And you'd be in favor of Obama putting troops in Ukraine, troops that would certainly clash with Russian troops, and then it would be on. FYI, we wouldn't be pushing Putin around like the weak sickly kids in class that we usually puff our chest out and take on like Hussein, Gaddafi, etc.
Apparently, according to you, your side doesn't believe in honouring your treaty commitments. Hopefully/fortunately, there are at least some honorable men left in the Democrat party in America.
There is only one thing that really matters: The treaty for the nuclear disarmaments treaty with the Ukraine - which incredibly gave up the 3rd largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world - wasn't worth the cost of the paper it was written on.
Every country in the world now knows this. Without nuclear weapons they are subject to invasion by any major power regardless of any agreement with that major power. Treaties and agreements to not obtain nuclear weapons are nothing but pre-invasion trickery.
To be factual, there is no treaty agreement with Ukraine to offer defensive capabilities. There is a memo from Ukraine to the UN Security Council and in that memo Ukraine asks that the UN Security Council members request aid for Ukraine.
(H/T to mac for posting this link in a different thread) Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 - Council on Foreign Relations
Nothing!...lol! I can't help but wonder if Obama isn't being complicit with Putin.
Hi MMC - yes, Russia is in position now to stretch the boundaries of acceptible behaviour since no one seems to be able to stop him so far. I do think, however, that Estonia and other places with ethnic Russians may be a bridge too far in that the NATO alliance defense treaties kick in and I'm not sure even Putin wants to tempt that fate. While there's no harm evident to the citizens of Russia, they will support Putin in these kinds of moves - if it comes to imminent war, I think Putin would be deposed by those around him before it got that far.
View attachment 67163665"Military" to this guy starts and stops with Gomer Pyle
I wouldn't go that far - even though I believe Obama is, as the Texans say, "all hat, no cattle", there's really not much that American military power can do in Crimea and in the Ukraine. There may be failures that led to this point, but as it stands now the onus is on the EU, most directly threatened, and on the NATO alliance, should Russia foolishly advance further.
I'd like to see NATO come up with a strong posture/statement with a clear red line for them as an alliance. As a member country here in Canada, I believe that any commitment NATO makes to military and/or other action will have consequences and not just be idle threats.
Why would anyone think we should get involved militarily?
This may be the stupidest post of the day.
It clearly appears to be a done-deal before it happened, and now the President is openly assuring Russia it may take as much or as little of their former Eastern bloc back that they think would be to their financial benefit to do so. We want the resources of countries to the South of Russia.
The USA and Russia are again dividing up the world by juxtipositioning against each other. Each country must side with one of us allowing us control, or the other will attack it. Very profitable way to divide up weak countries.
The problem - setting aside ethics - is that Obama doesn't have to make himself look like a weak, incompetent clown in playing his role for his half of it.
Obama did not have to announce that Russia can have as much of the Ukraine as they want - for which Russia can decide what pieces of Ukraine would be profitable and not taking any portion that would be a money loser - meaning poor and no significant resources. Russia can strip as much of Eastern Europe as they want. In return, We will take what we want to the South of Russia.
Putin's been clear on this. We leave them alone to take what they want and they'll leave us alone to take what we want.
Doesn't ANYONE realize how profitable the Cold War was in terms of controlling and ripping off other countries? NO ONE reads history books anymore?
All the talk in the media is just a dog-and-pony show, and as we can see everyone on the forum is falling for it. Obama doesn't have to play his role so embarrassing for our country and it weakens our half of the deal. What he is SUPPOSE TO DO is shake his fist and declare we MUST put our military and make alliances with those other countries WE want - to which Russia says then they must take more territory too to defend them against us. Obama's acting role in this is very poor.
"We need do not need to trigger an actual war with Russia," he told KSDK, a St. Louis station owned by Gannett in a separate interview.
What I'm seeing from most folks, is the belief that the only two options are complete impotency and total war and no other options in between. I'm not sure why that is, but it's obviously the case.
It's easily the case because this is in Russia's backyard. Russia can muster up millions of soldiers and plenty of weapons on the border with Ukraine in a matter of days - America, even if it wanted to, couldn't get well under 100,000 troops and the accompaning weapons/apparatus over there in months. What's Obama going to threaten Russia with, right now, militarily?
Plans now, in NATO, should be to shore up and bring up defensive positions within Eastern European, former Soviet, states that are now members of NATO. Plans should also be looking at moving ahead with missile defense and other actions necessary to show Putin that while he was in his own country, the west was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't abuse his situation - since he's abused it, all bets are off and the west will mobilize as if Putin is the distinct threat he very well might turn out to be.
You're proving my point, CJ! No one is even entertaining the question: Is Putin even ready to get into a shooting war?
I heard Putin has a blown up picture of Michelle Obama in his bedroom.
Well, that's comforting. Jesus. WTF?
On the border of his country, I'd say yes. Further into Ukraine, not so much.
I'd say the Ukrainian government has taken the first steps to deescalate the situation by deciding to remove it's military forces from Crimea and, in effect, cede Crimea to the Russians. If they're willing to do so, why should the US militarily insist otherwise?
What are you basing that on?
I say probably not, because his totally conscripted, ill-equipped and poorly trained army that hasn't tasted battle in 25 years isn't ready for a prolonged fight against an army of superior training and experience.
The biggest advantagr we have, is that Putin could never threaten our lines of communication the way we van threaten his.
I'm basing it on the fact that any country is going to be more inclined to protect their own homeland than to travel thousands of miles to protect another country's homeland. You bring troops into Ukraine and you'll guarantee a military conflict that you may not be able to deescalate.
Doesn't matter so much about the sophistication of the forces - after all, we've been in Afghanistan for a dozen years with little military success.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?