Posted by LD50 (415 posts) 6 months, 1 day ago

Poll: Should the U.S. intervene in the Ukraine situation? (369 votes)

Yes 12%
No 69%
Undecided 20%

Sup Duders.

I was discussing the Ukraine with some friends today, and I'd like to get your opinion on some things.

First, of course, is the poll. Here's a recent Pew poll that seems to represent the mood of the nation:

Source

Second, is the latest Executive Order to come out of Washington. It has to do with what is now a national emergency, as stated by Mr. Obama:

"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine

All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine"

Source

It seems to me that it has to do with the run up to the sanctions the U.S. is about to place on Russia. This is going to happen Monday I believe. This seems like a very serious step in a bad direction. This is normally considered the last non-violent move towards what could be a military intervention. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a war with Russia around the corner, but I don't see good things coming from this. Primarily because the U.S. really doesn't have any business in that part of the world, IMO.

That they are leaning into the confrontation so heavily makes me wonder what might be happening behind the scenes that we're unaware of, though intrinsically bound to, seeing as it's our government so determined to get involved.

Your thoughts on the E.O and the Ukraine situation in general are greatly appreciated.

#1 Posted by Berserk007 (206 posts) -

Fuck and No

#2 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Fuck and No

And? Either one is an appropriate response.

#3 Edited by Berserk007 (206 posts) -

@video_game_king: Sry was writing my to do list while answering the question and they must have merged together. :P

#4 Posted by maverick1 (92 posts) -

I think we should stay out of it. We can't police the whole world.

#5 Posted by EthanielRain (850 posts) -

I'm pretty ignorant of the news, but I go by the maxim of the only thing evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing yada yada...so whatever is for the general and moral good is what I want :)

#6 Posted by Mcfart (1624 posts) -

As it stands now, no. However if Russia tries to expand into Urkraine, then maybe?

#7 Posted by Flacracker (1675 posts) -

No but at the same time it would be interesting to see the outcome so yes.

#8 Edited by Berserk007 (206 posts) -

A modern day holocaust is happening today 2014 in North Korea...wonder why we don't go in there gangbusters? Could it be because they have nothing we want or that we're a little less good than we all like to believe? It's most likely both.

#9 Edited by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -

@ld50 Depends on what you mean by US intervention.

The fact is, the US and all other major nations in the world will be involved in the situation. Europe especially has a lot riding on Ukraine, and the US has reason to care about Europe. Plus a general interest in Russia. Politically and economically, it makes perfect sense for the US to care about what is going on in Ukraine.

Now, what kind of intervention should and will happen is another story. I see little to no chance of a military intervention at this point. Ukraine is important, but for US interests, it isn't important enough to get into a war with Russia over. Having said that, though, it is important enough to use whatever other means they have to try to make sure this isn't just a sign of things to come in Eastern Europe. If I were in states like Estonia or Belarus, I'd be reasonably concerned. Sanctions are definitely going to be important if there is a chance for a long-term peaceful resolution to this.

So, when you mention intervening, obviously they -will- intervene. They're already attempting to do so. It's simply a matter of whether it will be militarily or through other means. A more realistic question than whether they should get involved is how involved and how far they should go.

At this point, I believe Crimea will very likely fall to Russia and things will eventually deescalate as Putin celebrates a small but considerable victory and pulls back from any further military action. Strong sanctions from the US and Europe will make their objections clear, and unless he pushes into any other former Soviet nations in the next year, the sanctions will just become another bargaining chip for future diplomacy.

Putin's not fully predictable though; so, anything's possible. I don't think US military action will occur unless things get far, far worse, and my sincere hope is that the lines are drawn at Crimea and Ukraine can get back to electing and reforming a new government for the future. They have enough problems and challenges without having to fear more of a war than there has already been.

#10 Edited by mlarrabee (2949 posts) -

@ethanielrain said:

I'm pretty ignorant of the news, but I go by the maxim of the only thing evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing yada yada...so whatever is for the general and moral good is what I want :)

I agree, but think the EU should be the ones to intervene, not the US.

#11 Posted by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -

A modern day holocaust is happening today 2014 in North Korea...wonder why we don't go in there gangbusters? Could it be because they have nothing we want or that we're a little less good than we all like to believe? It's most likely both.

Pretty sure it's because they have nuclear weapons and a country entirely built around a fortified self-defense. Plus, they still have the support of China, and unilaterally attacking North Korea would likely mean fighting them, as well. It isn't just so simple as going in and stopping the tragedy there. It would be great if it -was- that simple, but it's not.

#12 Posted by HatKing (5944 posts) -

Are we speaking militarily? If so, absolutely not. Unless you want to see our country enter yet another lengthy, arduous war. Politically, yes. And we shouldn't be the only ones. Europe/UN needs to pull together and figure out the best course of action. If this isn't handled properly, lots of people are going to lose their lives. Sure, probably not people in our country, but if that's all you care about, well, you're kind of a dick.

#13 Edited by HatKing (5944 posts) -

@truthtellah: Man, I think it's such bullshit that Crimea is probably going to end up in Putin's fist, and nobody is going to step to him because everybody is afraid of the cost. He shouldn't be able to throw his fucking weight around like that. Bigger nations in EU and the west have nothing to worry about, sure, because Putin isn't insane. Well, not nothing, but it's not like he's invading the US any time soon. The countries that can't really defend against a world power, that border that area, formerly of the Soviet Union, he's already proven his intent for them.

But I don't support war, and he seems like an impenetrable idiot, so I guess there's not much to do other than turn the other way, say "that's not very nice, Russia," and let him run that country like an empire.

Edit: Maybe I'm just pissed that this whole thing is probably going to ruin my dream of visiting Pripyat.

#14 Edited by Dalai (7028 posts) -

I'm fine with sanctions and helping Ukraine to some degree, but I'm against any military action against Russia. I mean, nobody wants to fuck it all up with another world war.

#15 Posted by Berserk007 (206 posts) -

@truthtellah: I understand your point, all I am trying to say is by that standard if Germany had active nukes in WW2, would we not have invaded even after the attack on us?

#16 Posted by DougCL (214 posts) -

Putin really fucked it up on this one. this move was hugely unpopular in Russia, and its been extremely economically damaging to Russia as well. the negative impact of the sanctions that are likely to come as a result of this move really outweigh any benefits that are gained through this military posturing. the main Ukrainian army is still holding strong at the border of Crimea, keeping russian forces from moving deeper into the country so it looks like the sovereignty of Ukraine itself isn't in real jeopardy right now. He has on one hand established himself as someone willing to act, but on the other hand, he has lost all credibility in the UN Security Council in regards to opposition of US intervention in similar situations (like syria for example). Its going to be harder for him to argue against western intervention after this move.

the reason Putin did this probably to protect that naval base in crimea and to keep some kind of distance between NATO and russia's western border. that honestly doesnt seem worth all the heat hes taking for this. i think that US intervention in any sort of military capacity would be completely insane.

#17 Posted by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -

@hatking said:

@truthtellah: Man, I think it's such bullshit that Crimea is probably going to end up in Putin's fist, and nobody is going to step to him because everybody is afraid of the cost. He shouldn't be able to throw his fucking weight around like that. Bigger nations in EU and the west have nothing to worry about, sure, because Putin isn't insane. Well, not nothing, but it's not like he's invading the US any time soon. The countries that can't really defend against a world power, that border that area, formerly of the Soviet Union, he's already proven his intent for them.

But I don't support war, and he seems like an impenetrable idiot, so I guess there's not much to do other than turn the other way, say "that's not very nice, Russia," and let him run that country like an empire.

Edit: Maybe I'm just pissed that this whole thing is probably going to ruin my dream of visiting Pripyat.

I agree. I think it's terrible that Putin has been able to do this. I do believe it will hurt him in many ways, as it calls into question the peaceful growth of the new Eurasian Union. Though, it looks like he may simply get past that by using force(or the threat of force). Russia isn't a monolith at least; so, despite what's going on now, Russia's direction may change in the future. Putin may have his grand vision, but I don't believe most Russians have a similar vision for the future.

And while this is concerning, I imagine there is a very good chance you will still be able to make a visit to Pripyat some day. There are more pressing reasons to be worried about the situation there, but that particular worry may turn out alright for you.

#18 Posted by LD50 (415 posts) -

@truthtellah: I think the subtext of the poll was probably meant to address a military intervention. But really, intervening in any capacity outside of commercial sanctions seems to overstep whatever influence we should have in that area. The thought of entangled alliances comes to mind when considering various political and military maneuverings the U.S. should engage in. Honestly, I don't think the world wants us involved in anything outside free trade. At least from the feedback I've gotten from them. Which is almost always loud and rarely kind when discussing American intervention in foreign affairs. Rightfully so for the most part. If we were to get the full story as to why we should be involved in all the conflicts we've been in since WW2, I doubt we would have been so supportive of them as a nation.

As it stands, the unelected government installed in the Ukraine is made up of U.S. sympathisers and far right wing, dare I say Neo-Nazis given their own stance on various subjects. Some say they are directly related to the National Socialist that populated the actual Nazi party we fought so strongly against in WW2. We are now supporting them and giving them what might amount to military support, should that path be taken.

Yes, it's unfortunate that Putin seems to be after Crimea. No, I don't think that sets a great precedent for the future of the surrounding areas. But to back what seems to be a branch of the same enemies we fought in WW2 to dissuade that encroachment is barbaric, bordering on insanity. From that perspective, there is no right side or good fight to be fought, and it's best to stay out of it, IMHO. Honestly, the way this whole thing appears to be shaking out, it looks a lot like WW2 but we're on the side of the Nazis this time.

I'm no expert on WW2 history, nor am I and expert on politics of that area, so if you have a clearer understanding please enlighten me.

Thank you very much for your input thus far as well. I happy to hear from everyone that has participated in this thread.

#19 Posted by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -

@truthtellah: I understand your point, all I am trying to say is by that standard if Germany had active nukes in WW2, would we not have invaded even after the attack on us?

Perhaps? There was already enough resistance to getting involved in Europe. A lot of people argued it was simply another European war that US shouldn't get into. The US was only initially providing funding and resources to allies for a reason. Once the war was brought to them, that's when direct military involvement was taken.

I don't really want to distract from the topic of Ukraine with too much discussion about WWII hypotheticals, but if Nazi Germany had nuclear weapons during its expansion in Europe, things would have likely gone very differently. I doubt the US would have gotten directly involved(at least when they did), and the amount of damage to all nations involved would have been far higher than it already was.

#20 Edited by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -

@ld50: Unfortunately, as some folks online will loudly attest to, there's a war of competing narratives here. Though, in general, it's a division between Russia's preferred narrative and almost every other modern nation's preferred narrative. It's often the difference between considering someone "conservative" or "a plotting Neo-Nazi". And "Not pro-Soviet" or "a West-enslaved Fascist".

Most of Ukraine's government is still what it has been, and while that fact in itself is troubled, it's not really something new. It's not like the president and a few top officials changed and that suddenly means the country swung in a whole different direction. The prior elected president allowed troops to kill citizens and tried to oppress protesters as terrorists. The country wasn't exactly going to go from greatly troubled to great overnight. Protesters were still out in the streets and elections were set in place. A lot needed to change for the future. Then Russia came in.

Whether Russia gets to take Crimea or not, Ukraine as a nation will still have its larger challenges, and those will have to be handled. What they don't need is the loom of war distracting from that difficult road ahead, and I hope we will soon see a deescalation to avoid a more violent conflict.

#21 Posted by LD50 (415 posts) -

@truthtellah: I agree, competing narratives are the passion. I think it's easy to disprove the "conservative" versus "Neo-Nazi" position though. The Svoboda are clearly anti-semites, and they have what appears to be considerable influence in the newly unelected government of the Ukraine that the U.S. is trying to support. Would you agree?

#22 Edited by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -
@ld50 said:

@truthtellah: I agree, competing narratives are the passion. I think it's easy to disprove the "conservative" versus "Neo-Nazi" position though. The Svoboda are clearly anti-semites, and they have what appears to be considerable influence in the newly unelected government of the Ukraine that the U.S. is trying to support. Would you agree?

Most of the government was elected, as the Parliament is still the Parliament, and that's why people were concerned about Svoboda winning seats in the past. They are one part of the coalition of parties that were opposed to Yanukovych's party, and all of the parties involved have their own issues. I wouldn't accept characterizing all of the current government as "Neo-Nazis" regardless of some genuinely bad folks that are part of the government. Neo-Nazi is an easy rallying cry for Pro-Russians, as there is a historical basis for fearing them, but there's certainly a decent reason why the country is also having new elections to change the government. They are necessary.

The US is in favor of the country not being invaded while they setup new elections, and they are opposed to referendums to join a nation while that nation's soldiers and tanks are occupying their streets. I highly doubt the US government is particularly happy with the current Ukrainian government much more than when it had a few different top officials; it very clearly has its own big problems which urge the necessity of new elections and long-term reforms.

Despite any objections to the government, though, they have plenty of reason to be more concerned about Russia trying to militarily take back pieces of a former Soviet state, and they'll reluctantly support the current government over the chance of Russia capturing even more of Ukraine. Many countries in the world(or individuals like myself) may have their own issues with Ukraine's government, but supporting its existence and the coming elections is a better scenario than Russia possibly getting away with rolling in and taking a neighboring nation for itself.

#23 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3051 posts) -

No, but I can understand why we wouldn't want Russia annexing other countries. We've fought over less in the past, so I won't be surprised if our military gets involved.

#24 Edited by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

We already are through political and economic power from ourselves and our allies. No one wants us to bump up against Russian troops except for Fox News. A war with China or Russia would end in the destruction of Giantbomb, titanFall 2, Internet porn, Starbucks, and all life on Earth.

#25 Edited by SingingMenstrual (327 posts) -

The US needs to intervene as much as any other country should. Which means they shouldn't.

The US role as world police is over. Ukraine and Russia are not related to the United States, they have to reason to poke their noses in.

#26 Edited by Akyho (1637 posts) -

@ld50 Depends on what you mean by US intervention.

The fact is, the US and all other major nations in the world will be involved in the situation. Europe especially has a lot riding on Ukraine, and the US has reason to care about Europe. Plus a general interest in Russia. Politically and economically, it makes perfect sense for the US to care about what is going on in Ukraine.

Now, what kind of intervention should and will happen is another story. I see little to no chance of a military intervention at this point. Ukraine is important, but for US interests, it isn't important enough to get into a war with Russia over. Having said that, though, it is important enough to use whatever other means they have to try to make sure this isn't just a sign of things to come in Eastern Europe. If I were in states like Estonia or Belarus, I'd be reasonably concerned. Sanctions are definitely going to be important if there is a chance for a long-term peaceful resolution to this.

So, when you mention intervening, obviously they -will- intervene. They're already attempting to do so. It's simply a matter of whether it will be militarily or through other means. A more realistic question than whether they should get involved is how involved and how far they should go.

At this point, I believe Crimea will very likely fall to Russia and things will eventually deescalate as Putin celebrates a small but considerable victory and pulls back from any further military action. Strong sanctions from the US and Europe will make their objections clear, and unless he pushes into any other former Soviet nations in the next year, the sanctions will just become another bargaining chip for future diplomacy.

Putin's not fully predictable though; so, anything's possible. I don't think US military action will occur unless things get far, far worse, and my sincere hope is that the lines are drawn at Crimea and Ukraine can get back to electing and reforming a new government for the future. They have enough problems and challenges without having to fear more of a war than there has already been.

You summed up everything I could say.

I am Scottish I am British and I am European. Ukraine and Russia is a EU matter and the countries involved. It is not yet a military matter to any but Russian and Ukrain. Even if it did come to be for EU countries it still doesn't mean USA is still involved.

Just cos US is the big bad America's dosnt make it the world's army/police. Every other country has their own. Iraq war happened because of attacks on American soil and Britain had its reasons to side with USA when it happened. The gulf war was American Iraq politics.

US can be involved by embargoing Russian or such to keep up ties with EU or other countries. Troops is not the automatic answer to anything.

If anything if your throwing troops at something its because everything else has failed. People take military action far too lightly. Currently Russian is saber rattling in Ukraine's garden, untill they shoot into the house of Ukrain it is not a military matter.

#27 Posted by dudeglove (7832 posts) -

The US and the EU have already "intervened" in Ukraine and they've been up to it for at least the past 20 years.

@ld50: Unfortunately, as some folks online will loudly attest to, there's a war of competing narratives here.

As of last weekend I'm now seeing the side-effects of this "war". Exchange rates for the rouble have skyrocketed since Monday and although it's sort of leveled off a bit, it's quite likely my money will be worthless (not just relative to other countries, but prices here on everything have gone up - from basic groceries to booze and cigarettes - while shithead speculators are doing their usual thing re: flat rental prices i.e. asking for dollars/euros) if this ever escalates, which given tomorrow's (Sunday 16th) referendum in Crimea is kind of likely.

A war nerd's wet dream all-out nuke fest between US and Russia over Crimea? Highly unlikely. A smaller-scale conflict between Ukrainian troops led by psychotic ultranationalists seeking to purge their lands of anyone who doesn't carry a picture of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera in their passport secretly getting quasi-US support against a portion of Russia's underfed and under-experienced troops resulting in a few hundred dead but thousands displaced and part of Ukraine's infrastructure totally fucked for the next couple of decades? Bit more likely.

Unfortunately, most likely is Russia will continue to snarl, US/EU will wimp out with "sanctions" (whatever those are), while violent pogroms in Ukraine, such as yesterday's in Kharkiv that resulted in two dead and five injured, will increase making life horrible for everyone there and no one wins anything.

#28 Edited by UltorOscariot (198 posts) -

No, but I wouldn't oppose running guns to Ukraine. Stinger missiles, anti tank ordinance, so on. There isn't even nearly the likelihood of them falling into the hands of terrorists like in Syria.

#29 Posted by Danteveli (1184 posts) -

If it comes to it then yes US should intervene as it fits NATO out of area deployment type of mission. Sometimes people should man up and do what is right or every couple years we will get Georgia situation allover again.

#30 Posted by Mcfart (1624 posts) -

If it comes to it then yes US should intervene as it fits NATO out of area deployment type of mission. Sometimes people should man up and do what is right or every couple years we will get Georgia situation allover again.

"Man up and do what's right"? Since when was the US this guy?

#31 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1785 posts) -

The situation is fairly complicated, and I'm impressed that many people are wary of taking strong stances on the issue without knowing the situation or how it evolves.

What will likely happen is that Russia will end up with Crimea, and there will be a lot of military posturing, but no actual combat. Russia is likely to take a strong economic hit for this, and in fact already have. In fact, the economics of the situation are so wholly complex and can barely be summed up easily.

On the off chance that Russia invades Ukraine, well... then all bets are off. I believe that Russia wants to appear willing to do this for strategic reasons, but it would be beyond stupid to actually do so. Ukraine has some of the largest stockpiles of military weapons left-over from the Cold War, and the people have already shown their distaste with Russian intervention and how willing they are to die to prevent it back when it was simply government meddling. Not to mention it would finally expose how fragile the Russian military infrastructure is, and would unite all bordering former Soviet satellite states against Russia.

Of course, none of this prevents people online from proclaiming that this is going to lead to World War 3, just like when Japan & China had a hissy fit over that unoccupied island, or when N. Korea was fucking with S. Korea a couple years ago. The internet, it can be hyperbolic.

#32 Edited by TruthTellah (9000 posts) -
Of course, none of this prevents people online from proclaiming that this is going to lead to World War 3, just like when Japan & China had a hissy fit over that unoccupied island, or when N. Korea was fucking with S. Korea a couple years ago. The internet, it can be hyperbolic.

Now that's the truth right there.

There are definite reasons to express concern over this situation, especially if you're in Europe or Russia, but this escalating into an all out war between Russia and other large nations simply isn't likely. This is more about Ukraine itself and the potential impact this will have on future actions taken by Russia and other nations. It could potentially get a lot worse after the referendum, but hopefully the line will be drawn at Crimea.

#33 Posted by AndreiGradinaru (29 posts) -

Should Russia intervine when US puts their fist of democracy in some other country?

#34 Edited by Brodehouse (9949 posts) -

I think the US and any other country who signed the Budapest Memorandum (UK, France and China) is ethically obligated to intervene. Ukraine had nuclear capabilities, and they gave them up in exchange for a promise of protection. Now Russia has invaded because Ukraine has no nukes, and all these countries are sitting on their hands. A failure to respond effectively reveals the pointlessness of the global peace movement; all security assurances are worthless when every country is too concerned with its own economics to ever enforce it. Would you ever sign any security agreement with those countries again?

Remember; one of the core reasons why we should not war with Russia is that they have nukes. If Ukraine had nukes, that would be a strong deterrent to Russian imperialism. Instead, the United States and Russia told the Ukraine to give up its nukes and we'll never attack, invade, or culturally dominate you. 20 years later, one of the nations who signed that agreement is invading and culturally dominating Ukraine and the other nations are pulling out their pockets attempting to justify their lack of enthusiasm to fulfill their word. They will say "where was Gondor" in the future, and we're Gondor.

I don't understand why Putin doesn't just push into Central Asia. No one from the west will stop him if it costs more than 20 bucks and a weekend. The only thing that maintains peace is credibility, and I'd say a great deal of credibility has been lost in the last month.

Should Russia intervine when US puts their fist of democracy in some other country?

If they had signed defensive pacts with those countries, then of course they must.

#35 Edited by pweidman (2333 posts) -

Hell no. Given some time, Putin will have to withdraw Russian forces(if he doesn't get assassinated first), after some tough economic sanctions and a Russian wide depression which is already underway. Right now Putin is calling his own doom and proving his horrendous leadership. Help Ukraine in any non violent way in the meantime with all sorts of humane aid and work politically to keep the condemnation of Russian actions united in the UN so worldwide sanctions can take their toll. No military supply at all; that would undermine the effort, lengthen a war and give Putin some shred of credibility. Saber rattling/invasions are not the paradigm anymore.

#36 Posted by spraynardtatum (2924 posts) -

No, we're already bullies. We are trillions of dollars in debt. We've been in perpetual war for at least 12 years. Our leaders care more about numbers than people. If we got involved it would be for our own benefit and not the greater good.

Online
#37 Edited by Demoskinos (14822 posts) -

As already stated in here if were talking about diplomacy then sure fine lets do that if we can end bad stuff from happening by negotiating then lets go for it. I however am sick of us sending troops into areas where we don't need to be. Sending a bunch of fresh 18yr old recruits off into conflict zones where they could be injured or die for reasons that are nowhere good enough really really needs to stop. We also need to cut the damn military budget. We have more military spending than like the next 12 countries behind us combined. Its insane. We have thousands upon thousands of tanks that we don't need. Everything about the way our military operates now is troubling.

#38 Posted by bybeach (4820 posts) -

Not over the Crimea.

A modern day holocaust is happening today 2014 in North Korea...wonder why we don't go in there gangbusters? Could it be because they have nothing we want or that we're a little less good than we all like to believe? It's most likely both.

The 'value' isn't there. and of course other problems. It's this and places like Syria that tells me just how fucked up things are. I do not have solutions, but it tears me up people are so by first impulse butt-ugly to others. It doesn't bode well. It's not conceptualizing the US as a pristine white Knight, but is a view of the global situation.

#40 Edited by ILikePopCans (752 posts) -

APPEASEMENT IS ALL I GOT TO SAY

#41 Posted by LD50 (415 posts) -

There's been many great replies here thus far, and some reasonable objections. There is speculation that the Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and does not guarantee any action:

The Budapest Memorandum committed all parties “to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” But the agreement is not a treaty and doesn’t require any of the signatories to do anything in the event of violations.

Source

That's the extent of my knowledge on that topic, so for me to go into further detail would only be to parrot things I have heard and not researched. Ethical obligations are another story, but we are talking about governments and I think questions of ethics at this point are self evident, sadly.

The position that the Ukraine parliament is mostly intact is a valid observation, but the loyalty of the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is questionable, IMO.

I found this video which does a pretty good job of explaining some of the missing pieces to the Ukraine puzzle. If this information is true, and I have researched it in depth and been unable to disprove it, then even the political intervention in the Ukraine can be called into question.

If you have verifiable evidence that the information in this video is false, please bring it forward. Thank you.

#42 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2768 posts) -

Yes, we should go. Ukraine is independent, and Russia is not just inserting itself merely in the politics it is invading itself in the country. This would be like Japan making a vote the US does not like so the US send 20,000 marines and well as the Airfoce, and Navy and CIA to Okinawa to FORCE election to make Okinawa a US Territory so that we can continue to have a nave base there.

Russia wants it naval base in Crimea, DESPITE IT NOT BEING THREATENED WITH CLOSURE AT ALL...so they send thugs in? That makes no sense. The US works with dozens of nations to have military bases and only one is on territory that the conutry wants us off of...Cuba. But here is the huge difference, Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty is our territory. That base and that land is US land, and has been for over a century.

We should go. We should make this a big deal. And, yeah it worth getting into a hot war with Russia over. Because what is next? There are 14 post Soviet States that could be next? What do we do when we allow Ukraine to be taken and then suddenly Georgia is taken and then Latvia again? What do we do when Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have Russian tanks on their streets?

HERE IS THE LIST - WHICH ONE IS OKAY TO TAKE - ALL?
1. Armenia 2. Azerbaijan 3. Belarus 4. Estonia 5. Georgia 6. Kazakhstan 7. Kyrgyzstan 8. Latvia 9. Lithuania 10. Moldova 11. Tajikistan 12. Turkmenistan 13. Ukraine 14. Uzbekistan

Think of all those people who wanted Independence and got it, but now we say, "Pfft, who cares about you assholes...your freedom is meaningless." Ummm, bullshit to that I say. We don't need to go back to the ridiculous bullshit the USSR was pulling in the 1950/60s again, thank you very much, but no.

#43 Edited by LD50 (415 posts) -

@monkeyking1969 said:

The US works with dozens of nations to have military bases and only one is on territory that the conutry wants us off of...Cuba. But here is the huge difference, Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty is our territory. That base and that land is US land, and has been for over a century.

The U.S. has a military presence in 148 countries. The U.S. has 662 military bases overseas, not including active operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which could put the number closer to 900. That seems excessive to me, probably expensive too.

Source

#44 Edited by EXTomar (4722 posts) -

The US already has by clamping down on visas and locking up financial accounts and trying to provide aid directly to Ukraine.

The question shouldn't be "Should the US intervene?" but "What are the realistic options?" I think Obama is actually doing the best possible clearly ratcheting up the diplomatic pressure instead of saber rattling. Is it worth the time and effort for the US start a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine Probably not. The flip side is whether or not it was worth it for Russia to gain Crimea where it is easy to see probably not since they've made all of the smaller neighbors nervous if not embrace the west quicker let alone piss off the EU. The US should play on this instead of reaching for the military option. Specifically, the play of Russia counting on "King Petroleum" to silence complaints could play out like "King Cotton" where Canada and US are now exporting a bunch of surplus and could easily favor to Europe.

What I would like to see are former soviet and eastern bloc countries take more of a lead here. Let a group from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania go to Ukraine and the eastern parts acting as impartial observers. They know the scores on both sides where if anyone can make a judgment on who is abusing what they could better than any other country in the region. Russia could still complain that these observers have a bias against Russia but the only other word we have that everything is fine is Russian.

#45 Posted by dudeglove (7832 posts) -

@ld50: That video is by a guy who watches way too much RT, but he is sort of right that Ukraine is, was, and continues to be run by nutjobs. If a week didn't go by where Kiev's Verkhovna Rada wasn't having a brawl of some sort, that's when you should be concerned.

#46 Posted by geirr (2563 posts) -

Nah?

#47 Posted by mellotronrules (1192 posts) -

simply put- i don't think the USA can afford to do anything but cast harsh words- which is precisely why putin is emboldened.

this one's on the EU and merkel.

#48 Posted by Deadlydog (160 posts) -

I said No in the poll but if Obama insists on making statements like their will be consequences. He needs to back them up with some action.

#49 Posted by noizy (666 posts) -

Is there any geopolitical benefit? Is there any petroleum in the ground? If both these answers are no, then they won't.

#50 Edited by LD50 (415 posts) -

@noizy: Not so much oil. But there are gas routes...

Source