Palin Mocked in 2008 for Warning Putin May Invade Ukraine if Obama Elected
by
Tony Lee 28 Feb 2014
9323 post a comment
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin warned that if Senator Barack Obama were elected president, his "indecision" and "moral equivalence" may encourage Russia's Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
Palin
said then:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.
For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow
Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of
Politico magazine.
In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.
Hounshell
wrote then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario."
"And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote.
Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama's running mate Joe Biden warned Obama supporters to "gird your loins" if Obama is elected because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.
Full Video Here:
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...e&VID=25670379
The Crimea is Russia's Springboard into the Mediterranean
03.09.2014 · If Moscow annexed the Crimea, it can upgrade the Black Sea fleet and consolidate his power in the region. Kiev remains in the face of this scenario only a consolation: closer relations with NATO.
From
Thomas Gutschker
USA and NATO just only sit and watch how Russia is correcting borders. How it is bringing back to Russia what belongs to it.
USA has absolutely no chance to go it into war with Russia and to win. So it steps back and watch.
There is no battle group afloat to survive a Russian attack, there is no weapon from USA to be send to West-Ukraine or other NATO-vassal to fight and win against Russia. This are the reasons why there are no action from NATO or USA like against Serbia to separate Kosovo-Metochia from the rest of Serbia.
On Sunday in a week, the inhabitants of the Crimea decide whether they want to belong to Russia again. "Vote for a reunification of the Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?" -. That is the question at issue Who denies it, can alternatively express to remain the peninsula in Ukraine, as a largely autonomous republic. But the decision is no longer open, the Crimean parliament voted on Thursday for connection to Russia. In Moscow hastily worked on a change in the law that allows it to absorb a part of the territory of a foreign State without its consent - so the obvious violation of international law is to be legitimized.
Russian President Putin says that a new in Europe, and it is not to see what it could dissuade him yet. The fact that short-term threat of war to the Crimea, is unlikely. The Ukrainian armed forces are up to the Russian in any way. Currently is not even clear what army are parts ever loyal to the transitional government in Kiev. The NATO countries bordering the Black Sea - in particular Turkey - keep out of the conflict.
NATO sees annexation to
The Americans have a guided missile destroyer moved into the Black Sea, for a long been planned maneuver with the NATO partners Romania and Bulgaria. In the eastern Mediterranean there is still a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group. But as long as the can not retract into the Black Sea, the Russians can feel on the safe side: NATO looks to the annexation, as it has done in 2008 at the war in Georgia. It's not about enforcing the law or to rush a partner state for help, it comes to realpolitik. For the Crimea no one is willing to risk a war in the West.
Nevertheless, the Russian annexation of the peninsula will have strategic consequences immediately for residents on the Black Sea, indirectly, for those in the eastern Mediterranean. Russia provides the base from which to increase its power projection in the region again - after two decades of decline and infirmity of its Black Sea Fleet. It also increases its control over the important energy corridor between the producing countries on the Caspian Sea and the potential customer in Europe. After the EU has dreamed of a few years of it, they could make in this way independent from the supplier Russia, this goal now moves further into the distance.
© AP It is impossible to tell what could dissuade him from the annexation of the Crimea: Russian President Putin
At first glance, one might think that the military is not much will change. Finally, the Black Sea Fleet was previously stationed in Sevastopol already at the southern tip of the Crimea, too, the Russians have several airfields and radar installations on the peninsula. This is all subject to a contract in 1997, in which Russia and Ukraine had agreed on the allocation and deployment of the formerly Soviet fleet. The upper limits of the agreement still reflect their original size, resist: 388 ships, 161 aircraft, 25,000 soldiers. Russia would thus have had every opportunity to project its power from the Crimea over the eastern Mediterranean and the Suez Canal to the Arabian Peninsula and the shores of the Indian Ocean.
But deceive the numbers alone. Most of the ancient Black Sea Fleet has long been retired. What remains are about thirty warships, mostly from the sixties and seventies. The flagship "Moskva" ran 1979 off the stack. The Navy has traditionally been the stepchild of the Russian armed forces. If funds are distributed, the Strategic Missile Forces always come first - they guarantee their nuclear warheads to superpower status - then the Army and Air Force. But that's only part of the explanation. The other: The Naval Treaty of 1997 does not allow for modernization; Russia may only have ships of the classes listed there. Speak Even in NATO circles professionals therefore of a "gag contract".
Moscow will save a lot of money
Due to the limitations in the Sevastopol port Novorossiysk has been massively expanded in recent years in the southwest corner of the Russian Black Sea coast. Putin approved a presidential decree nearly half a billion dollars by 2012 to expand the harbor to a military member. Have already begun the construction of a deep-water terminals. According to current plans six new submarines will be deployed for the Black Sea Fleet in Novorossiysk, six frigates and one of two helicopter carrier Mistral class that Russia obtains from France. The ship named "Sevastopol" will be handed over in three years.
It is quite possible that Russia - freed from the constraints of the Naval Treaty - even Sevastopol rearms again. It is one of the best natural harbors in the world, with many protected bays and deep water. The infrastructure for maintenance and repairs is considered excellent. The Ukrainian navy in Sevastopol also has its main base is, on the other hand need to find a new place to live.
Moscow will also save a lot of money. The Treaty of 1997 provided for an annual rental of almost a hundred million dollars for Sevastopol. As the stationing agreement was later extended, Kiev negotiated additionally a thirty percent discount on Russian gas supplies. In Moscow nationalists and some strategists thought this business for too expensive. They figured ago that Russia would waive four billion dollars a year. The counter-argument was that the Kremlin invest in a prosperous relationship with Ukraine. This hope vanished at the latest with the overthrow of President Yanukovych - post haste Moscow announced the discount.
Consequences for pipeline projects
Russia has used the Black Sea Fleet in recent years for its regional interests. She turned 2008, the tiny Georgian Navy, sat from landing troops and established a naval blockade off the coast. Individual ships took part in the international anti-piracy part in the Horn of Africa. In the course of the civil war in Syria, an association was with up to ten warships stationed in Tartus, the only naval base of Russians outside their territory.
Also this base has been expanded in recent years. It has become a real power in the struggle for Syria, but is supposed to be supply station for warships in the Mediterranean and on the way to the Indian Ocean. Moscow is determined to expand its presence there - as a counterweight to NATO. The Alliance has permanently stationed since 2011 a guided missile destroyer in the Mediterranean, as part of its missile defense. The Russians will mark the helicopter carrier "Sevastopol" their sphere of influence.
When Russia annexed the Crimea, which also has implications for the pipeline projects in the Black Sea region. There collide fundamentally different interests. Russia supplies Europe today mostly via gas lines that run through Ukraine - Moscow wants to end this dependence. This is done on the one hand, the project Nord Stream in the Baltic Sea, on the other hand, South Stream in the Black Sea. Originally, the South Stream gas line should run on a direct route from the Russian Dschubga to Varna in Bulgaria, but then Ukraine would have had a say and may require transmission charges again.
Because this path leads right through the Exclusive Economic Zone of the country, they deserve every state in the 200-mile sector from its coast. Therefore Russia forged a deal with Turkey in 2011, the new route runs through its economic zone. Heard the Crimea again only to Russia, also its economic zone expands, while the Ukraine remains only a small sector. In principle, it is then even possible to lead South Stream as it always wanted Yanukovych: on the Crimea. This would reduce costs dramatically, because the line could be installed in less deep water, additional pump stations on land would increase their capacity. It is uncertain whether, run by Gazprom pipeline consortium to reconsider the routing again. The plans are at an advanced stage, the tubes have already been ordered and are to be laid in the fall on.
What is certain is that done another pipeline project with the Russian annexation of the Crimea. It's called White Stream and should deliver on the Caspian Sea and Georgia to Romania and Ukraine natural gas from Turkmenistan. In Kiev mainly Yulia Tymoshenko has made strong for it, when she was prime minister - to break through the complete dependence on Russian supplies. The pipeline should go to the Crimea on land: on Ukrainian soil. It is clear that Russia continues to expand its dominance in the Black Sea with the occupation of the Crimea. However, there is also a downside for Moscow. As long as Russian troops were on Ukrainian soil, Kiev could not be a member of NATO.
Because the Alliance traditionally takes only States that do not have foreign forces on its territory. While this is not in the North Atlantic Treaty, but is an iron principle, not to import conflicts. In April 2008, the Alliance Kiev had applied for membership in principle in view. Shortly afterwards, the prime minister, Tymoshenko announced the agreement on the Black Sea Fleet will expire in 2017. But when Viktor Yanukovych returned to the presidency in 2010, he extended the deployment of up to 2042. Thus the approach of Kiev to NATO seemed a distant memory. Now the game begins anew. Tymoshenko's party has already introduced a bill into Parliament which provides for closer ties with NATO. It would be a consolation prize for the loss of the Crimea.
McCain: ‘It’s Tragic’ There’s No U.S. Military Option In Ukraine
By
Ben Armbruster
on March 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
CREDIT: AP
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Friday lamented the lack of a military option for the United States in Ukraine against Russia and criticized President Obama for thinking the Cold War is over.
During a segment on MSNBC, McCain said that the Obama administration does’t understand Russian President Vladimir Putin. “They have been near delusional in thinking that the Cold War was over,” McCain said referring to Obama officials. “Maybe the president thinks the Cold War is over but Vladimir Putin doesn’t and that’s what this is all about.”
Later in the interview, when host Andrea Mitchell asked if there is a military option for the U.S. in Ukraine, the Arizona Republican sounded despondent. “I’d love to tell you that there is Andrea, but frankly I do not see it,” he said, adding, “I wish that there were. … I do not see a military option and it’s tragic.”
Watch
the clip:
McCain has been leading the partisan attack on Obama in recent days, claiming that the Russian incursion into Ukraine is the result of Obama’s supposed “feckless” foreign policy.
Yet back in 2008, when Russia invaded neighboring Georgia, McCain criticized any “partisan sniping” on the issue. “There’s no time for that,”
he said at the time. “The time now is for America to — the United States of America to act united on behalf of the people of the country of Georgia, and not do a lot of partisan sniping.”
Re: Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (Formerly: Democratic Malaise Draws Ukraine Eastwards
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by vector7
Bookmarks