Obama Stops Short of Calling Russia Actions in Ukraine an Invasion
Source: REUTERS
World | Reuters | Updated: August 29, 2014 09:24 IST
Washington: President Barack Obama said on Thursday the United States and its allies would look for ways to expand economic sanctions on Russia after Kiev accused Moscow of moving troops into southeastern Ukraine, but he stopped short of calling the recent Russian aggression an invasion.
"I consider the actions that we've seen in the last week a continuation of what's been taking place for months now," Obama said, noting Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored opportunities to find a diplomatic end to the dispute.
Sanctions by the United States and European allies on Russia have hurt the economy, and Obama said "there are ways for us to deepen or expand the scope of some of that work" that he wants to discuss with NATO allies at a summit in Wales next week.
But Obama ruled out military action against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. "I think it is very important to recognize that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," he said. He also said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko would visit the White House next month.
Read more: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/obama-stops-short-of-calling-russia-actions-in-ukraine-an-invasion-583567
Cicada
(4,533 posts)The people there are pro-Russia, and Russia has long-standing vital military and commercial interests there. Obviously Russia will dominate Crimea. Using force to protect vital interests is something we do constantly and we can hardly complain when Russia does the same. Our expressions of disapproval are like Claude Rains saying he was shocked to learn there was gambling at Rick's Cafe. The west encouraged the armed overthrow of the legitimately elected pro-Russia Ukranian government and we expect Russia to sit idly bye? Get real. It's their arena, not ours.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)as for Russia using force to protect vital interest............I dont buy it.
They had the base there already and the Ukraine government lacks the power to force the so the whole vital interest spiel just does not fly.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)The people in Crimea overwhelmingly support Russia. Pewglobal poll indicates something like 9 in 10. And Russia can not rely on the government in Kiev who used force to overthrow the legally elected pro-Russia government. Don't we call those using force to overthrow governments we support terrorists? Don't you oppose terrorists? Russia, using the logic we constantly use, is just protecting those in Crimea from terrorists. But I agree with what you are thinking - the definition of a terrorist is someone who uses force to oppose what the USA wants.
I don't like it when Russia invades nor when the US invades. Are you similarly consistent?
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Russia has blatantly demonstrated that it doesn't respect the territorial integrity of neighboring nations. What Russia has done and continues to do is analogous to the US seizing parts of Canada, because the Great Lakes are of 'vital interest' to us.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)And if invading Canada was worth the cost we would do it. Just as we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We constantly show we do not respect the territorial integrity of other countries so we have no moral basis to complain when Russia does the same thing.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"so we have no moral basis to complain when Russia does the same thing..."
I don't believe that particular actions my own government has taken-- actions which I opposed, deny me in any way, the moral standing to oppose actions taken other governments.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
People who do not support US invasions of other countries have every right and moral basis to criticize other countries when they do it.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Saying that the US would invade Canada is not the same as saying we SHOULD invade Canada. Sadly the US does many things which it should not do. Obviously our leaders who decided to invade Iraq should be tried for war crimes and then imprisoned for life when convicted. I make the points that Russia will control Crimea whether we like it or not and that we can not complain since we do the same kind of thing.
pampango
(24,692 posts)by displacing a weaker nation?
Fascism argues that Russia has the right to do that since it is a 'stronger nation'. Does it have that right or not?
"Russia will control Crimea." Russia has the right to control Crimea (as fascists would contend) or "Russia will control Crimea" but does not have any right to do so (as most liberals would contend).
Agreed. As should the Russian leaders who led the war crimes by Russian troops against Chechen civilians.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)the American southwest to Mexico?
Didn't think so. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld once dryly noted.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I am not in any way bound to keep silent today by the mistakes people made then.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Because slavery was legal in 1845, I have no standing to criticize slavery in 2014, using your so called 'logic'.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)border.
Ukraine\krajina -- Pfft.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Torture the plain words that people post much?
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)Substitute "U.S.A." for "Russia" and "Mexico" for "Canada" (and "Rio Grande Valley" for "Great Lakes" and we did in 1848 exactly what you now accuse Russia (incorrectly, imo) of doing.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Furthermore, I am not at all INCORRECTLY accusing Russia of doing something.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)doesn't respect the territorial integrity of neighboring nations,' Kiev would be little more than a smouldering husk. And Georgia?
:ROFL:
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Just because Russia hasn't reduced Kiev to a smoldering ruin doesn't mean it's respecting a sovereign nation's territorial integrity.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)fine points matter to those blinded by Russophobic propaganda.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I'm not 'Russophobic'-- I simply don't hold a willfully naive worldview.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)and the U.S. have been asking for it ever since Clinton's first term.
Oh well, one can always hope.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)Russia did this......the US did that......enough.
What we are dealing with is the here and now and in the here and now Russia has invaded the Ukraine pure and simple.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)we would all be lost.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)already be at the Polish border and Kiev little more than a smouldering husk.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)the southern part for the access it grants them to the trade potentials via the black sea as well as oil and gas pipelines in the future and they probably wont touch the northern part especially because thats where Chernobyl is.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)On both isis and russia Obama wants no military action. Deep state both in and out of the Administration seems to want war.
I hope Obama wins this one.
VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)as he was on Afghanistan in his first term by Be-tray-Us and Bob 'Eichmann' Gates.
In this case, the mouse-trapping will come from NeoCon\NeoLiberal asses of evil like Nuland\Pyatt\Kagan and Brzezinski on Ukraine and HRC and McInsane on ISIS.
Here's hoping Obama can thread the needle better this time around.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)to protect' . . . Russian Slavs in eastern Ukraine
pampango
(24,692 posts)VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)sanctimony of the kind the U.S. government routinely serves up.
pampango
(24,692 posts)VanGoghRocks
(621 posts)and sanctimony frequently have that effect on me.
pampango
(24,692 posts)country on its own. Otherwise, you would have countries invading each other under the guise of 'protecting' civilians in the other country. No exactly the recipe for a more peaceful world.
I'm glad no one unilaterally invaded Russia in response to the suffering of civilians in Chechnya. Only the UN could authorize that and it did not.
The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml
The Security Council has authorized UN action under R2P many times, most recently in Mali. As far as I know, no one has taken the case of the plight of civilians in eastern Ukraine to the Security Council. If Russia had done that either the SC would have authorized action (and supervised how it was carried out) or denied authorization (as it has done in Syria). That would have embarrassed whoever vetoed action in easter Ukraine then Russia could still have acted unilaterally (without UN approval obviously, but it did not have that anyway) to provide aid.
reorg
(3,317 posts)like in Kosovo. Or if the SC authorises a little, like a no-fly zone over Libya, we go full force for regime change bombing.
pampango
(24,692 posts)but it did not have that anyway) to provide aid.
And in the case of Syria, the Security Council has never authorized any R2P intervention and 191,000 people have died. It is not a perfect system for sure, but it is better than not protecting civilians at all or letting each country decide when they think there are people that need protecting in some other country (particularly one with which they are having bad relations at the moment).
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)to the 'Putin-stand-in-guy' ?