Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 143

Thread: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

  1. #121
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    As for your points, I have no problem with more co-operation with other allies but I am TOTALLY opposed to more militarism and higher deficits for military spending.
    Anchoring foreign policy to the nation's critical interests and focusing on those interests and strategic allies should reduce the risk of "militarism." Such a policy would largely exclude the use of military force for events that fall outside of those parameters. It would also encourage the more robust use of soft power (diplomacy, economic/technical/financial assistance, etc.) in the other cases where military options are not pursued and interests that fall short of critical ones are involved.

    In the longer-run, deterrence should result in lower costs than would otherwise be the case. Where deterrence fails, conflicts can erupt and conflicts are far costlier than deterrence. Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime. Moreover, the human costs were also vastly higher. Furthermore, following the war, one found that the containment regime had worked remarkably well as Iraq had been deterred from relaunching its WMD activities.

    America has troops in over 150 countries, props up corrupt regimes, bombs other countries at will (which is a technical act-of-war), gives away tens of billions in arms to whomever it wishes and has caused tremendous death and misery (directly and indirectly) to many countries that it decided to ram democracy down their throats/change governments they don't like.

    Not only is it wrong, hypocritical (Obama freaks out about a referendum in Crimea but embraces an illegal coup in Ukraine) and causing much hatred against Americans (for drone strikes, supporting horrible regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Gitmo, etc.)...it is (partly) bankrupting the United States.
    Democratic movements have largely internal origins. The fallacy that has influenced American foreign policy since at least the time of President Woodrow Wilson is the idea that all peoples everywhere want democracy. The quest for individual freedom has been a strong one throughout history, but that quest is not exactly the same thing as desiring democracy. Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East. The peoples see things as a zero-sum game where one faction can only gain at the expense of the other (no "win-win" conceptions) and that strong rule is required to prevent societal fragmentation along sectarian lines. Western idealism assumes that authoritarian rule is largely an accident and that "regime change" can, therefore, quickly allow for democratic forces to take hold. The evidence has not been kind to that assumption.

    There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves. Hence, the sectarian uprising that followed what had been protests for democracy was quickly lumped in as a democratic revolution in the tradition of the American revolution, democratic yearning in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, etc. The reality is that a repressed majority was simply seeking to gain control over a brutal minority-led regime. Consistent with ethnic conflicts, brutality was in abundance and liberal ideals concerning humanitarian protections were discarded to the greatest extent possible.
    Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.

    The focus on national interests and strategic allies would preclude the use of force in such situations. Diplomacy and other non-military programs could "test" possible democratic aspirations, give support to genuine movements, and limit the risks should those movements prove less than democratic.

    In terms of Saudi Arabia, among other non-democratic states, the U.S. has to deal with the world as it is. The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake. To do so would simply be the other side of the coin of military interventions in the name of ideals. In this case, the U.S. would refuse to engage in relationships in the name of ideals. Both approaches are extreme polar opposites. Constructive relationships are often necessary in advancing the nation's interests and promoting stability. Of course, the U.S. can and should use its soft power to encourage improved human rights, etc., and influence the factors that might lead to a more favorable climate for democracy. The latter would require a lot of time and patience, as societal structures evolve slowly.

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Continued...

    The stock market is being indirectly supported by the Fed 'printing' money out of thin air and 'artificially' suppressing interest rates (the latter also 'artificially' propping up the real estate market). Unemployment is stuck on 'lousy' (and if you take the participation rate into account, it's stuck on 'awful'). The deficit is over $500 billion and (according to the CBO) is due to rise again in a few years - and that is at present interest rates.

    Just today, the Fed is talking about raising the prime rate again sooner rather then later...and when they do that, the deficit will skyrocket. For every 1% the prime rises, apparently the interest on the national debt goes up $200 billion per year. So if the prime returns to what it was a few years ago (say, 6.25%), that would (apparently) mean $600 billion more added to the deficit on interest payments alone. That would put it back over $1 trillion per year again.

    Plus, what will happen to the real estate/auto industries once these incredibly low mortgage/financing rates are gone?
    There's little question that QE has impacted asset prices (equties and real estate) and that U.S. interest rates are historically low for now. Even if the Fed had not hinted at possible rate hikes down the road, one should not assume that the anomalous low rates would continue indefinitely. Individuals, businesses, and policy makers should all have reasonable ideas as to how they would cope in an environment where interest rates returned to at least the long-run historical average. Policy makers will need to consider the whole budget, not just discretionary spending, in their analysis and that will mean trying to find ways to rein in the rapid growth of health expenditures and consideration of mandatory spending reforms. It will likely require some degree of tax hikes to bridge the gap between spending-related savings and policy needs. Increasing the nation's long-run economic growth rate can help, but doing so is not simply a matter of corporate tax rates as some politicians suggest. The complex interaction of an educated workforce, investments in research and development and more broadly innovation/improvement, global macroeconomic developments, changing demographics, etc., all have an impact. Arguably, the issue of current corporate tax rates could be fairly inconsequential in that larger scheme. In other words, even if the corporate rates were reduced to 0%, the impact on long-run growth would be fairly modest, because the marginal returns from the current level would be small unlike if one were reducing rates from a much higher level. Having said this, the U.S. still has a foundation and opportunity for economic strength. The choices it makes going forward (private and public sectors) will determine how much of that opportunity is leveraged and whether that foundation is strengthened or eroded.

    Finally, if conservatives want a gigantic military so America can police the world...then - with respect - the least they could do is come up with a way to pay for it without bankrupting America.
    I don't favor "policing the world." The goal for me would be a narrower one: a capacity to safeguard the nation's critical interests and strategic allies and perhaps deal with genuine cases of genocide (as defined under the Convention on Genocide; neither Syria nor Libya would fit that definition). Those allies would also make a reasonable contribution, of course. Whether one is dealing with the neoconservative proposition of using military power to advance the sphere of democracy or the recent liberal notion of a "responsibility to protect," both approaches would overextend the nation if adopted literally. A degree of balance is needed and I believe the focus I suggested would strike a balance albeit an imperfect one. Power (military and economic) is a scarce resource and it should be used wisely. Overextension can only erode that power.

  3. #123
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    In fact the law was well in place. Best not go to analogies.
    Funny! As though Western countries respect international law.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #124
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I understand the Ukraine was negotiating to enter the EU but what were the Americans negotiating?
    You must mean the Crimea here, not the Ukraine. And of course the vote, when being coerced by a foreign country, cannot be taken seriously.

    Who in the EU and who in the US were behind this "violent overthrow"? It seems the Ukrainian Parliament is doing alright and have elections planned for May 25.

    Why wouldn't Russia |stand for that"? What concern s it of theirs if the Ukraine joins the EU?
    Now you're being silly again.
    Your ignorance of US involvement and intrigue in Ukraine is astonishing.


    Although Nuland's profanity got all the attention, her arrogance during the conversation was far more telling and dangerous. Like an imperial commissaire from a past era, she assigned roles in the future government, and made it clear who would and who wouldn't join, dismissing Vitali Klitchko and anointing Arseniy Yasenyuk - who did become the present prime minister, all the while casually referring to them as "Klitsch" and "Yats". She insisted, "Yats is the guy" to lead. The same Yats who’s in Washington this week to discuss the future of Ukraine.


    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...846277945.html
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #125
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    By openly supporting insurrection by a militant faction in order to subject the Ukranian government to a level of stress that it, and particularly its apparently incapable pres, Yanukovich, were incapable of handling, I think the US crossed something of a Rubicon. It openly and enthusiastically backed a violent putsch against a democratically-elected government it didn’t happen to like. Neo-liberal enthusiasts, it should be noted, splashed across this boundary without even getting their feet wet…except from the dull-witted drooling of Western correspondents apparently besotted by the contrived tire-burning, Molotov-cocktail tossing freedom-fighter narrative layered over the political struggle.

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/201...rdball-in.html
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #126
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?


    That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.
    Yep! But they can't accept it.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #127
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Funny! As though Western countries respect international law.
    Russia went to the UN to get authorization to invade Crimea?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #128
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Russia went to the UN to get authorization to invade Crimea?
    Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Chatter View Post
    The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.

    Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.

    The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UKs forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.

    A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.

    If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.

    LNG Carrier

    National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG

    Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas

    What further sanctions could Russia face?





    Excellent Post Chatter! There have been a few others that have correlating information as to the economics and resources playing out. Quite Informative Indeed!

  10. #130
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    We should no longer bother to try to prevent Iran or any other nation from developing nuclear weapons. It is vital to the interests of every country to develop a nuclear arsenal. Nor should any country believe a word any nuclear power says including the United States. It's official. The United States and NATO are liars acting in conjunction with Russia to divide up the world between us.
    Do you REALLY think the Ukraine could have stopped the annexation of the Crimea if it still had Cold War era missiles?

    Remember the Ukraine was NOT invaded.

    There is NO, ZERO, NADA defense treaty with NATO or the USofA.

    While ranting about two superpowers dividing the world don't forget China...

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •