Now that the Ukraine has blown up and Putin has sent troops into Crimea, the right is having a grand old time blaming it all on Obama being “weak” on foreign policy and thus making Putin feel “emboldened” that he could do it. Sarah Palin is even claiming to be a prophet, with Fox News pushing that idea far and wide:
Palin said then:
“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”…
Starnes: I just finished chatting with Sarah Palin. Here’s a comment she asked me to share exclusively with you folks:
“Back in 2008, I accurately predicted the possibility of Putin feeling emboldened to invade Ukraine because I could see what kind of leader Barack Obama would be. The bullies of the world are always emboldened by indecision and moral equivalence. We can expect more of this sort of thing in a world where America is gutting its military and ‘leading from behind.’”
This is just an idiotic talking point. It’s been known for a long time that Putin would love to get his hands on Ukraine. The man who was just overthrown was his hand-picked puppet. What none of these people have explained is what precisely they would have done differently that would not have “emboldened” Putin. John McCain thinks we should go to war over it, but he thinks we should go to war over everything. It’s like they never outgrew being a 13 year old bully, where posing as the tough guy was the ultimate social currency.
And the idea that we’re “gutting our military” is even more idiotic. We spent about 10 times more on defense than Russia, for crying out loud. If we wanted to, we could launch a full scale war and have a huge advantage over them in conventional weapons. But they also have nukes. Could any reasonable person think it’s a good idea for us to go to war with another nuclear power over control of their neighbor that we have no real interest in? Not just no, but fuck no.