Vague arguments like " Mr. Obama is inept", "a clown", or "seen by the world as a weakling" are just juvenile pronouncements without any justification. First of all any assessment has to be a comparison, so you would need to compare what Mr. Obama is doing to what others have done or to a course of action you see as better. You need to flesh it out or be summarily discounted. Second, I don't know what is being done on the strategic or diplomatic level since most of that is top secret. If you actually know what is being done, like moving submarines, flying in communications equipment, tasking AWAC's to Europe, let us in on it. I do think flying Mr. Kerry into Kiev is a bold, bold diplomatic move and it appears that Mr. Putin is toning down the rhetoric today. So, since Syrian WMD's were contained, we are holding out for the deal we have to have in Afghanistan, we have an effective, so far peaceful Western coup in the Ukraine, we are finally talking a little tough with Israel, we are engaging Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea etc. I think the career diplomats, that don't revolve with the political winds, are doing a pretty good job in advising Mr. Obama on foreign affairs. And he is doing a good job listening to them. What you don't want is hot headed reactions that end up costing American lives. And, if you look at this from Mr. Putin's view, he just lost an ally in the neighbor next door that grows all his food, transports all his income producing gas and has his only warm water seaport. For the security of his nation he has to react to ensure those strategic assets are not lost. He has to negotiate from strength just like we do. I expect that a fully autonomous, Russia aligned Crimea will be the minimum he expects to settle for, in a negotiations threatening the partition of East and West Ukraine.
Might not hurt to hear another opinion besides the common one in the mainstream media that Putin is a dictator without majority support and Russia is one hundred percent wrong with no legitimate interests in the region. ********* Editorial: No winners in a renewed Cold War FROM THE moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...sn-zero-sum/Df9VSHeJFpKUz3tRKDjUXJ/story.html Russia’s dispatch of troops in recent days to Crimea — a verdant peninsula on the Black Sea that is part of Ukraine but, partly as a result of Stalin-era ethnic cleansing, has a mainly Russian population — was the latest fulfillment of Kennan’s prediction. Editorial: No winners in a renewed Cold War Some policy makers in Washington have been congratulating each other for a successful American-aided regime change operation in Ukraine. Three factors converged to produce the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. First was his own autocratic instinct and utter lack of political skill, which led him to think he could ignore protesters. Second was the brave determination of the protesters themselves. Third was intervention by the United States and other Western countries — often spearheaded by diplomats and quasi-covert operatives who have been working for years on “democracy promotion” projects in Ukraine. As protests mounted in Kiev last month, many in Washington found it difficult to break the old habit of shaping US policy to punish Russia Here is another article by a Russian expert which runs against what might be called the Mc-Cain Obama consensus on Russia. It is even more critical of the one sided approach to analyzing Russia which is dominant. It mentions how Putin has helped Obama and the US immensely with Iran, saved Obama on Syria (and the US tax payers I might add tens or perhaps hundreds of billions on a Syrian War.) Distorting Russia How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine. http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia
I think Russia has legitimate interests in the region, and it is clear to me that the US intervention is not only about human rights, but about preserving and expanding a sphere of influence. But that doesn't justify Putin marching into another country with his military. It also doesn't justify Putin describing a corrupt murderer and tyrant, Yanukovich, as the legitimate president of the Ukraine. I just hope there will not be a further escalation. Make Crimea a semi-autonomous region with ties to both Ukraine and Russia. Leave the rest of Ukraine to the Ukrainians.
I completely agree with the assessment that the West has been picking off former satellites in an attempt to blunt a resurgent Russia's geopolitical power, a policy I think was wise, especially given current events. Is the current Ukraine crisis another example of another satellite being stolen from Russian influence to weaken its global power? Yes. Does that make Russia's interest in keeping a pro-Russian government in Ukraine "legitimate"? No, there's no such thing as legitimate in geopolitics. This is essentially a lawless arena. It might be unwise because Russia may react in ways we don't like, but there's nothing legitimate about Russia meddling in Ukrainian politics just because they're close by, just like there's nothing legitimate about our meddling.
Except that the Dragon X vehicle has been designed to eventually carry passengers. I will admit to not knowing how far they are with that but I doubt a complete retrofit of it is needed. Further I suspect that in the event of a crisis where we desperately need space transport that a significant amount of resources will be put into upgrading Dragon and other vehicles. The technology for sending and returning people from orbit is now old technology and all of the technical hurdles have been met already. It is just a matter of resources that I am pretty confident in a crisis will be found.
Well it isn't gonna happen. Believe whatever you want. These are completely new spacecraft. We don't know anything about them without testing. The withdraw of the Russians won't increase the speed of getting them man rated, it will delay it because they don't have the backup option of rescue with a Soyuz. Every year they push the expectation back one year. Currently at Nov 2017. Last year it was Nov 2016. This is what happens when you don't want to burn your astronauts to death. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/uscv-1-nasa-slip-iss-commercial-late-2017/ 6 years into building the Apollo Command modules, we burned Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee to death. That spacecraft was supposed to be ready to fly then, but it didn't fly for another 2 years. The pressure to beat the Russians was much more than it would be to continue doing ISS missions. You think we are faster now because of technological advancements? Wrong. Look at how much longer it takes to create aircraft now compared to the 1960s.
Giving Crimea autonomy seems to be the only compromise palatable for both the US and Russia. However, I don't know how thrilled Ukraine will be. We might have to offer them a carrot to accept it (or Russia will have to continue prodding with the stick).
Russia has said that they don't want Crimea. If Ukraine gives them Crimea then you would see an uprising from Turkey. Russia simply wants a leader in Ukraine that they can control. That's all they want. Putin even said they need a new, fair election there and that he will decide if it's fair or not, lol.
It already is semi-autonomous. In fact when Crimea voted yes to seceding from the USSR, having a near autonomous government was one of the big conditions. Prior to independence, Crimea was just a province of Ukraine within the USSR. What you are describing is the current situation in Crimea. Russia was already doing shady stuff like giving people in Crimea Russian passports before this even started. But you're probably right. This is a powerplay to preserve what little influence Putin has in Eastern Europe. Much of the Soviet block has already been eaten up by the European Union. Ukraine and Belarus are all thats left in Eastern Europe so I'm sure this is about preserving what's left of their sphere of influence.
Why is Turkey always brought up? It's not like as if Turkey is some kind of major power that Russia need to be afraid of. Other than threatening to close of Bosporus strait for Russian ships what else can Turkey do?
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has said "“A power may attempt to turn the Crimea issue into first a Tatar-Russian and subsequently a Turkish-Russian crisis. We will not let this happen, Crimea is first and foremost a problem for Ukraine and by extension the world” Some 12 percent of the population of Crimea, an autonomous republic of Ukraine, is made up of Turkic Tatars who support Ukraine's pro-European interim government, while a Russian majority of almost 60 percent wants secession. The Ukrainian ambassador in an e-mailed statement on Sunday, the Ukrainian Embassy in Ankara appealed to Turkey to join international efforts to stop the escalation of tensions with Russia, warning that Crimean Tatars are facing a “great danger” amid the Russian takeover of Crimea. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-341...s-out-turkish-russian-crisis-over-crimea.html ‘We control everything’: Crimea breaks ties with Ukraine http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...mea-breaks-ties-with-ukraine/article17266761/ Crimea’s new Prime Minister says he is taking control of all military forces and government departments in the territory, declaring an official break with Kiev. In a press conference Tuesday Sergey Aksenov, who was named Prime Minister last week, said the new government in Kiev was illegal and “mad”. “We don’t trust the Kiev government and we asked help from the Russian federation to help us with the situation in Crimea,” he said. “We control everything, every activity.” He asked all Ukrainian military forces in Crimea to lay down their arms and leave their bases. Mr. Aksenov said Crimea will form its own military and he urged Ukrainian soldiers to join, promising them higher wages. If they don’t join, Mr. Aksenov said they will face legal action. “We control all military forces in Ukraine,” he said. The Prime Minster said the economic situation in Crimea was stable and that all government employee wages and social benefits were being paid. However he would not say where the money to support the government had come from. When asked about the legality of his position, Mr. Aksenov said he had been voted prime minister by Crimean members of parliament. He said the government in Kiev came to power much the same way. Mr. Aksenov was the speaker of the Crimean parliament and leads a pro-Russian party (the majority of people in Crimea are Russian-speaking). He said Crimea’s new government would protect the rights of the territory’s Tatar population, a minority group that is largely Muslim and is against Russian control over Crimea. He also said he believed Viktor Yanukovych was still the president of Ukraine but he had not spoken with him. Mr. Yanukovych left Ukraine last week after being removed from power by the country’s parliament. The Ukrainian government has issued a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Aksenov has also not spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin but hopes to soon. The Crimean parliament plans to hold a referendum on separation in March. When asked if Crimea was now a separate country he said that will be determined by the referendum. He had this message for Canada and other Western nations: “You are welcome to come to Crimea. Come here and relax.”
Forbes had a good piece today, although it didn't say anything particularly new. Basically, this is a rather irrational move by Putin with the idea of making Russia still looking powerful. Crimea joining Russia would be a problem because of the sizable Ukrainian population and the Tartars, and Russia acting aggressively is only going to persuade Georgia (who had problems with Russia over South Ostia) and other states to join NATO. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsat...ould-know-about-putins-incursion-into-crimea/
Spoiler <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TTONBjpj3-Y?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's laughable. Bush was strong, decisive, started two wars, ran up huge bills to fight those wars, and got hundreds of thousands of people killed. Obama killed bin Laden, kills terrorists like ants, started zero wars, but he's weak and inept.
Report: Clinton compares Putin's Ukraine moves to Hitler and Nazi Germany (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly said Tuesday that the moves Russian President Vladimir Putin has made in Ukraine are similar to those Adolf Hitler and the Nazis made in the 1930s. According to the Long Beach Press-Telegram, who had a reporter in the room for the closed Boys & Girls Club of Long Beach fundraiser, Clinton said Putin's rush to protect anyone of Russian decent in Crimea is reminiscent of what Hitler did to protect Germans before World War II. "Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the 30s," Clinton said, according to the report. "All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous." Hitler justified his invasion of neighboring countries by saying they were efforts to protect ethnic Germans. Hitler annexed neighboring Austria and Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in 1938, one year before invading Poland, which sparked the Second World War. The United States entered the war in December 1941, after Japan, Germany's ally, attacked U.S. naval forces in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In describing Putin, Clinton reportedly said, "When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia." She reportedly added that "everyone" is hoping for negotiations that "respects Ukraine and doesn't ratify a reoccupation by Russia of Crimea." "So it's a real nail-biter, right now, but nobody wants to up the rhetoric," she said according to the report. "Everybody wants to cool it in order to find a diplomatic solution and that's what we should be trying to do." Buzzfeed was the first to report Clinton's remarks and a Clinton spokesperson did not respond to emails requesting comment. Tensions between Russia and Western powers, like the United States and European Union, have skyrocketed since Putin deployed troops to the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea over the weekend. The deployments comes after the pro-Russian government in Ukraine was toppled by months-long demonstrations in the capital of Kiev. On Tuesday, a defiant Putin decried what he called an illegitimate Ukrainian government that illegally seized power in a coup with U.S. backing, arguing that his country has a right to use military force. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, warned that invading forces was a desperate Russia breaking international law. The Russian leader, in defending his moves in Ukraine, also used a reference to Nazis. "Firstly, we have a request of the legitimate President Yanukovych to protect the welfare of the local population. We have neo-Nazis and Nazis and anti-Semites in parts of Ukraine, including Kiev," Putin told reporters. Clinton was Obama's top diplomat for over four years, but since leaving the State Department in early 2013, she has largely shied away from talking about many of the foreign policy issues she once addressed. The former first lady and former senator from New York State says she'll decide on a second White House bid by the end of the year. If Clinton does run, she would instantly become the front runner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, with poll after poll showing she is her party's top choice for the White House. Since the fall of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, Clinton has not been afraid to use tough rhetoric to describe Putin. Last week, in a closed press event in Orlando, Florida, Clinton said that the Russian leader would "look seriously" at consolidating Russia's position in eastern Ukraine if the opportunity presented itself. Clinton said Putin is a man who "sits as the absolute authority now in Russia and it is quite reminiscent of the kind of authority exercised in the past by Russian leaders, by the czars and their successor Communist leaders." Yesterday's $1,500 a plate fundraiser at the Boys & Girls Club was not Clinton's only event of the day. The former secretary of state also addressed a large audience at the annual gala for the Association of Corporate Counsel America, Southern California Chapter. According to Amjad Mahmood Khan, a lawyer who was in the room, Clinton did not make similar comments comparing Russia and Nazis but did talk extensively about Ukraine and Putin. Khan also said that Clinton defended the Obama administration's actions on Ukraine against criticism delivered by Sen. John McCain, who on Monday described Obama's foreign policy as "feckless" and somewhat responsible for the crisis in Eastern European country. "McCain came up in a question and answer," said Khan. "She said, I have a great relationship with him but he is just misguided on his view of the administration's handling of the U.S. Russia reset. She was somewhat defensive on those comments, but she did it in a respectful way." Clinton is on a three day trip to the West Coast and Canada. On Wednesday, the former first lady will deliver a lecture at UCLA and then fly to Vancouver, where she will speak to the Vancouver Board of Trade's Women's Leadership Circle. On Thursday, Clinton will deliver remarks at a closed event in Calgary. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...e-moves-to-hitler-and-nazi-germany/?hpt=hp_t1
So far, looking at the end results (this one yet to end), Obama has been quite effective. Bush was a total disaster. At the end of the day, that's what count for the U.S. I prefer a "weak and inept" (which really mean, one that doesn't shoot from the hip, is cautious, try to get international community involve, try diplomacy, try anything and everything before taking out the big guns) President if that's how we get effective results on handling these issues.
Bush was strong and decisive, until the Russians invaded Georgia in an actual shooting war, and then he wasn't so strong and decisive (or maybe he was).
An American president is not going to get into a shooting war with Russia over any of these Eastern European nations, no matter what treaties we have in place. Europe is completely against it for one, and for another, the consequences would be far too severe economically and politically. The idea that a Republican president right now would be doing something different, like doing a troop building up in the Baltic states is silly. At the end of the day if Putin wants the Ukraine the US and Europe is going to let him have it, screaming the entire time.
