The Ukraine Situation

[downzy]

Was reading an article on how Putin is making a mistake, and thought the conclusion was pretty spot on:

"The sticks I’ve outlined are a bigger deal than they might seem. Putin’s main interest, after all, is to project an image of Russia as a great and essential global power. That’s what the Sochi Olympics were all about. He spent $50 billion on that PR spectacle—an investment thoroughly nullified by his maladroit move on Crimea: another sign that Putin is not as brilliant as the Cold Warriors think."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/03/how_to_punish_vladimir_putin_for_the_ukraine_crimea_crisis.html

Edited March 5, 2014 by downzy

[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.

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.

Kofi also said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal...so if you want to appeal to him as some type of expert on international law in the discussion on Afghanistan ..well, you can't have it both ways.

And this is why I said "up for debate" in a previous post. The legality/morality of the invasion of Afghanistan has been hotly debated for some time now. I've heard the same arguments trying to justify it for well over a decade (just as I'm sure you have heard the same arguments against it). So I doubt at this point either of us will present any new argument to convince us to change our minds. To me...for Bush to produce the evidence of bin Laden's involvement (if indeed there was any) would have been far more preferable (and more ethical) to war, bloodshed, torture, billions of dollars wasted, the recruitment of more terrorists (blowback), etc. And surely you are not naive enough to think that the US has never broken international law. My only point was that the US also has a lot of blood on its hands and so for Obama to condemn another country for violating international law or being a military agressor is a tad hypocritical...kinda like one gangster calling out another gangster IMO.

Edited March 5, 2014 by foghat43

[Georgy Zhukov]

Republicans can have their fun, in a few weeks this will turn out to be nothing.

[Ace Nova]

Republicans can have their fun, in a few weeks this will turn out to be nothing.

If that's the case, Putin's behavior is even more baffling. He spent over $50 Billion on the Olympics in order to gain international favor....and he's blowing any and all positive PR he received from the Olympics with this fiasco. What is going through his mind?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

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.

Kofi also said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal...so if you want to appeal to him as some type of expert on international law in the discussion on Afghanistan ..well, you can't have it both ways.

And this is why I said "up for debate" in a previous post. The legality/morality of the invasion of Afghanistan has been hotly debated for some time now. I've heard the same arguments trying to justify it for well over a decade (just as I'm sure you have heard the same arguments against it). So I doubt at this point either of us will present any new argument to convince us to change our minds. To me...for Bush to produce the evidence of bin Laden's involvement (if indeed there was any) would have been far more preferable (and more ethical) to war, bloodshed, torture, billions of dollars wasted, the recruitment of more terrorists (blowback), etc. And surely you are not naive enough to think that the US has never broken international law. My only point was that the US also has a lot of blood on its hands and so for Obama to condemn another country for violating international law or being a military agressor is a tad hypocritical...kinda like one gangster calling out another gangster IMO.

Again, you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan and putting words in my mouth. In no uncertain terms will I, or have I, argue the legality of the Iraq War. I'm not surprised Annan condemned America's incursion into Iraq; he was right to do so. Also, a war's legality and morality are two different things. A war can be considered immoral but can be considered legal at the same time.

I would never argue that the US has never violated international law; it has done so on numerous occasions. But that does not remove all standing for a previously guilty country from comment on the legality of what Russia is doing. There are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states. When infractions occur, it is right to call a state on it. The United States underwrites global security at the present time, for you or anyone else to expect it to abstain from comment regarding the legality of Russia's actions is a bit naive. Look, I get the hypocrisy of it all; but like I said, there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. The previous incidents of the United States breaching international law does not give Russia a pass.

Edited March 5, 2014 by downzy

[netcat]

Five lies about Ukraine from Putin's yesterday press conference for the specially trained journalists that never ask uncomfortable questions

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/vladimir-putin-interview-five-untruths

and this is the statement made by Chief Rabbi of Ukraine, he says there was no anti-Semitic vandalism in Crimea until Russian occupation

http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1393978300

Edited March 5, 2014 by netcat

[netcat]

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?

unlikely. Finland, on the other hand, is non-aligned state, as far as i remember, and it was a part of Russian Empire once

Edited March 5, 2014 by netcat

[Heisenberg]

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU's Ashton phone tape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

The snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Maidan leaders, according to a leaked phone conversation between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister, which has emerged online.

“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.

“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.

The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25 at the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.

Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.

Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”

“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.

The Estonian FM has described the whole sniper issue as “disturbing” and added, “it already discredits from the very beginning” the new Ukrainian power.

His overall impressions of what he saw during his one-day trip to Kiev are “sad,” Paet said during the conversation.

He stressed that the Ukrainian people don’t trust the Maidan leaders, with all the opposition politicians slated to join the new government “having dirty past.”

The file was reportedly uploaded to the web by officers of Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) loyal to ousted President Viktor Yanukovich who hacked Paet’s and Ashton’s phones.

94 people were killed and another 900 injured during the standoff between police and protesters at Maidan Saquare in Kiev last month.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://rt.com/news/estonia-confirm-leaked-tape-970/'>Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers

Edited March 5, 2014 by Heisenberg

[netcat]

these are very serious accusations

i think we should wait until the official comments of all people involved. especially from that Estonian guy and from Olga Bohomolets, the woman he quotes.

Olga was the head of the medical volunteers on Maidan from the day one. She has a great respect among all people. And she still cooperates with the new government.

all we know for now is that this conversation allegedly took place on Feb 26th. and as far as i understood Olha didn't say she suspects people from the new coalition. that was the conclusion Paet made by himself

Olga allegedly said: "And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,”

i think it's quite interesting that only yesterday Ukrainian Secretary of the Interior Arsen Avakov made a statement about this. He said the official investigation came to the conclusion that people on Maidan were shot "by the third power, and it was non-ukrainian". he promised to reveal more details later.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/20/7015163/

in the very beginning of the video one of the snipers turns his back against the camera and you can read Беркут on his back. Беркут is the name of the riot police unit used by Yanukovitch against the protesters from the day one.

you can say it doesn't prove anything, but nether does this leak

Edited March 5, 2014 by netcat

[Russel Nash]

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.

Obama doesn't have a chance on Putin in a fair fight.

Don't know if he's done it yet, but i'm waiting for the Ratbrain take of all this.

[OmarBradley]

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.

Kofi also said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal...so if you want to appeal to him as some type of expert on international law in the discussion on Afghanistan ..well, you can't have it both ways.

And this is why I said "up for debate" in a previous post. The legality/morality of the invasion of Afghanistan has been hotly debated for some time now. I've heard the same arguments trying to justify it for well over a decade (just as I'm sure you have heard the same arguments against it). So I doubt at this point either of us will present any new argument to convince us to change our minds. To me...for Bush to produce the evidence of bin Laden's involvement (if indeed there was any) would have been far more preferable (and more ethical) to war, bloodshed, torture, billions of dollars wasted, the recruitment of more terrorists (blowback), etc. And surely you are not naive enough to think that the US has never broken international law. My only point was that the US also has a lot of blood on its hands and so for Obama to condemn another country for violating international law or being a military agressor is a tad hypocritical...kinda like one gangster calling out another gangster IMO.

Again, you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan and putting words in my mouth. In no uncertain terms will I, or have I, argue the legality of the Iraq War. I'm not surprised Annan condemned America's incursion into Iraq; he was right to do so. Also, a war's legality and morality are two different things. A war can be considered immoral but can be considered legal at the same time.

I would never argue that the US has never violated international law; it has done so on numerous occasions. But that does not remove all standing for a previously guilty country from comment on the legality of what Russia is doing. There are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states. When infractions occur, it is right to call a state on it. The United States underwrites global security at the present time, for you or anyone else to expect it to abstain from comment regarding the legality of Russia's actions is a bit naive. Look, I get the hypocrisy of it all; but like I said, there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. The previous incidents of the United States breaching international law does not give Russia a pass.

Thucydides confirmed this 2,500 years ago. It's just the way the world works, state actors behave based upon their interest, and whether or not their military apparatus can be seen as potent. Like human behavior/conditions over time (abolishing of slavery, improved rights for women), international behavior has gotten better. But humans are still humans, that cannot be changed. Things like NATO, WTO, UN, etc., help force state actors to behave better, but to assume that everyone will adhere to all of the rules all of the time, is wrong.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is not to say it makes that behavior excusable or nonpunishable, its just how the world works.

Edited March 5, 2014 by OmarBradley

[downzy]

An interesting article on the economic effects Russia will face if the situation in the Ukraine were to escalate:

The four charts Vladimir Putin should consider as he plots his next move in Ukraine

http://qz.com/183980/the-four-charts-vladimir-putin-should-consider-as-he-plots-his-next-move-in-ukraine/#/h/51615,1,2/

Vladimir Putin put the Russian invasion of Ukraine on “pause” at a press conference on Tuesday, and markets stepped back from the ledge. The rout in Russian assets was partly reversed; the ruble regained some ground, as did stocks and bonds. As long as there isn’t any shooting—aside from the odd warning shot—the mood seems to be one of cautious relief.

But don’t expect any meaningful money to pour back into Russia until the ultimate outcome of Ukraine’s crisis becomes clearer. Was Putin’s conciliatory tone a result of the market’s rebuke? Perhaps, but that is probably a simplistic reading of the intrigue over the past few days, as purportedly stateless soldiers flooded into Crimea and issued mysterious ultimatums to local military units. Equally, Putin could be testing the markets and gauging whether it is worth his while to fight in the open instead of in the shadows.

Who will blink first?

On this point, it is useful to assess Russia’s economic options in case its military ones are activated in Ukraine. The mere threat of Western sanctions could be enough to defuse the situation, with the turmoil at the start of the week a preview of the pain that the markets can inflict. At the same time, Russia may calculate that it can withstand the turbulence longer than the West—more specifically that its energy users, banks, and others entities reliant on Russia’s physical and financial resources can hold their nerve.

As it happens, the last time Russia invaded one of its neighbors, it faced a severe financial crisis. But the Russian tanks rolling into Georgia was only one of the factors that battered markets in 2008, as the global financial crisis also hit the country hard. Is it better prepared this time around? Judge for yourself, as the charts below compare the Russian economy around the time of the invasion of Georgia with the situation today, starting from when protests kicked off in Kiev in November.

Foreign currency reserves

As the ruble tanked on Monday, Russia’s central bank hiked interest rates and spent more than $11 billion propping up the currency in the open market. It has quadrupled the amount it is authorized to spend to keep the ruble trading within its target range. If the currency comes under renewed pressure, future interventions will drain Russia’s foreign exchange reserves (which include some of the assets held in its two sovereign wealth funds, the Reserve Fund and the National Wealth Fund). Compared with 2008, Russia is starting from a somewhat smaller base of reserves to draw on, meaning it has less firepower with which to defend the ruble. In the tumultuous 12 months from June 2008, Russia’s reserves fell by $165 billion, which would be worth nearly 40% of today’s reserves.

Currency values

Even before the latest bout of ruble turmoil, the Russian currency had been drifting downward for months, losing 10% of its value against the dollar since November. Thus far, it is following a similar path to mid-2008, although to see a depreciation on the same scale it would need to shed another 20% of its value in the coming months, which will depend on how aggressively the central bank deploys its reserves in defense the currency.

Stock markets

Compared with 2008, investors have been much kinder to Russian stocks, even considering the double-digit percentage plunge at the start of the week. Unlike the ruble, the benchmark RTS equity index has not regained as much ground as it lost on that day, but stocks aren’t yet under nearly as much pressure as they were during late 2008 and early 2009. Some think the declines are overdone and now is the time to buy.

Energy markets

Another factor working in Russia’s favor is energy prices. The price of oil has been much more stable in recent months than it was during the turmoil of 2008; few expect it to plunge like it did back then, thanks to firmer demand from a global economy on the mend instead of one in the throes of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Russia links its gas prices to oil, so this should support the energy exports on which its budget depends.

Much has been written about Europe’s reliance on the gas Russia pipes through Ukraine, not least how a mild winter has bolstered the continent’s gas inventories, making the threat of a disruption in supply less immediately daunting—and thus a less attractive weapon for Russia to deploy. European gas prices remain above last week’s levels, but for the most part countries that rely on Russian gas aren’t as exposed as they were when Putin last turned off the taps, in January 2009.

For Russia, its economic experience around that time is also something it would probably not want to repeat—in 2009 GDP sank by nearly 8%, unemployment spiked, and inflation ran in the double digits. And even as its economy has recovered, Russia is having trouble attracting investment and convincing its citizens to keep their money within the country. Provoking a return to recession—spurred by a currency collapse, sanctions, or some other Crimea-related shock—seems an unwise move.

Your move, Moscow

Of course, all wisdom is relative when geopolitics are involved. Some saw Putin’s press conference not as the performance of a cagey chess player but as a dangerous, out-of-touch rogue who was “nervous, angry, cornered, and paranoid, periodically illuminated by flashes of his own righteousness,” as one Russia watcher put it.

As the above shows, Russia is in some ways in better shape than it was in the run-up to its last financial crisis, but in others it looks like it may have already started retracing its previous path down into the doldrums. To the extent that things like foreign currency reserves and stock valuations play into the decision to invade a neighboring country, there is plenty for Putin to consider.

[Facekicker]

Listening to U.S. President Barack Obama bang on this week about the importance of world opinion and obeying international law and respecting sovereignty and being on the right side of history, you had to wonder whether he didn't have a little voice in his head whispering: "Really? Seriously? I'm actually saying this stuff?"

This is the commander-in-chief of a military that operates a prison camp on Cuban soil, against the explicit wishes of the Cuban government, and which regularly fires drone missiles into other countries, often killing innocent bystanders.

He is a president who ordered that CIA torturers would go unprosecuted, and leads a nation that has invaded other countries whenever it wished, regardless of what the rest of the world might think.

Disclaimer here: Vladimir Putin's proclaimed justification for invading Ukraine — protecting Russian-speaking "compatriots" in that country from some imagined violence — stinks of tribalism.

His rationale is essentially ethnic nationalism, something responsible for so much of the evil done throughout human history.

Stated motivation aside, though, what Putin is doing is really no different from what other world powers do: protecting what they regard as national self-interest.

And so far, he's done it without bloodletting.

Imagine, for a moment, what Washington would do if, say, Bahrain's Shia population, covertly supported by Tehran, staged a successful uprising and began to push itself into Iran's orbit.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, just as Russia's Black Sea Fleet is parked at its huge naval bases in the Crimea.

To pose the scenario is to answer the question of how America would react.

The same goes for all the other countries in America's political realm. The Philippines, South Korea, certain Persian Gulf nations. Imagine if Russia's military tried to return to Cuba.

The order of things

There is an order of things; it is disturbed at the world's peril.

And Ukraine, for better or worse — decidedly worse, those in the western portion of the country will tell you — has for centuries been in Russia's sphere.

Armed men, believed to be Russian soldiers, stand outside the civilian port in the Crimean town of Kerch on Monday. (Thomas Peter ?Reuters)

Crimea, the region of Ukraine now occupied by Russia, was part of the Soviet Union and was deeded to Ukraine in 1954 to celebrate the 300th anniversary of a treaty that bonded much of Ukraine to Tsarist Russia.

To suggest, as European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso did this week, that Ukrainians "have shown that they belong culturally, emotionally but also politically to Europe," is just wishful thinking, even if some Ukrainians wish it were true.

Furthermore, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was right when he pointed out that many of the countries denouncing Putin's intervention were actively involved in encouraging anti-Russia Ukrainians to overthrow an elected, if distasteful, president and government.

Victoria Nuland, a senior American diplomat, was caught in flagrante delicto a few weeks back, chatting with another American official about which Ukrainian opposition figures should and shouldn't be installed.

Washington's reply: It was unconscionable of Russia to intercept and leak that discussion.

More angry flailings

Incidentally, some of the Ukrainian opposition groups that have now ended up in power are thuggish, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian, extreme right-wingers.

Putin's description of them — ultranationalists — was mild. You just wouldn't know it listening to Western politicians.

In Obama's case, sitting beside him on Monday as he gave his lecture on international law from the Oval Office was close ally Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister, having just engaged in a protracted, robust handshake for the cameras, presides over a country that operates a military occupation in the West Bank, violating the "international law" Obama was demanding Putin obey.

The U.S. insists that Israel's occupation can only be solved by respectful negotiation between the parties themselves, and it vehemently opposes punishing Israel with the sort of moves currently being contemplated against Russia.

It's easy to go on and on in this vein — Britain's prime minister, who leads a nation that helped invade Iraq on a false pretext, denouncing Putin's pretext for going into Crimea. The NATO powers that helped bring about the independence of Albanian Kosovars complaining about the separatist aspirations of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, etc.

But that's diplomacy. Hypocritical declarations and acts are woven into its essence.

What's remarkable is the unspoken pact among the Western news media to report it all so uncritically.

When Obama spoke, the gaggle of reporters in attendance rushed to report his statements, mostly at face value.

Likewise, Western news reports seriously reported Russia's ridiculous threat to end the role of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, as though Russia's creditors will begin to accept rubles at whatever exchange rate Putin decrees.

On TV and in print, we hear serious talk about the possibility of economic sanctions against Russia — which would only trigger a devastating trade back-blast against European economies.

Republican Senator John McCain says it is Barack Obama's "feckless foreign policy" that is to blame for Russia's invasion of Crimea. However, he added, a military response is not on the table.(Reuters)

Other media analysts agree with the angry flailings of U.S. foreign policy hawks, who seem to think Obama should be much more aggressive with Putin, although they have few concrete suggestions. (A frustrated Senator John McCain demanded that rich Russians be barred from Las Vegas.)

The unspoken media-government arrangement is understandable, I suppose.

We must at least pretend there's international law and fairness and basic rules, because it reassures us that we live in a world where raw power doesn't ultimately rule.

But it's all just gibberish; through the looking glass. We might as well be reporting that slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Money and hard power count, and that's that. The big players have it, and the smaller players play along. If we need the anaesthetic liquor of self-delusion to deal with it, well, drink up

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2559980

[downzy]

"We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner," he said. "We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/russia-threatens-to-abandon-the-u-s-dollar-and-start-dumping-u-s-debt

"An attempt to announce sanctions would end in a crash for the financial system of the United States, which would cause the end of the domination of the United States in the global financial system."

The notion that Russia is any serious position to bring down the U.S. financial sector is laughable. Sure, it can cause some pain, but Glazyev is on crack if he thinks Russia has the ability to destabilize the American financial system....

Aide To Putin Makes The Stupidest Threat Imaginable To The US

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aide-putin-makes-stupidest-threats-090338005.html

Here's a good laugh.

Sergei Glazyev — a Kremlin aide who's known for voicing extremist lines on policy — is out with some of the sillier threats imaginable to the US.

From Reuters:

A Kremlin aide said on Tuesday that if the United States were to impose sanctions on Russia over Ukraine , Moscow might be forced to drop the dollar as a reserve currency and refuse to pay off any loans to U.S. banks .

Catch that? Glazyev is literally threatening to put his own companies into default. That's the opposite of a threat.

AFP has more:

"We would find a way not just to reduce our dependency on the United States to zero but to emerge from those sanctions with great benefits for ourselves," said Kremlin economic aide Sergei Glazyev, noting that Russia could stop using dollars for international transactions.

"An attempt to announce sanctions would end in a crash for the financial system of the United States, which would cause the end of the domination of the United States in the global financial system," he added.

Again, all you can do is laugh at the notion that Russia has the ability to induce a crash of the US financial system by getting away from the dollar. Sure, if Russia wants, it can conduct transactions in any currency it likes, but that won't stop Russian counterparties from then exchanging whatever currencies they trade in for the dollar.

Meanwhile, perhaps Glazyev needs a reminder of the declining state of the Russian economy (even before the latest turmoil).

Real gross domestic product growth has already slowed from 5.1 percent in 2011 to just over 1 percent in 2013. Car sales fell by 5.5 percent in 2013, despite the Russian government's introduction of subsidized auto loans.

If that weren't bad enough, European demand for natural gas -- about30 percent of which comes from Russia -- has been steadily falling since 2010. Additional supply could come on line in the coming years from the U.S. and Israel at the same time as Russia expands its own production capacity. The net effect could be a glut that would lower prices and further reduce Russia's access to hard currency.

Meanwhile, world oil prices have been flat for years, while Russian production costs have rapidly increased. Some analysts think Putin's recent adventurism in Ukraine has been an attempt to distract his domestic constituents from these unpleasant economic prospects.

Glazyev probably thinks it sounds good domestically to make these threats and to imagine that they're of any significance. For everyone else they're just an amusement.

[magisme]

Russia would be fuckin' stupid to attempt to disrupt the US bond market. There a reason the entire world freaks out when little nothings like Cyprus (sorry Cypriots) are about to go bust. It's because everything is tied to everything, and the failures of even the smallest entities carry worldwide repercussion. If the US bond market gets fucked, everyone is going down. Putin isn't an idiot. And he doesn't have the power to do it by himself anyway. And why bother? The cracks in the dollar's reserve status are beginning to show for real. Historically speaking,we're well overdue for a dramatic shift in the world economic power structure.l

[Val22]

It sucks for the innocent people who are caught in the middle.

I don't think the US should interfere with Russia going into that country to try to straighten things out.

I mean, why is it okay for the US to invade countries, but then get all out of wack when another country does it.

I can't blame Russia for stepping in because it's right next door and let's face it, if one country begins to revolt, then the rest will get the same idea.

Look what's happening in the Middle East? I don't think Russia wants this to get out of hand.

I say the US should stay out of it and let Russia handle it. Look how well they handled Afganastan. Can't spell, sorry. LOL

[OmarBradley]

It sucks for the innocent people who are caught in the middle.

I don't think the US should interfere with Russia going into that country to try to straighten things out.

I mean, why is it okay for the US to invade countries, but then get all out of wack when another country does it.

I can't blame Russia for stepping in because it's right next door and let's face it, if one country begins to revolt, then the rest will get the same idea.

Look what's happening in the Middle East? I don't think Russia wants this to get out of hand.

I say the US should stay out of it and let Russia handle it. Look how well they handled Afganastan. Can't spell, sorry. LOL

Val, no offense intended, but a lot of those points you raised were pretty much resolved earlier in this thread (that is... depending on who you agree with). And the reasons that Russia has pursued military intervention are very different than the reasons that the US pursued military intervention. Generally, international relations issues are not as simple as you are describing them.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Republicans can have their fun, in a few weeks this will turn out to be nothing.

If that's the case, Putin's behavior is even more baffling. He spent over $50 Billion on the Olympics in order to gain international favor....and he's blowing any and all positive PR he received from the Olympics with this fiasco. What is going through his mind?

He probably wants to make sure Ukraine elects a Russia-friendly government not some government that is going to throw Russia under the bus and join NATO and EU or worse an Ukrainian Nationalist Government. The latter would just further his cause to protect Russians, wherever they are. But say that Poland decides to start picking on its Russian citizens, there is not a thing Russia can do because Poland is in NATO.

Bush didn't do a damn think about Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia still operate freely of Georgia and not recognized by most of the world. Crimea will probably end up the same. Unless Ukraine wants to take it back.

[foghat43]

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.

Kofi also said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal...so if you want to appeal to him as some type of expert on international law in the discussion on Afghanistan ..well, you can't have it both ways.

And this is why I said "up for debate" in a previous post. The legality/morality of the invasion of Afghanistan has been hotly debated for some time now. I've heard the same arguments trying to justify it for well over a decade (just as I'm sure you have heard the same arguments against it). So I doubt at this point either of us will present any new argument to convince us to change our minds. To me...for Bush to produce the evidence of bin Laden's involvement (if indeed there was any) would have been far more preferable (and more ethical) to war, bloodshed, torture, billions of dollars wasted, the recruitment of more terrorists (blowback), etc. And surely you are not naive enough to think that the US has never broken international law. My only point was that the US also has a lot of blood on its hands and so for Obama to condemn another country for violating international law or being a military agressor is a tad hypocritical...kinda like one gangster calling out another gangster IMO.

Again, you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan and putting words in my mouth. In no uncertain terms will I, or have I, argue the legality of the Iraq War. I'm not surprised Annan condemned America's incursion into Iraq; he was right to do so. Also, a war's legality and morality are two different things. A war can be considered immoral but can be considered legal at the same time.

I would never argue that the US has never violated international law; it has done so on numerous occasions. But that does not remove all standing for a previously guilty country from comment on the legality of what Russia is doing. There are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states. When infractions occur, it is right to call a state on it. The United States underwrites global security at the present time, for you or anyone else to expect it to abstain from comment regarding the legality of Russia's actions is a bit naive. Look, I get the hypocrisy of it all; but like I said, there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. The previous incidents of the United States breaching international law does not give Russia a pass.

Actually I’m not confusing Iraq with Afghanistan at all. I intentionally mentioned Iraq to make a point, and I‘m pretty sure you got the point…so just stop already with the accusations about “confusing Iraq with Afghanistan“.

I believe you may be the one who is confused…this is the comment I made that you took issue with…

“…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. “

Now let’s break down my argument…

1) The US or Obama or his allies are not devoted to international law.

2) Iraq and Afghanistan are two recent examples of where we violated international law and invaded another country.

3) Therefore it is hypocritical for Obama to condemn Putin on the basis of international law. I never said Russia should get a pass just because Obama is a hypocrite. All I said was that Obama is a hypocrite...right? Where did I say Russia should get a pass?

So let’s look at where we stand now…

1) You agree that the US and our allies have violated international law “on numerous occasions“. In fact, you went even further than I did and stated that “there are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states“ and “there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. “

2) You agree that Iraq was a violation of international law. So we agree that there is at least one example of where the US invaded another country in violation of international law, which is the very thing that Obama is condemning Putin for.

3) You also agree that it is hypocritical for us to condemn other nations for doing X when we also have done X (see #2 above)…you stated that “you get the hypocrisy of it all“.

So on the one hand you took issue with my comment and yet on the other hand you agree with all the points of my argument and the verdict of hypocrisy…so who is the one who is confused again?

This article posted by Ratbrain drives the point home pretty well also...Russia Reminds Us of Us:

http://fff.org/2014/...minds-us-of-us/

Edited March 6, 2014 by foghat43

[Georgy Zhukov]

You can't compare this to the US and its conflicts. Putin nearly lost his prized naval base at Tartus, he is not going to lose his at Sevastopol. Putin like many Russian leaders since the collapse of the Soviet Union want Russia to retain its power projection. If you look at a map, Russia is basically surrounded by US, NATO and allied bases.

Russia only has three bases outside their territory. Ukraine, Tajikstan and Syria. They'd be screwed. Don't even mention China they are already in check.

[foghat43]

[Ace Nova]

"We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner," he said. "We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market."

$200 billion?

That's a mere 1.2% of the U.S.'s annual GDP of $16.2 Trillion.

That would be the equivalent of you making $16,000 a year and having to pay back a $200 loan.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

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.

Kofi also said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal...so if you want to appeal to him as some type of expert on international law in the discussion on Afghanistan ..well, you can't have it both ways.

And this is why I said "up for debate" in a previous post. The legality/morality of the invasion of Afghanistan has been hotly debated for some time now. I've heard the same arguments trying to justify it for well over a decade (just as I'm sure you have heard the same arguments against it). So I doubt at this point either of us will present any new argument to convince us to change our minds. To me...for Bush to produce the evidence of bin Laden's involvement (if indeed there was any) would have been far more preferable (and more ethical) to war, bloodshed, torture, billions of dollars wasted, the recruitment of more terrorists (blowback), etc. And surely you are not naive enough to think that the US has never broken international law. My only point was that the US also has a lot of blood on its hands and so for Obama to condemn another country for violating international law or being a military agressor is a tad hypocritical...kinda like one gangster calling out another gangster IMO.

Again, you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan and putting words in my mouth. In no uncertain terms will I, or have I, argue the legality of the Iraq War. I'm not surprised Annan condemned America's incursion into Iraq; he was right to do so. Also, a war's legality and morality are two different things. A war can be considered immoral but can be considered legal at the same time.

I would never argue that the US has never violated international law; it has done so on numerous occasions. But that does not remove all standing for a previously guilty country from comment on the legality of what Russia is doing. There are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states. When infractions occur, it is right to call a state on it. The United States underwrites global security at the present time, for you or anyone else to expect it to abstain from comment regarding the legality of Russia's actions is a bit naive. Look, I get the hypocrisy of it all; but like I said, there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. The previous incidents of the United States breaching international law does not give Russia a pass.

Actually I’m not confusing Iraq with Afghanistan at all. I intentionally mentioned Iraq to make a point, and I‘m pretty sure you got the point…so just stop already with the accusations about “confusing Iraq with Afghanistan“.

I believe you may be the one who is confused…this is the comment I made that you took issue with…

“…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. “

Now let’s break down my argument…

1) The US or Obama or his allies are not devoted to international law.

2) Iraq and Afghanistan are two recent examples of where we violated international law and invaded another country.

3) Therefore it is hypocritical for Obama to condemn Putin on the basis of international law. I never said Russia should get a pass just because Obama is a hypocrite. All I said was that Obama is a hypocrite...right? Where did I say Russia should get a pass?

So let’s look at where we stand now…

1) You agree that the US and our allies have violated international law “on numerous occasions“. In fact, you went even further than I did and stated that “there are very few countries who live within the boundaries of international law; it's broken quite frequently by many different states“ and “there are very few countries that haven't broken international law in the last twenty or thirty years. “

2) You agree that Iraq was a violation of international law. So we agree that there is at least one example of where the US invaded another country in violation of international law, which is the very thing that Obama is condemning Putin for.

3) You also agree that it is hypocritical for us to condemn other nations for doing X when we also have done X (see #2 above)…you stated that “you get the hypocrisy of it all“.

So on the one hand you took issue with my comment and yet on the other hand you agree with all the points of my argument and the verdict of hypocrisy…so who is the one who is confused again?

This article posted by Ratbrain drives the point home pretty well also...Russia Reminds Us of Us:

http://fff.org/2014/...minds-us-of-us/

We were debating the legality of the attack on Taliban-Afghanistan and you included a quote that's related to Iraq. If you want to discuss America's standing as it relates to Iraq, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the legality of Afghanistan. Apparently I didn't get the point you were trying to make by including a reference to Iraq in relation to our conversation about Afghanistan. So what would that point be?

Once again, Iraq is an example of breaking international law, but Afghanistan isn't. I've already outlined how many of your arguments don't hold up.

How is the United States under Obama's keep not devoted to international law? Obama had long been against the Iraq War, right from its very inception. Americans voted for a presidential candidate who campaigned on how Iraq was a mistake. And now you want to call Obama a hypocrite because of Iraq, something he never supported? Yeah, that makes sense.

If Russia maintains control of Crimea and ends up repatriating the territory as Russian soil, would you not see a difference between what Russia is doing and what American did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are if either of those countries considered incorporated territories of the U.S., like Puerto Rico or Guam? Have or would either become the 51st or 52nd states? No. There's a qualitative difference between what Russia's intentions are if it does end up annexing Crimea (like it did with parts of George in 2008) and what the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, while I'll defend America and its allies with respect to its right to intervene in Afghanistan, I will admit that American foreign policy was misplaced and antithetical to international law with respect to Iraq. But the outcomes are completely different in those situations in comparison to what Russia is doing in Crimea (again, assuming it takes ownership of the territory).

Sorry, but Ratbrain has an entire thread devoted to what Alex Jones has to say. He's the least credible poster on here (well, maybe after Shades).

Edited March 6, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

"We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner," he said. "We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market."

$200 billion?

That's a mere 1.2% of the U.S.'s annual GDP of $16.2 Trillion.

Yeah, people throw what they think are big numbers around without putting them into context. The NY Fed could buy that up in a heartbeat. Considering there is no evidence inflation will rear its ugly head any time soon, $200 billion is nothing in the grand scheme of things. The U.S. Fed covered nearly $29 trillion in loans and assets during the financial crisis in 2008.

If Russia were to try and devalue U.S. treasuries, they wouldn't find China too happy with the move, considering its holdings would be devalued as well. These types of arguments are utter nonsense and lack an understanding of how interconnected, important, and large the U.S. bond market is.

Edited March 6, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

Ughh... If you're going to continue posting ridiculous assertions, you might want better sources.

RT.com is funded by the Russian government. It has proven so inaccurate and terrible in its coverage of events that one of its correspondents recently quit on air:

So enough with the bullshit Ratbrain...

Edited March 6, 2014 by downzy