Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Best Editorial Ever

A long time ago, I got tired of “anti-Obama” all the time, even though I despise the man. I even stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because of that. However, this anti-Obama editorial is well worth reading, and the voters who put him in office are going to have much to answer for.

At stake in Ukraine: 1914 with nukes

By Glen Meakem May 20, 2014 Providence Journal

Unrest continues to grow in Ukraine, particularly in light of this month’s vote by two eastern regions that overwhelmingly passed referendums in favor of self-rule.

Government buildings continue to fall to Russian nationalists and clashes between separatists and Ukrainian military forces are increasingly violent. Russia held a May Day parade in Moscow for the first time since 1991 — the final year of the Soviet Union. Over 100,000 Russians used the occasion to gather in Red Square and applaud the annexation of Crimea, Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s expansionist policies.

European powers and the United States have done little to curb this new Russian aggression.

In 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister John Major, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma signed the Budapest memorandum, which pledged the nations to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The treaty helped persuade Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear stockpile. At the time of the Soviet breakup, Ukraine had 1,800 nuclear weapons. In exchange for giving up their nukes, the U.S. pledged to secure Ukraine’s borders. In the years since, Ukraine has been a U.S. ally, even sending soldiers under NATO command in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But now, the fact that Vladimir Putin has grabbed Crimea and is infiltrating eastern Ukraine begs two questions. First, do treaties signed and commitments made by the U.S. mean anything? Second, if they don’t, what does this mean for the rest of the world?

By abandoning our security arrangement with Ukraine, we are creating a huge incentive for countries around the world to stockpile nuclear weapons, thus increasing the probability of nuclear conflict somewhere.

One hundred years ago, no one thought war was imminent. As Newt Gingrich writes at, World War I “came as an enormous shock, in retrospect almost like the Titanic hitting an iceberg. In the end, it shattered Europe, cost tens of millions of lives, bankrupted countries and changed forever those who survived the horrors.”

One hundred years later, an aggressive Russia possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and is motivated by a renewed imperialism that threatens peace in Eastern Europe.

So why is Russia acting with such overt aggression? Under President Obama, we have been in retreat from the world. His policies have included a quick withdrawal from Iraq and an unwise draw-down of forces in Afghanistan. He is shrinking our Navy — we currently have fewer than 100 ships deployed. He is shrinking our Army to its smallest size since before World War II. Obama has let foes cross red lines in Syria and kill our U.S. ambassador to Libya — both with no apparent consequences. And, in addition to reneging on our security agreement with Ukraine, he has reneged on our agreement to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

If Americans choose to continue down Obama’s path of weakness and retreat, we must accept an increasingly dangerous and unstable world. Just look at the growing dangers in Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, the Baltic States and the South China Sea, to name just a few.

But, this is not the world of 1914. It is the world of 2014 and the nuclear bazaar is just beginning for many smaller, increasingly insecure nations, from Saudi Arabia to the Philippines. And don’t forget the growing Islamic terror organizations that are just dying to get their hands on some nukes. In Obama’s world, any number of security lapses or miscalculations could lead to devastating nuclear conflicts — nuclear 1914.

Americans can still decide to lead and live up to the responsibility of being the global superpower. We can embrace our heritage and history as the country that saved the world from German expansionism in World War I, Nazism and the Imperial Japanese in World War II, and the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. We can be the steady, powerful, good actor that makes smaller allies feel secure and keeps potential enemies in check.

But if we want to have a strong military, we can’t continue to let spending mushroom with tens of millions of working-age Americans living lives of dependence on welfare, Obamacare, disability and a myriad of other taxpayer-funded programs. We must stand up to our growing entitlement culture. For America to be strong and the world to be safe, the vast, vast majority of individual Americans must choose to work hard and not be dependent.

Glen Meakem is the founder and CEO of and was previously founder and CEO of FreeMarkets. A former Army Reserve officer, he is a veteran of the Gulf War and a graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Business School.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 9:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The author doesn't state what he would have Obama do about Russian imperialism. Does he want to send troops to Ukraine? If so, how do we pay for that adventure without raising taxes? If not, other than sanctions what else does he propose? If we do send troops, will the US populace support such a venture or will we have another Viet Nam on our hands. A military confrontation with Russia will almost certainly require more manpower than we now have available, thus necessitating a return of the draft. Will the people, as a whole, see American interests in Ukraine important enough to go to war over? I doubt it.

At 3:28 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

We are in this ominous mess precisely because of Obama's weakness, incompetence and world view. Yes, we should send troops and heavy arms to Ukraine because that is what a treaty partner does, and any president worth his salt should be able to convince his countrymen that it is necessary to preserve our future.

We can afford many necessary programs and right our society if we end the current welfare system.

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you prefer guns over butter. I disagree. I think we'd have a far better society, if we provided for the welfare of all our citizens before taking on any other foreign ventures.

At 11:31 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

That would be very nice if we lived in the liberal, fairy tale society you seem to. In the real world there needs to be a world policeman, and the blood of patriots needs to be shed occasionally to protect the freedoms we have. There are good guys, like the USA, and there are bad guys like Putin and Assad who need to be confronted and restrained by treaties and the honoring of them.

At 2:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another anonymous says that Russ has not said he prefers guns over butter. Rather he has said that believes you can walk tall and carry a big stick.

Some men are evil. Putin is evil. Putin is following in the foot steps of Stalin, using same methods.

Putin is making slaves out of many. They have no choice.

At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently, you want the US to be policeman to the world, but you won't raise taxes to pay for doing so, nor will you agree to raise the debt limit. How do you propose to support the troops necessary to do the policing?

At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would revive the draft and draft you. Your points say things that the previous writer never said nor implied. You follow Russian propaganda methods by lying about what poster said. You must be a Russian troll.


Post a Comment

<< Home