Is it our war?

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

That's the same argument made before we finally got involved in WWI and WWII. We don't live in isolation. What happens in one part of the world can, and does, effect us.

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

No war yet, doubt a real war will happen.

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, NATO was established following the second world war in order to provide a united front against future aggression and avoid what happened in the lead up to the second world war where Hitler simply, through force, collected countries on his march while unaligned countries watched and prayed they wouldn't be next.

Fast forward, the Russian occupation of Crimea and it's apparent incursions into mainland Ukraine represent the first such occupation of sovereign territory by another country since 1939. Why should you care? - perhaps because a danger unchecked gains in power and becomes bolder and more dangerous - wishful thinking has been proven a fool's dream in the past.

As for acting, the Canadian government has sent just under 500 troops and several fighter jets to Lithuania to participate in NATO exercises and to be in the area and ready should their services be needed. Other NATO allies, primarily in the EU, are also participating in similar or the same exercises. If Ukraine should be overrun and fall, an aggressive Russia will be on NATO's doorstep and emboldened by western indifference. As a Canadian, I know we aren't anywhere near a superpower, but we've always been prepared to stand up for what's right and to support those in danger.

Protecting Ukraine, seems to me, is both the right thing to do and also in the best interests of my own country as a member of NATO - I'd rather we face the threat early on than be back on our heals following Russia's lead.

CanadaJohn said:

If I'm not mistaken, NATO was established following the second world war in order to provide a united front against future aggression and avoid what happened in the lead up to the second world war where Hitler simply, through force, collected countries on his march while unaligned countries watched and prayed they wouldn't be next.

Fast forward, the Russian occupation of Crimea and it's apparent incursions into mainland Ukraine represent the first such occupation of sovereign territory by another country since 1939. Why should you care? - perhaps because a danger unchecked gains in power and becomes bolder and more dangerous - wishful thinking has been proven a fool's dream in the past.

As for acting, the Canadian government has sent just under 500 troops and several fighter jets to Lithuania to participate in NATO exercises and to be in the area and ready should their services be needed. Other NATO allies, primarily in the EU, are also participating in similar or the same exercises. If Ukraine should be overrun and fall, an aggressive Russia will be on NATO's doorstep and emboldened by western indifference. As a Canadian, I know we aren't anywhere near a superpower, but we've always been prepared to stand up for what's right and to support those in danger.

Protecting Ukraine, seems to me, is both the right thing to do and also in the best interests of my own country as a member of NATO - I'd rather we face the threat early on than be back on our heals following Russia's lead.

Click to expand...

Absolutely a great post. Well said.

CanadaJohn said:

If I'm not mistaken, NATO was established following the second world war in order to provide a united front against future aggression and avoid what happened in the lead up to the second world war where Hitler simply, through force, collected countries on his march while unaligned countries watched and prayed they wouldn't be next.

Fast forward, the Russian occupation of Crimea and it's apparent incursions into mainland Ukraine represent the first such occupation of sovereign territory by another country since 1939. Why should you care? - perhaps because a danger unchecked gains in power and becomes bolder and more dangerous - wishful thinking has been proven a fool's dream in the past.

As for acting, the Canadian government has sent just under 500 troops and several fighter jets to Lithuania to participate in NATO exercises and to be in the area and ready should their services be needed. Other NATO allies, primarily in the EU, are also participating in similar or the same exercises. If Ukraine should be overrun and fall, an aggressive Russia will be on NATO's doorstep and emboldened by western indifference. As a Canadian, I know we aren't anywhere near a superpower, but we've always been prepared to stand up for what's right and to support those in danger.

Protecting Ukraine, seems to me, is both the right thing to do and also in the best interests of my own country as a member of NATO - I'd rather we face the threat early on than be back on our heals following Russia's lead.

Click to expand...

Ok, roger that. But you are wrong. Let me explain.
Where are the evidences of apparent Russian incursions into mainland Ukraine? Yes, there are no straight evidences to make such statement. You can read some thoughts about it. For example here: » “Zero Proof” — The “Russian Invasion” Of Ukraine Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The OSCE was told there was no Russian presence spotted across the Ukraine border, refuting Thursday's claims that a full-scale invasion was underway. No actual evidence has been given either by either foreign governments or the media, apart from claims that photographs exist that someone had "seen."
And what about "protecting" Ukraine. There is no need to get involved. It is EU issue, if you want to talk about Ukraine`s sovereignty. If Ukraine would like to join EU, then EU have to solve this problem.
And there is another point. In May 2012, a competition for the right to enter into an agreement for the development of gas fields near Sloviansk was won by Shell. Under Sloviansk preparations for the extraction of shale gas already begun. Ukraine is a chance for salvation for Obama administration. "Russian aggression" allows to enter the financial sanctions to freeze (write-off) of American commitments to Russian entities in the amount of several hundreds of billions of dollars to ease the debt burden of limiting USA. And sanctions against Russia facilitate removal Russian gas from the European market with a view to its replacement with American shale gas...
These are the reasons to "protect poor Ukraine"

Simon Feltser said:

This is not our war

Click to expand...

This is definitely not our war. I have no idea why people are so gung-ho over preparing for another war when the middle east is already a mess with what we did over there. The country is bankrupt and the economy is terrible- why not spend money at home instead of using taxpayer money to fund all these wars? The US isnt the global policeman of the world. Seems people just dont learn from history because everytime we've intervened in a war that we have no business in we make the situation worse.

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

That kind of attitude is what led to the US getting involved in WW2 late and at much greater cost in blood.

PoS said:

This is definitely not our war. I have no idea why people are so gung-ho over preparing for another war when the middle east is already a mess with what we did over there. The country is bankrupt and the economy is terrible- why not spend money at home instead of using taxpayer money to fund all these wars? The US isnt the global policeman of the world. Seems people just dont learn from history because everytime we've intervened in a war that we have no business in we make the situation worse.

Click to expand...

Actually, you kinda are.



It's not me who has assigned you that role, you guys did it to yourselves. Just because now Obama is trying to scale back that role doesn't mean that you aren't, you are... it's just that you're trying to quit, only it's not that easy... you have ties to a lot of places that are currently in trouble. So... yeah. Scale back, I'm all for it and I think it'd be good for the US to be less interventionist, but don't drop out like a deadbeat.

Of course not.

As far as I am concerned, South Eastern Ukraine held a (granted rather hasty) referendum to separate. They voted overwhelmingly to do just that. So, they should be allowed to do just that.
At the very least, the West should be calling for a UN-monitored second referendum to confirm/deny the initial results.
Of course, they don't dare because they know how the results will probably go - to leave Ukraine. And the West does not want to deal with that prospect...it could have undesirable implications for their own countries if certain factions within them want to leave and hold their own referendums.

So, despite the referendum, Ukraine is using it's military to force 'Novorossiya' ('New Russia') to stay...no matter what the latter's people want. And if they have to kill them all to force them to stay against their will, they apparently will do just that.

Russia is (officially) just coming to the rescue of the 'New Russian's'.

Obviously, their intentions are far, FAR more selfish then that...but so were/are America's in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and on and on.


As far as I am concerned, as long as Russia forces stay within the boundaries of the referendum area, I do not have a giant problem with them helping the rebels to separate from Ukraine.

Now, if they go past those areas...that I would have a big problem with. But until they do the latter, I see this as none of America's direct business and only partially their indirect business.

Don't get me wrong...Putin is a pig. A smart, vicious pig, IMO. And I do not trust him at all. But I also don't trust Obama, almost anyone in the house/senate, UK's Cameron, any leader of any powerful nation or even ANY major media source.

Here's what the foreign policy of our government is

Rainman05 said:

Actually, you kinda are.



It's not me who has assigned you that role, you guys did it to yourselves. Just because now Obama is trying to scale back that role doesn't mean that you aren't, you are... it's just that you're trying to quit, only it's not that easy... you have ties to a lot of places that are currently in trouble. So... yeah. Scale back, I'm all for it and I think it'd be good for the US to be less interventionist, but don't drop out like a deadbeat.

Click to expand...

Right...Obama is creating a power vacuum with his foreign policy and emasculation of our military and it's leaders. If we continue down this path, other's (i. e. China or Russia) will step forward to police it as they see fit.

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

I believe the President promised to stand with the Ukraine against Russia.

WCH said:

Right...Obama is creating a power vacuum with his foreign policy and emasculation of our military and it's leaders. If we continue down this path, other's (i. e. China or Russia) will step forward to police it as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know how much Obama plays into the calculations of other leaders when they do something that may trigger a response from the US. I'm pretty sure most of them consider the office that obama holds, hence, the US as a country, rather than just Obama the person. After all, Obama, like most leaders of countries, responds and acts upon the suggestions of his council which includes military men and generals and all that... and they probably advise him to take this course of action.

Or you could say that they try to encourage him to consider a more direct approach but he won't budge because of political concerns. That too is a possibility. But without knowing what is talked in the white house meetings, you can't know for sure. I don't think he is acting any different than how american presidents acted in prior situations of crisis where another major power was involved. Now again, this is not a world war and I think it won't devolve into such a scenario, but in both WW, america stood on the sidelines until the dice were cast and intervened only later on. Now interpret this as you will... either it is a sign that we're doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and not intervene in a meaningful way to prevent escalation... or that he is acting in conformity with the traditional behavior of the US in such situations.

Be it for capitalistic or humanitarian reasons, Ukraine choose to be with EU and US thus it should now be helped.

Simon Feltser said:

Here's what the foreign policy of our government is

Click to expand...

That would be Russia and probably China, drying the victims dead from its organs. We were incredibly poor during Stalinist backed Yugoslavia, and so was Albania. How would the EU and USA devastate its partners to such degrees?

DDD said:

That would be Russia and probably China, drying the victims dead from its organs. We were incredibly poor during Stalinist backed Yugoslavia, and so was Albania. How would the EU and USA devastate its partners to such degrees?

Click to expand...

Well, what do you say about the development of shale gas near Slavyansk? In May 2012, a competition for the right to enter into an agreement for the development of gas fields near Sloviansk was won by Shell. Under Slavyansk preparations for the extraction of shale gas already begun. And the locals are against it. Do you know how the shale gas extraction is conducted? Is it not gutting?

WCH said:

Right...Obama is creating a power vacuum with his foreign policy and emasculation of our military and it's leaders. If we continue down this path, other's (i. e. China or Russia) will step forward to police it as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Let them. Let's see if China and Russia can weather fresh attacks from terrorist forces- Russia's economy is in meltdown already and I can tell you that the Chinese will be very reluctant to engage in any sort of military adventure in the middle east. The US doesnt need Saudi Arabia or the oil, we got the biggest shale oil deposit in the world, bigger than all the oil OPEC has combined.

Rainman05 said:

Again, I don't know how much Obama plays into the calculations of other leaders when they do something that may trigger a response from the US. I'm pretty sure most of them consider the office that obama holds, hence, the US as a country, rather than just Obama the person. After all, Obama, like most leaders of countries, responds and acts upon the suggestions of his council which includes military men and generals and all that... and they probably advise him to take this course of action.

Or you could say that they try to encourage him to consider a more direct approach but he won't budge because of political concerns. That too is a possibility. But without knowing what is talked in the white house meetings, you can't know for sure. I don't think he is acting any different than how american presidents acted in prior situations of crisis where another major power was involved. Now again, this is not a world war and I think it won't devolve into such a scenario, but in both WW, america stood on the sidelines until the dice were cast and intervened only later on. Now interpret this as you will... either it is a sign that we're doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and not intervene in a meaningful way to prevent escalation... or that he is acting in conformity with the traditional behavior of the US in such situations.

Click to expand...

Definitely 'political concerns' here. [prior to the mid-terms]

Truth is, Obama (along with the US) has lost face in the world , with our allies and enemies. The One has become the Myth.

PoS said:

Let them. Let's see if China and Russia can weather fresh attacks from terrorist forces- Russia's economy is in meltdown already and I can tell you that the Chinese will be very reluctant to engage in any sort of military adventure in the middle east. The US doesnt need Saudi Arabia or the oil, we got the biggest shale oil deposit in the world, bigger than all the oil OPEC has combined.

Click to expand...

They might decide one day that we are so weak they can waltz in here and take us over. Or at least try.

Our government is damaged goods.

Simon Feltser said:

The head of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Sunday for supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight what he called a "direct invasion" of the country by Russia.
"We should provide the Ukrainians with the type of defensive weapons that will impose a cost upon (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for further aggression," Robert Menendez told CNN's "State of the Union" talk show.
Top US senator urges weapons for Ukraine to fight 'invasion'

Well, he is a good guy. He wants to help Ukraine. But stop, why the hell we need to get involved? This is not our war.
Let`s assume that our government wants to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression" (oh yeah). But then what do we care? Why do we have to help them, but not the EU? After all, Ukraine would like to join the EU, not the US...This is not our war
Hmm ... the answer may be... the shale gas! Yep

Click to expand...

Well if we had capable people in government maybe we'd be able to support, aid - without getting directly involved.

Simon Feltser said:

Well, what do you say about the development of shale gas near Slavyansk? In May 2012, a competition for the right to enter into an agreement for the development of gas fields near Sloviansk was won by Shell. Under Slavyansk preparations for the extraction of shale gas already begun. And the locals are against it. Do you know how the shale gas extraction is conducted? Is it not gutting?

Click to expand...

As I said, the EU and USA trades and competes. Further your video implicated Sam as a serial killer of countries. That may not happen with competition and trade. That usually happens with oppression and country sponsored systematic cleansing of the kind Russia has specialized over the years since Stalin. You know, the kind Russia's satellite operated during Yugoslavia?

That is when one country could be represented as a serial murderer. Not when competing and trading.

WCH said:

They might decide one day that we are so weak they can waltz in here and take us over. Or at least try.

Our government is damaged goods.

Click to expand...

LOL Red Dawn is a movie!

PoS said:

LOL Red Dawn is a movie!

Click to expand...

The silent invasion seems to be working well.