John Kerry: 'Russia Has Until Monday to Reverse Course in Ukraine"

reply to post by FlyersFan


You're wrong. When the US invaded Iraq on suspicion of WMD and terrorist-harboring, the then Russia reacted opposingly and scorned the US. China wasn't friendly towards our actions, either. The difference today is the US has real power, as it did then, whereas China and Russia do not wield the same weight. Russia cannot do what the US did without the serious threat of sanctions. Despite disagreements over the US entering Iraq in 2003 and some loss of influence, the US still holds the bulk of the influence in the international arena.

And, moreso, this is not EXACTLY the same as Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the case of the Crimea, it looks like Russia is exploiting this to increase its ownership. Iraq is different in some respects because the US doesn't OWN it. The US - in effect - only "owns" Iraq if Iraq has WMD or harbors terrorists. Yet even in war the US doesn't "own" Iraq in the same way Russia might own the Crimea.

Russia does not have benefit of the doubt; neither did Gaddafi or Saddam. US also has the economic and military power. It also has a better human rights record and is more likely to be viewed as modern and tolerant.

Russia is being stupid. It doesn't have the moral or economic or military highground and so cannot mirror the actions of the US with impunity.

jonnywhite
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

You're wrong. When the US invaded Iraq on suspicion of WMD and terrorist-harboring, the then Russia reacted opposingly and scorned the US. China wasn't friendly towards our actions, either. The difference today is the US has real power, as it did then, whereas China and Russia do not wield the same weight. Russia cannot do what the US did without the serious threat of sanctions. Despite disagreements over the US entering Iraq in 2003 and some loss of influence, the US still holds the bulk of the influence in the international arena.

Russia does not have benefit of the doubt, neither did Gaddafi or Saddam. US also has the economic and military power. It also has more human rights.

edit on 15-3-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

No, the real power of the US ... was money.

It's gone ... and what EU has, as reward for supporting the US in it's endeaveurs ... is majestic unemployment, that brinks on world disaster.

A war with Russia, will hurt you much more than it will hurt Russia. Russia is already half communistic, a small push and they'll pull up the iron curtain again. But the US, will lose another round of several trillions of dollars ... it doesn't have.

So, to save face ... and leave your creditors happy, you'll give more technology to China ... which they will use later, to kill you with. In revenge for all the Chinese you murdered centuries ago. And you'll send more jobs to Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam ... leaving the US with more slums.

Yeah, rattling your chains and threatening with a war ... when you're already dead broke ... is a really smart move.

Intelligent move.

Take out big willie and swing it around ... show whose boss around here. Break arms, and bust balls ... make sure nobody does business on your turf. After all ... you're THE DON ... THE MAN ... THE DUDE.

You know about the so called, read phone in the oval office ... when there's a crisis, and mr. Obama bin Ladin takes it up ... is there an answer on the other end?

Nobody cares about that red phone anymore ... you lost your credit ... and in the future, we'll care even less.

The US is not a super power anymore ... it's just a dying empire.

bjarneorn


No, the real power of the US ... was money.

It's gone ... and what EU has, as reward for supporting the US in it's endeaveurs ... is majestic unemployment, that brinks on world disaster.

This is a silly thing to say. The money isn't gone. We still have an annual budget, and an economy that is actually growing (and growing much faster than countries like Russia). GDP growth in the US last year was 2.5%. This year its due to be 2.7%, and next year GDP growth in the US is expected to be 3.!%.

Russia on the other hand is barely growing. Last year GDP growth in Russia was 1.2%. This year, it was expected to grow at 1% before it's excursion into Crimea...if the West goes through and sanctions Russia, Russia just might be in for a recession...

A war with Russia, will hurt you much more than it will hurt Russia. Russia is already half communistic, a small push and they'll pull up the iron curtain again. But the US, will lose another round of several trillions of dollars ... it doesn't have.

A war with the US would result in Russia losing its conventional capabilities to defend itself. The US would defeat Russia in a military campaign. Russia knows this. In truth they don't have a military designed to go up against a force like Americas. They lack the logistical support and overall force stamina. Not to mention the qualitative edge that has always favored the Americans.

What we have seen in Russian War games is that they have not been afraid to go nuclear after their conventional forces are wiped out. So, there is always that concern... : Russia knows that a war against the US is not winnable. That is why they are not afraid to go the nuclear route. Hell, even the Chinese admit that they do not have the capacity militarily to take on a force like Americas...You don't spend an annual $600 billion a year for the past decade and not have a HUGE military advantage over everyone else. The Americans have already pumped trillions worth into their defense apparatuses.

So, to save face ... and leave your creditors happy, you'll give more technology to China ... which they will use later, to kill you with. In revenge for all the Chinese you murdered centuries ago. And you'll send more jobs to Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam ... leaving the US with more slums.

This is so far off base that it'd actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. I guess my question is...did you burn an American flag before or after you made this post?

The US is not a super power anymore ... it's just a dying empire.

The US isn't? Then who is? Russia? Their nominal GDP is smaller than Californias...Plus, their Military budget is roughly the size of the R&D budget that is allocated for the US military. The black budget in the US is rumored to be anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion.

I guess what I'm asking is how isn't the US a superpower? It still equates to 25% of the worlds GDP nominal. This is 1/4th of the worlds entire GDP tied up in a single country. China is second with about 12% of world GDP nominal...the US is twice the size of China...is China a superpower? lol I don't think so. But I'd be interested in what you have to say...

reply to post by rock427


do i have to remind you to check the debtclock .. rusia debt is pretty low vs us ...

Dolby_X
reply to post by rock427

 

do i have to remind you to check the debtclock .. rusia debt is pretty low vs us ...

edit on 15-3-2014 by Dolby_X because: (no reason given)

This is a rather rudimentary argument. Are you srsly suggesting that Russia is in better shape than the US? I don't think you understand enough to have that kind of opinion. But I'll give you a second chance to better explain your argument.

reply to post by rock427


well you are saying the good old murica is over every one but if oyu check debt vs gdp it pretty low in the top
and yes debtwise Russia is in a better shape

Dolby_X
reply to post by rock427

 

well you are saying the good old murica is over every one but if oyu check debt vs gdp it pretty low in the top

and yes debtwise Russia is in a better shape

edit on 15-3-2014 by Dolby_X because: (no reason given)

I don't think you truly understand enough about the debt or economics to have a valid opinion on any of this. As for Russia, they hide their debt better.

www.forbes.com...

And economically, Russia is most certainly not better.

If Russia goes through with this they'll lose more in the long run. Even if they succeed and can pull Crimea away from the Ukraine, it won't be worth it. In the longer run, they'll lose favor from everyone.

I just read up some on the ex-president of the Ukraine. He started all of this. Signed a treaty or something 2010 to set up better relations with Russia. Keep in mind Crimea and the regions in the southeast Ukraine are more pro-russian. So Russia did have the right to send troops in a limited fashion to Crimea. HOWEVER, the the former president is not president anymore, so whatever laws or treaties he put into place are now on shaky ground. It's clear broader Ukraine doesn't want Russia in Crimea now. Russia is using the pro-russian support in the south-eastern regions of Ukraine as excuse to ignore international concerns and to trample the sovereign rights of Ukraine. They're propping up the extradited ex-president, even though the Ukraine has sent out a warrant for his arrest: for the killing of civilians during hte protests and potentially other wrongdoing. And why? The protests were a response to his abandoning support of the European Union, in favor of Russia. The protests grew in severity when the former president enacted strong anti-protest laws in (I think) January this year. He was later impeached by parliament in February this year and extradited to Russia, where he now uses their media as a mouthpiece. Russia casts him as a legitimate leader overthrown by a western-backed coup. None of this is substantiated and is not reason to invade Crimea.

Note that the wester and central parts of Ukraine tend to support the European Union and western-ideals, whereas the east and south are more pro-Russian. To some extent, this is like a civil war. However, this division has decreased over the years. Either way, Russia should respect the sovereign rights of Ukraine and not interfere. If we receive news a sizeable contingent of pro-russian protestors are being shot and killed by Ukraine police, maybe Russia has an argument.

One last thing... 328 of 447 parliament members voted to impeach the former president of Ukraine. If that's not a strong agreement and a strong message opposed to the formerly pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych then what's?

All this........yip-yip yap-yap........is fine but if NATO gets any further involved with Russia in the form of war

a) War where nukes are used.....................the world ends

b) War without nukes, which is prolonged, like for years.................the NATO alliance WILL ceases to exist.

The post war scenario will be a fertile ground for all sorts of evilness that has been in wraps for last 60+ years.


NATO is trying to get "unnecessarily" close to Russia. Better to pull back and focus on own backyard and internal issues.

Russia alone is weak but with Chinese money and Arab support, it can drag NATO to very serious a mauling. All the mess to cater the "Evil Ego" of people like Neocons, Kerrys, Clintons and other NWO schemers.

reply to post by jonnywhite

HOWEVER, the the former president is not president anymore, so whatever laws or treaties he put into place are now on shaky ground.

Oh I See! so the President goes away, retired or out of power................does that mean all his signatures evaporate into thin air?

That's Plain Idiotic !

Won't you agree ??

reply to post by victor7


NATO will not go to (overt) war over Crimea. They will just steal Russia's money and deny components for Russia's industry and military.

Russia will have to depend on China and other Asian countries for survival. Can it do it?

Till now, all post USSR republics were mostly looking West. It hasn't worked well for many. Some smaller ones benefited by involvement in war against Russia. Ukraine got no benefit as it is too big.

Ukrainians do not realize that the pot of gold they are after (European integration) simply does not exist. Anglo Saxons will never trust a Russian - does not matter whether from Russia or Ukraine.

Russians are trapped between two worlds - Europe and Asia. Russians lean towards Europe but their roots are in Asia. This is the problem. They need to go back to the roots.

reply to post by GargIndia


How can they steal Russia's money? Those funds deposited in the Cyprus or British banks?

Would London be able to withstand a tactical nuke smuggled in by an angry Russian Oligarch ?

Creating problems and civil wars in another country is good for Sunday afternoon post lunch get togethers..............but when those issues hit the hometown, then best of the friends start to confess and point fingers..............in the right direction !!

So you realize that Kerry is dealing with the fallout of George H-W. Bush? In 1992 the Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for protection by the US and its allies. We were concerned with them being stolen, so George Bush supported the arrangement where we became responsible should they ever be invaded.

Its not being discussed much in the media, but we signed a treaty that committed us to their protection. It wasn't Obama or Kerry who signed the treaty, but they're bound by it.

I am not sure why America wants to move Ukraine into the EU. Crimea used to be part of Russia and was given to Ukraine in 1950's. Most of the population is Russian.

I think America should let things go naturally as in the Keiv part go EU and Crimea back to Russia.

Certainly the US would win a war against Russian although it would be no "cake walk" like Iraq. The problem is that if America bashes Russia to hard militarily I am 100% sure that Russian would push the button as it would have nothing to lose. I am sure russia would lob one over to the UK as the UK always enjoys shoving one up russias ass as much as drinking tea.

I am not sure why America isn't support a democratic vote which is happening tonight and let the people decide. Russian said it would stand by the decision.

Well if Kerry get's his way and America intervenes they'll have to go it alone because if Putin stops gas supplies to Europe the European economy will tank over night, we do get gas from other sources but the main bulk comes from Russia.
It would be foolish for any european nation to intervene and Putin knows it plus can America really afford another war?

okachobi
So you realize that Kerry is dealing with the fallout of George H-W. Bush? In 1992 the Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for protection by the US and its allies. We were concerned with them being stolen, so George Bush supported the arrangement where we became responsible should they ever be invaded.

Its not being discussed much in the media, but we signed a treaty that committed us to their protection. It wasn't Obama or Kerry who signed the treaty, but they're bound by it.

en.wikipedia.org...

This from wikipedia...............

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention.[2][8] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[7] In the U.S. neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, nor did they believe the U.S. Senate would ratify an international treaty, so the memorandum was agreed as a political agreement.

In summary: US or UK have no compulsion to provide military help.

Ukraine also has 1997 Charter with NATO, but no military guarantees.

1997-2001.state.gov...

The Charter provides for development of a crisis consultation mechanism and for consultation whenever Ukraine perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence or security and "welcomes and supports the fact that Ukraine received security assurances from all five nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT." However, only NATO members are entitled to Article V security guarantees under the Washington Treaty.

Reinmax

I am not sure why America isn't support a democratic vote which is happening tonight and let the people decide. Russian said it would stand by the decision.

So if i follow this line the only way we can avoid an all out war is if the Crimean people vote using Diebold electronic voting machines

the vote is going to come back in favor of succession. It'll be more rigged than the bush reelection . i have a feeling there will be a civil war. i have no proof for this, its just a gut feeling.

Why rig a vote you are going to win anyway? All media outlet say Crimea will vote to join Russia because the population want to join Russia. It helps when Ethnic Russians form a clear majority in the region (58.5%), and many of them are expected to vote for joining Russia.

It also helps that Crimean Tatars are boycotting the vote.

Why rig a vote you are going to win?

www.bbc.com...

victor7

All this........yip-yip yap-yap........is fine but if NATO gets any further involved with Russia in the form of war

a) War where nukes are used.....................the world ends

b) War without nukes, which is prolonged, like for years.................the NATO alliance WILL ceases to exist.

The post war scenario will be a fertile ground for all sorts of evilness that has been in wraps for last 60+ years.


NATO is trying to get "unnecessarily" close to Russia. Better to pull back and focus on own backyard and internal issues.

Russia alone is weak but with Chinese money and Arab support, it can drag NATO to very serious a mauling. All the mess to cater the "Evil Ego" of people like Neocons, Kerrys, Clintons and other NWO schemers.

Its hard to tell if you people are being serious...What Chinese money? China going to fund Russia to fight its two largest trading partners in the US and EU? BAHAHAHAHA!!!! You people are delusional...

And Russia stands no chance against the US..let alone NATO.

NATO GDP: $38 trillion

NATO Population: 900 million

NATO Defense budget (combined national budgets) $1.2 trillion

There simply is nothing that could save the Russians if NATO really wanted to war with it. It certainly won't be the Chinese who do not have much of a leg to stand on at the moment. They're embroiled in an economic crisis that has just begun, and that will make Japans 1990's crash pale in comparison.

If NATO and the US wanted to destroy Russias conventional forces, they would do so with relative ease. It wouldn't be a long drawn out conflict. They would essentially own the skies, and Russias forces would be sitting ducks. Their already small underfunded navy would be a new artificial reef, and their columns of tanks and artillery would resemble that which was witnessed in Baghdads highway of hell back in the first gulf war.

Their airforce would be obliterated as F22's, F15Cs, Eurofighters, etc own the sky. Russia would essentially face continual conventional bombardments from B1 Lancers, B2 stealth bombers, and B52's that would pound Russia into submission. There literally is nothing Russia can do short of launching nukes as a last resort. This is why the two sides will never go to war...now maybe a short military exchange followed by an abrupt ceasefire. But lets not pretend that Russia is at all on equal footing with the US and NATO. It would not be a fair fight for the Russians.

This post isn't about "Merica RAH RAH RAH" but it is the reality of the situation. The Russians have made clear during their war games which have been leaked; the second their forces are destroyed, they go nuclear. Besides that, there really isn't much for the US and NATO to gain by going to war with Russia. During the Soviet years, destroying a mortal enemy in the USSR would have been something to justify a war. But a peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union was the desired outcome. The same will also likely happen to the modern day Russian Federation. Russia really is too big as a country, and in reality probably should, and eventually will, break up into several different countries.