There are two talking points being generated by Obama Inc. in response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
1. Invading other countries is a sign of “weakness”.
2. Putin is acting like it’s the 19th century, when it’s really the 21st.
To the former, Scott Johnson at Powerline asks,
“You have to wonder just how weak Russia is, in Obama’s calculation. Is it so weak that it will invade the rest of Ukraine? Moldova? Estonia? Latvia? Maybe! Obama didn’t have time to flesh out his thoughts into full doctrinal form. Is getting taken over by Russia a sign of strength?”
To the latter, the 21st century is defined by how countries actually act, not by how Obama and the leftectuals around him think they should act.
Mr. Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin has been “willing to show a deeply held grievance about what he considers to be the loss of the Soviet Union.”…
…But there’s a difference between that and sending in troops, and because you’re bigger and stronger taking a piece of the country – that is not how international law and international norms are observed in the 21st century.“
But clearly they are. And in a post-American world who is going to say otherwise? Obama is eliminating Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles while putting more money into food stamps and Global Warming musicals. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution that didn’t even mention Russia. International norms are simply what any country can get away with.
Obama has already said that he won’t fight over Ukraine. So why shouldn’t Putin take it all?