Russian Tanks in Ukraine, but US Won’t Say ‘Invasion’

[uhnope]

Source: ABC

Thousands of Russian troops have crossed into eastern Ukraine in recent days, along with columns of tanks, artillery and air-defense systems, according to NATO’s top commander.

By nearly every definition – indeed, according to the Oxford dictionary – the act of armed forces crossing the border would constitute an invasion. But the Obama administration has noticeably avoided using the word to describe Russia’s apparent action (Russia denies any of its troops or military equipment are in Ukraine). Instead, U.S. officials have resorted to terms like “incursion” or even more contorted rhetorical gymnastics.

“Russia is instead surging more forces and more equipment across the border,” Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said Wednesday. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki referred to heavy weapons being “moved to the front lines” and endorsed “the developments seen by NATO.”

Asked point blank by email whether Russia had invaded Ukraine, Psaki again declined to use the term. “As we’ve said consistently, Russia is blatantly violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” she told ABC News. “No matter what you call it, Russian action inside Ukraine must end immediately.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/11/russian-tanks-in-ukraine-but-us-wont-say-invasion/

---

Ukraine is the test case of our times, like the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Germany was in WW2.
We ignore it and dismiss it at our peril. Letting a dictator run amok in Europe has not ended well in the past.

[sharp_stick]

1. Should we nuke the bastards?

Just trying to figure out where you think we should go with this right now.

[Igel]

6. The S. Korean scenario.

Obama, Merkel, and others have created exactly what they said they wouldn't: A frozen conflict. It's in their nature. If you avoid conflict, any conflict that exists must be stopped--not resolved. Of course, as soon as it was announced there's no military solution that guaranteed that there would be no solution that wasn't what Russia wanted.


So put NATO, spec. US and German, troops in Mariupol, in Slavyansk, in Krasnyi Lysychans'k, in Debal'tseve, with just enough armor to let people know that they're there. Not enough to pose a credible invasion force.

Think of it as a kind of border demarcation. All the people chanting, "Russia good, Russian generous!" can have no possible objection. The troops should be safer there than they are in bed with their spouses if that's true. Smoke out the hypocrites, those who say one thing but really believe another.

In the event of an attack, suddenly US and German/NATO troops are being shot at and shooting back. But only in the event of an attack. At that point, there's a Russian or rebel assault on NATO and US forces, and there's every motivation for the US and/or NATO to get involved.

It ups the ante. It doesn't guarantee war. Unless we think that Putin is crazier than Kim Jong-Un.

[CJCRANE]

2. It's fine when we do it.

Training rebels in Jordan, Turkey and other countries, then sending them over the border into Syria.

[ozone_man]

13. It's our manifest destiny

to rule the world. Look not at the millions of lives lost and destruction we leave behind in our quest.

[leftynyc]

3. Is there a reason

Europe can't take care of this?

[Nye Bevan]

7. DU would have been interesting in 1945 (nt)

[former9thward]

8. They want big brother to do the heavy lifting.

And pay for it.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Russian Tanks in Ukraine, Russian Battleships off Australia (G20)

Russian sends warships towards Australia as Putin prepares to attend Brisbane G20 summit
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/russian-warships-heading-for-australia-as-putin-prepares-to-attend-brisbane-g20-summit-9855308.html

What next ?? Cold War 2.0

[Old Nick]

5. Ike said the Soviets had Invaded Hungary. And did nothing about it.

Johnson said the I-word too, regarding Czechoslovakia. And promply took no action.

Your point?

[Nye Bevan]

9. Interesting. I wonder what it would take for the word "invasion" to be used.

As the article points out, given that Ukraine is not yet part of NATO, characterizing it as an "invasion" (which it clearly is) would not automatically invoke any particular response.

It does seem at this point that Putin can basically grab any non-NATO country that he feels like, without fear of any kind of response.

[christx30]

10. I'd imagine if there were some

anti-Russian Ukranians at the border and the Russians had to fight their way in, the US would definately term that an invasion. But for now, they have to use diplomatic language.

[EEO]

11. Does anyone think we are actually going to go to war with Russia?

We didn't even want that when our military strength was at its apex at the end of World War II.

[ozone_man]

12. How did the U.S. phrase its invasion of Afhanistan and Iraq?

and Syria and Libya? A friendly visit?