Russians Invade Ukraine... Time for Executive Action: Happy Hour!

FISMA

After deciding on a military strike on Syria, Obama went golfing.

Last night, after knowledge of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Obama went out for happy hour with fellow democrats saying: “Well, it’s Friday. It’s after 5 o’clock. So, this is now officially happy hour with the Democratic party, I can do that. It is an executive action. I have the authority.”

No recall of Ambassador, threat of sanctions, or freezing of funds.

No red line, or yellow at that, more of a green one in my humble opinion.

And the band played on...

Jonny7

Uh, what do you suggest he does?

banquo

I think you're confusing "This one thing he did" with "This is the only thing he did in advance, during and after Syria."

drunkmonkey

What's he gonna do, threaten Putin? He'd be crazy.

wasper

No different from the US invading Grenada. The Russian action is in accordance with the Monroe doctrine. Lets call it "the Monroev doctrine".

Conas

Well America's drone strikes kill women and children everday, Invaded Iraq illegally, Tortured people in prison camps. Supports Israel, a country that has violated international law more times than any other country. Funded Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein when it suited them. Have founded this coup in Ukraine too. Don't go and mess on another persons door step, and think a country like Russia will sit by and let it happen. America has lost all credibility in the International arena. Sticking there nose into everything.

Manach

wasper wrote: »

No different from the US invading Grenada. The Russian action is in accordance with the Monroe doctrine. Lets call it "the Monroev doctrine".

AFAIR from the Cold War days, this doctrine did exist but was called the Brezhnev Doctrine , after the then Soviet leader.

Amerika

I don't believe anyone has to worry about the US getting involved in the Ukraine other than impotent rhetoric from the president. President Obama proclaimed to the world that we're not really going to do anything, end of story. So Putin has the green light to continue his uncontested arrival and kick some freedom seeking arse with that good old fashioned kinetic military action. Win one for mother Russia baby!

FISMA

It is sad, but expected to see the usual apathy coming from members of the European Union.

The Ukraine holds an election, the results of which are uncontested. The Ukrainians want to become part of the EU, but instead are invaded by the Russians. I expect the EU's response will be weaker than Obama's.

At this point, I expect Obama to do nothing. Obama is a foreign policy disaster. From Bengazi, to Syria, and now to Crimea.

Doing nothing would be better than going to happy hour or clearly indicating to the World that you are weak.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Uh, what do you suggest he does?

Jonny, what is the purpose of your question: to test me or a genuine lack of understanding in political protocols for such situations?

I'll save you the seconds it will take you to Google an answer and elaborate on the three options previously stated in the original posting.

Obama's response should be economic. A threat, to drive the price of oil under $100 a barrel by: Keystone, fracking, and exporting of natural gas to Europe.

Putin is rich on petroleum, but he still needs to make payroll.

RichardoKhan

Squawk Squawk went the Hawks..........

Sand

FISMA wrote: »

Jonny, what is the purpose of your question: to test me or a genuine lack of understanding in political protocols for such situations?

I'll save you the seconds it will take you to Google an answer and elaborate on the three options previously stated in the original posting.

Obama's response should be economic. A threat, to drive the price of oil under $100 a barrel by: Keystone, fracking, and exporting of natural gas to Europe.

Putin is rich on petroleum, but he still needs to make payroll.

All of those measures would take months if not years to implement and even longer to bite. Why criticise Obama for seeming to do nothing when the alternative you propose looks a hell of a lot like doing nothing in the near future?

Obama has limited options - as demonstrated by the Syria vote, the US is not going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Neither is the US going to adjust its long term strategic redeployment to the Pacific so it can garrison the Russian frontier at US taxpayer expense whilst the EU continue to run down their armies. All that's left then is sanctions and perhaps indirect support for European NATO forces to stand up. Drawing up effective sanctions requires some research and broad diplomatic support which is something the US seems to be doing given the news over the weekend.

Basically this just seems to be starting a thread to beat up Obama for essentially no rational reason at all.

Amerika

The world just got a lot more dangerous. Marco Rubio laid out 8 steps President Obama should take to show Russia their military incursion in the Ukraine is a serious violation of a nation’s sovereignty and cannot go without consequences from the US. Sound economic and security measures with immediate effect, and ones that show a level of credibility that alliances with the US actually mean something.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/8-things-obama-must-do-about-ukraine-104128.html#.UxPfVqOPLIW

Update: President Obama is now taking some measures with meaning. Good call! The US along with leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom have decided to suspend participation in activities associated with the G-8 Summit in Sochi.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/02/g-7-leaders-statement

Conas

Amerika wrote: »

The world just got a lot more dangerous. Marco Rubio laid out 8 steps President Obama should take to show Russia their military incursion in the Ukraine is a serious violation of a nation’s sovereignty and cannot go without consequences from the US. Sound economic and security measures with immediate effect, and ones that show a level of credibility that alliances with the US actually mean something.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/8-things-obama-must-do-about-ukraine-104128.html#.UxPfVqOPLIW

Update: President Obama is now taking some measures with meaning. Good call! The US along with leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom have decided to suspend participation in activities associated with the G-8 Summit in Sochi.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/02/g-7-leaders-statement

Marco Rubio adds nothing constructive as usual. I'm sure this is exactly what the Republican hawks want. :rolleyes:

They are all singing the same tune. Any sanctions on Russia, could have serious problems for all of Europe (Ireland included). I'm very disturbed as to why the American goverment is so fixated on something that's going on in the far east of Europe anyway. I'm sure most American's couldn't be bothered with what's happening in Ukraine. It's no National Security threat to the USA, but I think Putin might be right. The coup and what's going on in Ukraine, is a National Security threat to Russia, so many would argue he's acting accordingly.

Mjollnir

FISMA wrote: »

After deciding on a military strike on Syria, Obama went golfing.

Last night, after knowledge of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Obama went out for happy hour with fellow democrats saying: “Well, it’s Friday. It’s after 5 o’clock. So, this is now officially happy hour with the Democratic party, I can do that. It is an executive action. I have the authority.”

No recall of Ambassador, threat of sanctions, or freezing of funds.

No red line, or yellow at that, more of a green one in my humble opinion.

And the band played on...

So what?

InTheTrees

Whats the EU doing to help?

The whole problem is Ukraine wanting to join the EU right?

SpannerMonkey

well its about to get real . the russians have give ukranian forces in Crimea until 3AM GMT to surrender or face assault :shock:

http://news.sky.com/story/1220272/ukraine-russia-delivers-assault-storm-deadline

Sand

The most effective sanction I've seen so far proposed is barring Russia from this summers world cup. It'll never happen because ...well FIFA, but its an idea.

Scofflaw

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats the EU doing to help?

The whole problem is Ukraine wanting to join the EU right?

Not quite - all that was on offer was an EU-Ukraine free trade deal and afair a free movement deal similar to the one Moldova just got.

As for what it's doing - same as everyone else. Making threatening noises but not yet suggesting physical intervention. Standing by its support for the provisional government and offer of trade talks, emphasising its commitment to peaceful resolution, condemning in specific terms Russia's various breaches. Threatening to suspend Russian membership of various clubs.

It's a much more emphatic reaction than the reaction to Russia's actions in Georgia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Am I right in saying Russia has only entered the Crimea?

It was part of Russia until 1954 and currently has a Russian majority.

This is not a clear cut as Western or non Western media would have you believe.

I saw John Kerry proclaiming "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,

He must have forgot about the Iraq war.

Cork boy 55

Irish ukranians not russians

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

Am I right in saying Russia has only entered the Crimea?

It was part of Russia until 1954 and currently has a Russian majority.

This is not a clear cut as Western or non Western media would have you believe.

I saw John Kerry proclaiming "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,

He must have forgot about the Iraq war.

Although I'd take your general point there, there are differences between the US actions in Iraq and Russia's potential actions in the Crimea. The main difference is that the Iraq action was multilateral, whereas Russia's likely actions are very much unilateral.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Conas

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although I'd take your general point there, there are differences between the US actions in Iraq and Russia's potential actions in the Crimea. The main difference is that the Iraq action was multilateral, whereas Russia's likely actions are very much unilateral.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Iraq was based upon a pack of lies though, everyone was misled. George W Bush just wanted prove to his Daddy he could go one step further. Not to mention Dick Cheney and his buddies at Haliburton stealing all that oil. Russia wants to safeguard it's citizens is all, and protect it's naval bases, and interests. USA would do the same, actually they'd probaly be dropping the bombs already.

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although I'd take your general point there, there are differences between the US actions in Iraq and Russia's potential actions in the Crimea. The main difference is that the Iraq action was multilateral, whereas Russia's likely actions are very much unilateral.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I disagree, I think the main differences are that no Americans lived in Iraq or were pro American.

America never gave part of the US to Iraq in a symbolic gesture 60 years ago and then retook it.

The Russians have not fired a shot....Putin stopped bombing in Syria also.

Of course it is not right what Russia has done but the West were asking for this.

Also, as for the isolation on Russia, I think this would hurt debt ridden Europe and the US more than it would hurt Russia.

Europe needs Russian oil and gas…Russia can probably do without European cars


I feel for the genuine Ukrainians both those who are ethnically Ukrainian and Russian ( and others also) as they are merely being used as pawns in this game that was initiated by America and the $5billion they invested in regime change in the country

Scofflaw

Conas wrote: »

Iraq was based upon a pack of lies though, everyone was misled. George W Bush just wanted prove to his Daddy he could go one step further. Not to mention Dick Cheney and his buddies at Haliburton stealing all that oil. Russia wants to safeguard it's citizens is all, and protect it's naval bases, and interests. USA would do the same, actually they'd probaly be dropping the bombs already.

Sure - that's what I meant about taking your point. But legitimacy in international affairs is a more slippery concept than right or justice. A multilateral effort like Iraq has more in the way of legitimacy simply because it has more nations involved - both because more nations originally agreed with the action, and because the action is thereby exposed to a more diverse group of publics.

In a sense, the only thing that keeps nations from acting as bullies is international relations. If you want to be able to act as the US does, and be considered on an international level as rather more of a policeman than a bully, you need to maintain positive relationships with a sufficiently large number of countries through positive actions, and you have to bring your allies along with you on a better basis than subjection.

Hussein's regime in Iraq lacked friends internationally because it wasn't a positive regime for anyone else. The same goes for North Korea. Iran, on the other hand, doesn't entirely lack friends, because it has some positive external relationships, and action against Iran has been confined so far to some talk.

In this case, Russia is acting in absolutely nobody's interests but its own. There is no other justification than Russia wanting to retain Crimea, either through force itself, or through the negotiations aimed at preventing it using force. To do this requires the use of force, and the imposition of a one-sided outcome, on another sovereign nation.

So this action has no support outside Russia, and pretty universal condemnation. Even those countries who might commonly be considered Russian allies are not supporting this action, because it's an action against a country which has a very similar relationship to Russia to theirs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Am I right in saying Russia has only entered the Crimea?

It was part of Russia until 1954 and currently has a Russian majority.

It's an autonomous region that has voted to stay part of Ukraine, that's with a majority of Russians - the history of Crimea is complex - the indigenous people were the Crimean Tatars who were expelled, but have gradually come back

They should be allowed to vote on whether to keep the status quo, or join Russia - not what is currently happening, which is annexation via force

The main Russian interest is that port

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's an autonomous region that has voted to stay part of Ukraine, that's with a majority of Russians - the history of Crimea is complex - the indigenous people were the Crimean Tatars who were expelled, but have gradually come back

They should be allowed to vote on whether to keep the status quo, or join Russia - not what is currently happening, which is annexation via force

The main Russian interest is that port

So I was right or I was wrong?

Fair play to ya for searching all that stuff on wikipedia by the way.

I never said it was right...just not as extreme as what the US has done in their respective invasions in the past 2 decades.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

So I was right or I was wrong?

Well, it's not Russian territory, it's an autonomous region which has voted to remain a part of Ukraine - so Russia has no right to be moving troops there unless the Crimeans vote to become part of Russia, or establish their autonomy in such a way that allows Russian troops

Fair play to ya for searching all that stuff on wikipedia by the way.

just switch on the news

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

I never said it was right...just not as extreme as what the US has done in their respective invasions in the past 2 decades.

Why only the "past 2 decades"?

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, it's not Russian territory, it's an autonomous region which has voted to remain a part of Ukraine - so Russia has no right to be moving troops there unless the Crimeans vote to become part of Russia, or establish their autonomy in such a way that allows Russian troops


just switch on the news

And which news would that be?

From RT:
The Black Sea Fleet has been disputed between Russia and Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991.

In 1997, the sides finally managed to find common ground and signed three agreements determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea.

Russia has received 81.7 per cent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government a compensation of US$526.5 million.

Moscow also annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequency resources, and for the environmental impact caused by the Black Sea Fleet’s operations.

According to the initial agreement, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was to stay in Crimea until 2017, but the deal was later prolonged for another 25 years.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Why only the "past 2 decades"?

Well, they could kind of justify invasions during the Cold War as the fight on Communism

FISMA

I apologize in advance to all of the Obama fanboys out there, however, Kudos to Palin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PMmY20nJ8E

SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

Mjollnir

FISMA wrote: »

I apologize in advance to all of the Obama fanboys out there, however, Kudos to Palin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PMmY20nJ8E

SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

Golly! Only 5 years after the fact!

Blind squirrel. Nut. Even. A. Finds. Occasionally. A.

And what would any rational person expect of a senator, in this case Obama, to do when he isn't the POTUS? "Indecision and moral equivalence"? LOL! You mean like every single other senator at the time?

Oh, wait, that's right. You hold up Palin as some sort of legitimate font of reasonable political discourse and insight and those who see through her as 'Obama fanboys'.

Ah, the sweet, fetid stench of utter pig-ignorance.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

And which news would that be?

From RT:

Well don't use RT anyway it's Russian state controlled media

If you are the paranoid type (which you seem to be) then try the Washington Post, Euronews or the Guardian (which has a great live news ticker on Ukraine)

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well don't use RT anyway it's Russian state controlled media

If you are the paranoid type (which you seem to be) then try the Washington Post, Euronews or the Guardian (which has a great live news ticker on Ukraine)

I look at it all......there is little difference in any western news....I know RT is biased and I know the BBC is biased too.

If two people were fighting would you listen to both of them or just one of them to make your mind up who was right or wrong?

Such a simple observation.....then again...maybe a simple person only wants one side of the story?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I look at it all......there is little difference in any western news....I know RT is biased and I know the BBC is biased too.

A bizarre comment..

RT is dictated by the Kremlin, there's no secret about this, they run a strictly anti-Western, pro-Putin agenda

Russia is ranked very low in press freedom globally and reporters who don't tow the line can and do face serious consequences



In complete constract, the BBC has strict impartiality rules, are overseen by media watchdogs (such as OFCOM), and is held to accountibility over most if not all breaches

Likewise, in comparison to Russia, the UK has high press freedom

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

A bizarre comment..

RT is dictated by the Kremlin, there's no secret about this, they run a strictly anti-Western, pro-Putin agenda

Russia is ranked very low in press freedom globally and reporters who don't tow the line can and do face serious consequences



In complete constract, the BBC has strict impartiality rules, are overseen by media watchdogs (such as OFCOM), and is held to accountibility over most if not all breaches

Likewise, in comparison to Russia, the UK has high press freedom

According to who?

Actually I don't care....As I said, I look at it all and then decide.......if you did that you wouldn't look so stupid in the other thread when you clearly were not aware of the hacked private conversation phone call between US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and the US ambassador to Ukraine planning the new Ukrainian government.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

According to who?

Actually I don't care....As I said, I look at it all and then decide.......if you did that you wouldn't look so stupid in the other thread when you clearly were not aware of the hacked private conversation phone call between US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and the US ambassador to Ukraine planning the new Ukrainian government.

I'm perfectly aware of the call, I've commented on it in a previous thread

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware of the call, I've commented on it in a previous thread

I think Stevie Wonder sees more than you do on this topic then.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I think Stevie Wonder sees more than you do on this topic then.

You aren't addressing my points, instead you only seem interested in "catching me out" which backfired or just being insulting

Anyway I've made my points, maybe someone else will debate them

Manach

On RT, I occasionally watch this to get a differing perspective. AFAIK, one of their journalists,Abby Martin, has broken ranks and condemned the Russian intervention, so will be interesting to see how that develops.
https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin?ref=br_tf

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

You aren't addressing my points, instead you only seem interested in "catching me out" which backfired or just being insulting

Anyway I've made my points, maybe someone else will debate them

You insulted me beforehand.........I have addressed your points....

You have not addressed mine...who ranks Russia lowly? A western agency clearly....does this not show the need for RT and the like?

I'm glad Manach said he watches RT sometimes....as I do.

I believe you are incredibilty naive to believe that Western media is not biased just as RT is.

That's the crux of the matter....you flat out do not seem to question any Western media.......I believe all media should be questioned critically, whether from RT, BBC or alternative media.

Scofflaw

sin_city, you're cruising towards a ban here. Your use of multiple media sources does not make you special enough to disregard courtesy.

moderately,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

sin_city, you're cruising towards a ban here. Your use of multiple media sources does not make you special enough to disregard courtesy.

moderately,
Scofflaw

What multiple media would that be?

Do you mean the "one" Youtube link I posted to back up my claim that the US had an interest in being in the region?

Or are you saying I cannot back up my claims by posting three 1 line links?

If you read the post you would see it was relevant to back up what I was saying in a response to the prior post.

I would very much appreciate an apology Scofflaw.

Don't you believe it relevant to reference sources when under attack from a barrage of naysayers?

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

What multiple media would that be?

Do you mean the "one" Youtube link I posted to back up my claim that the US had an interest in being in the region?

Or are you saying I cannot back up my claims by posting three 1 line links?

If you read the post you would see it was relevant to back up what I was saying in a response to the prior post.

I would very much appreciate an apology Scofflaw.

Don't you believe it relevant to reference sources when under attack from a barrage of naysayers?

I believe it is necessary to read and follow the rules of the forum you're posting in, and indeed of Boards in general. One day ban for backseat moderation to give you time to read them.

And reading back a little in the thread, poster Mjollnir also banned for gross incivility.

moderately,
Scofflaw