A weak politician always tries to prove to his circle and to himself that he is not what others think of him; he has to prove his strength which, in reality, turns out to be obstinacy rather than strength. After making a statement, he would not change his position at all, or else he would appear weak, and at the same time avoid negotiations in person because he fears them.

Instead, he sends emissaries with rigid, uncompromising instructions, draws red lines, resorts to threats and sanctions, and demands capitulations from his partner, i.e. useless and counter-productive negotiations. No self-respecting country would agree to capitulation.

As a result, the weak politician tends to quickly draw the situation into a conflict rather than a solution. And all this is to prove his power - to himself and others - and because of that he is ready to sacrifice countless lives.

He is ready to impose sanctions, which will lead to the suffering of millions of people, which will hurt not only the partner-opponent, but also his own country. That is why, the sanctions will not only hit the enemy, but also deprive the US from millions of potential customers. And all this to prove one thing - that he is not weak.

Lesson from history

I repeat, I don't know whether Obama is weak as a politician, but it is precisely this sort of "uncompromising" situation that is being set up around Crimea. The US president made effort to put together a coalition which does not recognise the will of the people. And all this against the principle which was declared by his own predecessors.

Let's remember Woodrow Wilson, who declared the right of every nation to self-determination and statehood. Or President Clinton, who was not reluctant to use military force to try and convince Slobodan Milosevic of the right of Kosovo's Albanians to establish a state.

Now everything is happening in the opposite direction. Crimeans are threatened by sanctions and by the direct enforcement of Kiev's power onto them. And for expressing support for Crimea, Russia is also threatened with sanctions. Will such policies work? I doubt it. It would rather have the opposite effect: It will stimulate the struggle for independence inside Crimea and it will encourage Russia to assume an even firmer position of support for this movement. Let's remember how in the 19th century, Russia held firmly its support for the liberation movement of the Bulgarians from Turkish rule.

read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/crimea-whose-land-this-part-2-20143207314516116.html

US President Barack Obama has said Russia is acting "not out of strength, but out of weakness" in Ukraine.

He also warned of the possibility of further sanctions against Russia if it encroached further into Ukraine.

Speaking in The Hague, Mr Obama said he was encouraged by the willingness of EU countries to consider sanctions that could possibly hurt them as well.

The US has already imposed sanctions on Russian individuals after Moscow annexed Crimea earlier this month.

Mr Obama, who is attending a meeting of G7 countries, said the annexation was not a "done deal" as the international community had not recognised it but admitted that "the facts on the ground are that the Russian military controls Crimea".

He expressed concern about the large numbers of Russian troops massed on the border but did say Russia had the right to deploy troops on its own territory.

"It is up to Russia to act responsibly and show itself once again to be willing to abide by international norms and... if it fails to do so, there will be some costs," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26738347

BRUSSELS — President Obama offered a sustained and forceful rejoinder against Russia on Wednesday, denouncing the “brute force” he said it has used to intimidate neighbors like Ukraine and vowing that the United States “will never waver” in standing up for its NATO allies against aggression by Moscow.

In a speech meant as a capstone to his trip to Europe in the midst of an East-West confrontation with Russia, Mr. Obama addressed Moscow’s justifications for its intervention in Ukraine point by point, dismissing them as “absurd” or unmerited. He even defended the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a senator, as a stark contrast to the way Russia has seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/obama-europe.html?hp&_r=0

------------------------

All this "windmilling" like Don Quixote, after the USA has interfered with more countries than numbers in an alphabet soup is EMBARRASSING... Come on, ease off... Learn to live. Ukraine is now run by nazi thugs who with your help overthrew a legitimate government — and whether you love these thugs or not is irrelevant. The fact is at least half of Ukraine's population (even minus Crimea's) is Russian. The fact is the Ukrainian government was elected according to the rules of democracy, but got booted out by thugs to which you have lent your support.

Yes, I know, Putin is a thugs like the rest of you. So don't go on your high moral ground. Say it like it is. You want Ukraine for yourself (I mean as part of the Yankee Doodle Empire). There is no good guys nor bad guys.

The Crimean peninsula voted to join Russia. This is DEMOCRACY rather than your MONEYCRACY, which pays thugs and keep puppets in power until it's not convenient or not sustainable anymore... 

The fact is Putin restored some gloss on the Russian amphora. Gorbachev with the red patch on his face nearly sold Russia down the gurgler with a dare. The west was about to ECONOMICALLY "invade" Russia once the borders had cracked. Russia would have become a third world supplier of goods without getting most of the benefits... That was the plan. Putin saw through this con-artistry. He has managed to hold on to the goods without Russia being shafted...

Annoying for the USA, but quite clever... 

Sir Gus

your international relations expert

Source: Gus Library of old stuff (Pix — 14 June 1962). Note the picture of Rafael has been "retouched" for better reproduction in the magazine... See the war of retouching...

News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch directed his editors to "kill Whitlam" some 10 months before the downfall of Gough Whitlam's Labor government, according to a newly released United States diplomatic report.    

The US National Archives has  just declassified a secret diplomatic telegram dated January 20, 1975 that sheds new light on Murdoch's involvement in the tumultuous events of Australia's 1975 constitutional crisis.

Illustration: Ron Tandberg

Entitled "Australian publisher privately turns on Prime Minister," the telegram from US Consul-General in Melbourne, Robert Brand, reported to the State Department that "Rupert Murdoch has issued [a] confidential instruction to editors of newspapers he controls to 'Kill Whitlam' ". 

Describing Mr Murdoch as "the l'enfant terrible of Australian journalism," Mr Brand noted that Mr Murdoch had been "the principal publisher supporting the Whitlam election effort in 1972 Labor victory".