There's a difference between what the punditry is squawking about and what the Big O wants. Of course all options are going to be on the table, there's no need to limit strategic flexibility. Quite frankly, we're not going to be able to do much within the five hour timetable that is left for the Ukrainian decision.

Obama isn't going to pound the table for military force. He wants his legacy to be the President that extracted the country from two horrendous wars, and my guess is that will be solid through the short term.

Strategically, there's really not much we can do, or should do, with the Crimea. Ukraine isn't worth the potential of WWIII, there's nothing we can really do to the Russians in any case. Even if we slap diplomatic and economic sanctions on them, they would likely respond with a nice sell off of T-bills, which would hurt the stock market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them cut off natural gas exports to Western Europe as well, they can sell it elsewhere.

Operationally, from a military perspective, the Crimea is just about the worst place in the world to invade. The geography on land and at sea heavily favors the defender. The US can't sail a fleet into the Black Sea without violating significant treaty responsibilities, and the choke point of the Bosporus is easily targeted by long range missiles and bombers. From the land is even worse, as the Crimea is filled with numerous chains of rocky hills and valleys, and setting up a logistics chain would be a complete nightmare as it would involve movement over the Black Sea in some way. Tactically, the Russians could reinforce easily as their lines of communication are far shorter than ours, and the Russian presence in Sevastopol is quite substantial and would lead to another bloody battle (the siege of Sevastopol in WWII by the Germans was brutal and bloody).

No, I think there's little to be done here. I would also be surprised if Putin and the Russians don't go after Eastern Ukraine in the next 72 hours as well, and I doubt you'd see much reaction from the West as well. NATO is dead and dry bones at this point, most countries can't even scrape up more than a brigade of infantry.

To Pac's point can you imagine if senile McCain was President? Scary to think about because there is literally not a country he wouldn't go to war with.

McCain wanted to go to war with the Russians over Georgia. That's batshit insanity.

Monkeyboy wrote:Europe and the US should just freeze the money of Russian rich folk around the world. That would end this in about 2 seconds. Of course, that would mean Europe doing without all that Russian cash that they enjoy but pretend not to.

I don't think it gets much play, but Russia has a ton of really rich people, even more than you would expect from a country that size. I guess it's all the natural resources which are basically free money. Go to any boarding school in europe and you'll see tons of russians, so much so that most schools actually charge them more than students from other countries (they are also notoriously difficult students).

Freeze the assets, that's my call. Let's see how Putin does when the money brokers around him start complaining about their finances being frozen.

Yeah, I think this is a really good, important tool, and something that can be done without hurting ordinary Russians too much. If the people who the Russian state rely on for backing find their money tied up (since most sensible Russians don't keep their money in Russia due to fears that Putin will take it on a whim), there could more hesitation and resistance to moving forward.

Congress passed a law recently giving us the ability to withhold visas and freeze financial assets of Russian officials thought to have been involved with human rights violations - US Congress passes 'Magnitsky' rule on Russia trade law. Expanding the list to rope in more big names is something the administration can do by itself, I think.

For my longer HOT TAKE - I think 'there will be severe consequences' and throwing one or two possibilities out there is too vague, and the WaPo idea of spelling out consequences would be wise. If Russia does X, we will do Y. If Russia does not immediately withdraw and allow some neutral OSCE forces or whomever to maintain peace in Crimea, we will freeze assets and/or level targeted sanctions on XYZ and/or move to kick them out of the G8 and/or whatever. I do not think Putin respects Obama, or thinks he will follow through on threats. The more specific, definitive and explicit the promise of response, the clearer it is what the costs of his actions will be, and hopefully the higher likelihood that he will stand down.

A tremendous amount of world stability is guaranteed with the backing of American force, military and otherwise - through NATO, through treaties, alliances, etc. We, along with the UK and Russians, came to a diplomatic agreement with Ukraine in 1994 that in order to get them to give up their nuclear weapons, the signed parties would respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty - The Budapest Memorandum. It's not a formal treaty, so we don't need to break out the tanks and ships, but the Russians have gone back on their word, and our reaction should be fast and hit them how we can. The reason to react extends beyond this immediate situation. If you're sitting in Tehran or Beijing, you're paying a lot of attention to what Putin is or isn't allowed to get away with here. If you're sitting in Jerusalem or Taipei, you're paying a lot of attention to what the US is doing to live up to its end of the bargain here.

I've probably come too far without talking about our allies in Europe, and their culpability in the lack of reaction from the West. Easy to focus on Obama maybe cause I'm not his biggest fan and also because we live here and we carry the biggest stick, but it seems like the Europeans are even more reticent to respond than we are. As others have pointed out there are a lot of phone calls and meetings going on, and it's hard to know what's really happening. For all I know, Obama could be doing a great job trying to round up unanimity among our allies so when sanctions are applied, they carry more weight. If so, good for him, and I would love to have to apologize. Germany in particular looks like they're dragging their feet. Europe has a huge reliance on Russia for natural gas and oil, so any costs will be harder on them than us, but you'd think there'd be a little more concern on their part from Russia extending its influence West by force, especially with former republics now as members of the EU and NATO. Maybe long term planning to develop an infrastructure so we can export some of our new found carbon wealth to Europe might help avoid these crises in the future, but I'm not sure how much that helps in the short term.

As I've been typing, I see LG has written a longer post as well. He makes a lot of good points, and knows more about this stuff than I do. I don't think going down the military path is even a little bit worthwhile here, but if we aren't willing to absorb a little economic pushback from a country that is in a dramatically worse position than we are economically to try to ensure stability in Europe, then why should our word be worth anything anywhere ever?

jerseyhoya wrote:Did you guys really come away from that editorial with the impression that the Washington Post wants us to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? In spite of the fact that they clearly say they don't want that?

The Washington Post's editorial from Sunday - Spell out the consequences for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - gives their set of suggested actions (Cancel attendance the G8 summit, sanction Russian leaders/businesses, freeze assets, possibly exclude Russia from Western banking systems). But yes, they must be chicken hawk warmongers and want Obama to get the nukes ready. It's a lot easier to deflect criticism when you caricature the arguments being made.

So Barry's policy is based on fantasy despite the fact that he's basically doing or considering all the items you've enumerated

not sure if "wow" is strong enough to cover whatever tail-chasing "point" you seem to be endorsing

Well, jerz, your long take is longer, I'll give you that. At least you're not Lindsey Grahaming or Bob Corkering all over everything

When lindsey graham's whining voice comes on my teevee, my eyes roll - back in my head, as my fists clench and I mutter dark oaths

Does anybody have a source for the 9pm deadline? Moscow, of course, is denying any such deadline.

traderdave wrote:Does anybody have a source for the 9pm deadline? Moscow, of course, is denying any such deadline.

Reuters and a bunch of other people reported it. Sounds like it is info from the Ukrainian defense ministry. I guess we'll see what happens soon enough.

Never Forget... the Budapest Memorandium.

This is why I read the politics thread.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Europe and the US should just freeze the money of Russian rich folk around the world. That would end this in about 2 seconds. Of course, that would mean Europe doing without all that Russian cash that they enjoy but pretend not to.

I don't think it gets much play, but Russia has a ton of really rich people, even more than you would expect from a country that size. I guess it's all the natural resources which are basically free money. Go to any boarding school in europe and you'll see tons of russians, so much so that most schools actually charge them more than students from other countries (they are also notoriously difficult students).

Freeze the assets, that's my call. Let's see how Putin does when the money brokers around him start complaining about their finances being frozen.

Yeah, I think this is a really good, important tool, and something that can be done without hurting ordinary Russians too much. If the people who the Russian state rely on for backing find their money tied up (since most sensible Russians don't keep their money in Russia due to fears that Putin will take it on a whim), there could more hesitation and resistance to moving forward.

Congress passed a law recently giving us the ability to withhold visas and freeze financial assets of Russian officials thought to have been involved with human rights violations - US Congress passes 'Magnitsky' rule on Russia trade law. Expanding the list to rope in more big names is something the administration can do by itself, I think.

For my longer HOT TAKE - I think 'there will be severe consequences' and throwing one or two possibilities out there is too vague, and the WaPo idea of spelling out consequences would be wise. If Russia does X, we will do Y. If Russia does not immediately withdraw and allow some neutral OSCE forces or whomever to maintain peace in Crimea, we will freeze assets and/or level targeted sanctions on XYZ and/or move to kick them out of the G8 and/or whatever. I do not think Putin respects Obama, or thinks he will follow through on threats. The more specific, definitive and explicit the promise of response, the clearer it is what the costs of his actions will be, and hopefully the higher likelihood that he will stand down.

A tremendous amount of world stability is guaranteed with the backing of American force, military and otherwise - through NATO, through treaties, alliances, etc. We, along with the UK and Russians, came to a diplomatic agreement with Ukraine in 1994 that in order to get them to give up their nuclear weapons, the signed parties would respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty - The Budapest Memorandum. It's not a formal treaty, so we don't need to break out the tanks and ships, but the Russians have gone back on their word, and our reaction should be fast and hit them how we can. The reason to react extends beyond this immediate situation. If you're sitting in Tehran or Beijing, you're paying a lot of attention to what Putin is or isn't allowed to get away with here. If you're sitting in Jerusalem or Taipei, you're paying a lot of attention to what the US is doing to live up to its end of the bargain here.

I've probably come too far without talking about our allies in Europe, and their culpability in the lack of reaction from the West. Easy to focus on Obama maybe cause I'm not his biggest fan and also because we live here and we carry the biggest stick, but it seems like the Europeans are even more reticent to respond than we are. As others have pointed out there are a lot of phone calls and meetings going on, and it's hard to know what's really happening. For all I know, Obama could be doing a great job trying to round up unanimity among our allies so when sanctions are applied, they carry more weight. If so, good for him, and I would love to have to apologize. Germany in particular looks like they're dragging their feet. Europe has a huge reliance on Russia for natural gas and oil, so any costs will be harder on them than us, but you'd think there'd be a little more concern on their part from Russia extending its influence West by force, especially with former republics now as members of the EU and NATO. Maybe long term planning to develop an infrastructure so we can export some of our new found carbon wealth to Europe might help avoid these crises in the future, but I'm not sure how much that helps in the short term.

As I've been typing, I see LG has written a longer post as well. He makes a lot of good points, and knows more about this stuff than I do. I don't think going down the military path is even a little bit worthwhile here, but if we aren't willing to absorb a little economic pushback from a country that is in a dramatically worse position than we are economically to try to ensure stability in Europe, then why should our word be worth anything anywhere ever?

this, for me, is the main problem that us lefties have with your point and the original article you posted. the obama is weak narrative is really annoying and often untrue. you and WaPo are assuming obama is weak even before he does anything at all. quick responses are good, but so is weighing all of your options and meeting with experts who can help you make an informed decision. let's wait to see what the white house actually does before criticizing it, okay?

as for putin not respecting obama, you think putin really respects anyone? i doubt there's a person on the planet that he respects. your original article even pointed out that he's not necessarily acting rationally here.

McCain doesn't want to go to war (he said there is no military solution). He wants things that Kerry and Obama are discussing and working on with other foreign leaders and with Putin. He criticizes anyway. What is the reason for this?

A global community is working on it, as it should be. This isn't, and shouldn't, be on us to figure everything out. Why do we continue to do this to ourselves?

i think you know the answer to that, pacman.

SK790 wrote:this, for me, is the main problem that us lefties have with your point and the original article you posted. the obama is weak narrative is really annoying and often untrue. you and WaPo are assuming obama is weak even before he does anything at all. quick responses are good, but so is weighing all of your options and meeting with experts who can help you make an informed decision. let's wait to see what the white house actually does before criticizing it, okay?

Most of this narrative is based on the past actions of Obama. For example, it's hard to say that his response to Assad's use of chemical weapons was effective leadership that improved the standing of the US. I would even say that his action/inaction with Syria have increased the probability of a confrontation involving Eastern powers.

By getting in front and levying their criticisms/recommendations/warnings of inaction, it may influence the President into taking the actions that they're endorsing. That's why they're doing it. Otherwise, he may not act before Putin does, which puts us in an especially awkward and weak position of responding to an act of aggression that maybe could have been prevented with clearer promises of a measured US response.

pacino wrote:A global community is working on it, as it should be. This isn't, and shouldn't, be on us to figure everything out.

I'll bet some folks in Syria appreciate the global community's deliberate sense of process.

Why do we continue to do this to ourselves?

Why do some people try to prevent/stop genocide without waiting for the international community to decide to act? Leadership is hard, but the global community is looking to the US for direction here. It doesn't have to be the US marching in and protecting Ukraine, but being clear what the ramifications of aggressive action. I hope that Obama forms a coalition with European leaders, but it's not going to be a coalition of peers. The US is going to have to provide some direction.

Werthless wrote:

SK790 wrote:this, for me, is the main problem that us lefties have with your point and the original article you posted. the obama is weak narrative is really annoying and often untrue. you and WaPo are assuming obama is weak even before he does anything at all. quick responses are good, but so is weighing all of your options and meeting with experts who can help you make an informed decision. let's wait to see what the white house actually does before criticizing it, okay?

Most of this narrative is based on the past actions of Obama. For example, it's hard to say that his response to Assad's use of chemical weapons was effective leadership that improved the standing of the US. I would even say that his action/inaction with Syria have increased the probability of a confrontation involving Eastern powers.

By getting in front and levying their criticisms/recommendations/warnings of inaction, it may influence the President into taking the actions that they're endorsing. That's why they're doing it. Otherwise, he may not act before Putin does, which puts us in an especially awkward and weak position of responding to an act of aggression that maybe could have been prevented with clearer promises of a measured US response.

why don't they just say this instead? seems a lot more genuine than assuming he'll fail when nothing has happened yet. seems like a simple solution.

looks like putin is trying to spin it as a coup by the protesters. didn't the president leave the country voluntarily then get voted out by parliament?

On the McCain point, I've concluded that the only real thru-line in his political career is a desperate need for attention. Criticizing the president, whoever holds the office at any given moment, is a pretty good way to draw attention.

I do find it chilling to think about how many "interventions" we might have staged had he won six years back.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:A global community is working on it, as it should be. This isn't, and shouldn't, be on us to figure everything out.

I'll bet some folks in Syria appreciate the global community's deliberate sense of process.

Why do we continue to do this to ourselves?

Why do some people try to prevent/stop genocide without waiting for the international community to decide to act? Leadership is hard, but the global community is looking to the US for direction here. It doesn't have to be the US marching in and protecting Ukraine, but being clear what the ramifications of aggressive action. I hope that Obama forms a coalition with European leaders, but it's not going to be a coalition of peers. The US is going to have to provide some direction.

Why do we have to provide the direction? And what was our end goal in Syria if we invaded??? People like to say deomcracy is slow. Well, everything is slow, unfortunately. If it isn't, rash, horrible decision create unintended consequences.

Russia did a pre-emptive attack. I'd say that's a bad precedent for other nations, and we, as a global community, should respond, but the United States 'taking the lead' in the manner so many seem to want on this seems awfully foolhardy and a bit hypocritical.

from what i read this morning, Putin isn't sure what to do next. he sent troops in and then said they weren't needed, and even called the current parliament 'partially legitimate'. no one believes anything else he said about only helping if he's asked and in calling it a coup, etc.

his complaints were totally reasonable