A guest of T&B’s provided this recent anonymous view on potential Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, and his stance vis-a-vis Russia:
I think Romney is just a sellout Establishment RINO who thinks somehow the U.S. foreign policy was stronger or more credible in the wake of supporting a client state’s useless assault on a Russian exclave in August 2008. It wasn’t, and no Republican other than Ron Paul is going to admit that our ‘reset’ with Russia was mainly about the fact that we had no other credible options AND had become massively in debt to foreign countries, led by China, but were also going begging hat in hand to Russia to keep putting money into Fannie, Freddie, and U.S. steel mills from 2007 on.
And of course, there’s also the incoherence of saying the Turks are increasingly going ‘Islamist’ and ‘anti-Israel’ under Erdogan but we want to invest hundreds of millions at least on putting highly sensitive missile defense radars and interceptors in their country. Seems those two notions are incompatible as well.
“Does Romney have any comment on the missile defense sites that are being installed [by the Obama Administration] in Romania, Poland, and even Turkey? I realize that he likes his talking points from 2009, but he might want to look into what has happened since then. If Romney still believes New START puts the U.S. at a disadvantage, is he proposing that the U.S. withdraw from the treaty? Given that Romney’s understanding of the issues related to the treaty is shoddy at best, I’d be interested to see him answer that question. Does Romney know what the word annexation means? If he did, he wouldn’t apply it to what Russia is doing in South Ossetia and Abkhazia right now. They do have de facto control in these areas, and they have recognized the nominal independence of the separatists to keep them as Russian satellites, but there are no other examples of the empire-building that Romney thinks is going on. Perhaps Romney agrees with the slogan that ignorance is strength? “