RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-enters-putins-world/print/

At the beginning of February, Fred Kaplan, the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, headlined a Slate article, “Obama Isn’t Disengaged From the World: He just has a better understanding of how power works in the modern world.”

Power, as it turned out, worked much the same way in the modern world as it did back in the horses and bayonets era as Putin demonstrated when he did what no one in the West believed he would do by sending men and armor into Crimea.

Since one doesn’t get to be an Edward R. Murrow fellow by sitting on one’s hands, Kaplan dashed off to pen a follow-up article headlined: “There’s Nothing Obama Could Have Done to Stop Putin.” Kaplan’s advice to Obama was to avoid threatening Putin with “consequences.”

“Obama should be looking for common interests. One such interest is ending the bloodshed,” Kaplan suggested.

If the Russian dictator is known for anything it’s his tender heart and opposition to bloodshed.

“Even Putin couldn’t want to send troops to the Ukrainian heartland,” Kaplan wrote. Unless of course Putin, whom foreign policy experts assured us couldn’t possibly want to send troops into Crimea, turns out to be ignorant of “how power works in the modern world” and does it anyway.

If that happens then the same experts who told us he wouldn’t do it, will tell us that we can’t do anything about it. It’s not in the nature of “power in the modern world”.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2014/03/crimea-through-iranian-eyes/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=c97d4b9d88-2014_3_3_Sorek_Start&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b0517b2ab-c97d4b9d88-41165129

Today’s news from Ukraine is grim. It’s increasingly clear that Putin believes he has an opportunity to move in the Crimea, and perhaps to take eastern portions of Ukraine for Russia, while destabilizing the new government in Kiev. So far the American reaction has been pathetically weak: a few words from Kerry and Obama but no action. Not even diplomatic action like a UN Security Council session or a meeting of the NATO Council, or a Kerry visit to Kiev.

The administration’s inaction and Putin’s aggressive conduct may teach some lessons: that the Obama administration seeks above all to avoid confrontations, at whatever cost; that its efforts to engage dictators and repressive regimes appear always to end in grief; that friends and foes alike see us as increasingly disengaged and weak; that this appearance of weakness tempts enemies of the United States to act. The very week that Putin acts in Ukraine is the week when the Obama administration unveils its plan for the smallest U.S. Army since the Second World War.

Those who are wondering whether we need to pass sanctions legislation now and put more pressure on Iran should take all this into account. Like Putin, the ayatollahs likely see our failure to act in Syria (indeed our willingness to be “rescued” from action by Putin) as a sign that they can drive a hard bargain indeed with us over their nuclear weapons program, giving up nearly nothing and getting sanctions relief. And now they see us reacting (so far) to Russian aggression in Ukraine, sending troops across the border into the Crimea, with tut-tutting.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/zionists-who-love-jesus/#ixzz2utj5dPjr

In a recent essay in Mosaic Magazine, I called upon Jews and evangelical Christians to put aside their differences and stand together in support of Israel. Naturally I was delighted to receive positive feedback from four prominent experts, all of whom endorsed the core thesis of my argument. Yet I was sorely disappointed upon reading some of the readers’ comments that appeared below my essay, especially those from Jews espousing the very myths and fears about evangelicals that I hoped the essay would debunk. Each of them fixated on the menacing specter hidden inside the “Trojan Horse” of Christian Zionism:

As a Jew/Israeli, I like the political support for Israel. But I do find the undercurrent drive to convert us, in that political support, disgusting. Martin Luther at first liked us. But when we didn’t convert, he called on his followers to burn us. . . . Will they love us when we don’t convert?

If you want the truth, I don’t trust you. It’s as simple as that. . . . When your church stops preying on Jews to lead them into your faith and destroying ours, when you stop financing these missionary factories to wipe out our faith and our culture, then and only then might I start to believe you actually don’t have the age-old ulterior motive.

I dislike the idea I must agree with evangelicals, whose main purpose is to convert me, because they support Israel. . . . Sorry but why would I support or form a strategic alliance with someone who supports me only so far as it fits his purposes and, more than likely, would throw me under a bus if I didn’t?

These readers are clear: Christian Zionism is only tolerable insofar as it disclaims any belief that the Jewish people need Jesus. The dark history of Jewish-Christian relations is too tragic to allow for anything less. Do I blame these readers for feeling this way?

Honestly, not really. Because it’s true: many people claiming the name of Christ, including Martin Luther, have said and done things to Jews over the centuries that are unspeakable. Yet it’s also true that a fundamental tenet of Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity, is telling the world about the arrival of the Messiah. Regrettably, at least as far as some Jews are concerned, “the world” also includes the Jewish people. As an evangelical who affirms both the “Great Commission” and the right of the Jewish people to govern themselves in their ancient homeland (yes, it is possible to hold these two things in one’s head at the same time), I would submit to my Jewish friends that they needn’t fear. A few points:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4201/ukraine-crisis-eu-russia-jews

The situation might have been different if in April 2008 the West had extended NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia. Russia would never have dared to deploy troops on NATO territory.

Give that Europe opposed the admission of Ukraine to NATO, it should not then have tempted the Ukrainians with EU membership, exacerbating the divisions between the Ukrainians and their ethnic Russian minority.

It seems to be a tragic but hard lesson of history that Jews are often forced to play the role of canary in the mineshaft. Today, we are witnessing that phenomenon in Ukraine.

As the situation in Ukraine, where nationalists last week deposed pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, is worsening, Jews are receiving blows from both sides. They are distrusted by the Ukrainian nationalists as well as the pro-Russian separatists.

With Ukraine descending into civil war, people on both sides are blaming “Jewish conspiracies” and attacking Jewish targets. The Jews, however, are not to blame for the crisis in Ukraine. The European Union is to a large extent to blame. Ukraine is an ethnically mixed country, with a large Russian minority. Preserving the balance succeeded relatively well until the EU began to foment trouble.

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/03/01/ukraine-is-hopeless-but-not-serious/ There isn’t going to be a war over Ukraine. There isn’t even going to be a crisis over Ukraine. We will perform our ritual war-dance and excoriate the Evil Emperor, and the result would be the same if we had sung “100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” on a road […]

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-global-warming-report-a-disgrace/

The report “Climate Change: Evidence & Causes [1],” which was released on Thursday by the Royal Society (RS) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), does a serious disservice to science and society. Rather than using the conditional language of real science, it engages in what amounts to propaganda, making absolute assertions concerning topics about which we have little knowledge.

For example, the report proclaims, “Continued emissions of these gases [carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases] will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate.”

Not “may cause,” or even “probably cause,” but “will cause.” This is not the language of science. While it is common to see such absolute, one-sided assertions from totalitarian regimes trying to sway public opinion, it is appalling that two of the world’s foremost science bodies should engage in such unconditional rhetoric. Sir Isaac Newton, the Royal Society’s most famous member and its president until 1727, would be furious about such a violation of the scientific tradition he cherished.

Continuing in the same tone, the RS/NAS report next says that “long-term climate change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities.” And then, to ensure extensive coverage from mainstream media, which are already reporting uncritically on the document [2], “If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age [i.e., 7 to 9 °F] can be expected by the end of this century or soon after.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372348/four-truths-international-relations-tom-rogan ‘The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” President Obama told Mitt Romney on October 22, 2012. And now Ukrainians are calling to ask for their country back. The pictures tell a tale. Ukrainian Marines besieged in their barracks. Russian troops patrolling ports and towns and entrenching on the border. […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/372352/print

Barack Obama is the second U.S. president in a row to badly misjudge Vladimir Putin. In 2001, after his first meeting with Putin, George W. Bush famously told Colin Powell, his secretary of state, that he thought the Russian leader was religious. “Powell, I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul.” To which Powell replied: “Mr. President, I looked into President Putin’s eyes and I saw the KGB.”

Barack Obama hasn’t made that mistake. But in the wake of Russia’s invasion of the Ukranian region of Crimea, it’s worth remembering that in 2008, Obama ridiculed John McCain for warning about Russia after its invasion of independent Georgia. In 2012, he mocked Romney for identifying Russia as our top geopolitical foe, sneering, “The Cold War has been over for 20 years.”

But Vladimir Putin has long acted as if he can’t wait to bring the icicles of the Cold War back. At their joint public meetings, Putin has dismissively looked away from Obama, treating him as someone he could dupe or roll over at will. Critics say that attitude was on display in Putin’s handling of Edward Snowden and in his moves regarding Syria. In both cases, he embarrassed the United States.

Senator John McCain says it is now obvious that not only Obama but also Hillary Clinton got Russia wildly wrong. Of Clinton, he says, “She believed there would somehow be a ‘reset’ with a guy who was a KGB colonel who always had ambitions to restore the Russian empire,” McCain told the Daily Beast. McCain noted that as late as last Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry and other U.S. officials accepted assurances from Russia’s foreign minister that Russia had no intention of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. The occupation of Crimea began the following day.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304360704579415570387559300#printMode
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Incredible’
Secretary of State John Kerry on the CBS news show “Face the Nation,” March 2.

From Secretary of State John Kerry’s reply to a question about Russia’s actions in Ukraine on the CBS news show “Face the Nation,” March 2:

Well, it’s an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning willful choice by president Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations. Russia is in violation of its obligations under the U.N. charter, under the Helsinki Final Act. Its violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest agreement. You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.

So it is a very serious moment, but it is serious not in the context . . . of Russia-U.S. It is serious in terms of sort of the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026804579413900968932702?mod=WSJ_Opinion_

Vladimir Putin’s Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula by force on the weekend and now has his sights on the rest of his Slavic neighbor. The brazen aggression brings the threat of war to the heart of Europe for the first time since the end of the Cold War. The question now is what President Obama and free Europe are going to do about it.

With a swiftness and organization that suggests the plans were hatched weeks ago, Mr. Putin is moving to carve up Ukraine after Russia’s satrap in Kiev, former President Viktor Yanukovych, was deposed in a popular democratic uprising. Russian troops have invaded Ukraine’s territory and now control all border crossings, ports and airports in Crimea. The Kremlin’s rubber-stamp parliament on Saturday approved Russian military intervention anywhere in Ukraine, which is nothing less than a declaration of war. The new government in Kiev responded by putting forces on high alert.
***

This is a crisis made entirely in Moscow. Speaking the day Mr. Yanukovych fled his palace in Kiev, Mr. Putin lied to President Obama about Russia’s actions and intentions. So did his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in calls with Secretary of State John Kerry. If the blitzkrieg succeeds, Russia’s assault could end Ukraine’s 22-year history as a unitary independent state. The peaceful European order that the U.S. has paid such a high price to establish after the collapse of the Soviet Union is also in danger.