Russia has invaded Ukraine. If you were the US President how do you respond?

It's the same as if China establised a naval base in Jamaica and made everyone speak Chinese.

Russia has to secure Ukraine to thwart encroachment by the United States in Eastern Europe, Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Syria.

People with Russian flags killing people?

It needs repeating once again:

Your leaders have been bleating about Russia violating the “territorial integrity” of the Ukraine.

Conveniently forgetting that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada and Panama.

Didn’t the US violate those countries’ territorial integrity?

Unlike the US invasions where hundreds of thousands died and millions became refugees - not one person has been killed by the Russians.

There are large areas of the Ukraine with a predominantly Russian population and who want nothing to do with the new EU-sponsored Government.

Putin had not just a right, but a duty to protect them against the inevitable repression – banning the Russian language, stopping Russians from getting jobs etc – that would follow the new government’s takeover.

What is the Ukraine anyway?

Until 1954, the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were actually parts of Russia.

The Crimea is of huge strategic importance to Russia - it also houses the Russian fleet’s only 12-month ice-free port.

Does anyone think Russia would just give this up?

Finally, instead of you Yanks still fighting the outdated ‘cold war’ you should be working with the Russians to fight the real threat to both your civilisations - radical Islam!

Gaw, that reply is so'oh ANTI-SEMITIC.

Oh do give it a rest old chap. Your mincing leaders have been bleating about it too. And what's worse than invading countries? Being a junior partner in those invasions - a bottom so to speak.

. [quote]Joe Binks wrote:

People with Russian flags killing people?

It needs repeating once again:

Your leaders have been bleating about Russia violating the “territorial integrity” of the Ukraine.

Conveniently forgetting that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada and Panama.

Didn’t the US violate those countries’ territorial integrity?

Unlike the US invasions where hundreds of thousands died and millions became refugees - not one person has been killed by the Russians.

I never knew we had so many military strategists on LetsRun.

I don't follow why a response is necessary. Are US national security interests - or any other vital American interests - at stake here? No, they're not.

We invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances twice. Russia didn't declare war on us for that..

Ukraine was part of Russia for hundreds of years. The president they just ran off was elected & supported by a majority of Ukranians..

In sort, we do nothing. This empty & hollow chest thumping by barry soetero is embarrassing & needs to stop..

i don't normally agree with Joe B, but I can't put up much of a fight on this one.

but

The US doesn't invade countries for some mythical tribal identity politics like European countries are often doing. When the US invades there is generally a right vs wrong issue, not a primitive tribal urge.

Joe, why exactly are Europeans so tribal? Why haven't they gotten over it? it's the 21st century.

Ahem.

but really - the US is not a good example of upholding territorial integrity worldwide, no.

Conservativz wrote:

Recognizer of Lame Posts wrote:

So, you simply repeat your mantra without addressing the OP's question in any way. Talk about weak!

That's how we do.

My "response" would have begun five years ago. This would have never happened.

The president is in the process of systematically destroying all that is America. He promised as much in his inauguration speeches.

;ljlk;jk;ljk;lj;l wrote:

Conservativz wrote:

That's how we do.

My "response" would have begun five years ago. This would have never happened.

The president is in the process of systematically destroying all that is America. He promised as much in his inauguration speeches.

I'm sure you criticized GW Bush and said he was trying to destroy the US when Russia was fighting a hot war in Georgia in 2008 and Bush relied on negotiation. Right? You favored NATO going guns blazing and protecting the Georgians, right? Right?

Seriously, on this 100th anniversary of WW1 we have to keep in mind the danger of escalation - in a generally peaceful and prosperous world, we need to work hard not to destroy it by war. Sure, some people will get the short end of the stick. But that is better than a war that wrecks all that we have built post ww2.

And yes, I realize WW2 started partly because we were so afraid of escalation. So there is a balance obviously.

from wikipeda: I don't see a hair difference between the Bush approach and the Obama approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war

United States — U.S. president George W. Bush's statement to Russia was: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."[345] "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," said Mr Bush. "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." [346] The US Embassy in Georgia, describing the Matthew Bryza press-conference, called the war an "incursion by one of the world's strongest powers to destroy the democratically elected government of a smaller neighbor".[347]

Initially the Bush Administration considered a military response to defend Georgia, but such an intervention was ruled out due to the inevitable conflict it would lead to with Russia.[348][349] Instead, Bush opted for a softer option by sending humanitarian supplies to Georgia by military, rather than civilian, aircraft.[348][349]

this from the US ambassador to the UN. Strong stuff. Obama is not mincing words.

Thank you Madam President. Listening to the representative of Russia, one might think that Moscow had just become the rapid response arm of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. So many of the assertions made this afternoon by the Russian Federation are without basis in reality.

Let’s begin with a clear and candid assessment of the facts.

It is a fact that Russian military forces have taken over Ukrainian border posts. It is a fact that Russia has taken over the ferry terminal in Kerch. It is a fact that Russian ships are moving in and around Sevastapol. It is a fact that Russian forces are blocking mobile telephone services in some areas. It is a fact that Russia has surrounded or taken over practically all Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea. It is a fact that today Russian jets entered Ukrainian airspace. It is also a fact that independent journalists continue to report that there is no evidence of violence against Russian or pro-Russian communities.

Russian military action is not a human rights protection mission. It is a violation of international law and a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent nation of Ukraine, and a breach of Russia’s Helsinki Commitments and its UN obligations.

"The United States has been trying to pry Ukraine away from a close relationship with Russia. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said in December to a group of business leaders that the US invested $5 billion in helping Ukraine achieve its European aspirations...So obviously the US has played a role in trying to achieve this anti-democratic transition."

We have, in the case of Ukraine, a democratically elected leader in Yanukovych who was overthrown by a coup d'état that was spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias after he'd agreed to move up the elections so people could even vote him out of office if they wished. That led to his being forced to flee and a sort of rump parliament begin to pass a bunch of laws while some of these neo-Nazi militias control the government buildings.

So I think how you look at this depends on whether you consider President Yanukovych still a legitimate leader, elected leader of the country. He has asked for Russian help. And the situation with Ukraine is a bit complicated in that Crimea was historically part of Russia. It was only moved into Ukraine as part of a procedural matter when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.

So it's a much more mixed situation, I suppose, than, say, the U.S. invading Iraq back in 2003, which was more clearly a violation of international law. But I suppose legal scholars could give you different opinions about it.

First of all, Bush talked like a southerner, therefore he is a true patriot. Regardless of the substance of his claim, he's lookin out for 'Merica through the strength of God as defined by his narrow interpretation of the bible. Also, God, Guns and Liberty and all that horseshit.

Secondly, ain't no terrrists gonna take the beautiful state of Georgia! Southerners unite!

"If you were the US President how do you respond?"

1. reinstate the draft.

2. my selective service dept would be very selective. I'd draft huge amounts of poor people. I'd virtually clean out the ghettos, trailer parks, jails, prisons, and Appalachians.

3. I'd dump those new soldiers off in Russia/Ukraine let them them go crazy.

It's a win-win either way for me.

If that was your entire platform and you responded to every single question just by repeating what you said here, I'd vote for you, no question.

Typical liberal response. Mention Bush.

Can you lib's answer any question about your God, Obama, and not mention Bush?

Face it, he's an abject failure.

Bill Clinton got Ukraine to dismantle its nukes and gut its military and Obama reaffirmed this in 2009. That is why Ukraine is in this situation!!! Liberals!

I think you mean 'libs' and lower case 'g'od, because you are referring to a god not named God.