Can someone tell me what Obama did wrong and what should have been done in US foreign policy that would have prevented this situation in the Ukraine? I see a lot of finger pointing with no explanation.

 

Obamacare? Benghazi? Michelle Obama's dress size? The usual.

 

:walk: (I'll see myself out.)

Can someone tell me what Obama did wrong and what should have been done in US foreign policy that would have prevented this situation in the Ukraine? I see a lot of finger pointing with no explanation.

 

He is Obama. That's what he did wrong.

 

As I've said before, he could walk on water and 90% of this board would collectively shout, "It was hard water"!

He is Obama. That's what he did wrong.

 

As I've said before, he could walk on water and 90% of this board would collectively shout, "It was hard water"!

Sounds a lot like a guy Obama spent at least his first four years of his presidency blaming everything on, oh yeah, many on this board did as well....

Can someone tell me what Obama did wrong and what should have been done in US foreign policy that would have prevented this situation in the Ukraine? I see a lot of finger pointing with no explanation.

 

What has he done wrong! What has he done right?

Can someone tell me what Obama did wrong and what should have been done in US foreign policy that would have prevented this situation in the Ukraine? I see a lot of finger pointing with no explanation.

 

I think it's fairly clear at this point that his "reset policy" with Russia has been a failure. Putin has had Ukraine, Armenia, Belaurus and several other former soviet satellites in his sights for years and has made good on his promise to place a buffer between Russia and the EU. But Obama towed a pretty lenient and indulgent line with Putin for the last five years. Putin's seeing just how much slack the West is going to give him.

 

I think the right overplays its hand on their criticism of Obama when it comes to current policy. At this point, there's basically no difference between what the GOP wants him to do and the plans that seem to be coming from the White House and State Department.

 

The real problem is that all those plans are basically ineffective because Europe wants very little to do with any broad changes in policy toward Russia that either the Republicans in the Senate or the White House want to effect.

I think it's fairly clear at this point that his "reset policy" with Russia has been a failure. Putin has had Ukraine, Armenia, Belaurus and several other former soviet satellites in his sights for years and has made good on his promise to place a buffer between Russia and the EU. But Obama towed a pretty lenient and indulgent line with Putin for the last five years. Putin's seeing just how much slack the West is going to give him.

 

I think the right overplays its hand on their criticism of Obama when it comes to current policy. At this point, there's basically no difference between what the GOP wants him to do and the plans that seem to be coming from the White House and State Department.

 

The real problem is that all those plans are basically ineffective because Europe wants very little to do with any broad changes in policy toward Russia that either the Republicans in the Senate or the White House want to effect.

 

Thank you. Good info. I appreciate you stepping up with some background.

 

It always annoys me when people complain but offer no real reasons why they are complaining or explanations about what should have been done. Politics and sports are #1 and #2 on the list where this happens. No one gets second guessed more than politicians and coaches no matter what decisions they make.

Here is some good, even-keeled reading on the matter.

 

Fareed Zakaria:

 

There are those who are still trapped by history and geography. Think of Pakistan’s generals, still trying to establish “strategic depth” in their backyard while their country collapses. Or think of Putin, who is, as Secretary of State John Kerry said, playing a 19th century game in the 21st century. He may get Crimea. But what has he achieved? Ukraine has slipped out of Russia’s grasp, its people deeply suspicious of Moscow. Even in Crimea, the 40% who are non-Russian are probably restive and resentful. Moscow’s neighbors are alarmed, and once-warming relations with Poland will be set back. Trade and investment with Europe and the U.S. will surely suffer, whether there are sanctions or not.

 

Meanwhile, Russia continues along its path as an oil-dependent state with an increasingly authoritarian regime that has failed to develop its economy or civil society or to foster political pluralism. But no matter–Moscow controls Crimea. In today’s world, is that really a victory?

 

Henry Kissinger:

 

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

 

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

 

Steven Ward:

 

Russian escalation of the Ukrainian crisis has been swift, culminating (for now) in a Crimea occupied by Russian troops and likely soon to officially become Russian territory, and a dangerous situation elsewhere in which Russian President Vladimir Putin is itching to take advantage of any Ukrainian resistance to legitimate further action. Russian behavior seems reckless and counterproductive. Hours before Russian escalation became apparent, Josh Tucker wrote that he would be surprised by a Russian intervention. Tucker is right – what Russia is doing is costly, and it is not obvious what Putin stands to get out of it. However, Dan Nexon is also right: states sometimes (often!) do seemingly crazy, costly, and self-defeating things without an obvious strategic rationale. So if Russian escalation in Ukraine is such bad grand strategy, why is it happening? One answer is Putin’s ambition to reestablish Russia’s “great power” status.

 

As Deborah Larson and Alexei Shevchenko pointed out in a 2010 article in International Security, the fall of the Soviet Union resulted in a Russian identity crisis. During the post-Cold War period, the United States and its Western allies no longer treated Russia as a “great power.” The most important manifestation of Russian demotion from the ranks of the major powers was a new willingness by Western actors to encroach upon what had been understood during the Cold War as Russia’s sphere of influence. NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, intervention in the Balkan conflicts, and growing Western ties with post-Soviet regimes in Ukraine and the Caucasus were evidence that “the West had failed to accord Russia the status and role to which it was entitled (pg. 80).”

 

The result was a concerted effort by Russian leaders to reestablish Russia’s great power status by reestablishing Russia’s sphere of influence. This has involved an attempt to reassert Russian leadership over the post-Soviet states, and especially the ability and right to intervene economically and militarily in its “near abroad.” In the wake of the 2008 war with Georgia, then-President Dmitri Medvedev stated that Russia “like other countries in the world, has regions where it has privileged interests.” This sort of claim is nothing new for Russia or for other states with great power status aspirations: Japan made a similar defense of its actions in Manchuria in the wake of the Mukden Incident. The planned Eurasian Union can be understood as another part of Russia’s attempt to reassert its identity as a “great power.” And since, for Putin, the Eurasian Union would be worthless without Ukraine (much like the Sochi Olympics was worthless without a Russian gold medal in men’s hockey,) a Ukrainian refusal to join might scuttle the project.

Thanks Habib! I knew some of this but didn't see these articles.

 

I also see where Russian stocks have taken a huge hit because of this mess Putin created.

 

It's odd, as if you look at many different scenarios, Putin/Moscow does not win much if anything if anything at all, but anyway this plays out they lose a lot.

Vladimir Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize - CBS News

 

Not that there is much gravitas associated with winning this award anymore, but jeez :ohbrother:

I particularly like what Kissenger had to say.

 

The test of a policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

I like listening to these guys who talk about topics like these from time to time (they tend to talk about current and other important events, and other various things that are miscellaneous) but they do a good job IMO in summing up situations to make things a bit easier to understand for those uninformed (and even those informed at times). Here's there video:

 

 

It gives a bit of the past history of Ukraine and how it came to be today and how those past events helped form the current situation.

 

They also gave summaries of the situations of things like "Why does American HealthCare Cost so Much?", "Egypt Explained", "The Greek Debt Crisis", etc. etc.

 

They do other stuff besides those types of videos but it is part of their repertoire.

I'll post the link later, but it's from the WSJ. But this pretty much sums up why Putin is desperate:

 

"It is no exaggeration to say that the country determines the long-term future of the entire former Soviet Union. If Ukraine adopts a Euro-Atlantic orientation, then the Putin regime and its satrapies are finished. The political, economic and cultural success of a large, Orthodox, industrialized ex-Soviet country would be the clearest signal possible to Russians that their thieving, thuggish, lying rulers are not making the country great, but holding it back."

Vladimir Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize - CBS News

 

Not that there is much gravitas associated with winning this award anymore, but jeez :ohbrother:

Well...at least he has good company... The KGB agent and the Community Organizer. :confused:

Very nice read:

 

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/condoleezza-rice-will-america-heed-the-wake-up-call-of-ukraine/2014/03/07/cf087f74-a630-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

Ukraine Accuses Russia Of Sending Dozens Of Tanks Into Its Territory

 

Amid rising tensions and fresh violence, Ukrainian authorities on Friday accused Russia of sending dozens of its military vehicles into its territory -- though the Kremlin have knocked down such reports as unfounded and "provocative."

At a briefing Friday, Ukrainian defense spokesman Andriy Lysenko said that 32 tanks, 16 D-30 howitzers and 30 KamAZ heavy trucks crossed past a border checkpoint and headed toward the volatile Luhansk region on Thursday.