Share This Page

Dick Scaife: In a dangerous world, appeasement never succeeds

| Saturday, June 7, 2014, 10:52 p.m.
Getty Images
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition spring leadership meeting at The Venetian Las Vegas on March 29, 2014, in Las Vegas.
Dick Scaife with Ronald Reagan in July 1978.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Obama chats with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a bilateral meeting in Seoul on March, 26, 2012.

Last weekend, I had the unique privilege of again meeting with John Bolton, who was United Nations ambassador under President George W. Bush.

John is one of Washington's brightest minds, a man with equally sharp wit and insight. I always enjoy his company, but much of what he said this time scared the hell out of me.

He spoke in detail about China challenging its neighbors and America, the dangerous turmoil sweeping the Middle East, the failure of U.S. diplomacy across the world, the loss of U.S. credibility among our enemies and allies alike, and many other concerns.

One concern stood out to me, however.

As a boy in the 1930s and for much of my adult life, I considered the Soviet Union the gravest threat to America and the world. It starved, imprisoned and executed millions of its people, enslaved its neighbors, toppled democratic governments around the globe and infamously threatened to “bury” us.

After four decades of Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, thanks largely to the resoluteness of President Ronald Reagan. Most people thought it would never rise again.

Yet the unthinkable has happened: Russia under Vladimir Putin is challenging us today — checking us in Iran and the Middle East, snatching pawns off the chessboard in Eastern Europe.

As John affirmed, Russia has more nuclear weapons than any nation on Earth, most of them aimed at U.S. targets; it is ruled by men like Putin, a former KGB spy, who care only about controlling the world and filling their own pockets.

It cannot be ignored or dismissed as a threat, even if some in American politics and universities sneer at the suggestion – just as they have since the 1930s.

In March 2012, President Obama met with Dmitry Medvedev, then Russia's president, at a nuclear-security summit in South Korea. He asked Medvedev to deliver a message to Putin, the real power in Moscow: “(It's) important for him to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev replied.

Obama didn't realize open microphones picked up his words; he was talking, we were told afterward, about Russia's objection to a U.S. missile shield in Europe. But a much broader message undoubtedly came across, loud and clear, to “Vladimir.”

If we've learned anything in the Obama years, and with every president in my lifetime, it is that trying to appease our enemies does not succeed.

Appeasement killed 60 million people in World War II; millions more have died or suffered terribly because of it in the decades since.

I hope the next president we elect understands the threats that John Bolton laid out so clearly during our visit, and responds as resolutely as Ronald Reagan did.

And I hope the next president realizes that appeasement — particularly of a nation like Russia, or a leader like Putin — is one of the gravest threats of all.

My newspapers will continue to follow this and other international developments with the focus and tenacity they demand.

(This is the second in a series of articles by Tribune-Review publisher Dick Scaife, who announced in a May 18 column that he has inoperable cancer. In these, he will share with readers some current issues or concerns, recollections, and personal interests that he considers important.)

Related Content
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.