Problems for critics in Putinland 2018

Putin critic Alexei Navalny thinks there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll be killed

CBS News August 5, 2017

Russia’s main opposition figure thinks there’s a 50 percent chance he will end up dead for speaking out against President Vladimir Putin, a fate that has befallen many of the Kremlin’s enemies in recent years.

Alexei Navalny, 41, is Russia’s most outspoken critic of the Putin regime, and is campaigning to challenge Putin in Russia’s presidential election in 2018, even though he is officially barred from the ballot.

Correspondent Ryan Chilcote spent a week with Navalny for the second episode of “CBSN: On Assignment,” ahead of mass protests in June against government corruption. Thousands of young people took to the streets in cities across Russia, with protesters marching through Moscow carrying signs that read “Navalny 2018” and chanting “Putin is a crook.” More than 1,000 people were arrested, including Navalny, who spent 25 days in jail.

  • “Enemy of the State” airs in full on “CBSN: On Assignment” on Monday, Aug. 7, 2017, at 10 p.m. ET/PT on the CBS Television Network and on CBSN, the network’s 24/7 streaming news service.

Tonight at 10 is the story on CBS.

What’s in a meeting?

…Billed as the most significant meeting in recent times?

A lot of built up anticipations. It’s what the Left and media do. The fallout.

A simple metaphor could be appropriate to set the stage for the Russian talk: Obama cocked the gun and team Trump is now trying to disarm the weapon, particularly on Syria. Another way you could look at it is: there is a three-alarm fire and the Trump administration is the fire department.responding. No matter what it takes to get it under control and put it out, there is major damage that cannot be avoided. Coming to terms with that view is necessary.

Two items lead: 1) mentioning the Russian meddling, 2) talk on cease fire in Syria.

So Syria is on the table as a major issue. Let’s remember how Russia got there, by way of Obama and an invitation. But now that Russia is there, let’s all talk about what to do and how to fix it. (some hubris) Even Ukraine, per any mention, is much the same.

Naturally, Putin and Russia would rather deal with — realistically or not — a marginal issue like Syria. There is suddenly talk of Assad leaving, at some point, and more future discussion. Of course, Putin seems willing to discuss that. (no surprise) Now that they are in there, they will have a controlling interest in it and the region — by propping up a vulnerable dictator. See the way it works?

The question now is do we play along by accepting those premises? Again, because it is centrally important, they are there by intervention and will benefit through their current involvement, in the aftermath decisions. It’s like having the arsonist stick around to help deal with the damage from the fire. You welcome his help. What he is doing there in the first place is dismissed as unimportant. That’s the strategy.

I am a bit of an ideologue on Russia. They aren’t really ideologues but opportunists.

Russia for its part wants meeting talks to be about distant side issues — important as they might seem — rather than dealing with the central concerns on Russia. Media assists on that. As long as Putin keeps the conversation about those marginal things he’s ahead. He can debate details or denials on those matters without touching his family jewels. So they have a bargaining chip they stole along the way. Assad, Syrian crisis, ISIS, refugees?

Yet here we are; what the left wants to talk about is elections. Our crown jewels seem to be on the table, or that is the appearance. Then media wants to control the interpretation of any results. Breaking through arbitrary barriers is a central key.

BTW: I forgot to add that the 3-alarm fire was called in and confirmed on 1/20/17.

RightRing | Bullright

A primer thought on Russia talk

No there is no plural to ‘talk,’ yet. Anyway, we come from different points. First off, one has to know Russia is listening to every public dialogue or conversation we may have. An open society does have its downsides.

Who cares what I think? I already read liberal egotists’ papers on how Trump should ‘proceed’. Arrogant, aren’t they, for people who got nothing done in the last eight years? Or have any thing of value to show for it.

Principles are different. We are generally concerned about benefits. Russia obsesses over opportunities. Those can be far apart. We see benefit, Russia sees opportunity. Having a namesake the “Art of the Deal” doesn’t quite translate the same way to this subject. In it, Trump emphasizes a benefit to each side as grounds for a deal. Russia fixates on opportunity in any given scenario — even chaos. Best to know that going in.

We, typically, want to benefit or appease both parties. That was the way it has been seen in the recent past. Face it, Russia rolled Obama. That has to change. It’s like “carrots and sticks” vs, shovels. Then libs’ election debacle, that matters to Russia?

Secondarily, economics is not a driving force to Russia’s policy. It is not an economic debate to them. Putin is not obsessed with, and has little use for economic principles. He’s always been rather bored with them. It was not Obama’s wheelhouse either. So there should be no illusions that this can be based on economics. Russia would have to see the appeal or opportunity for them, which escapes him now.

The liberals have been offering all these suggestions to the administration on what it should do. Helpful sadists. More dysfunctional crap. But agreeing on any basic groundwork for discussions? That’s the big question. Is it even possible? My doubts remain.

There is a small tactic to consider. Twice in the past months, both Lavrov and Putin have used humor. One was a smack down of Andrea Mitchel about manners. Funny. Turn that ‘no manners’ claim and joke back on Russia. It could be a humiliating tactic. Very useful. But a tactic cannot be a strategy.

RightRing | Bullright

Don’t give me an M-e-g-y-n

The wandering little Megyn Kelly got her debut “exclusive” interview with Putin and she coined a new standard: Premiere Failure.

The Horn News

Six months and $20 million later, Kelly debuted her much anticipated news magazine show Saturday Night with Megyn Kelly on June 4th — and critics were not impressed.

“Megyn Kelly off to rough start with NBC show’s premiere,” wrote Newsday, who called Kelly “overwhelmed” by Russian President Vladimir Putin during their one-on-one interview. Their final assessment? “Bottom line: Rough launch for Megyn Kelly, but score one for Vladimir Putin.”

First of all, she is notorious for not living up to her hype. (and by now she is the only one still hyping herself) So the Megyn ‘parade of one’ struck out on getting anything of value from a Putin interview. Or maybe it was really her debut in comedy?

The crazy part is that libs were mad at her for other reasons too. And you know how libs get when they are mad at someone. They are offended that she and NBC gave Putin a platform. “Why?” is all they keep saying. Then not to learn a thing by the exercise. She managed to tick off liberals and those on the right, in the know.

She’s in that sweet spot where everyone is hating her — and she did it without putting makeup on a mocked severed head acting like a jihadi. She really blew it. Can she recover? Well, who cares anyway?

The Premiere Failure of Megyn Kelly, does have sort of a ring to it. Scratch world leaders and dignitaries off her list. Should Kathy Griffin be her next interview? It might register more than a yawn. Besides Griffin, Megyn is the undisputed Queen of Fail for the week.
(they both need therapy — both are extreme publicity hounds)

Maxine Waters Stirring Her Impeachment Latte

Some things just defy words.

And then there is Maxine Waters, which is why we have video today.

“Eventually, we’ve got to do something about him [Trump].”

She failed to say if that was North or South Korea. I’m sure it was an oversight.

But just keep leading the way, Maxine, for the DCC and DNC to follow.

Problem is CA, LA, America needs to do something about Maxine… before it’s too late.

Telling Teen Vogue magazine on the subject of impeachment, she said:

“I think we should go for it.”

Russia today

An investigation in the UK peering into the death of former agent has raised eyebrows. Apparently the US Treasury department has weighed in generically calling Putin corrupt, which is leading to denials.

Read at

White House attempts to undermine Putin’s grip on power by L. Todd Wood, Wa Times

Remembering the old debate statement to Romney: “The 80’s called and they want their foreign policy back.” (and he so rehearsed that line) That should be a conversation starter in the White House about now.

2016: The most dangerous year since ‘62 Cuban Missile Crisis – L. Todd Wood, Wa Times

New Russia meets old Russia respectfully

It seems there is a whole culture involved in explaining prison-work camps in the former Soviet Union. Reading this, one can almost follow their rationalization for them.

The Guardian: October, 29, 2015
Russia’s Gulag camps cast in forgiving light of Putin nationalism
“Many Russians regard the horrors of the forced labour camps as a necessary evil during a difficult period of Soviet history.”

Larisa says she teaches her students one lesson about the Gulag, in which she typically divides the blackboard into two parts. On one side she puts the “military and industrial achievements” of the Stalin period, and on the other, the “unfortunate side-effects”, and lets the students decide for themselves whether the repression was justified.

Galina Ivanova, deputy director of a new Gulag museum that will opens in Moscow on Friday, says how the Gulag is remembered in different cities is largely down to individual museum directors. “You can either put up a big portrait of Stalin and note goldmining achievements, or you can put up death rates and haggard faces. Unfortunately, more often it’s the former.”

Read at:

Russia sees US as security threat

Putin and Russia have listed the US among security threats in a new document that updates its security concerns.

AOL news

A new appraisal names the United States as one of the threats to Russia’s national security for the first time, a sign of how relations with the west have deteriorated in recent years.

The document, “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation”, was signed by President Vladimir Putin on New Year’s Eve. It replaces a 2009 version, endorsed by then- President Dmitry Medvedev, the current prime minister, which mentioned neither the United States [nor] NATO.


I see no mention of the US in connection with the bombing of the Russian plane in 2015. This leads me to wonder if Russia does not have 2 separate reports, one for public consumption and another for government use? It’s hard to believe Russia could be operating from the same document. Meet the new Russia, same as the old Russia.

Well, seeing the Obama administration call Global Warming our biggest security threat is bound to put all kinds of ideas into Putin’s head.

No mention of what Putin’s New Years’ resolution is.

Person of the year

It’s about that time of year when media and their minions pick Time’s Person of the Year. I haven’t read or seen suggestions or names yet, though I’ll take a shot at who they pick. My best guess would be Pope Francis for his contribution to Climate Change and the leftists’ social agenda. Leave it to them to play the Pope card.

But they could very well go with the burn of Bernie Sanders. Then they could say “feel the Bern”. Putin could be in the running but that wouldn’t make Obama look too good.

However, it probably should be Donald Trump for his influence but I don’t expect it for the same obvious reasons. They cannot play the Trump card. Hillary’s server should get honorable mention because she says they are not investigating her but her server. So it is as good as a person.

I don’t know what ideas anyone else has but they’d be as good as my guess. The correct person always gets bragging rights.

Update: wow surprise, Bernie is running ahead of Francis in their poll by 6.5 points.

State of the State

I am mentioning some random observations, not that they are connected with one another.

Here we are on the verge of Hillary possibly getting into the White House, with Bubba Clinton. People are projecting her into popular office. No choice but Hillary. “Hard Choices”.

Russia revised its constitution in a way for Putin to get back into office. He’s more popular than ever in the country. They seem to love the guy.

Elists are unpopular in government or elsewhere. The American people are fed up with elitists rule in government and Washington in particular. The disgruntled seem to be across the political spectrum. Trump exposes behind the scenes media manipulation regarding the debates. Who knew? People are turned off by the bias of media in general. Media doubles down on bias.

The world is on fire with radicalism and Obama takes a sigh approach. Obama administration accuses Israel of using excessive force. State Department says that Palestine and Israel are committing terrorism.

David Cameron comes out to make speeches pointing directly to Islamic terrorism. Obama can’t be forced to use the words and says ISIS is not Islamic. Obama calls Islam a religion of peace. Obama wants to put more Muslims in space and other places. But Obama tells us the Crusades are an issue.

Jerusalem is under attack and knife wielding terrorists are spreading throughout Israael. When Israel takes defensive actions it is roundly condemned or criticized. Media cannot be any more biased against Israel.

Sure its a proxy war in Syria, but the media is finally admitting it? Old news, no? Russia has gone through its proper government channels to approve its actions. Obama is flying by the seat of his pants, much the way he did things in Libya. (that worked out well) Obama claims Russia, Putin are operating out of weakness. Hmmm.

Obama says global warming is the greatest security threat. Pay no mind to all other impostors. State of the State — maddening; requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Obama, the judge of weakness

Obama’s standard response to our foes’ aggressive attacks on its neighbors, or throwing their weight around, is….. wait, ready for it….they are operating “out of weakness.”

Now that Russia has sent it’s military and air force into Syria to help Assad, Obama and the administration claim Russia acted out of weakness.

“Mr Putin had to go into Syria not out of strength but out of weakness, because his client, Mr Assad, was crumbling and it was insufficient for him simply to send them arms and money. Now he’s got to put in his own planes and pilots. Iran and Assad make up Putin’s coalition at the moment. The rest of the world makes up ours. So, these are hard challenges, they are ones we are going to continue to pursue.” He predicts Russia will get into a quagmire.

The line gets as old and tired as any of Obama’s tactics do. But its the standard line whenever he is challenged that the opponent is operating out of weakness. There could be an incoming nuclear warhead and he’d declare the source is weakness. Hopefully we won’t have that proved. At least now every enemy and ally of ours knows what the verbal response will be.

Putin invaded Crimea, Obama said he was acting out of weakness. Russia bullies its neighbors and Obama defines it as weakness. Once in a while, Obama could try a new script. Change it up a bit at least.

And when Romney suggested Russia is still a threat and a foe, Obama said the 80’s called and wants their foreign policy back. But Obama’s foreign policy, if you can call it one, is making such great strides isn’t it? Right after Putin annexed Crimea he set his sights on Ukraine. Evidently feeling weaker than ever, he injected Russia there.

Sure desperate people do terrible things. But opportunists are willing and ready to seize an advantage at the proper moment, for maximum gain. That someone gives and creates those opportunities for them is an egregious error.

In March 2014, Kerry ran out to deliver the talking point on ABC’s Face the Nation:

“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country…. That’s not the act of somebody who’s strong.“ Kerry said Putin was acting out of “weakness” and “desperation.”

Obama claimed Putin and Russia was “acting out of weakness, not out of strength,” regarding their annexing of Crimea. Countries usually invade other countries when they feel weak. So the script, regardless what Putin does, is to say he’s operating out of weakness. Obama can’t change their narrative.

Now Obama is flexing his mouthpiece, again. Josh Earnest lectured:
“Russia is not flexing its muscles when it comes to Syria, but it’s propping up an investment about to go south.”

Obama said on Putin’s intervention in Syria:

“I want Russia to be successful. This is not a contest between the United States and Russia. It is in our interests for Russia to be a responsible actor on the world stage that can share burdens with us … because the problems we have are big.”

Just once, I wish Obama wanted us to be successful. But that could make us appear exceptional, and we can’t have that.

Putin putin’ on the blitz

Revealed: The satellite photos that prove Putin is still arming Assad to shore up his embattled regime in defiance of the West

  • Vladimir Putin has deployed at least 16 fast attack jets to a base in Syria
  • He has also sent in six T-90 Main Battle Tanks and helicopter gunships
  • Satellite photographs suggest Putin is planning ground attacks in Syria
  • Putin is set to address the United Nations General Assembly on Monday

By Darren Boyle for MailOnline

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent a number of fast attack jets, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces to Syria to prop up struggling dictator Basher al-Assad.

New satellite figures have shown a number of Su-24 and Su30Sm fighters, Mi-24 helicopters and T-90 main battle tanks at Bassel al-Assad International Airport in the government-controlled coastal city of Latakia.

In addition to the advanced military hardware, satellite imagery has shown the construction of new buildings around the possibly to support the deployment of Russian forces on the ground. […/]

Read more:

I wonder how much affect this has had on the refugee crisis flowing from there? I suppose there is a chance that they could push ISIS mostly into Iraq. That prompts other probing questions. And Global Warming is the biggest threat of our time? Speaking of major world events, isn’t it about time Obama goes on another vacation?

And then there’s a deal being promoted by Cameron:


David Cameron arrives at the United Nations on Sunday hoping to work with other countries on a deal to end Syria’s bitter civil war, a deal that could allow its president, Bashar al-Assad, to stay in power for an interim period.

Putin and Obama

I thought a weird comparison might be Obama and Putin. There were several articles about Putin last year. The interest only grows with all that has happened in the last 6 months. The curiosity cannot be contained. (sound vaguely familiar)

One was a write up of his family life, and another linking to an illustrated mini-bio.

Even his daughters assumed different names in school. Secretive as Putin can be.

The veil of secrecy that surrounds the Putins is rigorously enforced by the Kremlin. Journalists who violate the taboo of reporting on the private life of Russia’s first family are dealt with swiftly and summarily. In 2008, when the liberal newspaper Moskovsky Korrespondent reported that Putin was planning to marry a rhythmic gymnast named Alina Kabayeva, the editor was forced to resign within hours.

He has little edge over Obama’s secrecy of records and ties. Media seems to cut both of them wide berth in that area.

Yeltsin at resignation, with Putin and Alexander Voloshin Wikimedia – creative commons via []

After reading the mini-bio, it reminded me of the similarities. For background, see Business Insider Putin story link here.

Both seemed to come out of relative obscurity to seize the political scene. Both seemed to have popularity. But wait, Putin was not always so popular, though he found his ways.

Obama rode the celebrity spotlight from the beginning. He made a convention keynote speech in 2004 that was the opening salvo for his national run.Then it was a matter of not being able to deny him election, rather than winning on his personal record.

Putin did much the same once Yeltsin was retiring. Both have become controversial figures since landing in office. Obama was always shrouded in controversy. Both demonstrate how someone can come from an obscure background and gain popular national attention. That’s an example how it could work with the anti-Christ. Obama shows the possibilities — that popularity opens many doors. Maybe he will take a lesson from these two.

2004 convention speech. Wikimedia.

Then once in office, they stretch the executive powers to the hilt. Neither wants to let go of it.

Not far into his first term people were talking about repealing term limits. We saw what Putin did. Media is to Obama what the Russian state media is to Putin, putty in his hands.

Neither is very astute in economics. (though Putin probably has more basic sense)

Some might say Obama has never plumbed the depths of secrecy that Putin has. But Obama has developed a good front, creating an illusion of transparency. It’s more like a mockery of the concept. Media still plays gleefully along.

When do you ever hear media mention the secrecy of his records? Media’s narrative suggests everything is out and known about Obama, and attacks those who asks questions. Clever. Yet when he mentions starting out with the benefits of scholarships, those very scholarships he boasts of are mired in secrecy.

Many times he’s said to leave his family out of politics, even though he flaunts them about in photo-ops. Obama is ticked at any criticism, by media or otherwise. Putin may handle it more directly, but how poignant is it to shut out aggressive reporters or critics who inquire? They may use slightly different methods.

How many times has the White House leaned on media for criticism? We don’t even know the full extent. But we hear. Then media’s narrative so often follows the White House narrative, whether it was on the campaign trail or on policy and actions. Critics within the administration suffer a backlash.

He has the Pentagon locked down and micromanaged out of the White House. Hagel proved that. Benghazi showed the extent they will go to to push a narrative. IRS shows the limits they’ll go politically and in denial. Executive orders show his arrogance and contempt for the Constitutional process. Obamacare showed his ability to lie to achieve his political objectives. Their success is largely owed to a complacent media eager to do their bidding. A debate moderator can turn into an advocate in the blink of an eye.

So then it is interesting to see media report on and criticize the secrecy of Putin. It only reveals their willing blindness toward Obama. We shouldn’t notice the inconsistencies.

Both are narcissistic. Protecting themselves is a priority for both. At this point, some people might say but there are differences too. There are. And the differences tell us something about character too.

Putin believes in Russia whatever else he believes in. Obama believes in himself first but puts ideology ahead of everything. Both believe in preconceived outcomes. Though Putin puts his country high on the list, to preserve it. Obama is about changing his and unchaining it from its history. Putin would like to rebuild their history, Obama wants to rewrite ours. Obama wants history to preserve his legacy, not the other way around. He wants history to be kind to him while torturing us with history.

Obama wants to fundamentally transform our country, and Putin wants to rebuild his. Putin wants to use resources and assets, where Obama prefers to play politics, holding ours hostage to his ideology.Putin will use the military to serve the state, where Obama will use it to serve his own ideology. Putin believes in the power of Russsia, Obama believes in making us less powerful. Obama believes in diplomacy, and Putin believes in demonstrating his position. Obama believes in appeasement and Putin believes in winning.

So now there is an outreach toward Russia, on the heels of economic problems they are having.

Putin is known as a nationalist, Obama is an ideologue. Even worse, Obama is a radical. Which means part of his nature is predictable, as long as you understand him as a radical. Putin’s prowess can be predictable if you understand him as the nationalist.

Their similarities are awkward, and their differences are troubling. The west projects that Putin has painted himself in a corner, but there are no corners in Putin’s world.

RightRing | Bullright

Nuttier than squirrel food

Having a look around tells you there is lots to leave you scratching your head, even giving you a chuckle.

The big production on Keystone that was Landrieu’s Hail Mary went bust. She was shutdown by her own offense. The defense on the other side couldn’t save her from her own linemen.

A befuddled Obama overseas said ‘I am just now hearing about this” to the montage of Johnathon Gruber quotes. Makes you think Gruber must have been the life of the party at those secret Obamcare meetings. I bet he was a hoot.

Harry Reid allowed the Keystone vote while his henchmen organized the vote to prevent its passage. However, Harry still manages to pass gas with no trouble.

In Australia, someone actually had the chutzpah to tell Putin to get out of Ukraine, to which he responded ‘Russia is not in Ukraine.’ Seems he is as good at whoppers as Obama is.

A little-known ‘fanged deer’ was found in Afghanistan, thought to have been extinct. Seems it did not cave to the common perceptions.

Obama announced a need for peace talks following Palestinians’ terrorist attack in a synagogue. I’m quite sure lack of peace talks was the cause.

In a presentation, Gruber said “It’s an exploitation of the of the lack of economic understanding of voters.” That translates to ‘an exploitation of the ignorance of voters,’ which boils down to ‘exploitation of voters’. Someone finally admitted it.

The odd part in Grubergate’s truth was that so much of the public had pointed out many of the fallacies and obfuscations with Obamacare only to be dismissed by media as wackos, or conspiracy theorists. Somehow that all sounds more credible from the architect of Obamacare. So it was the economically versed people they tried hardest to conceal the truth from. He also proved the stupidity of government for paying him that much money to help them lie.

We saw the administration finally recognize a 21 day quarantine for Ebola risks. But amnesty for illegals that have been here over ten years just can’t wait a minute longer. I guess the amnesty virus needs no incubation period.

In the midterms, Dems had a communication gap with working class Americans that resulted in a mass firing of Democrat pols. From the unemployment line, they still claim to represent the working class.

Lois Lerner is glad Gruber came along.

The VA is taking immediate actions on the scandal. “We’re acting aggressively, expeditiously and consistent with the law,” McDonald said. The VA secretary says it will take some time. I guess government employees have more rights to stand on than those Vets.

IBT: Disciplinary action was taken against 5,600 VA employees this year, he said, including some who are still with the federal agency. “We’re acting aggressively, expeditiously and consistent with the law,” McDonald said.

A NYT article on Ferguson found a new way to describe the violent protest efforts as “less passive” than older generations’.

Barack Obama officially declares himself an Emperor by issuing an Executive Order of amnesty. He said he could not do it before because he was not an emperor

Obama surprised everyone with his gift of telepathy, reading the minds of non-voters and telling leaders of Ferguson protests that he knew what it was they were advocating. Then he said the majority of Palestinians want peace. His mind reading hasn’t been so helpful on the Islamic State, who he says are not Islamic.

Judging by how nutty fall has been, it is going to be a heck of a winter.

RightRing | Bullright

Putin’s official Ukraine status

Leaked transcripts reveal Putin’s secret Ukraine attack

By Bill Sanderson | September 21, 2014 | NY Post

Giving lie to Vladimir Putin’s claims that Russia isn’t fighting in Ukraine, up to 80 Russian troops were killed in a skirmish there last month, according to information released by an opposition politician.

Members of an elite Russian paratroop force talked about the brutal battle near Luhansk, a city in eastern Ukraine, in telephone transcripts leaked to politician and newspaper publisher Lev Shlosberg.

“We’re f——g walking along looking for these f—–g Ukrainians,” one paratrooper says in an account reported by the Sunday Times of London.

“We get out into the open and are seen, kapow!” the paratrooper says.

“We dashed out onto the road, there was a field, sunflowers, and a checkpoint,” he continues. “They started to bomb it — bam bam bam — and they destroyed it.”

“Eighty guys were killed,” said the paratrooper, who was wounded in the attack. He added: “I was told only 10 made it out.”

He related the story to a fellow soldier in a phone call from a hospital where he was being treated.

More at NY Post:

From secret missions to secret funerals

Never a dull moment for Russia or Putin over Ukraine. Now they are tasked with covering up and hiding deaths or wounding of some four hundred Russian soldiers, on a mission that didn’t exist. Then Putin gives an award and praise to valiant heroic soldiers of a nation at peace.

Stupid policy tricks

More on Obama’s Libya adventure and Mid-East roadshow

Since Obama’s Libya adventure, and with the Mid-East on fire in what’s left of the Arab Spring, he has taken mostly to denying the very real results of his foreign policy foreplay. He avoids confronting the turmoil that he and his cohorts welcomed over a year ago. Results have not been fruitful, from Riyadh to Moscow, from Tripoli to Shanghai.

Post Obama’s little Libya intervention, which was supposed to be the model, we now have ISIS and the Islamic Caliphate State running wild from Damascus to Baghdad. Not to ignore all the other terrorist groups, it’s reported that there are 1200 terror groups just in Libya. Let’s forget South Africa for the moment. It was not an easy drive here.

Of course, there was Benghazi. But we‘ve moved on and terrorists have too. Then there was Obama’s version of a shell game with the vanishing red line in Syria — or was that a laser pointer in a Power Point presentation? Russia to the rescue, more on that later.

Then along comes the terrorists just when he was on a roll. Obama was forced to acknowledge ISIS, calling it JayVee in January after ignoring them for months.

‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

Yes, and he did think it was accurate. He thought talking smack would cut it as he dismissed them as a threat. That provides a good illustration. So just because Obama was elected doesn’t make him a good president. Just because he has AF-1 doesn’t mean he will make superior decisions. And just because he gets elected doesn’t mean he is qualified. Obama is proving it everyday. But Obama thought talking smack and dissing an enemy out of hand would suffice because that is the way he always treated his opponents or potential opponents: like they were nothing, not up to it, or beneath him. That’s his M/O.

Now the irony and embarrassment of being forced to respond to those JayVee hoodlums with F-18’s and 500-pounders from the deck of USS George H.W. Bush carrier. Oops!

Along the way, we heard what I call the doctrine of ‘walk softly and carry a big script’ had morphed into Obama’s official doctrine: “don’t do stupid shit”— “stuff” in the public version. But looking back, what has Obama done that wasn’t stupid, whether abroad or here at home?

He insulted Israel how many times? His red line was a nightly punch line. His “more flexible” approach to Russia was the foundation for all sorts of actions from Putin, and our concessions. Obama’s arms-running across the Middle East may have backfired throughout. His comments toward Israel in the middle of a war were a combination of insensitive and stupid. His meddling in Israel’s self defense all the while neglecting our own security, especially at the border. And his Executive “Dream” pen started the nightmare on the border. Yet he was counseling Israel on their aggressive approach under attack. How many degrees of stupid are there? And he shut down air travel to Tel Aviv.

He reduced sanctions on Iran as the centrifuges spun away. He watched Crimea be gobbled up by Russia, while making backhanded remarks that must have given Putin chuckles. He sent out Kerry to make stupid remarks. What good is doing stupid stuff if you don’t talk up a good game? And if all else fails, he still has his denial doctrine.

Then there was the traveling Snowden sideshow and eaves dropping on Angela Merkel. There are stupid actions and consequences for inaction, too. Obama prefers a mixture.

RightRing | Bullright

Looks like a duck…

Putin: “This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine,” Putin said, according to a Kremlin statement issued early Friday. “And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.”

Obama: “’Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border. And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority.’

“It looks like.…….it may be.…….a terrible “tragedy”” ?

At least he didn’t say “see Valerie Jarrett for our statement.

RightRing | Bullright

Putin in charge !/?

In weeks there has been a round of talk that Putin has stepped into the driver’s seat in the Middle East. It must have touched a nerve because the old guard establishment Republicans, joined at the hip by the Left, are taking issue with that assertion. In one article pointing out all the ways Russia is not, nor has been, in the driver’s seat, they have countered that assertion with a deluge of why it is not so.

Only problem is, how do their examples hold up and what does the current situation portend for the future? I grant that no one knows for sure who’s up and who’s down, or who’s in and who’s out given the fluid circumstances in the Middle East at present. That is the point. Old paradigms are interesting, but how predictable are they for the future?

Here’s a good summary from National Interest of their argument, starting with a tiny admission, why Putin is not ‘large and in charge’. Try to follow their shuck and jive.

“It may well be that the United States’ influence is declining in the region, though it’s more likely that it is changing rather than disappearing completely. Where the United States might be losing influence, the Russians are not replacing it: no state that doesn’t already lean on the Russians is turning to Moscow for help. Nobody else in the region is asking for Russian money, arms, or diplomatic support.

Just makes me want to break into song: “lean on me…” Might I offer that a caveat of reason? They know that Russian help and influence comes with strings. But for someone who invaded Afghanistan only decades ago, Russia rebounded some influence in the region. It runs interference for Iran fairly well, and defense for Syria. It wisely stood back on Egypt — who says loss is not gain?

This isn’t to say that the Soviet Union or Russia has never mattered. Its threat against Britain, France, and Israel in 1956 prompted Dwight Eisenhower to force the three to withdraw from Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. Its presence at international conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict has sometimes (though not always) been seen as contributing international legitimacy to the effort. Moscow’s decision to let the U.S. attack Iraq in 1991 avoided what could have been a drawn-out struggle that would have left Iraq in Kuwait for much longer. And, of course, Moscow’s veto at the Security Council has prevented any substantive UN action on the Syrian civil war.”

Oh yes, the ever lovin’ power of the minority — everywhere except here in the US.

That’s right, if you thought that seems to argue against itself you’d be correct. (IMO) So what does that mean? They have a veto and expressively use it. It’s a little like the minority was to George Bush, a perpetual critic. (not to say he was always right) And they did have some affect on him.

But it is increasingly clear what is really gaining power in the Mid East vacuum, other than Putin, are the radical jihadists. Of course, in the end, that wouldn’t matter so much to Vlad, especially if it agitates the west. He’s content with the option to sell Syria or anyone else what they want. Putin is much the opportunist the way the Islamists are. The so-called dominant influence in the region is becoming more of an evolving footnote.


The art of a raunchy deal

US and Russia agree Syria chemical weapons deal in Geneva

[BBC]Syria’s chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, under an agreement between the US and Russia.

US Secretary of State John Kerry outlined a framework document under which Syria must hand over a full list of its stockpile within a week.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution backed by the threat of sanctions or military force.

Wait, so we went from Kerry saying turn over the weapons within a week to turn over a comprehensive, self-made list of chemical weapons within a week.
Then Kerry appears to stand on good old terra firma with this:

“There can be no room for games. Or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime,” Kerry said.

No games, none… I won’t have it. Nope! And just to really nail down this deal, “Inspectors must be on the ground in Syria no later than November.” No room for games there.

Mr Kerry outlined six points to the agreement:

1. The amount and type of chemical weapons must be agreed and “rapidly” placed under international control
2. Syria must submit within one week a comprehensive listing of its stockpiles
3. Extraordinary procedures under the Chemical Weapons Convention will allow “expeditious destruction”
4. Syria must give inspectors “immediate, unfettered access” to all sites
5. All chemical weapons must be destroyed, including the possibility of removing weapons from Syrian territory
6. UN will provide logistical support, and compliance would be enforced under Chapter VII

The White House described the deal as “an important concrete step” towards putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control.

Games? The whole thing has been a charade. “Inspectors must be on the ground by November.” One red line says to another red line, “let’s make another red line.”

And the Obama WH calls it “an important concrete step” . Sounds more like quicksand.

Sergei Lavrov says, “The military scenario would be catastrophic for this region
Really, as opposed to…?

More at:

Putin and Obama: role play

I feel like I awoke from a nap in an alternative universe, where everything is backwards or reversed from the norm. I’ve already seen the ‘right is wrong – wrong is right’ kind of thing before, so that doesn’t shock me but everything else does.

Here is Obama the non-interventionist, anti-war candidate now being lectured by Putin on his third intervention. MaObama is now being upstaged by the pacifist Putin. Could it be more surreal than that?


“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?”

Putin op-ed:

“If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”


“America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional.”


“And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.
Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Here we are with Obama trying to apply, and define, American exceptionalism — after campaigning against it — to make his case. And Putin is lecturing the anti-American exceptionalism candidate about equality and the declaration of independence.

Neither is being true to themselves. But it does make for a great exhibition. Maybe Obama can instruct Putin on how to put the Soviet Union back together? That is sort of the equivalent. Only Putin’s message can find resonance with Obama’s supporters, who he is aiming it at.

It’s almost as laughable as Abbott and Costello’s performance of “who’s on first?”. It couldn’t be more absurdly surreal. They could almost take this act on the road.