The Ukraine Situation

[Guest NGOG]

I don't see why people are surprised that Russia would seek to preserve an empathetic government - especially one so close to Russian territory. If the US were to lose an ally through regime change, they would would actively try to prevent it.

[Tater Totts]

I don't see why people are surprised that Russia would seek to preserve an empathetic government - especially one so close to Russian territory. If the US were to lose an ally through regime change, they would would actively try to prevent it.

More than that really, Ukraine is pretty much a puppet state that Russia don't want to lose.

[Guest NGOG]

I don't see why people are surprised that Russia would seek to preserve an empathetic government - especially one so close to Russian territory. If the US were to lose an ally through regime change, they would would actively try to prevent it.

More than that really, Ukraine is pretty much a puppet state that Russia don't want to lose.

Indeed. If this were South Korea, would the US uphold the integrity of democracy?

[Georgy Zhukov]

According to BBC, Moscow already has 6,000 troops in the Crimea and Putin wants to send more. If the parliament approves I am afraid there is not much Ukraine can do except fight or give in.

[foghat43]

The hypocrisy of the US knows no limits. Obama has stated that Ukraine’s future “must be determined by the Ukrainian people,” ignoring the fact that the Ukraine regime-change operation has to some degree been orchestrated by folks at the State Department in Washington. And for any US President to be critical of military intervention by another country is laughable considering our past/recent history and foreign policy.

The US should mind it’s own business and stay out of it…but we all know that won’t happen.

Edited March 1, 2014 by foghat43

[shades]

president obama and the US is in a shitty situation. obama knows he cannot send troops in, but at the same time he has to say something, he cannot just go quiet and ignore the situation either.

But yet once again he opens his big mouth and draws a red line, that Putin knows is really pink.

And as another volatile situation raises into question the power of the security council to intervene when one country invades the sovereignty of another, the US, who was once that pillar of resolve, has been reduced to paper tiger status because of our failure to mean what we say.

Ukraine offered to give up existing, and not to accept produce or acquire any new nuclear weapons in return for being recognized by the western economic structure, and afforded the same protection of their sovereignty and peace as any other peaceful nation.

The US used to spearhead and be at the forefront of these protections, Bush 1 protected Kuwait from Saddam most recent,

Bosnia, Sudan, and many other places we would bring peaceful nations together to rally necessary actions.

Under Obama we have left the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt, to wonder what we stand for anymore.

We talk but we don't back anything up.

and in all likelihood today, the fine people of Ukraine are wondering the same thing.

[downzy]

president obama and the US is in a shitty situation. obama knows he cannot send troops in, but at the same time he has to say something, he cannot just go quiet and ignore the situation either.

Under Obama we have left the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt, to wonder what we stand for anymore.

We talk but we don't back anything up.

and in all likelihood today, the fine people of Ukraine are wondering the same thing.

Yeah, because it's been all roses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of your examples have been Obama's doing. He's been playing the hand that he was dealt, and not acting as dealer like the previous President.

I can only thank the high heaven's Bush is not dealing with the various messes around the world. Rumsfeld would have already had the troops in Syria and The Ukraine.

[Ace Nova]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

[shades]

Yeah, because it's been all roses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of your examples have been Obama's doing.

Correct, all the sacrifice of Iraq has been made for naught by our present pantie wearing Clown-in-chief.

And he's just looking for a way to run away from Afghanistan.

"none of the examples have been Obama's doing"?

Of course, it's all someone elses fault. How liberal of you.

Sometimes, as uncomfortable as it might be for your kumbaya existence to admit, someone has to stand up to powerful assholes, and stand up to them with unmistakeable resolve. Ever heard of a guy named Hitler?

And the US has always taken it very seriously that we are the beacon of hope for those unable to take care of themselves.

Who's going to help Ukraine, Canada?

And IF, IF Obama has decided we are no longer that beacon, then at the very least he should keep his fuckin mouth shut and quit "trying" to act tough.

The people of Ukraine, it is my guess, have no faith that the US has the will to help them, it's quite obvious Putin doesn't think we matter.

maybe 'Netcat' can verify that feeling in Ukraine, I believe she lives in Kiev.

[bran]

this is how obama should handle putin

[downzy]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

There are some parallels, especially in how such actions will be received by the global community.

There are differences, however. Iraq/Kuwait wasn't a neighbouring state to the U.S. like the Ukraine is to Russia. Although Putin's prestige in the world will take a hit, there's also tremendous pressure within Russia to commit Russian forces to the area. If he shows weakness he may lose internal support.

I think we sometimes put too much emphasis on what individual leaders do (or don't do). Often times, situations will come about regardless of who is at the helm. Not always of course; who knows if a President Gore would have put boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003.

Yeah, because it's been all roses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of your examples have been Obama's doing.

Correct, all the sacrifice of Iraq has been made for naught by our present pantie wearing Clown-in-chief.

And he's just looking for a way to run away from Afghanistan.

"none of the examples have been Obama's doing"?

Of course, it's all someone elses fault. How liberal of you.

Sometimes, as uncomfortable as it might be for your kumbaya existence to admit, someone has to stand up to powerful assholes, and stand up to them with unmistakeable resolve. Ever heard of a guy named Hitler?

And the US has always taken it very seriously that we are the beacon of hope for those unable to take care of themselves.

Who's going to help Ukraine, Canada?

And IF, IF Obama has decided we are no longer that beacon, then at the very least he should keep his fuckin mouth shut and quit "trying" to act tough.

The people of Ukraine, it is my guess, have no faith that the US has the will to help them, it's quite obvious Putin doesn't think we matter.

maybe 'Netcat' can verify that feeling in Ukraine, I believe she lives in Kiev.

Is Putin Hitler? Should the U.S. fight every war? Would would President Romney or McCain do differently in this situation? Is the Ukraine worth starting a third world war over? Do you believe that the U.S. can afford such a reckless foreign policy considering the disaster that is and was Iraq and Afghanistan?

And you do realize that it was Iraq who wanted the status of forces agreement that led to removal of U.S. military units in Iraq, right? That the status of forces agreement was signed while President Bush was in power, and that a renewal agreement of U.S. forces was turned by the Iraqi government. Does any of this compute or is it simply easier to make shit up and believe fantasies that have no basis in reality?

Edited March 1, 2014 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

Not always of course; who knows if a President Gore would have put boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003.

Absolutely 0 chance of Iraq ever happening with Gore at the helm. Take that to the bank.

[bran]

does anyone know what the ukraine has for an army? only real info i could find is on wikipedia but that is not always reliable. i read an article saying the ukraine army is still a formidable one despite being heavily outnumbered.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-military-russia-crimea

Edited March 1, 2014 by bran

[downzy]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

Not always of course; who knows if a President Gore would have put boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003.

Absolutely 0 chance of Iraq ever happening with Gore at the helm. Take that to the bank.

Just to play devil's advocate (you know me), I read an interesting counter-factual a couple of years ago that argued that Gore would have invaded Iraq (though his tactics might have been different). Who knows for sure, but it's an interesting argument to think about.

Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/President%20Al%20Gore%20and%20the%202003%20Iraq%20War%20A%20Counterfactual%20Critique%20of%20Conventional%20Wisdom.pdf

Anyway, back to the conversation at hand.

I think this situation will play out regardless of who is in charge. Putin has to respond to the growing pressure from within his own domestic sphere and I don't think any President (Obama, Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, well, maybe Nixon) would risk an armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine. If I had to guess, this will play itself out into a stalemate, with an agreement finally be made to let the people of Crimea to conduct a vote on which country they want to side with. Crimea only became part of Ukraine in 1953 as a gift by Khrushchev. Perhaps it will revert back and become Russian territory again. Perhaps Putin's efforts here are to expedite this process.

[bran]

to that point downzy, maybe that is why there was 0 resistance or shots fired while taking the two airports in crimea.

[shades]

And you do realize that it was Iraq who wanted the status of forces agreement that led to removal of U.S. military units in Iraq, right? That the status of forces agreement was signed while President Bush was in power, and that a renewal agreement of U.S. forces was turned by the Iraqi government. Does any of this compute or is it simply easier to make shit up and believe fantasies that have no basis in reality?

Obama has done everything Bush told him to do? couldn't possible deviate and insist on leaving a peacekeeping force.

McCain might have kept his mouth shut, called behind the scenes instead of a paper tiger threat on national TV.

You're so lost I', going to leave you to your make believe world of reason now,

you have no idea how goofy you really are do you?

[Ace Nova]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

Not always of course; who knows if a President Gore would have put boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003.

Absolutely 0 chance of Iraq ever happening with Gore at the helm. Take that to the bank.

Just to play devil's advocate (you know me), I read an interesting counter-factual a couple of years ago that argued that Gore would have invaded Iraq (though his tactics might have been different). Who knows for sure, but it's an interesting argument to think about.

Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/President%20Al%20Gore%20and%20the%202003%20Iraq%20War%20A%20Counterfactual%20Critique%20of%20Conventional%20Wisdom.pdf

Worst case scenario, there may have been some special ops missions/missile strikes targeting any type of chemical or biological weapons compounds/factories.

Same thing with Afghanistan. Gore would have sent special ops/missile strikes targeting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Democrats = Special Ops/Missile Strikes

Republicans = Big War/Invasions/Ground Troops

Edited March 1, 2014 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

And you do realize that it was Iraq who wanted the status of forces agreement that led to removal of U.S. military units in Iraq, right? That the status of forces agreement was signed while President Bush was in power, and that a renewal agreement of U.S. forces was turned by the Iraqi government. Does any of this compute or is it simply easier to make shit up and believe fantasies that have no basis in reality?

Obama has done everything Bush told him to do? couldn't possible deviate and insist on leaving a peacekeeping force.

McCain might have kept his mouth shut, called behind the scenes instead of a paper tiger threat on national TV.

You're so lost I', going to leave you to your make believe world of reason now,

you have no idea how goofy you really are do you?

Leaving a "peacekeeping force" (and let's assume that's really the role they would have played) would have required a status agreement with Iraq. Iraq didn't want it. Again, stop making shit up.

So your advice to a sitting President is to say nothing, to answer comments and questions regarding one of the most important geo-political events with "no comment." If Obama were to follow that advice, surely you'd be on here complaining about how he's not being a leader.

And what would McCain say that would make Putin change his mind? Throw out empty threats of war? Please... You're grasping at straws here.

Hey, at least I can answer a question without coming off as insane or dumb. I like how, once again, you're unable or unwilling to answer all of the questions I posed to you. I thought military guys weren't suppose to be such pussies.

[Heisenberg]

president obama and the US is in a shitty situation. obama knows he cannot send troops in, but at the same time he has to say something, he cannot just go quiet and ignore the situation either.

But yet once again he opens his big mouth and draws a red line, that Putin knows is really pink.

And as another volatile situation raises into question the power of the security council to intervene when one country invades the sovereignty of another, the US, who was once that pillar of resolve, has been reduced to paper tiger status because of our failure to mean what we say.

Ukraine offered to give up existing, and not to accept produce or acquire any new nuclear weapons in return for being recognized by the western economic structure, and afforded the same protection of their sovereignty and peace as any other peaceful nation.

The US used to spearhead and be at the forefront of these protections, Bush 1 protected Kuwait from Saddam most recent,

Bosnia, Sudan, and many other places we would bring peaceful nations together to rally necessary actions.

Under Obama we have left the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt, to wonder what we stand for anymore.

We talk but we don't back anything up.

and in all likelihood today, the fine people of Ukraine are wondering the same thing.

Bush has protected Bosnia from whom?

Let me remind you, the Western powers intervened in Libya which is now in ruins and decades away from the standard of living that had during Gaddafi regime.

[downzy]

This could be Russia's version of what Iraq was to the U.S. If they go through with this....the world will hate Russia and Putin the same way they hated the U.S. and Bush for invading Iraq....probably worse...considering everyone (other than maybe China) is against Russia doing this. This could lead to Putin's demise.

Not always of course; who knows if a President Gore would have put boots on the ground in Iraq in 2003.

Absolutely 0 chance of Iraq ever happening with Gore at the helm. Take that to the bank.

Just to play devil's advocate (you know me), I read an interesting counter-factual a couple of years ago that argued that Gore would have invaded Iraq (though his tactics might have been different). Who knows for sure, but it's an interesting argument to think about.

Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/President%20Al%20Gore%20and%20the%202003%20Iraq%20War%20A%20Counterfactual%20Critique%20of%20Conventional%20Wisdom.pdf

Worst case scenario, there may have been some special ops missions/missile strikes targeting any type of chemical or biological weapons compounds/factories.

Same thing with Afghanistan. Gore would have sent special ops/missile strikes targeting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Democrats = Special Ops/Missile Strikes

Republicans = Big War/Invasions/Ground Troops

Yeah, not trying to argue the point, but it's an interesting read and thought-exercice nonetheless.

I can't see a Republican President doing much differently with respect to the situation in Ukraine. Syria might have brought a different response from a different administration, but a President Romney would be doing the same thing Obama is doing now since there's very little he can do right now.

[Ace Nova]

I can't see a Republican President doing much differently with respect to the situation in Ukraine. Syria might have brought a different response from a different administration, but a President Romney would be doing the same thing Obama is doing now since there's very little he can do right now.

I agree. Romney is also much more moderate than Bush was. He (most likely) would have sent a minimal amount of troops/missiles into Syria and probably hold off on this situation. No one wants to start WWIII.

[bran]

According to BBC, Moscow already has 6,000 troops in the Crimea and Putin wants to send more. If the parliament approves I am afraid there is not much Ukraine can do except fight or give in.

yeah parliament approved military force just about an hr ago. so i think we will see many more troops pour into crimea.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-approves-military-ukraine-162315025.html

[downzy]

does anyone know what the ukraine has for an army? only real info i could find is on wikipedia but that is not always reliable. i read an article saying the ukraine army is still a formidable one despite being heavily outnumbered.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-military-russia-crimea

Good question, one that I don't have an answer to. They might have been even more formidable had they still retained their nuclear arsenal.

[Patience 4 Axl]

So your advice to a sitting President is to say nothing, to answer comments and questions regarding one of the most important geo-political events with "no comment." If Obama were to follow that advice, surely you'd be on here complaining about how he's not being a leader.

Right, Obama would be criticized either way. Of course he had to say something, and he said just enough. No point in getting more specific yet.

[netcat]

Ukraine is pretty much a puppet state

can you prove it or you are just talking out of your ass?