What should be done about Russia and Ukraine?
I am looking for others take on this, not a debate, but an idea of how other people see it.
I don't have an answer, it is far from a clear situation. But I do think Putin's goal is to take all of Ukraine into Russian rule.
I don't think the two ends of the continuum of action, do nothing at all or send in a military force, are viable.
But I see the difficulty Obama is facing determining a strategy.
I am not limiting this to military responses.
What's your take?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Kiev ciminals supporters are nazis and that is official
They use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner
and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites
to Russia, the US or Ukraine today.
Is it possible for someone to be a fascist if they deny it or even claim they hate fascists? Or is "fascist" a term one can "earn" based on their behavior regardless of ther protestations?
"Russia is swimming against the tide on that particular issue, but if gay-hating is a necessary indicator of fascism, someone should have told Stalin and Mao."
Stalin and Mao would certainly qualify as fascists on every criteria other than economic policy and even there they certainly believed in autarky.
In 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding lesbianism. During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that between 800 to 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.
Some historians have suggested that Joseph Stalin's enactment of the anti-gay law was, like his prohibition on abortion, an attempt to increase the Russian birthrate and build a better relationship with the socially conservative Eastern Orthodox Church. Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism, and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation, and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_history_under_Stalin:_1933.E2.80.931953
While many dissidents would be imprisoned or executed, it is unclear if LGBT people were specifically targeted for oppression due to their sexual identity. Reportedly, Mao Zedong believed in the sexual castration of "sexual deviants" (Randy Shilts. "Conduct Unbecoming"but little is known about the Communist Chinese governments official policy with regards to homosexuality prior to the 1980s.
Even as late as the early 1980s, there were some Chinese men seeking asylum in other countries reported that they had faced systematic discrimination and harassment from the government because of their sexual orientation as well as similar mistreatment from family members [1]. Likewise, the Chinese government did treat homosexuality as a disease and subjected gay men to electric shock therapy and other attempts to change their sexual orientation ["China Using Electrodes To 'Cure' Homosexuals", New York Times, January 29, 1990]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_China#People.27s_Republic_of_China
various goals in that region.
Is it about who controls energy resources or is it about national sovereignty, or both. If it's about both, why can't both countries just cut a deal and treat each other as neighbors with stuff to exchange. Why the power grab, and why now. I'm just trying to keep up.
Ukraine has just asked to join NATO. Why now? Why did its leaders accede to not joining NATO earlier, and promote its sovereign narrative and trade relationships internationally?
Sure, Ukrainian unionists heated up during the Moscow Olympics, but prior to that, Ukraine seems to have not gained sufficient control of the terms of its economy and international status. Have Ukrainians lost control of their sovereignty because they allowed Russians to settle there?
Can the Russian population's settlement be considered similar to Israel's settlement of the West Bank -- a way to claim and annex land base? Is Putin's recently claimed 'demographic unification' an accepted worldwide standard that any country can use to annex more land base?' Is that why migrants from powerful nations are not trusted in resource rich countries?
Is it a stupid question to ask whether the Ukrainians have just not had leaders who know how to strengthen and protect their country such that the old bully next door is out to show them what happens when you don't run your land base very well? Does Gazprom really run Putin?
I'm no expert in the field of the former USSR, I could be wrong...
There was an arms race in the middle of WW2 that never ended from Allied side, unwilling to allow it again. The close of that conflict officially did not end the arms race as the alliance between the West and the USSR collapsed.
Russia has always had an edge on NATO in nuclear technology, which Putin has recently referred to as an indication of the power of Russia, posted in another thread today. Most of us within range of Cuba in the 1960s were taught to get under school desks and kiss our ass goodbye during that time. We were separated according to how far our homes were from school. If lived close, we were told, we'd be allowed to go home to be with our families and die. If not (and I was one of those) we would have to stay at school and die. They showed us images of what the atomic bomb did and the deaths that followed. That was going to be our fate, we were told. In any case, we would die. Kruschev beat on the podium in the UN and said he would bury us, years after WW2 was over with. I don't think it ever was, now. So these institutions exist to keep the fighting less deadly. But death is part of it.
Look at the casualties on both sides, the Allies who are mostly in NATO now, lost by far the most lives, both military and civilian. Especially percentages of population. Our current generations have not seen, and can scarcely conceive, of the costs of that in psychological terms to all involved. We can only see the images and statistics, but it is what is under the surface.
The Jews made 'never forget' their meme, but no one else in power has forgotten. It's why the President goes to place a wreath or do homage on D-Day in Europe. This is what created our world with its prosperity, and set into motion many things that could be for good or evil. It's not all just one or the other, but the mind reels at the data being input and tries to simplify it in B&W terms.
We are tired. But the WW2 generation lived and died in what is called 'total' warfare on a scale not seen since, because of the treaties. I've researched and posted a lot on this when Libya and Syria hit the news. It was eye opening to me, as I'd thought, NATO, pfft! Military, double pfft and get out of my wallet! And various other pffts one might adopt in order to not go along the road of militarism. It's not that easy, though.
The member states of NATO hold the majority of military power and technology and spend more money on it than any other nation singly, or in combination, on the face of the planet. Their people came to rely on those awful preparations for war, and were free to live without being called to sacrifice personally or financially except as part of their social contract.
A secularist, like myself, knows there are things my taxes are paid to do that I don't want; and things that I do want. I respect that some may not want to spend federal money on abortion, birth control, affirmative action, social and public services that I do want.
To them, I give the finger. To those who believe the mission of government is purely to defend 'the homeland (ugh)' I also give the finger. But I can't have one without the other, sad to say, because the human race does not appear to have evolved.
Torture, murder and mayhem have always been with the human race and I see nothing special in what we have done, no matter how much outrage I feel. It's only remarkable in the comparison, and only that we feel ownership and betrayal. There have always been those who do such things and never had a ideal that could be betrayed.
I'm tired of humanity, or rather my own hopes for evolution of the species, right now, so forgive me if I speak negatively. We are coming at a point in our world that our ideals may mean little with what the wounds of nature will now inflict upon us. I would rather be killed by a tornado for there is no malice, no intent to degrade. It just is what happens.
Back to NATO and our moral authority to act. Bush, Jr. abused the other members of NATO, which has the mandate for joint action when a member state is attacked, after 9/11. The fraudulent use of that has made member states very wary.
The responsibilities of the different NATO member states vary. It appears the USA was given the role of supplying boots on the ground and operating the technology of death, but others no so much. They do give support they feel comfortable with as they have less people. All contribute money to make it all work for all.
The reason our military took action in Libya and threatened Syria was because UN member states or NATO members demanded we enforce the treaties and take the heat for it. Specifically, Turkey has repeatedly called for intervention in Syria, as the fighting there is destabilizing them.
The CWC of the UN played a big part in those events, and it still plays a part in all that we do in the Middle East. The CWC covers chemical weapons, biological and radiological ones. And nuclear weaponry is part of that equation.
The USA made successful overtures to Iran who has supported Syria to get them to turn over their chemical weapons. We are no longer adversaries of the kind we had been under Bush and before. North Korea has been called a state sponsor of terrorism for supplying Syria and other nations things forbidden under the CWC. Before Libya and Syria made the news, they were not signatories to the CWC and now they are. All was done without our boots on the ground.
Yes, there will be covert operations done. Some are good and some bad, IMO, but those involved would disagree they are doing anything wrong. I'm not qualified to judge them from the media spin but some days sit back in wonder at the complex nature of the world and where people find their place in it. Obama has pushed the world toward peace, we can say in one way. It's less of the idyllic version of peace we may want to see happen, yet it is not total war. It's going to continue to be full of skirmishes and genocides that are violent, bloody and disgusting and we see it around the world.
The absence of war does not give the exhilaration of soldiers returning to the USA at the close of WW2. A permanent level of small wars is what we appear to be entering. There will be death, there will be torture, looting and war crimes. Our view of war crimes comes from the prism of WW2. Take away that foundation, and there will be no standards.
That's long and rambling, more than you wanted to hear but I need some coffee to wake up. In many more words than you expected, my answer is yes, we do have the moral authority to do things, but only as have been granted in treaties we have promised to uphold.
Obama has acted solely within those treaties, and not one step further. The wisest thing to do will be sanctions, but there is no will to stop the raising of new flags or redrawing maps by Americans, or the West. We just don't feel it's our place, and we may or may not let the treaties that protected us lapse and have WW3. Those treaties were put in place to prevent WW3.
JMHO.
See how they've placed their country so close to American bases.
The chemistry is there.
Putin's interests are the same as the US. He also is interested in the natural resources of Ukraine. Two capitalist countries fighting over resources. That must be a first. 
But your 60-year old red-baiting is amusing. Be sure to turn me into Holder. 
Lets look at this from above:
1. One part of the population considers itself more "central European"...siding with Poland, Germany, etc. The other part, Slavic..siding with Russia.
2. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire (due to conquests that predate the USA)...had the Bolshevik Revolution not occurred and the provisional government under Kerensky endured till the end of World War 1...Ukraine would still be part of Russia.
3. Ukraine became a nation briefly after WW1....then absorbed when Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia allied.
4. After World War 2, even though many nations fell under the Iron Curtain....they were considered their own nation. Ukraine was not. Ukraine was recognized as part of Soviet Russia.
5. Ukraine seceded from Russia (During the Soviet Union collapse...and Russia being run by a drunkard named Yeltsin)...as the Soviet Constitution allowed it to do so...albeit it was tongue and cheek. There merely for the appearances of propaganda of a "benefactor" country. There was never any intention of letting Ukraine out of Russia's control.
6. The US saw an opportunity to permanently weaken Russia by yanking the republics away from Moscow's influence...and Moscow in its upheaval...was powerless.
7. NATO didn't dissolve. This is important because....
8. Russia has historically been attacked from the West....its a paranoia..but sadly...not a paranoia unfounded....but....
9. Russia views itself as "The Savior of Europe". That being, the ones responsible for Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler's fall. And probably see NATO (an organization run by "America" as a threat.
10. Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine (just the parts they can control and will be of economic benefit)...Europe doesn't give a rats ass about Ukraine, its long been a subjugated territory...The US want's all of Ukraine to economically stunt Russia when it needs to.
11. Ukraine doesn't know its identity...how could it, has not been a nation in the last 500 years to gain one. Its culture is either Russian or Central European.
12. The easiest way to solve this...would be to federalize Ukraine like Finland. Only...one problem...
13. They have energy deposits. To quote the movie Dune (haven't read the book...yet): "He who controls the spice controls the Universe!". In this case, he who controls the energy is the big dog in Europe. If Ukraine didn't have energy deposits...Putin could walk into Kiev and say "you now belong to Russia again" and no one outside of Ukraine would blink an eye. Shoot...they would probably tell Ukraine "it was probably the best for them".
14. Obama's foreign policy has been unraveling (don't know if its because of Bush appointee's or just incompetence..but favoring the former rather than the later). ISIS in Syria and Iraq, no State of Palestine, Libya...unknown, Egypt for good or worse, back under control of the Military, Afghanistan...unknown, Syria...devil you know...or the devil you don't know, etc. I'd bet the farm, that he has adviser's telling him that he needs a foreign policy victory....while he has the attitude "such victories come to bite us in the ass later".
Just too many players and too much politics at this issue.
Me personally...go with the federalization plan...any other way causes a greater loss of life.
on DU?
