Hey, remember when the Obama Administration announced it would abandon America’s promise to European allies by killing the planned missile defense shield? Many, including myself, asked exactly what we received in return for abandoing our friends, breaking our word, and projecting weakness.

Well, now we have our answer. As expected, American weakness was only met with more danger. Moscow is heating up its rhetoric, declaring that it will increase its weapons stockpile and do everything possible to knock America back a few pegs. Sounds like someone didn’t take the “reset” button to heart.

In a notable toughening of rhetoric, Mr Putin insisted his country would develop new “offensive” weapons systems before it considered cutting nuclear warheads. He said the new weapons were necessary to prevent America’s leaders from thinking they can “do whatever they want”…

Two months later, [Obama] dismayed US allies in Europe by ditching Bush-era plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which were previously behind the Iron Curtain.

Moscow had been bitterly opposed to those plans and at first welcomed Washington’s decision.

But the olive branch has yielded little if anything in return. Instead, Moscow has used Mr Obama’s intention to instead build a “smarter, stronger and swifter” system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors as a justification for continued tensions.

In fairness, how could the Obama Administration possibly have known that projecting weakness would yield little in return for our interests as a nation? There were only centuries worth of history telling us that the strategy wouldn’t work.

We ceded ground on the European missile defense project. Now Russia sees it can win concessions from us in exchange for doing nothing. Moscow has moved on to demanding we limit our global missile defense shield. Next we’ll be told we need to cut back on our military spending and weapons stockpile.

And, as sad as it might be, I wouldn’t put it past Obama to yield to Russia’s demands each and every time. He still believes the most important thing is for other countries, even repressive ones, to love us and not feel threatened by our power. He still believes we’re the biggest threat to world peace, that simply reducing our offensive actions and downgrading our weapons systems would bring about a safer planet.

Which is typical liberal foreign policy doctrine. Russia doesn’t like us? We must be doing something wrong; we must change, even if that means leaving our citizens more exposed to danger. As a conservative author once said, (paraphrasing here) liberals couldn’t care less if people in Kentucky don’t like them. But liberals couldn’t look at themselves in the mirror if France doesn’t like them.