Is Trump Stupid And Narcissistic Enough To Invade Greenland?

In his first term, Donald Trump said he wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark. The government of Denmark made it very clear that would never happen.

But Trump's desire to own Greenland has not ceased. Just before Christmas, Trump posted on his social media site that " for purposes of national security" he feels the "ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity". Note that he didn't say anything about buying it this time - just owning and controlling it.

Greenland is a large island with an area of about 836,330 square miles, but it has a small population of only about 57,000 people. It has a small police force, but no military. The defense of the island is done by Denmark. 

That defense is by the Royal Danish Navy's 1st Squadron. That squadron consists of:

Four Thetis-class patrol vessels

and three Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessels

Those vessels would be useless, because Trump would not have to attack the island from the sea. 

The United States has a base in Greenland - the Pituffik Space Base. There are only a few soldiers stationed there and it is blocked by ice most of the year, but it's airfield remains operational all year. Within just a few hours, the U.S. could fly in a substantial numbers of troops - enough to seize the island easily!

Denmark is not taking Trump's words as a joke. They have voted to substantially increase funding for Greenland's defense. If they are smart, they will station a substantial amount of Danish troops on the island to prevent a takeover - at least for the next four years.

Is it possible Trump would try to seize Greenland? I think it is. 

It would destroy relations with Denmark and NATO (and possibly end U.S. involvement in NATO), but Trump doesn't care much about either. He thinks it would enhance his own legacy.

Trump is not very smart and completely ignorant of foreign affairs - and his narcissism and egomania could easily drive him to make such a colossal blunder.

Don't write this off as a joke. It's much more likely a power move by an authoritarian.

Why Putin Didn't Invade Ukraine With Trump In Office

Republicans are going on and on about Putin not invading Ukraine while Donald Trump was in office. They want you to think it's because Trump was tough on Russia. That's not even close to the truth! The image above, from Steve Benen at MSNBC.com, tells us the real reason. 

74% Of Americans Oppose Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

The charts above are from a new Yahoo News / YouGov Poll -- done between February 24th and 27th of a nationwide sample of 1,532 adults, with a 2.7 point margin of error.

Putin Wants A New Russian Empire - He Must Be Stopped

 

Vladimir Putin has invade the sovereign nation of Ukraine. He has tried to justify the invasion by claiming that Russians were being mistreated in that nation. It was a lie. He then claimed that Nazi's were in control of Ukraine and posed a danger to Russia. That was another lie. Ukraine is a democracy that elected a Jewish president (who has proven to be intelligent and heroic).

The truth is much darker. Putin, a former KGB agent, still laments to dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 2014, he called the collapse of the USSR the disaster of the century. His dream is to re-establish a Russian empire -- with him as its authoritarian head.

Why would he think he could get away with such an outrageous thing? Sadly, because the free world has allowed him to think such a thing was possible. The world did virtually nothing when he sent his troops into Georgia. The world did virtually nothing when he seized control of Crimea (which was a part of Ukraine). Then Trump became president, and instantly began kissing Putin's butt -- and causing dissension in NATO.

Putin got the idea that NATO was a toothless relic of the past - a relic that could not and would not stand in the way of his dream of empire. He decided he could act with impunity, and invaded Ukraine -- hoping to make it the first of his new conquests. If he succeeded, he could then take on the other breakaway republics.

Hopefully, he has misjudged the situation. Ukraine has not rolled over and quickly surrendered as he had expected. They are fighting, and while they may not be able to succeed, they can make it difficult and possibly a lengthy process. And Russians will start to see thousands of their soldiers come home in body bags.  There is already some dissent happening in Russia, and this will only increase it.

In addition, NATO has proven stronger than Putin believed. In fact, the invasion has strengthened NATO, and they are now a more powerful force. The NATO countries have joined in much more powerful sanctions than ever in the past. The new sanctions, if left intact, will do serious damage to the Russian economy (which wasn't doing great anyway).

If the economy collapses and the Ukrainians continue to hold out, Putin's position as the Russian leader could even be in danger. I hope so. Putin has overreached, and the West must hold firm. He must pay a heavy price for invading Ukraine -- a price so severe that he will never consider doing that again with any country.

His dream of empire must be stopped now!

Trump Continues His Love Of The Russian Dictator

 

While in the White House, Trump seemed to favor Vladimir Putin (and other dictators) over leaders of democracies. He has not changed. While most of the world is condemning Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Trump makes it clear he admires Putin and the actions he has taken there. In short, Trump is still kissing Putin's butt, and acting more like a Russian agent than a former president.

The following is an op-ed by Ja'han Jones at MSNBC.com:

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military aggression against Ukraine as fears of war in the region grow. The deluded Russian despot seems set on recreating the Soviet Union and reliving a bygone era. 

Trump's fawning statements in response are the latest reminder that America — not too long ago — was under the thumb of a Kremlin fan boy. We’ll address that shortly, but first, here are Trump’s comments from his Tuesday interview on “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show," an ultraconservative radio talk show:

I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.

The praise didn’t end there. 

“So Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine," Trump continued. "I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen."

He then called Putin a “very savvy” person whom he claimed to know “very, very well.” 

Trump’s obsequious praise for Putin is part of a well-known pattern. Even before Russia targeted Black voters with misinformation and hacked Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign in an effort to help Trump win the election, Trump — perhaps you remember — was desperately, longingly and publicly angling to become Putin’s “best friend.” 

And that’s to say nothing of Trump’s constant deference to Putin once he took over the White House in 2016. That includes — you know — installing Rex Tillerson, a pro-Russian businessman, as secretary of state; praising Putin’s lack of response to Obama-era sanctions as a “great move” while enabling his lackeys to communicate with Russia through a secret backchannel; repeatedly downplaying U.S. intelligence showing Russia interfered in the 2016 election; publicly excusing violence committed by Putin’s murderous regime; firing James Comey as FBI director over his investigation into Russian election interference; and the list truly goes on. 

Taking Trump’s latest pro-Putin comments and his long history of Russophilia into account, it’s remarkable there’s ever been doubt that Trump is a pro-Russian agent — at least in the broad sense. Though Trump may not fit the U.S. intelligence community’s technical definition of an agent, his eagerness to advance Russian interests in palpable.

To be clear: Trump isn’t a secret agent like you see in the movies, a la James Bond or something. He’s not hacking mainframes and scaling walls to do Russia’s bidding in the dead of night. Instead, he’s flaunting his pro-Russian bias in the open. And that open agency for despotism, combined with the hold he has over the Republican Party, is a true threat to American democracy. 

In the media, especially, there’s been a reluctance to acknowledge the serious danger Trump’s affinity for Russia — and the Republican Party’s willingness to fall in line — poses to the U.S. Some members of the press have repeatedly downplayed allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, or dismissed the allegations as purely political. 

And those doubts have looked all the more ridiculous as Trump has continued — as he did on Tuesday — to be open in his support for the Russian government and its goals.

Plurality Of Voters (42%) Would Support Sending Troops To Ukraine If Russia Took That Country Over Completely

This chart is from the Morning Consult Poll -- done on February 7th of a nationwide sample of 2,005 registered voters with a 2 point margin of error.

U.S. Considers Cutting Russia's Supply Of Semiconductors

 

The United States government is considering economic sanctions against Russia if it invades Ukraine. In the past, economic sanctions have not been so effective as to make Russia worry, but this one could be effective. They are considering cutting off Russia's supply of semiconductors, which are used in all technological products these days.

Here's how Ja'han Jones describes this new sanction at MSNBC.com:

You know how parents sometimes suspend their kids' technology privileges as punishment? The Biden administration is reportedly considering a similar tack to discourage Russia from invading Ukraine.

According to a new Washington Post report, the Biden administration is debating a policy that would punish Russia by curbing the country's ability to purchase and obtain semiconductors, the tiny chips used to power all sorts of tech-based products, including smartphones, some military equipment, game consoles, vehicles and more. American software and machinery are used to produce a large portion of the world’s semiconductors.

Though Russia isn't solely reliant on the U.S. for these parts — Taiwan and South Korea have the led world in semiconductor manufacturing in recent years — the Biden administration could reportedly use the new policy to try to force companies in other countries to stop exporting the chips to Russia.

(If you’re confused about what semiconductors do, here’s a quick explainer on semiconductors and how a shortage of them is hurting global industries.)

If the administration goes forward with the plan being discussed, it would use "export control" — essentially an economic sanction in this case — to restrict Russia’s access to semiconductors, much like the Trump administration did to cripple the Chinese technology company Huawei in 2020. 

This is a thread to follow, because companies and countries without access to semiconductors effectively have to postpone their technological future. In the U.S., the global chip shortage has delayed everything from PlayStation 5 sales to the installation of 5G networks, which are the foundation for emerging technology.  

That’s why the awesome power to bar Russia — or an institution — from accessing the tools to participate in this future should not be underestimated. 

Rest assured, that power is being compared to the Death Star for a reason. Stay tuned.

Will The U.S. Invade Venezuela? It Wouldn't Be The First Time It Has Overthrown A Government In Latin America!

(The map above is from gzeromedia.com.)

Donald Trump has refused to take a military intervention of Venezuela off the table. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he invaded that country. Things are not going well for him in the United States, and he might just think a war is just what he needs to solve his domestic problem.

He has tried to frame Venezuela's current problems as supporting democracy. But the truth is that he is supporting an attempted coup that tried to unseat an elected leader (and undoubtably, that attested coup was probably arranged, or. at least supported by our own CIA).

It wouldn't be the first time the United States has overthrown a Latin American government. Since 1898, the U.S. has done it at least 41 times (and that doesn't count the number of times we tried and failed, like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba). We have a long history of meddling in Latin America.

The myth that most Americans want to believe is that the U.S. did that to spread democracy or defend human rights. That is a lie! Many of the governments we overthrew were democratically-elected, and none of the meddling was to support human rights. Most of the time it was done on behalf of American corporations -- when the leader of a country got the crazy idea that his country's resources belong to the people of that country, and not a foreign (U.S.) corporation.

Below is part of an excellent article by John H. Coatsworth for the Harvard Review of Latin America:

In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America a total of at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century (see table).

Direct intervention occurred in 17 of the 41 cases. These incidents involved the use of U.S. military forces, intelligence agents or local citizens employed by U.S. government agencies. In another 24 cases, the U.S. government played an indirect role. That is, local actors played the principal roles, but either would not have acted or would not have succeeded without encouragement from the U.S. government.

While direct interventions are easily identified and copiously documented, identifying indirect interventions requires an exercise in historical judgment. The list of 41 includes only cases where, in the author’s judgment, the incumbent government would likely have survived in the absence of U.S. hostility. The list ranges from obvious cases to close calls. An example of an obvious case is the decision, made in the Oval Office in January 1963, to incite the Guatemalan army to overthrow the (dubiously) elected government of Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes in order to prevent an open competitive election that might have been won by left-leaning former President Juan José Arévalo. A less obvious case is that of the Chilean military coup against the government of President Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973. The Allende government had plenty of domestic opponents eager to see it deposed. It is included in this list because U.S. opposition to a coup (rather than encouragement) would most likely have enabled Allende to continue in office until new elections.

The 41 cases do not include incidents in which the United States sought to depose a Latin American government, but failed in the attempt. The most famous such case was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. Also absent from the list are numerous cases in which the U.S. government acted decisively to forestall a coup d’etat or otherwise protect an incumbent regime from being overthrown.

Overthrowing governments in Latin America has never been exactly routine for the United States. However, the option to depose a sitting government has appeared on the U.S. president’s desk with remarkable frequency over the past century. It is no doubt still there, though the frequency with which the U.S. president has used this option has fallen rapidly since the end of the Cold War.

Though one may quibble about cases, the big debates—both in the public and among historians and social scientists—have centered on motives and causes. In nearly every case, U.S. officials cited U.S. security interests, either as determinative or as a principal motivation. With hindsight, it is now possible to dismiss most these claims as implausible. In many cases, they were understood as necessary for generating public and congressional support, but not taken seriously by the key decision makers. The United States did not face a significant military threat from Latin America at any time in the 20th century. Even in the October 1962 missile crisis, the Pentagon did not believe that the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba altered the global balance of nuclear terror. It is unlikely that any significant threat would have materialized if the 41 governments deposed by the United States had remained in office until voted out or overturned without U.S. help.

In both the United States and Latin America, economic interests are often seen as the underlying cause of U.S. interventions. This hypothesis has two variants. One cites corruption and the other blames capitalism. The corruption hypothesis contends that U.S. officials order interventions to protect U.S. corporations. The best evidence for this version comes from the decision to depose the elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Except for President Dwight Eisenhower, every significant decision maker in this case had a family, business or professional tie to the United Fruit Company, whose interests were adversely affected by an agrarian reform and other policies of the incumbent government. Nonetheless, in this as in every other case involving U.S. corporate interests, the U.S. government would probably not have resorted to intervention in the absence of other concerns.

The capitalism hypothesis is a bit more sophisticated. It holds that the United States intervened not to save individual companies but to save the private enterprise system, thus benefiting all U.S. (and Latin American) companies with a stake in the region. This is a more plausible argument, based on repeated declarations by U.S. officials who seldom missed an opportunity to praise free enterprise. However, capitalism was not at risk in the overwhelming majority of U.S. interventions, perhaps even in none of them. So this ideological preference, while real, does not help explain why the United States intervened. U.S. officials have also expressed a preference for democratic regimes, but ordered interventions to overthrow elected governments more often than to restore democracy in Latin America. Thus, this preference also fails to carry much explanatory power.

Trump Threatens To Send U.S. Troops Into Mexico

 It has become obvious in just a few days that diplomacy means nothing to the Trump administration. He has made disparaging remarks about Angela Merkel, the leader of one of our strongest allies, picked a fight with the leader of Australia (another ally), and angered the entire world with his ban on muslims entering the United States (especially refugees from war-torn countries). For Trump, the only way for this country to accomplish its goals is through threats and intimidation.

Now Trump has definitely crossed the line. In a call with the Mexican government, Trump threatened to send troops into that country. He told the Mexican leader:

"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

Trump may not understand it (or may not care), but sending troops into another country without permission is an act of war. By threatening to invade Mexico (and that's what sending troops would be -- an invasion), he is threatening to go to war with Mexico.

The White House, and spokesmen for the Mexican government, deny that Trump threatened Mexico, but the AP has a portion of the transcript of the call, and Mexican newspapers are reporting it as a threat. I suspect the Mexican government is denying it because they don't want to be seen as being weak, but I'll bet the statement certainly won't go over well with the Mexican people (who are already upset over Trump wanting to build a wall between the two countries).

Trump's threat is reprehensible. He seems determined to get this country into another war, and it could be a war with a country most consider a friend. The man is dangerous.

Proof That Most Republicans Have Lost Touch With Reality

Recently there has been a new conspiracy theory floating around among right-wingers. They think that the federal government is going to use a military training exercise called Jade Helm 15 to invade and take over the state of Texas. The very idea of that is ludicrous (since Texas is already part of the United States, and under federal constitutional authority), but the right-wing has never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory (especially since an African-American was elected president).

The crazy idea grew such legs that the governor and a U.S. senator from Texas decided to play politics and treat it seriously. Governor Greg Abbott ordered the Texas National Guard to keep an eye on those military exercises and report back to him. Senator Ted Cruz actually wrote to the Pentagon demanding an explanation (and made his demand public).

Now you may be thinking to yourself that most Republicans couldn't possibly believe such a ridiculous scenario -- but if so, then you would be wrong. It turns out that 32% of Republicans (or about 1/3 of the GOP base) believe the invasion is actually going to happen, and another 28% are not sure (they think it might happen). That's 60% of Republicans who think the federal government is planning to invade Texas, or might be planning that invasion.

If you had any doubt that most Republicans hate President Obama enough that they are willing to believe any crackpot theory about him, this should settle that doubt. A majority of Republicans are such racist haters that they have lost touch with reality. And the really scary part is that these nuts think they should be the ones to choose our next president.

The chart above was made from results contained in a new Public Policy Polling survey -- taken between May 7th and 10th of a random sample of 685 Republican primary voters, and has a margin of error of 3.7 points.

The Pentagon Response Ted Cruz Should Have Gotten

Recently Ted Cruz (who is running for president) decided to play to his teabagger base. He jumped on board with the conspiracy nuts who think the Jade 15 military manuevers is a secret attempt to invade and conquer Texas. He even went so far as to write a letter to the Pentagon asking for assurances that no such invasion was being planned.

The Secretary of Defense was too nice to give Cruz (caricatured here by DonkeyHotey) the answer he truly deserved -- so Jason Stanford, Elie Jacobs, and Frank Spring over at The Huffington Post got together and wrote that response for him.

Yes, this is satire -- but it should be true (and it's hilarious).

Dear Senator Cruz:

Thank you for your inquiry into whether the Jade Helm 15 military exercise is the first wave of a federal takeover of Texas, the Trojan Horse, as it were, of the end of sovereignty in the Lone Star State. Our response, contrary to the long tradition of official correspondence and military bureaucracy, is concise: no. 

But that's just what you would expect us to say, isn't it?

Perhaps, then, you would prefer not an official proclamation but a reasoned answer. As a master debater in college (Princeton, right?), you surely appreciate the reliability of logic, your public statements over the past few years notwithstanding. If you are disinclined to take the United States Armed Forces at their word when we promise no ill intentions towards Texas, then perhaps your considerable and vaunted intellectual powers, which once posited the regrowth of hymens as a guard against unauthorized incursions in domestic affairs, could be swayed by incontrovertible fact.

I know you think highly of our capabilities. Why else would you advocate for a short war with Iran? If we are indeed that powerful, we could probably launch an attack from any of the 15 U.S. military bases already within Texas' borders. While Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher may have found it necessary, even attractive, to invade countries that can easily be overrun, the present DoD considers such lopsided contests at best unsporting. 

As someone who was not born within the borders of this country, it might interest you to know that Texas is already part of the United States. In fact, Texas has twice joined the Union. The first time your adopted state joined the USA in 1845 it set in motion events that led to the Mexican-American War. Later, when Union troops conquered the Southern rebellion, Texas rejoined the Union. It is not, therefore, farfetched to think that Texas' relationship to the rest of the United States could involve war, but please also keep in mind that when we refer to the United States of America, Texas is being implicitly included. We thought about calling it the United States of America and Texas, but we were afraid people might think Texas was a retrograde backwater of reactionary lunatics who think Moses was a Founding Father and laugh at you. This is way better.

Please also consider there are a great many things about Texas and Texan culture that could be threatened by another unnecessary armed conflict between Texas and the United States. We like Texas barbecue. That Green Beret who carried the flag out for the Texas Longhorn football team? That was pretty cool. The wildflowers along the highways are no joke. The late Texan Chris Kyle, the "American sniper," is a hero to many. Texas gave the world Lyndon Johnson, a staggering gift for which America was perhaps not entirely prepared. Without the Lone Star State, the Western swing band Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys would have appeared under the performing name Robert Wills and His Playboys, which is ghastly, or not have existed at all, a possibility that DoD has officially classified as "too awful to contemplate". And we really dig the self-awareness, the love of self that, while occasionally metastasizing into paranoid delusions such as those that motivated your original query, also make Texas a culture with an indelible sense of place. 

But, we reiterate, that place is in the United States. On previous visits, we noticed that many of your residents enjoy Social Security and Medicare (you're welcome), volunteer for the armed services, treasure federal parks, wildlife preserves, and wilderness areas, and earn and spend currency backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. With a quick Internet search, I also learned that nearly a third of Texas' total revenue is from Federal funding. In fact, millions of your schoolchildren pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America almost every day. And unlike yourself, they apparently mean it.

There is a fundamental misapprehension that we feel is at the root of your query about our intentions was revealed in a recent comment you made to the press.

We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don't trust what it is saying.

If, Senator Cruz, you believe that the United States military is a political tool of its civilian leadership, you have reached a conclusion unsupported by fact, history and good sense. The troops swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. To besmirch their loyalty to the country, even in the service of making hackneyed political points in the Republican primary, does not make you a patriot, but a partisan. Even a Princeton and Harvard Law man should know the difference.

Also, it makes you the rudest Canadian we've ever run across.

Sincerely Yours,

Secretary Ashton Carter

The American Public Thinks The Iraq War Was A Mistake - But Still Supports Current Bombing Campaign There

As readers of this blog will know, I never liked the Iraq War. I thought it was a mistake for Bush to invade and occupy Iraq -- and I berated Obama for taking three long years to get us out of that religious civil war. And while most Americans were initially fooled into thinking the invasion was necessary (thanks to the lies of Bush and Cheney), they now understand it was a bad mistake.

Note in the charts above, a majority of Americans (53% to 27%) now believe the invasion was a mistake. And when the demographic results are shown, every single group agrees with that -- except for the Republicans (who seem to be making a habit of holding positions in disagreement with the public's opinion).

And the same thing goes when people are asked whether withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake. A majority of the public says it was NOT a mistake to withdraw, and every demographic group (except, of course, the Republicans) agrees with that.

That makes me quite mystified that all of these groups (except Hispanics and young people) now say that the current bombing campaign in Iraq by the United States is not a mistake. I don't understand. How can the first engagement in Iraq be a mistake, but our re-engagement is not a mistake? Isn't this the same religious civil war? Do we have any friends on either side of this conflict? Isn't this new bombing campaign just going to make even more enemies for this countries (as more civilian casualties are created)?

I think a few years from now the public will understand that this re-engagement in Iraq's religious civil war was as big a mistake as our initial invasion (which started the whole thing). It's just sad that they can't see that right now.

These charts were made from a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- conducted between August 9th and 11th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

U.S. Public Split On Whether Israel's Gaza Attack Justified

A few days ago, I did a post showing that America's support for Israel is still strong, and unlikely to change in the near future -- and that the support cuts across all demographic lines. But the same cannot be said about the recent aggressive action Israel has taken against Gaza. As the death toll climbs into the hundreds of innocent civilians in Gaza, many Americans believe the Israeli invasion was not justified -- and in fact, the invasion only gets plurality support here in the United States (42%).

As you can see from the chart above, those who think the attack was justified is only slightly larger than those who say it is not -- a 3 point difference that is within the poll's margin of error. That means Americans are basically split over whether the attack on Gaza was justified.

Republicans, men, Whites, older Americans, and those with at least some college tend to think the attack was justified. But Independents, Democrats, women, Non-whites, younger Americans, and those with a HS diploma or less tend to think the attack was not justified.

Israel depends to a big extent on the monetary and military support from the United States. A huge majority of Americans think Israel has a right to exist. But Israel needs to reconsider their recent actions -- both regarding the aggression against the Palestinians and the continued theft of their land. They have exceeded their moral authority, and many Americans are starting to realize that -- and that could endanger at least some of the American support.

The chart above was made from information in a new Gallup Poll. That survey was done on July 22nd and 23rd of a random national sample of 1,016 adults, and has a 4 point margin of error.

Russia Puts Its Best - And Worst - Foot Forward

(The top picture is from paralympic.org, and the bottom one is from The Independent.)

Yesterday Russia put its best foot forward as it closed the Paralympic Winter Games with an original and creative ceremony. As with the Winter Olympic Games last month, Russia did a superb job of hosting the Paralympics. The face Russia showed the world was one of competence, peacefulness, integrity, and friendliness. In short, both the Olympics and Paralympics showed Russia in a very good light, and served as excellent public relations for that country.

Unfortunately, while they were putting their best foot forward they were also putting their worst foot forward. At the same time they were hosting the Paralympics, they were also invading and occupying the Ukranian province of Crimea. And yesterday, they oversaw a referendum (which they encouraged) in the Crimea -- a referendum over whether Crimea should leave Ukraine and become a part of Russia.

With about 75% of the votes counted, it is claimed that 96% of voters want to become a part of Russia.  This vote was already very suspect since the streets of Crimea are controlled by Russian troops and tunic-Russian paramilitary thugs, and the nearly unanimous vote makes it pretty obvious this was not a fair and free election. After all, only slightly more than half of Crimean people are ethnic Russians.

This is obviously just a reemergence of the old aggressive and expansionist tendencies of Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). While they mouth the right of the former Soviet States to be independent and go their own way, it is becoming clear that those are just words, and Russia has no intention of letting those countries leave their orbit and influence. It is already evident that Russia has taken the Crimea -- and that they may well be planning to take other parts (or all) of Ukraine. I think I'd be very nervous if I was a former Soviet State.

It is clear that something must be done to show Russia the rest of the world will not let them once again become an expansionist bully. The most reasonable reaction at this point is economic sanctions -- but these sanctions need to be more than just window dressing. They need to hurt, and make Russia think twice before pulling this kind of stunt again.

And a new CNN / ORC Poll (taken between March 7th and 9th of 801 nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points) shows the U.S. public may well be ready for action to be taken against Russia. About 81% say Russia's action against Ukraine was a violation of international law, and 72% say there was no justification for it. In addition, 69% of Americans now view Russia as a threat (from a low of 31%).

NOTE -- I do think the U.S. should take part in economic sanctions against Russia. But in light of the U.S. history of aggression against many other smaller countries (both economically and militarily), I believe the sanctions should be designed by the European nations (and just joined in by the U.S.). I'm just not sure the U.S. has the moral high ground here.

U.S. Public Unsure Of Response To Invasion Of Crimea

The Russians have now poured over 16,000 soldiers into the Crimea (a province of Ukraine). It's starting to look like they are going to use the political crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to expand their own territory. They have told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that they only entered the Crimea as the request of Viktor Yanukovych, saying he had told them the country was in "chaos and anarchy" and "on the brink of civil war".

That's a rather lame excuse. Yanukovych was not overthrown by a civil war, but legally removed by the Unkranian parliament. And if they were really trying to prevent civil war in Ukraine, then why have they only sent troops to the Crimea? Other parts of Ukraine were experiencing more unrest that the Crimea. This is not an attempt to "help" Ukraine, but a territorial grab by Russia. I think U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power put it well when she said:

"Russian military action is not a human rights protection mission. It is a violation of international law."

President Obama has said the United States will take some diplomatic (including economic) measures against Russia, and other Western nations are doing the same. Canada has even withdrawn its ambassador from Moscow. Unfortunately, it looks like the President will have to act without the full support of the American people. And that's a shame, since we cannot allow Russia to resume its old expansionist ways.

The chart above shows this unfortunate view of the American public. It is from a survey taken by the Rasmussen Poll on February 28th and March 1st of 1,000 likely voters nationwide (and has a margin of error of 3 points). Note that only 37% support diplomatic action against Russia, while 36% oppose that. Another 27% don't know what should be done.

Russia Damages Its Rehabilitated Reputation With Invasion

The U.S.S.R. (Soviet Union) was regarded as an enemy by much of the world, especially the Western nations. It was viewed as anti-democratic, and an aggressive expansionist country. But the Soviet Union ceased to exist near the end of 1991, and since that time, Russia has tried hard to rehabilitate their image.

They went to a largely capitalist economic system, and started to choose their leaders with democratic elections (or at least elections that had the veneer of being democratic. They also tried to project a more peaceful image -- convincing many that they were interested in cooperation, not confrontation. They stopped most of their anti-Western rhetoric, and even joined the G-8 economic group.

And they were pretty successful in their efforts to change their image over the last couple of decades. Many in the West began to believe Russia was serious in its desire to join with the West in a desire to promote peace and prosperity, and that they should no longer be viewed with fear and trepidation.

The recent Winter Olympics in Sochi was Russia's opportunity to show off the "new" and changed Russia. And that effort was largely successful. While many disapproved of Russia's stand on homosexuality, most saw through the games the image Russia wanted to project -- the image of a friendly people who just wanted to take their rightful place among the world's nations.

Unfortunately, with one single action (the invasion of the Crimea by Russian troops), Russia has managed to destroy two decades of hard work in rehabilitating their reputation. They say they acted only to protect Russians living in the Crimea ( a section of Ukraine with a large Russian population). But the fact is that they have invaded a sovereign nation -- bringing back visions of the old aggressive and expansionist Russia.

Will Russia withdraw its troops from the Crimea once the situation has settled down? Or will they annex it (and possibly other parts of Ukraine) as an autonomous Russian-protected (and controlled) country? I suspect it is the latter, but only the future can answer that question. Either way, they have done some serious damage to the rehabilitated reputation they worked hard for two decades to establish.

Support For Bush's War Still Shrinking

On the fourth anniversary of George Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq, support for the war is still shrinking. Today, Bush asked for patience and said even with his new infusion of troops, it could take months to turn around his abject failure in Iraq. Personally, I don't think he's got that much time.

Neither the Americans nor the Iraqis believe in the war anymore. When Bush first invaded Iraq, a majority of Americans supported his actions - probably because his lies had convinced them that Saddam actually posed a threat to the U.S.

But the truth has become obvious, and more Americans oppose the war with every passing year. Here are the numbers according to CNN/Opinion Research polls:

In 2003, 72% of Americans supported the war

In 2004, 48% supported the war

In 2005, 47% supported the war

In 2006, 40% supported the war

Today, only 32% still support Bush's war

More than two-thirds of all Americans currently oppose the Iraq war, including one-fourth of all Republicans. In Iraq, the bottom is falling out of support for the war also as the hard truth is setting in. ABC polled Iraqis, and the numbers are not pretty:

53% of Iraqis have had a friend or family member hurt or killed, and 86% worry that the violence will strike a loved one.

In 2005, 63% of Iraqis felt safe in their own neighborhood, but today that number is just 26%.

In 2005, 71% of Iraqis thought their lives were going well, but today that has dropped to 39%.

In 2005, 54% said their electric power was insufficient, but today that number has grown to 88%.

In 2005, 30% rated their economic situation as poor, but today that number has climbed to 64%.

In 2004, only 17% of Iraqis thought it was acceptable to attack U.S. troops. Today, 51% find it acceptable, and a full 78% oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq.

This does not sound like progress to me. This is a war that is losing support in both countries and accomplishing nothing for either country. Bush needs to listen to the people and get our troops out. It should be obvious by now that a military solution cannot be imposed in Iraq. Bush's continued efforts to do so will simply cost more American and Iraqi lives without coming any nearer to a solution.

Only the Iraqis can decide what is best for Iraq. America should withdraw and let them start to create their own solution. Keeping American troops in Iraq just prolongs the whole mess.

Bring our troops home - NOW!