Obama and foreign affairs – USA Gov Policy

The United States may be heading into one of the most dangerous periods in its history.

The Obama Administration’s disinvestment in American national security came at precisely the same time that Russia, China, and North Korea dramatically increased their militaries. Insufficient attention has been given to the alliance between those powers and Iran, Syria, and, if actions do count more than mere words, North Korea. The threat within America’s own hemisphere from the growing military relationship between Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and several other Caribbean and Latin American with Russia and China, as well as the association between terrorist organizations and criminal elements in Mexico, receives minimal attention.

As this article went to press, questions were raised about a new Russian facility in Nicaragua that may be Moscow’s most significant Western Hemisphere surveillance base. That revelation may be comparatively recent, but Moscow’s sending tanks and troops, and landing its Tupolev nuclear bombers in that Central American nation, have been known for years.

There are two issues worthy of intense examination in this matter. The first is the massive danger the U.S. faces. The second is how that issue has been so thoroughly ignored by so many major media outlets.

One of the crucial mistakes rendered by the Obama Administration was to reject the long-standing doctrine that the U.S. should have the capability to respond to two crises simultaneously. The error of that decision is obvious as the ravages of ISIS, Iran, and Syria continue to plague the Middle East, and North Korea threatens to turn Asia into a tinderbox.

There was no shortage of facts. Putin committed an additional $700 billion to his military spending, violated nuclear arms accords, invaded Ukraine, and returned to Cold War bases in the west. He opened relations with the Taliban, from whence the 9/11 attack was hatched. He initiated a massive new investment in strategic nuclear weaponry, and altered his nation’s philosophy on when it was appropriate to use battlefield atomic arms, essentially establishing a doctrine that they were just another weapons choice. The Kremlin’s nuclear acceleration came at a time when the U.S. arsenal was shrinking and sliding into obsolescence.

China’s actions were equally worrisome. It’s rate of spending was higher even than that of either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It has become a military power equal in sophistication to the U.S. By 2020, its navy will be larger than America’s, a truly stunning development. It has engaged in aggressive action against neighboring nations, including the invasion of the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, a move condemned by the World Court but virtually ignored by the Obama Administration.

Both Beijing and Moscow have shamelessly engaged in cyberattacks on American military, civilian, and corporate targets.

On April 5, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “There is widespread agreement that funding cuts under the Budget Control Act, plus a series of continuing resolutions, coupled with the pace of required deployments have damaged the U.S. military. I believe that the damage has gone far deeper than most of us realize, requiring more time and more money to repair than is generally expected…we all have to be clear and candid with the American people.”

Despite the sensational nature of these threats, the media has been relatively silent. It failed to probe these questions:

Why, when the military strength of Russia, China, North Korea and ISIS increased substantially, and the belligerence of those powers expanded, did the Obama Administration move to cut America’s military?
Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s massive arms buildup?
Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
Why, when Russia was dramatically building up its armed forces, did the Obama Administration withdraw key Army components from NATO countries?
Why did the Obama Administration surrender America’s lead in nuclear weapons to Moscow?
Why was the Obama Administration’s response against the invasion of the Ukraine so trivial?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore Russia’s militarization of the Arctic?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore the Chinese invasion of the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone?
Why did the Obama Administration open up diplomatic relations with Cuba one month after Havana agreed to allow Russian Navy ships to return to the island nation?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore the growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence in Latin America?
Why did former National Security Adviser Susan Rice mislead the public about Russia’s failure to remove chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal, as it was obligated to do?
Why has there been so little coverage of Moscow’s resumption of Cold War nuclear bomber and submarine patrols along the coastlines of the United States?

Let’s be listened to together online generic cialis below. 1. The physician may tell you about proper dosage and way to purchase generic cialis http://respitecaresa.org/events/fundraising-events/rcsa-rustic-gallery-4/ take the treatment. As a consequence, certain researchers have claimed of Vinpocetine to improve memory, especially in the individuals whose memory had generic cialis been compromised due to disease. If you are not aware of the side effects, precautions cialis order levitra and the storage of the pill.
At any other time, these news stories would be continuous headline news. Now, as America, thoroughly under-prepared, faces an unprecedented threat level across the globe, the press continues to underplay them.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.