BRAVO!! The Republicans finally Stand up to Russia
We are thrilled beyond words with the earth-shaking announcement from the new Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress that they will block ratification of the Obama nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a treaty which offers no meaningful cuts in weapons by the Russians, which undercuts American strategic power, a treaty which serves the propaganda interests of the Kremlin and seriously undermines democracy in the former USSR.
At long last, the Republicans have remembered the legacy of Ronald Reagan and moved forward decisively to pull the country back from the precipice of appeasement towards which the Obama regime has recklessly led it over the past two years.
At long last, the good-hearted people of Russia, those few who still care about their country’s future and are willing to defend it, can once again hope for some leadership and assistance from Americans as they struggle to defend basic American values of democracy and freedom from absolute extinction in their country.
And at long last, the demonic forces in control of the Russian Kremlin will be forced to confront the harsh, cold reality of American power.
An Idiotic, Lying Jackass is blogging at “A Good Treaty“
A new Russia blog has appeared by the name of “A Good Treaty.” Its purpose is to offer one-sided propaganda in support of the notion that Barack Obama’s sham treaty on nuclear weapons with Russia is a good idea and should be ratified as the U.S. Senate considers the document. Is the blogger on the Obama payroll? Or the Kremlin’s? Or both? You be the judge. Let us introduce you to it.
First of all, it’s beloved by the Russophile maggots, of course. Interestingly, not one of them chooses to make the criticism of “A Good Treaty” that they level at us, namely that some of us are anonymous. It’s just fine with the Russophile scum that AGT is anonymous, because it’s only a bad thing to be anonymous if you criticize the Putin regime. If you work hard to justify it, and the Obama administration’s appeasement of it, then nothing else matters. Got that?
Second of all, the blogger who writes AGT is stunningly lazy, dishonest and stupid, even by Russophile standards. In a post on the vast expansion of the KGB’s power to arrest and harass, the blogger claims the new law is no worse than America’s Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It appears, based on this pseudo-scholarship, that the blogger got the degree he lauds on his blog (but that nobody, of course, can confirm) from a box of Cracker Jacks.
Needless to say, s/he ignores an avalanche of facts:
Dmitri Simes, writing in Time magazine:
President Obama has presented the new arms control treaty he signed in Prague on April 8 as a “historic accomplishment” in both nuclear security and U.S. relations with Russia. But there are disturbing signs that the Obama Administration is overselling its progress with Russia, raising unrealistic hopes that Moscow would genuinely help in addressing the danger from Iran, the most likely nuclear threat to America and its allies.
The administration, eager to show foreign policy successes, argues that the new treaty with Russia, which calls on both sides to reduce their nuclear forces to 1500 warheads, reflects a significantly improved relationship that will help to deliver Moscow’s support for strong sanctions against Tehran. But it is not clear that ties between the White House and the Kremlin have improved quite that much. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s performance in Argentina, right after the nuclear summit, demonstrates that ties between Washington and Moscow fall well short of partnership. “If somebody is bothered” in America by Moscow seeking a greater role in Latin America, he said, “we want to spit on that.” His statement led the news on Russian state television. Later in his “Spit Speech,” the Russian President made clear that his government does not favor “paralyzing, crippling sanctions” — the only sanctions that could deter an Iranian regime determined to have a nuclear weapons capability.
Despite this, Administration officials describe the arms control talks as a victory for Mr. Obama and a model for winning Russian support for sanctions. As the New York Times reported, they claimed that “Russia backed down” after the President made clear to Mr. Medvedev that the U.S. would not budge on Russia’s insistence to establish a link between offensive and defensive strategic systems. Off the record, Administration officials told reporters in Washington that the successor to the START treaty was so advantageous to the U.S. that the Russian media was hesitant to praise it.
The facts are quite different, however, and the Administration’s handling of the agreement evokes strong echoes of history.
Defense policy expert Alexander Golts, writing in the Moscow Times:
As they say in Italy, a little fish is better than a big cockroach. This also applies to the New START agreement that Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed Thursday. Despite all the hyped-up rhetoric that the treaty is “historic,” in the end the nuclear arsenals of both sides will be reduced by only 100 to 200 deployed warheads.
Unlike other treaties between the two countries that were truly historic — such as the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in which an entire category of weapons was destroyed — the only warheads that will be destroyed under the New START are those that will be decommissioned and were scheduled to be destroyed anyway. All other warheads exceeding the 1,550 limit imposed by the treaty will be stored in military warehouses.
Michael Bohm, writing in the Moscow Times:
Josef Stalin once said, “It’s not important how the people vote, but who is counting the votes.” This could also apply to counting the warheads in the New START agreement. Despite all the hyped-up talk about “30 percent reductions” in nuclear weapons in what U.S. President Barack Obama has called “the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades,” the real reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both sides are modest at best.
As Peter Baker reported in The New York Times, Russia and the United States have agreed to apply “creative accounting” to pad the reductions on both sides to get to the much-desired 30 percent figure -— at least on paper. For example, one trick was to count the 20 warheads on B-52 bombers as only one. At the end of the day, the real net cuts, according to Hans Kristenson of the Federation of American Scientists, will be only 100 U.S. deployed warheads and 190 Russian ones.
Based on Kristenson’s figures of deployed warheads currently on the U.S. side (2,100) and the Russian side (2,600), the arsenal of deployed warheads will be reduced by only 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Thus, creative accounting has produced creative disarmament.
But this was not the only nuclear sleight of hand.
The Missiles of February
Last week yet another nation in Eastern Europe made an emphatic statement of how it feels about Russia: Romania agreed to host an American ballistic missile defense system starting in 2015.
Russia’s representative to NATO Dmitri Rogozin, a crazed nationalist whose nomination itself speaks volumes about whether Russia wants normal relations with the West, sputtered and fumed and demanded “exhaustive explanations” from the USA.
But what Rogozin didn’t do was ask why Romanians hate Russians so much that they would wish to take an action that would so infuriate the Kremlin. Nor did he ask why the Obama administration, whose craven cowardice in regard to Russia is well known, suddenly started getting tough.
Ariel Cohen, writing for the National Review:
Last weekend, Israel leaked to the Sunday Times of London that Russian scientists are developing nuclear warheads for Iran. According to the leakers, that’s why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Moscow for a “secret” visit September 7.
If true, this information may accelerate sanctions against Iran, or even precipitate military action to destroy the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. It may also blow President Obama’s Russia “reset” policy to smithereens.