Putin Invades Ukraine. Should We Care?

[Mountaineer]

It's ironic how both right-leaning and left-leaning people see the government as a parental figure, either to the rest of the world (for right-leaning people) or for the domestic citizens (for left-wing people).

Insightful!  I had not thought of it that way before.  Who is it then, that does not want big government, e.g. 1984 style, to take care of them?  I rather small minority I presume.  Are we doomed?

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

It's ironic how both right-leaning and left-leaning people see the government as a parental figure, either to the rest of the world (for right-leaning people) or for the domestic citizens (for left-wing people).

Insightful!  I had not thought of it that way before.  Who is it then, that does not want big government, e.g. 1984 style, to take care of them?  I rather small minority I presume.  Are we doomed?

... Mountaineer

Libertarians, and yes, respectively.

[RuralEngineer]

Dear lord, this was NOT a coup.

coup
ko?o/
noun
noun: coup; plural noun: coups; noun: coup d'état; plural noun: coups d'état; plural noun: coup d'états

    1.
    a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
    "he was overthrown in an army coup"
    synonyms: seizure of power, coup d'état, putsch, overthrow, takeover, deposition;
    revolution, palace revolution, rebellion, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, insurgence, uprising
    "a violent military coup"

Emphasis mine.  Yanukovych was deposed LEGALLY by a combined coalition of the opposition and members of his own party, apparently in reaction to the violence against the protestors (murder and torture being distasteful).

You can argue over whether the protestors were backed by the West, although I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that assertion, I'd love to see it if there is any.  But Yanukovych's ouster was legal.  If this was a coup, then there have been a hell of a lot of them in the last 5 years.  When people were rioting and protesting in the streets of Greece and their government collapsed, I suppose that was a coup too?

[Benko]

I agree that he should say less.  But if the best option is to do nothing, how does what he says matter?

(Except that it makes Obama himself look bad).

I think ns3 hit the nail on the head. What he says matters if he is an authority figure whose words carry weight because he is somebody who the people he controls or influences should respect and fear (e.g. a parent). I think the disconnect is that you and I and ns3 and others do not believe that Obama/the POTUS in general is or should be the "father figure to the rest of the world" while Reub, Benko, and other foreign-policy hawk folks believe that he is or should be.

So PS if e.g. our ally Taiwan is attacked by China, we should do nothing (I have no idea, but trying to figure out where you stand) ?  Is there no ally on the planet that we should ever come of the aide of?

If we are a pushover, don't we set ourselves up to e.g. make our citizens abroad easy targets for kidnappers (remember the peanut president?).

There are a large number of interactions that the US has with other countries that do not involve our starting wars.

"But if the best option is to do nothing, how does what he says matter?"
I could be wrong, but if the US president keeps drawing lines in the sand and then allowing opposing countries to cross them the other countries will not take him seriously...er even less seriously than previously.  And if this concept is not in your world view, then one of us is wrong.  You aren't a college professer are you?

And this whole discussion reminds of an article from  Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
Are the democrats getting too liberal

"And fourth, on foreign policy, most liberals reject the idea that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength"

NOT because I want to invade other countries, but because weakness invites being taken advantage of.  This is a basic fact of human nature when dealing with other people, countries, etc who are agressive.

[ns3]

You can argue over whether the protestors were backed by the West, although I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that assertion, I'd love to see it if there is any.

Below is a picture of the U.S. Assistant secretary of state and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine handing out cookies to the rebels.

Very thin evidence and sorry I can't give you any more (not that thin if you really stop and think about this photo-op however). In the absence of an Edward Snowden you will have to wait around 30 or 40 years until classified information gets published for more specific information (I'll probably be dead so I'll never know for sure. Just have to use my best judgment based on past history).

[ns3]

If we are a pushover, don't we set ourselves up to e.g. make our citizens abroad easy targets for kidnappers (remember the peanut president?).

I voted for the peanut president against Ford but not against Reagan and along with many others I haven't thought much of him since. I heard him on Larry King quite a few years ago defending his presidency and he said something like this.....

"We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people, including Egypt and Israel. We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years. We brought peace between US and most of the countries in Latin America because of the Panama Canal Treaty. We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union."

In hindsight, that's not a bad legacy. I wonder how many presidents, especially modern ones, can make similar claims. None that I can think off.

[Pointedstick]

So PS if e.g. our ally Taiwan is attacked by China, we should do nothing (I have no idea, but trying to figure out where you stand) ?  Is there no ally on the planet that we should ever come of the aide of?

[...]

"But if the best option is to do nothing, how does what he says matter?"
I could be wrong, but if the US president keeps drawing lines in the sand and then allowing opposing countries to cross them the other countries will not take him seriously...er even less seriously than previously.

When did Ukraine become a U.S. ally? Being a formal ally to a superpower radically changes things; you don't attack a superpower's ally unless you want to invite their wrath. That's why Russia invaded Ukraine (not a U.S. ally) and China hasn't invaded Taiwan (a U.S. ally).

But still, I see your point. If China invaded Taiwan, that would merit some kind of response, but more importantly, the Chinese would have to know that they would receive this response, and this knowledge would deter them from doing it in the first place. I think this is what you're basically talking about when you say that the president's words need to carry weight such that other leaders take him seriously: we don't want a situation where the premier of China thinks to himself, "Well, this is probably a good time to nab Taiwan because that doof Obama is clearly a paper tiger who makes threats he's not willing to back up with military force and doesn't really have the stomach or political support to send in the troops."

I'm totally willing to agree with you on this. Even TennPaGa does, in fact. Obama should have kept his pie hole shut. That's not in dispute. I don't think there are a ton of fervent Obama supporters here.

But realize the catch-22 here: imagine how Obama would have been flogged in the press had he said nothing. Just think about the headlines (especially on Breibart and the Drudge Report et al.):

"Obama silent while Putin invades"

"President nowhere in sight as new Cold War ignites"

"U.S. unwilling to even condemn naked Russian aggression"

Do you really think that conservatives would have sagely nodded in approval if Obama hadn't said anything? It's not fair to say that he should have been silent if you would have criticized him for doing it! So I'll ask again: what should Obama have done that would have satisfied you and/or conservatives in general?

[Mountaineer]

So I'll ask again: what should Obama have done that would have satisfied you and/or conservatives in general?

Resigned.

(but I really try not to label myself as a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or most any other political ideological term)

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Resigned.

(but I really try not to label myself as a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or most any other political ideological term)

... Mountaineer

Me too. They try make you do this but I finally figured out you really don't have to. Currently I just consider myself a realist but don't paint me into a corner if there is any actual definition of that political philosophy in existence.

[Benko]

Better to keep your mouth shut and be suspected of being an idiot, than open it and remove all doubt :-)

I have no answer, but if there are no good alternatives, intelligent people choose the least bad one.


"Well, this is probably a good time to nab Taiwan because that doof Obama is clearly a paper tiger who makes threats he's not willing to back up with military force and doesn't really have the stomach or political support to send in the troops."

Yes, that was my point.

[ns3]

"Well, this is probably a good time to nab Taiwan because that doof Obama is clearly a paper tiger who makes threats he's not willing to back up with military force and doesn't really have the stomach or political support to send in the troops."

Weird thinking for a conservative and excuse me if I've mistaken you for a conservative.

It doesn't matter to me whether Obama has the willingness or stomach to send in American troops if China attacks Taiwan. I would still like to think we are a constitutional Republic and that he doesn't have that authority on his own. I think the American people should decide through their Representatives if we should make such a move against China.

[Pointedstick]

It doesn't matter to me whether Obama has the willingness or stomach to send in American troops if China attacks Taiwan. I would still like to think we are a constitutional Republic and that he doesn't have that authority on his own. I think the American people should decide through their Representatives if we should make such a move against China.

Lol.

[Mountaineer]

This is all getting so complicated as to who threw which stone first, how big of a stone was thrown, and whether it should have been thrown in the first place, was it legal and if so, and by whose standards and what today's definition of is is - where is Slick Willie when you need him. 

On to more important matters:  I own a Volvo, sold to me in the United States by a Swedish car company with my particular car assembled in Belgium with a Brittish engine, French tires, a Japanese transmission and to sum it up, Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company.  I hope we don't get mad at the wrong bunch and somehow have our government confiscate my car because we have fallen out of favor with the wrong flavor.  I hope I do not discover the spare tire was assembled in the Ukraine.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

So I'll ask again: what should Obama have done that would have satisfied you and/or conservatives in general?

Resigned.

Obviously, but I meant in response to this conflict.

If the answer is "nothing!" then it's not really fair to criticize any specific action he took or didn't take. The real criticism is of him in general, and the challenge is not to let that distaste bleed out into things that aren't really his fault or that he can't really control.

i am not sure the answer is "nothing" but what that something should be is a tough question, its seems pretty obvious that we don't have any good reason to make threats of violence or military action, (and empty threats of any sort are absolutely stupid "keep your mouth shut" would have been sound advice) but there is geopolitical gamesmanship that can be played, i don't know how exactly how that works out or what needs to be said or done to gain an upper hand and leave the other side the losers (even if they end up with the land and oil) and i suspect it is a game current american leaders have no skill at... the chess vs marbles analogy seems apt.

[ns3]

It doesn't matter to me whether Obama has the willingness or stomach to send in American troops if China attacks Taiwan. I would still like to think we are a constitutional Republic and that he doesn't have that authority on his own. I think the American people should decide through their Representatives if we should make such a move against China.

Exactly.  I think our form of government is decent, but it only works if the branches do what they're supposed to do.

Pop quiz:  When was the last declaration of war by the U.S.?

P.S. responded with LOL about my suggestion that Obama doesn't have authority to do this on his own.

Very depressing that the younger generation is so cynical.

As for the Pop Quiz, I think the last declared war was WWII.

[Xan]

I thought Afghanistan got an official declaration.

[Pointedstick]

P.S. responded with LOL about my suggestion that Obama doesn't have authority to do this on his own.

Very depressing that the younger generation is so cynical.

Cynicism doesn't breed itself. If you want it to go away, you have to get rid of the things that feed it. Or just wait 20 years for my generation's children to get tired of their parents' cynicism and become idealistic naifs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-H ... nal_theory

[ns3]

P.S. responded with LOL about my suggestion that Obama doesn't have authority to do this on his own.

Very depressing that the younger generation is so cynical.

Cynicism doesn't breed itself. If you want it to go away, you have to get rid of the things that feed it. Or just wait 20 years for my generation's children to get tired of their parents' cynicism and become idealistic naifs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-H ... nal_theory

I was being a bit sarcastic in this post and maybe it didn't come across as intended.

I'm not depressed at all that your generation is cynical. I think it's great.

[stone]

What do you guys make of Paul Craig Roberts? He was part of Regan's team back in the 1980s  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts ) but now seems to rant about how awful Western foreign policy has become. He claims that the whole Ukraine crisis was instigated as a well funded US led insurgency that has now spiraled out of control and empowered some very nasty elements in Ukraine (such as neo-Nazis).
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03 ... stage-war/

From 17th Feb:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02 ... g-roberts/

A number of confirmations have come in from readers that Washington is fueling the violent protests in Ukraine with our taxpayer dollars. Washington has no money for food stamps or to prevent home foreclosures, but it has plenty of money with which to subvert Ukraine.

One reader wrote: “My wife, who is of Ukrainian nationality, has weekly contact to her parents and friends in Zhytomyr [NW Ukraine]. According to them, most protesters get an average payment of 200-300 grivna, corresponding to about 15-25 euro. As I additionally heard, one of the most active agencies and ‘payment outlets’ on EU side is the German ‘Konrad Adenauer Stiftung’, being closely connected to the CDU, i.e. Mrs. Merkel’s party.”?

Johannes Loew of the Internet site elynitthria.net/ writes: “I am just back from Ukraine (I live in Munich/Germany) and I was a lot at the Maidan. Most of those people get only 100 grivna. 300 is for Students.”?

As I reported on February 12, “Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine,”? http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02 ... g-ukraine/ Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a rabid Russophobe and neoconservative warmonger, told the National Press Club last December that the US has “invested”? $5 billion in organizing a network to achieve US goals in Ukraine in order to give “Ukraine the future it deserves.”? http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e37599.htm Nuland is the Obama regime official who was caught red-handed naming the members of the Ukrainian government Washington intends to impose on the Ukrainian people once the paid protesters have unseated the current elected and independent government.

What Nuland means by Ukraine’s future under EU overlordship is for Ukraine to be looted like Latvia and Greece and to be used by Washington as a staging ground for US missile bases against Russia

see also http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02 ... g-ukraine/

[Mountaineer]

Some may have interest in this perspective.

... Mountaineer

The consequences of weakness
March 5, 2014 By Gene Veith

Last week, President Obama gave a stern warning to Vladimir Putin not to intervene militarily in the Ukraine.  Whereupon Putin did just that.  We have had the “red line”? that Syria dare not cross, dropping sanctions against Iran to encourage them not to  develop a nuclear weapon, “leading from behind”? in Libya, dropping the missile shield in Eastern Europe at Putin’s request,  proposing cuts to the military, and on and on.  America today is projecting weakness, not strength, on the world stage.  The result is global instability and assertive authoritarians.
Even the Washington Post, that consistently liberal publication and a stalwart defender of the president, is exasperated at the administration’s foreign policy weakness.  An excerpt from an editorial on the subject after the jump.

From the Editorial Board, President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy – The Washington Post:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding”? and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week”? Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”?
That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.
Mr. Obama is not responsible for their misbehavior. But he does, or could, play a leading role in structuring the costs and benefits they must consider before acting.

[Kshartle]

60% of the people in Crimea view themselves as Russian. The local government is in favor of seccesion supposedly. They are having a referendum or something where seccesion will be voted on.

The Ukranian PM was just on CNBC saying there will no regonition of this. Crimea belongs to the Ukranian government and they will not tolerate any loss of territory.

Is this really the business of anyone over here? This is two groups of thugs fighting over who gets to tax the human livestock in Crimea.

[ns3]

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements.

I would like to see that memo about 21st century behavior if anybody has it.

When it comes to 20th-century standards Assad has a long way to go to catch up with the U.S. A. if he's only exploding barrels of screws and nails.

And so far in the 21st century the U.S. has only invaded and occupied two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, but this still gives us a two point lead on both Russia and China, by my last count any way.

Sometimes American's lack of self-awareness boggles my mind.

[ns3]

Preach it bro.....

Still, the recent flurry of angst-filled opining provides a concise tutorial on what we might call the theology of American Exceptionalism, the irreligious religion that flourishes in certain quarters of the American elite and periodically finds favor with the larger body politic.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z2vOc69a00

i just skimmed the article and i don't think the author knows what american exceptionalism is, or has confused it (like many neocons and others have) with american imperialism..

i believe american exceptionalism (in the traditional understanding at least) has far more to do with the recognition of inalienable/unalienable rights, the recognition of the right to overthrow government that would take those rights, limited government, free-markets, and being a representative republic....

i could easily missed the calling out part. The list of tenets he gives have nothing to do with what i would call exceptionalisem and without spotting the calling out part it reads like a bashing of exeptionalisem by using something that isn't exceptional at all as the definition..

probably my bad for skimming...

[Benko]

Wikipedia:

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is "qualitatively different" from other states.[2] In this view, U.S. exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"[2] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire.[3] This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."[3]

Doesn't sound like anything to do with starting wars. 

reads like a bashing of exeptionalisem by using something that isn't exceptional at all as the definition..

Just like Bashing the tea party for being racist (when they are not) and Republicans for being sexist (when they are not).  This is how one demonizes people/groups.

And Wikipedia on Bacevich..
On May 13, 2007, Bacevich's son, 1LT Andrew John Bacevich, was killed in action in Iraq by an improvised explosive device...
So perhaps he is not exactly an unbiased observer on certain topics.

[moda0306]

Just like Bashing the tea party for being racist (when they are not) and Republicans for being sexist (when they are not).  This is how one demonizes people/groups.

We could look at this a few ways... First, I'm assuming that "parties" can't be racist themselves, because they are simply a collection of individuals.  I'm assuming you mean that "the members of the tea party & republican party aren't racist/sexist."

But I guess I don't know what you mean by that...  None of them are?  51% of them are not?  A few of them are not?

Based on my exposure to "conservatives," I'd say most harbor some racism (which is understandable.  I think most libs do, too.  I think we're far too defensive on racism and just admit that there's something in our biology that makes us fearful of those who are different, and bond to others in our group like us, which feeds on each other), and a good 1/4 of them (based on my ridiculous "statistical" sample of friends/family) harbor what I'd consider an unhealthy, somewhat hateful amount of racism.  That 1/4 gets much higher when you limit the "statistical" sample to only "Tea Party" supporters that I know.

Further, getting into the Tea Party, specifically, I have a few "libertarian" friends (not anarchists, but tend to default to being very weary of government intervention) that see the Tea Party as a social conservatives movement guised in libertarianism (as I do).  They do notice some racist over-tones publicly, and notice the same racism of supporters at dinner tables and in living rooms.  Keep in mind, these are some pretty avid small-government libertarians who just happen to have put aside feelings of racism as a disease a long time ago, and do a great job of taking responsibility for their lives, rather than constantly looking for a scapegoat for anything going wrong.  They don't even really complain about government that much, because they realize, for lack of a better way to describe it, in HB's words, "they're 90% free, and it's their job to leverage that freedom to their best benefit, rather than b!tch and moan about the 10% of oppression."

Regarding sexism, I think most people could be considered sexist.  There are some biological and chemical differences between men and women.  Some people carry these differences into every aspect of life... some just sit and thing "my God women are crazy sometimes," and move on.  It's in our nature to pre-categorize the unknown for the sake of our sanity... and keep in mind, it probably kept us alive for thousands upon thousands of years to NOT be intellectually curious about the unknown, but fearful and avoid it at all costs.  Some hugely sexist institutions probably did the same (men doing the killing/hunting/protecting and women caring for children).

So not to turn this into a thread about "isms," but I'd say that I think it's far more common than most people are willing to admit (conservatives because they're always being accused of it... liberals because they're the ones doing the accusing), but isn't nearly as evil, unless we let it fester and we fool ourselves into thinking that it's not driving our behavior/opinions on how to recognize the dignity of other people.

Further, I really dislike the liberal re-defining of these "isms" from a feeling and into an institutional issue (when they are both).  Not that our governments shouldn't try to avoid racism in their public services, but being racist is a FEELING of an individual first and foremost, and then gets reflected in public policy.  Therefore, yes, "a black man can be racist."  His ability to leverage his racism into economic in-opportunity of whites may be slim-to-none, but if he harbors feelings of racial hatred or anger, even if somewhat justified (aren't we always "somewhat" justified if we bend all the facts right?), then he's racist.  If he argues for the superiority of the black race over others, then he's DEFINITELY racist.  The problem comes when we 1) don't recognize it, or deny its existence, or 2) project it out into how we treat others. 

Long-story long, I hi-jack too many threads.