The Ukraine Situation

[magisme]

The argument that Putin is doing this because he perceives Obama as weak is asinine. Did Putin also view Bush as weak on foreign policy when he invaded Georgia?

As far as Bush's willingness/ability to seriously confront Russia on the issue? Definitely.

[downzy]

The argument that Putin is doing this because he perceives Obama as weak is asinine. Did Putin also view Bush as weak on foreign policy when he invaded Georgia?

As far as Bush's willingness/ability to seriously confront Russia on the issue? Definitely.

Then the same could be said about any President with respect to territory that resides close to Russia.

[Guest NGOG]

I don't think refusing to become in embroiled in Russia's pissing-contests is necessarily "weak". When it comes to military strength, the US are superior. Should Obama be presented with a scenario where he has to prove that - which we've never come anywhere close to - he will.

[magisme]

The argument that Putin is doing this because he perceives Obama as weak is asinine. Did Putin also view Bush as weak on foreign policy when he invaded Georgia?

As far as Bush's willingness/ability to seriously confront Russia on the issue? Definitely.

Then the same could be said about any President with respect to territory that resides close to Russia.

Yes, when Russia invades or occupies one of those countries and the US says it makes them very unhappy but does nothing about it, that is true. I'm speaking in realpolitik terms. Personally, I don't want the US involved in any of that shit.

[Georgy Zhukov]

There's Russians living in the Baltic states and Poland (which happens to be a NATO member) if Putin succeeds in the Ukraine, will they be next? Putin seems hell bent on creating a super Russia.

Maybe he will send a naval force and occupy parts of Brooklyn that includes Russian speakers.

[bran]

There's Russians living in the Baltic states and Poland (which happens to be a NATO member) if Putin succeeds in the Ukraine, will they be next? Putin seems hell bent on creating a super Russia.

Maybe he will send a naval force and occupy parts of Brooklyn that includes Russian speakers.

the whole "protecting russian speaking people" scared the shit out of me to be honest.

[Guest NGOG]

The US says it makes them very unhappy but does nothing about it, that is true.

Russia was unhappy with the way western leaders ousted Qaddafi, yet they made no significant effort to resist the regime change. I understand your point that America are desperate to preserve the institution of democracy - at least on an extremely superficial level - but aggressively supporting the anti-Moscow Ukraine isn't worth triggering a global war.

Edited March 4, 2014 by NGOG

[downzy]

There's Russians living in the Baltic states and Poland (which happens to be a NATO member) if Putin succeeds in the Ukraine, will they be next? Putin seems hell bent on creating a super Russia.

Maybe he will send a naval force and occupy parts of Brooklyn that includes Russian speakers.

I don't see the first situation you raise as very likely. There's a big difference between threatening a former soviet satellite with no ties to NATO and Poland.

The reports today suggest that Putin is already starting to back down. I'd wager a guess that most of this is just bluster and posturing on Putin's part to make himself look strong at home and a last ditch attempt to have some influence into the domestic affairs of Ukraine.

Edited March 4, 2014 by downzy

[magisme]

The US says it makes them very unhappy but does nothing about it, that is true.

Russia was unhappy with they way western leaders ousted Qaddafi, yet they made no significant effort to resist the regime change. I understand your point that America are desperate to preserve the institution of democracy - at least on an extremely superficial level - but aggressively supporting the anti-Moscow Ukraine isn't worth triggering a global war.

Agreed. But it's just bad politics to take strong rhetorical stands if you're not going to back them up with strong actions.

[Guest NGOG]

The US says it makes them very unhappy but does nothing about it, that is true.

Russia was unhappy with they way western leaders ousted Qaddafi, yet they made no significant effort to resist the regime change. I understand your point that America are desperate to preserve the institution of democracy - at least on an extremely superficial level - but aggressively supporting the anti-Moscow Ukraine isn't worth triggering a global war.

Agreed. But it's just bad politics to take strong rhetorical stands if you're not going to back them up with strong actions.

Obama needs to man up and tongue punch Putin's fartbox.

[magisme]

That phrase totally freaks me out.

[Guest NGOG]

That phrase totally freaks me out.

[bran]

That phrase totally freaks me out.

[PappyTron]

I want $1.00 anytime someone says "tongue punch his fart box" on this forum, dammit.

[shades]

Agreed. But it's just bad politics to take strong rhetorical stands if you're not going to back them up with strong actions.

not only bad politics, but in this case dangerous

[Ace Nova]

Congratulations. You just repeated all the dumb arguments Putin is mumbling at his press-conference right now. Are you sure your first name is not Vladimir? Oh wait, you can't be him. He just called Yanukovich a political corpse ("he has no political future").

Current Ukrainian temporary government is legitimate until the new president elections. It was voted by the Parliament with an overwhelming majority. And the Parliament was the only legitimate institution left in the country after Yanukovitch ran away in Russia. Had he signed the return to 2004 Constitution according to anti-crisis deal (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/ukraine-president-says-deal-has-been-reached-opposition-bloodshed), then probably FORMALLY he had the right to call himself legitimate. But he didn't sign. He just disappeared for nearly a week. And that was one of the reasons why he was ousted by Parliament.

and one more thing. According to the Constitution (old and new) only the Parliament has the right to ask other countries to intervene. Not the President, no matter legitimate or not

Questions?

This is just a massive bunch of lies.

Boom! Thank you, Netcat.

You're responding to the same poster that has been stating, "We don't know what's really going on there" ad nauseum. Facekicker criticizes others for only reading/watching certain media channels portraying a certain story, when in fact, it seems as if all he is doing is buying into Russian driven media and propaganda.

Maybe he will send a naval force and occupy parts of Brooklyn that includes Russian speakers.

Exactly....what is he thinking making statements like that?

the whole "protecting russian speaking people" scared the shit out of me to be honest.

I still don't understand how more people have not caught on to how dangerous of a statement that is. The most notorious leaders in history have made statements such as this.....and they never end well.

I don't see the first situation you raise as very likely. There's a big difference between threatening a former soviet satellite with no ties to NATO and Poland.

^^ This ^^.... the day Putin invades a NATO nation is the day WW3 begins. (Although Ukarine does have ties to NATO, they are not a full member) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations

Edited March 4, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Guest NGOG]

Fantastic:

[Ace Nova]

Fantastic:

Hopefully she doesn't disappear.

[Facekicker]

Russia just test fired an intercontinental ballistic missile.

[downzy]

Either not connected or just saber-rattling.

[Ace Nova]

Russia just test fired an intercontinental ballistic missile.

"Defense officials told Fox News the test was "not unexpected" and that "START treaty notification occurred."

Russia is required under the START treaty to notify the U.S. of such tests.

Earlier this year, the Russian military had announced plans to test around 70 types of rocket and missile weaponry, according to an RIA report.

The tests include about 300 launches of rockets, missiles and aerial drones, according to the report.

The military plans to conduct these tests in southern Russia at the Kapustin Yar range, an area known for tests of tactical ballistic missiles, air defense systems and multiple-launch rocket systems, RIA reported."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-report-says/

[Facekicker]

The crew of a Ukrainian navy ship - the Slavutich - has reportedly fought off an attempted seizure by an armed group on board a tug boat, Interfax-Ukraine news agency reports - via BBC Monitoring.

The Slavutich is currently blocked in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, it adds.

[foghat43]

This thread is amazing. We have a bunch of members comparing (almost justifying) what Russia is doing now to U.S. intervention in Iraq, Serbia, etc....and then they criticize the U.S. for not intervening in Syria...

The utter hatred and bigotry towards the U.S. is prevalent. Why don't some of you just admit that you hate the U.S. and no matter what the U.S. does in this situation, you will find a way to criticize us. Be honest with yourselves...at least try to save some face.

yeah it is sad.

Folks need to realize that there is a distinction between America (as a people/culture/nation) and the US Government. Don't confuse criticism of the goverment with criticism of "us", or equate criticism of the gov't as being = hatred of America. You can love your country and despise it's government. So let's be careful not to assume that a lack of love for and/or loyalty to the USG means a lack of love for our country. I'm an American...to hate the gov't and it's policies does not mean that I hate America.

And I don't think anyone wanted Obama to intervene in Syria (I certainly did not), nor do I want him to intervene in the Ukraine (or anywhere else for that matter). I think the comments about Obama looking "weak" and "foolish" have to do with the way things went down in Syria with Kerry simply making a rhetorical remark and then having Putin call his bluff (which has already been discussed in previous posts). Most people think Obama did want to intervene in Syria, but that Putin's offer took Obama's military option off the table. Then Obama's supporters tried to spin it as a positive, i.e. Obama took the moral high ground (even though he really had no choice). And then he also looks foolish when he and Kerry make outrageously hypocritical remarks. Kerry's remarks on Sunday morning have already been discussed in this thread. And then Obama came out with this gem today...

President Barack Obama said the United States and its allies have agreed that Russia had violated international law by launching an incursion into Ukraine this weekend.

LOL...since when has the US or Obama or his allies been devoted to international law? It's just laughable for a US president to criticize another world leader for invading another country when we have things like Iraq and Afghanistan on our resume. And if anything Putin may have even more justification for going into Crimea than we had for Iraq/Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan, but I'm just sayin...

Breaching territorial sovereignty does not mean breaking international law. Familiarize yourself with Article 51 of the UN Charter. I can't speak for the follies of the Iraq war, but there very good arguments supporting the war in Afghanistan. I can assure that there are absolutely no arguments being made right now that current Russian aggression falls within the limits of international law.

The legalities of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan under international law are very much up for debate. Heck, it's even debatable if they were legal under domestic law since only Congress can declare war. And then we have torture/Guantanamo, spying on other countries/NSA, Kosovo (which gave rise to the concept of “illegal but legitimate”), as just a few other examples of where the US/US allies/Obama have broken international law/treaties/covenants, etc. But my point was not to get into a debate over technicalities/loopholes or the finer points of international law...it was simply that in the eyes of the world the American "empire" is just as dirty as the rest, just as guilty of breaking international law as the rest, and so for Obama to appeal to the moral high ground or international law as justification for condemning Putin is laughable and hypocritical. Whether that perception (of the USG being hypocritical) is justified is up for debate I suppose (at least in the eyes of some people, not mine), but one has to admit that the perception is out there.

You don't see a difference between aggression for the purpose of territorial gain (like what Russia did with Georgia in 2008 and what it looks like it's doing now) and what the United States and its many allies did in Afghanistan? And you shouldn't combine Afghanistan and Iraq as if they stand on the same legal level. Clearly, they're not.

Sure, there's a perception, but why should any country tailor its foreign policy on a faulty perception. Nobody attacked Russia from within the Ukrainian border. Can you say the same with regards to the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan? Anyone who thinks the two situations are similar is an idiot.

Yes, of course I can see a difference in the stated motivations/intentions for the aggression/invasions (although some would argue that invading Iraq and Afghanistan were indeed for territorial gain/influence/control, the establishment of permanent military bases in the region, profits for the military/industrial complex, contracts for the oil industry, etc.) Let's not be so naive as to think that the publicly stated objectives that are sold to the public are always the same as the actual objectives. So yes, there were differences in the stated objectives. But where people are seeing the similarities is not necessarily in the motivations/objectives, but in the legalities/moral justifications for the invasions. So...the acts of war are different in their stated motivations/objectives...but similar in that none of them were legal (up for debate), morally or even pragmatically justified, or necessary.

So where I and others are drawing the comparison has nothing to do with the stated intentions/objectives of the invading nations...but everything to do with "who is the US to point the finger at another country for breaking international law and invading another nation when they did the same thing (even if it was for different reasons)".

Who said anything about a nation tailoring it's policy based on public/international perception? I was just explaining why Obama is viewed by many as being weak, foolish, hypocritical, etc. I wasn't arguing for Obama to tailor his policy based on this perception.

You can't state with certainty that none of them were legal and then say that it's up for debate. The consensus by international law scholars gives far more credence and justification to the war in Afghanistan than you're allowing by lumping Afghanistan and Iraq as one in the same.

I was stating my opinion that none of them were legal, but added the “up for debate” in parentheses because I realize that there is not 100% agreement on these issues.

So let’s look at Afghanistan (without lumping it in with Iraq). First, it was illegal in that there was no declaration of war from Congress. So it failed to meet the demands of even domestic law. And, secondly, it was totally unnecessary. Had Bush simply provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt the Taliban would have handed him over to us or a third party. So there was no moral or even pragmatic justification for the invasion. How many lives were destroyed and how many billions of dollars were wasted (not to mention how many new terrorists were recruited because of the invasion) simply because Bush refused to provide evidence…or was it that he had no evidence? Or was it that Afghanistan really wasn’t about bin Laden? After all, does it take a full scale invasion and occupation of a country to track down one man? Apparently not since when all was said and done it only took one special ops team to do the job.

So, yes, there are many issues/problems with trying to justify Afghanistan…

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/war-afghanistan-wrong/

Oh, and let’s not forget that there are moral and legal considerations regarding not only the initiation of and justification for war, but also conduct during the war…so we could discuss the use of torture (“enhanced interrogation”) and other abuses (Guantanamo) as a violation of international law.

Edited March 5, 2014 by foghat43

[OmarBradley]

How about a little consistency, and only opening your mouth as President, on the world stage when you have thought it through to the end.

Otherwise hold your "negotiating" in private, then have something to say that comes off as plausible and not knee jerk.

Give the world some sense that they can rely on you as a voice of reason and thought when all else seems to be in

chaos. The respect from that is far reaching and resonates to all people on both sides.

The reason Syria is a US failure of policy should be evident.

The only reason we should have gotten involved, and the way it was sold to us, was to stop the massacre of innocents, "our humane duty".

Acting like it was a success because of some faux ridding of chemical weapons is leaving the bride at the altar.

There are still 1000,'s of innocents being killed and millions fleeing to neighboring countries living in squalor. Mission accomplished?

The same with Libya, he sold it to us a our "humane duty" to stop the killing of innocents. Assassinated their dictator, then left the innocents to

fend for themselves in the aftermath of militias.

What America once stood for was this beacon on the hill when others had nowhere else to turn.

that we would somehow find a way to make it right, with others blessings, but ultimately leading.

I don't think our minds are in the right place right now, And I don't throw it all on Obama, he is in a tough spot.

my "problem" with Obama is he signed up for the job unprepared, and his supporters look to blame someone else every time something goes wrong.

My personal opinion on the situation in Ukraine is to stand back and let it play out. Either way there's nothing we can do anyway. we can't go to war with Russia, and our allies don't want to touch this one.

Best not to paint Putin into a corner. if he starts killing people, different story.

I liked a bit about what you wrote on Syria and Libya, I am in complete agreeance that the larger issue (murder/destruction of civilian communities) has been essentially ignored in favor of superficial international maneuvers. While downzy is correct to note that the Syria chem. weapons removal is a win in the sense that it removes destructive weapons from a volatile area, it's not a win that should have led anyone to consider their work on Syria complete.

But, I'd really like you and Facekicker to reply to my post (it's quoted at the bottom of this post).

It is funny how the people who attack Shades for his position are actually far worse when it comes to their blind worship of Obama.

I frequently disagree with Shades but he is absolutely right here regarding Obama's bumbling.

It is Mr. Community Organiser vs Lieutenant Colonel KGB

Obama is way out of his depth, as is Cameron and Merkel.

Please see the below post. And to address your Lt. Col. comment: Putin spent his KGB career spying on tourists and students - real tough. KGB, although it was considered a security agency in USSR, was not a military entity. Putin (or I should say, Putin's Russia) is a bully, and has consistenly worried the west for many years. I am aware of the vast strides Russia has taken to reverse the policies and effects of the USSR, but some things have not changed - they are rooted hard into Russian political mentality and culture.

exactly, Obama is in way over his head, again

A lot of us tried to warn putting a community organizer with no experience running anything was a bad idea for leader of the free world

Obama was a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago, his political career began in 1996. That gives him 12 years of political experience, plus years of academic study before ascending to the presidency. People with less qualifications have executed the presidency to a satisfactory (or more) degree. We can argue all day and night whether or not he's been an effective president (I do not want to do that here, for obvious reasons), but the argument that he is any more unqualified than say, Harry Truman or Abraham Lincoln was, is just incorrect.

Shades, Facekicker; how should Obama have handled Syria? Libya? Crimea? You cannot consistently, and aggressively, berate policy decisions without offering your own alternative. There were better ways to handle the aforementioned situations given the geopolitical atmosphere at the time? If that's the case, please enlighten me. And I'm not patronizing here, seriously, let me in on what you guys know that I don't.

Edited March 5, 2014 by OmarBradley

[downzy]

This thread is amazing. We have a bunch of members comparing (almost justifying) what Russia is doing now to U.S. intervention in Iraq, Serbia, etc....and then they criticize the U.S. for not intervening in Syria...

The utter hatred and bigotry towards the U.S. is prevalent. Why don't some of you just admit that you hate the U.S. and no matter what the U.S. does in this situation, you will find a way to criticize us. Be honest with yourselves...at least try to save some face.

yeah it is sad.

Folks need to realize that there is a distinction between America (as a people/culture/nation) and the US Government. Don't confuse criticism of the goverment with criticism of "us", or equate criticism of the gov't as being = hatred of America. You can love your country and despise it's government. So let's be careful not to assume that a lack of love for and/or loyalty to the USG means a lack of love for our country. I'm an American...to hate the gov't and it's policies does not mean that I hate America.

And I don't think anyone wanted Obama to intervene in Syria (I certainly did not), nor do I want him to intervene in the Ukraine (or anywhere else for that matter). I think the comments about Obama looking "weak" and "foolish" have to do with the way things went down in Syria with Kerry simply making a rhetorical remark and then having Putin call his bluff (which has already been discussed in previous posts). Most people think Obama did want to intervene in Syria, but that Putin's offer took Obama's military option off the table. Then Obama's supporters tried to spin it as a positive, i.e. Obama took the moral high ground (even though he really had no choice). And then he also looks foolish when he and Kerry make outrageously hypocritical remarks. Kerry's remarks on Sunday morning have already been discussed in this thread. And then Obama came out with this gem today...

President Barack Obama said the United States and its allies have agreed that Russia had violated international law by launching an incursion into Ukraine this weekend.

LOL...since when has the US or Obama or his allies been devoted to international law? It's just laughable for a US president to criticize another world leader for invading another country when we have things like Iraq and Afghanistan on our resume. And if anything Putin may have even more justification for going into Crimea than we had for Iraq/Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan, but I'm just sayin...

Breaching territorial sovereignty does not mean breaking international law. Familiarize yourself with Article 51 of the UN Charter. I can't speak for the follies of the Iraq war, but there very good arguments supporting the war in Afghanistan. I can assure that there are absolutely no arguments being made right now that current Russian aggression falls within the limits of international law.

The legalities of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan under international law are very much up for debate. Heck, it's even debatable if they were legal under domestic law since only Congress can declare war. And then we have torture/Guantanamo, spying on other countries/NSA, Kosovo (which gave rise to the concept of “illegal but legitimate”), as just a few other examples of where the US/US allies/Obama have broken international law/treaties/covenants, etc. But my point was not to get into a debate over technicalities/loopholes or the finer points of international law...it was simply that in the eyes of the world the American "empire" is just as dirty as the rest, just as guilty of breaking international law as the rest, and so for Obama to appeal to the moral high ground or international law as justification for condemning Putin is laughable and hypocritical. Whether that perception (of the USG being hypocritical) is justified is up for debate I suppose (at least in the eyes of some people, not mine), but one has to admit that the perception is out there.

You don't see a difference between aggression for the purpose of territorial gain (like what Russia did with Georgia in 2008 and what it looks like it's doing now) and what the United States and its many allies did in Afghanistan? And you shouldn't combine Afghanistan and Iraq as if they stand on the same legal level. Clearly, they're not.

Sure, there's a perception, but why should any country tailor its foreign policy on a faulty perception. Nobody attacked Russia from within the Ukrainian border. Can you say the same with regards to the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan? Anyone who thinks the two situations are similar is an idiot.

Yes, of course I can see a difference in the stated motivations/intentions for the aggression/invasions (although some would argue that invading Iraq and Afghanistan were indeed for territorial gain/influence/control, the establishment of permanent military bases in the region, profits for the military/industrial complex, contracts for the oil industry, etc.) Let's not be so naive as to think that the publicly stated objectives that are sold to the public are always the same as the actual objectives. So yes, there were differences in the stated objectives. But where people are seeing the similarities is not necessarily in the motivations/objectives, but in the legalities/moral justifications for the invasions. So...the acts of war are different in their stated motivations/objectives...but similar in that none of them were legal (up for debate), morally or even pragmatically justified, or necessary.

So where I and others are drawing the comparison has nothing to do with the stated intentions/objectives of the invading nations...but everything to do with "who is the US to point the finger at another country for breaking international law and invading another nation when they did the same thing (even if it was for different reasons)".

Who said anything about a nation tailoring it's policy based on public/international perception? I was just explaining why Obama is viewed by many as being weak, foolish, hypocritical, etc. I wasn't arguing for Obama to tailor his policy based on this perception.

You can't state with certainty that none of them were legal and then say that it's up for debate. The consensus by international law scholars gives far more credence and justification to the war in Afghanistan than you're allowing by lumping Afghanistan and Iraq as one in the same.

I was stating my opinion that none of them were legal, but added the “up for debate” in parentheses because I realize that there is not 100% agreement on these issues.

So let’s look at Afghanistan (without lumping it in with Iraq). First, it was illegal in that there was no declaration of war from Congress. So it failed to meet the demands of even domestic law. And, secondly, it was totally unnecessary. Had Bush simply provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt the Taliban would have handed him over to us or a third party. So there was no moral or even pragmatic justification for the invasion. How many lives were destroyed and how many billions of dollars were wasted (not to mention how many new terrorists were recruited because of the invasion) simply because Bush refused to provide evidence…or was it that he had no evidence? Or was it that Afghanistan really wasn’t about bin Laden? After all, does it take a full scale invasion and occupation of a country to track down one man? Apparently not since when all was said and done it only took one special ops team to do the job.

So, yes, there are many issues/problems with trying to justify Afghanistan…

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/war-afghanistan-wrong/

Oh, and let’s not forget that there are moral and legal considerations regarding not only the initiation of and justification for war, but also conduct during the war…so we could discuss the use of torture (“enhanced interrogation”) and other abuses (Guantanamo) as a violation of international law.

This isn't really the thread to debate the legality of America's involvement in Afghanistan, so I won't spend too much time on a topic that could be discussed in its own thread. I will say, however, that Congress did give President Bush permission to authorize the presidential use of force against those who "planned, authorised, committed, or aided" the terrorist attack. Since Congress has never invoked its capacities under the War Powers Act of 1973, de facto permission by Congress remains. Second, the United States isn't required under international law to demonstrate guilt to demand extradition of a criminal suspect. Afghanistan was within their right to refuse the extradition request, but by doing so it became culpable in potential future attacks for providing protection to individuals who had attacked American targets on numerous occasions. Likewise, the UN Security council had already passed a resolution requiring the Taliban government to stop giving sanctuary to members of al Qaeda. Which leads to the issue of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits states to use aggression when faced with present and potential threats. 9/11 wasn't the first kick at the can for al Qaeda and Osama. There as the World Trade Center attacks in '93, the embassy bombings in Africa in '98, the attack on the USS Cole in '99, and finally the attacks on the World Trade Centre in 01. To suggest that the U.S. wasn't faced with future attacks if it permitted al Qaeda to remain viable in Afghanistan is folly. Article 51 requires attacking states to notify the UN, which both the U.S. and the U.K. did on October 7th. Moreover, America and its allies were given legal cover within the UN through the passing of resolution 1368, which stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators would be held accountable. Further legal cover was given in resolution 1373, but I'm trying to keep this short. Furthermore, the UN authorized a military operation to stabilize Afghanistan in December of 2001. When given the chance to condemn American bombing into Afghanistan in early October, 2001, the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, did not, instead acknowledging that states have the right to individual and collective self-defence.

Edited March 5, 2014 by downzy