Is Putin trying to bait Ukraine into military action

[VtaGeezer]

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.

You're kidding, aren't you? Or you have utterly no sense of proportion?  Kruschev was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba that could have incinerated Washington and the Eastern US with virtually no warning; within the context of a very real Cold War that eventually cost 85,000 American lives in Korea and Vietnam.  I was in high school then, and my brother was in the Navy stationed on Key West. It's preposterous to compare that crisis to Putin's parochial adventurism.  This is a crisis, not for any threat to the US, but solely because it's international illegality. Until yesterday, there wasn't even a shot fired.  I repeat, there is no threat to the US. Yet you're wistful for JFK with his finger on the button.  I rest my case on the John Wayne mentality.

Other points:
The sanctions are being imposed by the Europeans too, so Putin's pals will feel the squeeze quickly.

Putin's personal assets are not in play because it's accepted as impolitic and off limits to target recognized and legitimate national leaders without international legal action, and risks dangerously personalizing international crises.  Even with legal nicities, there's a vast difference between going after Khaddafi or Milosivic, and going after the President of the Russian Federation. Besides, Putin certainly has enough gold and physical assets squirreled away to insulate himself from any personal effects anyway...sanction would only give him martyr-like attributes to the Russians.

Actually, I was a staunch Republican for 30+ years, but then came the national catastrophe named Bush, full GOP control of the US government, and we damn near didn't survive them. As the old hymn says; "I was blind but now I see". I will likely spent a millenia in Purgatory for voting Republican.

[SciFiAuthor]

You're kidding, aren't you? Or you have utterly no sense of proportion?  Kruschev was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba that could have incinerated Washington and the Eastern US with virtually no warning; within the context of a very real Cold War that eventually cost 85,000 American lives in Korea and Vietnam.  I was in high school then, and my brother was in the Navy stationed on Key West. It's preposterous to compare that crisis to Putin's parochial adventurism.  This is a crisis, not for any threat to the US, but solely because it's international illegality. Until yesterday, there wasn't even a shot fired.

Actually, the closest thing in history to this situation is Hitler's invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland. My point was that Democrats are perfectly willing to use what you term as "John Wayne" tactics and then get all misty-eyed over them decades later, which you just did.

I repeat, there is no threat to the US. Yet you're wistful for JFK with his finger on the button.  I rest my case on the John Wayne mentality.

No, actually I think JFK made the incorrect move and nearly annhilated the earth over it. The Soviet Union was highly unlikely to have ever initiated a nuclear exchange.

Other points:
The sanctions are being imposed by the Europeans too, so Putin's pals will feel the squeeze quickly.

Yeah, I guess they'll just have to miss House of Cards on Netflix. That'll teach 'em. Nothing meaningful will come of these "sanctions". It was a move intended to appear weak or inept, take your pick of which one you prefer. Once again, do not make a blustery threat of "consequences" and then follow it up with the barest minimum response you can get away with after the deadline passes. 

Putin's personal assets are not in play because it's accepted as impolitic and off limits to target recognized and legitimate national leaders without international legal action, and risks dangerously personalizing international crises.  Even with legal nicities, there's a vast difference between going after Khaddafi or Milosivic, and going after the President of the Russian Federation. Besides, Putin certainly has enough gold and physical assets squirreled away to insulate himself from any personal effects anyway...sanction would only give him martyr-like attributes to the Russians.

Alright, start up the legal niceties and let's get the ball rolling. The man just invaded a country in flagrant violation of the current world order and the Geneva Convention. Such a move might also just as easily also expose tax evasion on billions of dollars of income and cause an internal Russian political scandal for Putin and prove to be his downfall. Further, there's another scandal hiding around, Putin's Black Sea mansion that's just waiting to blow open again.

Actually, I was a staunch Republican for 30+ years, but then came the national catastrophe named Bush, full GOP control of the US government, and we damn near didn't survive them. As the old hymn says; "I was blind but now I see". I will likely spent a millenia in Purgatory for voting Republican.

I'm not a republican. I'm an independent and an advocate of free political thought not beholden to R's, L's and D's. I would be perfectly at ease right now if Obama's administration were acting like Bill Clinton's in matters of foreign policy. They aren't.

If you're worried about Purgatory, I would think you're going either way. The Democrats are no different or better than the Republicans. Obama's policies on the environment, technology and healthcare have been among the most catastrophic things I've ever seen in a presidency other than maybe those of Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson.

[thexfile]

If the EU can't handle something in their own backyard then tough cookies. The US tax payer shouldn't have to shoulder the bill for another government jobs program.."war".

[SciFiAuthor]

There it is again. Despite no US politicians suggesting warfare as a course of action, and no prominent ideologues from either party suggesting it, it still keeps surfacing. The talking points people must be pushing some kind of sense of impending war on the TV.

I noticed Obama took war off the table today, as if it was ever there. I guess that's how I'd weigh in for political advantage if I knew there was a talking points campaign going. Get everyone worked up and believing that war is on the table, and then release the steam valve by precluding it a few days later. You come out looking great every time with that kind of thing.

So who's tossing out the anti-war-when-there-won't-be-a-war talk? I know Ron Paul did, bless his naïve little heart. But is Matthews or someone tossing it out too?

[VtaGeezer]

Actually, the closest thing in history to this situation is Hitler's invasion and annexation of the Sudetenland. My point was that Democrats are perfectly willing to use what you term as "John Wayne" tactics and then get all misty-eyed over them decades later, which you just did.

You and Hillary Clinton agree.

No, actually I think JFK made the incorrect move and nearly annhilated the earth over it. The Soviet Union was highly unlikely to have ever initiated a nuclear exchange.

Nonsense. Your comment plainly was supportive and admiring of JFK's use of the nuclear threat.  You used him as an example of how a (proper) President handles a Russian.  But in fact he backed down and pulled our missiles from Turkey.

Sure you're an independent.  Because you're off the scale to the right even for this radicalized GOP.

[SciFiAuthor]

You and Hillary Clinton agree.

I would vote for Hillary before I vote for McCain. Actually, the conservatives should too, since her voting record in the senate is more conservative than his. I believe Ann Coulter of all people pointed that out.

Nonsense. Your comment plainly was supportive and admiring of JFK's use of the nuclear threat.  You used him as an example of how a (proper) President handles a Russian.  But in fact he backed down and pulled our missiles from Turkey.

No, you misread it or I wasn't clear. I was putting it on you to explain how you could dually condemn and support John Wayne diplomacy in one case, but not another. You're an ideologue on the left, I knew that you'd cook up a defense for Kennedy and you did. One minute you condemn it, the next you get all misty for the good ol' 60's and JFK's brinksmanship.

Remember, I'm asking for meaningful sanctions and UN action here. That's what we did in the 90's, but now we seem ineffectual, insular, petty and disinterested in a clear violation of international law. Seriously, soldiers without identifying insignia? A decade ago we were all debating and freaking out about what that meant for Afghanistan, where the Taliban had no such thing. Now, it's a footnote even though no less than the Russian Federation did it. I'd love to know how the fuck that magically became acceptable.

All of this is not going to make for a very stable world. And, well, the world's done nothing but destabilize for the last 6 years, hasn't it? Something's got to give, and when you have a country of the magnitude of the Russian Federation behaving like this, you've got a problem with implications that go much further than simply the Crimea.

Sure you're an independent.  Because you're off the scale to the right even for this radicalized GOP.

I see a neutered GOP that's busy infighting between Neocons, Old guard, Evangelicals, The Libertarian wing and Conservatives. They're so fractious that they're not even on my radar. But at least they're willing to do some internal questioning and fight amongst themselves about it. You aren't. You are monolithic, and that should be enough to scare you. To put it in pop cultural terms, you are the Borg.

You have a Democratic presidency of a kind so radical, specifically through the actions of John Holdren, Obama's Science Advisor, that damage of a kind you can't even fathom is being waged upon the US government, society and our future. This is an administration out to tone down America, make it unexceptional, and reduce it to a country where your kids are guaranteed to be worse off than you are. Time to wake up again and start questioning it. Just because the TV isn't telling you it's a disaster doesn't mean it isn't. Get deep into policy, and look for yourself.

And you can bet your ass that as we decline on purpose, Russia and China will take advantage. Do you really want them setting the agenda for the world?

[VtaGeezer]

Doubletalk and equivocation. Holy crap, you even manage to bring up Holdren (i.e. climate change) in a thread on Putin?  Do you guys get prize points for this talking point stuff, you know, like FF miles?

[SciFiAuthor]

Doubletalk and equivocation.

Willing to back up everything I say in a lengthy debate. Let's get it on. If you win, I'll openly declare myself wrong.

[VtaGeezer]

Willing to back up everything I say in a lengthy debate. Let's get it on. If you win, I'll openly declare myself wrong.

No thanks...I've seen enough equivocation for one night. You guys never accept facts...even from your own posts.

[SciFiAuthor]

No thanks...I've seen enough equivocation for one night. You guys never accept facts...even from your own posts.

I'm willing to give you as many facts as you need to convince you.

[SciFiAuthor]

Doubletalk and equivocation. Holy crap, you even manage to bring up Holdren (i.e. climate change) in a thread on Putin?  Do you guys get prize points for this talking point stuff, you know, like FF miles?

Incidentally, I brought up Holdren because of Russia specifically. Because of Holdren's actions and Obama's subsequent policy of putting NASA on hold indefinitely through the cancel-switch-cancel-switch trick to evade the development of a manned launch system, we are entirely dependent on Russia for any manned US space flight. Putin can ground us any time he likes, and there's an American sitting on the ISS that's going to require a Russian Soyuz capsule to get home. With no US presence the ISS, with it's 100bn dollar mostly US-funded price tag, it might as well be declared  Russian territory.

[VtaGeezer]

Incidentally, I brought up Holdren because of Russia specifically.

Bunk.  You brought up Holgren because he's in the rightwinger's litany of Obama's Demons. Conservatives killed the Shuttle Program and ignored its replacement; they were too busy holding the door while while their pals looted the nation.

[SciFiAuthor]

Bunk.  You brought up Holgren because he's in the rightwinger's litany of Obama's Demons. Conservatives killed the Shuttle Program and ignored its replacement; they were too busy holding the door while while their pals looted the nation.

Quit with this assumption shit. You seem to think everyone on earth thinks either precisely conservative or precisely liberal. You assume that someone you think is "conservative" wants a war with Russia, and you assume that Obama can do no wrong. Quit being such a political zombie and step outside the box.

And no, Bush cancelled the shuttle program and replaced it with a quite capable heavy lift system, the manned part of which was in active trials and basically finished. When Obama entered office, they sent in Garver and Bolden with the specific intent of shutting that program down, no matter how far along it was, and to fire Michael Griffin, the most effective and outstanding administrator NASA's had since James Webb. Obama then released a very flawed system that could only bring astronauts back down from space instead of launch them and held that plan just long enough before ditching it to guarantee that any development of a fully capable launch system would be delayed long enough to out-term him and be cancelled by the next administration.

None of this should be surprising, Holdren and his soulmate Erlich argued repeatedly in a series of papers that, in a nutshell, mankind should not go into space because he'd just screw it up like he screwed up earth.

I'll be perfectly happy to back any of that up if you'll actually read the papers instead of make assumptions.

[PB the Deplorable]

The Conservatives want war against Russia, the Conservatives looted America, the Conservatives killed the Space Shuttle, the Conservatives are racist, the Conservatives hate women children and old people, the Conservatives don't care about the environment. 

Of course none of it is true.  But the fact that every Lib believes it with all their heart shows us just how successful Big Media has been over the years with their propaganda - not to mention the people who don't even pretend to be honest or accurate like Daily Kaos and MoveOn. 

The Left hates America so much and are willing to lie, confuse, distort, and distract constantly in their quest to destroy.

[Juan]

Fishy, they write that way because they are True Believers in their own post-Protestant religious sect.  I generally refer to it as secular Calvinism - others call it secular Puritanism.  As with any True Believer, they have their own catechism - only of worldly rather than spiritual things.  Anyone who doesn't believe absolutely is automatically assigned to The Other and then viewed with harsh generalizations.  For instance, some people who hold themselves out as conservatives are racist.  Thus all members of The Other are racist.  It's like a fundamentalist who assigns Satanists to the unsaved, and also assigns Roman Catholics to the unsaved, and then arrives at the conclusion that Roman Catholics are tools of the devil. One can no more have a rational discussion with a secular Calvinist than with a Holy Roller.

Update - I see PB posted while I was writing.  I'm not talking about all libs - some are quite rational and back their arguments with facts. I'm talking about the ranters who resort to name calling.

[SciFiAuthor]

The Conservatives want war against Russia, the Conservatives looted America, the Conservatives killed the Space Shuttle, the Conservatives are racist, the Conservatives hate women children and old people, the Conservatives don't care about the environment. 

Of course none of it is true.  But the fact that every Lib believes it with all their heart shows us just how successful Big Media has been over the years with their propaganda - not to mention the people who don't even pretend to be honest or accurate like Daily Kaos and MoveOn. 

The Left hates America so much and are willing to lie, confuse, distort, and distract constantly in their quest to destroy.

What's interesting is that most of them have no idea why they want to destroy it. They just do. But they never stop to ask themselves why and won't dig in to see just where their ideas originate. They have absolutely no idea that they are the end result of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School's Cultural Marxism ideology which was specifically designed to destroy society and then remake it.

Nor do they realize that they are now part and parcel to the anti-humanist movement and are actually supporting and actively attempting to sabotage human progress, prosperity and advancement. They're screwing over their own kids and they have no clue that they're doing it.

[SciFiAuthor]

Fishy, they write that way because they are True Believers in their own post-Protestant religious sect.  I generally refer to it as secular Calvinism - others call it secular Puritanism.  As with any True Believer, they have their own catechism - only of worldly rather than spiritual things.  Anyone who doesn't believe absolutely is automatically assigned to The Other and then viewed with harsh generalizations.  For instance, some people who hold themselves out as conservatives are racist.  Thus all members of The Other are racist.  It's like a fundamentalist who assigns Satanists to the unsaved, and also assigns Roman Catholics to the unsaved, and then arrives at the conclusion that Roman Catholics are tools of the devil. One can no more have a rational discussion with a secular Calvinist than with a Holy Roller.

Update - I see PB posted while I was writing.  I'm not talking about all libs - some are quite rational and back their arguments with facts. I'm talking about the ranters who resort to name calling.

Well said. They even have a new morality to go along with it. Thou shalt not sin against they planet, thou shalt not infringe on a woman's right to choose, etc. It's even sold with the connotations of a morality and they react almost identically to fundamentalist religious folks when a moral is questioned even in the slightest way.

There are some reasonable liberals, but I find that they end up being centrists in the end because some of it is so questionable that eventually a light bulb goes on and they somewhat deprogram themselves.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

There are some reasonable liberals, but I find that they end up being centrists in the end because some of it is so questionable that eventually a light bulb goes on and they somewhat deprogram themselves.

illuminated disillusionment

[West of the Rockies]

I will say that I am disappointed in the direction NASA has taken under Obama.  I had hoped for a robust space program; instead, we seem to be mucking about without clear goals.  I did not think GWB's wish to return to the moon was all that grand; indeed, he proposed that fairly late in his tenure, did he not, which to me suggests it was not really a big deal to him. 

It seems we just keep having to fight to keep the in-space telescope funded, to keep SETI funded.  It is disappointing.

[West of the Rockies]

Paperboy, you said:

"The Conservatives want war against Russia, the Conservatives looted America, the Conservatives killed the Space Shuttle, the Conservatives are racist, the Conservatives hate women children and old people, the Conservatives don't care about the environment."

Of course, we hear similar charges against Liberals:  they want to give the country to the Chinese; they want to do away with capitalism and give every penny to downtrodden people of color; they want religion essentially done away with and all guns confiscated...

I could go on...  See, that is what is so damned destructive about a black-and-white world view.  We keep hearing such horse hockey from our political pundits (of both stripes) to the detriment of all. 

Some percent of what Rush says is true.  Some percent of what Maddow says is true.  Hannity has told untruths; undoubtedly, so has Michael Moore. 

We have to get past this my side good, your side bad perspective in this country.  I don't know how that happens though when each side has it's own facts, it's own media machine, it's own hit men, and supposedly unbiased fact finders (Politifact) often seem suspect and agenda-driven.

[SciFiAuthor]

I will say that I am disappointed in the direction NASA has taken under Obama.  I had hoped for a robust space program; instead, we seem to be mucking about without clear goals.  I did not think GWB's wish to return to the moon was all that grand; indeed, he proposed that fairly late in his tenure, did he not, which to me suggests it was not really a big deal to him. 

It seems we just keep having to fight to keep the in-space telescope funded, to keep SETI funded.  It is disappointing.

Yeah, same here. At least previous presidents had an active, vibrant program going full of robotic craft exploring the solar system. Under Obama, they've hardly green-lighted anything, with most important things like the new Mars rover being legacy programs from the Bush years. Instead NASA's focus has been education and outreach.

I saw their problems first hand in January. I was at Cape Canaveral and was shocked by how much the equipment has degraded since I had last been there in 2011. Other than resurfacing the gravel of the crawler tracks and the ongoing demolition of the shuttle pads, everything else looked run down and unmaintained including the crawler itself. 

The US is definitely not in a mood for space exploration. Worse, we're willfully putting ourselves at a serious strategic and resource disadvantage. Going to the moon is more than just a revisit, there's a good reason why China and India really want to establish a presence. The Helium III resources of the moon are likely to be the oil fields of the mid 21st century. We'll be caught with our pants down if we don't do some joint exploration with them, or a joint program of our own with the EU.

[Juan]

OTOH, the government's absence makes for more room for private industry.  Long term, maybe getting NASA out of the way is the best thing.  I was in Titusville a few months ago.  It's almost a ghost town.

[VtaGeezer]

The US is definitely not in a mood for space exploration.

This is the fundamental problem; no public interest or support. The original space program was bumping along until Sputnik over their heads scared the hell out of Americans. And the ISS is a money pit for NASA; a $50 billion platform with no real mission.

[albrecht]

Yeah, same here. At least previous presidents had an active, vibrant program going full of robotic craft exploring the solar system. Under Obama, they've hardly green-lighted anything, with most important things like the new Mars rover being legacy programs from the Bush years. Instead NASA's focus has been education and outreach.

I saw their problems first hand in January. I was at Cape Canaveral and was shocked by how much the equipment has degraded since I had last been there in 2011. Other than resurfacing the gravel of the crawler tracks and the ongoing demolition of the shuttle pads, everything else looked run down and unmaintained including the crawler itself. 

The US is definitely not in a mood for space exploration. Worse, we're willfully putting ourselves at a serious strategic and resource disadvantage. Going to the moon is more than just a revisit, there's a good reason why China and India really want to establish a presence. The Helium III resources of the moon are likely to be the oil fields of the mid 21st century. We'll be caught with our pants down if we don't do some joint exploration with them, or a joint program of our own with the EU.

Do you recall that one of the first priority this guy Obama made for NASA upon becoming the President was to make NASA's number one priority "Muslim outreach"? Not science, not a space program, not space exploration, not technology but "Muslim outreach" was to be the first priority.

[SciFiAuthor]

OTOH, the government's absence makes for more room for private industry.  Long term, maybe getting NASA out of the way is the best thing.  I was in Titusville a few months ago.  It's almost a ghost town.

I think there are three problems with the private space initiative:

1. It doesn't exist. Things are exactly the same as they were before. It's NASA paying contractors to design and build rockets. We simply switched from Morton-Thiokol and Lockheed Martin to SpaceX.

2. It's unprofitable to do anything other than launch satellites and do contract work for NASA. In short, precisely the same thing Boeing and Lockheed have been doing for decades with the Atlas and Delta rockets. As Richard Branson's reluctance to press forward with his space tourism initiative shows, it's a really hard thing to put someone up there safely and still make a buck. One death, and it's done.

3. All it takes is one fatal accident for the government to regulate it to death. It's orders of magnitude more dangerous than air travel, so you can expect that the FAA and the NTSB are ready and waiting to jump in.

What really happened is that somewhere along the line some PR speechwriter guy in DC came up with a catch-phrase and got the public thinking that there was some sort of new industry building up, when in fact there wasn't, and it allowed people like Obama and Romney a way to ditch the whole thing.

Well, when Obama and his opposition candidate both hold the same platform, you know there's a problem.

[albrecht]

I think there are three problems with the private space initiative:

1. It doesn't exist. Things are exactly the same as they were before. It's NASA paying contractors to design and build rockets. We simply switched from Morton-Thiokol and Lockheed Martin to SpaceX.

2. It's unprofitable to do anything other than launch satellites and do contract work for NASA. In short, precisely the same thing Boeing and Lockheed have been doing for decades with the Atlas and Delta rockets. As Richard Branson's reluctance to press forward with his space tourism initiative shows, it's a really hard thing to put someone up there safely and still make a buck. One death, and it's done.

3. All it takes is one fatal accident for the government to regulate it to death. It's orders of magnitude more dangerous than air travel, so you can expect that the FAA and the NTSB are ready and waiting to jump in.

What really happened is that somewhere along the line some PR speechwriter guy in DC came up with a catch-phrase and got the public thinking that there was some sort of new industry building up, when in fact there wasn't, and it allowed people like Obama and Romney a way to ditch the whole thing.

Well, when Obama and his opposition candidate both hold the same platform, you know there's a problem.

The government could indemnify the private space companies (at least to some extent) or even grant them a legal shield as they have done for the medical companies who produce some vaccines.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is the fundamental problem; no public interest or support. The original space program was bumping along until Sputnik over their heads scared the hell out of Americans. And the ISS is a money pit for NASA; a $50 billion platform with no real mission.

Yeah, the American public doesn't care, it's much better to focus on reality TV. That said, I tend to agree that the ISS isn't particularly useful. It's a good research platform, but little else. However the technology development subsidies for it did pay back in private industry as well as any other NASA program has, as I recall 20 to 1, so I wasn't vehemently opposed. But you're right, the money could have been better spent in other areas of the space program.

[SciFiAuthor]

Do you recall that one of the first priority this guy Obama made for NASA upon becoming the President was to make NASA's number one priority "Muslim outreach"? Not science, not a space program, not space exploration, not technology but "Muslim outreach" was to be the first priority.

I do, and they did. They're also releasing papers on income inequality. Since when was NASA charged with that kind of research?

[SciFiAuthor]

The government could indemnify the private space companies (at least to some extent) or even grant them a legal shield as they have done for the medical companies who produce some vaccines.

They could, but I'd be skeptical that they would. The reason being that space deaths have always been treated with extreme sensitivity. Motor cycles kill countless thousands worldwide each year unnecessarily and if the safety standards we apply to everything else were applied to them they'd never be legal. But circumstances of public feelings on motorcycles make the death rate acceptable.

Now a space shuttle killing 7 astronauts is a very visible, ultra-emotive thing that makes us question the hell out of the spacecraft and ground it. Because of that, I expect the Feds would opt for regulation because it's simply so visible and so emotive when someone dies in a rocket. Especially if it's some famous celebrity launching in Branson's system.

[albrecht]

I do, and they did. They're also releasing papers on income inequality. Since when was NASA charged with that kind of research?

I saw that. Unless they were running the analysis to determine optimum type of economy/civilization for some new colony on the moon or mars or something I was also wondering what the heck NASA is doing putting out papers on wealth redistribution and income inequality?? But, I guess, since we've cut so many programs and the Muslim outreach program isn't working that they have a lot of time on their hands to write programs on income inequality.