They reset it all right...
Posted on 12/14/2014 8:19:02 AM PST by Zhang Fei
House Resolution 758 officially calls upon President Obama “to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” The Ukraine Support Act of 2014 does not use the phrase “lethal aid,” but it does give authorization to Obama to “provide defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons and ammunition, counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment, tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment, pursuant to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), and other relevant provisions of law.”
In addition, the bill appropriates $350 million in funding for this purpose, allotting $100 million to 2015 and $125 million each for both 2016 and 2017. The bill also calls for additional economic sanctions against Russia and the creation of additional media outlets that would target Russian-speaking citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
Apparently there is nobody in DC who remembers how this game is played. The key is plausible deniability. We give money to a third or fourth party who then funnels it to the right people. The reason for that is that even if Russia knows we’re doing it (which they will) they won’t be embarrassed and forced to respond in kind. This situation has the potential to exponentially escalate into direct fighting between the US and Russia. Russian dictators have always been treated nicely because, even though Russia is economically a small country it is a small country with nuclear weapons.
Suppose Russia starts openly supporting American separatists who want to make their state independent? What if they give them weapons and anti-aircraft missiles?
Virtually everything America has done in the foreign policy world for the last six years has bordered on insane.
Yet do you think Putin has been cooperating with the US in the last six years. I realize Obama has mismanaged the relationship. What else could he do; leadership is something he knows nothing about. My main point is Putin is and has been treating the US and the West as an enemy.
Then we can start funding Russian separatists. Proxy wars are old hat. This game is an old one, going back thousands of years. Given the amounts of money and equipment involved, there's no hiding it. American-Russian interactions in this regard where one side's troops were in combat: Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. I've read that the US supported Poland with funding during the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution. Ultimately, Russia will not initiate a nuclear war, with or without a direct conventional confrontation, because national leaders are supreme egotists who will not kill themselves and everyone they know.
If the roles were reversed, and Russia granted “lethal foreign aid” to a hostile nation anywhere close to our borders, the United States would be justified under the Monroe Doctrine to invade that neighboring country. We have done this many times since President Monroe’s doctrine was declared in 1823, so this is not a hypothetical argument. Now, by meddling in affairs directly on Russia’s border, we are providing justification for Russia to do what it has not yet done - to intervene directly and decisively in Ukraine. Our meddling does nothing to help Ukraine, but only encourages more war. But this wouldn’t be the first time that a nation flirted with war in order to distract attention from it’s problems at home. It is a dangerous game that is fraught with unforeseen and unintended consequences.
“...its problems at home.” Predictive (mis)spelling requires eternal vigilance.
“My main point is Putin is and has been treating the US and the West as an enemy.”
There are several reasons for that. We betrayed them over the Libyan adventure and Bosnia and several other times. We have not followed through on our promises to them. We do not even respond to their extradition requests, so how can we expect them to respond to ours? (We are harboring Chechens who have committed murder on Russian soil.)
Another reason, which we make valid, is that Putin needs an enemy to rally his political and military forces.
Having said that, I’m reminded of Churchill’s words; “Nations do not have friends. Nations have common interests.” We do have many, many common interests and we could have built on them to establish a stable “friendly” atmosphere that might have gone a long way to tame Putin’s adventurist ways. Right now he sees no advantage to not doing what he’s doing. Our subtle “smart power” people have proven themselves complete amatures. They didn’t start by Googleing the Russian word for “reset” and printing the Russian word for “overcharge.” But that is a small sample which can be multiplied across every wasted opportunity.
The Russians sent weapons throughout Latin America. The only places they succeeded were in Nicaragua and Cuba. Did we invade Nicaragua and Cuba? No. By your reasoning, the Russians would have been justified in attacking NATO because of the presence of American troops on the Russian empire's (Warsaw Pact's) borders. And the Russkies did have only offensive plans vis-a-vis NATO, with zero expectation that NATO would invade. What ultimately stopped them wasn't a change in their moral or strategic premises - it was the threat of unacceptable losses from Allied forces in Europe.
It was Lord Acton who said that Nations do not have permanent friends only permanent interests. I gather you wouldn’t betray Putin, and that’s what I suspected.
” I gather you wouldn’t betray Putin, and that’s what I suspected.”
Betrayal of anybody is a bad idea. In the final analysis, the only thing we have is our integrity. All else is window dressing.
The United States should operate with integrity. That also means if we draw a line in the sand that something bad happens to those who cross it. We don’t just take a step back and draw another one. And, if we make a threat, we should immediately start building up the forces necessary to make good on that threat. That build-up is the only thing other countries “listen” to.
I owe no loyalty to a tyrant.
They reset it all right...
“I owe no loyalty to a tyrant.”
You are confusing loyalty and betrayal. You may have an enemy. You make an arrangement with him. If you come through on your part you have a relationship that can be built on. If you betray him by going back on your word, as Clinton did in Bosnia and Obama did in Libya, you have no basis for a relationship beyond hostility. We can not afford to have a hostile relationship with Russia. Even when Russia was busy invading and crushing rebellions in eastern European nations our country treated them with respect. To do otherwise (as we are doing now) would be foolish. They do have nuclear weapons.
Wars are not usually the result of just one event. Like accidents many events combine and develop a life of their own. A few years ago an air force plane flew across the US in an exercise with nuclear armed cruise missiles. They didn’t have a clue they were nuclear armed. It was discovered later. Suppose they had been ordered to fire one. Now, it would not have detonated. But try explaining to somebody on the receiving end that you only meant to send them a 1,000 pound bomb. If you had a rock solid background of being absolutely level in your dealings you might pull it off. But given the level of betrayal we’ve engaged in, we have no credibility at all.
So, one of their planes, without orders, buzzes a ship we foolishly sent into the Black Sea. We shoot it down. Another plane, without orders, shoots back. That’s three mistakes. Now, try to defuse that situation when blood has been spilled on both sides. We can, more easily than you could imagine, end up in a shooting war.
Betrayal when we are not at war should always be off the table, tyrant or no.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-denies-military-jet-near-miss-airliner-over-094417521.html
http://news.yahoo.com/assertive-russia-causes-military-rethink-sweden-212205330.html
Russia was not really involved in Libya, so there's no way they were “betrayed” in any sense. Balkans ? Perhaps... Slobo was indeed their beloved bolshevik... But If you made a list of stupid/hostile things that Kremlin has done since 1991, it would be very long. Set up a shitty dictatorship anywhere in the world and start screaming “death to America, death to the west !” - Russians will be there in a minute with cheap oil, credits and military aid. It didn't start yesterday or a year ago, it's been always going on, they just scaled it down a bit in 90’s because they were totally broken. The reason behind current developments is not that the west was too hard but too soft on Russia, starting from how the cold war ended, instead of being finished off, they got another chance and were offered partnership they didn't deserve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.