Inevitably, the crisis in Ukraine is being discussed in Washington largely through the lens of political polarization. It seems like any and every topic is fodder for partisan dispute these days, even the weather – actually, especially the weather.
Many Republicans are arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened in the Crimea region of Ukraine because of President Barack Obama's weakness. Putin saw that Obama didn't want to go to war in Syria, for example, and this emboldened Putin.
Well, who knows right? It's tough to know what would have happened in an alternative universe. Imagine that we still had Putin around in charge of Russia, but imagine he faced a different president, one who was tough, aggressive, who had no compunctions about invading countries.
Oh wait, we ran that very experiment in 2008! Putin faced George W. Bush, a president who had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for good measure (and, in the latter case, defying massive international pressure and opposition). And yet, Putin invaded Georgia. And not, as he did this time, in a stealthy way with soldiers who were already there who simply switched their uniforms. He sent in Russian tanks roaring into Georgia and – without any referendums – simply annexed two pieces of that country.
Does this prove that Bush was a wimp after all? No it doesn’t. You see, there has been some very good and careful scholarship – by Daryl Press and Jonathan Mercer among others – that looks at historical cases to figure out whether having a reputation for "toughness" actually deters your opponents from doing bad things – like invading countries.
In general, the answer is, no.
Countries make these decisions based on many factors. But the most important ones seem to be a careful analysis of the power dynamics of the specific case. So in Ukraine, Russia would ask, is this a vital interest of the United States? And what is Washington's capacity to act in this particular situation?
In other words, Putin would look at his cards, look at Washington's cards, and the specifics of the situation in Ukraine rather than assuming that because Bush invaded Iraq, he would defend Georgia, or that because Obama didn't invade Syria, he would do nothing about Ukraine.
Politicians in Washington are convinced that Putin was encouraged by Western weakness. But it's actually quite possible that Putin felt he was acting to stop the West's growing strength. After all, just look at the situation from Russian eyes.
In 1991, Moscow gave up its 75-year-old Soviet empire. It also gave up large parts of its 300-year-old Russian empire including Ukraine. Since then, its historic rival, NATO, has expanded closer and closer to Moscow's borders. And then, the West encouraged Ukrainians to take to the streets and depose their president, who had close ties to Moscow.
Now none of this excuses aggression or justifies Putin's thuggish response. But if we are going to find a political solution in Ukraine that will stick, we need to recognize that the issues at stake are not personal – and that they are much larger than Obama's alleged weakness and Putin's paranoia

rickyp wrote:What this guys said.......
By Fareed Zakaria

Many Republicans are arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened in the Crimea region of Ukraine because of President Barack Obama's weakness. Putin saw that Obama didn't want to go to war in Syria, for example, and this emboldened Putin.

Well, who knows right? It's tough to know what would have happened in an alternative universe. Imagine that we still had Putin around in charge of Russia, but imagine he faced a different president, one who was tough, aggressive, who had no compunctions about invading countries.

No one is talking about "invasion" except for Obama sycophants.

However, it is unwise to tell a bully that you will not retaliate--even if he highly suspects you will not.

rickyp wrote:fate

No one is talking about "invasion" except for Obama sycophants.

you are actually. In this sense...

fate

However, it is unwise to tell a bully that you will not retaliate--even if he highly suspects you will not.

You clearly state that it is unwise to take military action off the table....
Because if you do, even the odds appear long that you would resort to it, that somehow that "threat" is a powerful deterrent. And you offer this despite historical evidence to the contrary.

It didn't deter Putin from invading Georgia. And Bush had already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq so he it was clear he was prepared to use force... Moreover he hadn't taken the threat of military force off the table at the time Putin sent the tanks into Ossetia. So the "threat" you want Putin to infer in Ukraine, is proven ineffective.

You and republican critics live in a fantasy world where Putin is supposed to act like a neighborhood bully rather than a powerful leader of a regional military power with international reach. The simplistic reasoning doesn't work.

freeman3 wrote:"Toughness" has its price. Would Putin have been as aggressive against Ukraine if Bush II and Cheney were in charge (well, there was Georgia...) I don't know. Maybe he would have thought that it would not be rational for the US to intervene, but he would not have been certain. We just don't know whether Putin's assessment of Obama played any significant part in his calculations.

But Syria, Ukraine and Benghazi are tangential to vital US interests. The key numbers for me are 0 and 2,899--the former the number of al Qaeda planned attacks on US soil since Obama became president and the latter the difference in war dead between the Bush and Obama's presidencies.

Given the belligerent tone of Republican politicians, I am fairly confident that the war dead would have been closer to the figure under Bush II if a Republican had been president rather than Obama (and a lot more military spending with a higher deficit) with little to no change in the effect on US vital interests. I'll take Obama's foreign policy, thank you

We could attempt to drive down the cost of oil and natural gas. Oh, but that would mean stopping the jihad against oil.

rickyp wrote:fate

We could attempt to drive down the cost of oil and natural gas. Oh, but that would mean stopping the jihad against oil.

Using energy sources other than oil and gas is the surest way to drive down the cost of oil and gas...
Decreasing demand you know...

Since domestic production of gas and oil the US has increased in the last 10 years, and imports to the US has decreased., I guess that Jihad isn't that successful? As Jihads go...

freeman3 wrote:A few comments, DF. I agree with you that it is important to give the right signals to someone like Putin. It is certainly arguable that when faced with the option of letting Ukraine move to the west or intervening in Ukraine, he looked at what happened in Syria and prior comments from the Obama administration and felt more comfortable in acting with a free hand in the Ukrain. Would Putin have let Ukraine align with the West without a fight. Certainly not. The issue, I think, is whether he would have moderated his intervention in the Ukraine if he saw a US with a more robust foreign policy. But, still at the end of the day I don't think he would have rationally decided that any US president would go to war over the Ukraine or that any sanctions would be effective with a Europe unwilling to cooperate given its dependence on Russian oil.

I think you have a causation problem in showing that any alleged weakness in US foreign policy vis-a-vis Putin resulted in Russia intervening in Ukraine in the way that they did (contrast that with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, where we told Iraq that we did not have a position on the disputed oilfields between Kuwait and Iraq)

I understand that it is vital for conservatives that Libya an Al Qaeda attack. But what is the definition of what constitutes an Al Qaeda attack?

It seems that it would need to be funded, ordered, or planned by Al Qaeda. Or at least the attack needed to be done by a group closely linked to Al Qaeda, with training and money provided to the group by Al Qaeda.

That does not appear to be true with the people that attacked the embassy in Benghazi.

As for Fort Hood the immediate cause of the attack seemed to be his deployment to a combat area (where he would be involved in fighting Muslims) That argues against an attack planned by Al Qaeda.

I'm not trying to show causation. I am saying there was no reason, from Putin's perspective, to even exercise caution. There was not even a paper tiger to worry about.

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm not trying to show causation. I am saying there was no reason, from Putin's perspective, to even exercise caution. There was not even a paper tiger to worry about.

it amounts to "why didn't we at least pretend that there was a slim chance we might intervene
militarily. That might have worked."
weak soup.

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions. Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions. NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies. The IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy. OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. This mobilization of world opinion and institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border, and armed militias. This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions; yesterday, I spoke to their next President. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will be grave challenges. But standing with our allies on behalf of international order has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future.

rickyp wrote:so how's it going in Ukraine?
From Obama's view its this..

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions. Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions. NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies. The IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy. OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. This mobilization of world opinion and institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border, and armed militias. This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions; yesterday, I spoke to their next President. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will be grave challenges. But standing with our allies on behalf of international order has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future.

Haven't heard much beefing from his critics on Ukraine lately...

The point of this forum's initial post was this: Obama (and Kerry) continue to pretend the world is other than it is, that people like Putin (and Assad and the mullahs in Iran) can be nudged, cajoled, and sanctioned into "proper" behavior.