Umm, it's not winter, Russia's saying it's in their treaties that they can do what they're doing, but that's with the ex-government. The Ukraine's not in the EU, but they are in the Council of Europe and are almost in NATO.
The only thing I can think of is someone going: 'let us do what we want or we'll make Chernobyl worse' which depending on who says it will trigger either a dogpile or a backing off.
Well, Putin just called on parliament for an invasion of the Ukraine. I guess the saber rattling begins now.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
And his parliament gave him carte blanche unanimously. Why not? They know by now that both the EU and the US are utter and complete paper Tigers and he has free reign to do what he pleases.
Admin officials tell CNN's Barbara Starr this is an "uncontested arrival" not necessarily "an invasion" and that this distinction is "key."
*Sigh*
So let me get this straight - the White House is saying there is a foreign element to the new troop presence — but it’s all good so far because Crimea isn’t resisting.
In other words, to save face over the fact that there’s nothing much we can do to stop this, the official U.S. line is that this can’t be an invasion if the Russians are being … greeted as liberators.
“Uncontested arrival” is the best Orwellian euphemism for war since "kinetic military action." Laying aside the fact that we’re now lending rhetorical support to aggressive irredentism (the Tatars in Crimea are going to "contest" this "arrival," I’m pretty sure), explain to me why he went out there and blathered about his "deep concern" for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty if we’re adopting the position that maybe Ukraine’s not the rightful sovereign in Crimea after all.
By the way, while Moscow digested the green light it got from the U.S. to consolidate its gains last night, Obama was at the DNC headquarters kicking off happy hour for Democrats.
I’m not kidding.
Only Obama could make Jimmy Carter look like a Foreign Policy genius by comparison. What a joke.
Oh BTW - just to be clear. I don't think there's anything we could or should do to stop Russia from re-taking Ukraine. I damn sure don't want to start WW3 over this. And besides, with Obama downsizing the Military back to pre-WW2 levels, we'll pretty soon be unable to project any real strength overseas so why should anyone - especially Putin - take us seriously anyway?
I just think it's reprehensible how mealy-mouthed Obama is about all this. At LEAST be honest about what's happening without trying to "spin" it. This is an invasion, pure and simple. And simply tell it straight up - We're not getting involved because we don't care enough to. Stop drawing imaginary lines in the sand for petty dictators and tyrants to casually walk over at their whim and simply admit straight up that the rest of the world can no longer expect us to do anything with our useless military (no offense to anyone in the military - but if the Commander in Chief is useless, than so are you effectively. Not your fault.)
Obama is good at only one thing when it comes to Foreign Policy - embarrassing himself and America.
And giving the order to go after Bin Ladin despite the advice of everyone not to do it?
The problem I see is this. There are several ex-Warsaw Pact countries who made the decision to join NATO. A few of them on the borders of the Ukraine. If Putin swallows up the Ukraine with a peep from anyone, you'll see a guerrilla campaign start from the borders of those countries. Like what is happening now with Chechnya. Then the shooting war with NATO will really start. A destabilized Eastern Europe is not something the West wants. Look at what happened in the 90's with the break-up of Yugoslavia. The Germans, French and the UK will want to act. And if they do, we get pulled in.
I'd rather we do the show of force now and hopefully stop a shooting war rather than cave-in and get the war anyway.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
And giving the order to go after Bin Ladin despite the advice of everyone not to do it?
You might think this is verging into "Tin-Foil Hat" territory, but I'm not fully convinced Obama actually gave that order himself. There's at least anecdotal evidence that Leon Panetta and possibly even Hillary Clinton did an "end run" around Valerie Jarrett in order to make it a "fait-accompli" and then allowed Obama to take the credit.
But regardless - other than that ONE example, everything else he's ever done has backfired badly or gone awry. Benghazi anyone?
Quote:The problem I see is this. There are several ex-Warsaw Pact countries who made the decision to join NATO. A few of them on the borders of the Ukraine. If Putin swallows up the Ukraine with a peep from anyone, you'll see a guerrilla campaign start from the borders of those countries. Like what is happening now with Chechnya. Then the shooting war with NATO will really start. A destabilized Eastern Europe is not something the West wants. Look at what happened in the 90's with the break-up of Yugoslavia. The Germans, French and the UK will want to act. And if they do, we get pulled in.
I'd rather we do the show of force now and hopefully stop a shooting war rather than cave-in and get the war anyway.
Not going to happen. We - and by "we" I mean the Obama White House - are going to sit on our hands while making diplomatic noises to try and sound tough but we are no longer fooling anyone anymore. Particularly not Putin.
Everything else you say sounds pretty spot on though. It's going to get far uglier and it could be prevented. But Obama/Kerry etc. are simply going to let it happen.
Oh don't you wish we had someone in a position of authority who actually understood the way the world really works? Oh wait...
Quote:You might think this is verging into "Tin-Foil Hat" territory, but I'm
not fully convinced Obama actually gave that order himself. There's at
least anecdotal evidence that Leon Panetta and possibly even Hillary
Clinton did an "end run" around Valerie Jarrett in order to make it a
"fait-accompli" and then allowed Obama to take the credit.
He is the Commander in Chief. If it went bad like what happened in Tehran during the abortive hostage rescue, he takes the fall. The official record is that even Panetta is leery of doing a raid with Seal Team 6 and would had preferred a drone strike. Plus to make an end run around the President, they'd have to convince the head of SOCCOM that either 1) If it fails, all of them would take the fall. Which would not work anyway because everyone else would be howling for the Presiden't head or. 2) Tell SOCCOM that the President approved it. Which would be a lie. And would get all of them canned when it comes out.
Tell me, if the Bin Ladin raid had failed, would you be baying for the President's head for ordering it?
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Sending a battlegroup in the general direction of Ukraine risks making the entire situation spiral out of control even faster. The last thing anybody in Europe wants is a war in the Ukraine. There's fuckall there but fields, an atomic disaster and a gaspipe. Nothing worth going to war over. Especially in a country so visibly split down the middle as to form a quagmire for whoever wants to step in first.
Not to mention the fact that, generally, the nations of Europe rather don't want a war. And they certainly aren't interested in starting one for someone else. For reasons that should be very obvious. War for America in general means a few caskets on a plane every now and then and some white crosses on a foreign field followed by some kickass video games. War for Europeans conjours up entirely different images....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Quote:Dartz wrote:
Sending a battlegroup in the general direction of Ukraine risks making the entire situation spiral out of control even faster. The last thing anybody in Europe wants is a war in the Ukraine. There's fuckall there but fields, an atomic disaster and a gaspipe. Nothing worth going to war over. Especially in a country so visibly split down the middle as to form a quagmire for whoever wants to step in first.
Not to mention the fact that, generally, the nations of Europe rather don't want a war. And they certainly aren't interested in starting one for someone else. For reasons that should be very obvious. War for America in general means a few caskets on a plane every now and then and some white crosses on a foreign field followed by some kickass video games. War for Europeans conjours up entirely different images....
So, when Russian tanks starts rolling in to Kiev, do you envision some sort of deal ala Munich in 1938. "Peace in our time"
You do remember the last European conflict was the Bosnian War?
And war for me means going to the Veterans hospital and seeing the guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan trying to rebuild their lives. So what's war for you?
Make no mistake. If it was possible I'd go for an isolationist policy in a heartbeat and the world can go hang. That option went out in WWI. No rational being willingly wants war. But I say rattle the sabers to make sure Putin gets the point and hopefully prevent a war than do nothing now and we get the war anyway.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
Quote:Tell me, if the Bin Ladin raid had failed, would you be baying for the President's head for ordering it?
Nope. Not for ordering it.
It depends on how it went bad, though.
If they stormed the compound, a few terrorists fight back and die, but Bin Laden simply isn't there? Well at least it'd be an honest attempt. If Bin Laden is there, he gets captured/killed and some of our soldiers die? Still not a problem. They died for a good cause.
If it went HORRIBLY wrong and Bin Laden escapes/wasn't there and lots of our guys die and there's a "Blackhawk Down" type scenario? THEN I'd question the wisdom of ordering the raid cause at that point it's obvious incompetence or jumping the gun with bad intel is the cause.
But this is all hypothetical. I'm not questioning that it was or wasn't a good thing. Just that - based on everything else I've ever seen in regards to Obama and the way he thinks, it's hard to believe he actually had the stones to make that call. It's just not in his nature. I think if it were up to him alone, he'd have dithered until the moment was lost. Either someone presented it to him as a fait accompli, or they threatened to resign right there on the spot and go to the press with what they knew if he didn't act and forced his hand.
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
Quote:Make no mistake. If it was possible I'd go for an isolationist policy in a heartbeat and the world can go hang. That option went out in WWI. No rational being willingly wants war. But I say rattle the sabers to make sure Putin gets the point and hopefully prevent a war than do nothing now and we get the war anyway.
You and I are - surprisingly - of an accord here.
I think the difference is - I don't think we will do this
under any circumstances with the current administration. As stated above, I don't think Obama has the stones for that kind of action.
There's a big difference between a Bosnian war, and one that could potentially escalate into a full-blown conflict involving one of the larger armies in the world.
Ultimately, short of sending a few missiles, there isn't much of anything that can be done, is there? Rattling sabers would be nothing more than a hollow gesture, pointless because everybody knows nobody would go through with backing it up. The same people laughing because of the lack of general rattlage, would be the first to laugh at any hollow promise of consequences. Never put a finger on the trigger of a gun you aren't will - or able to fire.
Quite frankly, the Ukraine can go spin. It's not my problem. I don't want to make it my problem. I don't want to make it my friend's problem. I certainly don't want a full-blown war over what is, for the most part still an internal Ukrainian matter. Russian intervention is arguable, when half of the country is actively demanding Russian troops to move in. Doing anything in the Ukraine will only end up being a bloody clusterfuck at best.
And I'd argue that Neville Chamberlain may have made the right call. History grants him an unfair reputation, in part because of Winston Churchill's autobiography, but the argument could be made that the United Kingdom was in no way able to stand by Czechoslovakia militarily in 1938, and the resulting war could've been disastrous. A year made all the difference in preparation and re-armamanet.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
One of the consequences of doing nothing would be Poland demanding (politely) that US troops be deployed there to act as a trip line (much as they are in South Korea), so that if some other country starts being aggressive the US is pre-comitted to its defence. A quick google says that there are currently ten there, which isn't much of a commitment.
This would make Russia go ballistic.
It's basically a choice between doing something now and doing something later. That said, I'd personally prefer an approach that allows this to be settled reasonably peacefully (which means allowing Russia to save face) than one that leads to WWIII breaking out.
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
Quote:Make no mistake. If it was possible I'd go for an isolationist policy in a heartbeat and the world can go hang. That option went out in WWI. No rational being willingly wants war. But I say rattle the sabers to make sure Putin gets the point and hopefully prevent a war than do nothing now and we get the war anyway.
You and I are - surprisingly - of an accord here.
I think the difference is - I don't think we will do this under any circumstances with the current administration. As stated above, I don't think Obama has the stones for that kind of action.
Unilaterally- no. Ghosts of Iraq are hanging around. As part of a NATO coalition, he will do it. NATO places a no fly zone at the Dnieper River. Anything Russian unit crossing into the pro-western region of the Ukraine gets hit with a missile. And that should give Putin pause. Hopefully log enough for an accord and a NATO tripwire in place.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Quote:Dartz wrote:
Quite frankly, the Ukraine can go spin. It's not my problem. I don't want to make it my problem. I don't want to make it my friend's problem. I certainly don't want a full-blown war over what is, for the most part still an internal Ukrainian matter. Russian intervention is arguable, when half of the country is actively demanding Russian troops to move in. Doing anything in the Ukraine will only end up being a bloody clusterfuck at best.
And I'd argue that Neville Chamberlain may have made the right call. History grants him an unfair reputation, in part because of Winston Churchill's autobiography, but the argument could be made that the United Kingdom was in no way able to stand by Czechoslovakia militarily in 1938, and the resulting war could've been disastrous. A year made all the difference in preparation and re-armamanet.
Funny that Putin used the same reason for invading Georgia in 2008.
As for throwing Czechoslovakia under the bus, the general concensus among historians is that had war been declared in 1938, the Germans would had lost. They were not ready. They were still trying to absorb the Austrian army and they were going broke. The Sudetenland has some formidable fortifications and there were only 2 panzer divisions at that times. The PZI's were no more than rolling mg nests. There was a very good possibility that the German High command would had have Hitler arrested. The French army was much more stronger than the Germans. Hitler bluffed the Brits and the French and won.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
There is a side to the issue that you are ignoring. The legimate democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed in an armed coup, for following the russian rapprochement policy that he had campaigned for. The current regime in Kiev is illegitimate and backed by force of arms, not a popular national mandate. All Russia has to is put the former regime back in power, something there is a lot of support for in the east, leave some troops for security and training (sound familiar? ) and go home claiming he saved democracy. no need to annex the country.
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
Quote:Dartz wrote:
Quite frankly, the Ukraine can go spin. It's not my problem. I don't want to make it my problem. I don't want to make it my friend's problem. I certainly don't want a full-blown war over what is, for the most part still an internal Ukrainian matter. Russian intervention is arguable, when half of the country is actively demanding Russian troops to move in. Doing anything in the Ukraine will only end up being a bloody clusterfuck at best.
And I'd argue that Neville Chamberlain may have made the right call. History grants him an unfair reputation, in part because of Winston Churchill's autobiography, but the argument could be made that the United Kingdom was in no way able to stand by Czechoslovakia militarily in 1938, and the resulting war could've been disastrous. A year made all the difference in preparation and re-armamanet.
Funny that Putin used the same reason for invading Georgia in 2008.
As for throwing Czechoslovakia under the bus, the general concensus among historians is that had war been declared in 1938, the Germans would had lost. They were not ready. They were still trying to absorb the Austrian army and they were going broke. The Sudetenland has some formidable fortifications and there were only 2 panzer divisions at that times. The PZI's were no more than rolling mg nests. There was a very good possibility that the German High command would had have Hitler arrested. The French army was much more stronger than the Germans. Hitler bluffed the Brits and the French and won.
That is entirely correct. I was considering looking that information up just to make sure I had it all straight when I noticed that you had posted it.
Quote:nemonowan wrote:
There is a side to the issue that you are ignoring. The legimate democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed in an armed coup, for following the russian rapprochement policy that he had campaigned for. The current regime in Kiev is illegitimate and backed by force of arms, not a popular national mandate. All Russia has to is put the former regime back in power, something there is a lot of support for in the east, leave some troops for security and training (sound familiar? ) and go home claiming he saved democracy. no need to annex the country.
Huh... Y'know, I bet Putin is just savvy enough to do that. He was VERY quick to jump on that slip of the tongue of Kerry's in regards to Syria a few months ago in regards to allowing weapons inspectors. Made us look like fools, he did (well - more specifically showed how much of a fool Kerry was and is) and saved Bashir's ass to boot (and of course, cemented his influence in Syria as well).
Give him even the hint of something like that again - something that will save face, prevent war, AND get him what he wants - and I have every confidence he'll do it. He may be a freaking gangster, but he's dangerously smart. MUCH smarter than anyone in our current White House or State Dept.
Quote:nemonowan wrote:
There is a side to the issue that you are ignoring. The legimate democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed in an armed coup, for following the russian rapprochement policy that he had campaigned for. The current regime in Kiev is illegitimate and backed by force of arms, not a popular national mandate. All Russia has to is put the former regime back in power, something there is a lot of support for in the east, leave some troops for security and training (sound familiar? ) and go home claiming he saved democracy. no need to annex the country.
The legitimately elected president slipped away into the night after signing an accord that restored the constitution of 2004. Now answer me as to why he did that? Putin reinstalling him back means he will have to maintain an army of occupation to keep his vassal there. Pure imperialist play. He already has 3 pseudo states he's maintaining. Propping up a 4th is going to pretty expensive.
Interesting tidbit..the Crimea gets it's water from the Western half. Russia can keep the Crimea. Kiev shuts off the water.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
The British Army wasn't in much better condition - still having frontline biplanes, for example. While the problems with the French army weren't a lack of a equipment, or good tanks per-se, but generally horrific tactics and faith in a Maginot Line that had an obvious flaw. While Czechslovakia was on the other side of Germany. And really - it's a tired old chestnut.
There are no parallels here. It's just a tired cliche trotted out by warhawks to justify any little exercise in military adventurism. There are many odious things about Putin, but even at his worst, he is no Adolf Hitler. In many regards, he is no worse than another country with a history of putting the rights of small nations aside when it was convenient, or butting into the affairs of countries near it's sphere of influence and fucking their shit up when it was in its own interests to do so. Just think for a moment, that feeling you're experiencing right now might be how the rest of the world feels when America announces it's bringing 'democracy' or 'free market' to another country.
Never mind that you're forgetting one critical thing. Half of Ukraine is quite happy to have the Russians there. These people elected a president who chose to approach closer ties with Russia following an electoral mandate. Then the other half of the country flipped its shit and overthrew him - most of whom were more pissed off about how he handled the pro-EU protests, than his policies as such. The whole thing is such an utter readymade clusterfuck that touching it with anything but kid gloves could lead to a massive explosion. Hardliners in the east actually want to be close to Russia. While the West wants to move closer to the EU, and most people are just stuck in the middle of it all. The whole region is an utter mess left behind by the Soviet Union's disassembly.
Starting a war, or intervening in any manner will, at best, kick off a bloody civil war in the Ukraine that'll quagmire Russia, and at worst, touch off a full blown shooting war between some major world powers. You want to draw an analogy with World War 2, then howsabout I link to World War 1, where a finely balanced system of alliances and national commitments lead to an entire continent being dragged into war with itself over the stupidest of reasons and lead to the deaths of millions, while setting the stage for its horrific sequel. If we want to learn the lessons of history, then why not look at the other World War, which was triggered by reckless belief and the certainty that a war would be quick, or for whatever reason, wouldn't ever happen over something trivial....
If there is one lesson to be learned from World War I, it's to not launch merrily into a jingoistic, idealistic war when you have no idea how far and wide your quick over-by-christmas decision can escalate. Especially when both powers still have the ability to turn each other into softly radiating ash if things accidentally spiral out of control. And don't ever say they won't. All it takes is one dickhead commander with a chip on his shoulder to give one order at the wrong time. Even a one-in-a-million shot, is still much too high.
Ukraine is just not worth the risk.
Gentlemen. War is wrong. It is always wrong. And it has not yet reached the point where it is necessary either.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:Quote:
Interesting tidbit..the Crimea gets it's water from the Western half. Russia can keep the Crimea. Kiev shuts off the water.
Don't you mean "Eastern half?"
BTW - short form on what I believe:
No, we shouldn't be intervening in Ukraine. In fact we should stay FAR AWAY. (In fact, other than rhetoric, I'm pretty sure we will. But Obama is JUST erratic enough that I'm not 100% certain.)
But let's be HONEST about it. Don't even BOTHER making "tough" noises trying to puff your political standing up. Just cut the whole damn thing loose and admit straight up that we don't give jack shit about Ukraine. (Well I feel sorry for them, but that's not enough.)
Obama wants to have it both ways, as usual. He wants to avoid war, but he wants to appear "strong" at the same time.
Sorry, Barry - that ship sailed midway through your first term. You're a wimp and you're not fooling anyone. Putin's got your number.
Now lie back and think of Russia.
Quote:Never mind that you're forgetting one critical thing. Half of Ukraine is
quite happy to have the Russians there. These people elected a
president who chose to approach closer ties with Russia following an
electoral mandate. Then the other half of the country flipped its shit
and overthrew him - most of whom were more pissed off about how he
handled the pro-EU protests, than his policies as such. The whole thing
is such an utter readymade clusterfuck that touching it with anything
but kid gloves could lead to a massive explosion. Hardliners in the east
actually want to be close to Russia. While the West wants to move
closer to the EU, and most people are just stuck in the middle of it
all. The whole region is an utter mess left behind by the Soviet Union's
disassembly.
To my mind, the Russians can keep it. Small problem though. where are you going to get the water for 2 million citizens in an area like Los Angeles and with the same climate? 2 inches of rainfall in a year. There is no other nearby water supply. All the Ukraine has to do is either cut off the water supply or jack up the price.
Other problem..there's a sizable Tartar population in the Ukraine. And their Muslim. They're not going to be happy to be part of whatever stan is carved out of there. Expect the Chechens to be looking for another front to expand their activities.
Quote:Ukraine is just not worth the risk.
Gentlemen. War is wrong. It is always wrong. And it has not yet reached the point where it is necessary either.
Dartz, sometimes you do not have that luxury of staying out. There are times when you do have to fight. Afghanistan in 2001 was one such time. Bush II screwed up and did not finish that war though. So was Gulf War I. Korea.
I'm not a warmonger. If there is someone who is not found of war, it is veterans. I am not a fan of John Bolton. But it may be necessary that Putin be shown that what he is doing now cannot be tolerated. Like it or not.
BTW Dartz, you're Irish right? What did the de Valera's government do to returning veterans who decided to fight on the Allied side in WWII?
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell