By Rich Lowry
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin
succeeded in infiltrating the U.S. government at the highest levels.
How else to explain a newly elected president looking the
other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically
one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our
foremost geopolitical foe? Accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a
Russian ally? Welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East? Refusing to
provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia? Diminishing our defenses
and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?
All of these items, of course, refer to things said or
done by President Barack Obama. To take them in order: He reset with Russia
shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START
agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When
candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected
him as a Cold War relic. The president then went on to forge an agreement with
Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line
fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its
intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine “lethal” weapons to
defend itself from Russian attack. Finally, Obama cut U.S. defense spending and
cracked down on fossil fuels, a policy that Russia welcomed since its economy
is dependent on high oil prices.
Put all of this together, and it’s impossible to conclude
anything other than that Obama was a Russian stooge, and not out of any
nefarious deals, but out of his own naivete and weakness. Obama didn’t expect
any rewards when he asked then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a
hot-mic moment at an international meeting to relay to Vladimir Putin his
ability to be more “flexible” after the 2012 election; he was, to put it in
terms of the current Russian election controversy, “colluding” with the
Russians in the belief it was a good strategy. His kompromat was his own
foolishness.
The cost of Obama’s orientation toward Russia became
clearer during the past two weeks. When he pulled up short from enforcing his
red line, an agreement with the Russians to remove Bashar Assad’s chemical
weapons became the fig leaf to cover his retreat. This deal was obviously
deficient, but Obama officials used clever language to give the impression that
it had removed all chemical weapons from Syria. Never mind that Assad still
used chlorine gas to attack his population — exploiting a grievous loophole —
and that evidence piled up that Assad was cheating more broadly.
The Russians eagerly covered for Assad because he’s their
client. What was the Obama administration’s excuse? It effectively made itself
a liar for the Russians at the same time Moscow bolstered the Assad regime we
said had to go, smashed the moderate opposition we were trying to create and
sent a destabilizing refugee flow into Europe. This was a moral and strategic
disaster.
To be sure, Donald Trump’s statements about Russia during
the past year and a half have often been stupid and shameful. But there was
always a good chance that Russia’s blatant hostility to our values and
interests would make any attempted Trump detente unsustainable. With his
secretary of state and U.N. ambassador hitting Russia hard over the Assad gas
attack and Trump’s strike challenging Russia’s position, the administration
looks to be adopting a hardheaded attitude without bothering with a doomed
reset first.
Even if Obama eventually got tougher on Russia — imposing
sanctions after the Ukraine invasion and sending contingents of U.S. troops to
countries near Russia — he never entirely shed his reflex toward accommodation.
No matter what conspiracy theorists might say, there’s nothing to suggest
anything untoward about Obama’s relationship with Russia. But based on the
record alone, you might have suspicions.
No comments:
Post a Comment