U.S. parents cannot adopt Russian babies (apart from the black market), because they have been barred from doing so.

The Ukraine issue is our issue if our allies say it is our issue. Unless of course we choose to abandon our allies.

Obama (and we) inevitably would have become involved, because we have allies.

But Obama should not have drawn lines. Twice. The "reddish pink" line two weeks ago, and his remark about "costs" on Friday. He should not have done that. Words matter. Obama's thoughtless remarks either commit us or make us look even weaker if we renege.

As to why Putin thinks he can conquer Ukraine with impunity, and as to why China thinks it can flex its muscle in the South China sea with impunity, we really do have to get our heads out of the past and look at the present administration. George Bush did not tell the Obama administration to abandon our decades-long dual front preparedness doctrine. The whole world watched in 2009 when Barack Obama jettisoned the doctrine that the United States military must be capable of waging major campaigns on two fronts simultaneously.

That is a decision that we may soon deeply regret.

 

YES. YES!

That statement alone should have cost Obama re-election. It did not. We chose him, regardless. We, as a country, chose this administration. TWICE. That is what I mean when I say that we are ripe for conquest.

 

Heyesey is right. Crimea and Easter Ukraine are lost.

Unless we want to fight for it.

 

Funny thing is, a lot of the stuff that Obama is doing that originated under Bush are things Obama bitched and moaned about during his first campaign and vowing to put an end to them.

Candidate Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.


How much is the new figure "for every man, woman and child" now? A hell of a lot more than $30K.



Candidate Obama: ""The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America."


Now, Obama pretty much tells the country (in his State of the Union address in January) he'll do an end run around Congress on whatever HE feels is necessary to accomplish his agenda.


Senator Obama criticized the Patriot Act. President Obama signed into law an extension of that. The NSA has doubled down on their spy tactics to include everyone in our country and Obama seems just fine with that.


And on and on and on it goes.

 

The bottom line is this:

The mess of Ukraine has a problem for the United States due to the actions of Pres Obama.

What matters now is what he and Europe (who are dependent on Russian natural gas reserves) and whether anything done will be of effect.

Also: what will be the next country Putin decides to go after, as he has succeeded in Georgia, and in the Ukraine, and knows the United States and Europe will not stand against him.

Interesting is it not that both Sarah Palin and Romney warned about Putin and his ambitions. Under the Obama admin with Pres Obama, Hillary, and now Kerry, the great diplomatic 'reset' has proven to be an absolute failure and demonstration of insanity greater than that of Chamberlain.

So how long until Pres Obama blames Bush and others for his failure and incompetence?

 

That statement should have cost him the re-election, and those who voted Pres Obama back into office are responsible for it.

They wanted the delusional farce of 'Hope and Change' to continue, and now we are reaping the whirlwind of the Obama-'I hate a free America'-agenda.

 

Here is a question: as China and even Iran and North Korea, see the uselessness of the Obama-admin in action (or non-action) what is to keep them from their own territorial ambitions?

 

Maybe it is time to end visa's for Russian citizens to enter this country...

time to end the renewal of existing visas of Russians here now...

Like we need more Russian mafia and strippers ...

 

My point is not whether Crimea and eastern Ukraine are or will be lost, it is that we and the rest of the G-8 have actually done something to retaliate without firing a bullet. They hit the pocket book of Russia, it is already costing them heavily. But, it is unlikely that it will deter Putin's vision of a rebirth of the old USSR.

Europe will pay the dearest for the economic boycott, the US the least in monetary cost. Our real cost is in credibility, it won't take much more for everyone to tear up the treaties and go it alone, or with a new alliance.

Why should anyone think that the US will support them in times like these, it could be better for them to capitulate and save some semblance of dignity.

 

Obama continues to write checks his ass can't cash. I'm sure Putin is shaking in his boots over Obama's latest weak pathetic threats...


Obama threatens to 'isolate' Russia over Ukraine, though few back military option

President Obama said Russia is "on the wrong side of history" on Ukraine, and warned that the U.S. and its allies are examining steps to "isolate" the country -- as western leaders scramble to convince Vladimir Putin to stand down.
Obama, before a meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the world largely is in agreement that Russia is "in violation of international law."
He said Moscow's actions are deeply troubling, and said this would be a "costly proposition" for Russia if it continues down this path.
"We are examining a whole series of steps -- economic, diplomatic -- that will isolate Russia," Obama said.
What specific steps the U.S. and Europe would take to dissuade Putin, though, is an open question, as the cold warrior toys with whether to advance Russian troops beyond the Crimean Peninsula. Despite western countries discussing a range of punishments for Moscow, hardly anybody is pushing military action.
The closest any top-ranking official got was Secretary of State John Kerry saying Sunday that "all options are on the table." In a separate interview the same morning, though, Kerry stressed that a military response is "the last thing anybody wants."
It's a far cry from the 2011 Libya uprising against Muammar Qaddafi, when Washington and western European capitals were gripped by robust debate over whether to use force to prop up the rebels.
This time, even the hawkish lawmakers on the Hill are saying it's best to stand down.
"There is not a lot of options on the table. And candidly -- and I'm a fairly hawkish guy -- sending more naval forces to operate in the Black Sea is not a good idea," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told "Fox News Sunday."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called over the weekend for a range of options "without the use of military force."
And on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said: "If you're asking me whether the U.S. should be taking military strikes against Russian troops in Ukraine or in Crimea, I would argue to you that I don't think anyone is advocating for that."
So what options are there?
To hear Obama administration officials tell it, they're banking on the assumption that diplomatic and economic pressure can convince Putin to ease off.
On Monday, a diplomat reportedly said the European Union has agreed to consider "targeted measures" against Russia if Moscow does not dial back tensions, though it's unclear what those measures might be.
On the U.S. side, Washington could expand asset freezes and visa bans and other sanctions on powerful Russians. There's also the possibility of imposing trade and investment penalties.
Kerry, who is leaving later Monday for Ukraine, said he has consulted other world leaders and all are committed to doing what is necessary to isolate Russia diplomatically. President Obama spoke Sunday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski.
In Brussels, NATO's secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Russia's actions have violated a U.N. charter. He said the alliance was re-evaluating its relationship with Russia.
But the most immediate penalties appear to revolve around Russia's membership in the G-8. All seven other members of that elite group have announced they are suspending preparation work for an upcoming summit in Russia. Kerry and Capitol Hill lawmakers say Russia also risks being kicked out of the group altogether.
Separately, the White House said Monday that the U.S. has decided not to send a presidential delegation to the Paralympic Games in Sochi, Russia. Britain has also decided not to send ministers to the Paralympic Games, which start Friday.
Several U.S. senators also called for bolstered missile defense systems based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Rubio and fellow GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the Obama administration should return to plans it abandoned in 2009 to place long-range missile interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.
But a few lone voices say economic pressure may not be enough. Notably, retired Adm. James Stavridis, NATO's former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, said in a Foreign Policy column on Saturday that military options -- and others -- should be discussed.
He urged NATO to develop contingency plans to react to a "full-scale invasion of Ukraine," noting that NATO planners moved quickly in Libya.
He suggested bringing NATO's 25,000-member Response Force to a "higher state of alert" and sailing maritime forces into the Black Sea.
Obama administration officials have pushed back on the possibility of a military confrontation.
"I don't think we're focused right now on the notion of some U.S. military intervention," one official said.
But some fret that the United States is rapidly losing influence on the world stage, absent any severe consequences.
"Everybody says 'no' to the U.S. these days without cost or consequence," Aaron David Miller, former adviser to six secretaries of State and scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told Fox News.
He said the last "truly effective" foreign policy was under former President George H.W. Bush. "There was a cost for saying 'no' to the United States," he reminisced. "Right now, there is no cost."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-on-ukraine-though-few-back-military-option/

 

If the Obama EPA had not been blocking plants to convert Nat gas we could ship Europe all the Gas they need when Russia shuts them off....

 

Since Nobel Peace Laureate Obama came to power, the world has been a pretty unstable place. I'm not going to blame Obama for this. It's not his job to ensure international diplomacy, secure world borders and ensure countries don't break out in needless civil war. Just making an observation.

 

Well said, I agree 100%

 

Russia has enjoyed a rebirth of economic power, riding on the crest of the oil and gas production.

One of the reasons that they can flex their muscles with relative impunity, is the absolute confidence that the West will do nothing to stop them

Obama contributed heavily to that confidence.

 

Now this should be a clue...

The Boston Herald's Washington opinion columnist, Kimberly Atkins, is one of the most left-leaning there is. Some of her columns make The Boston Globe look conservative. But today, even she can't ignore the fact of how "all talk, no action" the Obama administration has become.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...3/atkins_political_stakes_high_for_john_kerry


Political stakes high for John Kerry

WASHINGTON — The good news is Secretary of State John F. Kerry and President Obama appear to be in sync rather than at odds in their response to a burgeoning international crisis — this time the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The bad news is that Kerry’s usual vigorous, if at times risky, approach to diplomacy has been replaced with the president’s usual indecisive and weak response to Vladimir Putin’s acts of aggression.

That is a turn for the worse for Kerry that could ultimately torpedo his efforts to rewrite his own legacy as something other than a failed presidential candidate, while also deep-sixing any chance he has to be a contender again in 2016.

Kerry took to the Sunday morning political shows yesterday to talk about the potential consequences Putin may face for the invasion of Ukraine.
But what he articulated was a diplomatic approach that at times bordered on the absurd.

“What we want is for Russia to work with us, with Ukraine,” Kerry said on ABC News’ “This Week.” “If they have legitimate concerns … there are plenty of ways to deal with that without invading the country.”

Host George Stephanopoulos not only had to remind Kerry that Ukraine already has been invaded, he also had to press Kerry repeatedly to enunciate what, if any, clear consequences Russia may face if it fails to withdraw its forces.

Kerry said the global community could decide to hit Russia in the pocketbook by freezing assets and imposing visa bans, and said the U.S. is considering actions such as granting economic aid to Ukraine.

Pressed again as to whether U.S. sanctions against Russia are a possibility, Kerry vaguely replied that “all options are on the table.” And with that, Kerry pulled off an uncanny impersonation of the president.

The former Bay State senator hasn’t always delivered White House talking points so adroitly during his tenure as the head of the State Department.
Obama and Kerry have been publicly at odds over the handling of crises in Syria and Iran.

Kerry’s new approach of toeing the Obama administration’s line may please the White House, but it could torpedo his own quest to break away from his past failures — as well as break out of Hillary Clinton’s shadow — as the starting line for the next presidential race approaches.

A record of mealy-mouthed mediocrity in the face of international turmoil may harm Kerry more than Clinton’s Benghazi problem can hurt her.

Kerry made the talk show circuit yesterday via satellite from Boston, and he’s been kept in the loop via conference call from his Louisburg Square home.

Luckily for Kerry, the Ukrainian crisis happened during winter, so the photographers caught him at his Beacon Hill brownstone rather than on his yacht, kayak or windsurfer.
Tomorrow’s trip to Kiev gives Kerry a chance to erase all those images, or cement them in place — to salvage his legacy as a statesman or seal his place in history as a failure.

​

 

Putin, ex KGB, hasn't been democratically elected. He runs an Authoritarian regime. The United-States is a true republic, the Federation of Russia retains Tchetchenia, the Tatars and most of its citizens under military constraint. Rupert Murdoch is better than the Russian state TV. Happy are you to live in a country where you have freedom of trade and expression, the Russian people don't have it, braindead.

 

"Murdoch is better than Russian state TV?"

Are you for real? You say that as though it is faint praise.

Murdoch is the only U.S. media outlet still running in the black, because the Americans who think for themselves cannot trust the rest.

Murdoch is the only U.S. media outlet that does its own reporting and refuses to reprint White House talking points verbatim.

Murdoch is the U.S. media outlet that the United States is turning to for real news.

Even the Boston Herald, a minor small city tabloid, is making national headlines for its Ukraine reporting (and one of its op-eds has even been pasted above), because the Boston Globe, a NYTimes cast-off, is roundly rejected as a viable source of news.

Guess what? Boston Herald is owned by Murdoch.

This mindset from Europe is just typical. In 2008 I summered in Europe and met/talked with hundreds of people who so thoroughly rejected the Bush/Blair leadership of the time that they were all willing to throw their hats in the ring with an untested Chicago machine politician who now is comporting himself exactly as we should all have expected.

Europe helped to give us Obama. Thanks. Thanks a bunch.


But now the day of reckoning is nigh, and the time has come for Europe and Europeans to sober up and think real hard about their future and who their real friends are.

 

If not Obama, who?

Henry Kissinger said that ultimately peace is won only through balance of power or hegemony.

Putin is clearly choosing hegemony in Eastern Europe.


The United States is the only country in the world with sufficient power to bring Russia to heel. And what has Obama been doing methodically since 2009? Abrogating the prerogative of the United States to maintain the balance of power.

 

BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM

Who has heard of the Budapest Memorandum?

It's a new one on me, but it is on topic.

Turns out we have much more to thank Bill Clinton for than I ever imagined, because this is another example of Clinton's "peace and prosperity."

In 1994, the Clinton Administration helped to broker Ukraine's disbandment of its post-Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Ukraine did not want to sell its nukes back to Russia, for all the obvious reasons.

So, the Clinton Administration convinced Ukraine to sell the nukes and signed the treaty called the Budapest Memorandum, giving the Ukraine the guarantee that the United States of America would intervene to preserve and protect Ukraine's territorial integrity against any future incursions by Russia.

Clinton's "peace and prosperity."

Now, we can renege on that deal, with the world watching as Ukraine gets carved up into little pieces (or is annexed entirely, as is a strong possibility).

Not our fight? Au contraire. It is our fight. Thanks, Bill. Thanks alot.

 

So, the Clinton Administration convinced Ukraine to sell the nukes and signed the treaty called the Budapest Memorandum, giving the Ukraine the guarantee that the United States of America would intervene to preserve and protect Ukraine's territorial integrity against any future incursions by Russia.

==================

Now this is interesting....

seems we will need answer from Obama on this....
we do have the obligation to go in there....

Like I said move the Afgan machinery to the Ukraine...