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

The USSR failed because they ran out of money, and the US is outspending them something like 20-1. US GDP is 7-8 times Russia's. Russia can't go down that path again, because they go bankrupt again, and they will lose not just to the US but the Chinese.

It's a big difference today form the days when NATO worried about the USSR sending 25,000 takes through the gap. Russia doesn't have 25,000 tanks. Today, a conventional conflict between the USA and Russia wouldn't even be a fair fight. The US has twice as many men in uniform. Russia still has more tanks, but the US has FIVE TIMES as many airplanes and a larger Navy.

The EU and the US are already beginning to replace the aid to Ukraine that Russia was providing. The US SHOULD be planning to replace some or all of the energy Russia was selling to portions of Europe.

As I said above, I wouldn't want to play this particular Russian in chess. Too easy.

Today, it wouldn't matter if Russia had 100,000 tanks, 100 Aircraft Carriers, and 5,000 naval ships. The US has tank killer missiles that would knock them all out as we saw in Iraq. The entire Russian Navy can be wiped out in a week with US Navy cruise missiles and US Air Force hypersonic missiles launched from the U.S. Mid-West. The fact is, tanks and ships are obsolete today.

North Korea an China are stupid for building out tanks, aircraft carriers, and million man armies. Japan can orbit particle beam and high energy laser beam weapons that can wipe them all out in a matter of days. Any remaining NK and PRC forces can be knocked out by Japan Navy and Air Force beam weapons. But because of the Non-Profileration Treaty, orbiting weapons are sitting on the ground in Japan ready to be launched if the threat arises.

However, China and Russia have ICBMs. Only one 20 megaton ground burst would create the Nuclear Midnight ending the human race. That's the threat that the West has to take seriously. The West cannot provoke a nuclear response.

In my humble opinion, the greatest threat to the peace, freedom, security and well-being of the average American citizen, rest from the activities of its own government and security agencies. For instance - the DHS didn’t order billions of dum-dum bullets to shoot against the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.

Joe Binks wrote:

In my humble opinion, the greatest threat to the peace, freedom, security and well-being of the average American citizen, rest from the activities of its own government and security agencies. For instance - the DHS didn’t order billions of dum-dum bullets to shoot against the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.

You reveal your true self as another conspiracy theory wacko.

Joe, instead of 'humble' you should say 'factless' or perhaps 'intentionally misleading'

Anyway

Anyone else shocked at the republican assault on Obama during this overseas crisis? They are calling him weak and equivocating and saying he is just bluffing.

That is outrageous - this is just a political game to them. They are practically cheering for Putin to win this.

Even if what they are saying is true, you don't do it right in the middle of the crisis - it's almost treasonous.

Wait til the election.

ruggiero wrote:

Oh Ya wrote:

Well what can we really say? What Russia has done is something that we the United States has done and always does. Here we are coming out of 2 wars! and now we want to cry about Russia going into it's old territory? where everyone speaks Russian for the most part? We invaded Iraq under false pretenses and now we have old nutcases like Sen McCain crying? That guy needs to retire and just go away in retirement. It is not our problem to solve, and it should work it's way out with or without us.

I basically agree, but don't forget the UN said violence was ok if necessary to disarm saddam.

Russia doesn't have that permission from the UN of course.

And that difference is absolutely crucial. I'm not here to defend Bush's wars, either on moral or policy grounds, but both were legal under accepted norms of international law. (There's a non-crazy case to be made that the second Gulf War was illegal, but I'm an international law realist: When something that a powerful nation does is arguably legal, it's actually legal, because there is no authoritative interpreter of international law to tell them that they're wrong.) Afghanistan acknowledged harboring terrorists who had attacked the United States and our forces abroad, and Iraq had annexed a neighboring country and was in violation of UN Security Resolutions. (To be clear, there was no explicit authorization for the 2003 invasion. Rather, the justification was drawn from the resolution that authorized the first Gulf War, combined with the fact that Iraq was blatantly violating other resolutions which were, in effect, conditions on the cessation of hostilities in 1991.)

The reason that the international norm regarding the inviolability of borders is so important is because it contributes tremendously to reducing human suffering, and it's just about the only rule of international law that's generally respected. When a country disregards the rule, even for ostensibly reasonable reasons, it undermines the the stability of ALL borders. The international law principle of self-determination, by contrast, is very weak.

The fact that a bare majority of people in a region would rather be independent or part of another country is rightly considered irrelevant for purposes of international law.

It isn't until you see serious rights abuses that the principle of self-determination comes into play for purposes of international law. And with good reason: The amount of instability and bloodshed that would likely result from a principle that an majority could secede from a larger polity at will would be disastrous for peace and the international order.

[quote]agip wrote:

Joe, instead of 'humble' you should say 'factless' or perhaps 'intentionally misleading'

Anyway

Anyone else shocked at the republican assault on Obama during this overseas crisis? They are calling him weak and equivocating and saying he is just bluffing.

That is outrageous - this is just a political game to them. They are practically cheering for Putin to win this.

Even if what they are saying is true, you don't do it right in the middle of the crisis - it's almost treasonous.

What's treasonous is supporting a foreign nation over our own which is the prime mission of AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby.

K5 wrote:

What's treasonous is supporting a foreign nation over our own which is the prime mission of AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby.

False.

agip wrote:

Joe, instead of 'humble' you should say 'factless' or perhaps 'intentionally misleading'

Anyway

Anyone else shocked at the republican assault on Obama during this overseas crisis? They are calling him weak and equivocating and saying he is just bluffing.

That is outrageous - this is just a political game to them. They are practically cheering for Putin to win this.

Even if what they are saying is true, you don't do it right in the middle of the crisis - it's almost treasonous.

Wait til the election.

Ummm, you ever hear about the Democrats when Bush was president? Harry Reid calling Bush a liar and a loser when he was on foreign soil meeting with Putin? Calling Bush a war criminal during the Iraq war? That's the reason they won the congressional elections in 2006, the constant criticism of Bush and the wars for political purposes. It was their political strategy.

No one here realizes how complicated that situation is. Many of the people support Russian control. Getting involved would be stupid and we should not try to enforce democracy ( seeing how well that is going in the Middle East). Putin will get crimea and the conflict will be over, Putin needs Ukraine's friendship because that Is where is pipelines are.

some truth to what you are saying, except it is apples to oranges - by the 4th year of a war of choice, when things are going really poorly, political pushback is normal and healthy.

In a short sharp crisis you don't undermine the negotiating position of a president.

And what prominent democrat called bush a war criminal?

Putin "pissin" Obama off. Cutting into his third vacation of the year!!!! How sad. I feel sorry for the Obama's.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/07/oh-no-obama-may-have-to-cut-third-vacation-this-year-short-because-of-ukraine/

Obamaism defeats Putinism. Putin blinked.

"Let’s add it up: Putin’s seizure of Crimea has weakened the Russian economy, led to China getting a bargain gas deal, revived NATO, spurred Europe to start ending its addiction to Russian gas and begun a debate across Europe about increasing defense spending. Nice work, Vladimir. That’s why I say the country Putin threatens most today is Russia."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/friedman-putin-blinked.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

The Russian have embedded 100k Spetznas Army special operations soldiers into Ukraine to disrupt the local government of Ukraine. By the end of the year expect Ukraine to have a new Moscow proxy regime in charge.

Here we go again wrote:

The Russian have embedded 100k Spetznas Army special operations soldiers into Ukraine to disrupt the local government of Ukraine. By the end of the year expect Ukraine to have a new Moscow proxy regime in charge.

Haha good one.

At this moment each major city in Ukraine has a regiment of Putin's extreme, elite, special forces operatives with insignia removed from uniforms. There's no chance in hell that the Ukrainan government can survive without a major NATO and US troop prescence.

Join the US Army wrote:

At this moment each major city in Ukraine has a regiment of Putin's extreme, elite, special forces operatives with insignia removed from uniforms. There's no chance in hell that the Ukrainan government can survive without a major NATO and US troop prescence.

False. Putin blinked and they all hightailed it out of there. Potato wodka.

mistaken identity wrote:

But what would Reagan do? I've heard this "Obama is weak" stuff from all conservatives and I'm willing to believe it but nobody has told me what a "strong president" would do. I hope you're not implying that a strong president should nuke Moscow?

Republicans are great at telling us what they WOULD do.

runn wrote:

mistaken identity wrote:

But what would Reagan do? I've heard this "Obama is weak" stuff from all conservatives and I'm willing to believe it but nobody has told me what a "strong president" would do. I hope you're not implying that a strong president should nuke Moscow?

Republicans are great at telling us what they WOULD do.

Exactly. Meanwhile Obama played Putin like a fiddle.