Mr. Kerry repeated his warning to Moscow in remarks to a congressional panel on Thursday.
“There will be a response of some kind [to] the referendum itself, and in addition, if there is no sign of any capacity to be able to move forward and resolve this issue, there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday in Europe and here,” Mr. Kerry told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.
…the Obama administration froze the U.S. assets of seven Russian officials, including top advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea’s vote to secede from Ukraine, while similar sanctions were imposed on four Ukrainian officials for instigating Sunday’s Crimean referendum.
That is very scary AND serious sanctions indeed!
All this still confuses me.
We support Ukrainians desire to force an elected President out of power – replacing him with one they find more acceptable. But then we fail to recognize Ukrainians desire to separate from the country to join with Russia.
I admit to being ignorant on the history of the Ukraine and have absolutely no understanding of the history of the region or the nation.
However, I have done some investigation.
In recent history Crimea was part of the Soviet Union and was given to Ukraine in 1954 – some say as a gesture of goodwill. With most of the population of the peninsula considering themselves Russian – it is very reasonable that there is significant desire on the part of the people to want to become part of Russia again.
Recent events in the Ukrainian capital forced the sitting President to flee the country and take up shelter in Russia. The pro-Russian government has been replaced with a pro-Western government. There is little doubt that Yanukovitch was corrupt and needed too be out of office. Less clear to me is that a reasonable course of action given that state of affairs is to protest and forcibly remove a sitting elected official. Elections, they say, have consequences and the method that a reasonable citizenry use to affect leadership is done at the ballot box.
Add this up and the events begin to make more sense.
Russia sees an ally thrown out by a coup and replaced with a government much less friendly. They, Russia, feels that their strategic interests are at risk specifically in Crimea. In an effort to solidify those interests, including the port of the Black Sea fleet, Putin moved into Crimea claiming he was acting in the defense of Russian citizens.
While Putin’s claims of caring for the citizenry of Crimea rings somewhat false given no threatened violence combined with Putin’s clear disregard for human rights, there is a valid point – that the region is historically Russian.
Added to this reality is the fact that I resonate with the argument that the revolt in Kiev was not the best response to a desire to change leadership.
What does this mean for the US? Well, as has been pointed out by virtually everyone – there is little we can do to influence Putin as it pertains to the peninsula; we most likely have to live with the fact that Crimea will eventually become part of Russia – but given the make-up of the people living there, this is a relatively painless eventuality.
What we need to do is identify where we and the rest of the EU will draw its line as it pertains the rest of Ukraine at large. And then send troops – to guard that line and train the Ukrainian army. Additionally, it is time to address the President’s decision to abandon the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Clearly The Bear is stirring and if we want to be taken seriously we need to act in a manner commensurate with a growing Russian threat.
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration says the U.S. is open to a United Nations resolution that does not include the threat of military force against Syria if the government fails to surrender its chemical weapons.
The threat of force was never something the Security Council, where Russia and four other countries have veto power, was going to pass. Nevertheless, the LA Times describes the development as “indication of the White House’s weak hand in the unfolding negotiations between world powers.” John Kerry and his Russian counterpart have been negotiating a deal for Bashar Assad to surrender his chemical weapons to international control ever since the secretary of state off-handedly identified that as an unlikely diplomatic solution to the situation. The Russians seized on the perceived misstep and the UN resolution will include whatever arrangement Russia and the US manage to strike.
Why is the United States in the role of chemical weapons monitor of the world? Barack Obama insists it wasn’t him that drew the red line for war (a kind of “Who Killed Davey Moore?” moment), it was the world. The president claims international law demands he (on behalf of the world?) act. Yet, in fact, none of the existing international law on chemical weapons applies in this case. The president’s red line is his alone, his arguments to a non-applicable (or even non-existent) international legal regime notwithstanding. The UN does, under its charter, have the authority to act in some way on the human rights violations in Syria, but the Security Council has to act with at least the apathy of its five veto-wielding members, the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. The Obama Administration’s newfound willingness to drop the non-starter that the threat of force is at the UN should mean it’s ready to meander away from a very much self-made crisis. John Kerry, it seems, has already turned his attention to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, his other pet project.
We elected an “Occupy Wall Street” committee member as President. It’s really not his fault, rather, it’s ours.
Syria is all the news. Lot’s of folks don’t know what to do. And I’m not saying that being from Syria allows greater clarification, but do think that hearing what Triangle residents from Syria have to say is enlightening:
Raleigh, N.C. — While the world weighs a military strike against Syria, the Syrian community in Raleigh is watching, waiting and hoping the world will step in to remove President Bashar Assad.
Khalila Sabra, who works with Syrian refugees, has seen the effects of Syria’s civil war firsthand. She calls Assad a butcher.
“He’s committing genocide, and the world is just standing by and watching it happen,” Sabra said Thursday.
Sabra and the Islamic Association of Raleigh have been gathering medical supplies and donations to send to the refugee camps on Syria’s borders. More than 2 million Syrians have fled to Lebanon and Jordan, and as many as 200,000 people have died in the civil war, she said.
“I would like to see Bashar al Assad removed by any means necessary,” she said. “I know that Americans have grown weary of war because of Afghanistan and Iraq, but our moral compass demands that we do something about Syria.”
Bilal Kanawati, who emigrated to the U.S. from Syria after high school, still has family in Damascus. He said he wasn’t surprised to hear about a chemical attack in his homeland.
“He’s done it before, and I’m sure he will do it again if we don’t stop him,” Kanawati said of Assad.
“It’s not political right now. It’s just to stop the massacres,” he said. “(Assad) is killing several hundreds everyday in Syria and the silence of the world is killing them more because nobody is acting because Syria is not an oil-producing country.”
No surprise that Assad is a butcher. But no mention of a reasonable replacement either.
Obama won the election. I think the man was born in America. I don’t think he stole the election. I’m sure democrats cheated in some polls and voter registration drives; I’m equally sure the republicans did the same thing.
I think that Obama didn’t have a platform. I think he is an “American Idol” “Dancing With The Stars” president. He appears on The View, Late Night and The Tonight Show. He conducted interviews on MTV and local rap stations.
But the man won the election. And this talk of secession is crazy and nothing more than than that; crazy people saying crazy things.
In the days after the election, fantasies of blue-state secession ricocheted around the Internet. Liberals indulged themselves in maps showing Canada gathering the blue states into its social democratic embrace, leaving the red states to form their own “Jesusland.” They passed around the scathing rant from the Web site Fuck the South, which lacerated the chauvinism of the “heartland” and pointed out that the coasts, far from destroying marriage, actually have lower divorce rates than the interior.
These sentiments were so pronounced that they migrated into the mainstream. Speaking on “The McLaughlin Group” the weekend after George W. Bush’s victory, panelist Lawrence O’Donnell, a former Democratic Senate staffer, noted that blue states subsidize the red ones with their tax dollars, and said, “The big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government.”
A shocked Tony Blankley asked him, “Are you calling for civil war?” To which O’Donnell replied, “You can secede without firing a shot.”
Lawrence O’Donnell. The, ahem, famous talk show host on MSNBC once spoke of secession. When asked if he was calling for a civil war he simply replied, Well yeah, I guess kinda.”
So yeah, the talk about secession is crazy. It’s also not new. Nor is it an indication of the unraveling of a party specific. It’s just the ramblings of a few folks who’ve invested a lot in their guy winning.
By the way, notice the comment about who is supporting whom.
(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.
I get that assessing reports and data real time is tough and can often be wrong. But as the days and weeks advanced, Obama continued to tell us that what happened in Benghazi was something other than what it was:
Just in this montage, the administration mentions the video at least 7 times over 6 days. This is a massive failure in terms of obtaining the truth and an absolute failure in dealing with the American people’s faith and trust in the government.
The fact is this, the administration had reason to believe in the first 2 hours that we were dealing with a terrorist attack and certainly within the first 2 days this was crystal clear.
I was listening to my 2nd favorite talk show host, Jason Lewis, on the way to Charlotte last night. During his show, he mentioned the news concerning the killing of Al Qaeda’s #2 guy. I’ll get to Mr. Lewis’ main point in a second, it has to do with the double standard in the war on terror. But first, I wanna more fully clarify my stance on “enhanced interrogation techniques”, oftentimes known as “torture.”
As I type this it strikes me as possible that people hear “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the same way that I hear “kinetic military action.”
Right now, the President of the United States of America is meeting with Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu. These two world leaders are going to discuss how they will act and react to Iran’s growing nuclear threat.
Here are some thoughts on what Obama should say:
Our nation has been involved in 2 wars for the better part of 10 tears. We entered Iraq and Afghanistan with clear, measurable and smart goals; disrupt the Taliban in Afghan and topple Saddam in Iraq. In both cases I supported the action and in both cases we achieved our goal. Sadly, in both cases we failed to win the “after.”
And the horror of losing the after is a nightmare.
In Iran there is no such easy goal, rather some nebulous idea or gut reaction to an idea. Iran getting nuclear technology.
It is my feeling that if we bomb them or if we don’t, the day will dawn with a nuclear Tehran. The only thing that we can control is if we’ll endure another “after” or not.
Given that Iran will obtain the technology and the ability, the nations of the world must work to put calm, reasonable and stable nations in a position to influence a post-nuclear nation of Iran. If this is done through technology sharing, better trade relations, sanctions or defensive military negotiations, so be it.
What we’ll know after the meeting and reporters report is more of what Obama DIDN’T say. He will not commit to a strike. Neither will he commit to supporting Israel if they strike. Lastly, the President will not rule out military action.
This is a game of nerves based on posturing, threats and non-threats. And in games like that, firm commitments are a dangerous play.