• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Rules Out 'military excursion' in Ukraine.....

And you'd be in favor of Obama putting troops in Ukraine, troops that would certainly clash with Russian troops, and then it would be on. FYI, we wouldn't be pushing Putin around like the weak sickly kids in class that we usually puff our chest out and take on like Hussein, Gaddafi, etc.

If Putin ordered an attack on American troops the powers of Russia would remove Putin very quickly.

Have you ever read a history book -as in ever?

The entire history since the end of WWII is that if Russia puts troops somewhere, it stops us from doing anything. If we put troops anywhere it stops Russia from doing anything.

Your messages are Chicken Little messages: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run! Run and hide!"

You don't know how to play poker, do you? Unless you have an ace high royal flush you always would fold.
 
Apparently, according to you, your side doesn't believe in honouring your treaty commitments. Hopefully/fortunately, there are at least some honorable men left in the Democrat party in America.

To be factual, there is no treaty agreement with Ukraine to offer defensive capabilities. There is a memo from Ukraine to the UN Security Council and in that memo Ukraine asks that the UN Security Council members request aid for Ukraine.

(H/T to mac for posting this link in a different thread) Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 - Council on Foreign Relations
 
There is only one thing that really matters: The treaty for the nuclear disarmaments treaty with the Ukraine - which incredibly gave up the 3rd largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world - wasn't worth the cost of the paper it was written on.

Every country in the world now knows this. Without nuclear weapons they are subject to invasion by any major power regardless of any agreement with that major power. Treaties and agreements to not obtain nuclear weapons are nothing but pre-invasion trickery.

Your point is fair, about the treaty, but do you really think Ukrainian nuclear weapons would have caused Russia to pause before taking over Crimea? Nuclear weapons only really assure mutual destruction. Would the Ukrainian government/people launch a strike that would assure their complete destruction? I don't think so. Nuclear weapons, without the military force to protect your sovereign territory, isn't really that great a card to hold unless, of course, your own destruction doesn't matter to you and the zealots who support you, such as those in power in Iran.
 
To be factual, there is no treaty agreement with Ukraine to offer defensive capabilities. There is a memo from Ukraine to the UN Security Council and in that memo Ukraine asks that the UN Security Council members request aid for Ukraine.

(H/T to mac for posting this link in a different thread) Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994 - Council on Foreign Relations

That may be factual and I agree, but not relevant to the quote of mine that Deuce responded to. He responded to my comment that it will be interesting to see what Obama's posture will be should a member state of NATO be threatened. America clearly has responsibilities within NATO to supply defensive capabilities should a member state be threatened/attacked.
 
Nothing!...lol! I can't help but wonder if Obama isn't being complicit with Putin.

It clearly appears to be a done-deal before it happened, and now the President is openly assuring Russia it may take as much or as little of their former Eastern bloc back that they think would be to their financial benefit to do so. We want the resources of countries to the South of Russia.

The USA and Russia are again dividing up the world by juxtipositioning against each other. Each country must side with one of us allowing us control, or the other will attack it. Very profitable way to divide up weak countries.

The problem - setting aside ethics - is that Obama doesn't have to make himself look like a weak, incompetent clown in playing his role for his half of it.

Obama did not have to announce that Russia can have as much of the Ukraine as they want - for which Russia can decide what pieces of Ukraine would be profitable and not taking any portion that would be a money loser - meaning poor and no significant resources. Russia can strip as much of Eastern Europe as they want. In return, We will take what we want to the South of Russia.

Putin's been clear on this. We leave them alone to take what they want and they'll leave us alone to take what we want.

Doesn't ANYONE realize how profitable the Cold War was in terms of controlling and ripping off other countries? NO ONE reads history books anymore?

All the talk in the media is just a dog-and-pony show, and as we can see everyone on the forum is falling for it. Obama doesn't have to play his role so embarrassing for our country and it weakens our half of the deal. What he is SUPPOSE TO DO is shake his fist and declare we MUST put our military and make alliances with those other countries WE want - to which Russia says then they must take more territory too to defend them against us. Obama's acting role in this is very poor.
 
Hi MMC - yes, Russia is in position now to stretch the boundaries of acceptible behaviour since no one seems to be able to stop him so far. I do think, however, that Estonia and other places with ethnic Russians may be a bridge too far in that the NATO alliance defense treaties kick in and I'm not sure even Putin wants to tempt that fate. While there's no harm evident to the citizens of Russia, they will support Putin in these kinds of moves - if it comes to imminent war, I think Putin would be deposed by those around him before it got that far.

So far CJ.....Jane Security and others are saying he has made the correct moves with what he knew he could get away with. Also same deal with know what we will do by the steps. So that's why he has stayed ahead. But now for the Sanctions to really work.....that would mean it would affect everyone.



According to one independent analysis being studied by the Kremlin and reviewed by The Daily Beast, such measures could be a drag on the Russian economy over time and an embarrassment for the Russian government, but would only be an “inconvenience” for the Russian economy in the near term. More drastic measures would include going after Russia’s ability to interact in global financial markets, which the analysis calls “disruptive,” and restrictions on Russian energy exports or trade sanctions, which the analysis says would be “catastrophic.

The analysis by Macro-Advisory, an investment firm operating in Russia, predicts that the West, especially European countries, will not move to impose “disruptive” or “catastrophic” sanctions on Russia until Putin crosses another red line, such as the outright invasion of Ukraine.

The key risk [for Russia] is Stage 3, i.e. a ban or restrictions on Russia’s interaction in global financial markets and/or any selected restrictions on trade or investment with Russia,” the report stated. “Investors assume that Stage 4 [catastrophic] sanctions are not yet on the agenda simply because these would also have a negative contagion to several EU countries, and many high-profile companies, as well as indirectly on the global economy.”.....snip~

U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...sevastopol-now-part-russia-not-ukraine-3.html
 
Obama.jpg"Military" to this guy starts and stops with Gomer Pyle
 
I wouldn't go that far - even though I believe Obama is, as the Texans say, "all hat, no cattle", there's really not much that American military power can do in Crimea and in the Ukraine. There may be failures that led to this point, but as it stands now the onus is on the EU, most directly threatened, and on the NATO alliance, should Russia foolishly advance further.

I'd like to see NATO come up with a strong posture/statement with a clear red line for them as an alliance. As a member country here in Canada, I believe that any commitment NATO makes to military and/or other action will have consequences and not just be idle threats.

What I'm seeing from most folks, is the belief that the only two options are complete impotency and total war and no other options in between. I'm not sure why that is, but it's obviously the case.
 
It clearly appears to be a done-deal before it happened, and now the President is openly assuring Russia it may take as much or as little of their former Eastern bloc back that they think would be to their financial benefit to do so. We want the resources of countries to the South of Russia.

The USA and Russia are again dividing up the world by juxtipositioning against each other. Each country must side with one of us allowing us control, or the other will attack it. Very profitable way to divide up weak countries.

The problem - setting aside ethics - is that Obama doesn't have to make himself look like a weak, incompetent clown in playing his role for his half of it.

Obama did not have to announce that Russia can have as much of the Ukraine as they want - for which Russia can decide what pieces of Ukraine would be profitable and not taking any portion that would be a money loser - meaning poor and no significant resources. Russia can strip as much of Eastern Europe as they want. In return, We will take what we want to the South of Russia.

Putin's been clear on this. We leave them alone to take what they want and they'll leave us alone to take what we want.

Doesn't ANYONE realize how profitable the Cold War was in terms of controlling and ripping off other countries? NO ONE reads history books anymore?

All the talk in the media is just a dog-and-pony show, and as we can see everyone on the forum is falling for it. Obama doesn't have to play his role so embarrassing for our country and it weakens our half of the deal. What he is SUPPOSE TO DO is shake his fist and declare we MUST put our military and make alliances with those other countries WE want - to which Russia says then they must take more territory too to defend them against us. Obama's acting role in this is very poor.

Obama isn't dividing up anything; he's obviously willing to give the whole show away.
 
UPDATE.....Obama Calls for more Sanctions 5 mins ago.


Obama orders new round of sanctions on Russia.....

Seeking to intensify pressure on Russia, President Barack Obama on Thursday expanded U.S. economic sanctions against Moscow over its actions in Ukraine, targeting President Vladimir Putin's chief of staff and 19 other individuals as well as a Russian bank that provides them support.

Obama, warning of more costs to come for the Kremlin if the situation worsens, said he also had signed an executive order that would allow the U.S. to penalize key sectors of the Russian economy, including its huge energy business. Officials said Obama could act on that authority if Russian forces press into other areas of Ukraine, an escalation of the crisis in Crimea.

The president said the latest penalties were the result of "choices the Russian government has made, choices that have been rejected by the international community."

"Russia must know that further escalation will only isolate it further from the international community," Obama said, speaking from the South Lawn of the White House.

European Union leaders, too, said they would expand the number of people targeted with various sanctions and indicated they would cancel an EU-Russia summit. Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German parliament that if the crisis deepens in Crimea and Ukraine, the EU is prepared to move to economic sanctions on a higher level.

Russia retaliated quickly by imposing entry bans on American lawmakers and senior White House officials. Among them were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Obama's senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer and his deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, were also targets of the Russian entry bans.

Boehner's office said the speaker was "proud to be included on a list of those willing to stand against Putin's aggression.".....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-orders-round-sanctions-russia-152931680--politics.html
 
"We need do not need to trigger an actual war with Russia," he told KSDK, a St. Louis station owned by Gannett in a separate interview.

Well, that's comforting. Jesus. WTF?
 
What I'm seeing from most folks, is the belief that the only two options are complete impotency and total war and no other options in between. I'm not sure why that is, but it's obviously the case.

It's easily the case because this is in Russia's backyard. Russia can muster up millions of soldiers and plenty of weapons on the border with Ukraine in a matter of days - America, even if it wanted to, couldn't get well under 100,000 troops and the accompaning weapons/apparatus over there in months. What's Obama going to threaten Russia with, right now, militarily?

Plans now, in NATO, should be to shore up and bring up defensive positions within Eastern European, former Soviet, states that are now members of NATO. Plans should also be looking at moving ahead with missile defense and other actions necessary to show Putin that while he was in his own country, the west was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't abuse his situation - since he's abused it, all bets are off and the west will mobilize as if Putin is the distinct threat he very well might turn out to be.
 
It's easily the case because this is in Russia's backyard. Russia can muster up millions of soldiers and plenty of weapons on the border with Ukraine in a matter of days - America, even if it wanted to, couldn't get well under 100,000 troops and the accompaning weapons/apparatus over there in months. What's Obama going to threaten Russia with, right now, militarily?

Plans now, in NATO, should be to shore up and bring up defensive positions within Eastern European, former Soviet, states that are now members of NATO. Plans should also be looking at moving ahead with missile defense and other actions necessary to show Putin that while he was in his own country, the west was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't abuse his situation - since he's abused it, all bets are off and the west will mobilize as if Putin is the distinct threat he very well might turn out to be.

You're proving my point, CJ! No one is even entertaining the question: Is Putin even ready to get into a shooting war?
 
I heard Putin has a blown up picture of Michelle Obama in his bedroom.
 
You're proving my point, CJ! No one is even entertaining the question: Is Putin even ready to get into a shooting war?

On the border of his country, I'd say yes. Further into Ukraine, not so much.

I'd say the Ukrainian government has taken the first steps to deescalate the situation by deciding to remove it's military forces from Crimea and, in effect, cede Crimea to the Russians. If they're willing to do so, why should the US militarily insist otherwise?
 
Well, that's comforting. Jesus. WTF?

Mornin' Maggie.
wave.gif
Lets hope we aren't the one to push for Sanctions of Grade 3 to hit home in Russia. As then I wonder what Putin and Russia will do.


The new American sanctions hit close advisers to Putin, including Sergei Ivanov, the Russian president's chief of staff and a longtime associate. Also targeted were Arkady Rotenberg and Gennady Timchenko, both lifelong Putin friends whose companies have amassed billions of dollars in government contracts.

Also sanctioned: Bank Rossiya, a private bank that is owned by Yuri Kovalchuk, who is considered to be Putin's banker.

The dispute with Russia is expected to dominate Obama's trip to Europe next week. He'll chair a hastily arranged meeting of the Group of Seven, pointedly leaving out Russia, which often joins the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to comprise the Group of Eight.....snip~



Still, U.S. officials privately acknowledge that Russia is unlikely to give up Crimea. Instead, their top priority is keeping Russia from moving into other areas of Ukraine with pro-Russian populations.....snip~

What do you think Maggie......think Putin has people that read Western Media?
 
On the border of his country, I'd say yes. Further into Ukraine, not so much.

I'd say the Ukrainian government has taken the first steps to deescalate the situation by deciding to remove it's military forces from Crimea and, in effect, cede Crimea to the Russians. If they're willing to do so, why should the US militarily insist otherwise?

What are you basing that on?

I say probably not, because his totally conscripted, ill-equipped and poorly trained army that hasn't tasted battle in 25 years isn't ready for a prolonged fight against an army of superior training and experience.

The biggest advantagr we have, is that Putin could never threaten our lines of communication the way we van threaten his.
 
What are you basing that on?

I say probably not, because his totally conscripted, ill-equipped and poorly trained army that hasn't tasted battle in 25 years isn't ready for a prolonged fight against an army of superior training and experience.

The biggest advantagr we have, is that Putin could never threaten our lines of communication the way we van threaten his.

I'm basing it on the fact that any country is going to be more inclined to protect their own homeland than to travel thousands of miles to protect another country's homeland. You bring troops into Ukraine and you'll guarantee a military conflict that you may not be able to deescalate.

Doesn't matter so much about the sophistication of the forces - after all, we've been in Afghanistan for a dozen years with little military success.
 
I'm basing it on the fact that any country is going to be more inclined to protect their own homeland than to travel thousands of miles to protect another country's homeland. You bring troops into Ukraine and you'll guarantee a military conflict that you may not be able to deescalate.

Doesn't matter so much about the sophistication of the forces - after all, we've been in Afghanistan for a dozen years with little military success.

The Russians wont be fighting for their homeland, in The Ukraine.
 
The Obama/Putin show is like a bad Bob and Tom skit. Putin is Bart McCallister and Obama plays the perfect Sid Gurney.

 
Back
Top Bottom