The Cold War legacy of "leading from behind"

Yeah!!! I'm as caught up in the events unfolding in Ukraine as any other political junkie. But to be really honest, I think this is a terribly complex situation and I'm willing to embrace the fact that - on this one - there are things I simply don't understand. So I'm going to avoid any predictions about what will happen or advice about what the President should/shouldn't do.

But of course our media needs to hype this situation up in order to maximize eyeballs and clicks. To listen to them you'd think NOTHING THIS BAD HAS EVER HAPPENED!!!! That's why the one article on it all that I'd suggest you read comes from Sam Tanehaus in the NYT. As is almost always the case, a little historical perspective is always a good idea.

snip

Here's what he says about that last one:
Or consider the most hallowed of Republican Cold War presidents, Ronald Reagan. Early in his first term, he too faced a Ukraine-like emergency when the Solidarity movement was crushed in Poland. Many expected a powerful response. Instead he showed restraint. He voiced sympathy for the movement, but the assistance he provided came quietly — and covertly, in part — through money and communications equipment funneled to anti-Communists.
My, oh my! One might have suggested that Reagan chose to "lead from behind."

As many in the media and on the right attempt to emasculate President Obama for taking a similar approach to dealing with the situation in the Ukraine, its worth remembering just how wrong history proves them to be.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-cold-war-legacy-of-leading-from.html