Agree/disagree:Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

From Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that’s one of the reasons that—well, what I wanted to ask you is, because of what’s been going on in Syria, in Iraq, and now with the Israeli attacks on Gaza, it’s almost as if what’s going on in Ukraine has receded in the consciousness of the media here in this country, even though it’s conceivably much more dangerous and has more long-term impact on the United States.

STEPHEN COHEN: I don’t want to prioritize death—I mean, whose death is worse or not so worse. But the reality is, if you’re going to ask an historian, that the conflict in the Middle East, including Iraq, is going to affect regional politics, but the conflict in Ukraine is going to affect global politics, because we are now in a new Cold War with Russia. We have been for several months. One aspect of cold war is civilian deaths. We’ve had these shootdowns. We had them in the old Cold War. This is going to get worse. It also brings us closer to war between Russia and the West, NATO and the United States. So, if you’re going to ask which is more important—Russians have a saying that, which is worse? And the answer is, both are worse. They’re all worse. But if you’re going to ask which is going to have impact for our grandchildren, it’s what’s going on in Ukraine now.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds, but Obama announcing stricter sanctions against Russia, how significant is this? It was a day before the downing of the plane.

STEPHEN COHEN: I’ll repeat what I said before: By resorting to sanctions, Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. That’s not a policy; that’s an attitude.

Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics, New York University and Princeton University.

[randys1]

1. That comment sounds cute, but is actualy silly.

Obama's policy is very obvious, not an attitude, and is the most effective thing he can do short of escalating the war.



ps

Nobody, not even that idiot McCain has suggested anything more effective

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. Cohen said it twice in the interview, but wasn't quick with alternatives

Amy & Juan didn't seem to be throwing up challenges, though.

[Blue_Tires]

9. I'm interested in hearing some good alternatives

in between "sanctions" (which everybody seems to hate), and military action...

[Jamaal510]

20. Co-sign. nt

[machiavelliisalive]

76. The trouble is that any approach that only looks at Russia will not work because

The situation is much more complex. The "Putin vs" narrative distracts and the lack of even coverage in the west does nothing but polarize.

But the "Us vs them" narrative is extremely useful in a manner of gamesmanship. Trouble is, that way has been tried again and again and is only setting the world on fire.

Published on Friday, July 18, 2014 by Common Dreams
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: The Problem Isn’t Conflict, It’s Violent Conflict Management
by Erin Niemela

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/18

[Squinch]

3. On this and other threads, your slip is showing.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. We're thread stalking now, are we?

Have fun.

[Trajan]

11. You have to admit ..

This OP has a certain kind of stench about it ...

[Algernon Moncrieff]

19. I do admit that, but I wanted to quote exactly

However, Squinch and I are playing smackback from another thread.

Most trolls don't post interviews from Democracy Now! I believe it has the same effect on conservatives that sunlight has on vampires.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Three months on the board...seems more like an old-timer, so familiar

[Algernon Moncrieff]

34. I am an old timer

I had 10,000 posts and no hides. I walked away because the administrators decided not to do name amnesty.

I'm legal. I'm not a sockpuppet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Sure thing, bud

[Cali_Democrat]

17. +1

[Roy Serohz]

4. Ah, well, the thing is.....

Putin is to blame!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. No disagreement

As I said to Randy upthread, Cohen made that point twice, but didn't offer up a vision for what policy should look like.

I can't access his article in The Nation, as I'm not a subscriber. It's entitled Kiev’s Atrocities and the Silence of the Hawks

As for blame, here was Cohen's take:

STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but what’s not being reported in the mainstream media about what’s been going on in eastern Ukraine cities—these cities have been pounded by Kiev—and now this. "Emeritus," as you call me, means old. I’ve seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.

There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just can’t believe anybody would do it, but you can’t rule anything out.

The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.

Another possibility is that the rebels—we call them separatists, but they weren’t separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukraine—that they had the capability. But there’s a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.

There’s the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you don’t know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.

That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.

[Blue_Tires]

8. I like how he puts all the pieces in place

and then *denies* the most likely logical conclusion at the end...

[Algernon Moncrieff]

12. It was maddening. Everything he said sounded logical, but no reasonable conclusions were reached

I'd have settled for a range of options.

As for what you said up-thread -- completely agree. Europe doesn't want the sanctions; no sane person wants to send troops. What else is there?

[RobertEarl]

43. Oh, c'mon. The end is very wise

Here's the end in quotes:

""This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.
That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.""

The guy is not going to jump to conclusions because ya know, he's smart.

People jumping to conclusions are not smart. See them jump like dancing beans? Their hate has them all riled up and their hair on fire. Thank God Obama is not all like them.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

53. I do thank God that Obama is not on a hair trigger to react.

Bad for Putin? Too soon to tell: Ukraine and Russia point fingers at each other.

That said, if you are going to say Obama does not have a policy, shouldn't you at least suggest a policy?

[RobertEarl]

57. Russia knows the policy

And it is a policy that is evolving. The McCain policy would be to invade or some stupid reaction. Obama told the world Russia is a regional power - a real slap in the face to Putin's ambitions for Russia.

This Ukraine situation will only become bigger if we stick our nose in it. We stay out because we realize this is an Eastern European problem that goes back to when the US wasn't even a US.

Leave it to McCain to set off on fire. Leave it to the warmongers to beat the drums of war. Obama is too cool for that.

Realize this: Russia has more fossil fuels than anybody. Russia plays a huge part in what oil sells for. Putin loved hm some bush because bush got the price of oil to double. Putin is a rich man because of what bush did for him. Putin misses bush and doesn't care for Obama. The Black reason is part of it, but that slap in the face Obama gave Putin? That there is policy: Putin is just a regional power. We will deal with him as the need arises.

I do think the Cohen guy is wrong in that he thinks this is such a global matter. But then this is his specialty, so he has just a bit of bias, no?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

59. The problem I see is that every policymaker over -- say 55 -- wants to couch this in cold war terms.

I don't see this as a cold war. I do see this as Putin wanting to reassemble the USSR circa 1938.

Perhaps part of Cohen's problem is that the US and Western Europe aren't in lock-step as they were back when the capitol of West Germany was Bonn.

Would you agree that if Putin invades Poland or any other NATO signatory, that would be the beginning of WW III?

[RobertEarl]

63. Sure, more war leads to more war

Russia has never been richer, thanks to all the fossil fuels being bought from Russia. Russia is not going to shoot itself in the foot, but it will be smart, business wise. That's what the sanctions are pointed at - Russian business.

War is for idiots. If the idiots take over, like we had with bush, then yes, war will happen. But McCain and some DUers are not in charge so peace reigns. Obama's policy is to not bomb Russia. Agree?

Russia isn't gonna bomb us, or anyone, so were all good. Bombs bursting in air are not good for Russian business. For US business it has been good, because: that's our oil they are living on.

Bush recognized Big Oil and made a deal with Russia: One for you two for US, pootie-poot.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

66. I grew up in the cold war and I sense that you did as well.

War with Russia would, indeed, be bad for business. The problem is that the moment the war looks bad for either side, it would go nuclear.

The BRICS just set up their own bank, so I'm assuming that they will move to end the reserve currency status of the dollar.

We are still an exceptionally wealthy nation that no one will invade anytime soon. I see no need to bomb anyone or send troops anywhere.

[RobertEarl]

68. Yep

Did the duck and kiss.

Nothing will matter if the nukes go boom.

The rich would lose all kinds of business.

The dollar has a destiny, and that you might say is: Over-the-hill.

Recently, a fair sized business man I know told me: We just need some stability. I've now seen quite a few others quoted in that camp. Which means they have some fears that business is rocky. Obama promised business they would be fine with him in office. They have done well. Obama has propped up the face-flat economy and given it free dollars to feed on. That is Obama's policy. It has been successful for them. How long can he keep it going? Maybe til after November?

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. What makes him dumb is that he leapt to an untenable conclusion

He thinks the Russians had no motive for 'aiding and abetting' the separatists. Of course they did - the separatists are popular in Russia, and helping them is popular. The separatists want to shoot down Ukrainian military planes, whatever height they're at. So the Russians could help their friends by supplying them with the military equipment to do that.

That wasn't hard, was it? But the professor has rejected that. Which shows he's dumb.

[The Magistrate]

90. Book Smart But Not Street Smart, Sir....

[geek tragedy]

71. He is regurgitating the RT spin.

He gives the separatist scumbags a big sloppy case while trying to pin it on the Ukrainian government.

And ignoring the fact that all evidence points in the direction of Team Putin.

He is a pro-Putin hack. Nothing more.

[CatWoman]

7. this takes me back

to the days when everything was blamed on the clenis.

But I digress.........

[fasttense]

10. the blame Putin for all the world's problems crowd

Will certainly be here to call you names soon. It's one of their favorite disruption tactics. Better to have smart folks calling names then having real discussions.

Thanks for posting something intelligent on this subject.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

13. You're welcome

As I said elsewhere, I wish Cohen had gotten into what he thinks should be done, since he thinks Obama has "no policy."

[Trajan]

15. Ah ... poor pootie poot ...

The ultra fascist bigot is so abused ...

Let me shed some tears, gnash my teeth, rent my clothes, and grovel in the dirt for poor poor pootie poot ...



FUCK Putin ... Fuck fascists and their apologists ...

[fasttense]

23. now there you go proving me right by example

I dislike Putin as much as the next guy but some of you Putin is the devil and we must all Hate everything Russian are just too thrilled at the idea of another war with Russia, cold or hot.

[CatWoman]

24. not really

[Adrahil]

54. Plenty of us recognize Putin for what he is without longing for war. NT

[moriah]

62. Are you kidding? I watched "Threads", not just "The Day After".

While when I was a little kid "The Day After" was scary enough, it romanticized the ultimate consequences of being in a cold war with a nuclear-capable nation.

"Threads" was broadcast just once in the US, on TBS, and twice in the UK, during the Cold War. While it depicts a nuclear winter, and I've heard some say that theory has been since discredited, critics have said it is the closest dramatization to the actual effects of nuclear war. If you haven't seen it, it's on Youtube.

[BumRushDaShow]

92. "Threads"

I actually taped it on my VCR when it aired here on the local PBS station as we didn't have cable yet (still have the tape). But before that the more-heralded movie was "Testament" that came out in '83 alongside the TV movie "The Day After" (that I also taped when ABC re-broadcast it).

I did see that "Threads" was posted on YouTube and I agree that despite the speculation of a post-nuclear era, the non-Hollywoodized human interactions were key and the film ended on a realistically chilling note. Ironically, the Chernobyl disaster that occurred a few short years after these movies, gave the public an actual look at the nasty effects of nuclear radiation.

[pnwmom]

14. Some people have a policy to blame Obama for absolutely everything.

Cohen is wrong. Sanctions are an action and a policy -- not an attitude.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

16. To twist Lincoln's words - you can't please all the people all the time

Doing absolutely nothing is a policy, and I could make an argument for that. No matter what the President does here, segments will call him out.

[JaneyVee]

18. Sometimes the far left sounds like the far right.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. You've got that right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Here Here!

[Drunken Irishman]

21. Some of the far left's love affair with Putin is disgusting.

Sadly, I'm sure they'd have loved Stalin too back in the day (wait, they did).

[fasttense]

25. it wasn't Stalin we on the real left loved

It was communism. But keep bashing the far left It makes you look so Republican.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Keep propping up Putin. It makes you look like a Republican.

[fasttense]

100. Repubs are salivating over the mere thought

Of war with Russia and Putin. I have never seen any Repub defend Putin. Like Obama, they bash Putin instinctively.

Of course you could go all the way back to the bushes to find Putin love. But most Repubs pretend that never happened.

[sheshe2]

104. well....

GOP Rep. Who Defended Russia Is Sad Putin Hasn't Thanked Him Yet

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rohrabacher-russia-putin

Sally Kohn Says It: Republicans Are Cheering Putin On

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/sally-kohn-says-it-republicans-are

The Cultural Conservative Love Affair With Vladimir Putin Is Quite Odd

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-cultural-conservative-love-affair-with-vladimir-putin-is-quite-odd/

Google is your friend. There's a lot more like these out there.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

31. So, you're saying Prof. Cohen loves Putin?

That wasn't my takeaway, but perhaps I'm naïve.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. The article drives home the point conservatives have been making...

It's all Obama's fault. It's Obama's fault Putin is what he is - because Obama has no policy except to blame Poor Ol' Putin.

What do they want from Obama? War?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

49. DI, understand, please, first that I posted this as a discussion point

I realize that with 300-whatever posts, people suspect me of trollery. I ask you to take my word that I've voted for Democrats starting with Walter Mondale and working forward. You might remember my previous DU name. Once, you asked me about a graphic I used to use in my sig line. It was a painting of Democratic Presidents playing poker. That might give you a hint.

As I said elsewhere in the thread: Cohen leveled criticism, but offered no alternatives, Personally, I was disappointed that Amy/Juan did not call him out in it -- or at least prod him for a concrete alternative.

The conservatives are fond of painting the President as Neville Chamberlain. My opinion - none of this is our problem. Putin wants to re-assemble the old Soviet Union circa 1938. That would be true no matter who'd been elected over the past 8 years. You'll remember a Republican President who'd claimed to have looked into Putin's eyes and seen into his soul.

Prof. Cohen says sanctions are an attitude, not a policy. I'd like to know what DUers think of that. God knows, they are not shy about offering up criticism in other areas of governance.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. I think so many are quick to attack Obama and give Putin a pass...

The same shit happened months ago when they moved into the Crimea. It was always about Obama and his weakness - not Putin and the fact he's a warmonger.

Obama should do something! But no one ever has a consensus on what he should do. Putin is doing what he's doing because Obama is weak!

Well shit. I guess Hitler's march through Europe must've been because FDR was weak. It's not an attack to you - just the general consensus how the left puts all the blame on Obama and not the person who's actually responsible - Putin. The right is just as guilty, with many suggesting Obama is to blame for the blowing up of that plane.

WTF?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

87. Other than to materially support Britain and the USSR, FDR did little in Europe prior to 42

What could he do? America was in no mood to send troops. What if we'd joined the League of Nations? I still don't see that much would have changed. Ultimately, this is a European threat. If NATO, as a group, wants to stand up to Putin, then perhaps we can play some role in that. As it stands now, Europe is nervous about sanctions because of the effect it will have on their gas prices.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. That's my point, though...

Do we blame FDR for Hitler and the holocaust? Of course not.

Conversely, beyond taking Russia to war, what can Obama do beyond sanctions and international pressure?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. I think he admires Putin, and thinks he wouldn't make a mistake

The way he dismisses any Russian involvement in the missiles, because "this is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position", makes it looks like he thinks Putin can always foresee all consequences of his actions. He doesn't think Putin's decisions can suffer 'blowback'. While he sees Obama as flawed, he regards Putin as always having the right policy for his desired outcome.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

89. As I said elsewhere - I'd just like to know what he would have Obama do.

Cohen says that sanctions are an attitude, not a policy. OK - what would constitute policy? Should we invade Cuba to demonstrate our displeasure? Send nuclear armed bombers to the fail-safe positions? Or is the truth that Barack Obama has limited viable options, and picked the best option available?

When I heard him say "this is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position", I simply understood it to mean "if Russia was involved, there will be sympathy for Ukraine and international condemnation of Russia."In the end, we'll find out that the Russian - backed separatists fired the missile, and some real or (more likely) imaginary provocation will be said to have caused this unfortunate accidental shoot down.

[Vattel]

85. No, it's just the smear all critics of Obama routine.

[sabrina 1]

61. Is there some reason why you don't like the 'left'? We are used to it of course, but I'm always

fascinated by the fear or whatever it is of the left in this country. They usually turn out to be right, maybe that is the reason, but for a democracy there sure is a whole lot of hatred here for the left, unlike most other democracies.

[sabrina 1]

74. I asked you before, do I know you? You sound very familiar, but that could be because you are

repeating anti left talking points. Have you been here before, posting under another name? I assume if you were, you would be truthful about it.

Don't waste that propaganda on me, btw, it is old and jaded and is, what should I call it, bargain basement talking points that are already worn out. I am not impressed by right wing talking points recycled for the current situation.

I have no alerted on your personal attacks because I rarely alert, but attacking DUers, using Right Wing talking points, might cause someone else to do so.

[onecaliberal]

27. Disagree

The European Union is the one who enabled Putin because they didn't want to upset their relationship with Russia. They bear a lot of the responsibility IMO.
They should have put the screws to Putin a long time ago.

On Edit: just wanted to point out that imposing sanctions IS a policy and it pushed Syria to give up their chemical weapons not long ago.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. Fair enough

Europe, I think, is afraid of ticking off their principal NG supplier. In that sense, they serve as enablers.

[onecaliberal]

36. I get that....

and I know it's naive but these horrendous people are allowed to run amok and cause so much pain and damage. I don't know why we put up with it.

[betterdemsonly]

29. He ran as a progressive but got alot of campaign cash from neocons

His policy is one of consensus neoconservatism.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. Obama has ran the least interventionist foreign policy, beyond maybe Carter, since before FDR.

[betterdemsonly]

39. American foreign policy has long been a disaster since WW2

Both Carter and Obama have funded awful counter insurgencies. Carter started the tradition of funding the taliban elements of Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. He also supported the Shah far to long. The fact that he isn't as bad as Bush doesn't mean he is good.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. No president has been good.

Not Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford (maybe Ford because of his limited time in office), Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama - but I think that speaks to the realities of the world.

[conservaphobe]

32. Stephen Cohen is an imbecile.

Always has been.

Always will be.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

37. Explain and expand, please.

I generally work under the assumption that if one is on Democracy Now! one is not an idiot. Honestly, I don't know much about the guy.

[conservaphobe]

38. I work under the assumption that any apologist for Putin is an imbecile. nt

[betterdemsonly]

42. I don't think there is any basis for saying he is an apologist for Putin

That is just the old "you're with us or with the terrorists," mentality.

[conservaphobe]

45. Anyone who doesn't hold Putin and the separatists solely responsible for MH17...

The reprehensible jackass that is Cohen was just on CNN blaming the U.S. for it.

P.S. Stop trying to attribute Dubya's words to everyone who doesn't tow the Kremlin line.

[betterdemsonly]

46. That's your opinion.

If Obama hadn't allowed Nuland to overthrow the elected government there, none of this would have happened.

[conservaphobe]

47. That's corroborated fact. nt

[betterdemsonly]

48. The insurgency against the elected leader of Ukraine

wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't stupidly appointed neocons to the state department. If that hadn't happened there would be no civil war.

[conservaphobe]

52. LOL, okey dokey.

[EX500rider]

95. Yep...she threw cookies at them until they fled!! lol

[Chan790]

41. Disagree.

We have a clearly stated and defined policy to oppose Russian imperialism. That is a policy, merely one that Dr. Cohen dislikes.

That doesn't seem to go over well with some on the American left though I cannot for the life of me comprehend why or how they would side with an expansionist oligarchic fascist like Vladimir Putin.

[betterdemsonly]

44. Possibly because the Ukraine was part of Russia

for 100s of years. The region that wants to separate always was, and because the Eu seeks to impose austerity on the Ukrainians, which is also imperialism, though it benefits just wealthy Ukrainians, like what we do in our third world banana republics.

[Chan790]

60. Uh, check your history book.

Ukraine has been a country not only longer than the US, but also Germany, France, Italy and ironically...Russia.

Ukraine and its predecessor state, Kievan Rus, have been around since before 980CE though the territory it inhabits has both grown, shifted and contracted over that span of time. (But what nation in its third millennium of existence hasn't.)

Saying that Ukraine has been part of Russia for hundreds of years is roughly analogous to pre-WWII Japan's claim that Manchuria and Korea have always been part of Japan. It's both laughable and revealing of a certain slant worldview meant to tent-pole an agenda.

[BKH70041]

50. Cohen is right.

Putin's a total and complete jerk, but that doesn't change the fact he views Obama as being weak.

All the sanctions in the world won't work. Putin will do whatever he wants to do, and he knows he can get away with it. He only reacts to military confrontation, and we aren't and shouldn't go there.

The policy of the USA will be to talk about it and do some sanctions that will be practically meaningless, but that's as far as it goes.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

56. OK. You agree with Cohen. Finish his argument. What should US policy be?

Cohen says Obama has no policy, but did not offer an alternative.

[BKH70041]

58. One doesn't have to state their own policy to observe that someone else has none.

He was just making an observation.

Cohen's probably got an email address. Ask him your question. I'm not going to "finish his argument" since chances are he's more than capable of doing that himself.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

64. No - One does have to state their own policy to observe that someone else has none.

If one is a Professor Emeritus of two of the nations leading institutions of higher learning, and you are offering that level of criticism, you need to have a reasoned alternative to present. Otherwise, his own argument implodes. "Obama has no policy" "Really, so what should he do differently?" &quot birds chirping)". You or I could do that with no credentials whatsoever.

[BKH70041]

65. What you're saying makes no sense.

Just because someone doesn't have the answer doesn't mean they aren't allowed to recognize that someone else has the wrong answer.

Maybe Cohen has an answer but ran out of time. Write him. I'm betting he does.

Personally, I think our policy should be to do nothing, because when it comes down to it, we can't do anything. The whole situation makes Obama look helpless, but that's the way the ball bounces.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

67. Difference in views on argumentation

I was always taught that criticism is worthless without simultaneously offering a solution or alternative.

I'll see if I can dig up his e-mail.

FWIW -- I agree. We're as helpless here as Russia would be if we invaded Mexico. Staying out of it would be my option as well.

[phleshdef]

70. Complaining about a problem without suggesting solutions is called "whining".

[Algernon Moncrieff]

75. That's a more elegant way of stating what I was trying to say

Thanks!

[BKH70041]

83. Oh please.

There's absolutely nothing whiny about saying "I don't know what the solution is, but I do know what we're doing isn't it."

[TheKentuckian]

93. No, it is called recognizing a problem. I say the answer not just usually but almost always is

proceeded in the time line by the question.

To place an expectation of simultaneously popping both into existence is actually a logical fallacy and pretty much flat silly.

Often it may only take one set of eyes to see a problem but will take the combined mental capacity, experiences, and creativity of many to solve.

Hell, one can whine AND present alternatives. John McShame whines about Obama's insufficient warmongering constantly and has his own insane answer.

The kid in the back seat might whine about the music on the radio and yes will offer you an alternative but that kid is still whining away.

You don't think the coach whining about a call doesn't have an alternative in mind?


One of the things people most whine about in my observation is their solutions not being executed.

I think complaining is a more accurate word for what you describe and is fair enough but complaints can and often have merit and so language with more baggage to carry is employed to edge perceptions.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

98. So, I e-mailed Cohen. He referred me to his article in "The Nation"

edited to add:

http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities

The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities

In fact, from the onset of the crisis, the administration’s actual goal has been unclear, and not only to Moscow. Is it a negotiated compromise, which would have to include a Ukraine with a significantly federalized or decentralized state free to maintain longstanding economic relations with Russia and banned from NATO membership? Is it to bring the entire country exclusively into the West, including into NATO? Is it a long-simmering vendetta against Putin for all the things he purportedly has and has not done over the years? (Some behavior of Obama and Kerry, seemingly intended to demean and humiliate Putin, suggest an element of this.) Or is it to provoke Russia into a war with the United States and NATO in Ukraine?

Inadvertent or not, the latter outcome remains all too possible. After Russia annexed—or “reunified” with—Crimea in March, Putin, not Kiev or Washington, has demonstrated “remarkable restraint.” But events are making it increasingly difficult for him to do so. Almost daily, Russian state media, particularly television, have featured vivid accounts of Kiev’s military assaults on Ukraine’s eastern cities. The result has been, both in elite and public opinion, widespread indignation and mounting perplexity, even anger, over Putin’s failure to intervene militarily.

We may discount the following indictment by an influential ideologist of Russia’s own ultra-nationalists, who have close ties with Ukraine’s “self-defense” commanders: “Putin betrays not just the People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Lugansk but himself, Russia and all of us.” Do not, however, underestimate the significance of an article in the mainstream pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia, which asked, while charging the leadership with “ignoring the cries for help,” “Is Russia abandoning the Donbass?” If so, the author warned, the result will be “Russia’s worst nightmare” and relegate it to “the position of a vanquished country.”

Just as significant were similar exhortations by Gennady Zyuganov, leader of Russia’s Communist Party, the second-largest in the country and in parliament. The party also has substantial influence in the military-security elite and even in the Kremlin. Thus, one of Putin’s own aides publicly urged him to send fighter planes to impose a “no-fly zone”—an American-led UN action in Qaddafi’s Libya that has not been forgotten or forgiven by the Kremlin—and destroy Kiev’s approaching aircraft and land forces. If that happens, US and NATO forces, now being built up in Eastern Europe, might well also intervene, creating a Cuban missile crisis–like confrontation. As a former Russian foreign minister admired in the West reminds us, there are “hawks on both sides.”

[geek tragedy]

69. Disagree. Cohen is a Putin humper.

Obama's strategy/policy is to support Ukrainian self-determination while relying on multilateralism and graduated incentives to restrain a reckless, imperialist fascist power next door.

[The Magistrate]

79. You Seem To Imagine, Sir, Free Speech Exists Only If No One Disagrees With What Someone Says

That is an extremely odd view. Many would be of the view that by expressing disagreement with something someone said, they were exercising freedom of speech. I expect you yourself can be found, on occasion, disagreeing with with what someone has said, and so by your own lights, you would be displaying hatred of free speech when you said, perhaps, that a commentator on CNN was full of it, and not worth listening to. One suspects, though, that this peculiar view of yours as to what constitutes freedom of speech applies only to speech you agree with, so that expressing disagreement with things you like the sound is displaying a hatred of free speech, but expressing disagreement with things you do not like the sound of is healthy exercise of free speech....

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. No-one attacked Democracy Now

Cohen has been attacked, for what he said, but not the program.

Or did you mean to post this in another thread?

[Drunken Irishman]

96. Nothing against Amy Goodman...

I think she could've pressed Cohen more on what Obama should do - but this is about his response. What does the left want from Obama - war?

[SoCalDem]

84. It really does not matter

Here's why..

No matter what we say or do, Russia (Putin) will do whatever he wants unless we are willing to fight him militarily.. we are not now or probably ever interested in all out war with Russia... Europe (specifically the EU) has to take the lead. Up until now, they have been mostly concerned with the finances of every kerfuffle that pops up, and we seem to be the ones who always have to figure out how to "punish" this one and that for everything that goes wrong.

It's way past time for us all to grow up and admit some unfortunate facts:

1. we will never get remains/bodies back from the shot down plane, so we need to stop issuing stern announcements. the scene is hopelessly contaminated, and we all know what happened anyway..the plane was shot down...no one will ever be punished or brought to bear for it because they have control of the site

2. we need to have our leaders present a unified position that says that this was a bad thing that happened, but in a war ALL KINDS OF BAD THINGS HAPPEN, and often, there is never a satisfactory resolution

3. blustering and warning does not work anymore because the "other side" will do whatever they can get away with

4. we are no longer "free to move about the cabin" or to travel as we once were.

5. there is a constant conflict between "the westerners" and radical Islam (all over the world).. and of course we also have Putin who is determined to re-establish a soviet style of governance as he tries to regain some of the former states back under his influence.

6. unless we (and the other western nations) are ready to pay for constant resistance (war), and support of those states, he will prevail.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

88. Not disagreement, but some observations

Europe (specifically the EU) has to take the lead.

I said much the same thing in a response upthread, and I agree. As much as the neocons like the idea, this is not an "Uncle Sam rides to the rescue" scenario.

we are no longer "free to move about the cabin" or to travel as we once were.

True enough, but it seems more like something one would write about a hijacking type terror attack. This was shot down by a missile from the ground. The passengers could have been line dancing in the aisles, and it wouldn't have changed that outcome.

there is a constant conflict between "the westerners" and radical Islam (all over the world).. and of course we also have Putin who is determined to re-establish a soviet style of governance as he tries to regain some of the former states back under his influence.

I don't know about "Soviet" style; I think more like China -- authoritarian and mostly capitalist. He certainly wants to reassemble the USSR, and he absolutely drew the line at EU &/or NATO membership for Ukraine. But you bring up the point about radical Islam, and Putin and the West have common ground in that fight.

unless we (and the other western nations) are ready to pay for constant resistance (war), and support of those states, he will prevail.

War among nuclear armed powers is in no one's interest.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Stephen Cohen is a bigoted, hateful writer. I no longer read The Nation because of shit he

wrote there about Sochi, in service to Putin. His verbiage was deeply bigoted and used to attack Obama, he insulted LGBT people, the athletes of the Olympic delegation, and minimized the Russian anti gay laws simply to insult Obama.
Anyone who gives him a platform is in my opinion promoting a flat out bigot. I read The Nation for 30 years and never will again. Ever. They are not liberals.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

91. Fair Enough

I don't know much about him other than he was a) on Democracy Now!, b) sounded interesting and like he knew what he was talking about c) however, didn't offer any reasonable alternatives for President Obama to pursue.

[McCamy Taylor]

97. What is the correct policy? Is this a EU matter? A NATO matter? A UN matter?

Is this a civil war? Which is our "ally" and which our "enemy"? I think the correct policy is Peace Talks, don't you?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

99. Peace talks would be ideal. From a US standpoint, "Stay Out of it" might be the best option. (nm)

[JDPriestly]

101. I disagree. Obama is waiting for the right moment, for the moment when things are almost

ready to change, and then he will act in a measured and very accurately calculated way to do what he has determined is right. Think of the Bin Laden strike. No stone was unturned to find Bin Laden. Meticulous care was taken on the timing, strategy and execution of the strike. That is Obama's forte -- excellence in foreign policy. He will wait like a cat until the moment is right. He may never need to use force. Just wait and see.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

107. Any evaluation of the current administration policy has to start with remembering W.Bush

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden spent 2009-2013 performing a barn-cleaning operation. The mess Bush's team made of our foreign relations were little short of catastrophic.

If I can find fault here it's this: should we take a position at all? If both sides are bad, when do we, as a nation, say "this is not our problem" and stay out of it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. I disagree ...

I suspect that President Obama has a policy toward Ukraine or Russia beyond blaming Putin, and his diplomatic team knows the policy.

But, communicating that policy is a lot like handing your play book to the opposition ... they may not know the specific play that you're about to call; but it will help them to prepare.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

106. Well said

Plus I always appreciate any decent sports analogy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. It frustrates me to no end ...

that a pundit/"journalist: with no/very limited access to policy decision-maker (and a thinly veiled agenda) can make a pronouncement, and people, particularly liberals at DU, buy it, hook, line and sinker ... only to disappear (actually move on to the next pundit driven outrage) when they are proven wrong.

[MineralMan]

103. Yet another pontificating academic with no skin

in the game and no ability to affect the outcome. It's specious, at best.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

105. I feel much more that way since I read his article in "The Nation"

I wish that I'd read it prior to being on Democracy Now!. Having read it, I'm shocked (not hyperbole) that Amy/Juan didn't cross examine Cohen.

After reading his piece in "The Nation" (posted somewhere upthread), I'm forced to share the opinion that Cohen is, first and foremost, an apologist for Putin. He makes excellent points about the flaws in the administration in Kiev, but fails to point out the may flaws in Putin's administration of the USS...er, I mean Russia.