Basically since Yalta we’ve had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders and once that comes into question if in Ukraine or in Crimea or anywhere else, then all over the world all bets are off. And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have...a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough. — NY Times columnist David Brooks

I think ultimately, the situation between Putin and Obama over the Ukraine is more illustrative of what Brooks is talking about. Putin does a bald-faced land grab and all Obama does it grumble about sanctions. Clearly, Putin thinks that if all that's going to happen is some sanctions, that's a risk he's willing to take. Whatever those sanctions may be (I have no idea, frankly) they clearly do not have Putin shitting his pants.

If you were Obama, what would you have done.

Views: 336

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi there, if you look at past history of WWII, Ukraine was a friend  of Hitler, and fought against Russia.

And how does that relate to Obama's balls?

We do not really know anything about Obama's balls.

Did you recently find his private health report at the Fox News website?

Seems by now that Fox would have mentioned Obama's 'ball inventory'.

Is this issue somehow 'below' Fox's vision?

Again, I need to garden.... 

Since he is married to Michelle I'm guessing their blue.

I expect 'guessing' and 'knowing' still remain as 'different'?

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk says that Putin seems to want to start WW3. (source)

I don't think there's any doubt that Putin has put his finger on a formula for grabbing back the territory lost when the USSR became Russia.

First, destabilize an area by sending in some undercover troops as instigators and to pose as pro-Russia citizens of the territory he wants to grab.

Second, do "military exercises" at the border of the intended land grab.

Third, either simulate or foment actions against Russian-speakers in the territory.

Fourth, either set up a rigged election or simply go in to "restabilize" the area in supposed protection of the Russian speakers.

Finally, pick another territory to take over.

Did you notice anything in there about worrying about an American response?

Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have...a manhood problem in the Middle East…  there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough. — David Brooks

I think the first thing that should be mentioned in this bit of dialogue is that we are talking about geopolitics, not junior high.  Geopolitics is for adults.  Questioning somebody’s manhood, toughness, or ‘balls’ is for pissing contests between junior high half wits.

Putin does a bald-faced land grab

This is a completely inaccurate statement.  The democratically elected government of Ukraine was violently overthrown.  Crimea was a semi-autonomous part of Ukraine whose government voted to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.  The vote was unanimous, and validated by a popular vote.  The votes were deemed as legitimate by international observers.  The only Russian troops involved in the entire mess were troops stationed in Crimea as part of the deal to keep the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, and they were used to protect the Crimean government offices from a repeat of what happened in Kiev.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk says that Putin seems to want to start WW3.…… etc

This is no more than unsubstantiated posturing.  Yats was installed by a violent coup.  He’s already making a deal with the IMF that is substantially weaker than the deal that Russia offered Yanukovich.  That should tell you that his interests don’t involve the welfare of Ukraine.

The problem is not whether or not Obama has ‘balls’.  It has everything to do with the pathologically destructive course that US foreign policy is on.  One needs to look no further than Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see the destructiveness and incompetence at play.  The question is whether or not he has any brains or a shred of ethics.

Hey guys,

Apparently Putin's Russia produces more totalitarianism than they are able to consume domestically...

I think Obama just wants to coast for the remainder of his presidency, other than work on his legacy (and find a good place to put that Nobel prize).

What I do know is that Ukraine has for a long time been a big energy customer of Russia. What's changed? Hydraulic fracking is about to get big in Ukraine, and Russia will lose a customer. If Vlad takes part of Ukraine, he gets to control more energy.

If Obama needs help puttin' Putin in his place, I recommend we all become big fans of Pussy Riot. Watch, share, discuss, post, tweet & comment about Pussy Riot!!

If I were Obama, which is the actual question, I'd probably act the same. There is no vital US interest involved here, so let's just sail the Ukrainians downstream. Better to consolidate at home and ensure another Democrat take office than to get the US embroiled in a faraway adventure. When Putin steps out of bounds next time, it'll be another president's problem.

Now if Poland were to be the next target after the Ukraine, is that the point where the US should get involved (Poland is part of NATO).?

Poland is sorta unrealistic, but Latvia and Estonia are. Are there any US interests there? Would you spill your blood for Latvian or Estonian independence (or Polish)?

Isn't honoring treaty obligations a national interest? Otherwise, why bother entering into a treaty with us? "Look, we'll help defend you, but only if it's in our national interest."


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service