Steps a High Ranking Traitor Would Take

[Belsnickel]

(01-17-2019, 01:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As you actually posit serious questions I will answer.  To begin one must understand one's opponent.  Putin respects only strength, he views western leaders as weak willed and unwilling to risk much, if anything, to achieve their aims.  Putin annexed the Crimea because he, correctly, deduced that Obama would take no action other than the diplomatic, and temporary.  Worst case scenario he traded temporary sanctions for a land grab unparalleled in modern history.

Putin knew Obama would never risk direct military action, even for a brazen annexation of territory from a sovereign nation.  The answer is simple, disprove him of his theory or reinforce it.  Obama, predictably, took the easy way out and let Putin have his way while being able to, superficially, save face with the, ultimately, empty consequence of sanctions.  This is exactly what totalitarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran and others depend on when dealing with the western democracies.  They are superficially willing to risk total war because they know that is something the west will never countenance.  In this regard they mirror Hitler and his constant, until Poland, emasculation of western diplomatic efforts.  What people like Obama, and some on this board, fail to realize, is that regimes like this only respect force and the willingness to use it.

Yes, in so doing you risk broader, and escalated, conflict.  The alternative is slow capitulation to an opponent who knows you are unwilling to risk what they are willing to risk.  An opponent that knows you like the fortitude and willpower to confront their aggression in any meaningful way.  In short, one must decide to be Chamberlain or Churchill.  The choice made thus far is rather clear.

I get what your position is, here, but I don't think that was our fight to get in. As someone that is a bit tired of us deploying our military to make other countries play nice with each other, I don't want to see us interfere with force in a situation like this without the backing of the UN and a coalition going in. I think that is one of the reasons why Obama didn't take that military action, because the public mood in this country is on that side. He could have gone in for the short term, 60-90 days at most, but that wouldn't have resolved the conflict and the Congress he was facing would not have supported an extended stay.

All-in-all, I agree with Obama's actions, even though they were weak. There was essentially a CBA done on the situation and the benefits weren't worth the costs. As he put it during an interview: “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do." To quote the interviewer of the article, "Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there." That's exactly right, in my opinion. We had, and have, military focuses to tend to that are more pertinent to our country. Re-initiating not just the Cold War, but making it hot, would have been a losing gambit for the long-term.