Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 1, 2014 8:27:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 1, 2014 8:27:58 GMT -5
Who could have seen this one coming? An empowered Putin flexes his muscles in the Ukraine. Shocking.
Ray Charles could have seen this coming. In fact, that moron Sarah Palin called it in 2008 in a speech in Nevada.
It was however good to hear our President's clear, forceful, unequivocal statement of rebuke.
We are very lucky to have such a strong leader running things.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 10:18:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by thebin on Mar 2, 2014 10:18:06 GMT -5
Let me guess. You would have preferred we were at war w Russia right now? Wtf do think he should have done? Ukraine is in their national security interest about 100 times more than it is in ours.
It must be tiring going through life evaluating everything that happens in the world as platform to re-confirm what you need to believe. Particularly sad is that these opinions are likely spoon fed to you by semi-educated blowhards on radio or fox. Sure you think its just a "great minds think alike" situation but in reality they have probably done the very light lifting for you.
All of this for an office that has far far far less impact on your life than merits the energy that goes into despising the occupant depending on whether he is on the red or blue team. Bush haters and obama haters are so remarkably alike. Everything you see is comes with a pre-ordained opinion that whatever HE did was wrong. It must be wrong if he did it; that is the Prime Directive. You start with the conclusion and you back into it from there. As a consequence your opinions become utterly disposable. Just as the opinions of the "Bu$hitler" monkeys were worthless on their face. If you think the other guy is wrong literally 100% of the time the problem is probably you and not him.
What happens in an alternate universe where events and policies are identical but the president is a republican? We know exactly what happens: elvado never makes any post about Ukraine because of course the president cant risk ww3 over Ukraine. It is never about the policy. It is always about the man. I think we might be too stupid now to self-govern.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 10:45:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 10:45:38 GMT -5
Touchy touchy. I was congratulating the President for a thoughtful and measured response.
Do you believe he has been lacking here? I sure don't.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 11:00:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by thebin on Mar 2, 2014 11:00:32 GMT -5
I'm touchy about it indeed. I firmly believe political hatred and childishness is ruining my country. My father, whom i love dearly and is one of the smartest men I know, does exactly as you do. He starts with the conclusion that obama is wrong and creates his "policy" opinions afterwards. Im sure outside of politics you are an intelligent person who i might find quite charming. But i cant take how petty Republicans in particular have been as an opposition party. Compromise is necessary and an American tradition. Disagreeing with the president as a matter of course does not a great nation make. It is closer to treason than patriotism. I say this as a life long republican voter who is tired of being ashamed of my party.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 11:03:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 11:03:20 GMT -5
Thank you for the lecture.
I firmly believe we have no business in the Ukraine. I also firmly believe that our President's feckless foreign policy and "just wait until after the election when I have more flexibility" moral compass is damaging this nation at least as much as my opposition.
So you and I will not agree.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 11:23:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by thebin on Mar 2, 2014 11:23:55 GMT -5
Your opinions might be worth considering if you supported of the president's policies maybe 5% of the time. In a country as moderate as ours in terms of the political band between left and right, the other guy would have to accidentally be right sometimes right? When i see someone speak whose opinion i can predict with 100% certitude i just stop listening. The GOP is now destroying itself in that way.
If the GOP does manage to win national office again I promise i will hate all of the leftwing automatons too.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 11:25:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 11:25:10 GMT -5
Nice dance. So you approve of his approach to Putin?
By your logic, I too would have to be right 5% of the time. Is it here? Is it Syria? Is it the phony nuclear deal with Iran? Is it on confiscatory tax policy or the hijack of health care? Somewhere, even an idiot like I must be would be correct by accident.
Let me know. Or is Mr. Obama magically right on those too?
You admit you have stopped listening to the other side. Good for you. Man the battlements for Barry.
|
|
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:09:18 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 2, 2014 14:09:18 GMT -5
Nice dance. So you approve of his approach to Putin? By your logic, I too would have to be right 5% of the time. Is it here? Is it Syria? Is it the phony nuclear deal with Iran? Is it on confiscatory tax policy or the hijack of health care? Somewhere, even an idiot like I must be would be correct by accident. Let me know. Or is Mr. Obama magically right on those too? You admit you have stopped listening to the other side. Good for you. Man the battlements for Barry. I bet you're bottom line conclusions align with mine more than 5% of the time because I reach conclusions by thinking about issues, sometimes agreeing with one party and sometimes the other. You, and many like you, reach conclusions by blindly marching to an anti-Obama drum that is painful to hear and impossible to march with, even when it's right. A broken watch is right twice a day, but I still wouldn't buy one for its integrity as a timepiece.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:23:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 14:23:20 GMT -5
Fair enough. What is your opinion on how our President has handled Putin?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:28:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by thebin on Mar 2, 2014 14:28:18 GMT -5
Fair enough. What is your opinion on how our President has handled Putin? I think you misunderstand. We're not interested in engaging with people intellectually who we know are not rational about the president. For the same reason i dont answer questions blurted at me by homeless people on the subway. For all i know you could be a world class brain surgeon and concert pianist and the world's greatest party guest but on the point of presidential politics to me you are just a brick wall. I'm not falling for the false offers of discourse with someone who starts with the conclusion and scrambles to justify it thereafter.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:30:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 14:30:55 GMT -5
Nice cop out. Clearly you have no basis to defend him here so you choose to demonize me instead. All good. Right out of the Democrat Party play book.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:32:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by thebin on Mar 2, 2014 14:32:53 GMT -5
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 14:35:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 2, 2014 14:35:28 GMT -5
He says after a number of posts with ad hominem attacks.
Uncle Saul is probably very proud of you right now....
|
|
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 15:44:56 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 2, 2014 15:44:56 GMT -5
Fair enough. What is your opinion on how our President has handled Putin? This question leads me to another problem I have with anti-president reactionaries on either side. I'm willing to admit that, in many instances, I simply don't know enough about a situation to boldly declare that the president's handling of it is right or wrong. There are many domestic issues that I think I comprehend well enough to discuss intelligently. Certainly when it comes to legal and criminal justice-related matters, I'll voice an opinion. But when it comes to navigating a complex relationship with another world power — one that has oscillated and evolved, tensed and relaxed for decades before I was even born — I don't think I'm really in a position to have an opinion, at least not an intelligent one based on first-hand knowledge or supported by reliable evidence. Somehow, over the last couple of years, every yahoo with a cable subscription and a keyboard has become an expert on Libya, embassy security protocols, Syria, and nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran. Ten years ago, it was the Taliban, Iraq, and intelligence gathering re: weapons of mass destruction. Two weeks ago, we were all experts on stray dogs in Sochi, and now it's Ukraine. Either Americans are all brilliant and worldly scholars, or way too many of us are faking it just so we can take a side and have something to talk about.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Ukraine
Mar 2, 2014 19:52:47 GMT -5
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 2, 2014 19:52:47 GMT -5
This is certainly an interesting time to be a member of the Russian diaspora... HoyaTalk isn't really the right venue for me to lay out all my thoughts on the situation, so I'll just focus on the aspect that has been brought up here. Even if one is inclined to engage in scorecarding, I don't think one can do a very good job of it while the situation on the ground is still so fluid. Regardless, whenever the dust settles, we'll still be left with the overriding fact (which few actors want to admit, since it undermines their importance) that our choices are often deeply constrained, regardless of who is in office. Leaders do make important decisions that can affect outcomes, but those decisions are much rarer than most people realize. Chief among these constraints is the omnipresent question of "you and what army?" In any situation defined by the threat and use of force, an actor that cannot credibly bring either to bear has very little leverage in the immediate term. So it is with Crimea - everyone knows that the U.S. isn't going to put its soldiers in the crosshairs here. The same was true during the last go-round, when a different team was was calling the shots: James F. Jeffrey was Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser in August 2008, the first to inform him that Russian troops were moving into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. As it happened, the clash also took place at Olympic time; Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were both in Beijing for the Summer Games.
Mr. Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.
“We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do,” Mr. Jeffrey recalled.
Inside the Bush administration, there was discussion of more robust action, like bombing the Roki Tunnel to block Russian troops or providing Georgia with Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bristled at what she called the “chest beating,” and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, urged the president to poll his team to see if anyone recommended sending American troops.
None did, and Mr. Bush was not willing to risk escalation. This constraint works both ways, of course. You can be sure that Russia and China were none too happy with our adventures in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. What could they do to dissuade us or alter our behavior? Not much, because neither of them was going to be putting their own troops in harms way over those conflicts. Over a longer timeframe, one can gauge the decisions and outcomes more holistically, but oftentimes it just serves to underscore how limited the options available really are. With the U.S. sinking enormous blood & treasure into 'the sandbox' over the past decade plus, and with China demanding its own large share of attention, even a President inclined to wage a new Cold War in opposition to Russia would have found him(or her)self with few tools readily available. The U.S. cannot play every lead role on every stage in the world. This is Europe's backyard, not ours. The EU has much more to lose (and, potentially, to gain) from how this turns out than we do, and it is their actions that will largely determine how things shake out. For what it's worth, my sense is that Putin has very likely overplayed his hand here. Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia. With very few exceptions, Putin has ruled in a very statist way, seeking to preserve the international status quo and balance of power while working on the margins. To now shift course so sharply and act in so destabilizing a manner... it reeks of desperation, borne of the repeated failure to get Ukraine to move into the Russian orbit of its own volition. There is an internal desperation too. Circuses aren't enough - you have to provide bread too, and Putin & Co. have been stealing the dough so thoroughly and for so long that they no longer know how to run the oven. They may or may not retain power, but their kingdom will only continue to grow more hollow.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Mar 3, 2014 9:34:46 GMT -5
Touchy touchy. I was congratulating the President for a thoughtful and measured response. Given your history on the President and how you wrote this, pardon us if absolutely no one believes you.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Ukraine
Mar 3, 2014 15:52:31 GMT -5
Post by hoyaLS05 on Mar 3, 2014 15:52:31 GMT -5
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw This is oddly reminiscent of Clarence Thomas on hiring liberal clerks: “It’s like trying to train a pig. It wastes your time, and it aggravates the pig.”
|
|
|
Ukraine
Mar 3, 2014 22:42:20 GMT -5
Post by rustyshackleford on Mar 3, 2014 22:42:20 GMT -5
This is certainly an interesting time to be a member of the Russian diaspora... HoyaTalk isn't really the right venue for me to lay out all my thoughts on the situation, so I'll just focus on the aspect that has been brought up here. Even if one is inclined to engage in scorecarding, I don't think one can do a very good job of it while the situation on the ground is still so fluid. Regardless, whenever the dust settles, we'll still be left with the overriding fact (which few actors want to admit, since it undermines their importance) that our choices are often deeply constrained, regardless of who is in office. Leaders do make important decisions that can affect outcomes, but those decisions are much rarer than most people realize. Chief among these constraints is the omnipresent question of "you and what army?" In any situation defined by the threat and use of force, an actor that cannot credibly bring either to bear has very little leverage in the immediate term. So it is with Crimea - everyone knows that the U.S. isn't going to put its soldiers in the crosshairs here. The same was true during the last go-round, when a different team was was calling the shots: James F. Jeffrey was Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser in August 2008, the first to inform him that Russian troops were moving into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. As it happened, the clash also took place at Olympic time; Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin were both in Beijing for the Summer Games.
Mr. Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.
“We did a lot but in the end there was not that much that you could do,” Mr. Jeffrey recalled.
Inside the Bush administration, there was discussion of more robust action, like bombing the Roki Tunnel to block Russian troops or providing Georgia with Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bristled at what she called the “chest beating,” and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, urged the president to poll his team to see if anyone recommended sending American troops.
None did, and Mr. Bush was not willing to risk escalation. This constraint works both ways, of course. You can be sure that Russia and China were none too happy with our adventures in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. What could they do to dissuade us or alter our behavior? Not much, because neither of them was going to be putting their own troops in harms way over those conflicts. Over a longer timeframe, one can gauge the decisions and outcomes more holistically, but oftentimes it just serves to underscore how limited the options available really are. With the U.S. sinking enormous blood & treasure into 'the sandbox' over the past decade plus, and with China demanding its own large share of attention, even a President inclined to wage a new Cold War in opposition to Russia would have found him(or her)self with few tools readily available. The U.S. cannot play every lead role on every stage in the world. This is Europe's backyard, not ours. The EU has much more to lose (and, potentially, to gain) from how this turns out than we do, and it is their actions that will largely determine how things shake out. For what it's worth, my sense is that Putin has very likely overplayed his hand here. Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia. With very few exceptions, Putin has ruled in a very statist way, seeking to preserve the international status quo and balance of power while working on the margins. To now shift course so sharply and act in so destabilizing a manner... it reeks of desperation, borne of the repeated failure to get Ukraine to move into the Russian orbit of its own volition. There is an internal desperation too. Circuses aren't enough - you have to provide bread too, and Putin & Co. have been stealing the dough so thoroughly and for so long that they no longer know how to run the oven. They may or may not retain power, but their kingdom will only continue to grow more hollow. I think the idea that there are only a limited number of options for the US is generally true and between the public statements and coordination with military/intelligence advisors and international community it appears the president is doing a fairly good job given these constraints - one has to assume that there will also be significant pressure put on Russia behind the scenes just as I'm sure was done with Iran and Syria. I do think there are more options than you allude to because if Putin has overplayed his hand he will have to extract some type of concession from the US and NATO to stop or he may just go for broke and move on parts in the east. If that happens do you just let Russia occupy Kharkiv too? Kharkiv and Luhansk are a far cry from Crimea where it is still not clear a referendum would mean secession. Given the desperation of Putin in light of his domestic problems what is rational to the rest of the world (or at least to many of the policy analysts even 2 yrs ago - 'the 80's want their foreign policy back') is inapplicable to his thought process. Appeasement here does nothing but encourage him to pursue more satellite states that buffer Russia and conveniently allow him to deflect attention at home. So for Crimea at this time, yes, there are very few options beyond as strong a sanctions package as Europeans nations financial interests allow. If this situation deteriorates though even if there is no support for US troops you have a range of options from preemptively arming the Ukrainians to acting as a mediator. Additionally, if Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are next what happens if there is a revolution in Belarus or large protests from the Russian population in Estonia and Latvia. In the latter two you are talking directly about NATO but it doesn't appear as though that is any more of a red line to Putin than the current one. I buy the argument that some of Putin's actions are done to deflect from domestic issues but even that thesis isn't borne out in overwhelming support among the Russian people poll1poll 2. Strong action now may stem what otherwise may become a cycle of low level aggression and annexation by proxy (more Abkhazia and South Ossetias) - which puts Putin right where he wants - as a relevant and powerful international actor who tries to act as a counterweight to the US. All of this is also of course a fairly self serving analysis of American interests' - the rights' of Ukrainians or Georgians or Estonians to maintain sovereignty during domestic conflicts should obviously have some weight as well.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Ukraine
Mar 18, 2014 14:33:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Mar 18, 2014 14:33:36 GMT -5
The President's newly announced sanctions are real cripplers. I hear he may ban those guys from the healthcare exchanges as well.
|
|