Breaking: Putin asks Russian parliament for approval to use military force in Ukraine; Update: Gets unanimous approval

posted at 9:57 am on March 1, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Looks like the pretense has been dropped in Moscow. According to NBC News, Vladimir Putin has asked the Russian parliament to approve a plan for military intervention in Ukraine:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked parliament for approval to use the country’s military in Ukraine, the Kremlin said in a statement Saturday.

Putin said the move is needed to protect ethnic Russians and the personnel of a Russian military base in Ukraine’s strategic region of Crimea. …

The statement said: “Due to the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens and compatriots, and the personnel staff of Russia’s military forces based in Ukraine (Crimea), according to international agreement … I submit a request to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation for the use of military forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in the country normalizes.”

This sounds a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. The request comes after Putin has already sent as many as 6,000 troops into Crimea:

Ukraine accused Russia of sending 6,000 additional troops into Crimea Saturday, deepening a crisis in which both sides accused each other of trying to destabilize the region.

Russia defended this move by claiming that the government in Kyiv tried to retake its Interior Ministry building in Crimea by force. Essentially, this boils down to the “Mom, he hit me back!” argument:

The situation on the ground became even murkier when Russia claimed that Kiev-backed gunmen had attempted to take over the Crimean Interior Ministry. There was no confirmation of such an action from other sources. Russia’s foreign ministry said people had been wounded, but gave no details.

“With decisive actions by self-defense groups, the attempt to seize the interior ministry building was averted. This confirms the desire of prominent political circles in Kiev to destabilize the peninsula,” it said in a statement Saturday.

Accusing the native government of a region of destabilizing a situation by attempting to push foreign troops off its soil is about the epitome of chutzpah. Putin’s claim is that ethnicity trumps sovereignty, a rather dangerous argument for him to make in the context of the Caucasus, for instance. That’s the pretext that practically everyone saw coming, though — or everyone except Christiane Amanpour and American intelligence.

What will the Obama administration do? As it turns out, one reason why Russia finds this such a low-risk scenario is because the US and UK convinced Ukraine to give up its leftover Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994. In exchange for its unilateral disarmament, the US and UK pledged to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity against any aggression in a pact known as the Budapest Memorandum:

A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if President Putin’s troops cross into the country.

Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine – agreed to the The Budapest Memorandum as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war. …

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as British Ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said that war could be an option ‘if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding.’

It promises to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Kiev has demanded the agreement is activated after insisting their borders had been violated.

In response Mr Brenton said in a BBC radio interview: ‘If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia’.

This twenty-year-old treaty is getting a fresh look in the UK media … but so far, American media seems to have either forgotten about it or are ignorant of its existence. Until a reader e-mailed us the details, I didn’t recall it either. However, this is uncomfortably similar to the situation in Europe during the 1930s, when Western security assurances failed to keep another empire-builder from forcibly acquiring new territories — on the basis of ethnic and linguistic continuity, too.

Enforcing the Budapest Memorandum would be a nightmare, pitting the US and UK against Russian troops in eastern Europe all over again (which the Clinton administration should have considered at the time). A failure to enforce the Budapest Memorandum might be a bigger nightmare, though. If the West fails to meet its security obligations to Kyiv, then the rest of eastern Europe (and the Baltic states in particular) will know that the West won’t lift a finger to help them, either. Don’t expect the West’s writ to run far in the event of that kind of collapse.

Update: The Russian parliament unanimously approved Putin’s plans for military intervention.

Update: Apparently, the Crimean peninsula has a third interested party — Turkey. A late-eighteenth-century treaty gave Crimea to the Russians, but only under certain conditions:

In an article in last week’s Russian Pravda, it was noted that if Ukraine was divided, then the status of the Crimean Peninsula – returned to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Kruschev, would be open to discussion, and that would include Turkey having a say in the future of Crimea.

The reference to this claim is the “Küçük Kaynarca” (Karlowitz I) signed 230 years ago. As per this agreement, signed by the Russian Tsarina Catherine II on April 19, 1783, the Crimean Peninsula was taken away from the dominion of the Ottomans and handed over to Russia. However, one of the most important provisions of this treaty was the debarment of independence for the Peninsula and outlawing its submission to a third party: Should any such attempt be made, then Crimea would automatically have to be returned to the sovereignty of Turkey.

When Ukraine appeared as an independent nation following the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, Turkey acquired the right to claim the Peninsula back based on the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca; however, this was not brought up by the Turgut Ozal administration of the time. Turkey was content with advocating for the rights of the Tatar minority living on the Crimean Peninsula.

If the Russians are suppressing the Tatars, which is the general impression at the moment, then Turkey might get a lot more interested in pushing Putin out of Crimea, too. There’s some history there that will fuel those passions:

On top of that, for the majority of Turkish people who are well-read in history, the Crimean land has a distinct place when compared with other Turkic Republics, because similar to Hitler’s “holocaust” against the Jews, Stalin carried out atrocities against the Crimean Turks. Stalin’s campaign of forced ethnic cleansing and the relocation of the Crimean Turks is still well-remembered.

The Turks have a few such episodes in their history, too, but since they refuse to acknowledge those, don’t expect them to humbly watch as Russians push Tatars under their wheels again.

Update: The Tatars reject the idea that the Crimean seizure of buildings came from a natural uprising of native Russians:

Asked whether it had been Russian military forces who had seized Crimea’s parliament and executive administration early Thursday morning, Refat Chubarov, the Tatar leader and deputy in the parliament, said it had been organized by military forces.

“If there are still people who still think that the building of the Crimean Council of Ministers and the building of the Crimean parliament were seized by either some form of self-organized militia or some other civilian group, I have no time for these people,” Mr. Chubarov said at a news conference.

“These buildings were seized by specially trained people acting on military orders,” he said.

Update: James Joyner has a good post up on the crisis:

Some smart hands are calling for taking this to the UN Security Council to force Russia to cast an embarrassing veto. I don’t have a strong opinion on that, even though I think Russia’s national interests here are going to outweigh such considerations. Further, even if Russia didn’t have veto power, I’m not at all persuaded that a united Ukraine—much less one that’s being held together despite the wishes of a geographically compact and easily separable minority nationality—is something worth American blood and treasure.

Additionally, this highlights my longstanding opposition to further NATO expansion. The closer we get to Russia’s borders, as with Georgia and Ukraine, the more likely confrontation exists. And I’m not prepared to consider the use of military force against either of those countries an attack on the United States.

Well, the Budapest Memorandum requires either the US or UK to take this to the UN, so that should be happening anyway. I agree on the rest of his points, but the problem is that we’ve already left the impression that we have guaranteed sovereignty and security in this region, NATO membership or not. This is what comes out of well-intentioned efforts to put denuclearization ahead of long-term strategic interests. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not the end of history, as this very clearly demonstrates.

I don’t want to see Americans going off to war to keep Crimea Ukrainian, either. But we shouldn’t make those promises without that kind of will and interest, and this demonstrates that our promises probably don’t mean much if met by force. Don’t be surprised to see others take this demonstration into account.

Update: In 2010, the Obama administration explicitly re-endorsed the “security assurances” of the Budapest Memorandum:

Both sides reaffirmed their shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons and pledged to work together to prevent proliferation and to realize the Nuclear Security Summit’s goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials. The U.S. recognized Ukraine’s unique contribution to nuclear disarmament and reconfirmed that the security assurances, recorded in the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine of December 5, 1994, remain in effect.

That’s why Kyiv is asking the question today.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8

Lip Service…

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Putin is just trying to free the Crimea from red line lock with a kinetic parliamentary action.

Flange on March 1, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Obviously Obama’s warning was really effective.

rplat on March 1, 2014 at 10:02 AM

What should be the US response?

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

I don’t recall this agreement either, but this administration will do nothing to honor it beyond flapping their gums.

NotCoach on March 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Paper Agreements signed by Paper Tigers.

vilebody on March 1, 2014 at 10:04 AM

At this point what difference does it make?

PackerBronco on March 1, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Ed, I just did a quick search on the Budapest Memorandum and Russia is also a signatory to this treaty.

NotCoach on March 1, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Oh please, like Team Obama gives a crap about a treaty if it hurts their interests.

rob verdi on March 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Well Putin certainly thought long and hard on Obama’s stern words from yesterday.

“Mr. Putin, do you have any comment on President Obama’s speech on this issue from yesterday?”

Putin: “Who?”

BigWyo on March 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Breaking: the Obama administration is picking out a very large font in response

Chuck Schick on March 1, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Holy Cow. Sorry about you guys in the Ukraine. Our guy likes to watch.

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Enforcing the Budapest Memorandum would be a nightmare, pitting the US and UK against Russian troops in eastern Europe all over again (which the Clinton administration should have considered at the time).

Close, but no cigar Ed.

Flora Duh on March 1, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Dog Eater has to be overflowing his Depends right about now, this isn’t a situation he ever expected to find himself in, basically because he really believed the world moves on his words alone.

Ukraine, you’re screwed, might as well get used to this new reality.

The rest of eastern Europe? Start planning.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Why, of course, my little Ukrainian droogies, you can join the EU…but not before you give up every strategic advantage that lends credence to your existence as a viable, independent state.

You’re welcome, comrades, I mean, friends,

Vlad Putin

NavyMustang on March 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

What should be the US response?

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Ask Sarah Palin. She’s been right about everything else.

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Have you been trolling for gilled fish of a blue hue with this lure for the last day or so?

theotherone on March 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

This twenty-year-old treaty is getting a fresh look in the UK media … but so far, American media seems to have either forgotten about it or are ignorant of its existence.

They would have been waving copies of it in front of every camera in the known universe 6 years ago.

BigWyo on March 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Putin’s going after the lot. Poland next?

OldEnglish on March 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Why doesn’t Jugears just push the reset button?

platypus on March 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM

The Budapest Memorandum doesn’t obligate the US to intervene militarily at all. Read it for yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

The only thing it commits us to is a “commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”

… so, basically nothing. You’ve been reading some shoddy reporting there, Ed.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Again… Putin wiping his azz with Obama’s nose.

“asking permission” after already doing it. This isn’t a poke in Obama’s eyeballs, it’s a Reggie Love kinda poke.

/So ashamed of this POTUS I want to puke.

Key West Reader on March 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Have you been trolling for gilled fish of a blue hue with this lure for the last day or so?

theotherone on March 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Heh…
No, I actually want a blog thread posted about this fact.

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Putin’s going after the lot. Poland next?

OldEnglish on March 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Considering MSLSDC’s map, I’d say Czechoslovakia. It’s closer.

theotherone on March 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Flexibility.

Bmore on March 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM

With a wholesale, pre-approved (by Russia) military action underway in The Ukraine, is ‘uncontested arrival’ still the operative phrase?

ss396 on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

It also looks like the Senate never approved this treaty.

NotCoach on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Golly. Those checks and balances in Russia sure must limit Putin’s power, what with him actually asking the Russian parliament for approval to use military force in Ukraine.

Thank goodness our tough leader doesn’t have to worry about such trivialities (e.g. military force in Libya). /s

Ruckus_Tom on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Ah yes, the End of History.

Seth Halpern on March 1, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I’d say Czechoslovakia. It’s closer.

theotherone on March 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM

No offense but there’s no such country any more. It’s now Czech Republic and Slovakia (? IIRC).

platypus on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

This is bad.

22044 on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

It also looks like the Senate never approved this treaty.

NotCoach on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

That doesn’t let the UK off the hook, though.

Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

With a wholesale, pre-approved (by Russia) military action underway in The Ukraine, is ‘uncontested arrival’ still the operative phrase?

ss396 on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

It’s a pretty neat trick. We urge Ukraine not to escalate the situation by defending against Russian incursions, Russia takes that as a sign to invade further, and we claim they didn’t due anything wrong, because Ukraine isn’t resisting. And then we repeat the cycle again.

International relations are fun!

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Sarah Palin called it.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

With a wholesale, pre-approved (by Russia) military action underway in The Ukraine, is ‘uncontested arrival’ still the operative phrase?

ss396 on March 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Susan Rice says “yes”.

/Searching for videos to blame. I’m thinking they’ll drudge up BORAT.

Key West Reader on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

theotherone on March 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Heh!

OldEnglish on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Got back from Kiev a few months ago. The fact that Kiev has the hottest chicks on the planet makes this an international concern. The fact that so many of them wear mini skirts and thigh high leather boots makes intervention a necessity.

rickyricardo on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Beside myself frustrated for my Ukrainian friends. The American people screw up at the ballot box, and they lose their chance at freedom. I will never forgive Obama for dropping this mantle. I never thought he could find a new way to fail more than he already has, but he’s surpassed himself.

Gingotts on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Leftists love them some risk free drone strikes, but ask them to contest a situation where the result is in doubt, they do nothing. Putin knows he can roll into Kiev, crush the uprising, reinstall his puppet, and nothing will happen.

xuyee on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Golf. And food stamps.

It’s all he’s got.

Key West Reader on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I vote for rolling up the windows, locking the doors, and driving quickly until we’re in a safer neighborhood.

Also, Kerry should go to the Hallmark store and buy a “Sorry you got Partitioned” card to send to Ukraine when this is over.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Dog Eater has to be overflowing his Depends right about now, this isn’t a situation he ever expected to find himself in, basically because he really believed the world moves on his words alone.

Ukraine, you’re screwed, might as well get used to this new reality.

The rest of eastern Europe? Start planning.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:09 AM

And learning Russian, perhaps.

Midas on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Got back from Kiev a few months ago. The fact that Kiev has the hottest chicks on the planet makes this an international concern. The fact that so many of them wear mini skirts and thigh high leather boots makes intervention a necessity.

rickyricardo on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

We may have to go on a fact-finding mission to ascertain these claims of yours, it’s a sacrifice but I’m willing to do it.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

59m
Photo: Full text of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s request to use military in Ukraine – via @mashable
see original on twitter.com
===========================

https://twitter.com/mashable/status/439763540589957121/photo/1/large

canopfor on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Ed said:

Accusing the native government of a region of destabilizing a situation by attempting to push foreign troops off its soil is about the epitome of chutzpah. Putin’s claim is that ethnicity trumps sovereignty, a rather dangerous argument for him to make in the context of the Caucasus, for instance.

No, his claim is that the “native government” installed by the Molotov-cocktail throwing mob is not legitimate. He didn’t invade after the ’05 Orange Revolution because that happened at the ballot box, so there was no excuse. If Ukraine had just waited a year and removed the elected government peacefully, via the democratic process- or for that matter abided by the February agreement for early elections- they’d still have Crimea.

Jon0815 on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

A third sock puppet, with nothing but the same inane question?

Midas on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Palin was right as usual.
Putin stronger than before.
Limp wrist obama still at dem happy hour.

tim c on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Sarah Palin called it.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Palin gave Putin the idea! None of this would have happened if Caribou Barbie had kept her pig mouth shut!

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

We should seize all Russian assets in the US. Both government and private. That way Barky can become President and GM of the Brooklyn Nets and fulfill his hoop wet dreams.

xkaydet65 on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

This might open the door again for Chris Christie’s presidential aspirations. That tough guy image that he’s cultivated could benefit him if Putin starts gaining traction. At the very least the Russian army would be F’d when he closes all the bridges down in the Ukraine…

publius75 on March 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I wish Andrew was here to give us his take.

Bmore on March 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM

If the West fails to meet its security obligations to Kyiv, then the rest of eastern Europe (and the Baltic states in particular) will know that the West won’t lift a finger to help them, either.

It’s always good to have a clear view of reality, even if it is belated.

Fenris on March 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Does the Russian Parliament know Obama warned Vlad not to interfere?

Apparently not. Obama, after all, is the leader of the free feckless world.

BigAlSouth on March 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

White House on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s request to Parliament to approve use of armed forces in Ukraine: ‘We’re monitoring the situation closely, consulting with our partners, and considering the potential costs the President spoke about yesterday’ – @NBCNews

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Palin gave Putin the idea! None of this would have happened if Caribou Barbie had kept her pig mouth shut!

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Azzwipe…

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:24 AM

‘and considering the potential costs the President spoke about yesterday’

Presumably it’ll be about $40 for the coffee and donuts they had at the meeting.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Ask Mrs. Palin. She’s probably already thought it through and would likely be right… Again. My guess? It would involve the use of aircraft initially manufactured over half a century ago. They’re still pretty impressive and get the point across.

Got back from Kiev a few months ago. The fact that Kiev has the hottest chicks on the planet makes this an international concern. The fact that so many of them wear mini skirts and thigh high leather boots makes intervention a necessity.

rickyricardo on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Continues to redefine sophomoric downward.

turfmann on March 1, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Check the golf course, we need a response from Tiger paper-tiger.

Wade on March 1, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Sarah Palin called it.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Palin gave Putin the idea! None of this would have happened if Caribou Barbie had kept her pig mouth shut!

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Exactly. Gabby Giffords got shot and a judge was killed because of her bulls eyes on her webpage.

That woman needs to learn her place.

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 10:27 AM

White House on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s request to Parliament to approve use of armed forces in Ukraine: ‘We’re monitoring the situation closely, consulting with our partners, and considering the potential costs the President spoke about yesterday’ – @NBCNews

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

IOW, “we got nuttin”.

Flora Duh on March 1, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Also, Kerry should go to the Hallmark store and buy a “Sorry you got Partitioned” card to send to Ukraine when this is over.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Funny and sad.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Crimea tensions in Ukraine
41s
Russian parliament approves President Vladimir Putin’s request to send military to Ukraine – @AP, @Reuters
end of alert

canopfor on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

barry cares not for documents…he has an oath and a Constitution, neither of which he follows….I hope barry likes the heat…fit him for his millstone….

crosshugger on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

This will not be limited to the Crimea.

forest on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Azzwipe…

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:24 AM

He’s kidding OC.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

If the Russians are suppressing the Tatars, which is the general impression at the moment

Russia could care less about suppressing the Tatars. Action in the Ukraine isn’t about eastward expansion. Look at a map of Russia and count the number of warm water naval bases. Strategically, Crimea is vital to Russia’s national security.

You need to worry if Russia invades pro-Russian territory without the naval significance of Crimea. If Russian troops enter Kharkov, all bets are off.

bayam on March 1, 2014 at 10:29 AM

obama: Mr. Putin … Build that wall!

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

An announcement that the U.S. is clearing away every hurdle standing in the way of massive development of our energy sources, specifically natural gas.

That our energy trade agreements with Europe will be reviewed with a close look taken at increasing natural gas shipments.

That the Preznit is going to be calling and directly talking to every national leader in Europe about reaffirming our defense agreements.

That the missile shield in Poland will not only be put back in place but upgraded substantially.

That every trade agreement with Russia will be reassessed with particular attention paid to how necessary they really are.

That every other ally we have throughout the world has our full support in case some other thug decides to make a move somewhere.

This would be a start. Russia has a hunter-gatherer economy and can be critically damaged if we only had the seeds to actually do anything, and not single bullet would need to be fired.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM

He’s kidding OC.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Guess I missed the sarc tag, need more coffee…

OmahaConservative on March 1, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Just read where our turd in the WH is “deeply concerned” with the Russian moves. Oh boy, Putin, watch out now./ Wouldn’t be surprised if Putin flew over here just to pat our turd on the head. “Silly little boy”.

msupertas on March 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM

What should be the US response?

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Ask Sarah Palin. She’s been right about everything else.

That’s because she watched the invasion happen from her back yard.

bayam on March 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Ask Mr. Red line….If your going to throw threats around you better have a plan to back them up.

Indianatime on March 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM

What should be the US response?

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Wow, 4th post in…

I duuno?? Maybe we should ask Lurch and Obama. They were just saying yesterday that there would be consequences.

They surely wouldn’t just be flapping their blow holes if they didn’t mean business, would they???

BigWyo on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Sarah Palin called it.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

hawkdriver:Tru dats:)
======================

Tweets All / No replies

Sarah Palin ‏@SarahPalinUSA 2h

Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate… http://fb.me/2ckgQiFR4
Expand
================

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/28/Flashback-Palin-Mocked-in-2008-for-Warning-Putin-May-Invade-Ukraine-if-Obama-Elected-President

canopfor on February 28, 2014 at 6:46 PM

canopfor on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Still waiting for comments on what would be a viable US response.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:15 AM

A third sock puppet, with nothing but the same inane question?

Midas on March 1, 2014 at 10:20 AM

All I’m seeing is nonstop snark. Almost all enjoyable. However, I was hoping someone might be able to suggest a realistic response to Putin.

Aplombed on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

He’s kidding OC.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

The fact that some people didn’t take that as sarcasm says a lot about the behavior we expect when Palin comes up.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

He’s kidding OC.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Homophobe.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Workers of the world, unite!

Philly on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

That’s because she watched the invasion happen from her back yard.

bayam on March 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Once again inbred, that was Fey that said that. Palin never said it. Sad when you get your news from SNL, tard.

msupertas on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Even in Moscow, “the fix is in”…

Khun Joe on March 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM

bayam on March 1, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Exactly.

“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,”

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Russia might invade Ukraine if Obama wins, Palin warns

BY Blake Hounshell
OCTOBER 22, 2008 – 09:09 AM
*******************************

Speaking Tuesday at a rally in a Reno, Nevada, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin had a little fun with her counterpart on the Democratic ticket, thanking Joe Biden for warning Barack Obama’s supporters to “gird your loins” for an international crisis if the Illinois senator wins.

Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:

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.

Watch the video here:

As we’ve said before, 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. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
==============

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

canopfor on February 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM

canopfor on March 1, 2014 at 10:34 AM

In December:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday opened his wallet in the battle with the European Union over Ukraine’s future, saying Moscow will buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian government bonds and sharply cut the price of natural gas for its economically struggling neighbor.

The announcements came after Putin held talks in Moscow with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who is facing massive protests at home for his decision to shelve a pact with the EU in favor of closer ties with Moscow. Russia’s bailout package angered protesters, who immediately accused Yanukovych of selling the country out to the Kremlin and pressed demands for his ouster.

Putin’s move came as Ukraine said it desperately needs to get at least $10 billion in the coming months to avoid bankruptcy. The Fitch ratings agency has given Ukraine’s bonds a B-minus rating, which puts them in “junk bond” territory.

http://www.floridatoday.com/usatoday/article/4058059

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

This would be a start. Russia has a hunter-gatherer economy and can be critically damaged if we only had the seeds to actually do anything, and not single bullet would need to be fired.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Lot more to that point than first meets the eye. Very astute and glad you posted.

HonestLib on March 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

That doesn’t let the UK off the hook, though.

Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Yes it does. The UK has less than a 100k standing army. They can’t do squat because of that fact. Treaty or no treaty.

Liberal thinking….These European nations, think by decreasing their military, this in turn will lead to World peace. It only leads to more war in the end. Obama thinks, just like our liberal friends across the pond, that by decreasing our military will lead to more World peace.

These peaceniks expect different results than what history consistently shown us. Weakening your military will never lead to peace. Sign treaties that threaten future military action if a red line is crossed. Just make damn sure that you don’t decrease your military to assure the other side that your previous promises are moot.

Conservative4Ever on March 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Bishop/Palin 2016

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The Sales Pitch:

Obama’s Pick Adds Foreign Expertise to Ticket

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY
Published: August 23, 2008
***************************

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama introduced Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running mate on Saturday at a boisterous rally in Springfield, Ill.,

a choice that strengthens the Democratic ticket’s credentials on foreign policy

and provides Mr. Obama a combative partner as he heads into the fight with Senator John McCain.

In Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama selected a six-term senator from Delaware best known for his expertise on foreign affairs

— Mr. Biden spent last weekend in Georgia as that nation engaged in a tense confrontation with Russia —

but also for his skills at political combat.

Mr. Obama passed over other candidates who might have brought him a state or reinforced the message of change that has been central to his candidacy.

At the rally outside the Old State Capitol where Mr. Obama announced his candidacy 19 months ago, he described Mr. Biden as a man ready to be president. And he offered a passionate and politically instructive introduction of Mr. Biden: the portrait of a running mate who filled in what many Democrats have described as the political shortcomings of Mr. Obama.

He presented Mr. Biden as the product of a Catholic, blue-collar home in Pennsylvania who had endured personal tragedy in the death of his wife and daughter and his own brush with death, a man who could relate to the culture of the Senate or of working-class voters.

“I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it,” said Mr. Obama, of Illinois.

“He’s that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol; in the V.F.W. hall in Concord,

and at the center of an international crisis.

“That’s because he is still that scrappy kid from Scranton who beat the odds — the dedicated family man and committed Catholic who knows every conductor on that Amtrak train to Wilmington.”

The choice of Mr. Biden was perhaps the most critical decision Mr. Obama has made as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee.

It suggested a concern by Mr. Obama’s advisers that his recent overseas trip might not have done enough to address persistent voter concerns about his level of experience, especially on national security.

Mr. Obama announced his selection when the conflict between Russia and Georgia

has provided Republicans an opportunity to reinject foreign policy into an election that has increasingly focused on the economy,

and as Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, has been proving himself a scrappier opponent than many Democrats had assumed he would be.

(More…………)
====================

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/politics/24veep.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

canopfor on March 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The fact that some people didn’t take that as sarcasm says a lot about the behavior we expect when Palin comes up.

Inkblots on March 1, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Sarah Plain is beat up so much, most folks naturally come to her defense. Folks have made comments more outrageous than yours and been serious. I could cut OC some slack.

hawkdriver on March 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Lot more to that point than first meets the eye. Very astute and glad you posted.

HonestLib on March 1, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The hunter-gatherer part is not mine, I got it from a link through Insta, don’t remember who wrote it.

Basically it’s a take on Russia being a 3rd world nation with a 1st world military, the question being “Name something produced in Russia that doesn’t either explode or have the letters ‘AK’ somewhere in its nomenclature.”

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Beside myself frustrated for my Ukrainian friends. The American people screw up at the ballot box, and they lose their chance at freedom. I will never forgive Obama for dropping this mantle. I never thought he could find a new way to fail more than he already has, but he’s surpassed himself.

Gingotts on March 1, 2014 at 10:17 AM

One of the only bright spots in this whole affair. That picture on Drudge yesterday of president mom jeans looking like he just dropped a pant load was almost worth it.

Cleombrotus on March 1, 2014 at 10:40 AM

We don’t have a Reagan in the office. Therefore, this. It’s crazy to think that could have been prevented with Oblummer, but it’s also crazy to think we can or should involve ourselves further. Neo-cons are missing their war stock return for certain, and are salivating at the moment.

LaughterJones on March 1, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Schadenfreude.

Bmore on March 1, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8