Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

From The Ukraine To War With Russia?


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Members

No doubt Russia has that ace in the hole. Also, if Russia has well maintained their nukes it's likely they have more than America does at this time.

 

If the American president had any common sense he would have stayed out of the whole matter in Ukraine and once it was clear things were going a bad direction there he would have made a few simple comments and let it alone.

 

The Russians went into the nation of Georgia while President Bush as in office and there wasn't this much fuss going on. At this point Russia has only stepped into Crimea, which has been Russian since Catherine the Great and which Russia has been very clear about them never seeing Crimea fall into unfriendly hands.

 

Obama hates being upstaged and he hates that Putin doesn't like or respect him (hmmm, I wonder why!) and he hates the fact Putin has outflanked him at every turn during his presidency. Perhaps Obama should have thought of the consequences that might come from the dismissive, disrespectful way he treated Putin at the beginning of his presidency instead of bowing to Muslim kings.

 

Obama won't threaten war with Russia. First, he has to have somebody around him smart enough to warn him of the potential for near annihilation, and second because wants to be known as the president that got America out of foreign wars, not one that started one.

 

It's clear, or should be, that if Russia wants Crimea, they will have her. We should accept that and move on to more important matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

By the way, has anyone read the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg? The "far left" is really the "far right" in their practice and method.  I've read portions of it and heard an interview with him on Glenn Beck's show when he was on FOX (only time I think I ever watched his show). It sounds like quite telling read.

 

Yep, great read and should be read for those wanting to understand where these different liberal movements came from, what they're based on in reality versus what they say in public.  Until reading this book, I didn't realize that fascism was not separate from socialism but part of it.  You cannot have socialist/communist state without the element of fascism.  The left uses that word to tar and feather their opponents while they themselves indulge in it.

 

In the end, these groups are run by lost and rebellious people seeking to create a perfect world for themselves and maybe others apart from God.  The leaders believe they can accomplish these goals apart from God, setting themselves up as little gods.  Vanity and ohh so wasteful in resources and human lives.  It's evil and of the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Is Putin the Irrational One?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Tuesday - March 18, 2014

Vladimir Putin seems to have lost touch with reality, Angela Merkel reportedly told Barack Obama after speaking with the Russian president. He is "in another world."

"I agree with what Angela Merkel said ... that he is in another world," said Madeleine Albright, "It doesn't make any sense."

John Kerry made his contribution to the bonkers theory by implying that Putin was channeling Napoleon: "You don't just, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext."

Now that Putin has taken Crimea without firing a shot, and 95 percent of a Crimean electorate voted Sunday to reunite with Russia, do his decisions still appear irrational?

Was it not predictable that Russia, a great power that had just seen its neighbor yanked out of Russia's orbit by a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev, would move to protect a strategic position on the Black Sea she has held for two centuries?

Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Putin is out to recreate the czarist empire. Others say Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union and Soviet Empire.

But why would Russia, today being bled in secessionist wars by Muslim terrorists in the North Caucasus provinces of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, want to invade and reannex giant Kazakhstan, or any other Muslim republic of the old USSR, which would ensure jihadist intervention and endless war?

If we Americans want out of Afghanistan, why would Putin want to go back into Uzbekistan? Why would he want to annex Western Ukraine where hatred of Russia dates back to the forced famine of the Stalin era?

To invade and occupy all of Ukraine would mean endless costs in blood and money for Moscow, the enmity of Europe, and the hostility of the United States. For what end would Russia, its population shrinking by half a million every year, want to put Russian soldiers back in Warsaw?

But if Putin is not a Russian imperialist out to re-establish Russian rule over non-Russian peoples, who and what is he?

In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.

Consider the world Putin saw, from his vantage point, when he took power after the Boris Yeltsin decade.

He saw a Mother Russia that had been looted by oligarchs abetted by Western crony capitalists, including Americans. He saw millions of ethnic Russians left behind, stranded, from the Baltic states to Kazakhstan.

He saw a United States that had deceived Russia with its pledge not to move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army would move out, and then exploited Russia's withdrawal to bring NATO onto her front porch.

Had the neocons gotten their way, not only the Warsaw Pact nations of Central and Eastern Europe, but five of 15 republics of the USSR, including Ukraine and Georgia, would have been brought into a NATO alliance created to contain and, if need be, fight Russia.

What benefits have we derived from having Estonia and Latvia as NATO allies that justify losing Russia as the friend and partner Ronald Reagan had made by the end of the Cold War?

We lost Russia, but got Rumania as an ally? Who is irrational here?

Cannot we Americans, who, with our Monroe Doctrine, declared the entire Western Hemisphere off limits to the European empires -- "Stay on your side of the Atlantic!" -- understand how a Russian nationalist like Putin might react to U.S. F-16s and ABMs in the eastern Baltic?

In 1999, we bombed Serbia for 78 days, ignoring the protests of a Russia that had gone to war for Serbia in 1914. We exploited a Security Council resolution authorizing us to go to the aid of endangered Libyans in Benghazi to launch a war and bring down the Libyan regime.

We have given military aid to Syrian rebels and called for the ouster of a Syrian regime that has been Russia's ally for decades.

At the end of the Cold War, writes ex-ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, 80 percent of Russia's people had a favorable opinion of the USA. A decade later, 80 percent of Russians were anti-American.

That was before Putin, whose approval is now at 72 percent because he is perceived as having stood up to the Americans and answered our Kiev coup with his Crimean counter coup.

America and Russia are on a collision course today over a matter -- whose flag will fly over what parts of Ukraine -- no Cold War president, from Truman to Reagan, would have considered any of our business.

If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to formalize their historic, cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and the people of Western Ukraine wish to sever all ties to Moscow and join the European Union, why not settle this politically, diplomatically and democratically, at a ballot box?
 
 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-irrational-one-6292

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This video interview with Mr. Orlov gives me hope that the Ukraine fiasco will not end in the world becoming a radioactive wasteland.  They get into the Ukraine problem at about 4:00 minutes and most of the rest of the interview has to do with it.

 

On the Ukraine crisis, Orlov thinks, “The Crimea referendum was the first legal way to find out what the people wanted to do.  The turnout was remarkable, and they voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, to become part of Russia once again.  The interesting thing here is it was not just the Russians that voted to join Russia but the Ukrainians in Crimea, which makes a sizable part of the population voted to join Russia. . . Ukraine is composed of sort of a no man’s land in the West and then Russian territories in the East. . . .  If that trend holds, you are basically left with this insolvent nugget of nothingness, and it will be up to the international community to decide what to do with these people.  They are right now marching around Kiev with baseball bats and going into government offices and beating up members of local government and installing their own members.  They are basically running amok.

 

Here is the interview video link:

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was listening to John Kerry talk about this the other day and he carried on about how this sort of thing shouldn't happen in the 21st century.

 

It might be the 21st century, but man and nations are still as they have always been.

 

How quickly we forget, or conveniently don't discuss, how every major nation came to be a major nation. It wasn't by playing nice and talking things over; it was through brute force, coercion and often any means necessary.

 

The same way Rome grew and gained power is the same way others did before them and since them. China, Russia, Great Britain, America, Spain, France, Persia and scores of other nations all once practiced this or still do.

 

How did Great Britain become "great" and stride the world? How did America do so?

 

America and the EU played a dangerous game of subversion by aiding and fomenting political unrest in Ukraine with the intent of seeing the legally elected government toppled and a pro-West government take its place. They failed. Not only did they fail, they brought about much broader unrest and as they tried to decide what to do then, the Russians took action to secure their only warm water naval base.

 

America and the EU should have dealt with the matter quietly through diplomatic channels; accepting the fact they greatly blundered and it backfired; rather than making this a public war of words and threats, which has grown into a limited economic war, with now more threats of greater economic war and even a possible new cold war.

 

Were the American naval base in Cuba threatened, America would take whatever action they deemed necessary to secure that base regardless of what the rest of the world thought.

 

Crimea is basically Russian anyway, and has been since Catherine the Great. Russian control of Crimea is of little more real significance to the world at large than is the American naval base in Cuba. Neither are game changers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Ukrainian problem would not be a problem if we had not made it one by America insisting upon it's right to rule the world.  When I was a kid my brother and I decided to pour water in a yellow jackets nest.  You can imagine what the outcome was.  It wasn't good and I have never forgotten the incident and have never done it again.  If only the U.S. would learn from it's mistakes we would not mess around in other peoples business.  We put our nose in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria and what have we gotten but a stirred up yellow jacket nest.  The Ukraine is Putin's business, let him stew and fret about it.  We have enough problems here in our own land.

 

The economy has fallen apart, we are fast becoming a police state, we don't know what to do about the migration of other nations people into our land . . . . yes, I would say we have enough to handle here.  We have no need to be messing around over there.  There's a song from the war to end all wars, World War I:

  "Over there, over there,

   Send the word, send the word over there 

  That the yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming 

  The drums rum-tumming everywhere.

The truth is The war to end all wars didn't end wars and neither did the next one or the next one ad infinitum.

They yanks shouldn't be going over there.  They should be staying home.  Bring our young men home and keep them home working to save this nation by once again building it up, instead of letting the politicians and their powerful friends tear it down.

 

Only God can or will stop wars.  It is not in man's sinful nature to stop wars.  For thousands of years, ever since Cain slew Abel, man's favorite way of settling disputes has been violence. 

 

As I said only God can stop the brutal insanity that is war.  That is why we should be ever on our knees praying for His intervention in the affairs of men, for men cannot seem to manage their own affairs.

 

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.

 

I just had to vent . . . . had to get it off my chest.

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

America and the EU played a dangerous game of subversion by aiding and fomenting political unrest in Ukraine with the intent of seeing the legally elected government toppled and a pro-West government take its place. They failed. Not only did they fail, they brought about much broader unrest and as they tried to decide what to do then, the Russians took action to secure their only warm water naval base.

 

America and the EU should have dealt with the matter quietly through diplomatic channels; accepting the fact they greatly blundered and it backfired; rather than making this a public war of words and threats, which has grown into a limited economic war, with now more threats of greater economic war and even a possible new cold war.

 

The cold war was rekindled the moment Putin took power.  As to the quotes above, it's no surprise we lost when you look at who the players are, Barack Hussein Obama, the least accomplished person in any room.

 

Pride is one of man's worst sins and greatest enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually Putin extended the hand of friendship and cooperation but the American president slapped it away. Russia under Putin has actually been helpful in providing intelligence on known terrorists. Russia has offered other helps as well as offered to work with America in different areas around the world.

 

For whatever reason, Obama treated Putin in a very dismissive and disrespectful manner from the beginning. Is it any wonder Putin has returned such treatment and likely relished in every opportunity to thumb his nose at Obama?

 

We also have to remember that when the Soviet Union was voluntarily disolved, America and European nations made promises to Russia, which Russia believed and counted on. Then most of those promises were quickly dropped. Rather than treating Russia as friend recovering from a bad addiction that was eager for friendship and help, America and her European allies went against their promises and began treating Russia like a defeated foe, a threat to be contained, a nation not worthy of friendship or respect. America pushed for the expansion of NATO (a military alliance) into the former Warsaw Pact nations, in violation of promises made to Russia. America bombed Russias Serbian friends while Clinton was in office despite Russias protest against such and calls for letting Balkans sort their own troubles. America squandered the opportunity to befriend Russia and help shape her into an ally.

 

Had Ukraine been let alone to determine her own destiny, what's occuring over there now likely would not have been.

 

As it stands now, it should be a local issue, not an international affair that has the potential to lead to dangerous economic war, cold war style background war, or outright war.

 

Faced with the same sort of situation I have no doubt that America, England and a host of other nations would have taken the same sort of action as Russia has.

 

As Pilgrim pointed out, America is falling apart from within. We have more than enough problems at home which needs to be dealt with. Otherwise we run the risk of following in the footsteps of Rome, who when faced with internal decay, moral corruption, mass immigration, a floundering economy, sought to distract the people with bread and circuses while continually beating the drums of war across their then known world.

 

The traditional conservative principle in such matters used to be based upon the Founding wisdom of staying out of other nations conflicts. America once offered moral support to those overseas they felt a connection with, but remained neutral regarding their internal affairs and their external wars. As the Founding philosophy was, have good relations with all we can, trade with everyone equally, stay out of their troubles and wars.

 

Somehow, pushing for war and trying to control the world wormed its way into modern "conservative" circles, mostly through the neo-cons. This has given us the likes of John McCain who seems to see every crisis (real or imagined) around the world as an opportunity for America to bomb or invade. This guy and his ilk have been pushing for military action and war after war for over a decade now. Were it up to McCain, America would still have large numbers of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; America would have went to war with Syria, Iran, Libya and potentially with Russia on more than one occasion.

 

We need to focus our resources on home. We need to evangelize our own country. We need to permeate America with the Gospel and see souls born again.

 

The end is near. Who controls Crimea when Christ returns will be of little importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

America and the EU should have dealt with the matter quietly through diplomatic channels; accepting the fact they greatly blundered and it backfired; rather than making this a public war of words and threats, which has grown into a limited economic war, with now more threats of greater economic war and even a possible new cold war.

 

Sanctions very rarely work.  The only time they did as far as I can remember was Southern Rhodesia.  America has had sanctions against Cuba for decades but it doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

Not only over there.
 
There is going to be a news report on Monday and Tuesday evenings about foreigners in Calais trying to jump trucks to get to England.  They try to get in the back of the truck, climb on the axles and any other way they can chance it  We were in Calais yesterday 21st.  W saw many of these people hanging around near the port.  There is a  tented city just outside the port with tents made out of black plastic bags.  Some of these people are from Syria and Afghanistan.  Many have paid people traffickers.large amounts of money to get to Calais.  One said, when interviewed on the TV that he had been travelling for over 2 years to get there.  
 
When I was at school, many years ago, we were told that the population of our islands was 48 million and that it would rise to about 50 million and then start to drop as the country could not support that many.  Today we have  nearer to 70 million, I believe.  And still they come.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sanctions are a way to feel and look like a country is doing something when they know what they are doing won't really change things much.

 

Mass immigration into more prosperous countries will continue until the people of that country finally wake up and put an end to it or after the mass immigration destroys the country and it's no longer worth coming to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What America is facing on it's southern border is not immigration but a migration.  It is such a large migration that it might be considered an invasion, especially since it his helped by the government of Mexico to serve their own purposes.

 

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is our most immediate threat, and has been for some time, but due to political correctness and the selfish ambitions of politicians this great danger has been ignored by some and propelled by others.

 

There is no secret that the Mexican government, many Mexican organizations within our borders, as well as millions of Mexicans hold the belief that America stole the American southwest from them and they are going to reclaim it by shear force of numbers.

 

What will a future America president do when, for instance, California is a Mexican majority State where Mexicans dominate all political positions and they declare they want their independence or want unification with Mexico? What will be the reaction of the United Nations to such? How many nations around the world will jump on this as a means to get back at America?

 

Now, imagine that perhaps Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are all majority Mexican, with Mexicans in full control of politics and they all sue to leave America to join together as a new Mexican nation or so they can join with Mexico. What then?

 

If America survives this century, China will be her greatest threat (not Russia). However, unless the immediate threat is dealt with, America may not survive that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is our most immediate threat, and has been for some time, but due to political correctness and the selfish ambitions of politicians this great danger has been ignored by some and propelled by others.

 

There is no secret that the Mexican government, many Mexican organizations within our borders, as well as millions of Mexicans hold the belief that America stole the American southwest from them and they are going to reclaim it by shear force of numbers.

 

What will a future America president do when, for instance, California is a Mexican majority State where Mexicans dominate all political positions and they declare they want their independence or want unification with Mexico? What will be the reaction of the United Nations to such? How many nations around the world will jump on this as a means to get back at America?

 

Now, imagine that perhaps Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are all majority Mexican, with Mexicans in full control of politics and they all sue to leave America to join together as a new Mexican nation or so they can join with Mexico. What then?

 

If America survives this century, China will be her greatest threat (not Russia). However, unless the immediate threat is dealt with, America may not survive that long.

Well obviously the PPTO (Pan Pacific Treaty Organization) headed by China will instigate riots :verymad:  and then a coup in the Ukraine er sorry I meant the Southwestern states of the U.S. and the Southwestern states will proclaim themselves an independent nation and part of the PPTO (Pan Pacific Treaty Organization) headed by China and that will upset the U.S who will invade the area once called Wyoming and Colorado. :boxing:   The PPTO (Pan Pacific Treaty Organization) headed by China will move troops in from Mexico into the new CaliOreAvNevUtNewTex Mexico in order to prevent the war like Americans from invading from Wyoming and Colorado. :boxing:  An then, and then, and then.  . . . . . . Oh, I'm sure you get the idea.  Payback can be confusing at times. :popcorn:

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...