Ukraine

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

...and agreement with those who were not on the "dream team."

These may be the neocons you claim to have no knowledge of, or perhaps it's all one in the same.

And an ultimate dismantling of the dream teams policies by those who followed. But that's, as Spence likes to say, old news

Wha? I thought Obama was getting pounded from the Left because he left so much Bush era policy in place.

And if he were true to the implication that old news is no longer relevant, one wonders why he likes to so often bring up old news. I guess if that tactic suits his argument of the present moment (but subject to change the next day or hour in another thread) it's acceptable--after all, it's CHANGE. And change is the highest aspiration of the progressive mind. Apparently, the more often, the better.

Premium grade spin here

But I digress. I may actually agree with the important negotiations being with the EU. If Spence means by that negotiations amongst Russia, the EU, and Ukraine. In fact, those are the ONLY relevant negotiations. And, power to truth, if the EU is not militarily strong enough or morally resolute enough to stand up to the same of Putin's Russia, the "negotiations" may be one sided in results.

I'm not sure EU might has anything to do with that. NATO responsibility would supersede the EU if it came to blows. It will be up to the EU leadership -- especially Germany -- then make the financial gamble that buffering Russia right now is worth it.

As far as "economic" sanctions--those cut both ways. Besides, Russia has always managed to be outside of Western Europe's economic sphere. And it is forming other alliances rapidly, now, in response to threats against its hegemony in what it considers its sphere of influence.

I think Russia has a lot more to lose from sanctions than the US. What are they going to do, not repay their debt to the West?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

These may be the neocons you claim to have no knowledge of, or perhaps it's all one in the same.

Nope. How it "played out" involved the back and forth opposition and agreement of the Dems and everyone else. Besides, that's old news.

Wha? I thought Obama was getting pounded from the Left because he left so much Bush era policy in place.

Oh, so the Obama policy and the 9/11 policy are much the same. And yet you imply that Obama's is better, and the Repubs haven't had a worthwhile one in 10 years. Anyway, the 9/11 policy is old news.

Premium grade spin here

Spin vs. spin. May be premium grade, but could never match the quality of yours.

I'm not sure EU might has anything to do with that. NATO responsibility would supersede the EU if it came to blows. It will be up to the EU leadership -- especially Germany -- then make the financial gamble that buffering Russia right now is worth it.

Coming to blows is so 19th century. The wrong side of history, as J. Kerry would say. Surely the NATO wouldn't stoop to outdated tactics. Financial gamble? You mean sanctions actually do cut both ways as in your " The Russian economy is nothing without access to western banking, trade and his ability to sell natural gas to the EU at a premium"? That is, there is actually trade in which BOTH parties gain or lose?

I think Russia has a lot more to lose from sanctions than the US. What are they going to do, not repay their debt to the West?

-spence

But I thought you said the important discussion was with the EU, Ukraine, and Russia.