Right On, Mitt

“Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president [Obama] to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn’t have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very, very troubling, very alarming,” he said. “I am very, very concerned.

“This is to Russia,” Romney said. “This is without question our number one geopolitical foe.

“I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors, of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough, but when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when [Syrian President] Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go to the United Nations and who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors?”

Mitt Romney made that statement on March 26, 2012, and he was widely criticized  for it.

Turns out he’s not such the geopolitical neophyte he’s been made out to be. In fact, he looks damn prescient in his observations, considering the ongoing slaughter in Syria.  The most recent example to back up his reasoning comes as Syrian “President” Bashar Assad let loose on Syrian civilians with his riot-control helicopter gunships.

And which country supplied the good dictator with this advanced military aircraft? Hint: Begins with an ‘R’ and ends with ‘ussia’.

This is no anomaly. No matter which nefarious foe of the United States (and the civilized world) may be acting up, Russia, and in many cases, China, are there reflexively blocking our efforts at every turn. Whether supplying arms, blocking sanctions, or supporting the desires of rogue nations to obtain information and material for development of nuclear capabilities, Russia is the one constant behind them all.

They are the world’s devious Lucy to the good natured Charlie Brown, yanking the football away when we try to kick it.

No where is this more apparent then in the tragically incompetent United Nations. Russia is always at the ready to assist any and all of their eager, unbalanced cohorts, flexing their ‘veto power’ to block any meaningful attempt by the U.S. and our allies to attain some kind of leverage over these rotten regimes.

Gee… Who knew?

Looks like Romney did.

And Obama’s feelings toward Russia? Well, he discussed his tactics a few weeks ago with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, with assurance that the following hot-mic message would be passed onto his dear friend, Russian puppet-master Vladi­mir Putin:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space,” “This is my last election.”

“After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Such a helpful comrade.

Police, firefighters, and teachers! Oh my!
Let's Try This Again - New Version Of Disqus Is Ready
  • Sometimes diplomacy requires one not to say what one really thinks about the other party, even if the other party is a nation like Russia. If he makes it to the White House, then Romney will have to be more diplomatic when talking about Russia.

    • Guest

      So, in other words, Romney will have more flexibility after he’s elected.

      Gee, imagine that.

    • Owen007

      Sometimes diplomacy also requires manning up and not tolerating others’ shenanigans. For all his faults, JFK didn’t back down against the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He held firm and even bamboozled them. In exchange for no missile sites on Cuba, we shut down the ones in Turkey… that were due to be shut down anyway. We just didn’t tell them that. Contrast with Obama, who gives up all sorts of stuff in exchange for promises that Russia ‘might’ do something we’d like them to. Smart power indeed.

    • Commander_Chico

      Unfortunately, Romney will be starting out on the wrong foot with Russia. His beef with Russia is reckless. Russia is not the adversary it was in the days of the Cold War, it’s a lot freer and has a market economy with many trading partners in the west. As a tough-guy, Romney’s no match for Putin. I am not nostalgic for the days of nuclear confrontation with a Russia that could destroy the USA. One reason I can’t vote for Romney.

      As for Syria, Russia’s interest in that country outweighs that of the American people. Russia has its only naval base in the Mediterranean there. So now the USA is helping Muslim fundamentalists, including Al Qaeda, to take over Syria. The MSM is in war propaganda mode. What interest of the American people is implicated in this war over Syria?

      • Jay

        Pfft. Syria has no oil and has turned into a worldwide crisis. We’ve invaded countries for far less than what they’re doing. I don’t expect much assistance to go to the rebels at all.

        • Commander_Chico

          You don’t get it. The game is about Iran and the oilfield services contracts which could be available there.

          Create chaos in Syria first, to secure a flank now (even if long-term it ends up being controlled by Salafis of the Al Qaeda/MB type), then on to Iran.

          As for the “massacres” oldest game in the world – Huns bayoneting babies in Belgium, Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

          For some reason comparable outrage is not summoned in the MSM about Al Qaeda-type car bombs from “our side” killing civilians in Damascus and Aleppo.

          • Digg34

            Create chaos in Syria first, to secure a flank now (even if long-term it ends up being controlled by Salafis of the Al Qaeda/MB type), then on to Iran.

            So far Russia and Iran are doing a fantastic job of that.

      • jim_m

        What interest of the American people is implicated in this war over Syria?

        It should be relatively obvious that if Russia is opposing US interests allowing them to have a strong presence in a client state will prove to be against our interests in the long term. It isn’t about what our direct interest is, it is also about control the influence of our adversaries as best as we can.

        I realize that as a lefty you do not believe in trying to oppose a historically far left nation like Russia or China, but the fact is that they still operate against our interests.

        • Commander_Chico

          The Russian naval base at Tartus has been there for years.

          We won the Cold War. Rubbing the Russians’ nose in it is a bad idea. Russia is still powerful enough to destroy America.

          • “Russia is still powerful enough to destroy America.”

            Obama “I will have more flexibility after I am re-elected.”

            Obama has inferred he will spread his legs for Russia (or, in his case, bend over).

            Romney realizes that Russia most definitely does not have any good intentions toward the USA. As a history major, you didn’t learn a damned thing did you? So much for education standards.

          • jim_m

            Maybe rubbing the Russian’s noses it the fact that we could still destroy them would be a good idea and keep them from screwing with us and damaging our position internationally. Too bad the idiot left thinks that saber rattling is OK and should be respected when our enemies do it, but when the US does it it should be a war crime.

            And you wonder why we say you hate America?

  • Owen007

    “And Obama’s feelings toward Russia?”

    Why settle for the Medvedev example? Remember when Russia invaded Georgia and how Obama reacted to that? Apparently it was Georgia’s fault that its more aggressive and larger neighbor invaded it… well past the areas that were long disputed. *cough*

    Of course, if memory serves, McCain criticized Russia right out of the box for what they did. Obama took a few days to realize his mistake (or more likely it took a few days for a campaign staffer to make him realize he made a mistake).