Not saying they are. That is not my point at all. Cuba can be right on one and not the other. Comparing the two (Iraq and Crimea) as similar in scope as ‘invasions’ go is the problem with XT’s joining my opposition and challenges to the Western company line as some kind of ‘comfort’ with rogue states with which I may agree.
It was a cheap slur as is the one about four year olds.
That is something I feel is not talked about enough. The restraint of the Ukrainian people, army and individual soldiers, has been incredible. All it would have taken is a few people fighting back to give some veneer of justification to the Russian invasion as they would be “protecting” against those people. That didn’t happen and as such Russia is receiving a very unified condemnation, apart from countries like North Korea and their ilk, because their justification for the invasion has been so obviously disproved.
He never used the phrase “rogue state”. Again, “rogues gallery” means something else entirely. And “rogues gallery” is an apt phrase for nations like Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and North Korea.
The “anti-Russian opinion holders” include the 100 nations in the UN General Assembly that just voted for this resolution, which rejects the Crimean referendum as invalid. Is their style of argument flawed as well? Any thoughts on this resolution?
Indeed. If one wakes up surrounded by pigs, one might question where one chose to bed down last night.
Those “anti-Russian opinion holders” also includes Obama.
Thoughts on the resolution? Iraq was bad. BAD! BAD! BAD!
Yes, just watch the future incredible restraint of Ukrainians as Russia takes over the eastern half of Ukraine. I am sure the restraint will spur on the very unified condemnation. For all the good it will do.
Who knows, maybe the Ukrainian “restraint” will break when Russian troops enter Kiev. Or maybe it will continue.
It does seem that Ukrainians are not very willing to defend their land. If so, it is hard to expect that anyone else will help them.
Ever heard the old adage: Discretion is the better part of valor?
It’s easy to be effective - for a while - if you’re willing to shoot dissenters en masse and ship slackers off to the Gulag. Eventually that comes back to bite you in the ass, but it’s not surprising how motivating a gun to the head can be.
In the past Putin has shown himself to be a very savvy operator. His installation of a puppet leader to maintain the fiction of constitutional limits was smart. The way he has threaded the treacherous oligarchy has been impressive. He’s certainly out-played the U.S. at every turn over the past decade.
So when someone has shown a history of canny decisions, we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that he’s making a ‘big obvious mistake’ in Crimea. Even if all the points about the economic hit he’ll take are true, that just means we’re evaluating this on our terms - a classic attribution error of the kind that causes wars to start.
If you look at this from Putin’s point of view as a Russian Nationalist and someone who sees the world through the lens of force, it makes a lot more sense. Russia could afford to let their warm-water base stay in the hands of the Ukraine so long as the government there remained friendly. Once it changed to a pro-western government and Putin lost his influence in a coup, his prime requirement was ensure that Russia maintain control over Crimea. Anything less would have been a blow to Russia’s power. The economic costs are a secondary issue.
His other calculus (and the one we should all be worried about) is that he may see the current feckless state of Europe and the U.S. as a window of opportunity that will not stay open forever. This would not be the first time that a European and American projection of weakness caused an aggressive power to step up to the plate swinging.
So even if the costs are high, they become irrelevant if Putin strongly believes in an expanded Russia and also believes that Americans and Europeans may elect stronger leaders next time in reaction to his first aggression. He may be thinking, “It’s now or never”.
Again, it depends on how you look at it. If he can allow a pogram while distancing himself personally from it, he can achieve the goal of eliminating dissenters while also putting the fear of God into anyone else who might dissent in the future, while retaining enough of a fig leaf of respectability to prevent the rise of dissent in Russia itself. Right now, he’s got something like 80% approval in Russia, which suggests he knows what he’s doing.
Well, they fucked up - they trusted the U.S. to live up to its agreement to defend them. As a result, they don’t have much in the way of capability to resist the Russians. They may also be wary of a trap - there are 100,000 Russian soldiers on their border, and perhaps the Ukrainians believe that any action they take to defend Crimea will be the trigger Putin is looking for to launch a full scale invasion of the country. The lesson of Georgia may not be lost on them.
Here we agree. The way to hit Putin is to show that his attempt to increase his power will result in his neighbors becoming even more powerful. That’s the language he speaks. Economic sanctions are well and good and may put some internal pressure on him, but ultimately he has to be taught that the old Soviet Union isn’t coming back, and any attempt to take it back by force will be met with an overwhelming response.
Obama should have already announced a re-opening of talks to put missile shield installations back in Eastern Europe, and NATO should be publically discussing mobilation plans to defend the Baltic states. A red line should be drawn - but not in public. That’s what you do in the back channels. And then you have to take concrete steps to show that you mean business regarding a red line - such as moving military assets into place to respond if it’s broken.
None of that will happen. As usual, Europe is frozen into indecision and has so cut back on its military capability that its ability to meet its own treaty obligations and defend its own territory is questionable. The U.S. announced that it will be scaling its military back dramatically just weeks before the invasion of Crimea. At the very least, the Obama administration should announce that those plans are now being revisited in light of the aggression displayed by Russia.
Ever heard the old adage: no one will help you if you will not help yourself?
The thing about pointing to Venezula’s opposition to the Iraq War is that most of the world was opposed to the Iraq War. In that instance, it was the U.S. and her allies that were defying international norms and international opinion.
In this instance, however, most of the world is opposed to the seizure of Crimea.
North Korea et al are certainly capable of being on the right side of events. When they are the only countries on one side, though, odds are pretty good that it ain’t the right side.
But Obama’s just playing politics, so it doesn’t count.
I don’t remember the details, but I’m not sure “most” is the best description. I would say that opinions were split on the issue. Maybe there were more countries agains than for, but it was NOT so heavily skewed like it is over Crimea.
I meant “most” as in “more than half”. Certainly, it wasn’t as clear-cut as the reaction to the Crimea situaiton.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
If you look back in context of this particular subplot it was XT that launched the rogue state broadside while mentioning my good name in the process.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Do you have a post number for my use of the term ‘rogue state’ in this thread?
It’s your own look out that you’ve chosen to take sides against the vast majority of the nations of the world who voted on the question of the Crimean referendum…and that nearly all of those 11 nations that did side with Russia aren’t exactly the poster children for the better nations on earth. I mean, even CHINA didn’t side with the Russians on this one, which is pretty surprising.
BTW and once again, I never mentioned ‘rogue states’ (feel free to provide that post number if I’m wrong), so that’s entirely in your own mind…though, honestly in the case of a few of them the term does fit. They are, however, a ROGUES GALLERY of nations, and not ones that most folks would be comfortable as the sole representatives of nations willing to stand on ones side in a debate like this.
Not that it really matters, but as far as I can tell from this wiki cite it was 54 nations that officially condemned the war. My WAG is that a lot of nations would have abstained, but that the US would have still been able to cobble together more than 11 regardless.
And, just to be clear, I agree that the US should have come under protest for it’s actions against Iraq…in fact, I think more nations would have been justified in doing so than represented here in this list. I’m still unclear as to why if the US does something wrong that means Russia is in the right for doing what they are doing…or really, what past US transgressions have to do with this situation where the US is only peripherally involved have to do with the right or wrong of what Russia is doing in this particular situation.
Cite such an agreement exists? Note; if you’re thinking of the Budapest Memorandum, it includes no such promise.
Perhaps if you put the ‘straightforward’ UN question in a new post without false references to my comfortability with rogue nations and my past arguments UN votes with regard to Iraq I could see a simple straightforward question to be answered.
Or you could simply answer the question and admit you were wrong about the rogue states thingy and move on…especially considering I’m not the only one who asked you about it. Feel free to continue to beat this dead horse and continue to show that when you are wrong you simply can’t let it go, or to answer the question…or to do whatever else you like. Totally up to you, old boy.
Losing the plot.
Obama Falsely Claims Kosovo Secession Involved UN-Backed Referendum
Change…you can believe in. If you try real hard and read upside down.
Gravity of actions and impunity to same. Add a huge dash of hypocrisy: “it’s OK if we do it.”
Sorry that is so difficult to understand.
Wow. I knew the Budapest memorandum stopped short of an iron-clad guarantee to defend Ukraine’s borders, but I thought it at least implied that action would be taken if Ukraine’s sovereignty was violated. And I’ve seen it reported that way in the media as well.
Well, after you said that I went and read the memorandum myself. What a worthless document! It makes no guarantees of any sort. Even if freaking nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine, the only action specifically called for is:
Since Russia was always the likely aggressor, going to the Security Council where Russia has a veto would be a complete waste of time.
But they’ve got that covered too. If there’s any ‘question’ about these commitments…
In other words, this memorandum isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. I imagine its only purpose was to give political cover to the politicians who wanted to get rid of the nukes anyway.
So no, I guess the U.S. doesn’t have any sort of commitment to defend Ukraine, unless they’ve made one behind closed doors. If the Ukraine’s leaders thought this memorandum was sufficient protection against Russia, they were idiots.
Why should the West respond? There would be no point to it.