Bush is a pussy

Ok, that's a cheap use of an obvious double entendre, but I really think the media has been strangely silent on his duplicity of policy in foreign affairs regarding the Ukraine. Kristof swings back into his Dr. Jekyll Op-Ed persona, picks up the ball, and hits the nail on the head:

Yet for all the giddiness among the protesters here, particularly after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in their favor yesterday, this is as much about Russia as it is about Ukraine. And the first thing to say is that Vladimir Putin has behaved utterly disgracefully.

-----

Colin Powell strongly denounced the rigged election, and Ukrainians will remember that American
support with gratitude for a long time to come. But Mr. Bush and the White House haven't been as outspoken as either Mr. Powell or the Europeans, and that's a mistake.

Mr. Bush is working through the Europeans, and especially the Poles, to achieve a solution, and he may fear that too public an American role would anger the Russians and revive the cold war. Those are fair concerns.

But this is the moment of truth for Ukraine, when Mr. Putin is trying to thwart the challenger, Viktor Yushchenko, by squelching a democratic election, and we need to stand foursquare with the democrats.

Damn skippy. Look, I am certainly welcoming of a little bit of prudence on Bush's part when it comes to foreign policy (or any policy for that matter), but he has got it all screwed up: he acts brashly when he should be more measured (e.g. Iraq) and hesitates when he should come out strong (e.g. Arafat's death, Ukraine).

Furthermore, here is a guy who has built up his reputation as a "straight shooter" who tells it like it is, blah, blah, blah. I certainly don't agree with the characterization or the philosophy as a whole, but if this is what he wants to cultivate then he is acting awfully wimp-like (Daddy?) when it comes to the Ukraine. And that is saying nothing about his macho posturing on spreading democracy through the world... if ever there was a place to make a real stand right now, one that would reap immediate dividends, it is in the Ukraine. Such a move would certainly bolster his image in Europe, which he desperately needs if we are going to have any shot in turning things around in Iraq.

But he won't do it, which brings us back around to the rationale for the title of this post. Why? His buddy Putin. Remember, Bush saw into his soul and saw a good man, so everything is going to be fine!

Snark aside, why isn't he opening up on this? Kristof mentions a return to the Cold War, and I guess that's a small part, but not too compelling. For one, Russia doesn't really control much of anything by force anymore (hell, it can hardly deal with Chechnya). But more important than that, Russia's soft underbelly has already been exposed... it is kinda hard to put that cat back in the bag. The biggest thing we would endanger is the effort to secure nukes, but 1) I don't think they don't really want to abandon that; and 2) we aren't doing so much on that front right now anyways (which is lamentable).

What about another armed conflict? Russia *really* needs the Ukraine, not only for deep historical reasons, but also because of its considerable economic and military value: better access to the sea, oil and natural gas pipelines to Europe, and so on... would Putin use a military option to preserve that? And if he did, would we be in a position to counter it? I don't know the answer to the first question, but I sure know the answer to the second one.

So perhaps that's it... Bush knows he is in too weak a position to challenge Russia on the attempts to preserve their regional hegemony, and doesn't want to back himself into a corner in case things get a little out of hand. That makes sense considering his political goals, but it sure doesn't jive with what might be best for the world, nor does it match his bold rhetoric on Iraq.

When will people start pointing this out?