- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
All these 'threats' are just posturing and silly, IMO.
Btw, notice how America punished some Russians directly...but NOT Putin.
In other words...'we want to seem like we are doing something, but we don't want to actually do anything'.
Well he did hit up that bank......which is like ranked 17th. But then Putin dropped a chunk of money in it to spite Obama. Here was the Fiscal times showing in US media that Obama was a Strong President. Due to the criticisms here in the US. but more importantly from those outside the US.
I saw this. While it does, correctly IMO, refute the notion that Obama is weak and has given only a unsubstantial response, I think the characterization of Bank Rossiya as being, for all intents and purposes, out of business is an exaggeration. I think it also betrays the intent of the authors of the article to create propaganda for domestic consumption.
I think they can do Business with any bank that doesn't have anything to do with the US. Moreover Putin wouldn't throw in money just to lose it. The EU.....I am sure certain countries will turn that blind eye when it comes to their own benefit.
He quite accurately sees Barrack Obama as weak and way out of his depth, just as has been during his entire Presidency. It has nothing to do with the American people, apart from those who elected him, and most of them most by now must realize their error.The truth is that, contrary to what you are putting forward, Putin does not see the USA as cowards.
That is incorrect. When George Bush was President he pushed for Ukarianes membership in NATO but this was rejected by the Western Europeans, the Democrats and, most vociferously, the Russians. We can now see why.Quite the contrary. He sees that the US, through NATO, is trying to push it's way right up to Russia's borders through it's recent activity in Ukraine.
A strategic blunder by whom? We'll see if Putin dares proceed further into the Ukraine before the US elects a leader in three years and then whether the Russian military can even keep the Crimea into the future when Putin is out and stronger Western leadership is in.Putin is a Russian nationalist. What he was faced with in Ukraine is the strong possibility of seeing NATO military might being placed right alongside the seat of Russia's naval power at Sevastopol. No Russian national would stand for that. Therefore he responded in such a strong way. It was a very big strategic blunder to have pushed all the way to Ukraine in this way.
Potentially becoming a new source for glass beads removes any threat from nukes. Russia has little to bargain with, other than Putin's effort to convince people it's still the USSR.
I think that it was being overly aggressive with our recent moves in Ukraine that got us to this point. So I don't agree with you.
It's certainly true that Russia is not as powerful as the USSR. However, it is incorrect to say that they are not a power player on the world stage. It's a big mistake to underestimate them in that way.
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post
Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.
If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII
Hardly - he'd simply need a plan and choose the right time to implement it. No soothsayer, crystal ball or tarot cards needed.Well, I just presume that Putin does not have the power to predict the future. That would have to be the case if what you are saying was true.
Putin did what he did to EXPAND his country's interest, not protect it. The US simply gave him the keys and showed him the door to open.Seems the logical view would be that Putin did what he needed to protect his country's interests and may have hoped that this would get him a little leeway on future matters where the U.S. would normally object. Any notion that he was plotting all of this before there was even any hint that he would have the opportunity is quite ridiculous.
Indeed, European banks are known to turn a blind eye to anything that stands in the way of them making money.
Hardly - he'd simply need a plan and choose the right time to implement it. No soothsayer, crystal ball or tarot cards needed.
Putin did what he did to EXPAND his country's interest, not protect it. The US simply gave him the keys and showed him the door to open.
He quite accurately sees Barrack Obama as weak and way out of his depth, just as has been during his entire Presidency. It has nothing to do with the American people, apart from those who elected him, and most of them most by now must realize their error.
That is incorrect. When George Bush was President he pushed for Ukarianes membership in NATO but this was rejected by the Western Europeans, the Democrats and, most vociferously, the Russians. We can now see why.
A strategic blunder by whom? We'll see if Putin dares proceed further into the Ukraine before the US elects a leader in three years and then whether the Russian military can even keep the Crimea into the future when Putin is out and stronger Western leadership is in.
LOL What will this fictional "leader" do? Start WWIII? Sanctions will put Putin in line and you can thank Obama for them. This is the 21st century, you are still living in the past.
He quite accurately sees Barrack Obama as weak and way out of his depth, just as has been during his entire Presidency. It has nothing to do with the American people, apart from those who elected him, and most of them most by now must realize their error.
That is incorrect. When George Bush was President he pushed for Ukarianes membership in NATO but this was rejected by the Western Europeans, the Democrats and, most vociferously, the Russians. We can now see why.
A strategic blunder by whom? We'll see if Putin dares proceed further into the Ukraine before the US elects a leader in three years and then whether the Russian military can even keep the Crimea into the future when Putin is out and stronger Western leadership is in.
Which aggressive moves were these?? It was Putin who invaded and that's where any blame belongs.
I doubt the nukes will be launched anytime soon, but the US is playing a very dangerous game. Putin is on record as having told George W. Bush that he would "tear her apart" should the US try to pry Ukraine to the west. Once again the inexperience of the wonder kid in the Oval office shows. With that on record, they should have known the Russians would have a reaction, and they have. Having apparently been caught by surprise by this move is advantage Putin, as he has clearly been planning this move for a long time.
While the UN and Obama's "international community" can stomp their little feat, Putin has justification for his moves in the minds of Crimeans and many Russian speaking people in Ukraine, which is where it counts when he wants to stage another referendum.
I mean, they have imposed "sanctions" on individuals in Russia who don't have assets there. That's serious punishment all right.
Here's just one example of what NATO can field, and this is just Poland. When I saw this, it actually surprised me that Poland had such a formidable military. Add to this, all the other NATO nations, and with the sole exception of their nuclear arsenal, Russia would have a difficult time imposing its will militarily. In other words, NATO would have the ability to contain Russia. However, I truly believe that any attack on Russia's homeland would be met with an all out nuclear response, because Putin would do what no other Russian or Soviet leader would ever do... push the button and never look back. I seriously think he's that psychotic. In that way, he is a lot like many historical bad guys (and yes, Hitler for one). He seems to feel that he has a preordained destiny to be the leader of western Europe, and maybe ever then world.
Putin scares the hell out me. He may push the world into war, and blame the world for it.
EDIT: Forgot to attach the dang video... sorry for that.
Only European banks? So tell me which banks turn down money.
What are 'both sides'. Russia has invaded the Ukraine whereas no ther side has done the same. Suely the Ukranian people should be allowed to determine their own future.Both parties trying to pull Ukraine towards their side will likely lead to a civil war without either of them trying to make it happen.
"His actions" was a reference to Yanukovich as the post I was responding to said Yanukovich's actions were partly the cause of his downfall. Were far right elements responsible for the snipers I would not it consider any less plausible that the U.S. was ultimately to blame as America has never shied away from using such groups in the past.
I have discussed this at length, but to sum it up.
1. Fomenting protests in the streets of Kiev
2. Threatening Yanukovych to give into demands
3. Threatening Akhmetov to put pressure on Yanukovych
4. Using influence to install a person to replace Yanukovych who likely could not be elected democratically, but who is willing to do the bidding of the West.
Whether you've discussed it length or not is quite beside the point. Who has been doing this threatening and what support do you have for these claims?
Judge Nap: 'Obama Admin Fomented the Protests in Ukraine'
Is the United States to blame for what has taken place in Ukraine? Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on Fox and Friends this morning and in a column on FoxNews.com, making the case that the Obama administration is at least partially to blame for the situation that has unfolded.
He pointed back to the leaked audio recording of top U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, saying that the U.S. was working behind the scenes to support the protests and oust the government of Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych.
Napolitano highlighted a statement by Secretary of State John Kerry, who proclaimed Wednesday that the Ukrainian people are entitled to their own government.
"Guess what. They had their own government until there were riots and demonstrations in the streets. Who paid for and who fomented the riots and demonstrations in the streets? Well, if you listen to the tapped and taped phone call of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, we did," said Napolitano, adding that U.S. involvement stemmed from Yanukovych accepting loans from Russia instead of the EU.
"You're gonna say we paid those protesters?" Brian Kilmeade asked.
Napolitano answered "absolutely," saying the situation in Crimea is a "consequence" of the U.S. "meddling in another country."
Rinat Akhmetov, the wealthiest oligarch, has been fairly close to Mr. Yanukovych
I think it would be useful if Mr. Akhmetov was using his influence with President Yanukovych to encourage him to negotiate in a serious way to find a solution.
If there was some threat that there might be financial or travel sanctions on Mr. Akhmetov, that could be a useful lever
USA demands from Akhmetov and Kliuyev to rise a party revolt against Yanukovych. Sanctions otherwise
I's become known of the details of the meeting between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Rinat Akhmetov.
Nuland reported that in case of a dispersal of the Euromaidan the US and EU leaders got agreement on a single reaction. That is immediate sanctions against primer politicians and oligarchs in the surroundings of Yanukovych. Moreover, the list will be continued by the names both of those, who are responsible for the the forced dispersal, and of those, who didn’t stand for the peaceful scenario. This remark won’t let anyone of the leaders of the Regions Party to avoid responsibility. What is even more important, Nuland provided the list of politicians, who will be sanctioned in the first place. Those are Rinat Akhmetov, Vadim Novinsky, Andrey and Sergey Kliuevs.
The USA anticipates that the Regions Party fraction will support all of four demands in order to begin peaceful negotiations:
1. To announce pre-term election of the President.
2. To announce pre-term elections of the Parliament.
3. To release Tymoshenko from jail and to recover her civic rights in full.
4. To open criminal cases on all the executives of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Berkut, who participated in dispersals of peaceful demonstrations.
Nuland was very precise that unfulfillment of these conditions will question any operational activities of the Metinvest and System Capital Management companies in foreign countries. The crucial moment is that the meeting was held with just Akhmetov. It means that the US does not consider Yanukovych as a reliable partner. Since the last means to communicate with Yanukovych were exhausted, the USA and EU decided to make final efforts before sanctioning Ukrainian oligarchs. They urged leaders of the Regions Party to go against Yanukovich’s will and in fact to rise a party revolt.
What are 'both sides'. Russia has invaded the Ukraine whereas no ther side has done the same. Suely the Ukranian people should be allowed to determine their own future.
This is nonsense. Yanukovych was the author of his own downfall.
Viktor Yanukovych boasted of Ukraine corruption, says Mikheil Saakashvili | World news | theguardian.com
Viktor Yanukovych leaves behind palace monument to greed and corruption - Telegraph
LOL What will this fictional "leader" do? Start WWIII? Sanctions will put Putin in line and you can thank Obama for them. This is the 21st century, you are still living in the past.
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post
Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.
If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII
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?