Seeking Alpha

Russia escalates tensions over Ukraine

  • Ukraine has put its troops on high combat alert, appealed to Nato for help and warned of war after Russian President Vladimir Putin received parliamentary approval to invade Ukraine.
  • Russia has effectively seized control of Crimea, which was part of Russia until 1954. Russian soldiers - although not identified as such - have surrounded Ukraine military bases in the province and taken over three major airports.
  • President Obama and other western leaders have spoken with Putin and warned him against further military intervention, with Obama making economic threats. U.S. legislators have condemned Russia's actions and have called for sanctions, but have stopped short of demanding military action.
  • The developments in Ukraine have troubled but not roiled global markets so far, although the country's main stock index and currency have been hit badly. Gas and oil are a particular focus given that Ukraine is a key east-west energy route.
  • ETFs: GUR, ESR, USO, OIL, UCO, SCO, DBO, DTO, BNO, CRUD, USL, DNO, UWTI, SZO, DWTI, OLO, OLEM, TWTI,UNG, DGAZ, UGAZ, BOIL, GAZ, FCG, GASL, KOLD, UNL, GASX, NAGS, DCNG
From other sites
Comments (206)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10417) | Send Message
     
    The main branches of the Crimean economy are tourism and agriculture.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:00 AM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1416) | Send Message
     
    love how the GOP are bashing Obama on this!

     

    ha, will they go to fight the war?

     

    who will fight for Crimea?

     

    such hypocrisy.
    2 Mar 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • lecso
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    There is many reason to bash the Prez, this is not one of them.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Patent,

     

    Hypocrisy? Are you joking? The man comes out and says, we are going to half our military, and then Russian invades another country. Do you think that is a coincidence? Of course it's not.

     

    Also, Obama said it is un-American to put 4 Trillion of debt upon our grandchildren...and he's run it up to 8T, and counting, and even saved money closing a war down...and still the spending has increased. So you want to go there on hypocrisy do you? These are the tip of the ice berg.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Yes. It's a coincidence. Please study some Russian history before you comment on this situation.
    2 Mar 2014, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11564) | Send Message
     
    Any action by the west will endanger oil, potash, and destabilize the dollar. And dumping of US reserves by Russia in retaliation will be catastrophic since the US is already over extended with waning foreign demand. This is not a Crimea threat.

     

    Also, Russia faced with rising inflation and an interest in keeping cheap food flowing from the Ukraine, may not stand down easily.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Ignorance is bliss. Putin has been hanging on every word Obama says and has countered him at every turn. Russian spies still infiltrate our government and if you think Putin has no fore knowledge of our governments plans to retreat from the world stage your lying to yourself.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • dividend_growth
    , contributor
    Comments (2899) | Send Message
     
    LMAO!

     

    Dumping dollars?

     

    Russia can barely keep its rubble afloat, and its dollar reserve is already being drained on daily basis.

     

    The market has pretty much spoken yesterday, smart Russians don't like that Putin move at all.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Crop Circles & UFO's too.

     

    http://bit.ly/1lsj86a

     

    I hope Czech & German wheat beer does not get too expensive.

     

    Do they grow much Barley in the Ukraine too?
    2 Mar 2014, 02:06 AM Reply Like
  • jirim
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    No, the beer is prepared only from local crop, any imports from Ukraine, but it is expected brutal drought this summer...
    2 Mar 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • Blue22
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    Putin already had most of the Russian Navy and several military bases on the peninsula and the area of Southern Ukraine has given the Russian stock residents independent control of most business and virtual self-determination on most issues. Putin's plan to separate Ukrainian territory would landlock Central and Northern Ukraine from the Black and destroy the small economy overnight!

     

    This is exactly what the Soviets did the last time we saved them from utter defeat at the hands of Hitler! If we had listened to Patton that wouldn't have happened. But Truman just let all Russia's neighbors fall like dominoes and created the cold war! WHAT A GREAT TIME TO DEFUND OUR MILITARY!
    2 Mar 2014, 04:26 AM Reply Like
  • Villi Grdovich
    , contributor
    Comments (674) | Send Message
     
    Blue, I have it on reasonable authority that no war game scenario has ever resulted in the Germans defeating Russia. Just as in the real thing, it was a war of attrition and there are just too many Russians, and Russia is just too big. Without Russia, it should be acknowledged, there may well have been at least 500,000 very fresh Germans saying hello to the Allies in Normandy, in which case, Hitler may well have died of old age.
    2 Mar 2014, 05:19 AM Reply Like
  • SashaRonin
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Dear Blue 22 ! "... last time we saved them from utter defeat at the hands of Hitler!" ?
    You definitely need a lesson in history, world history. Dare I remind you that the allied troops opened the so-called Second Front only in 1944 , when the outcome of the Second World War was obvious, and nothing could stop the Russian army offensive that began in December 1941.

     

    Don't take it personally , I respect your patriotism. But what about Hiroshima&Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam , Yugoslavia (Serbia , Bosnia , Montenegro), Iraq, Afghanistan , etc. ?

     

    My English is not very good , unlike the knowledge of history, including World War II.
    best regards.
    2 Mar 2014, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • Copious28
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    Wasn't the Russian army filled with conscripts (such as Mongols)?
    2 Mar 2014, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • tmdoyle_1954
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Villi-

     

    You, indeed, sir, understand your WWII history. The vast majority of people in "the West" have zero idea to what extent the both the Soviet Army and the Soviet peoples suffered in The Great Patriotic War. So I usually share with them one fact. Four of five German soldiers died on the Russian Front; 80% of the total world-wide German dead are the result of Soviet actions from June 1941 through May 1945.

     

    So, please tell me who really won WWII? Four out of five!!!

     

    I had the benefit of a year's instruction at the US Naval War College in Newport, RI; I was subsequently asked to remain and teach there as an active-duty naval officer for another four years. The folks in Newport understand who paid the vast "manpower bill" in WWII; and they understand it in a way that DOES NOT DIMINISH the contributions of the US and the other allies.

     

    This is a case of cutting through all the cultural BS and getting to the historical truth.

     

    4 out of 5; that's all you need to know.

     

    I am now off my soapbox.
    2 Mar 2014, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    My world history professor said it best "Russia's go-to military weapon against invasion is winter".
    2 Mar 2014, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3062) | Send Message
     
    I think you are right Villi but Germany delayed operation Barbarosa for several months and, much like Napolean, fell victim to extended supply lines and Russia's fierce winters.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Davephd
    , contributor
    Comments (819) | Send Message
     
    tmdoyle - Don't forget people like my uncle, a tail gunner in B17s over Germany in WW2. He survived seven different crews and came home alive. Without the destruction rained down on Germany by such heroes and those that stormed the beaches, who knows what Germany might have done against Russia.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Captain Pike
    , contributor
    Comments (786) | Send Message
     
    He didn't delay per se, he had to rescue Italy's butt in Greece. Hitler himself mentioned this very fact to Finland's Mannerheim.
    http://bit.ly/1eHiH3W
    Those 6 weeks delay is what saved Moscow from sure occupation. Read Hans Von Lucks memoir and see where he ate a Soviet General's breakfast.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1416) | Send Message
     
    please go and volunteer and fight the russians. sure the ukranians will give you flowers?
    2 Mar 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • mikeginn
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    Villi and Sasha,
    Thanks for the history lesson, and thanks to the Russian people who suffered and died during WWII.
    2 Mar 2014, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (921) | Send Message
     
    You had me until 'nothing could stop the Russian army offensive that began in December 1941....' Right, the month were German army was knocking on the gates of Moscow. You must have been reading the wrong history books - or you are paid to post wrong information - which one is it?
    2 Mar 2014, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (921) | Send Message
     
    So what percentage of Soviet deaths during WWII were due to Stalin, poor planning, famine, winter and idiotism?
    2 Mar 2014, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Based on those numbers, I'd say the U.S. won World War Twice while allowing the commies to do the dying.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Let me get back to you on that.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Mause
    , contributor
    Comments (3834) | Send Message
     
    It's much more complicated. The Russians deserve a great deal of effort for their contribution to the victory in WW2. BUT - as early as late 1942 US and British troops were creating pressure in the Mediterranean and, in July 1943, one factor in the German decision to break of the offensive at the Battle of Kursk was the Allied landings in Italy. By 1944, the Germans had roughly as many ground troops tied down in the West - France and Italy - as in the East. And that's just the ground war! The Allied air offensive reduced German industrial output enormously and tied down resources in the form of anti-aircraft facilities, interceptors and other countermeasures. The Germans also devoted enormous resources to the submarine war which would have been unnecessary if their only opponents were the Russians. But that's not all. The Americans shipped enormous quantities of supplies to the Russians which both provided the resources to fight the war and allowed many men who would otherwise have had to work in factories to fight in the front lines. The Murmansk runs also tied down German resources in trying to intercept the shipments. And even before Normandy, many, many Axis troops were tied down in Norway and France in anticipation of an attack. Without the US and UK, Russia would have had a tough go of it. My guess is that the war would have resulted in a kind of stalemate with each side experiencing intractable logistical problems as it advanced beyond a certain point.
    2 Mar 2014, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • Ray Lopez
    , contributor
    Comments (1611) | Send Message
     
    Actually, the Allies let the Soviets do the heavy lifting, and then helped defeat the Germans on the Western Front. In terms of kill ratios of German solders, if memory serves after D-day it was roughly equal on both the eastern and western fronts. But I agree the Soviets did most of the hard work in WWII. However, I think Hitler would have died early had the Germans won, and arguably, if Rommel had succeeded in becoming Hitler's successor, Europe would have been better off under the "Nazis" than Red Russia. It's all ancient history now though.
    2 Mar 2014, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Ray,

     

    Wow, you are truly gifted in revisionism. The Russian heavy lifted what exactly? One gun between two men? Being gunned down by their own troops for falling back? Oh ya, they sure had the Germans on the ropes.

     

    Hitler defeated himself by opening up the Eastern front, he was ill prepared for the winter, and underestimated what the United States could do. Had he not invaded Russia, Russia would not have even entered the war, and Germany would have been Nuked along with Japan. To attempt to equate Russia's military power with that of the US, where the US allowed the Russians to help invade. Then the Russians betrayed the US and attempted to take all of Europe with them.

     

    The Russians are not as tough as everyone thinks. Look at the photos of their dilapidated and antique equipment. Look at those rust buckets they are staging in Crimea, its laughable. I put my money on the Ukranians to route those troops back into Russia. Then NATO can move in as a deterrent. Russia, please, their airplanes can barely fly!
    2 Mar 2014, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    Exactly the reasoning behind funding whatever group(s) are fighting against the Syrian government - attrition!
    2 Mar 2014, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Russia's military budget is 18x that of Ukraine's. You really ought to stop commenting on this issue because you are spouting lots of nonsense.
    2 Mar 2014, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    Oh so easy to forget! The allies pulled forces from that front into North Africa, and later into operations in Italy and southern France. By putting Germany in a vice type situation we were in FULL support of the Russian assault. Plus, virtually every weapon used by Russia was transshipped from - the United States!

     

    H & N saved in excess of 500,000 lives - both Japanese and Allied forces, Korea was a United Nations action - of which we were part (along with several other nations), Vietnam was the greatest mistake we ever made, but Yugoslavia was a European blunder that was forced on us by default (they didn't want to be stuck with the bill for nation (re)building when the could foist it onto us).

     

    Irag was a misstep caused by seven different Intelligence Agencies (including Russia AND China) who misread the sources - including Hussein himself (the WMD is now being partially collect from Syria - check the writing on the exterior of the cases)!

     

    From what happen to Russia - when they interfered in Afghanistan we should have learned our lesson - it was not the case, quite a long learning curve! Especially with Karzai!
    2 Mar 2014, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    If you read the history of Crimea,this all makes sense. Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1797 and was a part of Russia for almost 200 years, just like Ohio is part of the US.

     

    In 1954, Kruschev made Crimea part of Ukraine, to make it easier for administration.

     

    In 1991 Ukraine voted for independence but only 30% of the Crimeans did. The vast majority of Crimeans are Russian. they want to re-join Russia,and Putin is happy to oblige them.

     

    Crimea will be annexed by Russia and everyone will go home. Business will continue as usual.
    2 Mar 2014, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    There would NOT be a Nuking of Germany - the fallout (nuclear cloud) would be to great, including our allies in it's drift. Japan was slightly different as being an Island nation - a good portion of the cloud would dissipate prior to drifting over China.

     

    We learned short term exposure risks by using our military as guinea pigs during testing in Nevada - but not long term. We now know, and as such would find it difficult to utilize this type of weapon above a precise level of materials - unless it WAS necessary...........ho... other nations feel the same??
    2 Mar 2014, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    "I put my money on the Ukranians to route those troops back into Russia."

     

    Russia's military budget is 18x that of Ukraine's. So I'd be really happy to take you up on that bet. Feel free to PM me for payment instructions, LOL.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Birrane
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Ya gotta be smarter than to make a Patton statement like that. We helped supply the Russians but they defeated Hitler on their own. Do the math, our military actions were minimal in ending WW2. As to your first paragraph yea your right about landlocking the poor buggers but in time cracks will appear in the Russian fronts and than Putin will be kaput.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • outline909
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Biggest tank battle of the war Kursk was in June-July and German lost that key battle. How's that for fierce winter?
    2 Mar 2014, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • outline909
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    You saved Russia by doing what entering the war after battle of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk in 1944 when it was over? 20% of German forces were fighting on the western front. All you did is drop nukes on japanese and magnificent battle in Belgium forest.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Military budgets make no difference in Asymmetrical warfare.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • ash187
    , contributor
    Comments (222) | Send Message
     
    dare i remind you of the lend-lease that supported the russian backbone, fed the soldiers and freed up manufacturing for tanks, guns and ships? Wars arent only won by men and metal, my friend.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Ask the Russians how Chechnya worked out for them. They beat Russia, Afghans beat Russia. Russia doesn't have much of a track record.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Propaganda text books do amazing things.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    What is the % population of Chechnya and Afghanistan that are Russian and actually support being folded back into Russia?

     

    Answer = WAAAAAAAY less than eastern Ukraine, and Crimean Peninsula in particular.

     

    Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about re: that part of the world.
    3 Mar 2014, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Ah ok, so you are Russian and have your perspective, a Russian one, taught to you by your school system.
    3 Mar 2014, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    No, I am a native-born American. I just study the history of other countries and try to be intellectually honest, rather than parrot whatever some TV pundit tells me to think.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • fuzzymc
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Not sure most Americans could even find Ukraine on a map, I know I couldn't!
    2 Mar 2014, 06:39 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10417) | Send Message
     
    Not sure most Americans could name their state capitol.....
    2 Mar 2014, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    I can always count on my state capital to lift my stocks. The Fed.
    2 Mar 2014, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • Dukester
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Not sure most Americans could tell you when the war of 1812 took place, or who's
    body is in Grant's tomb.
    2 Mar 2014, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10417) | Send Message
     
    Can you give me a hint?
    2 Mar 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Maybe not, but one thing Americans are good at is kicking a$$.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • redarrow5150
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Whose in Grant's tomb? That's easy a bottle of whiskey.
    3 Mar 2014, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • blucrab
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    is it true that the UKRAINE has the 3rd biggest inventory of nukes?
    2 Mar 2014, 07:52 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    No. They gave them all to Russia in 1994, in return for a treaty in which Russia, the US, and Britain (for Europe) guaranteed their territorial integrity and independence. A treaty Russia is violating today...
    2 Mar 2014, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    This could bode well for nat gas prices.
    2 Mar 2014, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (10128) | Send Message
     
    Dear leader in the east needs metmucul,to much cheese !
    2 Mar 2014, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • Desolati
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    During the Russia-Georgia War of 2008, I see S&P up from 1266 to 1298 ( Aug 7 thru Aug 15 ) and VIX down 21.15 to 19.58. Both seemed orderly.

     

    Am I missing something?
    2 Mar 2014, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • aeroguy48
    , contributor
    Comments (756) | Send Message
     
    I think so Des... This time Mr. stern finger told Putin not to invade Ukraine. Oops oh wait too late.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Is he also know as Mr. Red line?
    3 Mar 2014, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • 718rlph
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Russia in Crimean, is like the U.S. in Quantanamo Bay.. Russia has a vested interest there which the news media will not cover. I find it interesting how 6-7 weeks ago McCain was in the Ukraine, spreading democracy, then came the uprising.... peace
    2 Mar 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (243) | Send Message
     
    Hogwash- Guantanamo is nothing like what Russia is doing in Crimea. First, the "uprising" to which you refer started in November, not 6-7 weeks ago, and was the result of Ukranians fearing a return to Russian control. They didn't face down snipers because the West promised them some cash.

     

    Second, Russia has formally recognized the sovereignty of the Ukraine- that's why the Ukraine gave up their nukes. The US never recognized the legitimacy of Cuba's ruler. Last, Guantanamo is about 15 square miles in the middle of nowhere. Look at a map- your analogy is waaaay off.

     

    Sure, Russia has a vested interest in the Crimea. So did Germany in Poland and France circa 1939.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    We fought Spain (remember the 'Maine') were given Cuba - gave it back to the Cuban people (except for one small corner), were given The Philippines - had scheduled to give them back to the people when Japan started the conflict (was postponed til 1946 - 47) - also Guam, Samoa, and Puerto Rico, they voted to stay.

     

    We are holding NO territory that hasn't asked to be part of us - by plebiscite!
    2 Mar 2014, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • outline909
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khruschev in the 50's. It was Russian since the war with Turks. Your comprising with France and Poland are awful.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    Which Russia etf is the best to go with?

     

    the US and Europe will huff and puff and threaten "costs" and maybe impose a few sanctions but in the end business will return to normal. Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence (would Russia attack the US if the US invaded Mexico? or if England invaded a seceding Scotland? I doubt it). Too many American and European companies have major investments in Russia to allow this situation to go too far.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3062) | Send Message
     
    While events in the Cirmea are complex, fluid and destabilizing, I find it interesting that Obama on numerous occasions has declared the cold war to be over. Four years after Russia took over parts Georgia in presidential debates with Romney, Obama ridiculed the notion that Russia was our greatest geo-political risk. Thus far, I do not see us having a dog in this fight as Crimea was part of Russia before it was transferred to the Ukriane when both were part of the Soviet Union. I could go on and on, but Obama has been wrong on declaring the cold war to be over and wrong on Al Qaeda being on its heels after the killing of bin Laden. Secondly, reducing our military strength will prove to be inherently destabilizing particularly while both Russia and China expands their respective forces and capabilities.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Methinks we are all Frenchmen now.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    It's this cowboy diplomacy type of mindset that got us involved in two failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, I am glad we have a competent President with a cooler head in charge now. It's easy to bark for war when you are not the one paying for it in $$ or lives.
    2 Mar 2014, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    2992,

     

    Categorizing Iraq & Afghanistan as the same is absurd.

     

    Tell that to the loved ones of the Thousands of innocent civilians that were killed in NY and elsewhere on Sept 11.

     

    BTW, Obama was for the war in Afghanistan.

     

    Easy to preach pacifism & cowardice when you had no family members killed that day as well.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Jake,

     

    Then he shouldn't say anything at all. He shouldn't say...oh there will be a red line...there will be consequences when every time Putin calls his bluff he looks like a pipsqueak. So please just tell your buddy to shut up already.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (587) | Send Message
     
    Ignore "Jake" or whatever her name is. Troller5000.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (243) | Send Message
     
    I have it on good information it's Jake Tapper.
    3 Mar 2014, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • The Long Tail of Finance
    , contributor
    Comments (891) | Send Message
     
    I really feel bad for Russians...Putin's gotta go.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    They put him there, just like Venezuelans put Chavez and Maduro in. They get what they deserve. Same goes for the US.
    3 Mar 2014, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • Mark Krieger
    , contributor
    Comments (4474) | Send Message
     
    This uncertainty could crash the market on Monday morning. As everyone knows, Mr. Market absolutely loathes uncertainty! Short QQQ in premarket as protection.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    US companies with big business in Russia will probably drop. that would be a conservative way to play this.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    Good thing Hillary Clinton presented Russia with a "reset" button:

     

    http://cnn.it/1dbibtY

     

    This is possibly the most stupid foreign policy gesture since Ollie North's cake:

     

    http://nyti.ms/1dbi9lT

     

    It amazes me that the State Dept. can't scrounge up a single Russian speaker since Condi Rice left the govt.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (803) | Send Message
     
    Why should the US even do anything here? Let the EU do it. Ukraine's right on their border and was a potential member.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (921) | Send Message
     
    Ukraine may be at the gates of EU, but this has huge implications for Russia and Europe.

     

    Numero uno, if you didn't know it until now, Russia is a bully.

     

    Numero dos, undercapitalized Russian market will likely get even cheaper. Hope for Russia joining Europe in its free market - as flawed as it is - is fading. This is not good for Russia long term.

     

    Numero tres, Germany and company will be looking for energy sources elsewhere even harder. More solar panels on roofs in Germany as well. No more talk of shutting down nuc plants.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    More Coal powered Teslas!
    2 Mar 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Even more reason for Keystone and the export of N.American nat gas.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Who is saying the US should get involved? Let Ukraine start a guerilla war and route the rust bucket red army.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    In case you hadn't notice, anything left for the EU to do never actually gets done. If that is what you want, fine, that is your opinion. If you are under the delusion that the EU can actually do anything, wake up please.
    3 Mar 2014, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    Another chapter in the long, difficult history of the Ukraine, but really not a market event.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    World wars are the biggest market events there are...
    2 Mar 2014, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    Jason Unless John McCain becomes commander in chief overnight, a world war over the Ukraine would seem to be an extremely unlikely event.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Won't be a world war over it.

     

    But threats of economic sanctions will cause money to move around some.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Asteroids impacts are right up there.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    No one is willing to die for Danzig, either.

     

    This isn't Poland, admittedly, it is Austria. But it is Austria.

     

    Why would Putin stop?
    3 Mar 2014, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    If you read the recent history of Crimea and how it separated from Russia in 1954 and stayed with Ukraine when independence came,it's easy to see why the present situation developed.

     

    in the 1991 referendum, the vast majority of Crimean residents were opposed to independence as part of Ukraine. so today they want to rejoin Russia and Putin is happy to oblige them.

     

    This will turn out to be a non-event for the rest of the world and is a buying opportunity for ERUS
    2 Mar 2014, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    Can you say irredentism?
    2 Mar 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    This is the same excuse Hitler made to invade Poland.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    except in the case of Crimea the residents prefer to be citizens of Russia.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    it worked for him, why not for Putin?
    2 Mar 2014, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    That's what they said about the Sudetenland...
    3 Mar 2014, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for fulfilling Godwin's Law. I suppose that was inevitable.
    3 Mar 2014, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Re Godwin, since Putin is consciously putting the band back together - absolutely, badge of honor.
    3 Mar 2014, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Then why did Putin voluntarily pull his troops out of Georgia? Which places did Hitler leave anywhere voluntarily, once he had invaded them?
    3 Mar 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • maybenot
    , contributor
    Comments (4808) | Send Message
     
    Maybe PM will dip due to fears. I could use more.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • Aikman
    , contributor
    Comments (144) | Send Message
     
    I was looking at the Russia ETF ERUS which is already cheap at 4 times earnings. Looks like it will get even cheaper... Will have to wait for a long time for it to recover though...
    2 Mar 2014, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    But who owns any of it? Answer, whoever Putin decides owns it tomorrow. Wake up...
    2 Mar 2014, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • Aikman
    , contributor
    Comments (144) | Send Message
     
    What do you mean JasonC? I don't get your comment
    2 Mar 2014, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    You buy shares of Gazprom, and are excited that you are getting it at 3 times earnings. But you are excited because you imagine those earnings will belong to you as a shareholder, in the future. But it Russia, everything belongs to Vlad the Impaler, and you own whatever he decides you own.

     

    If he wants to take your entire company, nothing on earth will stop him. If he decides to jail your CEO, he will. If he decides to order the company you think you own part of to cut off gas to its customers to further his geopolitical goals, he will. If he decides he wants to sell gas for one fifth the market price to reward someone for compliance, he will order the company you think you own a piece of to do so, and it will.

     

    You don't own anything when you own a Russian company share. Maybe a lottery ticket on capitalism and the rule of law someday appearing in Russia, that is about it. No rule of law, no property. No property, no ownership or value.
    3 Mar 2014, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Aikman
    , contributor
    Comments (144) | Send Message
     
    Interesting take, thanks for sharing. I still haven't dipped into ERUS, still tempting though :)
    14 Mar 2014, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Welp,

     

    plenty should be on their phones $MBT/$VIP
    2 Mar 2014, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • dhollerud
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    It's time to re-thing reducing our military forces, most especially the Army. The end game here for Putin is the re-establish the Soviet Union once more. Suddenly in the press, we are hearing the word "Superpower" with respect to Russia. Im all in for NUGT folks, we'll see what happens Monday.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    We already spend more than the entire rest of the world combined on our military. Our military could surely be cut by another 20-40% and we would still be just as safe, if not safer. By the way, I will gladly be taking the other side of that NUGT trade.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (587) | Send Message
     
    You don't own one share in anything, "Jake." you're a troll. Period.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1221) | Send Message
     
    No problem people, Obama called Putin and had a 90 minute conversation. He's going to use diplomacy here and it will end up with a nice fireside beer summit and kumbaya session.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    So we should send in troops? or NATO "peacekeepers'? Who is going to cough up the $35 Billion to keep the Ukrainian economy from collapsing in the next few weeks? Why is it a US prerogative to decide the course of events in Europe?
    2 Mar 2014, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • StepUp
    , contributor
    Comments (503) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott - read by post below - the US agreed to protect Ukraine from Russia in a 1994 peace treaty in exchange for them giving up their nukes.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1221) | Send Message
     
    If the president had no intention of sending in troops and showing force he needs to keep his trap shut. What happened in Syria? We looked like weaklings who just ramble on but ZERO consequences. People respect strength, but you need to back up what you say, plain and simple.

     

    If anyone wonders, this is what the cold war would have looked like if Jimmy Carter was our president at the time.
    2 Mar 2014, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    How did we look like weaklings? What is this anyway, junior high?

     

    I would rather us look like weaklings than complete idiots as we did under Bush. The rest of the nation disagrees with your assessment as President Obama's foreign policy approval ratings have consistently been higher than Bush.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Fusefuse
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Umm... Tomlos, when exactly do you think the Cold War ended? Before Carter?
    2 Mar 2014, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • dreiser139
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    right the only thing putin understands besides bullets is money
    tell obama to let fracking go full bore here and allow exports of our raw oil.
    then we might be able to flood the market with oil achieve energy independence and hit russias only viable cash cows oil and nat gas.
    that putin will understand.
    we know and he knows we aint sending troops nor should we.
    but money thats another story.
    just my .02 cents
    and for all u obama and hillary fans romney was right in 2012 when he said russia and Putin are the 2 biggest obstacles to peace
    2 Mar 2014, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    I'm a LOT more worried about prospects of the Chinese messing with the world's busiest shipping lanes. And Islamic fundamentalists. And an exploding Middle East. And North Korea. And India/Pakistan.

     

    So Russia and Putin don't make the top of my list.

     

    I hear you on the oil, but what would really rattle the Russian's cage re: Eastern Euro geopolitics is LNG exports.
    2 Mar 2014, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (587) | Send Message
     
    Yes! A Bush reference. Please cite these ratings, troll.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Bush, he is history. Also Bush knew how to contain Putin.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    You mean like when Putin didn't invade Georgia during W's presidency?

     

    Oh wait...
    3 Mar 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Yes, and Putin pulled out, remember that part?
    3 Mar 2014, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Putin left after he got what he wanted from invading Georgia, not because he was scared of Bush. Or more accurately, he wants to pretend that he is a responsible global citizen and not rattle his European gas customers too much. What credible military consequences did he fear from the Bush Administration. There was nothing we could do about it, and everybody involved knew it.

     

    Putin got want he wanted. He put an end to Saakashvili's notions of Georgia becoming part of NATO, and pretty much ended Saakashvili's political career (he lost the next election and is now a lecturer at Tufts).

     

    Russia has more control over Georgia now than it did prior to the invasion. I'd call that Mission Accomplished.

     

    Oh, and he left voluntarily, on his own terms. So I think that clarifies what Putin's Russia is all about -- does it want to keep control in its "Near Abroad"? No doubt. Hitler-style recapture of the old Soviet empire? He probably fantasizes about it, but he knows that's not a realistic goal.

     

    If you are going to state that he was scared of Bush, then you need to state what the credible military consequences would have been. I'll start the popcorn.
    3 Mar 2014, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    "you need to state what the credible military consequences would have been"

     

    Ukraine with nuclear weapons?

     

    Chechens with stinger missiles?

     

    Russia is not untouchable, even remotely, and everyone gets to play at asymmetrical warfare.
    3 Mar 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Jason, the question was... "what were the military consequences that the UNITED STATES would threaten Russia with if they had not left Georgia"
    3 Mar 2014, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Tricky - asked and answered, you are just not "up" on what assymmetric warfare is. *We can give* Ukraine nuclear weapons, that is asymmetric warfare - and playing the same game Russia is currently playing in Iran. *We can give* Chechens stinger missiles, and that is asymmetric warfare - and play the same game Russia and Iran are currently playing in Syria and Lebanon. None of the little regional hotspot actors are autonomous - or rather, the ones that are, get squashed easily. All the serious troublespots are made that way, deliberately, by outside powers making said trouble for their own ends.
    4 Mar 2014, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Ah. So let's go into the "credible" part of "credible military threat". There is simply NO WAY that the US will arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Someone might issue that as a threat, but it would be an empty one. You haven't thought through all the implications of what that involves.

     

    We *could* arm Chechens with stinger missiles, that one is more credible. But hopefully we've learned our lesson about what happens when we give Islamist oriented militants such weapons (remember when Al Quaeda was our "BFF" during the Afghan invasion). But the shorter term problem would be supply routes. We had a cooperative Pakistan and a fairly uncontested Indian Ocean to run the supplies through. Take a look at the map around Chechnya and explain what the supply route would be. So that hurts the credibility of that threat.
    4 Mar 2014, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Trickey,

     

    Ok, Georgia and Ukraine do not pose enough of a national interest for us to do anything. I never said we should, nor did I ever say we will.

     

    However, if you imply that the US could not defeat Russia in a conventional war, that is the funniest thing I've heard in a while. The rust bucket Red Army has not had any significant updates in 25 years, their equipment is antiquated and barely works. They have enormous fields of broken down equipment which they cannibalize for spare parts and their air force and navy are a fraction of what it once was. They are good for keeping up appearances, doing small time invasions of tiny countries with no military power, sure. But let them sustain a two front war for 10 years, never gonna happen. The US has proven it can outlast, outfight and destroy anything on the planet indefinitely.

     

    If one of these small countries actually stood up to Russia as Afghans and Chechens did, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia's military is the equivalent of a 3rd world nation.

     

    Ukrainian history is irrelevant.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Matthew, let's clarify.

     

    When I speak of military engagements, one needs to define "what is victory", "what time frame of the engagement do you mean", "do you have the stomach for the cost", and "where is it taking place".

     

    So, if the Russki's got really nasty and invaded Germany, yep, we'd spank them, no doubt about it.

     

    Ukraine is a whole lot messier. In an initial engagement, we might enjoy air superiority, but pay a high price via the Russian's air defense systems. They can choke off the Bosphorous Strait, making it really hard for us to give naval support (see, that's where understanding Ukranian history is not irrelevant). While we might roll on the ground into Ukraine, as we got further east, we'd encounter a LOT of resistance from the populace both during the initial warfare and definitely during uprisings throughout our period of occupation. And the US public will grow increasingly unsupportive of the massive cost in blood and treasure. So we might "win" the initial engagement (yep, I agree) but pay for a very high price and eventually limp out with tail between our legs -- as we did in Vietnam, Lebanon under Reagan (ahem), Afghanistan and Iraq. So depends on what you mean by "win the war".
    4 Mar 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    "depends on what you mean by "win the war"."

     

    Putin's head on a stake. Clear enough?
    4 Mar 2014, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Indeed, that is a very clear goal :-)

     

    However, one unfortunate characteristic of Russians is that they seem to like these "strongman" types. So they'll probably just "elect" another one.
    4 Mar 2014, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Tricky,

     

    We did not retreat from Iraq nor Afghanistan. We are pulling out simply because the war is over. Afghanistan doesn't want a pact with us, neither do the Iraqis, so be it...Vietnam, yes we lost decisively.
    5 Mar 2014, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • redarrow5150
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Yes I believe it was over when "Mission Accomplished" was used in a banner on an aircraft carrier.
    5 Mar 2014, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Ammo isn't scarce...
    5 Mar 2014, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • rdinsdal
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I do not think the USAF would have any particular issue with Russian air defenses. It is extremely adept at the SEAD/DEAD mission and Russian fighters would fair even worse against US fighters than the Surface to Air systems. It would take some time to dismantle their air defenses, to be sure, but it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive in lost lives (friendly) or combat equipment.

     

    Once air superiorty is achieved, a relatively cheap naval victory would follow suit, setting Russia up for a nasty defeat on the ground.

     

    Not that I expect the situation to play out this way, but the capability is definitely there.
    5 Mar 2014, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    Putin should call for a "free" referendum in Crimea. The people will vote to re-join Russia and the situation will end. no biggie
    2 Mar 2014, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4132) | Send Message
     
    What would Churchill have done? Never mind.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    It shouldn't be Putin's choice - but the choice of a free Ukrainian people. By putting into Putin's hands, you're legitimizing the Russian action, to date! But, having said all that - it would end in reunification, but lawfully so.
    2 Mar 2014, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (3381) | Send Message
     
    I said Putin should call FOR a referendum,not that he should call a referendum.
    3 Mar 2014, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • redarrow5150
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    The only thing that is free to Putin is the bank accounts in Russia.
    5 Mar 2014, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • themayor
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    Jim Rickards....
    3 yrs ago I sat in Cash Room @USTreasury & said Bernanke was greater threat to U.S. than BinLaden. Strong countries need strong currencies.
    2 Mar 2014, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Finally an excuse for a 20% correction!
    2 Mar 2014, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • StepUp
    , contributor
    Comments (503) | Send Message
     
    No one here besides Jason seems to acknowledge the huge issue which is the Peace Treaty called "The Budapest Memorandum" of 1994 in which Ukraine gave up it's nukes to Russia. That treaty was signed by the US and the UK. By signing that treaty, the USA legally agreed to protect Ukraine from Russia in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

     

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

     

    That quote is from the UK media:
    http://dailym.ai/1eQOjzN

     

    Also this is a great piece on Putins end game that also discusses some of the major industries that may suffer including oil, gas, and agriculture (Potash?)
    http://cnn.it/1eQOieZ

     

    The US will obviously not jump into war today, to justify putting American lives at risk the US has to look forced into it, so we will start with economic and political pressures and maybe ship/troop movements - assuming this continues with no shots fired as it has so far.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    The realpolitik of the situation is this. It was absolutely stupid for the US to make security guarantees to Ukraine (on par with openly courting Georgia for NATO membership). Don't make implicit or explicit threats that you have no capability or stomach to back up.

     

    I am NOT "justifying" Putin's actions here, but an important context is to understand the long intertwined history of Russia with large parts of Ukraine, and the Crimean Peninsula in particular. The view of Russians is that the 1994 deal was done with "a gun pointed to their head, signed by a foolish drunk, during a moment of monumental weakness in the aftermath of the USSR collapse". And they've been seething about it ever since.

     

    Also, the Crimean Peninsula is of crucial strategic importance to both countries. Given the history of ethnic intermingling, an "awkward compromise" is likely the "best feasible scenario" for Ukraine.
    2 Mar 2014, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Well Obama will ignore that law, just as he has the laws of the United States...he is under no obligation in his mind to obey any law he does not agree with.

     

    It's all relative to him.
    2 Mar 2014, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    We HAVE those same treaties over the world! When we wanted to get out of any and all situations we 'rolled out' the treaty forms - as a 'feel good' position! Clinton was one of the best at this, but all of them did it! Now it comes back to roost AND we do what we always have done - 'What, we did WHAT? Not logical!' Research our history over the last thirty - forty years, 'engage - run away'!

     

    We are, by far, the worst 'friend' any nation could want, hands down! And then we 'tie' the hands of our military - in asinine 'Rules of Engagement', from Korea thru Vietnam into Afghanistan!

     

    There are - just shy of 200 sovereign nations in the whole of the world - we have 'Mutual Aid' treaties with about 120 of them - and counting!
    2 Mar 2014, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Fusefuse
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Tricky- Stupid? I don't know about you but I am rather happy that Ukraine doesn't have nukes right now
    2 Mar 2014, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Fusefuse. Okay, I'll re-phrase.

     

    It was sly, and disingenuous, for the US to give Ukraine the security guarantees.

     

    It was stupid for Ukraine to believe it.

     

    ;-)
    2 Mar 2014, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Well, Bush would have honored them, even if it meant war because we know if you pissed him off you're a goner.
    3 Mar 2014, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    True, Bush was a big fan of war.
    3 Mar 2014, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    First, yes you are justifying Putin's actions, and are in general a typical lickspittle for a tyrant. Just saying, you are not fooling anyone, might as well own it.

     

    Second, no it was not silly for the US to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty, any more than it was silly for Russia to do so. Both did in the same treaty. And got something in return - Ukraine denuclearized. In 1994, loose nuke issues were a real concern and since nobody then wanted the ability to take over free nations by force, it was a sound exchange for all concerned.

     

    But now that an uncivilized authoritarian Russia has torn up its part of that, the consequence is likely to be nuclear proliferation in Russia's "near abroad". It is obvious that Russia's word isn't worth diddly squat, and equally obvious they never would dare try such stuff if Ukraine were still a nuclear power with 200 strategic warheads. Ergo, everyone within striking distance of Putin will want 200 nuclear warheads.

     

    Way to go Pootie-Poot, that'll really help Russia live to see the end of the 21st century... (s/c)
    4 Mar 2014, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    It was stupid to let Russia exist as a political entity and treat is as a normal country. It remains stupid to allow Putin to continue to breath oxygen. It would be better to fix the second than the first, and very easy.
    4 Mar 2014, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    No, I'm no Putin fan, Russia would be way better off with someone who were focused on building a non-kleptocratic economy and ground-up democratic institutions. He's steadily crushing any political opposition, particularly if it is a media entity.

     

    But what I am is intellectually honest about realpolitik. Great powers meddle in other countries affairs when they are able to and see it in "their interests" and they invade countries on various pretexts. I'm just saying that the US is not exactly "white and fluffy" (to use a Russian saying) in these regards. You want to whine about broken treaties? Half the US was built on broken treaties with the natives, as we steadily proceeded with our genocidal wipeout. We worked hard to take down popularly elected regimes when we justified it to ourselves as "in our interest", especially in Central America, but even as far away as Iran.

     

    If you don't like Russia's pretext of invading the Crimean to protect the majority Russian populace that wants to be part of Russia, then how did you feel about Reagan's invasion of Grenada, to "protect a few medical students"? BS, that was simple realpolitik because we didn't like that the coup "in our backyard" was led by someone who said he liked Communism. We didn't have any "right". It's just business.

     

    Your last post re: "stupid to let Russia exist" exposes your viewpoints on this part of the world as breathtakingly stupid. Russia has existed way longer than the US. What would you do with all those Russians on the that massive landmass that covers 9 time zones. And who would credibly hold it down from a popular uprising to re-create a Russian-centric state? And before you answer, please consult Napolean and Hitler on how that works in December thru February.
    4 Mar 2014, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Who is whining? Russia breaks a treaty that says Ukraine won't be a nuclear power, so Ukraine can be a nuclear power again. No whining involved, just sauce for the goose. As for how easy it would be to destroy Russia, it isn't 1812 and weapons are a bit more advanced these days. But as I mentioned, it would be preferable and decidedly easy to just give the tyrant the lead injection he is begging for.
    4 Mar 2014, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14397) | Send Message
     
    J:

     

    Since I'm on a bus from Whistler to Vancouver right now and not doing any "investing," I'll take a moment to engage in political repartee, as I am usually loathe to do on an investment forum.

     

    Of course, the world never, ever changes. The only thing that is respected is power. America sometimes imagines it's respected for its "values," but that's only window dressing hung upon being the most powerful nation on Earth.

     

    But, it's been readily apparent, for the entirety of the Obama administration, that, notwithstanding whatever power the U.S. might technically possess, that its will has been entirely eroded and its policies have been feckless in the hands of complete amateurs, as regards the "realpolitik" world. Nothing could demonstrate this more than Kerry's absurd comments about Putin, that he's still inhabiting a "19th-century" world. Sorry, John, but it is you, who are in utopian fantasy land, thinking that the world is now different. And, one could add all kinds of other episodes around the globe, where American power has more or less been laughed at, recently.

     

    Putin needn't worry about whether Ukraine had nukes because, despite all the talk, nobody wants to invite their own nuclear annihilation, so ground-force strength in conventional warfare still rules the day. And, that's where Russia has the trump card. And, besides, nobody is going to give a bunch of former Soviet satellites a bunch of nuclear play toys.

     

    Putin has accurately assessed that the West will fuss and fume, but do virtually nothing. They, we, are powerless, absent mounting a new land war over Ukraine. It's not happening, so it's best to just shut up, rather than further confirm one's weakness by making all kinds of hollow threats.

     

    The more interesting part of this equation will be to see what the next chapter is for Russia's activities, as well as many other U.S. enemies, who will be further emboldened to rub our noses in the manure of our own weakness and lack of will.
    4 Mar 2014, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Eudaimonia
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Karl Popper

     

    "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
    4 Mar 2014, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    "It's not happening, so it's best to just shut up, rather than further confirm one's weakness by making all kinds of hollow threats."

     

    that pretty much nails it right there.
    4 Mar 2014, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    @MLP Trader. Yep.
    4 Mar 2014, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Sure, we know the present leadership of not just the US, but the entire west, are a bunch of (small house cats). But the other poster's question was about what we *could* do, not what these (small house cats) *will* do.

     

    Also, Hitler accurately judged that Chamberlain was a (small house cat). Then he went a bit too far, and faced Churchill instead - who was a lion. The lions among us do not treat the present rule of (small house cats) as an immutable fact of nature...
    5 Mar 2014, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (921) | Send Message
     
    This Ukranian adventure has huge implications, much more so than Georgia 2008.

     

    Numero uno, if you didn't know it until now, Russia is a bully.

     

    Numero dos, undercapitalized Russian market will likely get even cheaper. Hope for Russia joining Europe in its free market - as flawed as it is - is fading. This is not good for Russia long term.

     

    Numero tres, Germany and company will be looking for energy sources elsewhere even harder. More solar panels on roofs in Germany as well. No more talk of shutting down nuc plants.
    2 Mar 2014, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • yliu54
    , contributor
    Comments (171) | Send Message
     
    Why people need to care about this as we are still in QE4ever?
    2 Mar 2014, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (10128) | Send Message
     
    It is Catalytic.The match has been dropped into the Gasoline.
    2 Mar 2014, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • leopardtrader
    , contributor
    Comments (1763) | Send Message
     
    The important question to ask is : Is the so-called new government in Ukraine in charge of the whole country and/or the military high command ? The answer is clearly NO! These guys were never democratically elected and the parliament does not represent the majority of the country. This is just a divided country almost equally into two. These opposition signed agreement recently with the government, the EU, Russia and USA..and this agreement was broken ! No one and our media is not talking about all these things.
    Kiev the capital of Ukraine is dominated by the opposing tribe and they took over government within their domain. They may the government but certainly not in power. These are two different things. So when the press says Ukraine this and that ..one must understand that is not the true situation. Just like people of Washington state took over Capital hill and government of USA without other major parts of USA.
    2 Mar 2014, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    Your statement is for what exactly? Everything's good to go? Imagine France saying that - in the 1770's when England was screwing us up! What a difference a few immigration reforms make! 'Screw you, I'm making money from your misery!'

     

    We fought a war against 'Taxation without Representation', now we got Obama-care? What about the EPA (state / federal) telling the people living outside of our cities they can NO LONGER use wood as a source of heat? In THIS winter? Someone drives around a issues Cease and Desist orders to people who have NO OTHER way to heat their homes - with daily fines!

     

    Every one 'should' have the right to self-determination, not all do (actually most of the world doesn't), but it's a noble idea that's time has come?
    2 Mar 2014, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    Good thing we didn't think Crimea was worth fighting over in 1854, else we could have joined the British, French, Turks, Sardinians, etc. in enjoying being part of the 350,000 dead.

     

    I'm sure McCain and the other old men who like sending young men to die think the United States were deeply impacted by not participating, but no one can ever think of a single important result. It will be ditto for 2014.

     

    They did defeat Russia, but nothing was ever settled.
    2 Mar 2014, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    Weren't we fighting the Mexicans then? (not sure - either them - or - the 'Indian's')

     

    I would spend time in thought about those 'Old Men' being the same one's who have allowed you to say what you're saying! If not for them, and others like them - you'd STILL be in the country your family immigrated here from, unless you're native American - in THAT case, you deserve an apology!
    2 Mar 2014, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    My Father served in the Marine Corps in WWII and Korea, and I served six years in the Marine Corps. When you are young, you believe you are fighting for patriotism, etc. My Father told me when I joined the Corps to "keep your mouth shut, and don't volunteer for anything". That way you stay out of trouble, and hopefully make it home alive.

     

    When you get older and have a bigger viewpoint, you realize a lot of our military problems are due to having a huge military. It is the hammer and nail anthology - since we have this big hammer, we start looking for nails to use it on.

     

    Reagan the supposed warmonger got real smart when the Marine Barricks in Lebanon was bombed - he lobbed a few shells, and got out of dodge, as it was a stupid mission. McCain and old guys like him would have us still fighting in Lebanon 30 years later.

     

    Crimea is of no importance to us - if Europe wants to be Russia's wet-nurse, maybe eventually they will stop hanging out in cafes, and grow a pair of nads.
    3 Mar 2014, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    McCain aside, a lot of the Old Men who have the most enthusiasm about sending men to die are chicken hawks who never served, or got placed (oh) into a comfy National Guard posting during the 'nam years. But they're the mouthiest ones about snarling how those who are wary of sending men to die "don't support the troops".
    3 Mar 2014, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Tricky,

     

    Ok you are a Bush Blamer, that's clear. However what about Woodrow Wilson, manifest destiny and willingly taking territory from Mexico, Cuba and others? Please stop Bush bashing its pase...and another thing, you probably like to blame Bush for everything under the sun, we didn't start the Iraq war, we just finished it. Was is it a mistake, yes it was, it could have been done differently and under better circumstances. Its over, so please get over it. It wasn't nearly as bad as Vietnam, we lost 54,000 brave men in that one.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Matthew, I'm not partisan, I'll call out any administration when I think it's made a big mistake. Obama/"red line in Syria", Johnson/Nam, Carter/you name it, and yes plenty of Dems supported Manifest Destiny (and if that required genocide, well, invent some religious pretext as to why God approved).
    4 Mar 2014, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    The big picture is: You don't need a 'Big Military' until you need it! Then what do you do? A waste of manpower when peace is 'over the land', but an 'Oh my God' moment when not! Not much in between!

     

    Reagan wasn't all that smart, he 'lobbed' those shells while the 'men in the barracks' were formally unarmed - directed NOT to have ammunition in their weapons - or on their person (stored in the armory - under lock and key) only the gate guards had ammunition - but, once again not in their weapons! This same action was carried forward throughout the world. Even our Embassies!

     

    The comment concerning McCain and the 'old guys' is patently a 'cheap' shot - those 'old guys' remember a time when the United States would speak up - and people would actually listen. But to down size the Military in this world - in order to divert funds to poverty and other internal problems / programs - is asking for 'down the line' problems..... but we have a real problem with a learning curve?
    4 Mar 2014, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • redarrow5150
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Comparing the U.S. Military budget (beating the next 13 countries below us) to divert funds to poverty? Really? Seriously really?
    4 Mar 2014, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • rogerenroute
    , contributor
    Comments (173) | Send Message
     
    The only serious way to reduce Russian aggression is to start cutting off Russian energy imports. About 1/3rd of Europe's gas and oil is coming from Russia and it's forecast to increase. Germany gets 40% of its gas from Russia. Europe will be forced to do a major rethink of its energy dependency on Russia which is increasing. I invest heavily in solar (CSIQ,TSL,JASO,SPWR). I won't be selling Monday morning as I think an expanded renewables deployment will be required to stop Putin's aggression. See this report to understand how dependent Europe is on Russian gas. http://bit.ly/1g3jdFN
    2 Mar 2014, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • sa_member_F5 Key
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Dumb move by B.0. to send Kerry.

     

    Putin will react by organizing plain-clothed riots, putting Kerry at risk.

     

    And if Kerry get's accidently (or even purposely) taken out, then we are in WW3.

     

    very-very dumb move,
    2 Mar 2014, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    No one - but NO ONE, 'Taps' an idiot!
    2 Mar 2014, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    The administration didn't lift a finger to rescue entire diplomatic staff in Libya what makes you think war over Kerry is even possible?
    3 Mar 2014, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    Russia wants him to stay in office. If something happened to him, they might find someone who has a clue to be Secretary of State.

     

    Besides, Kerry just said out biggest foreign policy issue was global warming. That's like telling Russia, "Crimea is all yours."
    4 Mar 2014, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Yes,

     

    Priorities are certainly in order, comrade
    4 Mar 2014, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Here's an interesting thought exercise... Romney says Russia is biggest threat. Kerry says it's global warming. Global warming helps Russia.

     

    Ergo, they're both right!

     

    You're welcome. :-)
    4 Mar 2014, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Romney was the last great candidate the Reps will ever have. A guy that could have actually fixed and done something to the country, and it will never happen again. Why should someone with actual experience in fixing huge problems attempt to run for president when his character will only be assassinated by the liars in the progressive movement, who hide behind their own lies for protection.
    5 Mar 2014, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    I do agree on Romney - a successful, honorable man who, while I may not agree with him on everything, I never questioned his integrity or ability to be President.

     

    That being said, the "red lines" of our foreign policy should be important ones that everyone knows is a real reason to break things and kill people. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one - Kennedy was 100% right in the willingness to go to war over that. Grenada too, as the Monroe Doctrine had always been our red line since Monroe was President.

     

    The current situation in the world? Definitely not Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and let's be honest, if Kuwait didn't have oil, that would not have been a "red line". The Republicans are going "full retard" on wanting to get involved in every world dispute, and just like the movie "Tropic Thunder", you never win by going "full retard".

     

    NATO is a rather sad alliance - one country with a military (the United States), and the rest so weak that they didn't have enough bombs to finish off Gaddafi in Libya, a country of 4 million people, so they get a free ride off of the U.S. taxpayer.

     

    Ukraine is all about Western bankers looking for more sucker countries to put in debt, and why the United States is involved tells you whom our government really thinks is important.
    14 Mar 2014, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    "Sending Kerry to negotiate with Lavrov is like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife."
    17 Mar 2014, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Kerry will handle it "Swiftly"

     

    http://onion.com/1gC1TvG
    18 Mar 2014, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • Sidrico
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    POTUS reaction to news on Saturday...."FORE"!
    2 Mar 2014, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    We can't interfere! It would keep us from adding those 'funds from ending the war and reducing our military - while STILL engaged in those same wars' to our 'War on Poverty' - the L-O-N-G-E-S-T war we've ever fought - and LOST, 45 years and counting - 1968 to present!

     

    What, what's that? There's 12 MILLION more casualties in that 'War on Poverty'? And I thought we were winning! Go figure!
    2 Mar 2014, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1622) | Send Message
     
    If Syria was not our business, how much less is Ukraine our business.
    2 Mar 2014, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • redarrow5150
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1fBd5nm
    2 Mar 2014, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Haha awesome link
    3 Mar 2014, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Re: the treaty of 1994. I've tried to come up with an analogy that the typical American (who isn't too informed on history of other countries) might relate to. So I'll try this one. Imagine that...

     

    Hawaiian natives had successfully launched a separatist movement during the financial crisis. An awkward compromise were struck that Hawaii would be "an autonomous region" and the treaty gave the US "rights" to continue the military bases. Furthermore, San Diego and Norfolk are frozen over during the winter, rendering Pearl Harbor the only naval base from which the US Navy can project power during those months. Then the native Hawaiian separatist movement decides it wants to get "a lot closer to China" and commences actions to enter into China's economic (and, de facto, military) sphere of influence, at the direct expense of the USA's spheres of influence. The US is concerned not only about the military implications, but concerned about both: 1) the non-Hawaiian US citizens, and 2) the 60% of the population that WANTS to stay allied to the US.

     

    What do you think the US would do?
    3 Mar 2014, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    No one needs to be informed about Ukrainian history, its irrelevant, completely and utterly useless information.

     

    What we need to be informed about is a brief synopsis of how this will affect the economies of, firstly, the United States, secondly, their allies, and thirdly, the people of Ukraine.

     

    If it is purely humanitarian as it appears to be, Ukraine should fight on their own, maybe with a fresh infusion of US made NATO weaponry.
    3 Mar 2014, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    So, understanding the history of a country that you want our country to get involved in is irrelevant and useless. LOL.

     

    Yes, I can definitely see why you were a big fan of the Bush administration.

     

    This has been the approach of US foreign policy since WW2, and has gotten us into a lot of messes. So I prefer an informed perspective rather than willful ignorance.

     

    Here's a very tangible example. Um, exactly who are you going to give the weapons to, tell the "good" Ukrainians from the "bad" ones, and make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands? Perhaps understanding Ukraine's "irrelevant history" would make you appreciate that there is no practical way to do this.

     

    When we supplied the Afghan resistance against the USSR, the vast majority of the populace was against the USSR. In eastern Ukraine, the MAJORITY of the populace wants to RE-unite with Russia. You'd know this if you had an appreciate for "useless and irrelevant history".

     

    Perhaps the motto of the college in Animal House was right... "Knowledge is Good". LOL
    3 Mar 2014, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Never said we should get involved, nor did I ever say we should go into war with Russia...however we would defeat Russia with ease...but it would be like Iraq.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    "Never said we should get involved"

     

    Er, what did this mean then... (your post before that one)

     

    "maybe with a fresh infusion of US made NATO weaponry"

     

    Sound like getting involved to me.
    4 Mar 2014, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • dogety
    , contributor
    Comments (515) | Send Message
     
    For being so 'equal opportunity blaming' you do spend an inordinate amount of time on BUSH! A favorite?

     

    If you would walk through history you might find he just wasn't that bad a President.

     

    He took information given him by SEVEN different Intelligence Agencies (Including Russia / China / France (who was providing Iraq with weapons on the UN no can do list) - these countries were by no means friends of ours - well possibly France could be excluded?

     

    If a cursory check of the WMD crates - in Syria was made, the writing just might cause a pause and relook at the Iraqi WMD situation! However that would be counter productive to the 'BASH BUSH' mentality prevalent in your discourse, wouldn't it?

     

    And a perview of the interview done, by the FBI agent with Saddam Hussein prior to his untimely demise would also show that THE MAN himself perpetuated this myth! So blame Bush, but try read the transcripts a little closer?

     

    Also, which OTHER President was it who presided over the loss, and recovery of the entire Financial system - of the United States and areas of the world market over less than ONE WEEK?
    4 Mar 2014, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Each time I posted about Bush, it was in response to someone else who had brought him up. "Bush knew how to contain Putin" and "Bush would have honored [the 1994 Ukrainian security guarantee treaty]". If you are upset with Bush being dragged into conversation, please consult with Matthew.

     

    Bush wasn't a bad guy and he did a great job while gov of my home state (he actually *was* a uniter, not a divider in that role). Contrary to the media stereotype, he wasn't "dumb" either. But he was just too intellectually lazy, and well lazy, to be POTUS.

     

    Here is really all you need to know about Bush. The GOP hasn't wanted ANYTHING to do with him in ANY election, or really much of ANYTHING, since he finished up his 2nd term. Revisionist history attempts aside, even the GOP knows what a disaster his presidency was.

     

    Heck, the Dems will even selectively trot out ol' Jimmy every now and then, as bad as his presidency was.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Good point, where did Syria get mustard gas from?
    5 Mar 2014, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Tricky

     

    There you go again. Putting words and thoughts out there on my behalf.

     

    My comments on Bush were his personality traits, and I never said anything in support of him other than He would have honored an agreement he made, because maybe its old school to keep your word. Bush did know how to contain Putin, he probably just gave old puty-put a call and said back off Georgia. They had a personal connection remember?
    5 Mar 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    You're the one who essentially said "none of what is happening today in Crimea would have happened if Bush were in office" and you are wrong.

     

    Re: Georgia, again you don't know what you are talking about. Putin got pretty much everything he wanted out of his adventure into Georgia and continues to have his way. Oh, and there are still Russian troops stationed in parts of it (you would know that if you informed yourself with some objective research vs. whatever Fox tells you). Putin didn't "back off" Georgia, he left when he got what he wanted. Saakashvili is finished and so is any serious notion of Georgia joining NATO, that is what prompted Putin to invade. Russia continues to have enough control over Georgia's geopolitics that they are satisfied "enough".
    5 Mar 2014, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Syria has long had a large stockpile of such weapons. It is fairly common knowledge that they had put a lot of money into R&D and manufacturing over several decades, probably through their own military industrial complex.

     

    Point?
    5 Mar 2014, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    "No one needs to be informed about Ukrainian history"

     

    LOL. It is obvious that you are not.
    3 Mar 2014, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Exactly, what do I need to know about them other than the terrain in which I will destroy the enemy?

     

    You can run around all you want about the intricacies of their proud history and convince our Generals we should respect that, still doesn't do anything to win a battle.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    "So, understanding the history of a country that you want our country to get involved in is irrelevant and useless. LOL."

     

    Stop putting words in my mouth.

     

    I don't want to get involved with Ukraine, my point is we could do so much that would end Russian occupation, if it were in our interests. You pretend to know a lot about IR but I doubt you have a degree in it.
    4 Mar 2014, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    Matthew, let me back up and explain why I'm wasting so much time in this thread.

     

    I love my country and I think it is the greatest nation-state in the history of mankind. But our country has a few fundamental weaknesses when it comes to military adventures. It doesn't properly understand the context of a lot of situations and looks at things way too simplistically. I don't want us to get into another misadventure.

     

    And I see people in this thread making the incorrect and simplistic "Putin is Hitler, the big lesson of Hitler is we should have military intervened at the very beginning, ergo we should directly intervene right now because this is merely Step 1 in his active campaign to recreate the USSR by force". This is a incorrect conclusion, leading to an idiotic set of decisions, resulting in disaster -- that most Americans would then be totally surprised at after the fact, but were entirely predictable to anyone who knew the context (e.g., Iraq).

     

    And here is the crux of the problem. No matter what existing treaties were jammed on the Russians in the early 90's in a moment of weakness for them, anything that results in the Russians not feeling like they have a solid control over the Crimean Peninsula is not practically sustainable for long. It just is what is. All boundaries are creations of geography, violence and realpolitik. We cannot prevail on the point of Crimea in any *sustainable* way because it's so vitally important to the Russians and fairly small potatoes for us. We need to keep our powder dry for more important fights. We can't save everyone, unfortunately.

     

    Now, if Putin were to invade, oh, Lithuania? Different story.
    4 Mar 2014, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    "I don't want to get involved with Ukraine, my point is we could do so much that would end Russian occupation, if it were in our interests."

     

    Okay, I'm game for the entertainment.

     

    What should we do? Specifically.
    4 Mar 2014, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (4062) | Send Message
     
    Option A - give Kiev 50 nuclear weapons with missile delivery and single key activation systems, in their sole hands, then announce it after it is a fact on the ground. Dead simple. They gave up more than that for the 1994 treaty Russia signed and it now treating as dead letter, so we restore the status quo before that treaty and call it done.

     

    Option B - invite Putin to the UN in New York to give an important speech. Grab him and his entourage. Repatriate his entourage. Drop him personally in the middle of the Atlantic wearing cement boots.

     

    Option C - at Putin's next public appearance, just shoot him.

     

    This isn't even hard, I can roll them off all day.
    4 Mar 2014, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    No, it isn't hard to make them up. But it is hard work to think them through, all the way to predictable consequences and allow for unforeseen ones -- yeah, I know that sucks, but it keeps one out of trouble.

     

    Option A -- I can pretty much guarantee that the Russian spy network will easily detect this attempt. And the Russians will conduct a lightning invasion to take them out after the fact, even if they didn't. Who is going to protect the missiles?

     

    Option B/C -- good idea, assassinating the head of a nuclear-armed great power wouldn't possibly have ANY consequences whatsoever.
    4 Mar 2014, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    Ukraine cannot even pay their soldiers - they didn't want the nukes anymore than the U.S. or Russia, or anyone with a brain, would want them to have them. It was a security risk that they would end up sold to someone else.

     

    Russia will hold onto the Crimea, who will vote to rejoin Russia. The IMF and other Western suckers will giver Ukraine a lot of money that they will never see again, and a year from now, Ukraine will still be poor and semi-lawless, and Russia will still be eyeing what happens in Eastern Ukraine, as the new 'progressive' Ukraine government has already outlawed speaking Russian.

     

    Unless someone on either side does something really stupid.
    4 Mar 2014, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1590) | Send Message
     
    And now for some much-needed comic relief

     

    http://onion.com/MLYGhk
    4 Mar 2014, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4371) | Send Message
     
    Check out that nice army surplus equipment man, hey East Germany called, they want their clip on vests back!
    14 Mar 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    I don't care what you all think. I think the Russian paratroopers are the coolest. Or at least they have the coolest videos"

     

    http://bit.ly/OqlkNg

     

    http://bit.ly/1gqHlX1
    14 Mar 2014, 01:19 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs