I felt there was a strong need–a moral need–for the international community to react with strength to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against the rebels. There were bipartisan howls of outage in Congress over a proposed military strike, and on my Facebook page one of my ‘friends’ offered the most vile commentary over my views which alerted me to the fact he needed to be let go from my list.
Everyone knew there would be a price to be paid for looking weak. It was a lack of moral courage, and a failing of following international law that has led us, in part, to this point with Putin and Ukraine.
This weekend the lesson was made clear for the world to see. United States Senator Bob Corker spelled it out on Sunday.
Mr. Corker traced the origins of Mr. Putin’s brash invasion to September when, in the face of bipartisan opposition in Congress, Mr. Obama pulled back from plans to conduct an airstrike on Syria in retaliation for a chemical-weapons attack on civilians. Instead, he accepted a Russian offer to work jointly to remove the chemical weapons.
“Ever since the administration threw themselves into the arms of Russia in Syria to keep from carrying out what they said they would carry out, I think, he saw weakness,” Mr. Corker said of Mr. Putin. “These are the consequences.”
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
What are you and Corker expecting Obama to do? Bombing a little country like Syria is a vastly different enterprise than taking on Russia. I think Corker doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Do you honestly believe that if the United States had bombed Syria that Putin would have cowered in fear over the Ukraine thinking that we’d bomb Russia or in any way retaliate militarily?
I think there is little that can be done in the large dramatic manner that can impact the situation on the ground in Crimea. But I do concur with the line of thinking that over time Russia (Putin) has watched our war-weary nation retreat from the obligations it has as a super-power. I could also make the case that the uncalled for war in Iraq which sapped our national resolve to engage the world where it really required our action, along with draining our resources, can also be blamed for the inaction in Syria concerning chemical weapons.
Obama began his presidency by withdrawing plans for missle defense in Eastern Europe. Putin has had him by the “reset button” ever since. Putin does not see Obama as a leader, and knows he is no “cowboy.”
A nation becomes “war-weary” in part when it’s leaders fail to remind the citizenry what they are doing and why they are doing it. Obama has not been much of success in foreign policy. Both Iraq and Afganistan are in chaos. The Arab Spring is ashes. The latest budget proclaims a lack of will, cutting out navy to 1915 levels. Of course a monster like Putin is going to test us. Iran watches. China watches.
The world is more ancient than modern. When a warlord perceives his enemy or rival is weak, he strikes. Putin sees no reaction to his moves so far so he will take another step.
This quote seems apropos here: “Shocking as it may seem, sometimes countries take actions based on how they view their interests, irrespective of who the US did or did not bomb.”
But let’s say we bombed Syria. Would that have change Putin’s self-interest? Would that mean that the US suddenly had a practical interest in helping Ukraine – a country that is broke and rife with corruption? Bombing Syria wouldn’t have changed whatever it is that we may import from Ukraine which, I bet, isn’t much. What interests does the US have in Ukraine that will cause Obama & Co. to lose sleep?
Besides, as I said before, Syria is not Russia. Even if we had bombed Syria, I don’t believe that Obama would feel emboldened to go to war with Russia and I’d bet Putin feels the same way.
Quote came from this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility
CP favorite Lindsey Graham sez it started with Benghazi. Makes about as much sense as Syria.