Russia Invades Ukraine. Where's Obama?

Then you have to be 100% in line with Obama's response to this crisis since he has not gotten involved directly. Behind the scenes, who knows. You also have to be 100% in agreement with me since I said the same thing. This could be a first even if you can't openly admit it.

Now, you want to know what Obama means by "there will be costs". Well, I don't image that all those costs are known at this point but I suspect that one of them is going to be sanctions by both us and Europe that will gradually eat away at the Russian economy. I also suspect that there will be some diplomatic consequences like cancelling our participation in the G8 which has already happened. It would be unbelievably pointless and stupid to announce all of the costs upfront because that would give Russia time to react to those costs whatever they may be. Why would we do that?

Finally, your OP, sorry Fox's OP, seems to criticize Obama for what? Having a drink with his political allies? If that is the only criticism you, sorry, Fox, can muster, so be it. I can shrug that off pretty easily. Nice thread.

 

For the most part, at least up to this point, Obama is following a similar course of action that Bush took when Russia invaded Georgia.

As long as Obama continues to take the same course of action that Bush did, then things should conclude well for the US. However, this harsh talk of "there will be costs" is disconcerting. I hate to tell our Community-Organizer-in-Chief how to run his business, but perhaps a less brash, less-dictatorial remark would have been better. Instead of "There will be costs" perhaps he should have said something along the lines of "My administration is pursuing all diplomatic means to end this crisis"..... well, you get the idea.

But, now that the "costs" mandate is on the table, I'm concerned what Obama has in mind. It might be sanctions. It may go no further than pulling out of the G8. It might be some other slaps on the wrist. I will predict with near certainty that it won't be military intervention on our part. I'll drink to that.

 

I really don't know sometimes what is going through your head. I honestly and sincerely read some of your posts and think, "Hum? Is history, current events, recent history, or even reality in your scope of understanding at all?" I don't want to be insulting or condescending, I really don't but I just find your views hard to believe.


Obama in no way is following a similar course as Bush did during the Georgia invasion by Russia. As I pointed out, the Bush Administration forced Putin's hand in stupid ways that were brash and ill-conceived.

.....it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a full-fledged U.S. ally, and receive tactical training and weapons from our military. Did they really think Putin would sit by and see another border state (and former province of the Russian empire) slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it, and how firmly did they warn Saakashvili not to get too brash or provoke an outburst?​

Obama has said rightfully so, according to agreements signed by Russia, the US, and the UK in the 1990's, that Russian incursions into the Ukraine are illegal. Obama never encourage Ukraines to join NATO and become a military ally and then abandon them once the Russian troops moved in. So saying "there will be costs" is about as non-brash as it gets and doesn't even approach dictatorial. If he had merely said that diplomatic means needed to be pursued, the Right would be jumping all over him for being a community organizer and chief and weak. Oh wait, they said that anyway. Obama's approach is perfect in this situation. You don't want to telegraph your intentions, you want to keep them guessing.

I will also drink to non-military intervention just like I did with Bush. Risking WW3 for no real gain in a region of the world that has been fighting for 100's of years is just stupid. Bush and Obama both recognized this to their respective credits. If the situation gets hotter, the Ukraine military isn't without teeth. If they want two Chechnya type situations on their southern border, that is up to Russia.

"It is a nightmare for everyone," said Igor Sutyagin, a Russian military expert. "The entry of Russian troops would be a deep humiliation for Ukraine … It would be a second Chechnya."​

 

I wish we had Bush back. He would see Putin's incursion into the Ukraine for what it was. A perfect opportunity to both send US forces to Crimea and to invade Venezuela.

 

Huh? That's not what happened when Putin invaded Georgia.

 

Again. What would you do?

If you're playing a game of chess do you announce your next intended move before the opposition makes his?

Is it a Rook vs. a Pawn? A Bishop vs. a Pawn?

To me the Ukrainians are the Pawns but they can be Queened.

It's been a long time since I played any chess but it's possible.

NOW. If President Obama just "announces" his next move how would that benefit anyone?

It is not our battle and if we just up and jump into it we could easily be looking at Queen vs. Queen. On a global level.

Well lookee there. You DID give an answer.

That's most likely what he's doing (President Obama that is) yet you decided to call him out on "going out after work".

Dang Coin. It seems we essentially agree here. It's happened before.

Somehow you picked up some "talking point" against President Obama and ran with it though.

These days I'm not surprised.

 

I'll be happy to answer that... again. I've already said that I agree with what you would do (not get too involved) and that's exactly what I would do.

However, shouldn't we be more interested in what Obama's "costs" will be? I've been asking what people think Obama's costs will entail. Obama has said there will be costs, so there will certainly be costs of some sort. In what form do you think those "costs" will take? Sanctions? Elimination of G-8 status for Russia? Military intervention? A verbal denouncement of aggression? A combination of those? Something else entirely? Absolutely nothing?

The discussion is purely academic at this point since Obama hasn't revealed what those costs will be and, rightfully so, he shouldn't play his hand until he's ready.

Just curious what people are thinking what those costs will be.

 

With the "biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War" as The World Post (a partnership of the Huffington Post) reported it, Ukraine mobilizing for war and Russia declaring it had the right to invade its neighbor, I expect our Community-Organizer-in-Chief to do something a bit more stately and diplomatic than to go to some beer-fueled, fundraising party for the DNC on the day it happened. So, yeah, I called him out on it. Who wouldn't? Obama is probably really pissed off that all this is falling into his lap just when it's nearly time to make his March Madness picks.



KIEV/BALACLAVA, Ukraine, March 2 (Reuters) - Ukraine mobilised for war on Sunday and Washington threatened to isolate Russia economically after President Vladimir Putin declared he had the right to invade his neighbour in Moscow's biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War.
"This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said in English. Yatseniuk heads a pro-Western government that took power in the former Soviet republic when its Moscow-backed president, Viktor Yanukovich, was ousted last week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/ukraine-russia-putin_n_4884064.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-prepares-tough-response-russia-over-ukraine-205657626--politics.html

If the world unites against Putin, Obama might break even. Without the rest of the world. Putin is the grand master.

 

Your criticism might, just might approach validity, maybe, without the invective and long, long history of baseless criticisms for the sake of criticism. As with any hypercritical partisan attacker, you have zero credibilty to express an opinion that anyone couldn't predict two days prior. That's the problem with hypercriticism. During an actual event, you have no chits left and at the same time, you're full of chit if you know what I mean.

 

Way to root for the enemies of this country. Can you say treason?

trea·son ˈtrēzən/noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

1. 1.​
   the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
   "they were convicted of treason"
   synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;
   sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
   high treason, lèse-majesté;
   apostasy;
   literaryperfidy
   "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
   antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • the action of betraying someone or something.
     plural noun: treasons
     "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
     synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
     sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
     high treason, lèse-majesté;
     apostasy;
     literaryperfidy
     "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
     antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • historical
     the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
     noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

 

Baseless? That's a matter of opinion. Certainly I've done my share of criticizing Obama, but for good reason. I'll be happy to give you a list of his mistakes, blunders and bad decisions if you'd like.

The problem with your accusation of "hyper-criticism" is that you're speaking from a position of "hyper-partisanship". As such, that leaves no room for a valid argument from you. In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard you say even one thing critical of Obama. Not one. Ever.

 

View attachment 2318

 

Let's all just face the sad reality...BO is an absolute joke on the world stage. He had Putin to save his bacon with Syria but who can he turn to now? Putin realized how weak BO is and he's taking this opportunity to exploit that weakness.

View attachment 2319

 

I'm glad the Right-wing in this country loves Putin so much. Maybe they should go live in Russia and live under their hero full time. That would be a win-win for the rest of us anyway.

The GOP treasonous bastards one an all. You dumb asses will not be happy until you start WW3. Please explain how Bush stood up to Putin when he invaded Georgia. Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Bush wasn't just a feckless foreign policy leader when it came to Russia, he actually encourage Putin's aggression.

Bush Doctrine Enabled Putin's Georgia War

Iraq action opened Pandora's box of unilateralism

​

By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff​

Posted Aug 14, 2008 1:48 PM CDT

(Newser) – President Bush's "howls of outrage" at Russia's unilateral action and calls for regime change in the Caucasus ring more than a little hollow to Juan Cole of Salon, who remembers all too well a similar situation not long ago. "Vladimir Putin's invoking Bush's Iraq adventure points directly to the way in which Bush has enabled other world powers to act impulsively," Cole writes.
The Bush administration's defiance of international law was "implicitly predicated on the notion that all challengers would be weaker than the United States throughout the 21st century," Cole writes. With Russia and China in the ascendancy, he contends, Bush and Dick Cheney are "getting a glimpse of a multipolar world in which other powers can adopt their modus operandi with impunity."

 

View attachment 2320

 

A few facts, as I see them:

The Bush Administration set the precedent for Putin to invade Crimea, by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Putin believes he has the right to invade Georgia and Crimea, much like the Bush administration believed it had the right to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Russia maintains a fleet on Crimea, under an agreement with Ukraine.

Crimea itself is a semi-autonomous region that is roughly 60% in favor of the invasion.

Russia is demanding that the Ukraine cede Crimea to Russia, by force.

Russia began staging troops for an invasion several weeks ago, and intended to use them to crush the Euromaidan protests. These troops bear no insignia, in an absurd attempt to hide who they are.

A similar response by Nato would take several weeks to a few months to coordinate and deploy. That's why Putin is pushing fast and hard, in order to entrench his forces in Crimea and have them declare themselves part of Russia.

Putin is playing a very dangerous game of chess right now, and it might get real ugly quick. His previous intercedes in Ukrainian politics are from behind the scenes, using proxies to do the dirty work.

His proxies occupy all levels of government, from the recently ousted President to hired-thugs who are used to infiltrate protests and start fights.

The police are part of the problem, as are special "secret" units within the force. Paramilitary units are also employed, such as snipers. Russian troops occasionally show themselves there too, as a reminder to Ukraine's citizens who is really in charge.

One former Ukrainian President was poisoned with dioxin, while having dinner with the former deputy head of Ukraine's secret police. That man is currently living in Russia, much like the recently ousted President is.

Another anti-Russian politician faced trumped-up charges and was thrown in prison. She was soon flown to a facility in Eastern Ukraine that has a border close to Russia, the same city the recently ousted president flew to after fleeing Kiev. Once there, she was brutalized further. Russian officials wanted to chat with her more freely.

So, if you republicans think Obama isn't doing enough, maybe that's because you simply don't know enough about the situation and should just shut the @#$% up, before you make even bigger (_!_)s of yourselves.

 

When their arguments fall flat, they inevitably start posting cartoons and memes because they can't defend themselves and their opinions with discourse, they have essentially admitted that they have lost the argument. Typical.

 

They don't know shit about Ukraine, or anything else they blather on about. They only know how to make up BS about Democrats, Liberals and Obama...and that's just @#$%ing pathetic.