The Hawk and the Lame Duck

What Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama Have In Common

International troublemaker Vladimir Putin is acting more brazenly the closer the warm season gets. Since he’s already making a mockery of the Minsk agreement, which he had voluntarily signed personally in the presence of the leaders of the two leading countries of Europe, he’s not afraid of becoming someone who cannot be negotiated with. With a defiant look, on camera, he has told the story of how he prepared the annexation of Crimea — it seems he’s not the least afraid to admit to committing serious war crimes.

Not for the first time this past year, politicians announced that the world is on the brink of a major war. It seems no one has any doubts that a new military catastrophe will involve more than just Ukraine and Europe. For the advanced 21st century, the situation seems completely barbaric and surreal: The fate of the planet depends on the whims of a single person, who happens to be the head of a nuclear state.

The truth, however, is even less attractive: The world is hostage to more than just a single Kremlin thug, in almost the same way the world depended on the head of another state, which, until recently, was considered a world leader. We’re talking about, as you can guess, the U.S. and President Obama.

The New Hitler’s Midwives

The emergence of a bloody ruler like Putin in Europe is not a coincidence. The European and American establishment had a hand in his “birth.” It could be said they brought him up, raised him, instilled certain habits in him, allowed him to arm himself, and gave him carte blanche for banditry.

One of the most traditional errors of European foreign policy is paying more attention to the interests of great powers, rather than the so-called minor nations. Noted Czech culturologist Martin Putna recently spoke about this in an interview for Radio Svoboda. He believes parallels can easily be drawn between current events in Ukraine and the aggression of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union against Czechoslovakia. “Now it’s happening for the third time; Russia is once again occupying part of Ukraine, and it seems Europe, unfortunately, is saying that this is the Russian sphere of influence, and so Russia has the right. It’s a terrible mistake, a terrible shame,” laments the professor.

Meanwhile, the fact that the leading countries of Europe looked on indifferently while the former KGB agent turned into a ferocious violator of Russian citizens’ rights — and then, a bloody revanchist — seems only natural. The main explanation for this doesn’t lie in anyone’s business interests or the skills of Putin’s propagandists. Those are far from the most important factors. At the root of Europe’s flawed position, which contradicts its much-touted values, is the fact that many countries on the continent have yet to repent of their roles in aiding Hitler. Even the widely-advertised repentance of the German people is most likely neither deep nor sincere. If this wasn’t the case, no European country would allow a new demonic Führer to so blatantly trample on international law and threaten to whack anyone who stands against his expansionist plans with a nuclear stick.

But the Europeans at least have a semblance of a good reason for not understanding Putin well enough: No one would call getting rid of Hitler easy or quick. That’s why the Americans and their leader have no excuse whatsoever for allowing the appearance of another “mustachioed villain” on the world stage.

The leader of the most powerful nation on the planet and 2009 Nobel Laureate turned out to be the kind of person who could tolerate the international adventures of the Kremlin’s chief occupant fairly well. Barack Obama, the current U.S. head of state, refused to carry out the Budapest Memorandum’s prescriptions for defense of a non-nuclear Ukraine with inexplicable ease.

Dmytro Pavlychko, 84, a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada and one of the authors of the Ukrainian declaration of independence, recently shed some light on this ugly page of American history. According to him, during that period, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal under strong pressure from Uncle Sam. “Clinton’s political consultant told me directly, as chairman of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs: ‘We’ll allow Russia to send military forces into your country to take your nuclear weapons by force,’*” the political activist said.

Considering these facts, it’s hard to consider the failure of the United States to fulfill its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum as anything other than a disgrace to the great power. I imagine more than one deceased U.S. president would be turning over in his grave if he knew that the proud and freedom-loving Yankees had abandoned people they themselves had made defenseless in their time of need. The international community has yet to adequately comprehend this betrayal. The refusal to protect those who openly put their faith in her is an indelible stain on America’s reputation. Blame for this shameful behavior rests primarily on President Obama.

Frankly speaking, Putin and Obama descended into their moral decline side by side. In particular, it was the U.S. president who at one time came up with the famous “reset” of relations with Russia. And then “poof,” everything was OK, right after Russia’s military invasion of sovereign Georgia. Instead of quickly and decisively putting the aggressor in its place, the American leader began to flirt with Putin like he was a girl Obama wanted to seduce.

For a former intelligence agent like Putin, who — as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said — by definition has no soul, such a blatant discounting of the law became a good incentive for developing further plans to restore the empire and strengthen the “Russian world.”

Recently, in an interview with Radio Svoboda, noted Russia political analyst Nikolai Petrov called the 2008 Russo-Georgian War “preparatory training, a precursor to the current war,” meaning the one in eastern Ukraine.

“Huge military preparations were made, lessons were learned from the Russian army’s subpar performance. What we see today is certainly comparable, except on a completely different scale. And of course, the present and future consequences of the conflict in eastern Ukraine can’t be compared with the situation in Georgia,” the expert believes.

Thus, having not been nipped in the bud, the virus is beginning to spread worldwide, and all because of Obama’s — as the leader of the only superpower that could stop Putin’s aggression — lack of understanding and irresponsibility.

‘Why Is the Price Only Ukrainian Lives?’

Only a lazy person would keep from trying to unravel Obama and Putin’s plans vis-a-vis Ukraine. Will the killer in the Kremlin attack or not? Will the White House give Ukraine lethal weapons or not? This kind of tea-leaf reading plays right into the hands of the killer in the Kremlin.

Despite the presence of numerous Ukrainian media outlets in the infosphere, the average Westerner receives information on what’s happening in eastern Ukraine in a fairly polished format (including in his own media, by the way). In the majority of publications, one of the greatest bloodsheds in Europe since World War II is analyzed as dryly and dispassionately as a cold and rational commentary on a chess game.

Meanwhile, Ukraine remains in dire straits. The country, suffering from brutal attacks by Putin’s forces, has long been in need not only of financial and humanitarian aid, but most of all, of direct military assistance from the nations of the West: not to mention deliveries of modern lethal weaponry, including precision-guided, to achieve parity with the arms the Kremlin is providing its mercenaries, disguised as Russian soldiers “on vacation.”

According to NATO, Putin has sent his mercenaries up to $24 million in modern weaponry. Ukraine, bled dry by its previous regimes (also according to Putin’s plans) simply doesn’t have the financial resources to counter this aggression with equal force. In many cases, especially in the early months of the war, poorly fed and clothed military conscripts and volunteers equipped with obsolete weapons faced militants who were armed to the teeth. Thus is the pain and tragedy of the country.

Ukraine must show the world that holding back the aggressors has come at a tremendous cost in strength and lives. The country lying in the path of Europe’s Kremlin-based marauder is already paying too high a price: thousands of dead Ukrainians, and millions of wounded and refugees. Modern weaponry, intelligence and protective equipment would surely have helped Ukraine more effectively resist its aggressor and reduce losses.

It may seem that the issue of delivering lethal weapons to Ukraine has already been sufficiently covered in the worldwide press. Maybe. However, if you follow coverage of this topic in American and European publications, one thing becomes clear: The majority of them deal, relatively speaking, in the abstract. Many publications spend most of their time discussing why President Obama and other world leaders are hesitant to begin this process.

Of course, they have to cover this: No one’s going to pick up a newspaper just for the feel of it. Well-fed and carefree Americans, upon whom the White House depends, are unlikely to be touched by dry discourses on a “weak Obama.”

Despite the existence of a Ukrainian Ministry of Information Policy, coverage of the war in the foreign media leaves much to be desired. Plainly speaking, the real truth about what’s going on in eastern Ukraine essentially doesn’t reach the world community. Information that does reach Western readers and listeners from there is often presented in a way that does nothing, or next to nothing, to improve Ukraine’s image.

Meanwhile, the truth is that Ukraine is experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe. The West used her for its own ends, seduced her with the Budapest Memorandum, and then roughly and cynically left her at the mercy of the rabid dog in the Kremlin. President Obama and other world leaders, by hesitating on the issue of delivering arms to Ukraine, have actually played along with the aggressor and fed his determination to go further.

The ‘Dove’ Cozying Up to the ‘Hawk’

It may be inconvenient for the Ukrainian authorities, but the many public bodies, parties, trade unions and creative associations must speak up and let their Western partners know that refusing or delaying arms deliveries to Ukraine is a betrayal of Western values. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, and other Western defenders of democracy have become completely mired in their own double standards, and they must be told this directly and unequivocally.

Earlier, it was suggested that Obama return his Nobel Prize, but the question somehow just hung in the air. In light of his delayed reaction to Putin’s aggression, the issue of formally stripping the U.S. president of his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize could be raised again. The very fact of settling this issue will have some influence on public opinion in the West.

It’s worth clearly showing the global community that financial assistance to Ukraine in wartime must be significantly higher. If the countries of the West don’t want to support Ukraine militarily, then let them give money. This should be serious money, all the more so, since the liquidation of Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal benefited the U.S. to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

How can all these issues be resolved? First of all, the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Policy must get to work. When it was created, the desire was expressed that it focus not on the regulation of domestic media, but on creating a positive image for the country abroad. Why is this not getting done? If not, then why does the ministry exist?

Activists could also stand to modify their plans. For example, the Russian embassy in Kiev has been picketed several times. Keep it up. At the same time, it’s unclear why, so far, the U.S. embassy hasn’t been picketed even once.

If American diplomatic centers were picketed in numerous countries with demands to seriously defend Ukraine from the Russian beast, then surely, the issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine would be resolved more effectively.

So far, it’s been a strange situation. In Washington, Senator McCain has been fighting like a lion to get Ukraine real help. He’s openly calling Obama’s policy toward Ukraine shameful for America. Conversely, the Ukrainians themselves remain silent, afraid to criticize the White House, which is afraid to anger the demonic Russian Führer.

But why won’t Obama deliver arms to Ukraine? In fact, according to McCain, the measure is already supported by “members of Congress in both houses, his chief adviser, the secretary of defense, and as far as I understand, even the secretary of state.”* What is holding back the White House? Finding an answer to this question is far from simple. I agree with the version that says Obama once gambled on peaceful initiatives, and has decided to go down in U.S. history as a “dove.”

It’s hard to judge how useful this has been in settling conflicts like Afghanistan and Syria, but it’s clearly not working against Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine. The West’s indecision is only fueling the Kremlin’s willfulness.

“There is no real deterrent to Putin taking what he wants in the east of Ukraine — unless we provide anti-tank weapons, drones and up-to-the-minute satellite surveillance of the border,” writes Roger Boyes of The Times magazine. In his opinion, the West “must act” to “help Kiev protect itself.”

This opinion must be turned into the demand of a significant portion of the global community. It must be explained to Obama by all possible means that he, a “lame duck” — a term for American presidents near the end of their second term (who cannot be re-elected) — may go down in history not as a “dove,” but as a cowardly and indecisive accomplice to one of the most vile “hawks” of our time.

*Editor’s note: Accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.