Now the Long Knives are poised right in the back of Ukraine:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035

Fucking brilliant approach, this. First the attempt to play divide and conquer in Ukraine pretty transparently crashed and burned with the retun of Ukraine's Benazir Bhutto to political influence. Then, the Russians decide evidently that they really did move in Russian Army soldiers into the Crimea. Because the proper instinct when a risky gamble fails is to raise the stakes. This is not going to end well by any means. Now I'm wondering how long Lucashenko will have a country to rule as dictator, and what might happen with Round II with Georgia. If Tsar Vladimir I of the House of Putin succeeds in this kind of thing, that will only encourage him to expand his wars of aggression further because Ukraine is rather larger than Georgia, and this would permit Russia to begin aspiring to regain aspects of the old Tsarist boundaries. I sincerely expected Russia would use Central Asia for this kind of thing, not Ukraine.

The EU wouldn't give a damn about invading Muslims in Kazakhstan, but invading an EU state? That's not going to lead Russia to do anything but decide to engage in still-larger wars of aggression in the long term.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

And one of the chambers of the Russian legislature just approved this request. Hoo, boy.

Shit got real-er:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403996

The Ukrainian Army is now on full combat alert. The prospect that the centennial year of the First World War will see the first large-scale conventional European war in decades has risen exponentially.

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Putin knows that that the US under Obama is all bark

Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, drone attacks, killing Bin Laden. All Obama hasn't done is start a war. Democrats are every bit as hawkish as Republicans, just maybe a bit smarter when it comes to which wars to start.

Who does Europe need to defend itself against and why do we need to pay for it? Japan, South Korea, the Arab world, same questions? Who is this mystery aggressor?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Assad knew Obama was a joke, so does Putin.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I can think of few things that would make Syria worse than our direct involvement. Assad's "fuck you" gesture to the world would almost certainly have been unleashing Hezbollah's rockets into Northern Israel and that makes their civil war a regional war. I've never heard of a single scenario were the US going after Assad directly made anything remotely better.

[404.livejournal.com]

Don't draw a line unless you plan to follow it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

^ this times a million

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

^ This a million times!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

^ A million times, this.

Seriously, that anyone can continue to defend this foreign policy...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As I recall, didn't a good many of the GOP oppose Obama starting the US side of the Libyan War once the USA got involved? Perhaps Obama didn't trust the GOP to rally behind the flag had he actually gotten involved. He certainly has no reason to expect them not to bite the President in a war that they didn't start.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

You do recall correctly. Actually both sides were pretty divided amongst themselves.

The real point is not to sabre rattle unless you intend to draw it, and don't draw it just to wave around.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Being the president means making such decisions while knowing the other party being willing to skewer you the minute something goes wrong. Obama has sunk US credibility and the world has become a worse place because of it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Whatever Obama decides to do on foreign policy, the correct GOP response is to be against it before they're for it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

'Xactly.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Okay, internet tough guy. What sort of foreign policy understanding are you basing this on?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

With Assad, the fact that Obama warned him not to use chenical weapons, then he went and used them anyways. With Putin, the fact that he warned Russia not to send troops into Ukraine, and he did it anyways. (And Letting Snowden stay in the country was pretty funny.)

But not to fear, the BBC is reporting that Obama is deeply concerned by the reports of Russian troops inside the Ukraine.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So, how do you know what Assad's thinking?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

He bombed the hell out of civilians, then, after being warned (with a red line) about using chemical weapons, he used chemical weapons, and now he's back to killing civilians with non-wmd's again. This would show that he wasn't taking Obama seriously, and with hindsight he was right.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So, when he was told to stop using chemical weapons, he stopped using them, and this proves Obama is weak because warrgarbrl.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And Bin laden too!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I dunno, could there be some emerging (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1575171.html) mysterious opponent over there (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1614940.html)?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Who does Europe need to defend itself against and why do we need to pay for it?

Both are excellent questions with complex answers.

For the sake of simplicity let's say that there are two general courses that the US can take. Interventionist and isolationist. The interventionist would argue that those with the ability to take action have an obligation to take action. "If not us then who" being the common refrain. The Isolationist argues the opposite, "It's not our place to judge or interfere" is their rally-cry.

They are both correct after a fashion.

why do we need to pay for it?

In the post and cold war period the answer was that we (the US) were the only nation capable of posing a remotely credible threat to Stalin. Western Europe was allowed to remain non-soviet because he knew that we'd fuck him up if he tried anything big. Obviously this is no-longer an issue. and there is something to be said for letting Europeans settle their own disputes. if the Neo-Soviets want to annex Ukraine who are we to judge? I may personally view it as a very bad thing, but I'm just some guy on the internet.

Personally I've always thought people who say things like "somebody should do something" or "there aught to be a law" were assholes. They want the world to change wont do it themselves. I can't in good conscious say that a situation is intolerable or that something ought to be done without putting my time money and health where my mouth is, thus I am nominally an interventionist. Despite this I still "get" that despite some misplaced sentimentality on my part, all of Ukraine/Iraq/etc is not worth the life of one Kentucky Hill-billy. It's a fucked up game and I cant hate on anyone who simply refuses to play.

That said the whole argument is/will be academic soon because the "tolerability" of a situation is utterly irrelevant without the ability to effect it. We can bitch and moan about political or humanitarian crises till the cows come home, it wont matter because we will have given up the ability to act.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not so. Stalin's Empire and that of his successors was always fragile and reliant on Soviet soldiers to maintain it. As is seen by what happened when Gorbachev withdrew those soldiers. The only means of 'action' that the Armchair Generals would accept would be the kind of massed war that shatters the US budget because an army on that scale is unaffordable, and culminates in a massed nuclear exchange. Congrats, bro, you just started a nuclear war over the Crimea, in other words. Anything short of that won't deter Russia. And it's very easy for the 555th Keyboard Brigade to agitate for something that would only affect them if it goes nuclear.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Even with US military presence in the region, China is already pumping its muscles around the East China Sea and South China sea.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That is only because they understand American politics.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

"Only"? Their newly emerged economic power has naught to do with their desire to assert a more active geopolitical position? It's all got to do with Obama?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"desire to assert a more active geopolitical position"

That's sounds like a polite way of saying grab control of everything they can ;)