What Happened in the Ukraine?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If anyone needs a quick reminder. [/quote]

What does this demonstrate? Anyone who believes we still reside in a bipolar world in which Russia is our preeminent security concern is beyond ignorant.[/quote]

It demonstrates that trying to dismiss and humiliate someone who turned out to be more astute than you is pretty fucking stupid. [/quote]

How does Russia’s realpolitik intervention in Ukrainian affairs (which is well within its sphere of influence) correlate with Romney’s archaic claim that the Russian Federation “is without a doubt our number one geopolitical foe”? Show me how this tangibly affects the United States vis a vis Russia. [/quote]

I believe Putin wants his old Soviet Union back, his moves certainly suggest that after going into Georgia and now the Ukraine. Should Putin restore the old USSR, it is yet another junkyard dog to deal with. Is it a direct threat to the US ? Maybe not, but I see this as a cancer having been in remission for awhile, that is now coming back to bite us in the ass. We just don’t need it in our lives.

Putin is a bully, who also controls maybe 1/3 of the oil that serves the EU. And should Obama (or anyone else) try to impose sanctions on Putin, I believe Putin is fucked up enough to manipulate that fact. If you think that won’t affect things here in the US and across the world, you have another thing coming.

62

Feel bad for them. Not our war.

63

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Feel bad for them. Not our war.[/quote]

agreed, but the disruption of the natural gas/oil lines to Europe is a fairly large geopolitical issue.

And let’s face it, we are America, if there is a reason to use our bombs, we will find one, and “preventing ethnic cleansing” plays well with the public.

I’d much prefer Obama continues the course he is one, and have people that already don’t like him, call him names for “looking weak”, than the community organizer in chief actually try to get involved in a fight like this that could escalate very rapidly to very negative consequence.

Way too much money involved to not assume this could get very ugly, very fast.

64

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

If anyone needs a quick reminder. [/quote]

What does this demonstrate? Anyone who believes we still reside in a bipolar world in which Russia is our preeminent security concern is beyond ignorant.[/quote]

It demonstrates that trying to dismiss and humiliate someone who turned out to be more astute than you is pretty fucking stupid. [/quote]

How does Russia’s realpolitik intervention in Ukrainian affairs (which is well within its sphere of influence) correlate with Romney’s archaic claim that the Russian Federation “is without a doubt our number one geopolitical foe”? Show me how this tangibly affects the United States vis a vis Russia. [/quote]

I believe Putin wants his old Soviet Union back, his moves certainly suggest that after going into Georgia and now the Ukraine. Should Putin restore the old USSR, it is yet another junkyard dog to deal with. Is it a direct threat to the US ? Maybe not, but I see this as a cancer having been in remission for awhile, that is now coming back to bite us in the ass. We just don’t need it in our lives.

Putin is a bully, who also controls maybe 1/3 of the oil that serves the EU. And should Obama (or anyone else) try to impose sanctions on Putin, I believe Putin is fucked up enough to manipulate that fact. If you think that won’t affect things here in the US and across the world, you have another thing coming.

[/quote]

Yes this is true, but if Putin decides to punish the Ukraine by shutting off the gaslines (monopoly supplier), he also kills his own biggest customers in Europe, which he needs to maintain economic stability in the fragile Russian economy.

I’d manipulate sanctions if they were imposed, I see no reason why Putin wouldn’t take full political advantage of that setback either. We bully just as much as Putin does, but you never see it living here. We do it in slightly different manners, not as coldly, but it’s political action.

I am unsure what Putin’s goal is over in the Ukraine, but I doubt he wants to annex it. I view this instead as a set of actions to get his puppet government back in power by destabilizing and coercing the fledgeling gov’t in Kiev. He is exerting his influence, outside of simply looking to protect the Russians in the region as Dr. Matt said. And if that doesn’t work, he’ll likely be popular in the Crimean gov’t.

I am in agreement with Bismark and Dr. Matt on this. This is no Cold War resurrection yet, this is straight up power politics. Although I’m not exactly fond of Putin’s stated desire to found a “Eurasian Union” out of the old eastern bloc countries.

65

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Feel bad for them. Not our war.[/quote]

agreed, but the disruption of the natural gas/oil lines to Europe is a fairly large geopolitical issue.

And let’s face it, we are America, if there is a reason to use our bombs, we will find one, and “preventing ethnic cleansing” plays well with the public.

I’d much prefer Obama continues the course he is one, and have people that already don’t like him, call him names for “looking weak”, than the community organizer in chief actually try to get involved in a fight like this that could escalate very rapidly to very negative consequence.

Way too much money involved to not assume this could get very ugly, very fast. [/quote]

Yeah, I hate looking weak…but I hate the idea of him trying to efficiently lead a large scale conflict much much more. I do not have faith in his decision making ability.

I do not think Putin wants to disrupt the oil lines. He needs them for his country’s economic stability as the EU is his largest customer. He could hurt Ukraine, but he would be seriously weakening himself as well and I do not think he wants to do that unless he really feels confident that he can get the EU to overlook his actions and keep buying when he turns the gas pipeline back on afterwards. Not a great move on his part I don’t think. His economic isn’t exactly roaring right now.

66

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I do not think Putin wants to disrupt the oil lines. He needs them for his country’s economic stability as the EU is his largest customer. [/quote]

I don’t think he wants it disrupted either and is largely why he is there. But at the same time, wtf is Europe going to do? Not buy it? lol.

Putin is certainly in the position of power here, weak economics or not. It isn’t like the rest of the global economy is booming, so the disruption in flow of Russian gas and oil to Europe will cause shockwaves globally.

The west can try and put economic pressure on him, but he also controls a very big proverbial “light switch” too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the international community is perfectly okay with posturing and bloviating in newspapers to keep this at a relative stale mate until spring/summer.

67

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Feel bad for them. Not our war.[/quote]

agreed, but the disruption of the natural gas/oil lines to Europe is a fairly large geopolitical issue.

And let’s face it, we are America, if there is a reason to use our bombs, we will find one, and “preventing ethnic cleansing” plays well with the public.

I’d much prefer Obama continues the course he is one, and have people that already don’t like him, call him names for “looking weak”, than the community organizer in chief actually try to get involved in a fight like this that could escalate very rapidly to very negative consequence.

Way too much money involved to not assume this could get very ugly, very fast. [/quote]

I have never understood the inane criticism of looking weak. I don’t even know what that means. We command by far the biggest and most expensive military on the planet. I don’t think it is weak to show the restraint to sometimes not use it.

In fact, I think that is the strong thing to do. It’s also the responsible thing for our troops. If a President gives a fuck about looking weak then I think they are highly flawed. This is a phrase I wish we could throw away in political dialogue.

68

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Feel bad for them. Not our war.[/quote]

agreed, but the disruption of the natural gas/oil lines to Europe is a fairly large geopolitical issue.

And let’s face it, we are America, if there is a reason to use our bombs, we will find one, and “preventing ethnic cleansing” plays well with the public.

I’d much prefer Obama continues the course he is one, and have people that already don’t like him, call him names for “looking weak”, than the community organizer in chief actually try to get involved in a fight like this that could escalate very rapidly to very negative consequence.

Way too much money involved to not assume this could get very ugly, very fast. [/quote]

I have never understood the inane criticism of looking weak. I don’t even know what that means. We command by far the biggest and most expensive military on the planet. I don’t think it is weak to show the restraint to sometimes not use it.

In fact, I think that is the strong thing to do. It’s also the responsible thing for our troops. If a President gives a fuck about looking weak then I think they are highly flawed. This is a phrase I wish we could throw away in political dialogue. [/quote]

To a degree I agree with you.

Do I think Obama looks weak here? Sure. But I thought he looked weak long before that. I mean really, how do you make a community organizer look strong? You don’t. The man is a pussy. Cut throat political mind for sure, but in general, a pussy.

So in this instance I’m not even worried about him looking weak, because the world largely already saw him that way.

It takes a different sort of leader for it to come off as restraint. Obama just doesn’t have that. IMO.

I’m really tired, does any of that make sense?

69

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Do I think Obama looks weak here? Sure. But I thought he looked weak long before that. I mean really, how do you make a community organizer look strong? You don’t. The man is a pussy. Cut throat political mind for sure, but in general, a pussy.

[/quote]

Why do you say this?

Gates’ book had harsh words for Obama, especially re: Afghanistan. But none of it had anything to do with weakness, and he also wrote this: The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

According to the people in the room, there was a ton of doubt–more than there was about the intelligence that underlay Iraq WMD.

70

Smh, how was Gates’ book? I was thinking about picking it up.

71

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Smh, how was Gate’s book? I was thinking about picking it up.[/quote]

Definitely worth the read. More candid than I expected (calls particular members of congress stupid a few separate times). I think some of his assessments are weak or unevidenced, but, all in all, definitely worth looking over.

72

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Why do you say this?[/quote]

Honestly? The rock star, campaign machine image he has. His “bully pulpit” is as unprofessional as his incessant narcissistic use of social media.

His constant self promotion, worry about his image and general lack of tact in that regard largely scream massive self esteem problems, ie a huge pussy.

I’m not a Bush fan, but I do give him the hap tip of taking the “I don’t give a fuck, let’s see how history remembers me” approach.

Hillary for example. She is someone I wouldn’t see the same way as Obama. She could do the same thing he is, and I would see it is restraint. She strikes me as a calculated bitch on wheels that would order the hit of a political foe be done on 6th ave in broad daylight and not bat an eye. Something about her demeanor just screams to me, “fuck you, try me.”

Plouf and Washyourmans-Shorts strike me as significantly more ballsy than Obama. Bam just comes off like the dude at the bar looking to score, and is very good at it. Slick, even tempered, focused on what he is good at, and great with the ladies, but if a fight broke out, he’d be the first one out the door.

[quote] and he also wrote this: The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

According to the people in the room, there was a ton of doubt–more than there was about the intelligence that underlay Iraq WMD.[/quote]

I mean… Come on. How on Earth that is a “tough call” is beyond me. If it fails, no one ever knows about it. The WH feeds media matters a couple talking points, and the disinformation narrative is in full spin.

I don’t know, I just don’t think that was all that hard a thing to call in real time, maybe in hindsight. Sort of like Bush. I don’t think he agonized about the men who died in his wars until afterward, and I think it tortures him every day now.

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I mean… Come on. How on Earth that is a “tough call” is beyond me. If it fails, no one ever knows about it. The WH feeds media matters a couple talking points, and the disinformation narrative is in full spin.

I don’t know, I just don’t think that was all that hard a thing to call in real time, maybe in hindsight. Sort of like Bush. I don’t think he agonized about the men who died in his wars until afterward, and I think it tortures him every day now. [/quote]

About to lose service on a train, respond to rest later, but this: Because Pakistan is a nuclear country, and running a covert military op therein is a serious risk, and an even more serious political risk. Helicopters crash, things go wrong. If he were told “OBL is there,” that’s one thing. He was told this was very doubtful, sketchier than Iraq WMD. That’s not a weak call, at all.

74

Train delayed.

Re: the other stuff, I just don’t have the same view of him I guess.

But I was referring less to psychoanalysis and more to actual FP record. I haven’t ever seen weakness. In fact, I think he’s been strong on FP, and I think that the most obvious evidence of this is the third debate with Romney. Romney had nothing. Agree, agree, agree, agree. He even played the dove for a few minutes–and certainly not because he wanted to. Because he had no other choice (this was obviously the opinion of Romney’s team of FP advisers, which had some heavy hitters on it).

75

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Train delayed.

Re: the other stuff, I just don’t have the same view of him I guess.

But I was referring less to psychoanalysis and more to actual FP record. I haven’t ever seen weakness. In fact, I think he’s been strong on FP, and I think that the most obvious evidence of this is the third debate with Romney. Romney had nothing. Agree, agree, agree, agree. He even played the dove for a few minutes–and certainly not because he wanted to. Because he had no other choice (this was obviously the opinion of Romney’s team of FP advisers, which had some heavy hitters on it).[/quote]

The establishment parties (and let’s face it, a non-establishment politico isn’t getting to the third debate) aren’t materially different than each other.

“Drop our bombs on people.”

edit: when it comes to FP.

76

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Train delayed.

Re: the other stuff, I just don’t have the same view of him I guess.

But I was referring less to psychoanalysis and more to actual FP record. I haven’t ever seen weakness. In fact, I think he’s been strong on FP, and I think that the most obvious evidence of this is the third debate with Romney. Romney had nothing. Agree, agree, agree, agree. He even played the dove for a few minutes–and certainly not because he wanted to. Because he had no other choice (this was obviously the opinion of Romney’s team of FP advisers, which had some heavy hitters on it).[/quote]

The establishment parties (and let’s face it, a non-establishment politico isn’t getting to the third debate) aren’t materially different than each other.

“Drop our bombs on people.”

edit: when it comes to FP.[/quote]

Agreed, in general. However, roles were still remarkably scrambled in that third debate. I have never heard a Republican candidate speak like that in my lifetime.

Contrast with, for instance, '08 and '04 FP debates. There was divergence, conflict, heat. '12 was unique.

78

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

[/quote]

I don’t buy this either.
[/quote]

Oh? What is your counterpoint to the professional opinion of a man who served 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and on the National Security Council?

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

[/quote]

I don’t buy this either.
[/quote]

Well, it’s his word against yours. He certainly means it.

80

Is there any significant economic or political ties between Russia and Crimea that causes Russia to consider Crimea important enough to outright invade on a flimsy rationale?

Besides the whole “Crimea gives Russia access to the Black Sea” and “Russia has a big-ass naval base in Crimea”.