The conservative viewpoint appears again in another article under the National Security section of the Washington Post. The article "As U.S. ponder next moves on Crimea, experts rethink NATO's defense posture" by Karen DeYoung focuses on the actions of the United States, or lack of. DeYoung denounces the weakness of the Obama administration and NATO for not addressing Putin's actions with more force. For one, "the administrations and its allies must be willing to suffer the 'short-term pain' of possible international economic upheaval", which focuses on the lack of initiative on both Obama and NATO's part (DeYoung). DeYoung claims that rather than dealing with the situation swiftly, the actions that are portrayed are causing this event to be unnecessarily stretched out. She focuses on Obama's passive attitude saying, "[The United States] can't play this game being so self-deterred". She points out that Obama needs to have a stronger influence especially regarding international affairs. Although subtle, the Washington Post exhibits hawkish views regarding Russia by pointing out Obama's flaws and by demanding America's intervention in the Crimean crisis. This viewpoint is reminiscent of the Cold War when Anti Soviet remarks focused on deterring any action taken by the Soviet Union. The Neoconservative viewpoint sees Russia as the new enemy that must be confronted.
The New York Times contrasts The Washington post and provides a sense of the liberal understanding of the crisis. Since 1956, the New York Times has endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, in the article "The Three Faces of President Obama", by Thomas Friedman. Friedman begins by explaining Obama's comparison to a Pollyanna, John Wayne, and Henry Kissinger. A Pollyanna is defined as a cheery person, John Wayne is described as vigilante justice who brings violence when needed, and Henry Kissinger means to be a spectator to international events.