Gentlemen,
Hungry101...you seem to have a good general historical knowledge.
There's nothing wrong with Wiki as a start. Just don't trust it to be completely accurate.
Is it because the many liberal supporters of King Obama are finally waking up to his naivety and ignorance and finally are embarrassed by their choices ?
To put it plainly, I don't think you two care about the Ukraine at all. You're exploiting the crisis in the Ukraine to rehash ONE AGENDA...Blame Obama. You're hoping the situation will be as useful as possible for that agenda, and if people die or the world economy suffers it's just more fodder for that agenda. If you cared you would be focused on the causes and complications that are particular to the Ukraine, not beating the same old blame Obama drum as is your habit.
Frankly, I think that if a mouse fart in Mongolia reached the U.S. you'd both drool to seize the chance to blame Obama. :lol:
As a Moderate I'm personally discouraged with President Obama on some domestic issues, but not on foreign policy. I don't regret my choice because they've been rational, if not very effective.
Here is some of the real problem in the Ukraine:
Why Ukraine’s Crimea crisis is even more complicated than it appears
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/03/why-u...ven-more-complicated-than-it-appears-4391938/
1. Ukraine is so hopelessly divided its government has collapsed
Half of Ukraine wants to be protected by Russia, in both military and economic terms. The other half – mainly lured by the prosperity of the west – is attracted by the European Union.
Ukraine had been flirting with the EU but the decision of its president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn its back on Europe prompted uprisings which eventually toppled him.
Now a new government has taken over. It is weak and may not survive the current political turmoil; just look at what happened to Egypt’s first post-revolutionary government.
2. Crimea confusion
The Crimea – that bit of the Ukraine that sticks out into the Black Sea – has always been a bit of an oddity.
It is viewed as crucial to Russia because it gives the superpower a naval presence in the south.
It was also Russian until 1954, so it’s no surprise its population is predominantly ethnically Russian. It doesn’t get more ‘Russian backyard’ than that.
And with Russian troops already allowed in the Crimea because of existing treaties between Kiev and Moscow, the idea of an ‘invasion’ just seems ridiculous.
3. Iraq hypocrisy
Western countries, including Britain, are trying hard to prevent the situation escalating out of control. Military conflict seems highly possible, though. The Ukraine government may be weak but it has ordered a total mobilisation. And Russian behaviour in making a grab for the Crimea is so brazen many think anything less than fighting will not stop Putin.
Britain’s problem is that its efforts to talk the two sides down is undermined by its 2003 invasion of Iraq. US secretary of state John Kerry has criticised Russia for ‘invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext’. Don’t mention the weapons of destruction, anyone…
Remember Centaurus and Octavian, who was the author of this WMD excuse embarrassment...the G.W. Bush administration.
4. A desperare leader
Putin has a track record of ignoring pressure from the west, but he will have to handle this situation very carefully indeed. If he continues to ramp up Russia’s military involvement in the Crimea, there will be an economic price to pay. All the goodwill generated by the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi will be sacrificed in a moment. There are not going to be many winners from the current standoff.
But what other options does Putin have? His leadership rests on the fact that, like Stalin, he is brutally strong when he has to be. Now seems to be another of those moments when credibility matters more than ever. If there is one reason to be pessimistic about the situation in Ukraine, it’s this: Putin doesn’t like to give up without a fight.
No, what ever the U.S. could have done it cannot control someone like Putin who is especially given to fight more against greater pressure.
Everyone knows I'm a believer in understanding the historical factors and motivations of a crisis situation. However, it's discouraging to see how people often automatically leap back to the Munich Agreement of 1938 by applying the terrible specter of "APPEASEMENT" to every international situation. Yes, appeasement is and always has been a grave mistake, but that doesn't mean saber-rattling against aggressive nations is the only answer...as some have inferred. Even the frequent Obama critic Republican Senator John McCain said a military option is off the table.
The big problems here are: the Ukraine is not a single nation, it's a country of two basic nationalities with divided loyalty...and it's location is strategically extremely valuable. Nothing the U.S. or any other country does or could have done could change this situation.
Merlot
