As far as the US goes, we need to stop while we are wayyyy behind. Every single person that the US has put into power since Syngman Rhee has ended up being an opposition killing despot.Originally Posted by SoonerProphet
As far as the US goes, we need to stop while we are wayyyy behind. Every single person that the US has put into power since Syngman Rhee has ended up being an opposition killing despot.
as this drags on, I'm beginning to sorta think: If the Ukrainian military doesn't care to defend its nation's sovereignty, why should we be all that concerned?
I know that is an overly-simplistic viewpoint. And that Ukrainian armed forces wouldn't stand a chance against against the Russian fascists. Etc.
There do seem to be some parallels to 1930s Europe and the nazis absorbing their neighbors. I'm an old cold warrior, will always be deeply suspicious of anything coming out of Moscow or Beijing, or any other commie/ neo-commie stronghold, and I'm usually of the opinion to do whatever is necessary to portray them to be the punks they are.
So I'm not sure what course BHO, our State Dept, and allies should take. Ignoring it won't help anything. But is there anything to be helped? What is there to do?
That depends on whether they can look at this objectively.
Situation Losers:
1. Russia - There are 4 counties out of 70 some-odd that have anywhere near close to Russia's per capita income. So unless they only annex those eastern counties and the Crimea, they are basically taking on a mafia-saturated welfare state. If they annex the whole thing, it is going to cost them a crapton of money to get the standard of living up, because Poland and Rumania are not going to welcome immigration from the western provinces.
2. Poland and Rumania - Poof goes the buffer zone
Situation Winners:
1. Ukraine - we are giving them money, Russia will give them money. This is basically the best possible scenario for them to get outside capital infused
Belarus is in marginally better shape. As they have taken strides to become an export economy, but they still aren't any better than Russia.
good info jkm... the interesting thing is, just an hour or so ago I heard some sort of Russian statement the mentioned the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. So, yeah, the Russians know what's what. This has been planned for along time.
The question is: when, if ever, will the Ukrainian military do anything? Do they have a tripwire? Or are they going to obligingly allow their nation to be divided, once again being reminiscent of 1938 Czechoslovakia. And if the world witnesses the Bear pounce upon Ukraine with claws out, will there be any strong sentiment anywhere to actually do anything? I'm thinking the prevailing attitude will be nope, not our problem.
I've had discussions with folks (long before this happened) about Putin, and I've believed all along he was a hardliner. It's not hard to connect the dots, after all, he was in the KGB for a long time. Nonetheless, he's not dumb, he knows that he can make these moves and nobody will do anything to stop him.
The only thing I'm really watching now is German's reaction (not so much immediately, but in the near term). Right now, they aren't taking the same stance as the rest of the "west", but they have a lot more as stake (financially) than anyone else. However, at some point their feet are going to be held to the fire, and we'll see how that goes.
One answer to that question is the current government is suffering a crisis of legitimacy. I don't think the Western installed rump parliament led by our banking pal Yatshisname has much legal ground to stand on. Might be the Ukrainian military is just as split as the former government. Currently the conflict is seemingly isolated to the Crimea. It has flirted with autonomy off and on after the Soviet breakup. A complete absorption of the Ukraine is not what the Russians want.
I'm not sure how "concerned" I am about Crimea, since there is a lot more to that region than just being within the borders of the Ukraine. However, I am concerned about the precedent this could set. First, I don't think Putin would give a second thought to annexing more of the Ukraine (eastern regions) and Belarus, all in the name of "the Russions people living in those lands want us there!". Once that happens, that sends a pretty clear message to China that they can take the disputed islands without fear of any NATO interdiction. More than anything, I'm concerned that our reaction makes the US look weak and unprepared to handle these types of things (which, apparently we are).
I'm not going to pretend I know the best actions to take, but a lot of this started with the "red line" in Syria. More than anything, it reaffirms that this administration is all talk on foreign issues. I'd rather the White House come out and say "We're not getting involved" than to make idle threats and warnings.
I think that is a large part of the inaction by the Ukrainian military. The other reasons are two-fold:
1. The Ukrainians are't dumb, they know if they start something, they won't hold up long without help (and it doesn't appear there is any help on the horizon...at least not militarily).
2. Even though their sovereign soil has been invaded, no shots have been fired, and they certainly don't want to be the one's firing first.
I don't know if I buy into that line of reasoning, the old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Attacking the Syrians would have not deterred the Russian from attacking to protect their interests in what the see as a threat to stability in their backyard. Hawks of all types have touted the "weakness is provocative" line and it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Let's face facts, Nuland and the EU pushed for this current poking of the bear ritual the neocons love to do, it has blown up in their faces.
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Poking a bear would make them mad and force them to attack you.
Making yourself appear big and strong would deter a bear from attacking you.
I need a quote or a source or something to make your analogy valid. I can't think of a single action where an American politician or political group was advocating provocation of Russia into a fight.
Victoria Nuland's leaked phone conversation to Ambassador Pyatt gives a rather insightful look into who exactly she feels needs to be the pm in the Ukraine. We had members of our government protesting and cheerleading in maidan square, proselytizing the joys of austerity and debt. I'd say the Russians might be rather displeased. Don't forget the whole Georgian fiasco in 08, had we listened to mcain and the neocons we'd of gone to war in the Caucuses.
Hmmm. So not much really.
Trying to paint the "neocons" as snorting, wildeyed, hawkish types itching for a fight is not only far fetched, but also passe these days.
There's a fat natural gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.
There's a reason Germany is not taking a stance against the Russkies.
Also the Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1959 or so. Before that it was part of Russia for 200 years.
The history, plus the only major warm water Russian naval port with retired Russian naval folks and their families nearby and I fully understand why Putin would want to keep the Crimea.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
Sure, except when a senior senator and the assistant sec. of state are actively engaged to remove an elected government. Passé huh? I guess that means nobody wants to discuss the epic clusterf*cks they got us in. Best to put our heads in the sand and ignore the obvious.
They had 99 year leases on the Sevastopol base signed when the Ukraine went independent. This doesn't even get into what a paper tiger the Baltic Sea fleet is since Turkey won't let them through the Dardanelles.
I remember this differently than you do. I remember him complaining about NATO more than anything. Had they been a part of NATO then yes we would have had to defend them, but they weren't so it was moot. Heck, the only people that really screamed about it were the Baltic states. From a US perspective, what Georgia was doing to the South Ossetia population should have put us squarely on the side of Russia.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...n_invasion.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO
I found this amusing:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...a-crimea-stats
Reminds me of the cartoon back in the "oil" days of a mouse giving the finger to an eagle...
I don't know what's wrong, but it's probably your fault.
Olevet Posse
Heh
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
You really don't believe the"red line" ordeal didn't send a message to Putin? Of course it did. We were within hours of air attacks on Syria, and Putin steps in and the rest is history. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy we didn't intervene although nothing much has really changed in Syria. However, in geopolitical terms, that absolutely sent a message to Putin.
It's not Post hoc ergo proter hoc when 1+1 absolutely (and eventually) equals 2.
Posting Permissions
