As Vladimir Putin’s troops seize control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, President Obama is facing what some have called the biggest foreign policy challenge of his presidency. True or not, it’s clear his response to this crisis will test him as rarely before. Will he risk a war in Europe to save Ukraine? Punish the Russians through...
Listen to Gay Rights, Religious Liberty, and Arizona by Hoover Institution: Richard Epstein discusses Arizona’s controversial religious liberty bill and the latest developments in the legal fights surrounding gay ... | Explore the largest community of artists, bands, podcasters and creators of music & audio.
The US embargo of Cuba began in 1960, a year after Fidel Castro turned this island toward communism. It was extended to food and medicines in 1962, the same year as the showdown with Russia over the installation of missiles there. The embargo has prevented American companies from doing business with Cuba, and discouraged tourism to Cuba. The American government also tried with quite limited success to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba.
Each step to the present Ukrainian predicament was in and of itself hardly earth-shattering and was sort of framed by Obama’s open-mic assurance to Medvedev to tell Vladimir that he would more flexible after the election. Indeed, Obama, as is his wont, always had mellifluous and sophistic arguments for why we had to take every soldier out of Iraq after the successful surge; why we needed to drop missile defense with the Poles and Czechs; why we needed both a surge and simultaneous deadline to end the surge in Afghanistan; why we first issued serial deadlines to Iran to ask them to please stop proliferation, then just quit the sanctions altogether just as they started to work; why we needed to “lead from behind” in Libya; why the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular and legitimate and then later not so much so; why we issued redlines and bragged about Putin’s “help” to eliminate WMD in Syria, and were going to bomb and then not bomb and then maybe bomb; why we kept pressuring Israel; why we cozied up to an increasingly dictatorial Turkey; why we reached out to Cuba and Venezuela; and why we sometimes embarrassed old allies like Britain, Canada, and Israel. Amid such a landscape of deadlines begetting redlines begetting step-over lines always came the unfortunate pontificating — the Cairo mytho-history speech, the adolescent so-called apology tour, the sermon about “exceptionalism” — and also the dressing down delivered to a mute Obama by a pompous Daniel Ortega, the bows and hugs, and Obama’s constant apologies for past American sins. Again all this was trivial — and yet in aggregate not so trivial for the lidless eye of a Putin. Amid both the deeds and the facts came the serial $1 trillion annual deficits, the surge in borrowing for redistributionist payouts, the monetary expansion and zero-interest rates, and finally the vast cuts in the military budget, all of which fleshed out the caricature of a newly isolationist and self-indulgent America, eager to talk, bluster, or threaten its way out of its traditional postwar leadership role. Again, each incident in and of itself was of little import. None were the stuff of crises. But incrementally all these tiny tesserae began forming a mosaic, fairly or not, of the Obama administration as either weak or clueless or perhaps both. Accordingly, Mr. Putin, in empirical fashion, after factoring in the rhetoric and the facts, has decided that it is time, in the fashion of 1979–80, to move with probable impunity. Others are, of course, watching what Obama derides as Cold War chess games. Should Iran now go full bore on its nuclear program? Should China test Japanese waters and airspace a bit more aggressively? Should North Korea try to gain new concessions from its nuclear lunacy? Should the failed Communists of Latin America try forcibly exporting their miseries to neighbors? And all are operating on the shared assumption that the American reaction will be another “outrageous,” “unacceptable,” “don’t cross this line,” or another solemn Kerry lecture about the existential threats of global warming. For some, like the now furrow-browed Europeans who once giddily lapped up the Victory Column pabulum, there is irony. For the Baltic states, Georgians, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, and the South Koreans, there is increased anxiety about regional strains of Putanism spreading to their own backyards. And among our allies such as the British, Israelis, Canadians, and Australians, there is still polite bewilderment. This will probably end in either two ways : Either Barack Obama will have his 1980 Jimmy Carter revelatory moment as something like an “Obama Doctrine,” or we could see some pretty scary things in the next three years as regional thugs cash in their chips and begin readjusting the map in their areas of would-be influence.
Most analysts of the Ukraine crisis ask why Russian President Vladimir Putin would risk international condemnation – and potential military confrontation – with his aggressive military moves in Crimea.
Russian kleptocrats, Putin included, face a problem of their own making. They deliberately constructed a society that has no rule of law, other than the whim of the ruling circle. This means that their own wealth is not secure at home. Political fortunes change. Insiders may antagonize someone who is more influential or lose a turf battle. Their only choice is to hide their wealth abroad in foreign bank accounts or in other assets such as real estate. They send their wives and children abroad. Their children are building up human capital in the best and most expensive schools and universities in the west. Their wives or mistresses live in luxury in the safety of Germany, France, or Switzerland. It is not cheap to pay for such things.
Markos Kounalakis, visiting Fellow at Hoover Institute, speaks with Gil about the violent situation in Ukraine and what Putin is doing about it.John Rothmann joins Gil in studio to discuss a bevy of political news stories.
The Obama administration is scrambling to respond to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is just the latest challenge for the White House in dealing with Vladimir Putin. Jim Sciutto looks at what happened since the Obama Administration's 2009 attempt at a "Russian Reset.
State Sen. Ronald Calderon's decision Sunday to take a paid leave of absence while he fights federal corruption charges will eliminate the supermajority his party won in 2012, threatening the policy priorities of some Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown.
Herbert Hoover, the only Iowan to be elected a U.S. president, is a bit of a “political orphan,” says George Nash, the man who’s made the 31st president his life’s work. Liberals, he says, paint Hoover as “austere, maybe uncaring,” a president who didn’t do enough to combat the Great Depression, in contrast to Franklin [...]