Thursday 18 December 2014

Sure To Make Russia More Combative

Obama will foolishly sign the legislation on Russian sanctions that Congress passed last week:
President Obama has decided to sign legislation imposing further sanctions on Russia and authorizing additional aid to Ukraine, despite concerns that it will complicate his efforts to maintain a unified front with European allies, the White House said on Tuesday.
The legislation calls for a raft of new measures penalizing Russia’s military and energy sectors and authorizes $350 million in military assistance to Ukraine, including antitank weapons, tactical surveillance drones and counter-artillery radar.
Obama is making a mistake by signing this bill.

In addition to creating a pretext for more aggressive moves by Russia, signing this legislation will exacerbate Russia’s growing economic problems, and that will adversely affect the economies of Europe even more to the detriment of the U.S. and our allies.

This could hardly come at a worse time when it appears that there is a good chance of having a genuine cease-fire in the Ukraine conflict.

Piling on additional punitive and hostile measures now risks jeopardizing that fragile truce. It certainly isn’t going to make Moscow more accommodating or inclined to compromise.

On the contrary, this is sure to make Russia more combative.
The most striking thing about the administration’s decision is how completely spineless it is.

Despite its past warnings that sending arms to Ukraine could make the conflict worse, the administration is yielding to the worst instincts of hawkish members of Congress.

Even though it has previously warned against undermining a united front with European allies, it is quite content to do that rather than veto legislation that the administration doesn’t believe to be necessary.

The White House says it is concerned that the legislation sends a “confusing message,” but it is willing to sign off on that message.

Hawks in Congress know that they can send almost any piece of bad legislation to this White House with the confidence that the president will never exercise his veto power to stop them.


  1. What's so surprising? Some of us have always known what Obama would be like.

    I feel sorry for US conservatives; as Pat Buchanan points out, a rising liberal demographic of single women and Latinos (who have a far higher rate of illegitimacy and thus dependence on social benefits) can only mean the end of a Republican party that disproportionately attracts the votes of married conservative people.

    1. No, that's not what's wrong the with the GOP. I doubt that PJB would still say that now. It's just become a rubbish party.

  2. Oh, I agree. But both of them are "rubbish parties".

    Married people are statistically far more likely to vote Republican than unmarried people. Married women 16 times more likely. The rise in immorality in America means death to any Right-wing party. Single women and Latinos (50% illegitimacy rate) are the fastest growing demographics in America.

    It's permanent liberalism and Big Government from now on. Peter Hitchens and Pat Buchanan both predicted we had "waved goodbye to America" (as the title of Hitchens article said) when Obama won in 2008 and they were both right.

    1. You do know David knows Peter Hitchens, or at any rate PH knows David? You do know David is practically family to the US paleocons, closer to them politically and personally than any of their other pet UK lefties (Neil Clark, Rod Liddle, Brendan O'Neill)? You do know that, don't you?