Comments about ‘In Russia and beyond, Obama administration must take foreign threats seriously’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 19 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Obama should take the Bush approach. Russia invades Crimea, the US should invade New Zealand!
That'll show em'.

Hayden, ID

Marxist: The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed by Russia, the US, England and Ukraine under the 1994 agreement, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises. In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. Apparently, this wasn't worth the paper it was written on! And you defend Russia?

provo, Utah

First of all Russia should have just said their intelligence agencies had irrefutable proof that Crimea had WMD's. Then Romney would be 100% behind them.

Salt Lake City, UT

Wow. This looks like a replay of Health Care. Conservatives complain about what Obama is doing, but do not provide an alternative.

Despite warnings that they need to expand the party in order to survive, the Republicans continue to huff and puff and rile up the base. They dare not venture into the middle, because the middle expects more reasoned and intelligent arguments.

Nothing will change for the Republicans. Expect another night of election coverage with Karl Rove incredulous that Fox News is calling victories for Democrats, and Megyn Kelly venturing into the newsroom dungeon to ask Fox pollsters "how did this happen"?

Springville, UT

@ SCfan, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in the period of time you refer to. YOu are making things up. The fact remains, the events leading up to Russia invading Georgia and the invasion itself happened on Bush's watch. Here's the deal. I didn't blame Bush, and I don't think Obama should be blamed for Crimea. But that's all the GOP is doing, putting their partisanship over everything else.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think he takes them seriously. I don't think Obama is laughing about ANY of this. Not Russia and Ukraine, not what happened in Libya, not Syria and the citizens who have died at the hands of their government there. Not Iran and their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Not North Korea and their obsession with Nuclear Weapons. I don't think any of this if "Funny" to the President. He just doesn't know what to do (and who would).

He painted himself into a corner by joining the anti-Bush rhetoric during his campaign. Now if he does anything militarily... he's at risk of looking like a Bush clone.

So his options are VERY limited.

He can talk to the media, and he can send community organizers over there... but he can't really do anything, or get a coalition going (when he attacked our coalition members for joining us in the past.

I hope he finds a way to solve these problems. I'm just afraid of what will happen IF he finds himself at the end of his rope, and a serious violation of one of his red-lines actually happens.

Cedar Hills, UT

Barack Obama and his progressive army are ONLY concerned about one thing and that is SOCIALISM. That's right folks - how to move the country to a socialist model. That's why Obamacare was rammed down our throats as a FIRST priority of Obama from the time the man took office. Everything else...the economy, foreign policy are all down the priortiy chain. Everything this man does is centered around Socialism and how to implement that model here in America. Gutting our miliary meant that now that money could be used for free-bie handouts and food stamps and all the other free goodies that chain folks to government dependence. Don't be fooled - this man has a mission to perform and it isn't to be commander and chief.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The coalition is already built, it is called NATO.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The coalition is already built, it is called NATO."
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Curious what you expect NATO to do... military strike?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Esquire 11:19 a.m.,
Let me see if I get the logic of your argument right...

1. If you didn't blame Bush for Georgia back then... you can't critique Obama today.
2. And if you refrained from blaming Bush back then... you can just ignore Ukraine and feel good about everything.

Kinda a you had to pay back then to play now... kinda thing?


So this whole Ukraine thing is just a Republican thing in your mind?

I don't think so. There are LOTS of Democrats who think we should do something. I think Obama is one of them...


The left used to say it was their DUTY to question Bush on everything back then... but now if you question Obama on ANYTHING... you are a traitor...

Seems like the shoe is just on the other foot, and Obama fans can't handle it.

I think we needed to question Bush on what he was doing back then, and we need to question Obama on what he is doing (or not doing) today.

It's a tradition in America to question our leaders (including the great Obama).

Bountiful, UT

"In Russia and beyond, Obama administration must take foreign threats seriously"


Problem is from the time of Vietnam until now, our country has a history of getting into wars it doesn't need to, putting us further an further into debt, and destroying peoples lives that serve in the military. Its as though the soldier and the taxpayers are their chess pieces.

How much of a threat is it, if the Crimea part of Ukraine votes to succeed from Ukraine and join with Russia and then Russia allows this? This really is no threat to us or anyone else really.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

Ok, so what are the options on the table? Platitudes about appeasement, Obama's weaknesses, etc need not apply. Seriously, what precise measures do you propose?

And don't just suggest actions, wargame the ramifications and any countermoves Russia would take. What responses does Russia have, what would their impacts be, and are we ready for them?

Are we ready for cyberattacks on US infrastructure? Dumping Russia's supply of US T-bills? Cutting off the natural gas of our European allies? Increasing the risk that Russia will reclaim the rest of Ukraine or the Baltics? An elevated Russian nuclear posture? A return to Russian 'fraternal support' of regimes deeply opposed to US interests like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc? A formal military alliance with China?

What are the risks? What is the price? What are the objectives in the short and long term?

I guarantee that smart people are wargaming scenarios like these right now. And the lack of a coherent policy response to Russia's Crimean annexation suggests that the answers they're coming up with aren't very favorable for us.

salt lake city, utah

Oh seriously patriot? Just what would that mean? nationalizing the banks..oh wait that was GHWB, nationalizing the energy industry..oh no, that's all those who say we solve all of energy problems by drilling more oil here.

Oh yea nationalizing health care..oh wait my insurance comes through Altius.

That rant of Obama intends to destroy America or intends to turn it socialist is way beyond the pale. I'll bet you could even find it in some psychiatric manuals.

American Fork, UT

Taking foreign threats seriously is what may actually be going on. And just how is this Russian exercise in an historically and ethnically Russian piece of the world a 'foreigh threat'?

the truth
Holladay, UT


I believe Ukraine and Georgia would disagree with you.

Virginia Beach, VA

‘In Russia and beyond, Obama administration must take foreign threats seriously’

. . . as if it doesn't already.

Sugar City, ID

What is some of the Russian Ships in the Russian fleet in Sevastopol just happened to sink? The U.S. isn't the only country that could cause this. In fact, maybe the ships just happened to have simultaneous explosions from something within the ships.

American Fork, UT

Truth: I'm sure Ukraine and Georgia would disagree with me. And so they should. However, I'm looking at it from the perspective of President Obama not being leader of those places, what threat it represents to us, and how we should or even can reasonably respond.

clearfield, UT


Look up the 110th Congress. Remember Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? They took over control of Congress in 2007. The invasion of Georgia happened in 2008. And to think you got EIGHT people to agree with you on your misinformation. Everything I said was factual except maybe the actual popularity of GW. I know he was very low, but maybe not at 33%. And all of your crowd is now trying to blame Bush and draw a comparison to Obama. OK, both Presidents were weak. But, Bush only had a few months left not a few years left. We have to now have a very weak man in the White House for another 3 years. Not good for America, not good for the world. I don't defend a lot of what Bush did. Why do you and yours defend Obama at all costs?

salt lake city, utah

2bits, "He painted himself into a corner by joining the anti-Bush rhetoric during his campaign. Now if he does anything militarily... he's at risk of looking like a Bush clone."

If you read a little further you would see the agreement was specifically structured by both G HB and Clinton as a political agreement, not an international treaty, to purposefully take military action off the table.

They knew that any kind of a military conflict with Russia was potentially opening a death spiral. Apparently that lesson has been forgotten.

Also if you read your Google again you can refresh your memory that the Cuban missile crisis was de-escalated by giving in to Russia's demand that we dismantle our missiles in Italy and Turkey.
Be very, very careful when you start talking about military confrontations with Russia. We don't know how they will react. Fortunately America to this point on more than one occasion has been smart enough to walk away from such a fight.

However, the American right seems to believe that everything America has done in the past 60 years is wrong so maybe we should just let them continue to confront Putin..?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments