Obama's Response to the Crimea Vote Is Measured, So Far

[bemildred]

President Obama’s reaction to Russia’s bullying of Ukraine and its illegal occupation of Crimea isn’t bad, so far. The sanctions that he’s ordered against various Russian officials, including those in Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, are measured. And he’s ignored or rejected calls from hardliners, hawks and neoconservatives, so far, to up the ante by pledging to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, rush weapons to the new government in Kiev, send the US naval fleet into the Black Sea, install anti-missile defense systems in eastern Europe and so forth. (Senator John McCain, who never misses a chance to be recklessly provocative, has demanded installing a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, bringing Moldova and Georgia into NATO, rushing arms to Ukraine and more.)

But the widely expected result of the Crimean referendum on Sunday, which overwhelmingly backed unification with Russia, presents a challenge for Obama, one that will require a great deal of skill and forbearance to navigate successfully.

Both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to emphasize that Putin has a face-saving off-ramp if he seeks to extricate himself from the Crimean region.

But it isn’t clear that Putin is interested in any off-ramps. Why not? Maybe it’s because the Russian president has figured out that just as he used the war in Chechnya in 1999 to help catapult himself to power by rallying nationalists behind him, now he thinks that he can ride another wave of Russian nationalism by proclaiming himself as the Great Liberator of Crimea. Maybe it’s because he really and truly believes that taking Crimea is the first step toward restoring Russia’s faded glory. Maybe it’s because Putin is building ties with the fanatical, reactionary Russian Orthodox Church, with its anti-homosexual passions and its reverential belief that modern Russia started with the Christianization of the Kievan Rus by Prince Vladimir from 988 AD, and Putin wants to cast himself as the new Prince Vladimir. Or maybe it’s because Putin is seething over the fall of the Soviet Union and the ill-considered Westernization (and NATO-ization) of Eastern Europe since the 1990s. Whatever the reason, it seems likely that Putin is not going to give up Crimea, and that he’ll keep up the pressure on Kiev—perhaps through the creeping destabilization of eastern Ukraine, the phony talk of “protecting” ethnic Russians and Russians-speaking Ukrainians there and the gradual bolstering of pro-Russian militias in parts of Ukraine that border Russia.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178874/obamas-response-crimea-vote-measured-so-far

[geek tragedy]

1. is Putin boxed or is Obama?

Putin's path seems pretty straighforward--keep Crimea, meddle semi-openly in Ukraine until it comes back behind the curtain (or at least its gas fields do), and flip the U.S. the bird. And strengthen ties with China and India.

Question is what Obama's options are. He talked a good game, all but saying "This aggression will not stand" ala Poppy Bush. And then he announced sanctions that were met with a combination of yawns and sneers.

Obama bluffed Putin on Syria (Congress was never going to approve air strikes) pretty well, but it seems Putin has decided to call the bluff this time.

Obama has more important things to worry about, Putin doesn't.

Personally, I suspect Putin has decided he doesn't care about being respected by Europe and North America.

[bemildred]

4. Damn if I know. I'm just glad it doesn't look like war now.

Things seem to be being worked out.

[JayhawkSD]

5. Oh, it's Obama for sure, and by his own words.

"And then he announced sanctions that were met with a combination of yawns and sneers."
More like giggles and guffaws, really. Half the people on the sanctions list have said they are honored to be on it, and Putin is reportedly working on a list of sanctions to include Obama aides and US Senators.

"Obama bluffed Putin on Syria (Congress was never going to approve air strikes) pretty well, but it seems Putin has decided to call the bluff this time."
Congressional approval of a Syrian air strike was irrelevant, and he didn't bluff anybody. When Obama spoke of referring the question to Congress he said, "I have the authority to do this on my own, but..." He was using Congress as his "beard." If he was bluffing anyone it was Assad, not Putin, but the "red line" nonsense was an off the cuff remark made in response to prodding from an insouciant journalist.

He had been suckered into vowing to bomb Syria if they used chemical weapons, he had been forced to concede that they had used chemical weapons, and he desperately needed a way to avoid carrying out a threat that he had never had the slightest intention of implementing. Congress was his way out, albeit a humiliating exit, until Putin came up with the alternative.

[geek tragedy]

7. the alternative was something they had discussed in private

months before over several meetings. there is nothing accidental or improvisational about diplomacy at that level

If and when Congress had said no, Obama would not have bombed.

[JayhawkSD]

8. Did you read what I wrote?

Obama was not going to bomb under any circumstances. Not "if Congress said no," but under any circumstances, Obama was not going to bomb Syria. He didn't need Putin to tell him not to do it, he didn't need Congress to tell him not to do it, and he didn't need a bunch of bloggers to tell him not to do it. He never intended to do it to begin with.

And yes, after Putin made the chemical de-weaponization proposal some members of Obama's administration made the idiotic claim that we had already thought of that and were just waiting for the right moment to trot it out. Fortunately, Obama himself was never directly involved in that silly claim, because absolutely no one believed it; quite properly so. It was patently a sophomoric face saving lie, and died the pathetic and ignominious death it deserved.

[geek tragedy]

9. "because absolutely no one believed it." D-E-R-P

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9890I020130910?irpc=932

Source: Reuters

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of placing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under international control on the sidelines of a G20 summit last week, Putin's spokesman said on Tuesday.

"The issue was discussed," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said by telephone. He would not say who raised the issue or give other details.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-syria-crisis-russia-obama-idUSBRE9891B620130910

Putin's spokesman said earlier on Tuesday that it came up when the presidents met on Friday on the sidelines of a G20 summit in St. Petersburg, and Putin elaborated on that in his televised comments.

"Russia's position ... is well known - we are against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of any kind - chemical and nuclear weapons," Putin said.

"In the current circumstances in Syria this is really taking on special importance, and the U.S. president and I really did discuss it on the sidelines of the G20 summit."

"By the way, this issue has repeatedly been discussed by both experts and politicians - the question of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control. I repeat, the U.S. president and I discussed this theme on the sidelines of the G20."

"We agreed that we would step up this work, intensify it and instruct the (U.S) secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister to ... enter into contact and together try to advance a solution to this question," he said.

If you recall, the actual public sequence was that Kerry floated it in a moment the gullible among us took as an "off the cuff" remark (as if), and Putin pulled this amazing diplomatic coup by agreeing to it and getting Assad to agree to it within hours.

Reality is this framework had been discussed for a while, in private.

Now, do you have anything else inaccurate and pompous to say?

[JayhawkSD]

10. OK fine, and Obama walks on water, too.

Kerry makes a joke, and that means that Obama's administration had considered it as a viable foreign policy. And/or that the two nations had been discussing it in secret and Kerry inadvertantly let the cat out of the bag. And/or, Putin took Kerry's "off the cuff" remark and turned it into a viable foreign policy overnight. So Obama, disdaining the use of Air Force One, walked across tha Atlantic and signed the deal.

And, while they were discussing this deal, Obama was still talking about bombing Syria, using that as an elaborate cover to hide the fact that they were discussing the deal while Kerry was making "off the cuff" public remarks about the deal.

You have anything else sycophantic and adoring to say?

[geek tragedy]

11. no, just posting straight up facts.

sorry actual facts cause you to be so belligerent.

last word is yours, wouldn't want to stoke your rage by posting any more information

[Jefferson23]

2. I believe Moscow is populated at about 15 million people..only 50,000 came out to protest

against Putin's actions. This OP draws a fair view of his constituents..sadly. I feel for the Russians,
they have a unique history..quite brutal and they are fed a lot of tee vee news...controlled texts in
schools etc. So it is going to take other issues for them to reject this guy, over all. Putin is a schmuck,
unfortunately that is what the dissenters are stuck with.

I doubt Putin will take the ramp.

[JayhawkSD]

6. I can't really argue with you, but...

exchange "Americans" for "Russians" and "Obama" for "Putin" and you have an equally accurate description of the US.

[4dsc]

3. Why should we even care

neocons got us into this mess and now they want the President to do something. Just leave them to the EU to deal with.