opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Austin Bay
Austin Bay
16 Jul 2014
Israeli Iron Dome Demonstrates Missile Defense Payoffs

According to the Israeli government, in this latest round of Israel-Hamas combat, Israel's Iron Dome missile … Read More.

9 Jul 2014
An Independent Kurdistan: World War I Continues

As the militant Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL) threatens to shatter Iraq'… Read More.

2 Jul 2014
Bombs Bursting in Air: America's Airpower Advantage, 1944-2014

Sometime during the spring of 1944, Allied commanders concluded that their air forces had secured air … Read More.

Penalize Putin and His Culpable Kremlin


Ultimate responsibility for the massacre of the 298 people aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 begins and ends in the Kremlin office of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Even if the triggermen who fired the missile turn out to be Donetsk locals, the so-called pro-Russian separatist militia fighters are armed and advised by Russian intelligence officers.

Until this latest outrage, Putin's KGB-type agitation-propaganda campaign had provided timorous Europeans and Americans with enough anecdotal deceit to give his militia proxies media cover.

MH17's fatal interception has opened eyes. For several good reasons, to include photos of SA-11 mobile launchers departing Ukraine for Russia, numerous experts believe a Russian-made SA-11 surface-to-air missile shot down MH17.

The missile itself is only one component of a complex weapon system. Militiamen do not simply find an SA-11 launcher, functional missiles, control vans, radar and other communications equipment. The Kremlin had to authorize the delivery of the SA-11 system to its militia proxies.

An ill-trained volunteer could launch the missile on a whim. However, maintaining the complex system, especially in field conditions, requires trained personnel. In order to keep the system operational, so an impulsive fool could commit mass murder, the Kremlin had to be providing essential support personnel.

The Ukrainian government has released electronic intercepts of conversations among militiamen discussing the launch. Though there is no evidence (yet) that ties a Russian field operative directly to the launch, the Kremlin initially tried to hinder international investigators. When investigators finally arrived at the crash site, they discovered that someone with a chainsaw had sliced up the plane cabin.

Will Putin and his crony government be held accountable for providing the weapon system and creating the conditions that produced this slaughter? Who holds him responsible, and how?

Verbal condemnation as a penalty for MH17 is demonstrably inadequate. Recall Putin's Kremlin was responsible for the invasion and annexation of Crimea.

The February invasion severely damaged the post-Cold War diplomatic framework for securing territorial sovereignty in Eastern Europe. Putin's March 18 Crimean annexation completely destroyed it.

Putin was condemned, but mere words don't deter bullies. Tough words backed by forceful actions are no sure thing, either, but they have a far better track record than sound-bite bombast.

In Crimea's aftermath, I strongly supported the Obama administration's call for stiff economic penalties. Russia's economy is vulnerable to sanctions. Meaningful U.S. and European Union economic sanctions, however, have yet to be imposed. A long-term U.S.-E.U. agreement to develop alternative energy resources that reduce dependency on Russia energy exports would truly damage Putin's regime.

I argued that economic sanctions were deserved but insufficient. Putin's arrogant disdain for diplomatic agreements demanded a NATO political response that affirmed alliance security commitments. In March I advocated permanently stationing a reinforced U.S. heavy-armor brigade in Poland. NATO would affirm the front line. There was also an outside chance that promising to permanently station U.S. combat forces in Poland might give Putin second thoughts about waging low-level war in Eastern Ukraine.

The MH17 massacre demands a sustained American and European response to the long-term threat posed by Putin's imperial ambitions. The objective is to create the political foundation for maintaining effective, long-term economic and diplomatic sanctions that will lead to meaningful behavioral changes and productive political changes in Russia.

The instruments for this already exist: NATO and the E.U. NATO needs to permanently station allied ground-combat units in Poland. Where and how many depend on Kremlin behavior? The E.U. must get serious about economic sanctions. This means focusing on energy alternatives to Russian supplies. The fracking revolution is about to make the U.S. a natural gas exporter. U.S. gas denies the Kremlin a potent political weapon. Unlike Russia, the U.S. is not going to threaten to shut off gas supplies to Paris, Berlin, Warsaw or, yes, Kiev. Putin has used oil and gas income to rebuild his military. Reducing that revenue hinders Russian Army modernization more effectively than a week of heavy air strikes.

To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



1 Comments | Post Comment
Is hard for US to take moral high ground with your argument for it have no teeth. Situation very serious but always one must look at covert actions of those in own country as well as those who threaten our country.

Russia for sure shouldn't do that. That's a very bad thing Russia supply arms to ill trained terrorists.
Except when the US does it...

nytimes 2012/10/15 world/middle east/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels

worldtribune 2014/07/22 official-seized-u-s-combat-platforms-transform-isil-military

The US and the House of Saud have supplied ISIS with weapons, just like they gave weapons to al-Nusra, just like the SAMs supplied to the Mujahadeen who became al Qaeda.

Is pot call kettle black. How condemn another for own actions same?

Is same old story, never about what fairy tale have you believe.

"The Russia–Ukraine gas disputes refer to a number of disputes between Ukrainian oil and gas company Naftohaz Ukrayiny and Russian gas supplier Gazprom over natural gas supplies, prices, and debts. These disputes have grown beyond simple business disputes into transnational political issues—involving political leaders from several countries—that threaten natural gas supplies in numerous European countries dependent on natural gas imports from Russian suppliers, which are transported through Ukraine. Russia provides approximately a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union; approximately 80% of those exports travel through pipelines across Ukrainian soil prior to arriving in the EU."
Comment: #1
Posted by: steveM
Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:58 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Austin Bay
Jul. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 Jul 2014
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 25 Jul 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 25 Jul 2014

20 Jan 2010 Corruption: The Global Disease

7 May 2008 Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth in Iraq"

31 Jul 2013 The Manning Conviction