- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demands a firm US response

Published: Wed, March 5, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Seven short days ago in this space, we exuberantly cheered Russia for its international hospitality and overall success in hosting a relatively flawless Winter Olympics. One week later, however, Russia merits nothing more than angry jeers and worldwide condemnation.

The hoped for foundation Russia had built at the Winter Games toward maturing into a more responsible player on the world stage has since crumbled to smithereens. It did so only days after the Feb. 23 Olympics closing ceremonies when Russian troops began their misguided occupation of the troubled Crimean region of the Ukraine.

As of early this week, Russia had dispatched planes, boats and helicopters to flood Crimea with 16,000 troops. Though they have not become militarily aggressive just yet, the troops’ illegitimate presence bodes ill for the stability of the shaky Ukraine government and for the security of its 50 million people.

This clear violation of the tenets of international law and of diplomatic decency threatens to further destabilize the Ukraine, a peace-loving independent country and former Soviet republic in the heart of Europe. As such, it demands a quick, forceful and concerted response from the United States and the international community, but that response must stop short of even the most remote hint of direct military intervention.

Secretary of State John Kerry, visiting Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, on Tuesday enunciated the need for diplomacy and sanctions to defuse the crisis. Commander in Chief Barack Obama on Tuesday announced $1 billion in aid and loans to help prop up the struggling Ukrainian government and economy.

Closer to home, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Howland, D-13th, has condemned the invasion and has called on the U.S. and its allies to “intervene in a firm and pragmatic way.”

That response could include such powerful weapons as asset freezes, visa bans, a disruption of trade and a slowdown in business investments and a variety of other sanctions or punishments.

But the risks associated with putting boots on the ground in this troubled region are almost too ghastly to imagine. With a military force and arsenal more than six times the size of Ukraine’s, Russia’s potential damage and destruction to the Ukrainian people and their nation loom large.

Clearly it is a time for the American people and the U.S. Congress to rally around the no-nonsense strategies that Obama and Kerry propose. Shamefully, however, some Republicans on Capitol Hill cannot resist the sophomoric temptation to use the international crisis as a whipping post for the president.

Graham’s criticism

Consider the obtuse thinking of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. He told CNN this week that Obama should “stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators.” Graham added that “every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.”

Such caustic rhetoric is irresponsible. The administration’s measured response to the invasion represents the wisest course of action for a nation exhausted and tormented by such questionable military operations as the war in Iraq that killed or wounded 36,710 Americans over the past decade.

President Obama’s game plan of working in concert with the United Nations, NATO and the European Union to peacefully but painfully force Russia to retreat from its former province clearly stands as the most prudent path for the United States and the peace-loving world community to pursue.


1questionreality(736 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


Suggest removal:

2repeaters(314 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

The President has taken 'executive order' and shoved his ideas and policies down the U.S. citizens throats without working with Congress and bowing to his political base. It's either his way or the highway. How do you like it Mr. President, when your on the receiving end??? From one DICTATOR to another !!!!

Suggest removal:

3SheDevil(120 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Graham and eivo's hoped for response is to start a shooting war with Russia.

Eivo is just itching to launch drones at Putin.

Suggest removal:

4evio(43 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

That's right. Light him up.

Suggest removal:

5Jerryl(117 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

You are truly a jerk of monumental proportions.

Suggest removal:

6dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

yay, lets go for 20 straight years of war. I'm sure it won't cost much and there will be no U.S. casualties. Lets not try to impose any kind of peaceful resolutions like sanctions or anything, just send in the troops.
Eivo is the first to go to war, yet never served, and won't even fly his flag. He is also a douche and disrespectful to known vets on this site! A real patriot he is. Oh yeah, but I forgot that he drops a few bucks in the Wounded Warriors Project a year, so everything is good.
Keep up the douche baggery.

Suggest removal:

7dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Lets not fool ourselves Eivo. Whatever Obama does, it will be wrong in your eyes. You will armchair QB him to death if he does A, B, or C. He could bomb the hell out of Russia tomorrow, and then you would crucify him for the method he did it.

Suggest removal:

8lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago



Suggest removal:

9SheDevil(120 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

eivo is the vindicator's village idiot.

Facts ! He don't need no stinking facts. That would just confuse his hallucinations.

Suggest removal:

1076Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

The Budapest Memorandum

With friends like us, who needs enemies?




Suggest removal:

1176Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

We're not obligated if you read the agreement.

Suggest removal:

1276Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


Repub: #16 and #27 "Do you think that I just wrote all of that as my opinion or talking points?"

Your cut and paste sources weren't cited. Can you say "plagiarism"?

Suggest removal:

13evio(43 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Well, well, well .....

What about Whitewaterrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Suggest removal:

14eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

It was from bad intel from the Carter administration!

Suggest removal:

15jojuggie(1727 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Hey the old wrench, please explain . I remember the 240 Marine incident, but what do you mean about Reagan running?

Suggest removal:

16eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

I would rather have A bare chested Putin any day .

Suggest removal:

17andersonathan(687 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Just goes to show how weak this administration really is. So Cry-me-a river Obama when Putin steps over your red line.

And to show how bad people are thinking i personal am picking a Ex-KGB Communist Over A Harvard Law President and as long as a Muslim/Islam are not involved decisions are are tough for Obama. Obama is giving in everywhere in the world when it comes to Islam.

Clinton negotiated for a no nuke Ukraine and Obama as a Senator found money to disarm small weapons and ammo from them. One of the few acts he ever did. And do not think for a minute he would love to see this country searched house to house for guns and ammo. And if given enough time he would try.

Obama wants Israel to give up their boarders. The Ukraine to keep theirs and The USA to have no borders.

Suggest removal:

18eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Unless he is shirtless, on horseback, holding a rifle. Edge Putin.

Suggest removal:

19jojuggie(1727 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Let's change the subject.

Three cheers for Obama, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!

Last month, President Obama took an action making it easier for supporters of Islamist terrorists to be granted asylum in this country.

At the same time, persecuted Christians face a brick wall at the Obama State Department in their efforts to secure refugee status, and a report this week reveals Israeli officials are now finding it more difficult to get simple visitor visas or to even renew existing visas. Why is all of this suddenly emerging?

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, none of us ever imagined a dozen years later we’d be negotiating with the Taliban inAfghanistan, supplying aid to al Qaeda-affiliated “rebel” groups in Syria, and releasing from Gitmo some of the most hardened al Qaeda operatives. Under the Obama administration, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Suggest removal:

20dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Eivo, what does that mean? Were you trying to spell RESPECT? Are you stating that you respect Putin? It's hard enough to figure out what you are saying when you write in complete sentences, then you just come out with RSPECT as we are to know what you are talking about.
I see you have a man crush for Putin. Maybe you can start flying a Russian commie flag outside of your house since you refuse to fly Old Glory!

Suggest removal:

21dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Oh, Obama didn't spell it correctly, I just seen it on tv. You were ahead of the game because it was probably played on a loop as "Breaking News" on Fox News ALL MORNING. First time that ever happened to a president huh. I bet he can say NUCLEAR correctly, and doesn't use words like misunderestimate or stategery. Then there was Quayle with Potatoe. You had your laugh,now go back to raising up your Russia flag.

Suggest removal:

22eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

The Liar needs to impose sanctions on Russia immediately by stopping the imports of all shirts. I heart Putin.

Suggest removal:

23lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago





benghazi . . .

irs . . .

b . . .en . . .g . . .

i . . . r . . .


Ppppppfffffffffftttttttttt . . . .

Suggest removal:

24eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

I hope Putin runs for President. The GOP authored a bill to allow him to, but Harry Reid won't even allow it to come to a vote!

Suggest removal:

25thinkthentalk(310 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Hey, it just might happen. Fox has this treasonous bromance with the guy.
Rudy Guliani has this man-crush on him...
Christie is toast, so now Putin is the flavor of the month candidate for president.

Suggest removal:

26dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

And the sorry part of your statement is that you are happy about it eivo! Maybe there is some truth to some of these post! You and your fellow GOP flock, are in fact in love with Putin. I remember a while past, if you spoke about not wanting to be in a war with Iraq, you were labeled as UNPATRIOTIC! Now you can rant and rave about a communist leader and be happy if he defies our President, and that is totally acceptable. Got to love that mentality.

Suggest removal:

27eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

If you put Putin against the Liar in 2016, I will check Putin every time. Obamacare doesn't even compare to Russia's health care system. Plus he will replace food stamps with loaves of bread only.

Suggest removal:

28lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

So, the vitriol of the rightwing-nuts is so toxic that they prefer treason (as opposed to supporting their own President in matters of foreign policy)?

Holy Benedict Arnold, FatMan!

Is this not taking the old, tired, paranoid bromide, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," a little too, too far?

Suggest removal:

29dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Sounds like you already picked one to support.

Suggest removal:

30DwightK(1537 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Isn't this Europe's problem? If Crimea votes to secede and join the Russian Federation, do we really care? How does this affect us? People are being systematically starved and tortured in North Korea and every president since Truman has done nothing. Why would we care about this?

Suggest removal:

31dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

I couldn't agree with you more Dwight. Not only Crimea, but everywhere in the world. Somewhere along the line, the US became the world police and humanitarian country to everyone. All of these other countries butt out of things not pertaining to them and they seem to manage quite nicely. When do you hear about Sweden coming on the news and saying Russia, you can't do this? Or Switzerland is sending in troops to Africa to assist BFE in a humanitarian effort. We need to just take care of ourselves for a change. Now if it can directly affect us, such as countries with nuclear weapons, then okay, but even then, it seems hypocritical that we can say, "we can have nukes, but you aren't allowed to".

Suggest removal:

32eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Millions because the Liar has taken away their healthcare and they died. At this point, what difference does it make?

Suggest removal:

33lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"What difference does it make?" referred to the question of who killed them, not, as Republicans and their allies, the Baggers, want us to believe, namely, the fact that they were killed.

The hatred of the rightwing-nuts for this President can be explained only as a function of their blatant racism.

Their use of the term "arrogance" to describe the President is a case in point. Be honest, baggers! What you mean is that he is "uppity," right?

And nobody likes an uppity n****r, right?

Because an uppity n****r just doesn't know his place, right? And needs to be put IN his place, right?

So why don't you just be honest and say you don't like the fact that there is a n****r in the White House? Fess up!

We all know what you really mean, anyway.

Suggest removal:

3476Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

lajoci: Actually, it does not make one bit of difference what color the president is. I find your rant repulsive.

Personally, I wouldn't care what color or race or heritage a person comes from as long as they have the following qualities: Integrity, honesty, trustworthy, intelligence, leadership, courage, common sense, empathy, good moral character, respect for our values, put our country's needs before others, hardworking, strives to make this nation stronger and better while protecting its people from harm. Insure that future generations are provided the same securities as past generations.

Suggest removal:

35lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Come on, baggers! Be at least a LITTLE bit honest?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you people have been around for at least as long as I have.

If that's true, you would have lived through all or part of the administrations
of #33-#44. That's twelve presidents from Truman to Obama.

I have never, in all that time, EVER heard the word "arrogant" used as an adjective to describe any of those other 11 presidents.

In fact, I have never heard the word "arrogant" ever used to describe any other president, nor have I ever seen it doggedly repeated in any history, biography, current affairs, or political science book or article on any other president.


But almost as soon as this president was elected he was branded as "arrogant" by his opponents, and I hear the word or see it in print on an almost daily basis -- every time I tune in FauxNews, every time I listen to Ryan or Rush, in short, every time I read or listen to political commentary from the right-wingnuts, or have a face-to-face political discussion with Republican friends.

Every time . Never fails.

NONE of the other 43 presidents, just this one. One out of 44.

And the word continues to be repeated over and over in a most disrespectful (and, in the case of the right-wingnuts' effusive praise for V. Putin, treasonous)way.

It stinks to high heaven of the racism at the right-wingnuts' rotten core, which would be totally exposed had they used the term they really wanted to use -- "uppity."

So spare me your pious indignation over my "rant."

The use of the term "arrogant" speaks volumes about the contempt the right-wingnuts have had and still have toward this president.

And it is an a priori contempt, a filter through which they view each and every policy initiative, each and every act of office, each and every speech, interview -- in short, every move he makes.

And it stinks. And it should stop. It is inappropriate in a serious political discussion.

Krauthammer used it the other night, and he should be ashamed, he should apologize, and he should confine his commentary to the facts, rather than speculation about the president's "attitude."

Suggest removal:

36lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Funny you mention that.

I Googled George W. Bush arrogance, and the first page was filled with Bush's own quotes, like this one:

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W. Bush, August, 2002.

And this:

''If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.''
—President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000.

And this:

''This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.''
—George W. Bush, at the annual Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Oct. 19, 2000.

. . . and on and on. There was, however, no entire cable "news"network in 2000-2008 hammering the label "arrogant" to Bush's forehead every time he signed one of his 800 signing statements, or 250 executive orders. If he was called arrogant, he brought the title on himself, and even used it on himself.

In any case, it was NEVER woven into every single political commentary and applied to every single act of office the way it has been regarding President Obama.

By the way, your quote, "These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not." appeared in the LA TIMES in 2008, at THE END of Bush's time in office.

He was not badgered with the adjective throughout his service, on a daily basis, even before he was inaugurated.

So spare me the phony comparisons, along with the pious indignation and fake outrage. You can't whine "They did it, too." when "they" didn't.

The right-wingnuts cannot abide an uppity n****r, an arrogant schwartze, in the "White" House.


Suggest removal:

37Elf2(75 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

you said" If one criticizes Obama he will get a knock on the door from the IRS or from Holder with a felony charge."

If that were really the case, the IRS and/or Holder would be parked in your driveway.

And if you think that you anonymity is protected, just realize that all your posts are trackable through your IP address.

Suggest removal:

38lajoci(685 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

You're quoting Joe Guzzardi???? (who was actually quoting former Republican operative Kevin Phillips)??? in ONE obscure article???? from ONE on-line source????


How long did it take you to dig that one up?

I found an entire page of right-wingnut rants about Obama's so-called "arrogance" in about .0003 seconds.

Seriously, the word "arrogance" has been the can tied to Obama's tail since before the inauguration, precisely because the n****r-haters didn't think Obama was a sufficiently shuckin'-and-jivin', deferential colored boy, who understood "his place."

So they played both sides of the street, offering a two-headed Janus of an assessment: Obama was arrogant when he tried to exercise the prerogatives and powers of the office of President of the United States, but he was, somehow, simultaneously weak, as evidenced by their assessment of his performance on the international stage.

So, there you go: arrogant and dictatorial, and yet weak and ineffective.

Which is it? Or do you get to have it both ways?

(Note to myself: Where did you ever get the idea you could reason with these people, who seem to think that every call is "Heads, I win; tails, you lose?")

Suggest removal:

3976Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

lajoci: Search Bing and you get 1,150,000 results for Bush arrogance and 1,320,000 results for Bush dictator.

Your above racist references to "uppity _____" is something that you've chosen to interject and it extremely offensive. Re-read my reply in post #71.

Disagreement with the direction this administration have taken this country has NOTHING to do with race.

Suggest removal:

40Sane1(24 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


You do realize that the 1,320,000 hits that you got on bush dictator also includes articles when he met with, or criticized etc a dictator.

Search by phase "bush dictator" yields 46 hits.

I agree with your taking offense to the racial references of lajoci. Totally provocative.

On your last comment, about disagreement not being racially based; I will accept that YOUR disagreement is founded without regard to race.

Have spent some significant time in the rural southland of this great country in the past several years I can confidently tell you that there are a great many who will - if asked- pull no punches and tell you that their hatred of Obama is based exclusively on his color and not knowing his place. It's very sad, I just nod and walk away.

Suggest removal:

4176Ytown(1371 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Sane: Only 45 hits? I tried again and got 17,100 results using quotes around bush dictator ("bush dictator") Anyway, the point is that both presidents have been called dictators and arrogant. Unfortunately, some people can't complete a sentence without injecting the "f" word or the "n" word. I'd also agree that there are still some that hate because of race and the history shows that ignorance all over the world and it's not just race but also religion.

But overall, there was a huge number of people of all race, creed and color that voted for him who have changed their mind about the direction he's leading our country

Suggest removal:

42Sane1(24 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Hits - interesting. When I searched Bing w/o quotes for bush dictator it matched your original 1.32 million.

Tried it again (just now) with quotes and still only got 45. So I tried the phrase (with quotes) on other engines:
Search.com 17,100
yahoo 17,700
Google 3,540
Bing 45
AOL 3,350

No point, just a interesting comparison, can't explain why your Bing is 17,100 and mine is 45.

Otherwise, ".....NOTHING to do with race", were your words. I'm taking the position that things are hardly ever that absolute.

Maybe it's the "moderate" in me.

Suggest removal:

43jojuggie(1727 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Absolutely race enters the picture, but it's a small % of the whole. Political posture, especially Obama's liberal values, is considerably the higher %.

Just imagine if Dr Ben Carson were president. He is a black conservative. Race would enter the picture, but his conservative political values would far outweigh Obamas political values.

Let's change the subject. I just came accross something you might enjoy:

Jay Leno says:
"I'm on the new Obama diet. Every day I let Vladimir Putin eat my lunch."

Suggest removal:

44Sane1(24 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

see above: "I Have spent some significant time in the rural southland of this great country in the past several years I can confidently tell you that there are a great many who will - if asked- pull no punches and tell you that their hatred of Obama is based exclusively on his color and not knowing his place. It's very sad, I just nod and walk away."

I have heard "jokes" or comments about Obama's failures being due to being of Kenyan descent, the suggestion that blacks are inherently intellectually challenged, that.....

Admittedly, the frequency of these "comments" are much less in NE Ohio (thankfully), but they do exist there in our community.

Generally where I have witnessed this are in bars or golf course club rooms or the like, and where the speakers are relatively confident that their mates (usually guys) are already of the same thinking.

And yes, I heard disparaging remarks about George W. Bush but it never was about race.

Suggest removal:

45eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

I forgot to mention that the 1% of white on black racism is entirely from the KKK.
The 2% of black on white racism is from the 4 black guys at the YMCA against me when I play basketball with them. They won't pass me the ball.
The rest is imagined.

Suggest removal:

46DSquared(1788 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Not only did he warn him, he "excoriated" him! Look out now!

Suggest removal:

47Truth4Life(33 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

There is one VERY serious flaw in this article and in the many pro war posts above - Russia did NOT invade Ukraine. If you troubled yourselves to read the news, you would know Crimeans took a democratic vote to secede because part of the Ukrainian government has a historic fascist bent.

Please re-write the article, put in a new title, and revise all the posts to comply with the facts rather than the emotionalism shown by the writer and the right wingers here.

Suggest removal:

48dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

@truth. This artical is old, before Crimea took their vote to join Russia. The vote took place while Russia had troops in Crimea. Unless you are referring to something else.

Suggest removal:

49JoeFromHubbard(1817 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Wow !

A good old fashioned gun fight going on here.

Suggest removal:

50dontbeafool(2098 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

GTX, I agree with certain points. I think we should stay out of this militarily. Sometimes a bark or sanctions may be effective enough to get the job done though, so why not try it? If Putin says, I don't care, then oh well, let the other countries in that region come to their support. It seems like McCain has the biggest problem with us doing nothing about the situation over there for some reason. As far as blaming Bush, I didn't see hardly any comments in this thread blaming Bush about this. Maybe the comparison was made about what Bush did in the Russia/Georgia situation, but he has nothing to do with this. Also you could make your points, having the same effect,without the Dumbocrat and moocher comments.

Suggest removal:

51eevo(51 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

The Liar had the IRS create the Flight 370 conspiracy and then ordered the left wing media to cover the made up story 24/7 so they wouldn't cover Bennnnnghaaaaazi. Don't ask questions or you will be audited.

Suggest removal:

52southsidedave(5199 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

More $USD going somewhere, anywhere, but here at home...really a shame the US cannot take care of its own.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes