Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Crimea Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2014-03-18 7:47 AM

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: Crimea
Putin: Knock, knock

Obama: Who's there?

Putin: Crimea

Obama: Crimea who?

Putin: Crimea river....


I've been watching the US politicians all up in arms over Crimea and I'm not sure I share their anger. First off, I really think the US ought to resign as the World Policeman. Second, it would appear that the vast majority of Crimeans and Russians support Crimean being seperated from Ukraine.

Not sure if this should be a 'current event' or political COJ post?


2014-03-18 8:19 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: Crimea

Agree with everything you said.  Plus, I don't see how it affects us at all.  Even if Russia tried to take back all breakaway countries, I'm not sure that I care one little bit.  If the people of the country are not mobilizing and fighting for freedom, we should not care.  (And I don't mean some rather small (by percentage of population) protests.

When you have a civil war (Syria) or millions of people protesting (Egypt), then I think it is fair to say they want change.  That is when we can consider helping.

Just my $.02.

2014-03-18 8:46 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Crimea
I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
2014-03-18 9:41 AM
in reply to: gr33n

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Crimea
Originally posted by gr33n

I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.


That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!
2014-03-18 9:54 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Crimea

Originally posted by Rogillio Putin: Knock, knock Obama: Who's there? Putin: Crimea Obama: Crimea who? Putin: Crimea river.... I've been watching the US politicians all up in arms over Crimea and I'm not sure I share their anger. First off, I really think the US ought to resign as the World Policeman. Second, it would appear that the vast majority of Crimeans and Russians support Crimean being seperated from Ukraine. Not sure if this should be a 'current event' or political COJ post?

I'm with you.

2014-03-18 10:26 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Crimea

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by gr33n I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!

Just curious.  what would those sanctions be?



2014-03-18 10:36 AM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Crimea
Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by gr33n I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!

Just curious.  what would those sanctions be?





"President Barack Obama on Monday froze the U.S. assets of seven Russian officials, including top advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine."

2014-03-18 10:44 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Crimea

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by gr33n I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!

Just curious.  what would those sanctions be?

"President Barack Obama on Monday froze the U.S. assets of seven Russian officials, including top advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine."

I'm not sure why, but this bothers me.  Taking money from supporters of the Russian President?  really?  I hate to say it, but it sounds kind of thugish.  "Do what we want or we're gonna hurt your friends and family"

2014-03-18 10:50 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Crimea

 

Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

Lets see... We spend billions of dollars and sacrifice 1,000's of troops to force democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan where they didn't ask for it in the first place. The whole time we say we just want to support democracy there and let the people rule themselves.

Then the people of Crimea hold a vote of the people and 85% of the people want to rejoin Russia. Oh that sort of democracy? No, we won't recognize that. Absolutely ridiculous.

And just so I don't rustle the jimmies of the O-crowd, it is not just him, McCain, Kerry, all the other idiots in the Senate. All ridiculous. I can just see Putin laugh out loud every time we issue a statement.

I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

2014-03-18 10:52 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Crimea

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by gr33n I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!

Just curious.  what would those sanctions be?

"President Barack Obama on Monday froze the U.S. assets of seven Russian officials, including top advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine."

I'm not sure why, but this bothers me.  Taking money from supporters of the Russian President?  really?  I hate to say it, but it sounds kind of thugish.  "Do what we want or we're gonna hurt your friends and family"

President Obama just needs to shut up........it's over.  Crimea is part of the Russian Federation.  Once Ukrain became unstable I don't know how anyone could possibly figure that Russia would do anything else but protect their strategic interests there. 

2014-03-18 10:52 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
792
500100100252525
Subject: RE: Crimea
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by gr33n I think from a US only perspective the concerns may not be that great or perhaps shouldn't be that great. The other concerns are military that 1- the Crimea houses the largest year round access sub base (I think), and 2- that Russia doesn't stop at Crimea. They move on Ukraine which threatens EU gas supplies, and raises fears that things just kind of dominoe in that part of the world, raising Nato fears.
That fear of futher action is what got us into Vietnam (to stop the spread of communism). I think the 'sanctions' the US issued are a joke. Frist off, they did not include Putin! The WH said it was not appropiate to levie sanctions against a head of state. Really? Why not?!

Just curious.  what would those sanctions be?

"President Barack Obama on Monday froze the U.S. assets of seven Russian officials, including top advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine."

I'm not sure why, but this bothers me.  Taking money from supporters of the Russian President?  really?  I hate to say it, but it sounds kind of thugish.  "Do what we want or we're gonna hurt your friends and family"





Freezing their money is the only thing that we can really do without getting involved and it is pretty standard to do when a country does something like this. AND WE ARE NOT GETTING INVOLVED.

Edited by lifejustice 2014-03-18 10:56 AM


2014-03-18 11:01 AM
in reply to: Aarondb4

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Crimea

Originally posted by Aarondb4

 

Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

Lets see... We spend billions of dollars and sacrifice 1,000's of troops to force democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan where they didn't ask for it in the first place. The whole time we say we just want to support democracy there and let the people rule themselves.

Then the people of Crimea hold a vote of the people and 85% of the people want to rejoin Russia. Oh that sort of democracy? No, we won't recognize that. Absolutely ridiculous.

And just so I don't rustle the jimmies of the O-crowd, it is not just him, McCain, Kerry, all the other idiots in the Senate. All ridiculous. I can just see Putin laugh out loud every time we issue a statement.

I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)

2014-03-18 11:04 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
792
500100100252525
Subject: RE: Crimea
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Aarondb4

 

Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

p>

I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)




  • ..By that logic, Mexico should be allowed to enter the US and take back New Mexico and Southern California without intervention.

  • Countries don't get to do that any more. This isn't the 19th Century.

    Edited by lifejustice 2014-03-18 11:06 AM
    2014-03-18 11:15 AM
    in reply to: lifejustice

    User image

    Expert
    3126
    2000100010025
    Boise, ID
    Subject: RE: Crimea

    Originally posted by lifejustice
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Aarondb4

     

    Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

    p>

    I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

    It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)

    ...By that logic, Mexico should be allowed to enter the US and take back New Mexico and Southern California without intervention. Countries don't get to do that any more. This isn't the 19th Century.

    You think that 85% of the population of New Mexico and Souther Cali want to be part of Mexico? I'm gonna say I highly doubt that. 

    2014-03-18 11:19 AM
    in reply to: lifejustice

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Crimea

    Originally posted by lifejustice
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Aarondb4

     

    Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

    p>

    I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

    It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)

    ...By that logic, Mexico should be allowed to enter the US and take back New Mexico and Southern California without intervention. Countries don't get to do that any more. This isn't the 19th Century.

    I think you missed my poke at the ACA in there.  

    Anyways, it doesn't matter what century this is.  Whatever country has the bigger guns gets to do whatever they want.  period.  Just because it's the 21st century doesn't change that.

    Now obviously if Russia came in guns a blazing and took over eastern Europe the "world" would have to fight back to stop it, but if the world doesn't have bigger guns then Russia gets to keep it.  The only reason Germany and Japan were stopped was because they didn't ultimately have the biggest guns.

    2014-03-18 12:00 PM
    in reply to: lifejustice

    User image

    Pro
    15655
    5000500050005001002525
    Subject: RE: Crimea

    Originally posted by lifejustice
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Aarondb4

     

    Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

    p>

    I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

    It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)

    ...By that logic, Mexico should be allowed to enter the US and take back New Mexico and Southern California without intervention. Countries don't get to do that any more. This isn't the 19th Century.

    Try again......Mexico doesn't have their entire Black Sea navy stationed in New Mexico.  (OK, both jon boats and the surfboard, but still)

    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......there is nothing to keep the poeple there from voting exactly how they did.  Ukrain became unstable (yes, with Russian influence) and Russia moved to protect their strategic assets....the same as we would.  If Obama and his administration wanted to stop this, there was plenty of time as the Ukrain started to become unraveled.......but the U.S. and the E#U wasn't even in the game.

    You have to have your head in the sand or have no knowledge of that region at all to think this is a surprise.



    2014-03-18 12:12 PM
    in reply to: Left Brain

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Crimea

    Originally posted by Left Brain

    Originally posted by lifejustice
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Aarondb4

     

    Ya gotta laugh when Obama says he won't recognize the vote by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. 

    p>

    I could care less if Crimea is with Ukraine or with Russia, appears the people want to be with Russia so what in the heck is the problem? 

    It's the "law of the land", he just needs to accept it.  ;-)

    ...By that logic, Mexico should be allowed to enter the US and take back New Mexico and Southern California without intervention. Countries don't get to do that any more. This isn't the 19th Century.

    Try again......Mexico doesn't have their entire Black Sea navy stationed in New Mexico.  (OK, both jon boats and the surfboard, but still)

    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......there is nothing to keep the poeple there from voting exactly how they did.  Ukrain became unstable (yes, with Russian influence) and Russia moved to protect their strategic assets....the same as we would.  If Obama and his administration wanted to stop this, there was plenty of time as the Ukrain started to become unraveled.......but the U.S. and the E#U wasn't even in the game.

    You have to have your head in the sand or have no knowledge of that region at all to think this is a surprise.

    On that note, I believe that the Supreme court (Texas v. White) even ruled that a state in the US can secede legally "through revolution, or through consent of the States".

    2014-03-18 2:39 PM
    in reply to: tuwood

    User image

    Chatham Ontario
    Subject: RE: Crimea
    I am more worried about the day when China opts to start a war.

    At that point the rest of us are screwed.
    2014-03-19 9:10 AM
    in reply to: Techdiver

    User image

    Regular
    1023
    1000
    Madrid
    Subject: RE: Crimea
    Anyhow, speaking of Dominoes here's a pretty much guaranteed one- Russia being instrumental in bringing Iran to deal wrt enrichment comes up for review in June. Can pretty much bet Russia won't as helpful going forward. Netanyahu getting ahead of the curve today orders preparation for strike on Iran this year. Oil is cheap.
    2014-03-21 12:31 PM
    in reply to: 0

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    792
    500100100252525
    Subject: RE: Crimea
    Originally posted by Left Brain

    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......there is nothing to keep the poeple there from voting exactly how they did.  Ukrain became unstable (yes, with Russian influence) and Russia moved to protect their strategic assets....the same as we would.  If Obama and his administration wanted to stop this, there was plenty of time as the Ukrain started to become unraveled.......but the U.S. and the E#U wasn't even in the game.

    You have to have your head in the sand or have no knowledge of that region at all to think this is a surprise.




    Sorry. Haven't been back here in a while. I will put your last sentence aside because it really isn't helpful at all.

    I am really curious to hear this from your viewpoint:

    -Do you believe it just happens to be very tight coincidence that Russia waited until the people of Ukraine removed their president from office to make this move, while at the same time occupying and killing Ukrainian protestors?
    -Do you feel that the results of the vote would have been the same if it occurred prior to Russia occupying it? You don't see ANY influences being built into the vote at all...just as all of their votes have been completely loaded?

    I completely understand Russia moving in TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS. Just as any country would....but that is just it. Their assets. These are the two problems with your response to me. 1) Crimea is not Russia's asset. Russian bases in Crimea are Russia's asset. You said it yourself, and I don't argue with you:
    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......

    2) The Crimean and Ukrainian people should have the right to decide for themselves what they want WITHOUT the mob-tactics and fear mongering with Putin and Yanukovich have been pressing on the region.

    I think you might be using me as a sounding board as an opponent to your argument, but I fully know that US can't intervene as we have no dog in this fight. I know that no countries can intervene with the situation, but my thoughts have always been with the Ukrainian people since their democracy was stolen from them. As far as Crimea: I don't doubt that they did want to be part of Russia. But it should have been voted on in a legitimate manner to be called a real vote: without the lack of a current president, without the military occupation and without the heavy influence.


    Edited by lifejustice 2014-03-21 12:45 PM
    2014-03-21 12:47 PM
    in reply to: 0

    User image

    Pro
    15655
    5000500050005001002525
    Subject: RE: Crimea

    Originally posted by lifejustice
    Originally posted by Left Brain

    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......there is nothing to keep the poeple there from voting exactly how they did.  Ukrain became unstable (yes, with Russian influence) and Russia moved to protect their strategic assets....the same as we would.  If Obama and his administration wanted to stop this, there was plenty of time as the Ukrain started to become unraveled.......but the U.S. and the E#U wasn't even in the game.

    You have to have your head in the sand or have no knowledge of that region at all to think this is a surprise.

    Sorry. Haven't been back here in a while. I will put your last sentence aside because it really isn't helpful at all. I am really curious to hear this from your viewpoint: -Do you believe it just happens to be very tight coincidence that Russia waited until the people of Ukraine removed their president from office to make this move, while at the same time occupying and killing Ukrainian protestors? -Do you feel that the results of the vote would have been the same if it occurred prior to Russia occupying it? You don't see ANY influences being built into the vote at all...just as all of their votes have been completely loaded? I completely understand Russia moving in TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS. Just as any country would....but that is just it. Their assets. These are the two problems with your response to me. 1) Crimea is not Russia's asset. Russian bases in Crimea are Russia's asset. You said it yourself, and I don't argue with you:
    Crimea is an autonomous Republic with it's own consitution but under the laws of Ukrain......
    2) The Crimean and Ukrainian people should have the right to decide for themselves what they want WITHOUT the mob-tactics and fear mongering with Putin and Yanukovich have been pressing on the region. I think you might be using me as a sound ing board as an opponent to your argument, but I fully know that US can't intervene as we have no dog in this fight. I know that no countries can intervene with the situation, but my thoughts have always been with the Ukrainian people since their democracy was stolen from them. As far as Crimea: They did want to be part of Russia. But it should have been voted on without the occupation and heavy influence.

    There is no doubt that Russia manipulated Yanukovych so that he went back on his promise of closer agreements with the EU, which he was elected to do.  At some point he became compromised by Russia/Putin.  When he moved to closer ties to Russia he was ousted and Russia/Putin moved in to secure their assets on the Crimean peninsula, and ultimately wrest control of Crimea from Ukrain.  It doesn't matter what you or I think about it, but yeah, I agree the whole thing was calculated by Putin.  So what?  I don't see much coming out of Crimea regarding a backlash there.  It is what it is.  There may have been a time for the EU and the US to put some pressure on Yanukovych, but they were asleep at the wheel and Putin was not.  Not surprising wen you look at our foreign policy under Obama.

    I said from day one tat if Putin stopped at Crimea the whole thing would end up being much adu about nothing......Russia already keeps it's Black Sea fleet there so technically nothing changes.

    Crimea is now part of Russia.  Who cares?

    If Russia moves on Ukrain proper I will likely feel different.  But as it stands, it's a wash.



    Edited by Left Brain 2014-03-21 12:50 PM


    New Thread
    Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Crimea Rss Feed