By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
The “Reagan Doctrine” was supporting freedom fighters around the world and rolling back the Soviet empire. The “Obama Doctrine” is pretending to fight foreign threats while sounding or looking tough, but actually doing nothing of substance to turn back aggression.
Even the liberal Washington Post sees the dangers ahead.
“For the sake of the cameras, President Obama assured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at a White House meeting Thursday that ‘not only do we support Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence in words, but we’ve also been supporting it in deeds.’ If only that were true,” the paper noted in an editorial. “The reality is that the beleaguered Ukrainian leader left Washington backed by considerable rhetoric from the Obama administration but little with which he can turn back the continuing Russian aggression against his country.” The paper urged Congress to swiftly approve military aid for Ukraine.
The Post was essentially accusing Obama of lying.
Making a sharp break with the Reagan approach, Obama was recently quoted at a fundraiser as saying that since “we do very little trade with Ukraine and, geopolitically…what happens in Ukraine doesn’t pose a direct threat to us.”
The White House posted these extraordinary remarks as well, stating they were delivered at a “private residence” in Baltimore.
The New York Times reported that the fundraiser’s host was Howard E. Friedman, former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” Guests reportedly paid up to $32,400 to attend the event.
Friedman is described as a leading supporter of Jewish political causes and has given nearly $100,000 in contributions, mostly to Democrats, since 2009.
Obama vowed to defeat the Islamic State “but did not mention Iran or the Middle East peace process” during the event, a report on a Jewish website noted.
The Times added, “In introducing Mr. Obama, Mr. Friedman described a nuclear-armed Iran as the No. 1 danger in the world.” In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to acquire those nuclear arms because of its support from Russia, already a nuclear-armed country.
The short-sightedness of some supporters of Israel regarding Russia is astounding.
As we have pointed out, the Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This means he is under Russian influence, if not an agent.
AIPAC itself acknowledges the link between Iran and Russia.
Back in 2006, AIPAC ran an item headlined, “Russia Blocking Efforts to Curtail Iranian Threat.” In 2008, it highlighted a Senate letter opposing U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation because of Russian trade with Iran in strategic areas. In 2011, AIPAC reported that Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) “noted the need for strong pressure on Russia and China to persuade them to participate in the sanctions efforts.”
But there’s much more to it.
We have pointed out that Putin adviser Aleksandr Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia. He discusses how Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran.”
In a new book, Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire, former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky (with whom I was co-author) says that the ideology of Eurasianism was developed by Soviet intelligence in the 1920s and is now being used to justify Russian aggression as well as the alliance with Iran.
He reports, “The actual organizer of its recent growth is Colonel Peter Suslov, officer of the SVR. In the 1990s, Dugin’s seminars were attended by the high-positioned Russian intelligence officer, Sergei Ivanov, future Russian Minister of Defense and the current Chief of Staff Presidential Administration of Russia. By the way, he is my former classmate at the KGB school in Minsk in 1977. And he is also a very close friend of Putin. Sergei Ivanov is said to be the leading promoter of rapprochement with Iran in the military sphere—in spite of the USA. But where we see Ivanov, we should see Putin. In fact, Sergei Ivanov is nothing but Putin’s shadow. If he visited the Eurasia seminars, it means that Putin admires the Eurasia Movement too. After Putin’s coming to power, the Eurasia Movement received the Kremlin’s support. The SVR, Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, and GRU, military intelligence, have assisted Aleksandr Dugin in working out the long-term joint project of creating the Eurasian block. The anti-American partnership of Russia and Iran is playing the key role there.”
In a column titled, “The poison in the Kremlin,” Oliver Kamm writes in the Jewish Chronicle that “Jews have a compelling, pragmatic interest as well as a concern for justice in what’s happening in Ukraine.” He says the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not only connected with Gaza and the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict but traces back to Russia. He even cites the Nazi roots of Dugin’s Eurasian scheme.
Yet, Putin’s clever propagandists insist the Nazis and the fascists are on the side of Ukraine.
He notes that “the Kremlin has lied on the international stage. Though the far right polled only two percent of the vote in Ukraine’s presidential election, the country’s government is routinely castigated by Putin and his allies as neo-Nazi. It’s an Orwellian tactic. The Russian invasion is simultaneously denied and depicted as defensive. The principle of linguistic homogeneity is invented to ‘justify’ Russian annexation of Crimea, which is like saying Westminster has a justified claim to Massachusetts because most of its inhabitants speak English. The greatest doublethink of all, echoing the language of the Soviet era, is to present Russia’s territorial aggrandizement as a blow against fascism.”
In his speech to the U.S. Congress, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said, “Just like Israel, Ukraine has the right to defend her territory—and it will do so, with all the courage of her heart and dedication of her soul! I urge America to help us and to rise and be equal to its natural and manifest role—I urge America to lead the way!”
But Obama’s America offers no heavy weapons to Ukraine.
Poroshenko concluded his address, saying, “‘Live free!’—must be the message Ukraine and America send to the world, while standing together in this time of enormous challenge.”
As noted by Myroslaw Smorodsky, Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association, by failing to give Ukrainians the necessary means to defend themselves, the response from the Obama administration seemed to be, “Do the best you can!”
Noting Obama’s reference to the U.S. doing very little trade with Ukraine and that what happens to Ukraine doesn’t pose a direct threat to America, Smorodsky commented, “In essence, money trumps all! Is that what ‘live free or die’ means? Is that one of the founding principles of our democratic society?”
“In the long run,” he warned, “the present American myopic foreign policy towards Ukraine will unwittingly create a conflagration on the European continent in which our children or grandchildren will be putting their ‘boots on the ground.’”
Poroshenko warned Congress about Putin’s Russia: “The imperialistic mindset is still there. Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and the dismissal of the settlement that ended the Cold War has been cultivating revisionist instincts.”
He added, “In 2008, Russian troops occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Now they have invaded Ukraine. The right to protect ethnic Russians, and even Russian speakers, can and already has become a reason to fan the flames of war. Besides Ukraine, the Russian speakers reside in Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine—what happens next?”
Once Ukraine is finished as an independent and sovereign nation, can Israel be far behind?
On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Obama’s former CIA director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted that Obama was slow to recognize the threat posed by the Islamic State (ISIS) and that he withdrew troops from Iraq too quickly.
Now Obama tells his donors that he will destroy ISIS. Is there any reason to believe it’s not another lie?
And if he will lie in the face of the Ukrainian President at a White House meeting, why should we believe he is committed to the survival of Israel?