Looking at Russia’s trade surplus vs. Europe’s need for these resources indicates Russia would win that exchange. Here’s another source:
The Perekop Isthmus connects the Crimean Peninsula to mainland Ukraine. This is how the peninsula gets its freshwater and its electrical power. Unless Russia some “magic plan” on how it’s going to provide both of those which are now supplied by Ukraine this is showboating and not much more. As it was Sevastopol had applied for Western financial aid last month because its water system is aged and crumbling. There are days when there is no freshwater available.
There’s also the problem with the Crimean Tartars who are Muslims. Russia is already having issues w/ Islamic insurgencies in the Trans-Caucasus. Does it really want (or need) additional problems with terrorism and civil unrest? Can it afford it?
This was a really stupid move for Putin. If nothing else, it will pressure the Eastern European fence sitters who were/are lukewarm about NATO to become “born-agin” converts. It also risks the US reviving the formerly defunct missile defense shield that it planned for Eastern Europe and it prevents the White House and Congress from pressing hard for a draw down of US troop levels.
“You don’t just, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext,” Kerry told CBS program Face the Nation."
I found that ironic today.
Me, too. I’m surprised none of the interviewers called him on this.
Sec Kerry, didnt you vote for the authorization to use military force in Iraq? Wasn’t that in 2002, that is “the 21st century”?
At the moment, not so much. In the past he has been rather bellicose in his statements about protecting the ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltic states. It would be pretty easy to google them up if you want to.
You may have missed it but I am in agreement about the amazing lack of violence needed to seize Crimea. In fact I said as much in the Ukraine “predictions” thread here.
I’m not sure why you would expect me to address it frankly. I haven’t ventured an opinion about it either way. I only engaged with you when you didn’t seem to understand what adaher was talking about back in post #213 of this thread.
If I have to choose I suppose I would say the bigger geopolitical threat to the US is Al Qaeda, though Putin strikes me as being touched with more than a little megalomania.
However, I think the bigger threat we face is the idiotic arrogance of our foreign policy for the last 15-20 years (at least) that has led us to become involved in a series of wars and military actions that have done more harm than good. And the moronic “USA USA USA” mindset is has fostered that seems to preempt any rational discussion of what our priorities as a nation should be. But of course, that’s probably a discussion to have in a different thread, don’t you think? 
Secretary Kerry on Meet The Press:
“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.”
Earth to Kerry: Er, yes, you do, as one other superpower (whose name escapes me for the moment) has amply demonstrated.
Really, could this Administration sound more inept?
Ukrainians are divided about whether to align more with the EU or Russia, and Putin doesn’t like Yanukovich very much. Yanukovich’s decision may have gotten him voted out in due time, but almost no one wanted him overthrown by a minority of right wing nationalists who up until a decade ago still had swastikas on their flags. That was what gave Putin the perfect opportunity to step in as a peacekeeper and oh by the way, I’m keeping the Black Sea Fleet forever.
Thirded. I generally like Kerry, but I don’t know how he kept a straight face on that one.
I have to confess I am lost in the morass that is this thread. It seems like a lot of arguing over who’s past misdeeds provide cover for current misdeeds. That’s a method of argument that has never held water with me. Nixon’s BS didn’t make abuse of power OK, Clinton’s draft dodging didn’t make W’s ok, etc. And our ill advised invasion of Iraq does not excuse this current behavior by Russia, nor does it really deprive us of any moral high ground.
Really, what is the central argument of this thread? Whether or not there is an invasion happening? Whether it is the US’ or Russia’s fault? Whether Russia or the US is “more bad?”
My Take: The Ukrainians need to be allowed to select their government, and if the populace is sufficiently displeased that they have forced out the elected government, then so be it. If the US and Russia (and for that matter Ethiopia) want to lobby the people of Ukraine as to where their bread is buttered, that’s fine too. But nobody at this time has any justification to send in outside troops. I would add that Crimea, given its history, ought to be allowed self determination as part of the process.
Furthermore, we can and should (as a nation) take a stand regarding what we see as right. But military intervention by NATO is completely absurd. It doesn’t matter who would win such a war, as frankly Ukraine just isn’t worth the cost of such a war. I know it’s hard to put it so bluntly, but I think the line has to be drawn at NATO’s borders. Prior to that the US can and should exercise its right to impose economic sanctions, along with NATO/EU nations if they agree.
To me, what’s really wrong with his statement isn’t the hypocrisy, it’s the nonsense. Countries invading other countries isn’t some relic of the past. History hasn’t stopped. There will be more wars, and more big wars, because people haven’t changed. Analysts keep on talking about a world in which the US armed forces need to be smaller and leaner to take on 21st century threats, and while such threats are more likely than another European general war, we need to be prepared to fight such a war. And all this talk of Europe having moved on from those days is pure nonsense and wishful thinking. Invasions of countries by other countries is as in fashion in the 21st century as it was in the 19th. And world leader do the citizenry no favors by making us complacent with comforting nonsense.
Putin said, “The only problem with President Obama saying something is that you have to read it and then plan your next move with a smirk on your face”
now I have to go find that link
President Obama likes to say stuff he doesn’t mean to follow through on all the time. Next to the fact that he still thinks he’s a legislator rather than an executive charged with faithfully executing the laws of this nation(apparently that’s someone else’s job, who he doesn’t really know), his propensity for saying stuff just to say stuff is his biggest weakness.
Maybe one of these days he’ll figure out he’s not standing on the floor of a legislative chamber anymore.
Would this have been competent?
You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext … as President Bush did when he made a decision to go to war and then fashioned a support structure for that decision … and that was wrong."
Military spending, top five, in billions, 2012 (SIPRI Yearbook):
US 682
China 166
Russia 91
UK 61
Japan 59
The reason why the US military is such a large federal expenditure is not because we need such a large machine, rather it is because every time the pork is offered to a congressman, he just can’t say no. Even the Sec. Defense can’t get a military budget cut. McCain the fool says, meh, I think this proposal has a long way to go. Look at the stupid F-35 150-200 million dollar aircraft. A-10 costs, what, 20 million? Oh yea, let’s scrap the workhorse and buy the fancy air-to-air jet that we will hardly, if ever, use.
Agreed. The sins of hypocrisy are on everyone’s shoulders. But some are just so fresh that you have to wonder - WTF is Kerry thinking? I think JK needs to chill the fuck down and shut the fuck up a little bit with the rhetoric.
Ukrainians are making a hash of it and are predictably polarizing along ethnic lines. In the chaos, an opportunist like Putin is no worse than the right wing Ukrainian fascists; Better in many respects. And he’s got might on his side and a majority population of Crimea who is welcoming him with open arms. Makes no difference to Putin what the world thinks because ultimately nobody gives a damn about Ukraine. Not even NATO. What will not be annexed are the majority ethnically Ukrainian territories that would only be a headache for Russia to try to control - let the EU, or the devil take them.
Just a factual reminder for you in case you have forgotten. When Kerry voted in 2002 it was not at that time a “trumped up pretext” that Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law by not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the absence WMD.
Therefore In the wake of 9/11 it was lawful to threaten Iraq with the use military force in order to get the inspection prcesss resumed.
By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed. It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
If you want to snark on Kerry for this recent comment you should divulge all the facts from 2003 that pertain.
I don’t see how you can say that a minority of right wingers overthrew the Ukrainian government, practically the entire country was in turmoil when Yanukovich was in office, he had to go.
It seems to me that this ‘right wing coup’ rubbish is just a convenient justification for Russian intervention and has now unfortunately embedded itself into part of the counter narrative, other than admitting really that this is an opportunistic land grab by Putin in order to avenge Ukraine’s government being overthrown, and making overtures to NATO and the EU, in other words, actually having some balls to defy not one, but two autocrats.
And for those lambasting the US about being hypocritical, since when did two wrongs make a right?
Nope, that’s your 'unique" interpretation of events. Assuming by “lawful” you mean per international law (since any time the Congress votes to authorize force it’s “lawful” per US law). The AUMF did more that “threaten” the use of force. It gave Bush the sole responsibility to decide when to use said force, and Kerry was in on it.
You might want to think twice before hijacking this thread into yet another discussion of that “unique” viewpoint you hold on the subject.
I’d also like to know in what strange parallel universe Vlad Putin is in any way, shape or form “left-wing”.
Huh? Ukranians haven’t had a chance to “make a hash of it”. They just created an interim government a few days ago, and already they are being invaded.
I hope you aren’t buying Putin’s rhetoric that the Ukrainians are a pack of fascists and that the Russian ethinic minority is under genuine threat from them - assertions that have, so far, not the slightest evidence to support them.
My own suspicion is that Putin has blundered badly. The West is not going to intervene with force, but they will probably impose sanctions, and Russia’s economy will suffer. It is already in deep trouble. How on Earth will Russia pay the costs of military adventures in Ukraine? Even without sanctions, they are having economic problems. Add sanctions to the mix, and it is a prescription for economic disaster.