Putin Invades Ukraine. Should We Care?

[Reub]

It seems as if Russia has invaded Ukraine today. What actions (if any) should the U.S. employ in response?

[Kriegsspiel]

None.

[Tyler]

While I see no good coming from military intervention against Russia, the fact that the US apparently had an agreement with the Ukraine (back from the Clinton days) to defend them against Russia in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons certainly complicates matters.  At the very least, inaction today harms our ability to negotiate diplomatic solutions to future problems.  It's a no-win situation.

[RuralEngineer]

1. Effectively dissolve the U.N. by having the U.S. pull out, see if we can get all of our allies to abandon ship as well.
2. Try to diplomatically isolate the Russian crazies.
3. If they insist on engaging in wars of aggression, we don't have to sell them our stuff...good ol' fashioned trade sanctions.  The EU would have a tougher time going along with this because the Russians have them bent over the fence on energy to a degree, but it might be possible.

The Ukraine has a very large army (if they call up their reserves) and while it's unlikely that they can defeat the Russian's, they could certainly make any invasion very painful for them if they were willing to go the distance.

I'll be the Ukrainians wish they hadn't shelved the NATO membership talks back in 2010 now.  The Russians are stupid, but not stupid enough to attack a member of NATO and leave the rest of the West without the "popcorn" option, which I expect them to utilize in this situation.

[Reub]

I say that we should harm Russia economically as much as we can and also bomb Iran's nuclear program.

[Mountaineer]

Have our president read from the teleprompters a rousing but serious speech to the public that uses many nebulous terms and generalities and promises, all of which can be interpreted however one wishes.  Oh wait, that sounds like it is modeled after a campaign speech.  Same song, different verse?  Then, after all the talking heads come to different conclusions about how brilliant or stupid the speech was, depending on which talking head you are watching or listening to, actually do nothing of significance other than perhaps issue an executive order on some related topic that will increase the size of government.

[Mountaineer]

Have our president read from the teleprompters a rousing but serious speech to the public that uses many nebulous terms and generalities and promises, all of which can be interpreted however one wishes.  Oh wait, that sounds like it is modeled after a campaign speech.  Same song, different verse?  Then, after all the talking heads come to different conclusions about how brilliant or stupid the speech was, depending on which talking head you are watching or listening to, actually do nothing of significance other than perhaps issue an executive order on some related topic that will increase the size of government.

Except for the part that I drew a line through, this would be a pretty desirable outcome!

Exactly!  I was just being sarcastic and snarky, but actually doing nothing is sometimes the best course of action.  Shakespeare apparently had our prez and the media sharply in focus when he wrote "much ado about nothing".  If much of the federal (and state) bureaucrats did nothing, we would have far fewer suffocating and liberty limiting regulations - we could establish a new view of government that would be similar to that of insurance - hopefully we would never have to experience why we have it.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Have our president read from the teleprompters a rousing but serious speech to the public that uses many nebulous terms and generalities and promises, all of which can be interpreted however one wishes.  Oh wait, that sounds like it is modeled after a campaign speech.  Same song, different verse?  Then, after all the talking heads come to different conclusions about how brilliant or stupid the speech was, depending on which talking head you are watching or listening to, actually do nothing of significance other than perhaps issue an executive order on some related topic that will increase the size of government.

i thought Christians weren't supposed to dabble in "visions and seeing the future" 

that just sounds to accurate to me...
+1

I am simultaneous saint and sinner - "Simul justus et peccator".  I guess I had my sinner hat on when I wrote my post.       

See the "Simul justus et peculator" section of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Martin_Luther

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Somebody who writes for the National Review has already brought up the word "appeasement" if we do nothing. I wish they would retire that word once and for all.

No, it's not my fight and not my grandchildren's fight.

As usual, I am in 100 percent agreement with Pat Buchanan on the subject.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/20 ... -not-ours/

And also, I like Steve Sailer's take on the subject in regards to American interests.....

Personally, I didn't see myself as suffering all that much from the fact that until a week ago Ukraine had an elected president whose policy was to try to play off Russia and the West in economic negotiations to try to get the best deals for his government (not necessarily for his citizens, of course -- but I'm struck by how much of the anger in the American press at the former Ukrainian president is over his impudence at trying to extract more money from Putin than whatever the West was willing to offer).

[Ad Orientem]

Let's see. The Crimea is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians who want nothing to do with Ukrainian nationalists. The Ukraine itself has been a part of Russia in one form or another for at least 500 years. How would we react if China decided to meddle in the affairs of our neighbors? I suspect that that there would be a huge outcry and demand for action. The Monroe Doctrine would be dusted off and waved from every flagpole.

Here is the bottom line from my perspective. The Ukraine borders Russia. The Crimea is a vital piece of real estate to Russian national security because of its access to the Black Sea and its being the home port of a large part of the Russian Navy. And around half the country's population is solidly pro-Russian. In short, Russia has legitimate interests in the Ukraine.

Does that mean war is justified? Probably not. And if Russian troops were to move into the western part of the Ukraine that would be going too far. But anybody who thought that Russia was going to stand by and allow a bunch of pro-West Ukrainian nationalists, almost certainly supported by Western intelligence services, overthrow a legitimately elected (albeit heavy handed) pro-Russian government and move the country into the anti-Russian EU and maybe even NATO, was delusional.

Does anyone remember what we (the US, EU and NATO) did to Serbia and Kosovo? My guess is we are witnessing the same thing in the Ukraine. (What comes around, goes around.) And that might not be a horrible thing provided war can be avoided. The entity we call the Ukraine is inhabited by two groups of people, in roughly equal proportion, who detest one another. Given that they rather conveniently inhabit different parts of the country, a divorce might be the best solution.

In the meantime, unlike Russia, we have no vital interests. We should offer diplomatic council if that can help avoid bloodshed, but in the end this is none of our business.

On a side note...

Memo to Russia and China: Stay out of Mexico and Canada.

[Pointedstick]

Does anyone remember what we (the US, EU and NATO) did to Serbia and Kosovo? My guess is we are witnessing the same thing in the Ukraine. (What comes around, goes around.) And that might not be a horrible thing provided war can be avoided. The entity we call the Ukraine is inhabited by two groups of people, in roughly equal proportion, who detest one another. Given that they rather conveniently inhabit different parts of the country, a divorce might be the best solution.

I rather tend to agree. Splitting the country in half might satisfy everyone; having people who don't like each other living in close proximity and under the same flag is a recipe for disaster. Countries should be as culturally homogenous as possible or else they don't work, and exactly what's happening right now tends to happen.

While I find this possibility personally interesting, like others, I don't see the U.S. interest that merits risking lives, credibility, and money to interfere. …Unless we have an interest in embarrassing countries we have vaguely antagonistic relationships with, in which case there isn't an event that transpires on this earth that doesn't have a U.S. interest embedded in it.

[RuralEngineer]

Well, it's split now.  Russia has occupied the Crimean Peninsula.  Not that I'm opposed to the Ukraine being split up, I'm not, but a Russian invasion isn't the way to do it.  It's not their business.  If the "ethnic Russians" (whatever that means) in eastern Ukraine want to secede, let them work that out themselves.  Invading neighboring countries because they contain people who look like you or speak your language sounds an awful lot like the beginning of WWII and Hitler's excuses (Czechoslovakia anyone?).  It was crap then and it's crap now.

Also, the ex-president wasn't deposed in a coup, he got voted out by parliament.  The fact that after he fled it was discovered he was crooked as a question mark doesn't help matters.  Making this out to be some kind of Western Cold War style black op to back the protesters and stir up dissent in the hopes of toppling a pro-Russian government is laughable.

[ns3]

Also, the ex-president wasn't deposed in a coup, he got voted out by parliament.

To say the president wasn't deposed in a coup is quite a stretch. Here is one of the best summaries of the events that I have seen....

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/25/how ... r-friends/

The Russians obviously believe that the U.S. was involved in this. As American citizens we would be the last to know if this was true so I don't know how you can so boldly claim that the idea is ridiculous. People who reveal the truth about what our government is doing have to flee to Russia and seek asylum.

[Benko]

Should we care that Ukraine was invaded?  Perhaps (probably) not. 

Should we care and will there be consequences from having a president that is not taken seriously by other countries?  That is the important question.

[RuralEngineer]

From the article you linked:

The tragic losses and murder orders prompted some pro-presidential MPs to join the opposition in voting for cease-fire decree in the parliament. A new majority with more ruling party MPs adding to its numbers voted for the changes to the constitution that made the president less powerful. A treaty was signed between the president and the oppositional leadership that sought to ban riot police from using guns and to set up early elections at the end of this year. Protesters, however, did not agree with the president being in office for another 9 months. A leader of one of self-defense paramilitary groups made an ultimatum for the president: if he does not resign, protesters will storm his private residence. Over the next couple of hours, the president left Kyiv, and the parliament set the date of next presidential elections on the 25th of May 2014.

That's not a coup.  At this point in time, the president still had the backing of the security forces, and could have been protected against such threats, he still had governmental support.

From a random article I found linking info that was left our of your article:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 01620.html

Ukraine's parliament has voted to remove President Viktor Yanukovich from office, hours after he abandoned his Kiev office to protesters and denounced what he described as a coup.

The impeachment, which was backed by 328 of the 447 deputies, argues that Yanukovich abused his powers.

The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25.

Deputies in the assembly stood, applauded and sang the national anthem.

Yanukovich can decry this as a coup all he wants and blame the U.S. (it's popular everywhere dictators get a little too heavy handed), but the fact is that he dropped the hammer on peaceful protests in a big way to the extent that members of his own party turned their backs on him and joined the opposition, forming a coalition strong enough to overthrow him legally.  That is not a coup.  Had he stayed and not been run off by the threats to his person (dictators likely get threats all the time), he STILL would have been booted from power.

Again, not a coup.  Whether there was U.S. involvement or not, I'm not arguing, I just don't know.  I'm arguing the fact that this was a coup, it wasn't.  I do find attributing it to the U.S. silly seeing as how there are much simpler explanations for how this came about.  However, anything's possible.

[Reub]

Should we care that Ukraine was invaded?  Perhaps (probably) not. 

Should we care and will there be consequences from having a president that is not taken seriously by other countries?  That is the important question.

That is the salient point. Being a weak super-power only invites geopolitical mayhem around the world. This  will eventually impact us directly if continued.

[ns3]

Again, not a coup.  Whether there was U.S. involvement or not, I'm not arguing, I just don't know. 

If there was a revolt in this country over Obamacare and the events unfolded in the same way I'd bet a lot of people would be referring to it as a coup. In any event it isn't as black and white as the parliament simply voting the president out and him refusing to go, or a coup.

As usual it's a complicated story and I would just like my own government to stay the hell out of it, and this includes the financial support from the U.S. taxpayer that seems to have already been promised to the new government. Like Steve Sailer said in his article I don't care if Putin wants to spend his money propping up the government (I heard that he offered 15 billion and we only offered 5). 

[ns3]

That is the salient point. Being a weak super-power only invites geopolitical mayhem around the world. This  will eventually impact us directly if continued.

Don't you think it will also impact us directly being a strong super-power? Did the terrorists on 9/11 attack us because we were weak?

[Pointedstick]

That is the salient point. Being a weak super-power only invites geopolitical mayhem around the world. This  will eventually impact us directly if continued.

Don't you think it will also impact us directly being a strong super-power? Did the terrorists on 9/11 attack us because we were weak?

No they attacked us because THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!

[ns3]

No they attacked us because THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!

I think it was when I heard Bush make this claim in his 9/11 address that he first started turning my stomach (and I actually voted for him the first time).

And if I thought he actually believed it was true I'd have to promote him from being just dishonest to the core to an actual psychopath.

[Reub]

Correct. They hate us for who we are. As cliche-ish as that might sound, it happens to be true.

They also don't like the Chinese:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... -1.1707232

I had to read down to the 5th paragraph to see the word Muslim though. I'm sure that some of you will blame the Chinese, as you blame the U.S., Great Britain, India, and Israel, as well. And besides, its really no different than a few car crashes.

[ns3]

They also don't like the Chinese:

I thought those terrorists WERE Chinese.

But back to the original subject, every time we see an international incident like this we always seem to see the same cast of characters come out and publicly condemn the president for being weak. This would include the old stalwarts John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the neoconservatives at National Review, the Weekly Standard, and Fox News. Latecomers are now Marco Rubio and it appears Ted Cruz, both of whom have now lost my vote, if they ever had it.

What I would like to know is how they think this is at all helpful to the crisis at hand? Say what you will about Obama, and I have a lot to say myself, but I think if I was president and had to deal with situations like this I'd learn to tune them out the way he does. It reminds me of that Rudyard Kipling poem that goes "when all those about you are losing their heads and blaming it on you".

[Benko]

What would happen?

[ns3]

What would happen?

I don't know. Do we still have nukes somewhere close to Russia we can offer to secretly take out like we did with the missiles in Turkey that ended the Cuban crisis?

[Ad Orientem]

What would happen?

With Obama in office, I'm not sure. But if it had happened when Dick Cheney was running things, er I mean W... I think we would all be a bunch of radioactive ash in the upper atmosphere.