Obama Rules Out Military Force Over Ukraine
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON President Obama said on Wednesday that he had ruled out the use of United States military force in the Ukraine crisis, and that the international response to Russias seizure of Crimea will be limited to diplomacy.
We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine, Mr. Obama told Mark Mullen, a news anchor at the NBC affiliate in San Diego. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that weve got a strong international correlation that sends a clear message.
The comment was Mr. Obamas most direct rejection to date of the idea of taking military action in response to Russias annexation of the Crimean peninsula, a process that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia set in motion in late February.
Mr. Obama said the United States would continue to ratchet up pressure on the Russians with sanctions, but said, I think even the Ukrainians would acknowledge that for us to engage Russia military would not be appropriate, and wouldnt be good for Ukraine either.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/world/europe/obama-ukraine.html?_r=0
We are absolutely 'blessed' to have this man in the White House at this point in time...
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)USA would be there right now with weapons . . . with the full support of the house gopers and senate gopers, and if any Dems went against them the calling of Un-American, Un-Patriotic, weak, weak, Thrones vs. Downton. . . will ensue. Oh wait, that's happening now.
K & R
happyslug
(14,779 posts)While all three are members of NATO, all also know they would be the first one hit by any Russian counter attacks. Remember the Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO, thus neither Poland, Turkey or Romania have any TREATY obligations to support US actions in the Ukraine.
Worse, such an attack would amount to abandonment of US Troops in Afghanistan, Right now the FUEL for US Troops in Afghanistan is from Russia. The big question is would Pakistan permit fuel to Afghanistan (and that is up to Saudi Arabia, who paying for that fuel). The House of Saud do not like the Russians, but they fear another Arab Spring, and they know the driving force behind the last Arab Spring was the Russian Drought the year before that shut down of Russian Grain exports. That shut down of grain exports let the price of grain to go through the roof, and the next thing you knew the poor were in open revolt. This is the same pattern as the French Revolution, i.e. increase in the price of grain, the poor can not pay it, the poor when the price comes down and they feel more secure, the poor revolts.
Thus the House of Saud do NOT want Russian to cut off its grain exports, thus the House of Saud will do all it can to prevent a war with Russia.
Now, Turkey has interests in the Crimea, for the Crimean are a Turkish group, like the Turkmen of Turkmenistan, and various other Turkish people from Kazakhstan to Turkey (a major difference is the Turks of Turkey have a huge, un-admitted Greek background, the Ottoman Empire till the 1600s was as much Greek as it was Turkish, this lead to intermarrying between Greeks and Turks from the 1200s till the 1600s when a "reform" movement with is Turkish Islam stop the intermingling and later lead to the Greeks in the 1800s fighting for their independence. Yes, the main problems between the Greeks and Turks to this day is they in-laws to each other).
Now, since the 1800s, Turkey has down played Islam and played up being Turks. This lead to increase involvement with the Turks of Crimea and Turkmenistan. Thus the Turks have an interest and probably involvement with the Crimea Tartars. On the other hand, the main source of energy for Turkey (and Greece) is Iran. Iran supports Russia, for Russia has supported them over the last 10 years or so. Turkey thus would NOT do anything overt to oppose what Russia does, for fear of its energy supplies, that includes giving the OK for US Carriers to go through Borphus and Dardanelles (By treaty Carriers and Battleships can NOT go through those Straits, but Cruisers and Destroyers can, thus the Soviet Union always gave its Carriers anti-submarine capacity so they could call them Anti-submarine Cruisers and thus were permitted through the Straits).
Thus the US can send in Cruisers and Destroyers into the Black Seas (today, not much difference between the two, except in many names).
Sorry, McCain or Romney would be told the same thing Obama was told by the Admirals and Generals of the Pentagon, there is not much we can do from a military point of view in that part of the world.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)"evil axis" rhetoric.
Very happy that Obama made an unambiguous, definitive statement on no military action. I'm not happy with the boogyman rhetoric in general, but I am greatly relieved that he has limited American "Exceptionalism" (read Imperialism) hubris responses to using "diplomacy" (sanctions) in response.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)and behave even more aggressively.
You're destroying our short term delusions of peace with your logic.
Personally I think we should just cut to the chase and hand the rest if Eastern Europe over to their rightful lord and master Pootie-poo.
Peace at any price!!!!
Arkana
(24,347 posts)I'm so confused now...
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)War with Russia would be insane, and posturing as if it were a proper response is at best inane....
appleannie1
(5,044 posts)if Romney had won? We would be ducking missiles by now.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)of Ukraine, I predict we will arm/train the Ukrainians. After all, we did agree to help them maintain their borders.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)he is going to disappoint a lot of DUers who wanted a war.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)It is very easy to argue - as Obama and Kerry themselves have - that Russia's actions are troubling and NOT think war is the answer. They have never said anything that could give anyone the impression that they intended to use the military.
To my knowledge, McCain does not post on DU.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)not only that, many of my antiwar posts were flamed and alerted on to the point where several jurors wrote to me saying they were gunning for me by using the alert system.
frylock
(34,825 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)dreamstst
(53 posts)There is now a unified, pro-West Ukraine, minus pro-Russian Crimea, which always would have been a problem for us and the EU.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)....but that being said, kudos still have to be given to the man for taking a strong forceful stance against Putin's aggression. Unlike his predecessor's rollover on Georgia back in 2008.
President Obama has to be given credit for doing a good job at walking the thin tight rope between militarism and diplomatic appeasement and not falling victim to either.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)I get the criticism here of his domestic policy/strategy, because he has unfortunately, since the beginning, been too inclined to appease the GOP (to use your dichotomy). But, with regard to foreign policy, I always feel compelled to come to the administration's defense, because as you have nicely articulated, they usually seem to be doing a decent job at walking the tight rope.
Igel
(35,197 posts)Now Putin knows that the one thing that could cause him real pain won't happen.
Rather like sitting down to play poker and saying, "I'd just like to say up front, before the game gets too rich, that I have 2 of a kind and there's no way I can beat the following hands ..."
Brilliant, limiting risk like that.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I never thought Obama would start a war over what is happening in Crimea and Ukraine. That is why I'm damn proud Obama is our president.