In 2009 I posted an article, Obama’s Blunder On Iran, in which I noted, “When Obama backed off the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe, he did so without gaining a single concession from Putin and Russia.” Obama had just cancelled a Bush plan of installing Interceptor missiles in Poland and an advanced radar system in the Czech Republic to defend against long-range missiles from Iran, or from Russia if need be.
In a long O’Reilly / Obama interview during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama told endless lies, which in retrospect are outrageous and are an embarrassment. The lies and obfuscations are even more pathetic when we listen with ears informed with six years of Obama as President. The lies are pathetic, but more importantly, they offer a warning to voters and taxpayers that a little diligence is de rigueur when voting for leadership.
At about the 4:20 mark on the interview video, O’Reilly forces Obama to make a statement on the missile defines shield and Obama responds, “I believe the missile shield is appropriate.” A year later, as the new President, Obama cancelled the missile shield without quid pro quo from Putin. This act was a major blunder by any measure of anything relevant.
Fast forward to 2014 and soar over the long smoke trail of international incompetence from the White House, which began with that gullible, or willingly pernicious decision, choking the Western World and the Middle East. A portion of the Ukraine has been irreparably damaged and annexed by Putin. Iran is advancing fearlessly toward nuclear power. The Middle East is on fire from Algeria to Israel. And, well, back to Putin — he’s not simply satisfied with expanding his empire to pre-Gorbachev days, he’s expanding North to the North Pole. There is oil and gas under that ice, and there is power and influence to spread, plus there’s North America just a short missile launch away.
In 2011 Russia claimed ownership of part of the Arctic continental shelf including the Lomonosov and Mendeleev Ridges. Although Russia is the only non-NATO Arctic state (the others are the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark), Putin has demonstrated his readiness to “invade.” Should we be concerned with his aggressive stance in the Arctic? Apparently not, if you only listen to “liberal” media and experts.
Lt. Gen. Mikhail Mizintsev, head of Putin’s National Defense Management Center, has said, “We are planning to build 13 airfields, an air-ground firing range, as well as ten radar and vectoring posts.” Putin is building up his military presence in the Arctic and has stated his intention to place troops, advanced warships and aircraft in the region. To go along with new airfields, Putin has ordered-up nuclear-capable long-range strategic bombers. He is investing in new nuclear-powered icebreakers capable of splitting sheets of ice nine feet thick, and he is building a new class of ballistic missile submarines which are difficult to track under thick polar ice. And where to house them? The network of new naval bases.
Are these military efforts strictly because Putin wants to claim access to oil and gas riches under the Arctic circle? Or is it to use an argued-for continental shelf extension for establishing his own ring of potential missile launching capabilities just over the Northern horizon?
Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper has recently irritated the “left” minds across his country with a surprise push to claim Canadian ownership to the sea floor from the Canadian northern borders all the way to the North Pole. Of course, since there are three North Poles, geographic, magnetic and geomagnetic, and lawyers are negotiating which one to use on the way to settling claims, the question is complicated, however, Harper’s gesture is a signal to Putin and to the world that he’s laying down his own “line in the sand.”
Harper’s Canadian detractors have about as much common sense as Obama’s Administration. They spout-off claims that international laws and years of diplomacy should be followed, and that Harper is flouting international understandings that the Arctic is owned by all mankind. They don’t understand that Harper is launching a response to Putin’s gambit. They don’t understand the realities of the world they live in.
Here’s a perfect example of the left’s uninformed perspective on Harper’s decision, as presented in a newspaper anchored in very statist ideology, “The whole thing just reeks of amateurism. It sounds like the decision-makers had no idea as to the actual facts of the situation and were making up policy without any reference to international law or to decades of diplomatic practice on this issue.” This was emitted from the mouth of Michael Byers, a professor of international law at the University of British Columbia, a typical hotbed of academic ideologues hating any and all actions emanating from the office of a Conservative Prime Minister.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gets fuzzy when the fog of continental geology is further muddled by whose continent a particular oceanic ridge, or submarine elevation, naturally extends from. Oh, and is it a submarine elevation? Or is it a submarine ridge, consisting of volcanic rock? Volcanic rock differs from continental shelf geology and therefore they differ in origin. Tell that to Putin. Tell him the Lomonosov Ridge isn’t a natural extension of his continental shelf. He cares. Naval bases are going in. Period. His missile Offence system is going in – just over that very cold ridge. Period. Who stands in his way now?
Can we revisit the nuclear missile shield defense system in Europe for a quid pro quo? Please? Pretty please?