The Deseret News has a very narrow view of history in the Crimea. First, Crimea
is Russian by ethnicity and their population wants to be part of Russia.
Second, Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in
modern times. Third, the referendum appears to be legitimate. Fourth, Russia
is historically very afraid of vulnerability in this area. This was the area
where the United States invaded Russia after World War I. And finally fifth,
Russia is even more afraid now with the rise of Ukrainian fascism. Is Russia paranoid? Perhaps, and perhaps with good reason.
I've forgotten, but is this what you said when Russia invaded Georgia
during Bush's presidency and we did nothing?
Look who is late to the party again. I mean Obama can't even have a plan B
because he doesn't even have a plan A. Where was he when the protests
started? Where is he ever on this stuff? All I ever see of him is
when he is golfing or campaigning on another failed socialist plan. He is proving he is just a guy with a pleasant demeanor that has no experience
doing anything in his life.
Obama's threats are meaningless because he intends for them to be
meaningless. Remember the message - after the election he would have more
flexibility. The flexibility comes in the form of letting anyone who desires to
spit in the face of the country that this President despises and desires to
fundamentally change.Wouldn't it make more sense to undo
concessions that this administration has made earlier to appease Putin - like
taking the missiles out of Poland and cutting missile defense system development
in Eastern Europe. Supporting American allies against the reconstruction of the
Soviet Union and fighting against radical Islamic tyranny are contrary to the
fundamental changes intended by this President.
"Words of warning should always be preceded by building a coalition of
nations prepared to act in defending America’s — and the
West’s — values, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
free markets and democratic self-determination."Hey, Crimea was
historically part of Russia!Is this our business?Of
course, if Putin tried to take over the rest of Ukraine, which is not populated
by Russians, it would be different.
In Russia and beyond..."...According to the Kyiv Post, however,
the only two choices offered to voters were to either join Russia immediately or
to declare independence and then join Russia. Maintaining the status quo was not
an option...".In Utah and beyond...According to the
Republican Party in Utah, the only two choices offered to voters are/were/will
be to either join the Republican Party or to repudiate independent critical
thinking skills and then join the Republican Party. Maintaining the status quo
is/was/will not be an option.
Mitt Romney warned Obama during the debate that Putin and Russia were our most
formidable geopolitical foes. Obama mocked Mitt for months. Now we see Romney
was right and Obama was wrong, again! America made a huge mistake by electing
the wrong man and now the entire world is paying for our mistake! Obama, as he
has his entire life, offers nothing more than effusive rhetoric and obfuscation,
period! That may impress his fellow liberals but Putin can see right through him
like the empty glass he is!
The words spoke by our Dear Leader ring loud. "Tell Vladimir that after the
election I will have more flexibility". mmmmm
"Wouldn't it make more sense to undo concessions that this
administration has made earlier to appease Putin - like taking the missiles out
of Poland and cutting missile defense system development in Eastern
Europe."No.NATO on his front door is exactly why
Putin is doing this. The test does come when ethnic Russians rise up in eastern
Ukraine and what if any thing Putin does in support. The world was never going
to bring the hammer down over Crimea, but further incursions, maybe. One little neglected fact here in the supposed invasion of Crimea is that
apparently Russia has always had a treaty with Crimea to have 25,000 Russian
troops stationed there, and at no time was that number exceeded. So the idea
that Russia just rolled troops across the boarder and took over is not accurate
"....What’s disconcerting in this entire episode is that the Obama
administration seems to have been caught off guard by Putin’s
aggression...."______________________________Oh, come now,
Deseret News. Did you really expect the Administration to see this coming? Even
the nations of Europe and the immediate region was taken by surprise, including
marxist,Thanks for the history lesson, but past history or the language
spoken by the majority do not justify taking over the country.Would
you also support Mexico invading California? The majority of Californians are
Spanish speaking, and parts of it were once part of Mexico... right?So should America just say OK, if they invade and said they want it back and
send their troops to overseeing a referendum to determine California's
fate?No... old borders don't matter now. And the language
spoken by the people doesn't determine the border. Same in Crimea. Just
because they are Russian speaking doesn't make it part of Russia. And
just because Ukraine was once part of the USSR doesn't make the invasion
OK.If it does... Russia has a claim to take over all of Eastern
USA has no skin in this game. It would be ultra foolish to have our country do
an Iraq II. Did we not learn anything?Someone in the world
somewhere rattles a saber and USA with all its war debt shows up on scene again.
It only makes sense to warmongers.Is it our right or intention to
force our thoughts and laws upon the whole world? How many lives have been lost
in this uprising? In actual fact there have been fewer lives lost in Crimea
than in the city of Chicago due to lack of healthcare since the beginning of
this year.It is always easier to point our finger far off and say
what we would do rather than fix our own issues and problems.Why
isn't the US involved in Angola where over 1,000 people are killed each
month in an ongoing war? Seems we pick and choose our battles that
have very little to do with the reason we are told they are so important.
Maybe we should give Ukraine weapons, then "advisors" and then........
There is an analogy to this situation. Texas declared independence from Mexico
in 1836, and became The Republic of Texas. Within ten years, it joined The
United States of America, which promptly engaged in a successful war with
Mexico. This fulfilled the U.S. objective of "Manifest Destiny."Now Crimea has declared independence from Ukraine, and it has been
received by Russia. This fulfills Putin's objective of a form of
"Manifest Destiny."Must war inevitably follow?
Our past three or maybe more presidents were all domestic minded people with
little foreign travel or experience. I will grant the incumbent credit for his
teen age years in Indonesia, but none of them were up to speed as diplomats or
creative thinkers. My opinion is that the recent occupants of the
White Hose have been rather self absorbed with meeting their needs and the perks
of the office rather than some communicable vision for the country.Mr. Putin appears to be a man to be reckoned with, not talked down to as if he
were the outsider in a pick-up ball game. Mr. Obama is outclassed
and outgunned on this battle and if he doesn't know it, the rest of the
western world certainly does.
Doug10 Roosevelt, UTSays, "USA has no skin in this game"....Google "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances"...The United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the 1994
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, pledging to respect Ukraine
territorial integrity, in exchange for Ukraine giving it's nuclear arsenal
to Russia (they had the world's 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in 1994).So we DO have skin in this game. We signed an agreement addressing
exactly what is happening now, and promised that the USA would have our skin in
it.You don't sign agreements like this, and then when the
situation the agreement was written for occurs... just say "We don't
have any skin in this game". And expect any of your allies to trust you
Doug10,"....Seems we pick and choose our battles...."______________________________None of America’s nine cold
war Presidents would have responded to Russia’s move on Crimea with what
was then called swift retaliation. For Russia, this is a backyard skirmish to
reclaim territory in their geopolitical sphere of influence. Putin’s
ill-advised method of sneak attack has sparked world outrage and brought
condemnation that may cost Russia far more than it gained. For Obama to have
responded with force that could escalate a tense situation would have been
Roland KayserYes, Georgia was invaded under Bush, but he had about 3
months left in office, and was so lame duck, he had no feathers. The Democrats
totally controlled Congress, and Bush was at about 33% popularity. This, by the
way was similar to when President Clinton was in the last few weeks of his term
and the USS Cole was blown up. He did nothing either, even though he said he
was going to. And, if I remember, Clinton has much better popularity than Bush.
Now, as for "stopping Russia". What can we do, except
sanctions? We certainly are not going to try anything military with a nuclear
super power as our advasary. That's why Iran wants nukes, by the way. The
only way Russia could be militarily stopped is if they invaded a NATO country,
and, (this is a BIG and) all of NATO declared military intent against Russia if
they didn't stop. Still, with the threat of a nuclear war, many, if not
most would rather let the Russians have what they want, rather than risk nuclear
war. So comparisons to stopping Hitler don't really apply in the nuclear
world. To dangerous.
OK, just for fun, if no one has thought of it yet, maybe Russia shot down that
Malaysian airliner just to take the invasion of Crimea off the front pages. If
so, it seems to have worked pretty well. At least here in America.
Paraphrased, "we must not react in a reactive way." Do you hear
yourselves?So Obama should have invaded Crimea just to make sure
Russia didn't? Is the official DN international policy to use
the Bush doctrine and preemptively attack any country that COULD possibly be a
threat to the US?So Mitt and the DN would have us in a WW3 about 6
Obama should take the Bush approach. Russia invades Crimea, the US should invade
New Zealand!That'll show em'.
Marxist: The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed by Russia, the
US, England and Ukraine under the 1994 agreement, Ukraine promised to remove all
Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament
facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept
these promises. In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries
essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as
an independent state. Apparently, this wasn't worth the paper it was
written on! And you defend Russia?
First of all Russia should have just said their intelligence agencies had
irrefutable proof that Crimea had WMD's. Then Romney would be 100% behind
Wow. This looks like a replay of Health Care. Conservatives complain about
what Obama is doing, but do not provide an alternative.Despite
warnings that they need to expand the party in order to survive, the Republicans
continue to huff and puff and rile up the base. They dare not venture into the
middle, because the middle expects more reasoned and intelligent arguments.Nothing will change for the Republicans. Expect another night of
election coverage with Karl Rove incredulous that Fox News is calling victories
for Democrats, and Megyn Kelly venturing into the newsroom dungeon to ask Fox
pollsters "how did this happen"?
@ SCfan, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in the period of time you
refer to. YOu are making things up. The fact remains, the events leading up to
Russia invading Georgia and the invasion itself happened on Bush's watch.
Here's the deal. I didn't blame Bush, and I don't think Obama
should be blamed for Crimea. But that's all the GOP is doing, putting
their partisanship over everything else.
I think he takes them seriously. I don't think Obama is laughing about
ANY of this. Not Russia and Ukraine, not what happened in Libya, not Syria and
the citizens who have died at the hands of their government there. Not Iran
and their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Not North Korea and their
obsession with Nuclear Weapons. I don't think any of this if
"Funny" to the President. He just doesn't know what to do (and
who would). He painted himself into a corner by joining the
anti-Bush rhetoric during his campaign. Now if he does anything militarily...
he's at risk of looking like a Bush clone.So his options are
VERY limited.He can talk to the media, and he can send community
organizers over there... but he can't really do anything, or get a
coalition going (when he attacked our coalition members for joining us in the
past.I hope he finds a way to solve these problems. I'm just
afraid of what will happen IF he finds himself at the end of his rope, and a
serious violation of one of his red-lines actually happens.
Barack Obama and his progressive army are ONLY concerned about one thing and
that is SOCIALISM. That's right folks - how to move the country to a
socialist model. That's why Obamacare was rammed down our throats as a
FIRST priority of Obama from the time the man took office. Everything else...the
economy, foreign policy are all down the priortiy chain. Everything this man
does is centered around Socialism and how to implement that model here in
America. Gutting our miliary meant that now that money could be used for
free-bie handouts and food stamps and all the other free goodies that chain
folks to government dependence. Don't be fooled - this man has a mission to
perform and it isn't to be commander and chief.
The coalition is already built, it is called NATO.
"The coalition is already built, it is called NATO."Ukraine is not
a member of NATO. Curious what you expect NATO to do... military strike?
Esquire 11:19 a.m.,Let me see if I get the logic of your argument
right...1. If you didn't blame Bush for Georgia back then...
you can't critique Obama today.2. And if you refrained from blaming
Bush back then... you can just ignore Ukraine and feel good about everything.Kinda a you had to pay back then to play now... kinda thing?===So this whole Ukraine thing is just a Republican thing in your
mind?I don't think so. There are LOTS of Democrats who think
we should do something. I think Obama is one of them...===The left used to say it was their DUTY to question Bush on everything
back then... but now if you question Obama on ANYTHING... you are a
traitor...Seems like the shoe is just on the other foot, and Obama
fans can't handle it.I think we needed to question Bush on what
he was doing back then, and we need to question Obama on what he is doing (or
not doing) today.It's a tradition in America to question our
leaders (including the great Obama).
"In Russia and beyond, Obama administration must take foreign threats
seriously"////Problem is from the time of Vietnam
until now, our country has a history of getting into wars it doesn't need
to, putting us further an further into debt, and destroying peoples lives that
serve in the military. Its as though the soldier and the taxpayers are their
chess pieces.How much of a threat is it, if the Crimea part of
Ukraine votes to succeed from Ukraine and join with Russia and then Russia
allows this? This really is no threat to us or anyone else really.
Ok, so what are the options on the table? Platitudes about appeasement,
Obama's weaknesses, etc need not apply. Seriously, what precise measures
do you propose?And don't just suggest actions, wargame the
ramifications and any countermoves Russia would take. What responses does
Russia have, what would their impacts be, and are we ready for them? Are we ready for cyberattacks on US infrastructure? Dumping Russia's
supply of US T-bills? Cutting off the natural gas of our European allies?
Increasing the risk that Russia will reclaim the rest of Ukraine or the Baltics?
An elevated Russian nuclear posture? A return to Russian 'fraternal
support' of regimes deeply opposed to US interests like Iran, Cuba,
Venezuela, etc? A formal military alliance with China?What are the
risks? What is the price? What are the objectives in the short and long
term?I guarantee that smart people are wargaming scenarios like
these right now. And the lack of a coherent policy response to Russia's
Crimean annexation suggests that the answers they're coming up with
aren't very favorable for us.
Oh seriously patriot? Just what would that mean? nationalizing the banks..oh
wait that was GHWB, nationalizing the energy industry..oh no, that's all
those who say we solve all of energy problems by drilling more oil here. Oh yea nationalizing health care..oh wait my insurance comes through
Altius.That rant of Obama intends to destroy America or intends to
turn it socialist is way beyond the pale. I'll bet you could even find it
in some psychiatric manuals.
Taking foreign threats seriously is what may actually be going on. And just how
is this Russian exercise in an historically and ethnically Russian piece of the
world a 'foreigh threat'?
@HutteriteI believe Ukraine and Georgia would disagree with you.
‘In Russia and beyond, Obama administration must take foreign threats
seriously’ . . . as if it doesn't already.
What is some of the Russian Ships in the Russian fleet in Sevastopol just
happened to sink? The U.S. isn't the only country that could cause this. In
fact, maybe the ships just happened to have simultaneous explosions from
something within the ships.
Truth: I'm sure Ukraine and Georgia would disagree with me. And so they
should. However, I'm looking at it from the perspective of President Obama
not being leader of those places, what threat it represents to us, and how we
should or even can reasonably respond.
EsquireLook up the 110th Congress. Remember Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi? They took over control of Congress in 2007. The invasion of Georgia
happened in 2008. And to think you got EIGHT people to agree with you on your
misinformation. Everything I said was factual except maybe the actual
popularity of GW. I know he was very low, but maybe not at 33%. And all of
your crowd is now trying to blame Bush and draw a comparison to Obama. OK, both
Presidents were weak. But, Bush only had a few months left not a few years
left. We have to now have a very weak man in the White House for another 3
years. Not good for America, not good for the world. I don't defend a
lot of what Bush did. Why do you and yours defend Obama at all costs?
2bits, "He painted himself into a corner by joining the anti-Bush rhetoric
during his campaign. Now if he does anything militarily... he's at risk of
looking like a Bush clone."If you read a little further you
would see the agreement was specifically structured by both G HB and Clinton as
a political agreement, not an international treaty, to purposefully take
military action off the table. They knew that any kind of a
military conflict with Russia was potentially opening a death spiral.
Apparently that lesson has been forgotten.Also if you read your
Google again you can refresh your memory that the Cuban missile crisis was
de-escalated by giving in to Russia's demand that we dismantle our missiles
in Italy and Turkey.Be very, very careful when you start talking about
military confrontations with Russia. We don't know how they will react.
Fortunately America to this point on more than one occasion has been smart
enough to walk away from such a fight.However, the American right
seems to believe that everything America has done in the past 60 years is wrong
so maybe we should just let them continue to confront Putin..?
Your only serious if you start the next world war?