Gingrich, Graham Warn Of Military Standoff Over Ukraine

by JASmius

Well, yes, a military standoff with Russia is now inevitable; the question is where the front line will be - Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Schenectady...:

Two prominent Republicans are warning that failure of the United States to deter Russia in Ukraine will only embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and could end in a military standoff.

Um, no, guys, it'll end in a Russian geopolitical blitzkrieg right across Europe, actually.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia write in an op-ed on CNN.com that failure of the United States and Western Europe to act could give Putin the green light to "test our resolve" in Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia.

Those three former Soviet republics are now members of NATO, which all other NATO members, including the United States, are bound by treaty to protect with military force.

And treaty obligations mean what to Barack Obama, exactly?  Why would he not bid hail and farewell to the Baltic States as blithely and readily as he has Ukraine?  C'mon, gents, Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius are going to be on the phone or at the table trying to get the best deal from Vlad that they possibly can.  We may have no collective long term memory, but the Balts do; they remember Stalin taking them, and half a century of Soviet domination.  They know they're headed right back into the Russian orbit; if they cut a deal now, maybe they can avoid outright re-annexation.  Maybe.

"Trouble there could 'reset' us right back to direct warfare with Russia," the two write. "That would be a disaster and very, very dangerous."

Passivity, they say, is the path most likely to lead to war.

I would disagree only in the sense that I don't believe there is any set of circumstances under which Barack Obama would undertake a war that had the slightest chance of either advancing America's geostrategic national interests or defending any of America's genuine allies.  Which is precisely why he's being passive in this crisis.  To him it isn't a crisis at all, because he can't exploit it for his own political ends.  It is, instead, a bother, a distraction, a drudgerous chore that he wants to go away.

Unless....he concluded that the U.S. military had been sufficiently weakened that launching into a military confrontation with Czar Putin would lead to a humiliating American defeat.  That might make it worthwhile for him.  Otherwise, I can't see it.

And now comes the "Obama shoulds" that he never will:

"The Obama administration should grant the request for military aid immediately — before it's too late for deterrence," they write.

Gingrich and Graham also call for President Barack Obama to immediately issue an executive order approving the export of American natural gas to twenty countries awaiting bureaucratic approval.

"The highest priority should go to approving exports to Europe, where in many places, Russia has a near-monopoly on natural gas," they said.

They also call on Obama to issue an executive order approving twenty-four pending liquefied natural gas facilities they say have been delayed by "bureaucratic red tape."

Wow, you know, I vividly remember Mitt Romney talking at great length during the '12 campaign about energy in a national security context.  Now we get a real life example of it....sixteen months too late....in a confrontation with Russia....something about which Mitt also spoke a great deal.  Here we sit on the largest fossil fuel energy reserves left on the planet, and we can't tap a single drop because Captain Sustainable won't allow it.  Sure would have come in handy right about now.

I sure hope Stark Industries can start mass-producing arc reactors on short notice.  'cause I'm pretty sure it was O that gave Loki the tesseract.

Exit question: Are Gingrich and Grahamnesty going to give me credit for the "speak loudly and carry no stick" line?  I've only been using it for weeks now.