Why can't we make inferences about peoples' motives based on their track record? Aren't we doing the same thing when politicians declare war, or when high school students wear a flag t-shirt or shout patriotic slogans, or when the NRA supports gun rights, etc? Why aren't you going after Butter of 69 for the inferences he made about the racist motives of the high school students? Did any of them announce their racism? If any judge or appellate court has been swayed by politics, they're not announcing in their rulings and opinions their opinions trump the relevant law and standards.

You must have missed the point in my post where I said "I'm not saying they're right." I'm not making a legal argument defending the position. I just try to understand the tension from both sides. These are real people. I think that's a better place to find solutions for things, like SteveMax58 was talking about.

So has Russia invaded Ukraine?

Don't worry, Obama told them to stop it. Even wagged his finger.

And your solution would be what - a unilateral ground war against Russia (in their backyard where they have logistical superiority no less?)? Nuking them?

Russia is a POS dictatorship, and what they're doing in Ukraine is reprehensible, but engaging in armed conflict with them over Ukraine...talk about a bad idea.

The international community has got to figure out some way to get them the fuck out of Ukraine's internal politics.

Kill all the Russians in Eastern Ukraine?

This cycle in Ukraine will continue as long as they have what should be two different countries combined into one.

From my understanding of the treaty, the US and UK are only obligated to raise the issue with the security council of the UN (which Russia would probably veto any action).

Yeah. I know it's simplistic but...my wife and I asked each other "why can't they just split up the country?"

Then I thought of the general trends for nations - they were formed in the first place by different tribes/peoples/regions conglomerating, then it seems like we hit a critical mass and now nations are starting to split up.

(Get ready, Texas. ;) )

We'll ignore the call to war message and take the relations score hit.

This was roughly my line of thinking earlier today as well.

The big problem is that I don't see the Ukraine giving up the Black Sea and becoming a landlocked country. Too much strategic value in that Russian part of the country.

Love it.

This just in! "War could've been avoided until we reminded England of treaty they had forgotten about"

Well its slightly different here, as current Ukraine is basically as cobbled together as colonies in Africa were. The Soviet Union decided it wanted to separate itself into smaller administrative units. In the 50s, Kruschev gave Ukraine SSR the Crimea for administrative purposes. To assume it was ever a real unified country is silly - for most of its history the Eastern and Western parts were ruled by other countries.

This kind of puts things into focus:

It's two countries.

And darned if that doesn't remind me of any number of various maps of the U.S.

Jus sayin.

I actually don't disagree with that though there are linguistic differences in Ukraine too. Although sometimes I wonder if people in the South are actually speaking English :)

Side hypothetical scenario: I've always been curious to see how much support a super liberal Presidential candidate could get in the South if part of that candidate's platform was to let the South go.

Does anyone else think that Russia is just Putin us on?

We seem toothless in this situation. We won't be able to get the UN to do anything. We are already over-extended militarily. I don't know what the economic value of the Ukraine is for US-based entities, but I would imagine it isn't immense in the grand scheme of things.

Russia is next door, and there are actual Russians living in the Ukraine. They have shown a willingness to put their own "Monroe Doctrine" over the former Soviet states, as they did with Georgia a few years ago.

I am not sure just how much we can do. Obama throwing out a threat seems kinda silly.

Not that anything that is going on in the Ukraine is silly, of course. That's a very serious situation. But, still, I am struggling to see what exactly we can do about this, or Russia's decisions on it.

Yeah - all this

Ooooooo...better look out Putie, BHO is drawing lines not to cross again. These days, not too many foreign leaders pay much attention to what's coming out of this administration's pie-holes.

Figured this would be what you'd come up with. So you think that the military should intervene? Or are you saying the administration shouldn't say anything, so you can then criticize them for ignoring the situation?

I wonder how similar this situation is to the situation eleven years ago this month when a certain former president received a similar authorization and decided to move forward. Certainly, there were many in Europe who were horrified.

What would we have done if China or Russia had stepped in with actual defense?

Diplomacy failed with Iraq, and the entire world is worse off for it. Entering World War III over this would cause enormous harm. I don't agree with Obama drawing arbitrary lines everywhere - they're making fun of him in Syria and Iran for good reason.

The only thing that seems to work is slowly building consensus and issuing sanctions. But maybe there isn't consensus available here. Maybe the right result is Ukraine splitting and the eastern half returning to Russia?

Right now, it just seems like Putin and Obama plain don't like each other, and Putin is a master at the international game - a luxury he has because Russia doesn't have to play by our rules.

That's basically right - entering World War III over this would be a horrible idea.

But this situation is a lot more similar to the Russian actions in Georgia than the US invading Iraq. As long as Putin stays away from Kiev, I don't think the international community wants to get involved.

And think about this way, a democratically elected government (and international observers in 2010 verified the election) was ousted in a coup, cheer leaded by foreign powers, right next door to Russia. Their response isn't exactly all that surprising.

I mean what would the US do if the democratically elected government of Mexico was overthrown in a coup and China was cheerleading the new government? We'd throw a shitfit and send troops - Hell, wasn't that what we did in Grenada?

Let's also not give too much credit to Putin. While he's throwing his weight around he's also wrecking the country. The non-RGO still sucks, the demographics still suck, corruption is endemic, the threat of terrorism is ever-present, etc.

Putin isn't some super-genius transforming Russia, he's just trying to ring up "victories" against the West to paper over the problems.

This is largely my thinking on the situation tbh, and I'll take it a step further I guess: not only is it not surprising, I really don't find it particularly offensive.

Didn't say that. But if BHO has no intention of doing anything (and I don't think he does), he should keep his mouth shut. Why make empty threats? You only hurt your credibility. Of course, when you have no credibility left, I guess you don't have to worry about flushing it down the toilet.

P.S. Also, don't try laying down the law after you've announced you're cutting troop levels to the lowest they've been since before World War II. Just a thought.

Wow, going back to the beginning and reading some of this stuff ... great o-fer...

It's really weird...it's as if some sort of malevolent spirit of evil had dedicated itself to try and block any kind of progress over the last five years. Spooky.

Which is where the mandatory (or automatic) filibuster really hurts this administration. If you were able to bring up bills for votes, you could at least hold a congressman to his or her voting record. With so little coming to the floor, it's hard to point the finger.

There's always somewhere to point the finger, but in the end, if you're someone pointing the finger, you're part of the problem.

Yes, it's amazing how you can get nothing of substance done when you have the White House and both houses of Congress (including a Super Majority in the Senate) during half of your first term. Oh wait, we got Obamacare ... check.

Please see the 2008 Minnesota Senate election and the date of the winner being seated.

Also, please see the 2010 Massachusetts special election.

If you want to argue the Dems are politically ineffective, I'm with you, but the two years with a super majority argument is simply false.

So your answer to what he should do is start a war or say absolutely nothing about a major international incident?

I'm not saying I agree with him, but there are a lot more options at Obama's disposal than start a war, threaten Russia and do nothing. You're way oversimplifying Obama's options in order to make SFLCat look like a crazy guy.

Tea Party did a heck of a job preventing progress...

Considering what some would term "progress", in that case all I can say is "Thank God for the Tea Party".

Plenty of Putin's buddies have bought tons of property in London and the U.S. and put much of their money into banks based in these two countries (ironically, to protect it in case they run afoul of Putin).

Start freezing those accounts "while we look into allegations of impropriety".

That'll probably get his attention.

And let's be fair, SFLCat needs no help making himself look like a crazy guy.

:+1:

Thank you for a very much needed sanity check here.

Hate to rain on your sanity parade ... but the situation is a little more complex because of treaties in place. Not that we have to honor them ...

Treaty would mean 'British war with Russia' if Putin's troops intervene in Ukraine | Mail Online

Not that I disagree with this assessment, but that was enough to keep the Communists in business during the Cold War.

The Budapest Memorandum does not contain any language that obligates a military defense of Ukraine.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories in connection to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear-powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France later gave individual statements of assurance as well.

The deal included SECURITY (emphasis mine) assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.

Following the 2014 Crimean crisis, the US stated that Russian involvement is in breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Budapest Memorandum wasn't brought to congress and is, therefor, not a binding treaty.

SFL Cat, what would you like done? You keep complaining about what is being done but don't seem to have an answer as to what you think should be done.

Here's the text:

4Budapest Memorandum

The security obligations are in the case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons.

Can you show me a vote on where the US senate ratified this "treaty"? Can you also show where the language is in this "treaty" that obligates military intervention?

Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikisource, the free online library

Edit: Damn, late to the party

Hmmmm, then maybe our state department shouldn't be saying the Russians are violating that treaty then. Better forward that text to the State Department. Anyhoo, we'll take it to the UN. Problem solved. Time to hit the links!

They do seem to be violating this part:


But feel free to continue the snark.

Eh... when talking about "wrecking the country" one should look at GDP growth since he took over. Russia was a train wreck when he took power and has grown by leaps and bounds since there. There is a reason he's popular in the Russian Federation.

If you insist. Really, though, it's kewl, dude...we'll just make some noise at the UN, they'll do nothing. Ukraine will just be absorbed into the Soviet Union, or Russian Federation or whatever it is they call it these days, and we won't miss our tee times.

Of course, in the future, if I were a country negotiating with the West about giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for "security arrangements" I'd lol and say, "yeah, we've seen how that one plays out. We'll keep our nukes, thanks."

Care to point out where the West has violated the terms of the Budapest Memorandum? Or are you going to prattle on about tee times. Wait, who was it who said "Watch this drive"?

Push for the the 2018 World Cup to be removed from Russia?

:D

So they found more oil and expanded their exports at a time when the price of oil increased 10x. None of which disputes anything JPhillips posted.

I don't think we have much control over FIFA. And, considering their decision to hold the 2022 Cup in a sauna, I'm not sure we want much control over it. It's a hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual regime that produces one economic nuclear weapon every four years.

But, Europe does have a lot of control over FIFA, if somewhat united. This would be a good consensus threat - a list of European countries that would pull out or lobby for a new venue if Russia doesn't withdraw.

It can't go unnoticed that Putin made this move within days of the Olympics ending. These shows are important to the Russians and the awarding of these major world tournaments indicates legitimacy.

I wish our president would learn more about a situation before he starts drawing lines, though. That way, he can go into a meeting without looking like a fool afterward when Putin keeps his troops in place. Has Obama never played poker before?

Putin also dealt with the oligarchs and made at least some of them divest their ownership. That oil was always there - so why wasn't it exploited during Yeltsin's time?

You misunderstand me. I'm giving him credit on the oil thing, even if it was achieved through oligarchy. This, plus giving Russians consistency at the top of their government (no small thing following what happened when the Soviet Union dissolved), is the good. The stuff JPhillips mentioned (most of which is of the "ticking time bomb" variety) is the bad.

It wasn't economically feasible to do so. The price per barrel in the early-mid 90s sat in the $20-25 range. Now that is 4x that price, it makes it worthwhile.

It's a creative idea, and could possibly work given that the major leagues, UEFA and the major clubs are already not very happy about the Qatar WC, mainly about it being held during the winter months.

But, to be fair, the Soviet Union did do a pretty terrible job of oil production. Most any biography of a Russian oligarch you read, even the most critical, acknowledge that if these guys did anything, they made the old government franchises actually operate efficiently and bring modern methods to drilling and extraction.

It's a bit out there...but it would certainly send a message. Isn't the 2022 World Cup in danger of being removed from Qatar now due to the timing, human rights, and corruption?

How are you missing the point? You must be a lawyer. Lawyers are great at getting into the legalese of documents and arguing, no, we didn't REALLY violate the terms of the agreement as written (and defining the spirit of an agreement is too damn esoteric, anyway). However, if you'd like me to spell it out, if the signatories agree to honor and protect the boundaries of a sovereign state in exchange for that state giving up its big club (nukes)...and then you watch as everyone stands by and does nothing, or worse, makes idle threats and then does nothing as one of the signatories breaks the agreement and gobbles up that state, what makes you think I'm going to be willing to give up my big club in exchange for the same or similar agreements? Then again, they also say a sucker is born every minute.

But it's largely on the back of resource gathering rather than more sustainable industry. It's certainly better than nothing, but it leaves the economy very susceptible to booms and busts based on commodity prices.

You were the one that was arguing that the West was not honoring the agreement. There are tons of diplomatic channels being engaged at the moment. Not everything is going to be publicized or televised as things happen.

Again, you've more than made clear you think the current course of action is the wrong one, but haven't said what you think should be done.

It's not a computer game. Haven't we rushed into too many wars lately? There's not a damn thing we can do about it other than sanctions. If these warhawks have their way they would get us involved in a war with Russia for fun.

Besides, are they doing anything we haven't been doing for the last decade?

That's not really what happened. The Russians wanted "their" nukes back and Western nations wanted as few nuclear capable countries as possible. We made that agreement so that the nukes were in hands more reliable than the Ukrainians. They wanted something in return for giving up the nukes(although they never wanted to be a part of the nuclear club), so everyone made some non-binding security agreements.

Lets rush into a war with a nuclear country in a part of the world we are not familiar with over a piece of land no one here knew existed last week.

You didn't know the Ukraine existed?

No one knew what Crimea was last week. Everyone is an expert on it now.

I haven't heard what impact all this is having on the Paralympics, which start in Sochi on Friday.

Apparently the ruble and the Russian stock market tanked today.

Here's a good take on the weakness of the Russian position:


http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/20...y/ideas/nexus/

Well maybe no one that doesn't play Paradox games. I can tell you who ruled the area at various points from the 800s to 1948.

Umm ... huh?

Any student of the Cold War era (and/or the Soviet military) is familiar with the region due to Sevastopol.

Other students of history are familiar with the basics of the region due to a little thing called The Crimean War. The Charge of the Light Brigade plays a role in it's familiarity as well.

While it's not, say, Canada or something in terms of familiarity for most folks it's also not some backwater than no one has ever heard of either.

Have you ever watch the "Jay Walking" segment during Jay Leno's run on The Tonight Show? I wouldn't trust the opinion or knowledge of the average American.

I also wouldn't trust a tv segment that was edited for comedy to give a fair perspective on things.

I was well aware of Crimea and some of its recent history (charge of the light brigade and all that) but I would have bet you a fair amount of money it was part of Russia and not the Ukraine. What a mess this is going to become.

Wasn't my point.

I'd wager most of the country couldn't even tell you where and what the capital of Canada is. And I'd wager well over 90% couldn't even tell you who the PM of that country is.

So while I'm sure cold war scholars and history buffs know about Crimea, the majority of people spouting opinions likely didn't know it existed yesterday. And the only reason they have a strong opinion on it is because their team told them to have one.

I agree.

There's a lot of stupid in this country.

Actually, we were more worried about those nukes falling into the hands of Islamic extremists, so it was a good deal for us, especially considering all the instability of that region at the time. As bad as 9/11 was, it would have been a lot worse if a mushroom cloud was involved.

Not a bad idea. I don't know how effective it would be. The US and 65 or so other countries boycotted the 1980 Olympics games in Moscow after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan...and all it meant was more gold medals for mother Russia.

So I'm guessing this is going to be a whole lot of 'mobilization' with no real battle. Hard negotiations will take place - maybe Russia will get Crimea back, while Europe and the US get to place military bases in West Ukraine. Though East Ukraine wants to be Russian right now as well (it really was stupid for the Ukrainian Parliament to remove Russian as one of the official languages of the country).

It would certainly make Putin look bad, since he loves the spotlight that these global games bring. it would put a lot pressure on FiFA. since it's a team sport competition, and you have that global media presence 24/7 that doesn't compare to 1980.

Do you believe they want to be their own country or actually be part of Russia?

Oh, I think they want to be part of Russia.

I still think this is all just posturing. All sides have too much to lose.

I knew about Crimea.

Boom. That just happened.

Ukrainian-Russian Tensions Dividing U.S. Citizens Along Ignorant, Apathetic Lines | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

On the whole Crimean thing ... maybe it's just an exposure thing as to Rainmaker's take versus mine.

So far, of my often very politically charged FB wall, I'm one of exactly 2 people I've seen even mention the subject. Yeah, both me & the other commentator arrived with at least working knowledge of the Crimean region well before last week. Beyond that I'm simply not seeing anything from the couldn't-find-it-on-the-map contingent, despite it being well represented (sad but true) amongst my politically inclined friends.

When Margaret thatcher died, I was at my friend's house and blurted out, "Oh, Margaret thatcher died." (viewing the headline online). He asked who she was. *facepalm*

Margaret who? Kidding ... just kidding ...

Some talking heads are saying Crimea is lost and I agree. I think Obama was outmaneuvered here but not sure any other administration could have done better as Crimea is next door and is clearly very strategic to Russia.

Ukraine PM to fly to U.S. to discuss Crimea crisis - CNN.com

It's less Obama having been outmanuevered then Merkel/the E.U. It's really got very little to do with/of minimal importance to the US. Slightly more to the EU, but really even that pales in comparison to its importance to Russia.

It's akin to Canada or Mexico to us. You wouldn't say Russia got outmaneuvered for failing to exercise influence in Canada or Mexico, so its a bit disingenuous to say the US got outmaneuvered in Crimea.

It'd be nice if we could have had more influence on what happens there, but its not really realistic.

Possibly the only other action was to coach Ukraine to play down the rhetoric (or actually, play up the rhetoric towards Russia to reassure them).

The irony runs deep in this one: Feinstein: CIA searched Intelligence Committee computers - The Washington Post

This is like the psychic that didn't see their demise coming. Seriously, America's intelligence agencies have been pretty much given carte blanche to spy on its citizens, but, now you only complain because they did it to you?

Ukraine, I'm sorry but you are clearly in Russia sphere of influence/control and the majority of the pop in Crimea voted to return (even if there were voting irregularities, I think the majority vote would have been the same).

You lost Crimea, let it go. Play to retain the independence of the rest of the country.

Kremlin says Crimea is now officially part of Russia after treaty signing, Putin speech - The Washington Post

Playing a game of chicken that everyone knows you will ultimately lose (and may lose all).

Ukraine cries 'robbery' as Russia annexes Crimea - CNN.com

Obama, economic aid to Ukraine and sanctions are good. Don't think about anything else or talk about a red line. If the GOP pressures you, ask them about Georgia.