Share |

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

An Appeasement Article With a Reagan-Themed Pitch

He says: “Mr. Obama, for Ukraine's sake, tear down this wall!

I say: “Mr. Obama, for America's sake, tear him a new one!”



Anonymous said...

Hey Reagan would have been pro-UA entrance into NATO ... so not sure of where Mr. Salvia is coming from but it sounds as if his main issue is China and Islam and would be willing to accept assistance from RU or any other "approved" source of help in dealing with the potential "threat" from the East.

I wonder if his institute has received funding from RU?


Anonymous said...

I can't find American Institute in Ukraine on ---- are they actually based in NYC? which would mean that they would have to file with the IRS form 990 or are they based in UA? on their site the contact info is for UA only ... though if their org. is recent it would not be listed as no pprwrk filed as of yet.

but the name is not registered with the NYS

and all it says is "privately funded" so who is paying for these opinions????

but they do say "US non-profit" but which IRS classification is it?

What $ is behind the org.?


Anonymous said...

Ah - this is a new org and site - and there are looking to make a name for themselves ---
domain of website created on 05-Mar-2009

No wonder.


Ropi said...

Well, I have to tell you that I am not really keen on the US and her policies. I don't like the idea that "small" (compared to USa and Russia) countries are used as tools but I guess we can't change it and it is the order of the World.
I may be an idealist but if the World wasn't about exploiting each other and greed then maybe there wouldn't be threat from the Islamic World and China.

Lingüista said...

Taras, I must admit, though, that joining NATO is a problematic step for Ukraine. Regardless of this being seen by Russia as a "provocation" (no point arguing that it isn't -- Russia will react as if it were, that's a given), I see the Ukrainian population still deeply divided as to whether it wants to join NATO or not. All in all, will it be good for Ukraine to enter NATO, or will it just throw into the Ukrainian internal political soup some more hot pepper?

In Georgia, at least, joining NATO was closer to a popular consensus.

What do you think? Wouldn't the internal consequences of joining NATO (leaving aside Russia's reaction) already argue against NATO membership? The EU would probably be a better club to try to join.

On a different point: I've just read an article at Radio Liberty about Arseniy Yatsenyuk as "the last hope of the Orange revolution". I don't know much about him -- what do you think? Is he a trustworthy politician? Would you vote for him if he were to run for president?

John Kalitka said...

This man appears to be President Obama's human reset button.

Taras said...


Thank you for your research!

You’re asking legitimate questions! To me, sounds very much like Well, if Gazprom has the wit and the nerve to invent Nigaz, then why can’t veteran spin doctors for Yanukovych invent aminuk?

As for the article, it turns Reagan’s quote on its head. It’s like saying, “Mr. Obama, for the Kremlin’s sake, tear down this country!”

Learn more about the American Institute in Ukraine (AIU) in my latest post!


It’s good to be secure, no matter how big or small you are.

My country outranks your country in size and population, but your country outranks mine in security and living standards. Thanks to your membership in NATO, you don’t have to fear the repeat of 1956, do you?

I mean no harm to Russia. Ukraine has never attacked Russia. Unfortunately, it’s hard to argue that Russia means no harm to Ukraine. And it’s historically impossible to argue that Russia has never attacked Ukraine.

I don’t want my country to be a pawn in the geopolitical game of chess, nor do I want my country to be a victim of its own good neighbor intentions.

The U.S. and NATO should play a key role in making Russia’s adventurism cost-prohibitive. Appeasing Russia would only lead to adventurism, with huge costs both to Ukraine and to the West.


You’re right! NATO remains a divisive issue in Ukraine, mostly due to diehard Soviet propaganda and its brand managers in the Kremlin and in the Yanukovych camp.

I favor closer cooperation with NATO, such as the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Two weeks before the election, Obama wrote a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, in which he described Ukraine as being ready for MAP.

There’s a political consensus in Ukraine that joining NATO would require a referendum. The biggest irony is that, if either Yanukovych or Tymoshenko gets elected, the membership issue will become moot for years to come.

Yet no matter who gets elected, he or she won’t outrule the disastrous consequences stemming from appeasing the Kremlin and greenlighting its adventurism.

Internal consequences? There haven’t been any such consequences in either Lithuania or Latvia or Estonia, small countries with sizable Russian minorities.

Bottom line, Russia has never attacked a NATO country, nor has any NATO country ever attacked Russia. I want things to remain this way and I want Ukraine to be part of it.


You’re right on target!

I’d call this technique Reaganrolling: using Reagan’s famous quote in a perverse manner to trick Obama into pushing the wrong button.

Taras said...

I think I just found Reagan's response to Salvia's appeasement article.