Featured Will Obama Risk War with Putin?

The question is a joke, right, RD2? Obama wouldn't risk war with Luxembourg, much less Russia. Putin can have whatever he wants, and the Little Marxist Dictator will be right there alongside, licking his boots and saying, "What can Ah do fo' you now, Massa?"

 

Saber rattling ....nothing more. Putin has control.:BangHead:

 

Naaa national security is not on his radar. It would take funds away from his support of the unions and is domestic marxist agenda.

 

I don't believe there is a good answer. This Presidet is unstable. He is like the guy that jumped on his horse and road off in all directions. I do think he can be prodded into a major war even against his own desires, but he also has a track record of backing down. So who knows?

 

Obama wants a war big time.

 

Wouldn't put it past him to get his numbers up for posterity.

 

The neocons want war with Russia. Always have.

Obama just wants to hold out till he can draw his pension and go on the speaking circuit.

 

Chuck Hagel has promised to field a hollow army. Obama has said that there will be costs, but I imagine that the Chinese will lend the Russians any money. Obama is in a position to be more flexible since he won the election of 2012. He sent a gay athlete to the Olympics to show that we mean business with Russia.

Unfortunately, Putin is now the world leader and Russia is in resurgence as it re-assembles the pieces of the old Soviet Union. Sarah Palin, who predicted Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, tweeted that she could see this invasion from her home in Alaska.

Ukraine has a long history of outside rule and once again the people of the Ukraine are falling under the iron fist of Russia while Europe is too weak to stand up and Uncle Sam, also very weak, has stood up and turned his back.

 

Who here is in favour of sending young Americans to die on the Crimean peninsula?

Who is willing to go or send your children?

 

There is no need to send troops, bombers, ships or drones. There are other ways. George Bush made two phone calls and sent a pair of frigates to the Black Sea in 2009, as allowed under a 1936 treaty. Soon thereafter, Russia left the disputed provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Little Marxist Dictator has no clue how to do something like that, much less the desire to actually do it.

 

I think the presidents advisers know they are stuck. He has yet to show the will to respond in a meaningful manner. President Bush, whether one likes all he did or not, had proven that he would act. I suspect Russia would call President Obama's bluff and he would be forced to more than send a frigate or two.

This is a serious issue - and a bit scary. If the US acts she must be willing to go all the way.

The question in the OP is valid - is President Obama willing to risk war? That risk would involve a risk to send troops.

Are any of us willing to risk sending our children to die in Crimea?

 

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are puppet states completely controlled by Moscow. The majority of the people there are Russians who were moved there in the past. But they are not independent in any meaningful sense of the word. Bush did nothing meaningful. And the Ukraine is much more important to Moscow. It is a totally different ball game.

There are no meaningful choices in the choices in the OP. All are negative.

What, beside going to war, do you suggest the US or Europe do in this situation. Russia controls all the natural gas and oil that a number of European countries need for heat and electrical production. If Moscow turns off the valves a whole lot of people are going to be very cold ... no heat, no electricity. Russia has done this before to countries that made them mad, like the situation in the Ukraine in 2004-5 and again in 2009 as well as to Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia.

 

Gee Crabby, I forgot about the gas and oil bit. Thanks for adding to the anxiety

 

George Bush said the same things Obama is saying, "this action is unacceptable", "the sovereignty of this country must not be attacked", blah, blah, blah. Bush sent humanitarian aid on naval vessels instead of civilian ships. Russia pulling out of these areas had little to do with George Bush. Instead Russia achieved their goals and decided to leave on their own. BTW, there are still Russian troops there and it is in Russian control, no matter that the United Nations thinks otherwise.

As to the OP, Obama will appeal to the United Nations to send observers into the area to gather intel, he will make some largely symbolic moves, such as pulling out of a G8 conferences scheduled in Sochi, and he will try to talk a tough game. But ultimately, he will defer to the Europeans to tackle the problem. And no, we won't be going to war over Ukraine.

 

Not I. We've sent enough young Americans to die in the Middle East over the past decade already.

 

If GWB's action against Russia was so benign, how is that the Georgian people decided to name the airport at Tbilisi "George W. Bush International Airport" and consider him the savior of their country?

 

There is a road leading to Tbilsi International Airport renamed George W. Bush Highway after Bush visited there in 2005, years before the Russians invaded. They don't consider him the savior of the country and the airport isn't named for him.

 

:BangHead:Correct me if I"m wrong, but are'nt we a major exporter of natural gas. And we could easily cut into Russias profit margin, (and influence) by increasing our exports through the process of fracking. It would just require a quick assessment from the EPA and.....um....oh.....never mind.