The Reality Of Engineered Impotence

by JASmius

In case you were wondering - and I never would have if I hadn't actually seen it - here is John Kerry's "tough" expression:



At least, I'm guessing that's Lurch's "tough" expression, given the context; otherwise, I would have suggested he had just overcome a bout of constipation by main abdominal force.

The verbal manifestation of what passes for his "toughness" was just as comical:

The United States brandished the threat of economic sanctions on Russia on Sunday, with Secretary of State John Kerry calling Moscow's moves on Ukraine an "incredible act of aggression."

As Washington's already strained relations with Moscow deteriorated further, Kerry was scathing in his condemnation and said the United States has "all options on the table" including a military response.

But, doing the rounds of Sunday morning television news shows to stress the Obama administration's disapproval of Russia's actions, Kerry emphasized a U.S. desire for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

You know how the term "feckless" is often applied to liberal conduct of foreign policy?  This is what it means.  In the space of two sentences, the Commissar of State went from "scathing" and "saber-rattling" to reassuring everybody who might have drawn conclusions from that that he didn't really mean what he'd just said.  Which is precisely the dynamic that convinced Vladimir Putin that there was no risk in overtly invading Ukraine.

Want more Boston Balking?  Here's your second helping:

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext," Kerry told the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Well, Thurston, Vladimir Putin quite obviously does.  Most likely because he understands that the rules of geopolitics are timeless, and that the Western notion of a more "evolved" - which is to say, pacifist - 21st century is the delusional conceit that it is.

Kerry spoke of "very serious repercussions" for Moscow and said G8 nations and some other countries are "prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia" with an array of options available.

"They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges," he said.

Kerry listed visa bans, asset freezes, trade isolation, and investment changes as possible steps, adding: "American businesses may well want to start thinking twice about whether they want to do business with a country that behaves like this."

Yes, the Regime can deploy meaningless economic reprisals, I suppose.  But I imagine Czar Vlad has already weighed that cost and decided that he's gaining far more from re-conquering Ukraine than he'll lose from not having to maintain the pretense of "economic cooperation" with the West.  The rest of that quote was Mr. French reflexively threatening American businesses like a good little Obamunist.

In short, the only thing that would get Putin's undivided attention is an American military response.  And of course, we don't have the means of mustering one.

That, in turn, is a most effective defense against conservative criticism of the Regime's precipitation of this latest foreign debacle:

"Putin is playing chess -- I think we're playing marbles," said Representative Mike Rogers, R-MI8, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, speaking on Fox News Sunday. Rogers said the Russians have been "running circles around us" in negotiations on such items as Syria and missile defense. 

But Rogers conceded that there are not many good choices facing Obama.

“There is not a lot of options on the table and, candidly, I’m a fairly hawkish guy, sending more naval forces to operate in the Black Sea is really not a very good idea, given that we know that that day has long passed,” the Michigan Republican said. “And unless you’re intending to use them, I wouldn’t send them. Now you’ve got only economic options through the EU.”

 Indeed, there are no "good" choices.  Barack Obama's foreign and defense policies have seen to that.  Which is why Republican exhortations like the following are so vexing to me:

"We have got to exert energy," former National Security Director Michael Hayden told Newsmax in an exclusive interview. "We just can't pontificate and condemn Russian activity.

"The president has to put some measure of his prestige and political capital at risk in order to try to shape an outcome in the Ukraine that's going to be acceptable to all parties — and particularly acceptable to the Ukrainian people.

"You can't do that if you're not present for duty," Hayden said....

In a statement, GOP Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said: "Vladimir Putin is seizing a neighboring territory, again, so President Obama must lead a meaningful, unified response with our European allies to bring an immediate halt to these provocative Russian actions, which threaten international peace and security.

Here's a reality check: O is not going to put any of his prestige (of which he has very little left in any case) or political capital at risk over Ukraine because he doesn't care about it.  Once again, remember the Obama Doctrine: To remove the United States from the world stage as a superpower over even regional power.  Senator Corker's statement is even more obtuse because it presumes that Obama is an American president in the mold of (almost) all of his predecessors, and has the means to bring an "immediate halt" to Putin's Ukrainian adventure.  Neither is the case.

I can hear the lib objection now: "We never have been in any position to repel a Russian invasion of Ukraine militarily!"  That's absolutely true.  But remember Congressman Rogers' chess reference vis-a-vie Czar Vlad; the way such "provocations" have been deterred up until now was by matching a move in one part of the "board" with a countermove somewhere else.  To the degree that The One hasn't yet fully divested the U.S. of such capabilities, his conspicuous weakness and "empty suit-ism" has taken up the slack.  Vladimir Putin has taken Red Barry's measure and knows that the latter has no intention of or interest in stopping his plan to rebuild the old Evil Empire.

A realization that congressional Republicans still have not yet made, right alongside their like obliviousness to the domestic political war they're still not fighting:

Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL16) said.House Republicans will stand behind President Barack Obama.

“You’re going to find a House that’s very cooperative with the administration on this,” the Illinois Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.”

No, Congressman; no, no, no, no.  You will never stand behind Barack Obama on this or anything else because he will never do what you want him to do and, for some bizarre reason or other, think he'd be open to doing.  This is precisely why you and your colleagues need to be vastly increasing defense spending in precisely the force strength areas they are denuding it, and correspondingly cutting entitlements.  You need to be at war with Barack Obama, Congressman, because he's as much at war with you as he is allied with, or at the very least indifferent to, the interests of Vladimir Putin.

Yes, my Tea Party readers, that's an admonition to "Fight!  Fight!  Fight!"  It just so happens that this is a most opportune time to do so, what with our being depressingly vindicated yet again.

Which makes this an obligatory but nevertheless appropriate exit quote:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin says she's "usually not one to Told-Ya-So," but when it comes to her prediction in 2008 that Russia President Vladimir Putin would one day invade Ukraine, she's claiming her bragging rights.

Palin, on her Facebook page this weekend, said that when she was campaigning in 2008 as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, she was "derided" for predicting that the Ukraine would be invaded should then-Sen. Barack Obama be elected.

"Yes, I could see this one from Alaska," Palin posted on Facebook, saying she said "told-ya-so" in the case of her "accurate prediction being derided as 'an extremely far-fetched scenario' by the 'high-brow' Foreign Policy magazine.

"Here’s what this 'stupid' 'insipid woman' predicted back in 2008," Palin said. "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

Jack Sparrow said it best at the end of this clip.