Ukraine crisis: Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

[longknife]

If a person digs a little deeper.

They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine. .....

Your stupid hatred of Israel is showing again.

 

[Sunni Man]

If a person digs a little deeper.
They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine.

Your stupid hatred of Israel is showing again.

I only mentioned western Jewish bankers not Israel. .....

 

[Stratford57]

1. Since March,2014 Obama is trying to make all the world believe that Crimea was a victim of Russian aggression, that there was either no transparent referendum or the majority voted for staying with Ukraine. By placing sanctions on Crimea Obama contradicts that statement and basically admits the overwhelming majority of Crimean people wish to be with Russia. Otherwise it was silly to punish victims of somebody’s aggression.

2. According to UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

3. The USA tries to play the role of an example of democracy which it wants to spread around the world.

And here comes a puzzle for a logic thinking: which link in the logic chain above does not go well with the others? Because according to 1. and 2. Crimea’s decision was democratic and not violating international democratic rules.

 

[toastman]

If a person digs a little deeper.
They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine.

Your stupid hatred of Israel is showing again.

I only mentioned western Jewish bankers not Israel. .....

Your proof of this is where ?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But if it can be shown that America violated the terms of this agreement by supporting the Euromaidan and that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy then Americas moral outrage falls to the ground.

Americans receive minuscule news coverage that would allow them to understand that "that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy" ... And that is a shame and embarrassment for US journalism.

Also Russian support of the Syrian regime also put Putin on the wrong side of Obama until Obama realised the extent of the Americans anger against IS which he was supporting by opposing Assad.

Putin was on the right side of Obama when his country greatly assisted our country and a multitude of others by helping to rid the civil war zone of Assad's arsenal of Chemical weapons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now if Putin was still Communist like Cuba, Obama would be blowing him; I mean Barry Obama, not Michelle

 

[Mindlight]

History shows that not knowing whose the top dog and having to fight it out is usually the biggest cause of war and global instability

Unfortunately, the world's top dog is committed to controlling the most valuable real estate on the planet, and it will tolerate no contender or alliance of contenders:

"Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence."

The Grand Chessboard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is better when one nation has pre-eminence than when there is some doubt. America has the advantage in my view of being the current incumbent, speaking English and having an English heritage and having values broadly conducive to a proper authority e.g. Christianity and a commitment to sovereign freedoms.

But a divide and conquer charm offensive backed up by a strong military would be a better strategy for establishing advantage in Eurasia.

 

[Stratford57]

Americans receive minuscule news coverage that would allow them to understand that "that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy" ... And that is a shame and embarrassment for US journalism.

Last century the Soviet Union had to live behind the Iron Curtain. This century the majority of journalists from Europe and USA created another one: Iron Curtain-2 around Western countries, so that the people of those countries by no chance would know the true situation in Ukraine and who is killing whom there. Because if Western taxpayers got to know that new Ukrainian regime is exterminating their own people, who don't agree with that regime, then those taxpayers could start questioning their governments about reasons for sponsoring official Kiev. And a fairy tale about Hitler/Putin invading Ukraine, created by Russia's "Western partners", would collapse like a house of cards.
You are right: what a shame for Western journalism..... BTW, in June and July 4 Russian journalists were killed by Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone. Those guys were scrambling to bring and to show the truth to the whole world, those guys should be a sample for the others....

 

[Mindlight]

Americans receive minuscule news coverage that would allow them to understand that "that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy" ... And that is a shame and embarrassment for US journalism.

Last century the Soviet Union had to live behind the Iron Curtain. This century the majority of journalists from Europe and USA created another one: Iron Curtain-2 around Western countries, so that the people of those countries by no chance would know the true situation in Ukraine and who is killing whom there. Because if Western taxpayers got to know that new Ukrainian regime is exterminating their own people, who don't agree with that regime, then those taxpayers could start questioning their governments about reasons for sponsoring official Kiev. And a fairy tale about Hitler/Putin invading Ukraine, created by Russia's "Western partners", would collapse like a house of cards.
You are right: what a shame for Western journalism..... BTW, in June and July 4 Russian journalists were killed by Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone. Those guys were scrambling to bring and to show the truth to the whole world, those guys should be a sample for the others....

To some extent Putin has being playing this with the setup of Russia Today for instance to give a Russian slant on the news. But I have found that very often it gives a more honest commentary on world affairs than the BBC or CNN for instance and having the station around gives access to a more rounded view of what is actually going on. Russia Today reported on the American dependence on Russian rocket engine technology for their space programme a full year before the American media started commentating on it for instance.

A big factor in the Western media bias is the power of 2 influential lobby groups to slant policy by intimidation. The gay lobby group flushed with its successes re gay marriage laws in the UK ,France and various American states and also various mainly Sunni Islamic groups that encourage a more anti-Semitic slant to the news and conceal various major problems with the Islamic communities in their host countries and the various crimes against humanity committed by Muslim nations in the Middle East for instance. For example the whole massacre of Christians in the Middle east by IS and by the Iraqi people before that and then the pro Palestinian slant of many Western Media outlets. So for example the reporting on Pussy Riot was incredibly biased and failed to reflect the out rage that many Russians felt at the blasphemy these "singers" committed in a holy place.

 

[John Marston]

While Obama orders ban on Crimea trade, someone ridicules him.
I think it might be Russians. Surprisingly, how can they have such technical capabilities? I thought they still use pagers

 

[georgephillip]

But a divide and conquer charm offensive backed up by a strong military would be a better strategy for establishing advantage in Eurasia.

Maybe so, but it's clear US elites have settled on regime change in the Middle East as a starting point for controlling Eurasia and Africa.
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
For thousands of years before the US came into existence great fortunes were made from war and debt. There are few options for changing that reality, yet if humanity doesn't end war, then war will end the human race.

 

[Mindlight]

But a divide and conquer charm offensive backed up by a strong military would be a better strategy for establishing advantage in Eurasia.

Maybe so, but it's clear US elites have settled on regime change in the Middle East as a starting point for controlling Eurasia and Africa.
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
For thousands of years before the US came into existence great fortunes were made from war and debt. There are few options for changing that reality, yet if humanity doesn't end war, then war will end the human race.

The political capital to transform the Middle East according to the Bush Axis of Evil plan was used up in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Arab Spring offered new possibilities for getting rid of bad regimes but Libya and Egypt( later reversed) were not really improvements on what came before.

Obama has tinkered in Syria with support for the free Syrian army but the net effect of this and the incompetence of the Maliki regime in Iraq has been the rise of ISIS.

What was clearly a strategy under Bush was denied by Obama who said we have no strategy. Some say his strategy is just to avoid doing stupid stuff that might ruin his golf swing.

So Hezbollah remain strong in Lebanon. A new Caliphate covers iraq and Syria. Iran continues to develop the bomb and is now being talked of in terms of an ally against IS. North Korea may or may not have hacked Sony.

Hardly evidence of a world class power working out a determined strategy don't you think?

 

[georgephillip]

Hardly evidence of a world class power working out a determined strategy don't you think?

The plan goes back to the 1980s, at least. Iraq, Syria, and Iran are all scheduled for regime change. They will be broken up into warring ethnic enclaves; NATO will govern the northern border and Israel in the south. So far, it seems to be progressing at least as well as Barry's back-swing.

 

[bendog]

The biggest issue here is how long this will last. Will the US keep the pressure on till Obama leaves the Whitehouse for instance. Also what are the real reasons for this. America talks in terms of the Sovereignty of the Ukraine and the agreement made with the country after the removal of nukes. But if it can be shown that America violated the terms of this agreement by supporting the Euromaidan and that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy then Americas moral outrage falls to the ground. Some suggest the background antagonism here is Obamas support for gay marriage which the Russians see as an example of Western decadence. Putins highly public defiance of this in contrast with the French and British has earnt him Americas anger. Also Russian support of the Syrian regime also put Putin on the wrong side of Obama until Obama realised the extent of the Americans anger against IS which he was supporting by opposing Assad.

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

I have to disagree on the issue on the extent of personalities as the cause of the situation. Obama actually tried some reapproachment with Russia, after Putin exercised military power in Georgia and Moldova. Snowden helped the neocons cause. But, a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney white house would not be much different from a Hillary Clinton white house in terms of dealing with Putin. Moreover, it's really Merkel being the west's leader at this point. Imo, this is mostly about Putin and the fact that Russia is really an oil export firm with nuclear weapons, rather than a real world power. And that reality is not one Russians like.

However, I do agree that the West is supporting a country that has more in common with Russia's state mafia and oligarchs than an embrace of free markets, and the EU is vastly underestimating the amount of euros needed to transition Ukraine.

 

[Mindlight]

Hardly evidence of a world class power working out a determined strategy don't you think?

The plan goes back to the 1980s, at least. Iraq, Syria, and Iran are all scheduled for regime change. They will be broken up into warring ethnic enclaves; NATO will govern the northern border and Israel in the south. So far, it seems to be progressing at least as well as Barry's back-swing.

That map makes more sense than the current boundaries. How clear are you that is an actual plan though. Turkey for example is far more powerful than it was in the 80s and has moved in an Islamist direction. It is blocking an independent Kurdish state and publically American policy is for a united Iraq. The splitting of Saudia Arabia and extension of Jordanian territory contradicts cross party support for the House of Saud. This looks like a policy suggestion to me than actual US policy.

 

[bendog]

I dunno. I have a fundamental disagreement that the US really wants to change boundaries. Capitalists don't like uncertainty. Now there is an element in US politics that really does want regime change with Putin, but that same element led the charge into Iraq. Well, they were nowhere near the actual battlefields, as the prefer pushing policy from safe places. And, Putin's embrace of Snowden angered some very dangerous people in Foggy Bottom.

With the Maiden, US policy was actually trying to negotiate a way for Ukraine to basically take a time out for new elections before making any trade deals. As it turned out, the West got a bottomless cash needy case that really is not ready for an actual capitalist market. It's closer than Russia was with Yeltsin, but ..... did the EU actually ask for this ... I don't think so. There's no real benefit for them. But, it's also true that elements in the West spurred on the protests.

But, more importantly, from Nato's point of view, Putin was lining up the Baltics next for a soft invasion of "we must protect the Russian speaking minority." Which is bs, because there's little they need protection from. There are no death camps. At worst there's employment and education discrimination, and that can be dealt with politically. That's Merkel's, and Obama's (and the Bushs and Romney's) basic concern.

In any conflict, the resolution is in finding out what the other guy has to have to resolve the problem, and finding a way to let him have it, while at the same time finding a resolution you can live with too. The problem here is that so far the EU and US don't have a compromise. If Putin has to have Russia as a world power beyond being a roughly equal power to France, or even Italy, in terms of economics in Europe, then we have a problem. Putin probably correctly perceives the US and Nato seeking to "defang" Russia in terms of using military power to influence its political/economic power.

 

[Mindlight]

The biggest issue here is how long this will last. Will the US keep the pressure on till Obama leaves the Whitehouse for instance. Also what are the real reasons for this. America talks in terms of the Sovereignty of the Ukraine and the agreement made with the country after the removal of nukes. But if it can be shown that America violated the terms of this agreement by supporting the Euromaidan and that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy then Americas moral outrage falls to the ground. Some suggest the background antagonism here is Obamas support for gay marriage which the Russians see as an example of Western decadence. Putins highly public defiance of this in contrast with the French and British has earnt him Americas anger. Also Russian support of the Syrian regime also put Putin on the wrong side of Obama until Obama realised the extent of the Americans anger against IS which he was supporting by opposing Assad.

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

I have to disagree on the issue on the extent of personalities as the cause of the situation. Obama actually tried some reapproachment with Russia, after Putin exercised military power in Georgia and Moldova. Snowden helped the neocons cause. But, a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney white house would not be much different from a Hillary Clinton white house in terms of dealing with Putin. Moreover, it's really Merkel being the west's leader at this point. Imo, this is mostly about Putin and the fact that Russia is really an oil export firm with nuclear weapons, rather than a real world power. And that reality is not one Russians like.

However, I do agree that the West is supporting a country that has more in common with Russia's state mafia and oligarchs than an embrace of free markets, and the EU is vastly underestimating the amount of euros needed to transition Ukraine.

Personalities make a difference and Bush had a stronger image in Russia than Obama has as a man of his word who would back up his words with actions. I believe Putin had a sneaking respect for Bush while he clearly dislikes Obamas Liberal Progressive agenda , his mistakes and intentions in Syria and perceived support for the Euromaidan. ( which deposed a pro Russian regime in Kiev). I found Hilary more convincing than Kerry as secretary of State but a Republican would scare the Russians more. They never knew if a Bush or a Reagan would push the red button while they feel more at liberty with Democrats.

Germany has a lot of clout in the world under Merkel and a massive interest in the outcome in the Ukraine. But Germans have deeply mixed feelings over the Ukraine which many feel would be far more expensive to rescue than Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe were. Also the gas comes from Russia. On the other hand Putins regime is understood by many here as oppressive while Putin is respected by others for standing up to america on gay marriage laws and the genocide of Christians in the Middle East which US policy is perceived to have triggered. The old fears of Russian advancement are still fresh in many peoples minds. One old person I know dedicates a room in his Keller for planned oil tanks for when the Russians switch the gas off.

Overall am not clear what Merkels actual policy interest here is. She says she supports Ukrainian sovereignty and has supported sanctions against Russia which have harmed the German economy but that is clearly only half the story.

You are right oil is crucial to the Russian economy and they remain a warrior nation that had high spending ambitions for the modernisation of Russian effectiveness that might be too expensive now given the collapse in the oil price and the ruble.

The Russian military threat can be exaggerated the French and the British are together more powerful and also have nukes and that is even before calling in American support. So i do not anticipate a threat to NATO members.

I do not see an advantage in backing Russia into a corner. The East Ukraine may well sit more naturally with them and the Crimea definitely does. But NATO borders are also very clear and Putin needs to understand this.

 

[bendog]

The biggest issue here is how long this will last. Will the US keep the pressure on till Obama leaves the Whitehouse for instance. Also what are the real reasons for this. America talks in terms of the Sovereignty of the Ukraine and the agreement made with the country after the removal of nukes. But if it can be shown that America violated the terms of this agreement by supporting the Euromaidan and that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy then Americas moral outrage falls to the ground. Some suggest the background antagonism here is Obamas support for gay marriage which the Russians see as an example of Western decadence. Putins highly public defiance of this in contrast with the French and British has earnt him Americas anger. Also Russian support of the Syrian regime also put Putin on the wrong side of Obama until Obama realised the extent of the Americans anger against IS which he was supporting by opposing Assad.

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

I have to disagree on the issue on the extent of personalities as the cause of the situation. Obama actually tried some reapproachment with Russia, after Putin exercised military power in Georgia and Moldova. Snowden helped the neocons cause. But, a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney white house would not be much different from a Hillary Clinton white house in terms of dealing with Putin. Moreover, it's really Merkel being the west's leader at this point. Imo, this is mostly about Putin and the fact that Russia is really an oil export firm with nuclear weapons, rather than a real world power. And that reality is not one Russians like.

However, I do agree that the West is supporting a country that has more in common with Russia's state mafia and oligarchs than an embrace of free markets, and the EU is vastly underestimating the amount of euros needed to transition Ukraine.

Personalities make a difference and Bush had a stronger image in Russia than Obama has as a man of his word who would back up his words with actions. I believe Putin had a sneaking respect for Bush while he clearly dislikes Obamas Liberal Progressive agenda , his mistakes and intentions in Syria and perceived support for the Euromaidan. ( which deposed a pro Russian regime in Kiev). I found Hilary more convincing than Kerry as secretary of State but a Republican would scare the Russians more. They never knew if a Bush or a Reagan would push the red button while they feel more at liberty with Democrats.

Germany has a lot of clout in the world under Merkel and a massive interest in the outcome in the Ukraine. But Germans have deeply mixed feelings over the Ukraine which many feel would be far more expensive to rescue than Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe were. Also the gas comes from Russia. On the other hand Putins regime is understood by many here as oppressive while Putin is respected by others for standing up to america on gay marriage laws and the genocide of Christians in the Middle East which US policy is perceived to have triggered. The old fears of Russian advancement are still fresh in many peoples minds. One old person I know dedicates a room in his Keller for planned oil tanks for when the Russians switch the gas off.

Overall am not clear what Merkels actual policy interest here is. She says she supports Ukrainian sovereignty and has supported sanctions against Russia which have harmed the German economy but that is clearly only half the story.

You are right oil is crucial to the Russian economy and they remain a warrior nation that had high spending ambitions for the modernisation of Russian effectiveness that might be too expensive now given the collapse in the oil price and the ruble.

The Russian military threat can be exaggerated the French and the British are together more powerful and also have nukes and that is even before calling in American support. So i do not anticipate a threat to NATO members.

I do not see an advantage in backing Russia into a corner. The East Ukraine may well sit more naturally with them and the Crimea definitely does. But NATO borders are also very clear and Putin needs to understand this.

I was unclear. Russia's military threat to Nato is simply a soft invasion by supporting paramilitary uprisings such as that in Moldova and Ukraine. It's more about Putin's prestige as the defender of greater Russia than any actual substance in protecting a minority. Russia probably does perceive a real threat of Nato and the US moving to make Russia's nuclear threat less of an actual threat. But, the question is whether Nato can allow Russia to continue its soft invasions.

Putin invaded Georgia on W Bush's watch, so I can't see him as much of a strong leader in Europe. He's not the man his father was, or even Clinton. But, Obama's foreign policy is inconsistent, and was initially naïve.

 

[Mindlight]

I dunno. I have a fundamental disagreement that the US really wants to change boundaries. Capitalists don't like uncertainty. Now there is an element in US politics that really does want regime change with Putin, but that same element led the charge into Iraq. Well, they were nowhere near the actual battlefields, as the prefer pushing policy from safe places. And, Putin's embrace of Snowden angered some very dangerous people in Foggy Bottom.

Winning the Cold war and having the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen does lend a certain confidence to your hidden Protectors. It was Bush who began this preemptive trend in defence I suppose. But tapping Merkels phone and reading all our emails has not endeared America to its allies. In the long run Americas alliances may be more important to its security than its own economy and military so I think some of what these guys do has been counter productive. Also Putin is probably the best we can hope for in Russia. Those borders with China need defending and a weak Russia could be easily dominated by China. Also he is standing up to Islamists and keeps the oil snd gas flowing to Europe whether or not the Arabs are friendly. But Putins ambitions in Europe are plain stupid. NATO borders are a clear red line.

With the Maiden, US policy was actually trying to negotiate a way for Ukraine to basically take a time out for new elections before making any trade deals. As it turned out, the West got a bottomless cash needy case that really is not ready for an actual capitalist market. It's closer than Russia was with Yeltsin, but ..... did the EU actually ask for this ... I don't think so. There's no real benefit for them. But, it's also true that elements in the West spurred on the protests.

Which makes me think that the Americans rather than the Europeans drove this. The European interest in the Ukraine is ambiguous.

But, more importantly, from Nato's point of view, Putin was lining up the Baltics next for a soft invasion of "we must protect the Russian speaking minority." Which is bs, because there's little they need protection from. There are no death camps. At worst there's employment and education discrimination, and that can be dealt with politically. That's Merkel's, and Obama's (and the Bushs and Romney's) basic concern.

No argument on this and Putin has to be very clear that NATO boundaries will be defended.

In any conflict, the resolution is in finding out what the other guy has to have to resolve the problem, and finding a way to let him have it, while at the same time finding a resolution you can live with too. The problem here is that so far the EU and US don't have a compromise. If Putin has to have Russia as a world power beyond being a roughly equal power to France, or even Italy, in terms of economics in Europe, then we have a problem. Putin probably correctly perceives the US and Nato seeking to "defang" Russia in terms of using military power to influence its political/economic power.

In Europe defanging Russian threats is fine. But weakening Russia too far carries the risk of new Islamic republics and Chinese hegemony in the East. But we do need clear boundaries that both sides agree on. The Russian peoples perceptions are not realistic when it comes to the end of the old Russian Imperial / Soviet era hegemony of Eastern Europe. Those days are gone. Putin is playing to a home audience for which national pride and a sense of Russias place in history is massively important. I think that the Ukraine will probably need to be divided and would like to see borders that will last for more than just one lifetime.

 

[bendog]

I suspect you are correct that the EU was not involved in pushing the Maiden, and I suspect that there were rogue official and non-official US movers supporting the Maiden protests, and especially in opposing moves that aimed at just delaying any approval of economic alliances until after new elections. Further, I believe we both agree that Russia's interests in Crimea are much stronger and different than in Eastern Ukraine. And, Russia's commercial ties to western companies like Volkswagen and GM are implicated in whatever the EU does with Ukraine. But all that can be negotiated.

I suspect that Putin views the US's endgame at removing him. That's counterproductive unless there's actually no way to work a deal with him to leave political boundaries as they are, and protect minorities within them by political accommodation. But the problem is he now has a track record going back through two US administrations of acting differently. You cannot do a deal with a guy you don't trust to abide by the deal.

Putin aside, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to encourage anyone in the east to think military moves against Russia are in their interests.