Walk Softly and Carry a Smart Stick

[eyer]

It's a time to be smarter than, not tougher with, President Putin and Russia


The world is abuzz again today with the escalating situation in Ukraine, and here in America so much of that ado is about getting “tougher” with Russian President Putin.

American President Obama initially got tough with recently-fled Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych and his government recently, telling them not to open fire on its own citizens protesting against it or there would be serious “consequences” from America. Still, Yanukovych rebuffed Obama's tough talk, and scores and scores of protesters were shot and killed by his government forces, among whom snipers proved particularly deadly. The American “consequences” resulting from ignoring President Obama's order from half a world away? Нічого . Nothing.

Why?

Because short of outright, immediate and at least equal military counteraction, there is no practical serious consequence any totally outside observer could have caused.

As smart as President Obama is claimed to be by many, he should have known that natural fact best of all. But it was his counterpart in Russia who proved the truth of it this time by immediately – and overwhelmingly – applying the consequence of military force to the revolting situation. President Putin did not warningly orate as his counterpart did, he simply took the most formidable action available to him at the time: total, tyrannical force. Putin has been, so far into the present Ukrainian drama and particularly all the way up to Russia's ignition of its military muscle in Crimea, the softest speaker of the two Presidents and the one using the bigger stick.

The damaging result of President Obama talking so tough when there's no way in Kiev (or Damascus) he held any serious intention of actually walking the talk required to produce any on-the-ground effect on such a grave situation as Kiev is inevitable: you are seen as weaker, not stronger – exactly opposite of the outcome the President was aiming for. And when an opponent understands your pattern of doing just that and is himself fully intent on employing the overwhelming military force necessary to cause his preferred outcome, you will, almost without exception, lose the consequence battle.

It should seem to a logical thinker that not saying anything at all is much, much more advantageous than continually talking tough and losing again and again and again, but President Obama, and many others, obviously still mean to stick to their cap guns and keep on losing with their tough talk strategy.

The President continues that failed strategy regarding Ukraine, but now it's even more insane: his “consequences” threat(s) proving totally impotent in stopping the former Ukrainian government from killing its own citizens, the President now takes his little stick to President Putin, warning this time that there will be serious “consequences” if Russia doesn't halt its military movement inside Ukrainian borders. Indeed, President Obama is so serious now, evidently, that rather than backing up his talk with an opposing force which is either equal to or greater than the force Putin has already employed and is still deploying, he has sent Secretary of State John Kerry to take back Crimea instead.

And, while the Executive branch continues to bristle like an albino peacock, it seems like many in the Legislative branch are just as eager to wallow along with their own impotent tough talk.

In a recent New York Times piece titled, “Obama pushed to get tougher on Russia,” Senator Graham of South Carolina is quoted as urging, “Create a democratic noose around Putin's Russia.” “Revisit the missile shield,” suggests Senator Rubio of Florida. Representative Rodgers of Michigan argues, “Cancel Sochi,” while Senator Durbin of Illinois says, “Kick 'him out of the G-8' altogether.'

Now, let's be clear: the fact that President Obama hasn't used his constitutional right as Commander-in-Chief of the still-mightiest military on the planet to directly counter Russia's military move in Ukraine is definitely a smart one. Not only because this situation does not meet the constitutional mandate of immediate threat and national interest, but also because the American people as a majority may finally have realized that military might – no matter the theoretical cause – ain't hardly ever right. And that's a beautiful thing.

After decades and decades of militarily talking and walking tough, killing thousands of innocents and destroying megatons of property in the process while seemingly never truly accomplishing so many so-called missions, Americans as a whole seem to be done with that particularly shameful period in their history (Let us pray).

Americans were decades ahead of their government on another shameful episode of their history – slavery – and it's about time America's federal government smartens-up and syncs itself to the will of its People once more.

Again: the natural, thus unavoidable disabler of all tough talk comes from the result of not backing it up, the consequence of that inaction is that the tough talker is considered weaker, not stronger – the exact opposite intent of tough talk in the first place. Understanding that truth, acknowledging it and still desirous of leading in a world where might is right is still the native language in so many places, the only options left seem to be that one must either walk one's talk or not talk at all.

Some Americans seem to click the don't talk at all option with their views that America shouldn't do anything about what's currently happening in Ukraine; many of these same Americans view every other conflict going on now in the world through those same isolationist, rose-colored, keep our noses out of it lens. These Americans don't want to talk about the world's problems, they don't want to walk with the world's problems, they don't want anything to do with the world's problems, let alone even imagine leading the world in addressing its problems.

But in a world history so far recorded as a global march toward individual inclusion for all, these Americans are outcasts living in a fantasy of their very own making, the option of don't talk at all only exists in their utopia, not the world reality lives in.

Thus with silence dismissed, and in a world whose very nature constantly starves for just and righteous leadership, the only option left to leaders dedicated to truth is clear: one must always walk like they talk.

Yet, when most enjoying this ideological trip reach this conclusive point, common human nature has a tendency to uproot those who do not truly possess the natural essence of leadership, and they automatically fall back to either might is right (the more affected of the pretenders) or talk harshly and carry a small stick (the passive-aggressive types). But, this is also the point when true leaders separate themselves from that chaff and march forward, leading most of us into a better future for all of us.

If one realizes the only positive way forward is to talk like one walks and walk like one talks, and that might ain't right in almost every situation, what exactly is a true leader to do in such an alarming situation as Ukraine has currently become, a situation that can turn even more explosive with any daft move?

The key to walking one's talk, even in the midst of as mighty a military offensive as the one President Putin now engages in, is not to walk as tough or tougher than Putin, but to simply walk smarter than Putin.

Americans genetically carry one of the most powerfully smart political tool kits nature provides humanity; civil disobedience, nullification, and protestation included inside. Indeed, America's very creation owes itself to employing those mighty tools to defeat at least as formidable force then as Russia is to Ukraine today (relatively speaking, of course). Verily, Ukraine itself brought their own box of those same smart tools to rid themselves just again of corrupt, oppressive government.

It is smart to stand with Ukrainians in pursuit of individual liberty, as America led by President Obama is doing. It is not smart for President Obama to threaten “consequences” America no longer has the moral will to produce. Once more: America's “tough” these last decades – no matter how deadly and devastating – has utterly failed to cause changes to better the world.

Now, more than ever, it's time for America to walk softly and carry a smart stick. Practically, that means stop talking publicly how “tough” the “consequences” are going to be and simply act decisively and quickly with the smartest tools at your disposal.

The smart stick should've been pulled out on Putin over his recent staged image-piece, the Sochi Olympics; America should have led the world in refusing to participate in such an oppressive government's political Games. Even so, President Obama and America have a grand opportunity now to take the higher, smarter route over Putin's old-school tough road. As Putin continues to strike in several ways to cripple Ukraine's government, let us give him a bigger taste of smarter medicine.

President Obama should immediately issue an executive order banning all American trade with the Russian Federation, and the freezing of assets, wherever the USA may, of all Russian citizens with a particularly sharp eye out to isolate the global spending power of Russia's politicians and most rich. The order should also freeze all current negotiations with Russia – with the exception of any negotiations which may result in the immediate and direct effect of President Putin withdrawing every single soldier he's inserted into Ukraine in the last week, with the remaining Russian troops who've traditionally been stationed in Crimea on Russian military installations to be confined to their bases until order is restored in Ukraine. If Putin does not agree to those conditions first, the total American ban and freeze continues.

I understand that's not a big enough stick for some Americans, but there is no more righteous stick we can wield at this time. It will immediately get the world's attention, no doubt lead other nations to follow, and most importantly, we walk American talk until Russia concedes.

Let's not talk tough any more, let's use our smarts this time instead.

.....

 

[eyer]

They never learn...

...still talking so harshly and still carrying such a small stick.

The only true, effective response to Putin's act is action equal to or greater than that he has already employed and still is employing...

...but it's clear that no matter how much the allies have said - and still continue to say - that the world will not stand for Putin's "illegal" act, they actually have allowed Putin to go ahead and do what he's done. And, by doing so, they prove they have absolutely no practical integrity with which to back-up their hollow words.

Neither with the stomach or the heart to confront Putin's military action with military action of their own, and lacking the integrity to actually institute the only actions that can now seriously affect Russia - a total trade ban and full-stop on all diplomatic relations - these bozos continue to bark way above their bite level...

...while Putin lies smiling.

 

[BotanyBoy]

America and it's people don't have the grit or wherewithal to win a dodge ball game much less a fucking war. So yea it's good O shuts the fuck up and sits down like a good boy instead of trying to play world police.

What's the point to this?

 

[about_average]

The US populace wouldn't stand for the massive increase in energy prices that would result from such a confrontation with Russia.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The US populace wouldn't stand for the massive increase in energy prices that would result from such a confrontation with Russia.

Shit I'm just talking about the ability to stomach the war.

Every time we start a war somewhere along the way we get bitch made and start kissing hands and shaking babies. Playing dick suck political games when we should just be exterminating the mother fuckers wholesale and capturing their resources to pay the bill for having to come kick their ass. That is to say America shouldn't have built a single fucking mud hut or given out a single bottle of clean water for any Iraqi until we had their oil flowing freely to the US.

America can't stomach step 1......paying the party tab, and everything since WWII has just been one MIC welfare circle jerk after another. None of is has been about protecting or gaining for America, just how to exploit it's citizenry for as much money as possible.

 

[about_average]

Actually I was just talking about a complete trade and diplomatic embargo

 

[eyer]

The US populace wouldn't stand for the massive increase in energy prices that would result from such a confrontation with Russia.

Why would energy prices in America increase massively...

...when America now is practically energy-independent?

Actually...

...such a confrontation might make American energy exports a much more marketable commodity on the world market, which, in a traditional capitalist American economy, would drive energy prices for Americans down and increase the GDP at the same time.

But, I digress...

....America and its allies on this issue don't possess the will to effectively act-out "confrontation" in any form, and the more they talk loudly about what they can't actually do ("the world will not allow Russia to get away with this"), the more impotent they are proven (Russia has gotten away with it).

The point of the OP is:

1. quit talking such nonsense (Walk Softly), and

2. hit Russia where it truly counts (Carry a Smart Stick).

Alas...

...even when bozos realize there's not anything they really want to do to stop something, they still (being bozos) gotta talk like that red rubber nose ain't actually the telltale of their true personae.

 

[about_average]

Why would energy prices in America increase massively...

...when America now is practically energy-independent?

You don't have a very good understanding of the global commodities market do you?
What do you think would happen to prices if suddenly around 30% of the world's energy production was taken off the market?

 

[ryan8558]

You don't have a very good understanding of the global commodities market do you?
What do you think would happen to prices if suddenly around 30% of the world's energy production was taken off the market?

nationalization of the US oil and gas reserves and price ceilings. (probably not but something to think about)

 

[about_average]

nationalization of the US oil and gas reserves and price ceilings. (probably not but something to think about)

Good thing for Americans to do, not think about reality.

 

[ryan8558]

Good thing for Americans to do, not think about reality.

Reality can sometimes be overrated.

 

[chillywilly2]

Its the 21st century.

Civilized people should not be running around killing each other.

Putin can only be held responsible for 2 dead so far...thats enough.

I know I don't want any of my friends getting sent over there to die just because some blowhard "leaders" send them.

We can work this shit out without killing people.

Everybody is freaked out because a jet is lost and maybe 239 people are dead, but they think nothing of bombing each other and killing thousands just because some ass wants his own way

 

[bill-pix-trade]

I thouht this was about Obama sending Kerry to do his bidding around the world. I'm out.

 

[eyer]

You don't have a very good understanding of the global commodities market do you?
What do you think would happen to prices if suddenly around 30% of the world's energy production was taken off the market?

Why would Russia take its energy production off the market? Do you actually fantasize that if America and whatever other countries chose to stand together in a total trade ban against Russia , the rest of the world will totally deprive themselves of market trade with Russia, too?

Perhaps with your self-acclaimed better understanding of "the global commodities market", and in direct relation to my comments concerning America's energy independence...

...you 'd better serve truth by explaining exactly why energy prices would massively soar so high in America that the US populace wouldn't stand for it, instead of tossing irrelevancy about so disingenuously?

There was a time in this nation's incubation that a total ban on trade was the weapon of choice to wield against tyrants, and irrelevant fear-mongering as you offer was heard then, too...

...when the rulers of "the global commodities market" then became aghast that American leadership was actually serious about their intent to totally boycott trade with them, they called Ben Franklin before their parliament to try to get some kind of grip on what American independents could ever be thinking; they, too, were sure that the resulting grave disruption in the market and especially the deprivation of goods to the colonies would hurt the American populace to the extent that the young unrest would actually turn to the King's favor.

When you read the 174 questions (or so) over the 4 hours (or so) parliament grilled him, what stands out most about Ol Ben and the boys is that they were fully intent to stand on the principle of not trading with tyrants...

...and nothing else.

No matter what.

But, the astounded elites queried, whatever would Americans do without all the benefits trade with Great Britain provided them? However could they even survive?

Franklin just told them the truth: whatever necessities Americans got then from Britain, they would learn to do without until they could begin providing themselves with 'em. Everything else from Britain was a luxury and American would find no problem(s) in gladly depriving themselves in that regard...

...America began it's walk talking principle, and they won their independence by standing fully upon it.