To call this a foreign policy win seems a bit over dramatic. I supposed "wringing a concession from Russia to consider" bearing down on Iran for its nuclear weapons program via stricter sanctions is something of a "success." But, I have a hard time taking any of it seriously, thus my inclination to believe this article, and any sort of celebratory tone or "glee" it may evoke, is short-sighted and will most likely be short-lived.
History tells us that Russia is not nice. Recent history, more importantly, tells us that Putin will do what Putin wants to do, and that the former-president's successor, Dmitri Medvedev, is merely a figurehead kowtowing to the stalwart that is now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
That being said, the article admits Putin recently stated that he may not actually agree with the sanctions. So, Medvedev signing the resolution means little without Putin's endorsement. To add insult to injury, Medvedev himself stated what we all know, and history shows time and time again, "sanctions rarely lead to productive results."
Furthermore, the resolution isn't binding. Meaning, Russia is simply giving lip service to the Obama Administration, that's like the star quarterback telling the fat chick in his algebra class he'll think about it when she asks him to homecoming. Unless there's some overriding gain to be had for Russia, and Putin more specifically, the resolution means close to nil.
Am I saying we should go invade Iran? No. I'm just opining that if anyone thinks the Russian government can be trusted are either very ignorant (willfully or not) or hopelessly naive. I much prefer John McCain's statement over George W. Bush's, when each had a chance to look into Putin's eyes. The later saw the soul of a good man, the sooner, KGB.
Am I saying sanctions shouldn't be tightened on Iran. No. But, I agree with Medvedev that they aren't effective.
As for all the grandstanding about the change in direction regarding U.S. relations with the U.N., I'm not exactly sure if anything of real substance was actually said. Granted, I'm only going off what I read in the article, but it sounds as if it was just another speech by Obama filled with his now familiar eloquent vacuousness, listing powerpoint-style his Administrations commendable goals with results that any rational person would find hard to disagree with for the most part. But, as we've come to love about politicians of any creed, they have the goals but rarely can they explain the means. Kinda of like healthcare or balancing the budget, etc.
Then there's the whole legitimacy of the U.N. I'm not talking about its existence or ability to impose sanctions and the like. I'm talking about the organization's clout, or lack there of. It's hard to take it seriously when it takes Muammar Gaddafi seriously.
Furthermore, the resolution isn't binding. Meaning, Russia is simply giving lip service to the Obama Administration, that's like the star quarterback telling the fat chick in his algebra class he'll think about it when she asks him to homecoming. Unless there's some overriding gain to be had for Russia, and Putin more specifically, the resolution means close to nil.
Am I saying we should go invade Iran? No. I'm just opining that if anyone thinks the Russian government can be trusted are either very ignorant (willfully or not) or hopelessly naive. I much prefer John McCain's statement over George W. Bush's, when each had a chance to look into Putin's eyes. The later saw the soul of a good man, the sooner, KGB.
Am I saying sanctions shouldn't be tightened on Iran. No. But, I agree with Medvedev that they aren't effective.
As for all the grandstanding about the change in direction regarding U.S. relations with the U.N., I'm not exactly sure if anything of real substance was actually said. Granted, I'm only going off what I read in the article, but it sounds as if it was just another speech by Obama filled with his now familiar eloquent vacuousness, listing powerpoint-style his Administrations commendable goals with results that any rational person would find hard to disagree with for the most part. But, as we've come to love about politicians of any creed, they have the goals but rarely can they explain the means. Kinda of like healthcare or balancing the budget, etc.
Then there's the whole legitimacy of the U.N. I'm not talking about its existence or ability to impose sanctions and the like. I'm talking about the organization's clout, or lack there of. It's hard to take it seriously when it takes Muammar Gaddafi seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment