Russia shelling the Ukraine.

[homersapien 11,393]

Another unknown element is the reaction of the Ukraine people who are opposed to this. That's why forming an elected government is so important. A stiff resistance in Ukraine, backed by a legitimate government changes the playing field radically. The "West" could starting providing overt and covert military aid.

I just don't know how deep and resilient the Russian economy is. Sanctions will wreck their foreign trade. We know the Russian people can withstand anything if attacked, but they may ultimately see this differently.

[homersapien 11,393]

Could have tried to nip it in the bud, instead of non stop fundraisers , golf games w/ Tiger, WH concert series, etc...

The man has no interest or capacity to think or act on a global level. Obama is an empty suit.

Nip it in the bud how? In their rush to criticize and suggest courses of action, I think a lot of people fail to understand the situation. Imagine that Texas broke off from the United States (collapse of USSR), and then the population started to split between two perspectives. One side wants to distance itself further from the United States and get closer to our former enemies (Ukraine expressing interest in NATO). The other side would rather maintain independence and close relations with the United States, possibly rejoin the United States, and requests support from the United States (Ukrainian separatists). How do you think we would react to any substantial intervention by the Russians (United States and NATO)? That is simplifying it quite a bit, but the point was to illustrate the emotions, motives, and stakes involved.

This kind of situation is how large and costly wars are born. Russia is not Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Serious attempts at threatening them, or intervention, will not be met with capitulation. Do you not remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, or more specifically the fact that they were prepared to go to war with us then until cooler heads prevailed. The Russians are not going to cave in when backed into a corner by severe sanctions meant to cripple their economy, they are far more likely to come out swinging and with ultra-nationalists in control. That is why everyone else is proceeding carefully with Russia in regard to Ukraine, and they damn well should.

Personally, I would say if Texas seceded, good riddance! Especially if the GOP remains in power: there:

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

But seriously, that is a useful analogy. We tend to assume simplistic political paradigms for what is often a much more complex reality.

[homersapien 11,393]

The world is falling apart, and all Barry can do is vacation and fund raise.

Just a polite request: if you and PT would refrain from this sort of "pointless post", the rest of us would appreciate it. It would make the thread much easier to navigate. Discussing Obama's options or his past actions regarding this is perfectly legitimate, but if you do so, add some (real) substance please.

We already know how you feel about Obama. :-\

Thank you.

[homersapien 11,393]

Dam rite. You done shoulda nipped that there bud. Everbody who nos nothin nos about bud nippen. everybody whos got a pair. Wes a bunch a dam sissies.

Same goes for you ICHY.

[AUUSN 823]

Now Putin wants to get involved with peace talks in Israel. He already has intimidated the Israelis with threats to supply weapons to Syria, now he wants to talk peace. BS. The book of Ezekiel, boys and girls, it's quickly coming!

Fantastic book:

[Tigermike 3,039]

So has the Russian re-set worked or not?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

CNN is reporting that the U.S. will move heavy "weapons" into eastern Ukraine tonight/tomorrow. If true that's gonna rock some liberal boats. Maybe fund raising didn't go well or either Obama is finally listening. When the Marine Commandant criticizes the POTUS an the SECDOD makes disparaging remarks it's about time.

[Weegle777 78]

Can u link story?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

CNN is reporting that the U.S. will move heavy "weapons" into eastern Ukraine tonight/tomorrow. If true that's gonna rock some liberal boats. Maybe fund raising didn't go well or either Obama is finally listening. When the Marine Commandant criticizes the POTUS an the SECDOD makes disparaging remarks it's about time.

Dam rite. we should done be warrin by now. what the hell as barry ben a watin on.

[autigeremt 6,651]

I can't find such information.

[homersapien 11,393]

I can't find such information.

Probably refers to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/russia-rocket-systems-ukraine_n_5621172.html

[homersapien 11,393]

Here's an interesting perspective:

http://www.project-s...X4WxhSHiMSpR.99

Putin's Tipping Point?

NEW YORK – When incompetence in the Kremlin turns murderous, its incumbents can begin to tremble. As news of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine trickled into Russia, people with a long memory recalled the Soviet Union’s attack, 31 years ago this September, on Korean Air Lines Flight 007, and its political consequences.

Back then, the Kremlin first lied to the world by saying that it had nothing to do with the missing KAL plane. Later it claimed that the South Korean jet was on an American spy mission. But, within the Soviet leadership, the incident was a tipping point. It ended the career of Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the General Staff and a hardliner of the hardest sort, whose inconsistent and unconvincing efforts to justify the downing of the plane proved deeply embarrassing to the Kremlin.

Ogarkov’s ineptness (and inept mendacity), together with the mounting failure since 1979 of the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan, exposed the system’s advanced decrepitude. The stagnation that had begun during Leonid Brezhnev’s rule deepened after his death in 1982. His successors, first the KGB’s Yuri Andropov and then the Communist Party Central Committee’s Konstantin Chernenko, not only had one foot in the grave when they came to power, but were also completely unequipped to reform the Soviet Union.

The huge loss of life in Afghanistan (equal to the United States’ losses in Vietnam, but in a far shorter period of time) already suggested to many that the Kremlin was becoming a danger to itself; the attack on a civilian airliner seemed to confirm that emerging view. It was this realization that spurred Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise to power, as well as support among the leadership for Gorbachev’s reformist policies of perestroika and glasnost.

Of course, history is not destiny, but one can be sure that at least some in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s entourage, if not Putin himself, have been thinking about Ogarkov’s failure and its impact on the Soviet elite. After all, Kremlin leaders, Putin included, define themselves through what was, not what could be.

Indeed, Putin’s rationale for annexing Crimea closely resembles Brezhnev’s reasoning for invading Afghanistan: to confound enemies seeking to surround the country. In 2004, speaking to Russian veterans about the Afghan invasion, Putin explained that there were legitimate geopolitical reasons to protect the Soviet Central Asian border, just as in March he cited security concerns to justify his Ukrainian land grab.

In the Brezhnev era, expansionist policies reflected the country’s new energy-derived wealth. Putin’s military build-up and modernization of the past decade was also fueled by energy exports. But Russia’s latest energy windfall has masked Putin’s incompetent economic management, with growth and government revenues now entirely reliant on the hydrocarbons sector.

Moreover, Putin’s incompetence extends far beyond the economy. His security forces remain brutal and unaccountable; in some parts of the country, they have merged with criminal gangs. His managed judiciary provides no comfort to ordinary people; and the country’s military installations, submarines, oilrigs, mining shafts, hospitals, and retirement homes regularly blow up, collapse, or sink, owing to neglect and zero liability.

When public support for Putin’s annexation of Crimea wanes – as it will – his failings will shine more starkly in the light of the MH17 catastrophe. If the Russian state functioned well, Putin could continue to withstand pressure from opposition leaders. But the opposition’s charge that Putin’s regime is composed of “swindlers and thieves” will resonate more strongly, because Russians can now see the results all around them.

By making himself, in effect, the state, Putin, like the gerontocracy that collapsed with Gorbachev’s rise, is increasingly viewed as responsible for all state failures. And though thoughtful Russians may be hostages to Putin’s arrogance and blunders, the rest of the world is not. Indeed, his partners – particularly the other BRICS countries (Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) – are now unlikely to be able to turn a blind eye to his contempt for international law and for his neighbors’ national sovereignty, as they did during their recent Brazilian summit. And Europe’s last blinders about Putin seem to have fallen, with the result that serious sanctions are almost certain to be imposed.

Putin is only 61, a decade younger than the leaders who led the Soviet Union to the precipice, and the constitution permits him to remain in power for at least another ten years. But with GDP up by just 1.3% in 2013 – and with sanctions likely to hasten the economy’s decline – patriotic pride will not be able to shield him much longer.

By overplaying its hand in Afghanistan and lying to the world about the downing of KAL 007, the Soviet regime exposed and accelerated the rot that made its collapse inevitable. There is no reason to believe in a different fate for Putin’s effort to re-establish Russia as an imperial power.

[autigeremt 6,651]

Putin's incompetence is only outweighed by Obama's. Putin is banking everything on access to Soviet energy (yes, I said Soviet....it's not a free country anymore) and the EU knows it needs it badly.

[homersapien 11,393]

Interesting statistic I heard on PBS News Hour regarding the relative influence/impact on the Russian economy (my words):

US - 3%

Europe - 40%

[autigeremt 6,651]

Interesting statistic I heard on PBS News Hour regarding the relative influence/impact on the Russian economy (my words):

US - 3%

Europe - 40%

Of course. We don't rely on energy from them.

[homersapien 11,393]

Interesting statistic I heard on PBS News Hour regarding the relative influence/impact on the Russian economy (my words):

US - 3%

Europe - 40%

Of course. We don't rely on energy from them.

The point is we have little leverage when it comes to sanctions, whereas the Europeans are responsible for 40% of the Russian economy.

Not sure what the options would be for either Russia or Europe, but without Europe's buy-in, sanctions won't work.

[autigeremt 6,651]

Interesting statistic I heard on PBS News Hour regarding the relative influence/impact on the Russian economy (my words):

US - 3%

Europe - 40%

Of course. We don't rely on energy from them.

The point is we have little leverage when it comes to sanctions, whereas the Europeans are responsible for 40% of the Russian economy.

Not sure what the options would be for either Russia or Europe, but without Europe's buy-in, sanctions won't work.

The best could do is send them weapons...but then you have to be reserved because the weapons could end up in Moscow at some point.

[homersapien 11,393]

Interesting statistic I heard on PBS News Hour regarding the relative influence/impact on the Russian economy (my words):

US - 3%

Europe - 40%

Of course. We don't rely on energy from them.

The point is we have little leverage when it comes to sanctions, whereas the Europeans are responsible for 40% of the Russian economy.

Not sure what the options would be for either Russia or Europe, but without Europe's buy-in, sanctions won't work.

The best could do is send them weapons...but then you have to be reserved because the weapons could end up in Moscow at some point.

I agree in principle, but it's a lot more complicated in the reality.

First I suspect they are already getting assistance with weaponry on a clandestine basis. I would also suspect those weapons are of Russian design and/or manufacture since that would match there standard arms.

And I don't know if they are really all that deficient in weaponry. I heard they have requested certain types of weapons from the US and others, but I don't know what they want or need. If they are talking first line, sophisticated weaponry such as missiles and aircraft - helicopters or jets - of US or European design then we would essentially be declaring a proxy war that we are destined to lose.

And if the Europeans aren't willing to put the screws to Russia economically, what makes us think they would support a proxy war? Especially one we can't win?

Of course, the Ukraine people have a key roll in this as well, What good is a Ukraine to Russia if it's steeped in an active insurgency? Especially if Russia is living under severe economic sanctions.