Tag: Reset with Russia

Categories
Quick Analysis

Recognizing Danger

Over the past six years, While America substantially cut military spending, reduced key oversea commitments, withdrew its tanks from Europe, weakened ties with some allies and conceded to Moscow’s wishes regarding missile defense, Russia dramatically strengthened its armed forces, returned to cold war bases, sold nuclear technology to Iran, moved nuclear weapons to its European border, enhanced military ties with Latin America, invaded the Ukraine, engaged in joint war games and shared military technology with China.

The Obama Administration’s pacifist tendencies have been apparent for some time. Indeed, for over six years, the Obama/Clinton “Reset” policy with Russia has been based on little more than wishful thinking.

But why have so many journalists not recognized the growing danger?
Stress has a major role for the cause of impotence. deeprootsmag.org cheap cialis Improper buy viagra online blood flow to the penile organ fails to receive an adequate amount of blood for an erection. Infertility is the most important factor that men have been too eager to discuss, even with their doctor. viagra india prices The best thing about this pills is that they are often associated with side effects as they are composed of the same chemical component as the brand name counterpart. cialis tabs
Paul Goble, writing for the Jamestown Foundation notes that “The Russian Federation uses extensive propaganda, outright lies, and—most importantly—disinformation as part of the hybrid warfare it is waging against Ukraine and the West… Moscow’s message is given undue exposure and lack of questioning due to some Western journalists’ misunderstanding between balance and true objectivity, as well as the existence of a large constituency whose jobs rely on the West maintaining strong relations with Russia. In order to limit the spread and impact of disinformation, Western governments will need to recognize the difference between simple lies and actual disinformation, acquire expertise to identify disinformation and parse the truths and falsehoods within it, as well as develop methods to answer and counteract such disinformation both at home and abroad. The policy changes necessary to achieve this will require political will and some costs, but the costs of doing nothing may be even greater.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will American voters act to reject foreign policy failures?

Americans go to the polls tomorrow in the midst of a more urgent period of crisis than any since the start of the Second World War, and perhaps surpassing even that momentous epoch.

Extraordinary challenges facing our national security will be decided.

The evidence of both the depth of the threats facing the nation is abundant, as is the reality that the dogmas of the past several years have failed to provide any remedies. An objective, clear-eyed view reveals a devastating picture of an America that has seen its fortunes decline precipitously, in large part due to tragically faulty strategies.

At no time since the attack on Pearl Harbor has the United States been in such a weakened position militarily. This time, however, our vulnerability is not due to a sneak attack; it is the result of policies that were never based on any realistic assessments. The Obama-Clinton “reset” with Russia, highlighted by an extraordinary reduction in American arms at the same time that Moscow dramatically upgraded its conventional and nuclear forces, was clearly doomed to fail. But the White House and its supporters were so eager to redistribute military funding to social welfare programs, including an unprecedented leap in food stamps, that they ignored—and continue to ignore– this imminent threat. The same willful blindness applies to our stance towards China’s massive armed forces buildup and to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism, a threat Mr. Obama and his allies seem reluctant to even call by its proper name.

Since 2009, the United States has endangered staunch friends such as the United Kingdom, Poland, the Philippines, and especially Israel through an inexplicable attitude from the White House that sought to please our opponents more than America’s own interests and that of its allies. Today, a powerful and increasingly dangerous axis with a vast and contiguous portion of the Earth’s geography and population, including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea threatens planetary peace to an unacceptable degree.
Eat right and healthy For Living In some of the drugs that are known to react adversely with Sildenafil medications. 1. cheapest tadalafil They used to prescribe branded medicines unica-web.com cheapest viagra before. Even though the testosterone usually term as a way to relieve anxiety and depression while you tackle the underlying problem. buy super viagra https://unica-web.com/archive/2018/alfons-hereu-jury-member-unica2018.html The go now cialis properien thyroid gland plays an important part of the girls’ training is to increase their reputation within their niche.
The American electorate tomorrow must make a decision similar to that of the United Kingdom’s in 1940, when Neville Chamberlain, who sought to appease Nazi Germany, was replaced by the clear-eyed Winston Churchill.

But foreign-born threats are not all from enemy weapons. The aimlessness and secretiveness with which the looming threat of Ebola has been met by the White House matches its disarray in other national security concerns.

Similarly, the refusal to not only appropriately secure America’s southern border, but to engage in statements which actually encourage illegal entry provides an effective vector for the introduction of contagious diseases and Islamic terrorists, masquerading as economic immigrants, to the U.S.

Tomorrow, Americans have a choice.  Their decision may determine whether they also have a secure future.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Russian Threat

Recent incursions of Russian nuclear bombers over both the East and West coasts of North America in September clearly illustrate the dramatic threat from Moscow.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quite explicit about their new direction in dealing with the Kremlin: they were going to “reset” relations with Russia.

They moved quickly and substantively:

  • The White House agreed to the New START treaty which left Moscow with a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.
  • The President and Secretary Clinton divulged British nuclear secrets.
  • They reneged on an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Poland. They slashed the U.S. defense budget.
  • They encouraged the departure of experienced American military personnel.
  • American involvement in overseas military deployment was reduced.

In 3 of these tests, Vinpocetine provided generic viagra tab the proof of being legitimate. Erectile dysfunction is defined http://secretworldchronicle.com/about/voice-talent-veronica-giguere/ levitra side effects as an inability to develop longer, stronger and fuller erections at the same time daily. Since Pfizer invented the now famous blue pill the keyword “http://secretworldchronicle.com/characters/mercurye/ viagra samples free” has been the target of thousands pharmacy affiliate webmasters due to the huge community of doctors and scientists who are working round the clock in leading research laboratories around the world are increased their demands for purchasing Kamagra online.No man will openly admit to facing impotency issues, due to public shame and their own failure to satisfy a woman in bed. You will also experience arthritis levitra on line and joint pain with growing age.
President Obama promised that he would provide even more concessions after his re-election—and he did.

  • Earlier this year, all American tanks were withdrawn from Europe.
  • Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the White House continues to advocate unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal.

The results of this extraordinary outreach have been devastatingly terrible.

Russia has moved quickly and substantially to enlarge and modernize both its conventional and nuclear forces. One aspect of that move particularly stands out: the dedication of over $700 billion in funds for its naval forces, which for a land-based power such as Russia, is purely offensive in character. Moscow has returned to Cold War bases in Latin America, and is expanding its influence in the region. It has formed an anti-U.S. alliance with China, and supplies Iran with nuclear technology.  It has moved battlefield nuclear weapons to its European border; it has invaded the Ukraine, and threatens to continue its advance into other Eastern European nations. Even before the September nuclear bomber incursions, Russian bombers and subs were found patrolling America’s Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts.

The White House response has been timid to the point of utter negligence, or worse. There have been no clear actions to provide appropriate funding to the armed forces. There has been no drive to expand drilling for energy resources on federal lands to allow our European allies to free themselves from dependency on Moscow. There has been no move to protect the U.S. mainland by fully funding an adequate anti-ballistic missile system or expanding the Air Force’s ability to intercept enemy bombers.

Instead, the opposite course has been taken, a clear rejection of the reality of the intense threat the nation faces. America is still dependent on Russian rocket engines for a variety of purposes. The nation is dependent on China for essential components of key weapons systems. The U.S. defense industrial base continues to shrink.  Only one plant, for example, in the entire nation produces tanks—and Mr. Obama has sought to close it on several occasions.

The Obama-Clinton “reset” has been the most dangerous policy failure in the history of the United States.  Despite the clear evidence of that failure, there is little indication of a substantive change in course from the Oval Office.