Obama Administration Is “Pathetic”, Says Vladimir Putin

Russian president Vladimir Putin says the Obama Administration is “pathetic.”

On September 4, Putin opened the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia and expressed his frustration with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.  “He’s lying, and he knows he’s lying,” Putin said.

He is now blaming the Obama Administration and Kerry for weak action in Syria.

Putin is outspoken, to be sure; but the name calling has hardly been one-directional.  In a recent press conference, Obama criticized Putin’s characteristic slouch and said that he’s like “a bored kid in the back of the classroom.”  An anonymous Kremlin official, quoted in the New York Times, reported that Putin was “infuriated” by the President’s maladroit remark.

All of this makes me really angry.

Not angry at the Russian president for his frank pronouncements regarding American politicians.

Rather, I am angry that America’s pompous leader should have so squandered the tentative post-Cold War relationship which was begun in 1971, during the détente period under the leadership of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and which was further developed during later presidencies.  I am angry that America appears to be losing her moral authority, her noble vision, her principled leadership.

Mr. President, in case you’ve forgotten, you work for me—and for all of the American people.  A majority of your citizen-employers, the American people, value the cooperative relationship with other superpowers that your less strident predecessors nurtured.  We DO NOT want you to launch military airstrikes against the Assad regime.  We don’t believe your objective is clearly defined, and we don’t believe killing innocent civilians by indiscriminate air attacks conveys the “message” you hope to send.

Political relationships are fostered, not by derision, but by generous cooperation and diplomatic speech.  Mr. President, you have demonstrated here at home, and now abroad, that you can’t pass up the opportunity to throw a little mud toward your opponents.   We don’t want to see you scuffling like the class bully on the world stage; rather, we expect your skilled diplomacy to persuade our opponents to seek justice.

We expect you to generate a spirit of cooperative partnership, inspiring Russian leaders to join with us to seek the common good.  Wipe that smart-ass sneer off your face, and get to work.

  • Petar Jarnevic

    I agree with your criticism, Kathy, except for one set of phrases. I think that America has already lost her moral authority, her noble vision, and her principled leadership.
    I doubt that the Obama Administration is able to attain any of these virtues, and I wonder whether the USA can ever recover from the damage which has been done.

    • oregon catholic

      Your words and Kathy’s are so reminicsent of what has also happened in the Church. Between the decline of the Church and US foreign policy I wonder who has the moral authority the world is willing to listen to?

      • Burt Murphy

        Your right and our founding fathers knew this as well, that’s why they authored a restraining order called the constitution and our government today oh so conveniently bypasses, ignores and bastardizes every chance it gets.

    • Burt Murphy

      It’s a sad day when I agree with a post such as this, but you are correct. Should I add say that America is easily distracted and has a attention span of about 5 minutes….this will change in time with some catastrophic event happens.

  • Dale

    I will set aside the issue of Syria (of which I despair), but I do want to disagree with one point made by Kathy. The US relationship with Russia wasn’t squandered by what our leaders said, but by what our leaders have done. The eastward expansion of NATO, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has been a major source of tension with Russia. And this has been going on for the past 20 years.

    For the youngsters reading this, NATO was the military alliance created by the US and western European countries which was meant to offset any possible Soviet aggression. The USSR’s counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, and back during the Cold War both alliances were frequently mentioned in the news.

    With the end of the USSR, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, rendering NATO’s original mission obsolete. But it was still western military alliance, and it was used by the US and its allies as a substitute for UN authorized actions, e.g. the use of NATO forces during the breakup of Yugoslavia and its ongoing role in Afghanistan.

    I apologize for the history lesson, but it is important to understand that NATO was, and is, an important tool of Western foreign policy. So NATO’s repeated expansion to include former members of the Warsaw Pact has irritated and alarmed Russia, over and over during the past 20 years.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      Well, so what? Those nations wanted to be part of NATO and frankly limiting Russia’s power influence is a good thing. Remember Russia’s aggresion toward Georgia in 2008?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_crisis

      Expanding NATO to contrain Russian power is a wise and needed policy.

  • Burt Murphy

    He’s right, oh BTW we also in America now Kerry’s lying..he also was considered a liar will serving as Senator in MA.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Kathy I have to disagree with you here. Putn has been a bully now for half a decade if not longer. Remember the absolute aggression Russia had toward Georgia?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_crisis

    Yes, Obama is not adept diplomacy but really what excactly has he done to Putin? Putin has been trying to corner Obama and put American foregn policy in the defensive for a while, even though Obama gave in and conceded to the Russian’s request of keeping anti ballistic missile deense out of Europe.
    http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-bows-to-russia-on-missile-defense.html#!/2009/09/obama-bows-to-russia-on-missile-defense.html
    As far as I can tell we’ve bent over backwards for Russia and they try stick a finger in our eye at every opportunity Frankly they sense Obama is weak and they are taking full advantage.

    • Masha

      Yes… I remember South Ossetia. The Georgians fired Grads at sleeping civilians in Tskhinval in a sneak attack at 22.00 at night. Then, they ran away, even though the terrain was in their favour (it gave their forces enough of a terrain-multiplier to have thrown back the Russians, after all, it was 6 Russian brigades against 4 Georgian… not sufficient force to rollback forces in mountainous terrain). Your comments show a lack of familiarity with the events of the war and a general lack of military knowledge in general. Georgia was the aggressor… not Russia.

      In any case, the USA has never had “moral authority, her noble vision, and her principled leadership”… it was never a “City on a Hill”… it’s just a nation like any other, but one that overextended itself badly after ’91. America should stay of out of affairs not its own… it’s NOT the global cop.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Oh obviously you take the most Russian side of the events. South Ossetia was breaking away and Georgia was recalaiming its territory. Russians took sides in a civil dispute and then invaded Georgian territory to make the physical point that it has the ability to bully any country in its vicinity.
        Obviously you’re not an American and possibly you’re an ex-communist. Sorry we defeated you. And yes, ask your former eastern European subjegated satellites whether they want the US to be a global cop. They are all rushing to get into NATO, and get away from Putin.

  • nannon31

    Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times supports a strike at military targets:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/kristof-pulling-the-curtain-back-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0

    • Dale

      For persons not inclined to follow the link, I offer a summary. According to Kristof:

      “The rate of killing is accelerating. In the first year, 2011, there were fewer than 5,000 deaths. As of July 2012, there were still “only” 10,000, and the number has since soared tenfold.

      A year ago, by United Nations calculations, there were 230,000 Syrian refugees. Now there are two million.

      In other words, while there are many injustices around the world, from
      Darfur to eastern Congo, take it from one who has covered most of them:
      Syria is today the world capital of human suffering.

      Skeptics are right about the drawbacks of getting involved, including
      the risk of retaliation. Yet let’s acknowledge that the alternative is,
      in effect, to acquiesce as the slaughter in Syria reaches perhaps the
      hundreds of thousands or more.”

      Kristof mentions the alternative strategies: the UN, the Arab League, the International Criminal Courts, or some kind of peace diplomacy. He then states that those routes have already been tried, or have no real world basis.

      Thus, he supports a limited cruise missile strike. The goal of such a strike would be to degrade the ability to use chemical weapons, as well as deter future use of these weapons at the risk of more such strikes.

      Kristof acknowledges that Americans are weary of war, and are increasingly pulling into a form of isolationism. However, he notes that such a stance doesn’t promote peace, it simply ignores the suffering of our world neighbors.

      “When history looks back on this moment, will it view those who opposed intervening as champions of peace? Or, when the textbooks count the dead children, and the international norms broken with impunity, will our descendants puzzle that we took pride in retreating into passivity during this slaughter?”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X