Is Putin trying to bait Ukraine into military action

[VtaGeezer]

He's now moved thousands of troops to the border with Ukraine, and reportedly has occupied a major natural gas facility inside Ukraine.  I'm wondering if he's going to keep increasing the pressure until some Ukrainian field commander reacts, giving a green light for a full scale Russian invasion.  I think HRC's comments comparing Putin's gambit to the Nazi moves in 1938 are not as far off as most think.  Putin doesn't give a damn about Western public opinion, but he has most Russians convinced that the "fascist" Ukrainians (many Ukrainians fought with the Nazis against Russia in WWII) are on the move against brother Russians.  It is remarkably similar to Hitler's play book in 1938 in occupying first Sudetenland, then all Czechoslovakia. But it's PC to reject all comparisons to Hitler or Nazis; even when they fit.

[West of the Rockies]

The one thing such a scenario would absolutely reveal to me is that those in charge do not really comprehend that there are actual humans in those boots that are "on ground"... to military/political leaders, there are no real human beings, just pawns that are being used in such geo-political brinkmanship -- actual soldiers are just an means to an end.

[PB the Deplorable]

Obama's best move would be to announce that in response to the recent moves by Putin in the Ukraine, the Missile Defense Radar Station in Poland will be built after all, and that we are in discussion with the Czechs to re-start the facility there.

His move in the East China Sea would have been to announce it remains international waters and station a couple of aircraft carriers there and have daily jet flyovers (see:  Reagan, Libya, Gulf of Sidra)

Those moves should have been discussed (privately first, then in some speech somewhere if needed) when word first got out about China's intentions and Putin's intentions.  Weakness draws a vacuum.  The only thing people like the Chi-Coms and Putin understand is strength, and they are always going to be testing the nations they see as their opponents.

[Juan]

The best move by Obama would be to pay attention to what's happening in Venezuela - a place actually in our influence zone that we should be concerned about, and a place that could have missiles that could reach about 2/3 of the US.

[PB the Deplorable]

The best move by Obama would be to pay attention to what's happening in Venezuela - a place actually in our influence zone that we should be concerned about, and a place that could have missiles that could reach about 2/3 of the US.

A few weeks ago Russia announced they are in discussions with Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua in our hemisphere, and also the Seychelles, Cypress, Algeria, Vietnam, and Singapore for access to facilities to be used by Russia's Navy and Strategic Bombers.  Fucking great.

This came on the heels and in response to Sec State John Kerry lying about what the Monroe Doctrine is then declaring it dead.


It is in the best interests of the world for there to be a reasonably strong America.  Obama's weakness and willful destructiveness is making the world much more dangerous and prone for someone to miscalculate.


Japan has the refined plutonium it needs to build nukes, and certainly has the knowledge.  Rumor is they are now doing so.  South Korea will want one.  With the situation in Iran, the Saudi's will want one, followed by Egypt, then perhaps Turkey.  The Ukraine must be ruing the day they gave theirs up.

The Saudi's are turning to Russia for weapons systems, and with Obama's failure to resupply Egypt with needed Apache helicopters, Egypt may not be far behind.

Our other allies understand they need to cut their own deals - Singapore allowing the Russian navy and strategic bombers access?  Unheard of in the pre-Obama era.  Same with Cypress, Algeria and some of the others.


The Carter-ization continues.  Obama and his mom pants need to resign and return to Chicago.  The sooner the better.

[FightTheFuture]

Russian Deputy PM Laughs at Obama Sanctions, calling him a ''prankster''


Maybe it's time for another red line.

[SciFiAuthor]

There really are huge parallels with Carter here. Amid Obama's weakest foreign policy incident yet--those 'sanctions' are a true joke--he's also quietly giving up a major strategic asset much like Carter gave up the Panama Canal. After handing it over, the Canal was managed for years by a company based in China and defacto became a strategic asset of China. Now the Chinese are digging a bigger canal and the issue has become moot, but the fact remains that Carter was had. Now Obama is being had by giving up US oversight over the architecture of the internet. It's a move that will likewise be exploited by Russia and China.

You'd think Obama would have learned something while being president for 6 years. Yet, it remains foreign policy amateur hour in the Oval Office. And, at this rate, we'll be lucky if Obama's naivety and weakness doesn't set the planet up for World War III.

[PB the Deplorable]

... You'd think Obama would have learned something while being president for 6 years...

I think Carter meant well, but Obama's moves are done purposely and are intended to weaken the US and the West.  Carter finally woke up when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Obama never will.

As far as the Canal being 'managed for years by a company based in China' - those companies were actually owned by the PLA, China's People's Liberation Army.

[albrecht]

I think Carter meant well, but Obama's moves are done purposely and are intended to weaken the US and the West.  Carter finally woke up when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Obama never will.

As far as the Canal being 'managed for years by a company based in China' - those companies were actually owned by the PLA, China's People's Liberation Army.

Agreed. Carter was a bad President but seems to be a decent person and had good motives, just too naive about the real world and how it works. Obama seems to harbor a deep resentment of Western Civilization and animosity towards the country and much of our people. I wouldn't be surprised if his disastrous foreign and economic policy is not purely incompetence, as most people and the press would have you believe, but outright purposeful actions designed and planned to hurt the country.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think Carter meant well, but Obama's moves are done purposely and are intended to weaken the US and the West.  Carter finally woke up when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Obama never will.

As far as the Canal being 'managed for years by a company based in China' - those companies were actually owned by the PLA, China's People's Liberation Army.

Yeah, I think Carter was simply naïve and wanted to be "fair" to Panama in a world holding hands singing folk songs sort of way, but that's never been realistic. There's always someone waiting to take advantage.

Agreed. Carter was a bad President but seems to be a decent person and had good motives, just too naive about the real world and how it works. Obama seems to harbor a deep resentment of Western Civilization and animosity towards the country and much of our people. I wouldn't be surprised if his disastrous foreign and economic policy is not purely incompetence, as most people and the press would have you believe, but outright purposeful actions designed and planned to hurt the country.

This is certainly true. Obama is the first president in US history that was able to successfully get elected on a promise that your kids will be worse off than you are. It's all hidden in purposefully higher energy costs, climate change rhetoric, and the like, but it's a fact. The liberal agenda in today's world is to hobble the growth of mankind in order to "save the environment". In the real world, that entails putting people out of work, making sure they can afford less thereby shrinking their carbon footprint by force, overeducating everyone through subsidized degree mills to glut the labor market and drop wages, increase the cost of healthcare, and so on.

But in foreign policy, they're so bad at this point that I'm uncertain that they know what they're doing or have any sort of plan. It looks like a bunch of people winging it. Maybe their aim was to remove the US as the global leader and create a multi-polar world faster, but that doesn't seem consistent with their aim of regressing human civilization. China and Russia are out for growth, not the environment.

[albrecht]

But in foreign policy, they're so bad at this point that I'm uncertain that they know what they're doing or have any sort of plan. It looks like a bunch of people winging it. Maybe their aim was to remove the US as the global leader and create a multi-polar world faster, but that doesn't seem consistent with their aim of regressing human civilization. China and Russia are out for growth, not the environment.

Yes, it could be that in their true, global objective to minimize the USA's power and standard of living and undermine Western Civilization and culture into some weird world of equality in every nation and county by sinking to the lowest common denominator they forgot that some countries still want to keep their culture, borders, and economy or even expand them.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yes, it could be that in their true, global objective to minimize the USA's power and standard of living and undermine Western Civilization and culture into some weird world of equality in every nation and county by sinking to the lowest common denominator they forgot that some countries still want to keep their culture, borders, and economy or even expand them.

Possibly so. But even with visions of absolute global equality, the end result is not a better world. Rather it's a stagnant held-back world. But that's ultimately what they seem to want: a meager, green-living populace with a political and scientific class living on passes that allow them to do as they please for "the greater good".

But don't think that they want the third world as equal in its current state. They want the third world to die and quit breeding until they reach sustainable levels. The circumstances of the DDT ban prove that. Modern liberal quasi-environmental thought in the western world directly killed thousands with that one, perhaps millions. They should be made to own it.

[Juan]

I wonder why Nowhere In Time and Ben Shockley have failed to brand you a racist for your posts. They're usually quicker than this.

[VtaGeezer]

I ask about Putin and, surprise, I get condemnations of Obama.  True, Obama is no warrior President.  When we had a warrior President (so long as someone else did the warrioring), I remember how Putin was put in his place for invading in Georgia.  Oh wait...

[albrecht]

I ask about Putin and, surprise, I get condemnations of Obama.  True, Obama is no warrior President.  When we had a warrior President (so long as someone else did the warrioring), I remember how Putin was put in his place for invading in Georgia.  Oh wait...

Georgians started that one. And, like the famous line from Animal House goes, NATO/US/Bush said "you fucked up, you trusted us". Interesting that Biden scrambles over to Poland to tell them not to worry. Why anyone trusts NATO, or the US, is amazing to me.

[wr250]

Georgians started that one. And, like the famous line from Animal House goes, NATO/US/Bush said "you fucked up, you trusted us". Interesting that Biden scrambles over to Poland to tell them not to worry. Why anyone trusts NATO, or the US, is amazing to me.

why anyone would send biden to do anything important is bee'und beeleef. he will make some inappropriate joke or statement, or start talking about shotguns again. hes arguably as bad as noory.

Biden Indian

[PB the Deplorable]

why anyone would send biden to do anything important is bee'und beeleef. he will make some inappropriate joke or statement, or start talking about shotguns again. hes arguably as bad as Noory...

As further evidence of Obama's poor judgment - if anymore were needed, his stated main reason for choosing Joe ''Dumbest Man in the Senate'' Biden as VP was Biden's foreign policy cred's.  He was either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2001-2008.

Succeeded as Committee Chairman by John Kerry.  His other Sec State, Hilary Clinton, never even served on that Committee - not that Biden or Kerry learned anything there.


The D's just aren't serious.  They aren't serious on the economy, they aren't serious on Foreign Policy.

[NowhereInTime]

I wonder why Nowhere In Time and Ben Shockley have failed to brand you a racist for your posts. They're usually quicker than this.

1) This is what I mean by you are the must unctuous poster on this site and;
2) I don't reply because this entire thread is a feeding frenzy of foolishness with the blind (Paper*Boy) leading the blind (Albrecht) leading the comatose (SciFi Author) with chuckleheads (FTF, Wr250, lunger)tossed in.
The never ending debasing of the President, based on the most extraneous of circumstances, and the affirmation of, all people, Vladimir Putin makes my head spin.  This fucking thread is the Twilight Zone.

Vtageezer, I'm begging you, this one's lost to the walkers: ABANDON SHIP!!!

[wr250]

with chuckleheads (FTF, Wr250, lunger)tossed in.

well im glad im good for a laugh

[VtaGeezer]

Aha...Putin is doing this because of Joe Biden. Gotcha.  I don't know why I couldn't see it. 

It's astonishing to see the rightwingers undercutting their own President and backstopping Vladimir Putin.  I imagine his advisors saying "Go for it. Rupert and the Tea Party will be with you".

[SciFiAuthor]

1) This is what I mean by you are the must unctuous poster on this site and;
2) I don't reply because this entire thread is a feeding frenzy of foolishness with the blind (Paper*Boy) leading the blind (Albrecht) leading the comatose (SciFi Author) with chuckleheads (FTF, Wr250, lunger)tossed in.
The never ending debasing of the President, based on the most extraneous of circumstances, and the affirmation of, all people, Vladimir Putin makes my head spin.  This fucking thread is the Twilight Zone.

Vtageezer, I'm begging you, this one's lost to the walkers: ABANDON SHIP!!!

Oh come on, we're smarter than that. We all know that liberal posters always go silent when they have no idea how to respond to something. But I do feel sympathy for you this time, I would not want to have to figure out some kind of defense for those "sanctions".

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh come on, we're smarter than that. We all know that liberal posters always go silent when they have no idea how to respond to something. But I do feel sympathy for you this time, I would not want to have to figure out some kind of defense for those "sanctions".

Have Daily KAOS and the rest issued talking points yet?

[NowhereInTime]

Have Daily KAOS and the rest issued talking points yet?

Yes, it did.
Point 1: Conservatives are chicken hawks.
Point 2: All of you have lambasted Obama as if this was somehow his fault that an unstable regime halfway around the world has been muscling in on its neighbor. 
Point 3: Even Russia has backed off talk of further incursion into Ukraine.
Point 4: Not one conservative,  either here or in the real world has offered an alternative.  Just comments and observations.  Typical.
SciFi, don't get caught up in your own cleverness; this situation has a long way to go before it is played out. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Yes, it did.
Point 1: Conservatives are chicken hawks.
Point 2: All of you have lambasted Obama as if this was somehow his fault that an unstable regime halfway around the world has been muscling in on its neighbor. 
Point 3: Even Russia has backed off talk of further incursion into Ukraine.
Point 4: Not one conservative,  either here or in the real world has offered an alternative.  Just comments and observations.  Typical.
SciFi, don't get caught up in your own cleverness; this situation has a long way to go before it is played out.

As I thought, you have no idea how to tackle this one. Here's reality:

Point 1: No one wants to go to war with Russia. What neoconservatives (and me) want is meaningful pressure. Expansionism cannot be tolerated in the modern world. The other half of the conservatives favor simply staying out of entirely. But whatever you do, don't put your foot in the water without the intention of taking a swim. Stay on the shore, or jump in. One or the other.
Point 2: No we're not, we're stating that Kerry just made us look like complete fools by promising
grave consequences on Monday but delivering an international joke. What the hell was he thinking? Seriously?
Point 3: They don't seem to have backed off on troop massing and asset deployment. That's what matters. Russia stands around whistling while its troops act. That's how they operate.
Point 4: Threats of the imposition of oil and natural gas sanctions immediately and without delay. Russian Governmental Public asset freezing abroad. Threats of transferring arms to Ukraine's government. NATO military deployment to Poland and the Baltic states. Meaningful action in the UN (what the hell have they been this whole time? Playing pinochle and deciding where to go for lunch?). Demands for negotiated settlement of hostilities repeated often and facilitated. Threats of constructing a natural gas pipeline to Europe from sources other than Russia. Subsidy of domestic oil production to increase pumping and export to damage the PPB that the Russian petrostate is dependent on.

Or to say it another way, the same sorts of solutions that every president of the latter half of the 20th century employed to get someone to back down including Clinton. These blustery lines in the sand followed up with weak action--actually this one was beyond weak, it was pathetic--is not going to work as a foreign policy.

After watching how Syria has "played out" I'm not finding many reasons to be hopeful. Is there something in Obama's policy history that should lead me to feel at ease about the coming weeks?

[FightTheFuture]

President Obama has dispatched  VP Joe Biden to Europe to reassure our European allies. And that's a big fuckin' deal!

[NowhereInTime]

As I thought, you have no idea how to tackle this one. Here's reality:

Point 1: No one wants to go to war with Russia. What neoconservatives (and me) want is meaningful pressure. Expansionism cannot be tolerated in the modern world. The other half of the conservatives favor simply staying out of entirely. But whatever you do, don't put your foot in the water without the intention of taking a swim. Stay on the shore, or jump in. One or the other.
Point 2: No we're not, we're stating that Kerry just made us look like complete fools by promising
grave consequences on Monday but delivering an international joke. What the hell was he thinking? Seriously?
Point 3: They don't seem to have backed off on troop massing and asset deployment. That's what matters. Russia stands around whistling while its troops act. That's how they operate.
Point 4: Threats of the imposition of oil and natural gas sanctions immediately and without delay. Russian Governmental Public asset freezing abroad. Threats of transferring arms to Ukraine's government. NATO military deployment to Poland and the Baltic states. Meaningful action in the UN (what the hell have they been this whole time? Playing pinochle and deciding where to go for lunch?). Demands for negotiated settlement of hostilities repeated often and facilitated. Threats of constructing a natural gas pipeline to Europe from sources other than Russia. Subsidy of domestic oil production to increase pumping and export to damage the PPB that the Russian petrostate is dependent on.

Or to say it another way, the same sorts of solutions that every president of the latter half of the 20th century employed to get someone to back down including Clinton. These blustery lines in the sand followed up with weak action--actually this one was beyond weak, it was pathetic--is not going to work as a foreign policy.

After watching how Syria has "played out" I'm not finding many reasons to be hopeful. Is there something in Obama's policy history that should lead me to feel at ease about the coming weeks?

Wow!
Way to be smug and condescending without saying ANYTHING!

Point 1: You're correct (and so was I before you) only chicken hawks think this is a great time to slug it out with the Russians.  The whole pool analogy is a big fail, though.  Sure, you brash neo-con types deal in absolutes: in/out; up/down; black/white and completely lack nuance. Jump in the water or stay out.  Wrong.
Of course you put your toe in the water.  Then the ankles. If called for, wade in deeper while you get used to the waters.  You don't jump in because you don't know how deep the pool is, or how cold or hot it is.  This isn't the final table of WSOP; you don't go "all in" until you absolutely have to; this isn't a zero sum game.
Point 2: Yes you are.  Conservatives are pissing themselves with glee about the "feckless" and "weak" President Oblackman.  I'm surprised no one's thrown in a "shuffling" but I haven't yet read Paper* Boy's latest post.  Foreign policy is about objectives, not boasting rights.
Point 3: I concede one point: the Russian are clearly using security operatives to storm the Ukraine Naval base and undercover pro-Russian "demonstrators" but as CNN points out, Crimea's economy sucks.  Is this really a wise move for Putin?
Point 4: The UN is most effective at back-channel.  Russia can veto any Security Council initiative (they don't have to recuse themselves) sought to condemn the action.  Ban-Ki Moon is going to meet with Putin to talk some sobriety into him. 
Not one of the sanctions you mentioned hasn't already been considered by people paid to do this for a living.  The reason you don't rush in and drop the hammer is the same reason stated above: you need to know the temperature of the water as well as the depth.  Is Putin firm in this action?  Does he understand the consequences?  Is there a way to walk him back and save face, like some lame ass "bilateral security agreement" or something? Is he prepared for the economic ruin mounting sanctions would bring?  Will he lash out militarily? 
On that last one, don't think for a second the Pentagon hasn't already run several hundred battle scenarios, either with limited partners or NATO action.
This is big league ball.  Just throwing heat won't keep you here, kid.  You gotta change location and speed.

As to Syria? There is internecine conflict and thousands are dying.  But the chemical weapons that could've caused mass death, threatened our troops, and threatened Israel, are gone.  But no points for that, I guess.  Ironic, Syria actually had "weapons of mass destruction" but cons don't want to fight there.

[VtaGeezer]

Point 1: No one wants to go to war with Russia. What neoconservatives (and me) want is meaningful pressure.

WTF is "meaningful pressure"?  Be specific.

Point 2: No we're not, we're stating that Kerry just made us look like complete fools by promising
grave consequences on Monday but delivering an international joke. What the hell was he thinking? Seriously?

You're accepting the Russians' bravado as fact. Sanction targets are kleptocrat thugs who bankroll Putin and they won't publicly admit their pain for obvious reasons; but Putin is getting an earful.

Point 3: They don't seem to have backed off on troop massing and asset deployment. That's what matters. Russia stands around whistling while its troops act. That's how they operate.

This is a tactical pause in an ongoing situation and it's unwise to draw any conclusion. By taking Crimea, Putin radically reduced the "ethnic Russian" population of Ukraine and has deeply cut into his own excuse for further intrusion in Ukraine.  Putin's carefully avoiding any overt actions that can be tied to Moscow; no Russian insignia or unit markings.

Point 4: Threats of the imposition of oil and natural gas sanctions immediately and without delay. Russian Governmental Public asset freezing abroad. Threats of transferring arms to Ukraine's government. NATO military deployment to Poland and the Baltic states. Meaningful action in the UN (what the hell have they been this whole time? Playing pinochle and deciding where to go for lunch?). Demands for negotiated settlement of hostilities repeated often and facilitated. Threats of constructing a natural gas pipeline to Europe from sources other than Russia. Subsidy of domestic oil production to increase pumping and export to damage the PPB that the Russian petrostate is dependent on.

This is mostly insanity. Russia is a deeply xenophobic and paranoid nation (not unlike Tea Partiers) and Putin exploits it as skillfully as Rush.  For Russians, there is no difference between a neighbor allying itself with the West and a direct threat.  Putin has amplified this, and will react to Western saber rattling in ways that the childish right aren't contemplating; e.g. remilitarizing Cuba or exploiting its ties in Venezuela.  Suggestions of resupplying Europe with other gas sources exposes deep ignorance of the energy business. First, permitting an LNG terminal in the US is about as easy as permitting a nuke plant; and that's for relatively mild regassification; not the far more complex and risky liquification process facilities needed for export. Its been the case for the case for decades. Second, no one is going to invest in pipeline infrastructure that will become redundant as soon as Russia begins to behave once more.  Third, its laughable to read so many on the right hypocritically insisting we 1) have the Feds overrule state & local control of facilities permitting, and 2)  violate the world open market forces they insist can fix anything (including Russian xenophobia and kleptocracy).

Or to say it another way, the same sorts of solutions that every president of the latter half of the 20th century employed to get someone to back down including Clinton. These blustery lines in the sand followed up with weak action--actually this one was beyond weak, it was pathetic--is not going to work as a foreign policy.

After watching how Syria has "played out" I'm not finding many reasons to be hopeful. Is there something in Obama's policy history that should lead me to feel at ease about the coming weeks?

More John Wayne talk.  How long do you think it would take Putin to reciprocate for any Western military bravado in E Europe or the Baltics through his clients like Iran/Hezbollah, N Korea or even Cuba  and Venezuela. You confuse a confrontation with Putin's Russia with America's string of actions against 3rd World backwaters; against armies of conscripted goatherds and rice farmers; forays that have been far more costly in blood and money than the cheerleaders expected with neutral result at best. Not to mention the expectation that, once again, the US taxpayer do the heavy lifting while the Brits and Germans and others in NATO continue to rack up profits on the billions in "frozen" Russian investments and deposits.  Syria? We learned in Iraq that there are no "good guys" in that part of the world, and to paraphrase Saint Rummy, Obama recognizes he can't know what will succeed Assad.

This is the most serious US-Russian stare-down in more than a generation.  Expectations for simplistic and quick solutions by the Right exposes a Tom Clancy world view that we need only send in our military, and the Ruskies will tremble and dissolve.  Just be thankful that Obama is a deliberate President and not a reactionary fool surrounded by a clique of boardroom warriors and thieves.  Also be thankful we didn't have Limbaugh's or O'Reilly's facile sermons misleading millions during the Cold War.

[Juan]

I have yet to see a rational argument for US intervention in any manner.  Well, simple dick-waving, maybe.

[SciFiAuthor]

Wow!
Way to be smug and condescending without saying ANYTHING!

Smug and condescending? I thought I was "comatose". That said, I see that you've purposely ignored the white elephant in the room again. This is about policy weakness, and you keep dancing around that one. A few days ago you were warning me not to underestimate the effects of economic sanctions. That signals to me that you were expecting something big. Now that we've seen those "sanctions", you must have shat down both legs in astonishment at their inherent weakness like I did.

You cannot make a big scary threat of "consequences" and then when the deadline passes effect the diplomatic equivalent of shutting down a few people's Amazon accounts. It's absurd in how weak it was, and it's likewise absurd in the fact that Russia did the same thing and is releasing a list of sanctioned US senators and officials. None of those Russians have any real money here, just like McCain has no money in St. Petersburg, as he termed it. The only thing those "sanctions" managed to hurt is the United States' credibility.

Point 1: You're correct (and so was I before you) only chicken hawks think this is a great time to slug it out with the Russians.  The whole pool analogy is a big fail, though.  Sure, you brash neo-con types deal in absolutes: in/out; up/down; black/white and completely lack nuance. Jump in the water or stay out.  Wrong.
Of course you put your toe in the water.  Then the ankles. If called for, wade in deeper while you get used to the waters.  You don't jump in because you don't know how deep the pool is, or how cold or hot it is.  This isn't the final table of WSOP; you don't go "all in" until you absolutely have to; this isn't a zero sum game.

Chicken hawks, a liberal catch phrase that came out in the run up to the Iraq war. You must think that you can color the debate by bandying it about again. Won't work. There are no hawks in this issue. No one wants war with Russia; it's a nuclear armed nation. What we want is an effective response if we are to give a response at all. Kerry's "consequences" were nothing close to an effective response. They were a joke.

And look where we are. Russia is now making veiled threats at Estonia, their state run newspaper even going so far as to claim the "bloodshed" between Estonians and Russians in Estonia is nearly as bad as Syria. There is no bloodshed. That's called war propaganda.

The "sanctions" weren't even a toe in the water. It was more like Kerry trying to throw a turd in the pool and missing the water entirely. On top of the pool business, he's now got a turd to clean up too.

Point 2: Yes you are.  Conservatives are pissing themselves with glee about the "feckless" and "weak" President Oblackman.  I'm surprised no one's thrown in a "shuffling" but I haven't yet read Paper* Boy's latest post.  Foreign policy is about objectives, not boasting rights.

Foreign policy is about effectiveness, and there is none here. In fact, in our weakness, we may well have sent a message that will make everything worse. A weak response by the United States could be interpreted as a "go ahead" for Putin to do more. I don't know if that's what's happening here, but any way you slice it it's fucked up.

Point 3: I concede one point: the Russian are clearly using security operatives to storm the Ukraine Naval base and undercover pro-Russian "demonstrators" but as CNN points out, Crimea's economy sucks.  Is this really a wise move for Putin?

It depends on what his aims are. In the past Ukraine has served as Russia's breadbasket and did well. It can again, if it's stable. If he intends to occupy an annex the whole country, which he would probably do in stages, then it's a wise move for him. If he simply intends to keep only Crimea, it may not be. But it's too late now. He's not going to give it back.

Point 4: The UN is most effective at back-channel.  Russia can veto any Security Council initiative (they don't have to recuse themselves) sought to condemn the action.  Ban-Ki Moon is going to meet with Putin to talk some sobriety into him.

It's not likely to be effective at back-channel. This should be out in the general assembly with a big fight being waged. Instead, they're out to lunch. Ban-Ki Moon may well be the most ineffectual UN general secretary in the organization's history. He's taken the UN from being the premier diplomatic forum for the planet, to an impotent organization that barely makes the news anymore. I expect he's probably just meeting with Putin as a formality and a free meal.

Not one of the sanctions you mentioned hasn't already been considered by people paid to do this for a living.  The reason you don't rush in and drop the hammer is the same reason stated above: you need to know the temperature of the water as well as the depth.  Is Putin firm in this action?  Does he understand the consequences?  Is there a way to walk him back and save face, like some lame ass "bilateral security agreement" or something? Is he prepared for the economic ruin mounting sanctions would bring?  Will he lash out militarily? 

Kerry tested no waters, he made a joke of himself. And it wasn't just Russia that laughed, so did Israel and quite a few others. This will go like all of Obama's foreign policy goes; drag it out by doing as little as possible until it disappears from the news cycle.

On that last one, don't think for a second the Pentagon hasn't already run several hundred battle scenarios, either with limited partners or NATO action.

I would actually be pissed off if they did, this is not a war scenario. The US and Russia cannot go to war with both bearing massive nuclear arsenals. We should have either pulled a Cameron and kept our mouth shut if we weren't going to get involved, or did something meaningful diplomatically.

This is big league ball.  Just throwing heat won't keep you here, kid.  You gotta change location and speed.

Pfffft. What ball?

As to Syria? There is internecine conflict and thousands are dying.  But the chemical weapons that could've caused mass death, threatened our troops, and threatened Israel, are gone.  But no points for that, I guess.  Ironic, Syria actually had "weapons of mass destruction" but cons don't want to fight there.

Syria should be occupied by a UN Peacekeeping force by now. That's how Clinton would have handled it. Instead, death and bloodshed continues. I'll applaud the chemical weapons issue when the conflict ends. I can't say that Bashar al-Assad is done with using them.

[SciFiAuthor]

WTF is "meaningful pressure"?  Be specific.

An actual economic sanction. Or, if you really want to get Putin specifically, all of his money is sitting in the Cayman Islands. Putin is generally believed to be one of the wealthiest men on earth, but he reports an income in Russia of less than $200,000 a year. Well, the Caymans are a British overseas territory, and they can freeze those assets any time they want.

You're accepting the Russians' bravado as fact. Sanction targets are kleptocrat thugs who bankroll Putin and they won't publicly admit their pain for obvious reasons; but Putin is getting an earful.

Those thugs don't keep their money here, just like our sanctioned senators don't keep their money in Russia. He's getting an earful of laughter.

This is a tactical pause in an ongoing situation and it's unwise to draw any conclusion. By taking Crimea, Putin radically reduced the "ethnic Russian" population of Ukraine and has deeply cut into his own excuse for further intrusion in Ukraine.  Putin's carefully avoiding any overt actions that can be tied to Moscow; no Russian insignia or unit markings.

That's actually called perfidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy

It's a violation of the Geneva convention and an actionable war crime. "Kid Gloves" Kerry seems afraid to bring that up for some reason.

This is mostly insanity. Russia is a deeply xenophobic and paranoid nation (not unlike Tea Partiers) and Putin exploits it as skillfully as Rush.

You can't see past your politics far enough to make a reliable analysis. It's always conservatives this, and that, brought into every damned thing. It would really be nice for a change if everyone directed their attention to reality instead of that silly political division and polarization garbage you've all--conservative and liberals both--cooked up over this last decade.

For Russians, there is no difference between a neighbor allying itself with the West and a direct threat.  Putin has amplified this, and will react to Western saber rattling in ways that the childish right aren't contemplating; e.g. remilitarizing Cuba or exploiting its ties in Venezuela.

He's going to do that anyway. He's been flirting with that stuff for most of the last decade.

Suggestions of resupplying Europe with other gas sources exposes deep ignorance of the energy business.

Putin has been using the Gazprom pipeline to manipulate Europe for years. It's responsible for Europe's weak to nonexistent response to this crisis. The status quo must change, or we will see a Putin that continues to gather cards until he holds them all.

First, permitting an LNG terminal in the US is about as easy as permitting a nuke plant; and that's for relatively mild regassification; not the far more complex and risky liquification process facilities needed for export. Its been the case for the case for decades.

I don't do "cant do's". It is legally and technologically possible. Preventing the ideology of acceptable expansionism returning to the world stage makes a major effort an acceptable trade off.

Second, no one is going to invest in pipeline infrastructure that will become redundant as soon as Russia begins to behave once more.

It will never be redundant. We burn off so much natural gas that could be sold that it's not even funny. That is neither very green, nor is it very smart. Build a pipeline to end European dependence on Russian resources.

Third, its laughable to read so many on the right hypocritically insisting we 1) have the Feds overrule state & local control of facilities permitting, and 2)  violate the world open market forces they insist can fix anything (including Russian xenophobia and kleptocracy).

That's called byzantine bureaucracy and it's one of the reasons why our kids will be worse off than we are. Layer upon layer upon layer of bureaucracy added to ceaselessly year after year. And, apparently, it will allow Russia to assume the US' former role in world affairs. If Russia refuses to play nice, then it needs to be marginalized now. End their petrostate, and they are a cooked chicken.

More John Wayne talk.

If sanctions are now John Wayne talk, then I rest my case about weakness.

How long do you think it would take Putin to reciprocate for any Western military bravado in E Europe or the Baltics through his clients like Iran/Hezbollah, N Korea or even Cuba  and Venezuela. You confuse a confrontation with Putin's Russia with America's string of actions against 3rd World backwaters; against armies of conscripted goatherds and rice farmers; forays that have been far more costly in blood and money than the cheerleaders expected with neutral result at best. Not to mention the expectation that, once again, the US taxpayer do the heavy lifting while the Brits and Germans and others in NATO continue to rack up profits on the billions in "frozen" Russian investments and deposits.  Syria? We learned in Iraq that there are no "good guys" in that part of the world, and to paraphrase Saint Rummy, Obama recognizes he can't know what will succeed Assad.

I said no war. You liberals always seem bent on trying to color a debate with this war shit, Nowhere keeps doing it too. I understand why you would attempt to do it, it's a great shut down, but when the guy says "no war" from the get go and then you just ignore that and continue on like they were warmongering just ends up looking bizarre. No one is calling for a war against Russia.

This is the most serious US-Russian stare-down in more than a generation.  Expectations for simplistic and quick solutions by the Right exposes a Tom Clancy world view that we need only send in our military, and the Ruskies will tremble and dissolve.  Just be thankful that Obama is a deliberate President and not a reactionary fool surrounded by a clique of boardroom warriors and thieves.  Also be thankful we didn't have Limbaugh's or O'Reilly's facile sermons misleading millions during the Cold War.

The last time something like this happened, John Kennedy solved it with a backed up threat and a blockade with his finger on the nuke button in what was easily the most dangerous and "John Wayne" move in the history of the United States, perhaps the world. Obama seems to simply wait until something falls off the news cycle and quits mentioning it like he did with Syria. His foreign policy involves hoping that things go away and work out on their own.