WN: Kerry warns Russia that military action in Ukraine could lead to

[other one]

We'll see where this goes....   it would not be the first time world powers have fought over this Island area.  It means a great deal more to the Russians today than it did in the 1850's, and they are much better prepared to defend it.   Obama  sounds a bit beyond respecting their sovereignty.   I'd have to go back and reread the agreements, but I thought it was beyond just respecting their sovereignty.

[EnochBethany]

We'll see where this goes....   it would not be the first time world powers have fought over this Island area.  It means a great deal more to the Russians today than it did in the 1850's, and they are much better prepared to defend it.   Obama  sounds a bit beyond respecting their sovereignty.   I'd have to go back and reread the agreements, but I thought it was beyond just respecting their sovereignty.

Well, it reminds me of Hitler leading to WWII.  Hitler was demanding that territories that had majority Germans be detached from their non-German lords.  There was the Sudetenland Lof Czechoslovakia. Then there was Danzig.  In fact I believe that WWII in Europe started specifically because Hitler demanded that Germany have access to a piece of Germany detached by the geniuses of Versailles, a piece separated by Poland from Germany, a piece with serious problems because of this.  After Hitler enforced German access to it, then England declared war.  Austria is a German nation.  HItler wanted to bring it into Germany, as I think the Austrians also wanted.

 

So now we see Russia taking action where Russians live in a neighboring country.  First it was Georgia.  I think that as of now Russia has virtually annexed that piece of Georgia.  And the Crimea has Russians in it.  So Putin goes after Crimea.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Steve_S]

 

We'll see where this goes....   it would not be the first time world powers have fought over this Island area.  It means a great deal more to the Russians today than it did in the 1850's, and they are much better prepared to defend it.   Obama  sounds a bit beyond respecting their sovereignty.   I'd have to go back and reread the agreements, but I thought it was beyond just respecting their sovereignty.

Well, it reminds me of Hitler leading to WWII.  Hitler was demanding that territories that had majority Germans be detached from their non-German lords.  There was the Sudetenland Lof Czechoslovakia. Then there was Danzig.  In fact I believe that WWII in Europe started specifically because Hitler demanded that Germany have access to a piece of Germany detached by the geniuses of Versailles, a piece separated by Poland from Germany, a piece with serious problems because of this.  After Hitler enforced German access to it, then England declared war.  Austria is a German nation.  HItler wanted to bring it into Germany, as I think the Austrians also wanted.

 

So now we see Russia taking action where Russians live in a neighboring country.  First it was Georgia.  I think that as of now Russia has virtually annexed that piece of Georgia.  And the Crimea has Russians in it.  So Putin goes after Crimea.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

You are correct. Hitler did this with the czechs first and they capitulated. It was generally expected that poland would capitulate as well, but france and great britain gave poland a mutual defense guarantee (which they, obviously, could not enforce, as france ended up being conquered and england ended up trifling about in north africa while germany had the run of the rest of europe and was on the verge of conquering western russia). So, after the defense guarantee the polish PM or president (i forget which) basically was emboldened and pretty much started taunting hitler.

 

In my mind it's likely that world war II was going to happen anyway, hitler was clearly bent on conquest and anything that anyone did to placate him was only going to be a stall. However, stalls like that can buy you time to get your militaries in order and be prepared. Germany came out fighting a new type of war, while france and britain were still strategizing to refight world war I. The whole series of events was unfortunate and led to a grand loss of life.

 

Having said that, I don't think putin has ideations along those of hitler, but I do believe that he wants russia back to being a superpower, which means he's intent upon dominating his directly adjacent countries. Georgia was a test run in my mind, the toe in the water. They needed to get their feel for intervention back and they did. This is truly the first step, though. Ukraine is incredibly important to them, not just putin, but even most people on the streets in russia. Public opinion there will be nearly uniformly behind going into ukraine for the purpose of protecting ethnic russians, just like it was for germany to go into poland to protect ethnic germans. It seems to me that our leadership has forgotten what it is like to deal with a country with the sort of mindset that russia has right now. If you start making loud public statements about things being unnacceptable, etc., they are going to make you prove your words. Best not to talk about it if you can't do anything about it (which we can't), as it seems to only serve to make matters worse.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

We'll see where this goes....   it would not be the first time world powers have fought over this Island area.  It means a great deal more to the Russians today than it did in the 1850's, and they are much better prepared to defend it.   Obama  sounds a bit beyond respecting their sovereignty.   I'd have to go back and reread the agreements, but I thought it was beyond just respecting their sovereignty.

Well, it reminds me of Hitler leading to WWII.  Hitler was demanding that territories that had majority Germans be detached from their non-German lords.  There was the Sudetenland Lof Czechoslovakia. Then there was Danzig.  In fact I believe that WWII in Europe started specifically because Hitler demanded that Germany have access to a piece of Germany detached by the geniuses of Versailles, a piece separated by Poland from Germany, a piece with serious problems because of this.  After Hitler enforced German access to it, then England declared war.  Austria is a German nation.  HItler wanted to bring it into Germany, as I think the Austrians also wanted.

 

So now we see Russia taking action where Russians live in a neighboring country.  First it was Georgia.  I think that as of now Russia has virtually annexed that piece of Georgia.  And the Crimea has Russians in it.  So Putin goes after Crimea.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

You are correct. Hitler did this with the czechs first and they capitulated. It was generally expected that poland would capitulate as well, but france and great britain gave poland a mutual defense guarantee (which they, obviously, could not enforce, as france ended up being conquered and england ended up trifling about in north africa while germany had the run of the rest of europe and was on the verge of conquering western russia). So, after the defense guarantee the polish PM or president (i forget which) basically was emboldened and pretty much started taunting hitler.

 

In my mind it's likely that world war II was going to happen anyway, hitler was clearly bent on conquest and anything that anyone did to placate him was only going to be a stall. However, stalls like that can buy you time to get your militaries in order and be prepared. Germany came out fighting a new type of war, while france and britain were still strategizing to refight world war I. The whole series of events was unfortunate and led to a grand loss of life.

 

Having said that, I don't think putin has ideations along those of hitler, but I do believe that he wants russia back to being a superpower, which means he's intent upon dominating his directly adjacent countries. Georgia was a test run in my mind, the toe in the water. They needed to get their feel for intervention back and they did. This is truly the first step, though. Ukraine is incredibly important to them, not just putin, but even most people on the streets in russia. Public opinion there will be nearly uniformly behind going into ukraine for the purpose of protecting ethnic russians, just like it was for germany to go into poland to protect ethnic germans. It seems to me that our leadership has forgotten what it is like to deal with a country with the sort of mindset that russia has right now. If you start making loud public statements about things being unnacceptable, etc., they are going to make you prove your words. Best not to talk about it if you can't do anything about it (which we can't), as it seems to only serve to make matters worse.

 

Agreed.  Instead of proving the words, it will be eating them methinks.

[other one]

 

 

We have no dog in this fight; Obama can warn against such foolishness but, let's face it, it's between Ukraine and Russia.  Ukraine is not a member of NATO so our obligations, and Europe's, are minimal.  It doesn't matter how Putin perceives American resolve.  No matter who is in the White House, American troops are NOT going to that region....just as they didn't go to Georgia seven years ago.  Our best bet is economic pressure, just as Reagan did thirty years ago.  The Russian economy is their achilles heel and a drop in oil prices hits them right where it hurts. 

yes we do have a serious dog in this fight....   we signed some very serious agreements with them guaranteeing their independence if they would relinquish their nuclear weapons to Russia...    we made some serious promises that we should not back away from.  And it was not the Obama Administration that made those commitments.  It was those kinds of commitments that tied all sides together during World Wars one and two.

 

 

The United States did not sign an agreement to "guarantee their independence." You are spekaing of the Budapest Memorandum, which was a diplomatic document signed in 1994 where as russia, great britain, and the US agreed that, if ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, that the signatories would recognize and respect their sovereignty, basically giving them enfranchisement as a legitimately incorporated nation with diplomatic standing (basically, fully recognized). This was not a defense guarantee by any of the signatories. Ukraine is not in NATO, it has no defense guarantee from the united states of any sort, and our recognition of a nation's sovereignty is not tantamount to a duty to interdict during a war against that nation.

 

But the Budapest Memorandum can set in motion the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe agreed to in Helsinki and the UN Charter itself....      it's a lot more complicated than one diplomatic agreement.    We can add to that Ukraine has threatened to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons  and attack the Russians with it, and they do have the people and the will to do so in a rather short time.

 

The whole thing gets more complicated by the hour,      And considering the adeptness of our present Administration.....   I'm bothered with it.

 

We've had no business being involved in the last five or six military involvements we've experienced.....   why should this be any different....    

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

We have no dog in this fight; Obama can warn against such foolishness but, let's face it, it's between Ukraine and Russia.  Ukraine is not a member of NATO so our obligations, and Europe's, are minimal.  It doesn't matter how Putin perceives American resolve.  No matter who is in the White House, American troops are NOT going to that region....just as they didn't go to Georgia seven years ago.  Our best bet is economic pressure, just as Reagan did thirty years ago.  The Russian economy is their achilles heel and a drop in oil prices hits them right where it hurts. 

yes we do have a serious dog in this fight....   we signed some very serious agreements with them guaranteeing their independence if they would relinquish their nuclear weapons to Russia...    we made some serious promises that we should not back away from.  And it was not the Obama Administration that made those commitments.  It was those kinds of commitments that tied all sides together during World Wars one and two.

 

 

The United States did not sign an agreement to "guarantee their independence." You are spekaing of the Budapest Memorandum, which was a diplomatic document signed in 1994 where as russia, great britain, and the US agreed that, if ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, that the signatories would recognize and respect their sovereignty, basically giving them enfranchisement as a legitimately incorporated nation with diplomatic standing (basically, fully recognized). This was not a defense guarantee by any of the signatories. Ukraine is not in NATO, it has no defense guarantee from the united states of any sort, and our recognition of a nation's sovereignty is not tantamount to a duty to interdict during a war against that nation.

 

But the Budapest Memorandum can set in motion the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe agreed to in Helsinki and the UN Charter itself....      it's a lot more complicated than one diplomatic agreement.    We can add to that Ukraine has threatened to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons  and attack the Russians with it, and they do have the people and the will to do so in a rather short time.

 

The whole thing gets more complicated by the hour,      And considering the adeptness of our present Administration.....   I'm bothered with it.

 

We've had no business being involved in the last five or six military involvements we've experienced.....   why should this be any different....    

 

 

Because russia has thousands of active nuclear weapons. If there's even a hint of a nuclear attack from ukraine russia will hit them with everything they have. They certainly couldn't reconstitute their program in the time they would have. Also, the european conference is irrelevant, nobody is going to war over this. The eu and the us would both oppose ukraine putting nukes together as well.

[other one]

 

Because russia has thousands of active nuclear weapons. If there's even a hint of a nuclear attack from ukraine russia will hit them with everything they have. They certainly couldn't reconstitute their program in the time they would have. Also, the european conference is irrelevant, nobody is going to war over this. The eu and the us would both oppose ukraine putting nukes together as well.

 

LoL   You seem to have a lot more confidence in global governments than I do....    I certainly do hope you are correct.

[Steve_S]

 

 

Because russia has thousands of active nuclear weapons. If there's even a hint of a nuclear attack from ukraine russia will hit them with everything they have. They certainly couldn't reconstitute their program in the time they would have. Also, the european conference is irrelevant, nobody is going to war over this. The eu and the us would both oppose ukraine putting nukes together as well.

 

LoL   You seem to have a lot more confidence in global governments than I do....    I certainly do hope you are correct.

 

 

I don't necessarily have confidence in their ability or willingness to make proper decisions. I've looked into this a bit and it would seem that there are definitive threats of a new nuclear program from the ukranians. However, 3 to 6 months before they could make any sort of nuclear device (and even then just a dirty bomb) is the estimate. Ironically they get the majority of their nuclear fuel from Russia according to what I've read. It's capable of being refined into the sort that would be needed for legitimate nuclear weapons, but it would take them years to get centrifuge farms up and running, etc. I think that even the possibility of this being put into play, even a rumor with some tacit legitimacy behind it, would see ukraine conquered in totality by russia. This would not be a wise move from ukraine.

[OakWood]

I personally don't feel that Putin is a threat to the West - seriously, I could be wrong but I don't. As long as we don't give him any reason to be that is.

[MorningGlory]

We don't have a dog in this fight. And the days of the USA policing the world are just about over.

 

Yes, exactly, and way past time.  Everyone wants our help until their fat's out of the fire....then they call us imperialists and war mongers.  I'd be willing to wager that the average American doesn't care much what happens to Ukraine.  Let them fight their own battles; they elected a pro-Russian, corrupt leader and are now going through the consequences of that.  Not our problem.  We've seen enough of our young killed and our taxes wasted on ungrateful and irrelevant (to our national security) countries that can't manage to run their own affairs.