Obama Stops Short of Calling Russia Actions in Ukraine an Invasion

[Purveyor]

Source: REUTERS

World | Reuters | Updated: August 29, 2014 09:24 IST

Washington: President Barack Obama said on Thursday the United States and its allies would look for ways to expand economic sanctions on Russia after Kiev accused Moscow of moving troops into southeastern Ukraine, but he stopped short of calling the recent Russian aggression an invasion.

"I consider the actions that we've seen in the last week a continuation of what's been taking place for months now," Obama said, noting Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored opportunities to find a diplomatic end to the dispute.

Sanctions by the United States and European allies on Russia have hurt the economy, and Obama said "there are ways for us to deepen or expand the scope of some of that work" that he wants to discuss with NATO allies at a summit in Wales next week.

But Obama ruled out military action against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. "I think it is very important to recognize that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming," he said. He also said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko would visit the White House next month.

Read more: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/obama-stops-short-of-calling-russia-actions-in-ukraine-an-invasion-583567

[Cicada]

1. Russia has vital interests in Crimea

The people there are pro-Russia, and Russia has long-standing vital military and commercial interests there. Obviously Russia will dominate Crimea. Using force to protect vital interests is something we do constantly and we can hardly complain when Russia does the same. Our expressions of disapproval are like Claude Rains saying he was shocked to learn there was gambling at Rick's Cafe. The west encouraged the armed overthrow of the legitimately elected pro-Russia Ukranian government and we expect Russia to sit idly bye? Get real. It's their arena, not ours.

[cstanleytech]

2. Slight correction it should be "Some of the people there are pro-Russia"

as for Russia using force to protect vital interest............I dont buy it.
They had the base there already and the Ukraine government lacks the power to force the so the whole vital interest spiel just does not fly.

[Cicada]

6. Pewglobal poll says 89% support Russia

The people in Crimea overwhelmingly support Russia. Pewglobal poll indicates something like 9 in 10. And Russia can not rely on the government in Kiev who used force to overthrow the legally elected pro-Russia government. Don't we call those using force to overthrow governments we support terrorists? Don't you oppose terrorists? Russia, using the logic we constantly use, is just protecting those in Crimea from terrorists. But I agree with what you are thinking - the definition of a terrorist is someone who uses force to oppose what the USA wants.
I don't like it when Russia invades nor when the US invades. Are you similarly consistent?

[ColesCountyDem]

3. Baloney!

Russia has blatantly demonstrated that it doesn't respect the territorial integrity of neighboring nations. What Russia has done and continues to do is analogous to the US seizing parts of Canada, because the Great Lakes are of 'vital interest' to us.

[Cicada]

4. I agree with you

And if invading Canada was worth the cost we would do it. Just as we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We constantly show we do not respect the territorial integrity of other countries so we have no moral basis to complain when Russia does the same thing.

[LanternWaste]

5. I don't believe that particular actions my government has taken deny me the moral standing...

"so we have no moral basis to complain when Russia does the same thing..."

I don't believe that particular actions my own government has taken-- actions which I opposed, deny me in any way, the moral standing to oppose actions taken other governments.

[Elmergantry]

7. Amen! NT

[pampango]

19. "if invading Canada was worth the cost we would do it" is fascist thinking.

it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

People who do not support US invasions of other countries have every right and moral basis to criticize other countries when they do it.

[Cicada]

35. It is not fascist thinking

Saying that the US would invade Canada is not the same as saying we SHOULD invade Canada. Sadly the US does many things which it should not do. Obviously our leaders who decided to invade Iraq should be tried for war crimes and then imprisoned for life when convicted. I make the points that Russia will control Crimea whether we like it or not and that we can not complain since we do the same kind of thing.

[pampango]

36. "Russia will control Crimea." Is that not a case of a strong nation expanding their territory

by displacing a weaker nation?

Fascism argues that Russia has the right to do that since it is a 'stronger nation'. Does it have that right or not?

"Russia will control Crimea." Russia has the right to control Crimea (as fascists would contend) or "Russia will control Crimea" but does not have any right to do so (as most liberals would contend).

Obviously our leaders who decided to invade Iraq should be tried for war crimes and then imprisoned for life when convicted.

Agreed. As should the Russian leaders who led the war crimes by Russian troops against Chechen civilians.

[VanGoghRocks]

8. Sort of like what we did to Mexico in 1848. Are you prepared to return Texas, California and most of

the American southwest to Mexico?

Didn't think so. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld once dryly noted.

[ColesCountyDem]

10. What was done 170 years ago is quite different than what was done yesterday.

I am not in any way bound to keep silent today by the mistakes people made then.

[VanGoghRocks]

11. Bwa-ha-ha. La Rochefoucauld lives!

[ColesCountyDem]

13. No, he doesn't.

Because slavery was legal in 1845, I have no standing to criticize slavery in 2014, using your so called 'logic'.

[VanGoghRocks]

14. Using your logic and America's history, Russia is fully entitled to all land east of the Polish

border.

Ukraine\krajina -- Pfft.

[ColesCountyDem]

15. Not at all my logic.

Torture the plain words that people post much?

[VanGoghRocks]

16. Direct quote of you from post #3:

Russia has blatantly demonstrated that it doesn't respect the territorial integrity of neighboring nations. What Russia has done and continues to do is analogous to the US seizing parts of Canada, because the Great Lakes are of 'vital interest' to us.

Substitute "U.S.A." for "Russia" and "Mexico" for "Canada" (and "Rio Grande Valley" for "Great Lakes&quot and we did in 1848 exactly what you now accuse Russia (incorrectly, imo) of doing.

[ColesCountyDem]

18. In 1848 being the operative phrase!

Furthermore, I am not at all INCORRECTLY accusing Russia of doing something.

[VanGoghRocks]

20. With all due respect, if Russia 'blatantly demosntrated' that it

doesn't respect the territorial integrity of neighboring nations,' Kiev would be little more than a smouldering husk. And Georgia?

:ROFL:

[ColesCountyDem]

21. With all due respect, that an idiotic statement.

Just because Russia hasn't reduced Kiev to a smoldering ruin doesn't mean it's respecting a sovereign nation's territorial integrity.

[VanGoghRocks]

22. I was taking issue with your phrase 'blatantly demonstrated'. Not that such semantic

fine points matter to those blinded by Russophobic propaganda.

[ColesCountyDem]

23. 'Russophoibic propaganda'? Oh, please!

I'm not 'Russophobic'-- I simply don't hold a willfully naive worldview.

[VanGoghRocks]

24. I wish the Russian Federation would do some "blatant demonstrating." NATO

and the U.S. have been asking for it ever since Clinton's first term.

Oh well, one can always hope.

[cstanleytech]

30. Oh grow up..........both of you.

Russia did this......the US did that......enough.
What we are dealing with is the here and now and in the here and now Russia has invaded the Ukraine pure and simple.

[VanGoghRocks]

31. Hark, the Mrs. Grundy of DU has spoken. BTW: it's 'here and now' :)

[cstanleytech]

32. Yes I noticed before I even read your comment thank you though without your assistance I am sure

we would all be lost.

[VanGoghRocks]

33. Trust me, had Russia invaded Ukraine 'plain and simple, her T-72s and T-80s would

already be at the Polish border and Kiev little more than a smouldering husk.

[cstanleytech]

39. The invasion is happening Van. They just arent trying to take it all over they clearly want

the southern part for the access it grants them to the trade potentials via the black sea as well as oil and gas pipelines in the future and they probably wont touch the northern part especially because thats where Chernobyl is.

[AngryAmish]

9. There seems to ne a real split between the American deep state and Obama

On both isis and russia Obama wants no military action. Deep state both in and out of the Administration seems to want war.

I hope Obama wins this one.

[VanGoghRocks]

12. That's pretty astute. Obama may find himself mouse-trapped here, though, just

as he was on Afghanistan in his first term by Be-tray-Us and Bob 'Eichmann' Gates.

In this case, the mouse-trapping will come from NeoCon\NeoLiberal asses of evil like Nuland\Pyatt\Kagan and Brzezinski on Ukraine and HRC and McInsane on ISIS.

Here's hoping Obama can thread the needle better this time around.

[libdem4life]

17. Just call it what we call our near constant invasions of sovereign states...Interventions.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[VanGoghRocks]

25. To quote Samantha Powers, Putin has a 'responsibility

to protect' . . . Russian Slavs in eastern Ukraine

[pampango]

26. Which progressives oppose, right? n/t

[VanGoghRocks]

27. We also oppose blatant in-your-face hypocrisy and

sanctimony of the kind the U.S. government routinely serves up.

[pampango]

28. Agreed. AND we oppose "invasions of sovereign states". n/t

[VanGoghRocks]

29. But we support 'Responsibility to Protect'? Wait, I'm confused. Hypocrisy

and sanctimony frequently have that effect on me.

[pampango]

34. I believe that only the UN Security Council can authorize action under R2P, not each

country on its own. Otherwise, you would have countries invading each other under the guise of 'protecting' civilians in the other country. No exactly the recipe for a more peaceful world.

I'm glad no one unilaterally invaded Russia in response to the suffering of civilians in Chechnya. Only the UN could authorize that and it did not.

The three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) and formulated in the Secretary-General's 2009 Report (A/63/677) on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect are:

The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml

The Security Council has authorized UN action under R2P many times, most recently in Mali. As far as I know, no one has taken the case of the plight of civilians in eastern Ukraine to the Security Council. If Russia had done that either the SC would have authorized action (and supervised how it was carried out) or denied authorization (as it has done in Syria). That would have embarrassed whoever vetoed action in easter Ukraine then Russia could still have acted unilaterally (without UN approval obviously, but it did not have that anyway) to provide aid.

[reorg]

37. and if it doesn't authorize it we do it anyway

like in Kosovo. Or if the SC authorises a little, like a no-fly zone over Libya, we go full force for regime change bombing.

[pampango]

38. Indeed. As I posted: "then Russia could still have acted unilaterally (without UN approval obviously

but it did not have that anyway) to provide aid.

And in the case of Syria, the Security Council has never authorized any R2P intervention and 191,000 people have died. It is not a perfect system for sure, but it is better than not protecting civilians at all or letting each country decide when they think there are people that need protecting in some other country (particularly one with which they are having bad relations at the moment).

[libdem4life]

41. Absolutely. It's the semantics that the US is good at ... regime change, et al.

[quadrature]

40. Obama meant what?, with his promise of 'flexibilty' he made.

to the 'Putin-stand-in-guy' ?