• 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 warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

This Ukrainian siege is beginning to make more sense to me. As other posters have noted, it's all about oil.

Found the following articles from BBCNews very interesting. The first summarizes the EU's oil/natural gas situation in relation to Russia and the Ukraine very well. It's straight-forward and to the point. The second article is actually a timeline of events concerning the Ukraine and how things have come to where they are since this country broke from the Soviet Union. Puts a lot into perspective.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Europe's stored gas high as prices soar

BBC News - Ukraine crisis timeline (Note: Timeline is in ascending order (most recent to past))
 
Objective Voice said:
This Ukrainian siege is beginning to make more sense to me. As other posters have noted, it's all about oil.

Found the following articles from BBCNews very interesting. The first summarizes the EU's oil/natural gas situation in relation to Russia and the Ukraine very well. It's straight-forward and to the point. The second article is actually a timeline of events concerning the Ukraine and how things have come to where they are since this country broke from the Soviet Union. Puts a lot into perspective.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Europe's stored gas high as prices soar

BBC News - Ukraine crisis timeline (Note: Timeline is in ascending order (most recent to past))
Click to expand...

It always is.
 
The only turd bringing up the whine from the past is S. E. Culp on Cross-fire.
My Congressman Kinzinger and DEM Congressman Engel are great to listen to with bi-partisan discussions on Cross-fire .
 
fmw said:
It weakens our standing in the world and has the potential for bringing things like this closer to home. Putin knows Obama won't do anything. He will get more aggressive. Tactically it is better to keep your plans close to the vest. If you want to do something, then you do it. You don't rattle your sword and weaken your standing. Being loved as a country is meaningless. Being feared has meaning.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It does not "weaken our standing" to condemn such an act. There is no "tactical" situation because we're not at freaking war with Russia. We're not "rattling a sword" because we aren't threatening military action, and only a complete moron thinks we should do so.

Unlike many people around here, Putin does not make decisions based on this high school bully nonsense. Neither does Obama.
 
This is a very dangerous game the Obama administration is playing.

Anyone in their right mind understands that in order for Russia to remain a major power they must maintain access to the Black Sea.

Furthermore, allowing Ukraine to become a NATO country, right on their doorstep, would be a big mistake on their part. It would seriously weaken Russia. Why? Because NATO membership for Ukraine would mean that any dispute that Russia might have with Ukraine that reached the point of having to be solved by military means would mean that NATO, THE UNITED STATES INCLUDED, would be bound to come to the defense of Ukraine. That means that Russia, would have a country, right on it's doorstep, that would trigger the military intervention of the United States against Russia in case of an armed conflict breaking out. That would be essentially suicide.

The Obama administration has made a very grave miscalculation here. Perhaps they feel that by the US provoking the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, that in the long run Russia will be weakened, no matter how Russia responds. However this view ignores the potential of putting the US in a position where an armed conflict could break out between Russia and the United States.

Very sloppy thinking on the part of the United States here.
 
That Is a good thing. Who ever thought we should be provoking Russia anyway, I mean besides dumb asses anyway?
 
cpwill said:
So... your argument is that Putin will get to keep everything he wants, and the stuff he doesn't want will try to run away... and that is a loss for him...

sure. you try to spin it that way. Whatever you need to do to protect the Dear Leaders' dithering impotence.

But I would put the odds of the Ukraine being allowed to join the EU at.... very, very, very low.
Click to expand...


I'de say Ukraine membership in the EU is a done deal, judging by this...


Martin Schulz, president of the EU Parliament, earlier promised in remarks alongside Yatsenyuk that Europe stood behind the new government in Kiev and a peaceful, democratic future for Ukraine.

"We are behind you and your government, and we support you with all our means," he said.

This includes ensuring that an 11 billion-euro aid package offered Wednesday by the European Union gets to Ukraine as soon as possible to shore up the cash-strapped economy, Schulz said.
Click to expand...

Ukraine PM Yatsenyuk rejects referendum on Crimea split - CNN.com
 
apdst said:
I believe you're right on target. We have a president that hates America, opposes American exceptionalism and believes that all the bad things that have happened in the past 100+/- years are the fault of The United States.
Click to expand...

Also, he's black and blacks are icky to certain white people.
 
iguanaman said:
So when the Ukraine joins the EU that will be a Putin victory? LOL Putin will retain control of his leased ports and Crimea will get a little more autonomy. But Putin's corrupt stooge is gone for good and the Ukraine will be firmly in Europe's sphere of influence. There is nothing Putin can do about it.
Click to expand...

Oh hey - look at that. Crimean Parliament Votes To Join Russia.

Hey, at what point, exactly, is Putin going to start losing this exchange? At what point, exactly, do you think that this administration will do anything effective that will cost Putin anything serious for basically invading and annexing part of a neighboring country (again)? I really want to hear more about this "oh an invasion is a sign of weakness and Putin has really screwed up, now", theory.
 
cpwill said:
Oh hey - look at that. Crimean Parliament Votes To Join Russia.

Hey, at what point, exactly, is Putin going to start losing this exchange? At what point, exactly, do you think that this administration will do anything effective that will cost Putin anything serious for basically invading and annexing part of a neighboring country (again)? I really want to hear more about this "oh an invasion is a sign of weakness and Putin has really screwed up, now", theory.
Click to expand...

You have hit the nail on the head here buddy. Why did Obama allow Victoria Nuland to take this thing so far?
 
Deuce said:
Oh do explain how you think that's relative to this situation. :lamo
Click to expand...

Is it really that difficult for you?

Russia is aggressive and is threatening its western neighbors (including former soviet satellite states). Its almost like Poland had a bad experience with Russia once. :)

Putin shrieked over the missile shield and Obama cancelled it.

Russia ended its "military exercises" with missile launch.

This is about the ability of western europe to protect itself should it ever need to-and frankly the EU has probably just had a reality check.

This isnt even the first time this has happened-Obama cancelled a missile shield in Alaska right around when north korea started launching its rockets.

Obama is a weak leader.
 
cpwill said:
Oh hey - look at that. Crimean Parliament Votes To Join Russia.

Hey, at what point, exactly, is Putin going to start losing this exchange? At what point, exactly, do you think that this administration will do anything effective that will cost Putin anything serious for basically invading and annexing part of a neighboring country (again)? I really want to hear more about this "oh an invasion is a sign of weakness and Putin has really screwed up, now", theory.
Click to expand...

Wow what a surprise, the pro-Russian Crimean Parliament installed last month voted for Putin. It means nothing but you chalk up another victory for your hero.
Since all referendums most be country wide to be valid I doubt Putin will get his way legally. Meanwhile the EU is readying a $13 billion euro aid package and has pledged full support for the new Govt. of the Ukraine. Tick,tick, how long before they sign the papers to make Ukraine a formal member?
 
US Conservative said:
Is it really that difficult for you?

Russia is aggressive and is threatening its western neighbors (including former soviet satellite states). Its almost like Poland had a bad experience with Russia once. :)

Putin shrieked over the missile shield and Obama cancelled it.

Russia ended its "military exercises" with missile launch.

This is about the ability of western europe to protect itself should it ever need to-and frankly the EU has probably just had a reality check.

This isnt even the first time this has happened-Obama cancelled a missile shield in Alaska right around when north korea started launching its rockets.

Obama is a weak leader.
Click to expand...

Missile shields are destabilizing offensive weapons that protect no one. We can't even get ours to work after trillions spent.
 
US Conservative said:
Obama is a weak leader.
Click to expand...

The problem here is not that Obama is a weak leader, the problem, at least in this case, is that he made a serious error in judgement in two ways:

1. He gave Victoria Nuland to much leeway
2. He miscalculated how Putin would respond
 
MildSteel said:
The problem here is not that Obama is a weak leader, the problem, at least in this case, is that he made a serious error in judgement in two ways:

1. He gave Victoria Nuland to much leeway
2. He miscalculated how Putin would respond
Click to expand...

You have just described 2 ways in which he is a weak leader. Many other examples-like lack of credibility and lack of political and diplomatic capital could also be mentioned.
 
iguanaman said:
Missile shields are destabilizing offensive weapons that protect no one. We can't even get ours to work after trillions spent.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself, the "missile shields" contain every bit as much, if not more, offensive capability as they do defensive.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
You have just described 2 ways in which he is a weak leader.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What I described were errors in judgement. Even strong leaders make errors in judgement. Abraham Lincoln was a strong leader, but he misjudged the level of difficulty that was necessary to defeat the South.

US Conservative said:
Many other examples-like lack of credibility and lack of political and diplomatic capital could also be mentioned.
Click to expand...

If lack of credibility were a symptom of weak leadership, then politicians in general are all weak leaders because, in general, they are liars. FDR was a strong leader, but he produced a totally fabricated map of Nazi plans for conquest of the US. Any person with sense should view what they say as suspicious.

As far as diplomatic capital is concerned, Obama should be credited with making significant progress with diffusing tensions with Iran. If he had little or no diplomatic capital AND/OR little or no political capital that would simply not be possible.
 
MildSteel said:
As far as diplomatic capital is concerned, Obama should be credited with making significant progress with diffusing tensions with Iran. If he had little or no diplomatic capital AND/OR little or no political capital that would simply not be possible.
Click to expand...

There are two assunptions there. One that Obama is at all responsible for "diffusing tensions with Iran" and two that tensions with Iran have been diffused. They're still enriching uranium and their nuclear program is still in full swing.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree. What I described were errors in judgement. Even strong leaders make errors in judgement. Abraham Lincoln was a strong leader, but he misjudged the level of difficulty that was necessary to defeat the South.

Weak leaders make more errors. Nobody is perfect.
Click to expand...

If lack of credibility were a symptom of weak leadership, then politicians in general are all weak leaders because, in general, they are liars. FDR was a strong leader, but he produced a totally fabricated map of Nazi plans for conquest of the US. Any person with sense should view what they say as suspicious.
Again, weak leaders tend to lack credibility. A strong leader would back up what he says. As an example-see Syria's red line. I think we as Americans would do best to remain suspicious of our govt and our no-longer adversarial press.
Click to expand...
As far as diplomatic capital is concerned, Obama should be credited with making significant progress with diffusing tensions with Iran. If he had little or no diplomatic capital AND/OR little or no political capital that would simply not be possible.
Click to expand...
I cant agree-Iran is well on its way to nukes, and after Syria and the current mess in Ukraine is in an even stronger position. China cant be far off, emboldened in its desire for more of the pacific.
 
clownboy said:
There are two assunptions there. One that Obama is all responsible for "diffusing tensions with Iran" and two that tensions with Iran have been diffused. They're still enriching uranium and their nuclear program is still in full swing.
Click to expand...

First of all I didn't say he was ALL responsible. So that was not an assumption.

Second of all Iran's nuclear program is not in FULL SWING. Why? Because they ARE NOT enriching uranium to 20 percent anymore. So you are wrong there.
 
US Conservative said:
I cant agree-Iran is well on its way to nukes,
Click to expand...
You said he lacked political and diplomatic capital and I'm disputing that. Furthermore you have no strong, credible evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon

US Conservative said:
and after Syria and the current mess in Ukraine is in an even stronger position. China cant be far off, emboldened in its desire for more of the pacific.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Obama doesn't have problems. And this one in Ukraine didn't have to happen if he was on top of what Victoria Nuland was doing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom