a shot." I rarely comment on the stuff I don't like re: President Obama, but I just wanted to let you know that I noticed that too.

Can't disagree with anything you said, cherokeeprogressive.

unless they choose to severe ties with NATO and drift back that direction. That isn't likely to happen. It's the countries like Ukraine that are still at a high risks for a sudden take over that should be worried. I hope this ends with what happened in Crimea.

The US is part of NATO; the Ukraine is not. Everyone knows that, including Putin.

The collapse of the Soviet Union left in its wake unstable fault lines in the geography of the former Soviet satellites. Aren't after shocks from such a cataclysm to be expected?

Our NATO obligations are to former Soviet republics like: the Baltic States, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. And, at least from reports (who knows what's true?), the US and NATO have taken a higher profile in the Baltic States and Poland.

Economic sanctions are early stage indicators of international displeasure. As the conflict between the US and Japan well illustrates, economic sanctions can escalate and become hemispheric wars.

This is really pretty early days in what could become, if not mitigated otherwise, another ugly decade of war started in Europe.

So, if the game board is Europe why not blame Merkel's Germany, and central European NATO states for not acting ahead of Putin? Surely any number of NATO states could act in a manner that will drag the US into conflict.

Why haven't they?

With McCain or Romney we'd already be calling up troops, re-instituting Stop Loss and getting the troop ships and bombers ready.

Just like Bush did when Russia invaded Georgia in '08 (oh wait, Bush didn't do anything).

I'm kinda glad myself that we have someone in the WH that doesn't rush to war at the drop of Putin's hat and has some sense about the futility of trying to fight a war with Russia on Russia's border from thousands of miles away.

And you know it would be the US and maybe the UK only. The rest of Europe has long since grown accustomed to being "protected" by the US and not having to shoulder that much in military costs.

That's a bad idea from any angle.

We are no longer in Iraq and Afghanistan is winding down by year's end. Theoretically that frees up some troops.

No, I'm not advocating provoking a confrontation with Russia (though I'd support basing troops in Poland); I'm just pointing out an operational consideration between then and now.

Because you obviously can't have both. No way could any cake have both in it because, well, the extremes can never mingle and there can only be extremes.

Consider a few different scenarios.

Let's say we think weapons are being placed near our borders. If we interfere militarily--say, with a blockade--how will that play out? Well, there's only peace or there's war. If we blockade, it means war. Nothing less. How did that 1962 war Kennedy start with the USSR work out?

Let's say we think that putting troops near a potential aggressor is signs that we want war. Not only want it, but are itching for it. It's inevitable in the very short term. How's that Korean War going? Probably have what, a thousand or more dead US soldiers a day--because we have 30k troops or thereabouts in harm's way near the Korean demilitarized zone and if putting troops in a country to prevent an invasion leads to immediate war, then we've been actively engaging in warfare for decades.

What? These didn't happen?

Then I suggest the scientific method be applied. If you have a hypothesis that makes a false prediction, then the only sound course is to revise the hypothesis.

It's just logic. If you take a proposition and show that it leads to a contradiction, then the proposition is false.

It's an easy fix. Remove all instances of "will" and "has to"--things that say war is entailed--and leave it as a possibility. That's a much weaker claim. "If we put troops there, perhaps there'll be war." "If repubs get troops in Ukraine, there's a possibility of war." On the other hand, it's also true that "If repubs get troops in Ukraine, there's the possibility of no war and no invasion." One statement entails the other. Then the proposition is accurate. Not terribly partisan, not good agitprop or PR, but accurate. And creates grounds for talking instead of mutual cross-shouting.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:49 PM - Edit history (3)

Are you suggesting we do a little saber rattling? Yes or not?

We're gonna be speaking Russian.

Thanks Obama.

POTUS is perfect!!! nth dimensional chess and all that stuff...

Essentially what the post is arguing is that Obama's response to Russia's invasion of Crimea has been weak and timid. This has been the criticism from Republicans in Congress. The OP is essentially arguing for a stronger response to an invasion that really has nothing to do with the United Staes or NATO. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

It also depends on who you talk to. Ask the far left and many will say Obama is a warmonger doing the bidding of the military industrial complex. Ask the far right and Obama's a weak appeaser.

Both caricatures are absurd and laughable.