Putin's war, not Obama's

[LibCampFireClub 635]

President of the United States not President of the Russian federation.

makes about as much sense as blaming Bush 1 for Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

You know, you're right. I'm really starting to get it now.

[Karee 4,190]

Blaming our president for Putins actions are idiotic at best and just demonstrates once again Republican weakness when it comes to understanding foreign policy. If your best card is a Sarah Palin, not only do you not deserve to ever be in the White House again but also having no part ever in making decisions on the geo political landscape.

Militarily I don't think we have a play in the Ukraine. Really doesn't matter who is in the White House. Syria is also very complicated. We don't exactly know who these rebel groups are, and a couple of them have ties to Al Quada so why would we want to repeat Ronnie Reagans mistake and arm our enemies.

We already spent our load fighting in the longest war in our nations history, Afghanistan & Iraq. The difference now and the cold war is that we are all tied into a global economy more so than ever. Putin will only go so far, and just like during the Cold War, we are ahead of them economically. Russian economy is weak what end game could they possibly have? I think there are quite a few diplomatic plays on the table for Europe and the US.

I think you're missing the point. People aren't blaming Obama for Putin's actions. They're blaming him for his response, or lack of it. Also the fact that this mess seemed like a big surprise to the current administration. I don't see how this can be considered a sign of Republican weakness, when there's Democrat administration running foreign policy at the moment.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you're missing the point. People aren't blaming Obama for Putin's actions. They're blaming him for his response, or lack of it. Also the fact that this mess seemed like a big surprise to the current administration. I don't see how this can be considered a sign of Republican weakness, when there's Democrat administration running foreign policy at the moment.

You'll need to define the mess and when it started before pointing fingers as to who shoulda coulda woulda done something about it.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Watcha gonna do Obama? Another 'line in the sand'? Lol.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I think you're missing the point. People aren't blaming Obama for Putin's actions. They're blaming him for his response, or lack of it. Also the fact that this mess seemed like a big surprise to the current administration. I don't see how this can be considered a sign of Republican weakness, when there's Democrat administration running foreign policy at the moment.

I really am starting to understand the White House today. They truly did reach out to Russia with a sincere effort to reset and make friends with Putin. Putin simply must have misunderstood the intent.

[Karee 4,190]

You'll need to define the mess and when it started before pointing fingers as to who shoulda coulda woulda done something about it.

Apparently you didn't read the OP. Putin sent Russian troops into Ukraine. I think most would consider that a mess.

Wait, you posted the OP. You're asking what the mess is, when you posted something about Russian troops invading Ukraine territory? You might want to go back and read post #1 of this thread and then get back to us.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Nothing new here...

Palin had already predicted that Russia would invade the Ukraine, when they invaded Georgia during the Bush administration, were Obama to be elected.

As you can see, it was all predetermined. Sarah knew it all along...

Good read.

By Marc Ambinder March 1, 2014 2:12 PM The Week

There's a fallacy afoot in the efforts to blame President Obama for the crisis in the Ukraine. It goes like this: because American's hand on the global tiller is unsteady and President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin feels empowered to threaten and perhaps make war with the Ukraine because he does not fear repercussions. Moreover, by letting Russia invent the solution to Syria's transgression, Putin has earned some political capital that he feels he can spend. There's a veneer of plausibility on these allegations. The President's refusal to endorse some type of kinetic, military punishment against Bashir Assad stands as a moral failure to many, and could conceivably have furhter opened the aperture for murderous misbehavior by other tyrants. And Russia enjoyed its (rare) moment in the sun as the international peace-broker.

But the "if we had only done this" school of foreign policy can easily hang itself by its own noose. The reason why President Obama did not intervene in Syria have more to do with domestic and international norms collected after the disaster of the Iraq War. For the sake of argument, it is more plausible to assume that Americans would be less opposed to military action in Middle Eastern counties if the torment of Iraq were not on their minds. Also plausible: had the military not learned about modern Middle Eastern adventurism and had generals not developed their own (probably correct) biases against one-off "signaling" military strikes outside the realm of counter-terrorism, Obama's military advisers might well have forecast different outcomes had he decided to punish Assad by, say, airstrikes against the command and control structure, or by a bigger commitment to Syrian rebels.

One undeniable truth: Iraq weakened the U.S. more than anything done since. Maybe Obama overlearned its lessons; maybe we all have. But nothing empowered Vladimir Putin more than America's squandering of moral standing in the early part of this century.

I also find the Ukraine and Syria to be different genotypically and phenotypically. Syria was never part of the Soviet empire. The Ukraine was a critical part of it. There is no equivalent Crimean problem in Syria; the duly, if unappealingly elected President of the Ukraine, has asked for Russia's help here. (Yes, we might think that Viktor Yanukovych's election was not legitimate, but that is not a very solid principle upon which to base a recognition of legitimacy; if it were, America really should never attend U.N. generally assemblies and ought to withdraw from half of the treaties it has negotiated.) Crimea has also directly appealed for Russia's military assistance.

None of this is to say that Putin faces a clear path forward. Any post-Sochi halo will disappear the moment Russian troops kill innocent Ukrainians. The West will regroup against Russia for the duration of the conflict. Putin's domestic political standing is at stake, too. War would be disastrous, but Russians don't want to lose the Ukraine to the West, and they are particularly protective of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. What I don't know, in other words, is whether the United States's protests would have mattered any more to Putin if Obama had somehow used the U.S. military to punish Syria.

View this article on TheWeek.com

Edited March 3, 2014 by Gegel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Apparently you didn't read the OP. Putin sent Russian troops into Ukraine. I think most would consider that a mess.

Wait, you posted the OP. You're asking what the mess is, when you posted something about Russian troops invading Ukraine territory? You might want to go back and read post #1 of this thread and then get back to us.

So prior to that, no mess existed according to your assessment? Interesting interpretation of events.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, you're right. I'm really starting to get it now.

I doubt it. You really haven't come across as one who gets it.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[LibCampFireClub 635]

So prior to that, no mess existed according to your assessment? Interesting interpretation of events.

These problems are phony. They are not real, and have been manufactured by the Republicans, Tea Party, and Fox News. I just wish everyone would get a clue!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So prior to that, no mess existed according to your assessment? Interesting interpretation of events.

Yes, this all just happened in a vacuum. A vacuum, no less, that Obama created and palin predicted.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, this all just happened in a vacuum. A vacuum, no less, that Obama created and palin predicted.

Ironically, Putin was involved long before the peaceful protests turned violent. The geopolitics of that region are a lot more complicated than what the armchair generals here pretend they are.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Yes, this all just happened in a vacuum. A vacuum, no less, that Obama created and palin predicted.

I agree! You guys are so right on! I knew instantly that Sarah Palin was a ditz when I watched Bill Mahr announce that Sarah Palin's daughter was a k unt. I mean, that is Sarah Palin's fault for being a bad parent. Martin Bashir really let her have it where she deserves when he said someone should piss and defecate in her mouth. I think this is the best way to handle those right-wing loonies. Don't you agree?

Edited March 3, 2014 by ExExpat

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

The geopolitics of that region are a lot more complicated than what the armchair generals here pretend they are.

I just loves it when you post really astute stuff like that. It's soooo insightful and enlightening! Please...more of that ...more more more!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I agree! You guys are so right on! I knew instantly that Sarah Palin was a ditz when I watched Bill Mahr announce that Sarah Palin's daughter was a k unt. I mean, that is Sarah Palin's fault for being a bad parent. Martin Bashir really let her have it where she deserves when he said someone should piss and defecate in her mouth. I think this is the best way to handle those right-wing loonies. Don't you agree?

It's fun when people let their imaginations run wild.

I just loves it when you post really astute stuff like that. It's soooo insightful and enlightening! Please...more of that ...more more more!

As insightful and enlightening as this?