The Guns of March

Don’t know what this means but from Drudge:

SHOWDOWN: KERRY GIVES RUSSIA MONDAY DEADLINE

And the minor stories above the fold:

Russia Massing Military Forces Near Border With Ukraine… Developing…
Kremlin Bans Websites Critical of Gov’t…
Jittery customers run on banks in Crimea…

A weak president who wants to show he’s strong may be the worst of all at such times. More from Drudge, POLL: Putin stronger leader than Obama…:

Maybe it is the photos of him posing shirtless on horseback, or his military push into Ukraine, but Americans in a new poll believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is a much stronger leader than President Obama.

A YouGov/Economist survey of 1,000 adults interviewed March 8-10 found that 78 percent view Putin as somewhat to very strong leader. Just 45 percent see Obama the same way. Worse, more Americans, 55 percent, view Obama as a weak leader.

The poll comes as the president is struggling with a response to Putin’s push into Ukraine and expectations that Crimea will break off and join Russia.

Or maybe it’s because Obama really is weak and not just weak but has no idea what to do or even who to ask or listen to.

This entry was posted in International. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to The Guns of March

  1. stackja

    Obama really is weak and not just weak but has no idea what to do or even who to ask or listen to.

    Chicago politics was not like this! Had the police to protect idiots from themselves.

  2. H B Bear

    Must be another one of those lines in the sand.

  3. Murray Rothbard in the 1980 Afghan context quoted Canon Sydney Smith – a great classical liberal in early nineteenth century England who wrote his warmongering PM thus:

    “For God’s sake, do not drag me into another war!

    I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself.

    I am sorry for the Spaniards – I am sorry for the Greeks – I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed, I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people?

    The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy?

    We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other’s throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! – No eloquence; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic!”

  4. Myrddin Seren

    ‘Swift Boat’ Kerry has only one leverage to apply to Vlad.

    “Play nice, Mr Putin, and I’ll share the Nobel Peace Prize with you !”

  5. Baldrick

    I can see a wedgie coming on.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Well its working for Putin. His approval rating is 72%.

    Obama’s is at 41% a record low.

    That’s gotta hurt even for a metrosexual like Barry.

  7. Demosthenes

    has no idea what to do

    What would you do, Steve?

  8. Habib

    This is worse than ’39, Obama and Cameron make Roosevelt and Chamberlain look like decisive, hairy-chested men of action. Putin is much smarter than that Austrian paper-hanger, not nuts, and has lots of experience in playing brinksmanship with real western leaders, rather than the vacuous pantywaisters cowering before him currently. Every chance of turning very nasty; add in a revitalised Chicom military with long repressed territorial ambitions, and we could well be shit out of luck.

  9. This is the end result of Obama standing in a hall of mirrors and only hearing himself.

  10. Louis Hissink

    The whole game is oil – the Yanks simply cannot drill for oil on their own continental patch as a result of environmentalism. Believing in the junk science of fossil fuel doesn’t help either, (The Russians use abiotic oil theory for their exploration, and very very successfully I should add). Crimea has Russia’s deep seated abiotic oil fields, which is what the US wants to get hold of, I suspect. One reason for the 1917 Bolshevik revolution was Rockefeller’s goal of either getting control of Russian oil, his biggest competitor then, or to kill it. That’s how far back this present situation goes.

  11. Gutho

    Liberty Quotes

    “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.” — Fredric Bastia
    Was this Liberty quote deliberate

  12. Greigoz

    There’s only one thing for President Obama to do to improve his ‘toughness’ stocks – scold Israel!

  13. Louis Hissink

    I should have mentioned that the abiotic oil fields are in the Donetz basin, the western bit of which is in Ukraine, the eastern in Crimea.

  14. Once again Habib nails it:

    This is worse than ’39, Obama and Cameron make Roosevelt and Chamberlain look like decisive, hairy-chested men of action.

    +1

  15. John of Perth

    I hope Obama like all leftard politicians does not try to use his falling personal rating to suddenly act tough and make a huge personal mistake that could exacerbate an already tense situation. Last thing needed is him acting stupid thinking he is tough to win popular approval in the US.

    He already lost any form of toughness or leadership though stupid policy announcements/negotiation with for instance Syria and Iran (but they are not nuclear yet unlike Russia). As Greigoz said, like all Leftards he plays from the book of only being tough on Israel, which is always easy game (not that they would listen to him). I think toughness also reflects on intelligence you have and those that support and represent your interests. FFS he uses Kerry who is a dumb, highly inexperience and bumbling retard on foreign policy, why not just say the US surrenders any form of intelligence on sane foreign policy development. Lets also not get started on Rice who is only good for lying. Compare this to Russia’s measured foreign minister who oozes competence (not necessary charisma) in expressing his country’s view.

  16. Louis Hissink

    Isn’t POTUS a puppet?

  17. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    This says it all.

    Lessee… a modestly competent leader of a second rate Great Power vs Preshizzle (Paco ™) O’Dumbugger the Squealpansy.

    The Russians will be on the Channel in a week.

  18. .

    Habib
    #1224705, posted on March 14, 2014 at 5:46 pm
    This is worse than ’39, Obama and Cameron make Roosevelt and Chamberlain look like decisive, hairy-chested men of action. Putin is much smarter than that Austrian paper-hanger, not nuts, and has lots of experience in playing brinksmanship with real western leaders, rather than the vacuous pantywaisters cowering before him currently. Every chance of turning very nasty; add in a revitalised Chicom military with long repressed territorial ambitions, and we could well be shit out of luck.

    I reckon it is more like WWI instead the US Government is more like the moronic Romanov Tsar, “mobilising” forces/giving “ultimatums” without regard to what it means.

  19. Louis Hissink

    Dot,

    Mobilising armies of the 19th century takes a lot of time and easily observable from the intended target view. Communication then relied on messengers on horseback, or other technologically unsophisticated methods. But once a 19th century army was mobilised, it’s target had no option but to assume declaration of war, knowing that instant changes in policy could not be rapidly disseminated downwards to the ranks by the belligerent.

    The situation wasn’t that different for WWII either, come to think of it, but depends on whether one gets one’s history from the back of the weeties pack, or from diligent research.

  20. Tardell G

    John “Winter soldier” Kerry’s threats are worthless – the U.S wont do shit.
    Russia has legitimate historical claims to Crimea and most parts of the Ukraine.

  21. Vasily

    Well quoted, Jim Rose.
    Russia does not seek war, be assured of that.
    Russia will only seek to defend its own interests and people from aggression by Western backed Fascists whom in your Australian polity would rightly be seen on the lunatic Right. Btw, most Western commentary seems ignorant of any Ukrainian-Russian history prior to 1991. Seek to redress that before you can understand Russian feelings on Crimea etc.

  22. Habib

    Yup, Ivan doesn’t seek war, they seek to snavvel territory with little or no opposition whatsoever, as they did in ’56 and ’68 to reclaim uppity vassal states. I reckon they’re home and hosed, even NATO will run like poodles. The sausage eaters aren’t what they used to be, the Frogs are. No need for Op Sealion this time either. At least Vlad the Invader might give the Finsbury Park mosque and its demented complement its well deserved come-uppance.

  23. Vasily

    @ Habib

    No-one told you Cold War is over?
    You won! So, relax.
    Russia expansionist? Not at all, but NATO creeps up to Russian borders with troops and missiles. This is the story you are not told, but need to research. Russia is only defending its interests, Western powers are the aggressors, including in the Maidan coup which ousted a democratically elected government. I thought Cats were democrats?

  24. Russia expansionist? Not at all, but NATO creeps up to Russian borders with troops and missiles. This is the story you are not told, but need to research. Russia is only defending its interests, Western powers are the aggressors, including in the Maidan coup which ousted a democratically elected government. I thought Cats were democrats?

    How did this bullshit artist get onto the Cat?

  25. Vasily

    @ Steve

    Ad hominem remark. Not admissable even in school debating.

    Do some research. Mount an argument. Show me where I am wrong and you will be deserving of a response.

  26. Vasily

    @ Steve

    I’ll give you a hint: Google “Victoria Nuland Ukraine”.
    Then convicne me Maidan coup wasn’t US backed.
    They flew in $US to pay the demonstrators to get Ukraine in Western orbit of influence.

  27. Show me where I am wrong

    You know where you’re wrong lying, you don’t need me to point it out. No idea what your game is, but you can play with yourself.

  28. Getting Ukraine into a western orbit of influence is a bad thing? Be the first good thing to happen to Ukraine since 1917.

  29. Vasily

    @ Steve

    “You know where you’re wrong lying, you don’t need me to point it out.”

    More ad hominem. I’ll take that as an admission of defeat.

    I suggest you spend less time at the pub and more at the library.

  30. Vasily

    @ Steve

    “Getting Ukraine into a western orbit of influence is a bad thing?”

    If it involves coup against democratically elected government, well, yes!

    In fact, most Ukrainians want contact with both West and Russia. Extremists backed by EU & US are making that impossible.

  31. Habib

    Vaselinich seems to be a Soviet Lord Haw Haw, a gremlin from the Kremlin if you like. The Cold War just went into recess, it was always going to kick off again when an old school KGB boyo like Vlad the Invader slid back into the Politburo. Ukraine’s been used as a combination buffer/source of pillage by Ivan since he was terrible. Herr Shickelgruber claimed he be all done with the Rhineland handed over a while back an’all.

  32. Vasily

    You are ignorant of history, Habib.
    Ukraine is the mother of Rus’. It is integral to our history and culture.
    But if western Ukrainians want their own state, I very much doubt Russia will object or go to war over it.
    I don’t understand your Lord Haw Haw reference; he was a British fellow traveller with Nazis. The only Nazis in the picture at present are the ones in the new Ukrainian government.Once again, ignorance of history undoes you. If you knew about WWII you would understand Russian reaction to western Ukrainian/Galician Nazis being in government in Kiev. You bring the anti-Christ to our doorstep and expect us not to defend ourselves?

  33. We bring the one true path, & you dumbasses prefer to be re-Sovietised. You couldn’t make it up.
    Zek = natural state of the Russian people. They actually prefer it.

  34. Vasily

    @ Steve

    Re-Sovietised?

    You make no sense.

    The life of the average Russian today is better than in Soviet times.

    There was nostalgia for the old order during the Yeltsin years, but not under Putin.
    Of course, we have to retrieve what we can from that 70 years of history, but go back? No.

  35. The life of the average Russian today is better than in Soviet times.

    That wouldn’t be hard.
    But if we’re getting all historical, Crimea should be returned to Turkey.

  36. Dan

    John “Winter soldier” Kerry’s threats are worthless – the U.S wont do shit.
    Russia has legitimate historical claims to Crimea and most parts of the Ukraine.

    Russia negotiated and signed treaties with Ukraine in the 90s, the Russians are contravening them. By the way this ‘genius Putin’ business is a bit overstated. The current situation is not a textbook example of projecting power abroad. The Russians were doing OK establishing a sphere of influence but the rapaciousness of the former government and scale of the corruption were unsustainable.

  37. Ukraine was dumbass enough to give up nukes in return for having their soveriengty guaranteed by… Russia.
    Someone trusted a Russian to keep their word? ROFL.
    (Ukraine shoulda known better)

    Btw, Russia can give Karelia back to Finland while they’re in the mood to have historical turf back with the original owners.

  38. Vasily

    @ Steve

    And Australia to the Aborigines?
    After all, if you are to be consistent…

  39. Vasily

    @ Steve

    The Karelia you refer to is historically Russian, so let’s not pretend we were denying FInalnd of something that was incontestably theirs.

    Besides, Finland was on the side of Nazis and Russia needed a land buffer to protect Leningrad.

    In times of war, such measures are sometimes necessary.

    If you remember, you were our allies then.

  40. Besides, Finland was on the side of Nazis and Russia needed a land buffer to protect Leningrad.

    Protection from Sweden? (Russian pussies)

  41. If you remember, you were our allies then.

    Some thanks would be nice, being as Russia took guns, supplies & other stuff from us, then gave us a cold war in return.

    Let’s not forget who fought harder & more morally. Russia was on the side of the Nazis for the first two years of the war. Thanks for nothing, bozos. By the way, Russia attacked Poland (just like the Nazis did) except Russia hasn’t yet given back the turf they took. When can we expect that particular wrong to be righted?

  42. Vasily

    @ Dan

    And James Baker promised Gorbachev NATO would not expand east of the Elbe if Russia would not contest reunification of Germany. Whether 1990s treaties stand under present circumstances is a matter for the international lawyers, but let’s not pretend going back on one’s word is a Russian sin only.

  43. And Australia to the Aborigines?
    After all, if you are to be consistent…

    I’m not the one annexing Crimea. But if you want to go there, we’ll ask “the aborigines”. Clue: More than 100 years ago they abandoned their culture in favour of the superior European model. There was a reason for that.

  44. Vasily

    @ Steve

    Non-aggression pact does not equal on side of Nazis; it was strategic move.
    Stalin needed to buy time to equip Soviet forces.
    In the end, you couldn’t have won without us, and vice versa.
    Cold War was regrettable surely from both sides?

  45. Stalin needed to buy time to equip Soviet forces.

    Yeah, coz the stupid bozo had spent the past 10 years shooting all his competent generals.

    That does not explain why Russia invaded Poland (Nazi style) and to this day retains control of the territory taken.

    Cold War was regrettable surely from both sides?

    No, the cold war was pure arseholery from the Soviets.
    You were on the wrong side, the Nazis of the cold war.
    Soviets/Nazis, different sides of the same coin.

  46. Vasily

    On the contrary, the Cold War was initiated by the US after Churchill’s famous Missouri speech.
    US had already decided to maintain military presence in Europe indefinitely and therefater took an aggressive stance. Russia acted in self defence. You are too naive in believing your high school history textbooks, Steve.

  47. Vasily

    70 000 US troops still in Germany, UK & Italy, Steve, 70 years after WWII.

  48. 70 000 US troops still in Germany, UK & Italy, Steve, 70 years after WWII.

    Not enough.
    The US stands for democracy. Only an arsehole nation would object to the presence of US troops in another country.

  49. On the contrary, the Cold War was initiated by the US after

    Gee.. which country is it that had to be shamed into giving up a share of Berlin, yet wanted to occupy Thuringia?
    Which country would not quit the occupation of Austria until they received a written guarantee that the democratic wishes of the Austrian people would not be consulted on matters of defence?

  50. Vasily

    You have drunk the Kool-Aid, Steve.
    Pleasant dreams.

  51. You have drunk the Kool-Aid, Steve.
    Pleasant dreams.

    Translation: Vasily, apologist for a Nazi-like empire, and on the wrong side of history, has been defeated.

    I’ll take that, rightly, as a victory!

    ´*•.¸´*•.¸(*•.¸♥¸.•*´)¸.•*´¸.•*´
    ♥«´¨`•°Steve kicked Vasily’s Ass•´¨`»♥
    ¸.•*¸.•*(¸.•*´♥`*•.¸)`*•.¸`*•.¸

  52. Tel

    Besides, Finland was on the side of Nazis and Russia needed a land buffer to protect Leningrad.

    Errr, remember the Winter War? Finland was subject to completely unjustified Soviet aggression, and never sided with the Nazis, the Fins merely wanted back what was taken from them.

    The Fins allowed the Nazis access to territory for purpose of fighting Russians, and why not? What possible reason would the Fins have for protecting Russians?

  53. Combine_Dave

    How did this bullshit artist get onto the Cat?

    Totalitarians are always attracted to opposing views; if only to stamp them out.

  54. Besides, Finland was on the side of Nazis

    On the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis, due to Russia having attacked Finland.

    Thanks for nothing there, Russian fuckwits.

  55. Thanks for nothing there, Russian fuckwits.

    I shouldn’t have called Russian’s that name. I withdraw unreservedly.
    Words have meanings. The actions of Russia during WWII at no time were of a standard to ever deserve use of the word “wit”.

    I change that to: Thanks for nothing, for attacking Finland, Russian boneheads.

Comments are closed.