dayman Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 This sounds like Russia has been hostile to the West but it's been quite the opposite - refusing to be bent over and !@#$ed is not hostility It is time for Putin to bend over. His hostility towards this truth is hostility. Hostile Putin, never change.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 This sounds like Russia has been hostile to the West but it's been quite the opposite - refusing to be bent over and !@#$ed is not hostility The salient point of this entire situation is Ukraine's desire to join the EU and the pressure (including de facto economic sanctions) Russia's been exerting to keep them out. The salient point of the administration's policy towards such is that the White House and State have absolutely no clue what they're doing. Kerry is talking today about economic sanctions against Russia, not even a week after talking about economic sanctions against the Ukraine.
B-Man Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Stacey Dash ✔ @REALStaceyDash Follow This is #Putin's idea of community organizing. 6:36 PM - 1 Mar 2014 Obama Flashback: ‘The Reset Button Has Worked’ From ThinkProgress in 2009: A year ago, there was a rising fear that the US and Russia were on the verge of a new Cold War. Today the relationship seems to have gone 180. The US and Russia are now on the verge of signing a new nuclear disarmament agreement and look increasingly in sync on Iran. Yesterday, Obama met directly with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in Singapore where both leaders said negotiations on a new START agreement were close to completion. Medvedev also expressed his displeasure with Iran, giving another indication that Russia may back Obama should the Iranians reject the nuclear deal on the table. Following the meeting and Medvedev pronouncements, Obama concluded that “the reset button has worked.”
dayman Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 The salient point of this entire situation is Ukraine's desire to join the EU and the pressure (including de facto economic sanctions) Russia's been exerting to keep them out. The salient point of the administration's policy towards such is that the White House and State have absolutely no clue what they're doing. Kerry is talking today about economic sanctions against Russia, not even a week after talking about economic sanctions against the Ukraine. What would you do, mighty DC Tom?
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 What would you do, mighty DC Tom? For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. Basically, I'd actually HAVE a policy, and not make random, reactionary statements that swerve all over the place in response to whatever happened in the past 24 hours. Watching this foreign policy team at work is like watching Stevie Wonder try to compete at Talledega. It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables.
B-Man Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Putin Smashes Washington’s Cocoon: FTA: A Politico report calls it “a crisis that no one anticipated.” The Daily Beast, reporting on Friday’s US intelligence assessment that “Vladimir Putin’s military would not invade Ukraine,” quotes a Senate aide claiming that “no one really saw this kind of thing coming.” Op-eds from all over the legacy press this week helped explained why. Through the rose tinted lenses of a media community deeply convinced that President Obama and his dovish team are the masters of foreign relations, nothing poor Putin did could possibly derail the stately progress of our genius president. There were, we were told, lots of reasons not to worry about Ukraine. War is too costly for Russia’s weak economy. Trade would suffer, the ruble would take a hit. The 2008 war with Georgia is a bad historical comparison, as Ukraine’s territory, population and military are much larger. Invasion would harm Russia’s international standing. Putin doesn’t want to spoil his upcoming G8 summit, or his good press from Sochi. Putin would rather let the new government in Kiev humiliate itself with incompetence than give it an enemy to rally against. Crimea’s Tartars and other anti-Russian ethnic minorities wouldn’t stand for it. Headlines like “Why Russia Won’t Invade Ukraine,” “No, Russia Will Not Intervene in Ukraine,” and “5 Reasons for Everyone to Calm Down About Crimea” weren’t hard to find in our most eminent publications. Nobody, including us, is infallible about the future. Giving the public your best thoughts about where things are headed is all a poor pundit (or government analyst) can do. But this massive intellectual breakdown has a lot to do with a common American mindset that is especially built into our intellectual and chattering classes. Well educated, successful and reasonably liberal minded Americans find it very hard to believe that other people actually see the world in different ways. They can see that Vladimir Putin is not a stupid man and that many of his Russian officials are sophisticated and seasoned observers of the world scene. American experts and academics assume that smart people everywhere must want the same things and reach the same conclusions about the way the world works. How many times did foolishly confident American experts and officials come out with some variant of the phrase “We all share a common interest in a stable and prosperous Ukraine.” We may think that’s true, but Putin doesn’t. We blame this in part on the absence of true intellectual and ideological diversity in so much of the academy, the policy world and the mainstream media. Most college kids at good schools today know many more people from different races and cultural groups than their grandparents did, but they are much less exposed to people who think outside the left-liberal box. Note that both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney got this right, and were called idiots by box-dwellers.
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Note that both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney got this right, and were called idiots by box-dwellers. Lol
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. It's amazing to me so many people miss the importance of this statement. The major problem the US faces right now is not Russia in the Ukraine. It's that absolutely, positively NO ONE in any form of global power takes the US seriously any more. While it's easy for a person like me to pick all day at the gutless stuff Obama has done domestically, most of it was just political posturing. This is different. This isn't a bad website or police acting stupidly. It's a triple-decker global schittsandwich created by a man and his team whose greatest accomplishment has been to consistently vote "present."
Koko78 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) It's amazing to me so many people miss the importance of this statement. The major problem the US faces right now is not Russia in the Ukraine. It's that absolutely, positively NO ONE in any form of global power takes the US seriously any more. While it's easy for a person like me to pick all day at the gutless stuff Obama has done domestically, most of it was just political posturing. This is different. This isn't a bad website or police acting stupidly. It's a triple-decker global schittsandwich created by a man and his team whose greatest accomplishment has been to consistently vote "present." Unfortunately using meaningless posturing rhetoric with no intention of backing it up that panders to low-information idiots does not work on the global stage with intelligent, well-informed diplomats/leaders like it does getting elected President. Edited March 2, 2014 by Koko78
John Adams Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Note that both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney got this right, and were called idiots by box-dwellers. The difference is that Palin got lucky and IS an idiot. Edited March 2, 2014 by John Adams
John Adams Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Kerry has Putin by the short-hairs now. Canceling the G8 in Sochi is our silver bullet. Suck it Vlad. Edited March 2, 2014 by John Adams
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 It's amazing to me so many people miss the importance of this statement. The major problem the US faces right now is not Russia in the Ukraine. It's that absolutely, positively NO ONE in any form of global power takes the US seriously any more. While it's easy for a person like me to pick all day at the gutless stuff Obama has done domestically, most of it was just political posturing. This is different. This isn't a bad website or police acting stupidly. It's a triple-decker global schittsandwich created by a man and his team whose greatest accomplishment has been to consistently vote "present." It actually goes back even further. This goes all the way back to the Ukranian-Russian disputes over naval basing rights in the Black Sea and natural gas supplies, and the Kharkov Pact that supposedly resolved it (but is what's giving Putin's actions all the veneer of legitimacy he needs). What was the administration's position on the economic strong-arming and embargoing of the Ukraine by the Russians in 2009? "Reset Button." Or their position on the Kharkov Pact? I honestly can't find one - I'm not sure the White House or State Department has ever heard of it. This - like most crises - has been building for a long while. The administration is FIVE YEARS behind the game Putin's playing right now. That's why the comparisons to Chamberlain are so apt - the Sudeten crisis didn't suddenly crop up overnight either, the West just wasn't paying attention. Kerry has Putin by the short-hairs now. Canceling the G8 in Sochi is our silver bullet. Suck it Vlad. The biggest impact cancelling the G8 summit will have is on the professional protesting community.
TH3 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. Basically, I'd actually HAVE a policy, and not make random, reactionary statements that swerve all over the place in response to whatever happened in the past 24 hours. Watching this foreign policy team at work is like watching Stevie Wonder try to compete at Talledega. It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables. For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. Basically, I'd actually HAVE a policy, and not make random, reactionary statements that swerve all over the place in response to whatever happened in the past 24 hours. Watching this foreign policy team at work is like watching Stevie Wonder try to compete at Talledega. It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables. So from what I read. You have no idea what you would do .....just what you wouldn't......shocker....
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables. Got any more on this element? I didn't pay much attention to the Manning stuff. Any links or insights on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 So from what I read. You have no idea what you would do .....just what you wouldn't......shocker.... Yes, I can tell you what I wouldn't do - I wouldn't spend five years ignoring foreign policy. You want me to tell you what I would have done back in 2009? Because that's when this started.
John Adams Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Got any more on this element? I didn't pay much attention to the Manning stuff. Any links or insights on this would be appreciated. Thanks. I'm going to NJSue and second this request. FU Google. So from what I read. You have no idea what you would do .....just what you wouldn't......shocker.... Just a few things for starters. Not be taken by surprise on this. Putin desperately wants both legitimacy and a power grab. If the US-led European allies had been on top of this, they could have applied political pressure hard on Russia. Putin, in his way, cares about legitimacy. If he'd been under political pressure, he might well not have done this power grab. Or, as Tom said a few times, have a strong and coherent policy on Russia--an added component of which is not casting about vague threats. Which aren't even threats, but the threat of possible potential speculative threats. Who can take the US seriously? Please, someone, call Condi.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I'm going to NJSue and second this request. FU Google. Just a few things for starters. Not be taken by surprise on this. Putin desperately wants both legitimacy and a power grab. If the US-led European allies had been on top of this, they could have applied political pressure hard on Russia. Putin, in his way, cares about legitimacy. If he'd been under political pressure, he might well not have done this power grab. Or, as Tom said a few times, have a strong and coherent policy on Russia--an added component of which is not casting about vague threats. Which aren't even threats, but the threat of possible potential speculative threats. Who can take the US seriously? Please, someone, call Condi. Putin also "grew up" within the old Soviet foreign policy context, where Russia actually had some international clout. Anyone ask themselves yet why Russia hasn't embargoed Ukraine's natural gas yet (as they historically have when they get into a pissing match with the Ukraine), but instead are securing the Crimean naval bases they've leased? Here's a hint: what did the Russian Navy do in September of last year, and why?
B-Man Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 FTA: Remnick suggests that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may be “fatal” to his regime. He cites Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan which eventually backfired on the Soviet regime. This may be a comforting thought for those prepared to support Obama’s complacent approach to the world. But Afghanistan backfired because the Russians became bogged down there in the face of resistance funded in part by the U.S. Russia will face little or no resistance in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine, which may be its next target. And any resistance it may face will not be sponsored by the Obama administration. Our president, no doubt, would limit his involvement to deploring the violence. The better analogy is to Putin’s move against Georgia in 2008. It resulted in the Russians taking control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Putin has gone from strength to strength since. Many of us have called for sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs. The point of such sanctions isn’t to reverse Russia’s Ukraine policy; Russia will handle Ukraine as it sees fit. The point is to reset our relations with Russia so that they align with reality. Putin is the successor of those we opposed, and ultimately defeated, in the Cold War. Our policy towards his Russia should be set accordingly. This, by the way, is the real answer to those who say we can’t risk alienating Putin because we need his help with Syria and Iran. That’s like saying we can’t risk alienating Brezhnev because we need his help with Cuba and Vietnam. Even Jimmy Carter wouldn’t have said that. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/how-about-a-russian-reset-in-which-were-not-the-punks.php
GG Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Putin also "grew up" within the old Soviet foreign policy context, where Russia actually had some international clout. Anyone ask themselves yet why Russia hasn't embargoed Ukraine's natural gas yet (as they historically have when they get into a pissing match with the Ukraine), but instead are securing the Crimean naval bases they've leased? Here's a hint: what did the Russian Navy do in September of last year, and why? "Leased" is probably not the proper term.. The Black Sea fleet was always Russian. The Black Sea coastline always associated with Russia than Ukraine. Got to love the ..bobs of the world who are chiming in on what US should do now, as opposed to recognizing that Putin has always played for the long game ever since he pushed Yeltsin aside. The amazing part is that he's duped two successive administrations into thinking that he's a trusted partner. F'ing morons.
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 "Leased" is probably not the proper term.. The Black Sea fleet was always Russian. The Black Sea coastline always associated with Russia than Ukraine. Got to love the ..bobs of the world who are chiming in on what US should do now, as opposed to recognizing that Putin has always played for the long game ever since he pushed Yeltsin aside. The amazing part is that he's duped two successive administrations into thinking that he's a trusted partner. F'ing morons. "Leased" is the proper term...legally, in the same sense that we "lease" Guantanamo. And I don't think he ever "duped" the Bush administration...we can question the effectiveness of Bush's foreign policy, but he did pursue closer relations with former Soviet-bloc countries to Russia's detriment, which was the whole point of Obama's opening foreign policy move of the friggin' idiotic "reset button" to begin with. The bottom line, though, is that this whole thing is about basing rights and natural gas, and has its immediate roots going back to 2009 (though you can make a perfectly acceptable argument that it ultimately goes back to 1994, if you'd like). And is there anyone who honestly thinks that Obama's foreign policy team has any real understanding of the situation beyond where to find the Ukraine on a map?
Recommended Posts