Ray Jay wrote:There are reports of a buildup of Russian troops on its Ukraine border. If they do go in, what should the west do? I can see sanctions and expelling them from the G-8. Should we do anything else? What else can we do?

Ray Jay wrote:There are reports of a buildup of Russian troops on its Ukraine border. If they do go in, what should the west do? I can see sanctions and expelling them from the G-8. Should we do anything else? What else can we do?

I can tell you this: calling for Putin to obey international law and telling him he's on "the wrong side of history" will have zero effect on his behavior

rickyp wrote:fate

I can tell you this: calling for Putin to obey international law and telling him he's on "the wrong side of history" will have zero effect on his behavior

.

What material effect will supplying weapons if any kind to Ukraine?

It took Russia 26 hours to end the Georgian attack on South Ossetia and force a cease fire and resolution..
Meanwhile the West continues to sell weapons to Russia. France is selling warships to Russia...

Most likely if Russia does decide to annex Eastern Ukraine, they will repeat the successful ploy (from the Crimea) of "self defense forces" of ethnic Russian Ukrainians moving on important sites.

In short, sending a few small arms to Ukraine at this point would be a futile gesture.
I don't think anyone is actually contemplating a war over this, with the possible exception of Senator "Old Man Who Shakes His Fist at Clouds".

Ray Jay wrote:There are reports of a buildup of Russian troops on its Ukraine border. If they do go in, what should the west do? I can see sanctions and expelling them from the G-8. Should we do anything else? What else can we do?

Ray Jay wrote:There are reports of a buildup of Russian troops on its Ukraine border. If they do go in, what should the west do? I can see sanctions and expelling them from the G-8. Should we do anything else? What else can we do?

Ray Jay wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:There are reports of a buildup of Russian troops on its Ukraine border. If they do go in, what should the west do? I can see sanctions and expelling them from the G-8. Should we do anything else? What else can we do?

I've been thinking more about the appropriate Western response. It seems to me that this is a long game and we should respond economically to hurt Russia's long term interests. I bet that fracking will become more popular in Europe. The U.S. should approve Keystone, approve the export of LNG, and it should reduce the strategic petroleum reserve, because with Keystone it will be less necessary.

Articles in the financial press are suggesting that oil will drop to less than $75 per barrel in the near future. Much of Russian oil comes from Siberia and is relatively expensive to extract. This will cause a tremendous amount of paid to their economy.

On February 23, five days before Russia invaded Ukraine, National Security Adviser Susan Rice appeared on Meet the Press and shrugged off suggestions that Russia was preparing any kind of military intervention: “It’s in nobody’s interest to see violence returned and the situation escalate.” A return to a “Cold War construct” isn’t necessary, Rice insisted, because such thinking “is long out of date” and “doesn’t reflect the realities of the 21st century.” Even if Vladimir Putin sees the world this way, Rice argued, it is “not in the United States’ interests” to do so.

It was a remarkably transparent case of pretending the world is what we wish it to be, rather than seeing it as it is.

On February 28, Russian troops poured into Ukraine. As they did, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Kerry briefed reporters after their talk, plainly unaware of the developments on the ground. Kerry said that Russia wants to help Ukraine with its economic problems. Lavrov had told him “that they are prepared to be engaged and be involved in helping to deal with the economic transition that needs to take place at this point.”

Hours later, television screens across the world displayed images of Russian soldiers infiltrating Crimea and Russian artillery rolling through Sevastopol. Obama administration officials told CNN’s Barbara Starr that the incursion was not “an invasion” but an “uncontested arrival” and that this distinction was “key” to understanding the new developments.

But euphemism can’t alter reality. So, President Obama delivered a statement: “The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.” The White House wasn’t quite ready to lead the international community in a response to an intervention that was underway, but with the snarl of a puppy, the president announced we would “stand with” others if the uncontested arrival somehow turned into real military intervention. (Thirty minutes after his warning, no doubt meant to convey toughness and resolve, Obama appeared at a Democratic National Committee pep rally and declared the opening of “happy hour.”)

Four days later, with Russia in effective control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, Vladimir Putin held a press conference—a rambling series of claims and statements that sometimes contradicted each other and often contradicted reality. Putin maintained, for instance, that there were no Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine, and that the Russian-speaking soldiers who often identified themselves as Russian soldiers were probably local defense groups who may well have bought their uniforms from military surplus stores.

Where others saw the agitprop of an emboldened authoritarian, the White House chose to see hope. Administration officials seized on one sentence of his blather and expressed optimism. “Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces so far, there is no need for it.  .  .  . Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort,” Putin said. Obama national security officials saw this claim—which came days after Russian troops had been deployed—as evidence that Putin was looking for an “off-ramp.” And soon we had a name for this new Obama approach to the crisis: “de-escalation.”

It’s not de-escalation, it’s delusion. And it’s dangerous. The public seems to understand this. In a Fox News poll released March 6, Obama’s foreign policy approval rating fell to a new low—at just 33 percent (56 percent disapprove).

For five years, the Obama administration has chosen to see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. In this fantasy world, the attack in Fort Hood is “workplace violence.” The Christmas Day bomber is an “isolated extremist.” The attempted bombing in Times Square is a “one-off” attack. The attacks in Benghazi are a “spontaneous” reaction to a YouTube video. Al Qaeda is on the run. Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer.” The Iranian regime can be sweet-talked out of its nuclear weapons program. And Vladimir Putin is a new, post-Cold War Russian leader.

In the real world, it was a pen pal of the late jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki who opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood. The Christmas bomber was dispatched from Yemen, where he was instructed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Times Square bomber was trained and financed by the Pakistani Taliban. Benghazi was a deliberate attack launched by well-known terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is amassing territory and increasing its profile. Assad is a brutal dictator, responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians. The Iranian regime is firmly entrenched as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror and remains determined to lead a nuclear state. And in Russia we face a Cold War throwback willing to use force to expand Russian influence.

And Vladimir Putin, it turns out, is who we thought he was. Unfortunately, so is Barack Obama.

rickyp wrote:Its kind of funny that you quote an opinion piece by Stephen Hayes, that derides the foreign policy of the current US administration.
Then you post your comic which is a reference towards the US invasion of Iraq on trumped up pre-text.

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday, condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory. The following excerpt stood out:

“Well, it’s an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations. Russia is in violation of its obligations under the U.N. charter, under the Helsinki final act. It’s in violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest agreement.

“You just don’t, in the 21st Century, behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext.”

Stephen Hayes was a huge proponent and cheerleader for the War on Iraq. Do you suppose his opinion piece is proposing that the US become militarily involved in Ukraine? Its hard to tell what he's proposing as an alternative to the current policies around Ukraine and Crimea ....

Its seems to be nothing more than a fantasy that if we just talked tougher to Putin things would turn out differently .... The same kind of fantasy that suggested that the Iraqis would welcome an invasion and occupation of their country and eventually turn into great allies and friends...
Stephen Hayes has no credibility, and your comic explains why.

What is your comment on the current situation w/o bringing up Bush?