What Did You Say?

The clash between President Obama and President Putin over Ukraine is just the latest in a long line of similar clashes between American presidents and Russian/Soviet tyrants.  Several American presidents in my lifetime have been forced to deal with an international crisis precipitated by Soviet aggression.  Each of these crises had the potential to escalate into a world war.

• President Truman had the Soviet blockade of Berlin to deal with.  He responded with the Berlin Airlift, the greatest logistical feat in history.
• President Eisenhower had the escalating Cold War with the Soviets.  He responded by initiating a policy of containment, a policy that eventually led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
• President Kennedy had the Cuban Missile Crisis, 13 of the most tension filled days in the history of the world.  He responded by quarantining Cuba and forcing the Soviets to remove their missiles from that island nation 90 miles off the coast of the United States.

In each of these cases, the world teetered on the brink of a nuclear holocaust, but was saved by the strength, courage, and resolve of an American president.Now comes the invasion of Ukraine, the first major clash between the United States and Russia since the old Soviet Union imploded.  However, unlike past Soviet/American dust-ups, the Ukraine crisis has little potential for escalating into a world war.  Why? Because at a time when the United States is supposed to be the world’s only remaining superpower, we are powerless.  Unfortunately for the freedom seeking people of the Ukraine, at this critical point in world history America is a strong nation governed by a weak president.  Russia on the other hand is a weak nation governed by a strong president, and that president—Valadimir Putin—neither fears nor respects President Obama.  Put another way, Putin knows he can do what he wants in Ukraine because he has Obama’s number.

• Harry Truman was small in stature but large in substance, something the Soviet leaders learned the hard way.  Consequently, when they finally realized he would see the Berlin Airlift through to ultimate victory no matter the cost, they caved. 
• Dwight Eisenhower had already earned the grudging respect of the Soviet leaders because of his record of leadership in World War II, one of the main reasons his policy of containment worked. 
• John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, had not earned the respect of his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Kruschev.  As a result of his mishandling of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy was viewed by Kruschev as a pampered rich kid he could bully.  Of course, the Soviet leader should have studied the PT 109 incident before drawing erroneous conclusions, a humiliating and career ending lesson he learned during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Truman had to contend with Stalin, a bloody tyrant who has murdered 20 million of his own people in purges against intellectuals, priests, and anyone else who might be even remotely perceived as a threat.  They went eye-to-eye over Berlin and because of Truman’s stubborn determination and courage, Stalin eventually blinked.  Eisenhower and Kennedy had to contend with Kruschev, a crude and crafty peasant whose innate inferiority made him both aggressive and unpredictable, a dangerous combination.  Eisenhower and Kennedy both went eye-to-eye with him over a variety of issues and, in each case, Kruschev blinked.

President Putin is just the latest Russian tyrant to confront an American president on the global stage, but he may be the most dangerous of all.  Putin embodies the brutal ruthlessness of Stalin and the aggressiveness and dangerous unpredictability of Kruschev.  But this time America is led not by Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, or John F. Kennedy.  Rather, the world’s only remaining superpower is led by Barack Obama, a president who lacks the courage of Truman, the steadfastness of Eisenhower, and the resolve of Kennedy.  In taking on President Putin, Barack Obama is armed with just one weapon: empty words.  At this critical juncture in history when freedom hangs in the balance, America is led by a man of words and Russian is led by a man of bullets and bombs.

The hard truth is that Barack Obama has no concept of how to deal with Valadimir Putin.  Putin cannot be charmed by Obama’s words, nor is he moved by idle threats and blurry lines drawn in the sand. Putin is the quintessential Russian bear in that he responds only to strength and the will to use it.  Seeing neither strength nor will in President Obama, Putin is focused solely on his goal of regaining control over Ukraine and its Black Sea port of Sevastopol.  Obama on the other hand showed his resolve by taking a golfing vacation to Florida at the height of the crisis.  To a bully like Putin, Obama’s vacation to Florida was a clear signal that Ukraine is not a high priority of the American president. Consequently, while Obama is playing golf and talking, Putin is acting—he is sending in troops, tanks, and aircraft while simultaneously whipping the Russian population of the Crimea into a pro-Putin frenzy.

It is noteworthy that Valadimir Putin has publicly stated that the greatest tragedy of the 20^th Century was the fall of the Soviet Union.   One suspects that re-establishing the “evil empire” would suit him just fine.  The eventual outcome of the Ukraine crisis is predictable, but will that be the last of it?  I doubt it.  Which of the former Soviet satellites will Putin target next?  Putin knows he has to move fast if he is going to re-establish Russian hegemony over any more of the former Soviet satellites.  After all, 2016 is right around the corner and no matter how the election goes Putin’s favorite pin cushion will be gone.  In fact, 2016 could usher in another Truman, Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or even another Ronald Reagan.  If this happens, Putin’s ambitions for expansion are in trouble. Until then, he can do pretty much what he pleases in  Ukraine.  Too bad.