Pending Invasion
 

Russia will move to occupy Crimea parts of Ukraine. Already doing what was done to invade Georgia. That action is all but inevitable. What is debateable is whether they will move on other parts of Ukraine. And whether they will withdrawl.

Of course, America has a problem. Criticism of Russia must ignore that the US did similar to Iraq. Mission Accomplished was as justified as what Russia did in Georgia and will probably do in Ukraine. Consequences exist because a US public loved a wacko extremist doing permentently damage America's reputation. An America that criticizes Putin must also acknowledge similar evils and lies performed by George Jr. No American president will do that.

I have a hard time caring much that Russian troops are digging in there. I mean, Russia used to own the Ukraine. And the Ukraine let Russia have bases there. And the are lots of pro-Russia people there who welcome the troops. There's a sovereignty issue, sure, but I don't see why I should be getting worked up over it.

And why is Obama making it a thing? Russia's going to ignore him. And then he'll look like an ineffectual fool. And the entire US will too. The most we can expect him to do is throw some sanctions at Russia.

Basically, who cares? Why should I care, other than it makes the US look a little bad to let Russia do what it wants?

It's notable that Putin waited until after the olympics so we can't boycott their olympics again.

It is getting ramped up regardless. Remember when we put our tanks back in Europe? Canada just pulled their ambassador... Both Putin and whoever is in charge of the US need enemies. We'd hate to stop building ineffectual warplanes.

It's not about fighting Russia, it's about fighting military budget cuts. Rattling sabers loosen purse strings.

It would be nice not to start a third world war.

Oh, well done for a first post here. It gives me an idea for a new sitcom: Two and A Half World Wars.

Agreed. It will be the Syria "red line" fiasco all over again.


My guess is that Putin is occupying Crimea in attempt to scare/destabilize the Ukrainian resistance movement. Putin feels Ukraine is Russia's territory so them turning towards Europe is a strategic blow to Russia. Weaken it now so it can be destroyed in the long run.

This is how WWII, the Cold War, Korean war and Desert Storm started.

Fundamental to principles of war are conditioner that justify unrestained or escalating war. Invading and taking land justifies war, massive deaths, and the involvement of other nations. Call it a slipperly slope or steps toward Armagedon. But when a major and nuclear power unilaterally attacks another nation - violates territorial integrity - with but a veil of truth, then it affects virtually every nation in the world.

Kuwait was a perfect example.

It should concern you greatly.

ISS is constructed so that Russia can disconnect their module leaving the rest to crash and burn. It was constructed that way intentionally with situations like this in mind. But one of so many examples why Ukraine can have further consequences.

Time to avert another Cold War is right now in situations such as this.

It's supposed to take your mind off that pettily NSA stuff.

So Putin is running amok in west Europe/east Asia and there isn't much anybody can do about it.
Obama warning of sanctions sounds like, get-off-my-lawn, shouted from the porch.
But here's the first something I've heard that made me say, Hmm, maybe.

I hate to bring this up but didn't the ousted President come to power in a free and fair election? I'm no fan of democracy but I thought that was a biggie for our government types.

Don't under-estimate the problem of land borders in many places in mainland Europe.
We're not even immune to it on our little island(s) let alone across huge land masses.
The citizens of the Crimea vote in the Ukraine election, but are outnumbered. They speak Russian and identify with Russia. They feel Russian.

Look at the borders of even well established, secure democratic countries in Europe and you will see that cultures and languages blend close to the border. And borders have shifted in these areas for centuries.

Add recent political and economic instability into the mix and you can see why it's not been a stable region for decades.

It's kinda like when "we" carved up Africa according to Western politics and claims, somehow not taking into account tribal lands and sensibilities. Result? Civil war, death, power grabbing and a bit more death. Some of which may have happened anyway, but drawing arbitrary lines on a map massively exacerbated things.

What can we do now? In the Crimea I mean. As little as possible. I hope.

Yes, and then they had a free and fair national referendum to decide the country's future direction.

But Yanukovych wouldn't accept the peoples free and fair decision, saying fuck you, you're not the boss of me. Naturally the free and fair people got pissed and acted like a woman scorned until he got fed up and fled to Sugar Daddy Putin's love shack.

Sugar Daddy told him to go in the bedroom and chill until after the game(s), then he would strip down and bitchslaop all the bad people that made his babykins sad.

While the free and fair people were waiting for the game(s) to end, they pretended they were shocked to find out Yanukovych lived like a czar, and used the foreign media to display their righteous indignation to potential financiers that might help with that $50Billion nut.

Yes. But then it becomes far more complex and rather foggy.

Something big time clearly happened when Yanukovych or a subordinate authorized military attacks on demonstrators. This after a cease fire agreement had been signed - rather unexpectedly. Most damning were snipers killing 100 civilians. What happened after that is vague. Yanukovych apparently paniced about the same time much of his party in Parliament (Rada) moved to have him replaced. Was that constitutionally legal? That is uncertain. But even his own party turned on him.

He left maybe in panic while even throwing documents in the river hoping they would be destroyed. He tried to cross into Russia at one point and was turned back by Ukrainian border guards. Details remain uncertain.

So did he really panic? Or was he truly being removed by some power such as the military? Some in Russian leadership believe he did panic. Causing Putin to knee jerk react.

What is Putin's long game? Merkel, after a long conversation, seens to think he has somewhat lost it. IOW may be playing a hand he never planned on seeing. And is now responding without realizing the long term consequences. Maybe. But that and what Merkel has said would not be Putin.

At any rate, Yanukovych is out and an interrum government has taken power. The Ukrainian military is taking orders from this interrum government. And so far, most nations have recognized this government.

This is part of larger game that is even more complex. Clearly, Ukraine was part of Putin's plan to restore a Russian economic empire. A sort of Russian version of the EU. It is also no accident that EU and NATO expansion makes these Russian leaders nervous.

It does not help that McCain made a rather stupid and provocative comment. An anti-ballistic missile system planned for Poland and the Czech Republic was only for Iranian missiles. Promises were repeated that it was not to compromise Russian missiles. McCain has just said we need to reconsider these anti-missile installations to defend against Russian missiles. That only excites obvious Russian fears. Since McCain is from a political party that sees solutions in big guns and invasion.

Remember, nations such as Russia fear another wacko extremist administration like George Jr. Fears that the Tea Party will take power (justified fears) means other nations must have military options and buffer nations. Don't for one minute assume Putin does not fear an America lead by Tea Party wackos and witches. He clearly hears comments such as McCain's as an indication that we might again Pearl Harbor more nations. He has every right to worry and be distrustful. Even his own people have made claims to American diplomats that clearly were never true. An indication that they fear future administrations and must plan for same.

Russia also got away with invading and annexing part of Georgia in the summer of 2008 with virtually no response from the George Jr administration. Many in the EU actually blamed it, in part, on Georgia's president Saakashvili. Well, Russia is doing something similar in Ukraine. Since Ukraine, without warning, has suddenly selected to not become part of a Russian economic trading sphere. But this time, a response to Russian actions has been different. More variables.

This response clearly was not part of Putin's strategy. What happened in Ukraine was totally unexpected by everyone. And major power responses are tenuous. Putin probably blames Yanukovyck for panicing. Yanukovyck asked Pution to invade. However it is more likely additional and yet unreported events that happened to force Putin's hand.

Furthermore, various NATO and EU powers have contradictory responses. What happened is not clear. Objectives of all powers are not obvious. Comments from "not yet in power" extremists have only complicated long term strategies. And again, is Putin really KGB or simply protecting himself from Western powers who sometimes attack without justification?

The bottom line 'worse case' is a restoration of the Cold war because events are wagging so many dog's tails.

This much we know. Two decades of building trust have been destroyed. This started when American suddenly started unilaterally ignoring treaties in the 2000s. Fears further justified when NATO began expanding towards Russian borders.

Russia gives us Snowden, we give them Ukraine. It's practically a done deal.

Got in an email...
I responded with a long list of logistic and strategy problems that come into play, and got back...
Where do I even start. :facepalm:

If Sarah just turns off the porchlight, the Russians can't find her - yanno, since they're so close up there and all.

A larger miltary does nothing for a political chess game. Where the board has far more than 64 squares. And most do not even know where all squares are located.

For example, Saakashvili discusses one square. Europe gets 30% of its gas (methane) from Russia. The Crimea apparently has a massive shale gas reserve. Had Ukraine moved politically more westward, Europe would be gas sufficient; not dependent on Russia.

Putin's actions may be knee-jerk. But he is also playing chess by planning all possible moves at least three in advance. He needed to make that gas available only through a Russian market; not via an EU nation.

The weakest part of this game is Europe whose leaders probably will not get off their ass to make a united stand (politically - not militarily). As in the Balkans, Europe may again need the US to get them to act in their own interests. And to realize what this long term game is that Putin is playing.

Closest Europe has to any leader with foresight is Merkel.

Putin has already exercised plans in Georgia, Armenia, and has one ongoing with Turkey. And apparently did not succeed in the Baltic nations.

And you thought 3D chess was hard.

OK, so just to recap events, Crimea held a vote and the majority of the citizens who voted said that they wanted to be with Russia. Russia wants Crimea. Crimea wants Russia. It's done.

I don't care about this issue. If the number of posts in this thread is any indication, the Cellar doesn't care about this issue either.

I still don't understand what Obama is doing trying to block this. I give the man credit for being intelligent, but I can't see it in this instance. By making it a thing, and then failing to prevent it, he doesn't look so good.

How about if Russia takes Alaska, no reason for Europeans to be concerned?

So if Christy sends thousands armed unmarked cops into Long Island, takes a poll saying most Long Islanders want to live in Jersey, and claims Long Island is now part of New Jersey, The other states shouldn't be concerned?

Russia has a long history in the Crimea and Alaska was paid for...

Nobody wants a slum. We already tapped out all oil in Alaska. Crimea has a potential major gas field.

Besides, Americans might get angry. Nobody cares if Ukrainians do. As Putin says, they are illegitament. Second class people no different then Czechs in the Sudetenland.

I just saw a short blurb in today's paper of some poll of American attitudes about this. Along bipartisan lines, most American don't trust Putin and don't like the guy, but also don't want the US to get involved in this Crimean issue.

Oh, and the radio this morning was saying that the Crimea sucks anyway. (Maybe it's a case of sour grapes.) But apparently, Crimea needs 40% of its economy subsidized by whatever country it belongs to. So the Ukraine will be losing a parasite and Russia will be gaining one, at least in the short term. Maybe the fossil fuels will eventually make Crimea a prize.

Europe has more experience with guys with control issues taking over powerless countries under any flimsy pretense. I'm sure they will signal the US when it's a real emergency.

Britain, don't complain about fracking. You'll need to do that in a few years, when Putin cuts off energy and the entire continent calls and asks you to rescue their ass again. The down side is you'll end up rich -- and hated. Welcome to our world, 51st state.

Personally, I don't care about Crimea.

I can see where Russia/Crimea broke international law, and the US is the only entity willing/able to do something about it

On the other hand

The US took similar action in 1776, without joining with another country

First, this is a regional issue no different than Rwanda and Burundi, the Balkans, Syria, and Somolia. Merkel (who demonstrates leadership abilities) is even saying this. America's job is to backup its NATO allies who must be fully involved here - nothing else matters. Obama has been doing that. But you would never know this from the press ... especially due to pathetic responses from Italy, Britian, France, and other European leaders.

Crimea is gone. Time to avert this was long ago. Nobody is (should be) discussing that. Discussion should be about the response so that Ukraine is not invaded. So that another Georgia does not happen.

Second, the current response says no consequences exist when (if) Russia invades Ukraine. That should have everyones attentaion especially if distracted by something trivial like a missing airplane.

So what happens if Belarus or Russia invaded Ukranine using the same rationalization used by Hilter in Czechoslavakia? Ukraine is not a NATO country. It has no military alliances. And yet all of the EU and NATO must have a reaction clearly planned long before that happens. It is called Chess. To pretend every country in the world is not playing in this game is to all but want another Cold War. Don't fool yourself. This even affects disputes and solutions ongoing in the Senkukas, Arctic Ocean, Syria, Iran, and even the ISS. And Moldova.

An "I do not care" attitude is exactly what happened when an Iron Curtain decended on Eastern Europe. The attitude encouraged Stalin, create 50 years of crisis, the Korean War, and almost (many times) the destructiion of mankind.

Third, wasted bandwidth is discussion of a missing airliner. That is about emotion attached to something that does not have decades of consequences to every nation. What is happening in Ukraine , if ignored, can have major consequences for the next 50 years. It is no exaggeration that another Cold War was made necessary when trust was so subverted in 2000-2008.

No current news story is more serious; could potentially change everyone's future. But only if the "I don't care" attitude makes that happen. What happens now with every little response could defuse what is otherwise the precursor to WWIII. As happened in late 1940s Europe to almost blow up the entire world in the 1960s. It should be your most important new story. An "I don't care" atttitude is why it is so serious. As if nobody learned anything from Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.

You do also know about the nine dash line?

The Battle for the Hearts and Minds...:rolleyes:

From Pravda...

Another one...

Since so little has hype to make the news, then many have little idea that a potential occupation of Ukraine remains ongoing. Putin has appeared to be doing nothing while major efforts are ongoing to create the next step in annexing Ukraine. If I did not note it in other threads, watch the city of Donetsk. Next step is to create instability in regions where Russians are a minority but a major section of that region. So that Russian armor and paratroops already massed on Ukraine borders can step in to restore order.

Negotiations were successful in slowing Putin. But we have no reason to believe he has tabled his ego. He made a big deal about withdrawing a few troops. While tens of thousands remains perched for invasion.

Putin has stated his intent - to restore Russia's power and glory. Putiin has again threatened Europe's gas supply. And will again cut off gas to Ukraine. Since the corruption by Yanukovych means $billion to pay previous gas bills is missing. Another excuse by Russia to increase pressure and harm to Ukraine's economy. To make instablity more likely.

He is playing a long term game. Opposition by Obama and Merkel have caused him to slow his game. But the game is still afoot.

Tw certainly will not think the present President is a wacko extremist, and hence this part of his post dwells in a particularly hazy cloud-cuckoo-land; execrable and highly dishonorable leftism raves through his frontal lobes, causing him to write pernicious drivel, often at length, and generally support Democratic candidates, as unbalanced as he is. While his hobby keeps him in the basement and off the streets, there its virtues rather come to an end.

I've been contemptuous of tw's political thinking from the first day I met it.

your logic is faulty UG.

because the present President is not a wacko extremist. Period.

because everything looks like a nail, when you're a hammer.
Boring.

It seems that UG has struck the nail a true blow. Tw routinely calls out the previous Republican President by name for things that occurred on his watch; but, not the current Democratic President. Oh, tw will call out the NSA, the State Dept., and even the heads of Departments; but again, he doesn't call out Hussein like he calls out Dubya for adverse things that happen on the current President's watch. It's sorta, maybe, kinda like when people attribute to God the good things that happen; but, never the bad things ... no, no ,no ... bad things always get attributed to other people; or, the debbil! UG makes a valid point even if his style of expression is "boring." I think V's reply oversimplifies UG's post to deemphasize the content and accentuate the style.

No, you're wrong sexobon. It is impossible to oversimplify UG's post since it was only composed of an ad hominem attack, and nothing more (and one personal expression of UG's contempt). There is no content there, save for how he is contemptuous of tw's faulty thinking. Go back and look for anything of substance. Where is there any discussion of facts? Let's look:

UG says tw:

Did I miss much? THAT is what I call boring. It's the same, same, same old boring shit. UG doesn't like tw, tw's writing, tw's ideas, tw's presence on the streets, etc, etc, ad fucking nauseum.

It seems that that UG made a point with his opening. I take "whacko extremist" here as the euphemism it has become to me to include lesser behaviors from tw's use of it.

What follows the opening is rhetoric. So what, sticks and stones.

OK, fine, sticks and stones, so what.

If you're taking the position that the substance of UG's post was that tw doesn't call the present President a wacko extremist, I covered that in the first sentence of my post. President Obama is not a wacko extremist, that's why tw doesn't call him one.

Beyond that, it's just more BORING sticks and stones.

OR IS IT? *Da Da Da daaaaa (whodoneit music)*

UG knows that tw responds to facts with facts and doesn't respond with childlike emotions to disparaging remarks. So, UG strategized that he could make a brief factual statement, needing no rationale since tw doesn't contest it, followed by so much rhetoric that tw can't reply with his rationale without appearing to respond emotionally. Genius, sheer genius. All you managed to accomplish in your first sentence was alignment with tw.

In your opinion, sexobon, is President Obama a wacko extremist?

In my opinion, all Presidents either go into the job as whacko extremists; or, become whacko extremists because power corrupts. It's just a matter of degree between them. I voted for Obama ... twice; but, I found some actions like his early distancing from Democrats in Congress, wanting judicial trials of Guantanamo detainees in New York, and drawing a line for al-Assad in Syria ... etc. to be whacko. I find his mandating health insurance for everyone in lieu of his failure to unite Democrats and their base to bring about socialized medicine to be extreme in addition to his pushing the Constitutional envelope on domestic surveillance. I'm not even getting into his nitnoid weighing-in on race relations in the news and the treatment of military women.

With politicians, it's typically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Obama has simply made me proud of my choice more often than ashamed of it. This President, like others before him, is a compromise who's just less whacko extremist than his predecessor (IMHO). You wouldn't get such an assessment from tw and I think that was UG's point. What other questions do you have regarding integrity?

I have only my phone to read and reply, so I will be brief (and by brief, I mean incomplete).

Thank you for your answer. I found it direct, respectful, and considered. I will answer your question about integrity when I have a proper keyboard to do so.

I must say I agree with Sexobon on all points except "women in the military", and that's because I'm not familiar with that situation and Obama. But as disappointing as he's been, I shudder to think of the alternatives, you betcha.

Yeah, he's been sorta terrible but the other side, just no.

Many of Obama's actions do not play well in the court of soundbytes. However he has been roundly successful (could not have done better) in some arenas where soundbyte logic is so critical.

For example, a Red Line in Syria was a stunning success. It has completely defanged Assad’s chemical weapons (except maybe in one location that even the Russians are suspicious of). Assad's chemical weapons are now something like 85% removed. A ten nation flotilla of naval ships will be protecting destruction of those weapons. The world got on board a solution, in part, because America did not take a Cheney 'big dic' attitude.

Another serious problem should have been addressed long ago. Other NATO nations are now so toothless than France and Britain had to go begging to the US even for bombs in the first week of operations in Libya. Obama is sending a clear message to many nations who then foolishly question America's resolve. Get your own military in order. America is not a first line of defense for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Japan. If these nations cannot defend themselves, then their conquest is their own fault. American may invade to liberate the nation much later. But America is not what so much of the world believes - the world's policemen.

Obama’s effort to fix this problem now has some foolishly questioning America’s resolve rather than address their own shortcomings. Although not discussed, even residents of Singapore should be listening to what Obama is saying.

Great nations solve problems diplomatically. Some of the world's greatest conquerors achieved greatest victories by negotiating; not by military confrontation. Rarely threatening with military force and not using it. But that reality does not play well in soundbyte logic where being a man is proven by fisticuffs.

Few appreciate future consequences if the Sprately, Scarborough Shoal, Parcel, Senkaku, Second Thomas Shoal, and other islands are not addressed now. Obama has apparently skillfully addressed those islands, got many parties for the first time to start talking, and did so by encouraging more positive engagement with China. By not making China feel isolated or encircled. That is also a major accomplishment little appreciated in soundbyte logic. Because it may have averted a problem so many will only understand when war breaks out. Many are still unaware of so many military confrontations over these islands including confinement of a Philippines Coast Guard ship by the Chinese Navy. And a military battle between Vietnam and China.

Obama's biggest failures are in image. He does not schmooze in a manner that so many domestic politicians want. Clinton was probably the master. George Sr was not that good at it. But all three were quite good presidents with various accomplishments and achievements. All three set America in a positive direction.

Little good can be said about George Jr. He was all image and zero substance. To ignore those eight disastrous years is to be naïve or ignorant. Anyone could have seen that coming by simply reading his 1999 autobiography "A Charge to Keep". Virtually unreadable with no structure or organization. All image.

He did great harm to the American military, economy, international respect, political relations, and integrity. He even endorsed extraordinary rendition and Nazi like torture. How does one destroy a budget surplus and create a massive government debt? How does one massacre 5000 American servicemen for no purpose? And still some foolishly admired him? Whereas Clinton would go to Vietnam and attract delighted thongs. George Jr went to Vietnam and was all but ignored. Almost nothing good to be said about one of the worst American presidents since Nixon. Unfortunately a majority did not see it when it was time to avert a tragedy.

Apparently even George Jr recognized the problem in his last year. Relations between he and Cheney have clearly soured.

Returning to the topic, a serious problem in Ukraine. Since a forceful American response is only possible when local ‘powers that be’ want that response. Europe does not want to antagonize the Bear. Only leader coming close to confronting the threat is Merkel. Even Germany has backed down as made bluntly obvious by their foreign minister Steinmeier. This is first and foremost a European problem. But soundbyte reasoning criticized Obama.

Eastern Ukraine will be annexed by Russia. That is a forgone conclusion. How much of Ukraine will be annexed is the remaining question. Russian military is operating a world class operation. A resulting civil war will probably be followed by a Russian occupation. We should be moving on to what will happen next. Moldova, Bulgaria, and Rumania are at risk. But at much greater risk is national sovereignty of the Baltics (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania). Poland is quite adamant about the threat. I suspect after Moldova the Baltic states are next. And may capitulate in some manner. Since so much of Europe is so militarily toothless combined with weak leadership in Britain, France, and Italy.

Cheapshots from an obvious wacko extremist are irrelevant. He obviously has nothing useful to contribute - other than entertainment. The topic is Ukraine.

Throughout my years here, I've made no secret of it that I'm here for the entertainment.

UG - 1: tw - 0

Very sporting of you to concede that point to him tw. You'd be better competition against UG if you weren't so long winded.

From the NY Times of 17 May 2014:
Apparently Saakashvili was more right than we realized.

Now now now, BigV: I have never met a socialist I could ever think had it all the way together. Mr. 0bama is a giant socialist, as is his Party. Unsatisfactory: too statist for me.

Preferring America to Democrats and Democrats gone dingdong, I vote against Democrats. They've fallen a long way since LBJ, and I was around when he was in. He was the last Democratic President to actually try and win a war, and Truman before him was the last Dem Prez to do it. Since then, bupkis, for two generations.

Republicans, as far as the record shows, consider that wars, if any, are to be won. I think this is a very commendable attitude.

Libertarians are of course a question mark. They don't talk like they'd win a war. That's all I can say.

Smart people consider wars to be preventable.

Smarter people consider some wars to be unavoidable but are still to be fought as if one's very homestead is threatened.

Well they're avoidable unless the collective homestead is threatened...
or our business interests offshore...
or our fuel supply...
or our coffee and banana supply...
or our raw material sources...
or to prevent the dominos from falling...
or our treaty obligations...
or to prevent weapons of mass destruction...
or to keep the military industrial complex profitable...
or "to be determined". :eyebrow: