Russian Bear eying the Ukraine...

[8timechamps]

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.

I never agree with this line of reasoning. Has the US ever installed a 'puppet' government for the benefit of the US? Sure. Does it happen every time the citizens of a country protest and oust a current dictator/leader? No.

Which country on earth has the oldest democracy? Let's suppose you just took control of a country (as a citizen of said country), and the reason you are in control is because the people want a democracy. Who would you call on for guidance? Who may have some insight on how to establish and run such a system of government?

This is not a US generated or led uprising/ousting. This is home grown, and that's exactly why Russia is in the Crimea right now.

[SoonerProphet]

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.

I think this assumption is because we didn't take decisive action in Syria it led to a failure to deter Russia is a false one. To attack Syria against strong protestations not to would have infuriated Moscow and have made advances into the Ukraine more likely. They already blame the crisis on Western meddling and have stated such, they view the actions in Maidan as an illegal putsch. Increasing paranoia in Russia does not make sense for the case of deterrence as far as I can tell.

[SoonerProphet]

I never agree with this line of reasoning. Has the US ever installed a 'puppet' government for the benefit of the US? Sure. Does it happen every time the citizens of a country protest and oust a current dictator/leader? No.

Which country on earth has the oldest democracy? Let's suppose you just took control of a country (as a citizen of said country), and the reason you are in control is because the people want a democracy. Who would you call on for guidance? Who may have some insight on how to establish and run such a system of government?

This is not a US generated or led uprising/ousting. This is home grown, and that's exactly why Russia is in the Crimea right now.

It was pretty blatant attempt at direct intervention. The phone call about Yatsihisname as pm, Nuland handing out donuts, McCain's constant adventurism, what other conclusions do you expect the Kremlin and Duma to make. Lets be clear about wanting "democracy" too, this was an elected government that was removed by a coup. The Regions Party made many concessions and were rejected out of hand. Nuland and Pyatt need to be called to the carpet for this ordeal and it rests on their shoulders.

[8timechamps]

I think this assumption is because we didn't take decisive action in Syria it led to a failure to deter Russia is a false one. To attack Syria against strong protestations not to would have infuriated Moscow and have made advances into the Ukraine more likely. They already blame the crisis on Western meddling and have stated such, they view the actions in Maidan as an illegal putsch. Increasing paranoia in Russia does not make sense for the case of deterrence as far as I can tell.

On this one, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It was pretty blatant attempt at direct intervention. The phone call about Yatsihisname as pm, Nuland handing out donuts, McCain's constant adventurism, what other conclusions do you expect the Kremlin and Duma to make. Lets be clear about wanting "democracy" too, this was an elected government that was removed by a coup. The Regions Party made many concessions and were rejected out of hand. Nuland and Pyatt need to be called to the carpet for this ordeal and it rests on their shoulders.

I don't really think we can call this a coup, as I believe he was actually voted out by the legislation. I've used the word "coup" too, but I think it's worth noting that this really wasn't, and the government operated within their constitution.

I'm not under the misguided impression that the US has no interest in a west leaning democracy in the Ukraine, obviously that's the case. However, I'm not complete sure, but I think Nyatt was acting on an invitation from the Ukraine. Clearly, her words weren't what the public is used to hearing, but I don't think her involvement was being forced. You do bring up an interesting point though, to what extent is the invasion a response to the leaked phone call. Don't get me wrong, I think this has been planned for a long time, but the timing certainly makes it interesting.

[SoonerProphet]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...aine-disaster/

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...aine-disaster/

As I said above, we need to stop while we are behind.


The US, historically, is really really good at signals intelligence (the whole Snowden affair). From 1933 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

What was unknown to the participants of the Conference was that the American "Black Chamber" (the Cypher Bureau, a US intelligence service), commanded by Herbert Yardley, was spying on the delegations' communications with their home capitals. In particular, Japanese communications were penetrated thoroughly, and American negotiators were able to get the minimum possible deal the Japanese had indicated they would accept, less than which they would renounce the Conference. As this ratio value was unpopular with much of the Imperial Japanese Navy and with the increasingly active and important ultranationalist groups, the value the Japanese Government accepted was the cause of much suspicion and accusation among Japanese politicians and Naval officers

This, of course, is good and bad from an immediate threat point. We get so dependent on reading someone else's mail that if they properly compartmentalize we have zero clue as to what is coming (see Harbor, Pearl).

On the flip side, we are just terribad at reading how the cards are going to fall when we try to influence the internal politics of another entity. Most of the time, all we do is getting a lot of common citizens killed for no reason under some harsh dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_spo..._regime_change

[SoonerProphet]

Seems to be some issues concerning which side the snipers in maidan actually were on.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...testers_orders

[FaninAma]

She is taking credit for a short term statement that came true in the long term. It is the difference in me saying OU will win a national title in football [implied this year] vs OU will win another national title in football [implied future].

Not exactly. She predicted it would happen during Obama's presidency. That isn't exactly an open ended period of time.

[FaninAma]

As I said above, we need to stop while we are behind.


The US, historically, is really really good at signals intelligence (the whole Snowden affair). From 1933 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty



This, of course, is good and bad from an immediate threat point. We get so dependent on reading someone else's mail that if they properly compartmentalize we have zero clue as to what is coming (see Harbor, Pearl).

On the flip side, we are just terribad at reading how the cards are going to fall when we try to influence the internal politics of another entity. Most of the time, all we do is getting a lot of common citizens killed for no reason under some harsh dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_spo..._regime_change

See Iran and the Mosadeq saga.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Not exactly. She predicted it would happen during Obama's presidency. That isn't exactly an open ended period of time.

Her quote ->

In October 2008, after Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia emerged as a foreign policy flashpoint in the homestretch of a heated campaign, Palin told an audience in Nevada, "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

[8timechamps]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...aine-disaster/

Eh, that's more of an editorial. This part didn't make much sense to me:

What drives it? Or more precisely, what is the motivation to try to drive the sphere of Western influence right up to Russia’s borders? Is it because our ambitions (and whose, exactly?) are insatiable? Because that seems to be it: we aren’t satisfied with the liberation of the satellites of Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, former Cold War flashpoints and now NATO members; with the reunification of Germany and under Western auspices, so that Berlin is now a virtual capital of Nato; with the Baltic states as NATO members too. There seemed to be no end to it.

It's not like that happened a few years ago, so I don't really get the idea that we've become some uprising-hungry merchant of democracy consistently meddling in post Soviet Union nations. I just don't really buy the idea that the US caused any of what is going on in the Ukraine.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It's not like that happened a few years ago, so I don't really get the idea that we've become some uprising-hungry merchant of democracy consistently meddling in post Soviet Union nations. I just don't really buy the idea that the US caused any of what is going on in the Ukraine.

I'm not sure if you know the history here, but the Russians have a longstanding irritation with NATO since they were rejected for membership in 1954. That was when they created the Warsaw Pact as a counterbalance to what they felt was NATO being a pawn to Germany rearming. Basically Germany + US and Europe wasn't something they wanted to fight alone. So you have to look at it from there point of view -> As long as there was a buffer zone between them and NATO countries they didn't have to worry about little things like border disputes or cracking a few neighbor country skulls getting them into a full blown war. But as NATO expands (and more importantly keeps absorbing 1st world countries with 1st world military capabilities that are now augmented with US Tech), it has to be viewed as a threat ESPECIALLY if these newly added countries have a huge bone to pick with Moscow.

TLDR -> The problem as the Russians see it is that NATO is basically a UN consisting of only 1st world countries with them as its only enemy.

[ouwasp]

Talked to my middle school students about this today...had to give them a very brief rundown on the Evil Empire, told 'em why Russia values the Crimea, and ended with this: Sometimes Bullies Win

That's what is happening here.

[8timechamps]

I'm not sure if you know the history here, but the Russians have a longstanding irritation with NATO since they were rejected for membership in 1954. That was when they created the Warsaw Pact as a counterbalance to what they felt was NATO being a pawn to Germany rearming. Basically Germany + US and Europe wasn't something they wanted to fight alone. So you have to look at it from there point of view -> As long as there was a buffer zone between them and NATO countries they didn't have to worry about little things like border disputes or cracking a few neighbor country skulls getting them into a full blown war. But as NATO expands (and more importantly keeps absorbing 1st world countries with 1st world military capabilities that are now augmented with US Tech), it has to be viewed as a threat ESPECIALLY if these newly added countries have a huge bone to pick with Moscow.

TLDR -> The problem as the Russians see it is that NATO is basically a UN consisting of only 1st world countries with them as its only enemy.

Yeah, I'm very familiar with NATO (and the old Warsaw pact). I also realize that the Ukraine would love to join (although, I'm not sure how soon that was/is going to happen). I can certainly see why Russia has interest in the Crimea (and much of southern Ukraine) as it relates to NATO, so I can buy that being a partial cause, however, Putin's desire to "get the band back together" has more to do with his ideal of what Russia should be more than it has to do with his desire to keep NATO (physically) at bay. That's just my opinion though. Nonetheless, I still don't think the US caused the current situation, nor do I think the US regardless of whom is in the White House) has a trigger finger liberating European countries (as the author of the editorial seemed to infer).

[8timechamps]

Talked to my middle school students about this today...had to give them a very brief rundown on the Evil Empire, told 'em why Russia values the Crimea, and ended with this: Sometimes Bullies Win

That's what is happening here.

My middle school son has become very interested in all of this. I've always been a geopolitical/current event kind of guy, but my interest didn't really begin until high school. I think (in an odd turn of events) Social Media has garnered his interest in the current situation. That brought it to his attention (and the fact that I'm consistently reading about it on my laptop), and so I found myself giving him a Complete Idiots Guide to the old Soviet Union and the Cold War. I was pretty excited when he wanted to know more about this, but I probably gave him more information than he wanted.

[SoonerProphet]

Yeah, I'm very familiar with NATO (and the old Warsaw pact). I also realize that the Ukraine would love to join (although, I'm not sure how soon that was/is going to happen). I can certainly see why Russia has interest in the Crimea (and much of southern Ukraine) as it relates to NATO, so I can buy that being a partial cause, however, Putin's desire to "get the band back together" has more to do with his ideal of what Russia should be more than it has to do with his desire to keep NATO (physically) at bay. That's just my opinion though. Nonetheless, I still don't think the US caused the current situation, nor do I think the US regardless of whom is in the White House) has a trigger finger liberating European countries (as the author of the editorial seemed to infer).

I realize the poll is a bit dated but it seems to refute your notion that a majority wants to be a part of NATO. You are entitled to your opinion on Putin and Russia's interest in its near abroad, we have agreed to disagree on this thread. It seems a bit wrongheaded to turn a blind eye to the fact that Senator McCain and Assistant Sec of State Nuland participated in the Maiden protest. If Russia had government officials agitating for government change in Mexico many would be apoplectic, and rightfully so.

[BigTip]

[BigTip]

She is taking credit for a short term statement that came true in the long term. It is the difference in me saying OU will win a national title in football [implied this year] vs OU will win another national title in football [implied future].

I can't believe that you, and others, are not giving her credit for this because it didn't happen the next week/month/year. The point is that she recognized that Putin had an eye on the Crimea. She said he would act after seeing perceived weakness from us. He stuck the first chance afforded him. She deserves a big "I told you so."

[hawaii 5-0]

I still don't think Palin could pick out Ukraine on a world map.

Some pundit put a suggestion in her ear and she parroted it.


5-0

[olevetonahill]

I still don't think Palin could pick out Ukraine on a world map.

Some pundit put a suggestion in her ear and she parroted it.


5-0

I would love to watch a Live debate between YOU and Sarah.
I get so tickled at those who thinks shes so stupid.