The Ukrainian Tragedy: Barack Obama – Reserved and Vague
The reaction of President Obama and the Democrats to the shooting down of Malaysian flight MH 17 over eastern Ukraine was cool. The Republicans were much sharper toward Russia in their statements. Roman Joch believes that it is necessary to begin thinking about how the West can appropriately respond.
On Thursday, July 17, when news broke that the Malaysian plane had been shot down over eastern Ukraine, U.S. President Barack Obama was on a fundraising tour that included a visit to the state of Delaware. His reaction to this tragic event was classic Obama: indifferent, cool, reserved, as if he wished to highlight, yet again, the incompetence of his foreign policy, and not only toward Russia.
Among other things, Obama declared, “it may be a tragedy.” This vague “may be” is significant. He then added, “it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy.” And again, he used the vague phrase “it looks like.” Then Obama returned to his meetings with Americans, joking and entreating them to vote on Nov. 4, when every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the U.S. Senate will be elected.
The More Expansive Secretary of State
On Sunday, July 20, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on every major American television talk show. He was more expansive than President Obama, and unequivocally blamed the shooting down of the Malaysian plane on Russia. “It’s pretty clear that this is a system [the ground-to-air missile launcher] that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. There is a buildup of extraordinary circumstantial evidence ... we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar,” Kerry said.
And he went on, “We also know from voice identification that the separatists were bragging about shooting it down afterwards. So there's a stacking up of evidence here which Russia needs to help account for. We are not drawing the final conclusion here, but there is a lot that points at the need for Russia to be responsible.”
Dianne Feinstein, the influential Democratic senator from California and chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stated: “I think the nexus between Russia and the separatists has been established very clearly. So the issue is: where is Putin? I would say, Putin, you have to man up. You should talk to the world. You should say if this was a mistake, which I hope it was, say it.” And she went on: “I think the world has to rise up and say, 'we've had enough of this,' she said. “I think Europe has to come together. I think Germany, in particular, has to lead. I think we have to continue with sanctions.”
The Republicans’ Tough Stance
Bob Corker, Republican senator from Tennessee and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes that the shooting down of MH 17 will lead the international community to take a tougher stance toward Russia. He holds the “timid and cautious” stance toward Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for the disaster, which, he says, could have been avoided.
Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, said on his talk show, The O’Reilly Factor: “Of course, Vladimir Putin is supplying these heavy weapons to the terrorists so he is directly responsible. I bet you don't hear European leaders or President Obama say that but it's true. Russia is trying to undermine Ukraine and is giving weapons to killers. No question about it. So, over the next few days, you will hear the usual calls for investigations and meetings and talks and discussions. But little will happen to Putin. Because the West is essentially afraid of him and he knows it. Meantime, the families and friends of 298 human beings grieve tonight. Is Putin grieving?”
The editorial in the daily New York Post was eloquently entitled “Putin’s Bloody Hands.” Out west in the United States, the editorial in the daily Los Angeles Times read: “If Putin doesn't back down on Ukraine, the world should impose more sanctions.” The right-wing biweekly National Review led with a highly sophisticated editorial, which weighed the possibilities and arrived at the same conclusion: impose sanctions.
Indeed, the prominent American Catholic intellectual George Weigel, author of the official biography of Pope John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” among other things, wrote that the only solution to the situation in Ukraine is regime change in the Kremlin. He suggests that the West should force Russia to replace its current ex-KGB officer with a leader who would be less confrontational toward the rest of the world.
The Legitimacy of Western Governments
In my view, the West should strive to make Putin stop the war and division of Ukraine. But will Putin do this of his own accord? I doubt that the loss of three hundred lives, for which he has moral, political and perhaps even practical responsibility, will faze this “Chekist.”*
It is necessary to begin thinking about how the West can appropriately respond. After all, it’s no longer just a question of battles and casualties in a “distant” Ukraine. It is now also about the murder, in the “safety” of a passenger plane at a “safe” altitude, and in an internationally recognized air corridor, of Western citizens, and 300 of them at that.
Can the Western states act as though this doesn't concern them, and yet again do nothing? If they do, they will lose whatever credibility and respect they had and become entirely ridiculous. We must acknowledge that this inaction damages the West’s legitimacy to govern, and casts doubt on the very legitimacy of current western governments.
Putin Will Decide
If Putin doesn't act now and stop supporting eastern Ukrainian separatists, then the West should force him to do so. Strategically, it will be far more effective if western nations proceed quietly with negotiations and avoid the appearance of publicly humiliating Putin. Such forceful but diplomatic negotiations will help bring an end to Russian engagement in Ukraine and cool down the situation.
But the situation will cool down only if Putin wishes it. If he does not, then the time will be ripe for seriously paralyzing sanctions. The rampaging of Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine is no longer just a Ukrainian-Russian affair, but also a problem for the West and the whole world, having cost the lives of three hundred of their citizens.
In a bittersweet sense, perhaps we can take “comfort” from “progress” over the past thirty years. Unlike September 1983, when the Soviets shot down the South Korean KAL 007 near Sakhalin, at least this year’s pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine don’t cynically boast that “the intruder was stopped.”
*Editor’s note: The adjective “Chekist” derives from Cheka, the first Soviet secret police organization.
On Thursday, July 17, when news broke that the Malaysian plane had been shot down over eastern Ukraine, U.S. President Barack Obama was on a fundraising tour that included a visit to the state of Delaware. His reaction to this tragic event was classic Obama: indifferent, cool, reserved, as if he wished to highlight, yet again, the incompetence of his foreign policy, and not only toward Russia.
Among other things, Obama declared, “it may be a tragedy.” This vague “may be” is significant. He then added, “it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy.” And again, he used the vague phrase “it looks like.” Then Obama returned to his meetings with Americans, joking and entreating them to vote on Nov. 4, when every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the U.S. Senate will be elected.
The More Expansive Secretary of State
On Sunday, July 20, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on every major American television talk show. He was more expansive than President Obama, and unequivocally blamed the shooting down of the Malaysian plane on Russia. “It’s pretty clear that this is a system [the ground-to-air missile launcher] that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. There is a buildup of extraordinary circumstantial evidence ... we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar,” Kerry said.
And he went on, “We also know from voice identification that the separatists were bragging about shooting it down afterwards. So there's a stacking up of evidence here which Russia needs to help account for. We are not drawing the final conclusion here, but there is a lot that points at the need for Russia to be responsible.”
Dianne Feinstein, the influential Democratic senator from California and chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stated: “I think the nexus between Russia and the separatists has been established very clearly. So the issue is: where is Putin? I would say, Putin, you have to man up. You should talk to the world. You should say if this was a mistake, which I hope it was, say it.” And she went on: “I think the world has to rise up and say, 'we've had enough of this,' she said. “I think Europe has to come together. I think Germany, in particular, has to lead. I think we have to continue with sanctions.”
The Republicans’ Tough Stance
Bob Corker, Republican senator from Tennessee and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes that the shooting down of MH 17 will lead the international community to take a tougher stance toward Russia. He holds the “timid and cautious” stance toward Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for the disaster, which, he says, could have been avoided.
Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, said on his talk show, The O’Reilly Factor: “Of course, Vladimir Putin is supplying these heavy weapons to the terrorists so he is directly responsible. I bet you don't hear European leaders or President Obama say that but it's true. Russia is trying to undermine Ukraine and is giving weapons to killers. No question about it. So, over the next few days, you will hear the usual calls for investigations and meetings and talks and discussions. But little will happen to Putin. Because the West is essentially afraid of him and he knows it. Meantime, the families and friends of 298 human beings grieve tonight. Is Putin grieving?”
The editorial in the daily New York Post was eloquently entitled “Putin’s Bloody Hands.” Out west in the United States, the editorial in the daily Los Angeles Times read: “If Putin doesn't back down on Ukraine, the world should impose more sanctions.” The right-wing biweekly National Review led with a highly sophisticated editorial, which weighed the possibilities and arrived at the same conclusion: impose sanctions.
Indeed, the prominent American Catholic intellectual George Weigel, author of the official biography of Pope John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,” among other things, wrote that the only solution to the situation in Ukraine is regime change in the Kremlin. He suggests that the West should force Russia to replace its current ex-KGB officer with a leader who would be less confrontational toward the rest of the world.
The Legitimacy of Western Governments
In my view, the West should strive to make Putin stop the war and division of Ukraine. But will Putin do this of his own accord? I doubt that the loss of three hundred lives, for which he has moral, political and perhaps even practical responsibility, will faze this “Chekist.”*
It is necessary to begin thinking about how the West can appropriately respond. After all, it’s no longer just a question of battles and casualties in a “distant” Ukraine. It is now also about the murder, in the “safety” of a passenger plane at a “safe” altitude, and in an internationally recognized air corridor, of Western citizens, and 300 of them at that.
Can the Western states act as though this doesn't concern them, and yet again do nothing? If they do, they will lose whatever credibility and respect they had and become entirely ridiculous. We must acknowledge that this inaction damages the West’s legitimacy to govern, and casts doubt on the very legitimacy of current western governments.
Putin Will Decide
If Putin doesn't act now and stop supporting eastern Ukrainian separatists, then the West should force him to do so. Strategically, it will be far more effective if western nations proceed quietly with negotiations and avoid the appearance of publicly humiliating Putin. Such forceful but diplomatic negotiations will help bring an end to Russian engagement in Ukraine and cool down the situation.
But the situation will cool down only if Putin wishes it. If he does not, then the time will be ripe for seriously paralyzing sanctions. The rampaging of Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine is no longer just a Ukrainian-Russian affair, but also a problem for the West and the whole world, having cost the lives of three hundred of their citizens.
In a bittersweet sense, perhaps we can take “comfort” from “progress” over the past thirty years. Unlike September 1983, when the Soviets shot down the South Korean KAL 007 near Sakhalin, at least this year’s pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine don’t cynically boast that “the intruder was stopped.”
*Editor’s note: The adjective “Chekist” derives from Cheka, the first Soviet secret police organization.
Previous article![]( "Agony")
