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!