Can’t imagine what that’s like to see as a Ukrainian.
Damn they just keep on coming!
It’s what Russia did to Georgia in 2008. I think Putin sees no real consequences in trying to annex Crimea as basically a colony of Russia. Obama mentioned yesterday that “there will be costs” to Russia’s military intervention, but then again, this is also the guy who talked about “red lines” if Syria used chemical weapons. So there’s a clear lack of credibility there.
I’m also not sure that people understand how much our military is being cut. We are spread thin as it is and history has shown that a country can’t fight wars all over the world and be successful.
True that was Hitler’s crucial error, bombing the UK, fighting south through europe and the desert, and then starting up with Russia. Too thin, and they lost.
The US needs to get the fuck out of Afghanistan, get the fuck out of the middle east, and shore up it’s financials while letting the rest of the world destabilize small countries at the cost of hundreds of billions. Britain needs to do the same.
Iraq and Afghanistan were formerly ruled by tyrants, and were home to some terrorist organisations with a modest presence. Now they’re lawless societies ruled by terrorist organisations. Funny how that worked out. Watch in 2025 when America is at war with Syria and the new Iraq, both dominated by Muslim fundamentalists.
Anyway, I don’t get it. America + their oil/gas reserves + Canadian reserves and Keystone pipeline = who gives a motherfuck what those psychos do in the middle east. Sharpen your immigration pencils here at home so you don’t let 19 guys come in and assimilate and fly planes into monuments, and life goes on.
I for one was incredibly disappointed about that. Sure the American public is tired of fighting wars. But as opposed to Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan), Syria I think is much more clear cut. They’ve been bombing their own people there for two years now and cities are being reduced to rubble. And then the whole chemical weapons issue surfaced. And even then, nothing. Apathy…
I generally don’t give two hoots about politics, as who knows what’s really happening (it’s all pretty revolting - on all sides). But when it’s a human toll such as that, it’s not even possible to ignore.
I do know a LOT on Ukrainians here with close ties back home, Canadian Ukrainians were deeply involved in their independence, I’m not surprised that Harper is already making noise about it since there’s a lot of influence here. But I really hope there’s no commitment on Canada’s part to sending forces over there, even peacekeeping, it’s generally not worth it.
It’s not worth it on a war math basis. Dead and injured soldiers etc is of course priceless. The key is diplomatic points earned with America. That’s very valuable to political knobs.
An op-ed in the Journal today does a really good job of laying out the relevant history of the former Soviet republics (placing today’s conflict in proper context). And it also notes what would be at stake if the West failed to act against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The article is behind a paywall, so I’ll just quote the operative part:
Whole article here: http://on.wsj.com/1cskLhl
Isolationism and other foreign policies based on non-intervention sound appealing, but their seeming simplicity is a bit deceiving. I’m generally persuaded by the maxim that weakness invites aggression. In that regard, I think it would be a mistake for the US and Europe to let Putin off easy on this one. I’m not talking about boots on the ground, but there are a wide range of diplomatic moves in our arsenal to put the pressure on. And we could also send some of our naval fleet to the Black Sea to show that we mean business (as the US did after Putin invaded Georgia in 2008).
NATO is just something to make small countries feel better, it truly means nothing. NATO usually just equals United States.
I can also guarantee there are plenty of Naval vessels standing by very closely.
Ha. Ya I’m not sure what categories of products would be included if economic sanctions are imposed. I assume they would be more commodity-driven, such as the oil and gas produced in Russia.
US is obviously the strongest contributor to NATO. But on the whole, the alliance was very effective at opposing Soviet expansion during the Cold War era. I think what matters now is the degree to which Putin attempts to disrupt that alliance. As mentioned in the article, for example, what would be our response if Putin were to go after Latvia? According to the treaty, we (as well as all other signatories) are duty-bound to defend the country.
Also, I’m not sure what our fleet looks like in the Black Sea. I’ve just read reports that that was another option the US has.
In any event, foreign policy thread FTW. Love this stuff.
fucking win beem
LOL!
Hahaha! Nice one.
Reminds me of what Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers said on Sunday. Something like “Putin is playing chess while we’re playing marbles.”
Board is all fucked up (7×6)and white has two bishops on black somehow
obama however has done well to capture one rook three pawns and a knight with his checker pieces. Maybe he isn’t so dumb