I think we all know what needs to be done here.
The President should give another speech.
Take the President’s historic speech at Brandeburg Wall. Square it.
Take the President’s earth-shattering speech at Cairo University. Multiply it by 4.
Take the President’s groundbreaking speech in St. Louis (“the rise of the oceans will begin to slow, and our planet will begin to heal”). Magnify it tenfold.
This should be the speech to end all speeches.
No teleprompters should be spared. 3, 4, even 5 should be installed, if that’s what it takes.
This should be the speech that’ll send shivers down Putin’s spine.
How about writing it for Obama then, since you must know what it needs to convey… to send those shivers down Putin’s spine.
Let’s see the draft — and I will send it to the White House for you, I will pay the postage.
Perhaps from your perspective but seriously - let’s get beyond the jokes and tell us 'what must be done if the Russian Federation unmarked troops do not vacate the Crimean Peninsula or go back to barracks…
Well, you know…the usual… The President should draw a red line, of course…A couple of blue circles. Maybe even a green square, to make sure Putin doesn’t miss the point.
Did I say a fact that Soros is always involved in these democracy projects 'is a complete answer to this, somehow?
It is a point in opposition to yours that there’s not much indication of American ‘animus’ toward Russia contributed to the NATO expansion process.
Here’s your words:
{{{Originally Posted by Malthus : The notion that the expansion of NATO was driven entirely by Western animus against Russia, and not by the fears of the countries at issue of Russia, is patently absurd - particularly right now, when the leaders of Latvia and Estonia are, quite literally, thanking their stars that they have NATO membership (because guess what? They have lots of ethnic Russians, too!)}}
And that was what triggered my response.
Your response to me appears redirect the discussion to the ‘fear’ that "invoked article 4 of NATO, but Latvia, Lithuania and Poland."
So I guess you do not wish to stick with the line of questions and responses that address the “expansion of NATO”.
That’s fine but you should just say so.
But if he does any of that we know he needs the Dems and Tea Party in the House to back him up with the use of force and he needs the isolationist Senator Rand Paul to not block an authorization for war in case Obama needs it.
So will you get the pacifist Tea Party (Syria being the example) on board if I can get Obama to give your fine and excellent draft of a speech?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
My point is a simple one: that the leaders of Latvia, Estonia and Poland are sufficiently alarmed at Russian acts, as demonstrated by the fact that they have invoked Article 4 of NATO in response to said acts.
This fact demonstrates that the fears of said countries of Russia are not some figments of Doper imagination.
Those fears long predate the current crisis (if you look upthread, you will see reference to previous acts of Russian aggression in Latvia and Estonia - obviously much less significant than the current aggression).
These fears, recently proved entirely justified, are what motivated these countries to seek NATO membership.
Congress and the American public opinion supposedly would not support a couple days of Tomahawks lobbed at Putin’s puppet in Syria… Rand Paul was really against using military force against Putin’s’ puppet in Syria…
Obama wanted to bomb didn’t he. Who is weak here if Ebanyi must review current issues in those mano e mano terms? It is the newly formed isolationist and austerity wing of the Republican Party and Senators like Rand Paul Who thought we should not stand up to Assad, and thus Putin just last fall.
I was talking about what you wrote:
Here I will post it again:
{{{Originally Posted by Malthus : The notion that the expansion of NATO was driven entirely by Western animus against Russia, and not by the fears of the countries at issue of Russia, is patently absurd - particularly right now, when the leaders of Latvia and Estonia are, quite literally, thanking their stars that they have NATO membership (because guess what? They have lots of ethnic Russians, too!)}}
Its not about that. I’m pointing out the change of course needed by Rand Paul and the Tea Party if the desire now for the sake of where this argument was going, is that Americans want Obama to seriously draw a red line or blue square or whatever that poster says is needed, and then use military force to send shivers down Putin’s spine.
There would need to be a change in attitude in this country “IF” we want Obama to talk tough and be tough on Putin now.
That’s not the topic of that thread at all and never was… It couldn’t be. Its about this thread and what Ebanyi Gomosek thinks Obama must do.
Appaentyly Ebanyi Gomosek thinks Obama should tell a joke and it will send shivers down Putin’s spine… at least that is what his argument is thus far.
No, I think Obama cornered Putin again here and got him right where he wants him.
Remember the Snowden fiasco and Washington threat of “consequences”, followed by Russia granting Snowden asylum?
It’s the same story here: the previous Friday President gave a stirring speech, threatening “grave consequences”, followed immediately by Russia’s escalation of the situation in Crimea and de-facto occupation.
Obama does seem to enjoy getting bitchslapped by Vlad, and Vlad will, once again, deliver Obama’s wish. In abundance.
I have ‘assumed’ nothing. I asked a question that I would like to have answered:
{{{Who is weak here if Ebanyi must review current issues in those mano e mano terms? It is the newly formed isolationist and austerity wing of the Republican Party and Senators like Rand Paul who thought we should not stand up to Assad}}}
I will wait for an answer before I draw a conclusion. What do you think in terms of the present crisis in Ukraine?
Well, “consequences” doesn’t mean a missile strike in 7 days necessarily. The US wasn’t strongly interested in Ukraine over the last 20 years or so, but it seems more interested in whipping out its wallet these days. Make Ukraine’s economic development more of a priority. Eventually Ukraine could meet EU standards for inclusion, as well as join NATO.
Russia is stuck supporting Crimea and dealing with increasingly discontented Tatars.
Those are consequences. I think the US has mostly been playing nice in the regions around Russia, but we don’t have to. I think when Obama says “consequences” he’s thinking more long-term consequences.