Rand's Statement on Situation in Ukraine

I think his post was just satire, but I could be wrong.

It wasn't at all satire. Obama could have manipulated the situation to make it so Putin wouldn't try this. It wouldn't have taken force. It wouldn't have taken intervention. It would have taken preemptive action, and the use of soft and smart power to influence the actions of the Russians. That's all.

I'm a non-interventionist, but I also believe that the US has the ability to sway global opinion and action, due to our power and influence. There are ways this can be done without dropping bombs.
 
It wasn't at all satire. Obama could have manipulated the situation to make it so Putin wouldn't try this. It wouldn't have taken force. It wouldn't have taken intervention. It would have taken preemptive action, and the use of soft and smart power to influence the actions of the Russians. That's all.

I'm a non-interventionist, but I also believe that the US has the ability to sway global opinion and action, due to our power and influence. There are ways this can be done without dropping bombs.

name them
 
If this is a satire, it's too subtle to distinguish from a mainstream opinion. Please say you're joking...if not, what kind of misguided interventionism would you have undertaken?

Weeks ago, Obama could have been using the bully pulpit to push for a peaceful solution. He could have been engaging other nations in the region and encouraging them to work with each other to make sure their countries did not fall into chaos, and that they retained the right to self determination without foreign interference.

It is certainly possible for America to act as a beacon of freedom and to set a good example, without America having to send troops, bombs, or money everywhere.

Russia pounced on chaos and uncertainty. Obama's dithering and lack of leadership allowed this to happen.
 
name them

It depends which point in time we are talking about. Right now, I don't know what option Obama has.

But weeks ago, he could have moved a fleet into the region, worked with the Ukranian people to strengthen their relationship with us, and to make it extremely visible. Hell, he could have even worked with them to dock some America ships in their ports. That alone would have stopped the Russians from invading. Not a chance would Putin have risked the possibility of killing an American, and starting a war his country can't win, over Crimea.
 
At the same time... if reports are true that the US was spending $20million a week funding the protest groups in Ukraine; whats happening and has happened so far could be going completely according to plan. It's not like Russians response so far is remotely unpredictable.

Agreed.

Part of me thinks that the response from America has been SO awful, that it has to be intentional.
 
I believe that once you open the pandoras box of intervention you can not close it. NATO went into Russian backyard. Now nothing is going to stop them until they feel justice. From their perspective ofcourse.

So you are tone def if you are asking for Russia to back down. They feel like they were slapped in the face. They not going to turn the other cheek, but that is what you and Rand Paul is asking of them.

All I'm saying is that words are not intervention. I'm not opposed to using words and using diplomacy to settle issues.
 
Weeks ago, Obama could have been using the bully pulpit to push for a peaceful solution. He could have been engaging other nations in the region and encouraging them to work with each other to make sure their countries did not fall into chaos, and that they retained the right to self determination without foreign interference.

It is certainly possible for America to act as a beacon of freedom and to set a good example, without America having to send troops, bombs, or money everywhere.

Russia pounced on chaos and uncertainty. Obama's dithering and lack of leadership allowed this to happen.

Fair enough. In this case I think we just differ on the kind of success it would have. Once the civil unrest started in Ukraine, I think Russia's involvement was a foregone conclusion: They know the US only wants Ukraine to remain unified so it can exert economic control over Russia, and they know the US government has been manipulating the unrest and even trying to decide the leadership of the next Ukrainian government. I think pretty much nothing would have stopped Russian meddling in Ukraine after this except a more influential Russian version of Ron Paul.

I'm not sure if the unrest would have happened without the US taking steps in a proxy war to begin with, but let's assume it would have: Would anything except an influential Russian Ron Paul really be able to convince Russia not to do what they just did? Things would be different if the US had a longer history of foreign noninterventionism and trustworthiness...but as far as the last few months or even years are concerned, I don't think that would have been a long enough time frame to build trust and be an influential enough "beacon on a hill" to impact Russia's decision. EDIT: My thoughts are evolving a bit on this...for a moment I thought perhaps Russia would have stood by to see how things played out if the US hadn't been meddling, but I'm backtracking on that and returning to my original thought: Russia had so much to lose from Ukraine being united under a new US-friendly government that little the US said or did in the short term would have been likely to affect their response.
 
Last edited:
It depends which point in time we are talking about. Right now, I don't know what option Obama has.

But weeks ago, he could have moved a fleet into the region, worked with the Ukranian people to strengthen their relationship with us, and to make it extremely visible. Hell, he could have even worked with them to dock some America ships in their ports. That alone would have stopped the Russians from invading. Not a chance would Putin have risked the possibility of killing an American, and starting a war his country can't win, over Crimea.

And if Putin didn't budge after seeing a fleet?
 
All I'm saying is that words are not intervention. I'm not opposed to using words and using diplomacy to settle issues.

It is intervention. It is like using a knife instead of a gun. Don't be surprised when your opponent uses the gun instead. Knife is american political intervention and military is russian gun. Russian's feeling stabbed will not make them reach for their knife, they will pull out their gun.

I would rather both of them burn in hell. But that don't change the facts.
 
Fair enough. In this case I think we just differ on the kind of success it would have. Once the civil unrest started in Ukraine though, I think Russia's involvement was a foregone conclusion from the start: They know the US only wants Ukraine to remain unified to maintain control over Russia, and they know the US government has been manipulating the unrest and even trying to decide the leadership of the next Ukrainian government. I'm not sure if the unrest would have happened without the US taking steps in a proxy war to begin with, but let's assume it would have: Would anything except an influential Russian Ron Paul really be able to convince them not to do what they just did?

First, America clearly was involved in the Ukrainian unrest, which confuses me and makes me think that our CIA and Administration aren't as lost as they seem. However, yes - there is plenty the Americans could have done, had they started weeks ago, to prevent this from happening. Strengthening the relationships between the Ukraine and other nations that border Russia would have been one step -- increasing their resolve to work together to prevent Russian intervention would have been a great move. Conversely, that most likely would increase their resolve to oppose American intervention as well. You and I would be fine with that, but I doubt American corporations and politicians would appreciate it.

Of course, none of us here are close enough to the situation to know the motivations of all people involved. Without that knowledge, it's really, really, difficult to postulate what could have been done to convince the right people to want the same things that we want. Obama, however, has had that knowledge at his fingertips. If he failed to use it, and the Russians took advantage of it, it is completely inexcusable.
 
And if Putin didn't budge after seeing a fleet?


First, he would. There's no way he would kill Americans.

If he did, then the full force of America and NATO would rain down on Russia in a matter of minutes. It would be utterly destroyed.

Putin is a logical man. He wouldn't risk that.

Our hard power, which is enough to overwhelm anyone on Earth, gives our soft power a lot of credence, and gives us a greater opportunity to express smart power.
 
Last edited:
First, America clearly was involved in the Ukrainian unrest, which confuses me and makes me think that our CIA and Administration aren't as lost as they seem. However, yes - there is plenty the Americans could have done, had they started weeks ago, to prevent this from happening. Strengthening the relationships between the Ukraine and other nations that border Russia would have been one step -- increasing their resolve to work together to prevent Russian intervention would have been a great move. Conversely, that most likely would increase their resolve to oppose American intervention as well. You and I would be fine with that, but I doubt American corporations and politicians would appreciate it.

Of course, none of us here are close enough to the situation to know the motivations of all people involved. Without that knowledge, it's really, really, difficult to postulate what could have been done to convince the right people to want the same things that we want. Obama, however, has had that knowledge at his fingertips. If he failed to use it, and the Russians took advantage of it, it is completely inexcusable.

This is a good point. I keep thinking of Russia being the only immediate Ukrainian neighbor with a whole lot of influence, but they're not very far from the powerful western EU countries either, and encouraging solidarity very may well have given Russia pause, at least under different circumstances where we hadn't already been actively meddling in Ukraine to undermine them. Under the current circumstances though I think Russia still may have decided, "Well, we're going to risk it anyway, because losing our Ukraine alliance is simply not an option given the lengths the US will go to protect the petrodollar." I mean, imagine the neoconservatives in charge of a country holding fewer cards...and that's Russian foreign policy. Putin may not be as reckless as the neocons here, but I think that may just be more a circumstantial difference than an ideological or personality difference.
 
Last edited:
It is intervention. It is like using a knife instead of a gun. Don't be surprised when your opponent uses the gun instead. Knife is american political intervention and military is russian gun. Russian's feeling stabbed will not make them reach for their knife, they will pull out their gun.

I would rather both of them burn in hell. But that don't change the facts.

So you're opposed to all diplomacy and not just military intervention?
 
Putin is pulling the same shit bush did. Georgia went great like Afghanistan did at first. Very encouraged he now quickly went into Ukraine. Anybody that thinks Russia doesn't have ambitions just like the US is a fool. If Putin was just worried about protecting majority ethnic Russian he would have let the small Caucasian counties including Chechnya be separate countries. Not so they were crushed brutally. This small Russian underdog is twice the size of the US.
 
Putin is pulling the same shit bush did. Georgia went great like Afghanistan did at first. Very encouraged he now quickly went into Ukraine. Anybody that thinks Russia doesn't have ambitions just like the US is a fool. If Putin was just worried about protecting majority ethnic Russian he would have let the small Caucasian counties including Chechnya be separate countries. Not so they were crushed brutally. This small Russian underdog is twice the size of the US.

This is quite true: The US invaded Iraq to stamp out threats to the petrodollar system (oil fields controlled by an adversary, and oil being sold for currencies other than dollars), and the US meddled in the Ukraine because it was an opportunity to preemptively damage a future BRIC reserve currency. What Russia is doing is very similar: Invade another country in response to protect oil pipelines and the viability of a BRIC alternative to the petrodollar. It definitely isn't about protecting ethnic Russians...LOL, as if any government on Earth genuinely gives a crap about people's lives.

I do suspect Russia would have a lot more success controlling Ukraine than we had controlling Iraq and Afghanistan though: Not only is Ukraine geographically continguous with Russia, but Crimea in particular fits rights in with them culturally. The western part doesn't, but that's not really the part they feel they need anyway, and they probably aren't so arrogant yet as to overextend themselves to take over the whole thing. The only way I see Russia suffering occupational troubles is with the united Ukraine the US is pushing for.
 
Last edited:
First, America clearly was involved in the Ukrainian unrest, which confuses me and makes me think that our CIA and Administration aren't as lost as they seem.


Wait - you think that the American funding of a coup d'etat against a democratically elected leader is something that America should be doing?
 
First, he would. There's no way he would kill Americans.

If he did, then the full force of America and NATO would rain down on Russia in a matter of minutes. It would be utterly destroyed.

Putin is a logical man. He wouldn't risk that.

Our hard power, which is enough to overwhelm anyone on Earth, gives our soft power a lot of credence, and gives us a greater opportunity to express smart power.
Our "hard power" costs trillions of dollars to maintain.

It is the reasoning behind much of the death and destruction this world has seen in recent decades.

That is, corporate welfare for the military industrial complex, corporate designated interests (World Bank loan scams to ensure American businesses build infrastructure for countries), and the maintaining of the petrodollar. The last of which being the most significant of these causes to death and destruction though surely pimping countries into impoverished debt isn't exactly some great bringer of peace for humanity.

This is all aside from the fact that it is immoral. It is an act of theft (taking money from those who oppose it) and fraud (quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking), at large, and it will bankrupt this empire.

I get more and more annoyed coming here by the day. For what it's worth, I knew your post wasn't satire.
 
This is quite true: The US invaded Iraq to stamp out threats to the petrodollar system (oil fields controlled by an adversary, and oil being sold for currencies other than dollars), and the US meddled in the Ukraine because it was an opportunity to preemptively damage a future BRIC reserve currency. What Russia is doing is very similar: Invade another country in response to protect oil pipelines and the viability of a BRIC alternative to the petrodollar (it definitely isn't about protecting ethnic Russians...lol, as if any government on Earth genuinely gives a crap about people's lives).

I do suspect Russia would have a lot more success controlling Ukraine than we had controlling Iraq and Afghanistan though: Not only is Ukraine geographically continguous with Russia, but Crimea in particular fits rights in with them culturally. The western part doesn't, but that's not really the part they feel they need anyway, and they probably aren't so arrogant yet as to overextend themselves to take over the whole thing (which is why they seem comfortable with a divided Ukraine).


Except that the leader of the Ukraine actually signed a trade agreement with Russia while refusing to sign a trade deal with the EU. If the leader of the Ukraine asked Russia to step in and protect his country, would that make it an invasion?

Because that happened: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-men-seize-parliament-buildings-Crimea.html
 
This is quite true: The US invaded Iraq to stamp out threats to the petrodollar system (oil fields controlled by an adversary, and oil being sold for currencies other than dollars), and the US meddled in the Ukraine because it was an opportunity to preemptively damage a future BRIC reserve currency. What Russia is doing is very similar: Invade another country in response to protect oil pipelines and the viability of a BRIC alternative to the petrodollar (it definitely isn't about protecting ethnic Russians...lol, as if any government on Earth genuinely gives a crap about people's lives).

I do suspect Russia would have a lot more success controlling Ukraine than we had controlling Iraq and Afghanistan though: Not only is Ukraine geographically continguous with Russia, but Crimea in particular fits rights in with them culturally. The western part doesn't, but that's not really the part they feel they need anyway, and they probably aren't so arrogant yet as to overextend themselves to take over the whole thing. The only way I see Russia suffering occupational troubles is with the united Ukraine the US is pushing for.
Russia has lot of occupational problems with the other Caucasian countries. even as small as they are. But yes Putin is going to weigh his cost benefit ratios in his imperial expansion.
 
Back
Top