Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

No. Obama is perceived as being weak. I am being more specific. I think Obama will act, but there are limits to what he is willing to do. The reason I quoted Chaney (and his words are clear to me), you have a man who will do whatever needs to be done. I am not measuring these men in terms of strength and weakness, in both cases we have the power of the US military.

So, what is the point of a threat from Obama? If he wants to solve the problem using diplomacy, threats are not needed and I would argue counter-productive.

 

Ace...a balance of both diplomacy and threat of military action are needed WHEN the US is threatened directly and imminently. When that is not the case, a policy of diplomatic/economic responses is how more reasonable world players initially respond.

 

First, I need to know why I should care.

International law has to be some type of an oxymoron. The only international law is based on military strength. Or, the country with the most military clout defines international law. What does international law mean to you?

To control the behaviors of people.

How is the G8's existence helping to resolve this issue? How did it help to prevent it? What is the point of your question?
--- merged: Mar 14, 2014 at 5:53 PM ---

I said that I believe there are limits to how far Obama is willing to go. Do you agree or disagree?

 

I dont think Obama is a pacifist and I imagine he would be very hawkish if US lives were threatened directly. Putting American troops in harms way should be the last resort, not the first, or the second.....

I certainly dont agree with inane responses to the current Ukraine crisis like Sarah Palin's (at the recent CPAC meeting):

"Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"​

​

WTF kind of foreign policy is that?

 

US lives are not directly threatened. My question stands. Here is the problem - if person A knows person B's limitation but person B does not know person's A limitation, person B is at a disadvantage. Putin knows Obama's limitation. Obama does not know Putin's limitation. Obama is at a disadvantage. If Obama has a weakness, perhaps it is in not knowing he is at a disadvantage.

A word of wisdom - Never play a game of chicken with a crazy person.

Ok, you don't get it. Let's say you do have a limit, don't let your adversary know your limitation! If he is crazy, you have to be or at least appear to be crazier! Palin knows how to play the game or she would in fact use the nuke. Either way I bet Putin wouldn't push her to the limit.

You don't get Cheney either. You and many others. Cheney goes on national TV for the world to hear and says, we are going to the dark side, we are going to do some shit you may not want to know about, etc. etc. - and then you are surprised??? I think it is because for some they don't know the difference when a person has real limitations and when they do not. For some people their words are not empty. And yes, we re-elected Bush/Cheney knowing what he said! WTF is that? We knew!
--- merged: Mar 14, 2014 at 8:17 PM ---

Warren Buffet said it better than I can this morning on CNBC when he said he is not going to sell his farm, he is not going to sell his business over this issue. I agree with him.

Driving 55 compared to driving 56 is tied to morality? I would say no. Law makers want to control traffic flow - there is no morality issue.

Russia, is not much of a concern regarding the US economy. I don't see it.

Perhaps I would care if someone gave me the reason too. But, like I have stated this appears to be an ego contest. And if the people involved want to be a part of Russia and some want to be closely aligned with the EU - they should work it out. Why not respect the vote being taken this weekend? What right do we have to judge, given that the issue does not involve us and a general support of self-determination.

What is Canada's interest and what are Canadian leaders doing?

 

Putin pushed Bush/Cheney to the limit in Georgia. How do you explain that if he perceived them to be stronger (more likely to react militarily) than Obama?

This is not a confrontation between Obama and Putin but Putin v all of the West (most notably Western Europe).

You've taken a complex issue that involves historical geographic issues, economic issues, Putin's hard core/old school Russian nationalism and other factors and blame it all on a "weak" US president.

Oh, I get Cheney. He is an immoral chicken hawk.

You might feel comfortable in the dark side of the Dick Vader school of foreign policy. I'll stick with the Obama Kenobi camp.

 

This is probably one of the best, short pieces I've seen that covers the past and current history of the Ukraine.
I think he makes a compelling case for why we should care.
Not so sure about his Alaska comment though.

 

I thought I clarified my position. I think Obama is at a disadvantage. A disadvantage is not insurmountable, but it is a weakness - it is not a description of an individual's character it is a description of a circumstance. Perhaps you confuse my point of view with the views of others, if you want to discuss issues with me how about responding to what I write in its context.

Do you assume everyone shares your morals?

I am comfortable with people who speak with clarity and mean what they say. It is true I had no problem with what Bush/Cheney authorized against terrorists. Are you comfortable with Obama's authorization of using drones, authorization to kill US citizens?
--- merged: Mar 17, 2014 at 6:23 PM ---

Words of wisdom: Always walk behind an amateur hunter with a loaded gun.

I doubt this is true. Russian people support Putin or at least that is the appearance they project. Putin is not motivated by money. Sanctions with hurt innocent people, not political leadership.

The natural resources that come from Russia will reach the market one way or another. I would love to have someone explain to me how any sanctions will be effective. If the US was serious we would have built the infrastructural after Georgia to help give Europe alternatives to Russian resources. This did not happen and won't happen anytime soon. Putin knows this do we? Putin is serious, we are not. If we are not serious I would prefer we not use over the top rhetoric.
--- merged: Mar 17, 2014 at 6:31 PM ---

The point is that almost all US economic activity will continue. No need to sell the farm-people still gotta eat.

You brought up the concept of morality. There is no uniform morality. The West can pretend like there is international morality at the basis of international law if it makes us feel good. I don't need artificial pretense to feel good. Given all the shit going on in the world, Crimea pales in comparison - we live in a world where children are routinely sold into sex slavery and we talk about morality and international law??? We think that the people in Crimea wanting to be aligned with Russia is a morality issue???? I don't get it. We are talking lines on a map - there is morality in how maps are drawn??? I don't get the morality issues involved.

 

Thanks for posting the video. My reaction is that the people involved should resolve this issue. I am not saying the situations are the same but if Puerto Rico was in internal conflict regarding wanting to be independent or continuing alignment with the US - I would want the people to resolve the issue and I would not have a problem if the US military assisted with protecting American's and America's interest.

Regarding diplomacy - the point of diplomacy is to avoid conflict. I would argue diplomacy has failed up to this point with Ukraine. I think our administration, assuming the issue was important, was blind sided. That is not good. That is a problem. That puts diplomacy at a disadvantage. Further evidence of working from a postion of weakness.
--- merged: Mar 17, 2014 at 7:08 PM ---

What is the end game? Should the West remove Putin from power because we don't like the way he internally runs Russia? If we have no end game in mind, why challenge him and his authority. China sided with Russia regarding sanctions. Regarding international law, on what authority does the West have to impose sanctions? Is it the moral high ground? Can we just make it up as we go? See what I mean about international law. It is meaningless.

Your argument is circular. Where is the political pressure coming from? What is going to happen is that as the Russian people are hurt they will project their dissatisfaction against the West. Are we prepared for the consequences of that? What if this conflict escalates, is this worthy of another Cold War?

Some businesses would be impacted given interests they have - however, this is not the US economy. It is not the world economy. Will the price of oil go up, natural gas.... if so by how much? I would argue the impact will be relatively small and temporary.

National sovereignty is a big deal to me - I think our response is confusing. I am not even sure Russia has done anything we would not have done. I think the rhetoric is ego based. I think Obama feels obligated to talk tough. I would hate the thought of this getting out of control because of an ego contest. If diplomacy is the answer - how about doing diplomacy behind closed doors. Give it a chance to work before making public statements illustrating inflexibility.

You brought up morality! I specifically asked you to comment in a different manner one that was not based on religious views.

The US does not need to be in the center of every conflict in the world! If you, others, our President want people like me to care, make the case. Redravin at least made an attempt - in the end I was not persuaded, but at least it was informative rather than argumentative.

 

Rachael Maddow makes a pretty solid point that there is just one deal that could make Putin back off.
It's the hookup between Exxon and the Russian oil company.
Exxon may consider itself to be an international company but it is based in the US.
If they cut off Russian banks that would also end their ability to do business anywhere.
The EU and the US could stomp Russia.
I suspect this would only happen if this would only happen if he actually invaded.

Putin unmoved by consequences over Ukraine | MSNBC

 

Really?

In Russia I would argue political power comes first, ahead of money. In the US in the modern era money comes first, ahead of political power. Curious about how you see this in Canada.

If you are in power, with wealth or otherwise, in Russia - who are you going to align yourself with? The US and the West or Putin? Its a rhetorical question, similar to Russian political elections - anyone in Russia who aligns with the US or the West is taking a great risk. The US and the West have a poor track record of long-lasting support of those who take the risk to align with the US and the West given internal conflict in their country. We have no credibility. Perhaps you would take the risk, but I doubt you would reflect the norm. Before taking a step like you describe, there has to be an end game along with a realistic understanding of the risk and the actual global support there is - you often mock me for not knowing enough - to me it seems you miscalculate the risks.

When you talk about morality it does not make sense to me, given I know you are an atheist. There are plenty of non-morality based arguments for laws - suggesting a law is legitimately based on morality is to concede a unification of religion and government. Where does morality come from? When morality is used as a basis for law, I acknowledge it creates some serious problems and is at the root of most global conflict. Arguments in the past - it is immoral for a black to wed a white, it is immoral for a woman to own property, it is immoral to have a gay relationship, etc., etc., etc.

Established law on a historical basis is often wrong. I honor people who have had the courage to break established law when it is wrong from my point of view. If needed I can give you a long list of examples. Even today, in the US there is established law that needs changing. In some regards, given my libertarian views, I agree with a clear separation between church and state. I think we differ in regard to the point that I have no problem with religious people being involved in the state and advocating their points of view - what I expect is that they respect the rights of others and make their arguments on the basis of what is best for the state - not their religion.
--- merged: Mar 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM ---

When have sanctions accomplished a stated goal? To me it seems the sanctions ultimately hurt innocent people, often the poorest people, often the weakest people. In one way of looking at it, there is more honor when trained military people work out the conflict and then are done with it. I know it is less and less realistic given modern warfare, WMD, remote control weapons but I think it is far to easy and impersonal for world leaders to act like "dicks". Putin/his closest friends are not going to suffer due to any sanctions.
--- merged: Mar 18, 2014 at 5:55 PM ---

China would be happy to increase trade with Russia. The list of countries on the wrong side of US and EU policy grows. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba....