|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote: If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!
Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore.
So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now.
At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders.
I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so.
There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on.
|
On March 01 2015 10:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 10:45 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 10:38 KwarK wrote:On March 01 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 10:22 KwarK wrote: He specifically blamed Obama for making that promise, a promise which is 21 years old and was specifically non military. That was what I was objecting to because it is factually false in every conceivable way. Meh get over it. Ukraines demilitarization from Budapest to the initiatives I linked have been done under the assumption Ukraine would be protected. The last round of weapons destruction in 2012 is another instance. It reaffirms the existence of an obligation. Obama, as the guy at the top, has his name attached to it. You don't get much more "military" than nuclear weapons... Thanks Obama for making the promise! And thanks Obama for changing the implication from specifically ruling out military assistance to specifying that military assistance was included by the continuing of the arrangement from 2006. You lied. Admit it. Or at least go with "my understanding of the obligation between the United States and the Ukraine was flawed as I was unaware that the Budapest Memorandum didn't involve military assistance and wasn't made by Obama". Keep flailing. You messed up and showed your total ignorance of the subject matter and all you had to say for yourself was "meh". You're a troll. Ouch that hurts. All you keep saying is you have no idea about the responsibility of leadership or accountability. Which given you prior post of encouraging people to break American laws, is not all that surprising.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote: If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!
Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore. So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now. At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders. I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so. There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on. What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices.
You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today.
The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them.
You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.
|
On March 01 2015 11:18 KwarK wrote: The individuals of 1994 were the ones that refuses to oblige the US to a military response. I don't wish to defend the appeasement of Russia which is certainly problematic but it's also not strictly speaking Obama's policy. This is some of the worst passing of the buck that I have ever seen. Are you really going to absolve Obama on the grounds that his current course of (in)action is proper simply because there is no legal, binding requirement for a military response? Regardless of the merits of Obama's current policy towards Russia and Ukraine, this is pretty much the worst justification that you can conjure up.
|
United States40729 Posts
On March 01 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:18 KwarK wrote: The individuals of 1994 were the ones that refuses to oblige the US to a military response. I don't wish to defend the appeasement of Russia which is certainly problematic but it's also not strictly speaking Obama's policy. This is some of the worst passing of the buck that I have ever seen. Are you really going to absolve Obama on the grounds that his current course of (in)action is proper simply because there is no legal, binding requirement for a military response? Regardless of the merits of Obama's current policy towards Russia and Ukraine, this is pretty much the worst justification that you can conjure up. Do you think the American people want a military confrontation with Russia?
|
On March 01 2015 11:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2015 11:18 KwarK wrote: The individuals of 1994 were the ones that refuses to oblige the US to a military response. I don't wish to defend the appeasement of Russia which is certainly problematic but it's also not strictly speaking Obama's policy. This is some of the worst passing of the buck that I have ever seen. Are you really going to absolve Obama on the grounds that his current course of (in)action is proper simply because there is no legal, binding requirement for a military response? Regardless of the merits of Obama's current policy towards Russia and Ukraine, this is pretty much the worst justification that you can conjure up. Do you think the American people want a military confrontation with Russia? That's not the point. The point is your justification for Obama's current policy, which is just absurd. If you think that Obama's current policy is proper, then make a good for case it.
|
On March 01 2015 11:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2015 11:18 KwarK wrote: The individuals of 1994 were the ones that refuses to oblige the US to a military response. I don't wish to defend the appeasement of Russia which is certainly problematic but it's also not strictly speaking Obama's policy. This is some of the worst passing of the buck that I have ever seen. Are you really going to absolve Obama on the grounds that his current course of (in)action is proper simply because there is no legal, binding requirement for a military response? Regardless of the merits of Obama's current policy towards Russia and Ukraine, this is pretty much the worst justification that you can conjure up. Do you think the American people want a military confrontation with Russia?
I think the conflict is escalating pretty well without doing anything. I don't know why the common opinion seems to be that doing nothing will result in peace and harmony.
|
United States40729 Posts
On March 01 2015 11:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:44 KwarK wrote:On March 01 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2015 11:18 KwarK wrote: The individuals of 1994 were the ones that refuses to oblige the US to a military response. I don't wish to defend the appeasement of Russia which is certainly problematic but it's also not strictly speaking Obama's policy. This is some of the worst passing of the buck that I have ever seen. Are you really going to absolve Obama on the grounds that his current course of (in)action is proper simply because there is no legal, binding requirement for a military response? Regardless of the merits of Obama's current policy towards Russia and Ukraine, this is pretty much the worst justification that you can conjure up. Do you think the American people want a military confrontation with Russia? That's not the point. The point is your justification for Obama's current policy, which is just absurd. If you think that Obama's current policy is proper, then make a good for case it. The threat of a military confrontation with Russia is pretty much a bluff because it'd be an apocalyptic confrontation. There are hands you can bluff on and win, like NATO, and hands you don't bluff on because you know it'll get called, like a specifically non military promise to the Ukraine. The Ukraine is not worth a fight with Russia to America and given that Putin knows that Obama can't threaten it. When they know you're serious they won't risk it, when they know you're not, and Russia would not believe that the US would go into a potentially nuclear war for the Ukraine, it's not worth risking. Had we been serious the Ukraine would have been in NATO in 94.
It's also worth echoing that this has not been without consequences for Russia both domestically and internationally. The international community does still have teeth.
|
On March 01 2015 10:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 10:45 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 10:38 KwarK wrote:On March 01 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 10:22 KwarK wrote: He specifically blamed Obama for making that promise, a promise which is 21 years old and was specifically non military. That was what I was objecting to because it is factually false in every conceivable way. Meh get over it. Ukraines demilitarization from Budapest to the initiatives I linked have been done under the assumption Ukraine would be protected. The last round of weapons destruction in 2012 is another instance. It reaffirms the existence of an obligation. Obama, as the guy at the top, has his name attached to it. You don't get much more "military" than nuclear weapons... Thanks Obama for making the promise! And thanks Obama for changing the implication from specifically ruling out military assistance to specifying that military assistance was included by the continuing of the arrangement from 2006. You lied. Admit it. Or at least go with "my understanding of the obligation between the United States and the Ukraine was flawed as I was unaware that the Budapest Memorandum didn't involve military assistance and wasn't made by Obama". Keep flailing. You messed up and showed your total ignorance of the subject matter and all you had to say for yourself was "meh". You're a troll.
Let's not overuse that term.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
neither russian aggression against neighboring states nor its flaunting of nationalism is anythign new or obama related. it's a unique development of russian politics, not just some sort of forever-existing aggression that had to be held down at all times.
there is legitimate criticism of obama's foreign policy but taking every bad thing to be preventable or caused by obama is just not worth responding to.
as far as i can see obama really just messed up on being underprepared for this wave of islamist nationalism in the middle east. this is more of a macro mindset problem with the whole foreign policy establishment though. i don't see any reasonable scenario under which egypt and libya could have turned out well. people under political oppression and facing economic hardship will raise hell, and once they do, it is hard to put the lid back on or to select out the right sort of people to promote from the revolution. what happened in these countries was really a show of severe vulnerability of the old strategy of relying on failing states. that's no good security.
the berghdal stuff is an exception. no idea what they were doing on that one and being so very public with it.
|
On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote: If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!
Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore. So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now. At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders. I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so. There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on. What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices. You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today. The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them. You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.
There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies. The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone.
Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else.
Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)?
The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem.
Out of curiosity:
Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?Yes (18) 75% No (3) 13% Not Sure (3) 13% 24 total votes Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not Sure
Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries:
Source
The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not even putin will invade a nato country. there are actual lines and imaginary lines, and russians know nato is an actual line.
|
The problem is that hindsight 20-20 an intervention into Syria with turkey Iraq and Jordan taking the lead would have been best. That America was gun shy after Iraqi political failings paved the way for it to spill out like everyone said it was but didn't want to do anything about.
I believe that the middle east will be the lesson for the world that there are no half measures that can succeed. The ends justify the means if you write the ending.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote: If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!
Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore. So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now. At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders. I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so. There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on. What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices. You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today. The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them. You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them. There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies. The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone. Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else. Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)? The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem. Out of curiosity: Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?Yes (18) 75% No (3) 13% Not Sure (3) 13% 24 total votes Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not Sure
Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries: SourceThe poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses.
wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals? straight priorities...
|
On March 01 2015 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 03:06 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 02:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2015 01:58 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 00:27 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2015 16:21 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 16:11 lastpuritan wrote:The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.htmlIs that all the pressure US can put on as a nation? Biden, Kerry, Psaki and Marie Harf are saying everything they want (mostly political) when such thing happen in a smaller country. It's been amateur hour at the executive branch for six years. Why would things change now? No it hasn't. And I'm not sure what else you're expecting the administration to do in this case. That's the problem with being inept. If you are incompetent long enough, you paint yourself into corners from which there is no good way to emerge. That is the case with the US right now with many issues. Ukraine for instance. There is no good course of action with regards to Ukraine because of the last six years of bungling. Obama/Clinton decide they should hit the reset button with Russia, despite the reality of the situation, and guess what? We get a reset to 1930's Russia. But because of that, we know have a situation where Russia is invading a sovereign nation (that Obama promised to defend if they demilitarized several years earlier let's not forget) and we have no good course of action other than some sanctions, which, btw, the Russian's were laughing at. Only the dramatic drop in oil prices has caused any discomfort to the Russian economy. Libya is another case. Obama supported the overthrow of Gaddafi, and now we have a lawless country, overrun with Islamic jihadis, and littered with the corpses of our dead state department personnel. Libya was even less of a threat to the US than Iraq was. Hell, Libya even promised to give up its high powered weapondry post-9/11. Egypt is case three. A firm US ally in the region, Obama supports the overthrow of the Egyptian government, despite widespread reports and intelligence assessments that the "arab spring" in Egypt had the Muslim Brotherhood as one of its major participants. It was no secret to anyone but the most naïve leftist ideologue that is Mubarak falls that the MB would rise to power. At least when the neo-Cons run foreign policy, we only topple dictators that DON"T like us. Syria is case four. Anyone remember the red line that came for not? The constant indecision on support rebels. This is another place where the path is not clear, but right now, we have no path. Obama, and his cronies, just waffle back and forth, yes there was a redline, no there wasn't. We support the opposition, we don't support them, we don't even know what opposition we support, etc. Now we have the latest of the State Department endangering Jordan by releasing information to the public about their support in the war against ISIS. We have the Pentagon releasing details of high level special operations that is an unprecedented breach in OPSEC. We have the government violating its long term stance on not negotiating with terrorist to secure the return of a deserter, all while not informing Congress, in clear violation of the law. And then to top it off, the recent revelations that Hillary was accepting money from foreign governments during her time as Secretary of State. The bottom line is, when you are incompetent for long enough, you find yourself in positions that have no good outcome. Obama has destroyed any coherent American foreign policy. It's so bad that even Japan is doubting our will to protect them against China, and as a result, is moving towards beefing their own military up and altering their pacifist stance. Right now, our foreign policy seems to be "give the bird to our allies and cosy up to nations, like Iran, that hate us". Like I said. Amateur hour. I'm not interested in your blatantly dishonest simplifications of various foreign policy issues and how the administration dealt with them. We're talking about the murder of Nemtsov. You complained about the US' reaction to the murder. Tell us what else exactly you're expecting the administration to do in this case. There is nothing dishonest in my post. Every line is factually true. I would give Russia another reset button. I think they want to invade the Baltic States this time around. I always get a kick whenever people try to defend Obama's foreign policy record. Pretty much everyone agrees that he has been horrible on that front. It is literallly the one area where there is some concensus on Obama.
On March 01 2015 03:06 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 02:13 kwizach wrote:On March 01 2015 01:58 hannahbelle wrote:On March 01 2015 00:27 kwizach wrote:On February 28 2015 16:21 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 16:11 lastpuritan wrote:The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.htmlIs that all the pressure US can put on as a nation? Biden, Kerry, Psaki and Marie Harf are saying everything they want (mostly political) when such thing happen in a smaller country. It's been amateur hour at the executive branch for six years. Why would things change now? No it hasn't. And I'm not sure what else you're expecting the administration to do in this case. That's the problem with being inept. If you are incompetent long enough, you paint yourself into corners from which there is no good way to emerge. That is the case with the US right now with many issues. Ukraine for instance. There is no good course of action with regards to Ukraine because of the last six years of bungling. Obama/Clinton decide they should hit the reset button with Russia, despite the reality of the situation, and guess what? We get a reset to 1930's Russia. But because of that, we know have a situation where Russia is invading a sovereign nation (that Obama promised to defend if they demilitarized several years earlier let's not forget) and we have no good course of action other than some sanctions, which, btw, the Russian's were laughing at. Only the dramatic drop in oil prices has caused any discomfort to the Russian economy. Libya is another case. Obama supported the overthrow of Gaddafi, and now we have a lawless country, overrun with Islamic jihadis, and littered with the corpses of our dead state department personnel. Libya was even less of a threat to the US than Iraq was. Hell, Libya even promised to give up its high powered weapondry post-9/11. Egypt is case three. A firm US ally in the region, Obama supports the overthrow of the Egyptian government, despite widespread reports and intelligence assessments that the "arab spring" in Egypt had the Muslim Brotherhood as one of its major participants. It was no secret to anyone but the most naïve leftist ideologue that is Mubarak falls that the MB would rise to power. At least when the neo-Cons run foreign policy, we only topple dictators that DON"T like us. Syria is case four. Anyone remember the red line that came for not? The constant indecision on support rebels. This is another place where the path is not clear, but right now, we have no path. Obama, and his cronies, just waffle back and forth, yes there was a redline, no there wasn't. We support the opposition, we don't support them, we don't even know what opposition we support, etc. Now we have the latest of the State Department endangering Jordan by releasing information to the public about their support in the war against ISIS. We have the Pentagon releasing details of high level special operations that is an unprecedented breach in OPSEC. We have the government violating its long term stance on not negotiating with terrorist to secure the return of a deserter, all while not informing Congress, in clear violation of the law. And then to top it off, the recent revelations that Hillary was accepting money from foreign governments during her time as Secretary of State. The bottom line is, when you are incompetent for long enough, you find yourself in positions that have no good outcome. Obama has destroyed any coherent American foreign policy. It's so bad that even Japan is doubting our will to protect them against China, and as a result, is moving towards beefing their own military up and altering their pacifist stance. Right now, our foreign policy seems to be "give the bird to our allies and cosy up to nations, like Iran, that hate us". Like I said. Amateur hour. I'm not interested in your blatantly dishonest simplifications of various foreign policy issues and how the administration dealt with them. We're talking about the murder of Nemtsov. You complained about the US' reaction to the murder. Tell us what else exactly you're expecting the administration to do in this case. There is nothing dishonest in my post. Every line is factually true. I would give Russia another reset button. I think they want to invade the Baltic States this time around. No, every line is certainly not factually true, as Kwark for example just clearly proved to you with regards to your paragraph on Ukraine. You simply spouted the kind of simplistic and largely ignorant talking points that can be found on "Fox and Friends" and the like. And xDaunt, your "consensus" only exists in the right-wing pundits bubble you get your foreign policy information from. Some aspects of Obama's foreign policy record can certainly be criticized, but the same is the case for any president, and G. W. Bush's foreign policy record was without a doubt much worse. Your and hannahbelle's understanding of foreign policy can be summed up in a "we need to look tough" bumper sticker - sorry, but your "Obama makes the US look weak" is the kind of brilliant analysis that will get you laughed out of any International Relations 101 class. But yes, invading Afghanistan and Iraq and looking real tough on aircraft carriers sure made Putin think twice about intervening in Georgia in 2008. Or was that Obama's fault as well?
As expected, hannahbelle, your suggestions on what the Obama administration should have done differently with regards to the murder of Nemtsov amount to hot air. The White House called upon " the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice", which is standard wording for the circumstances and there's no need to add anything else like veiled accusations for Putin to know exactly how the Obama administration stands on this or on human rights in Russia in general.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
putin clearly invaded georgia because he knew obama would be soft and easy to handle.
|
On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote: If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!
Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore. So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now. At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders. I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so. There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on. What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices. You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today. The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them. You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.
You have no idea how sanctions work. To even suggest of their "failure" or "success" this quickly shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
The ruble has crashed, their debt rating is officially garbage, and they can't import many products that Russians like to buy.
The immediate result can be offset by Russia's strong nationalism. But over time, this is going to hurt and piss off the Russian people. They'll ask what it is they're paying for.
You expect that kind of public sway to happen in a month? If so, you're ignorant of a great many things.
The sanctions are actually working incredibly well, all we need to do is let it fester and do its thing.
The alternative action is provoking war with a nuclear superpower. So, yeah, let's jump to conclusions and act quickly, brilliant. I know Putin is a grade-A d-bag, and that Ukrainians are dying. But people advocating for U.S. aggression on this strike me as psychopathic. There is way more at stake here than part of Ukraine.
|
On March 01 2015 13:42 oneofthem wrote: putin clearly invaded georgia because he knew obama would be soft and easy to handle.
And as for this, Obama has next to nothing to do with it. (you're probably being sarcastic, but its hard to tell given the way some people think)
Obama wanted to deploy troops to Syria, not too long ago, when the civil war really was in prime. Remember?
What happened? Both political sides said, "No." Obama was not allowed to take action against Syria.
Why?
Because we're war-fatigued.
Why are we war fatigued?
I do agree that the world sees America as less of a threat now. The idea that it's because our current president isn't enough of a "badass" is a joke. The problem is his predecessor was too much of a "badass" and drained the will of the "world police" in an unnecessary and horribly managed war on Iraq -- and the world, and Putin, knows it. The only people who don't seem to understand it are American conservatives.
|
On March 01 2015 14:27 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 13:42 oneofthem wrote: putin clearly invaded georgia because he knew obama would be soft and easy to handle. And as for this, Obama has nothing to do with it. i am 99% certain that he was sarcastic, please read his other posts in this thread
|
On March 01 2015 14:37 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 14:27 Leporello wrote:On March 01 2015 13:42 oneofthem wrote: putin clearly invaded georgia because he knew obama would be soft and easy to handle. And as for this, Obama has nothing to do with it. i am 99% certain that he was sarcastic, please read his other posts in this thread
Yeah, I know he was being sarcastic, just wanted to post my thoughts about it.
Apologies, oneofthem.
|
|
|
|