Posted on 02/28/2022 9:44:08 AM PST by DavidThomas
Blame START for the Ukraine Invasion – “Putin Hails Extension of New Start Treaty” proclaims a Moscow headline weeks after Joe Biden was sworn in as president. A sceptic of Putin should wonder, why does he like extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty? He benefits from the reduction of American long-range nuclear missiles because this makes it more difficult for the United States to react to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. If Russia seeks territorial expansion against its neighbors (and she does), and the United States does not seek to swallow up her neighbors (and she does not), then limiting long-range missiles benefits the Russians more than the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
But this is just theory? America’s nuclear arsenal remains large, reductions mean little? And America would never really use nuclear missiles, anyway? In practice, that makes sense. However, theory and perception matter too, especially in the world of geopolitics and when dealing with dictators like Putin. They see two types of people in the world: strong and weak. Projecting weakness emboldens them.
History bears this out. During the Cold War, perception was reality. Nuclear weapons meant strength. It mattered whether you had 1,000 or 10,000 nuclear warheads. Logically, it may not, but the human psyche doesn’t always think logically. Moreover, cultural differences matter. To the twenty-first-century American, no difference exists between 1,000 and 10,000 nuclear bombs, but Putin is not a twenty-first-century American. He is the product of a vastly different cultural system, Cold War Russia.
A second example of the United States projecting weakness came in the wake of Vietnam when America embarked on more conciliatory policies and arms control agreements with the Soviets. Detente culminated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I and SALT II). For the first time in Cold War history, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to limit their nuclear arsenals. Months later, the Soviets reacted by invading Afghanistan. The fact that the United States still had a large nuclear arsenal meant nothing. Perceptions of weakness emboldened the Soviets.
And there is a third example. In 2010, the Obama administration negotiated a new START with Putin. Obama insisted: “Today, we’ve taken another step forward by — in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children.” During the 2012 presidential debate, presidential candidate Mitt Romney chided Obama for his collaboration with Putin, insisting Russia posed the greatest geopolitical threat to America. Defending himself, Obama quipped, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” What happened two years later was no joking matter: Russia annexed Crimea. Again, America seemingly reducing its nuclear arsenal emboldened the Russians.
What about when the United States has shown strength?
During the Cold War, the United States earned it best results regarding Soviet behavior after reconstructing her armed forces, including her nuclear arsenal. Flexing American muscle, President Reagan doubled American military spending between 1981 and 1985. The Pentagon modernized its nuclear force with the new intercontinental ballistic missiles and the B-1B bomber. The Soviets subsequently cowered. In the mid-80s, they elected a reform-minded communist leader, Michael Gorbachev, who began liberalizing the Soviet system. Semblances of democracy emerged. Soviet troops even left foreign countries. The Soviet Union shrank, then vanished. The Cold War ended.
When working with others like Putin, it must be recognized that their way of seeing the world may be different. Cultural differences and individual psychologies mean two people can interpret the same thing differently. It may seem that reducing nuclear weapons moves us toward peace, but dictators like Putin sense weakness and pounce.
David Byrne earned his Ph.D. in history from Claremont Graduate University with a specialization in Soviet history. He has authored several peer-reviewed articles and one book.
Make no mistake..Putin and Putinistas love Biden/Obama.
On the positive side - Putin just cured the entire world of the deadly threat of Covid.
The US MSM and global media haven’t said a word about it in 2 weeks.
And just like that, its gone.....
As much as I’d enjoy pinning the decision to invade Ukraine on Obama and Co., the invasion is all on Putin. Obama has very little control over movements of Russian troops and armaments into neighborhing countries.
True, but our government’s actions and, in this case, inactions, helped him make his decision................
Don't sell Obama's handlers short. They absolutely have their fingers in governments all over the world, including the Ukraine where they put their puppet in power.
You think Obama sent Russian troops into Ukraine, not Putin?
Obama gave Putin (or anyone for that matter) reason to.
Even Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is willing to speak out about Ukraine's president shutting down the three television stations that were openly criticizing him, imprisoning the head of the opposition political party, and arresting and jailing the party leaders, all with the support of the United States under Jao Bai-din. The same Jao Bai-din whose son Hunter was on the board of Bursima Holdings as a payoff from a money laundering operation.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4041256/posts
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/505uQahvKvg
The US MSM and global media haven't said a word about it in 2 weeks.
And just like that, its gone.....
Yes, Covid is now old news. Amazing how the Democrats always manage to create a new crisis when the old crisis starts working against them.
First Biden gave the green light when he said that the US wouldn't do anything about it if an invasion of the Ukraine was a “minor incursion”. Then Biden started making increasingly shrill warnings to and about the Russians as if he was goading them or possibly more likely prompting Putin to do it.
This invasion is diverting away from the left's failures worldwide and one cannot help but wonder if their greatest heroes, the communists of old in Russia are being called upon symbolically to save them once again. So much of the current “news” not only seems staged... it has been staged.
Best explanations I have heard.
Very good video.
If the Ukes had simply joined NATO they would not be invaded today.
If Taiwan had declared independence from China, they will not be invaded [as a renegade province, even the US calls it “one China”] tomorrow.
My theory, Biden’s Ukraine fiasco is to give cover for inflation, high gas prices, economy, etc.
So where are the Republicans talking about this on news? On the floor of Congress, Senate? Crickets.
The reality is that “the Soviet Union” was culturally Imperial Russia clothed in the political clothes of international Communism, and that attitude (imperial attitude) remains the driving domestic force toward foreign policy under the Putin controlled mobocracy (KGB + Russian mobsters and mob connected oligarchs, working together as a mob run state).
The reality in China is no different. Like Russia they are not a politically modern country but one trying to assume the imperial mantle of the Chinese emperors of old. Their claims in Asia are not part of “nationalism” just Chinese imperialism.
Blame Russia.
“Obama gave Putin (or anyone for that matter) reason to.”
—
So Obama didn’t order troops in Ukraine, he made Putin do it? Well, that explains it, then. He’s just gotta stop forcing people to do things against their will, I say!
Obama/resident, give up YOUR NUKES and we’ll protect you! SUCKERS!!!!!
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.