COUP IN KYIV?

Russian President Vladimir Putin called U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday to discuss a U.S. diplomatic proposal for Ukraine, the White House said, adding that Obama told him that Russia must pull back its troops and not move deeper into Ukraine.

It was believed to have been the first direct conversation between Obama and Putin since the United States and its European allies began imposing sanctions on Putin's inner circle and threatened to penalize key sectors of Russia's economy.

"President Obama suggested that Russia put a concrete response in writing and the presidents agreed that Kerry and Lavrov would meet to discuss next steps," the White House said.

A senior Obama administration official described the call as "frank and direct," and said the next step is the Kerry-Lavrov follow-up discussions to see whether the Russians are serious about diplomacy.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-calls-obama-discuss-u-proposal-ukraine-212358384.html

2 Replies

@panzade,

Much more importantly, is Obama open to diplomacy? So far he has been big on making demands but has shown no inclination towards listening to the Russians point of view.

My guess is that the answer is "no", and that putin knows this.....the latest gambit is an exercise in showing china and others in the east the norrow minded inflexibility of Obama. Yet again an american president will lose to Putin, a man who understands how power works.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Sanctions are not diplomacy.

Again, what sanctions did the USA and the USA lapdogs get imposed on them for I & A?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

is Obama open to diplomacy?
My guess is that the answer is "no"

I disagree totally(no surprise)
Obama has been skilled at the use of diplomacy throughout his tenure.
A whack with a stick here; a carrot there.

Quote:

Yet again an american president will lose to Putin, a man who understands how power works.

Goodness! Sounds like you're packing your bags and fetching your passport to join the ranks of Putin's Power Patrol.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Sanctions are not diplomacy.

Again, what sanctions did the USA and the USA lapdogs get imposed on them for I & A?

"We can talk so long as you come away agreeing that i am right" is Obama's definition of diplomacy, which is quite something coming from a former community organizer.

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

di·plo·ma·cy noun \də-ˈplō-mə-sē\
: the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries

: skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings

1
: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2
: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy

Quote:

Obama has been skilled at the use of diplomacy throughout his tenure.
A whack with a stick here; a carrot there.

Another A2K'er who makes up his own crazy personal definitions for words.

GREAT!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

A nation uses
diplomacy for five main purposes including: national self –interest, economy,
access to resources, secure most favored nation status, and ideological reasons.
President Theodore Roosevelt displayed every aspect of the definition of “diplo-
macy” and while in office touched on all five reasons that a nation would use
diplomacy.

President Roosevelt represents one of the greatest diplomats of the
twentieth century. Robert Dallek summarizes President Roosevelt’s diplomacy
well stating, “By policing the hemisphere, building the Panama Canal, restoring
peace in Asia, and promoting it in Europe, Roosevelt helped renew the sense of
mastery and self-confidence the social and economic upheavals of the late nine-
teenth century had largely dissolved in the United States.”

What was Roosevelt's motto Mr Word Definer?
Any idea?

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

The opposite of Obama.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Says you

1 Reply

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

Says you

I am not a WIKI contributor.

0 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

Obama has been skilled at the use of diplomacy throughout his tenure

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img33/8277/emoticonblinkbykidaooka.gif

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

And despite all that he couldn't stop WW2. He became president the same time Hitler became chancellor, and he only stood up to Hitler after Britain declared war on Germany. Compared to that Obama is doing really well.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Izzy's warped view of the Second World War--everyone should have done as Britain did. What was that, declare war on Germany in September, 1939, and then sit around and do nothing while the Germans overran Poland, while waiting for them to attack France? That's what Britain did.

Roosevelt, as it happens, declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the United States, you ignorant, hateful bigot.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Actually, the Phony War was "fought" by France as well. (But the French Empire and the British Empire were the main powers fighting in the Crimean War against Russia.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Hitler accurately judged the lack of a spine in Neville Chamberlain, and his French allies. The Brits and the French could have launched an invasion of Germany, which would have actually been an act in accordance with a mutual defense pact with Poland. They didn't do a goddamned thing.

I was actually inaccurate in my last post. FDR didn't declare war on anyone--he didn't have the power to declare war. He went to the Congress to ask for a declaration of war, because Congress has that power, not the President. In 1939, it would have been political suicide for him to have asked for a declaration of war against Germany. He wouldn't have got it, and the Repulicans would have danced with glee, because he would have ruined his re-election prospects, and would have badly hurt the Democratic Party. This is not the first time that Izzy has trotted out that old bullshit to the effect that the United States prolonged the war in Europe by not declaring war on Germany in 1939. Even if, by some miracle, FDR could have gotten a declaration of war out of Congress, in the nine months before the invasion of France, the Americans would have had just enough time to raise a small army, equip it, and send it across the pond in time to join the evacuation from Dunkirk.

A Franco-British invasion of Germany in September 1939 would have seriously damaged Hitler's political capital, and it would have relieved the pressure on Poland. This is just more of Izzy's obsessive hatred of the United States.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

If not having gone to war in 1938 constitutes a "lack of spine" then the US were jelly.

Confirmed by Egypt in the 1950s and now by Syria. The West has just conceded the Russian-populated Ukraine region of Crimea to Russia. The US sat in the bleachers over Libya.

On matters of modern war to talk of "lack of spine" betrays a mentality which knows no history worth a spit. Modern war is not a matter of who has most hair on their balls.

Personalising the subject to Chamberlain and FDR is pathetic.

The US ambassador to the Court of St James supported Hitler.

0 Replies

Vitali Klitschko has pulled out of the race for president and chosen to back billionaire confectionery oligarch Petro Poroshenko.

Instead, Klitschko, the world heavyweight boxing champion and head of the Ukrainian Demcratic Alliance for Reform, will run for mayor of Kyiv, according to Interfax-Ukraine news service, APA reports quoting Kyiv Post.

And Tymoshenko said earlier this week that she would support Poroshenko if voters did not elect her.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Being called a bigot by you is the pot calling the kettle black. You attacked me from day one on A2K purely because of my nationality, so I'll take no lectures from a weasel like you.

As always you get the wrong end of the stick. I was responding to Hawkeye's post when he contrasted Roosevelt with Obama. I wasn't having a go at Roosevelt, WW2 was the collective failure of American isolationism and Anglo French appeasement. Had all three powers acted differently when Hitler remilitarised the Rhine we probably could have avoided WW2.

When you contrast this to the West's response to the occupation of Crimea, I think we've learnt the lessons of appeasement.

4 Replies

@izzythepush,

Can you not see the incoherence in Setanta's idiotic remarks izzy?

3 Replies

@spendius,

Exactly, there's no reason whatsoever. He will side with anyone against me, first H2OMan, then Oralloy and now Hawkeye. He's shown he's completely lacking in principles, and demonstrates why Roosevelt had such problems in the early stages of the war, with Americans like him prepared to give their backing to anyone, no matter how distasteful, as long as they were fighting perfidious Albion.

Contrast the principled stance of those Irishmen who volunteered for the Royal Irish Regiment to fight fascism with his visceral, unprincipled hatred.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know