Civil War In Ukraine? ...and Venezuela?

There is some purpose to it, but it's neither to show the flag nor is it to engage in hostilities. We send the fleet in to Russia's pond to give them the opportunity to demand that we leave. We do so, in return for them pulling back to their bases (with an appropriate cover story regarding security assurances). Russia can then claim that they protected ethnic Russians and stood down the United States. People like Dayton can blame Obama for another foreign policy disaster, Europeans can get their natural gas, and Ukraine can avoid partition. Win-win-win-win.

Why not? For everyone who says sending warships into the Black Sea is too provocative remember that the U.S. routinely sent warships into the Black Sea during the Cold War and it didn't cause a conflict. Why would it cause a conflict now with tensions considerably lower than during the Cold War?

Hell, in the 1980s, the Soviets got so pissed about the U.S.S. Caron and U.S.S. Yorktown that the deliberately rammed both ships while in the Black Sea.

Didn't cause any shots to be fired. Much less a war.

That's a nice idea, but why would Russia play along?

Because the reality is that Russia isn't in a position to fight a Ukranian insurgency. Putin sent troops in to change the narrative, which was heading toward a failure for him. But he doesn't really want to be there, he just needs to save face. If we raise the stakes a bit further, he has a better opportunity to achieve his real goal.

That's very different to everything I've heard and seen so far.

Which part is different?

From what I've seen in media and heard from private persons living there, Russia's interest is fueled mostly by strategic interests in the region itself, as well as a deeply held belief that the "Russians" living there are in need of salvation; and indeed, they are disadvantaged in comparison to the two other lingual and ethnic groups within Ukraine. At least the first reason is nothing that can be satisfied by showboating, and the second might not be either, if the belief is sincere or the public mess caused by Russia-friendly Ukrainian "Russians is big enough when the yfeel they're being abandoned by Russia.

That's an excellent point. Because the whole idea of checks and balances that we use in government today is a fairly new concept. No other President has had to work with Congress to get what they wanted.

Your post made me realize why such a horrible thing amuses me so: Obama has, for years, diligently made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it. He started his first term with an apology tour, going around and groveling and bowing to anyone who'd have him, thinking this would somehow make people like him. Maybe people didn't like us when Bush or Reagan were in power, but by God, they respected us. Then we get Obama, saying America isn't so great, telling the Russian leader "work with me here. Once I'm reelected I can really make some concessions," gutting our military rather than work with Congress on the deficit and compromise on any of his socialist programs.

Thing is, tinpot dictators don't like weaklings. So now we aren't liked OR respected. And our military isn't in a position to do anything. Violating the War Powers Act to support the Libyan rebels and things like the budget burned his bridges with Congress and all he has to show for it is a burned out embassy in Libya and video of a dead US Ambassador being dragged through the streets, so now that he needs their support not even Democrats can side with him because his actions are so deeply toxic and unpopular. He got bin Ladin (well, he didn't do that. Somebody else did that for him. ) And the hero doctor who was instrumental in that is rotting in a Pakistani prison. And al Qaeda retook Fallujah. And al Qaeda assassinated a US Ambassador in Benghazi. He's burned all his political capital.

But hey, it isn't his fault. It is hard and confusing to lead the free world. I mean, you'd have to be a Constitutional law professor or something, to understand these things, wouldn't you?

And this is why the US isn't going to regain diplomatic influence anytime soon.

Hint 1: Open a history book and look at what those respectful nations did while Bush was in charge. I seem to remember there was something that happened with some airplanes over New York? Compare that to amassing troops in a contested area of an Eastern European country event hough the US would prefer otherwise, and then talk to me about respect.

Hint 2: From the outside, the US is the US even when Presidents change. Other countries are not about taking sides in your partisan internal struggles. Obama certainly isn't doing a good job, but the diplomatic capital you're lacking wasn't lost under him, and perhaps his worst naivite was thinking he'd get it back simply by not being Bush. We know he isn't Bush; we have no reason to assume the next guy won't be.

Packard, you're one of the few liberals here that I actually still enjoy conversing with and, it being Fat Tuesday, I've had a bit more to drink than I should, so I hope you'll forgive me, but are you implying that, in the 9 months or so from the time Dubya was elected to 9-11, al Qaeda conceived, planned, prepared for, and executed the attack on the Pentagon and the destruction of the World Trade Center?

Because I would argue that was in the works long before Dubya won the 2000 election. I would argue that was because of the gutting of Defense under Clinton (to be fair that was planned under HW Bush), us turning tail in Somalia after the events of "Blackhawk Down", and Clinton's "foreign policy by Tomahawk." Interestingly enough, Obama seems to have adopted a "foreign policy by UAV." More accurate and economical. That's about all that can be said for it.

I was just wondering whether Volpone was drunk, now we have confirmation.

I was just wondering if gul was a retarded amoral socialist douchebag. Now we have confirmation.

Did you read Hint 2?

Let me spell it out again: Foreign nations and factions don't respond to your Presidents. They respond to continuous US policy across many Presidents. 9/11 no more happened solely because of Bush-2 than it did solely because of Clinton, or even solely because of Bush-1's actions in response to which al-Quaeda claimed that 9/11 happened.

When someone outside the US does something, and your first reaction is, which US President is responsible for this?, you're already on the wrong track.

Says the Jesus freak arguing over who needs to be exploded, and who doesn't.

More at the link, this is actually excerpt from a similar piece...

Wanna stop Putin? Flood the market.

Thank you. I think I see your point. I'm not smart enough to do anything with it at the moment, but it makes sense. Kind of like improv, in a sense. The guy before you hands you something and you have to work with it as best you can.

So the US has been doing things, foreign policy-wise. Hopefully they are guided by "what's in it for us?" Someone (in this case Osama bin Ladin) gets butthurt over them. What is the solution? Pull back from world events? That is what the Father of our Country, George Washington advised. Of course King George IV had different ideas and we fought a war in 1812. And in spite of Woodrow Wilson's non-intervention policies, we got sucked into WWI. And WWII. And Korea. And...

So where are we? Putin has seen opportunity in the Ukraine (and Georgia back in 2008) and thinks he can get away with things. Whether anyone likes it or not, the US is (or should be) the sole remaining 800# gorilla and we should be able to influence things for all good and decent people in the free world.

Of course we elected (and then reelected) someone with very limited experience and abilities and now we (and the rest of the world) are paying the price. But all this has happened before...

You sound like my grandfather, Fox. It must be crushing that its not 1957 anymore.

I'm afraid that seems to be true, seeing as your post ends with blaming a single US President for what someone abroad did.

That does seem to be the heart of US foreign policy during the last few decades, yes. Perhaps this can also help explain why people are so angry and frightened when international law, international treaties and the like are broken: They are what codifies national intent beyond improv. Disregarding them doesn't mean you'll do "what you think is right", because "you" changes every 4-8 years. It just mean you "no longer know what you'll be doing next", and in that case, neither does anyone else.

It's all going well for Russia so far. Their main exports are up (Russia needs oil prices to remain above $100), Berlin and London have decided gas and dollars trump the people they've been wooing and no one is really willing to challenge them.

I think we can call this a win for Russia now

Interesting, this seems almost like a description of Volpone. This approach to understanding the world is why hardly anybody takes him seriously.

So..........in a hundred years or so will there by civil war reenactors ?

Muad and Mewa would have loved this thread!

Civil war reenactors is for racist. Ukrainians will be vietnam reenacting.

A bunch of sissies snuck into the US, boarded a couple of civilian airplanes with guns, rammed them into a civilian target, and made sure to die in the crash so they wouldn't have to see the results of America's wrath?

Clearly Putin was emboldened by Benghazi!

You know, if you'd have ever asked me, either when the video was released or in 2014, if I'd have thought that the name "Roy Cohn" would have had relevance in 2019, I would have said "No." And yet, we now have a President who considers Cohn to be his mentor.