Good for Obama, he has finally gotten something right. (And it only took over five years as President for that to happen!) We've got zero business in Ukraine or the Crimea. That's a part of the world were global conflicts start when outsiders start poking their noses into things. Let's not start a war over a problem that isn't ours.
Obama could undercut Putin by expanding oil exploration in the USA. And I am not for Obama committing any sort of military force in Ukraine, I just want to see him act more like he is playing chess and not some kid playing checkers.
And yes we have an interest in what happens in the Ukraine. By being feckless, our commitment to Poland and other countries is apparent (there is no commitment). But the EU has way more of an interest and we should be pushing them to deal with it.
Expanding our hydrocarbons extraction (a worthy goal entirely on it's own merits, I must say as a global warming proponent) would take years to have any effect whatsoever. In that time, and even after that time, places like Ukraine and Europe more generally will have need of Russian petrochemicals.
So the EU can't do shit, as they are dependent on those Russian petrochemicals and they've got no effective military at all. So they've got no ability to effectively influence matters. Other than to try and bamboozle us on the matter, as they did in Libya.
As for supporting allies like Poland... We actually have treaty obligations to them, and have worked with them extensively in the last twenty or so years. We shouldn't have to get involved squandering our strength on matters that don't concern us just so we can help settle the centuries old quarrels of the Poles, Russians and Lithuanians with regard to a piece of land that is nowhere near anything we do have an interest in solely for the purpose of convincing them that we really like them.
And the correct game analogy would probably be more with Go. But regardless of the game of choice, I don't see why we should play when we will be starting with a major handicap against a superior opponent. We don't HAVE to do anything about Ukraine but windbag it a little. Finally, something Obama just might be capable of doing without totally fucking it up! Let's let him at it without distraction....
I'd also add that we didn't do shit when that unpleasantness went down between Russia and Georgia in 2008, and we had a president who was reputedly quite the belligerent cowboy at the time. But then W wasn't as reckless as his critics claimed.
Ed, after WW I, the borders of Europe were redrawn badly. That coupled with a looting of Germany by the winners (ultimately for the benefit of international financiers) laid the groundwork for WW II. (More like the Great Depression, really. WW II was more a symptom of the Great Depression really.)
After we won the Cold War, Ruusia and the other former republics of the Soviet Union got looted (largely for the benefit of international financiers and the Harvard University endowment fund, plus various slimeball pols from Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton) and the borders were redrawn badly.
I'm sensing a common theme. I'm hoping we can avoid making some of the same mistakes. Putin isn't one of the good guys, but he's far from the worst possible person we could be dealing with.
I'd also add that when Hitler re-militarized the Ruhr, and then occupied Austria and the Sudetenland, the British and the French were in a strategic position to actually do something about it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I remember that the French had more tanks even at the start of the invasion of France, but had no idea how to use them. (I believe their tanks were more powerful, too, but I'm less clear on that and don't have time at the moment to go hit the books.)
By contrast, we have jackshit with which to oppose a general Russian invasion of Ukraine, much less the Russians asserting themselves in Crimea (ethnically majority Russian) or in Eastern Ukraine. Statements, even strongly worded statements, aren't going to convince a former KGB Lt. Colonel of anything.
Crimea was part of the Russian Federation as recently as 1954. Back in the 1930s the Tatars were the dominant ethnic group, until Stalin departed most of them to Siberia. The idea that Crimea in particular should be Ukrainian forever is nonsense, and there is no way in Hell the Russians will cede their rights with regards to that land, and not just because of Sevastopol. Control of the Crimea makes the Sea of Azov a Russian lake as surely as the Gulf of Mexico is an American lake - moreso, probably.
So we've got AT BEST minimal interests in the area that can be met in other ways, the Russians have huge strategical interests, we can do pretty much nothing about it, the Russians can, and everyone knows this. I don't see why so many of you are itching to start World War III over this.
ed, explain to me why going to war with Russia over the Ukraine is a good idea. Or even the least bad idea. Because we have NO LEVERAGE with them otherwise. None. And we aren't even in a good position to attack them. We haven't had a large military presence in Europe for some time. We don't have enough troops to do anything about it in any event.
Seriously, what do you think we should do about the Russians pursuing their historic and clear strategic interests in a land which they ruled as recently as 23 years ago?
All I'm mentioning is that I see certain historical parallels here.
And we have, when the intestinal wherewithal existed, found ways to oppose such things.
"By contrast, we have jackshit with which to oppose a general Russian invasion of Ukraine"
Oh, I don't know about that. We would seem to have an array of weapons - diplomatic, economic, and, yes, military - more ways than overt operations - we did it in A-stan, if we want to use them.
You want to stand here and watch, OK, but that doesn't work, either, if history is any teacher.
PS Just because they ruled it doesn't give them the right to trample somebody else's rights.
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
"What could go wrong???" Well with the pansy pretending to be President of the United States, probably not a damn thing...!
ReplyDeleteGood for Obama, he has finally gotten something right. (And it only took over five years as President for that to happen!) We've got zero business in Ukraine or the Crimea. That's a part of the world were global conflicts start when outsiders start poking their noses into things. Let's not start a war over a problem that isn't ours.
ReplyDeleteObama could undercut Putin by expanding oil exploration in the USA. And I am not for Obama committing any sort of military force in Ukraine, I just want to see him act more like he is playing chess and not some kid playing checkers.
DeleteAnd yes we have an interest in what happens in the Ukraine. By being feckless, our commitment to Poland and other countries is apparent (there is no commitment). But the EU has way more of an interest and we should be pushing them to deal with it.
Expanding our hydrocarbons extraction (a worthy goal entirely on it's own merits, I must say as a global warming proponent) would take years to have any effect whatsoever. In that time, and even after that time, places like Ukraine and Europe more generally will have need of Russian petrochemicals.
DeleteSo the EU can't do shit, as they are dependent on those Russian petrochemicals and they've got no effective military at all. So they've got no ability to effectively influence matters. Other than to try and bamboozle us on the matter, as they did in Libya.
As for supporting allies like Poland... We actually have treaty obligations to them, and have worked with them extensively in the last twenty or so years. We shouldn't have to get involved squandering our strength on matters that don't concern us just so we can help settle the centuries old quarrels of the Poles, Russians and Lithuanians with regard to a piece of land that is nowhere near anything we do have an interest in solely for the purpose of convincing them that we really like them.
And the correct game analogy would probably be more with Go. But regardless of the game of choice, I don't see why we should play when we will be starting with a major handicap against a superior opponent. We don't HAVE to do anything about Ukraine but windbag it a little. Finally, something Obama just might be capable of doing without totally fucking it up! Let's let him at it without distraction....
DeleteI'd also add that we didn't do shit when that unpleasantness went down between Russia and Georgia in 2008, and we had a president who was reputedly quite the belligerent cowboy at the time. But then W wasn't as reckless as his critics claimed.
ReplyDeleteI see Neville Chamberlain "Miss Me?" posters in our future.
ReplyDeleteEd, after WW I, the borders of Europe were redrawn badly. That coupled with a looting of Germany by the winners (ultimately for the benefit of international financiers) laid the groundwork for WW II. (More like the Great Depression, really. WW II was more a symptom of the Great Depression really.)
ReplyDeleteAfter we won the Cold War, Ruusia and the other former republics of the Soviet Union got looted (largely for the benefit of international financiers and the Harvard University endowment fund, plus various slimeball pols from Boris Yeltsin to Bill Clinton) and the borders were redrawn badly.
I'm sensing a common theme. I'm hoping we can avoid making some of the same mistakes. Putin isn't one of the good guys, but he's far from the worst possible person we could be dealing with.
How bad does he have to be?
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded less of Budapest and Prague than I am of the Sudetenland, the Anschluss, and Poland.
And Vlad didn't even need Walter Schellenberg
I'd also add that when Hitler re-militarized the Ruhr, and then occupied Austria and the Sudetenland, the British and the French were in a strategic position to actually do something about it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I remember that the French had more tanks even at the start of the invasion of France, but had no idea how to use them. (I believe their tanks were more powerful, too, but I'm less clear on that and don't have time at the moment to go hit the books.)
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, we have jackshit with which to oppose a general Russian invasion of Ukraine, much less the Russians asserting themselves in Crimea (ethnically majority Russian) or in Eastern Ukraine. Statements, even strongly worded statements, aren't going to convince a former KGB Lt. Colonel of anything.
Crimea was part of the Russian Federation as recently as 1954. Back in the 1930s the Tatars were the dominant ethnic group, until Stalin departed most of them to Siberia. The idea that Crimea in particular should be Ukrainian forever is nonsense, and there is no way in Hell the Russians will cede their rights with regards to that land, and not just because of Sevastopol. Control of the Crimea makes the Sea of Azov a Russian lake as surely as the Gulf of Mexico is an American lake - moreso, probably.
So we've got AT BEST minimal interests in the area that can be met in other ways, the Russians have huge strategical interests, we can do pretty much nothing about it, the Russians can, and everyone knows this. I don't see why so many of you are itching to start World War III over this.
ed, explain to me why going to war with Russia over the Ukraine is a good idea. Or even the least bad idea. Because we have NO LEVERAGE with them otherwise. None. And we aren't even in a good position to attack them. We haven't had a large military presence in Europe for some time. We don't have enough troops to do anything about it in any event.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what do you think we should do about the Russians pursuing their historic and clear strategic interests in a land which they ruled as recently as 23 years ago?
I said go to war over the Ukraine, when?
ReplyDeleteAll I'm mentioning is that I see certain historical parallels here.
And we have, when the intestinal wherewithal existed, found ways to oppose such things.
"By contrast, we have jackshit with which to oppose a general Russian invasion of Ukraine"
Oh, I don't know about that. We would seem to have an array of weapons - diplomatic, economic, and, yes, military - more ways than overt operations - we did it in A-stan, if we want to use them.
You want to stand here and watch, OK, but that doesn't work, either, if history is any teacher.
PS Just because they ruled it doesn't give them the right to trample somebody else's rights.
They ruled Poland and parts of Germany, too.
Formerly one of those places with "The" in front of its name, like The Levant and The Argentine.
ReplyDeletePlaces seem much cooler that way.
to send? I think the activity was past tense by the time you posted.
ReplyDelete