Historian Paul Johnson [bold added]:
Whatever one may think of Putin’s moral posture–which is deplorable–he is regarded as strong, decisive and vigorous, pushing Russia’s interests at all times, with considerable success. In contrast, Obama is written off as weak and irresolute, with no clear short-or long-term aims. He gets high marks for rhetoric but scores zero for action. In short, he’s a windbag. [snip]Barack Obama's critics say that he is weak and vacillating, but IMHO, the election of 2012 showed otherwise: the President is capable of great ruthlessness in intimidating and silencing political opposition by means fair or foul (IRS audits and NSA surveillance).
President Obama is missing two crucial chances [Syria and the Ukraine] to take a stand for decency and humanity against the forces of evil and is handing Putin an easy victory. History has placed Obama in a position in which he can be held responsible for the freedom or servitude of two peoples. Putin has far fewer resources but has been using them with skill, consistency and determination. It’s terribly sad that at this juncture the U.S. is led by a man with so little regard for his nation’s role in upholding and extending freedom and that the forces of evil should be winning battles with so little effort.
Where is that man today? One hopes that plans are afoot to reverse what appear to be American setbacks in Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. If nothing happens, one is left to conclude, sadly, that what his opponents said is true: the assertion of American interests and the promulgation of American values in the world are not important to Barack Obama. © 2014 Stephen Yuen