Politics Ukraine and Putin's power grab

Supporting the Libyan resistance was Obama's call, supporting the FSA against Assad was Obama's call ( which they are now re-thinking due to AQ's interference in the country), supporting the Arab spring against his ally in Mubarak was Obamas call. All legitimate governments of their time, and he stood with the illegitimate governments because it served US interests (or so they thought).

perhaps the vote was forced, im not sure. But if the true people of the region dont want to be a part of ukraine, then so be it. If the people are different, and the dialect or language is different, and the poeple want to rule themselves and have a free say in these matters, im all for it.

european powers have never respected those principles over the last six-plus decades. they carved up as they saw fit for their own political gain, and fucked up countries and regions which we are still seeing the results of today. With regards to autonomous and semi autonomous regions in Russia, prior to 9-11, the US supported the plight of the Chechen people for independance from russia. It was only till later when they were linked to AQ that the US dropped their support like a hot potato.

so if i replace east timor with crimea, and indonesia with russia, there isnt much difference. i dont know a lot about Crimea, but im seeing conflicting information about the population demographics. But if they in fact are russian and not ukrainian, i'll support people power.

 

Maybe any ports they have on the Eastern side would be blocked in by a narrow straight between two Russian peninsulas. But, they would have plenty of Western ports that could avoid Crimea and Russia.

 

If you're thinking of Odessa they'd still be bottlenecked by Crimea, that side's still narrow enough to be very vulnerable to any further hostile action.

 

They would still be 80 miles away from Crimea though if they are coming or going out of Odessa. Miami to Cuba is about that, and as long as there aren't hostilities, then it shouldn't matter. If there are hostilities, that distance won't matter and they would need many more miles of separation and to deal with the naval ships.

 

Rumor has it that Europeans need Russia just as much as they need us.

Also:

Relevant

...

Justification is my new favorite word.

 

Yeah, the whole "shut up and take my money" meme is really awkward when you call the shopkeeper a bunch of names and throw a tantrum.

 

Why should I care? I want someone in our government to explain our interest. I also want to know why we are always reacting? Seems like every 6 months we encounter some sh!t that we won't tolerate, until the next time new sh!t gets dumped that we won't tolerate. I miss the days when we actually kicked-a$$! Can we clone dick Chaney?

- See more at: Cheney’s “dark side” Quote | America at War

 

Yep.

I like ace foreign policy expert Sarah Palin's take on it......blaming Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Obama's lack of authority in Putin's eyes and Obama's lack of a backbone in not being more forceful.

Which is much like the Bush/Cheney White House response to Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008:

"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."​

Republicans are shamefully playing politics with foreign policy once again.

​

 

I am not clear on what you expected from Bush/Cheney regarding Georgia. Then and now I am not clear on what the US interest is. The statement you quote is sort of generic not containing any over the top rhetoric. One difference I see is that when Bush/Cheney drew red-lines, they actually would take action.
--- merged: Mar 14, 2014 at 5:10 PM ---

Yes.

I think you are conflating two different points. If you can separate the two I think my point of view would be clearer to you. In summary, if US interests are at stake I think it better to be proactive. If others take damaging or potentially damaging acts the US may need to take damaging or potentially damaging acts to protect US interests. Or, to quote Chaney: "That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective." President Obama has not made the case for our objective and what he is willing to do to achieve it.

Dear Confused: I am not being facetious with my question. My question is a very serious question. Why should I care? I am also very serious about the clarity we got from Bush/Cheney

Moral high road? What does that mean? Is there a clearly defined morality question here? If so, what is it. Other than a fill-in the blank ego contest what is the issue?

Do you think Obama wants war?

 

I didnt want anything more reactive from Bush/Cheney. I was concerned that they would come out shooting first and applying diplomatic pressure as an afterthought. Just as I dont expect the chicken hawks on the right to acknowledge that the Obama and Bush responses were similar, yet the former is represented as weak and indecisive.

And Bush/Cheney drew a red-line based on dubious conflicting intel at best and outright lies to the American people at worst and at a cost of 4,000+ US lives, 100,00o+ Iraqi lives and $1 trillion and still growing. Obama's red-line is leading to the removal and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons at the cost of zero US lives and little cost to taxpayers. Thats not to say the Syria situation is not a massive fuck-up all around.

 

This looks like a bit of a change on the part of the EU when it comes down to Russia

Germany's Merkel warns Russia of 'massive' consequences over Ukraine

She seems to be trying to make up for all the times they sat back and let him get away with whatever he wanted to.
Kind of weird when Germany is the voice of reason.

 

There are some differences. One being Bush/Chaney, agree or disagree, clearly had no problem with preemptive military action. Or any type of military action.

When you write things like you do here you confuse me. First you say Obama's actions are similar to Bush/Chaney and then you say Bush/Chaney acted inappropriately. I assume you want Obama to act in a different manner than Bush/Cheney, I don't. I want clarity and I want leadership that will do what needs to be done. My perception is that Obama will only go so far.

 

Ace...the two circumstances (Ukraine v Georgia) and US reactions are very similar yet from the right, one is perceived as weak.

But on a larger scale, the difference is that Obama is not pre-disposed to risk American lives for a political gain or based on dubious intel. I'll take that approach over "cowboy" diplomacy any time.

 

I see no reason for US military involvement. I think the people in the region should determine their fate. Regarding the vote this weekend, why not respect it?

It is not up to the US to determine if Russia is violating a legal issue. The only responsibility the US has is to protect its interests. If the point is that the UN should be doing something and is asking for help that is another matter. You already know I have no respect for the UN.

You are using religious terms and concepts. If you put it in terms of political interests I would understand your point of view.

Well said....for a politician! Ever consider running for political office. What the hell does it mean?