Still trying to wrap my head around the apparent fact that this is the President's fault.

 

If that was directed at my comments I am certainly not saying its his fault or that he or the US could actually influence Putin even with a stronger military.

 

But the fact is that the US does not even have the resources to feign a show of force and use that as a tool in international dealings.

 

The Ukraine is the Russia's sphere of influence. Without a possible trigger to WWIII the US, UK and NATO have little practice recourse in the military area.

If that was directed at my comments I am certainly not saying its his fault or that he or the US could actually influence Putin even with a stronger military.

 

But the fact is that the US does not even have the resources to feign a show of force and use that as a tool in international dealings.

 

The Ukraine is the Russia's sphere of influence. Without a possible trigger to WWIII the US, UK and NATO have little practice recourse in the military area.

Re: your second paragraph: After spending $1.8 trillion to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. can no longer afford to participate in more such warfare, especially show-of-force land grabs involving two countries once joined at the hip.

More Russian forces have moved into Crimea and are demanding the Ukrainian military surrender and turn over their weapons.

 

UN Security Council calling for an immediate withdrawal by Russian forces.

Just curious, any chance the Ukrainian people fight the Russians regardless of the Ukrainian military response? It's very possible this turns into another Afghanistan for Russia just closer to home.

 

Cue US weapons and supplies being covertly sent as we type just as the Russians did for Syria!

^ The majority of people in Crimea are ethnic Russian, not Ukranian. There's always been a tinge of separatism in that area. It's bad news for minority groups though. Even more so than the Ukrainians, the Tatars want nothing to so with Russian rule.

 

Lots of strange history in the Crimea that colors everything about the conflict.

If that was directed at my comments I am certainly not saying its his fault or that he or the US could actually influence Putin even with a stronger military.

 

But the fact is that the US does not even have the resources to feign a show of force and use that as a tool in international dealings.

 

The Ukraine is the Russia's sphere of influence. Without a possible trigger to WWIII the US, UK and NATO have little practice recourse in the military area.

 

Directed at the general tone of the thread up to that point - not one member in particular.

 

PS - I find your posts to be well-researched. I still don't agree a lot of the time, but enjoy the debate and discussion.

Face the Nation just reported The Ukrainian military is calling upon all men to the age of 40 to report for "duty." Let the US military supply funnel begin.

Russia and Putin have been the clear losers over the crisis in Ukraine. Ukraine was the key to Putin’s proposed Eurasian Zone, a clear expression of Russia’s intentions to counterbalance against the European Union by realigning former Soviet Republics in a key alliance. With Poland having already acceded to the European Union years ago, and EU expansion creaking closer to Russia’s borders, preventing Ukraine’s accession and achieving its realignment with Russia was essential.

 

Putin got his way when he was able to pay off Yanukovch to deny EU membership and move toward the Russian alliance. However, the riots and revolution those moves kicked off were a disaster for Putin. Not only did he lose Ukraine, but he did so in such an obvious and public fashion, during the Olympics in Russia no less.

 

Now he’s invaded the Crimean peninsula, which is already an area with deep Russian identity, and to what end? To possibly save face by peeling off some of Ukraine’s territory before it eventually becomes an official part of Europe? To stage a full invasion of Ukraine and force its allegiance? Almost certainly Russia will lose all of its bargaining power and clout it had cultivated, including likely being ejected from the G-8 and again considered a pariah state not unlike Iran.

 

Yet here we are in the United States all but demanding war to keep the Crimean peninsula part of Ukraine. And, again, to what end?

 

What are the American interests here? How can they be achieved? And is it worth the costs in terms of both money and lives? There’s never been a “hot war” between two nuclear powers, should we have one now over Crimea? Over Ukraine? And why should we when Putin’s already losing and America stands to gain so little?

 

There’s an argument floating around now that says this could have been prevented if only the US had more credibility. Nearly any evaluation of American foreign policy would show that this is a myth. A robust intervention in Korea did not prevent Vietnam. A robust intervention in Iraq did not prevent Russia form invading Georgia. When has belligerence beget peace?

 

Furthermore, any analysis of foreign policy would show that if there is a concern regarding credibility, it is to do with democracies. Democracies are seen as slower to act because of the need of majority support. Indeed, many Americans were outraged over the NATO intervention in Libya, what would reaction to an intervention in Ukraine look like? If any country relied on fear of US intervention, would they not rely on the trepidation of democracy?

 

At the end of the day, there is no perfect solution. The situation is fluid, and the US’s response must be conditioned on i’s opponents’ actions, not on some idealistic notion of a perfect outcome. It doesn’t matter how chess is won, it just matters if it is won. Who knows how this will end, but the idea that there is a simple prescription for ending it is fanciful.

 

So are people really going to act like Obamas past actions didn't help lead to this event really?

So are people really going to act like Obamas past actions didn't help lead to this event really?

 

You're thinking about the US role in this on FAR too great a scale. This is Russia trying to maintain its sphere of influence in a country sharply divided between those that want greater integration with Europe and those who want closer ties to Russia. There are elements of nationalism, a deeply confused history and questions of self-determination at stake. What in the name of dithering blazes does that have to do with Obama?

 

This is the EU and Russia going toe-to-toe over regional influence in former Soviet republics as a country heads toward a civil war largely along ethnic lines, but I'll humor it. What should Obama have done in the last two years to stop this from happening?

Face the Nation just reported The Ukrainian military is calling upon all men to the age of 40 to report for "duty." Let the US military supply funnel begin.

 

Serious naive question. Is this good for the U.S. economy?

Chuck Hagel on Face the Nation right now.

 

"The US has no military obligations; the US has no treaty obligations with Ukraine and Putin knows that."

 

Nor should we.

 

Get the G8 together and kick them out. Russia's recent growth is based greatly on commodity prices which are unstable. Putin is failing and he's trying to hold on. As Habib said above, that's a primary cause here.

^Better than deploying US troops which would be even worse for our economy with the threat of American lives lost. I would be shocked if we didn't "covertly" ( pardon the humor ) assist from a distance.

 

Assuming this escalates into a full blown battle.

I will come out and say it since it is clear Obama supporters are misunderstanding what others have been saying in here when they think we are blaming Obama for Ukraine.

 

What we are saying is Obama is weak and the rest of the world are taking advantage of it. Simple as that. Obama is weak.

I will come out and say it since it is clear Obama supporters are misunderstanding what others have been saying in here when they think we are blaming Obama for Ukraine.

 

What we are saying is Obama is weak and the rest of the world are taking advantage of it. Simple as that. Obama is weak.

 

I fail to see how President Obama has anything at all to do with this situation. May I assume that GWB was considered weak by the Taliban? By the Shiites? The Sunnis?

I fail to see how President Obama has anything at all to do with this situation. May I assume that GWB was considered weak by the Taliban? By the Shiites? The Sunnis?

As I said in my first post in here, he has nothing to do with this Ukraine thing at all. What I did say however is his Foreign Policy blunders have shown him to be very weak in that area and is why his threat to Russia is falling on deaf ears and is probably being laughed at by Putin.