Ukraine

Julio3000 said:
Would withdrawal alone be a loss, or would it have to be withdrawal with a full status quo ante situation wrt Crimea's status (not leaving a separatist puppet government, et al)? i'm just trying to sort out what we can realistically expect/effect.

What do you mean, specifically, about action in Europe that could have prevented this?
Click to expand...

I think withdrawal alone would be a loss because it's a tacit admission of over-calculation on Moscow's part. If said situation were to play out Putin would obviously claim the reason Russia pulled out was because they felt as though the interests of the people they went in to protect had been adequately safeguarded.

After that, I don't support the United States being a direct part of any nation building effort in Ukraine (or the region). We leave that to the EU and, more specifically, Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary. Russia will obviously be involved, too, and rightfully so, because they do share a border with Ukraine. Emphasis on border.

As for what 'specific' actions could've prevented this? That would be impossible to pinpoint. But I feel comfortable asserting that the Obama Administration's complete lack of involvement in European affairs certainly precipitated Putin's willingness to plow 6,000 troops into Ukraine just a few hours after Obama specifically warned him against doing just that.
 
jpx7 said:
Stalin was an incredibly savvy personality and politician.

At this point, Putin can only dream of those fell heights—but I do think he entertains the dream.
Click to expand...

As he should, he's created for himself a throne wielding incredible amounts of power (in a democracy, no less).

Full disclosure: I like Putin.
 
Hawk said:
As he should, he's created for himself a throne wielding incredible amounts of power (in a democracy, no less).

Full disclosure: I like Putin.
Click to expand...

I sort of had that sense, but wanted you to come out and say it.

Full disclosure: I think he's a terrible scourge.
 
Hawk said:
Putin is an incredibly savvy businessman and politician.

He's not Stalin. This isn't the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

How many people do you think Putin has had killed? Thousands if not tens of thousands? That overrides a good business man and politician. He's a good politician because he jails and inprisons his opponents if not has them killed. It's not like the dude runs and wins in a fair voting system.
 
Hawk said:
I think withdrawal alone would be a loss because it's a tacit admission of over-calculation on Moscow's part. If said situation were to play out Putin would obviously claim the reason Russia pulled out was because they felt as though the interests of the people they went in to protect had been adequately safeguarded.

After that, I don't support the United States being a direct part of any nation building effort in Ukraine (or the region). We leave that to the EU and, more specifically, Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary. Russia will obviously be involved, too, and rightfully so, because they do share a border with Ukraine. Emphasis on border.

As for what 'specific' actions could've prevented this? That would be impossible to pinpoint. But I feel comfortable asserting that the Obama Administration's complete lack of involvement in European affairs certainly precipitated Putin's willingness to plow 6,000 troops into Ukraine just a few hours after Obama specifically warned him against doing just that.
Click to expand...

Could you cite such European affairs? The ones that come to mind were bailouts in Greece and Spain. Refresh my memory please.
 
Krgrecw said:
How many people do you think Putin has had killed? Thousands if not tens of thousands? That overrides a good business man and politician. He's a good politician because he jails and inprisons his opponents if not has them killed. It's not like the dude runs and wins in a fair voting system.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. However unlike you don't see the need now to purposely have a military conflict.
 
I'm fascinated by Russia and love many things Russian. My progression with Putin went something like this: I was entertained, then cynically appreciative, then aghast, then repulsed (though still respectful of his dark talents). One of the more comedic moments of the Bush presidency was when Dubs proclaimed that he'd looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul. The owner of those eyes then proceeded to cynically latch onto Bush's Global War on Terror (tm) in order to take the gloves off in the Caucasus, then later invade Georgia, with shootin' and lootin' and everything. Bush's response to Georgia makes Obama's response to the Ukraine provocation look like a full-on McCain-ian War Tumescence.

As for what 'specific' actions could've prevented this? That would be impossible to pinpoint. But I feel comfortable asserting that the Obama Administration's complete lack of involvement in European affairs certainly precipitated Putin's willingness to plow 6,000 troops into Ukraine just a few hours after Obama specifically warned him against doing just that.

Thanks for answering. I'm not trying to goad you—I'm just not sure where exactly American fp has been amiss. I'm not saying that it hasn't, I just don't hear a lot of specifics from folks who are griping now. It would seem like you'd be in favor of closer ties with neighboring states, but you also think that we've been less friendly to Russia than we ought to have been.
 
Julio3000 said:
Concerning US response to this… there are a limited number of options that we can reasonably undertake here. Best I can tell, there is pretty broad, bipartisan agreement as to what they are. Maybe we should wait and see before deciding that all is lost.

Suggesting that Putin has been emboldened by US/European reticence MAY be correct, but it's still supposition. A bellicose posture over the last several years might just as well have led to a different unsatisfactory outcome. Pretty much every drop of ink that's been spilled about this is partisan sniping in the space between deliberation and action.

If Russia ends up prying away Crimea, it will get used as a partisan stick to whack Obama with. Still, considering that the groundwork for this has been laid over the last decade or so (to say nothing of the previous decades), I have not seen a coherent case for how a [insert generic Republican here] administration would have forestalled it.
Click to expand...

By letting Ukraine into NATO would have forestalled it but we'd danced around that issue and this goes for both administrations, Bush, Clinton and Bush before that is at fault as well.

As for war, that would be stupid, but if we sent military equipment and people over their as shields, they will not attack because Ukraine would have invited us over. If Russia attack our forces on another countries land then they will be the ones shown to be the more aggressor. I don't think Putin is that stupid and that is why I say Obama is weak. You show your fangs, then bark, but do not have to bite.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Could you cite such European affairs? The ones that come to mind were bailouts in Greece and Spain. Refresh my memory please.
Click to expand...

My belief is that there doesn't have to be a major crisis brewing for the United States to step in and grace the world with its generosity.
 
Now it seems Obama is using his brain. I heard that he wants international monitors over there to ask the people if they are indeed being harassed or abused by ethnic Ukrainians. If Putin is putting his troops over there to protect them, I can understand that, but accusations that his people are being abused is kind of far fetched. If it found out that nothing happened, he needs to tell his people to withdraw.

The problem is again gas/energy and Western Europe needs Russia to survive. I wish they would develop an alternative fuel source, these oligarchy energy barons is playing the world like a game of Risk.
 
Hawk said:
My belief is that there doesn't have to be a major crisis brewing for the United States to step in and grace the world with its generosity.
Click to expand...

How do we know we weren't doing that already? Major crisis' around the world get news coverage. Small stuff doesn't. I mean shoot when Obama went to India for diplomacy the right was more concerned on him spending $200,000,000 a day on vacation.
 
AerchAngel said:
By letting Ukraine into NATO would have forestalled it but we'd danced around that issue and this goes for both administrations, Bush, Clinton and Bush before that is at fault as well.

As for war, that would be stupid, but if we sent military equipment and people over their as shields, they will not attack because Ukraine would have invited us over. If Russia attack our forces on another countries land then they will be the ones shown to be the more aggressor. I don't think Putin is that stupid and that is why I say Obama is weak. You show your fangs, then bark, but do not have to bite.
Click to expand...

Right. Because letting Ukraine into NATO would've been the reason Putin wouldn't send troops into Crimea, a predominantly ethnic Russian area. Putin is mad, and he would've found an excuse to do it either way. If a western-style President was elected, then Crimea would still be crying like they are now.

Also, this Russian invading Ukraine thing has only gone on for 2-3 days while the Ukraine protests have gone on for months. Are you really going to say he's weak based off these 2-3 days?

You don't win a chess match in the 2nd move of the game unless your opponent falls for the 2 move kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top