than most people, Obama has been a creature of his successive environments. He talked like Hyde Park when in Hyde Park. He talks like Citigroup when at the table with Citigroup. And in either milieu, he likes the company well enough and enjoys blending in. "

 

So, it may well be that Obama’s ridiculous rhetoric could be attributed to this trait, we don’t know. I merely highlight here some of the examples of all the wrong things he said yesterday. Things which others might seriously misinterpret or read more into than warranted.

Among the absurd rhetoric we heard was that “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness.”

 

In fact, given how Putin has immensely assisted Obama in both Iran and Syria,  this is a putdown that boggles the mind. Putin and Russia’s influence, in finding alternative approaches to both the Iranian nuclear program, and the events in Syria – in July- enabled Obama to ease out of what would surely have been two disastrous new conflicts he (and the country) didn’t need.  If Russia is  merely a “regional power” this would never have been feasible nor would Obama have been so dependent on Putin for this assistance - which he has yet to acknowledge in any public speech (one reason why Robert Parry has shown he's been at the mercy of the neocons - see e.g.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54745/how-looking-forward-tripped-up-Obama

The U.S. political elites,  as ensconced in the Neoliberal political class and media,  DO like to believe this stupid meme,because it resonates with their long time (20 year) narrative of a “defeated” superpower which now can barely take care of itself. The Neolibs and their neocon allies  and media fifth columnists may like to believe this horse shit, but no critically thinking citizen should.

They ought to understand instead that any Russian "weakness" was incurred by its willingness to partake of the Neolib New World Order itself – which at the time  (1991) was proffered to Mikhail Gorbachev in return for the U.S. not expanding NATO.  That  acceptance caused much pain, as described in Naomi Klein’s book, ‘The Shock Doctrine:  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism' (2007), since it reduced or obliterated  Russian citizens’ long time support systems while allowing entry of a parasitical form of capitalism.

 

Despite that, Russia has found a way, predicated on its vast resources and emerging energy sector to become the 2^nd largest producer of gas and oil next to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, much of Europe depends upon it – so the EU nations dare not become too enamored of their sanctions, lest the energy plug be pulled.  In addition, lest Obama forget, Russia still retains more than 3,000 nuclear warheads on as many ICBMs which surely merits equal superpower status – given it’s the only nation with the ability to reduce the U.S. to ashes, as one of its ministers recently put it.  This capability alone demands no one in a leadership role in the U.S. dismiss Russia, or cast it as only a "regional power". Any nation that has the nuclear capacity to incinerate the globe is no "regional power".


This is not something to take lightly or write off to appease an audience which stock and trade is terrorism. Nor is it an excuse to make a glib comment such as Obama also rendered yesterday: i.e.  that “Russia is not the number one US national security threat”  and he is "more concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan" (by terrorists).  If he really believes that is his number one concern, right now, he ought to consider resigning from the Presidency.  Because in his position, I’d damned well be more worried about the Ukraine situation overheating to the point nukes are used in a limited conflict and then escalates to all out nuclear war.

 

In respect of this overheating Obama didn’t help matters with two other stupid remarks he made:

 

“We (the US) have considerable influence on our neighbors. We generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them,"

 

Hmmmmm….. “we generally don’t need to invade them” but we WILL if we find a national security smokescreen to invoke! (As opposed to Russia's legitimate right to occupy the Crimea according to an existing treaty- see below-  and, in its own sphere of influence,).  In other words, Obama is saying the U.S. can invade if and when it chooses to, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has in more than 20 nations since the end of World War II – based on the ‘Monroe doctrine” or whatever specious basis it can find (NSC-68), but no other nation has a right to protect or exercise its self –interest.

Obama then compounded this foolishness by adding that: the United States "would use its military to come to the defense of any NATO country that is threatened " adding "We will act in their defense against any threats. That’s what NATO is all about.”
 

Actually, no – it isn’t what NATO is "all about". NATO is a Cold War relic, now  exploited by the U.S. to expand its sphere of influence, in this case  against Russia’s – since the end of the Soviet Union. (I believe part of it is also to act like a bully and rub Russia's 'nose' in the dirt. "Nya, nya - see what we can do and you can't stop us!") Indeed one can argue that NATO is a war mongering entity as noted herein:

NATO's Warmongers:  http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/brian-cloughley/54851/the-belligerent-alliance-natos-warmongers
 

I hate to be the one to have to remind Obama that this is a promise he’s not likely to keep, say if Russia feels threatened by a belligerent NATO puppet, e.g. Lithuania or Poland,  and strikes against it. The reason is that the Russians have retained a “limited use" nuclear doctrine by which they reserve the right to employ nukes if they feel overwhelmed by conventional outside forces, say NATO’s, see e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/54873/russia-still-addresses-conventional-weapons-gap-with-u-s-via-nukes

As noted therein:

"On March 13, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ran a piece by Nikolai Sokov with the paradoxical title Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike “de-escalation.” He writes, “In 1999, at a time when renewed war in Chechnya seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in Yugoslavia.” It became concerned both that “the United States would interfere within its borders” and that the “conventional capabilities that the United States and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond Russia’s own capacities.”

In response, Russia

… issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike.

In the unnerving 1983 film ‘Threads’ such a scenario played out in a future Iran, after the U.S. and NATO allies bombed a nuclear plant at Isfahan. The Russians used tactical nukes to even the score and halt advancing NATO forces, the U.S. did likewise, and within days the exchange could no longer be controlled and had escalated into a full scale nuclear war. Is this what Obama really wants? Then he better be careful what promises he makes and how he wields his rhetoric.

The most utterly arrogant comment made, however, was that:  “Russia of course has the legal right to have troops in its own country” – as if this is a big deal or carries some profound, hitherto unknown concept.

Of course they can have troops in their own country!  So can the U.S.!  SO what? The issue isn’t having troops in one’s own country, but the willingness to deploy them where and when a nation feels its sphere of influence threatened. This is why Russia has deployed troops (more than 20,000 in Crimea, which are LEGAL btw, according to a treaty – see:

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-

 

And the U.S. has no business challenging that or referring to it as "invasion" or "aggression" etc.. True, CIA director Brennan (the same guy who spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee - that had Dianne Feinstein in an uproar),  "didn't believe this justified Russia's moves", but I revert back to what Col. Wilkerson (Ret.) noted 3 weeks ago on MSNBC - that given the U.S. neocons conducted a putsch, a coup - Russia  WAS justified and Wilkerson would have done it too if in Putin's place as he himself noted. 

The U.S. meanwhile, has deployed tens of thousands of troops wherever it damned well pleases and in flagrant disregard of any international norms or laws. It instead creates its own "laws" or "doctrines" (i.e. "Bush doctrine") to justify incursion and interference  wherever it sees some vague “threat” that has no direct bearing whatever on national security – such as the illegal Iraq invasion

Don’t bother to tell the Russians where and how their troop deployments are “legal” or allowed if you don’t adhere to the same standards or to international courts of law or previously established international legal norms and principles such as Nuremberg Principle VI. (Condemning "crimes against Peace", i.e. "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" as in the case of the Iraq War.)

I do believe, assuming Obama wasn’t putting on his “chameleon act” for the nuclear security audience in The Hague, that he needs to study my post on a game theory perspective to the Ukraine crisis. He will get more out of it than listening to Victoria Nuland or Robert Kagan!

-----

On that note, let me applaud Obama for his forceful words yesterday on the need to pull back NSA bulk phone data collection. But I would like to see scaling back the NSA's dragnet of the internet via its PRISM and MUSCULAR programs too. And until something is actually done, and there is pull back, it remains only  interesting rhetoric.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55005/media-whoop-up-stampede-to-cold-war-hot-war-whatever