haresfur wrote: 

Had no intention of going down the hypothetical road.

Just based upon Obama's total lack of any coherant foreign policy (and his US Senate voting record), the outcome was very predictable and she got it right (and within a specified time period), for whatever reasons.

That is all.

 kurtster wrote: 
I don't see how she got anything right.  The quote said they might invade the Ukraine I think everyone knew there were instabilities there at least since Russia started using energy supply as a political weapon during the time of a previous US administration.  And there are pretty clear reasons they would support the ethnic Russian nationalists in the Crimea so it was pretty obvious to everyone, including the Ukrainians that this was likely to occur.  But of course they weren't going to do anything while there was a pro-Russian Ukraine government.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that keeping that government was a better situation.  The fact of the matter is that we have awfully limited influence there and that would be true under any administration.  And we don't have an alternate world to test the hypothesis that something different would have happened if she was president.

 kurtster wrote: 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
yep, over joyed even.  time to call it a day.

my 6 day weekend is being interupted by an extra day of work in the morning.

g'night.

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurtster, that was really insightful.

(happy now?)

 haresfur wrote: 
How many things does someone have to get right before they get any credit for their insight ?

 kurtster wrote: 
She could have just said Russia might invade the Ukraine sometime.  I don't see how any US President would have affected this.  Even Regan who had them convinced he was effin nuts, wouldn't have much influence, unless he could figure out a way to trade them arms for Crimea.

 DaveInVA wrote: 

She evidently learned a lot more about foreign policy by being able to see Russia from her back door than Obama did restringing basketball hoops on Chicago playgrounds ...

And yes, I don't mind Palin ... except her voice, too flippin shrill.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Add the high-minded talk about sovereignty...

Sovereignty means very little when drones enter other countries, against their wishes, and kill their civilians.
Sovereignty means little when 5 billion $ gets invested in Ukraine's opposition to "promote democracy" (or on a smaller scale in Venezuela).

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Reports this morning are that large numbers of Ukrainian troops are defecting.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
Telling me! It feels a bit close to home as it is.

Given the current situation, that fighting has not actually started and an uneasy truce prevails I honestly think that the only sensible way foward is to split Crimea off from the Ukraine and turn both into separate countries. This would appease Russia and the demonstrators would get what they wanted, an independent state that could move closer to Europe. As it is there is a huge risk of war and everyone losing something if not everything.

The anti-Russian rhetoric coming from the west is a bit rich. John Kerry seems to have conviently forgotten that the US marched into Iraq on less of a pretext than that facing Russia right now. The majority of the Crimea is Russian. Crimea even belonged to Russia until 1954 (well just gloss over the fact that the Soviets ethnically cleansed it before that but, hey ho).

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I think you're right, Putin had it away in Georgia, or what became Georgia less South Ossetia and Abkhazia, in 2008. And that was, to a greater or lesser extent, a shooting war. The lesser extent meaning it was one between two utterly mismatched opponents.
 
I imagine that the Russians must want the Crimea hugely - their Black Sea fleet is based there, and they negotiated hard to keep a presence there at the breakup of the USSR. Looks like they'll get it, because what else can Ukraine do?
 
Blimey. If this kind of shit was happening in the eighties we'd all be bricking ourselves.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
The comments are interesting.
 

Battleship Potemkin!

Russia moves to bring back ambassador from US, amid Ukraine crisis

 RichardPrins wrote: 
  guess it's no laughing matter but still.  

My prediction: the EU and the US will do a bit of blustering about this and that and naughty naughty Putin but in the end Russia will exert its influence over the region. Putin will be a hero at home and become  in some disguise or other a benevolent (or less so) dictator of Russia, keeping tight control over any splinter groups and minorities. Over time corruption will set in, or Putin dies and the place will gradually fall apart from corruption and general ineptitude.

Social network wars...

A leader of the Ukrainian radical group Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), Dmitry Yarosh, has called on Russia’s most wanted terrorist Doku Umarov to act against Russia in an address posted on Right Sector’s page in VKontakte social network.

The statement points out that “many Ukrainians with arms in the hands” supported Chechen militants in their fight against Russians and “it is time to support Ukraine now.”

The message, signed “leader of Right Sector Dmitry Yarosh” then calls on Umarov “to activate his fight” and “take a unique chance to win” over Russia.

What's next? Calling on the (Muslim) Tatars in Crimea to start a jihad (which might get some Western cash/arms flowing)?

...and parliament rubbers stamps it.

...hmmm I wonder why the people are so pissed off and joining fascist splinter groups?