Will Ukraine affect the upcoming and presidential elections?

[Argus]

Obama looks pretty week here, perhaps because he is. Military confrontation is simply not his thing, nor has it ever been, which is okay, except that the bad people in the world know it. Americans don't like to feel weak. They don't trust the world, and want to be the big boy on the block. And they definitely don't like it when people like Putin laugh and give them the finger. The last time that happened (Carter) the next president was Ronald Reagan. The United States was sort of a guarantor to Ukraine, signing a "memorandum" with Russia to guarantee its borders. Now that Russia has reneged the US looks feeble and helpless. The only thing they can do is suggest they'll temporarily pull out of preparations for the G8 summit in sochi in a few months. LOL. Will this fuel a call for a strong, pro-military president?

Will this also effect the recently announced downsizing of the US army? The problem for the American military is that the conservatives who traditionally supported them have abandoned that support to pursue tax cuts and budget reductions at any price, at any cost. If that means laying off soldiers and mothballing planes and carrier battle groups, then as far as the Tea Party types go that's just fine. Meanwhile those on the left are busy trying to defend medicare, medicaid and pensions from being cut. They have less concern about the military.

[Moonlight Graham]

Obama doesn't look weak (or strong) yet because we haven't had a chance to see how he responds to Putin yet. All we really know is that Putin has thumbed his nose at threats from Obama. Obama must make him pay if he wants the US to remain looking strong. But whatever the US does it doesn't have to be through military action, though it could end up that way.

[August1991]

Obama looks pretty week here...

And in partisan manner, that's how the American right will portray this affair.

Years ago, I met Americans abroad, some of whom declared to me that they were Marxist, "pro-Soviet", or some-such. I quickly realized that their declaration had nothing to do with their political beliefs and far more to do with a personal statement of who they were.

America is a society of individualists (narcissists to use the modern term). So, it is normal that Americans will twist a foreign affair into personal angst: is Obama weak?

The situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with America, or Obama. ( America's interests are another question.)

-----

Shirley Valentine describes Americans in this Ukraine situation more accurately:

No. They feel they have to take over the conversation. I mean, I mean with most fellas if you say something like, like my favorite season's autumn, they go oh, oh, my favorite season's spring and then you've got 10 minutes of them talkin' about why they like spring and you weren't talkin' about spring, you were talkin' about autumn. So what do you do? You talk about what they want to talk about. Or you don't talk at all. Or you wind up talking to yourself.

This isn't about Obama. And it's not even about America.

Edited March 2, 2014 by August1991

[Remiel]

On the contrary: Ukraine concerns everyone in NATO.

[WestCoastRunner]

Obama looks pretty weak here, perhaps because he is. Military confrontation is simply not his thing, nor has it ever been, which is okay, except that the bad people in the world know it. Americans don't like to feel weak.

I would venture a guess that Americans simply no longer have an appetite for military confrontation and the Obama Administration knows it. There are plenty of other ways to deal with Putin and like mentioned above, it remains to be seen. Military confrontation is a last resort after other options have been implemented such as freezing assets, travel bans and economic sanctions although most experts see these options as not very effective.

Obama won't appear weak because there really isn't much he can do against Putin.

[Smallc]

And so Putin will walk all over this. Russia isn't going to stop for economic sanctions.

[Bonam]

Putin will see to it that Ukraine regains its rightful place as part of Russia.

As for Obama... what the heck could he possibly do? America is tired, and Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and no one else's.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

And those economic sanctions could hurt big time. The US buys abot 3 times more than it sells to Russia, cut off that market along with all the other EU and Nato friends! If you think the Russian economy id weak now, give that a couple of years. Obama doesn't nor anybody needs to send troops to have a major effect on Putin's plans.

[Bonam]

And those economic sanctions could hurt big time. The US buys abot 3 times more than it sells to Russia, cut off that market along with all the other EU and Nato friends! If you think the Russian economy id weak now, give that a couple of years. Obama doesn't nor anybody needs to send troops to have a major effect on Putin's plans.

Europe has very few options for energy, and with the recent shutdowns of many nuclear plants, it's basically beholden to Russia for energy. Furthermore, no one has proposed sanctions cutting off all trade with Russia... nor will they. Such sanctions were never even enacted against Syria, Iran, etc, even though implementing such sanctions would have been much less costly to Western countries than it would be to do so against Russia. Furthermore, Russia can veto any attempt to implement such sanctions through the UN, and also will have China's support in whatever forum sanctions are discussed.

No, any sanctions that happen will be very limited in nature. The West has no teeth, it can barely bring itself to implement meaningful sanctions against relatively unimportant, poor countries with which a disruption of trade would be unfelt in Western economies. Against Russia... not gonna happen.

[On Guard for Thee]

Europe has very few options for energy, and with the recent shutdowns of many nuclear plants, it's basically beholden to Russia for energy. Furthermore, no one has proposed sanctions cutting off all trade with Russia... nor will they. Such sanctions were never even enacted against Syria, Iran, etc, even though implementing such sanctions would have been much less costly to Western countries than it would be to do so against Russia. Furthermore, Russia can veto any attempt to implement such sanctions through the UN, and also will have China's support in whatever forum sanctions are discussed.

No, any sanctions that happen will be very limited in nature. The West has no teeth, it can barely bring itself to implement meaningful sanctions against relatively unimportant, poor countries with which a disruption of trade would be unfelt in Western economies. Against Russia... not gonna happen.

You actually believe sanctions were never enacted against Iran? And do you think the US needs the UN's approval to impose sanctions? The sanctions against Iran have only recently been slightly eased against Iran, due mostly to do with the new slant Hassan Rouhanni has put on the ball with regard to being more open about their nuclear aspirations. No I think the west could hurt Russia big time without ever firing a shot.

[Bonam]

You actually believe sanctions were never enacted against Iran? And do you think the US needs the UN's approval to impose sanctions? The sanctions against Iran have only recently been slightly eased against Iran, due mostly to do with the new slant Hassan Rouhanni has put on the ball with regard to being more open about their nuclear aspirations. No I think the west could hurt Russia big time without ever firing a shot.

Oh sanctions were implemented against Iran, but they were never a complete shutdown of all trade, which is what you were talking about. The sanctions against Iran were very specific and limited in scope, and allowed the vast majority of trade to continue as normal. The same would be the case with any sanctions that get implemented against Russia.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh sanctions were implemented against Iran, but they were never a complete shutdown of all trade, which is what you were talking about. The sanctions against Iran were very specific and limited in scope, and allowed the vast majority of trade to continue as normal. The same would be the case with any sanctions that get implemented against Russia.

Oh I think you will find the US sanctions alone did serious damage to the Iranian economy, and unfortunately also it's people. And of course the UN added it's own sanctions, adding to the economic decline, and which will in all likelihood be used against Russia in this instance, if they don't back off. I suppose China could keep some economic activity going, but they seem to be a little hesitant about what Putin has so far done and seems to be heading for. That would pretty much leave him high and dry.

[GostHacked]

Oh I think you will find the US sanctions alone did serious damage to the Iranian economy, and unfortunately also it's people. And of course the UN added it's own sanctions, adding to the economic decline, and which will in all likelihood be used against Russia in this instance, if they don't back off. I suppose China could keep some economic activity going, but they seem to be a little hesitant about what Putin has so far done and seems to be heading for. That would pretty much leave him high and dry.

In most cases where sanctions are put on a country, it is the people and not the leadership that suffers. Purposefully making life hard for the people in order to put pressure on the government for change.

[dre]

Obama looks pretty week here, perhaps because he is. Military confrontation is simply not his thing, nor has it ever been, which is okay, except that the bad people in the world know it. Americans don't like to feel weak. They don't trust the world, and want to be the big boy on the block. And they definitely don't like it when people like Putin laugh and give them the finger. The last time that happened (Carter) the next president was Ronald Reagan.

No the last time that happened, was when Russia invaded Georgia. George Bush was the president, and his response was even weaker than Obamas.

And the next president was Obama.

[Argus]

Oh sanctions were implemented against Iran, but they were never a complete shutdown of all trade, which is what you were talking about. The sanctions against Iran were very specific and limited in scope, and allowed the vast majority of trade to continue as normal. The same would be the case with any sanctions that get implemented against Russia.

The point is the sanctions hurt Iran's economy a lot, and while military action is not the way to go here, other than, perhaps, arming the Ukrainians, we should implement sanctions to isolate the Russians and damage their economy as much as possible.

[Argus]

No the last time that happened, was when Russia invaded Georgia. George Bush was the president, and his response was even weaker than Obamas.

And the next president was Obama.

I don't think the actions in Georgia were as blatant as in Ukraine, and Ukraine is a lot more important than those small regions of Georgia. Ukraine has been top of the news for a long while now, raising it much higher in the American consciousness than Georgia ever was. Now, just as they've booted out the corrupt dictator Russia invades. I think this one has more legs.

[Argus]

In most cases where sanctions are put on a country, it is the people and not the leadership that suffers. Purposefully making life hard for the people in order to put pressure on the government for change.

If the people of Russia support invading their neighbours, as they evidently do, they SHOULD be made to suffer.

[dre]

I don't think the actions in Georgia were as blatant as in Ukraine, and Ukraine is a lot more important than those small regions of Georgia. Ukraine has been top of the news for a long while now, raising it much higher in the American consciousness than Georgia ever was. Now, just as they've booted out the corrupt dictator Russia invades. I think this one has more legs.

Actually the situation was very very similar. Russia invaded a a portion of Georgia that was predominantly Russian speaking, just like they did in Crimea.

And the west pissed and moaned a bit but not much else... Just they will do here.

[dre]

If the people of Russia support invading their neighbours, as they evidently do, they SHOULD be made to suffer.

LOL

These are not just their neighbors. The people of Crimea are Russians that got caught on the wrong side of an arbitrary line drawn on a map. Maybe a little research is in order before you condemn millions of people to suffer huh?

[GostHacked]

If the people of Russia support invading their neighbours, as they evidently do, they SHOULD be made to suffer.

And what of those that do not support the invasion? Do we blame all of the American people for the actions of Bush and Cheney in Iraq? OR should we hold these leaders accountable? And if you go with the notion that the Russian elections are a joke and rigged, how can you show that there is a real majority support for Putin?

[On Guard for Thee]

In most cases where sanctions are put on a country, it is the people and not the leadership that suffers. Purposefully making life hard for the people in order to put pressure on the government for change.

Quite true and I'll be the first one to express sincere hopes that that doesn't end up as the outcome here. It's always the wrong people who end up suffering. I was just commenting on the notion expressed here that the west would have no power to affect the situation through sanctions.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually the situation was very very similar. Russia invaded a a portion of Georgia that was predominantly Russian speaking, just like they did in Crimea.

And the west pissed and moaned a bit but not much else... Just they will do here.

Actually, Georgia invaded south Ossetia to start with. Bit of a difference.

[On Guard for Thee]

Obama looks pretty week here, perhaps because he is. Military confrontation is simply not his thing, nor has it ever been, which is okay, except that the bad people in the world know it. Americans don't like to feel weak. They don't trust the world, and want to be the big boy on the block. And they definitely don't like it when people like Putin laugh and give them the finger. The last time that happened (Carter) the next president was Ronald Reagan. The United States was sort of a guarantor to Ukraine, signing a "memorandum" with Russia to guarantee its borders. Now that Russia has reneged the US looks feeble and helpless. The only thing they can do is suggest they'll temporarily pull out of preparations for the G8 summit in sochi in a few months. LOL. Will this fuel a call for a strong, pro-military president?

Will this also effect the recently announced downsizing of the US army? The problem for the American military is that the conservatives who traditionally supported them have abandoned that support to pursue tax cuts and budget reductions at any price, at any cost. If that means laying off soldiers and mothballing planes and carrier battle groups, then as far as the Tea Party types go that's just fine. Meanwhile those on the left are busy trying to defend medicare, medicaid and pensions from being cut. They have less concern about the military.

If I was an American, I would be so happy to have a leader who is, by your description "weak" as opposed to having someone who wants to raom around the world pissing away enormous amounts of taxpayer money, to achieve nothing except dead bodies and debt. Check out what 14 years in Afg has provided. What did that cost? I know when I was there I discovered what my meals cost per day. And I was eating the same food as everyone, how about 550 US/day. 4500 on that base, up to 150,000 in country. That adds up, and that's just the meals! Are the Taliban put to rest, NO. Is Hamid Kharzai a friend, NO. There are a few miles of new road though.

[August1991]

On the contrary: Ukraine concerns everyone in NATO.

How? Why?

[August1991]

I would venture a guess that Americans simply no longer have an appetite for military confrontation...

I disagree. If something serious infringed on the West, we have the will to respond.