Posted on 04/26/2014 11:48:04 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
But, having said that we can make analogies between today and back then and that analogy is the price of oil.
Back then the Soviet planned economy was in a mess but the sharp rise in oil prices in the 70s was expanding the Soviet economy(oil exports). In fact CIA Team B was warning that the Soviets were planning something(Ford presidency). If Ford had won the election, he would have done what we give Reagan credit for doing.
Instead, Carter and Zbig gave the money to the political opposition in Afghanistan, which drew the Soviets into Afghanistan and it was that and the collapse of the oil price in 1984 that drove the Soviets to collapse.
Which takes you to the 2 plus 4 treaty negotiations. Today, Gorbachev says the US/west made the commitment to stay out of Ukraine. Robert Zoellick, lead negotiator for the US said no such commitment was made.
So Russia has been thru their sick stage, and since the price of oil began to climb in the oughties, Russia is flush with oil and gas export money and willing to make trouble. They got their naval port lease in Crimea renewed for 50 years(which they will protect) and they are hellbent on reclaiming their Syrian port.
If you want to shut them down, impose sanctions on the Exxon-Rosneft deal.
Russia had oil potential for decades. They just couldn’t develop it. The cold war ends, and in comes Western expertise. Bingo!
I agree that the oil and natural gas money is helping him develop his military.
Those sanctions may help. Huring Russia financially seems to be an option now. It’s one I’d rather not use if at all possible, because the Russian people take it in the shorts. The ruling class could care less.
Obama should lead, not tweet or cower.
The problem is that Obama spent the last five years putting us in a position where there’s not much that can be done - by running all over the world talking about how arrogant we had been in the past, how we weren’t really an exceptional country after all, and how we were going to lead from behind in situations which demanded strong leadership out front, he’s left us at the point where no one, especially Putin, much cares what we do or have to say.....
It means we are so weak at home that we can’t do much — militarily or otherwise — to stop Russia from imposing its will on Crimea and the Ukraine. America is rapidly losing its economic and technological edge over the rest of the world, thanks to Obama-Bush budget busting and regulatory binges. And thanks to all the RINOs who went before.
No we are weak because of Obama’s leadership, a stronger leader would do just fine leading the most powerful nation on earth in dealing with foreign affairs.
Too late. Sorry. Can’t be a strong leader with some $20 trillion in debt. Obligations are skyrocketing due to burgeoning entitlements and an aging population. Europe, here we come!
We are cutting our military to pre-World War II troop levels to pay for granny’s Social Security check and her free Medicare — a gravy train that will NEVER be cut in any significant way.
The unstoppable gravy train is running over our battle tanks.
Evidently you have a rant that you want to keep making regardless of the truth, there isn’t a leader on earth who would not prefer our military and non-military capabilities of influencing world events.
A competent president would have a great amount of influence on these events involving Russia and NATO.
) Trim the welfare state.
2) Bring back American jobs.
3) Restore freedom and initiative to this country.
4) Stop weakening our military.
I could not agree more.
Agreed. But my intent is that if DC is weak, our enemies are strong, and will take their “liberties”, subsequent to, or concurrently with our internal decimation.
Yes, even an Obama-crippled America does have more power and influence than other nations — I never denied that.
But with China and other countries ramping up both their militaries and economies, the American advantage is decreasing sharply. The United States is utterly incapable of stopping a Russian takeover of the Ukraine. Those of you who propose a military attack on Russia are thankfully in the deluded minority.
Care to show me my post saying anything about the United States attacking Russia?
You are so determined to keep making your rant, that you are just making things up.
“there isn’t a leader on earth who would not prefer our military and non-military capabilities of influencing world events.
A competent president would have a great amount of influence on these events involving Russia and NATO.”
Your supersmart, limp-wristed noodle-faced sanctions will do nothing to stop Putin.
When Russians takes one Ukrainian outpost, are you going to sit idly by? No, according to your brilliant logic, you will launch a counterattack.
LOL, you don’t need two people to have a conversation, you supply both sides of it.
When I served under Reagan he was pretty good at dealing with foreign affairs, not many Americans reflected your point of view then, of course his utilization of pressure was more complex than your ‘attack, don’t attack’ mentality.
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.