Belief System

Avoidance
If we withdrew from the Middle East, especially from Iraq; if we avoided new entanglements, such as in Syria; and if we engaged with our adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, the anti-American furies would subside and the world would be safer. We should nation-build at home, not overseas, and slash the defense budget accordingly.

Mr. Obama pursued this vision starting with his Inaugural Address and throughout his first term. He tried to "reset" relations with Russia by dismantling a missile-defense deal with Poland and the Czech Republic. He muted support for the democratic uprising in Iran in 2009 lest it upset the mullahs he needed for a nuclear weapons deal. 
...
One way to start undoing the damage would be to concede that Dick Cheney was right all along. (Wall Street Journal, 9/9/2014)

Of course, Liberals would jump off a bridge before conceding that Cheney was right. Instead we get Obama attributing the various meltdowns throughout the world to the power and influence of Facebook and Twitter. 

A Liberal, but loyal reader takes it further explaining that Bush initiated rapprochement with Putin and Russia and that Obama did not do anything about ISIS initially because they were U.S. allies. Which does not explain 1) why Obama and Hillary Clinton made such a big deal about a "reset" with Russia (why reset if you are continuing Bush's policy?); and, 2) if ISIS was an ally (a preposterous suggestion) why did Obama belittle them by calling the group wanna-be terrorists?


Other Worldly
The goal seemed more preparing the NATO alliance for a new Cold War with Russia than exploring how to make peace, even as Moscow was helping to bring about the cease-fire agreement.
...
The meeting was just the most recent disturbing example of how cavalierly and cynically the NATO leaders — including President Obama — have escalated tensions, while dismissing opportunities to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion quickly. Absent from the discussion in Wales, among other things, was any recognition of NATO members’ own roles in triggering the crisis.
...
There would not have been such a concerted Russian nationalist response to the crisis had the West not sowed the seeds of suspicion and mistrust over the past 18 years by growing NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, in spite of the assurances that Russia ostensibly received from the George H.W. Bush administration that “NATO will not expand one inch to the east.” Russia clearly views NATO expansion not only as provocative but also as a betrayal of an agreement, and it perceives NATO’s push toward its borders as an act of aggression — and Western leaders know it. (Katrina vanden Heuvel, Washington Post, 9/9/2014)

At last the long-awaited Katrina vanden Heuvel analysis of the Ukranian-Russian conflict. 

Conclusion? 

It is all the fault of the West! Yes, you read that correctly and - as best as we can tell - it is not meant to be satirical. In the world that vanden Heuvel lives, the threat of NATO expansion provoked Russia into an unavoidable response and Russia gets credit for the tentative cessation of hostilities. Oh, and Bush Sr. is also somehow to blame.

vanden Heuvel is obviously making her bid to be named Vladimir Putin's favorite Western journalist. Right now, no one else comes close. Her only nit with Putin is the following:

"While there is no question that Russia at times has contributed to tensions in the region..."

And by "contributing to tensions" vanden Heuvel must mean Russia's armed annexation of Crimea.

Can journalists be fired for stupidity?