White House Takes U.S. Military Support For Ukraine “Off Table” – One Hour Later The Russia Assault On Ukraine Bases Begins…

Maya_Angelou_Obama_600Nothing empowers aggressive action like telling the bully you’ll do nothing to stop him.

WASHINGTON – The White House said Wednesday that President Obama is not actively considering military force as an option in the crisis in Ukraine.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said military action is “certainly not at the forefront of discussions” among the president and his top advisers, saying that Mr. Obama is looking instead at imposing further economic sanctions against Russian leaders for the takeover of Crimea.  “You can expect further costs to be imposed on Russia,” Mr. Carney said.  (link)

One hour later in Ukraine/Crimea:

ukraine russia storm

Red lines

This entry was posted in Death Threats, European Union, media bias, Military, Obama Research/Discovery, propaganda, Russia, Ukraine, Uncategorized, United Nations, wobbly word alert. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to White House Takes U.S. Military Support For Ukraine “Off Table” – One Hour Later The Russia Assault On Ukraine Bases Begins…

  1. allhail2 says:

    Transcript from last Obama/Putin phone call:

    Putin: Knock knock
    Obama: Who’s there?

    Putin: Crimea
    Obama: Crimea who?

    Putin: Crimea river. You’re my b*tch! Click


    • auscitizenmom says:



    • Forrest says:

      As funny as that comment may be, the truth is that the current POTUS is a huge disgrace. As I mentioned over four years ago to my best friends, I can guarantee that this puppet will do absolutely nothing positive and will only contribute to weakening the domestic and global strength of the US. Called a “racist” I was easily dismissed. Well, let history be the judge.


      • allhail2 says:

        I feel ya. I get called racist and worse all the time by the left. I just laugh at/with them and agree that I’m a racist. Sends them into vapor lock every time.
        A good friend of mine that has friends in Europe says that they are embarrassed for us. Sad.


  2. Partyzant says:

    Here is an interesting discussion of Russian armor and some issues of design philosophy. You will see this again, and somebody, somewhere will be tested on it.


    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      It seemsn that Putin’s strategy resembles that used by Stalin during WWII. The Russian T-34 was no match for the Panzers it fought, but overcame them due to overwhelming numbers.

      And, the T-90’s main gun, with a range twice that of an Abrams adds yet another factor: What good is it to have a main battle tank that can kick a$$ at closer range, but fights an opponent with twice the “reach”? Combine that with terrible fuel economy and range, and the Abrams might not be the best choice in a tank battle with Russia.


    • czarowniczy says:

      Nice tank…but. The Russian strategic thinking has changed since the Cold War. The main lines of the advancing Russians would basically move with tanks leading the way and interlocking air defense moving with the APC-mounted troops along with and following. Spetsnaz would have infiltrated and disabled/secured their assigned targets, a massive artillery barrage would have churned the ground ahead of the advancing tanks, killing/destroying much of what would have stood in the advancing troops way. The T-80s were designed to move as slowly as the APC, they provided mutual defense, and the Russians would have gone around major cities, sealing them off as they bypassed them, leaving the clean-up to follow-up forces. Their basic design was to seize ground and deny responding NATO forces basing. The US prayed that we’d have x-amount of days given to them by the forces in place who’d die in place buying time for the US to move pour forces from the US to the stocks of stored WRM stuff we had conspicuously based and easily targeted in Europe. The Russians would use their mainline equipment to attrit US forces and, as their T-80s were destroyed they could be replaced by stored T-72, as they were destroyed they’d be replaced by T-64 – and so forth. By the time the NATO forces were down to throwing rocks and sharpened stick the Russians would still have T-55s. They had an humongous number of tanks of all types, we’d probably have run out of AT missiles or at least delivery platforms by the time they were out of tanks.
      Times change and there are rumblings now that tanks may even be obsolete like horse-mounted cavalry. Drones are being looked at as anti-armor platforms – how many drones can you buy/field for the price on one tank? In the 60s there was a two-man, low-profile, speedy little zippy tank killer proposed. Armed with what was then state-of-the art AT missiles it would zoom around the battlefield and kill tanks. You could buy twenty or more of them for what you’d pay for one tank – with fewer logistical problems and the speed and terrain of the combined arms attack wouldn’t be dictated by the tanks speed and weight. A
      Now that we’re looking at less of a WWII tank battle scenario, and looking at a more blitzkrieg war the idea of no tanks and the speedy little tank killer’s back – this time with updated firepower. The Russians have lots and lots of open plains that virtually reek tank warfare but if you are their enemy and can more cheaply attack those big brute tanks with cheap multi-misison tank (and APC) killing buzz cars . You zap three of my Ford Fiestas but one zaps your Mercedes S-class. – who wins?
      BTW, US had a tank-barrel fired antitank missile in the 60s, the Shillelagh. US and NATO dropped the idea of the anti-tank missile fired from a tank tube in favor of guided AT shells – Russians stayed with the missile idea.


      • tommy boy says:

        Planning on war with russia is stupid since we all still have thousands of nukes.


        • czarowniczy says:

          We don’t have as many as we did pre-Start II but nukes ain’t black and white. During the Cold War Russia’s military, especially its strategic forces, were much more reactive than offensive. Look at the mess they made of projecting their strategic power into Afghanistan and it was right on their border. When we started digging into the Soviet files post-USSR their forces were set for what they believed was an inevitable US first strike. Now the Russian top commanders could unleash tactical nukes like regular rounds of ammunition, they didn’t have the safeguards on them that their strategic nukes had, but that would have quite possibly escalated to a general nuke war – we basically had two huge defensive forces, NATO and Russia, set to fight a hug defensive battle in eastern Europe. We still aren’t set to go to war with them. especially as we’re hurtin’ on equipment and personnel from 13 years of playing slap-and-tickle in Iraq and Afghanistan. We really have no offensive plans we could implement,and no basing in Europe to launch it from – you think the EU would agree to host a US military response to even Putin invading the Ukraine proper? Only really ‘offensive’ thing we have on the shelf is a nuke strike and that would end up like the closing scenes of Dr Strangelove. Putin knows he has the old Bloc by the shorts and the US has a feckless leader who can’t even summon the political skills to launch an effective economic counteroffensive.


  3. nyetneetot says:

    I don’t understand the English pronunciation of Crimea. Ukrainians/Russians say “Krim”, like “cream” but with a short vowel.


  4. BigMamaTEA says:

    This is starting to look like “flexibility” is coming into play. Maybe that “comrade” greeting that Chevez gave to O in the beginning wasn’t so far off!?


  5. dsb steve says:

    What is the republican position on this matter? We should give the Ukrainians all the weapons they want. And arm the Poles also. But why get the US military involved?


    • rashomon says:

      From what I can derive, Crimea’s voter turnout was over 72 – 73% (rather good interest compared to the U.S.). With a majority of the population being of Russian heritage, it should be no surprise the 93% voted to join Russia. The news reports on TV (not our MSM, but foreign channels) show people dancing in the streets. Why should we interfere in what appears to be a democratic process? These comments from NATO and the EU about disrupting borders set since WWII seem to smack of naiveté as Europe has been in the throes of war or disruption every since I can remember. What was Bosnia about — a little “gang” skirmish? We sent our troops there for gosh sakes!


  6. rashomon says:

    No foreign policy on any area of the world, but Obama has the time to release his NCAA picks this afternoon. Now that’s a president, fer ya! True leadership!


  7. czarowniczy says:

    Still stuck on the pattern of DemocRATic presidents delivering the lives of Eastern Europeans into the hands of the Russians. I can partially understand FDR’s motives, the party strategists most likely told him that there was no need for hoards of Eastern European pool boys and farm hands, Latin America was on line and none of their fast food stores had root vegetables and cabbage on the menu. All I can see for the POtuS is the delicious irony of the first black president being the next DemocRAT to sell bohonky Europeans back into slavery after a two US Republican presidents freed slaves.


  8. Pingback: Transcript of Obama-Putin “90 minute” phone call. | Bunyan's Blog

  9. Be Ge says:

    Molotov-Ribbentrop pact #2? You know, comrade Obamski and kaiser Putler dividing Eastern Europe? What else have they got? Crimea is by far not the only thing kaiser Waldemar Putler wants…their max includes Finland, parts of Poland, all of Ukraine and Moldova, and, most likely, the Baltic countries as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s