Obama, Romney & the Russian bear |

Obama, Romney & the Russian bear

With Russian troops in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, here’s a look back at how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sized up Russia and Vladimir Putin during the 2012 presidential campaign.

First, here’s an excerpt of Romney’s interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on March 26, 2012:

Romney: “The actions he’s (Obama’s) taken so far, which he says are to reset relations with Russia, have not worked out at all. Russia continues to support Syria. It supports Iran, has fought us with the crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage. … What he (Obama) did both on nuclear weaponry already in the New START treaty, as well as his decision to withdraw missile defense sites from Poland, and then reduce our missile defense sites in Alaska from the original plan — I mean, these are very unfortunate developments.”

Blitzer: “But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that what you’re saying, governor?”

Romney: “Well, I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors — of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these — these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when (Bashar) Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go to the United Nations and who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that’s on the Security Council, that has the heft of the Security Council and is, of course, a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe.”

Note: In the final debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, on Oct. 22, 2012, Obama referred to the aforementioned interview in an attempt to paint Romney as a rank amateur on foreign policy, an old-school cold warrior who was stuck in the ’80s:

Obama: “Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago, when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida, you said Russia, in the 1980s. They’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years. But governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

Romney: “First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe. It’s a geopolitical foe and I said in the same paragraph, Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin.”

Postscript: “Romney was right,” reported Slate’s David Weigel. Obama “was playing to the cheap seats.” On Oct. 30, 1961, the Soviet Union detonated the Tsar Bomba in northern Russia, a bomb 2,500 times more powerful than the Nagasaki bomb. Today, Russia has an estimated 8,500 nuclear warheads.

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur ([email protected]).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.