Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Obama warns Russia

185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Just Dave

1969184_371087506365204_842420458_n.jpg

I think the US needs to stay out. None of our business. At any rate, any super power that has messed with Russia gets their butts handed to them on a platter, and goes the way of the dinosaurs. Napoleon, Hitler.... It's best to remember and take note of history.

Smart lady! Liking the meme too! All said in very few words!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arkitecht

So after reading all of the opinions on what should be done,or not done,i have come to the conclusion there is no "Right answer" to this situation.Everyone is of a different mind as to what the best course of action should be.So i will tell you what will happen:Nothing.Absolutely Nothing.(at least from our end) Our ineffective president said Sanctions? Lol...Really?!..That's really going to scare those Russians right out of the Ukraine. Im sure I bomb a, oops i mean Obama knows he can't do squat.And the Russians know this too.It's all so obvious. A child could see this coming.We are not going to threaten the Russians. Our country can't even run itself, and we're gonna try and tell them what to do...Lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

Nevermind.

Edited by WoIverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Folks, the math is fairly straightforward.

The USA has very limited diplomatic options for influencing Putin's decisions over the Ukraine.

And it has ZERO military options.

A large minority of Ukranians would favour re-uniting with Russia.

An absolute majority of Ukranians in the Crimea would favour re-unification.

US "diplomacy" won't change that. Demographics are on Putin's side.

Now, the US has a military force that is both very large and very sophisticated. By sophistication, I mean technological sophistication, but also sophistication in doctrine and training. But it will NOT help them in regards to the Ukraine situation.

to put this in context: If every nation on the planet declared war on the USA, and co-ordinated their efforts to invade the US - even taking many years to prepare for the invasion - then they would LOSE. Once fully alerted, the US can send out a "shield" of Espionage and Reconaissance that could identify military formations before they even embark on their ships across the Atlantic/Pacific. An invasion fleet would be engaged by a mixture of submarines and long-range bombers 1000 miles from US shores. At 500 miles they would face an inferno of Navy and Naval Aviation missiles. At 250 ground-based aviation would take over. At 100 miles ground based missiles. At 25 miles artillary. On landing, a furnace of tank fire, shorter-range artillary, missiles, air bombardment.

If the world sent an armada of 100,000 ships (which they couldn't - no such number of freight/military ships exists), they'd be lucky if 100 survived to land their troops and equipment. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans would turn red with blood.

But suppose they did land ? Suppose an armoured division managed to break into New York , overcoming the National Guard and the Police ?

They would then face an armed population.

A division might go in, but NOTHING would come out.

THATS how safe America is against attack.

But here's the rub... NONE of that helps in the Ukraine, because the USA doesn't have any nearby bases. It has no means of harnessing that power, and projecting it into the region. The US military is POWERLESS to intervene at ANY level. Not because it is weak - FAR from it - but because geography defeats it.

Sorry.

But that's the way it is. Sit back and relax, because whatever happens in the Ukraine will be decided by the Russians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

How many people here realize that we are bound by treaty with the Ukraine to protect it and it's borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

How many people here realize that we are bound by treaty with the Ukraine to protect it and it's borders?

Yea that sucks. We just might have to hurt their feelings and ignore it. They'll hate US for it and we'll have one more inconsequential enemy. We jump in and we'll be hated. What to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Really? Vegas would love to take bets on those odds. No offense but if we wanted to we could obliterate most countries before they even knew it was US, especially you. Don't make me post up the global firepower index again.

I never said we'd LOSE, just that our soldiers are better then your soldiers :P On the downside we only have half a dozen soldiers, while you've tonnes.

Bragging aside, if we have so much of an effect on you then maybe you've got some self sufficiency issues that need looked at. Honestly, I have no idea what impacts we have on Australia in particular but I think this is more about knocking the big guy down to size than it is a real concern of yours.

I'm Australian, having a go at the Tall Poppy (aka "the Big Guy") is our national sport.

It's sad, because resource wise we're basically if not actually self-sufficient, it's just that our government marches lockstep with yours.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

When Putin goes in to Ukraine I predict that it will be his own downfall. It will only add fire to the Ukrainians determination and give more power to Putin's opposition in Russia.

I disagree because the US and the EU is completely inept to stop him. He has all the cards. He could pop the EU like a pimple. He’s playing on the Social Democracy mindset which is a very weak position. Do you think that sanctions do anything? They did nothing in Iraq and Iran.

We would still have our freedom if we spent less on the military.

That’s sort of an open statement. We use to spend more than the next 25, now I think it is down to the next 15. Can we do with less? I really doubt it.

We have literally hundreds of bases around the world, if we got rid of those we would still have the same amount of defense at home, hell we could even increase our defense at home with the money we saved.

The best defense is still a strong offense. It’s better to fight the enemy in their backyard rather than our own. Yes, we could increase the spending here if we cut bases elsewhere but then we’re making more targets here and causing more collateral damage that will cost more to rebuild. There’ll be more American lives lost here. Keeping it over there is worth saving that blood and treasure.

Not to mention the fact that we are in debt trillions of dollars normally means cut backs have to be made somewhere.

Exactly! This government should only be focused on paying down the Debt, maintaining national infrastructure, and Proving the Common Defense. The PEOPLE can take care of the rest.

And intervening in places cost money. Plus with our economic power no one is going to war us, it would cost them greatly.

If we drop too much below spending more than the next 15, how much would it be for an enemy to lose attacking us? The minute you think it couldn’t happen is when it does. The best way to prevent it is to remove all doubt from the mind of the enemy.

Our country has also shown that when the time comes we easily increase our military production.

That is true and see how much that cost us!? It costs very dearly to be unprepared. You’d think we would have learned our lesson by now? We can’t continue to expect to luck out all the time. Odds are bound to eventually go against us.

If we had the military we needed in WWII, it may not have been enough to stop Japan from attacking but we would have been able to sail to Tokyo almost immediately. What did happen is that the fleet ran and hid for about 6 months before gambling on taking that first stand. We got lucky that time because Midway was also Japan’s high water mark. If luck wasn’t with us then, we would have lost Hawaii and Alaska. The West Coast would be in danger. Australia would have capitulated. The Soviet Union would have lost her eastern provinces. We wouldn’t have been able to join the Allies against Hitler. The war would have gone on longer with the chance of losing the whole thing.

But the main point is that Our military's job is to defend us not the rest of the world.

American Hegemony has a side effect of making it safe for everyone, which in turn, makes it better for us. American Hegemony has brought relative peace and prosperity for the last 70 years. America was what kept the Soviet Union from dominating the world. The Cold War is over but new challenges are always showing themselves.

If we got involved everywhere that has a problem right now we would be in Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Venezuela, the Congo ,

I agree with you there. I don’t think we need to be everywhere but we do need to be selective – pick our battles. Iraq was one of those. For the other places, we allow our reputation hold our enemies at bay in the same way Putin is playing his gambit with an air of the old Soviet Union.

We are still involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That’s Iraq, not Pakistan :-)

Not to mention that fact that Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba are still ruled by totalitarian powers. So should we get involved in all of those?

There are different ways of getting involved. Engage the enemy from the position of strength, not false verboseness. Speak softly and carry a big stick. That requires using that big stick from time to time.

Plus whatever countries didn't pop at the top of my head. When people want to get involved somewhere they are extremely selective about where and tend to ignore all of the other things.

See above…

When a power threatens us and our way of life then I am all far war.

It is happening as we speak. Because we exist, there will always be that barbarian at the gate. This is not a static proposition.

I'm not for intervening in everyone else's war though.

I agree but to what point? Should we have gotten more involved in Bosnia or Rwanda? Did millions have to die because we failed to act? Civil war is one thing but genocide is another. I think that there is room for mediation so that both sides are protected. The thing is is that there never really seemed to be an issue before, although Russia has been working at destabilizing Ukraine since it separated.

And yes if we decrease our military spending then other countries might increase theirs. Good, why should we do all the work?

Plus when we get involved in places it never really is a black and white thing

Because we might find ourselves on the wrong side of their build up.

It never is.

We have this idea that if the U.S doesn't guard everything then the world will fall apart. We fought the Soviet Union(which the cold war is a war I agreed with) But it was ultimately the citizens of the Soviet Union who brought it down.

We don’t have to guard everything but we need to be able to press the flag everywhere. Caesar built bridges to cross the Rhine, not to attack the tribes but to show that he could any time he pleased. As soon as he made the point, he retreated and demolished the bridges. Putin uses this to great affect every time. Obama doesn’t have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

to put this in context: If every nation on the planet declared war on the USA, and co-ordinated their efforts to invade the US - even taking many years to prepare for the invasion - then they would LOSE. Once fully alerted, the US can send out a "shield" of Espionage and Reconaissance that could identify military formations before they even embark on their ships across the Atlantic/Pacific. An invasion fleet would be engaged by a mixture of submarines and long-range bombers 1000 miles from US shores. At 500 miles they would face an inferno of Navy and Naval Aviation missiles. At 250 ground-based aviation would take over. At 100 miles ground based missiles. At 25 miles artillary. On landing, a furnace of tank fire, shorter-range artillary, missiles, air bombardment.

If the world sent an armada of 100,000 ships (which they couldn't - no such number of freight/military ships exists), they'd be lucky if 100 survived to land their troops and equipment. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans would turn red with blood.

But suppose they did land ? Suppose an armoured division managed to break into New York , overcoming the National Guard and the Police ?

They would then face an armed population.

A division might go in, but NOTHING would come out.

THATS how safe America is against attack.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Ukraine. We don’t have the assets in place to do anything about it unless you consider the nuclear option. Do we really want to go there? But that is what Putin is counting on.

But your analysis in your scenario of the world attacking us is dead wrong. Just by the odds of numbers, we would lose badly just as the Nazis lost on the Russian steppes. And a conquering power wouldn’t have to control the entire country. Target refineries, power generation, water plants and there would be no retaliation. To harvest resources, go en masse to each target. Keep the highway system and rail intact but destroy them in retreat as each area is depleted. Don’t spend a lot of time in any one location, get in and get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Yea that sucks. We just might have to hurt their feelings and ignore it. They'll hate US for it and we'll have one more inconsequential enemy. We jump in and we'll be hated. What to do...

England and France did it to Poland at the start of WWII and then we joined them at the end of WWII to do it again to them. I think Ukraine better get used to the idea. But then who’s next? Belarus? Baltic States? Balkans? Poland again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
travelnjones

I realize it. but ned stark won't cut off our head for being oathbreakers will he? peaceful isolationism for just a few years. fix the roads, economy, have a picnic then go back to the world policing job.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

But the main point is that Our military's job is to defend us not the rest of the world. If we got involved everywhere that has a problem right now we would be in Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Venezuela, the Congo ,

Meh...don't have to worry about the Congo or pretty much anywhere else in Africa...they been lopping each others heads off with Machetes for years and we don't seem to care about it...now as soon as they find Oil, Gas, Lithium...etc....then suddenly a humanitarian effort will be necessary...

Egypt...oh yeah...howz about sum more of dat arab spring fer you folks? Seems to be going wonderfully.

Venezuala...they gotz oil thar...so we be gittn' to them shortly...

Ukraine...well our robber barons wants dem natural resources to sell to the EU...so it's going to come down to a pecker measuring contest...

It's all bout them campaign contributors.....and those late night, back room meetings delivering brown bags of cash...

richpeople.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Through NATO, we're obliged to defend Poland, and I've talked to my cousins in Poland this weekend and they have no confidence in that alleged deal again whatsoever. Like Great Britain and France were supposed to defend Poland, a defense which essentially amounted to saying "Duh?" after Germany steamrolled it in a matter of weeks. I wonder if there are roots 75-years long in explaining their lack of confidence.

But let's address a realistic hypothetical scenario here. If Russian soldiers invade the Ukraine and start marching West, do we deploy in Poland to hold the line? Do we defend Poland from what will be another border crisis? We're not doing anything through our proxy Israel to help millions of displaced Syrians but what about Ukrainian ones? This is just the kind of scenario that NATO was created for in the first place. I think we find out who our friends really are in times like these. Kuwait was a lot more important than Ukraine apparently, at least for Obama to grab the missiles and do something largely unilateral about it.

Meanwhile the endless powder keg of wars that Europe always proves itself to be is proving it yet again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

unless you consider the nuclear option. Do we really want to go there? But that is what Putin is counting on.

Derp!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

How many people here realize that we are bound by treaty with the Ukraine to protect it and it's borders?

Here's what I found....

Despite Yulia Tymoshenko’s “war on the United States and Britain” rhetoric, the Budapest Memorandum offers no guarantee of intervention. “It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine,” Stephen MacFarlane told FRANCE 24. “[uS Secretary of State John] Kerry’s harsh remarks on what is going on in Ukraine indicate a degree of resolve, but at the end of the day, what can you do?”

http://www.france24.com/en/20140303-ukraine-us-uk-diplomacy-russia-budapest-memorandum/#./?&_suid=139389746386506250816657304066

So the treaty offers a way to get involved, but does not force the signatorys to be involved. The US does not have to act to protect Ukrainian sovergnty if President Obama decides not to.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I don't think anyone here but Agent0 actually thinks we're obliged to defend Ukraine but even when we are, we aren't. Did the "you attack one of us, you attack all of us" clause in NATO's charter oblige the US to go to war with Israel when Israel attacked Turkey? Of course not! Our oaths to do this get in the way of our oaths to do that!

Alliances aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're just ways of postmarking the divisions between people and countries, and creating bureaucratic openings to armed conflict. Invitations for violence and betrayal. I'm sure Kuwait and Israel and South Korea and Taiwan and other midget states who actually need protection would disagree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

. Did the "you attack one of us, you attack all of us" clause in NATO's charter oblige the US to go to war with Israel when Israel attacked Turkey? Of course not!

idk, it does not seem like current administration likes bibi too much. life is stranger than fiction. i think 4 weeks ago you would not believe me if i told you russian army would be in ukraine. and ukranina navy admiral would switch sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

i think 4 weeks ago you would not believe me if i told you russian army would be in ukraine.

I was thinking the exact same thought the other night, you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

These statements about "costs" and "sanctions" are very hard to take seriously, I wonder what kind of people can actually believe it xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If Obama wanted to keep Russia in the Crimea forever, he could say: "Russia must withdraw from the Crimea".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

Obama is irrelevant... and a sh** president. The only thing he can do is bark, and looks like Putin doesn't give a **** what he says, he's gonna stick with the game plan any way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asadora

I just hope my gas stays on:/

If things were to escalate then it really would actually *be* a -cold war-.

Bah. :td:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

England and France did it to Poland at the start of WWII and then we joined them at the end of WWII to do it again to them. I think Ukraine better get used to the idea. But then who's next? Belarus? Baltic States? Balkans? Poland again?

The potential upside here is that if Oby feels humiliated (if that's possible) he might actually get serious about helping the rest of the aforementioned to strengthen them against such future moves by man tits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill
obama-putin-ukraine-conflict-story-told-in-8-pictures-red-line.jpg
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Am I? So we don't need to be prepared for anything at anytime? Because??? Things you never expect can't or won't happen?

To be less than fully prepared, or as prepared as possible, is foolish. Don't be such a hippy.

Yes, because "anything" is just what it says, your mindset is the quintessential problem with this country today. Empty-suited blank check writing over God knows what. An Establishment that has no problem with government getting involved in "anything". Don't be such a statist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.