Ukraine: Lose/Lose for the US?

Says I To Bridey

Anyone agree? I can't really see what they can do here. Intervening isn't really an option, but doing nothing makes them look weak in the eyes of their rivals. Likely to further embolden Russia for a start, and I'm sure China will note any further weakening of American resolve to get involved in conflict.
In the longer run, even the EU, which won't be able to rely on American intervention to hide its own ineffectiveness and bureaucracy, may be forced to hasten integration and confront its foreign policy inadequacies and so be able to present a more united and forceful front in the future. An EU with some joined up thinking is likely to be more forceful and independent in foreign policy than the current setup with states pulling one way or the other. I think there's also something of a slow separation of ideology occurring between the US and (continental) Europe, which may mean a less reliable ally for the US in Europe than is currently the case.

Sand

There is actually plenty of potential wins here for the US. Very few for Russia.

This could prompt the European states, particularly Germany which heavily underspends on defence compared to the UK and France, to start properly funding and focusing their armies. The US is redeploying out of Europe - the US has been frustrated for at least a decade by Europe's underfunding of their armed forces to the point where they are incapable of carrying out anything beyond permissive peacekeeping without US support and command. The spectre of an aggressive, rearming Russia which apparently feels the existence of a Russian minority is all they need to justify invading their neighbours could ensure Europe properly begins funding its defence again, so the US doesnt have to anymore. Ukraine may not be in NATO, but the Baltic states are.

The very negative reaction Putins invasion has prompted could push Russia out of the international order for a couple of years, weakening its influence and removing it as an irritant. Whilst Putin may seem to be portraying himself as strong by his acts in Ukraine, he also portrays himself as erratic and dangerous - is China going to feel they should align themselves to a man who risks war for little or no reason? It's also hard to see how Putin can actually hold his position in the Ukraine without waging a war he doesn't want to fight - what does he do if the Ukrainians send troops south and demand that the Russian troops disarm and return to barracks? Shoot them and start a war he will lose? Or backdown and look weak?

And the economic penalties the Russians are paying with their currency and stock markets suffering hurt the Russian economy and the Russian elite, who have backed Putin because he has been a stabilising force that has supported their wealth and prosperity so long as they dont cross him. Now he's a destabilising force.

And finally, even if Russia does sieze Crimea, the rest of Ukraine moves straight into NATO, which is exactly the result Putin doesn't want, in exchange for ... a Russian naval base he already has. Putin basically gives NATO something for nothing. It also gives the US and NATO a perfect excuse to pitch their tent on Putins border - after all Putin has already demonstrated he will breach sovereign borders unless opposed.

Basically, its hard to see how the US can lose - Putin is occupying the Crimea, not Vermont.

rockonollie

An aide in the Kremlin has now threatened the US, stating that if they agree to sanctions against Russia, that Russia has the capability of being financial independent of the US and would also not repay US based loans.....possibly leading to the collapse of the US economy.

Of course this is coming from one of the more radical members of Putin's crew.......defaulting on international loans on that scale would destroy the value of the ruble and would do more damage in russia than anywhere else.

Jonny7

Apparently that's been withdrawn, and Kremlin saying that don't back it

Bit too strong for now

sin_city

Sand wrote: »

Basically, its hard to see how the US can lose - Putin is occupying the Crimea, not Vermont.

I disagree. After Syria, this is the second time Putin has made Obama look like a very weak president.

Putin has made a strong statement but I don't think he will do anymore. No one has been killed as a result of this. If Russia were to go further in, it would give the US an excuse to do something.

Russia can pretty stay in Crimea and send the message to the EU and US to back off.

The next move is with Obama and (thankfully for peace) he has been weak.

The US is no longer able to do what it wants.

Egypt had been the largest receiver of aid from the US and guess what happened last month.....Russia signs an arms deal with Egypt.

Russia just needs to sit tight....I don't know what else the US can do...Putin has outplayed them on Syria and Ukraine in my opinion.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

I disagree. After Syria, this is the second time Putin has made Obama look like a very weak president.

Really? Wow. Fascinating.

Please detail exactly how Putin did that.

Kindly don't run from your own statements this time like you have in the past.

The next move is with Obama and (thankfully for peace) he has been weak.

Even more interesting! How has he been 'weak'? Or haven't you been keeping up with the news, to say nothing of political realities:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/obamas-response-russia-begins-unfold

The US is no longer able to do what it wants.

Now things are getting interesting. What, exactly, does that mean? What does the US want in the Ukraine/Russian border area?

Please be very specific.

Egypt had been the largest receiver of aid from the US and guess what happened last month.....Russia signs an arms deal with Egypt.

Russia just needs to sit tight....I don't know what else the US can do...Putin has outplayed them on Syria and Ukraine in my opinion.

If you don't know what the US can do, why are you whining like a child about Obama and his 'weakness'?

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

Really? Wow. Fascinating.

Please detail exactly how Putin did that.

Kindly don't run from your own statements this time like you have in the past.

Obama was about to attack Syria (with that Chemical weapons claim as an excuse for a bombing campaign) and Putin stepped in to prevent it

Remember the red line and Syria...Is that red line still there?

Check mate Putin.

Kindly stick to this respective topic and refrain from personal attacks that have little or zero to do with this thread.

Mjollnir wrote: »

Even more interesting! How has he been 'weak'? Or haven't you been keeping up with the news, to say nothing of political realities:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/obamas-response-russia-begins-unfold

Yes, I keep up with all the news...Left and Right wing...and libertarian news in the west and also non west news....I would not rely on one article from a left wing magazine to state my case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-weakness-emboldens-putin/2014/03/03/28def926-a2e2-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-skewers-obamas-weak-ukraine-response

http://nypost.com/2014/03/03/ukraine-and-the-price-of-obamas-weakness/

I say this from someone in one of the articles...Thought it summed it up nicely

1) Vladimir Putin states that if Russian-speaking citizens in the east of Ukraine ask for Russia's help, Russia has the right "to take all measures to protect the rights of those people".
2) He also states that Russia is not considering trying to make Crimea a part of Russia. Only people who live in Crimea can determine their future.
3) Putin said he does not believe (Dictator) Yanukovych has a political future.
4) Not a single shot has been fired.
5) Putin also pointed out what he sees as a double standard by leaders in the United States and other Western countries
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
-- and Putin is right on all counts!!

Mjollnir wrote: »

Now things are getting interesting. What, exactly, does that mean? What does the US want in the Ukraine/Russian border area?

Please be very specific.

If you don't know what the US can do, why are you whining like a child about Obama and his 'weakness'?

What does the US want in the region?

I could guess, but I don't have to, because that Victoria Nuland phone call came out and clearly shows that they most definitely were and are pushing for regime change in Ukraine.

I hope that was specific enough for you. Is $5 billion specific enough?

Putin was not happy with what happened in Libya and finally put a stop to the US in their regime change plan which has been happening so much in recent years...Maybe he saw the Wesley Clark video pre Syria

You do know that the US were pushing for regime change in Ukraine, right?

Saying that a pro US regime in Ukraine would not bother the Russians is like saying the US is fine and always has been with Cuba since Castro took over.

What has Obama done other than back down....Sanctions?
It is very debatable whether it would hurt Russia more than the US/Europe on this issue.

Also, regarding whining like a child...It would be very much appreciated if you could refrain from petulant assaults and as I said before, keep to the point.

I hope nothing happens anyway because when the US gets involved invariably there are large numbers of deaths.

InTheTrees

Putin is looking like an idiot and Obama is looking solidly in control.

Russian stock market is in freefall, international support isnt there. The russians dont have the cash for this type of lunacy. Putin came out and "spoke" and looked like a tinpot dictator, he's a rambling moron. This adventure of vlad's has done more damage to Russian prestige than anything since the cold war. Who'd want to invest in such a place? The Oligarchs are probably plotting his succession right now.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

What has Obama done other than back down....Sanctions?
It is very debatable whether it would hurt Russia more than the US/Europe on this issue.

Back down?

How exactly did the US back down?

Obama mentioned sanctions today and the Russian stock market crashed almost 20% until the Russian central bank had to step in. The ruble fell dramatically too. That was just mentioning the possibility of sanctions.

And the Americans didn't have to fire a shot.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Obama was about to attack Syria (with that Chemical weapons claim as an excuse for a bombing campaign) and Putin stepped in to prevent it

Which is one way to spin it

The truth is more along these lines

Obama (and Cameron, Hollande) wanted to hit Assad's forces with very specific and limited 2/3 day strikes as punitive action for the chemical attack and three years of attacks targeting protesters and the general populace

Russia did it's best to block this as it has blocked most attempts through the UN because it is one of only very few countries in the world directly supporting (or even recognising Assad), arming/supplying Assad's force and fulfilling weapons contracts

If you have to put everything through a "Obama bad, Putin good" spin machine then you aren't going to be able to make solid argument backing Putin and attacking Obama over a situation like Ukraine

sin_city

Ok firstly....have all of you heard the Victoria Nuland phone call????

The US invested money in a regim change...$5billion to be exact...as if it wasn't embarrassing enough to be caught, now they have to deal with the fact that Putin has placed troops in the country...(without any deaths).

Also, the Russian stock market has just bounced back.....Did Obama pull back on the sanctions?

I don't say Putin is good and Obama is bad.....All I know is Obama is responsible for a huge number of deaths through the drone program (which never gets reported in Western media)

It's like, we all know Putin and Russia are no saints but are we supposed to go along with the hypocritical tripe from the US after their recent history of invasions??

Jonny....I feel bad for you....you are so naive.....I suppose you think Obama and Cameron are doing all this to spread democracy? Lol

Just like the CIA tried to spread democracy on behalf of BP in Iran in the 1950s.....and like so many other times since....

Come on, really?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Ok firstly....have all of you heard the Victoria Nuland phone call????

I persume you mean Nuland's speech, not telephone call

The US invested (which can mean e.g. loans were made available to Urkainian companies, assurances were given, credit approved for investment and so on, etc) approx 5 billion over the last 10 or was it 20 years in the Ukraine

Countries also invest in the stability of other countries, typically for business, humanitarian reasons and to draw the countries closer politically, - it benefits both sides and has been a cornerstone of international trade, relations and business for the last few decades

The US has similarly invested larger amounts in e.g. Russia and France

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

I persume you mean Nuland's speech, not telephone call

The US invested (which can mean e.g. loans were made available to Urkainian companies, assurances were given, credit approved for investment and so on, etc) approx 5 billion over the last 10 or was it 20 years in the Ukraine

Countries also invest in the stability of other countries, typically for business, humanitarian reasons and to draw the countries closer politically, - it benefits both sides and has been a cornerstone of international trade, relations and business for the last few decades

The US has similarly invested larger amounts in e.g. Russia and France

No, I don't mean her speech...I mean the telephone call.

So....you either don't know the difference between a phone conversation and a speech OR you haven't heard it.

How does it feel to have egg on your face?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

No, I don't mean her speech...I mean the telephone call.

So....you either don't know the difference between a phone conversation and a speech OR you haven't heard it.

How does it feel to have egg on your face?

Ok firstly....have all of you heard the Victoria Nuland phone call????

The US invested money in a regim change...$5billion to be exact...as if it wasn't embarrassing enough to be caught, now they have to deal with the fact that Putin has placed troops in the country...(without any deaths).

The 5 billion is mentioned in her speech which I will link later (work)

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

The 5 billion is mentioned in her speech which I will link later (work)

Yes, link it....but wipe that egg from your face mate....looks really bad

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Yes, link it....but wipe that egg from your face mate....looks really bad

Her telephone call makes no mention of the 5 billion

it's in her speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Her telephone call makes no mention of the 5 billion

it's in her speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

I originally got both information from the same site (weeks ago)

Are you happy to have the new information about the hacked phone call.....isn't it good to know more?

Now you can have a real debate as you know all the facts instead of trying to respond by criticizing the technicalities of what others post....what's next?

Correcting my spelling?

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

Obama was about to attack Syria (with that Chemical weapons claim as an excuse for a bombing campaign) and Putin stepped in to prevent it

Remember the red line and Syria...Is that red line still there?

Check mate Putin.

Kindly stick to this respective topic and refrain from personal attacks that have little or zero to do with this thread.

Ah, so you feel compelled to lie yet again and use fantasy to supplant reality.

No, child, a military option was there, but there was no indication that it was the only option or that Obama would, in fact, follow through with it. In fact, all evidence indicates that he did everything to avoid it, as is demonstrated by where we are now.

That, and Putin didn't simply 'step in'. The Obama admin successfully utilized them to avoid going the military option and arrived at a solution that is being carried out, with the assistance of the Russian, right now.

Yes, I keep up with all the news...Left and Right wing...and libertarian news in the west and also non west news....I would not rely on one article from a left wing magazine to state my case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-weakness-emboldens-putin/2014/03/03/28def926-a2e2-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-skewers-obamas-weak-ukraine-response

http://nypost.com/2014/03/03/ukraine-and-the-price-of-obamas-weakness/

I say this from someone in one of the articles...Thought it summed it up nicely

1) Vladimir Putin states that if Russian-speaking citizens in the east of Ukraine ask for Russia's help, Russia has the right "to take all measures to protect the rights of those people".
2) He also states that Russia is not considering trying to make Crimea a part of Russia. Only people who live in Crimea can determine their future.
3) Putin said he does not believe (Dictator) Yanukovych has a political future.
4) Not a single shot has been fired.
5) Putin also pointed out what he sees as a double standard by leaders in the United States and other Western countries
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/
-- and Putin is right on all counts!!

How quaintly and amusingly irrelevant to what I stated and posted and, no, I don't rely on one article to make my case. Shall we start an exchange of links? If we do, make sure that they're actually pertinent to what I post.

I don't have a lot of faith in your ability to do so. Please try really hard.

What does the US want in the region?

I could guess, but I don't have to, because that Victoria Nuland phone call came out and clearly shows that they most definitely were and are pushing for regime change in Ukraine.

I hope that was specific enough for you. Is $5 billion specific enough?

LOL! Again with the Fantasy Land, breathless speculation?

I ask for specifics and you fail to deliver. Oh well.

Putin was not happy with what happened in Libya and finally put a stop to the US in their regime change plan which has been happening so much in recent years...Maybe he saw the Wesley Clark video pre Syria

You do know that the US were pushing for regime change in Ukraine, right?

Saying that a pro US regime in Ukraine would not bother the Russians is like saying the US is fine and always has been with Cuba since Castro took over.

Yet again, you're addressing things I've never brought up. Please try and stay topical.

What has Obama done other than back down....Sanctions?
It is very debatable whether it would hurt Russia more than the US/Europe on this issue.

How, exactly, has he 'backed down'? And I notice you didn't actually read what I linked to, as it would have cleared up any questions you might have about what he's doing. Perhaps you failed to notice, with your estimable powers of observation, that Obama floated several ideas, absolutely none of them military, and the Russian markets and Ruble fell into the basement practically overnight?

Oh, wait, you likely didn't notice that. Bummer.

Also, regarding whining like a child...It would be very much appreciated if you could refrain from petulant assaults and as I said before, keep to the point.

I hope nothing happens anyway because when the US gets involved invariably there are large numbers of deaths.

What 'assaults'?

You've proven to be rankly and transparently dishonest, given to gross mischaraterizations and you cannot stay on point in our exchanges.

Don't like being called on your nonsense? Stop spewing so much nonsense.

sin_city

@Mjollnir

Yes, you were right about my speculation on why the US wants to be in the region.

I did speculate but it was irrelevant (and intended to be a bit of a joke) because as stated beforehand we have a phone conversation proving they DO want to be involved in how the government is formed.

I won’t provide any more links as though I check yours, you clearly do not check mine. I don’t know the reason for this but it does not give you license to disregard them, in fact the contrary should apply.

I did not receive the replies on 2 issues from your post.

1. Do you think the Victoria Nuland call was relevant and do you think it proves the US does not want to be in the region?
2. What happened to Obama’s red line in relation to Syria?

Sand

1. Do you think the Victoria Nuland call was relevant and do you think it proves the US does not want to be in the region?

I believe the US wants to be in all regions. They are a global superpower with the ability to project power around the world. Why wouldn't they want to be in the region?

And this $5 Billion figure being bandied as some exhibit A of major influential puppetmastery is silly.

"We have invested over five billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals [building democratic skills and institutions, civic participation and good governance, preconditions for Ukraines European aspirations]"

That's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount. Spent over two decades. 20 years! That's just spare change the US uses to keep friendly with various democratic parties and groups in countries around the world. It is exactly the same logic Ireland applies on its aid programme. Spending it to support Ukrainian groups that seek a future in the EU (with the progress in human rights and rule of law that entails) is an entirely respectable course of action. Where else should the US stand when it comes to groups campaigning for rule of law and freedoms we take for granted in the West?

If they didn't support them, the exact same people would be sneering about hypocrisy. I feel embarrassed for people so desperate to be on the wrong side of an issue that they think the US spending 5 billion on democratic activist groups is proof of "subverting Ukraine".

The fallen regime so widely praised and hailed by followers of Russia Today is believed to have made off with $70 billion just by themselves to put that figure in the proper context.

2. What happened to Obama’s red line in relation to Syria?

He found he lacked domestic support for strikes in Syria and a clear strategy - it was not clear how he could punish Assad with air strikes without assisting jihadist rebel groups. The idea that Putin stopped him is ludicrous. Rightly or wrongly, Obama happily ignored Putin on Syria.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

@Mjollnir

Yes, you were right about my speculation on why the US wants to be in the region.

I did speculate but it was irrelevant (and intended to be a bit of a joke) because as stated beforehand we have a phone conversation proving they DO want to be involved in how the government is formed.

I won’t provide any more links as though I check yours, you clearly do not check mine. I don’t know the reason for this but it does not give you license to disregard them, in fact the contrary should apply.

I did not receive the replies on 2 issues from your post.

1. Do you think the Victoria Nuland call was relevant and do you think it proves the US does not want to be in the region?
2. What happened to Obama’s red line in relation to Syria?

Sand summed it up perfectly.

And yes, I checked your links.

They were as laughably irrelevant to what I stated now as they were when you posted them.

FISMA

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, child, a military option was there, but there was no indication that it was the only option or that Obama would, in fact, follow through with it...

It appears to me that Obama indicates that he is going to follow through with a military action when he states:

"I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets"

Scroll to 1:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49wnVgCGx9U

Full paragraph for context:

"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out."

BuilderPlumber

I think this whole US v Russia thing over Ukraine is in the end a lose/lose for all parties involved. Back in 1989, we were told all this cold war stuff was being put to bed and all the old conflicts were ending: Gorbachev and Rafsanjani were talking the talk and the West was responding to the end of communism and the death of so-called communist ally Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran (but in fact the regime Khomeini was fronting for was a rival to Iran's communists and prevented a communist takeover!!). To further show developments that the cold war was over, the new enemy of the West was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the USSR did not really care. 1991, the USSR broke up albeit the governors of each SSR remained in power and became dictators often. Lukashenko, Turkmanbashi, Karimov, Kuchma, et al.

Now, the world was focused on extremists from the Islamic world, Saddam's Iraq and fascists in Yugoslavia. However, the Russians began to forge more and more ties with many of these and then 9/11 saw a coming together of all to face a common enemy: one called al Qaeda created and forged in the cold war when the West supported Islamic holy warriors against then communist Soviet backed Afghanistan.

But, Russia and others tired of Bush and his threatening of various countries. Bush's regime became arguably rightly hated by many and extremists returned to power in many countries and Russia often forged links with anti-US regimes. Relations with Russia improved under Obama and more moderate governments took power in some strategic countries.

Now, Ukraine threatens another cold war. The last cold war did more damage to the rest of the world than to either the US or USSR/Russia. The chaos in post colonial Africa, violent extremists in former Yugoslavia, militant Islam and Talibanistic regimes in the Middle East, the Korean and Vietnam wars, etc. are all examples of the legacy of that. A new cold war could see the same with various power blocs vying for influence in these very places.

Jonny7

FISMA wrote: »

"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out."[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]

Crucially he is using "should" and "would". He didn't commit to it fully, and also the US learned a lesson about "red lines"

Post Iraq it's very hard for any US president to take military action based on intelligence that cannot be presented as 100% to the public - and as much as they know Assad's forces carried out this attack, that couldn't be presented in a foolproof way

The reaction to Ukraine is also a backlash against Russia's uncooperative stances in the past 3 years

Yeah Russia will nab Crimea - and it will be worth it to them for that warm-water port, but I'm pretty sure the EU and US are going to put the financial squeeze on them

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah Russia will nab Crimea - and it will be worth it to them for that warm-water port, but I'm pretty sure the EU and US are going to put the financial squeeze on them

Do you think Russia will dump US bonds and maybe perhaps down the line China could also do this?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Do you think Russia will dump US bonds and maybe perhaps down the line China could also do this?

Nope, nothing drastic like that

Russian economy has not been good 2013, it's entering a period of very low growth till 2016

Ironically by getting all the Russians to be so patriotic and "closing ranks", Putin could revive the economy somewhat, with sanctions and visa checks stopping "capital flight" (rich Russians dumping their cash elsewhere)

It's a very complex gamble, he'll at least get Sevastopol which is vital - just depends on what the EU and US do - in the long run isolation will hurt Russia

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope, nothing drastic like that

Russian economy has not been good 2013, it's entering a period of very low growth till 2016

Ironically by getting all the Russians to be so patriotic and "closing ranks", Putin could revive the economy somewhat, with sanctions and visa checks stopping "capital flight" (rich Russians dumping their cash elsewhere)

It's a very complex gamble, he'll at least get Sevastopol which is vital - just depends on what the EU and US do - in the long run isolation will hurt Russia

I don't know. I think the gas and oil are there to be turned off....What are Russia getting from Europe? I know they're not a big trading partner of the US.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I don't know. I think the gas and oil are there to be turned off....What are Russia getting from Europe? I know they're not a big trading partner of the US.

If they turn off the gas - they don't make cash.

Perhaps because of this threat, European countries will likely start thinking about diversifying where they get gas in the future - Norway, the US

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

If they turn off the gas - they don't make cash.

Perhaps because of this threat, European countries will likely start thinking about diversifying where they get gas in the future - Norway, the US

There's a lot more euros flying around than there is gas and oil.

I think they did it to Ukraine already in the past.

It'll be interesting but I think Putin won't buckle under sanctions.....I really think they will hurt Europe more.

ChicagoJoe

Russia is in its way out of the G8, and probably much more besides. America is now in the position that it must defend Ukraine against Russia or lose face. What exactly is the American interest in Ukraine other than just tweaking the Russians. This is what happens when when you elect a neighborhood organizer President of the United States of America.

BuilderPlumber

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Russia is in its way out of the G8, and probably much more besides. America is now in the position that it must defend Ukraine against Russia or lose face. What exactly is the American interest in Ukraine other than just tweaking the Russians. This is what happens when when you elect a neighborhood organizer President of the United States of America.

This actually proves that the president of the USA has no real power and is only a figurehead. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc. all followed the same line. Only people began noticing it with Bush and Iraq war 2. Only people seemed to forget Clinton's moves against Serbia and all the other such incidents pre Bush. Post Bush you have this. There are very unintelligent, mega rich racists controlling America and they are in control of the president and are stuck in the cold war era.

Sand

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

What exactly is the American interest in Ukraine other than just tweaking the Russians.

Well, if you want to be idealistic about it, the US could have an interest in that a democratic, law abiding, relatively free country makes the world generally safer - both for their business and their citizens who might be visiting. Especially if the ruling government is considered US friendly. If the US can encourage such a change at relatively low cost, then why not do so?

If you want to be a little more cynical about it, you could note that the US is not just involved in the Ukraine. It is involved in dozens of "theatres" across the globe. And all of their current and potential allies - and potential enemies - are watching to see what U.S. backing and support actually means in practise. After all, no one is actually expecting the US to go to war over the Ukraine. But they have strongly implied that is exactly what they will do when it comes to say...Taiwan. So if U.S. support in a non-military sense is weak or underwhelming why should Taiwan expect the US to be supportive of them if they are invaded? More to the point, why should China?

It is more than a matter of pride - the Roman Empire found that keeping the German tribes peaceful was a matter of prestige: every time an incursion occurred without significant punishment, the Roman Army had to campaign very hard for years to re-establish an appropriate level of respect on the part of the German tribes and so discourage further raids. Their empire ultimately collapsed after the Army stopped being able to establish that respect, leading to a death spiral of successive raids.

Brown Bomber

Sand wrote: »

.

"We have invested over five billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals [building democratic skills and institutions, civic participation and good governance, preconditions for Ukraines European aspirations]"

That's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount. Spent over two decades. 20 years! That's just spare change the US uses to keep friendly with various democratic parties and groups in countries around the world.

I'm sure that this knowledge that his government was writing blank cheques to train Neo-Nazis on how to violently riot and overthrow duly elected and democratic foreign governments was a real consolation to Marvin Schur, a 93-year old WWII Vet, who died a "slown and painful death" recently as he froze to death in his own home because he couldn't afford to pay his heating bills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u15QAfvtUww

Sand

But the idea of money being spent to "train Neo-Nazis on how to violently riot and overthrow duly elected and democratic foreign governments" is just the product of some very over-active imaginations and what can at best be described as wilful and deliberate deceit.

I quoted exactly what Nuland said. That its summarised by some as being Nuland admitting to spending billions to "subvert Ukraine", words she never used, says enough about the understanding these people have of events, and the value of their contributions to the discussion. Really guys, if you have to try so hard to find something to support your opinion, maybe you should reconsider your opinion.

Black Swan

F8 Summit scheduled to be held in Sochi cancelled. New F7 Summit scheduled for Brussels with Russia excluded. Russia's actions in the Ukraine given as reason for cancellation and exclusion.

sin_city

Russian Foreign minister said he's not bothered as he said the G20 is what is relevant...He actually said that he will wait a year and a half to see if Russia missed anything by not being there...LOL

Russia appears to be crippled by the "sanctions"

comongethappy

sin_city wrote: »

Russia appears to be crippled by the "sanctions"

The sanctions as they are won't hurt much, however the threat of sanctions seem to be hurting Russia a great deal.

sin_city

comongethappy wrote: »

The sanctions as they are won't hurt much, however the threat of sanctions seem to be hurting Russia a great deal.

Really? According to who? There will be no serious sanctions...America might want Europe to play that game but Europe and more specifically Germany doesn't want to mess with Russia on energy.

comongethappy

sin_city wrote: »

Really? According to who? There will be no serious sanctions...America might want Europe to play that game but Europe and more specifically Germany doesn't want to mess with Russia on energy.

According to Russia themselves
We know that:

- Russian stock market has dropped 10% in the last month.
- Rouble has dropped 10-12% against the Euro/Dollar
- Russian central bank has raised interest rates to help protect rouble.
- Russian 10 year bonds have leaped to 9.4%
- Russia has sold 10% of its gold reserves.


The newly capitalist Russia is remarkably fragile.

All the above Sin_city, with merely the threat of sanctions.... just a threat.

Energy..... That's 70% of Russia's cash flow.
Almost all pipes flow west.
If Russia doesn't sell to Europe, the gas goes nowhere else short term.

Putin is a bit meglo.
However I doubt he will crash his countries only ability to earn hard currency.

Then there is capital flight:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10720226/Capital-controls-feared-in-Russia-after-70bn-flight.html


We must remember, communism bankrupted Russia.
The new petro-roubles are controlled by Putin & his oligarchy.

The Russian economy at large is on life support.

sin_city

Who has the most control of the IMF? The BRICS....all of the above could be explained by financial warfare.

Russia just has to wait for the US economy to collapse and then China(who has all the gold) and Russia (who has the resources) will have a larger say.

Russia is just waiting. The AAA rated US economy with it's $17.5 trillion debt will collapse in this decade just like the USSR did before it.

comongethappy

sin_city wrote: »

Who has the most control of the IMF? The BRICS....all of the above could be explained by financial warfare.

Russia just has to wait for the US economy to collapse and then China(who has all the gold) and Russia (who has the resources) will have a larger say.

Russia is just waiting. The AAA rated US economy with it's $17.5 trillion debt will collapse in this decade just like the USSR did before it.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting on the US economy collapsing.

Comparing US economy to Russia sizewise is relatively like comparing Irelands to Russia's.

All those petro-roubles won't count a jot with a tanking currency.

sin_city

comongethappy wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting on the US economy collapsing.

Comparing US economy to Russia sizewise is relatively like comparing Irelands to Russia's.

All those petro-roubles won't count a jot with a tanking currency.

China is already preparing for the collapse of the US dollar as the reserve currency by buying up massive amounts of gold through the Shanghai exchange.

More countries are starting to by-pass the dollar and using direct currency swaps.

The US was not as strong on Syria and Ukraine as it had been for example during the bombing of Serbia in 90s and even up to Libya more recently.

The US is broke....They took the currency from the gold standard in 1971 as they were broke then too and what followed was massive money printing and the huge devaluation of the dollar during that decade which only ended when interest rates were increased to 16%.

Do you think the US is broke now? Do you think the debt will be paid?

What do you think will happen if interest rates are increased?

I re-affirm, Russia and China are just waiting.

Iwasfrozen

sin_city wrote: »

China is already preparing for the collapse of the US dollar as the reserve currency by buying up massive amounts of gold through the Shanghai exchange.

More countries are starting to by-pass the dollar and using direct currency swaps.

The US was not as strong on Syria and Ukraine as it had been for example during the bombing of Serbia in 90s and even up to Libya more recently.

The US is broke....They took the currency from the gold standard in 1971 as they were broke then too and what followed was massive money printing and the huge devaluation of the dollar during that decade which only ended when interest rates were increased to 16%.

Do you think the US is broke now? Do you think the debt will be paid?

What do you think will happen if interest rates are increased?

I re-affirm, Russia and China are just waiting.

You don't seem to grasp America is THE world's superpower no country even comes close to them in power, if America can no longer be all powerful under these rules then it will rewrite the rules and who will stop them?

What good are Chinese IOUs if America refuses to pay? I would count China holding such a large portion of US debt as a liability to China.

sin_city

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You don't seem to grasp America is THE world's superpower no country even comes close to them in power, if America can no longer be all powerful under these rules then it will rewrite the rules and who will stop them?

THe USSR was a superpower during most of the 1980s and was involved in Afghanistan right up until 1989.

You don't seem to understand that the US has the reserve currency like Britain had before it. Once this is lost the US will be finished from being a superpower economically.

As the USSR did America is flexing its military muscle pre collapse.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What good are Chinese IOUs if America refuses to pay? I would count China holding such a large portion of US debt as a liability to China.

China doesn't hold them to collect on them lol.

It is a tool China can use against the US.

IF the US doesn't collect then the world will know that the dollar is junk. They will default however not in a conventional way, they will simply print to devalue to dollar to high or very high inflation.
They are hedged both ways anyway as they are amassing huge amounts of gold also.

When was the last audit on Fort Knox...wonder why Germany was told it will have to wait 7 years to get its gold back from the US?

You are correct. The USA is a Superpower...everything is ok until it isn't I guess.

Iwasfrozen

sin_city wrote: »

THe USSR was a superpower during most of the 1980s and was involved in Afghanistan right up until 1989.

You don't seem to understand that the US has the reserve currency like Britain had before it. Once this is lost the US will be finished from being a superpower economically.

As the USSR did America is flexing its military muscle pre collapse.

The USSR fell for numerous reasons, three off the top of my head.
1. The USSR had a wonky unworkable economic system that caused discontent.
2. The USSR had a huge military budget it couldn't afford driven by it's pointless rivalry with the US. The US has no other superpower breathing down it's neck, it is free to shape the world market how it likes.
3. The USSR had internal problems caused a poor socialist quality of life and the desire for independence of the USSR's various national groups.

None of these issues affect the US.

China doesn't hold them to collect on them lol.

It is a tool China can use against the US.

IF the US doesn't collect then the world will know that the dollar is junk. They will default however not in a conventional way, they will simply print to devalue to dollar to high or very high inflation.
They are hedged both ways anyway as they are amassing huge amounts of gold also.

When was the last audit on Fort Knox...wonder why Germany was told it will have to wait 7 years to get its gold back from the US?

China doesn't want to devalue the American dollar relative to their own, that's the last thing they want their entire economy is based around selling cheap junk to the West. Just as well they don't have a floating exchange rate. If the American dollar ever does devalue, watch the Chinese devalue to match it.

You are correct. The USA is a Superpower...everything is ok until it isn't I guess.

I wouldn't hold your breath. America holds all the cards. China doesn't match them in any sphere.

Greenmachine

Kick them out of Opec. Disengage with the world bank unless they agree to rate russia ZZZ- - - -. I know that rating doesn't actually exist. Ban foreign exchange to the rupple.

sin_city

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The USSR fell for numerous reasons, three off the top of my head.
1. The USSR had a wonky unworkable economic system that caused discontent.

Can you please provide some facts on this. I stated that the Afghan war may have pushed the USSR over the edge. Communism is a terrible system but it has not yet caused the collapse in North Korea.

By the way, the US system of socialism for banks to big to fail, money printing to make up for annual deficits and never ending war campaigns are part of a wonky system in my opinion

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

2. The USSR had a huge military budget it couldn't afford driven by it's pointless rivalry with the US. The US has no other superpower breathing down it's neck, it is free to shape the world market how it likes.

Do you even know how much the US military budget is?

Since the Korean war the US military spending as a percentage of GDP has remained within the range of 4% to 10%.

The USSR spent about 15%.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

3. The USSR had internal problems caused a poor socialist quality of life and the desire for independence of the USSR's various national groups.

This has nothing to do with why it fell apart. The Independence of various nations seen after the collapse was an outcome of the collapse not the cause of it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

None of these issues affect the US.

1 and 2 do.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

China doesn't want to devalue the American dollar relative to their own, that's the last thing they want their entire economy is based around selling cheap junk to the West. Just as well they don't have a floating exchange rate. If the American dollar ever does devalue, watch the Chinese devalue to match it.

The US has lost 97% of its purchasing power since 1913.

The US is printing money and borrowing from countries like China to buy products from countries like China.

China and most counties around the world are printing money just as the US is doing on a massive scale since 2008.

China is also amassing huge gold reserves which may give them the future reserve currency in the future(if it is based on a nation state’s currency)

You probably don’t know that the US held most of the world’s gold after world war 2 and that this is one of the main reasons for the dollar taking over from the British pound as the world reserve currency.

$35 was set as the price for one ounce of gold. The Federal Reserve printed more notes than the amount that could back $35 worth of gold. Charles de Gaulle then requested gold and not US dollar reserves.
Other countries soon followed and the US was forced to come off the gold standard as they would have lost all their gold reserves without doing so.

After Bretton Woods from above came the petro dollar standard….are you suggesting that the petro dollar will go on forever?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't hold your breath. America holds all the cards. China doesn't match them in any sphere.

I’d read some history if I were you.

Iwasfrozen

sin_city wrote: »

Can you please provide some facts on this. I stated that the Afghan war may have pushed the USSR over the edge. Communism is a terrible system but it has not yet caused the collapse in North Korea.

North Korea never under went Gorbachev style liberalisation. Nor are they made up of disparate Republics with break away ethnic groups. The wonky economic system and failed ideology added fuel to the fire.

By the way, the US system of socialism for banks to big to fail, money printing to make up for annual deficits and never ending war campaigns are part of a wonky system in my opinion

That's not socialism. I'm not even going to acknowledge your frankly odd combining of quantitative easing and war because to do so would be to acknowledge there even exists a smidgen of a correlation between the two.

Do you even know how much the US military budget is?

Since the Korean war the US military spending as a percentage of GDP has remained within the range of 4% to 10%.

The USSR spent about 15%.

642.7 billion or 4.9% of GDP, less than a third of what Russia spent trying to keep up.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
Source: http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/one-thing-china-and-the-ussr-dont-have-in-common/

This has nothing to do with why it fell apart. The Independence of various nations seen after the collapse was an outcome of the collapse not the cause of it.

If that were the case there would not have been protests before the Union divided and nor would Russia have been the last Republic to leave

1 and 2 do.

Nope, none of them do.

The US has lost 97% of its purchasing power since 1913.

Source? And yet they still have 132.5% of China's PPP despite having 23% of their population.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

The US is printing money and borrowing from countries like China to buy products from countries like China.

And China will lend because they know their economy depends on it. I'd rather be the person receiving the goods than the one making them.

China and most counties around the world are printing money just as the US is doing on a massive scale since 2008.

Yes, it's called quantitative easing, the idea is to increase the cashflow in the market. The downside is higher inflation but at the moment with inflation near zero that's hardly a problem.

China is also amassing huge gold reserves which may give them the future reserve currency in the future(if it is based on a nation state’s currency)

You probably don’t know that the US held most of the world’s gold after world war 2 and that this is one of the main reasons for the dollar taking over from the British pound as the world reserve currency.

I do and I don't take kindly to the idea you assumed I didn't. I notice you don't substantiate your claims. The cynic in me would say this is because they don't hold up to scrutiny.

China is sitting on 1,054.1 tonnes of gold, the fifth highest in the world. The US is sitting on 8,133.5 tonnes of gold the highest amount in the world. America has 771.6% of the gold China has.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-largest-gold-reserves-2013-12?op=1

$35 was set as the price for one ounce of gold. The Federal Reserve printed more notes than the amount that could back $35 worth of gold. Charles de Gaulle then requested gold and not US dollar reserves.
Other countries soon followed and the US was forced to come off the gold standard as they would have lost all their gold reserves without doing so.

The gold reserve was dropped for many reasons, it was an impractical system for managing a modern economy. I don't have time to write about it here but there's a lot of information online. (please try to stick to actual mainstream economics websites)

After Bretton Woods from above came the petro dollar standard….are you suggesting that the petro dollar will go on forever?

No like all great empires the United States will eventually fall. But these things take hundreds even thousands of years to happen. The break up of the USSR 23 yeas ago was unprecedented and now the US finds itself as the sole power in the world. A position it's still adjusting to.

I’d read some history if I were you.

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts.” ~ Bertrand Russel

Lirange

People have been predicting the imminent collapse of America as a superpower since the early 50s around the time of the Korean War. Some people subconsciously allow their wishful thinking to cloud their logic.

In the late seventies/early 80s this was a common refrain. The USSR was passing the USA militarily and Japan was on the verge of surpassing America economically. Then came the information age economy, the boom of Silicon Valley, and the Clinton era which made these prognostications look silly. But even then people were predicting that when the dotcom bubble burst it would mark the end of America as superpower. Nothing lasts forever but there's no compelling reason to suggest the US won't remain in a strong position for the forseeable future. It not only has immense capacity and capital infrastructure but it also has been a very dynamic, stable, and flexible economy. Even in times when it's economy slows it's been seen as a safe harbour. It might become a more multipolar world but I don't expect the US will stop being a superpower any time soon. Nor do I expect the predictions of doom for the US to cease. This chorus will be repeated in the coming decades much like every generation grows up and calls the younger one lazy and lacking in simple values.

sin_city

If the US has so much gold why is it taking it so long to give Germany theirs back?

When was the last audit of Fort Knox?

Regarding the dollar losing 97% of its purchasing power....it's pretty common knowledge...try using Google...I'm not listing all these links
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=us+dollar+lost+purchasing+power&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=ave&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=kmwzU-bND-isiAeTk4CgAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=905&bih=389&dpr=0.9


There is rampant manipulation in the gold market at the moment….If gold rises then the game is up and everyone will know the true value of the dollar.

If you investigate through the Shanghai exchange what has actually come in to China and not Wikipedia you will see that China imported more than the total gold production of the world last year.

The old USSR and the USA have something in common….Releasing dodgy details.

They don’t measure inflation like they used to in the US…if they did you’d see the true rate.

Also, in the US if you give up looking for work, you are no longer unemployed….Guess if you’re dead you’re no longer sick….doesn’t mean your well though.

You’re so arrogant but I you just don’t have all the facts and the ones you do have you treat as gospel.

The gold reserve was dropped because the US didn’t have the gold to back the amount of dollars they printed….I believe Charles de Gaulle’s words more than yours

Lirange

sin_city wrote: »

Regarding the dollar losing 97% of its purchasing power....it's pretty common knowledge...try using Google...I'm not listing all these links

1. Yeah it's called inflation. It happens.
2. All currencies are weak compared to gold.
3. All western currencies tend to rise and fall together against gold.
4. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on purchasing power and currency value vs. Gold. Not really the most useful indicators of global power or economic health. Particularly not when comparing different countries. Pretty much all currencies have seen steep declines in their value vs. gold over the past century. Not very enlightening.

sin_city wrote: »

The old USSR and the USA have something in common….Releasing dodgy details.

They don’t measure inflation like they used to in the US…if they did you’d see the true rate.

Or conversely... the figures don't show what I want them to show so I am going to accuse them of cooking the books.