Comments about ‘Topic of the day: Was Mitt Romney right about Russia?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 19 2014 11:05 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Layton, UT


Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

And what, pray tell, would Mitt have done differently? Would he, ahem, nuke 'em?

Salt Lake City, UT

In the grand scheme of things nothing would be substantially different between an Obama Administration and a Romney Administration on this matter. The Romney one would be more antagonistic towards Russia but since we still wouldn't choose war anyway a more blusterous bluff or a missile defense shield in Poland doesn't do anything to deter Russia from its' current course of action. (There's also a chance we'd be less able to even bluff if Romney got us involved in a war with either Iran or Syria, the latter would be more supported by conservatives if a Republican was proposing it than when Obama was proposing a limited air campaign similar to that used in Libya).

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

If Mitt said it, It's wrong.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Obviously he was right. We know that now. It's not a question anymore.

The question is... does it matter?

The answer is... NO.

What does it matter if he was right or not? ZERO!

t-ville, UT

To declare Russia as a foe rather than an inconvenient but necessary ally was the wrong thing to do. He could just as easily have labeled China as our greatest geopolitical foe and when they moved ships toward the disputed territory to the north of Japan the discussion would have been the same as it is regarding Crimea. Mr. Romney told one half-truth for every three false statements during his campaign. Let's not get carried away and revise things too much.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

During the Presidential campaign, the wars Iraq and Afghanistan were working to Obama’s advantage because they were winding down after a decade. In an effort to divert attention from those wars, Romney cited Russia as America’s number one geopolitical foe. It wasn’t true then. It isn’t true now. It only seems true to some at the moment because of Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Can anyone explain why we should care if Crimea (populated mostly by Russians) secedes from the Ukraine (apparently by overwhelming popular vote)? Seems like this could be a win-win for everyone including the remaining pro-western Ukrainians (now free from the shackles of the Crimean vote) to elect who they want without Russian interference and form closer ties to the EU.

I mean other than a conservative obsession to constantly show the world how Reagan-like tough we are, I don’t see what the problem is here, and I certainly don’t see how this negatively impacts our national interest.

I’m open to being convinced otherwise…

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Romney didn't declare them a "foe". He said they were a ego-political threat, not just to the US, but mostly to their neighbors in Europe and Asia (and obviously they are). That doesn't declare them our foe. It means we know who they are, and don't see them with the rose-colored-glasses Obama did.


It doesn't matter if Romney was right or not. He's not President.


People say it wouldn't matter if Romney or Obama won. I agree on foreign policy. But I think on the economy... there would be a BIG difference.

I think the leaders of nations would be gathering around Romney at economic summits wanting to hear what he has to say, instead of our President sitting in the corner with not much to say, and nobody really caring what he has to say.

I think trade with the huge markets in the United States would be seen as an asset and used to attract friends (even Russia and her satellite nations).

I think it's presumptive to assume that Romney would have gotten us into a war every time something happened.

Far East USA, SC

Who would not want to be under the US umbrella. A conflict occurs and we spend all of our money and lives fighting for them.

We are in debt. We borrow money from China to fight wars.

At what point do we stop going out of our way to involve ourselves in every world conflict?

This mindset must change. One way to change it is to pay TODAY, for the wars that we get into TODAY.

If they are worth our lives and our money, pay for them TODAY. Cut other spending or raise taxes.

Then we will see how "necessary" all of these "conflicts" are to the American people.

Alberta, CA

Hey Obama,

The 30s are on the phone, they want their foreign policy back.

How would Romney have addressed Russian aggression? With serious economic sanctions. Barack's sanction is probably refusing to allow Russia to buy adspace on his Healthcare website. Ever. Although after the next election they could maybe talk about it.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

It depends on how you look at it...

a "President" Romney would be too busy deal with Russia --

With all the troops still in Afghanistan,
Those he would have never pulled out of Iraq,
The newest forces he just deployed to Syria,
the gearing up for massive invasion of Iran,
to begin
the planning for the liberation of Crimea from Mother Russia.

[all without raising taxes, paying down the Deficiet, and creating new jobs]

It would seem the ONLY GOP plan for creating American jobs is to just keep sending the poor into the military and sending them far away into conflicts around the globe.

Who's...buying up all those Armies and Navies?
because, after all -- you can buy anything in this world with money.

FYI --
I'm a veteran.
Like Mormon or Capt. Moroni,
I will gladly throw myself on a gernade for a righteous and noble cause.


What is the America interest in Crimea?

Our Borders?
Our People?
Our rights?
Our Constitution?

Thanks for Trampling the Constitution -- Mitt.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

And once again barack was completely wrong

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Tyler D,
Yes, yes... this is a win for the pro-western Ukrainians.

Now they are sandwiched between Russian Crimea and Russia itself.

Their ports are controlled by the Russian military. IF they expect to have any form of economy or trade with the West, or even get food or fuel to the pro-western Ukrainians... they need Russian permission. A Russian block-aid of Ukraine would be simple at this point. They could starve them out in a heartbeat.

How long do you think pro-western Ukrainians will remain pro-western Ukrainians? Or have an independent country, or an independent economy? (hint... it's almost over for them).

I would be getting out now if I were them. Many already are.

lex loci
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Irony guy makes Romney's point. Today there is nothing we can do. And that is why Putin acted and that is why Crimea fell.

The time for effective action was long ago, when even the likes of Sarah Palin were predicting Russia's incursion into Ukraine. Obama's foreign policy is feckless and the Ukrainian's are living its consequences.

Virginia Beach, VA

Yes, I know, Romney filled the air with useless blather. And now "Conservatives" are braying about him being "right?" Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Romney has not been right nearly that often.

I really don't buy that Russia is America's greatest "foe." Russia didn't knock down the twin towers.

Was Romney right? Not really. Russia is a country with its own interests. Sure they and we (the US) are opposed on certain issues, but we share the same greatest "foe." And that is Islamic radicalism of the kind that created 911 and and the Muslim terrorist attacks in Russia.

If radical elements in the Middle East (including those in control of governments) had their way, they would wipe us "the great Satan" off the face of the earth, even if they destroyed themselves in the process.

And Russia actually has that ability and does not use it.

No Romney is just another loud and boisterous "Conservative." He's politically right wing, but as usual, far from right.

That doesn't mean that Russian could not become America's greatest foe. With Romney as President, that certainly would have already happened.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I feel like quoting the immortal words of Sec of State Hillary Clinton... "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

At this point, what difference does it make if they were right or wrong???

Hayden, ID

The bottom line is that Obama thought to appease Putin by derailing the defensive missile system in Poland, going on his infamous apology tour, sending Hillary to Russia to do the stupid "re-set" button embarrassment and promising Russia that he would be more "flexible after his election". Obama's mistake was that he thought all this was a message of co-operation and thus currying the good will of Russia and our enemies. Putin and our other enemies see it as weakness which they are now fully exploiting! Which nation will Putin annex next?

Murray, UT

Ostriches put their head in the sand when they are afraid of what they see, so they can pretend it isn't going to hurt them.

Obama lovers here look just like ostriches.

The still ailing economy, that would be the Obama economy, is a dead weight on our foreign policy. It is hard to argue for a better way when we aren't exhibiting one. Pretty sad when the Russian economy looks inviting. Of course the armed Russian soldiers undoubtedly had some effect on the vote too.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

It depends on which audience he was speaking to. I have no idea what Mitt said about Russia since he said so many different things about it. Flip Flop! He could never make up his mind. So chances are, he's both right and wrong.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments