|
Post by jdredd on Feb 28, 2014 13:25:59 GMT -5
Russian tanks are moving through Ukraine to get to Crimea. Is this something America should be concerned with? Why would we think we have a dog in this fight? It's another test of Obama. Let's hope he has the perspective to do the smart thing.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 28, 2014 21:00:12 GMT -5
Obama had two choices in the Ukraine situation:
1. Keep quiet and work behind the scenes to resolve the issue.
2. Threaten Russia.
Obama has apparently chosen #2. One more Obama foreign policy blunder. If we wanted a blundering bigmouth in the White House, we could have elected a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 4, 2014 4:42:11 GMT -5
So the right is now crowing that Mitt Romney was "right" when he claimed Russia was our "#1 geopolitical foe" during the 2012 campaign. Well, I guess you can look at it that way if you want to. Or you can look at it another way: Russia is only a "foe" if we want them to be.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 9, 2014 5:22:44 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26501716"The US has warned Russia that any moves to annex Crimea would close the door to diplomacy. US Secretary of State John Kerry told Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov that Crimea is part of Ukraine and Moscow should avoid military escalation." So Kerry has told the Russians not to annex the Crimea or else. Or else what? Sadly, this whole thing is feeling like a comedy to me. But then I'm a crabby old geezer who's tired of life. I feel sorry for those people who think life is one big party if this thing goes bad.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 9, 2014 23:30:23 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26504078"The Kremlin "clearly had a well-rehearsed plan to move militarily" into the region, Mr Hague said, but conceded that none of the sanctions being considered by the West could remove Moscow's military forces. However, he said: "The long-term effect will be to unite Ukraine more against Russian domination of their affairs and to recast European policies in a way that will reduce Russian leverage over Europe. "There would be far-reaching trade and economic consequences [for Russia]." Last week, the European Union suspended talks with Moscow on setting up visa-free travel for Russians in Europe. Mr Hague said: "I think [the Russians] do care about the international reaction to what they've done. The reaction is strong." He warned of possible visa freezes and travel bans, which would "be taken very seriously by the individuals concerned". The foreign secretary also said it was important for Nato countries to improve their defence capabilities in light of the situation, warning many Nato countries had " reduced their defence spending to a very low level". Could this be a reason the West is making such a brouhaha over Crimea? Nah, they'd never overstate a threat to raise defense spending, would they?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 12, 2014 1:14:28 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-menendez-russias-aggressive-behavior-cant-go-unchecked/2014/03/11/b83f56a4-a956-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html?hpid=z2Robert Menendez, a Democrat, represents New Jersey in the Senate, where he chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. "The Russian invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine is the most recent example in a series of events involving disruptive Russian behavior throughout the world." "Today, our concern is for Ukraine. Tomorrow, it could be for Georgia again or perhaps Moldova, two nations waiting to finalize their association agreements with the European Union, a process Ukraine had been engaged in to the displeasure of the Russian government. Putin has miscalculated by starting a game of Russian roulette with the international community, but we refuse to blink, and we will never accept this violation of international law." Gosh, the 21st Century version of the "Domino Theory". Plus, "we refuse to blink"? What do you mean "we", paleface? And this bluster from a Democrat?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 14, 2014 21:54:49 GMT -5
www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia"The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm. There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War." Sad but true. The press that sat on its hands when Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, is now jumping on the Russia-bashing bandwagon. Smells like 1914. But it's not that people don't learn from history, it's just they so often learn the wrong thing.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 16, 2014 19:28:28 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26606556A total of 95.5% of voters in Crimea supported joining Russia and leaving Ukraine, officials said. Mr Hague said Russia must now face "economic and political consequences". A statement from Number 10 said that the UK did not "recognise" the referendum or its outcome. Crowds of pro-Moscow voters celebrated in the main city of Simferopol, and Crimea's pro-Russia leader, Sergei Aksyonov, said he would apply to join Russia on Monday. But some Crimeans loyal to Kiev boycotted the referendum, and the EU and US condemned it as illegal." So 95% of Crimeans voting to join Russia is "illegal", yet the CIA blowing up any people it wants to in any country it wants to is legal. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 18, 2014 20:45:45 GMT -5
abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/john-kerry-to-russia-you-lost-the-cold-war-get-over-it/"Secretary of State John Kerry had harsh words today for Vladimir Putin, saying he is surprised and disappointed in a speech the Russian president gave about the country’s right to take over Crimea from Ukraine. “It really just didn’t jibe with reality or with what’s happening on the ground,” Kerry said, speaking to a group of university students at the State Department. “The president may have his version of history, but I believe that he and Russia, for what they have done, are on the wrong side of history.” Kerry refused to give any details about what the United States will do if Russia goes further toward annexing the Crimean peninsula but said such an act would be as “egregious as any step that I can think of that could be taken by a country in today’s world, particularly by a country like Russia where so much is at stake.” He suggested that the United States didn’t believe the Kremlin would move beyond Crimea given Putin’s speech today, which focused on the historical ties Russia and the Ukraine have. Kerry acknowledged those ties but said they were no excuse for the invasion. “Russia has an enormous historical connection to Ukraine,” Kerry said. “We know this, but that doesn’t legitimize just taking what you want because you want it or because you’re angry about the end of the Cold War or the end of the Soviet Union.” Well, Kerry didn't exactly say "You lost the Cold War so get over it", but I guess you can interpret it that way if you want to. The question is, is this what American diplomacy has come down to? Nyah, nyah, we "won" and you "lost"? Maybe America should get over itself.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 19, 2014 6:16:06 GMT -5
Well, the media did make a bruhaha over Bush invading those countries. Only the Democrats were for it before they were against it so the media had some friction from both parties. I agree about the voters had their say in Crimea and it was certified as valid by international standards. Afterall, I don't know why Crimea was let go with Ukraine in the first place, when the people sided with Russia and while the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the only warm water port for Russia is based in Crimea. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, not the Republic of Russia and Russia has developed its energy sources and marketed them and is not the money strapped country like the Soviet Union was. While communism is not dead in Russia, their government is much more efficient and friendly towards its people than what the Soviet Union was. With the damage Resident Obama has done to this country trying to bring about the Alinsky principles, he has greatly weakened this country. Then again, this may just all be a play put on by Putin and Obama as they had agreed would take place. Putin would take back Crimea and Obama would act like a madman about it but not do a thing! Take a poll and more people would respect Putin than Obama! Now that is very very sad......but true!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 19, 2014 12:29:12 GMT -5
I'm wondering: Could America's endless gloating about "winning" the Cold War have anything to do with Russia's present bad attitude? Nah...
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 26, 2014 15:57:12 GMT -5
Gosh, wasn't it just a couple of months ago when the right-wing media blowhards were saying the Romney had been right, Russia was our big geopolitical nemesis? Now, of course, our bogeyman de jour is ISIL, or ISIS, or whatever you call it. We might all be getting whiplash from trying to keep up with whom we are supposed to hate. Personally, I'm still stuck on Assad, but I guess he's almost an ally this month.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 17, 2014 21:13:37 GMT -5
www.newrepublic.com/article/118742/ukraine-russian-rebels-malaysian-airlines-plane"My first reaction to this was that this is a game-changer, and it's a game-changer in that it drags in the outside world, but it's hard to see what the consequences of this could be. Even if and when the evidence is marshalled to point to the rebels, what can the West do to punish them? What can it do to punish Russia for giving them these capabilities? What can it do to end the conflict? More sanctions? Putin's been blowing them off and they haven't altered his calculus all that much. A peacekeeping mission? There is still no appetite for boots on the ground and Russia still has that U.N. veto. Even if the U.S. gives Ukraine lethal military aid, it in no way guarantees that Kiev's military will be able to crush the separatists, especially not without some bloody, horrific urban warfare. The plane went down, raised the stakes, but what can the West—or Moscow—really do about it?" Really? We need to "punish" Russia? What are we, their mother? Didn't we shoot down an Iranian airliner in the 90's?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 28, 2014 21:19:18 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28977766"US President Barack Obama has accused Russia of being responsible for the violence in eastern Ukraine. He said the fighting was not the result of a home-grown indigenous uprising but of "deep Russian involvement". Mr Obama said fresh satellite images of Russian forces inside Ukraine made its role "plain for the world to see". Russia denies claims by Nato that more than 1,000 Russian troops are fighting with the separatists. It accuses Ukraine of attacking its own people. Nato is to hold an emergency meeting on Friday to discuss the crisis." Must be Springtime for NATO. The old anti-Russian alliance can feel all relevanty again. Sadly for NATO, it cannot give Putin the Full Saddam because Russia can still turn Europe into a radioactive wasteland.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 29, 2014 14:47:24 GMT -5
|
|