The Mess in The Ukraine.

[Willie Krash]

I'm not sure the Russians care who is in power USA wise.
Now otoh had McCain and Snow Snookie won and enjoyed a second term if probably would never happened as Palin could keep an eye on them from her porch.
Now Larry you have enjoyed immense popularity here. People may disagree.

[MarkM]

On the other hand, one might have seen this coming.....

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinero...n-n1802374

Well sure.
And if the election had gone "the other way" we might be bogged down in a war in Georgia, Syria, and God only knows where else.

I like this presidents wary views of exposing us to war in places where we get bogged down for far too long. We simply can't afford the spending of more national treasure. Money, or people.

Sarah Palin is a simple person with simple views. We live in a complex world made more difficult each day, it seems.

I hope that, as a nation, we approach these regional conflicts with reason and thoughtfulness. It would be great if our executive and legislative branches could learn to work together here, if in no other area.
This could be scary stuff. Not a good time for knee-jerk reactions.

This is exactly right. If McCain/Palin were elected we'd be involved in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Palestine, and god knows where else by now. This is not the time to be wishing for his leadership.

This is not a problem that any US President can solve. This problem requires global cooperation and resolve. The G-8 must make firm demands a prerequisite for the Sochi meetings. Negotiation brought resolution to Iran. It will be what delivers us out of the Ukraine.

Conservatives never get that. They'd rather use any crisis foreign or domestic for political gain. They think TR said, "Speak brashly, build more big sticks than you can carry, and use them whenever you can."

It's precisely at times like these, I'm so grateful they are not in charge of foreign policy. Otherwise, we'd probably go and invade the wrong country. Again.

[chuck white]

December 1917 - April 1918: Revolutionary days, Bolshevik uprisings, invasion of the Red Guards formations, signing of protectorate treaty, and liberation from bolsheviks.
December 1918 - December 1919: Civil war in Ukraine, invasion of the Red Army, unification of Ukraine, anti-Soviet peasant uprisings, Denikin's Volunteer Army and the Allied intervention, loss of West Ukraine to Poland.
Spring 1920 - Autumn 1921: Guerrilla operations (First and Second Winter Campaigns), Treaty of Warsaw, joint Polish-Ukrainian operations, government in exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian%E...Soviet_War


Is this a rerun?

[Willie Krash]

Dang, we get to invade countries, not the Russians.

[SFLiberal]

I'm not sure the Russians care who is in power USA wise.
Now otoh had McCain and Snow Snookie won and enjoyed a second term if probably would never happened as Palin could keep an eye on them from her porch.
Now Larry you have enjoyed immense popularity here. People may disagree.

But you forget. Obama was going to be different. Remember this?



That worked out real well didn't it? We hit the reset button, Russia didn't. We withdrew our missile defense systems from Eastern Europe and in exchange Russia gave up nothing.



Obama agrees to downsize our nuclear arsenal, Russia gave up nothing. And to sweeten the deal Obama allows the Russians to inspect our weapons and facilities.

Obama wants to downsize our military to pre-WWII levels while N. Korea is testing ballistic missiles that can reach the US, China is flexing it's muscle in the South China Sea, Iran is Developing a nuke, and Russia is invading another country.



While Obama plays marbles, Putin is playing chess.

How is that deal with Syria working out? They still have their chemical weapons and have no intention of getting rid of them. What is Obama going to do about that? Draw another red line?

Friday he gives a quick impotent statement on Ukraine and then heads over to a DNC event and declares it's after 5pm and it's officially happy hour. Who do that kind of thing considering what was happening across the pond. On Saturday his security team met to discuss the events unfolding in Ukraine and Obama was a no-show. He couldn't be bothered or was too hung over from the happy hour the night before. He is a paper tiger. He issues threats he has no intention of backing up and the world knows it. His weakness has embolden our enemies.

Oh, but Obama did get around calling Putin Saturday afternoon. Here's how that call went:



This photo posted by Time correspondent Michael Crowley pretty much sums it up:

[SFLiberal]

This memorable moment is starting to make sense. Remember this?

Obama caught on mic saying "After My Election I Have More Flexibility"

[Willie Krash]

If only he would look into Putin's soul.

[SFLiberal]

a good read:

Ukraine crisis tests Obama’s foreign policy focus on diplomacy over military force


By Scott Wilson, Published: March 1

For much of his time in office, President Obama has been accused by a mix of conservative hawks and liberal interventionists of overseeing a dangerous retreat from the world at a time when American influence is needed most.

The once-hopeful Arab Spring has staggered into civil war and military coup. China is stepping up territorial claims in the waters off East Asia. Longtime allies in Europe and in the Persian Gulf are worried by the inconsistency of a president who came to office promising the end of the United States’ post-Sept. 11 wars.

The international response to protests in Ukraine intensified Saturday as Russia's parliament approved the use of the military to protect Russian interests in the politically-divided country.

Now Ukraine has emerged as a test of Obama’s argument that, far from weakening American power, he has enhanced it through smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances and a realism untainted by the ideology that guided his predecessor.

It will be a hard argument for him to make, analysts say.

A president who has made clear to the American public that the “tide of war is receding” has also made clear to foreign leaders, including opportunists in Russia, that he has no appetite for a new one. What is left is a vacuum once filled, at least in part, by the possibility of American force.

“If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” said Andrew C. Kuchins, who heads the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.”

Rarely has a threat from a U.S. president been dismissed as quickly — and comprehensively — as Obama’s warning Friday night to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. The former community organizer and the former Cold Warrior share the barest of common interests, and their relationship has been defined far more by the vastly different ways they see everything from gay rights to history’s legacy.

Obama called Putin on Saturday and expressed “deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” the White House said.

From a White House podium late Friday, Obama told the Russian government that “there will be costs” for any military foray into Ukraine, including the semiautonomous region of Crimea, a strategically important peninsula on the Black Sea.

Within hours, Putin asked the Russian parliament for approval to send forces into Ukraine. The vote endorsing his request was unanimous, Obama’s warning drowned out by lawmakers’ rousing rendition of Russia’s national anthem at the end of the session. Russian troops now control the Crimean Peninsula.

President’s quandary

There are rarely good — or obvious — options in such a crisis. But the position Obama is in, confronting a brazenly defiant Russia and with few ways to meaningfully enforce his threat, has been years in the making. It is the product of his record in office and of the way he understands the period in which he is governing, at home and abroad.

At the core of his quandary is the question that has arisen in White House debates over the Afghan withdrawal, the intervention in Libya and the conflict in Syria — how to end more than a dozen years of American war and maintain a credible military threat to protect U.S. interests.

The signal Obama has sent — popular among his domestic political base, unsettling at times to U.S. allies — has been one of deep reluctance to use the heavily burdened American military, even when doing so would meet the criteria he has laid out. He did so most notably in the aftermath of the U.S.-led intervention in Libya nearly three years ago.

But Obama’s rejection of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war, in which 140,000 people have died since he first called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down, is the leading example of his second term. So, too, is the Pentagon budget proposal outlined this past week that would cut the size of the army to pre-2001 levels.

Inside the West Wing, there are two certainties that color any debate over intervention: that the country is exhausted by war and that the end of the longest of its post-Sept. 11 conflicts is less than a year away. Together they present a high bar for the use of military force.

Ukraine has challenged administration officials — and Obama’s assessment of the world — again.

At a North American summit meeting in Mexico last month, Obama said, “Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia.”

But Putin’s quick move to a war footing suggests a different view — one in which, particularly in Russia’s back yard, the Cold War rivalry Putin was raised on is thriving.

The Russian president has made restoring his country’s international prestige the overarching goal of his foreign policy, and he has embraced military force as the means to do so.

As Russia’s prime minister in the late summer of 2008, he was considered the chief proponent of Russia’s military advance into Georgia, another former Soviet republic with a segment of the population nostalgic for Russian rule.

Obama, by contrast, made clear that a new emphasis on American values, after what were perceived as the excesses of the George W. Bush administration, would be his approach to rehabilitating U.S. stature overseas.

Those two outlooks have clashed repeatedly — in big and small ways — over the years.

Obama took office with a different Russian as president, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s choice to succeed him in 2008.

Medvedev, like Obama, was a lawyer by training, and also like Obama he did not believe the Cold War rivalry between the two countries should define today’s relationship.

The Obama administration began the “reset” with Russia — a policy that, in essence, sought to emphasize areas such as nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism, trade and Iran’s nuclear program as shared interests worth cooperation.

But despite some successes, including a new arms-control treaty, the reset never quite reduced the rivalry. When Putin returned to office in 2012, so, too, did an outlook fundamentally at odds with Obama’s.

‘Reset’ roadblocks

Just months after his election, Putin declined to attend the Group of Eight meeting at Camp David, serving an early public warning to Obama that partnership was not a top priority.

At a G-8 meeting the following year in Northern Ireland, Obama and Putin met and made no headway toward resolving differences over Assad’s leadership of Syria. The two exchanged an awkward back-and-forth over Putin’s passion for martial arts before the Russian leader summed up the meeting: “Our opinions do not coincide,” he said.

A few months later, Putin granted asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor whose disclosure of the country’s vast eavesdropping program severely complicated U.S. diplomacy. Obama had asked for Snowden’s return.

In response, Obama canceled a scheduled meeting in Moscow with Putin after the Group of 20 meeting in St. Petersburg last summer. The two met instead on the summit’s sidelines, again failing to resolve differences over Syria.

It was Obama’s threat of a military strike, after the Syrian government’s second chemical attack crossed what Obama had called a “red line,” that prompted Putin to pressure Assad into concessions. The result was an agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, a process that is proceeding haltingly.

Since then, though, the relationship has again foundered on issues that expose the vastly different ways the two leaders see the world and their own political interests.

After Russia’s legislature passed anti-gay legislation, Obama included openly gay former athletes in the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

New barbarities in Syria’s civil war — and the near-collapse of a nascent peace process — have drawn sharper criticism from U.S. officials of Putin, who is continuing to arm Assad’s forces.

How Obama intends to prevent a Putin military push into Ukraine is complicated by the fact that, whatever action he takes, he does not want to jeopardize Russian cooperation on rolling back Iran’s nuclear program or completing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Economic sanctions are a possibility. But that decision is largely in the hands of the European Union, given that its economic ties to Russia, particularly as a source of energy, are far greater than those of the United States.

The most immediate threat that has surfaced: Obama could skip the G-8 meeting scheduled for June in Sochi, a day’s drive from Crimea.

“If you want to take a symbolic step and deploy U.S. Navy ships closer to Crimea, that would, I think, make a difference in Russia’s calculations,” Kuchins said. “The problem with that is, are we really credible? Would we really risk a military conflict with Russia over Crimea-Ukraine? That’s the fundamental question in Washington and in Brussels we need to be asking ourselves.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/u...story.html

[Willie Krash]

SF, What do YOU think ought to be done?

I was gonna mention Georgia but OL would get excited.

[SFLiberal]

SF, What do YOU think ought to be done?

I was gonna mention Georgia but OL would get excited.

What would I have done? For one I wouldn't be naive enough to think that Russia, under ex--KGB officer Putin, wants to be our friend. If Obama had been watching he would have noticed that under Putin Russia brought reinstated the old Soviet Union National Anthem and put the red stars back on their fighter jets. He longs for the old Soviet Union glory days.

Our defensive missiles would still be in Eastern Europe unless Russia also made concessions. I would have not reduced our nuclear arsenal without Russia doing like-wise. I would not allow Russians to inspection our nuclear facilities without a reciprocation. I believe in honest negotiations, not unilateral cuts.

I would not be dismantling our military to pre-WWII levels, especially in the face of the growing threats of Russia, China, N. Korea and a nuclear Iran. Hell we even have the flag of Al Qaeda flying over Fallujah in Iraq. I thought Obama said they were on the run?

I would not go saying things that you have no intention of backing up. Obama drew too many red lines and promises of severe consequences if someone did something and never having the intention of backing up his hollow words. It's better to hold your tongue and have people think you a fool, that to speak and remove all doubt.

Unfortunately the damage has already been done. Our enemies think Obama is a paper tiger and have seized on that weakness. Obama is now backed into a corner. He is going to have to back off and let Russia have its way or act which could lead to a wider shooting war. What's he going to do when China pushes it claim over a few rocky islands now claimed by Japan or Iran flips him the finger and publicly says it WILL produce nuclear weapons? The better option would have been to not get himself backed into a corner by all his capitulations and empty words. Nothing is going to change until Obama is out of office. Hopefully we can avoid another war between now and then.

[cletus1]

SF, What do YOU think ought to be done?

I was gonna mention Georgia but OL would get excited.

What would I have done? For one I wouldn't be naive enough to think that Russia, under ex--KGB officer Putin, wants to be our friend. If Obama had been watching he would have noticed that under Putin Russia brought reinstated the old Soviet Union National Anthem and put the red stars back on their fighter jets. He longs for the old Soviet Union glory days.

Our defensive missiles would still be in Eastern Europe unless Russia also made concessions. I would have not reduced our nuclear arsenal without Russia doing like-wise. I would not allow Russians to inspection our nuclear facilities with a reciprocation. I believe in honest negotiations, not unilateral cuts.

I would not be dismantling our military to pre-WWII levels, especially in the face of the growing threats of Russia, China, N. Korea and a nuclear Iran. Hell we even have the flag of Al Qaeda flying over Fallujah in Iraq. I thought Obama said they were on the run?

I would not go saying things that you have no intention of backing up. Obama drew too many red lines and promises of severe consequences if someone did something and never having the intention of backing up his hollow words. It's better to hold your tongue and have people think you a fool, that to speak and remove all doubt.

Unfortunately the damage has already been done. Our enemies think Obama is a paper tiger and have seized on that weakness. Obama is now backed into a corner. He is going to have to back off and let Russia have its way or act which could lead to a wider shooting war. What's he going to do when China pushes it claim over a few rocky islands now claimed by Japan or Iran flips him the finger and publicly says it WILL produce nuclear weapons? The better option would have been to not get himself backed into a corner by all his capitulations and empty words. Nothing is going to change until Obama is out of office. Hopefully we can avoid another war between now and then.

SFLiberal, there is no need to worry about a cut in defense spending.

[SFLiberal]

SF, What do YOU think ought to be done?

I was gonna mention Georgia but OL would get excited.

What would I have done? For one I wouldn't be naive enough to think that Russia, under ex--KGB officer Putin, wants to be our friend. If Obama had been watching he would have noticed that under Putin Russia brought reinstated the old Soviet Union National Anthem and put the red stars back on their fighter jets. He longs for the old Soviet Union glory days.

Our defensive missiles would still be in Eastern Europe unless Russia also made concessions. I would have not reduced our nuclear arsenal without Russia doing like-wise. I would not allow Russians to inspection our nuclear facilities with a reciprocation. I believe in honest negotiations, not unilateral cuts.

I would not be dismantling our military to pre-WWII levels, especially in the face of the growing threats of Russia, China, N. Korea and a nuclear Iran. Hell we even have the flag of Al Qaeda flying over Fallujah in Iraq. I thought Obama said they were on the run?

I would not go saying things that you have no intention of backing up. Obama drew too many red lines and promises of severe consequences if someone did something and never having the intention of backing up his hollow words. It's better to hold your tongue and have people think you a fool, that to speak and remove all doubt.

Unfortunately the damage has already been done. Our enemies think Obama is a paper tiger and have seized on that weakness. Obama is now backed into a corner. He is going to have to back off and let Russia have its way or act which could lead to a wider shooting war. What's he going to do when China pushes it claim over a few rocky islands now claimed by Japan or Iran flips him the finger and publicly says it WILL produce nuclear weapons? The better option would have been to not get himself backed into a corner by all his capitulations and empty words. Nothing is going to change until Obama is out of office. Hopefully we can avoid another war between now and then.

SFLiberal, there is no need to worry about a cut in defense spending.

I find it interesting that you would include WASP class carriers and counted them as carriers. They are Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD). To call them a carriers is ludicrous. We have 10 Nimitz class carriers. Obama wanted to mothball one of them but bowed to political pressure. China has two new carriers under construction that will rival our carriers. They are increasing their navy while we are reducing ours. They are planning four additional carriers: (http://China Plans to Build 4 Aircraft C...efense.org

In the last three years Russia has INCREASED it's military spending by 60% to $66.3 billion within the last three years. Russia is planning to build 2-4 more carriers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Russian_Navy. They spend 12% of their GDP on military spending and increasing it every year under Putin.

Your chart is also out dated. We spent 525.40 billion on defense last year, not the $652 billion your 2012 chart shows. Obama and Hagel want further cuts, while both Russia and China are increasing military spending.

You seem to want to be on equal footing with our adversaries. You do not win or prevent wars that way. You want to project enough strength so that no one dares attack you or those that you have defense agreements with. You obtain peace through the projection of strength, not by becoming equals.

[Valuesize]

[SFLiberal]

[redacted purposefully misattributed quote]

[chuck white]

[MarkM]

Few Democrats have missed the irony of Obama detractors' criticism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...inions_pop

[MarkM]

And not all Republicans suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html

[Wonky]

Few Democrats have missed the irony of Obama detractors' criticism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...inions_pop

From that column.

Obama is neither tyrant nor pushover. In general, the criticism of him being inconsistent and indecisive is closer to the mark. But the accusation that he has been feckless in Ukraine is still dubious, because those demanding a stronger response have been unable to come up with one.

Good point.

[SFLiberal]

Pretty much sums up Obama's foreign policy. The sharks smell blood in the water.

Iranian general: Obama’s threats are ‘the joke of the year’
Masoud Jazayeri says the ‘low-IQ’ president’s ‘all options are on the table’ remarks are a farce; warns against US strike
By Marissa Newman March 4, 2014

President Barack Obama is a “low-IQ US president,” whose threat to launch a military offensive should nuclear talks fail is an oft-cited punchline in the Islamic Republic, particularly among children, an Iranian general said on Tuesday.


“The low-IQ US president and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the US options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children,” General Masoud Jazayeri said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Jazayeri was responding to the US president’s interview in Bloomberg on Sunday, in which Obama maintained that the Iranian leadership should take his “all options on the table” stance — including the warning of a potential military strike — seriously.

“We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 US military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously,” the president told Bloomberg.

Jazayeri called Obama’s statements regarding the deployment of US troops “completely inexpert remarks far from the reality, and these statements can be used as the joke of the year.”

The Iranian news agency Tuesday published a political cartoon mocking the US president, calling it: “All Options on Table.” This Time for Russia.” In a jab at US non-intervention in Ukraine, the cartoon portrays Obama peering forlornly into an empty paint can with the label “Red Line” while Russian President Vladimir Putin walks away saying, “I think you used it all on Syria.”

The Iranian general also issued a warning to Obama that should US forces make a move, “the region will be turned into a hell for them.”

Jazayeri is the second high-ranking official to castigate Obama since the interview was published Sunday. On Monday night, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham panned Obama’s comments for undermining the diplomatic process.

“One part of the remarks made by the US president is in contradiction to the principles of the international law and against the spirit of diplomatic negotiations meant to prevent unconstructive slogans and resorting to threats,” Afkham said.

Under an interim deal clinched in November, Iran agreed to curb parts of its nuclear program for six months in exchange for limited sanctions relief. The agreement came into effect on January 20.

Negotiators from the P5+1 group of world powers — the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany — are set to resume talks on a permanent accord with Iranian nuclear negotiators on March 17 in Vienna.

“The (nuclear) negotiations are going well … I’m hoping by the first deadline (July 20) we will reach an agreement,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters on the sidelines of an event in New Delhi on February 28.

However, he said that there were still disagreements between the sides, referencing a “problem in terms of both substance and approach.” He added that Iran would not get rid of its enrichment program.

“I can tell you that Iran’s nuclear program will remain intact. We will not close any program,” he said, according to Reuters.

Western nations and Israel have long suspected Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability alongside its civilian program, charges denied by Tehran.

AFP and Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.



Read more: Iranian general: Obama's threats are 'the joke of the year' | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-gen...z2v31JNrBn

[MarkM]

Doesn't it bother you a bit that you have to appeal to Iranian bureaucrats to validate your ideas?