President Obama: Appeaser-in-Chief

[Jayjay]

http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/brief-met-excuses-aan-president-putin/ <- quoting the dutch version of the site:

"Opmerking: Deze brief is NIET door Professor Cees Hamelink geschreven noch tot op heden door hem ondertekend! Deze brief is vele malen gecopieerd op andere websites die geen toestemming hebben gevraagd. Velen daarvan hebben professor Cees Hamelink als schrijver neergezet. Wij hebben hier geen verantwoordelijkheid voor en nemen daar afstand van."

translation:

"Note: This letter was NOT written by Professor Cees Hamelink,

You need to quote Professor Hamelink denying it. Which...strangely you have refused to do. But it is reavealing that you accept that to allow yourself to keep up your slavish views.

Why should Professor Hamelink deny it, if he had nothing to do with writing it and as far as we know might not even know it exists? Just because someone falsely attributes some bullshit to his name on the internet doesn't mean he has to take note. If you are so convinced, why don't you get a positive confirmation that he did write it?

Oh, and Vladimir Putin just wrote me a letter saying that you stink. You better believe it, unless you can show me a quote from Putin that he didn't!

 

[dystopian]

You need to quote Professor Hamelink denying it. Which...strangely you have refused to do. But it is reavealing that you accept that to allow yourself to keep up your slavish views.

Why should Professor Hamelink deny it, if he had nothing to do with writing it and as far as we know might not even know it exists? Just because someone falsely attributes some bullshit to his name on the internet doesn't mean he has to take note. If you are so convinced, why don't you get a positive confirmation that he did write it?

Oh, and Vladimir Putin just wrote me a letter saying that you stink. You better believe it, unless you can show me a quote from Putin that he didn't!

It all falls into the by now well established pattern of shifting the goalposts that the pro-russianites on the forum engage in whenever it comes to the issue of Russia/Ukraine. 1) Claim a Dutch professor wrote a letter of apology to Putin, signed by many Dutch intellectuals. 2) When someone points out that the letter was written by someone else entirely and not signed by these supposed intellectuals, switch to asking for a source in order to try and sow the seeds of doubt. 3) When the source is produced, ignore it and demand a quote from the professor denying it himself; which was a standard of evidence not required for him to believe the professor wrote it in the first place. 3) If I'd go to the trouble of finding a direct quote from the professor, call it into question somehow, or just outright ignore it. 4) Wait a while for the heat to die down, then; perhaps in another thread, the same one if he's feeling bold; reference the letter again in order to again prop up the idea that Russia is a victim. 5) Rinse and repeat; this same basic pattern emerges on any pro-russian or anti-west/kiev claim.

Btw, if one does't believe he didn't write it without him directly telling you, then why on earth would you believe he wrote it *without* him telling you? Especially when we have the original authors telling us that the professor had nothing whatsoever to do with it? Having the original authors tell us this, and then demanding a direct quote from the professor before you'll believe it is like believing crop circles are ufo landing sites because even though people have admitted to faking them, you won't believe it unless the aliens themselves deny their involvement.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/w...russia-ukraine-moves-brazen-assault.html?_r=0

“The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday, invoking the founding principle of collective defense that undergirds NATO. “An attack on one is an attack on all, and so if, in such a moment, you ever ask again, ‘Who’ll come to help?’ you’ll know the answer: the NATO alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America.

max must be on vacation or I'm sure he would have posted this along with some articles from newsmax or wherever about how Obama is being weak and wrong.

I knew KSEN would miss me.

More empty threats and cynical reassurances from our President? That is not appeasement, its an embarrassment. Most of us recall Obama's attempts at 'jaw-boning' of Putin, lecturing him that he is not "on the side of history" and how his expansionism in the Ukraine was so 18th century. Putin laughed, ignored, annexed, and expanded his efforts.

To date Obama has not had the will to face Russia, nor a serious strategy to help the Ukraine. First consider what he could have done:

1) Put Polish missiles back on the table.
2) Threaten and/or began overt or covert substantive lethal aid to the Ukraine.
3) Stationed sizable tripwire forces in the Baltics at the outset.
4) Imposed far more serious sanctions at the outset.
5) Start the "modernizing" of Ukrainian military five months ago, BEFORE Putin occupied portions of the Ukraine.

While it is uncertain if these measures could have deterred Putin, there is NO doubt that Obama's actions did little to help the Ukraine and, in fact, helped Putin.

Consider what he did :

His initial languid response was to threat to cancel the VISA credit cards of Putin crony's, and to make it difficult for them to get their personal loans for a penthouse in Abu Dahbi - which, I am sure to Obama's shock, failed to deter Putin from annexing Crimea to Russia. Then, undeterred, Putin started his insurgent war in the eastern Ukraine, at first supplying only light arms.

Obama, in response, announced more anemic sanctions and almost an insulting level of a few million dollars in aid - cravenly assuring Putin that there would be no 'lethal' help to the Ukraine. Putin, noting Obama's childish insouciance , responded with man portable AA rockets, then tanks, then grad rocket launchers and finally full-sized AA SA systems...followed by providing Russian artillery fire into the Ukraine.

By late July, each of Obama's four attempts to deter Putin with more sanctions had failed. Why? Partly because his sanctions were so pathetic. The sanctions only ended up being imposed on the assets of 68 people, and two companies involved in the conflict. These token SANCTIONS did NOT target the Russian industry, trade, or investment sectors.

Only when the insurgents shot down Malaysian airliner MH-17 did it galvanize both Europe and 'lead from behind' Obama. On July 29 the EU agreed to broad and serious sanctions on Russian industry - sanctions that finally targeted key sectors of the Russian economy. Shortly afterwards Obama, in coordination with the EU, also targeted those sectors of the Russian economy. Even so THEY have failed to deter Putin.

But no thanks to Obama, a few weeks ago Putin was finally facing an unexpected event that he did take seriously; the Ukrainian military had been, since May, been improving. They took back half the rebel territory, clearing many villages in numerous battles. They had the rebels confined to two pockets, and threatened the destruction of Putin's proxys. So Putin ignored the threat of more sanctions and resolved the problem by invasion, rolling back all of Ukraine's gains and seizing new territory on a 3rd front - taunting Obama that he could be in Kiev in two weeks.

So here we are: Crimea is gone, so is some or all of eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian leadership has put on a game face but they know that Obama is feckless and indifferent to their fate, and that no substantive help will come from the US or NATO in the near term, if ever. So they are hoping for a ceasefire to halt Putin's advance and are now willing to give up more of their country. The only question is how much does Putin want?

In other words, Obama's "strategy" has not deterred Putin, it has delivered Russia its Sudetenland, much to his apparent satisfaction. One wonders, is he now going to wave his sanction papers as providing peace in our time?

We shall see.

 

[J842P]

Incidentally, if you think *I* of all people have a "penchant for supporting America at every opportunity", I can but laugh at how mistaken you are. I rather frequently criticize US foreign policy and aspects of its culture on this forum, as many people can attest; I just do so in a balanced fashion. The only reason you want to be able to dismiss me as someone who just blindly supports America at every opportunity, is because right now I happen to hold a position which you perceive to be driven by the US; when I couldn't care less whether or not the US agrees with me. I'd hold my position regardless of whatever they think about it.

It's thief's modus operandi. In GMO threads he does the same thing. He is clearly not qualified to even understand, let alone debate, the subject matter, but that doesn't stop him. He'll just accuse anyone who disagrees with him of "repeating Monsanto propaganda" and rejects any sources that disagree with him as "being in the pockets of Monsanto," even if they are international scientific societies. The ironic part, as he demonstrated here, is that he is the first to use flagrantly biased and dubious sources.

I could only laugh when he accused you, of all people, as having a "penchant for obsequiously supporting America at every opportunity."

 

[dystopian]

I could only laugh when he accused you, of all people, as having a "penchant for obsequiously supporting America at every opportunity."

I like to think that I criticize America when it's deserving of criticism, and defend it when it's deserving of such. Obviously one can disagree about when it's 'deserving' of either of those; but to state that I swing completely to either the extreme of defending it at every turn, or criticizing it at every turn, requires a hyper-selective reading of the evidence... which unsurprisingly seems to happen with all the evidence on any subject when it comes to certain people. I'm sure that on a less skepticism oriented website, dismissing your opponent as blindly following or attacking [x] might inspire some real doubt in lurkers as to the validity of anything those people say, but it's a poor tactic to follow here, I think.

Of course, this does leave me in the unenviable position of having to either address all the misinformation/arguments these people make over and over...

...or dismiss them as blindly parroting russian propaganda, and be done with them even though that might make my above statements ironic. Sigh.

 

[barbos]

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html
"impeachment" was illegal and they did not have enough votes to impeach him anyway.
So there was no impeachment.
Also if it was US, all these protesters with molotov cocktails would have been shot dead on the spot.
The ones who survived would have got lengthy sentences.

 

[dystopian]

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html
"impeachment" was illegal and they did not have enough votes to impeach him anyway.
So there was no impeachment.
Also if it was US, all these protesters with molotov cocktails would have been shot dead on the spot.
The ones who survived would have got lengthy sentences.

We've been over this before. Any claim Yanukovych has regarding the constitutionality of his removal is irrelevant as he fled the country rather than do his job. If you do a shit job as a manager of a company then flee when people start calling for your removal, you don't get to bitch that the people left managing the shitstorm you caused can't remove you because of the same rules you yourself decided to ignore. A sitting president isn't allowed to flee the country and not show up for work.

Incidentally, he was not impeached; that is an entirely separate procedure that does indeed require a few more votes than there were MP's present to vote; he was voted out of office because he was no longer able to fulfill his duties (you know, because he fled the country). This is NOT the same as impeachment, and is not covered by the same constitutional rules. In other words, your argument doesn't apply.

 

[untermensche]

What is NATO's involvement?

It made an explicit treaty commitment to Ukraine to defend it against it's more powerful neighbours if they gave up their nukes.

Link?

 

[barbos]

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html
"impeachment" was illegal and they did not have enough votes to impeach him anyway.
So there was no impeachment.
Also if it was US, all these protesters with molotov cocktails would have been shot dead on the spot.
The ones who survived would have got lengthy sentences.

We've been over this before. Any claim Yanukovych has regarding the constitutionality of his removal is irrelevant as he fled the country rather than do his job. If you do a shit job as a manager of a company then flee when people start calling for your removal, you don't get to bitch that the people left managing the shitstorm you caused can't remove you because of the same rules you yourself decided to ignore. A sitting president isn't allowed to flee the country and not show up for work.

Incidentally, he was not impeached; that is an entirely separate procedure that does indeed require a few more votes than there were MP's present to vote; he was voted out of office because he was no longer able to fulfill his duties (you know, because he fled the country). This is NOT the same as impeachment, and is not covered by the same constitutional rules. In other words, your argument doesn't apply.

I am glad you finally agree that there were no impeachment. I am looking forward to you not using word "impeachment"

 

[dystopian]

I am glad you finally agree that there were no impeachment. I am looking forward to you not using word "impeachment"

I'm glad you finally recognize that as a resolution instead of an impeachment, his removal from office was not bound by the three quarters majority rule required for impeaching a president. I look forward to you never again claiming that his removal from office was unconstitutional.

 

[barbos]

It WAS unconstitutional. Coups usually are.

 

[dystopian]

It WAS unconstitutional. Coups usually are.

You and your ilk keep saying this. But you keep being wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Ukrainian parliament passing a resolution to remove a president from office when that president clearly can not continue performing the function of said office because he fled the country. The only argument you have to claim that it wasn't constitutional is to argue that an impeachment requires a 3/4ths majority; however, since we established this was not an actual impeachment but rather a resolution to deal with exceptional circumstances, that argument does not apply. Welcome to the intricacies of governments and their laws, enjoy your stay.

All you're doing at this point is putting your fingers in your ears and crying foul, but you have no actual arguments left to claim the move was unconstitutional.

 

[arkirk]

What is NATO's involvement?

What NATO country is it defending?

Is this a serious question? The post you were responding to as "being a move toward war" mentions the importance of the Baltic states (members of NATO); which a number of EU NATO states (mine included) are currently creating a rapid reaction force for. These Baltic states are in a similar demographic position as the Ukraine and Georgia; having large numbers of Russian speaking citizens; and at every step of the way, Russia has justified its actions by saying they're protecting the interests of ethnic Russians. It makes perfect sense that the Baltic states (which again, are members of NATO) are wary of Russia for that reason alone (even ignoring Russia's past involvement with them).

So again, NATO isn't making moves toward war, it's shoring up its defenses against an aggressively expanding neighbor. The only one making moves toward war is Putin.

That answer is extremely naïve. I am no fan of Putin, but you had better remind yourself there was a recent coups in Kiev and the elected president was tossed. Things that occur in that region are essentially out of our view and it would be fair to say that a move into the area by NATO would be a serious threat to Russia. NATO is a war making machine. How many cases of NATO war making have you ever seen do anything but tear countries apart and create political vacuums that lead to protracted internal war.

It would also serve us well to understand that Ukraine was treated as a trading card by world leaders (including Russian ones) at the end of the last century without regard for whether or not it would be a viable nation. It is an artificial political construct consisting of peoples with disparate interests, languages and allegiances.. Today, I understand it is really about natural gas. To Putin, it has a similar geographical significance as Cuba has to the U.S. Western money bought the recent coups possibly over the natural gas, but this truly is playing with fire on the part of the West. One of the conditions that went along with this Soviet trading card was that it not ever become a part of NATO. As much as I dislike Putin's politics on energy and human rights, his position on Ukraine is completely understandable to me.

Western energy companies' interest in Ukrainian natural gas reserves should not blind them to the fact that this country will not be allowed to arm itself or serve as another threat to Russia. The best possible solution to this is perhaps some kind of partition of the Soviet trading card with eastern portions annexing back into Russia and western portions being independent and not a NATO member. That would be on the basis of what happens to the people of Ukraine. Environmentally, with the involvement of a frack crazy energy sector on both sides of the line, there doesn't appear to be any reasonable solution. It is a sad state of affairs as this country bears the scars of a major nuclear energy accident as well. Somehow we never seem allowed to learn. That is what happens when nations are ruled by energy oligarchs.

 

[Will Wiley]

So again, NATO isn't making moves toward war, it's shoring up its defenses against an aggressively expanding neighbor. The only one making moves toward war is Putin.

But Russia has not expanded. It is NATO that has been expanding for many years now.
Russia did not expand into Crimea even. They had naval leases there for another 25 years or so, and agreements to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea already in place.

Putin: NATO Enlargement Pushed Russia To Annex Crimea

When the infrastructure of a military bloc is moving toward our borders, it causes us some concerns and questions. We need to take some steps in response," Putin said in a televised call-in with the nation.

 

[dystopian]

That answer is extremely naïve. I am no fan of Putin, but you had better remind yourself there was a recent coups in Kiev and the elected president was tossed.

You had better pay more attention to the actual events; as calling it a coup is falling into Russian propaganda. The elected president *fled* the country when the people started up mass protests after he broke his promises and acted like a corrupt dictator. Parliament then passed a resolution to strip him of his office since having fled the country he could no longer carry out his duties. That is not a coup.

Things that occur in that region are essentially out of our view

Are they? This is the age of twitter. I've read extensive first-hand accounts from Ukrainians, opinions and thoughts unfiltered by either Russian or Western media. It's *not* out of view.

and it would be fair to say that a move into the area by NATO would be a serious threat to Russia. NATO is a war making machine.

Nonsense. NATO had been cooperating with Russia on matters of security, this was in fact their entire Russia strategy until Putin started breaking that relationship apart. NATO, especially in the context of big powers like Russia, is a defensive pact.

How many cases of NATO war making have you ever seen do anything but tear countries apart and create political vacuums that lead to protracted internal war.

None.

I have only ever seen it intervene in places where that's *already* happening. You can argue that it didn't *improve* the situation in those conflicts, that's debatable depending on which conflict in specific you're talking about. Not that there are many of those conflicts btw, we're talking a grand total of 3 conflicts NATO has been involved with: Yugoslavia, which was already fucked up when NATO intervened. Aghanistan, which was already fucked up when the NATO charter was invoked by the US. And Libya, which was already fucked up when NATO intervened.

It would also serve us well to understand that Ukraine was treated as a trading card by world leaders (including Russian ones) at the end of the last century without regard for whether or not it would be a viable nation. It is an artificial political construct consisting of peoples with disparate interests, languages and allegiances..

You mean like almost all countries on the planet? What does that have to do with *anything*? Does France or the Netherlands have the right to invade Belgium because *is* is an artificial political construct consisting of peoples with disparate interests, languages, and allegiances? Of course not.

One of the conditions that went along with this Soviet trading card was that it not ever become a part of NATO.

Incorrect. You are referring to an agreement between NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, in which Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for both parties guaranteeing its territorial integrity. Russia violated this agreement, therefore nullifying any terms regarding Ukraine's potential membership in NATO. The argument that it was NATO who first violated another agreement stating that we were never to expand eastwards holds no water, since such an agreement never actually existed; as I had previously explained to the pro-russians on the forum trotting that claim out.

The best possible solution to this is perhaps some kind of partition of the Soviet trading card with eastern portions annexing back into Russia and western portions being independent and not a NATO member.

Unacceptable. First off, it violates international law to run rampant over a country's territorial integrity like that. Second, it'd be rewarding Russia's bad behavior. It is irrelevant whether or not they feel threatened; feeling threatened is not an excuse to invade your neighbor. It does not justify any behavior. The fact is that neither NATO nor Ukraine did anything to Russia; nobody attacked Russia; nobody even indicated that they were thinking about it. Ukraine simply wanted to make a trade deal with the EU. Tell me, if me, you and another dude live in the same street together with you in the middle; and you and your other neighbor want to make a deal to say, carpool to work; does that mean I can then break into your house, punch you in the face, and claim your garage as my own? Because that's no different from what Russia is doing, except in terms of scale.

And don't forget, Russia has done this before, not long ago. It's part of an established pattern. You're suggesting we should appease Russia; but that hasn't worked with Russia before (or you know... certain other leaders/countries with disturbingly similar pre-war strategies). It is your answer that is extremely naive, not mine in which I rightly point out that Russia's behavior is part of a pattern, one which fits perfectly on the Baltic states, and that it makes perfect sense for us to prepare against the possibility of Russia starting shit with us as well. Preparing for the worst is never naive, while trying to appease expansionist dictators pretty much always is.

 

[dystopian]

But Russia has not expanded.

I'm sure Ukraine and Georgia are pleased by the sudden news that they didn't lose territory to Russia.

It is NATO that has been expanding for many years now.

A nonsensical comparison; NATO is not a country annexing territory the way Russia does. NATO is a political and military alliance that nations join of their own free volition.

Russia did not expand into Crimea even. They had naval leases there for another 25 years or so, and agreements to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea already in place.

Yes; but that agreement never allowed those 25.000 troops to block ports, lay minefields on the border, and occupy Ukrainian military bases and government buildings. That's why it's called an *invasion* even though they were allowed to have a base there. If the US suddenly moved its troops out of its based in Germany to occupy Berlin, that too would be called an invasion even though the Americans were already there.

Putin: NATO Enlargement Pushed Russia To Annex Crimea

When the infrastructure of a military bloc is moving toward our borders, it causes us some concerns and questions. We need to take some steps in response," Putin said in a televised call-in with the nation.

A sentiment which justifies nothing. NATO had been increasingly treating Russia as a partner, it certainly didn't treat it as an enemy anymore: A Russia that follows international law would have nothing to fear from a NATO expansion. But because Putin doesn't like the fact that the world is no longer half-ruled by Russia, he decides that a world in which Russia can't do whatever the hell it pleases isn't one worth living in. Like I explained to others; just because you feel threatened, doesn't mean you get to then invade your neighbors and steal their stuff. These sentiments may *explain* why he does what he does, but I can't believe that anyone could seriously think this reasoning is in any way morally justified.

 

[barbos]

It WAS unconstitutional. Coups usually are.

You and your ilk keep saying this. But you keep being wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Ukrainian parliament passing a resolution to remove a president from office when that president clearly can not continue performing the function of said office because he fled the country. The only argument you have to claim that it wasn't constitutional is to argue that an impeachment requires a 3/4ths majority; however, since we established this was not an actual impeachment but rather a resolution to deal with exceptional circumstances, that argument does not apply. Welcome to the intricacies of governments and their laws, enjoy your stay.

All you're doing at this point is putting your fingers in your ears and crying foul, but you have no actual arguments left to claim the move was unconstitutional.

You keep forgetting that armed neo-nazi mob was running around parliament

 

[Harry Bosch]

You keep forgetting that armed neo-nazi mob was running around parliament

Link please.

 

[thief of fire]

Like I explained to others; just because you feel threatened, doesn't mean you get to then invade your neighbors and steal their stuff. .

Unless you are a NATO country.

 

[Jayjay]

Like I explained to others; just because you feel threatened, doesn't mean you get to then invade your neighbors and steal their stuff. .

Unless you are a NATO country.

Which NATO countries are doing that exactly?