rickyp wrote:bbauska

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

Fate offered the comic as a comment.
The comic is funny because the Russian leaders are obviously laughing as thy consider the source of the criticism - the US.

Just wow. Even after I quote Kerry, you come back with this nonsense?

That meme was from a conservative blog . . . and it had nothing to do with Iraq.

A country which has a recent and inglorious history of trumping up pretext for invasions of countries...
(Not just Iraq, but Iraq was a fine example. And I mention Iraq because of Fates reliance on Stephen Hayes opinion piece. Stephen Hayes the Iraq hawk).

Most countries who have been the aggressor have "trumped up" pretexts for invasion. Look it up.

A case of pot calling kettle black, without any self awareness.

No, it is you who has no self-awareness. If you did, you'd realize you've missed the entire point. Obama and Kerry keep pretending the world is different than it is.

I'll ask you and Fate both. Does Hayes offer any specificity? What measures is he specifically saying will have greater effect on Russia and the Russian ethnics in Ukraine than those being taken?

Since you FAIL to understand the thrust of Hayes' article, I'll have to repost two paragraphs with emphasis:

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 A return to a “Cold War construct” isn’t necessary, Rice insisted, because such thinking “is long out of date” and “doesn’t reflect the realities of the 21st century.”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.

That's not criticizing the US for failing to prevent the invasion. It is criticizing the Obama for indulging in fantasy-like wishful thinking. They refuse to take Putin's actions for what they are and rather hope that he will think more like they do.

Its a case of bitching about results, but not having a clue how to get better results.
The reality, which Hayes nor Fate seem to understand, is that there are few effective levers to use against Russia if they care not for world opinion ...
Is Hayes saying war is an option? Fate?

Try to understand what he is saying. Maybe go to the library and ask for reading assistance?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

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

Fate offered the comic as a comment.
The comic is funny because the Russian leaders are obviously laughing as thy consider the source of the criticism - the US.
A country which has a recent and inglorious history of trumping up pretext for invasions of countries...
(Not just Iraq, but Iraq was a fine example. And I mention Iraq because of Fates reliance on Stephen Hayes opinion piece. Stephen Hayes the Iraq hawk).

A case of pot calling kettle black, without any self awareness.

I'll ask you and Fate both. Does Hayes offer any specificity? What measures is he specifically saying will have greater effect on Russia and the Russian ethnics in Ukraine than those being taken?
Its a case of bitching about results, but not having a clue how to get better results.
The reality, which Hayes nor Fate seem to understand, is that there are few effective levers to use against Russia if they care not for world opinion ...
Is Hayes saying war is an option? Fate?

I bring up hypocrisy, and am accused of "whataboutery". You bring up hypocrisy (which I agree happened!); call you for "whataboutery", and you turn it on others.

I have suggested a course of action above. Take a moment to read it.

Btw, perhaps this will help dear rickyp: the title of the thread, the reference to Mr. Magoo, is all about being blind to reality. Magoo often ran into things and misunderstood what was happening because his eyesight was so bad (so politically incorrect in retrospect). President Obama's "vision" of what is happening around the world could not be more incorrect. He WANTS things to be different than they are. He refuses to deal with reality.

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, perhaps this will help dear rickyp: the title of the thread, the reference to Mr. Magoo, is all about being blind to reality. Magoo often ran into things and misunderstood what was happening because his eyesight was so bad (so politically incorrect in retrospect). President Obama's "vision" of what is happening around the world could not be more incorrect. He WANTS things to be different than they are. He refuses to deal with reality.

I believe the Magoo reference is a bit before RickyP's time. It also might be an American thing...

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, perhaps this will help dear rickyp: the title of the thread, the reference to Mr. Magoo, is all about being blind to reality. Magoo often ran into things and misunderstood what was happening because his eyesight was so bad (so politically incorrect in retrospect). President Obama's "vision" of what is happening around the world could not be more incorrect. He WANTS things to be different than they are. He refuses to deal with reality.

I believe the Magoo reference is a bit before RickyP's time. It also might be an American thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Magoo

Magoo's houseboy Cholly (i.e. "Charlie") took up a lot of Waldo's slack. Cholly was a Chinese stereotype with huge buck teeth and comically fractured English pronunciation, a fact that makes these cartoons even more politically incorrect than the theatrical ones from the 1950s.[citation needed] In fairness, it should be noted that despite his stereotyped appearance and voice, he nonetheless usually plays straight man to Magoo's shenanigans, rather than being a source of humor himself. He is the 'sane' one of the pair. His resourcefulness often saves Magoo from danger.

His vision-impaired life is the central theme of the foolish plots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5zipU6r7o

The second part of the comic, which may or may not be on your conservative blog says, "And then he threatened serious steps".

That's also pretty funny.
Because Putin probably isn't worried about the probable consequences of anything Kerry is saying or doing.
But then, what would worry him Fate? What specific consequences should he be facing that will actually have effect?

Kerry is playing the limited cards he has. Admittedly hopeful diplomacy that depends on Putin actually caring a about world wide opinion or the limited financial levers available - at least those that can be used without damaging Europe collaterally.
Kerry knows, and Putin knows, there will be no military action.
Do you and Stephen Hayes know this ?
DIckish criticism of hopeful diplomacy is just that. Dickish criticism . Without genuine alternatives offered it is worthless blathering that only plays to the ODS afflicted.

rickyp wrote:Kerry knows, and Putin knows, there will be no military action.
Do you and Stephen Hayes know this ?

Do you have ANY evidence that either Mr. Hayes or I have suggested military action in Ukraine? Anything at all? *Chirp*

DIckish criticism of hopeful diplomacy is just that. Dickish criticism

.

If that wasn't so idiotic, it would be imbecilic.

Great national leaders, even competent ones, deal with the world as it is, not as they might hope it is. If President Obama and Secretary Kerry would acknowledge the reality of the world, they might find their efforts would bear more fruit.

Without genuine alternatives offered it is worthless blathering that only plays to the ODS afflicted.

Oh, there is a genuine alternative: instead of trying to tutor Putin on international law, we might actually deal with him as a nationalistic dictator with territorial desires and a willingness to flout international law to get what he wants. Having that foundation, the entire approach to Russia would have been different. The approach itself is flawed--that's the point. So, instead of engaging in even more sophomoric rhetorical non-flourishes, why not defend the approach on relations with Russia Obama has taken? Please, tell us how wonderful the reset button worked. Tell us of all the wonderful things the US and Russia are doing together--all of it due to the efforts of Obama/Clinton/Kerry.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Fate

Oh, there is a genuine alternative: instead of trying to tutor Putin on international law, we might actually deal with him as a nationalistic dictator with territorial desires and a willingness to flout international law to get what he wants. Having that foundation, the entire approach to Russia would have been different. The approach itself is flawed--that's the point.

How do you deal with him if he is fully resistant to any of the levers you have at your disposal?
The point is that the US is not willing to go to war over Ukraine, Without that ultimate threat, Putin probably isn't going to be deterred by anything else that the West can bring to bear.
Tha'ts realistic
The stuff below from you ; is fantasy... Its on the same level as Kerry's hopeful rhetoric, except Kerry is forced into the hopeful rhetoric because there isn't anything else available to him. Your position is more like "This never would have happened if Dick Cheney were still alive ..." And that's just BS.

So, instead of engaging in even more sophomoric rhetorical non-flourishes, why not defend the approach on relations with Russia Obama has taken? Please, tell us how wonderful the reset button worked. Tell us of all the wonderful things the US and Russia are doing together--all of it due to the efforts of Obama/Clinton/Kerry.

Fate

Great national leaders, even competent ones, deal with the world as it is, not as they might hope it is. If President Obama and Secretary Kerry would acknowledge the reality of the world, they might find their efforts would bear more fruit.

You criticize Kerry for his hopeful diplomacy and optimistic rhetoric. In favour of a fantasy that if someone conservative were in the same position things would turn out differently. Whoever that conservative is, they'd face the same military, geographic and economic realities that Kerry and Obama face. And the reaity is there isn't much that can be done since Putin seems willing to pay the small price that can be enacted for his aggressive stance.
Kerry can't just openly admit that Russia is going to resist any of the diplomatic or economic levers that the West can bring to bear...

Dick Cheney died?

Rhetoric aside (and Obama blaming aside) we're doing what we need to do by deploying troops in the Baltic States and Poland. We're drawing a line in the sand indicating that there will be a war if Russia tries to extend its influence into those areas. We're not willing to fight for the Ukraine (just like we weren't willing to fight for Georgia in 2008 when Bush was president). We look ineffectual when we use tough rhetoric against Russia and can't back it up, but American politics seems to demand such rhetoric. I really don't see what else we could do given that there is zero support in the US for a war with Russia over the Ukraine.

ray

Dick Cheney died?

An ironic comment. If Bush and Cheney were in charge they'd face the same realities and have the same issue of requiring rhetoric that they can't really back up if pushed to the limit.

freeman3

We're not willing to fight for the Ukraine.

Its also probably true that Putin won't fight for Ukraine. That is he was willing to absorb the Crimea because it was dominated overwhelmingly by those who actually wanted to be part of Russia. There would prove to be virtually no resistance.
It may be that the lack of any appetite for local resistance, and the presence of a majority of Russian speakers attached to Russia in Eastern Ukraine makes its eventually divorce from Western Ukraine inevitable.
But the Western Ukraine would certainly offer a substantial local resistance. And I doubt Putin is willing to deal with such a resistance. He wants the absorption of Eastern Ukraine to appear to be popular. And the reality is, it probably is popular. There was enough disaffection between Russian and Ukranian speakers to make this the case... and the radical language laws of the new Ukraine government exacerbated the problem .

rickyp wrote:It may be that the lack of any appetite for local resistance, and the presence of a majority of Russian speakers attached to Russia in Eastern Ukraine makes its eventually divorce from Western Ukraine inevitable.

How do you feel about Quebec? Shall France have a go?

bbauska

How do you feel about Quebec? Shall France have a go?

Quebec had a referendum in 1995 . Its second, that considered a question of severing from Canada.
They said no, we'll stay.
If they had clearly voted to secede, they probably would have...although issues like the divisibility of Quebec and the divsion of assets and debts might have clouded the issue and forced a rethink and re-vote...
In the end, if the clear majority of Quebecers wanted to leave, no one was going to force them.
By the way, although Quebecers have an affinity for France, their dialect is more different from Parisiens and Russian speaking Ukranians from Muscovites.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

How do you feel about Quebec? Shall France have a go?

Quebec had a referendum in 1995 . Its second, that considered a question of severing from Canada.
They said no, we'll stay.
If they had clearly voted to secede, they probably would have...although issues like the divisibility of Quebec and the divsion of assets and debts might have clouded the issue and forced a rethink and re-vote...
In the end, if the clear majority of Quebecers wanted to leave, no one was going to force them.
By the way, although Quebecers have an affinity for France, their dialect is more different from Parisiens and Russian speaking Ukranians from Muscovites.

What vote did Crimea have before Russian forces were in Ukraine?

It is not an issue of Language, as you said was important to the invading country. It is a matter of secession, and there was not any secession of Crimea that I found. Otherwise the issue is a matter of border incursion and invasion.

bbauska

What vote did Crimea have before Russian forces were in Ukraine?
It is not an issue of Language, as you said was important to the invading country. It is a matter of secession, and there was not any secession of Crimea that I found. Otherwise the issue is a matter of border incursion and invasion.

First, the matter of language wasn't important to the "invading country". It is important to the citizens of Ukraine who speak Russian. They were an over whelming majority of the Crimea and a large majority of western Ukraine. Language is the most obvious and perhaps largest cultural difference between ethnic groups. And historically threatened minorities resist seeing their languages disappear.
A large part of the unrest in Ukraine is because large segments of the Ukrainian speaking majority in Western Ukraine refused to accommodate Russian. Or to accommodate the wishes of Crimeans and Western Ukrainians for policies that represented their wishes for economic ties and cultural ties to Russia... Especially difficult was the rise of nazi like groups among the new government who were dedicated to discrimination against Russian ethnics.

The history of the region is more complex and difficult then you seem to appreciate. Crimea only became a part of Ukraine under Soviet Russia through the arbitrary decision to change the border by Kruschev in 54. (Perhaps in a drunken stupor). Ethnically it never really has been a cohesive part of Ukraine. And after Stalin got finished expelling the Tartars became mostly Russian ethnic.
There was never going to be a referendum without Russian troops in Crimean. There were 25,000 permanently based there.
The referendum held may have inflated the expression of desire for joining Russia a little, because some of the small minorities didn't show at the polls. But past electoral results should also provide a clue to the over whelming desire to join Russia... Anyone who thinks the referendum was NOT a genuine expression of a desire to join Russia, is living in fantasy land.
The issue is not about border incursion really. Its about the desire for the resident peoples to live in a political structure that respects their aspirations. Including their desire to allow their culture to thrive and to allow their language NOT be an impediment to their well being.
Putin is taking advantage of the unrest, yes. But the unrest and desire to leave originated and grew strong in Ukraine internally.
Interesting that you should bring up Quebec. The issue about seperation in Quebes is/was essentially the same. The French speaking majority in Quebec were concerned about their culture surviving and about their language not being an impediment to their well being. (English was usually the language of business in Quebec prior to the 80s and business management was conducted usually by the English minority in Quebec. Language laws that forced the use of French as a primary communication in business, have changed that, although they also saw an exodus of English speaking managers and business from Quebec when they were instituted.) Quebec, and the french language, have enjoyed greater acceptance and growth in Quebec since the 70's and the majority of Quebecois feel more confident . They also realize that they are an important minority in Canada, but an unimportant minority in North America. And as the world has globalized since the 90's most young Quebecois accept the importance of knowing English, understand the advantage they get in Canada by being bilingual, and enjoy being citizens of Canada. Their usually unilingual parents and grand parent ....were the ones who desired a separate state.
The last provincial election turned on the incumbents talking up Separation again and losing a huge lead and the election to Federalist liberals. Now in the majority, the chances for separation becoming a serious issue again are very slim.... Society that adapt and accommodates their minorities is more resilient than those that are not.
There was an article in the NY Times the other day about the difficulties Crimeans are now finding as newly minted Russians. Apparently the economy has cratered as every day life is impacted by things like the lack of imports from Ukraine, the confusion over laws and the lack of functioning banks.... There may be some buyers regret....Still they went into the bargain willingly.