Hillary Clinton: Putin Rewriting Europe's Boundaries With 'Illegal' Crimea Move

[DonViejo]

CATHERINE THOMPSON – MARCH 19, 2014, 7:50 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton talked Russia again on Tuesday night, and while she steered clear of drawing another parallel between President Vladimir Putin and Hitler, she accused him of trying to "rewrite" Europe's boundaries by illegally annexing Crimea.

"I hope there is not another Cold War," Clinton said during the Q&A portion of an event for the Board of Trade Metropolitan Montreal in Canada, as quoted by CNN. "Obviously, nobody wants to see that. I think that is primarily up to Putin."

The former secretary of state added that Putin is trying to "rewrite the boundaries of post-World War II Europe" by annexing Crimea, where residents voted overwhelmingly Sunday in favor of breaking away from Ukraine and joining with Russia.

Clinton echoed the U.S. and its Western allies' belief that Putin's move was illegal, according to CNN, and warned that allowing the annexation to move ahead would stir up trouble for other countries in the region.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-putin-crimea-illegal

[Enrique]

1. sometimes powerful countries get away with breaking laws

the Iraq War for example, which both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry authorized. Which is very unfortunate since that's who we have telling Putin that what he is doing is illegal.

[polichick]

14. THAT'S why we have no credibility.

[karynnj]

27. The vote was in October 2002 and they called for Bush to go to the UN

Though people should have voted no because it gave Bush the power to determine if the conditions specified were met for going to war. Kerry said thousands of time in 2003 and 2004 that he voted to give Bush the international leverage to demand serious inspections - no inspections had been done since 1998.

The anger of the left over that vote has allowed the Republicans and some of the media to conflate the October 2002 vote with the March 2003 decision to invade. This diminishes the Republican responsibility and led to DEMOCRATS like Kerry and Hillary being bashed far more for that vote than Bush making the UNILATERAL decision to invade.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Key sentence:

Clinton also suggested the U.S. give more support to the new Ukrainian government and to efforts to expand independent gas and energy production in Europe in order to combat Russian influence, according to CNN.

More fracking in Europe, regardless of damage to environment. No sanctions against Russia which would hurt her Wall Street friends investing in Russia.

Apparently, those $200,000 Goldman-Sachs payments are reaping dividend already.

[KoKo]

3. reveals what it was all about in the first place....n/t

[truebrit71]

13. Yup...

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. One of the concerns with Europe..

..is their dependence on Russian oil. And that is why they hesitate to join in sanctions.

I believe that was her point. Not everything she says is evil incarnate.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. The only way to get off the Russia oil teat

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

is fracking. Conventional EU oil sources are in decline.

When you take money from Goldman-Sachs, you are pretty much stating your position. If the money wasn't enough, the fact that she went to the banksters and told them that she felt attacking them wasn't helpful. Translation: When I am elected, you will have a friend in the White House.

She is a member in good standing of the 0.1% and she is letting us know NOW what kind of president she will be.

You don't hear her giving talks at the Sierra Club about the need to curtail our use of fossil fuels.

[GeorgeGist]

7. The Sierra Club can't afford her $250K speaking fee.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Nope

and that is why she will be on their side, not ours.

[Beacool]

18. Oh please, the drama in this place.

So what if she got G.S. money? So did Obama in 2008 and a host of other people too. They give to both parties.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. She is supposed to be a "diplomat"

and her contribution to the discussion has been allusions to Hitler.

Not very helpful. Plays real well with the warmongers in the U.S., play very BADLY with the Russians who fiercely resent being compared to Nazis, given the price they paid to stop Hitler.

The EU is not going to impose meaningful sanctions, nor is the US, since the banks and the oil companies call the shots.

[Beacool]

19. She's a private citizen and can say whatever she wants to say.

Furthermore, the Nazi analogy was correct in this case. That's precisely what Hitler did in 1938.

As for the banks calling the shots, that's not the defining reason. Europe depends on Russia for their natural gas and a good portion of their oil needs. If the Russians shut off the spigot, where would they get these resources? They still need to keep their economies going.

It's not so easy.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Where did I say she can't say what she wishes?

She can, but shouldn't.

Comparing Putin to Hitler serves ZERO helpful purpose of you wish to engage in an adult dialogue. If you wish to engage in inflammatory name-calling as a prelude to a shooting war, then by all means, please proceed. Personally, I think it speaks very poorly to her as a "leader".

There are two groups of people you don't call "Nazis" if you wish to have ANY credibility with them: Jews and Russians.

And yes, the EU DOES depend on Russia for gas and oil, which is why they will NOT impose any meaningful sanctions. Also, they are investing in Russia oil/gas exploration and they do not want to hurt their investments. They CAN, DO, and WILL put money ahead of people's lives.

Exxon-Mobile has the biggest joint venture in the world going with Russia, which is why the US will pretty much sit by and watch. No way in Hell Exxon will allow the US government to screw with their profits.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. I disagree

It was an in depth assessment of the tactics. A knee jerk reaction to anything Hitler does not help us lean from the past. This is written while moving on iPad....sorry

[okaawhatever]

8. Oh bullcrap. Russia is fracking for gas so there isn't a plus or minus to the environment. Frack

in one place or the other. Second, she didn't say she disagreed with sanctions. The issue wasn't even mentioned, so your attempt to claim she opposes them for her friends on Wall Street is bogus.

One net positive for the environment in all this is Merkel's big push for renewable energy sources. That was in large part to help reduce Germany's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. In order to become independent

of Russian gas, the EU would have to step up fracking. Great for oil companies, very bad for the environment.

She didn't say anything about sanctions as she doesn't want to be on record one way or the other. Favoring sanctions means pissing off Wall Street. Speaking against means pissing off the left wing of the party. So she is happy to espouse more fracking in the EU while not addressing the Russian/Ukraine issue with anything other than unhelpful rhetoric which plays well with the Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals.

If you take Goldman-Sachs' money, you are Goldmam-Sachs' tool.

Glad that Merkel is pushing renewable, but when push comes to shove, she will keep the Russian tap open because renewable energy to replace Russian gas is decades away and she wants to stay in power NOW.

[Enrique]

16. you mean her "speaking fees"?

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Yeah, nice bit or Orwell

for "bribe".

[magical thyme]

29. where they want to frack is the Ukraine

and that is the only reason the EU wants the Ukraine. So they will give them small loans, large austerity, small earthquakes, and poisoned wells. What a deal...

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Yep!

Which is another reason Russia wants to keep it.

[razorman]

5. I have long had some confusion and questions over the concept

of "illegal" behavior in regard to international actions. We often hear of this or that activity being against "international law", such as an "illegal" war or annexation. Usually, it is in regard to something done by the U.S.
But, by whose authority is something illegal? Certainly not the United Nations. They are not a universally recognized authority. Besides, the U.N. is as corrupt as anyone.
I tend to think that is is a waste of breath to complain that something is "illegal", simply because we do not like what is happening. Unless there is a recognized legal international authority with the ability to enforce its laws, there is no such law.
Besides, the idea of some international group with that kind of power sort of scares the shit out of me. Unfortunately, I don't have any answers. It is good that I'm not running things.

[The Magistrate]

9. That is The Heart Of The Matter, Sir

Europe fought wars for a couple of centuries over where the boundaries between states were going to be. After the Second World War, by general agreement and exhaustion and fear the map of Europe was frozen. The agreed-on map was not a particularly good one, in numerous places it does not align with historical identity or even ethnic composition, but it was fixed, and has been held to be unchangeable since. This has been strained a couple of times, but held. The breakup of Yugoslavia, for example, did not in larger sense alter the map, as the outer boundaries remained the same. A point can be stretched for the Crimea, as its assignment to Ukraine came in the early fifties. But a move into Ukraine proper, as defined in the immediate wake of WWII, would open a can of worms it is best to leave closed....

[truebrit71]

15. And therein lies the real question...

...is Uncle Vladdy telling porkies when he says he only wants Crimea....?

It makes sense from a military standpoint, it's one, if not their only, warm-water port and has a high strategic value for that reason alone...the Ukraine economy is apparently in dire straits and supporting them would drain, not add to Moscow's coffers so on its face Putin's statements make total sense...but who knows what's in the man's heart (other than Dubya of course you could see straight to his soul iirc)..

[KoKo]

20. Can of Worms possibilities?

Ukraine could go the way of Egypt for awhile with Yatsenyuk but eventually Ukrainians become unhappy with their forced coup government and infighting begins between the protestors. Violence and unrest begins to concern the population and eventually they seek order by appealing to the West or the Russian Federation for help in sorting it out.

Then What?

A bit of a beginning of power struggles amongst the new regime supporters...reading this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014759519

[The Magistrate]

21. That, Ma'am, Is a Mere Internal Trifle

There is, as a prime example, a city now known as Kaleningrad. Till the end of WWII, it was known as Konigsberg, the original capital of Prussia. It was seized by Soviet Russia, the population mostly expelled with the sort of brutality which, had it not been directed at Germans in the wake of the record of German atrocity, would have been considered a crime of historic proportion, then largely repopulated by Russians. There is not a shadow of right which Russia has to the territory, if one were to look at matters with the thought that the map was fluid and could and should be adjusted in light of historical claims and ethnic origins and legitimacy of present rule.

Poland itself, to take another standing example, has shifted considerably to the west from its location at the start of WWII. Prezymsl is no longer a city in south central Poland, it is a city nearly on Poland's eastern border. Czestochowa is no longer a city not far from Poland's western border, but located near the country's center. Lvov is no longer part of Poland, but part of Ukraine; Vilna no longer part of Poland, but part of Lithuania. Breslau is no longer a German city but a Polish one, passing under the name of Wroclaw. All these alterations were achieved by force, by massacre and transfer of populations, the sort of thing called 'ethnic cleansing' nowadays.

Were people to start taking the view that old claims to territories stolen, that unhappinesses of minority population in adjoining states constitute casus belli, a long peace unravels, and cursed be the head that pulls the first thread....

[KoKo]

23. I understand very well what you are saying...

Much blood could be spilled before we get to this...but, your warning needs to be heeded in that revolutions tend to multiply. And destabilizing influences are ..."in the wind" these days along with unhappy citizens wanting to try to strike back against what they see with high unemployments and austerity of the Globilization failure by our Banking Industry along with the Military Industrial/Private Contractor Industry and the whole rest of the mess going on.

But...as an older DU...I understand these danger points. Re-fighting for territories that were misaligned for centuries...going back and forth and the resentments that fester from generation to generation. Here in the USA...there is a contingent that still fights the "War Between the States" and want to "leave the union" even though they don't know what the hell they are talking about in consequences. If you squeeze the common people hard enough ...something will break out somehow that causes consequences and re-shifting of power when the people start to suffer and start to wonder who and what caused their suffering. Who benefits as leaders from these movements are maybe, again, the law of "unintended consequences."

As you say:

"Were people to start taking the view that old claims to territories stolen, that unhappinesses of minority population in adjoining states constitute casus belli, a long peace unravels, and cursed be the head that pulls the first thread"....

I think many interests are "interested" in "pulling that first thread." And some with "dark/evil/self serving" interests," along with the altruists that all revolutions start out with if they are real. In this case and others in recent decades...not so altruistically "real."

Just my humble opinion...as always. As "off track" as you often think my view can be...I always appreciate your input.

[The Magistrate]

24. And I Suspect We Agree Also, Ma'am

That economic stress heightens the danger of adventurisms at present.

[KoKo]

30. I always appreciate your views...

and dialogue with you... even when we differ and the points in which we agree or disagree are always enlightening.

There's little of that these days out there...Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was more!

and...it's much appreciated. 's

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Wave flag, sound tough, get bribes...er, campaign donations, from MIC corporations.

Works every time.

[Cha]

25. Thanks DV

[William769]

26. Kick & recommended.

[PM Martin]

32. PM Martin: Bill Clinton rewrote the 1991 agreement in order to illegally expand NATO.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/bigger-picture-russia-ukraine-confrontation-u-s-nato-encirclement-russia.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2014/03/03/cold-war-over-russia-isn-zero-sum/Df9VSHeJFpKUz3tRKDjUXJ/story.html

[WinkyDink]

33. WAS IT ILLEGAL, Madame Secretary? NS, S! (This post brought to you by Iraq.)

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. I suggest you go back and read what happened then

And look at both her and Kerry's statements made at the time.

[WinkyDink]

36. You mean THESE words, after which Dubya later turned to them and said, "You trusted us!"

Oct. 11. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) casts vote to authorize use of military force in Iraq if President Bush determines that "diplomatic means" fail to remove the "national security threat" against the United States. See authorization resolution here. In Oct. 10 floor speech, Clinton described the Senate vote as Saddam Hussein's "last chance -- disarm or be disarmed." She said her vote is not "a vote for any new doctrine of preemption."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

Or THESE words?
When Kerry voted for the 2002 resolution, he warned he would not support war if Bush failed to win the support of the international community in the absence of an imminent threat. “Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies,” Kerry said.

It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,” Kerry said. “If so, the only exit strategy is victory. This is our common mission and the world’s cause. We’re in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein, and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/10/kerrys-claim-that-he-opposed-bushs-invasion-of-iraq/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The bolded phrases are the ONLY operative ones; the rest is obfuscation and weaseling.
I guess the riposte is the old razzle-dazzle "We all thought Saddam had WMD's!" CRAPOLA.