Well, one example is his own former Secretary of Defense had this to say. That only applies to Afghanistan. But other world leaders know the US is weary of war since 9/11. We just had a major announcement 3 weeks ago about reducing our forces to pre WWII levels.
No that isn’t practical. Fighting a war with Russia in their own backyard is too costly. Napoleon and Hitler learned that lesson the hard way.
The time for strong US leadership was before the invasion. Putin has been manipulating The Ukrainian for several years. He shut off their gas supply in the middle of the winter a few years ago. He had his own puppet leader in place up until two weeks ago. The US has done nothing and that emboldened Putin.
Send in troops? Heck no. I don’t know what can be done now except strong economic sanctions. They will only work if supported by the entire UN. If all the major countries, including China, support sanctions then it might just work. Russia is still not fully recovered from the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. Sanctions would hurt.
What would a proper cowboy president do to show he’s just as craaaaaaazy as Putin? Should we have invaded and occupied Ukraine first? Why stop there? We should invade Europe! We can never let Putin get his hands on it!
The leadership I was referring to was not direct military intervention. There are other options if we had a strong leader. Go to the UN and get a coalition of Nations to condemn Russia’s actions and develop appropriate economic sanctions.
The biggest question is… Will the world passively sit by and watch Putin reassemble the old Soviet state? Will China support Russia’s current actions?
The US can’t solve this alone. It’s going to take a coalition.
While I am as big a fan of the Warthog as you will find, that worthy airframe isn’t well suited to modern engagements. It was a tank killer. It’s slow. It doesn’t have the CAS abilities, nor modern airframe, technology, weaponry, etc that the F-35 or some other future aircraft will possess as a joint strike air/ground fighter/bomber. Then there’s the question of UAV’s, which are also robbing the A-10 of it’s primary role.
The A-10 does a job that modern attack helicopters can do almost equally well, and with very similar armament and at a cheaper cost than maintaining an aging fleet of thirty year old aircraft.
I think what it really boils down to is that the A-10 is a single mission/purpose aircraft and the Air Force is trying, within it’s budget limitations, to have more multi-role warplanes that are smaller, faster, more advanced, make tighter turns on CAS runs, than the A-10 can manage.
The cost overruns you mention for the F-35, well…that’s par for the course. Look how much more money the F-22 cost than it was supposed to and how many fewer of those the US took delivery on due to similar issues.
I’ll commend you on the ‘fair enough’. That hardly ever happens here. And I do not see the hijack. I am sure Kerry knows the US government violated international law in 2003 and too many suffered too much needlessly for it. **But it is not his job in today’s crisis to emphasize the negative. Russia is violating international law and everything should be done and I believe is being done to contain this crisis by our leaders like Kerry. **
Kerry’s statement is not inept, ironic or hypocritical. I don’t agree with calling this an invasion at this stage. It is a violation. Some diplomatic statements about Russian troops maintaining an orderly and non-aggressive profile should be kept in the forefront. I have not seen enough of that, but I don’t call the lack of it ‘inept’.
Someone enlighten me. While the Russian “invasion” seems to violate some pact from 1994 WRT the Ukraine, the Russians only appeared to want to possess Crimea in light of the upheaval and protests in Ukraine writ large.
If I’m not mistaken, Crimea is home to actual Russian military bases, land and sea, and is by majority (I’ve read something along the lines of around 58%) pro-Russian.
I get the outrage, but if the residents of Crimea, strategically placed as a warm water port and with access to the Mediterranean Sea, WANT to ally with Russia…well…where’s our leg to stand on with our outrage?
Kerry did not say that the US or any other nation was ok to behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext. Do you think that Kerry said that? Why do you think he said that?
One of the lessons of Hitlerism is that there is nothing more dangerous for world peace than a superpower that has been quickly and stunningly humbled. So, while it was nice to see the Soviet Union crumble, if the price is a new gasoline fire of demagoguery, I’m not sure that’s a gain for world peace. The problem is we don’t really know how to treat humbled superpowers. Personally, I’m not opposed to them having few moral victories, if only to bleed off some of that frustration that would otherwise fester. But you have to be careful. You don’t want the superpower in question to get the wrong idea, and start feeling again like it can throw its weight about.
That’s why the situation in Ukraine worries me like it does. Russia’s reaction here can hardly be called unexpected, but at the same time, it sets up a situation that could very easily slide into disaster. If the Ukrainians start shooting at the Russians – as they very well might – all bets are off.
And it’s unnerving to read the following, from CNN: “Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday sharply denounced Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ‘stunning, willful’ actions in Crimea, characterizing the move as an ‘invasion’ and saying ‘all options are on the table’ as far as a U.S. response.” That’s a reckless and inflammatory thing to say. Nor does it help when the Ukrainian government starts talking about “acts of war” and calling up its reservists. It reminds me of World War I, where a relatively trivial event started all the powers blustering till they had backed themselves into a corner.
Everyone should just shut up, to start with. Say something neutral, like “We’re assessing the situation and considering our options.” In the meantime, send the diplomats into overdrive. Try to contain the problem to Crimea. **Sam Stone’**s suggestions are useful, but they’re for next week. The immediate goal should be deescalation. That’s what I’m not seeing, and I’m worried like hell that the window for that is being slammed shut.
(And here’s an ironic, if trivial, fact about Ukraine. You know what their national anthem is called? “Ukraine has not yet perished.” Ouch.)
You’re touching on something that I think is part of the problem. Russia wants to believe that it is still a superpower but no longer is, aside from nukes, so they feel exerting their sovereignty over formerly “owned” new states/republics is something they can just arbitrarily just do, without fear of repercussions.
I don’t think it was masterful. It was proper. Why do you think it was masterful now that you admit it was not ironic? You are as inconsistent as ever on your reasoning.
In some ways, Russia is the sick man of Europe (check their life expectancy, for example), but still – they have a heck of a lot of nukes. That fact alone means you don’t act rashly with regard to Russia.
I agree. Their life expectancy is alarmingly low for a modernized nation…and yes, they have a ton of nukes…can’t help but wonder if their low life expectancy plays into some kind of fatalistic outlook which therefore makes them dangerous.
Just the most hilarious thing I’ve read in weeks!